"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ayn Marx wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:

snip


PS: On one point I think we'd agree. To achieve decent outcomes in
something like analogue engineering processes, such as the design and
manufacture of say, a turntable/arm/cartridge that's state of the art,
large amounts of money must be spent.

The engineering per se is not expensive. It has long, long since been
reduced to practice, documented, discussed. There is nothing
proprietary or radical about it. The best example is the Linn Sondek,
essentially a uprated, better made version of the JFK/MM era AR
turntable. Any patents ran out decades ago.


The Sondek was also based on Thorens turntables of the time. I don't think
there were any patents involved.

The price is high because the market is inversely-price-sensitive, the
units are built in small quantities, and because there is a fair bit of
skilled hand labor involved at Western salaries (though I'd venture to
say that if there's a Ferrari in Linn's parking lot it does not belong
to any of the assemblers or technicians.)


In the 1970s and 1980s, when it was at its prime relative to the rest of the
market, the Sondek was actually not bad value for money. The machining of
the bearings to better than 5 microns was quite expensive, requiring
tempertaure controlled lathes etc. Linn's Glaswegian workers were paid f.a.
and the company was heavily subsidised by EU money - Ivor had a mere Jaguar
XJ 12.

Given a positively-price-sensitive market condition, substantially
higher quantities of product (leading to increased automation, design
to use more precise techniques on automated bases, etc.) and the use of
less expensive assembly labor-although that's a nominal part of the
whole package-it is absolutely and conclusively certain that the exact
quality of a current Linn table-arm-cartridge combination could be
reduced, probably drastically. However, arguably, a small specialist
firm like Linn could _then_ build a product yet better than the one
they currently do for more money than the mass produced version.

As Ayn points out below, the Sondek has not been up with the pack for some
time. Initially this was due to political considerations inside Linn. I
suspect now it is more due to a realisation that tLPs are at best a medium
resolution system and they have concentrated more on SACD players which can
outperform any turntable.


There will always be "more", a "higher end". However there have to be
objective standards or the "higher end" will be "higher" only in the
minds of the buyer, who will be a laughingstock in the eyes of others.


In a British trade magazine, Ken Kessler continually makes the point that
hifi high-end will only survive if it can model itself on the high-end car,
watch etc trades where people buy things as much for status, looks etc as
for engineering utility - and are marketed by much more sophisticated means
than hifi. Very few hifi companies, including hi-end ones, make much money
these days. I think consumers in there eagerness to get things at the lowest
prices often forget the other half of the equation, producers who may love
their chosen field but also have to eat.

Rod

(Dr) Rod Crawford
for Legend Acoustics
www.legendspeakers.com.au

"Then how do you explain the fact that high-end salons have a steady
stream of customers, many of them repeat customers?"

For the same reason astrologers and fortune tellers have a steady
stream of customers. High-end folk sell image and hope that the marketing
pitch is really true and all the perceptions the brain can conjure tell
them it is true, as the choir of their peers and the audio mags cheer them
on, just like believers in astrology and esp.

Rod Crawford said:

I think consumers in there eagerness to get things at the lowest
prices often forget the other half of the equation, producers who may love
their chosen field but also have to eat.

This is an excellent illumination of the divide between Real Audio Guys
and 'borgs. Feeding a 'borg is simplicity itself.

said:

"Then how do you explain the fact that high-end salons have a steady
stream of customers, many of them repeat customers?"

For the same reason astrologers and fortune tellers have a steady
stream of customers.

I'll bet you're posting from aus.hifi, right? Your group seems to have a
major 'borg infestation.

"If only they knew about science, like we do. We know it all. Resistance
is futile."

You're as clueless as the rest of the 'borgs. Fortune tellers is the limit
of your understanding. How feeble.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
"ScottW" said:

Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the addition
of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.


Please note that second-hand quality audio gear seems to hold up its
value pretty well.

A used Krell, Mark Levinson, Rowland, Audio Research, yes even Quad or
Radford can't be had for a bargain.

