[Arny Krueger]

After being told that audiophiles don't use FFTs and measurement mics to
enhance their listening rooms, I sit here amused by the non-response to my
list of recent home audio products from 4 different major manufacturers,
that do exactly that, assisted by their own microprocessor controllers.
FWIW, a number of so-called professional audio products function in a
similar fashion. The major differences are packaging.

I think its time for some old-time audiophiles (of all ages) to realize that
home audio isn't their daddy's Oldsmobile, not even the Cutlass that they
used to drive.

Case in point is an interesting thread over at the Hydrogen Audio Forum
(HA), which is simply one of the proliferating HTML newsgoups that has drawn
a lot of participants from the segment of audiophilia that used to post on
RAHE.

An audiophile on HA complained that he obtained a bad-sounding download from
a major source. Within 24 hours, two 30 second segments of the CD and
downloaded versions of the work had been prepared and uploaded, including
precise time-synching and level-matching. Someone then dowloaded the files
and posted the results of their ABX test, which showed an audible difference
at the 98% confidence level.

BTW, the recording in question (DGG, natch!) shows obvious signs of slipshod
production.

I'm sure that certain RAHE participants would characterize what I saw on HA
as being the activities of audio professionals. In fact not even the
professional audio forums that I participate in (HTML, Usenet, and Mailing
List) achieve this level of technical sophistication. It's just a bunch of
modern consumers using common modern audio tools in their search for truth
about audio.

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger wrote:
After being told that audiophiles don't use FFTs and measurement mics to
enhance their listening rooms, I sit here amused by the non-response to my
list of recent home audio products from 4 different major manufacturers,
that do exactly that, assisted by their own microprocessor controllers.

Oh, Arny, you know Harman, Denon, et al. aren't HIGH-END. *Real* audiophiles
wouldn't dream of using digital EQ...

unless it looked like this and cost this much:

http://www.trinnov-audio.com/optimizer.php

http://www.audyssey.com/soundequalizer/index.html


An audiophile on HA complained that he obtained a bad-sounding download from
a major source. Within 24 hours, two 30 second segments of the CD and
downloaded versions of the work had been prepared and uploaded, including
precise time-synching and level-matching. Someone then dowloaded the files
and posted the results of their ABX test, which showed an audible difference
at the 98% confidence level.

HA.org is quite simply one of the best web resources around, for those truly interested in
audio.


--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
After being told that audiophiles don't use FFTs and measurement mics to
enhance their listening rooms, I sit here amused by the non-response to
my
list of recent home audio products from 4 different major manufacturers,
that do exactly that, assisted by their own microprocessor controllers.

Oh, Arny, you know Harman, Denon, et al. aren't HIGH-END. *Real*
audiophiles
wouldn't dream of using digital EQ...

unless it looked like this and cost this much:

http://www.trinnov-audio.com/optimizer.php

http://www.audyssey.com/soundequalizer/index.html


An audiophile on HA complained that he obtained a bad-sounding download
from
a major source. Within 24 hours, two 30 second segments of the CD and
downloaded versions of the work had been prepared and uploaded, including
precise time-synching and level-matching. Someone then dowloaded the
files
and posted the results of their ABX test, which showed an audible
difference
at the 98% confidence level.

HA.org is quite simply one of the best web resources around, for those
truly interested in
audio.


--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would
oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and
which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

In a way, we're returning to the "flat-earth" days when, in the UK at least,
if you didn't have a Linn Sondek and Naim amplifiers, you were beyond the
pale. Now, it's having to have mega expensive items with measurably poor
audio performance in order to qualify as high-end. I cannot believe that
anyone, short of a charlatan, would manufacture a SET amplifier that costs
huge amounts for appalling performance. Or loudspeakers with horribly spiky
frequency responses and high distortion also costing huge amounts. Or cables
costing hundreds and thousands when $£? 4.99 is all you need to spend to get
the same sound.

What ever happened to Hi-Fi meaning Hi-Fidelity, i.e. low distortion (of all
sorts), and some sensible engineering.

It seems to me that as the major manufacturers now (have been for 30+ years)
make products that are audibly transparent i.e. will pass a straight-wire
bypass test, selling for a few hundred £$?, the "High-End" have to respond
by mega expensive items with audibly flawed performance that will sound
different (hence better!) in a dealers demo.

Why is it that I can assemble a system from 1970 & 80s components that will
be the equal of anything produced now, with the possible exception of
loudness? Where is the progress?

S.



