Opinions re Kenwood, Sherwood, Pioneer and Yamaha

[Bill]

Ed wrote:

>Sherwood 8601
>Sherwood Newcastle R-765
>Yamaha 5750
>Kenwood 8060 or 8070
>Pioneer D814 or D914
>
>I'd consider the Onkyo 502 or the Yamaha 5740 (to save some bucks), but
>thought the room size merited more wattage. We don't listen at super
>high volumes, but don't want to run out of volume adjustment if an
>input source is anemic.

Forget about power ratings. The difference in wattage is negligible and
barely audible - going from 75w to 100w only gets you about 1dB of
volume increase before the amp begins to clip. You'd never hear it in
practical use.

Focus on sound quality (lack of background hiss) and features that you
need or want. I tend to prefer Yamaha and Onkyo over the others you
mentioned for sound quality.

[rdclark]

Ed wrote:

> I'd consider the Onkyo 502 or the Yamaha 5740 (to save some bucks),
but
> thought the room size merited more wattage. We don't listen at super
> high volumes, but don't want to run out of volume adjustment if an
> input source is anemic.

More power isn't the solution to that problem. If the volume is too low
with the knob all the way up, the problem is the input sensitivity on
the receiver, or the output level of the component. A receiver that
lets you balance the input sensitivity among the various inputs is the
way to handle this.

*Any* receiver will exhibit audible clipping distortion if you're
trying to exceed its power capability. This can happen regardless of
where the volume knob is set. If the amp's not clipping, then
insufficient power isn't the issue.

I've never understood the need for high power in a HT receiver unless
it's driving an array of full-range speakers. If you typically run your
system with the speakers set to "small" and let the sub's amp deal with
the bass, then any HT amp will be cruising at any volume level; high
power is really only required for low frequencies.

Further confusing the issue, of course, is that there's no single
rating standard that allows useful comparisons between manufacturers.
Or even the same manufacturer (Onkyo bundles basically the same
receiver with its HTIB systems that it sells separately as the 502; the
HTIB version has much higher power "ratings" than the 502.)

So your power output needs are determined, more than anything, by the
speakers you plan to use. A powered sub takes much of the load in any
system that's configured to route the <80Hz bass to it.

RichC

[Ed]

Hi,

My situation is that I am replacing a Kenwood vr 507 in a 16'x26' room,
with the listening area about 12' from the front center channel.
Speaker system is low end, but I'll be upgrading that over time.
Monitor is HD, so component video is a factor. Receiver will be used
almost exlusively for home theater- different system/room for music.

I have been comparing 5 receivers in the same general (street) price
range:

Sherwood 8601
Sherwood Newcastle R-765
Yamaha 5750
Kenwood 8060 or 8070
Pioneer D814 or D914

I'd consider the Onkyo 502 or the Yamaha 5740 (to save some bucks), but
thought the room size merited more wattage. We don't listen at super
high volumes, but don't want to run out of volume adjustment if an
input source is anemic.

I'm not finding a lot on the Net about most of the above. The Kenwoods
and Pioneers sound fairly comparable, the Yamaha gets high marks for
sound quality, but not necessarily for honest power ratings, and
there's just about nothing on the the Sherwoods. Even the two
Newcastle dealers in town have never seen or heard a 765, and the only
"standard" Sherwoods to found in the Atlanta are at the low end of the
lower line...e.g. 7801 and the sub-$100 models.
Any comments?

Thanks,

Ed Medlin

[David B.]

Ed wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My situation is that I am replacing a Kenwood vr 507 in a 16'x26' room,
> with the listening area about 12' from the front center channel.
> Speaker system is low end, but I'll be upgrading that over time.
> Monitor is HD, so component video is a factor. Receiver will be used
> almost exlusively for home theater- different system/room for music.
>
> I have been comparing 5 receivers in the same general (street) price
> range:
>
> Sherwood 8601
> Sherwood Newcastle R-765
> Yamaha 5750
> Kenwood 8060 or 8070
> Pioneer D814 or D914
>
> I'd consider the Onkyo 502 or the Yamaha 5740 (to save some bucks), but
> thought the room size merited more wattage. We don't listen at super
> high volumes, but don't want to run out of volume adjustment if an
> input source is anemic.
>
> I'm not finding a lot on the Net about most of the above. The Kenwoods
> and Pioneers sound fairly comparable, the Yamaha gets high marks for
> sound quality, but not necessarily for honest power ratings, and
> there's just about nothing on the the Sherwoods. Even the two
> Newcastle dealers in town have never seen or heard a 765, and the only
> "standard" Sherwoods to found in the Atlanta are at the low end of the
> lower line...e.g. 7801 and the sub-$100 models.
> Any comments?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed Medlin
>

