Norge 1000 concerto Gold
- Thread starter changappa
- Start date
I have seen some of the better loudspeakers levitate after their 1000 hour burn-in - and some of them actually disappeared - but the sound remained tightly focused!
Hey Suri, I am curious. Do your Witches do a midnight dance every night to put you to sleep, or just frighten the hell out of you that you go into a stupor. Then you can justify the single malt.
Cheers
Hey Suri, I am curious. Do your Witches do a midnight dance every night to put you to sleep, or just frighten the hell out of you that you go into a stupor. Then you can justify the single malt.
Cheers
hi venkatcr - between the wife and the witches - the most i get is a little theophylline by way of taj mahal tea!!!
My god!!!
What an absolute blasphemy!
On a serious note, I can't believe that there are sensible people, and even more sensible articles out there on audiophile related topics.
In fact, I clearly remember, someone posting a thread on our very own forum, almost making a mockery of another forum - Hydrogen audio - simply because of their policy of only belief in ABX testing!
Peter Aczel, like us, is born in a democratic nation & has freedom of speech.
If a person with perpetually sinusoid nose cooks a rotten egg & serves it to you, will you eat it?
hehehehehe!!!!!:lol:
S.P.KRISHNA
Active Member
Courier - How much they charged for that ?
I hope you got it in good condition
Hai,
Courier charges will be about Rs.450/-(approx) , and the amp arrived in good condition.
N.Murali
Krishna, this particular PDF and the Ten Lies of Peter Aczel have been discussed in this forum a zillion times. Actually, I remember I also introduced the same link when I initially became a member here.
Let me put it this way. I have read each and every single article of Peter Aczel. His reviews of Benchmark DAC1 are really good as he backs them up with solid technical information. Actually many of his articles are really good.
The mistake he made was to take on heavy weights such as John Atkinson of Stereophile before he could become successful. A couple of such people got together and made sure that Peter Aczel fails. And, fail he did and ended up getting a bad reputation.
Now if you quote Peter Aczel, people will only look at you as being a 'blasphemer'. Whether Peter is right or wrong is not even considered. It is just that his name has become something to be looked down upon and stomped in the audiophile world.
His points could very well have some value. But if you want to mention those points, look for another technical writer. Just don't mention Peter's name.
Cheers
Last edited:
S.P.KRISHNA
Active Member
Thanks and regards
Venkatji
Honestly, I didn't know who Peter Aczel was and what his reputation, good or bad, is. I had commented purely on the basis of what he has written in that particular article.
What he has written under the heads: The Cable lie, The vaccuum tube lie, The anti digital lie, The listening test lie, The burn-in lie, The Golden ear lie are utter rubbish & I refute whatever has been stated. I have personally vouching for the established wisdom which he seems to refute. That is why I've described him as perpetually sinusoid. Just because he can't notice, he refutes. How stupid!!!
Some of the above aspects which are so clear to me like the fact that flame burns, roses smell nice etc are being rubbished by him so couldn't help but ridicule him.
True. All I wanted to say was there were days when his paper used to sell like hot cakes and his words were considered gospel by audiophiles. To a certain extent I think he wrote the Ten Lies as a desperate move to see if he could get back his reputation.
Try reading some of his reviews. There is some value in many of them.
BTW, I am not supporting Peter Aczel. All I was doing was warning Krishna that he was on very dangerous ground.
Cheers
What I've noticed is that he bases most of his statements on the established scientific knowledge. Now honestly do we all believe that everything in this world has been established scientifically?
So many things are being invented, discovered day in and day out. So if you cannot back something scientifically, how just is it to refute it. Once upon a time, copernicus was ridiculed and even prosecuted for stating that it is earth that rotates around sun and not vice versa.
It is not that all human beings or rather living beings are created out of a same mould and would thus have similar capabilities. They differ widely is a known and established fact.
Someone continues chain smoking for decades and does not develop cancer but a passive smoker contracts cancer & dies.
I know of someone who is 64 years old, polishes off a bottle of liquor every day and is hale and hearty.
My uncle who used to drink once or twice a week (of course heavily) has died of liver cirrosis.
That is what I'm stating here.
This is moving in a different direction.
But let me say a few things without getting into an arguments. The laws of Physics (at least as far as we know about Physics) is considered established. Why? Simply because of deductive logic. A number of experiments were conducted based on a particular assumption or theory, and the results were predictable. Any action taken with those premises will deliver the results we expect. If you heat water, it will turn into steam. If you heat steel beyond a particular temperature, it will melt. If you force a certain amount of air under the wings of an aeroplane, the plane will lift off the ground.
Most of the theories of Physics that have relevance for audio have been around for a long time. It is based on these theories that a unit is designed.
If some very simple things cannot be measured and scientifically, we will be living in a state of chaos all the time. You would not know whether a plane will take off. You would not know whether the train you are riding will not roll off the rails if you don't believe in centrifugal force.
We are far ahead off the day of Copernicus and Archimedes. These people lived in a time when religion was more important, and scientific thought was considered blasphemous. In those days scientific thought was at it's infancy. Geniuses came and invented or discovered new things. Scientific theories were re-written based on these inventions.
Today, most of these theories have been around for a long time and proven to be true time and again. Given the assumptions that we have on earth such as gravity, atmosphere, air pressure etc, these scientific theories have a solid foundation. If any invention is made it is either very miniscule and does not shake the foundations, or in a new area altogether such as particle physics, anti matter, and so one. In these new areas, scientists themselves agree that their knowledge is not yet complete.
Hopefully we live in a better world today where we can take and accept a scientific explanation.
As far as the creation or sustenance of life is considered, our knowledge is yet at the kindergarten level. Till we crack the DNA completely, we will never understand how the biological body (humans or otherwise) works. Even when we crack the DNA, we have the unsolved mystery of the brain and it's control over the body. On top of all this we have the cells that behave in a way we have yet to understand. The 64 year man could have an immunity that we are not aware of. As of now, all the knowledge we have is based on statistics. I would say this is true because the theory books have not been completed.
Cheers
Get the Award Winning Diamond 12.3 Floorstanding Speakers on Special Offer
