[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Some people 'demand' gold plate on a watch, but it
doesn't improve its time-keeping function.

So what? Accuracy is but one measure of a watch's
quality.

What do we call watches that look good, but aren't accurate?

Perhaps it is the only measure that matters to you.

Perhaps, in a pursuit called High Fidelity, high fidelity is the most
important thing.

Obviously, it is not the only standard for everyone.

Who said it was the only standard? Are you trying to make an excluded-middle
argument?

Does that trouble you?

Does it trouble you that people are interested in High Fidelity systems that
actually have high fidelity?


Is it possible the 'demands' of some listeners aren't
based on truly audibly difference, but an imaginary one?

Audio quality is but one measure of audio equipment.

But it should be the primary one.

Other factors - features and construction quality, for
example - are important to others. Does that trouble you?

It seems like audio's high end is taking substantial liberties with
construction quality, such as optical disc players that wrap a milled front
panel and overbuilt power supplies and line drivers around a commodity
chassis that contains almost all of the parts that determine sound quality.


The known limits of human hearing, as well as noise
characteristics of typical listening environments,
as well as noise characteristics of typical recording
sources...

....are only a few factors involved in the selection of
audio equipment, for some listeners. Does that trouble
you?

It troubles me that people would brag about their preference for sound
quality that is considerably suboptimal, such as that inherent in SET tubed
power amps. Maybe not troubles so much as puzzles or even amuses.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:23:02 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

I wrote (in response to Arny):

These are all value judgments: "not startling" "pretty much
transparent", "good enough." So, perhaps, mp3 is "good
enough" for you. But the high end not about "good enough."
High end is about high performance.

answers:

And that, in and of itself, is a value judgement, based
on your particualr prejudices, agendae, preconceived
notions and all the rest...

No, I am not making a value judgement. High-end - by definition - is
about high performance. If it is not high performance, it is not high end.

Ah, but how one defines "high-performance" has everything to do with how one
defines the high-end. Personally, I define high-end audio as the pursuit of
the reproduction of the sound of live music played in a real acoustic space.
High-fidelity, in and of itself is to a degree. That degree is bounded by
many things: physics, the state of the art, ones financial resources, one's
environment (as in listening space) and one's passion and commitment to the
chase for the "Holy Grail" not to mention how one personally defines "the
sound of live music." This is important because many who consider themselves
high-end type audiophiles think that the road to the Holy Grail of audio can
only be achieved with analog phonograph records and/or tube electronics.
Others, OTOH, call this view nonsense. But obviously these "vinyl-philes" and
"valvophiles" hear something in this path that reminds them more of live
music than do CDs and/or transistors.

What distinguishes the high-end from so-called mid-fi are the goals of the
customers. They are, to a greater extent than are the average consumer of
electronics goods, committed to getting closer to the music and are willing
(and able) to pursue that goal by buying equipment from manufacturers who say
that this is their goal too as they design and build their products. IOW, the
high-end is a philosophy rather than a set of rules and specifications.


Since audio prefection is a provably impossible endpoint,
high-end audio is all about "good enough."

No, it isn't. This is the logical fallacy of the excluded middle. High
end is about high performance.

High-end is about the philosophy and commitment to recreating the sound of
live music in one's own listening environment. It goes no further than that
(IMHO) unless one wishes to be gauche about it and put a price tag on that
philosophy.

[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

I wrote (in response to Arny):

These are all value judgments: "not startling" "pretty
much transparent", "good enough." So, perhaps, mp3 is
"good enough" for you. But the high end not about "good
enough." High end is about high performance.

answers:

And that, in and of itself, is a value judgment, based
on your particular prejudices, agenda, preconceived
notions and all the rest...

No, I am not making a value judgment. High-end - by
definition - is about high performance. If it is not high
performance, it is not high end.

If wishes were only fishes.

Much of audio's high end is not about high performance. I thank Sonnova for
coming up with the following:

"Myrtlewood (or whatever) bricks and pucks, OTOH, like interconnects, do
neither good nor harm, they do nothing."

"IOW, a system will surely sound no better with a $4000 pair of
interconnects than it does with a
$30 pair, but it won't sound any worse, either."

Sonnova thus provides clear evidence that the high end is not about high
performance, much of it is irrelevant to performance.

Indeed other recent posts about "Build quality" which is often a code phrase
for grotesquely overbuilt equipment, or equipment facades flesh out an
embarrassing picture of much of audio's present high end.

Since audio perfection is a provably impossible endpoint,
high-end audio is all about "good enough."

No, it isn't.

Actually I agree with you - much of high end audio is about legacy equipment
and retro-designs that are demonstrably not even good enough to compete with
the sound quality of good mid-fi.

This is the logical fallacy of the excluded
middle. High end is about high performance.

Didn't you just write:

"Accuracy is but one measure of a watch's quality."

I see a big gap between these two statements.

If you want to
assert that different people have different opinions
about what "good enough" means, fine.

That is exactly what I said. For some, "good enough" is
not "good enough. Unlike Arny, I don't pretend to tell others what
constitutes "good enough" for them. Do you see the
difference?

I see a missed point. I did not tell others what constitutes "good enough"
for them, I reminded people what has been shown to be "good enough" for
normal humans (with even some latitude for common kinds of abnormal humans)
by many careful investigators.

And, in fact MUCH of high end audio has nothing
to do with "high performance." There are any number
of so-called high-end products and principles that are
the antithesis of high performance.

Agreed.

This is the logical fallacy known as begging the
question. if it is not high performance, it is not high
end.

This seems inconsistent with statements like

"Accuracy is but one measure of a watch's quality."

What do we call inaccurate but fashionable watches? We call them jewelry or
if the accuracy loss was accidental, we call them broken.

What do we call very inaccurate but fashionable amplifiers?

Answer please! ;-)

Consider expensive
cables that have no provable advantage in performance...

So?

This seems inconsistent with simple and agreeable statements such as:

"If it is not high performance, it is not high end."

[Robert Peirce[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

What do we call watches that look good, but aren't accurate?

Rolex.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 06:11:55 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Some people 'demand' gold plate on a watch, but it
doesn't improve its time-keeping function.

So what? Accuracy is but one measure of a watch's
quality.

What do we call watches that look good, but aren't accurate?

Perhaps it is the only measure that matters to you.

Perhaps, in a pursuit called High Fidelity, high fidelity is the most
important thing.

Obviously, it is not the only standard for everyone.

Who said it was the only standard? Are you trying to make an excluded-middle
argument?

Does that trouble you?

Does it trouble you that people are interested in High Fidelity systems that
actually have high fidelity?


Is it possible the 'demands' of some listeners aren't
based on truly audibly difference, but an imaginary one?

