Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
I said
Sound quality and performance quality are mutually exclusive. Steven said Well, not *exclusive*. You mean, independent. Fair enough. I was using a cliche. Independent is what I meant. I said Give me a skillfully remastered (colored, degraded in fidelity, or euphonic) transfer of a bad recording of a good performance over an unfettered transfer any day. Your prferences may vary. Steven said Stewart was taking the original poster at his word. If the original poster meant 'who wants reproduction to sound unpleasant' that's what should have been written. Whether the *music* is unpleasant ,and whether that matters , is another issue; the composer Milton Babbit famously wrote an essay during the heyday of serialism, called 'Who Cares if You Listen?" I was taking him at his word as well. i figured the issue was whether or not an original recording sounded unpleasant. Aside from personal feelings about the pleasantness of certain instruments and voices, poor, low fidelity recordings tend to sound less pleasant than higher fidelity recordings. However for some listenrs amoung higher fidelity recordings, all of which are colored to begin with, some sweetening in some case will both be prefered and create the illusion of greater fidelity to the original performance. Stewart said That would be my personal opinion, certainly. Interestingly, many 'audiophiles' would instantly agree, if I mentioned B&O or Bose in this context, but for some mysterious reason would *not* agree if I mentioned SET amps. Same effect, different price point and bragging rights...................... I said Perhaps it isn't so mysterious if the SET is euphonic in it's colorations and the Bose and B&O are not euphonic in their colorations. Steven said At least some people like the way Bose's sound; Sure, mostly people who are not audiophiles. I think they make crap speakers but i think they market them well to nonaudiophiles. i don't personally know any audiophiles that likes their produicts as far as I am aware. Steven said Therefore Bose speakers are 'euphonic' by the same criteria audiophiles use for LP/turntables. I disagree. Bose speakers IMO are well designed to making a good first impression on people who are not really intterested in audio as a hobby. The people who prefer LPs are generally devoted audiophiles who spend much time, effort and money in persuit of excellence. I don't think you will find any Bose based systems in the homes of audiophiles who spend the time, effort and money that the LP enthusiasts do. Just as you pointed out that the average Joe doesn't know of Vandersteen speakers I think it is fair tp say that the average audiophile does not have a high opinion of Bose nordo they find their colorations euphonic. I think it is also fair to point out that like the Vandersteens, SETs are not well known to the average Joe who buys bose speakers. Steven said (If popularity is any indication, Bose speakers are far more euphonic than SET amps.) IMO it is not any indication. Steven said Euphonic just means 'sounds pleasant' . It doesn't specify to how many. No it doesn't. Nor do sales indicate it. Steven said Some people don't like the 'euphonic' distortions of turntables, either. I understand that but it would be unfair and IMOP unreasonable to compare the colorations of highend LP playback to the colorations of Bose speakers. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
So what are those 'common opinions' about Bose? They are pretty awful sounding. What is your opinion? |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
S888Wheel wrote:
Steven said At least some people like the way Bose's sound; Sure, mostly people who are not audiophiles. I think they make crap speakers but i think they market them well to nonaudiophiles. i don't personally know any audiophiles that likes their produicts as far as I am aware. But some audiophiles do like Bose speakers. Gary Eickmeyer (sp?) used to post here regularly regarding the virtues of properly set-up 901's. I disagree. Bose speakers IMO are well designed to making a good first impression on people who are not really intterested in audio as a hobby. The people who prefer LPs are generally devoted audiophiles who spend much time, effort and money in persuit of excellence. I don't think you will find any Bose based systems in the homes of audiophiles who spend the time, effort and money that the LP enthusiasts do. I think I have, actually. See above. Howard Ferstler has heard and reported on Gary's system, perhaps he could tell me if I'm mischaracterizing his as an 'audiophile' or not. Then again, audiophiles generally anoint *themselves*; there is no standard for accreditation. Obsessing over obsolete technology is not necessarily *my* idea of audiophilia. Just as you pointed out that the average Joe doesn't know of Vandersteen speakers I think it