--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 13, 3:31*pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:

Why is it that I can assemble a system from 1970 & 80s components that will
be the equal of anything produced now, with the possible exception of
loudness? Where is the progress?

Actually, including the loudness. Klipsch speakers have been around
since the 40s.

Apart from all that, does anyone here remember the "New" Avery Fisher
Hall at Lincoln Center (NYC)? Back in the day, it was an early
exercise in "Room Tuning" with individually moveable (in three plains)
ceiling panels, echo management, 'acousitic wells' and so forth. It
was a dismal failure. Essentially what was discovered that *either*
they made a series of specific and individal 'sweet spots' - rendering
the rest of the Hall mud, or they set everything to 'neutral'
whereupon all the other compromises made everything a bit less muddy
but no sweet-spots at all. The Sweet Spots were - naturally -
approximately where the measuring instruments were. Funny thing about
that.

Cutting to the chase: "Tuning a room" to a specific sweet-spot as
seems to be popular these days is an act of selfishness, further a
denial of the very nature of listening to music. I agree that nasty
rooms with nasty conditions need to be dealt with - but that can be
done with very low-tech solutions including reasonably careful speaker
placement, furniture placement, perhaps something on the wall here-or-
there, something to break up actual (and quite rare despite rumors to
the contrary) standing waves... NOTHING SPECIAL in other words.

And, it seems that when setting up a room, end-users are far to
willing to act on "received wisdom" vs. actually trying various things
out for themselves. And somehow they feel that they must sit in a
specific chair at a specific spot facing in a specific direction with
their ears at a specific height - and all their equipment must be
place according to specific parameters - OK, I exaggerate. But only
slightly. Very slightly.

From this follows much of everything else. If a user can be
brainwashed as described above, then anything is possible limited only
by the depth of the wallet or credit-card involved.

As to SET amps - Consider the crushed-velvet leisure-suit in Royal
Purple.

http://party-costumes.candyapplecost...s/Pimp%20Suits

Make it, someone will buy it. Ethics are not at issue, nor should they
be considered in the Retail Industry. As long as there is no gun to
the head of the buyer, that is. H.L. Menken captured this best: Nobody
ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American
public.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 13, 3:31*pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:

Why is it that I can assemble a system from 1970 & 80s components that will
be the equal of anything produced now, with the possible exception of
loudness? Where is the progress?

Actually, including the loudness. Klipsch speakers have been around
since the 40s.

Apart from all that, does anyone here remember the "New" Avery Fisher
Hall at Lincoln Center (NYC)? Back in the day, it was an early
exercise in "Room Tuning" with individually moveable (in three plains)
ceiling panels, echo management, 'acousitic wells' and so forth. It
was a dismal failure. Essentially what was discovered that *either*
they made a series of specific and individal 'sweet spots' - rendering
the rest of the Hall mud, or they set everything to 'neutral'
whereupon all the other compromises made everything a bit less muddy
but no sweet-spots at all. The Sweet Spots were - naturally -
approximately where the measuring instruments were. Funny thing about
that.

Cutting to the chase: "Tuning a room" to a specific sweet-spot as
seems to be popular these days is an act of selfishness, further a
denial of the very nature of listening to music. I agree that nasty
rooms with nasty conditions need to be dealt with - but that can be
done with very low-tech solutions including reasonably careful speaker
placement, furniture placement, perhaps something on the wall here-or-
there, something to break up actual (and quite rare despite rumors to
the contrary) standing waves... NOTHING SPECIAL in other words.


Except, nowadays rooms ('home theaters') are routinely 'corrected' across more than one
spot... even the consumer-grade Audyssey MultiXT involves sampling sound at 8 listening
positions.

You can also store multiple correction profiles in most modern gear. That means, you can of
course tune your personal 'sweet spot' for private listening, and have other profiles for when
there are guests listening.



--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


On Nov 13, 3:31 pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:

Why is it that I can assemble a system from 1970 & 80s
components that will be the equal of anything produced
now, with the possible exception of loudness?

Because you can't.

Where is the progress?

Then there is the massive progress in cost-effectiveness.

Actually, including the loudness. Klipsch speakers have
been around since the 40s.

Klipsch was a smart man, and he worked hard.

But...

Compared to modern drivers of a similar kind, Klipsch had nothing but junk
to work with.

Compared to modern crossovers, Klipsch had nothing but junk to work with.

