Like

ARCAM AVR 300 vs. Pioneer Elite VSX56TXI

Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
  Thread Last Poster Posts Last Post
Archive through June 23, 2005Bender Unit100
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 242
Registered: Dec-03
I imagine intelligent consumers purchase Arcam receivers from dealers who care abouy quality.

Unintelligent consumers buy their receivers at Best Buy and lie about their speakers, size of their movie collections, and what Heiniken tastes like.

Unintelligent consumers would actually waste their time watching "Underworld"
 

New member
Username: Hechill

Post Number: 1
Registered: Jun-05
In response to Pioneer Vs Arcam. Arcam may be a small, specialist British company, however Avex Home Theatre in Ft. Lauderdale, Absolute Sound in Orlando, and Audio Excellence in A little no named town like Ocala, (all located in Florida) all sell Arcam.

Arcam is a great sounding product, well worth the difference in price and is NOT in competition with Pioneer products anyway. The AVR300 fully implements the new Dolby Digital ProLogic IIx, and is TRUE bargain in its price range. Far Superior than a Pioneer Elite, and the sound quality is GREAT!!! Actually Arcam has proven itself against products in a much higher category than itself. The question that should be asked is... Should I SAVE a 1,000 dollars and go with the Arcam since its such an excellent product.

I can understand how the everyday names of electronics can wear on you after shopping in a Best Buy, Circuit City, Brandsmart, etc.. But taking the time to SAVE and shop in a place that specializes in REAL Home Theatre can really make the difference. The names may not sound familiar but the sound and quality of the products are superior.

Oh and try building upon your Proprietary Bose System over the years.
 

Scrunty
Unregistered guest
Bender,

Generally, the NAD sound (slightly soft and woolly) fits music better than the sharper, bigger Yamaha sound (which is considerably better for movies). But your choice will depend on your tastes in music and movies, the true ratio of one against the other, the speakers and the room used. In short, try and listen to the two receivers, not the glib viewpoints others people have made about the two receivers.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1320
Registered: Jan-05
"Should I SAVE a 1,000 dollars and go with the Arcam since its such an excellent product."
============
You didnt end the sentence.....

"that does nothing" belongs at the end.
 

Scrunty
Unregistered guest
Paul,

Have you actually listened to the AVR300, or are you merely attacking it for its lack of features? I thought amplifiers and receivers were designed to reproduce music and movie soundtracks, not to provide bragging rights about acronyms.

My method of selecting a product involves choosing a shortlist of products that fit my criteria and then auditioning them to determine the one that sounds the best. If the choice comes down to more features or better sounds, I'll go with the better sounding one. What methodology do you use?
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 894
Registered: Feb-05
It's no contest. Arcam by a mile.
 

Silver Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 563
Registered: Sep-04
Bender

I disagree with Scrunty that the NAD's sound is slightly soft and woolly. This is not my experience, though I guess it could be interpreted this way. My take on it is that the NAD provides a more fluid, natural musical presentation to the rather more stark and clinical approach taken by the Yamaha. I guess one man's fluid is another man's soft...

Either way I would choose the NAD for a more musical presentation generally speaking. Naturally you need to find a set of speakers that are a good match and the room you're in could accentuate a bright or soft presentation, but to work out the better option in your room, you'd have to listen to both receiver/speaker combinations in your room which can be a tall order. Typically, the musical presentation will remain the same so even then you may find that a straight listen to a pair of stereo speakers on the end of the receivers will let you know which one you prefer. Any room interaction that is severe will most likely be severe with both solutions since they are both by-and-large similar in performance, if not presentation.

Scrunty, your posts have been excellent - a real joy to read, so reasoned and well put together.

Paul, I still can't get where you're coming from on features. The Arcam provides all the features that the rest of the market provide other than automated setup (contrary to Arcam's philosophy of setting up the thing correctly using laser guides etc.), Logic 7, and maybe one or two gimmicky effects settings.

Regards,
Frank.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1350
Registered: Jan-05
Scrunty,

I use the same method of evaluating components as yourself, however the ARCAM didnt make 'my' short-list. I think that's been my whole point in this thread.

A receiver needs to pass certain criteria before earning that 'right' to a personal audition, and the ARCAM fell well short in many areas.
 

Silver Member
Username: Markusp

Toronto, ON Canada

Post Number: 135
Registered: Apr-04
That holds true for Paul - the Arcam DID fail HIS personal criteria for an audition. That doesn't mean it will fail OTHER people's personal criteria.

Then again, its hard to slam a product for its sound quality when one hasn't heard it. If a person has not personally demoed a product to a good extent (5 to 10 minutes in a store does not count), they simply cannot have a true opinion of that product - period. As I stated earlier, sound quality / performance is what counts - missing features can be compensated for (switch box etc.). You won't know if something is right for you until you try it. How many people have walked into a store with an idea of what they were going to buy but walked out with something completely different because they actually liked the sound quality of that product more? Happens all the time, especially re: speakers. If you don't listen and don't demo, then you may be stuck with something that is actually inferior and not to your tastes in the long run.

This isn't a dig at Paul. I respect the fact that he had his own criteria to judge a product by. What I don't respect is when people knock products when they have zero experience with them.
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 243
Registered: Dec-03
I think Paul is saying that Best Buy didn't carry Arcam.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1365
Registered: Jan-05
Markus,
All I said that the ARCAM wasnt worthy of 'finalist' status and a personal demo. I never once commented on the arcam sound quality. You might want to reread my posts in this thread so you'll better understand my position.

And yes ben....a very sad day indeed because BB doesnt carry my receiver either. It does carry some of it's little siblings though:-) I agree that their selection lacks unless you're shopping for bottom tier receivers.

They have some nice TVs though. I bought my 65" from them.
 

Silver Member
Username: Nuck

Parkhill, Ontario Canada

Post Number: 101
Registered: Dec-04
Very disappointed to see the political ball dropped here, back to old audio.
Frank slays me with his proper and polite compositions, and wonder why we Canucks are considered polite?
Paul is one of the ugly Americans whose reputation was so hard fought to supress for so mant years. The us made large advances here, until GWB was voted in by Bible Belters and RichCorp.
The us is in a dismal global position and has been superceded by China as a favored country by most of it's (former?) allies.
Here in Canada, we live beside the 800 lb. gorilla.
It needs a bath! Somebody open a window!
To doubt the us position is to ignore it's singularistis agenda. If you view the current slate of WTO grievences, you will see a clear vision of us isolationist regimes, and denial of rights of trade and passage to numerous countries, quite notably, Canada.
These issues fester in the Great White North, because Canada refuses to get into weapons in space, which the us gov't, or, at least, it's leader, deems worthy of global starvation to implement.
I'm sorry folks, that's my vent.
I'm stuck in Mexico City for another 3 days.
And if I could type so fast, you should hear what Mexicans think!

Peace
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 908
Registered: Feb-05
Let's not start the nationalist rants please. I'm no flag waver but let's keep from getting it ugly. There are alot of U.S. folk on this site who could say a thing or two about our neighbors (the governments not the people). I love Canada and Mexico and your peoples so let's start at this point and move on. Thanks.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1378
Registered: Jan-05
Most Americans arent interested in winning any popularity contests. It's only the liberal appeasers who concern themselves with popularity and passing 'global tests'.

As for the canadian weapons or military??? Why would Canada bother?? Canada doesnt need a military because they have an 800lb smelly gorilla living next door to protect them. You can bet your bottom dollar that if a bully picks on poor little Canada, that the smelly gorilla will rise up and punch it in the nose to protect it's little sibling.
 

Silver Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 971
Registered: Mar-05
Nuck,

hey I couldn't agree with you more on the current retards we have running the White House and Congress.

However please bear in mind that GWB was not elected in 2004 by any sort of overwhelming majority, he won by well under 5% so there are lots of us to the south of you who can't stand that village idiot any more than you can.
 

Silver Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 570
Registered: Sep-04
5% is considered a landslide victory in the country from which I hail (Malta)...

...and 98% vote...

Regards,
Frank.
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 919
Registered: Feb-05
Edster, the politically correct term is developmentally delayed and the white house has been in their hands since I can remember. If I'm not mistaken the village idiot has a higher IQ than the numbskull he ran against. The choices here are slim. You'd have to look far and wide to find someone in the U.S. who is both worth voting for and who would run.
 

