"What Constitues [sic] A "Properly Designed" Amp?" "

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - What Constitues A "Properly Designed" Amp? - thetubeguy1954 06:31:53 04/13/07 (63)

God willing to give us SAME brain of Bill, we'll be all richest guys on earth. Amen. (nt) - cheap-Jack 12:56:30 04/16/07 (0)

A voltage multiplier that does not change the frequency response and adds little distortion - Richard BassNut Greene 07:41:18 04/16/07 (6)

Re: A voltage multiplier that does not change the frequency response and adds little distortion - thetubeguy1954 10:36:58 04/16/07 (3)

The answer is simple - Analog Scott 16:24:47 04/16/07 (2)

Re: The answer is simple - morricab 02:36:01 04/17/07 (1)

Re: The answer is simple - Analog Scott 13:45:02 04/17/07 (0)

If it works for you, great. - Analog Scott 07:52:46 04/16/07 (1)

Ditto - E-Stat 12:38:15 04/16/07 (0)

Not a single objectivist offered a straight forward answer, Why? - Analog Scott 09:28:31 04/15/07 (27)

Sorry, but some have. - Pat D 10:38:48 04/15/07 (26)

Not In MY Opinion They Haven't - thetubeguy1954 16:44:23 04/15/07 (12)

There is a reason why I answered so generally - Presto 11:34:33 04/16/07 (0)

They haven't - kerr 04:54:16 04/16/07 (10)

Most of the answers are prefaced by "that depends ...." - clifff 06:55:31 04/16/07 (9)

Re: Most of the answers are prefaced by "that depends ...." - thetubeguy1954 10:49:14 04/16/07 (8)

What you are quoting is Aczel's OPINION. - clifff 11:23:35 04/16/07 (7)

Re: What you are quoting is Aczel's OPINION. - thetubeguy1954 11:46:23 04/16/07 (6)

It's taken you a long time to come to that realization! - Pat D 13:24:39 04/16/07 (5)

Pat D Uses "Properly Designed" In His Rebuttals, But Now Claims It's ONLY Aczel's Opinion - thetubeguy1954 09:00:46 04/19/07 (3)

Changing the ground: we were discussing Peter Aczel, now he wants to talk about me.. - Pat D 14:32:10 04/19/07 (2)

If I Told You What I Really Thought Of You, I'd Be Thrown Off PHP - thetubeguy1954 11:32:47 04/20/07 (1)

You have devoted whole threads to bashing me! (nt) - Pat D 13:57:47 04/20/07 (0)

I've ALWAYS Realized That!!! It's You Who Took It As Dogma, Not Me! - thetubeguy1954 14:02:39 04/16/07 (0)

IMO you always have had a strange idea of a straight forward answer - Analog Scott 11:28:37 04/15/07 (12)

Mr. Teflon strikes again! - E-Stat 12:27:30 04/16/07 (0)

Why don't you answer it? A number of people have given answers as straightforward as the question allows. - Pat D 13:44:32 04/15/07 (10)

I didn't answer it because my answer is irrelevant. - Analog Scott 16:10:13 04/15/07 (9)

Well, it now comes out that tubey wasn't at all clear about what he wanted. - Pat D 18:00:12 04/15/07 (8)

Pat Once Afain You Just Cannot Understand The Obvious... - thetubeguy1954 11:26:17 04/16/07 (2)

But no one seems to have grasped your intent in the original post! - Pat D 13:34:09 04/16/07 (1)

Not True! Only The Objectivist Pretended Not To Understand.... - thetubeguy1954 14:11:43 04/16/07 (0)

actually there might be a relevant answer from some one here - Analog Scott 20:45:52 04/15/07 (3)

That's It Precisely - thetubeguy1954 11:36:29 04/16/07 (2)

Making things up again. - Pat D 13:07:01 04/16/07 (1)

Yes You Are (nt) - thetubeguy1954 14:13:03 04/16/07 (0)

I don't think those "right answers" he wanted exist. (nt) - Presto 20:12:55 04/15/07 (0)

Since Peter Aczel's use of the phrase upsets you, why don't you ask him what he means by it? - Pat D 11:31:49 04/14/07 (17)

As Typical The Obvious Needs To Be Explained Tou You! - thetubeguy1954 16:37:57 04/15/07 (8)

If that's what you wanted, why didn't you say so? - Pat D 17:51:21 04/15/07 (7)

Because It Was Obvious & Implied In The Question - thetubeguy1954 11:02:36 04/16/07 (0)

why don't you just answer the question? - Analog Scott 22:06:06 04/15/07 (5)

I did! I pointed out that if he wants Peter Aczel's ideas on "well designed" explained, he should ask Mr. Aczel! - Pat D 20:39:12 04/16/07 (4)

No you didn't. - Analog Scott 20:45:25 04/16/07 (3)

Of course I answered him. - Pat D 21:33:55 04/16/07 (2)

It seems you just want to argue about silly things - Analog Scott 21:51:37 04/16/07 (1)

Somehow I just don't look up every single post you make. - Pat D 05:45:44 04/17/07 (0)

Is He Accessible? - Todd Krieger 03:11:35 04/15/07 (5)

Re: Is He Accessible? - Pat D 10:52:39 04/15/07 (4)

Aczel's Words DO In Fact Apply To A Specific Set Of Criteria For Audio!!! - thetubeguy1954 16:52:05 04/15/07 (3)

GMAB! You asked a general question, not just one about Peter Aczel. - Pat D 17:34:50 04/15/07 (2)

You Are ALWAYS Good For Laugh Pat - thetubeguy1954 12:16:01 04/16/07 (1)

"What Constitues [sic] A "Properly Designed" Amp?" " - Pat D 20:19:24 04/16/07 (0)

Re: Since Peter Aczel's use of the phrase upsets you, why don't you ask him what he means by it? - Dan Banquer 13:10:15 04/14/07 (1)

Re: Since Peter Aczel's use of the phrase upsets you, why don't you ask him what he means by it? - Pat D 13:15:21 04/14/07 (1)

Simple: One that meets it's design goals, which must be defined. (nt) - Presto 13:26:10 04/13/07 (2)

The Problem Is.... - Todd Krieger 00:51:22 04/14/07 (1)

Re: The Problem Is.... - Presto 12:47:15 04/14/07 (0)

That's easy.... - mkuller 11:28:46 04/13/07 (0)

A properly designed product must...... - rick_m 10:50:08 04/13/07 (0)

Re: What Constitues A "Properly Designed" Amp? - lipmanl@hotmail.com 10:14:14 04/13/07 (2)

Ah HAH. Now we're getting somewhere. - Presto 15:09:07 04/13/07 (1)

Re: Ah HAH. Now we're getting somewhere. - Pat D 08:12:37 04/14/07 (0)

That's easy! One that sounds like every decent amp. nt - clarkjohnsen 08:50:37 04/13/07 (0)

Follow Ups

"What Constitues [sic] A "Properly Designed" Amp?" " - Pat D 20:19:24 04/16/07 (0)

Post a Message!