Best place I've found to research at this price range is here.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?s=0a4e5061015b808be6c52d0aa7ee153 3&forumid=90

I pay more attention to the positive comments but I don't discount all
the negative if it's well stated. If the poster dosen't own the
receiver they are being negative toward, don't pay much attention.
There's no end of people who feel if it isn't their brand, it sucks.
I have the Kenwood 6060 (predecessor of the 8060) in my HT and am very
pleased with it.

David

[Pagan]

"Ed" <e_medlin@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1106779393.298802.175470@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi,
>
> My situation is that I am replacing a Kenwood vr 507 in a 16'x26' room,
> with the listening area about 12' from the front center channel.
> Speaker system is low end, but I'll be upgrading that over time.
> Monitor is HD, so component video is a factor. Receiver will be used
> almost exlusively for home theater- different system/room for music.
>
> I have been comparing 5 receivers in the same general (street) price
> range:
>
> Sherwood 8601
> Sherwood Newcastle R-765
> Yamaha 5750
> Kenwood 8060 or 8070
> Pioneer D814 or D914
>
> I'd consider the Onkyo 502 or the Yamaha 5740 (to save some bucks), but
> thought the room size merited more wattage. We don't listen at super
> high volumes, but don't want to run out of volume adjustment if an
> input source is anemic.
>
> I'm not finding a lot on the Net about most of the above. The Kenwoods
> and Pioneers sound fairly comparable, the Yamaha gets high marks for
> sound quality, but not necessarily for honest power ratings, and
> there's just about nothing on the the Sherwoods. Even the two
> Newcastle dealers in town have never seen or heard a 765, and the only
> "standard" Sherwoods to found in the Atlanta are at the low end of the
> lower line...e.g. 7801 and the sub-$100 models.
> Any comments?

I am a big Yamaha fan, having owned 3 receivers since 1991. My current
receiver is the HTR 5790, and it's performed flawlessly with both music and
HT. My family room is fairly large, and with Klipsch speakers (Quintet II,
SB-3's, and sub) it has no problem putting out sound, and I've never turned
it up more than half way. One of the big selling points for me was that it
comes with a microphone that hooks into the front, and with that the
receiver can take care of the settings, with little tweaking left over for
me.

Even their low end receivers put out plenty of power. My last one was an
RX-V793, fairly low end at the time, and it pushed a large set of JBL
Monitors without effort.

It's been years since I heard a Sherwood, Kenwood, or Pioneer, so it's
likely they've improved quite a bit, but back then I wasn't too impressed.
The Kenwood had some distortion at high volumes, and the Sherwood had
distortion at all volumes. Pioneer wasn't too bad, but to me it just didn't
have the sound I liked.

I don't hear many faults of Onkyo, and their receivers seem a little less
expensive than Yamaha. I would have considered them if all my other gear
wasn't already Yamaha.

Personally, I think it's more important to buy quality speakers than worry
about how many watts a receiver puts out or speakers can take. Buy an
efficient set of speakers, and you don't need wild amounts of power to run
them.

What input source are you planning to use that would be anemic?

Pagan

[Ed]

We have digital cable, old VHS tapes, and, of course, DVDs. The input
issue arises mainly with certain cable programs...mostly those in HD
with 5.1 sound. Significant drop is volume. With my current amp, I
turn it to about -26 to get adequate sound, while -48 to -40 is
satisfactory for most of what we listen to. DVDs also need more
volume. It's not a "surround" issue, as I listen to non-Dolby/DTS
stuff in Pro Logic II or Circle Surround (my preference).