Very true... I listened long and hard at Quad 988s at 6K vs used ESL-63s at
less than a third of that. Frankly, the difference wasn't very noticeable
especially with a sub. The 63's was an easy choice.

ScottW

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Rod Crawford said:

I think consumers in there eagerness to get things at the lowest
prices often forget the other half of the equation, producers who may
love
their chosen field but also have to eat.

This is an excellent illumination of the divide between Real Audio Guys
and 'borgs. Feeding a 'borg is simplicity itself.

Why do you get so bent on such a subtle difference.
You yourself say, "Yes, we know marketing talk is largely BS. But it's you
'borgs who can't accept that the same hype happens in audio as in every
other luxury category."

So in your view high-end isn't about audio performance.. its about glitz,
glamour and status.
You say thats OK and give the marketing BS a
pass. The "borgs" say No, marketing BS is not ok.

But where does that leave the folks who believe the hype and think
there is something to be had in terms of superior performance?

George, you're more borg than you realize.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:9pkZe.121365$Ep.28553@lakeread02...

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
"ScottW" said:

Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the
addition
of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.


Please note that second-hand quality audio gear seems to hold up its
value pretty well.

A used Krell, Mark Levinson, Rowland, Audio Research, yes even Quad or
Radford can't be had for a bargain.

Very true... I listened long and hard at Quad 988s at 6K vs used ESL-63s
at less than a third of that. Frankly, the difference wasn't very
noticeable especially with a sub. The 63's was an easy choice.

Ooops.... I missed the can't. I thought all of my used purchases were a
bargain
compared to the new price.. except maybe that Arcam .

ScottW

Mikey, you have an inferior mind. In order to remind you of your mental
deficit, we examine your post, with both an eye to the bad grammar and
punctuation contained within. We continue with the accepted definition of
"luxury", which shows that you do not correctly understand the meaning of
this word.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

[snip]

determine if they do ANYTHING different than cost more?

I don't want tobe things

Nobody is asking you "tobe" anything other than a lungfish.

things that aren't capable of happening
"Things", as in "events that happen" have no capability. Only devices and
people possessed of the active principle have "capability".

When you buy something considered a luxury, it has things that can
objectively be considered better than the plain vanilla version.

Actually, this is not true. According to the definition of luxury as given
by Hyperdictionary,
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/searc...?define=luxury
1.. [n] something that is an indulgence rather than a necessity
2.. [n] the quality possessed by something that is excessively expensive
3.. [n] wealth as evidenced by sumptuous living
According to the definition, objective characteristics play no part.

A more comfortable chair
is a subjective quality.

a longer lasting engine,
is a utilititarian characteristic, not a characteristic of luxury.

whatever, it means improvement
other than cosmetic.

Mikey, cosmetics are part of luxury, as subsumed by definition [3]: wealth
as evidenced by sumptuous living. A person can choose to live luxuriously by
possession of cosmetically attractive items.

All you understand about value is how much something
costs.

To that end, audiophiles try to get equipment that doesn't audibly
distort.
Mikey, some do, and some don't.
Once you have a device that achieves that end, anything
more is not luxury, it's window drressing.

Not "drressing", you fool. "Dressing". You are soooo stupid.
According to Definition 1, luxury is "something that is an indulgence
rather than a necessity".

While some may think it nice to
have gear that looks as good as it sounds, for most of us the sound comes
first.

You wouldn't know, Mikey. Your mind is too weak. And I'm quite sure you have
little money to spend, so your experience is quite limited. You have never
had the benefit of exposure to the many delights of the high end.

Which other luxury categories market things that can't do what they are
claimed to be able to do?

Mikey, "categories" is not a company that markets things. Your sentence is
meaningless.

Best Buy, as an example, sells hundreds of low-priced boxes out of each
store each week. A high-end salon sells a few boxes each week. "Amps is
amps!" shriek the 'borgs. Then how do you explain the fact that high-end
salons have a steady stream of customers, many of them repeat customers?
"Ripoff!" intone the 'borgs, showing their abysmal ignorance.