Silver Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 977
Registered: Mar-05
"developmentally delayed"---LOL that's hilarious Art, I've never heard that one before.

> If I'm not mistaken the village idiot has a higher IQ than the numbskull he ran against.

Where'd you hear THAT? I'd love to see a source. Can't imagine it...Bush Jr. makes Ronald Reagan look like friggin' Albert Einstein.

I don't disagree with you that we have slim pickins but hey with our political system now based entirely on who gets the most corporate funding to pay for the gazillion dollar TV advertising campaigns it's no surprise. The decent candidates don't have an icecube's chance in hell.
 

Silver Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 978
Registered: Mar-05
Frank,

Actually it was 3% to be exact, and turnout was 40% of the total US population. Even if it were 100% turnout I'd hardly call 3% a "landslide" by any stretch of the imagination.

Last landslide we had was Reagan beating Mondale by a cool 18% in 1984.

Malta sounds like an interesting place if you really have 98% turnout. Are people there legally required to vote like they are in Australia? (At least according to an Aussie roommate I had in college.)
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 923
Registered: Feb-05
I think it's well publisized. I believe I heard it on NPR while I was at work. I laughed until I near pi$$ed my pants. It's like this, folks can't have it both ways. On the one hand folks say that GW hasn't the brains of a gnat and then 3 minutes later in the same conversation have him at the head of about 7 different conspiracies. He is what he is whatever that is. A little political Dr Seuss to end the post.
 

Silver Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 983
Registered: Mar-05
You may be on to something Art, I did a little Googling and found this:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040114-074349-3947r

So I'd amend my description and say that Bush is not mentally retarded per se, but he does a darn good job of acting like he is.

I've never thought of Bush being at the head of ANY conspiracies---it's obvious that Cheney and especially Rove do most of the hardball political thinking for him. Bush is just an effective figurehead, he connects well with the general under-educated public unlike the terminally stiff John Kerry.
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 926
Registered: Feb-05
Part of being an effective leader is knowing who to put in what positions. In that GW is brilliant. The day of the 2004 election the Kerry campaign were popping the champagne corks as the Bush campaign strategy unfolded like the well thought out plan it was. You must admit Eddie, at least if you're a political animal that the election day surprise was a thing of beauty. Rove and his team put together the best campaign I've ever seen. Obviously I don't mean from a "slogan" perspective but instead from a pure strategy perspective. Eddie you and I both know that it should have been an Edwards/Kerry ticket not the other way around. Kerry had too much explaining to do and he didn't get it done. Michael Moore and his lies only served to further polarize and anger the right which resulted in the result we saw in November. Read the only objective review of Moore's flick by someone who is admittedly not a Bush fan in the Jan/Feb issue of "The Perfect Vision". "Garbage in Garbage out" is an apt term for the mind of Michael Moore.
 

Silver Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 985
Registered: Mar-05
Can't argue with you there, those are pretty much my thoughts too though I wouldn't exactly say that Michael Moore cost Kerry the election. These to me were the main turning points:

1. Kerry didn't respond effectively to the Swifties' smear campaign until it was way too late---pulled a Dukakis.

2. Kerry should've just come right out and said, "hey I voted for the war because I was just as misled by Bush and his cronies' cooked intelligence data like all the rest of you, but now I know better" instead of his Clintonesque "I voted for it but then I didn't vote for it" stupidity.

3. Even though most analysts say Kerry won the debates I had a sinking feeling within the first 15 minutes of the first debate: Kerry was certainly more articulate and knowledgeable but he was also speaking way over the heads of the American public---Bush in contrast stayed doggedly on message and simplistic, which is what the masses like and can understand.

What it boils down to is Bush had a very skilled Machiavelli working for him, a.k.a. Karl Rove. In contrast, Kerry had his head stuck up his @ss most of the time.

I agree that an Edwards-Kerry ticket might've done better but Edwards also doesn't have the real killer instincts as a politician to really take on the Republicans and their rightwing media machine.
 

Gvenk
Unregistered guest
Aren't there some guidelines on discussing off topic things here? Not agreeing/disagreeing with any posts here, just that hijacking threads in the receiver section to discuss politics will destroy the value of the board to any one except those that want to discuss politics. If there are no moderators then self-moderation may be expected.
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 929
Registered: Feb-05
No, I don't think Moore cost Kerry the election, he just put another nail in his political coffin.

Both parties have political machines it's just that one parties is well oiled while the other is just limping along. Democrats have alot of good messages and no messenger. Putting Howard Dean in charge shows that they have no will to win and that they can't figure out where they will get their next leader from.

Agreed, Kerry defeated Bush during the debates but I believe that the public sensed that it was due to his ability to articulate his point not that his message was any more salient that GW's.

Another great moment in the Bush campaign was his acceptance speech at Republican Convention. One of the finest I've seen. Not on substance but on delivering a very clear idea of who George Bush is and what he believes. I believe that the U.S. public sensed a unique honesty in his speech. He clearly articulated his vision in a "take it or leave", "I am who I am" sort of way.
 

Silver Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 987
Registered: Mar-05
Not sure Dean's going to be such a liability, he at least seems to have the most balls of anyone in the Democratic party, most of them are such pushovers as soon as they come under any rightwing fire at all. If you remember, Dean was the first Democratic candidate to come out against the war at a time when the Dems were trying to be, as he perfectly put it, "Bush Lite." It's just too bad that nobody has the cojones to really hold this administration accountable for its endless phuckups squandering lives and money in Iraq---certainly not the so called "liberal media" the wingnuts like to go on about.
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 930
Registered: Feb-05
Dean was also the first to come out for taking away the middle class tax cut...the only tax cut that has ever put more money in my pocket every month. At least Kerry had the good sense to want to leave that alone. I understand your frustration around the mistakes this administration has made but let's face it the previous administration was just as mistake prone. I voted for Clinton both times and don't regret it, but I also voted for Bush and don't regret it. It's called balance. Ever see the movie "The Last Supper". Lots of truth in that movie. It takes both extremes to equal a middle. The pendulum swings for a reason. It'll swing the other way soon enough you just be patient.
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 931
Registered: Feb-05
And Gvenk register before you go about telling us what to discuss. If you want to say something about the receivers that started this thread then go on.
 

Silver Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 992
Registered: Mar-05
Well as the bumper sticker says, Clinton's lies never killed thousands of people and squandered hundreds of billions of our tax dollars.

I voted for Kerry but then again I would've voted for a jar of pickles if it was the only alternative to Bush, lol.

Hey if John McCain had been the Republican nominee in 2000 or 2004 I would've voted for him.

The pendulum definitely will swing back as the Iraq quagmire continues to worsen, but by the time the voters finally come to their senses I'm afraid it'll be too late to undo most of the damage.
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 934
Registered: Feb-05
Yeah that's what the bumper sticker says but it ain't so. There are literally dozens of military actions going during any administration some of which we know about others we don't. We know that clinton chose sides in the Balkans..right or wrong we were in the mix. We goofed up the Somalia peace keeping mission. The intellegience leading to 9/11 was a joint Clinton/Bush blunder. And oh if you only knew the Arizonan's that I know who witnessed McCain's rise you would think a whole lot less of him than you do Bush. I would vote for a Hillary Clinton/Howard Dean ticket before I would vote for McCain. Let's face it Edster they all stink. If only Americans could stand an intellectual debate perhaps we could have a good race ...say, Carol Mosely Braun vs Alan Keyes. Now that would be fun and challenging.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1387
Registered: Jan-05
Frank,
A 5% win is considered a comfortable win here too. GWB got over 51% of the popular vote, and you'd have to go back many years to find any president who got got more than 51%. Plus, the DUMBs took a beating in both the house and senate, which is unheard of with the other party controlling the whitehouse. Usually, if one party is in the whitehouse, the other picks up seats in those other elections, but the recent trend is the DUMBs are taking a bath. Until they clean house and deliver a message that the majority 'buys', they'll continue losing which is all good as far as Im concerned.
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 938
Registered: Feb-05
Could you use a term other than DUMBs it really is insulting and unecessary. Folks might engage you in conversation if you don't put them down. Just a suggestion.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1388
Registered: Jan-05
LOL @ Eddies rationalizations....