Audio quality is but one measure of audio equipment.

But it should be the primary one.

Other factors - features and construction quality, for
example - are important to others. Does that trouble you?

It seems like audio's high end is taking substantial liberties with
construction quality, such as optical disc players that wrap a milled front
panel and overbuilt power supplies and line drivers around a commodity
chassis that contains almost all of the parts that determine sound quality.


The known limits of human hearing, as well as noise
characteristics of typical listening environments,
as well as noise characteristics of typical recording
sources...

....are only a few factors involved in the selection of
audio equipment, for some listeners. Does that trouble
you?

It troubles me that people would brag about their preference for sound
quality that is considerably suboptimal, such as that inherent in SET tubed
power amps. Maybe not troubles so much as puzzles or even amuses.


Maybe, instead of scoffing, you might try to find out what advocates of SET
tubed amps "hear" from these units which makes them so appealing. I look at
the audio hobby this way: There are so many areas where even the best stereo
systems fail to live up to the promise of perfect reproduction, that many
audiophiles seem to choose certain areas of the reproduction envelope, and
pursue them - often at the expense of other factors that one might think to
be equally important. For instance, I know a guy who is a nut for imaging. He
only listens to tiny speakers, which he says "approximates a point-source".
He buys only "real stereo" recordings and has separate mono preamps ( a pair
of highly modified Heathkit WA-P2s) for each channel and uses monoblock power
amps (a pair of Rockford-Hafler "TransNovas", bridged, the last time I was
there). He gets really excited when he finds a new (to him) recording where
he can pick out each and every instrument in the ensemble and point to it in
space. Never mind that the speakers have no real bass and sound strained
playing orchestral music. As far as he's concerned, its the imaging and sound
stage and nothing else will do. Another acquaintance has no speakers, only a
very expensive pair of Stax headphones and a Stax tubed headphone amplifier
to drive them. The reason? Flat, smooth frequency response unsullied by room
acoustics. Others pursue accurate midrange, or accurate low bass and their
systems are constructed to maximize those parameters, often at the expense of
the rest of the presentation. I don't pretend to know what
single-ended-triode amps are supposed to do well, but it's obviously
something, otherwise their wouldn't be so many brands of the flea-powered
lil' darlings on the market.

[Steven Sullivan]

C. Leeds wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Some people 'demand' gold plate on a watch, but it doesn't improve its
time-keeping function.

So what? Accuracy is but one measure of a watch's quality.

But it is the best measure of its timekeeping quality.

Perhaps it is
the only measure that matters to you. Obviously, it is not the only
standard for everyone. Does that trouble you?


Not at all. What 'troubles' me is the audiophile practice of arguing, in effect,
that a watch's gold plate DOES affect its timekeeping quality. With similar
lack of evidence but probably even sillier prose.

Perhaps I've completely misunderstood audiophile rhetoric. If audiophiles are *really*
saying, "well, *maybe* I hear a quality difference, and *possibly* it's due just to the sound,
but I don't really know for sure either way, because I'm just guessing from a sighted
evaluation, and that's subject to quite a few sources of bias. I have to admit sometimes it's
even possible there's no real difference at all."...then, heck, I owe them an apology.


Is it possible the 'demands' of some listeners aren't based on truly
audibly difference, but an imaginary one?

Audio quality is but one measure of audio equipment. Other factors -
features and construction quality, for example - are important to
others. Does that trouble you?

Not at all, and the that you'd think so is funny, because I have often expressed the view,
supported by elementary human psychology, that when people choose their audio gear preferences
'sighted' , they are never choosing for sound alone...regardless of whether they realize it or
not.


The known limits of human hearing, as well as noise characteristics of
typical listening environments,
as well as noise characteristics of typical recording sources...

....are only a few factors involved in the selection of audio equipment,
for some listeners. Does that trouble you?

Not at all. I myself have bought gear without having 'auditioned' it first...sometimes
online. Those choices were based on comparison a feature lists, price, and occasionally,
bench test results. In the case of cables, digital players, and amplifiers, I believe there's
no good reason to think they'd sound intrinsically different as I'd use them, so I there's
no need to buy for 'sound'. I believe they are probably, to borrow a recently popular phrase,
'good enough' - and audibly indistinguishable from your supposed 'high performance' cables,
digital players, and amps under the same conditions.

Instead we have: format change driven by marketing and anecdotes.

That's true, in part. What does that have to do with gold watches?

Beyond a 'good enough' level of performance, 'high performance' is gilding the lily, is it
not?



--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


Maybe, instead of scoffing, you might try to find out
what advocates of SET tubed amps "hear" from these units
which makes them so appealing.

What makes you think I haven't tried?


I look at the audio hobby
this way: There are so many areas where even the best
stereo systems fail to live up to the promise of perfect
reproduction, that many audiophiles seem to choose
certain areas of the reproduction envelope, and pursue
them - often at the expense of other factors that one
might think to be equally important.

There is also plenty of evidence that many audiophile opinions are swayed by
hype.

For instance, I know
a guy who is a nut for imaging. He only listens to tiny
speakers, which he says "approximates a point-source".

Irony being that if you want good imaging, you don't want point source
speakers, and you don't want tiny speakers. What you wan for a
well-developed sonic image is speakers with appropriately controlled
directivity, which necessarily requires large speakers.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sonnova" wrote in message


Maybe, instead of scoffing, you might try to find out
what advocates of SET tubed amps "hear" from these units
which makes them so appealing.

What makes you think I haven't tried?

Perhaps the fact that you never mention what it is they find intriguing?



I look at the audio hobby
this way: There are so many areas where even the best
stereo systems fail to live up to the promise of perfect
reproduction, that many audiophiles seem to choose
certain areas of the reproduction envelope, and pursue
them - often at the expense of other factors that one
might think to be equally important.

There is also plenty of evidence that many audiophile opinions are swayed
by
hype.

And auto buyers
And point-and-shoot camera buyers
And flat-screen tv buyers
ets
etc
Even voters.....

That means they are human, Arny, and that advertising exists that hypes (I
have a problem there, but it is beside the point).


For instance, I know
a guy who is a nut for imaging. He only listens to tiny
speakers, which he says "approximates a point-source".

Irony being that if you want good imaging, you don't want point source
speakers, and you don't want tiny speakers. What you wan for a
well-developed sonic image is speakers with appropriately controlled
directivity, which necessarily requires large speakers.

Once again, a whole class of audiophiles doesn't know what they hear....and
it is Arny's duty to pronounce from on hight "the truth". How about, "in my
opinion...." Arny. Sonnova's friend is hardly alone in the audio
world....there are many who agree with him.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:33:55 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

What do we call watches that look good, but aren't accurate?

Rolex.