And the evidence to the contrary is where? Aside from the possiblity of
better quality speakers, what besides the better digs is there to
recomend?

Your mind is too weak to perceive, Mikey. You are the dumbest, least
intelligent member of this group. Your mind is a muddle. Did you do drugs as
a teenager? Or do you simply have bad genes?

Bull****, we beleive it should do what it advertises it can do.
Mikey, "beleive" is not a word. Perchance do you mean "believe" ?

If it can't do that they shouldn't claim it does.
Mikey, a device does not advertise. A company may.

If it can, it's worth then becomes something to consider.
"It's worth then becomes" ? What kind of drivel is this?

**** you, snob.

The mckelviphibian finishes with an obscenity.
Mikey, you are, beyond a doubt, the least intelligent participant in
rec.audio.opinion.
I'm sorry, Mikey, but your brain is on the low end of the evolutionary
scale.

Yapper tries to attain a moment of lucidity....

This is an excellent illumination of the divide between Real Audio Guys
and 'borgs. Feeding a 'borg is simplicity itself.

So in your view high-end isn't about audio performance.. its about glitz,
glamour and status.

..... and he falls flat on his face.

Scottie, do me a favor and tell me you were deliberately "debating
trading" just to yank my chain.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
Mikey, you have an inferior mind. In order to remind you of your mental
deficit, we examine your post, with both an eye to the bad grammar and
punctuation contained within.

Naturally, since you can't refute the truth of what I said, you nitpick.

We continue with the accepted definition of
"luxury", which shows that you do not correctly understand the meaning of
this word.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

[snip]

determine if they do ANYTHING different than cost more?

I don't want tobe things

Nobody is asking you "tobe" anything other than a lungfish.

Nobody asked you to be the grammar police either.

things that aren't capable of happening
"Things", as in "events that happen" have no capability. Only devices and
people possessed of the active principle have "capability".

So, you're not capable of discussing the topic, got it.

When you buy something considered a luxury, it has things that can
objectively be considered better than the plain vanilla version.

Actually, this is not true. According to the definition of luxury as
given
by Hyperdictionary,
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/searc...?define=luxury
1.. [n] something that is an indulgence rather than a necessity
2.. [n] the quality possessed by something that is excessively expensive
3.. [n] wealth as evidenced by sumptuous living
According to the definition, objective characteristics play no part.


Yet there are few luxury items I know of that don't offer something more
than you would find in the plain vanilla version.

A more comfortable chair
is a subjective quality.

a longer lasting engine,
is a utilititarian characteristic, not a characteristic of luxury.

whatever, it means improvement
other than cosmetic.

Mikey, cosmetics are part of luxury, as subsumed by definition [3]: wealth
as evidenced by sumptuous living. A person can choose to live luxuriously
by
possession of cosmetically attractive items.

All you understand about value is how much something
costs.

Wrong again moose breath. Audio gear that sounds like other audio gear but
costs more because it is heavier, or has heavier construction, does qualify
for your definititon of luxury, but it still sounds just the same (usually)
as the plain vanilla.

If you want to buy expensivestuff that doesn't sound any different than
lesser priced gear be my guest. I'd rather spend the money on more CD's.

To that end, audiophiles try to get equipment that doesn't audibly
distort.
Mikey, some do, and some don't.

Most don't.

Once you have a device that achieves that end, anything
more is not luxury, it's window drressing.

Not "drressing", you fool. "Dressing". You are soooo stupid.
According to Definition 1, luxury is "something that is an indulgence
rather than a necessity".

That's not how high end audio is marketed though, it's supposed to provide
better quality sound.

While some may think it nice to
have gear that looks as good as it sounds, for most of us the sound comes
first.

You wouldn't know, Mikey. Your mind is too weak. And I'm quite sure you
have
little money to spend, so your experience is quite limited.