Maybe I'm being overly cautious. I just want to have to run a
receiver...even a very good one, at the upper end of its limits for
extended periods of time. That was my concern about the Yamaha (I have
noticed the power specs for a given Yamaha model vary from publication
to publication, and sometimes don't include the ohms) is that I have
seen some (happy) Yamaha owners comment that their only criticism is
that their receivers seemed less powerful than the nominal wattage,
while I see opposite comments from HK and, less often, from Onkyo
owners.

I have given up on Sherwood as an option, though there appears to be a
world of difference between the regular and Newcaslte lines. The
latter are assembled in Newcastle, UK, which is supposed to impress
buyers. The parent company is Korean. They claim Sherwood (the Korean
facilities) manufacture about 1/3 of all receivers sold
world-wide....but that says more about price than audio quality. I
have to say, though, that the little information I have about Newcastle
receivers is all extremely positive, including from a couple of dealers
who sell other, more expensive equipment.

I have pretty much narrowed to a Yamaha or a Kenwood. Pioneer seems to
go out of its way to avoid THD figures, which may or may not be
significant, and refers to its ampliphier section as "hybrid." Don't
know what that means, but neither do I see any compelling reason to buy
a Pioneer.

Except for the power question, everything about Yamaha seems positive.
Kenwood remains in the running because the 80XX series, unlike the
three digit series (806), has a high voltage amp section, handles 7.1,
has THD (if that's even a meaningful rating) below .1, and its power
ratings are based on 20-20k, all channels.
But there is no substitute for a body of user data.

Maybe I'll get a Yamaha locally, so I can easily return it if power is
an issue. From what you have said, and what I have read elsewhere,
that's likely to be the only issue. I know the Kenwood will have
enough power.

Thanks,

Ed

[Youngin...]

The Pioneer VSX1014TX has power ratings of 110W(20Hz-20kHz, .09%) if
that helps. use the same volume levels you mentioned with DVD's being
around the -25 area and cd's around -35 for relative listening. The
Pioneer does 7.1 or 5.1 with a second zone. It is THX Select certified
and does component video switching (40mHz only though). It also has
quite a few DSP's and the price is very competititve to the Kenwood
8060. All in all you should consider looking at the Pioneer as thats
what I went with after all the testing I went through. I also like the
Onkyo 602 better than the Kenwood however its only rated at 85 watts per
channel. Oh the Pioneer will also upconvert S-video and composite to
component so you only need one connection to the TV.

young...

Ed wrote:
> We have digital cable, old VHS tapes, and, of course, DVDs. The input
> issue arises mainly with certain cable programs...mostly those in HD
> with 5.1 sound. Significant drop is volume. With my current amp, I
> turn it to about -26 to get adequate sound, while -48 to -40 is
> satisfactory for most of what we listen to. DVDs also need more
> volume. It's not a "surround" issue, as I listen to non-Dolby/DTS
> stuff in Pro Logic II or Circle Surround (my preference).
>
> Maybe I'm being overly cautious. I just want to have to run a
> receiver...even a very good one, at the upper end of its limits for
> extended periods of time. That was my concern about the Yamaha (I have
> noticed the power specs for a given Yamaha model vary from publication
> to publication, and sometimes don't include the ohms) is that I have
> seen some (happy) Yamaha owners comment that their only criticism is
> that their receivers seemed less powerful than the nominal wattage,
> while I see opposite comments from HK and, less often, from Onkyo
> owners.
>
> I have given up on Sherwood as an option, though there appears to be a
> world of difference between the regular and Newcaslte lines. The
> latter are assembled in Newcastle, UK, which is supposed to impress
> buyers. The parent company is Korean. They claim Sherwood (the Korean
> facilities) manufacture about 1/3 of all receivers sold
> world-wide....but that says more about price than audio quality. I
> have to say, though, that the little information I have about Newcastle
> receivers is all extremely positive, including from a couple of dealers
> who sell other, more expensive equipment.
>
> I have pretty much narrowed to a Yamaha or a Kenwood. Pioneer seems to
> go out of its way to avoid THD figures, which may or may not be
> significant, and refers to its ampliphier section as "hybrid." Don't
> know what that means, but neither do I see any compelling reason to buy
> a Pioneer.
>
> Except for the power question, everything about Yamaha seems positive.
> Kenwood remains in the running because the 80XX series, unlike the
> three digit series (806), has a high voltage amp section, handles 7.1,
> has THD (if that's even a meaningful rating) below .1, and its power
> ratings are based on 20-20k, all channels.
> But there is no substitute for a body of user data.
>
> Maybe I'll get a Yamaha locally, so I can easily return it if power is
> an issue. From what you have said, and what I have read elsewhere,
> that's likely to be the only issue. I know the Kenwood will have
> enough power.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
>

