[John Stone]

On 11/15/09 7:23 PM, in article , "Ed Seedhou=
se"
wrote:

On Nov 15, 10:56=A0am, John Stone wrote:
=20
But I would guess that there
was a certain "coolness factor" involved in these choices. Nobody can =
argue
that these components make a strong visual statement.
=20
Which surely has nothing to do with their being "high end" or not. As
with so much of what many folks seem to be talking about when they use
these words, "high end" in this particular thread really seems to have
very little to do with actual sound quality.

I disagree. Like it or not, "high end audio" has always been about both
performance and appearance. Look at an old McIntosh tube amp. It had a
chrome plated chassis and big black lacquered transformers with fancy lab=
els
on the top. Utterly useless except for showing off. The associated preamp=
s
used glass front panels with green backlighting. Totally unnecessary, but
great to show off to your friends. While these products indeed had super=
ior
performance to many other components of the day, McIntosh and others lear=
ned
early on that commercial success required more than just better technical
performance. Those Chinese products are merely copying a formula that's b=
een
around forever.=20

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Nov 16, 10:39=A0am, John Stone wrote:

Which surely has nothing to do with their being "high end" or not. =A0A=
s
with so much of what many folks seem to be talking about when they use
these words, "high end" in this particular thread really seems to have
very little to do with actual sound quality.

I disagree. Like it or not, "high end audio" has always been about both
performance and appearance.

Actually, I think that's not disagreeing, that's agreeing. Think
about it.

Look at an old McIntosh tube amp.

Why? "Always" goes back a good deal further than that, as does my own
memory. And it includes a time when appearance was not anywhere near
as much a consideration as performance.

[Nickyrash]

Originally Posted by Ed Seedhouse[_2_]

On Nov 16, 10:39=A0am, John Stone wrote:

Which surely has nothing to do with their being "high end" or not. =A0A=
s
with so much of what many folks seem to be talking about when they use
these words, "high end" in this particular thread really seems to have
very little to do with actual sound quality.

I disagree. Like it or not, "high end audio" has always been about both
performance and appearance.

Actually, I think that's not disagreeing, that's agreeing. Think
about it.

Look at an old McIntosh tube amp.

Why? "Always" goes back a good deal further than that, as does my own
memory. And it includes a time when appearance was not anywhere near
as much a consideration as performance.

Hi,

Thanks for sharing this one