You have no idea how much I have to spend or have spent.


You have never
had the benefit of exposure to the many delights of the high end.


Complete bull****. I used to sell the stuff.

Which other luxury categories market things that can't do what they are
claimed to be able to do?

Mikey, "categories" is not a company that markets things. Your sentence is
meaningless.


As is your critique.

Best Buy, as an example, sells hundreds of low-priced boxes out of each
store each week. A high-end salon sells a few boxes each week. "Amps is
amps!" shriek the 'borgs. Then how do you explain the fact that
high-end
salons have a steady stream of customers, many of them repeat
customers?
"Ripoff!" intone the 'borgs, showing their abysmal ignorance.

And the evidence to the contrary is where? Aside from the possiblity of
better quality speakers, what besides the better digs is there to
recomend?


Bull****, we beleive it should do what it advertises it can do.
Mikey, "beleive" is not a word. Perchance do you mean "believe" ?

If it can't do that they shouldn't claim it does.
Mikey, a device does not advertise. A company may.

Who do you suppose "they" are, you twit?

If it can, it's worth then becomes something to consider.
"It's worth then becomes" ? What kind of drivel is this?

**** you, snob.

The mckelviphibian finishes with an obscenity.

I was responding to one.

Mikey, you are, beyond a doubt, the least intelligent participant in
rec.audio.opinion.
I'm sorry, Mikey, but your brain is on the low end of the evolutionary
scale.

I'll have to post more then so I can keep you busy correcting things, maybe
then you'll stop blathering about things you know nothing about.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

[snip].

Actually, this is not true. According to the definition of luxury as
given
by Hyperdictionary,
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/searc...?define=luxury
1.. [n] something that is an indulgence rather than a necessity
2.. [n] the quality possessed by something that is excessively
expensive
3.. [n] wealth as evidenced by sumptuous living
According to the definition, objective characteristics play no part.


Yet there are few luxury items I know of that don't offer something more
than you would find in the plain vanilla version.

Mikey, you can't argue with the dictionary. What you "don't know of" is the
consequence of being a profoundly stupid person.

wrote in message
...
"Then how do you explain the fact that high-end salons have a steady
stream of customers, many of them repeat customers?"

For the same reason astrologers and fortune tellers have a steady
stream of customers. High-end folk sell image and hope that the marketing
pitch is really true and all the perceptions the brain can conjure tell
them it is true, as the choir of their peers and the audio mags cheer them
on, just like believers in astrology and esp.

What you say is partly true. I see no point in assessing the percentage. But
the high end also includes components of great merit.
In an argument, the middle ground gets lost.

Do you believe there is no middle ground?

" wrote in message
ink.net...

[snip]

ididots like Middius and you
are the people who understand that measurements have actual meanbing and
that when two devices meansure similarly enough, they sound the same.

Mikey, if you ever find an "ididot" with "meanbing" and similar "meansure",
let me know.

You realize, don't you, that your inferior mind is the cause of these
mistakes?

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Yapper tries to attain a moment of lucidity....

This is an excellent illumination of the divide between Real Audio Guys
and 'borgs. Feeding a 'borg is simplicity itself.

So in your view high-end isn't about audio performance.. its about glitz,
glamour and status.

.... and he falls flat on his face.

Scottie, do me a favor and tell me you were deliberately "debating
trading" just to yank my chain.

Which just happens to be a choker on George the closet borg.
Why don't you tell us why you lack the balls to leave your own
quotes in place?

ScottW

Rod Crawford wrote:

As Ayn points out below, the Sondek has not been up with the pack for some
time. Initially this was due to political considerations inside Linn. I
suspect now it is more due to a realisation that tLPs are at best a medium
resolution system and they have concentrated more on SACD players which can
outperform any turntable.


Well they don't seem to be getting very far...my LP12/Graham/Lyra still
outperforms my Unidisk by a large margin.

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:59:02 +0800, "Alan Rutlidge"
wrote:


Yes. Only to have it go bang in your face.