Good point. Mechanical watches can never be as accurate as the cheapest
digital watch, but they are supposed to be works of art as much as time
pieces. And by costing as much as they do, they guarantee themselves to be
successful among the rich as de riguer jewelry.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sonnova" wrote in message


Maybe, instead of scoffing, you might try to find out
what advocates of SET tubed amps "hear" from these units
which makes them so appealing.

What makes you think I haven't tried?

Perhaps the fact that you never mention what it is they
find intriguing?

Seems like very bad logic, not to mention

The bad logic is that there is no necessary connection between investigating
and finding. I have conducted thousands of fruitless investigations on a
myriad of topics. That's one of the risks of attempting to be fair, there is
a real possibility of coming up dry. That's one of the ugly parts of
science.

And, I *have* mentioned what I think it is that they find intriguing. So the
comment is factually wrong.

I look at the audio hobby
this way: There are so many areas where even the best
stereo systems fail to live up to the promise of perfect
reproduction, that many audiophiles seem to choose
certain areas of the reproduction envelope, and pursue
them - often at the expense of other factors that one
might think to be equally important.

There is also plenty of evidence that many audiophile
opinions are swayed by
hype.

And auto buyers
And point-and-shoot camera buyers
And flat-screen TV buyers
etv.
etc
Even voters...

I presume that the mention of all of these off-topic areas is a classic
red-herring argument. I'm not playing that game.

That means they are human, Arny,

Wrong - it is possible for humans to be remarkably fair and objective -
again that's what science is all about.

and that advertising
exists that hypes (I have a problem there, but it is
beside the point).

There are several proven ways to avoid being affected by advertising
including:

(1) Just don't go there.

(2) Be well-equipped with reliable information that cuts through the hype.

For instance, I know
a guy who is a nut for imaging. He only listens to tiny
speakers, which he says "approximates a point-source".

Irony being that if you want good imaging, you don't
want point source speakers, and you don't want tiny
speakers. What you wan for a well-developed sonic image
is speakers with appropriately controlled directivity,
which necessarily requires large speakers.

Once again, a whole class of audiophiles doesn't know
what they hear....and it is Arny's duty to pronounce from
on high "the truth".

There's no height here, just a voice from the trenches who happens to had
the opportunity, and taken the time to inform himself. If you do your
reading in professional journals like the JAES and the JASA you come up with
a vastly different view of reality than if you busy yourself with the
average audiophile hype-of-the-month ragazine.

How about, "in my opinion...."

It's not just my opinion. It's the outcome of scientific investigation,
through this day. Too bad you've never bothered to inform yourself in this
area, Harry.

Arny. Sonnova's friend is hardly alone in the audio
world....there are many who agree with him.

So what? BTW, ad hominem argument noted. Just because most people in 1500
AD thought the world was flat didn't make the earth flat, right?

It's not my fault that too many audiophiles read ragazines published by
flat-earthers with profit, not science on their mind.

[Steven Sullivan]

Sonnova wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:23:02 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

I wrote (in response to Arny):

These are all value judgments: "not startling" "pretty much
transparent", "good enough." So, perhaps, mp3 is "good
enough" for you. But the high end not about "good enough."
High end is about high performance.

answers:

And that, in and of itself, is a value judgement, based
on your particualr prejudices, agendae, preconceived
notions and all the rest...

No, I am not making a value judgement. High-end - by definition - is
about high performance. If it is not high performance, it is not high end.

Ah, but how one defines "high-performance" has everything to do with how one
defines the high-end. Personally, I define high-end audio as the pursuit of
the reproduction of the sound of live music played in a real acoustic space.
High-fidelity, in and of itself is to a degree. That degree is bounded by
many things: physics, the state of the art, ones financial resources, one's
environment (as in listening space) and one's passion and commitment to the
chase for the "Holy Grail" not to mention how one personally defines "the
sound of live music." This is important because many who consider themselves
high-end type audiophiles think that the road to the Holy Grail of audio can
only be achieved with analog phonograph records and/or tube electronics.
Others, OTOH, call this view nonsense. But obviously these "vinyl-philes" and
"valvophiles" hear something in this path that reminds them more of live
music than do CDs and/or transistors.

Or they hear something that reminds them of the vinyl sound they grew up with, and
have emotional bias towards.

I wrote 'or' but these aren't exclusive choices. Factors influencing perception of 'sound
quality' at any given listening session can be multiple, and certainly aren't confined JUST to
the sound in typical situations.

What distinguishes the high-end from so-called mid-fi are the goals of the
customers. They are, to a greater extent than are the average consumer of
electronics goods, committed to getting closer to the music and are willing
(and able) to pursue that goal by buying equipment from manufacturers who say
that this is their goal too as they design and build their products. IOW, the
high-end is a philosophy rather than a set of rules and specifications.

Or, they are committed to that goal, but are willing (and able) to accept that what
manufacturers *say* about sound reproduction isn't necessarily the truth, even if it's said
with all sincerity. So they consider those arguments on their merits, informed by science.
The possibility thus arises that 'high end' sound may not be exclusive to 'high end'
manufacturers (and may sometimes quite elude those manufacturers).

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Harry Lavo]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:23:02 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

I wrote (in response to Arny):

These are all value judgments: "not startling" "pretty much
transparent", "good enough." So, perhaps, mp3 is "good
enough" for you. But the high end not about "good enough."
High end is about high performance.

answers:

And that, in and of itself, is a value judgement, based
on your particualr prejudices, agendae, preconceived
notions and all the rest...

No, I am not making a value judgement. High-end - by definition - is
about high performance. If it is not high performance, it is not high
end.

Ah, but how one defines "high-performance" has everything to do with how
one
defines the high-end. Personally, I define high-end audio as the pursuit
of
the reproduction of the sound of live music played in a real acoustic
space.
High-fidelity, in and of itself is to a degree. That degree is bounded by
many things: physics, the state of the art, ones financial resources,
one's
environment (as in listening space) and one's passion and commitment to
the
chase for the "Holy Grail" not to mention how one personally defines "the
sound of live music." This is important because many who consider
themselves
high-end type audiophiles think that the road to the Holy Grail of audio
can
only be achieved with analog phonograph records and/or tube electronics.
Others, OTOH, call this view nonsense. But obviously these "vinyl-philes"
and
"valvophiles" hear something in this path that reminds them more of live
music than do CDs and/or transistors.

What distinguishes the high-end from so-called mid-fi are the goals of the
customers. They are, to a greater extent than are the average consumer of
electronics goods, committed to getting closer to the music and are
willing
(and able) to pursue that goal by buying equipment from manufacturers who
say
that this is their goal too as they design and build their products. IOW,
the
high-end is a philosophy rather than a set of rules and specifications.