[Pagan]

"Ed" <e_medlin@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1106829596.288422.240240@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> We have digital cable, old VHS tapes, and, of course, DVDs. The input
> issue arises mainly with certain cable programs...mostly those in HD
> with 5.1 sound. Significant drop is volume. With my current amp, I
> turn it to about -26 to get adequate sound, while -48 to -40 is
> satisfactory for most of what we listen to. DVDs also need more
> volume. It's not a "surround" issue, as I listen to non-Dolby/DTS
> stuff in Pro Logic II or Circle Surround (my preference).

As for digital cable and DVD, you might want to take a gander at the digital
out options. Using optical and/or coax digital out, I've had good results
with my sat box and DVD, but your milage may vary, but for the most part,
using digital inputs greatly reduces volume differences between components.

> Maybe I'm being overly cautious. I just want to have to run a
> receiver...even a very good one, at the upper end of its limits for
> extended periods of time. That was my concern about the Yamaha (I have
> noticed the power specs for a given Yamaha model vary from publication
> to publication, and sometimes don't include the ohms) is that I have
> seen some (happy) Yamaha owners comment that their only criticism is
> that their receivers seemed less powerful than the nominal wattage,
> while I see opposite comments from HK and, less often, from Onkyo
> owners.

So-called "wattage" is highly misleading. Watts is simply a measurement of
Volts times Amps (V*A=W). I've seen quite a few crummy amplifiers, mostly
for cars, that advertise huge wattage claims, but fail to mention the
clipping and distortion they are prone to. Same goes with speakers.

My reciever has an advertised output of 110 watts. My Klipsch SB-3's can
handle an advertised 400 watts. Even if we assume Yamaha's specs are
inflated, this reciever can still drive the hell out of these speakers,
again, at less than half volume. Any more than that, and it would hurt my
ears, and piss off the neighbors, even though double paned glass and a
couple dozen feet between houses.

> I have given up on Sherwood as an option, though there appears to be a
> world of difference between the regular and Newcaslte lines. The
> latter are assembled in Newcastle, UK, which is supposed to impress
> buyers. The parent company is Korean. They claim Sherwood (the Korean
> facilities) manufacture about 1/3 of all receivers sold
> world-wide....but that says more about price than audio quality. I
> have to say, though, that the little information I have about Newcastle
> receivers is all extremely positive, including from a couple of dealers
> who sell other, more expensive equipment.
>
> I have pretty much narrowed to a Yamaha or a Kenwood. Pioneer seems to
> go out of its way to avoid THD figures, which may or may not be
> significant, and refers to its ampliphier section as "hybrid." Don't
> know what that means, but neither do I see any compelling reason to buy
> a Pioneer.
>
> Except for the power question, everything about Yamaha seems positive.
> Kenwood remains in the running because the 80XX series, unlike the
> three digit series (806), has a high voltage amp section, handles 7.1,
> has THD (if that's even a meaningful rating) below .1, and its power
> ratings are based on 20-20k, all channels.
> But there is no substitute for a body of user data.

I've picked up a few audio fanatic magazines, and the first thing I look for
is advertisements or, even better, reviews of $600 power cables and/or $80
per foot speaker wire. I've found them in every magazine I've seen, and
that lets me know they're full of crap. On-line publications can be even
more flaky.

Asking other owners is good, but then you don't know their taste, or whether
they're simply parroting the nonsense marketing they've seen. I know folks
who swear by Bose, but have nothing to add other than what Bose told them.

Really the only opinion that matters is that of your ears. I wouldn't buy
anything I couldn't immediately and cheaply return unless I could hear it in
action, with the speakers I like.

The Kenwood 8070 is nice, and has one more component input than Yamaha's,
but has only two optical inputs to Yamaha's 5, and the Kenwood doesn't do
upconversion to component.

These two systems are pretty close otherwise.