The truth of the matter is that people should look more closely at party lines and where each party stands on the important issues. People who claim to vote for the 'man' are naive because each party has different belief systems, and they tend to stand together on the importan issues. What each person needs to do is determine where they stand on each issue, and vote for the party who's beliefs are closest to their own on the issues most important to themselves.

Here's my take on the important issues, and how I see that each party stands on each issue......

Abortion
Dimocrats are generally in favor of giving women what they call "a woman's right to choose." Republicans are generally in favor of limiting access to abortion because they feel that taking the lives of innocent children is immoral.

Affirmative Action
Affirmative action is government intervention seeing to it that certain groups or are granted economic or other advantages based upon group membership, race, or other minority status. Democrats are generally in favor of these programs because it allows them to "lock in the vote" of these groups. Republicans are generally against affirmative action programs believing instead that all people should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Bear Arms
Dimocrats typically do not favor of the right of individuals to privately own firearms. Democrats generally believe that when private citizens own guns it can lead to violence. Republicans generally support the right of individuals to the own firearms. Republicans generally believe that restricting private ownership of firearms will only disarm the honest within society. Republicans believe that criminals are criminals because they break the law and therefore will not abide by new firearms laws. Republicans believe that firearms are the single best method of self defense against the criminal element and therefore must be allowed.

Social Security
Democrats believe that the current Social Security system should not be tampered with. The Democrats regularly use this issue in their attempts to scare our senior citizens into voting for them. They claim that the "evil Republicans" want to take away everyone's Social Security benefits. In actuality, Republicans believe that individuals should be allowed to invest a portion of their funds in the private sector should they choose to. Historically the private sector has outperformed the measly 1.32 percent that individuals are likely to attain within the Social Security System. This has proven to be true even when factoring in todays economic conditions.

School Choice
Dimocrats generally do not favor school choice or "vouchers" because they believe it will siphon funds away from the government school systems. Republicans generally believe that allowing parents access to their portion of the school taxes that are "earmarked" for their child would allow more parents to move or send their children to any school of their choice.

Free Prescription Drugs For The Elderly
Democrats generally favor providing free anything to anyone so long as they can "secure the votes" of those on the receiving end. Democrats believe the cost of medicine on the elderly is unjust and should be remedied. Republicans generally favor mild coverage. Republicans generally oppose subsidy programs of any kind knowing that ultimately everyone must pay for it by means of higher taxes.

Socialized Medicine
Democrats generally favor socialized medicine in order to grant all people, citizens or not, access to government regulated health care. Democrats believe that all people have a right to medical care. Republicans generally oppose government controlled healthcare due to the belief that examples in Canada and elsewhere have resulted in higher taxes and a reduction in the quality of care.

Size Of Government
The Democrats have long shown no desire to decrease the size or scope of government in general. A defacto policy of increasing taxes and increasing spending has become apparent. Republicans generally oppose expansions in the size or authority of government citing that a larger government means a higher tax burden on individuals. Republicans also believe that by expanding government you are in effect creating a class of people who are in effect dependent upon the government. Republicans believe that this creates a conflict of interest when it is time to vote.

Defense Spending
Democrats generally favor reducing the size of the military in order to concentrate tax funds on other obligations. Republicans generally favor a strong ever ready military force.

American Sovereignty
Democrats have displayed a pattern of submitting to other world governments. This can currently be seen in their attempts to subject the United States to the will of the United Nations. Republicans believe that American Sovereignty should be maintained at all cost. Republicans believe that the leaders of other countries should have no "say so" when it comes to the affairs of our country.

G@y Rights
Dimocrats generally believe that h^m^s3xuals should be allowed the right to marry and take advantage of other spousal benefits. Republicans generally believe that h^m^s3xu@lity is immoral and they should not be entitled to such spousal benefits.

Taxes
Democrats generally believe that taxes should not be lowered and in many cases should be raised to help pay for all of our obligations. Republicans believe that when local, state, and federal taxes are added up, we now have at best an excessive tax burden. Republicans believe that government is too large and that individuals should have the right to decide how they spend their money. Republicans believe that government spends too much instead of taxes too little.

Regulation and the Economy
Democrats generally support strong government regulation of the free market. Republicans generally support the free market's ability to evolve.

Environment
Democrats generally favor strong regulation of the quality of the environment regardless of cost. Republicans generally favor supporting environmental policies when economically prudent. Republicans believe that it makes little sense to force US businesses to comply with expensive environmental regulations knowing that these companies will be more likely to move their facilities overseas where regulations are not present.

Principles and Values
Democrats have no clearly defined moral values. Republicans believe that moral values keep our nation strong and should be encouraged. H^m^s3xual activists generally support democrats while religious groups typically support Republicans. Because some Republicans might, if given the opportunity, attempt to legislate morality we are giving the freedom quotient for this category to the Democrats.

Well......that about summs up both parties. Which party would you vote for??? I'll never vote Democrat, no matter who is running for each party because I disagree with their party positions on almost every issue.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1389
Registered: Jan-05
Sorry art,

I guess it's a habit of mine to use that term. I'll try to restrain myself in the future.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1390
Registered: Jan-05
'Not sure Dean's going to be such a liability, he at least seems to have the most balls of anyone in the Democratic party'
=========
Those cahonas are what got Dean squashed in the primary. What the Dems need to do to win in 2008, is promote individuals with a message capable of doing damage in the Red States. By having the Kennedy, Billary, and Dean frothing statements making front page news everyday, they're only hurting their chances for ever gaining power. Their yelling and screaming trantrums everyday isnt doing their cause a bit of good.(it does for me though)
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1391
Registered: Jan-05
No, I don't think Moore cost Kerry the election, he just put another nail in his political coffin.

Both parties have political machines it's just that one parties is well oiled while the other is just limping along. Democrats have alot of good messages and no messenger. Putting Howard Dean in charge shows that they have no will to win and that they can't figure out where they will get their next leader from.

Agreed, Kerry defeated Bush during the debates but I believe that the public sensed that it was due to his ability to articulate his point not that his message was any more salient that GW's.

"Another great moment in the Bush campaign was his acceptance speech at Republican Convention. One of the finest I've seen. Not on substance but on delivering a very clear idea of who George Bush is and what he believes. I believe that the U.S. public sensed a unique honesty in his speech. He clearly articulated his vision in a "take it or leave", "I am who I am" sort of way."
===================
I totally agree with everything you said except for the 'good message' part. From what I see, their statements are so varied and accross the boad from day to day, I dont think most americans have a clue of what their message is.
 

The God Father
Unregistered guest
Paul,
Please pick up the phone and call all those families whom have lost their love ones at war and see what they have to say about it....that my friend is reality, you are just pulling sentences out of you a$$; if you are so proud of your party why are you not in the middle east supporting your cause instead of wasting your time here writing about home theatre stuff ?
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1393
Registered: Jan-05
I was in the military at one time, and I still do support my causes while getting paid for doing so because my line of work is political in nature. Anyway, I was only responding to others comments.

I feel for families who lose family members, but we're a 100% voluntary military. It's their job to kill people and break things, and they understand the risk when the 'freely' sign on the dotted line(just like I did at one time).
 

Silver Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 571
Registered: Sep-04
Paul,

Fascinating reading! I've never really understood the distinction between the two. From what you've written I'd vote for Democrat in a flash. Just goes to show how we have very differing views on what world we wish to live in.

Edster, I believe it used to be the law but it's not any more. However, it is still considered a duty. You're welcome to scrub or deface the ticket as a protest against all choices, but you should go and vote as your part in the process.

Last time we had a low turnout with just 98.7%! Elderly, infirm or hospitalised people are sent a representative delegation to pick up their votes on the day. They also have proportional representation. If the combined seats that are voted in do not reflect the total votes (e.g. if the party with 49% of the votes gets 51% of the seats - which has happened), then seats are added in the house to make up the difference and give power to the winning party.

Regards,
Frank.
 

Silver Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 572
Registered: Sep-04
By the way, here's a controversial one for you -

Although I'm Maltese (passport and all) I'm not allowed to vote. The reason is that I live abroad for more than 6 months of the year. Since I do not live in the country and contribute to it socially or economically, it is considered (reasonably in my view) that I cannot have a real and fair understanding of the local issues affecting the country. Therefore I lose my right to vote by my choice of domicile.