Since audio prefection is a provably impossible endpoint,
high-end audio is all about "good enough."

No, it isn't. This is the logical fallacy of the excluded middle. High
end is about high performance.

High-end is about the philosophy and commitment to recreating the sound of
live music in one's own listening environment. It goes no further than
that
(IMHO) unless one wishes to be gauche about it and put a price tag on that
philosophy.

And interestingly enough, it was exactly this point Harry Pearson made in
the early days of "The Abso!ute Sound". That's why Dynaco was considered
"high end" while Kenwood was not, even though some of their equipment sold
at similar prices. One went for the most sound for the buck, the other the
most volume at a price point. Harry pointed out that it was the
manufacturer's intent, their design philosophy, that made him consider them
"high end" or not. In those days, it wasn't just (or even mostly) dollars.
It was intent.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:34:28 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


Maybe, instead of scoffing, you might try to find out
what advocates of SET tubed amps "hear" from these units
which makes them so appealing.

What makes you think I haven't tried?

Well, of course, I don't know that you haven't tried and was merely reacting
to your words. I have no idea what the appeal of these SET amps are
(especially the ones using WE 300Bs). With their puny outputs of 5-10 Watts,
I really don't see what possible use they could be. Even with very efficient
speakers, they seem to run out of steam all the time. The best ones I've ever
heard were a pair I heard at the Stereophile Show in S.F. several years ago.
These monoblocks used large transmitter tubes (one, each) for the ouputs and
IIRC, put out about 50 Watts RMS. . While I heard nothing untoward, I also
heard nothing to write home about. So, I have to say that I certainly don't
get it.


I look at the audio hobby
this way: There are so many areas where even the best
stereo systems fail to live up to the promise of perfect
reproduction, that many audiophiles seem to choose
certain areas of the reproduction envelope, and pursue
them - often at the expense of other factors that one
might think to be equally important.

There is also plenty of evidence that many audiophile opinions are swayed by
hype.

More than in any other hobby that I can think of.

For instance, I know
a guy who is a nut for imaging. He only listens to tiny
speakers, which he says "approximates a point-source".

Irony being that if you want good imaging, you don't want point source
speakers, and you don't want tiny speakers. What you wan for a
well-developed sonic image is speakers with appropriately controlled
directivity, which necessarily requires large speakers.

I've tried to explain to him that my Martin-Logans image far better than do
his mini-speakers. He disagrees - what can one do? I don't argue with him. If
his delusion that small speakers image best gives him listening pleasure, who
am I to try to change his mind?

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 08:47:22 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sonnova" wrote in message


Maybe, instead of scoffing, you might try to find out
what advocates of SET tubed amps "hear" from these units
which makes them so appealing.

What makes you think I haven't tried?

Perhaps the fact that you never mention what it is they
find intriguing?

Seems like very bad logic, not to mention

The bad logic is that there is no necessary connection between investigating
and finding. I have conducted thousands of fruitless investigations on a
myriad of topics. That's one of the risks of attempting to be fair, there is
a real possibility of coming up dry. That's one of the ugly parts of
science.

And, I *have* mentioned what I think it is that they find intriguing. So the
comment is factually wrong.

But I haven't seen your findings in this area, so I certainly don't know what
you think it is that they find intriguing.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 08:48:34 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:23:02 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

I wrote (in response to Arny):

These are all value judgments: "not startling" "pretty much
transparent", "good enough." So, perhaps, mp3 is "good
enough" for you. But the high end not about "good enough."
High end is about high performance.

answers:

And that, in and of itself, is a value judgement, based
on your particualr prejudices, agendae, preconceived
notions and all the rest...

No, I am not making a value judgement. High-end - by definition - is
about high performance. If it is not high performance, it is not high end.

Ah, but how one defines "high-performance" has everything to do with how
one
defines the high-end. Personally, I define high-end audio as the pursuit of
the reproduction of the sound of live music played in a real acoustic
space.
High-fidelity, in and of itself is to a degree. That degree is bounded by
many things: physics, the state of the art, ones financial resources, one's
environment (as in listening space) and one's passion and commitment to the
chase for the "Holy Grail" not to mention how one personally defines "the
sound of live music." This is important because many who consider
themselves
high-end type audiophiles think that the road to the Holy Grail of audio
can
only be achieved with analog phonograph records and/or tube electronics.
Others, OTOH, call this view nonsense. But obviously these "vinyl-philes"
and
"valvophiles" hear something in this path that reminds them more of live
music than do CDs and/or transistors.

Or they hear something that reminds them of the vinyl sound they grew up
with, and
have emotional bias towards.

I wrote 'or' but these aren't exclusive choices. Factors influencing
perception of 'sound
quality' at any given listening session can be multiple, and certainly aren't

confined JUST to
the sound in typical situations.

What distinguishes the high-end from so-called mid-fi are the goals of the
customers. They are, to a greater extent than are the average consumer of
electronics goods, committed to getting closer to the music and are willing
(and able) to pursue that goal by buying equipment from manufacturers who
say
that this is their goal too as they design and build their products. IOW,
the
high-end is a philosophy rather than a set of rules and specifications.

Or, they are committed to that goal, but are willing (and able) to accept
that what
manufacturers *say* about sound reproduction isn't necessarily the truth,
even if it's said
with all sincerity. So they consider those arguments on their merits,
informed by science.
The possibility thus arises that 'high end' sound may not be exclusive to
'high end'
manufacturers (and may sometimes quite elude those manufacturers).



Amplifying devices aside, certainly any speaker capable of coming within a
country mile of "high-end" sound is certainly exclusive to the high-end.
Cheap brown-goods speakers simply cannot do the job even if modern cheap
receivers can.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 08:53:38 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:23:02 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

I wrote (in response to Arny):

These are all value judgments: "not startling" "pretty much
transparent", "good enough." So, perhaps, mp3 is "good
enough" for you. But the high end not about "good enough."
High end is about high performance.

answers:

And that, in and of itself, is a value judgement, based
on your particualr prejudices, agendae, preconceived
notions and all the rest...

No, I am not making a value judgement. High-end - by definition - is
about high performance. If it is not high performance, it is not high
end.

Ah, but how one defines "high-performance" has everything to do with how
one
defines the high-end. Personally, I define high-end audio as the pursuit
of
the reproduction of the sound of live music played in a real acoustic
space.
High-fidelity, in and of itself is to a degree. That degree is bounded by
many things: physics, the state of the art, ones financial resources,
one's
environment (as in listening space) and one's passion and commitment to
the
chase for the "Holy Grail" not to mention how one personally defines "the
sound of live music." This is important because many who consider
themselves
high-end type audiophiles think that the road to the Holy Grail of audio
can
only be achieved with analog phonograph records and/or tube electronics.
Others, OTOH, call this view nonsense. But obviously these "vinyl-philes"
and
"valvophiles" hear something in this path that reminds them more of live
music than do CDs and/or transistors.

