Jamo C803

[AJinFLA]

I absolutely respect and believe in the science of audio.

It's funny you cling so tightly to all your science and measurements. Yet, as everyone knows. Science has often been and will always make mistakes and proven incorrect, in a lot of aspects. What was once believed to be indisputable scientific proof, gets turned on it's ear. Happens quite often.

An expected contradiction falsifying the original statement.
You believe because you want it to be true, rather than based on any scientific validity.

I retain my stance, here.
We did. And my ears....our ears told us all we needed to know. All of your condescension and little petty jabs, don't change the fact every one there heard a hugh improvement with the Mac and VA gear.

In your mind, I'm sure they did. I also expected your "blind" tale to fall apart once I started asking details. It did.

Jamo C803 with the McIntosh C220 and MC252= Bigger, smoother, more musical, beautifully melodic.......sweeeeeeter.......emotionally gripping.......more depth and stronger more coherent bass.
Yeah, baby!

Nothing that can't be explained by over active imagination, volume, technical literacy or an overdriven amplifier.

cheers,

AJ

 

[TjMV3]

Yes, that's what it is. Good job Super-Scoop, lol.

I'm sure my buddies will be shocked to know it never happened, lol.

Now you're just comical.

 

[AJinFLA]

I'm sure my buddies will be shocked to know it never happened, lol.

In cyberspace, anything and everything is possible.
Btw, be sure to ask him (or yourself) the "SPL" specifics

 

[TjMV3]

The science guys that I know in the real world. Not the cyber world.

Actually have respect and common courtesy for people who aren't ....Audio scientists. And they choose to be respectful and share knowledge. And even then, they very often admit there's aspects that measuring does not explain, yet they hear it.

As opposed to internet self-proclaimed scientists who thrive on arrogant, self-glorifying condescension; in attempt to raise themselves above everyone else; in some pointless ego-masturbation.

Yes, in cyberspace, anything and everything is possible. Even so-called "scientists"

 

[AJinFLA]

And even then, they very often admit there's aspects that measuring does not explain

Correct, such as psychology, which technically literate people understand is the "other" "heard" factor, unexplained by electro-acoustic measurements.
Psychological effects such as amplifier price, amplifier weight, amplifier looks (like blue meters) and all the expectation biases when one expects something to sound better than another, because one "believes" this to be so, despite not a shred of valid, scientific evidence.

 

[TjMV3]

Do let me know when you've heard the Jamo C803 with the Marantz pieces mentioned in this thread and then with the McIntosh pieces.

Difficult to take anything you say seriously, when you're sitting behing your desk and theory of measurements. Yet you have zero expereince with the speakers and components being discussed.

On the other hand, I do.

But hey, you know better because you theorize measurements and their theoretical results, lol In theory, you're a genius. In reality.......

Difficult to take anything you say seriously, when you're really only concerned with stroking your own ego.

Like I said, comical.

 

[TjMV3]

An expected contradiction falsifying the original statement.
You believe because you want it to be true, rather than based on any scientific validity.

Oh here's another gem.

So you deny science and scientists make mistakes and that there have been many, many previously believed theories; that were later proven incorrect and inaccurate?

So acknowledging that scienctific theories and scientists are not flawless, is perceived by you (the self-proclaimed "scientist"); as a contradiction to respecting science?

And exactly what scientific premise brought you to that conclusion? Or was it possibly rooted in an emotional wound?

So to avoid contradiction, one must believe science and scientists are infallible?

 

[AJinFLA]

As for cables and wires. I have never, ever subscribed to the cable nonsense. You can search and read all of my posts on here or any other forum. And you won't find one word from me blabbering about and advocating cable jewelry.

Excellent. Because more and more internet cable believers have also done private "blind" tests (with "SPL"s ) and blabber about having "proven" these effects to be real, or at least bolstered their claims with the weight of scientifically valid "blind" evidence. They also claim that there are mystical properties unknown to science and unmeasurable in cables (or at least not yet measured). That science doesn't know everything, that science has been wrong before, that science is not infallible (but of course, they are) etc, etc, etc....all in a desperate attempt to avoid that fact that they have zero scientific evidence to support their belief/claim. I'm glad you're not one of those, who "believe" in audio....excuse me, cable jewelery, based on price, weight, blue meter looks.

So you deny science and scientists make mistakes and that there have been many, many previously believed theories; that were later proven incorrect and inaccurate?
So acknowledging that scienctific theories and scientists are not flawless, is perceived by you (the self-proclaimed "scientist"); as a contradiction to respecting science?
So to avoid contradiction, one must believe science and scientists are infallible?

Uh oh

Do let me know when you've heard the Jamo C803 with the Marantz pieces mentioned in this thread and then with the McIntosh pieces.

This would relate how to your amplifier claims? Claims without a shred of scientific evidence (other than the blatantly obvious power vs clipping behavior)?