is fair tp say that the average audiophile does not have a high opinion of Bose nordo they find their colorations euphonic. I think it is also fair to point out that like the Vandersteens, SETs are not well known to the average Joe who buys bose speakers. But the average audiophile has displayed so many ideas at odds with known facts, that I've found teh average audiophile to be just as poor a guidepost as the average Joe. Fortunately there seem to be more than a few *above average* audiophiles around, too, if yuou know where to look for them. They're the ones who are skeptical of dubious claims that the average audiophile accepts uncritically. IMHO, of course. Some people don't like the 'euphonic' distortions of turntables, either. I understand that but it would be unfair and IMOP unreasonable to compare the colorations of highend LP playback to the colorations of Bose speakers. By what reasoning? -- -S. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Tom said
So what are those 'common opinions' about Bose? I said They are pretty awful sounding. What is your opinion? tom said I'd say that opinion may well be confined to newsgroup posters and not the general enthusiast population. I'd say you are probably wrong. Tom said I do know some audiophiles who love Bose speakers. I'm sure there are a few. Tom said In my opinion Bose has done a wonderful job of putting the real needs of a certain market in a more useful order. And, yes, I agree that that population isn't deemed to be "audiophiles" for their most popular products. So? Bose has brought decent music to seniors and accountants who think that invisible speakers are more important than deep bass and flat response and/or could really use a boom-box but wouldn't be caught dead with a regular one. That's great but not terribly relevant to my objection to comparing SETs to Bose speakers. Tom said I have evaluated many Bose products and in general they are not good sounding compared to that available in the same price class elsewhere but, OTOH, I sometimes hear positive comments from audiophiles about some truly dreadful speakers where the competing Bose is better. Dreadful IYO yes? You are not making any definitve claims right? What speakers might you be refering to that are so dreadful? |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:
To reiterate, the point was that when *all three* are euphonic in their colorations, i.e. they all sound 'pleasant', the self-acclaimed 'audiophile' tends to reject B&O and Bose, but accepts SET amps. Why is that? Careful of your straw men here Stewart. I for one don't find B&O, Bose or SET's pleasant. B&O seems unpleasant and uninteresting. Bose is wildly colored and so unnatural sounding it imposes on my enjoyment. SET's either have no guts, or sounds so wildly colored they too impinge upon my enjoyment. The coloration isn't tasteful I would say. It is excessive. But I think the straw man 'audiophile' you construct isn't very accurate. Lots of audiophiles don't care for SET's or haven't heard any. SET's aren't universally acclaimed as you make it seem. You are probably thinking all this simply reinforces the idea of preference being whatever someone wants. I agree what one finds tasteful enhancement will vary from person to person. What is high fidelity doesn't. That makes it much harder to quantify tasteful high end versus measurable high fidelity. But that some tasteful enhancement away from fidelity is part of the high end for many isn't really an arguable point. Dennis |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
"Nousaine" schrieb
In my opinion Bose has done a wonderful job of putting the real needs of a certain market in a more useful order. Iīd call marketing of 15$ worth of parts for 1700$ not quite as euphemistic! But otoh there is plenty of "high-end" gear on the market with similar margins. Shame on them, too. And, yes, I agree that that population isn't deemed to be "audiophiles" for their most popular products. Over here the importer of Bose (or is it the local branch of the company itself?)takes great care that Bose is presented seperately from other gear. They do not want it compared to other stuff and they know why. I personally wouldnīt buy anything from a dealer who sells Bose. I simply wouldīt trust his taste in selecting good sounding equipment for the money. So how could he make suggestions to me I would feel I could trust? I have evaluated many Bose products and in general they are not good sounding compared to that available in the same price class elsewhere Thatīs what everybody says and rightly so... Compare http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html http://home.earthlink.net/~busenitz/bs.html but, OTOH, I sometimes hear positive comments from audiophiles about some truly dreadful speakers where the competing Bose is better. Thatīs a killer argument about anything or just simple "audiophile bashing", unprooved and unproovabel. |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