You should know there are more Maltese people living outside the country than in it, Australia and Canada being the main areas where they live.

Regards,
Frank.
 

Silver Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 573
Registered: Sep-04
KB

After the opinions expressed on the AVR300 vs Pioneer part of the thread, did you make a decision on which way to go, or at least what to consider?

Regards,
Frank.
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 941
Registered: Feb-05
KB hasn't been here for months.
 

Silver Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 584
Registered: Sep-04
oh....errr....damn! :-)
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1396
Registered: Jan-05
Malta huh?? What an interesting place. I've seen a special recently about ancient Maltese history on the history channel and it was very interesting. It looks like a beautiful place. I couldnt imagine what it would be like living in that region when that huge volcanic blast basically wiped out that entire region 1,000s of years ago. Some also think it could be part of what was once the civilization of Atlantis.

Interesting stuff...
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 1004
Registered: Mar-05
Abortion
Actually the moderate Republicans do favor LIMITING rather than BANNING abortions. Unfortunately the Republican party was taken over by the extremist religious fringe during the past decade, who are out to ban ALL abortions---many oppose abortions even in cases of ra pe and in cest. These are some seriously wacked out folks here; the "moderate" Republicans still left in Congress can be counted on two hands.

Affirmative Action
Democrats have retreated on AA since the time of Reagan, but AA is still brought up all the time by Republicans as coded speech to rouse their more racist followers---ditto with issues like the Confederate flag. That's how they attract the deep-fried hick vote. Also interesting that Republicans may whine about unqualified minority students getting into top colleges because of AA but NEVER about unqualified white students getting in because of "legacy" or family/alumni connections---the only way George W. Bush ever got into Yale for example. So it's obvious that Republicans don't oppose AA out of a desire to establish a meritocracy.

Bear Arms
The Second Amendment allows all citizens to bear arms WITHIN a "citizens' militia"---a clause that the Republicans, who suck up to the zealots at the National Rifle Association, like to ignore even as they claim to be oh so constitutionally strict. They are simply wacko paranoid about ANY regulation at all on guns---banning assault weapons or having a 10 day waiting period for example. Most Dems simply want to regulate and limit gun ownership not totally ban them.

Social Security
here I actually agree with part of Bush's proposals.

School Choice
I am also sympathetic to the Republicans' proposals with school vouchers. However neither party has the balls to TRULY overhaul the school system by restructuring the way schools are funded---right now mainly by local property taxes. If schools were funded 100% by a common federal and state pool of tax dollars then you wouldn't have the kinds of savage inequalities we have right now, where a suburbian school looks like Harvard and an urban school looks like Romania.

Free Prescription Drugs For The Elderly
Paul does have something of a point here with Dems often seeking to buy votes through government freebies to the poor and disadvantaged. What Paul omits is all the CORPORATE TAX freebies the Republicans give to their electoral base---namely the corporate elite, who turn around and fund their election campaigns massively. THAT's the reason the Republicans often dominate elections, they are good at whoring themselves out to the highest bidders. Unions don't donate anywhere as much money as corporations.

Socialized Medicine
The Republicans basically are wh0res to the pharmaceutical companies and medical industry so what can you expect?

Size Of Government
This is a joke...government has only continued to expand under Reagan, Bush Sr. and now Bush Jr.!

Defense Spending
Republicans basically use the defense budget as their pork barrel giveaway to all the corporate interests who bankroll them. That's why we're still spending gazillions on military equipment to fight a Soviet army that no longer exists, meanwhile our troops are sent into harm's way with insufficient body armor and vehicle armor.

American Sovereignty
Pretty funny pose now that Bush has made the rounds in Europe and elsewhere begging for financial assistance in his ongoing Iraq quagmire.

G@y Rights
Like affirmative action, this is another red herring issue the Republicans use to attract votes from the poorest, least educated and most bigoted segments of the population.

Taxes
Republicans believe that their rich friends who bankroll them should pay as little as possible in taxes, so that's who they give the bulk of their tax cuts too. The rest of us get a few scraps back from the IRS.

Regulation and the Economy
Republicans want things like the Enron and WorldCom scandals to happen because these are the people who bankroll them. They could care less about all the "little people" who get screwed.

Environment
Again, it's all about money money money. The Republicans will sell the environment to their highest bidder. My home city of Houston TX became the #1 most polluted city in the US while GW Bush was governor of Texas...because Bush basically let the big petrochemical companies write their own regulations and made compliance "voluntary." Just as he has gutted the Environmental Protection Agency with a bunch of industry toadies.

Principles and Values
Republicans are wonderful actors, very skilled at PRETENDING to be on a lofty moral high horse. The reality is very different...the only principal and values they have is how to get in power and stay in power, which in this day and age means whoring themselves out to corporate elites while using distracting "wedge" issues like g@y rights and affirmative actions to scare the uneducated gullible voters into voting for them.
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 964
Registered: Feb-05
OK here we go.

Abortion:
This is one moderate Republican for a total ban and radical enforcement. It's a war and the innocent are dying. Your taxpayer dollars fund it, I know because my colleagues approve the expenditure.

Affirmative Action:
I am one black man who believes that hiring practices should be equal for everybody. Enforce the laws that are already on the books relative to civil rights and Affirmative Action becomes unecessary. My brothers and sisters are qualified and don't need any favors.

Gun Control:
I have changed on this issue over the years. Ban only assault weapons leave the rest alone. We need to be able to defend ourselves but that privilege should not extend to our building personal arsenals big enough to launch our own little wars.

School Choice:
I went through more diificulties than you can imagine getting my son through school. All too often public schools stink and the children of the poor suffer disproportionately. School vouchers for everyone who wants to explore alternatives, why not.

Free Medicine:
I believe in healthcare reform. But no free medicine for anybody especially the elderly. Demographically the elderly are the wealthiest segment of our population. Don't let America's most influential lobby the AARP tell you otherwise. Are there elderly folks in dire straights over healthcare costs, ofcourse. But so are countless children who have no healthcare coverage at all.

Size of Government and Defense Spending:
Both of the parties are invested in government growth and waste. On the inside you see the waste it's disgusting.

The rest I'll leave alone for today. Must get rest for another day at work.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1423
Registered: Jan-05
Myself and art see things very similarly.

Eddie, you need to study party positions more and give me a more serious response, or you'll have to serve 2 hours detention. Give me a serious response on where you think 'each party' stands on the issues. Suprisingly, many people cant......

Those are the naive folks who say they
'vote for the person',
because they really have no Idea where each party stands on the important issues, nor have they ever thought about it. If they did know where each party stands, deciding who to cast your vote for would be a no brainer.
 

Silver Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 589
Registered: Sep-04
As I said earlier - fascinating. I must admit the latest posts have blurred things a bit for me.

Paul, Malta used to be a beautiful island and in some places it still is but it's a very small island (17 miles by 9 miles) and 'progress' has led to huge proprty development. This has led to a more affluent nation, but the downside is that there's very little countryside left. MNost places you go there is a building site in the vicinity. The roads are an absolute mess being full of potholes and parking is a major problem. Malta has a huge number of cars on the roads (about 1 car in 2 people on the island) and it is the highest population density in Europe. The infrastructure is creaking badly. It's a shame because it is a beautifu place in so many ways, not least because the Maltese are a very welcoming nation (if I say so myself). This is absolutely necessary since the biggest market in Malta is tourism. Its history has a lot to offer in that respect.

Regards,
Frank.
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 968
Registered: Feb-05
I will finish addressing the other issues after work but for now I must say Paul that I vote for a candidate not a party. My party all too often fields religious right nuts that I can't in good conscience vote for. I am a Republican who votes 50%+ Democrat. Oregon has a proud tradition of having politicians who cross party lines on issues. Our 2 senators Ron Wyden (D) and Gordon Smith ® couldn't be more different yet they are personal friends and meet regularly to discuss upcoming legislation and what is good for Oregon. I respect that and Ron Wyden gets my vote. It's about balance. You give either of these parties a blank check and you will be sorry.
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 245
Registered: Dec-03
A lot of these are false generalizations. I don't see how spreading all of this bogus party-line propaganda is going to help somebody choose a receiver. Especially when we are in an A/V forum.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1431
Registered: Jan-05
Art,
If you're beliefs fall down the middle, then I can understand why one would vote as you do.

