Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hound.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hound!pearse
From: pearse@hound.UUCP (S.PEARSE)
Newsgroups: net.audio,net.video
Subject: Re: Suround Sound decoding (kind of) and good quality amiplifiers
Message-ID: <1173@hound.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-May-85 22:23:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: hound.1173
Posted: Wed May 22 22:23:18 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 02:13:09 EDT
References: <1789@ukma.UUCP>
Reply-To: pearse@hound.UUCP (55131-S.PEARSE)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 20
Xref: watmath net.audio:4912 net.video:1206

In article <1789@ukma.UUCP> slg@ukma.UUCP (Sean Gilley) writes:
>I recently upgraded my amplifier to a Bang and Olufson Beomaster 2000.
>
>Is this a quality of better amps?  Or is it just a property of B&O, or is
>it something else?
>

The problem you cited may be a quality of better amps, but I underwent
an extensive research of amp and receiver specs two years ago. B&O
was definitely *not* what I would consider a "better amp". In fact,
in my opinion, it had poor specs across the board compared to most
others!

But it has been a while. Maybe B&O has cleaned up its act since I
last checked. Remember: Expensive does not necessarily mean quality!


-- 
Steve Pearse
ihnp4!hound!pearse