AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 7/17/2004 7:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:MtmIc.58267$MB3.50681@attbi_s04...
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 7/10/2004 10:37 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53

(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: chung

...snip to content.... That is your POV. I find it interesting that
you
would take such a POV
without
actually listening to the product.

I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.

Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually
listening.

How am I making presumptions?

You said you don't think the amp in question is worth listening to
without
listening to it. I find that a bit presumptuous.

This attitude is typical of another high-end platitude "You are
unqualified
to
comment on a product that you've never listened to."

Well, I suppose some people are comfortable forming opinions about sound
they
haven't heard. I'm not one of those people.

This is simply another
merchandising technique to forestall critical comment.

No. I am not involved in merchandising. I simply don't like to make
presumptions that you seem to be comfortable making. I am surprised that
some
one who has spent so much time decrying audiophiles who let their biases
affect
there purchasing decisions would so easily fall victim to his own biases.

It assumes that there
are special evaluative qualities which only high-end promoters (including
buyers) possess. And only insiders can have access.

No it doesn't. It presumes that the listening experience is the final
arbitrator of quality. For many of us that is the purpose of the hobby. To
listen. There is nothing wrong with being more interested in measurements
than
listening pleasure if that is what intersts you. To each his own.

A false choice. Those of us concerned with what the measurements reveal are
interested in them BECAUSE they relate to better listening, at least for us.

Is that because of what you actually hear or your biases based on measurements?
You will never really know without bias controled comparisons will you?

The hobby is still called high-fi and that has a meaning.

Yes hifi short for high fidelity. Fidelity meaning truth. Truth to what? For me
it is truth to the sound of live music. That does not neccessarily always mean
truth to the componet directly adjacent in the chain. The recording and
playback system has to be considered in total when evaluating fidelity and the
final result is determined by ear not by measurements.

Anything that
gets us closer to the intent of the artist by removing distortion, noise,
compression, or whatever might be hiding the choices made by the artist and
the engineer is a benefit.

True for studio albums I suppose. But it is hard to know the intent of the
artists. For live recordings the artists' intent is more a matter of
performance and we are really speaking of the recording engineer's intent.

I don't really care about other preferences,
they are yours and you're welcome to them, but if they include things like
flawed playback devices, they are LOWER-fi.

All recording/playback systems are flawed. I'm just looking for the best
overall playback system I can afford and the best issues of my favorite
recordings. For me that is the path which brings me to what I percieve to be
higher fidelity to live music and that which makes live music intrinsicly more
beautiful generally speaking.