What distinguishes the high-end from so-called mid-fi are the goals of the
customers. They are, to a greater extent than are the average consumer of
electronics goods, committed to getting closer to the music and are
willing
(and able) to pursue that goal by buying equipment from manufacturers who
say
that this is their goal too as they design and build their products. IOW,
the
high-end is a philosophy rather than a set of rules and specifications.


Since audio prefection is a provably impossible endpoint,
high-end audio is all about "good enough."

No, it isn't. This is the logical fallacy of the excluded middle. High
end is about high performance.

High-end is about the philosophy and commitment to recreating the sound of
live music in one's own listening environment. It goes no further than
that
(IMHO) unless one wishes to be gauche about it and put a price tag on that
philosophy.

And interestingly enough, it was exactly this point Harry Pearson made in
the early days of "The Abso!ute Sound". That's why Dynaco was considered
"high end" while Kenwood was not, even though some of their equipment sold
at similar prices. One went for the most sound for the buck, the other the
most volume at a price point. Harry pointed out that it was the
manufacturer's intent, their design philosophy, that made him consider them
"high end" or not. In those days, it wasn't just (or even mostly) dollars.
It was intent.


Exactly. And that's the way it should be. In a lot of ways, its too bad that
we live in a society where such a large portion of the population is very
wealthy (this is the first time in history that so many people have had so
much money). What it means is that everything that might be of interest to
people with more enthusiasm than cash has gone seriously upscale to cater to
those with more money than interest. I've seen this more than I care too. The
man with the mac-mansion who has a music room with a Bosendorfer concert
grand (that no one plays) and a half-million dollar stereo system for which
the rich owner has exactly FIVE CDs ("I never play it except to show it off
as I don't have the time to sit and listen to music. I bought it because what
good is a music room without a good hi-fi?"). I've seen it more than once and
have an acquaintance who used to own a high-end store and closed it because
he found that he could make more money installing a couple of top-dollar
stereos a month in rich dilettantes' homes than he could being open 8 hours a
day every day and dealing with "audiophiles" (he almost spits the word). This
up-market madness infects almost every hobby now. Back in the mid-1970's, I
had a chance to buy a beautiful Ferrari 1963 GTO for US$9000. I should have
bought it and kept it. They are now selling for around US$20 MILLION. How's
that for madness?

[Doug McDonald[_3_]]

Sonnova wrote:
I don't pretend to know what
single-ended-triode amps are supposed to do well,

It's called "second harmonic distortion".

but it's obviously
something, otherwise their wouldn't be so many brands of the flea-powered
lil' darlings on the market.

An easy answer to "flea power": 3CX15000H3, only $1750

I'm actually surprised that nobody has made an amplifier with one of
these. Of course, it would not have much distortion!

Doug McDonald

[[email protected]]

Sonnova wrote:


Good point. Mechanical watches can never be as accurate as the cheapest
digital watch,

Actually, they can. Not as good as the best digital watches, but as
good as the average one. When I was a kid I had a Bulova that
was accurate to a second or two a month. I would infuriate
teachers in school by getting up 1 second before the bell!

Doug McDonald

[Harry Lavo]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 06:11:55 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Some people 'demand' gold plate on a watch, but it
doesn't improve its time-keeping function.

So what? Accuracy is but one measure of a watch's
quality.

What do we call watches that look good, but aren't accurate?

Perhaps it is the only measure that matters to you.

Perhaps, in a pursuit called High Fidelity, high fidelity is the most
important thing.

Obviously, it is not the only standard for everyone.

Who said it was the only standard? Are you trying to make an
excluded-middle
argument?

Does that trouble you?

Does it trouble you that people are interested in High Fidelity systems
that
actually have high fidelity?


Is it possible the 'demands' of some listeners aren't
based on truly audibly difference, but an imaginary one?

Audio quality is but one measure of audio equipment.

But it should be the primary one.

Other factors - features and construction quality, for
example - are important to others. Does that trouble you?

It seems like audio's high end is taking substantial liberties with
construction quality, such as optical disc players that wrap a milled
front
panel and overbuilt power supplies and line drivers around a commodity
chassis that contains almost all of the parts that determine sound
quality.


The known limits of human hearing, as well as noise
characteristics of typical listening environments,
as well as noise characteristics of typical recording
sources...

....are only a few factors involved in the selection of
audio equipment, for some listeners. Does that trouble
you?

It troubles me that people would brag about their preference for sound
quality that is considerably suboptimal, such as that inherent in SET
tubed
power amps. Maybe not troubles so much as puzzles or even amuses.


Maybe, instead of scoffing, you might try to find out what advocates of
SET
tubed amps "hear" from these units which makes them so appealing. I look
at
the audio hobby this way: There are so many areas where even the best
stereo
systems fail to live up to the promise of perfect reproduction, that many
audiophiles seem to choose certain areas of the reproduction envelope, and
pursue them - often at the expense of other factors that one might think
to
be equally important. For instance, I know a guy who is a nut for imaging.
He
only listens to tiny speakers, which he says "approximates a
point-source".
He buys only "real stereo" recordings and has separate mono preamps ( a
pair
of highly modified Heathkit WA-P2s) for each channel and uses monoblock
power
amps (a pair of Rockford-Hafler "TransNovas", bridged, the last time I was
there). He gets really excited when he finds a new (to him) recording
where
he can pick out each and every instrument in the ensemble and point to it
in
space. Never mind that the speakers have no real bass and sound strained
playing orchestral music. As far as he's concerned, its the imaging and
sound
stage and nothing else will do. Another acquaintance has no speakers, only
a
very expensive pair of Stax headphones and a Stax tubed headphone
amplifier
to drive them. The reason? Flat, smooth frequency response unsullied by
room
acoustics. Others pursue accurate midrange, or accurate low bass and their
systems are constructed to maximize those parameters, often at the expense
of
the rest of the presentation. I don't pretend to know what
single-ended-triode amps are supposed to do well, but it's obviously
something, otherwise their wouldn't be so many brands of the flea-powered
lil' darlings on the market.

I believe advocates speak of a mid-range presence or "palpability" that
beguiles them. Could be just an impedance frequency boost, but whatever it
is, to your point, it draws them in.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 07:26:11 -0700, lid wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:


Good point. Mechanical watches can never be as accurate as the cheapest
digital watch,

Actually, they can. Not as good as the best digital watches, but as
good as the average one. When I was a kid I had a Bulova that
was accurate to a second or two a month. I would infuriate
teachers in school by getting up 1 second before the bell!

