Bypassing caps? How about with wire?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> "Mike Rivers"


>>Phil, you're really silly and I continue to faithfully read your posts
>>for amusement, but you've really topped yourself this time. This is
>>the funniest thing you've written yet.
>

>
> You must explain what the joke is - we all need a good laugh.



Obviously you never get the feeling that you're the only one who doesn't
get it. YOU are going to make sure nobody else is fooled? Oh,
thankyou! thankyou!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:2nhdk8FufdgU1@uni-berlin.de...

> Does it amuse you to see me outing another of RAP's resident charlatans ??

Not particularly... you appear to be quite antagonistic and void of substantial
contribution to the topics you address.

> You must explain what the joke is - we all need a good laugh.

Why not suggest he spray some WD-40 on his test equipment?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey"
> TonyP <

> >
> >Now if I could just find some speakers with less "hash" than that, and
ears
> >that could actually hear all that 0.003% "hash".
>
> My speakers probably have no more hash than that in the top octave.
> They have a whole hell of a lot more of it in the bottom octave.



** Do tell us what speaker has 0.003 % THD and IM at 10 kHz at say 100dB
SPL ???





............ Phil

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Phil Allison <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey"
>> TonyP <
>
>> >
>> >Now if I could just find some speakers with less "hash" than that, and
>ears
>> >that could actually hear all that 0.003% "hash".
>>
>> My speakers probably have no more hash than that in the top octave.
>> They have a whole hell of a lot more of it in the bottom octave.
>
>** Do tell us what speaker has 0.003 % THD and IM at 10 kHz at say 100dB
>SPL ???

If you measure THD with a 20 KHz bandwidth filter, the way the FTC says
you're supposed to do, nearly every speaker does, because the second
harmonic falls right on the edge of the bandpass and none of the higher
harmonics are measured at all.

I didn't mention IMD at all, you will note.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers"
Phil Allison
> > >>>>
> > > > > Ignore me, please. [Monte]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ** You bet I will - but I will also try to make sure that
others do
> > the same.
> > >
> > > Phil, you're really silly and I continue to faithfully read your posts
> > > for amusement, but you've really topped yourself this time. This is
> > > the funniest thing you've written yet.
> >
> >
> > ** Why is it funny to you Mike ???
> >
> > Does it amuse you to see me outing another of RAP's resident
charlatans
> > ??
> >
> > You must explain what the joke is - we all need a good laugh.
>
>
> You've become the joke of the newsgroup, Phil. People will continue to
> listen to people like Monte for a long time because he has a good
> track record of credibility, accuracy, and most important, patience
> with those who don't fully see his point and ask intelligent
> questions.


** Monty is simply another pseudo-technical fraud - just the same as you
Mr Rivers.


> It will be a long time before you have that level of
> credibility by doing little other than challanging the statements of
> others and declaring them patently false.


** People who cannot and will not back up their claims have NO credibility.

The opinion one charlatan has of another is less than worthless.




............. Phil

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"PenguiN"
> >
> >
> > ( snip references to published papers full of drivel )
> >
>
> What specifically about his references made them full of drivel?


** None of them actually relate to the claims being made by Dorsey. It is
one of the oldest debating cheats out to simply name some reference and
*pretend* it backs you up when it does not.


> What with the listening tests therein, and/or why didn't they
> apply to his claim?


** Others have done tests, both by listening panel and by electronic means,
that utterly refute the notions put forward by Dorsey.

You might like to look up the results of "ABX" tests done on commercial
amplifiers or even the famous public demonstrations done by the Quad company
of the UK in the mid 1980s. The results showed inconvertibly that TIM
simply does not exist in practice and that so called "amplifier sound" is a
purely a myth.

In the face of this later compelling evidence, quoting the prior published
material that these tests were set up to PROVE and did prove wrong is a
fraud of the highest order.

The myths have persisted long after the facts are all in because it suits
people to promote the myths.

Myths sell amplifiers you know.