> Maybe I'll get a Yamaha locally, so I can easily return it if power is
> an issue. From what you have said, and what I have read elsewhere,
> that's likely to be the only issue. I know the Kenwood will have
> enough power.

That's probably best, though you might want to consider upgrading your
speakers first, if that's what you plan to do. Then again, you might be
happier with your speakers after trying a couple receivers.

Best Buy has a pretty good return policy. You could probably try most of
their receivers out before somebody squawks.

Pagan

[Ed]

Thanks, everyone, for some helpful, non-condescending, replies. I did
listen to a Pioneer 814, almost bought a Yamaha 5740, then ended up not
with a Kenwood 8060, but with a refurbished 7070 from the Kenwood
Factory Outlet Store...for $216, including tax..there credit card
processing system was out, and that's what I had in cash. Don't know
what it's missing, but it has Circle Surround II, which I like, as well
as Pro Logic II, Neo 6, etc., and THX certification.

Interestingly, I have to jack up the volume more on this receiver than
I did on the Kenwood 507 it replaces, despite what is supposed to be a
better amp section. On the other hand, my wife, who didn't see the
point in surround sound when I bought the 507 a few years back,
immediately commented on the improvement in sound quality.

Couple of notes...everything you hear about the manual being confusing
is true....especially in terms of component switching, and the remote
is still a work in progress....am communicating with all the equipment,
but the button that "talks" to the DVD player isn't the one that
switches the receiver to DVD...actually, it's worse than that.....
Still, for the money...

Out of the bunch the Yamaha will be better.
Sherwood is a good cheap receiver but the Yamaha is overall a better buy.
As for the amps, Yamaha alone pays attention to something called "damping
factor" which tells a bit about how dynamic your receiver will sound. This
is because this is an area that most receiver manufacturers skimp on,
knowing that most only pay attention to watts.
This is one of the main differences between standalone amps and receivers,
most standalone amps have damping factors that embarass even the best
receivers, but Yamaha at least tries, their amps have damping factors that
while skimpy are still some of the best in the receiver field, sometimes
180 or so, while for the average receiver its 60.
One outlaw standalone amp has a damping factor of 800 for instance, you just
wont find that in a receiver
Of course the sound that you like will be the most important, but dollar for
dollar Yamaha has the best amps in a receiver, IMHO
"Ed" <e_medlin@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1106779393.298802.175470@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi,
>
> My situation is that I am replacing a Kenwood vr 507 in a 16'x26' room,
> with the listening area about 12' from the front center channel.
> Speaker system is low end, but I'll be upgrading that over time.
> Monitor is HD, so component video is a factor. Receiver will be used
> almost exlusively for home theater- different system/room for music.
>
> I have been comparing 5 receivers in the same general (street) price
> range:
>
> Sherwood 8601
> Sherwood Newcastle R-765
> Yamaha 5750
> Kenwood 8060 or 8070
> Pioneer D814 or D914
>
> I'd consider the Onkyo 502 or the Yamaha 5740 (to save some bucks), but
> thought the room size merited more wattage. We don't listen at super
> high volumes, but don't want to run out of volume adjustment if an
> input source is anemic.
>
> I'm not finding a lot on the Net about most of the above. The Kenwoods
> and Pioneers sound fairly comparable, the Yamaha gets high marks for
> sound quality, but not necessarily for honest power ratings, and
> there's just about nothing on the the Sherwoods. Even the two
> Newcastle dealers in town have never seen or heard a 765, and the only
> "standard" Sherwoods to found in the Atlanta are at the low end of the
> lower line...e.g. 7801 and the sub-$100 models.
> Any comments?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed Medlin
>

[Severian]

That's about as bad a definition of damping factor as I've ever seen.
Damping factor is the inverse of output impedence, and says nothing about
how "dynamic" something sounds, it's more a measure of how well "damped" the
speaker (woofer) amp combination will be, in simple terms. And damping
factor alone is a poor judge of amp "sound." Note that tube amps, which many
rate as superior to solid state, have terrible damping factors when compared
with solid state amps, due to the use of output transformers. In fact, one
of Carver's tricks he used to make his amps sound more tube like involved
inserting a high power resistor in series with the amp outputs to lower the
damping factor. It worked.