Apart from all that, does anyone here remember the "New"
Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln Center (NYC)? Back in the
day, it was an early exercise in "Room Tuning" with
individually moveable (in three plains) ceiling panels,
echo management, 'acoustic wells' and so forth. It was a
dismal failure.

Resolved, nothing has been learned about room acoustics since then.

Seriously?

I don't think so.

Avery Fisher was failed technology, and it was fixed by technology.

Avery Fisher is a cautionary tale, not representative of modern technology.


Cutting to the chase: "Tuning a room" to a specific
sweet-spot as seems to be popular these days is an act of
selfishness, further a denial of the very nature of
listening to music. I agree that nasty rooms with nasty
conditions need to be dealt with - but that can be done
with very low-tech solutions including reasonably careful
speaker placement, furniture placement, perhaps something
on the wall here-or- there, something to break up actual
(and quite rare despite rumors to the contrary) standing
waves... NOTHING SPECIAL in other words.

What do we say about an attempt to define truth in the present by only
looking at the failures of the now-distant past?

At the very best it is pessimism.

It's also not how you find the best truth for now.

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


On Nov 13, 3:31 pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:

Why is it that I can assemble a system from 1970 & 80s
components that will be the equal of anything produced
now, with the possible exception of loudness?

Because you can't.

Where is the progress?

Then there is the massive progress in cost-effectiveness.


Of course modern equipment is relatively much cheaper, but what I was
referring to was that electronics was transparent then (it would pass a
straight-wire bypass test) and consequently any modern equipment won't sound
better, except that power amps now have more power and loudspeakers can take
more power.

As an example of such a system, take a Meridian CD player, say the MCDPro of
1985, Quad or Audiolab amplification of the mid 70s onwards, and a pair of
IMF TLS50II, Quad ESL63s, Spendor BCIII, KEF 104.2 etc etc and you won't get
a better sounding system now. Different certainly, louder possibly, but
better?

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:31:17 -0800, Serge Auckland wrote
(in article ):

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
After being told that audiophiles don't use FFTs and measurement mics to
enhance their listening rooms, I sit here amused by the non-response to
my
list of recent home audio products from 4 different major manufacturers,
that do exactly that, assisted by their own microprocessor controllers.

Oh, Arny, you know Harman, Denon, et al. aren't HIGH-END. *Real*
audiophiles
wouldn't dream of using digital EQ...

unless it looked like this and cost this much:

http://www.trinnov-audio.com/optimizer.php

http://www.audyssey.com/soundequalizer/index.html


An audiophile on HA complained that he obtained a bad-sounding download
from
a major source. Within 24 hours, two 30 second segments of the CD and
downloaded versions of the work had been prepared and uploaded, including
precise time-synching and level-matching. Someone then dowloaded the
files
and posted the results of their ABX test, which showed an audible
difference
at the 98% confidence level.

HA.org is quite simply one of the best web resources around, for those
truly interested in
audio.


--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would
oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and
which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

In a way, we're returning to the "flat-earth" days when, in the UK at least,
if you didn't have a Linn Sondek and Naim amplifiers, you were beyond the
pale. Now, it's having to have mega expensive items with measurably poor
audio performance in order to qualify as high-end. I cannot believe that
anyone, short of a charlatan, would manufacture a SET amplifier that costs
huge amounts for appalling performance. Or loudspeakers with horribly spiky
frequency responses and high distortion also costing huge amounts. Or cables
costing hundreds and thousands when $£? 4.99 is all you need to spend to get
the same sound.

I agree with you there.

What ever happened to Hi-Fi meaning Hi-Fidelity, i.e. low distortion (of all
sorts), and some sensible engineering.

We are dealing with a heretofore largely non-existent entity, a product of
the greedy '80's and '90's, The vulgarly, gauchely and indecently rich. These
are people who think nothing of paying $20 million for a rare motorcar, hang
out in Monte Carlo in 500 foot yachts, have their own Gulfstar private jets,
and buy everything on price. The more expensive, the better. This is a guy
who will invite a fellow rich asshole over to his 60,000 square-foot mansion
to show him his music room, and then commence to point out the price of
EVERYTHING. See those amplifiers? They are hand-made in Japan by a little old
samurai, they are 12 watts /channel and cost $180,000 EACH. See those 1-meter
long interconnects going to the pre-amp? $4000 a pair......

This attitude (these billionaire jerks rarely if ever pick this stuff out
themselves. They hire an "A/V consultant" to put these systems together for
them. They don't really care about sound, and often have only a handful of
CDs and records to play on them. They care about cost and bragging rights,
that's all.