............. Phil

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <2nikuvF1b4ioU1@uni-berlin.de> philallison@tpg.com.au writes:

> You might like to look up the results of "ABX" tests done on commercial
> amplifiers or even the famous public demonstrations done by the Quad company
> of the UK in the mid 1980s. The results showed inconvertibly that TIM
> simply does not exist in practice and that so called "amplifier sound" is a
> purely a myth.

Do I have to do the research? Gimme a link. At least I'll read it (as
opposed to you who wants it extracted and spoon fed like baby food).


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <
> Phil Allison <:
> >> TonyP <
> >
> >> >
> >> >Now if I could just find some speakers with less "hash" than that,
and
> >ears that could actually hear all that 0.003% "hash".
> >>
> >> My speakers probably have no more hash than that in the top octave.
> >> They have a whole hell of a lot more of it in the bottom octave.
> >
> >** Do tell us what speaker has 0.003 % THD and IM at 10 kHz at say
100dB
> >SPL ???
>
> If you measure THD with a 20 KHz bandwidth filter, the way the FTC says
> you're supposed to do, nearly every speaker does, because the second
> harmonic falls right on the edge of the bandpass and none of the higher
> harmonics are measured at all.


** Nonsense - the filter is not a brick wall.


> I didn't mention IMD at all, you will note.


** You said "hash" - which alludes to all and any undesirable output.

No we *know* you were lying - as per usual.



.......... Phil

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers"
Phil Allison
>
> > You might like to look up the results of "ABX" tests done on
commercial
> > amplifiers or even the famous public demonstrations done by the Quad
company
> > of the UK in the mid 1980s. The results showed inconvertibly that TIM
> > simply does not exist in practice and that so called "amplifier sound"
is a
> > purely a myth.
>
> Do I have to do the research? Gimme a link.


** You must surely have seen this one already :

http/www.pcavtech.com/abx/index.htm


Info about the Quad public demonstatrations and other tests was published
in Wireless World and several UK hi-fi magazines at the time.

All of it would go straight over the head of a know nothing imbecile like
you Rivers.


> At least I'll read it (as opposed to you who wants it extracted and spoon
fed like baby food).


** No point having a brain dead , lying charlatan like Rivers read
anything.



............. Phil

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Phil Allison <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> Info about the Quad public demonstatrations and other tests was published
>in Wireless World and several UK hi-fi magazines at the time.

Yes, and a few years earlier in the same journals you could read about the
public demonstrations at which AR-3 loudspeakers were found to be completely
indistinguishable from a live string quartet.

>** No point having a brain dead , lying charlatan like Rivers read
>anything.

Phil, I'm still waiting for you to explain your background here. Just why
should we trust what you have to say? I am sure, since you claim to know
so much about audio, that you can back this up with experience. Just who
are you? I know who Mike is and I know who Monte is. I even know who Arny
is. But we have no real notion of who you are, other than that you have a
good knowledge of classroom theory but have never actually listened to anything
before.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cf1fa6$7vi$1@panix2.panix.com
> Phil Allison <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> Info about the Quad public demonstatrations and other tests was
>> published in Wireless World and several UK hi-fi magazines at the
>> time.
>
> Yes, and a few years earlier in the same journals you could read
> about the public demonstrations at which AR-3 loudspeakers were found
> to be completely indistinguishable from a live string quartet.

This would appear to be an overstatement of the true facts:

http/history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/villchur.html

"Villchur sponsored concerts at AR to demonstrate the accuracy and low
distortion of his speakers. "He placed the musicians (the Fine Arts String
Quartet, among others) on the stage, with a pair of AR-3 loudspeakers behind
them. At various points, they would stop playing and the taped performance
would take over. Most reviewers of the day could not tell the difference
between the live and recorded sound. 'I thought that these concerts defined
what we meant by high fidelity,' commented Villchur with pride. He took care
to use the best equipment possible at the time, including an Ampex tape
deck, two 60-watt Dynakit amplifiers, and number 18 zip cord." (Birchall
1993) "

There's a big difference between "...found to be completely
indistinguishable from a live string quartet.." and "Most reviewers of the
day could not tell the difference between the live and recorded sound..."