<steve99@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:WxSLd.14038$BQ2.4357@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. .
> Out of the bunch the Yamaha will be better.
> Sherwood is a good cheap receiver but the Yamaha is overall a better buy.
> As for the amps, Yamaha alone pays attention to something called "damping
> factor" which tells a bit about how dynamic your receiver will sound. This
> is because this is an area that most receiver manufacturers skimp on,
> knowing that most only pay attention to watts.
> This is one of the main differences between standalone amps and receivers,
> most standalone amps have damping factors that embarass even the best
> receivers, but Yamaha at least tries, their amps have damping factors that
> while skimpy are still some of the best in the receiver field, sometimes
> 180 or so, while for the average receiver its 60.
> One outlaw standalone amp has a damping factor of 800 for instance, you
just
> wont find that in a receiver
> Of course the sound that you like will be the most important, but dollar
for
> dollar Yamaha has the best amps in a receiver, IMHO
> "Ed" <e_medlin@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:1106779393.298802.175470@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > My situation is that I am replacing a Kenwood vr 507 in a 16'x26' room,
> > with the listening area about 12' from the front center channel.
> > Speaker system is low end, but I'll be upgrading that over time.
> > Monitor is HD, so component video is a factor. Receiver will be used
> > almost exlusively for home theater- different system/room for music.
> >
> > I have been comparing 5 receivers in the same general (street) price
> > range:
> >
> > Sherwood 8601
> > Sherwood Newcastle R-765
> > Yamaha 5750
> > Kenwood 8060 or 8070
> > Pioneer D814 or D914
> >
> > I'd consider the Onkyo 502 or the Yamaha 5740 (to save some bucks), but
> > thought the room size merited more wattage. We don't listen at super
> > high volumes, but don't want to run out of volume adjustment if an
> > input source is anemic.
> >
> > I'm not finding a lot on the Net about most of the above. The Kenwoods
> > and Pioneers sound fairly comparable, the Yamaha gets high marks for
> > sound quality, but not necessarily for honest power ratings, and
> > there's just about nothing on the the Sherwoods. Even the two
> > Newcastle dealers in town have never seen or heard a 765, and the only
> > "standard" Sherwoods to found in the Atlanta are at the low end of the
> > lower line...e.g. 7801 and the sub-$100 models.
> > Any comments?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ed Medlin
> >
>
>

[Bill]

<steve99@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>This is one of the main differences between standalone amps and receivers,
>most standalone amps have damping factors that embarass even the best
>receivers, but Yamaha at least tries, their amps have damping factors that
>while skimpy are still some of the best in the receiver field, sometimes
>180 or so, while for the average receiver its 60.

Another numbers game...<sigh>

Anything over 20 for a damping factor is more than enough, and no
audible difference is heard beyond that anyway.

It's like saying a 100w amp is better than a 95w amp...or 0.001%
distortion is better than 0.002%. It's all a bunch of bullshit since
none of it is ever audible.

But hey, if you like the numbers, then it's "the best"...

[Jack Dotson]

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:VYqdnX6SjOlmkZ3fRVn-iA@golden.net...
> <steve99@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>This is one of the main differences between standalone amps and receivers,
>>most standalone amps have damping factors that embarass even the best
>>receivers, but Yamaha at least tries, their amps have damping factors that
>>while skimpy are still some of the best in the receiver field, sometimes
>>180 or so, while for the average receiver its 60.
>
> Another numbers game...<sigh>
>
> Anything over 20 for a damping factor is more than enough, and no
> audible difference is heard beyond that anyway.
>
> It's like saying a 100w amp is better than a 95w amp...or 0.001%
> distortion is better than 0.002%. It's all a bunch of bullshit since
> none of it is ever audible.
>
> But hey, if you like the numbers, then it's "the best"...

Glad you guys got this one. Hard to believe some of the stuff Steve tells
these people. The bad part is that he behaves as if he's the final
authority, when in actuality he's got quite a bit to learn in the audio
world. :-)

[Bill]

Jack Dotson wrote:

>Glad you guys got this one. Hard to believe some of the stuff Steve tells
>these people. The bad part is that he behaves as if he's the final
>authority, when in actuality he's got quite a bit to learn in the audio
>world. :-)

A lot of people have been fed the same old myths, and just continue to
pass them along believing they're right. I have no problem with people
if they're willing to learn...

Others...well...