[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:16:41 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


First of all, let's get straight what we are talking
about here. I'm not interested in, or talking, about
billions of people. I'm talking about high-end
audiophiles - people to whom the reproduction of music
is important.

The myth here is very self-centered. It is the false
claim that reproduction of music is important to only
high end audiophiles.

Yeah, that's why most listen to so-called rack systems
and MP3 players with $2 ear-buds.

No matter how high end true believers posture, there's usually nothing wrong
with the sonics of the electronics in most mid-fi components. Every
high-ender who has ever been given the opportunity to compare good mid-fi
amps and CD players to high end components (the ones that aren't actually
sound effects boxes in drag), comes up random guessing.

OTOH, the phrase rack system includes a lot of bottom-feeder ilk, that nets
out to be a $50 boom box in a different shaped box. The average Joe buys a
few of these, but the bulk of the market aims somewhat higher.

There are no $2 ear buds on the general consumer market - check your local
Best Buy or Circuit City. The cheapest ear buds start out around $10.
Admittedly, you have to pay more than that to get something worth listening
to, but there are some pretty well-regarded earphones in the mass market
stores, and someone is buying them. One example would be the Sony EX71
series.

The average consumer doesn't really care.

In fact the reproduction of music is so important to the
average consumer that the average consumer dropped the
LP like a hot potato as soon as a superior alternative
in the form of the CD became generally available.

The CD was adopted universally because of it's form
factor, not it's sound.

Again we hear this from high end true believers, but is there any proof?
The CD is approximately the same form factor as the 45. Theoretically, the
45 should be a high end analog-lovers dream because the more rapid
rotational speed allows more bandwidth. Didn't turn out that way, did it?

It's small, portable, doesn't
deteriorate as it's played, has no ticks-and pops and
skips. The sound quality meant little to the average
buyer. Still doesn't.

I see obfuscation of the simple fact that tics, pops, inner-groove
distortion, rumble, tone arm resonance, flutter and wow are exactly sound
quality issues. I guess we can learn from posts like this that there are
people to whom none of those things are sound quality issues, because they
keep dismissing them.

They buy cheap receivers,

Which happen to sound very good when hooked up to good
sources and good speakers.

cheap speakers

High end audiophiles don't shop at Best Buy or Circuit
City. Yet both chains sell speakers in the $1,000 and up
range, and that's for just one speaker. The average
consumer wants quality when he can afford it.

Most non-audiophiles would think that $200 is a lot of
money to spend on speakers.

Again we have proof by assertion. No facts, no statistics, just dogmatic
posturing. For better or worse, Joe six-pack spends a lot of money on Bose
systems that start out around $500. If the guardians of the high end weren't
so self-absorbed with their tweeks and boutiques, maybe they could be doing
a little education among the masses with money to spend.

No vinyl playback system can compare its sound quality
to the accurate reproduction that is available in
under-$100 optical disc players.

Under some circumstances you're right.

Since I restricted my comments to the player and not pathological examples
of hyper-compressed, over-produced media, I'm always right.

Under other
circumstances you are dead wrong

More proof by assertion.

then they turn the bass control all the way up and the
treble control all the way down (OK so maybe they don't
any more,

If its not true, why say it?

but a little hyperbole to make a point is no crime)

False claims do nobody any good.

Arny, no offense meant, but you take this stuff MUCH too
seriously.

I take things too seriously? Who is it around here who is still singing the
praises of equipment that has been obsolete for almost 30 years?

and have zero interest in achieving real-sounding
results.

Another self-deception.

Which happens to be true.

More proof by assertion.

Most have probably never heard live, unamplified
music to start with.

Another self-deception.

I just won't deal any further with so many statements
that have no useful basis in fact.

Probably best. You seem to be totally out of touch with
the real world.

I seem to know a lot more about mass-market stores and the preferences and
habits of joe sic-pack.