I'm not trying to defend Bose speakers but like it or not, the room IS
part of what you hear. Pad the room with too much absorption and most high quality speakers would sound awful. I have DBX Soundfield One speakers and I feel that the contribution made by room reflections enhance the overall sound. -MIKE |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Steven said
At least some people like the way Bose's sound; I said Sure, mostly people who are not audiophiles. I think they make crap speakers but i think they market them well to nonaudiophiles. i don't personally know any audiophiles that likes their produicts as far as I am aware. Steven said But some audiophiles do like Bose speakers. I'm sure some do. It's a big world with a lot of people in it. Steven said Gary Eickmeyer (sp?) used to post here regularly regarding the virtues of properly set-up 901's. Fair enough. You have cited one. I don't know him. Of course you can find many dedicated audiophiles that are SET enthusiasts on Rec. Audio tubes and on the Audio Asylum. They have their own subcatagory there. Bose does not. I said I disagree. Bose speakers IMO are well designed to making a good first impression on people who are not really intterested in audio as a hobby. The people who prefer LPs are generally devoted audiophiles who spend much time, effort and money in persuit of excellence. I don't think you will find any Bose based systems in the homes of audiophiles who spend the time, effort and money that the LP enthusiasts do. Steven said I think I have, actually. See above. Howard Ferstler has heard and reported on Gary's system, perhaps he could tell me if I'm mischaracterizing his as an 'audiophile' or not. One exception does not make a rule. Infact it doesn't even disprove a rule of thumb. It is easy to find numerous hardcore audiophiles that love SETs. I am conficent that hardcore audiophiles that love Bose are few and far between. I think it is clear, given their sales, that Bose entusiasts are by and large not dedicated audiophiles and usually are unaware of the existance of most high fidelity highend speakers. Steven said Then again, audiophiles generally anoint *themselves*; there is no standard for accreditation. As it should be. It is only a hobby after all. Steven said Obsessing over obsolete technology is not necessarily *my* idea of audiophilia. You are certainly entitled to your take on your hobby. So are others who see SETs as something more than an obsolete technology. I said Just as you pointed out that the average Joe doesn't know of Vandersteen speakers I think it is fair tp say that the average audiophile does not have a high opinion of Bose nordo they find their colorations euphonic. I think it is also fair to point out that like the Vandersteens, SETs are not well known to the average Joe who buys bose speakers. Steven said But the average audiophile has displayed so many ideas at odds with known facts, that I've found teh average audiophile to be just as poor a guidepost as the average Joe. Well, that is your take on things. I think some of those facts are disputed by very knowledgable people. I think many systems based on what is considered snake oil, obsolete technologies and backwards thinking by many on RAHE are really great sounding systems. Steven said Fortunately there seem to be more than a few *above average* audiophiles around, too, if yuou know where to look for them. What? Now we are ranking audiophiles? That would be rather subjective top say the least. What you consider to be above average may not be what I consider to be above average. Steven said They're the ones who are skeptical of dubious claims that the average audiophile accepts uncritically. In your view. How would you rank Dave Wilson as an audiophile? How about Bill Johnson? How would you rank Jim West, Richard Vandersteen or Gayle Sanders? I think they all have pretty great systems as their reference systems. Steven said IMHO, of course. Of course. Steven said Some people don't like the 'euphonic' distortions of turntables, either. I said I understand that but it would be unfair and IMOP unreasonable to compare the colorations of highend LP playback to the colorations of Bose speakers. By what reasoning? I think I have explained it in this thread. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Mkuller wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: But some audiophiles do like Bose speakers. Gary Eickmeyer (sp?) used to post here regularly regarding the virtues of properly set-up 901's. I can't speak for all audiophiles (right, Dick?) but I can tell you what I think about Bose 901s. No reflection (pun intended) on Gary, but IMHO a High End audiophile loudspeaker should reproduce what is on the recording without adding anything of it's own. Great that you agree that high-end audiophile gear should be accurate and free of colorations or distortions. Now we are having convergence . The 901s were popular among rock music fans in the early 1970s because they could play very loud and fill a room with sound - from their 7 (if I recall) midrange drivers. The 901s create an artificial ambience by reflecting sound in many different directions off room surfaces, rather than seeking to preserve the ambience captured by the microphones on the recording. It's just wrong. Wow, a subjectivist saying that it is wrong to be euphonic? Regards, Mike |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:36:56 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news: To reiterate, the point was that when *all three* are euphonic in their colorations, i.e. they all sound 'pleasant', the self-acclaimed 'audiophile' tends to reject B&O and Bose, but accepts SET amps. Why is that? Careful of your straw men here Stewart. I for one don't find B&O, Bose or SET's pleasant. Fine, but we're not talking about your personal opinion (or mine), we're talking about the general perception. While you and I don't like SETs, they have a certain reputation among audiophiles in general, of whom Dorsey/Wheel is an example. B&O seems unpleasant and uninteresting. Bose is wildly colored and so unnatural sounding it imposes on my enjoyment. SET's either have no guts, or sounds so wildly colored they too impinge upon my enjoyment. Fine - so what's your problem? The coloration isn't tasteful I would say. It is excessive. But I think the straw man 'audiophile' you construct isn't very accurate. Lots of audiophiles don't care for SET's or haven't heard any. SET's aren't universally acclaimed as you make it seem. I make no claim for universal appeal, since clearly the SET market is absolutely tiny. My point is that the typically snobbish self-acclaimed 'audiophile' seems to find the notion of SETs being in the same class as B&O or Bose to be quite offensive. See Dorsey aka Wheel's comments in this thread. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Tom said
I do know some audiophiles who love Bose speakers. I said I'm sure there are a few. Tom said Bose has brought decent music to seniors and accountants who think that invisible speakers are more important than deep bass and flat response and/or could really use a boom-box but wouldn't be caught dead with a regular one. I said That's great but not terribly relevant to my objection to comparing SETs to Bose speakers. Stewart said Oh, really? really. Stewart said Let's review the position Yes lets reviewit. Maybe you will get it right after a review. Stewart said - you agree that there are only a few 'audiophiles' who like Bose speakers, Yes. Stewart said you agree that flat response and deep bass are not critical to musical enjoyment, Hold on here. Where did I say that? What is "flat response?" What is "deep bass?" Are any playback systems truely flat? I don't know that every system that sounded good to me was "flat" by your standards of flat, nor do I know they did or did not have "deep bass" by your definition of deep bass whatever that may be. So until we can agree on the terms and which systems i like fit within those terms and which do not, I don't agree. Stewart said and yet you *still* don't see the parallel with SET amplifiers, I see the parallel as you have presented it. You picked a very unpopular line of speakers amoung audiophiles and likened the performance of SETs to them because you don't like them either. The parallel is flawed IMO because many devoted hardcore audiophiles like SETs. The same simply cannot accurately be said of Bose. If you had made the comparison to Quad speakers, a speaker that is arguably lacking in deep bass and, if memory serves me is not the flatest speaker on the planet, less flat than most SETs I suspect, then I wouldn't have complained. They are not universally loved by audiophiles due to incontravertable limmitaions but they have a devoted following amoung some hardcore audiophiles. Stewart said which are undeniably technically deficient in several areas, Except some designers of SETs find those technical deficiencies to be unimportant. So it still comes down to what an individual expects form a piece of equipment. Stewart said and are popular with only a few 'audiophiles'. What's the difference? I think you claim that SETs are popular with only a few audiophiles is simply wrong. One need only look on Rec. Audio tubes and on Audioasylum under SETs to find more than a few enthusiasts. You will find far more such enthusiats of SETs on those forums than you will find like minded audiophiles for yourself here on RAHE. I don't see any such catagories for Bose speakers anywhere. The following that Bose has is quite different in character than the following SETs have amoung audiophiles.Again, if you had likened SETs to Quads or planar speakers or horn speakers or even LP playback i would not have objected. Thise would be fair comparisons IMO. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Charlie Bonitz wrote:
