Lamm LP2 and WE417A tubes

Well Romy, I agree we have nothing more to say about the LP2. Thanks (I guess) for coming clean and admitting that from the beginning you intended to deceive us. Now that we know you cannot be trusted to be forthcoming we can factor that into our analysis of your opinions.

Deceive you?!!! Are you out of you mind? How did I deceive you, or was trying to? Deceive YOU? Do you really feel that to deceive you is my objective and that might serve any value? God, apparently there are more egomaniac people then myself!!! How more forthcoming a person should be then to be just myself? Did you confuse me with Osama Bin Laden or with your local brothers with whom you would like to kiss and glorify each peas of hi-fi crap? Herman, you need to do really something more to earn my “deceiving attention”. You could bring any factors into your “analysis” you wish but so far it does not look that your “analysis” has any substance. The LP2? It was never the subject of my article – this phonocorrector does not really deserve any serious writing or mine. The subject or that article was to demonstrate the “reviewing idiocy” that the reviewer full presented. The Lamm LP was juts a comfortable and lucky illustration that, as an RIAA corrector, is good ONLY for the illustration. I am sorry that the phonocorrector-illustration replaced for you a phonocorrector. Actually, why sorry, - it was bult for you. Enjoy the ride…

You deceived us by pretending to be someone else, directing our attention to an article and not revealing that you had written it. This deception would lead us to be believe that the opinions stated were not only yours but were also held by others, thereby giving them credibility. This is no different than when a dealer posts a positive review of their own products without identifying themselves as a dealer.

I thought we were done discussing the LP2? Glad to see you took yet another opportunity to bash a piece of equipment that other than your analysis has received glowing praise. Everyone that sits down for a listen in my system raves about how lifelike the vocals are, singer present in the room, etc., etc.

Your observation below is so far removed from my experience and that of everyone who has listened to my system that I wholeheartedly agree that we have nothing further to discuss concerning this phono stage.

You wrote

Also, the LP2 do has a lot of problems with human voice and particularly with upper region. LP2 converts everything above ~4000-5000Hz into a nonspecific, glycerin dipped (thanks for 417A)… tenorsish vaseline… In your world it called “urgency of human voice”. In my world it means “the urgency to writhe anything is a review”

As for the rest of your rant in the last post, I'm sorry, but the sentence construction is so poor that I'm not really sure what you are trying to say.

I think I'll go listen to a record. I really am enjoying this ride!

*** You deceived us by pretending to be someone else, directing our attention to an article and not revealing that you had written it. This deception would lead us to be believe that the opinions stated were not only yours but were also held by others, thereby giving them credibility. This is no different than when a dealer posts a positive review of their own products without identifying themselves as a dealer.

Hm, I never thought in this way. I refer to the article because I though it would give you some education. You have to learn to deal with the subject and with points of the writing not with the extending the “respect” to the author of the writing. You said: “his deception would lead us to be believe that the opinions stated were not only yours but were also held by others, thereby giving them credibility”. It was exactly where you come very short, insultingly short, unforgivable short! Who cares how many others people hold my opinion and that would extend any credibility? Come on, are you still object you audio-Zombie inclinations or you wiling to sing me more songs about your personal listening experience? Anyhow, since you self-disqualified yourself I would like to point out (again) that Lamm LP2 was initially designed to address the very specific and very restricted level of audio consciousness… I am glad that you found the match

*** Glad to see you took yet another opportunity to bash a piece of equipment that other than your analysis has received glowing praise. Everyone that sits down for a listen in my system raves about how lifelike the vocals are, singer present in the room, etc., etc.

This juts portray your surrounding but it said nothing about the performance of the LP2. Furthermore, reading your “singer present in the room” it is self-evident that you, audio-wise, still swim in very shallow water. Stay with LP2, it is fine preamp for you. I was not trying to be smart-ass in that last sentence; I was very serious and very positive.

*** Your observation below is so far removed from my experience and that of everyone who has listened to my system that I wholeheartedly agree that we have nothing further to discuss concerning this phono stage. You wrote:Also, the LP2 do has a lot of problems with human voice and particularly with upper region. LP2 converts everything above ~4000-5000Hz into a nonspecific, glycerin dipped (thanks for 417A)… tenorsish vaseline… In your world it called “urgency of human voice”. In my world it means “the urgency to writhe anything is a review”

Well I very stay behind of what I said and if should you behaved I might explain what you might do to distinguish this “quality” of LP2. However, you said enough for me to make a conclusion that it might be waste of my time. Defiantly the ignorance is blessing…

So far you have called me an audio zombie, described me as ignorant, dismissed my powers of observation as being inadequate, questioned my intellectual capabilities, characterized me as swimming in shallow audiophile waters, observed that trying to educate me would be a waste of your time, and observed that I would not be able to handle the truth if you decided to share it. This brings nothing to the debate other than the same insulting and condescending attitude you took in the article you wrote about Olsher’s review. Yes, you have every right to disagree and to publish your opinions, but even if you are correct in all of your observations it does not give you the right to attack another’s work in such a smug and demeaning manner.