Doug McDonald

I don't think you are correct. Mechanical watches, even the best of them, use
balance wheels to break each second down into, at most, 2 swings/second. Even
cheap digital watches use quartz crystal oscillators that break each second
into 32, 768 segments (2 to the 15th). This signal is divided down to provide
each second. Because of the accuracy of this high-frequency oscillation, even
the cheapest digital watches are accurate to better than a half-second a
month. Add to that the fact that mechanical watch accuracy is dependent upon
such things as the position is is held and ambient temperature, and you have
watch that can only possibly be accurate to about 2 seconds/month (which is
excellent but only applicable to the finest Swiss jeweled movements).

When the first digital watches hit the market, the Swiss thought that they
were finished as fine watchmakers. Who would want to pay for a fine Swiss
watch when a cheap Seiko was actually a better timepiece? It was actually the
Yuppie movement that saved them. Yuppies started looking at expensive watches
(especially Rolex) as status symbols to go with their BMWs and Porsches. Like
I said in an earlier post. Fine mechanical Swiss watches are works of art,
but an electronic watch is a better timepiece.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 07:25:39 -0700, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
I don't pretend to know what
single-ended-triode amps are supposed to do well,

It's called "second harmonic distortion".

The addition of it or the lack of it? I know that many tube aficionados used
to say that tube amps sounded better than transistor amps because the
latter's distortion characteristics were of odd-order harmonic distortion,
which is, as they used to say, very unpleasant to the ear and does not occur
in nature. While tubes, OTOH, produce even-order harmonic distortion which is
easier to listen to and is very consonant with the sound of music. This was
probably true in the very early days of solid state amp design, but modern
amps have such low amounts of either even or odd-order distortion these days
that I suspect the point is moot. Besides, psychoacoustic studies have shown
that the human ear is VERY insensitive to this type of harmonic distortion
anyway, and can tolerate a couple of percent before noticing it. In fact,
people generally cannot differentiate between amplifying devices producing
0.001%. 0.1% and 1.0%.

That's not to say that people cannot hear small amounts of distortion. tiny
amounts of distortion from mistracking phono cartridges, gross errors in
digital decoding, or speaker distortion are, apparently, very audible.

but it's obviously
something, otherwise their wouldn't be so many brands of the flea-powered
lil' darlings on the market.

An easy answer to "flea power": 3CX15000H3, only $1750

I'm actually surprised that nobody has made an amplifier with one of
these. Of course, it would not have much distortion!

You know, you really could build an SET amp using these puppies! The amps
would end-up costing about $10 grand apiece (or more), but that wouldn't
deter many of today's better-heeled audiophiles. Wonder what kind of power
you could get from one?

I was referring to SETs using 300Bs when I made the "flea-powered" comment. I
also said that I had heard SET amps using transmitter tubes (but not
3CX15000H3, obviously) that put out 50 Watts. Hardly flea-powered.

Doug McDonald

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


snip


Irony being that if you want good imaging, you don't
want point source speakers, and you don't want tiny
speakers. What you wan for a well-developed sonic image
is speakers with appropriately controlled directivity,
which necessarily requires large speakers.

Once again, a whole class of audiophiles doesn't know
what they hear....and it is Arny's duty to pronounce from
on high "the truth".

There's no height here, just a voice from the trenches who happens to had
the opportunity, and taken the time to inform himself. If you do your
reading in professional journals like the JAES and the JASA you come up
with
a vastly different view of reality than if you busy yourself with the
average audiophile hype-of-the-month ragazine.

How about, "in my opinion...."

It's not just my opinion. It's the outcome of scientific investigation,
through this day. Too bad you've never bothered to inform yourself in this
area, Harry.


Sources, please. Just saying it is so isn't persuasive. If you expect me or
anybody else to believe this has been scientifically documented beyond a
doubt, then must provide a reference toa an article that supports that
claim. And before you mention Harmon, may I remind your that their work has
been based on perceived quality of sound and preference among speakers, not
on imaging per se. And BTW, I am a member of the AES, so if you want to
quote AES articles, feel free.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

snip

Irony being that if you want good imaging, you don't
want point source speakers, and you don't want tiny
speakers. What you wan for a well-developed sonic image
is speakers with appropriately controlled directivity,
which necessarily requires large speakers.

Once again, a whole class of audiophiles doesn't know
what they hear....and it is Arny's duty to pronounce
from on high "the truth".

There's no height here, just a voice from the trenches
who happens to had the opportunity, and taken the time
to inform himself. If you do your reading in
professional journals like the JAES and the JASA you
come up with
a vastly different view of reality than if you busy
yourself with the average audiophile hype-of-the-month
ragazine.

How about, "in my opinion...."

It's not just my opinion. It's the outcome of scientific
investigation, through this day. Too bad you've never
bothered to inform yourself in this area, Harry.

Sources, please.

I'm not into doing other people's homework for them, particularly when they
allege that they know better than I.

Just saying it is so isn't persuasive.

Take it or leave it.

If you expect me or anybody else to believe this has been
scientifically documented beyond a doubt, then must
provide a reference toa an article that supports that
claim.

Given all the articles I've cited on other topics that you disagree with
Harry, and watched them be ignored to this day, I have zero incentive to
try beat my head against this stone wall.

And before you mention Harmon, may I remind your
that their work has been based on perceived quality of
sound and preference among speakers, not on imaging per
se. And BTW, I am a member of the AES, so if you want to
quote AES articles, feel free.

Well Harry, if you are a member of the AES, then you already ignored the
articles once. A good example of JaES articles you have already ignored
onece would be:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195

Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio
Playback
JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007

[Engineering Report] Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made
for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer
word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD
standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the
analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings
with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.” The
tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety
of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one
high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and
cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in
a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results
show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud
listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems.
The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

[[email protected]]

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195

Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio
Playback
JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007

[Engineering Report] Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made
for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer
word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD
standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the
analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings
with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz bottleneck. The
tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety
of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one
high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and
cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in
a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results
show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud
listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems.
The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

I'm reminded of a test which I think originated on the newsgroup. A
digital recording was made of a record. People listening to both without
knowing which was being played could not detect which of the two media was
used at any given time.

[[email protected]]

Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 07:25:39 -0700, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
I don't pretend to know what
single-ended-triode amps are supposed to do well,
It's called "second harmonic distortion".

The addition of it or the lack of it?

The addition of it, of course. We are talking multi percent amounts here,
not .1%.

An easy answer to "flea power": 3CX15000H3, only $1750

I'm actually surprised that nobody has made an amplifier with one of
these. Of course, it would not have much distortion!

