On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:57:24 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

The Krell is useful as a reference, because if
I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say
the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like
the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-)


So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select
certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks,
their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever.

So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average
consumer again?

Yeah, apparently that "brutal look" and the joy of ownership is worth
a couple of grand, at least. That's a lot of CDs and flagstone tile
for the kitchen.

Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen
floor.

So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for
hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is
something that you disagree with.

As noted, it's also a useful reference, and keeps the peanut
gallery at bay.

Actually it makes you look a bit hypocritical when you use the cost
vs. benefit thing so loosely. I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000
for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same
outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of
the gear, just as YOU aren't.