last time I looked, *most* means more than 50%, and does not necessarily
include *everybody*

AR's advertising characterized the sound quality of their product to be "The
next best thing to life music", not something that was completely
indistinguishable from live music.

http/history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/images3/92368.jpg

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:cf1fa6$7vi$1@panix2.panix.com
>> Phil Allison <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> Info about the Quad public demonstatrations and other tests was
>>> published in Wireless World and several UK hi-fi magazines at the
>>> time.
>>
>> Yes, and a few years earlier in the same journals you could read
>> about the public demonstrations at which AR-3 loudspeakers were found
>> to be completely indistinguishable from a live string quartet.
>
>This would appear to be an overstatement of the true facts:
>
>http/history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/villchur.html
>
>"Villchur sponsored concerts at AR to demonstrate the accuracy and low
>distortion of his speakers. "He placed the musicians (the Fine Arts String
>Quartet, among others) on the stage, with a pair of AR-3 loudspeakers behind
>them. At various points, they would stop playing and the taped performance
>would take over. Most reviewers of the day could not tell the difference
>between the live and recorded sound. 'I thought that these concerts defined
>what we meant by high fidelity,' commented Villchur with pride. He took care
>to use the best equipment possible at the time, including an Ampex tape
>deck, two 60-watt Dynakit amplifiers, and number 18 zip cord." (Birchall
>1993) "
>
>There's a big difference between "...found to be completely
>indistinguishable from a live string quartet.." and "Most reviewers of the
>day could not tell the difference between the live and recorded sound..."
>
>last time I looked, *most* means more than 50%, and does not necessarily
>include *everybody*
>
>AR's advertising characterized the sound quality of their product to be "The
>next best thing to life music", not something that was completely
>indistinguishable from live music.
>
>http/history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/images3/92368.jpg

I attended one of those AR shows and it was a joke. The jazz group playing was
no contest - everybody knew when the live group played. The string quartet was
equally laughable. For me it was a wonderful evening, since the string quartet
had both a Stradivarious and a Guinari violin. After they finished their part
of the show, they played the same passages for the audience (live), first on the
Strad, then on the Guinari.

My God, what an amazing sound!! Both were wonderful, but where the Guinari was
indeed rich and filled the whole hall, the Strad was another world. I'll never
forget the sound of that violin. For the only time in my life, I understood
exactly why a Stradivarius is so highly prized.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http/www.ITRstudio.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:41132e78$0$24139$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
> "Monte McGuire" <monte.mcguire@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:monte.mcguire-B5A0A2.00522006082004@news.verizon.net...

>> But, if .003% is specified with a tight bandwidth, then maybe it
>> really is all distortion and the TL072 really does make hash out of
>> signals like I originally proposed. You choose... it's your number.
>
> Now if I could just find some speakers with less "hash" than that,
> and ears that could actually hear all that 0.003% "hash".

The threshold for hearing hash is generally somwhere just below 0.1%.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
>news:41132e78$0$24139$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
>> "Monte McGuire" <monte.mcguire@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:monte.mcguire-B5A0A2.00522006082004@news.verizon.net...
>
>>> But, if .003% is specified with a tight bandwidth, then maybe it
>>> really is all distortion and the TL072 really does make hash out of
>>> signals like I originally proposed. You choose... it's your number.
>>
>> Now if I could just find some speakers with less "hash" than that,
>> and ears that could actually hear all that 0.003% "hash".
>
>The threshold for hearing hash is generally somwhere just below 0.1%.

