[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Peter Wieck wrote:
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.

Room acoustics is commonly the weakest link even in an
'audiophile' playback chain. The 'returns' from technology that
compensates for that weakness are potentially immense.

As are the "negative returns" of pushing the analog signal through a
digital
strainer in order to get the equallization.

Wrong. The digitization itself if no impediment. The qualityh of
implementation of
room correction DSP could well be.

I have yet to hear a single
piece of audio gear (in my system) where the bypassed pure-analog signal
doesn't sound better than the digitally processed one.

Harry, 'digital processing' encompasses a wide variety of outputs.
You are claiming that not one of them ever sounds better than raw...
not even speaker level or delay adjustment.

I am saying that they all destroy ambience retrieval to one degree or
another through my all Thiel surround system.