Me on the other hand, I virtually disagree with every position of the Dems. Whether it be gun control, education, Healthcare, regulation, g@y marriage, defense, the economy, abortion, ect...etc...etc. I think the Dims take the wrong position on everything.

The 'person' is of no consequence because I support the person/party who shares my beliefs and values. If there is a 'great guy' running for pres, but hes a Dem, I still wont vote for him because he will stand on the wrong side of the issues. The point I was making is that many people couldnt even list what side of each issue the parties stand, or their reasons for where they stand. I mean c'mon....look at eddies responses. they were so rediculous that they dont even warrent a response.

Sorry Ben, this thread digressed into 'this' a long time ago. If you wish to discuss the arcam, I suggest starting a new thread, and I promise to keep this topic from the new thread.

If eddie was to reread my origional post on 'party positions' he'd see they are quite accurate eventhough they were painted with a conservative overtone. Party positions are fact. The opinions only enter the fray when each discusses 'why' their side is right.

For example, the Dims are anti-tort reform and want to see 'jackpot' settlements continue, and the GOP is pro-tort reform. That is fact.......The opinion enters in when each side discusses why........Each side has their own reasons, and I happen to think the Dims are wrong in their reasoning why they are against tort reform.

Another big HC reform issue is creating 'association HC plans'. This will allow large groups of small businesses to join together to form a large group for health insurance reasons. The Dems are against the proposal, and the GOP is for it. That's a Fact.......
The opinion enters the fray only when each side discusses why they feel their position is correct. I happen to think the Dims reasons to be against are dead wrong. I could go on and on and on.........They're wrong in every single issue.

Based on eddies silly reply, Im not so sure he knows the facts. Not until he knows the facts, can he learn the reasoning behind why each party stands where it does on each specific topic.
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 974
Registered: Feb-05
Ben, KB hasn't been here since March I think. And at least in my case this is not party line propaganda, it's how I feel. Audio Asylum and many other sites have places where audio folk can just yack. I don't see any harm in using an abandoned thread. If you object we could probably start another thread. I sure don't mean to offend you.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1434
Registered: Jan-05
Definitely.....

If you have 'on topic' questions, a new thread is in order because this one went to hell in a handbasket a long time ago.
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 246
Registered: Dec-03
Hey talk as you want...i'm not offended. It is kind of funny to read and still doesn't change the fact that you are posting inaccurate representations (propaganda) about what each party stands for.

As with the Arcam argument, I imagine that part of this is due to people stating opinions as fact. Regurgitating what they read/hear.


 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1439
Registered: Jan-05
Well Ben,
Since you're the expert, please share your wisdom and give specific examples of where I'm mistaken. Did I get the Abortion issue backwards??? Did I misrepresent vouchers incorrectly?? G@y marriage?? Maybe the Dims are really against G@y marriage and I mistepped my bounds?? Please shed some light and correct my errors. Maybe I was wrong, and the Dems are really pro-tort reform, and they're really pro-association health plans??? Maybe the Dems are really pro-military??? Maybe I was wrong, and the Dems are really anti UN??? Could it be true that I was incorrect that the Socialists are really pro-guns, and I was wrong in my origional assessment??? Could it be that the Dims are really 'for' allowing individuals to save a small portion of their social security money, and investing in private accounts??? Could it be the Dems are really against socialized medicine, and I got it all wrong??? Maybe it's a republican conspiracy, and they're really the ones who want a social healthcare system like Canada??

Now Im so confused, please help educate me and show me to the light!!!!
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1440
Registered: Jan-05
BTW..........

These are a few classic gun control quotes.......

"Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with the view of confiscating them and leaving the population defenseless."
Vladimir Ilich Lenin

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
Adolf Hitler, 1935

There is no reason for anyone in this country- anyone except a police officer or military person- to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.
William Jefferson Clinton

"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"
Gerald Ford
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1441
Registered: Jan-05
Quotes on individual freedom and society.....

When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly ... [Now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it.
William Jefferson Clinton

We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment, are created from the bottom up, not the government down. Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefiting from their success -- only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people. This is the one irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion that rigid government controls are essential to economic development.
Ronald Reagan

"It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man." (Adolph Hitler, 1933)

If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.
William Jefferson Clinton

It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work -- work with us, not over us; stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.
Ronald Reagan

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."
Nikita Khrushchev

We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." (Hillary Clinton, 1993)

The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people.
William Jefferson Clinton

"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all."
Vladimir Lenin

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." (President Bill Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993, Page 2A)

Hmmmmm.....Which one of these would you rather have ruling our nation??
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 250
Registered: Dec-03
Paul,

First of all trying to be cute with a party name totally discredits your post.

Second, given the ridiculous nature of your post on Arcam and european hi-fi certainly shows you of having little knowledge...this discredits you as well.

I picture you as a 17 year-old (mentally at least) who can't get a date, doesn't have a lot of money, lives in his parents basement, watches a lot of xxx, is overweight, and dreams of being Rush. Why would I get into a political debate with somebody like that.

 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 984
Registered: Feb-05
Paul I know you don't want folks quoting The Bush's or Reagan do you. Speak of an embarassment of riches, or would that just be embarassment. Bill Clinton served as our president during this countries most prosperous time. All he had to do was not phuck it up. He did a great job of just lettin' the good times roll. We were heading into recession when his presidency ended and 9/11 just killed the economy. That would have been a disaster regardless of who was president. See a theme here. Who wanted war in Iraq even more than Bush? Lieberman. Yikes both sides have more dinks than heroes. Just the facts man.
 

New member
Username: Ht_addict

Post Number: 8
Registered: May-05
Art, don't forget the tax deduction that Bush brought in, thats added BILLIONS to the debt, that your children and their children are going to have too pay for.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1448
Registered: Jan-05
That tax cut was a good deal:-)
It saved me a bundle. If you raise taxes and stick it to the small business owners, just sit back and watch them take their money and create jobs elsewhere. either that, or they'll conserve, and not build or create things. BTW, those are things that require workers that will no longer be needed.

And no, nobody's grandkids will be burdened. After a prosperous period, the slate will be cleaned, just like always.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 1035
Registered: Mar-05
> And no, nobody's grandkids will be burdened. After a prosperous period, the slate will be cleaned, just like always.

yeah RIGHT Paul, you must be referring to the period ensuing after the second coming of Christ (after the first coming of the AntiChrist, of course) who will promptly wack the aformentioned A.C. before ushering in what another 5,000 years of bliss on earth? Tra-la-la-la-la.

That's exactly what Reagan was thinking when he almost bankrupted our country in the 1980s with his astronomical military buildups coupled with massive tax cuts.

Retardicans...what a bunch of looney tunes!

 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1449
Registered: Jan-05
Ahhh....Ronnie. What a great man. The man who will always be know as the man who brought down the Soviet Union without firing a single shot. It's more like the man who bankrupted the soviets, and we turned out just fine:-)
 

Silver Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 594
Registered: Sep-04
Just fine? Have you forgotten your incredibly high debt? Of course, just like Africa, you may end up not having to pay it...

Frank.
 

Silver Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 994
Registered: Feb-05
Ah Edster I had almost gotten Paul to stop using insulting terms for Democrats and you had to go and say Retardicans. In the same way that both parties are funded by mostly the same sources in varying amounts so too are they very similar with just minor differences. We all argue about those small differences while they all get rich and fat. It's actually pretty funny. Just as I cautioned Paul about quoting Clinton as perhaps Democrats would find some of the many memorable quotes from the Bush family and post them. I must caution all from talking about Reagans policies as though they represented all Republicans. Did all Democrats agree with Wallace? Probably not. And yes I know he became (key became) an independent.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1474
Registered: Jan-05
Hi frank,
Yea, that sounds good to me. I figure we have saved enough nations through the years, that forgiving our debt would be a nice gesture. Nice idea!!!

Hey Art,
Yea, c'mon eddie! What's the deal......
I feel a relapse coming on:-)

HEH
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 1051
Registered: Mar-05
Art,

since when did Paul stop calling Democrats by other names? He relapsed as recently as his posting on this thread of:

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 04:11 pm

About Dems vs. Republicans, Art this is the way I see it: both parties are wh0res to their own special interests in their own sneaky and hypocritical ways.