No necessarily.

Are you Scottish, Alan?

I've built plenty of SS amplifiers including pre-amps and
power amps to in excess of 300W RMS per channel with no problems.

No doubt. I really meant if I were to build it. :-)

wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"SmakDaddy" wrote in message
...
| Neither can most
| people. Guess what? $10,000 amps and $30,000 speakers aren't marketed
to
| the likes of you.
|
| So therefor we have no right to assess their value as equipment or to
| determine if they do ANYTHING different than cost more?

I think what the original ****tard poster doesn't get, is that its the
people he refers to as 'borgs' who delelop, manufacture, and repair the
stuff in the first place. Its some bull**** corporate unit and some
bull****
deluded retailer who crank the price up to make 1000%+ profit. I am not
saying a $10000 amp is equal to some dodgey $80 jobbo, but no human
senses
could tell the differnece between a $1500 amp and a $10000 amp,
especially
when they all use the same made-in-korea semiconductors within.

1000% is an exaggeration of an unfortunate situation.
But the argument that the country of origin for semiconductors makes
diverse
amplifiers equal is a bad one. Amplifiers vary widely in sound, but not
necessarily on the basis of price.

And your evidence of this is where?

I find that MOSFETs sound different from
bipolars, and IGFETs.

But only in sighted listening so the comment ios useless.

The way MOSFETs are driven is yet a further division.

Another worthless anecdote.

And high bias bipolar amps sound different from low bias designs.

More unscientific crapola.

So, I take it, to you, a Halcro sounds the same as a Parasound?

You have a DBT that shows otherwise?

The "borgs" are not the makers. The "borgs" are users, not of equipment,
but
of other human beings.

More nonsense. The ones being called Borgs by ididots like Middius and you
are the people who understand that measurements have actual meanbing and
that when two devices meansure similarly enough, they sound the same.

You ask Mr. Morein :" You have a DBT that shows otherwise?"
Just to remind you that so far no one, and you least of all, referenced
a DBT that shows anything other thasn "It all sounds the same".
Whatever in audio is being compared.
Timje to reach for an argument from another barrel. Any in
sight?
Ludovic Mirabel

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 20:24:52 GMT, "
wrote:

If you are implying here that Linn's turntables are still state of the
art I'd suggest you are behind the times.

Isn't state of the art and turntable an oxymoron?

Isn't an oxymoron an idiot with a blowtorch?

That aside, I agree with you. It beggars belief that people are still
subjecting themselves to the nightmare that is LP reproduction---a
nightmare I thankfully awoke from many years ago. It's like those
people who self-mutilate because they secretly hate themselves. Could
that be the case here?

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:vomZe.121374$Ep.49612@lakeread02...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote
in message ...


Yapper tries to attain a moment of lucidity....

This is an excellent illumination of the divide between Real Audio
Guys
and 'borgs. Feeding a 'borg is simplicity itself.

So in your view high-end isn't about audio performance.. its about
glitz,
glamour and status.

.... and he falls flat on his face.

Scottie, do me a favor and tell me you were deliberately "debating
trading" just to yank my chain.

Which just happens to be a choker on George the closet borg.
Why don't you tell us why you lack the balls to leave your own
quotes in place?

Actually, Scott prefers to write like this:
"Why don't you tell us... why you lack the balls to leave... your own quotes
in place?"

because he thinks it looks sophisticated!
Have you tried drinking absinthe, Scott? Real sophisticates do, you know.

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:56:32 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

For the same reason astrologers and fortune tellers have a steady
stream of customers.

I'll bet you're posting from aus.hifi, right?

Well, you did post to aus.hi-fi, George.

Your group seems to have a
major 'borg infestation.

Yes. However, he does have a valid point which your reply failed to
address.

"dualtone" wrote in message
oups.com...