This has two effects on the audio industry, it allows companies who's
interest is in making better products to be able to afford to play with
"statement" level products, sure in the knowledge that whatever they end up
costing to produce, there will be people willing and able to buy them. The
new Martin-Logan CLX is an example of this kind company and product. truly a
groundbreaking achievement, and while expensive ($25,000/pair, not
outrageously so when compared to more mundane speaker systems costing 3 and
four times the price and given their incredible performance.

The other side of the coin are niche products which MIGHT cost a lot to make,
using rare materials and expensive manufacturing techniques which end up
being very expensive without actually bringing any new levels of performance
to the party. A couple of cases in point would be the Ongaku "Audio Note" SET
amplifiers and Nordost Valhalla interconnects. The Ongaku amps use NOS
Western Electric 300B triodes for output tubes, hand-wound output
transformers employing 99% pure SILVER wire and hand-made oil filled
capacitors. They produce SEVEN Watts each and were, last time that I saw a
pair, $80,000 each. They sounded mediocre at best, and awful when played
loudly. The Nordost Valhalla interconnects, are, I'm sure very costly to
build. I've seen cutaways of the cable used and it sure looks expensive and
in the amounts that Nordost undoubtably buys every year (couple of thousand
feet at most?), is, I'm sure, hundreds of dollars a foot. The problem, of
course, is that as fancy as these cables are, they are, ultimately, just wire
carrying low frequency audio signals. All of the technical gibberish used to
promote cables like these, things such as the different layers of cabling
with different strand diameters and different twists and the exotic materials
used as dielectrics and insulators can't alter the fact that these cables, at
best, sound just like a $3 pair of Radio Shack molded cables in a
double-blind test, and at worst screw with the high-frequencies to make them
sound "different" from other cables (although, believe me, most don't).

It seems to me that as the major manufacturers now (have been for 30+ years)
make products that are audibly transparent i.e. will pass a straight-wire
bypass test, selling for a few hundred £$?, the "High-End" have to respond
by mega expensive items with audibly flawed performance that will sound
different (hence better!) in a dealers demo.

No. The mainstream manufacturers are making good products, but the use very
expensive manufacturing processes and premium parts to do so. They do prey on
the average audiophile's paranoid need to "upgrade", though. A Mark Levinson
#53 monobloc power amp might really need to cost $24,000 each given it's
build quality and materials used, but the question is, does it sound any
different from another 500 Watt/Channel amplifier costing 1/10th or even
1/100th as much? The answer here is probably not. Speakers are, of course, a
different kettle of fish. There continue to be strides in this technology and
the great speakers are justifiably expensive.

Why is it that I can assemble a system from 1970 & 80s components that will
be the equal of anything produced now, with the possible exception of
loudness? Where is the progress?

There really isn't much except in speakers and possibly CD and LP
reproduction. But I will say this it is possible to buy mainstream Japanese
and Chinese receivers that outperform the very finest separates from the 70's
and 80's at a fraction of those separates' costs.

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

Sergeauckland wrote
It seems to me that as the major manufacturers now (have been for 30+
years)
make products that are audibly transparent i.e. will pass a straight-wire
bypass test, selling for a few hundred £$?, the "High-End" have to
respond
by mega expensive items with audibly flawed performance that will sound
different (hence better!) in a dealers demo.


sonnova replied

No. The mainstream manufacturers are making good products, but the use
very
expensive manufacturing processes and premium parts to do so. They do prey
on
the average audiophile's paranoid need to "upgrade", though. A Mark
Levinson
#53 monobloc power amp might really need to cost $24,000 each given it's
build quality and materials used, but the question is, does it sound any
different from another 500 Watt/Channel amplifier costing 1/10th or even
1/100th as much? The answer here is probably not. Speakers are, of course,
a
different kettle of fish. There continue to be strides in this technology
and
the great speakers are justifiably expensive.