"Nousaine" schrieb In my opinion Bose has done a wonderful job of putting the real needs of a certain market in a more useful order. I?d call marketing of 15$ worth of parts for 1700$ not quite as euphemistic! But otoh there is plenty of "high-end" gear on the market with similar margins. Shame on them, too. And, yes, I agree that that population isn't deemed to be "audiophiles" for their most popular products. Over here the importer of Bose (or is it the local branch of the company itself?)takes great care that Bose is presented seperately from other gear. They do not want it compared to other stuff and they know why. I personally wouldn?t buy anything from a dealer who sells Bose. I simply would?t trust his taste in selecting good sounding equipment for the money. So how could he make suggestions to me I would feel I could trust? Do you apply the same criterion to dealers who sell 'shameful' high-end gear? but, OTOH, I sometimes hear positive comments from audiophiles about some truly dreadful speakers where the competing Bose is better. That?s a killer argument about anything or just simple "audiophile bashing", unprooved and unproovabel. It's no more 'unproved or unprovable' than the stuff in those links you provided. Clealry it's possible to find withering critiques of some 'audiophile' speakers as well. -- -S. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Stewart said
Fine, but we're not talking about your personal opinion (or mine), we're talking about the general perception. While you and I don't like SETs, they have a certain reputation among audiophiles in general, of whom Dorsey/Wheel is an example. Please don't speak for me unless you can manage to do so with reasonable accuracy. Stewart said I make no claim for universal appeal, since clearly the SET market is absolutely tiny. My point is that the typically snobbish self-acclaimed 'audiophile' seems to find the notion of SETs being in the same class as B&O or Bose to be quite offensive. See Dorsey aka Wheel's comments in this thread. I thought personal attacks were no longer allowed on RAHE. I am clearly being called a snobbish self-aclaimmed 'audiophile'. I'm guessing that the quotation marks are there just to show you don't think I am a real audiophile. Talk about snobbery. Weren't you the one who said you think everyone who disagrees with you on audio was either an idiot or ignorant? |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Stewart said
Oh, really? Let's review the position - you agree that there are only a few 'audiophiles' who like Bose speakers, you agree that flat response and deep bass are not critical to musical enjoyment, and yet you *still* don't see the parallel with SET amplifiers, which are undeniably technically deficient in several areas, and are popular with only a few 'audiophiles'. What's the difference? -- I forgot to mention that even if I did agree with all of the above it still doesn't change the fact that what Tom said: "Bose has brought decent music to seniors and accountants who think invisible speakers are more important than deep bass and flat respons and/or could really use a boom-box but wouldn't be caught dead with a regular one." Is still totally irrelevant to my objections to your comparison between Bose speakers and SETs. |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Do you apply the same criterion to dealers who sell 'shameful' high-end gear? "Shameful" - is it pornographic or something? It's interesting that you ascribe strong moral/religious terms to what is essentially an honorable capitalistic enterprise. Caveat emptor. Is conspicuous consumption - say a Mercedes in the driveway - immoral, too? Regards, Mike |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Mkuller wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: Do you apply the same criterion to dealers who sell 'shameful' high-end gear? "Shameful" - is it pornographic or something? It's interesting that you ascribe strong moral/religious terms to what is essentially an honorable capitalistic enterprise. Caveat emptor. Is conspicuous consumption - say a Mercedes in the driveway - immoral, too? Regards, Mike Mr. Kuller, you snipped that sentence from its context, where it makes obvious sense. The quote marks I used around the word 'shameful' clearly followed from Mr. Bonitz' having written 'Shame on them' in reference to high-margin high-end gear. Your beef should be with him, not me. Yet your reply was to me only. Shame on you. Your agenda is showing. -- -S. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
S888Wheel wrote:
Steven said At least some people like the way Bose's sound; I said Sure, mostly people who are not audiophiles. I think they make crap speakers but i think they market them well to nonaudiophiles. i don't personally know any audiophiles that likes their produicts as far as I am aware. Steven said But some audiophiles do like Bose speakers. I'm sure some do. It's a big world with a lot of people in it. Steven said Gary Eickmeyer (sp?) used to post here regularly regarding the virtues of properly set-up 901's. Fair enough. You have cited one. I don't know him. His setup was profiled in The Sensible Sound a year or three back. YOu can look it up. Of course you can find many dedicated audiophiles that are SET enthusiasts on Rec. Audio tubes and on the Audio Asylum. They have their own subcatagory there. Bose does not. Is that reasonable, or simply prejudice? Given the stuff I see daily on Audio Asylum, I must conclude the latter. Audiophiles can't have it both ways -- if something that they admit exhibits 'euphonic distortion' -- turntables, tube amps, speakers -- can also be considered fit for discussion on 'audiophile' newsgroups, then why not Bose? Particularly in the realm of speakers, where coloration is a given? Are they saying that Bose *cannot* sound euphonic? Are they saying that NO TRUE AUDIOPHILE could enjoy their sound? Mr. Eickmeyer, who IIRC is no slouch in the audio gear department, would disagree. Moreover, who determines what a 'true' audiophile is? Is it because Bose are arguably overpriced? Surely *that* can't be something audiophiles complain *too* loudly of. I think I have, actually. See above. Howard Ferstler has heard and reported on Gary's system, perhaps he could tell me if I'm mischaracterizing his as an 'audiophile' or not. One exception does not make a rule. Infact it doesn't even disprove a rule of thumb. It is easy to find numerous hardcore audiophiles that love SETs. I am conficent that hardcore audiophiles that love Bose are few and far between. I think it is clear, given their sales, that Bose entusiasts are by and large not dedicated audiophiles and usually are unaware of the existance of most high fidelity highend speakers. You're almost certainly right. But that doesn't mean that audiophiles avoidance of and carping about Bose is consistent with their other beliefs and practices, or rational. The problem, is given the utter rubbish that 'audiophiles' *HAVE* touted enthusiastically, e.g. green pens, shakti stones, high-end cables etc -- how can we trust 'their' judgement re Bose? ANd therefore, hwo can we use the 'well, audiophiles tend to loathe them' argument against Bose? Obsessing over obsolete technology is not necessarily *my* idea of audiophilia. You are certainly entitled to your take on your hobby. So are others who see SETs as something more than an obsolete technology. I was referring to LP/turntable there, actually, though tube amps could apply. But the average audiophile has displayed so many ideas at odds with known facts, that I've found teh average audiophile to be just as poor a guidepost as the average Joe. Well, that is your take on things. I think some of those facts are disputed by very knowledgable people. I think many systems based on what is considered snake oil, obsolete technologies and backwards thinking by many on RAHE are really great sounding systems. See above. The most knowledgable people I've encountered regarding how the stuff *actually works*, seem to consider much of audiophilia to be a disgrace. Steven said Fortunately there seem to be more than a few *above average* audiophiles around, too, if yuou know where to look for them. What? Now we are ranking audiophiles? That would be rather subjective top say the least. What you consider to be above average may not be what I consider to be above average. No doubt. They're the ones who are skeptical of dubious claims that the average audiophile accepts uncritically. In your view. How would you rank Dave Wilson as an audiophile? How about Bill Johnson? How would you rank Jim West, Richard Vandersteen or Gayle Sanders? I think they all have pretty great systems as their reference systems. Now who's ranking? -- -S. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
(S888Wheel) wrote:
Talk about snobbery. Weren't you the one who said you think everyone who disagrees with you on audio was either an idiot or ignorant? (Stewart Pinkerton) Yes, I did. Of course, I failed to mention those who simply have an agenda, and *refuse* to maintain an honest debate. Again, amazing. Here is an excellent example of "the pot calling the kettle black". My psychologist friends tell me that people tend to project their personal issues on others. So who 'really' is the one with agendas and who refuses to engage in an honest debate. Readers here can draw their own conclusions. Regards, Mike |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 1 Oct 2003 17:22:39 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: and yet one is revered while the other is derided, by a certain type of self-acclaimed 'audiophile'. Is there any other kind of audiophile? I'm not aware of any organization that does audiophile certification. To my way of thinking, an audiophile is anyone who has spent more money on his stereo than on the music he listens to. Or anyone who is more interested in the equipment than the music. Duffy |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
"Duffy Pratt" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 1 Oct 2003 17:22:39 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: and yet one is revered while the other is derided, by a certain type of self-acclaimed 'audiophile'. Is there any other kind of audiophile? I'm not aware of any organization that does audiophile certification. To my way of thinking, an audiophile is anyone who has spent more money on his stereo than on the music he listens to. Or anyone who is more interested in the equipment than the music. Duffy There's an old quip: "You're not an audiophile until you spend more time talking about your system than you do listening to it." There's another one I always liked about audio magazines back in the old days when a few hundred dollars was a lot of money. "You can spend $300 a year and hear nothing but the sound of pages turning." |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
I said
I see the parallel as you have presented it. You picked a very unpopular line of speakers amoung audiophiles and likened the performance of SETs to them because you don't like them either. The parallel is flawed IMO because many devoted hardcore audiophiles like SETs. The same simply cannot accurately be said of Bose. Stewart said That *is* the point, since both have deep technical flaws, OSAF Stewart said both sound 'pleasant', Not to me. not to most hardcore audiophiles. Do you think Bose sound pleasant? Or was this disingenuous? Stewart said and yet one is revered while the other is derided, By some hardcore audiophiles. At least you got this half right. Stewart said by a certain type of self-acclaimed 'audiophile'. Your attack on such audiophiles for their preference is noted. Stewart said Of course you know this, Claim of mind reading is noted. Stewart said you are simply being disingenuous. Personal attack noted. Such personal attacks are usually the last resort for someone who cannot support their position with facts and logic. I accept your concession.I guess the moderators have given up the fight to keep such nonsense out of RAHE. Of course, I must always remember your opinion about anyone who disagrees with your views on audio. Your modesty is noted as well. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Steven said
Is it because Bose are arguably overpriced? No. It's because people listen to them and don't like them. Steven said Surely *that* can't be something audiophiles complain *too* loudly of. That depends on the individual audiophile does it not? Steven said I think I have, actually. See above. Howard Ferstler has heard and reported on Gary's system, perhaps he could tell me if I'm mischaracterizing his as an 'audiophile' or not. I said One exception does not make a rule. Infact it doesn't even disprove a rule of thumb. It is easy to find numerous hardcore audiophiles that love SETs. I am conficent that hardcore audiophiles that love Bose are few and far between. I think it is clear, given their sales, that Bose entusiasts are by and large not dedicated audiophiles and usually are unaware of the existance of most high fidelity highend speakers. Steven said You're almost certainly right. But that doesn't mean that audiophiles avoidance of and carping about Bose is consistent with their other beliefs and practices, or rational. Why do you have to attack the rationality of people's preferences? Is that rational? Bottom line is many hardcore audiophiles love SETs, not so many love Bose. Their colorations are totally different in nature. the comparison was meant to attack the credability of the preferences of those who love SETs. Steven said The problem, is given the utter rubbish that 'audiophiles' *HAVE* touted enthusiastically, e.g. green pens, shakti stones, high-end cables etc -- how can we trust 'their' judgement re Bose? relevance? Steven said ANd therefore, hwo can we use the 'well, audiophiles tend to loathe them' argument against Bose? is this really anything other than an illustration of your feelings about audiophiles that disagree with your views? So you think they are not trustworthy or rational. Steven said Fortunately there seem to be more than a few *above average* audiophiles around, too, if yuou know where to look for them. I said What? Now we are ranking audiophiles? That would be rather subjective top say the least. What you consider to be above average may not be what I consider to be above average. Steven said No doubt. Steven said They're the ones who are skeptical of dubious claims that the average audiophile accepts uncritically. I said In your view. How would you rank Dave Wilson as an audiophile? How about Bill Johnson? How would you rank Jim West, Richard Vandersteen or Gayle Sanders? I think they all have pretty great systems as their reference systems. Steven said Now who's ranking? Why not just answer the question? |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