Again it depends on what the original source is and whart sort of hash it
is. On a 1 KC tone being clipped (say, with a diode clipper) most folks
can't hear anything until distortion reaches 2% to 3%. On a musical signal,
much lower clipping levels are audible.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 9 Aug 2004 13:03:31 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:41132e78$0$24139$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
>>> "Monte McGuire" <monte.mcguire@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:monte.mcguire-B5A0A2.00522006082004@news.verizon.net...
>>
>>>> But, if .003% is specified with a tight bandwidth, then maybe it
>>>> really is all distortion and the TL072 really does make hash out of
>>>> signals like I originally proposed. You choose... it's your number.
>>>
>>> Now if I could just find some speakers with less "hash" than that,
>>> and ears that could actually hear all that 0.003% "hash".
>>
>>The threshold for hearing hash is generally somwhere just below 0.1%.
>
>Again it depends on what the original source is and whart sort of hash it
>is. On a 1 KC tone being clipped (say, with a diode clipper) most folks
>can't hear anything until distortion reaches 2% to 3%. On a musical signal,
>much lower clipping levels are audible.
>--scott

That can't be right - I find 0.5% readily and repeatably audible on a
sine wave, and I'm pretty sure my ears aren't in the least golden.

d

Pearce Consulting
http/www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cf02tb$4ho$1@panix2.panix.com...
> TonyP <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote:
> >Now if I could just find some speakers with less "hash" than that, and
ears
> >that could actually hear all that 0.003% "hash".
>
> My speakers probably have no more hash than that in the top octave.
> They have a whole hell of a lot more of it in the bottom octave.

I like your use of the term "probably". What you mean is you have no idea,
and no proof that ANY speaker can get any where near that figure.

TonyP.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

TonyP <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:cf02tb$4ho$1@panix2.panix.com...
>> TonyP <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote:
>> >Now if I could just find some speakers with less "hash" than that, and
>ears
>> >that could actually hear all that 0.003% "hash".
>>
>> My speakers probably have no more hash than that in the top octave.
>> They have a whole hell of a lot more of it in the bottom octave.
>
>I like your use of the term "probably". What you mean is you have no idea,
>and no proof that ANY speaker can get any where near that figure.

As I pointed out to Phil, it's entirely possible to get insanely low
top octave THD values with standard measurement procedures because all
of the harmonics being generated are outside of the passband of the
measuring device. This is a very common way for manufacturers to cook
the numbers.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey"
> TonyP <

> >> >Now if I could just find some speakers with less "hash" than that,
and
> >ears that could actually hear all that 0.003% "hash".
> >>
> >> My speakers probably have no more hash than that in the top octave.
> >> They have a whole hell of a lot more of it in the bottom octave.
>
> >I like your use of the term "probably". What you mean is you have no
idea,
> >and no proof that ANY speaker can get any where near that figure.
>
>
> As I pointed out to Phil, it's entirely possible to get insanely low
> top octave THD values with standard measurement procedures because all
> of the harmonics being generated are outside of the passband of the
> measuring device.


** That is just another of Dorsey's pig ignorant and blatant stinking lies
!!!!!

He claimed above that his own speakers had no more "hash" than an op-amp
that measures 0.003 % THD at 10 kHz. That op-amp was measured with an Audio
Precision analyser that like virtually *any* other includes harmonics to the
5th and beyond even at 20 kHz.

THIS is ***standard measurement procedure***.


> This is a very common way for manufacturers to cook the numbers.


** That is another damn lie - but what ***is*** very common for Scott
Dorsey to cook his putrid posts before serving them up with lashings of pure
bullshit.

Even with a upper frequency limitation of say 30kHz due to the microphone
used for speaker testing, the second harmonic of 10 kHz would be
*unattenuated* and the third harmonic only attenuated by a few dB.

As always, Dorsey will not and cannot give any credible back up to wild
fictions.





............. Phil

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 6 Aug 2004 08:32:54 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

>Keep it up. This newsgroup needs a jester.

Shirley, you jest.

-----
http/mindspring.com/~benbradley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cf80hm$7r9$1@panix2.panix.com...
> As I pointed out to Phil, it's entirely possible to get insanely low
> top octave THD values with standard measurement procedures because all
> of the harmonics being generated are outside of the passband of the
> measuring device. This is a very common way for manufacturers to cook
> the numbers.

Who, apart from you, mentioned only measuring the 10k-20k band. It is very
selective to choose ONE octave and ignore the other NINE. Treble starts
below 10kHz in my book.

TonyP.