Btw, no need for me to hear the C803's. I already have better performing computer speakers and surrounds. But if they meet your requirements for fidelity, no problem. My only issue was you amp claims.

cheers,

AJ

 

[TjMV3]

Uh oh

Yep, that's what I expected

This would relate how to your amplifier claims? Claims without a shred of scientific evidence (other than the blatantly obvious power vs clipping behavior)?

You mean when I suggested, not encouraged or pushed to buy, but simply suggested that the mysteriously absent " Djxp4609 " try some better amps....like the McIntosh and Van Alstine? You mean those claims?

Awfully delicate, emotional and sensitve for a scientist, aren't you?

Oh that's right. You don't need to actually hear any of the gear mentioned, in order to form an educated opinion.



You've spent this whole thread playing your game.

So why don't you actually teach something worth while, here.

Explain why the McIntosh and VA amps are not better than the Marantz amps? I mean, I've already stated what opinion is based on. So why don't you submit your scientific data on these amps?

 

[TjMV3]

Excellent. Because more and more internet cable believers have also done private "blind" tests (with "SPL"s ) and blabber about having "proven" these effects to be real, or at least bolstered their claims with the weight of scientifically valid "blind" evidence. They also claim that there are mystical properties unknown to science and unmeasurable in cables (or at least not yet measured). That science doesn't know everything, that science has been wrong before, that science is not infallible (but of course, they are) etc, etc, etc....all in a desperate attempt to avoid that fact that they have zero scientific evidence to support their belief/claim. I'm glad you're not one of those, who "believe" in audio....excuse me, cable jewelery, based on price, weight, blue meter looks.

cheers,

AJ

That's old news. Even as a teenager I never bought into the cable jewelry nonsense.

And science is fallible. Foolish to claim otherwise.

 

[AJinFLA]

You mean when I suggested, not encouraged or pushed to buy, but simply suggested that the mysteriously absent " Djxp4609 " try some better amps....like the McIntosh and Van Alstine?

"Better" how? (physically, not imaginatively)
Weight? Price? Looks? "Better" electrically, in what way?

Explain why the McIntosh and VA amps are not better than the Marantz amps? So why don't you submit your scientific data on these amps?

If you understood logic, then you would know a negative is unprovable. The onus is not on me to disprove anything. The onus is squarely on you, to present evidence that the Mac/AVA is "better" than the Marantz...your claim.
Submit your scientific data for review. If you have none...well, that's understandable too.

Even as a teenager I never bought into the cable jewelry nonsense.

Really? Yet as an adult, you buy into the amplifier jewelry nonsense? Hmmm... ...

And science is fallible.

So are audiophiles. Foolish to claim otherwise (even though no one claimed science was infallible....but you).
Especially those so influenced and expectant of big, heavy, glossy black, pricey blue metered jewelry

cheers,

AJ

 

[ski2xblack]

Communication break down (insert Robert Plant wail here)

I'll chip in. The Marantz is 70w/ch with limited dynamic power; the McIntosh is 250w/chan with signifigant headroom on top of that. I can't find Van Alstine specs with a quick search, but I suspect it also has more power than the Marantz. The Jamos are not the most efficient at 87db/w/m. Now, I don't have the Jamos, but I do have a pair of monitors which are the same efficiency, and they really require a min of 150 watts to truly get out of the way of the music at realistic listening levels. The Marantz is clearly nearing its limits, while the McIntosh is just loafing along, nowhere near the point where clipping occurs. Even if not driven into gross distortion, the power limits of the Marantz would easily explain the 'whitewash/glare' as described by TjMV3 in a reductive, quantifiable manner acceptable to the uptight AJ.

TjMV3 has been a tremendously good sport in this. AJ is just a perseverating A-hole with a flawed idea of what science actually is, and very poor communication skills as well.

It's no wonder the OP, a new member, has been scarce, given the sanctimony here. Who wants to deal with such self-righteous jerks?

 

[AJinFLA]

I'll chip in.

Again?

The Marantz is 70w/ch with limited dynamic power; the McIntosh is 250w/chan with signifigant headroom on top of that. I can't find Van Alstine specs with a quick search, but I suspect it also has more power than the Marantz

So the "better" amplifier is just the one with the greater unclipped power? Not the brand? Or the weight? Or the price?
My god, that is an incredibly astute observation. Bravo sir, bravo.

AJ is just a perseverating A-hole

So you fantasize about taping A-holes to chairs? Yikes...

with a flawed idea of what science actually is

Would an esteemed intellectual such as yourself care to share with us what "science actually is"?
I'm sure that would be most enlightening.
TIA

 

[jamie2112]

This has turned in to a pretty useless thread.It started ok and then someone got all uppity and now it just needs to close........

 

[jamie2112]

....I love turtles......

 

[mike c]

two of you are banned from this thread ... you know who you are.

don't make it a forum wide ban. next person gets it.

 

[jamie2112]

two of you are banned from this thread ... you know who you are.

don't make it a forum wide ban. next person gets it.

But Mike I didn't even do it this time.........

 

[bandphan]

next person gets it.

Thats what MLS was worried about