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying he- My comment was that
mainstream manufacturers now and for the past 30 years have been making
equipment that's sonically transparent, and it's the High-End people that
have been using the exotic materials and producing audibly flawed products
in an attempt to make them stand out in dealers demos (and, as has been
commented, to give the buyers bragging points)

As to loudspeakers, there ARE some very good modern designs, but many of the
"High-End" and very expensive designs have spiky responses, and a far poorer
sound than some of the classis loudspeakers of the 70s and 80s. If it was
possible to have a relatively uncoloured 'speaker in 1978, I can't see any
justification for a highly coloured one in 2008.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:06:45 -0800, Serge Auckland wrote
(in article ):

Sergeauckland wrote
It seems to me that as the major manufacturers now (have been for 30+
years)
make products that are audibly transparent i.e. will pass a straight-wire
bypass test, selling for a few hundred £$?, the "High-End" have to
respond
by mega expensive items with audibly flawed performance that will sound
different (hence better!) in a dealers demo.


sonnova replied

No. The mainstream manufacturers are making good products, but the use
very
expensive manufacturing processes and premium parts to do so. They do prey
on
the average audiophile's paranoid need to "upgrade", though. A Mark
Levinson
#53 monobloc power amp might really need to cost $24,000 each given it's
build quality and materials used, but the question is, does it sound any
different from another 500 Watt/Channel amplifier costing 1/10th or even
1/100th as much? The answer here is probably not. Speakers are, of course,
a
different kettle of fish. There continue to be strides in this technology
and
the great speakers are justifiably expensive.


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying he- My comment was that
mainstream manufacturers now and for the past 30 years have been making
equipment that's sonically transparent, and it's the High-End people that
have been using the exotic materials and producing audibly flawed products
in an attempt to make them stand out in dealers demos (and, as has been
commented, to give the buyers bragging points)

I'm saying that these products aren't at all flawed. They sound as
transparent as modern technology and techniques will allow, its just that
they all sound that way and the only difference is power output of power amps
and general build quality of everything. IOW, a $6000 Wadia CD player for
instance, will have an all metal transport while a $160 Oppo will have a
plastic one. The Wadia will weigh 15 pounds, and have a thick, brushed
aluminum fascia. It will use discrete transistors in it's analog system while
the Oppo will use op-amps. The Wadia will justify its price with separate
power supplies for the optical, the digital, and the analog sections of the
player while the Oppo will have a single minimalist power supply for the
whole shebang. The Wadia will exude beauty, sophistication, and class. But it
will likely sound exactly like the $160 Oppo in an ABX test. OTOH, the Wadia
will likely last longer because it's better made.

As to loudspeakers, there ARE some very good modern designs, but many of the
"High-End" and very expensive designs have spiky responses, and a far poorer
sound than some of the classis loudspeakers of the 70s and 80s. If it was
possible to have a relatively uncoloured 'speaker in 1978, I can't see any
justification for a highly coloured one in 2008.

I don't know of any highly colored modern speakers, except for some of the
highly efficient horn models designed to be used with SET amps and they're
not really mainstream high-end, anyway. OTOH, the seventies was the decade of
the Bose 901s and JBLs. More colored loudspeakers, I cannot imagine.

[Alan Hoyle]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:21:17, Steven Sullivan wrote:

HA.org is quite simply one of the best web resources around, for
those truly interested in audio.

Methinks you mean "hydrogenaudio.org" as "ha.org" brings up a page
saying "Help Africa."

-alan

--
Alan Hoyle - - http://www.alanhoyle.com/

[Steven Sullivan]

Alan Hoyle wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:21:17, Steven Sullivan wrote:

HA.org is quite simply one of the best web resources around, for
those truly interested in audio.

Methinks you mean "hydrogenaudio.org" as "ha.org" brings up a page
saying "Help Africa."

well, yes, I do. HA is an abbreviation.


--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:23:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

After being told that audiophiles don't use FFTs and measurement mics to
enhance their listening rooms, I sit here amused by the non-response to my
list of recent home audio products from 4 different major manufacturers,
that do exactly that, assisted by their own microprocessor controllers.
FWIW, a number of so-called professional audio products function in a
similar fashion. The major differences are packaging.

Perhaps its because many of us don't care about that aspect of the hobby.

I think its time for some old-time audiophiles (of all ages) to realize that
home audio isn't their daddy's Oldsmobile, not even the Cutlass that they
used to drive.

Home audio is many different things to many different people. I know
dedicated audiophiles who spend countless hours upgrading early 60's vintage
Tube gear from Dynaco and the like. Not my cup of tea and neither are A/V
receivers (except in my video system (Harmon-Kardon AVR-7000) which is
separate from my music system) with or without DSP FFT analysis.

Case in point is an interesting thread over at the Hydrogen Audio Forum
(HA), which is simply one of the proliferating HTML newsgoups that has drawn
a lot of participants from the segment of audiophilia that used to post on
RAHE.

An audiophile on HA complained that he obtained a bad-sounding download from
a major source. Within 24 hours, two 30 second segments of the CD and
downloaded versions of the work had been prepared and uploaded, including
precise time-synching and level-matching. Someone then dowloaded the files
and posted the results of their ABX test, which showed an audible difference
at the 98% confidence level.

BTW, the recording in question (DGG, natch!) shows obvious signs of slipshod
production.

I'm sure that certain RAHE participants would characterize what I saw on HA
as being the activities of audio professionals. In fact not even the
professional audio forums that I participate in (HTML, Usenet, and Mailing
List) achieve this level of technical sophistication. It's just a bunch of
modern consumers using common modern audio tools in their search for truth
about audio.

If that's what blows their collective skirts up, more power to them. But the
fact that you can find such nuts-and-bolts audiophiles does, in no way,
diminish the rest of us. Just because we adhere to what you might think of as
old fashioned audiophile values, doesn't mean that we enjoy the hobby any
less.

[C. Leeds]

Arny Krueger wrote in :

After being told that audiophiles don't use FFTs and measurement mics to
enhance their listening rooms....

I don't think you were told that, Arny. I think you were told that most
audiophiles just aren't interested in such things, just as they don't
much care to engage in home ABX trials.

I sit here amused by the non-response to my
list of recent home audio products from 4 different major manufacturers,
that do exactly that, assisted by their own microprocessor controllers.

Many of us already knew about such products, Arny. You posted old news,
and it was greeted with a yawn.

FWIW, a number of so-called professional audio products function in a
similar fashion. The major differences are packaging.

Again, old news - and that's the point. Many audiophiles would rather
listen to music than engage in measurementalist rituals.

I think its time for some old-time audiophiles (of all ages) to realize that
home audio isn't their daddy's Oldsmobile, not even the Cutlass that they
used to drive.

There's no assurance that those who buy products with these capabilities
ever bother to use them. For example, many PCs are sold with software
such as Excel and Access, but many users never bother to use them. Many
of the features on consumer electronics are the same way.

Case in point is an interesting thread over at the Hydrogen Audio Forum...
An audiophile on HA complained that he obtained a bad-sounding download from
a major source. Within 24 hours, two 30 second segments of the CD and
downloaded versions of the work had been prepared and uploaded... Someone then dowloaded the files
and posted the results of their ABX test, which showed an audible difference
at the 98% confidence level...
I'm sure that certain RAHE participants would characterize what I saw on HA
as being the activities of audio professionals...It's just a bunch of
modern consumers using common modern audio tools in their search for truth
about audio.

Certainly, some audiophiles are interested in such things, no doubt.
Many aren't. It's just that simple. I still think it's great that this
technology is so accessible. Unlike you, I don't think it's de rigeur.

[Steven Sullivan]

C. Leeds wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote in :

After being told that audiophiles don't use FFTs and measurement mics to
enhance their listening rooms....

I don't think you were told that, Arny. I think you were told that most
audiophiles just aren't interested in such things, just as they don't
much care to engage in home ABX trials.

It's just a matter of time, Mr. Leeds. Eventually only the luddite
contingent will abstain from using digital EQ.

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Kalman Rubinson[_3_]]

On 14 Nov 2008 02:57:07 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

It's just a matter of time, Mr. Leeds. Eventually only the luddite
contingent will abstain from using digital EQ.

That seems to be what is happening. You can go from forum to forum
and from site to site and each exists at some point in the range from
obstinate resistance to understanding.

Kal

[C. Leeds]

Arny Krueger wrote in :

After being told that audiophiles don't use FFTs and measurement mics to
enhance their listening rooms....

I answered:

I don't think you were told that, Arny. I think you were told that most
audiophiles just aren't interested in such things, just as they don't
much care to engage in home ABX trials.

In
Steven Sullivan answers:

It's just a matter of time, Mr. Leeds. Eventually only the luddite
contingent will abstain from using digital EQ.

Of course. And in the future, we will all drive cars that can fly; our
homes will each have a fusion energy generator the size of laptop; and
we won't need loudspeakers because sound will be delivered directly to
our brains by chips implanted in our skulls. Naturally, digital EQ will
be incorporated into those chips.

Or, perhaps your ability to predict the future is no better than anyone
else's.

[bob]

On Nov 13, 7:18*pm, "C. Leeds" wrote:

There's no assurance that those who buy products with these capabilities
ever bother to use them.

True, but those people aren't audiophiles. What's shocking is how many
people you would consider audiophiles actively turn up their noses at
these technologies. It's one thing to decide, as a hobby, to try to
get the best sound possible out of legacy technology. It's another
thing to claim in public that the legacy technology is superior to
what really is SOTA.

bob

[C. Leeds]

I wrote, referring to products that include FFT and measurement mics to
enhance listening rooms:

There's no assurance that those who buy products with these capabilities
ever bother to use them.

in
nabob answers:

True, but those people aren't audiophiles.

If you reserve the right to redefine common terms to suit your own
prejudices, you can win any argument.

What's shocking is how many
people you would consider audiophiles actively turn up their noses at
these technologies.

Really? This actually shocks you? It shocks you that people decide for
themselves which technologies to adopt? Perhaps that is truly shocking
to those who must have every latest gee-whiz gee-gaw.

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 14, 9:12*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

Really? This actually shocks you? It shocks you that people decide for
themselves which technologies to adopt? Perhaps that is truly shocking
to those who must have every latest gee-whiz gee-gaw.

Mpffffffff... Of necessity, the term "audiophile" is self-defined.
Given that there are thousands of options at any of several levels
rendering multiples-of-thousands of combinations and permutations,
there is no single result nor, therefore a single definition of the
term. About the best definition I can come up with is an Audiophile
strives to reach a sound that *he* or *she* enjoys thoroughly. Nor
would I attempt, nor am I so arrogant as to believe that I could,
define that sound for anyone else but for me.

As to technology - it has its place. And it has its dangers. Not
written as a Luddite, but there are diminishing returns with
technology - it remains to the individual to determine where that
point might be.

For me, this is a hobby. I enjoy it. Because I have some small
troubleshooting skills and some small amounts of tooling and
instrumentation, I can do things at a remarkably low cost as compared
to unskilled individuals. This both adds to the pleasure and adds to
the challenge. I am permitted to laugh at the Audiophool segment of
the hobby - as I define it - and they are most certainly permitted to
laugh at me by whatever standards they choose.

What I do find particularly odious is that there is at least one
individual here who makes a distinct and deliberate effort to be a
killjoy - based on a one-note principle. These sorts of individuals
should not be permitted to affect either one's choices or one's
enjoyment of them.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 14, 9:12?am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

Really? This actually shocks you? It shocks you that people decide for
themselves which technologies to adopt? Perhaps that is truly shocking
to those who must have every latest gee-whiz gee-gaw.

Mpffffffff... Of necessity, the term "audiophile" is self-defined.
Given that there are thousands of options at any of several levels
rendering multiples-of-thousands of combinations and permutations,
there is no single result nor, therefore a single definition of the
term. About the best definition I can come up with is an Audiophile
strives to reach a sound that *he* or *she* enjoys thoroughly. Nor
would I attempt, nor am I so arrogant as to believe that I could,
define that sound for anyone else but for me.

As to technology - it has its place. And it has its dangers. Not
written as a Luddite, but there are diminishing returns with
technology - it remains to the individual to determine where that
point might be.

Room acoustics is commonly the weakest link even in an
'audiophile' playback chain. The 'returns' from technology that
compensates for that weakness are potentially immense.

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[[email protected]]

On Nov 14, 9:12 am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
I wrote, referring to products that include FFT and measurement mics to
enhance listening rooms:

There's no assurance that those who buy products with these capabilities
ever bother to use them.

in
nabob answers:

True, but those people aren't audiophiles.

If you reserve the right to redefine common terms to suit your own
prejudices, you can win any argument.

As you have demonstrated with your invention of terms like
"measurementalist rituals" and other examples.

Anyone can redefined terms to suit their own personal
prejudices biases and agendas, as I might you have
demonstrated in the past. The proof comes in the
common acceptance of those terms. The lack of
that acceptance and agreement does not lack of
wisdom or foresight on the part of those not accepting
it: it may as much demonstrate that lack on the part
of the originator of the definition.

"Audiophile" is hardly a term that has ANY intrinsic
definition other than its decomposition of "one who
likes sound." Beyond that, it is mainly a matter of
self definition on the part of the person accepting
the moniker. Assigning some "proper" definition to
the term is, well, stupidly arrogant in this person's
view. It is akin to accepting Harry Pearson's
definition of "high-end" as some universal TRVTH
(tm) because he invented the term (he didn't, by the
way, as there were stores that refereed to themselves
as "high-end audio" stores well before the appearance
of his rag).

You may be correct in one sense: HIS definition
of "audiohile" may be wrong, but that same sword
is just as sharp at slicing your definition to equally
thin ribbons.