However, there are wh0res who give you the clap, and there are wh0res who give you AIDS.

The Republicans do the bidding of our completely ruthless and greedy corporate elite out to turn the world into their own private sweatshop and fundamentalist freaks who want to turn this country into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. The Dems suck up to the unions who just want their cut and a few flaky liberals in a few flaky places with a few flaky ideas that are better left in the ivory tower where they came from.

All I know is, given a choice between Pat Robertson writing a party platform versus Jesse Jackson, I'm no fan of Jessie but he ain't nowhere as much of a freaky freak like Pat is!

In a perfect world the US would be a true multi-party democracy. However, the current economic system is setup in such a way that we have two parties who are equally beholden to the massive amounts of cash they need to raise every election year...since massive wealth in our country continues to be disproportionately distributed to maybe 5% of the population, it's no wonder that on most core economic issues both parties are equally subservient to the interests of the economic/corporate elite who TRULY run this country.

I'd still take the gonnorhea wh0re over the HIV one any day.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1005
Registered: Feb-05
I'd take Pat over Jesse or Al Sharpeton anyday. But I'd kill myself or move to some other country if any of them became president. Oh Edtser if only you worked in a Democratically controlled government agency.

You are right that wealth is disproportionately distributed. But that doesn't change the fact that our poor folk still look pretty well off cross culturally.

Paul had backed off a bit from the name calling. Any progress is good progress.

It's really too bad that ya'll hate the other party so much. Makes you look a wee bit myopic.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 1060
Registered: Mar-05
> But I'd kill myself or move to some other country if any of them became president.

Have to agree with you there, LOL.

> Oh Edtser if only you worked in a Democratically controlled government agency.

Art, anytime you want to work for a Republican-controlled government agency, come move to Dallas or Houston, put on a shirt and tie and join the corporate masses.

Actually I don't hate the Republicans categorically---there are many whom I do respect, such as John McCain (yeah I know, he did kind of sell out to Bush during the last election and he's done some unsavory things in Arizona), Ted Stevens, Chuck Hagel and William Weld for example.

But the Republican party of Teddy Roosevelt and Barry Goldwater, both of whom I respect, is simply no more. Instead of the National Review being its guide (a fairly decent magazine even if I often disagree with it) it is now a party of irredeemable slimeballs like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1006
Registered: Feb-05
McCain, speaking of Republican scum. There is a guy who is reputed to have had people killed on his rise to the top.

I certainly agree that the GOP of Goldwater and even Nixon is long gone. But the ideology still exists within the party and will one day be the majority again.

The Democratic Party of Howard Dean and Al Sharpeton have no room to cast stones. Strange as this may seem the one Democratic candidate who I may have voted for did not run this last election. Al Gore. It was his time but he was too ignorant to recognize it. Oh well.

Are you ready? Hillary vs Condy! Let the bashing begin.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1487
Registered: Jan-05
Heh....

Dem-myopic sunzabitches.

Ahhh........

The movie of the night was........ooops,


wrong thread.

so sorry.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 1067
Registered: Mar-05
Al Gore is like Bill Bradley who is like Walter Mondale...all very intelligent, decent men of principle but totally unelectable due to a hopeless lack of personal charisma and realpolitik intelligence.

I can't stand Lieberman though...

Never heard what you're talking about regarding McCain though. Links or a more detailed summary would be nice.

I can't decide just how electable or not Hillary would be. On one she draws massive support from women but in the red states she seems to be a very very polarizing figure.

I'd probably vote for her of course, right along with Paul...HEH!
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1008
Registered: Feb-05
What I heard about McCain didn't come from internet chatter or I wouldn't believe it. It came from 2 independent sources, friends of mine from Arizona. Supposedly common knowledge sometime ago among those who follow Arizona politics.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 1092
Registered: Mar-05
Art,

Maybe you could get your Arizonian friends to speak to the press about it? Or at least post anonymously on some liberal blogger like the Daily Kos?

You've made me very curious!
 

Esy
Unregistered guest
I'm not really sure if this thread is still going for the original question "Arcam 300 vs Pioneer 56".

I have lots of music experience and my equipment are:

Speakers:

Magnepan
JM Focal Lab
Thiel
Vandersteen
Revel
Engery

Amps:
VTL
Mark Levinson
Conrad Johnson
Rotel
Now Just got the Pioneer 56

Although I have sold and given out some of my previous equipment, I just wanted to comment on the real issue if Pioneer is well worth the money vs Arcam.

I will admit, I hadn't heard the Arcom yet, nor have I seen in. But, I believe that the pioneer 56 is a great bang for the buck. I was looking at the Arcams technical specifications and its THD is very very high almost twice that of the pioneer. This in my opinion makes the pioneer a winner in sound. Bear in mind that I haven't heard the Arcam and I was making this judgement based on the specifications assuming the manufacturers are stating their specs correctly.

For the Pioneer 56 sound, all I can say is that it is awesome for its price. I have used alot of equipment, and the pioneer is a definete steal, great sound and power. Its direct stereo mode is also awesome. In addtion, the Pioneers bass are nice and tight without the extra boom usually found from recievers at this price point. Treble is not bad as well, pretty clean.

In all, KB, I suggest you try to listen to both recievers first and deterimine which one is best, as in my experience, what may sound awesome for me may sound crap to another. However, if you do not have the time to listen to both and is a budget conscious person who wants the best bang for the buck, I can recommend the Pioneer. With my extensive experience with expensive amps and speakers, I can tell you that the Pioneer is a steal (Great sound and lots of power with its extra large capacitors, and great features, all for less than 1K). But if you have a lot of cash to dish out, then you may want to try the Arcam. Take note however to try to listen to Arcam carefully, and if possible A/B it with the Pioneer at loud levels, I believe the Arcam's sound will clip earlier which is something to consider as clipping may damage the speakers. All this said, remember, you are the last judge.

Regards,

esy
 

AVG
Unregistered guest
Thanks esy!
Nice to see someone with high end equipment, other than professional reviews, give the Elite a thumbs up.

I recently purchased a similar VSX-55TXi for just under $600 + shipping (B stock, with a 90 day waranty, that was virtually as good as new cosmetically and functionally) and am very happy.
The automatic calibration alone made a dramatic difference.
I bought it after selling my Marantz SR8400 (for more than I expected), due to not being thrilled about the lack of function rename, the looks and, to a lesser degree, the lack of a phono input, as compared to the Elite.
HOWEVER, the STR8400 does have some extra features (more digital inputs and DPL IIx) and is an awesome receiver in every other way, which is why selling it wasn't an easy decision!

The Arcam is an additional $1,050 more (costs about $1650 - $1700 USED) than the B-stock 55TXi, which in MY case just didn't make sense.
New 56TXi units go for about $900 + shipping.

I agree with doing an A/B comparison, since sound preference is a matter of personal taste.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Bunny

Big D, Texas

Post Number: 26
Registered: May-05
Nice to see someone recommending the Pioneer Elite line which appears to be forgotten on this forum.
I totally agree, they are great value for the money and sound great for both HT and music.
In addition, the piano gloss finish is awesome IMHO.



 

esy
Unregistered guest
Its sad to see that this thread has gone off track thrice: From politcs, to outsourcing, to economics. That said, I'd resume to the original thread.

I'd like to congratulate AVG for purchasing the Pioneer 55 for less than 600 bucks...wow. If I saw that, I'm sure I'd jump at it. I think that my 56txi is very similar with the 55txi. In fact, I was first considering the 54tx before I got the 56. I just got the 56tx for these three reasons: Better power supply, better remote, better chasis. For sound, the difference is minimal, hardly noticable.

It is sad to see the original poster KB to have been gone and without a word, probably because the thread went somewhere else...

If however he will still by any chance read this thread again, I will now post some reasons why Pioneer 56 will be a better choice.

