[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 14, 9:12*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

Really? This actually shocks you? It shocks you that people decide for
themselves which technologies to adopt? Perhaps that is truly shocking
to those who must have every latest gee-whiz gee-gaw.

Mpffffffff... Of necessity, the term "audiophile" is self-defined.
Given that there are thousands of options at any of several levels
rendering multiples-of-thousands of combinations and permutations,
there is no single result nor, therefore a single definition of the
term. About the best definition I can come up with is an Audiophile
strives to reach a sound that *he* or *she* enjoys thoroughly. Nor
would I attempt, nor am I so arrogant as to believe that I could,
define that sound for anyone else but for me.

As to technology - it has its place. And it has its dangers. Not
written as a Luddite, but there are diminishing returns with
technology - it remains to the individual to determine where that
point might be.

For me, this is a hobby. I enjoy it. Because I have some small
troubleshooting skills and some small amounts of tooling and
instrumentation, I can do things at a remarkably low cost as compared
to unskilled individuals. This both adds to the pleasure and adds to
the challenge. I am permitted to laugh at the Audiophool segment of
the hobby - as I define it - and they are most certainly permitted to
laugh at me by whatever standards they choose.

What I do find particularly odious is that there is at least one
individual here who makes a distinct and deliberate effort to be a
killjoy - based on a one-note principle. These sorts of individuals
should not be permitted to affect either one's choices or one's
enjoyment of them.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA