Thanks, Thomas. After 20+ years of participating in audio forums and a couple of years of moderating them at AudioAsylum.com, I should know better than to respond to trolls.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Pass ACA Class A Power Amplifier Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
So, you have a (sorry) cat scan?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #365
You should take a class in better communication so that we can figure out what you are saying. Are you typing on a phone or something?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #366
Those sensitivity numbers are marketing specs. So don't run with them that way.
Do you have a more powerful amplifier or this is your only experience with hifi?
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Yes Don, and I also installed the optional capacitor upgrade too!
He now can also function as a Cat-A-Lytic Converter...
Yes Don, and I also installed the optional capacitor upgrade too!
He now can also function as a Cat-A-Lytic Converter...
This is becoming a cat-astrophy.
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
The truth is, he's a good cable tester or cat scanner. He only tests white power cables, and only the plug end. (true story) His test probes (teeth) are very sharp and piece the insulation to get good contact.
Thank goodness we only have a few appliances with white plugs- these are box fans in the boy's rooms...
We think the plugs and leads are like a snake to him so he tries to 'kill' them (he had a run in with a 12ft scrub python once) Why white? Anyone's guess. Other colours don't interest him.
Anyway, we love Julio.
Could we maybe work up a small entrance exam to become a member of ASR?
Nothing fancy but I'm sure we could put something together with 5 to 10 questions max to determine whither a applicant
is deserving of becoming a part of our community or just looking to be a nuisance.
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Or one of those horrible Captcha things- "which of the following pictures do not contain useless audiophile tweaks"- that'd weed out plenty automatically.
Could we maybe work up a small entrance exam to become a member of ASR?
Nothing fancy but I'm sure we could put something together with 5 to 10 questions max to determine whither a applicant
is deserving of becoming a part of our community or just looking to be a nuisance.
Or, a more actively moderated novice designation/section, before they can move on to post on the main threads?
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Like the toddler's wading pool at the public swimming pool- they need their swim certificate before jumping in the deep end?
Thomas is the lifeguard on duty and is quite good at fishing them off the bottom and giving them mouth to mouth resuscitation, or just pronouncing them dead and moving on.
Exactly...
That keeps that kiddie pool 'water' out of the grown up pool. Too many just come in and shit their diaper, then leave/get kicked. Some survive the diaper rash...many don't.
I don't think it's serving any good, but here's why Amirm and me are having arguments:
Considering that his first diy-amp dates back to 1968, he
a) is experienced
b) has survived it
I mean this as a compliment.
I guess he's somewhere in his 58-66.
That's not the point, but tells me he knows what he's doing when measuring.
But then he diminished himself when he tried to be sarcastic about the ACA.
I'm not nearly up to his technical experience and skills, but I'm still (more than ever) convinced that the conclusion of his
are by no means accurate, or, as he stated somewhere else, "sticking to the science behind it".
Those conclusions were just meant to be mean.
Why does this upset me?
Here's (copy-pasted) how he claimed to evaluate audio-gear (or how it should be done):
Had he followed those guidelines further than the first paragraph (the measurements), he'd been inclined to meaningfully reproduce what he heard while listening.
(And again, as I know from my own experience that his conclusion—«I could barely hear it. There was no bass naturally. But not much above that either»—wasn't even closely objective, accurate, or whatever virtue one would expect from a expert.)
So, while nobody is disputing neither his measurement-/technical skills, nor that the ACA ain't no hifi- (or highend-, haha) amplifier, his so-called conclusion is nothing but a distorted smear, and with that, Amirm stands squarely to his own guidelines.
It would be really funny to see the results of the ACA being evaluated under the only accepted conditions / method: blind, volume controlled testing (see above).
It would be even funnier to expand this into a contest: ACA versus vintage 1993 Classé A/B amplifier versus a DIY-30-bucks-candobetter-superduperamp. Blind, volume-controlled, fair.
Considering that his first diy-amp dates back to 1968, he
a) is experienced
b) has survived it
I mean this as a compliment.
I guess he's somewhere in his 58-66.
That's not the point, but tells me he knows what he's doing when measuring.
But then he diminished himself when he tried to be sarcastic about the ACA.
I'm not nearly up to his technical experience and skills, but I'm still (more than ever) convinced that the conclusion of his
are by no means accurate, or, as he stated somewhere else, "sticking to the science behind it".
Those conclusions were just meant to be mean.
Why does this upset me?
Here's (copy-pasted) how he claimed to evaluate audio-gear (or how it should be done):
Had he followed those guidelines further than the first paragraph (the measurements), he'd been inclined to meaningfully reproduce what he heard while listening.
(And again, as I know from my own experience that his conclusion—«I could barely hear it. There was no bass naturally. But not much above that either»—wasn't even closely objective, accurate, or whatever virtue one would expect from a expert.)
So, while nobody is disputing neither his measurement-/technical skills, nor that the ACA ain't no hifi- (or highend-, haha) amplifier, his so-called conclusion is nothing but a distorted smear, and with that, Amirm stands squarely to his own guidelines.
It would be really funny to see the results of the ACA being evaluated under the only accepted conditions / method: blind, volume controlled testing (see above).
It would be even funnier to expand this into a contest: ACA versus vintage 1993 Classé A/B amplifier versus a DIY-30-bucks-candobetter-superduperamp. Blind, volume-controlled, fair.
Ok, I'll try to be a bit less obnoxious (nice word, btw).
Well, yeah, that was his unreliable subjective perception*.
Can subjective impressions be objective?
*I think listening perceptions were sometimes added after the early reviews by demand of the folks who need to know "how it (whatever) sounds".
It was objectively measured.
Last edited:
I don't question that.
Although, here's his claim from his lecture over at diyaudio: «In audio science, the only accepted method is blind, volume controlled testing. Is this what you did?»
It seems that it is the authors subjective impression that he's objectively evaluating ACA.
ACA being some kind of audio-gear, what then about the other stuff he... ok. He objectively measured it. Fine.
case closed?
Subjective comparisons need to be done blind and matched. Subjective evaluations certainly have value...in this case he wasn't comparing it to anything, he was just identifying basic operating limitations. Hard to know what to compare it to, or why. The measurements obviate the need for sharpening the pencil much further...
Hard to know what to compare it to or why only if one doesn't want, or dare, to find out.
By evading the comparison, Amirm renounces to meet his own claim.
He acts unprofessional and knows it.
He becomes mediocre at best.
Similar threads
- Poll