Rod Crawford wrote:

As Ayn points out below, the Sondek has not been up with the pack for
some
time. Initially this was due to political considerations inside Linn. I
suspect now it is more due to a realisation that tLPs are at best a
medium
resolution system and they have concentrated more on SACD players which
can
outperform any turntable.


Well they don't seem to be getting very far...my LP12/Graham/Lyra still
outperforms my Unidisk by a large margin.


In the Oct 05 Stereophile only one turntable is rated A+ Rockport at
US$75k) yet 4 SACD or DVD-A players are rated as A+ including the UniDisk
(US$10k) and the Sony SCD-9000ES (US$3k) that I own - I also own a Lingo
Sondek which now gets only a B rating. IMHO both the latter 2 ratings are
right.

Rod

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:vomZe.121374$Ep.49612@lakeread02...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote
in message ...


Yapper tries to attain a moment of lucidity....

This is an excellent illumination of the divide between Real Audio
Guys
and 'borgs. Feeding a 'borg is simplicity itself.

So in your view high-end isn't about audio performance.. its about
glitz,
glamour and status.

.... and he falls flat on his face.

Scottie, do me a favor and tell me you were deliberately "debating
trading" just to yank my chain.

Which just happens to be a choker on George the closet borg.
Why don't you tell us why you lack the balls to leave your own
quotes in place?

Actually, Scott prefers to write like this:
"Why don't you tell us... why you lack the balls to leave... your own
quotes
in place?"

because he thinks it looks sophisticated!
Have you tried drinking absinthe, Scott? Real sophisticates do, you know.

I'll defer to your superior knowledge of "real sophisticates" there Bob.
Not the kind of crowd I like to party with.

ScottW

paul packer said:

Your group seems to have a
major 'borg infestation.

Yes. However, he does have a valid point which your reply failed to
address.

Sorry, I disagree. His "point" was a mindless rant that explains nothing.
Probably because he/she/it understands nothing.

Robert Morein said:

Have you tried drinking absinthe, Scott? Real sophisticates do, you know.

Scooter drank turpentine when he was a young redneck.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:wkoZe.121383$Ep.52249@lakeread02...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:vomZe.121374$Ep.49612@lakeread02...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote
in message ...


Yapper tries to attain a moment of lucidity....

This is an excellent illumination of the divide between Real Audio
Guys
and 'borgs. Feeding a 'borg is simplicity itself.

So in your view high-end isn't about audio performance.. its about
glitz,
glamour and status.

.... and he falls flat on his face.

Scottie, do me a favor and tell me you were deliberately "debating
trading" just to yank my chain.

Which just happens to be a choker on George the closet borg.
Why don't you tell us why you lack the balls to leave your own
quotes in place?

Actually, Scott prefers to write like this:
"Why don't you tell us... why you lack the balls to leave... your own
quotes
in place?"

because he thinks it looks sophisticated!
Have you tried drinking absinthe, Scott? Real sophisticates do, you
know.

I'll defer to your superior knowledge of "real sophisticates" there Bob.
Not the kind of crowd I like to party with.

ScottW

I know, Scott. You and Mikey can search for beer together. What's your
favorite brand? Lowbrow?

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 20:24:52 GMT, "
wrote:

If you are implying here that Linn's turntables are still state of the
art I'd suggest you are behind the times.

Isn't state of the art and turntable an oxymoron?

Isn't an oxymoron an idiot with a blowtorch?

That aside, I agree with you. It beggars belief that people are still
subjecting themselves to the nightmare that is LP reproduction---a
nightmare I thankfully awoke from many years ago. It's like those
people who self-mutilate because they secretly hate themselves. Could
that be the case here?

Back in the day, I had an AR turntable and a Dynaco PAS-3X turntable, and
some college-special amplifier, and I was in love with it. Then, after a ten
year hiatus, I was reintroduced to hifi with the CD. A few years more, and I
gave records a brief spin.

I could not stand what I heard. Vinyl was awful. What had changed?