However, it is important to note that these are my opnions and opinions may vary. In addition, we are comparing two very different products. The Arcam 300 cost 150% more than the Pioneer 56txi, that in itself is like comparing a toyota with a mercedez. That said, here are my reasons:

First, the awesome power supply that the 56txi includes with its new unit. If you know the Yamahas Flagship RX-Z9 model, you will see that it uses a 28,000uf capacitors with is almost similar in capacity with the 56txi's 27,000uf. These extra large capacitors will help considerably both as filtering agents (power) and as a reserve power. Yes, there are lots of things that involve a good power supply (i.e. transformer, diodes etc). However, for a system that costs this much, its an aewsome deal to be included. Note, that the RX-Z9 includes the huge capacitors but it costs almost thrice the 56txi.

Second, Pioneers specifications of 110W @ 0.09 THD and 20-20khz is way better than the Arcams 100W @1khz and 0.2 THD. Note that the THD of the 56txi is 3x lower than that of the Arcams. Also, note that Arcam specifies 1khz instead of the 20khz. This is typical for manufacturers to be able to state the 100W. If Arcam was to state the usual 20khz, Arcam would probably be in the range of 90 watts not 100 watts.

Lastly, I think the Arcam is too nice. This by itself costs money, and IMHO, this is irrevelant with the sound.

While the Arcam has its pro's like a nice Toroidial Transformer that is assumed to be better at driving hard driven speakers like the Magnepan or the Vandersteen. I think this is irrelevant as there are lots of awesome easily driven speakers now like the JM Focal Labs, or the multi awarded Energy C9's.

Yes, Arcam may sound better than the Pioneer, but it should be the case, and should not be contested. If the Pioneer was to sound better than the Arcam then I think the Arcam Manufacturer should go pack up.

In my opinion however, the Pioneer 55/56 are awesome deals for the price. This is dollar per dollar an awesome deal. If KB do not intend to listen to ear deafening levels, do not intend to use the I-link, and has fairly efficient speakers, I would even recomend the 54tx.

Yes, it is true that the Pioneer is no match for my vaccum tube VTL, or my solid state Mark Levinson or Conrad Johnson. Yes, it may not sound better than the Arcam, but dollar for dollar, I think the Pioneer has done an awesome job in narrowing the gap between the high end and the middle end intergrated recievers.

A few years ago, I wasn't a fan of the integrated amps, but with the release of the highly acclaimed Yamaha DSP-A1, I really saw how far the reciever market has gone. But the DSP-A1 is equivalent to the RX-Z9, so it was expensive and not a real bang for the buck. However, the Pioneer's Elite models stand out as a real steal, narrowing the gap between high ends and bringing real music at a much lower price.

All this said, I'd put my cash with the Pioneer and with the money saved($1,100,) I'd probably spend the extra cash with a new Projector or plasma TV (add some more $$). What good is a Movie experience without a good monitor to watch to?

In addition, KB, I really don't know if the Arcam is worth twice the Pioneer. Thus, audition it first, and you might be surprised. I know, I was, that was why I suddenly got one without even planning to.

And yes,Bugs, I really like the piano gloss finish. It really looks "ELITE". Unique from the usual gold and silver.

All the best,

esy
 

esy
Unregistered guest
Its sad to see that this thread has gone off track thrice: From politcs, to outsourcing, to economics. That said, I'd resume to the original thread.

I'd like to congratulate AVG for purchasing the Pioneer 55 for less than 600 bucks...wow. If I saw that, I'm sure I'd jump at it. I think that my 56txi is very similar with the 55txi. In fact, I was first considering the 54tx before I got the 56. I just got the 56tx for these three reasons: Better power supply, better remote, better chasis. For sound, the difference is minimal, hardly noticable.

It is sad to see the original poster KB to have been gone and without a word, probably because the thread went somewhere else...

If however he will still by any chance read this thread again, I will now post some reasons why Pioneer 56 will be a better choice.

However, it is important to note that these are my opnions and opinions may vary. In addition, we are comparing two very different products. The Arcam 300 cost 150% more than the Pioneer 56txi, that in itself is like comparing a toyota with a mercedez. That said, here are my reasons:

First, the awesome power supply that the 56txi includes with its new unit (one of the upgrades from the 55txi to the 56txi). If you know the Yamahas Flagship RX-Z9 model, you will see that it uses a 28,000uf capacitors which is almost similar in capacity with the 56txi's 27,000uf. These extra large capacitors will help considerably both as filtering agents (power) and as a reserve power. Yes, there are lots of things that involve a good power supply (i.e. transformer, diodes etc). However, for a system that costs this much, its an awesome deal to be included. Note, that the RX-Z9 includes the huge capacitors but it costs almost thrice the 56txi.

Second, Pioneers specifications of 110W @ 0.09 THD and 20-20khz is way better than the Arcams 100W @1khz and 0.2 THD. Note that the THD of the 56txi is 3x lower than that of the Arcams. Also, note that Arcam specifies 1khz instead of the 20khz. This is typical for manufacturers to be able to state the 100W. If Arcam was to state the usual 20khz, Arcam would probably be in the range of 90 watts not 100 watts.

Third, if you get to open a 56, you can see how cleanly built it is, not to mention good parts used. Everything is laid out in a very organized way compared with recievers in its price range (i.e. Yamaha 2500) and its dsp processors etc are all separated nicely from one another and from the power supply. This can help minimize the interference from each other.

Lastly, I think the Arcam is too nice. This by itself costs money, and IMHO, this is irrevelant with the sound.

While the Arcam has its pro's like a nice Toroidial Transformer that is assumed to be better at driving hard driven speakers like the Magnepan or the Vandersteen. I think this is irrelevant as there are lots of awesome easily driven speakers now like the JM Focal Labs, or the multi awarded Energy C9's.

Yes, Arcam may sound better than the Pioneer, but it should be the case, and should not be contested. If the Pioneer was to sound better than the Arcam then I think the Arcam Manufacturer should go pack up.

In my opinion however, the Pioneer 55/56 are awesome deals for the price. This is dollar per dollar an awesome deal. If KB do not intend to listen to ear deafening levels, do not intend to use the I-link, and has fairly efficient speakers, I would even recommend the 54tx.

Yes, it is true that the Pioneer is no match for my vaccum tube VTL, or my solid state Mark Levinson or Conrad Johnson. Yes, it may not sound better than the Arcam, but dollar for dollar, I think the Pioneer has done an awesome job in narrowing the gap between the high end and the middle end intergrated recievers.

A few years ago, I wasn't a fan of the integrated amps, but with the release of the highly acclaimed Yamaha DSP-A1, I really saw how far the reciever market has gone. But the DSP-A1 is equivalent to the RX-Z9, so it was expensive and not a real bang for the buck. However, the Pioneer's Elite models stand out as a real steal, not only did they narrow the gap between high ends, but also enabled good sound (real music) to be affordable. Take note again, the Pioneer Elites are way better than Yamaha's DSP-A1 (again my opinion).

All this said, I'd put my cash with the Pioneer and with the money saved($1,100,) I'd probably spend the extra cash with a new Projector or plasma TV (add some more $$). What good is a Movie experience without a good monitor to watch to?

In addition, KB, I really don't know if the Arcam is worth twice the Pioneer. Thus, audition it first, and you might be surprised. I know, I was, that was why I suddenly got one without even planning to.

And yes,Bugs, I really like the piano gloss finish. It really looks "ELITE". Unique from the usual gold and silver.

All the best,

esy
 

esy
Unregistered guest
Sorry for posting twice, just read the last one, as i accidently clicked the post with additinal info being put in.
 

AVG
Unregistered guest
Thanks esy!
It appears you know a good deal about the components used, down to the capacitors!

Yes, for the price it was a no brainer!
I like the fact that it has a USB port for PC audio, iLink (although I may never use it to be honest since I have MORE than enough DVD players already.
An iLink universal DVD player is therefore not on my list, especially since they still cost $350 and up.


I was playing a french record (Joe Dassin L'ete indien) today and was
a) happy for listen to some nice french music
and
b) suprised at the sound quality, even though it is an old record and a Fisher turntable (albeit a decent quality one).
This is another reason I like the Elite VSX-55TXi - it has a phono input, which is a rarety these days...
My parents gave me a bunch of old records (they let me have anything from their collection and even gave me a turntable) when they recently moved and I now have a way to listen to them.



 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1707
Registered: Jan-05
esy,
You forgot to add that the ARCAM is ugly as sin(looks like a big toaster), and has no features.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1353
Registered: Feb-05
Unfortunately the Arcam is in another league, the one for folks with ears.
 

