Sorry for your bad day Paul, but this is not a great reply to these posts.
Mike
--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
>
> > The discussion really wasn't meant as a criticism or anything: just an
> > observation (or a question) about the difference in sound between SMT
> > and thru-hole components. If thru-holes components have differences
> > between themselves, then surely thru-hole vs SMT will sound different.
>
>
> OK, everybody, I've been gritting my teeth up until now, but
> PLEASE STOP. Statements like this have ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATION
> and in fact, can cause a 'snowball' effect like, "Gee, MOTM sounded
so great,
> then Paul switched to SMT and now...pffttt!" or "Well, I ∗was∗ going
to buy
> MOTM but now I heard they are SMT and don't sound as good." and then
everyone
> wonders "what happened" when I go the way of Oakley :(
>
> Also, does anyone ∗really think∗ I would have a MOTM-440 SMT version
that didn't
> sound ∗EXACTLY∗ the same as a thru-hole one? Come on......
>
> What everyone has to realize this that "just idle speculation" turns
into
> "absolute fact"
> on the freakin' Internet. So, unless you have a EE degree, ∗DON''T
SPECULATE∗.
>
> Crap, next I'll hear about changing wire color effects VCF resonance
or some BS.
>
> Paul S.
> I told you I was having a bad day