Clearly, all tastes are acquired, and forgotten. In Norway and Sweden,
people eat rotten whale blubber snacks. In other countries, it's stake
tartare, or sheep eyeballs.

There is no accounting for taste.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Robert Morein said:

Have you tried drinking absinthe, Scott? Real sophisticates do, you
know.

Scooter drank turpentine when he was a young redneck.

Thank you. This explains much.
The active ingredient in absinthe, thujone, is a terpene, similar in
structure to turpentine.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 20:24:52 GMT, "
wrote:

If you are implying here that Linn's turntables are still state of the
art I'd suggest you are behind the times.

Isn't state of the art and turntable an oxymoron?

Isn't an oxymoron an idiot with a blowtorch?

That aside, I agree with you. It beggars belief that people are still
subjecting themselves to the nightmare that is LP reproduction---a
nightmare I thankfully awoke from many years ago. It's like those
people who self-mutilate because they secretly hate themselves. Could
that be the case here?

Back in the day, I had an AR turntable and a Dynaco PAS-3X turntable, and
some college-special amplifier, and I was in love with it. Then, after a
ten
year hiatus, I was reintroduced to hifi with the CD. A few years more, and
I
gave records a brief spin.

I could not stand what I heard. Vinyl was awful. What had changed?

Clearly, all tastes are acquired, and forgotten. In Norway and Sweden,
people eat rotten whale blubber snacks. In other countries, it's stake
tartare, or sheep eyeballs.

There is no accounting for taste.



You've got soft pretzels, "at least" here we get.....steamed crabs.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
rabbled on in a normal display of inbred bull**** in message
news |
|
| SmakDaddy said:
|
| You don't know what 'borgs are. You just do not know anything.
|
| Wrong again, little one
|
| Stop lying. You said:
|
| people he refers to as 'borgs' who delelop[sic], manufacture, and repair
the
| stuff in the first place.
|
| This shows your ignorance. 'Borgs do none of those things. If they did,
| they would not be 'borgs. You so stupid, yo' mama filed to get your genome
| reassembled.
|
| Also, fix your newsreader, imbecile.

Wrong again, little one.

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 19:55:19 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

because he thinks it looks sophisticated!
Have you tried drinking absinthe, Scott? Real sophisticates do, you know.

I'll defer to your superior knowledge of "real sophisticates" there Bob.
Not the kind of crowd I like to party with.

Time for Scott to break out another Pabst's to go with his Rotel.

"Rod Crawford" wrote in message


In a British trade magazine, Ken Kessler continually
makes the point that hifi high-end will only survive if
it can model itself on the high-end car, watch etc trades
where people buy things as much for status, looks etc as
for engineering utility - and are marketed by much more
sophisticated means than hifi. Very few hifi companies,
including hi-end ones, make much money these days. I
think consumers in there eagerness to get things at the
lowest prices often forget the other half of the
equation, producers who may love their chosen field but
also have to eat.

I think Kessler's point is well taken, but perhaps with
inadequate emphasis on high performance.

Most really expensive cars provide at least above average
performance. AFAIK a Rolls will do 0-60 in less than 6
seconds. And, the fastest production passenger cars in the
world are generally way over $100,000, one exception being
the Ariel Atom.

This compares with the very popular self-defeatment segment
of high end audio, complete with $10,000's power amplifiers
with miniscule power output and ludicrously high amounts of
distortion of all kinds.

dave weil said:

Time for Scott to break out another Pabst's to go with his Rotel.

I may have to trade in my Rotel if they all have the stink of Scottie on
them.

" said:

Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the addition
of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.


Please note that second-hand quality audio gear seems to hold up its
value pretty well.

A used Krell, Mark Levinson, Rowland, Audio Research, yes even Quad or
Radford can't be had for a bargain.


But products from lesser known names that soound identical can be.


That may be true, but with the brands mentioned above, it's not just
about sonical performance IMO.

The comment was directed at Robert, who stated that "the big audio
names seem to come in and out of fashion", with which statement I
disagree, at least where it concerns well-known brand names that are
with us for several decades now.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"ScottW" said:

Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the
addition
of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.


