In Reply to: Re: I am at once agog, baffled, befuddled, surprised, and utterly amazed !!! posted by Pat D on April 20, 2007 at 10:22:39:
You guys have got to love this one! E-Stat said to Pat D "I won't bother asking what a "suitable amp" is. ;)" In this post:http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/32064.html
Pat D answered by stating: Tube amplifiers may indeed change the frequency response significantly. But no, ordinarily, one does not include amplifiers under the signal processing category. Signal processors usually are considered to be such things as tone controls, equalizers, digital time and amplitude processors, and surround sound processors. In this context, a suitable amp is one which can drive the speakers. As seen in this post here:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/32065.html
So I responded by stating: I too am shocked by such a straight forward answer. Now I can say that by Pat D's definition of a suitable amplifier, i.e. ...a suitable amp is one which can drive the speakers. My Mastersound is a suitable amp, because it drives my Aliantes just fine! :^D I knew Pat D would come around in time... Which can be seen in this post:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/32085.html
How did Pat D respond to that? Well first by claiming I'd be lying if I did state that because my remark totally ignores the context. Then knowing full well he put his foot in his mouth for the umpteenth time Pat D goes further and asks me about the Mastersound 1) But is it well-designed? And 2) Is it accurate? As seen here:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/32089.html
I invite everyone to read the entire posts I've provided links to, to see if anyone but this lunatic fringe objectivist believes I'm quoting out of context. As far as I can see and my co-worker who read the post at my request, it is quite certainly in context of what was said.
Now for Pat D if you'll give me a straight forward answer as to what constitutes a "well-designed" amp and what an accurate amp is to you I'll be able to answer those questions, but as it stands you don't provide sufficient enough data for me to do so.
Nice to see you ducking and dodging like the Pat D we all know you are. I just knew your "supposedly" straight forward response had all sorts of conditions and catches attached to it. But that's just typical Pat D, so I'm not surprised.
Thetubeguy1954
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Teflon Pat D Is Back Tracking From What He's Said Yet Once Again! - thetubeguy1954 11:34:39 04/20/07 (4)
- The answers are pretty simple: why do you avoid them? - Pat D 15:01:17 04/20/07 (3)
- Pat D The Teflon King Continues To Avoid Answering 2 Simple Questions... - thetubeguy1954 17:37:46 04/20/07 (2)
- Which questions am I supposed to take from your rambling posts? - Pat D 20:04:14 04/20/07 (1)
- More Teflon Responses From Slippery Pat D - thetubeguy1954 08:57:42 04/23/07 (0)