Why is Curtis Leeds definition of 'audiophile" ladened
with Curtis Leeds biases and agendas and bigotries
any superior to Nabob's definition, ladened with nabob's
biases and agendas and bigotries or Pearson's
definition ladened with Pearson's agenda and biases
and bigotries or Dick Pierce's definition ladened with
Dick Pierce's agenda's and biases and bigotries?

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:17:54 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 14, 9:12 am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
I wrote, referring to products that include FFT and measurement mics to
enhance listening rooms:

There's no assurance that those who buy products with these capabilities
ever bother to use them.

in
nabob answers:

True, but those people aren't audiophiles.

If you reserve the right to redefine common terms to suit your own
prejudices, you can win any argument.

As you have demonstrated with your invention of terms like
"measurementalist rituals" and other examples.

Anyone can redefined terms to suit their own personal
prejudices biases and agendas, as I might you have
demonstrated in the past. The proof comes in the
common acceptance of those terms. The lack of
that acceptance and agreement does not lack of
wisdom or foresight on the part of those not accepting
it: it may as much demonstrate that lack on the part
of the originator of the definition.

"Audiophile" is hardly a term that has ANY intrinsic
definition other than its decomposition of "one who
likes sound." Beyond that, it is mainly a matter of
self definition on the part of the person accepting
the moniker. Assigning some "proper" definition to
the term is, well, stupidly arrogant in this person's
view. It is akin to accepting Harry Pearson's
definition of "high-end" as some universal TRVTH
(tm) because he invented the term (he didn't, by the
way, as there were stores that refereed to themselves
as "high-end audio" stores well before the appearance
of his rag).

Actually, Pearson attributes the term to J.G. Holt, who did, indeed, predate
the appearance of "The Absolute Sound".

[C. Leeds]

in
wrote:

As you have demonstrated with your invention of terms like
"measurementalist rituals" and other examples.

I did not invent the term "measurementalist," but merely rediscovered it
after perusing some old r.a.h-e posts. I think it's a fine word, though,
to describe those for whom measurements are more important than any
other aspect of audio.

As for "other examples," you haven't provided any.

"Audiophile" is hardly a term that has ANY intrinsic
definition other than its decomposition of "one who
likes sound." ... Assigning some "proper" definition to
the term is, well, stupidly arrogant in this person's
view.

Of course, I never defined that term, either.

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

On Nov 13, 7:18 pm, "C. Leeds"
wrote:

There's no assurance that those who buy products with
these capabilities ever bother to use them.

True, but those people aren't audiophiles.

More to the point, it is very bad logic to deny the value of technology on
the grounds that some people buy into it and then fail to fully exploit it.

What's
shocking is how many people you would consider
audiophiles actively turn up their noses at these
technologies.

Long term example: digital audio. Note that we've just seen days of what
someone thinks are convincing arguments for the truth in the "empty spaces"
myth. No surprise, the perpetuator of this myth is a long-time vinyl
advocate.

It's one thing to decide, as a hobby, to
try to get the best sound possible out of legacy
technology.

Agreed, which is why

http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/

show the best measurements of the performance of a vinyl system on the web.

It's another thing to claim in public that
the legacy technology is superior to what really is SOTA.

It seems to be ritual that some people who love their LPs have to put
themselves through.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:22:04 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message

On Nov 13, 7:18 pm, "C. Leeds"
wrote:

There's no assurance that those who buy products with
these capabilities ever bother to use them.

True, but those people aren't audiophiles.

More to the point, it is very bad logic to deny the value of technology on
the grounds that some people buy into it and then fail to fully exploit it.

What's
shocking is how many people you would consider
audiophiles actively turn up their noses at these
technologies.

Long term example: digital audio. Note that we've just seen days of what
someone thinks are convincing arguments for the truth in the "empty spaces"
myth. No surprise, the perpetuator of this myth is a long-time vinyl
advocate.

It's one thing to decide, as a hobby, to
try to get the best sound possible out of legacy
technology.

Agreed, which is why

http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/

show the best measurements of the performance of a vinyl system on the web.

It's another thing to claim in public that
the legacy technology is superior to what really is SOTA.

It seems to be ritual that some people who love their LPs have to put
themselves through.


I love my LPs because 1) Many great performance aren't available on CD and
might never be. 2) some LPs do sound much more like real music than do the
CDs made from the same source materials. Otherwise, I'm fairly happy with
modern digital technology and when points one and two are no longer true,
I'll put my turntable and my LPs away forever.