I didn't add, of course "at a reasonable power, like 400 watts", but that was
intended to be implied.


You know, you really could build an SET amp using these puppies! The amps
would end-up costing about $10 grand apiece (or more), but that wouldn't
deter many of today's better-heeled audiophiles. Wonder what kind of power
you could get from one?

Several kilowatts but not 15 kilowatts. The fans would be a noise problem ...
but hey, the rich audiophile could build an isolated room for the amp!

Doug McDonald

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:13:28 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195

Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio
Playback
JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007

[Engineering Report] Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made
for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer
word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD
standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the
analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings
with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz bottleneck. The
tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety
of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one
high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and
cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in
a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results
show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud
listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems.
The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

I'm reminded of a test which I think originated on the newsgroup. A
digital recording was made of a record. People listening to both without
knowing which was being played could not detect which of the two media was
used at any given time.


That's reasonable. The CD made of the record would contain all of the
record's ticks and pops, surface noise and other vinyl characteristics as
well as the characteristics imparted by the turntable, as well as the arm.

What this says is that if you like the sound of records, the thing to do
would be to rip your records to CD with the first play, carefully put the
record away and play the CD instead. :-)

[[email protected]]

Sonnova wrote:

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:33:55 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

What do we call watches that look good, but aren't accurate?

Rolex.

Good point. Mechanical watches can never be as accurate as the cheapest
digital watch, but they are supposed to be works of art as much as time
pieces. And by costing as much as they do, they guarantee themselves to be
successful among the rich as de riguer jewelry.

The hi-fi difference, of course, is that as long as they are working within
their intended electrical range, the Mark Levinson is just as good as the
Pioneer receiver. Outside the Pioneer's current and voltage capability,
the Levinson wins--no surprise, here. On the other hand, a Rolex will
never keep time as well as the Seiko, or even the Timex. Just don't ask me
which I'd rather own.

Michael

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:


Some people 'demand' gold plate on a watch, but it doesn't improve its
time-keeping function.

Is it possible the 'demands' of some listeners aren't based on truly
audibly difference, but an imaginary one?

It's undoubtedly the case. For reasons not primarily associated with hi-fi,
I own an 18 watt tube amp. It looks very smart, and has all the buzz--gold
plated connections, silver wire, and on and on. With my more than
efficient speakers, and at reasonable levels, it sounds good. Is it better
than my mid range solid state integrated amp in the next room? Well...just
looking at those gloss black side panels, the chrome plated stainless steel
chassis, and that warm glow, you know it just has to. Right? :-)

In reality, and if I'm honest with myself, the only components I ever
encountered that made an audible difference I could *reliably* recognize
were loudspeakers, and, of course, phono cartridges. I could throw in
cassette decks (never really a hi-fi medium, in my opinion), but no one
really uses them, anymore.

My impression is that modern and well designed (not always an oxymoron) tube
electronics will sound remarkably similar to SS as long as you do not tax
them to the point they start to distort badly. Once that happens, you
should buy yourself and electric guitar and have fun.

If you are have a 9 watt SET and use anything other than high efficiency
horns at low to moderate levels, the difference will become evident
quickly. Of course, at that time, all talk about "soft clipping" and "even
order harmonic distortion" may be a desireable feature.

Michael

[[email protected]]

Sonnova wrote:

. I HATE the sound of
electric guitars and find them one of the ugliest sounding instruments
ever devised.

Sonnova...what's gotten into you? I remember several times listening to
Basie live, and grooving on Freddie Green...uh...er...well, to tell you the
truth, once the bad started to crank I could never hear him, actually. But
the he sounded damned good, just the same!

Michael

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
Sonnova wrote:

. I HATE the sound of
electric guitars and find them one of the ugliest sounding instruments
ever devised.

Sonnova...what's gotten into you? I remember several times listening to
Basie live, and grooving on Freddie Green...uh...er...well, to tell you the
truth, once the bad started to crank I could never hear him, actually. But
the he sounded damned good, just the same!

There's no one single 'sound' of electric guitars anyway.



--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 01:38:18 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

Steven Sullivan wrote:


Some people 'demand' gold plate on a watch, but it doesn't improve its
time-keeping function.

Is it possible the 'demands' of some listeners aren't based on truly
audibly difference, but an imaginary one?

It's undoubtedly the case. For reasons not primarily associated with hi-fi,
I own an 18 watt tube amp. It looks very smart, and has all the buzz--gold
plated connections, silver wire, and on and on. With my more than
efficient speakers, and at reasonable levels, it sounds good. Is it better
than my mid range solid state integrated amp in the next room? Well...just
looking at those gloss black side panels, the chrome plated stainless steel
chassis, and that warm glow, you know it just has to. Right? :-)

In reality, and if I'm honest with myself, the only components I ever
encountered that made an audible difference I could *reliably* recognize
were loudspeakers, and, of course, phono cartridges. I could throw in
cassette decks (never really a hi-fi medium, in my opinion), but no one
really uses them, anymore.

My impression is that modern and well designed (not always an oxymoron) tube
electronics will sound remarkably similar to SS as long as you do not tax
them to the point they start to distort badly. Once that happens, you
should buy yourself and electric guitar and have fun.

Actually, a clipping tube amp sounds better than a clipping transistor amp
(to a point)

If you are have a 9 watt SET and use anything other than high efficiency
horns at low to moderate levels, the difference will become evident
quickly. Of course, at that time, all talk about "soft clipping" and "even
order harmonic distortion" may be a desireable feature.

Yep.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:28:29 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
Sonnova wrote:

. I HATE the sound of
electric guitars and find them one of the ugliest sounding instruments
ever devised.

Sonnova...what's gotten into you? I remember several times listening to
Basie live, and grooving on Freddie Green...uh...er...well, to tell you the
truth, once the bad started to crank I could never hear him, actually. But
the he sounded damned good, just the same!

There's no one single 'sound' of electric guitars anyway.

While I realize that aficionados can tell the difference between a Martin and
a Fender, and even various models of each, when you get as far away from the
subject as I am, they all sound the same - UGLY!

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 01:38:26 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

. I HATE the sound of
electric guitars and find them one of the ugliest sounding instruments
ever devised.

Sonnova...what's gotten into you? I remember several times listening to
Basie live, and grooving on Freddie Green...uh...er...well, to tell you the
truth, once the bad started to crank I could never hear him, actually. But
the he sounded damned good, just the same!

Michael


I've NEVER liked the sound of solid-body electric guitars (as opposed to
amplified acoustic or hollow-bodied guitars, which are OK). Even as a kid, I
eschewed rock and embraced folk (yep, I'm giving away my age) because of the
electric guitars.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:28:29 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
Sonnova wrote:

. I HATE the sound of
electric guitars and find them one of the ugliest sounding instruments
ever devised.