Gold Member
Username: Petergalbraith

Rimouski, Quebec Canada

Post Number: 1025
Registered: Feb-04
Answering sarcasm with sarcasm Art?

LOL!
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1358
Registered: Feb-05
Sorry Peter I lost my head for a moment! ;-)
 

esy
Unregistered guest
Paul, I wouldn'y really say that the Arcam looks ugly. In fact, it looks very pleasing to me. I believe that Arcam's design may closely resemble that of the high end equipment like Mark Levinson, Conrad Johnson, etc by having a few design principles: Boxy look with the awesome gold or silver finish, huge transformers, thick casing (from the picture). These attributes I believe are what makes Arcam expensive. However, the Pioneers Glossy finish doesn't look bad as well.

It is sad that KB didn't really tell what exactly he wants. Me for instance, I got this equipment because I'm done with the expensive 2 channel systems, try the new HT setup, and get the most out of my money. I really hope he can give us more information on what his needs and expectations are, I am quite sure we can give some valuable feedback. Hopefully, the discussion wont not go somewhere else again.

Yes Art, you may be right that Arcam may be in another league, but I believe that it should, as it costs more than twice the Pioneer. This alone should not be contested.

I really hope that this discussion will not end up as another arguement. Threads are usually informative and not sarcastic.

I understand that some may not agree with Paul's perspective of the Arcam, but let us remember that it was his opinion, and with opinion, other people may not necessarily agree with it, but we have to respect it nonetheless.

Ever since I got my Pioneer 56, I was very happy, until I saw that the newer 1015tx has the THX Select 2, and my more expensive (costs thrice the 1015) just had the THX Select without the "2". Can anyone help me if this is a huge difference? If I will need it? Any help will do. I am sorry, I just a newbie in HT setups being with pure music for so long.

BTW, if anyone wants some pictures of the Pioneer recievers being compared to Denon, Yamaha etc internally and some other information why it is an awesome deal tell me, and I might post some picutures here. My dealer here gave me a copy of a powerpoint that Pioneer gives only to their distributors so they would know how to convience customers to go for the pioneer. I went to the Pioneer and knew 50% of the CD contents, since I saw the internals of the Yamaha already, but for some who hasn't, well, I can tell you the pictures are really convincing.

Again, if anyone does have information on the THX 2 and THX please give me advice. I know some difference like the three new sound THX movie, music, and games. What I'd like to know is how THX movie compares with THX cinema, THX music compares with Dolby Pro Logic 2x.

Regards,

esy
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1726
Registered: Jan-05
esy,
It's nothing more than a marketing gimmick. I wouldnt lose any sleep over it. If anything, you should be more concerned about when more DVDs will step up to the table and improve their soundtracks across the board.

The limiting factor(right now), is the DVD soundtrack, and not whether you have THX2, or THX superduper-2 that will probably be the next newest best gimmick created to move electronics out the door.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1372
Registered: Feb-05
Esy, I wasn't the one who suggested comparing them but since KB decided that they should be, I did. Also I don't know how long you've been hangin' with us, but this Arcam and NAD vs the other stuff thing has been goin' on for quite sometime with Paul and the rest of us. I think we all really just have fun with it.

Paul, the limiting factor with soundtracks at your house is those Bose rears.
 

Gold Member
Username: Petergalbraith

Rimouski, Quebec Canada

Post Number: 1043
Registered: Feb-04
Paul, the limiting factor with soundtracks at your house is those Bose rears.

And when he finally matches the whole set, we'll hear about how great that is for months!

:-)
 

Bronze Member
Username: Thunder18

Post Number: 19
Registered: Jul-05
Esy,
The only added feature to THX Select2 vs. THX Select is THX games mode...just another DSP setting.

 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1733
Registered: Jan-05
Hey, 'those' fit the application.

As for the Arcam??....if a quality toaster is what you seek, look no further.
 

AVG
Unregistered guest
Thanks Chris Christie for the distinction between THX Select and THX Select 2.


I have to say that Paul makes a good point about the soundtracks *.
The toaster comment is another story. :-)

* Many DVDs contain audio tracks that don't take (full) advantage of receivers' advanced surround processing and sound output capabilities.

 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 1378
Registered: Feb-05
"As for the Arcam??....if a quality toaster is what you seek, look no further"

Advice from the hillbilly for the hillbilly. As we have no other hillbillies on the forum I suspect that this advice will fall upon deaf ears...Paul's.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 1389
Registered: Mar-05
Art: LOL!

Guys, can't you see Paul is just making up for the 2 weeks he was away on vacation when we were spared his usual trollishness?

Now he's back, and he clearly just wants some love, he must've missed us so much during his vacation. So here goes:

DON'T WORRY PAUL, WE'RE STILL HERE FOR YOU AND WE STILL LOVE YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!
 

New member
Username: Hallen1007

Charlotte, North Carolina USA

Post Number: 6
Registered: Jul-05
Paul, you and my neihbor would get along great. He is just as closed minded as you are. Just because things come from overseas does not not make them inferior. Also, when you label yourself to a party, you blind yourself to good thing the opposision may have. I like some REpublicans, some Democrats. A good idea is a good idea, no matter the party affiliation. as for affirmative action, in a utopia we would not need it. But we don't live there do we. I am a black man who has lived in white suburbia all my life. My mom was a teacher and my father an Army ranger. The glass ceiling does exist, racism still is there(it goes both ways), and the good ol boys network is still in place. I work in IT at a fortune 500 company, and guess how many minorities are in a position of power? Zero. Thing as are better in this country than in many other places abroad, but it is not yet perfect.Power concedes nothing without struggle. This will be my last post off the topic, now back to the AV discussion. If you have comments or want to drop me a line, then hit me at hallen1007@bellsouth.net. Peace.

Marantz SR7500
Mitsubishi 42 HD rptv
Boston Acoustics surrounds
Aura front and center channel speakers.
Panasonic F65 dvd changer
Xbox, PS2
 

esy
Unregistered guest
Chris, thanks for the information about the differences between the THX Select and Select "2" it certainly eased my mind.

Art, I didn't mean to imply anything, the truth is, this thread was actually funny the way you guys are hitting on Paul. lol

Well, I'm seeing its starting again, so I think it would be better to get out of the way.

 

Anonymous
 
I think Paul really enjoyed auditioning the Arcam while he was away and maybe he traded in his beloved yammie.Congrats on your new Arcam and welcome to the club.
 

New member
Username: Zorro

Post Number: 7
Registered: Jul-05
For those of you who have not had the privilege to meet Paul,

http://jazyy.info/celebrity_news2/buddy_ebsen_d.jpg
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1741
Registered: Jan-05
Herman,
Each party is a team. While it's true that all members of each 'said' team dont agree on all the issues, or maybe not even get along, but they do stand together as a whole on the big picture to win the game.

What you need to is learn where each party stands on the issues most important to yourself, and vote for the party who's platform most closely represents your personal viewpoints. Those who say "I vote for the man/woman, and not a party" are naive and need to get with the program or they dont deserve their right to a vote.
 

Silver Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 706
Registered: Sep-04
Ah, but that's just it isn't it Paul? There is no winning or losing, just taking part. Once anyone wins or loses, it's the end of the game. And when that happens we'll be on another plane either playing lyres or burning in hell...

Regards,
Frank. (Watched Constantine for the first time last night)
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1748
Registered: Jan-05
Frank.....

You obviously have no concept of reality concerning the ugly nature or real world of politics.

As for Constantine, how'd you like it?? It was better than I had expected.
 

Silver Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 722
Registered: Sep-04
Paul,

I was being a bit obscure, my point being losing or winning usually means you're dead...

Constantine - hmmm - yeah it was OK. I kind of enjoyed it I think. Yes, I'd watch a Constantine 2, in the cinema probably. I did feel, though, that they weren't really sure whether they were making a Matrix spinoff or not. It felt like they were trying to take advantage of Keanu's Matrix success I think, and that detracted from the movie. On its own though, I think it's pretty good and worth watching once at least.

I think I wish I'd seen it on the big screen. That would make a difference.

Regards,
Frank.
 

Gold Member
Username: Paul_ohstbucks

Post Number: 1885
Registered: Jan-05
I agree that some of the music and sound effects were very matrix like.
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Shop Related Deals

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us