Please note that second-hand quality audio gear seems to hold up its
value pretty well.

A used Krell, Mark Levinson, Rowland, Audio Research, yes even Quad or
Radford can't be had for a bargain.

Very true... I listened long and hard at Quad 988s at 6K vs used ESL-63s
at less than a third of that. Frankly, the difference wasn't very
noticeable especially with a sub. The 63's was an easy choice.

Ooops.... I missed the can't. I thought all of my used purchases were a
bargain
compared to the new price.. except maybe that Arcam .


I was thinking about amplifiers specifically, but think about what a
10-year old second-hand Bose speaker will sell for... :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

" said:

10%! Not likely. If you choose to not use the overweight faceplates and
such, you can save money, but the components themselves are more expensive
for the DIYer than for the mass producer. There are some DIY groups that
pool their money to get better pricing on projects they have interest in,
but overall you can't build an amp or preamp for substantially less than a
competently designed one that's mass produced. Naturally they will sound
indistinguishable from each other, again assuming competent design.


I think I can build a Wavac for less than 10% retail :-)

Come to think of it, the parts cost of a Levinson or Krell is probably
about 10...20% of retail.
Schematics are available on the net, if you're not able to design one
yourself.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Robert Morein wrote:
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Robert Morein said:

Have you tried drinking absinthe, Scott? Real sophisticates do, you
know.

Scooter drank turpentine when he was a young redneck.

Thank you. This explains much.
The active ingredient in absinthe, thujone, is a terpene, similar in
structure to turpentine.

You know something about aromatic terpinols?
OOOOOOOH! Can I play with your HPLC & make some Tetrahydrocannabinolic
Acid Synthase?

Missy Anonytroll squealed:

You know something about aromatic terpinols?
OOOOOOOH! Can I play with your HPLC & make some Tetrahydrocannabinolic
Acid Synthase?

Girls don't win ****ing contests. paulie will explain this to you in case
you're the dried-up old hag they say you are.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" said:

Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the
addition
of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.


Please note that second-hand quality audio gear seems to hold up its
value pretty well.

A used Krell, Mark Levinson, Rowland, Audio Research, yes even Quad or
Radford can't be had for a bargain.

Very true... I listened long and hard at Quad 988s at 6K vs used ESL-63s
at less than a third of that. Frankly, the difference wasn't very
noticeable especially with a sub. The 63's was an easy choice.

Ooops.... I missed the can't. I thought all of my used purchases were a
bargain
compared to the new price.. except maybe that Arcam .


I was thinking about amplifiers specifically, but think about what a
10-year old second-hand Bose speaker will sell for... :-)

I see new 901's are 1400. E-bay has quite a few in $500 range.
They seem comparable to my used 63's.

ScottW

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 08:06:17 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



dave weil said:

Time for Scott to break out another Pabst's to go with his Rotel.

I may have to trade in my Rotel if they all have the stink of Scottie on
them.

Does it smell like Velveeta?

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:59:02 +0800, "Alan Rutlidge"
wrote:


Yes. Only to have it go bang in your face.

No necessarily.

Are you Scottish, Alan?

Nee laddie, I naught be Scottish. But what has that got to do with the cost
of DIY amplifiers?


I've built plenty of SS amplifiers including pre-amps and
power amps to in excess of 300W RMS per channel with no problems.

No doubt. I really meant if I were to build it. :-)

Kit amplifiers require a reasonable degree of soldering skill (assuming you
want it to last), basic hand tools such as diagonal wire cutters, small
pliers and an assortment of screwdrivers. To get the average SS power amp
up and running requires only a multimeter as basic test equipment. Testing
for performance is usually beyond the average home constructor because of
the test equipment required (low distortion oscillator, N&D set, a CRO and
dummy loads). You'd be surprised just how simple to can be. Gee even Phil
can assemble kit speakers.

Cheers,
Alan