Sonnova...what's gotten into you? I remember several times listening to
Basie live, and grooving on Freddie Green...uh...er...well, to tell you the
truth, once the bad started to crank I could never hear him, actually. But
the he sounded damned good, just the same!

There's no one single 'sound' of electric guitars anyway.

While I realize that aficionados can tell the difference between a Martin and
a Fender, and even various models of each, when you get as far away from the
subject as I am, they all sound the same - UGLY!

Hmmm... Is this an ugly sound to you:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=2...db6fb9a8902bda
Played on a Martin.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 01:38:26 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

. I HATE the sound of
electric guitars and find them one of the ugliest sounding instruments
ever devised.

Sonnova...what's gotten into you? I remember several times listening to
Basie live, and grooving on Freddie Green...uh...er...well, to tell you the
truth, once the bad started to crank I could never hear him, actually. But
the he sounded damned good, just the same!

Michael


I've NEVER liked the sound of solid-body electric guitars (as opposed to
amplified acoustic or hollow-bodied guitars, which are OK). Even as a kid, I
eschewed rock and embraced folk (yep, I'm giving away my age) because of the
electric guitars.

You should know that solid-body electrics can be made to sound quite
like hollow-bodied electrics, with the right pick-up choice, amp
settings, etc. They can sound very mellow, woody, etc. I'm no fan of
the rock sound of solid bodies, and I don't own one. It's easier to get
the hollow-body sound with a, uh, hollow-body ;-). But solid bodies
can also get that fat, mellow, dark sound.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:21:46 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 01:38:26 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

. I HATE the sound of
electric guitars and find them one of the ugliest sounding instruments
ever devised.

Sonnova...what's gotten into you? I remember several times listening to
Basie live, and grooving on Freddie Green...uh...er...well, to tell you the
truth, once the bad started to crank I could never hear him, actually. But
the he sounded damned good, just the same!

Michael


I've NEVER liked the sound of solid-body electric guitars (as opposed to
amplified acoustic or hollow-bodied guitars, which are OK). Even as a kid,
I
eschewed rock and embraced folk (yep, I'm giving away my age) because of
the
electric guitars.

You should know that solid-body electrics can be made to sound quite
like hollow-bodied electrics, with the right pick-up choice, amp
settings, etc. They can sound very mellow, woody, etc. I'm no fan of
the rock sound of solid bodies, and I don't own one. It's easier to get
the hollow-body sound with a, uh, hollow-body ;-). But solid bodies
can also get that fat, mellow, dark sound.

OK, I stand corrected. Let me rephrase: I hate rock guitar.

[Steven Sullivan]

Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:28:29 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
Sonnova wrote:

. I HATE the sound of
electric guitars and find them one of the ugliest sounding instruments
ever devised.

Sonnova...what's gotten into you? I remember several times listening to
Basie live, and grooving on Freddie Green...uh...er...well, to tell you the
truth, once the bad started to crank I could never hear him, actually. But
the he sounded damned good, just the same!

There's no one single 'sound' of electric guitars anyway.

While I realize that aficionados can tell the difference between a Martin and
a Fender, and even various models of each, when you get as far away from the
subject as I am, they all sound the same - UGLY!

Martin only makes 'acoustic' (or 'acoustic electric') hollow-body guitars, so I'd hope even
non-aficionados could tell them apart sonically from Fenders, which are typically solid-body
electrics.

There's no accounting for taste, though.


--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:27:32 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:28:29 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
Sonnova wrote:

. I HATE the sound of
electric guitars and find them one of the ugliest sounding instruments
ever devised.

Sonnova...what's gotten into you? I remember several times listening to
Basie live, and grooving on Freddie Green...uh...er...well, to tell you
the
truth, once the bad started to crank I could never hear him, actually.
But
the he sounded damned good, just the same!

There's no one single 'sound' of electric guitars anyway.

While I realize that aficionados can tell the difference between a Martin
and
a Fender, and even various models of each, when you get as far away from
the
subject as I am, they all sound the same - UGLY!

Hmmm... Is this an ugly sound to you:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=2...db6fb9a8902bda
Played on a Martin.


I saw a bunch of files :Teleman, Beethoven, etc, played several didn't hear
anything that I would call a solid body electric guitar (or any guitar for
that matter). What should I have been listening for? The harpsichord in the
Teleman sounded like a cheap sampling synthesizer, but not a guitar.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:28:29 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
Sonnova wrote:

. I HATE the sound of
electric guitars and find them one of the ugliest sounding instruments
ever devised.

Sonnova...what's gotten into you? I remember several times listening to
Basie live, and grooving on Freddie Green...uh...er...well, to tell you
the
truth, once the bad started to crank I could never hear him, actually.
But
the he sounded damned good, just the same!

There's no one single 'sound' of electric guitars anyway.

While I realize that aficionados can tell the difference between a Martin
and
a Fender, and even various models of each, when you get as far away from
the
subject as I am, they all sound the same - UGLY!

Martin only makes 'acoustic' (or 'acoustic electric') hollow-body guitars, so
I'd hope even
non-aficionados could tell them apart sonically from Fenders, which are
typically solid-body
electrics.

There's no accounting for taste, though.

I agree that when most people refer to "Fenders" they mean the solid
body Strats, etc. but Fender does make acoustics, and their associated
companies, like Tacoma, do as well. Between the two, I greatly prefer
Martin though. Full disclosu I'm associated with the C.F. Martin
company.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:19:59 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:28:29 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
Sonnova wrote:

. I HATE the sound of
electric guitars and find them one of the ugliest sounding instruments
ever devised.

Sonnova...what's gotten into you? I remember several times listening to
Basie live, and grooving on Freddie Green...uh...er...well, to tell you
the
truth, once the bad started to crank I could never hear him, actually.
But
the he sounded damned good, just the same!

There's no one single 'sound' of electric guitars anyway.

While I realize that aficionados can tell the difference between a Martin
and
a Fender, and even various models of each, when you get as far away from
the
subject as I am, they all sound the same - UGLY!

Martin only makes 'acoustic' (or 'acoustic electric') hollow-body guitars, so

I'd hope even
non-aficionados could tell them apart sonically from Fenders, which are
typically solid-body
electrics.

There's no accounting for taste, though.

I wouldn't know, having no interest in the subject. I just picked two guitar
names that I remembered and used them to make a point: I.E. that while some
people can tell the difference between solid-body electric guitars, I'm not
one of them. To me, rock-n-roll is a perfect indication of the decline and
fall of western society. Each generation's idea of popular music is poorer in
quality and more primitive than one before. From Cole Porter to the Beatles,
to Ludicris (SP?) what a rapid fall.