I'm not trying to defend Bose speakers but like it or not, the room IS
part of what you hear. Pad the room with too much absorption and most high quality speakers would sound awful. I have DBX Soundfield One speakers and I feel that the contribution made by room reflections enhance the overall sound. -MIKE |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Steven said
At least some people like the way Bose's sound; I said Sure, mostly people who are not audiophiles. I think they make crap speakers but i think they market them well to nonaudiophiles. i don't personally know any audiophiles that likes their produicts as far as I am aware. Steven said But some audiophiles do like Bose speakers. I'm sure some do. It's a big world with a lot of people in it. Steven said Gary Eickmeyer (sp?) used to post here regularly regarding the virtues of properly set-up 901's. Fair enough. You have cited one. I don't know him. Of course you can find many dedicated audiophiles that are SET enthusiasts on Rec. Audio tubes and on the Audio Asylum. They have their own subcatagory there. Bose does not. I said I disagree. Bose speakers IMO are well designed to making a good first impression on people who are not really intterested in audio as a hobby. The people who prefer LPs are generally devoted audiophiles who spend much time, effort and money in persuit of excellence. I don't think you will find any Bose based systems in the homes of audiophiles who spend the time, effort and money that the LP enthusiasts do. Steven said I think I have, actually. See above. Howard Ferstler has heard and reported on Gary's system, perhaps he could tell me if I'm mischaracterizing his as an 'audiophile' or not. One exception does not make a rule. Infact it doesn't even disprove a rule of thumb. It is easy to find numerous hardcore audiophiles that love SETs. I am conficent that hardcore audiophiles that love Bose are few and far between. I think it is clear, given their sales, that Bose entusiasts are by and large not dedicated audiophiles and usually are unaware of the existance of most high fidelity highend speakers. Steven said Then again, audiophiles generally anoint *themselves*; there is no standard for accreditation. As it should be. It is only a hobby after all. Steven said Obsessing over obsolete technology is not necessarily *my* idea of audiophilia. You are certainly entitled to your take on your hobby. So are others who see SETs as something more than an obsolete technology. I said Just as you pointed out that the average Joe doesn't know of Vandersteen speakers I think it is fair tp say that the average audiophile does not have a high opinion of Bose nordo they find their colorations euphonic. I think it is also fair to point out that like the Vandersteens, SETs are not well known to the average Joe who buys bose speakers. Steven said But the average audiophile has displayed so many ideas at odds with known facts, that I've found teh average audiophile to be just as poor a guidepost as the average Joe. Well, that is your take on things. I think some of those facts are disputed by very knowledgable people. I think many systems based on what is considered snake oil, obsolete technologies and backwards thinking by many on RAHE are really great sounding systems. Steven said Fortunately there seem to be more than a few *above average* audiophiles around, too, if yuou know where to look for them. What? Now we are ranking audiophiles? That would be rather subjective top say the least. What you consider to be above average may not be what I consider to be above average. Steven said They're the ones who are skeptical of dubious claims that the average audiophile accepts uncritically. In your view. How would you rank Dave Wilson as an audiophile? How about Bill Johnson? How would you rank Jim West, Richard Vandersteen or Gayle Sanders? I think they all have pretty great systems as their reference systems. Steven said IMHO, of course. Of course. Steven said Some people don't like the 'euphonic' distortions of turntables, either. I said I understand that but it would be unfair and IMOP unreasonable to compare the colorations of highend LP playback to the colorations of Bose speakers. By what reasoning? I think I have explained it in this thread. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
I said
Of course you can find many dedicated audiophiles that are SET enthusiasts on Rec. Audio tubes and on the Audio Asylum. They have their own subcatagory there. Bose does not. Steven said Is that reasonable, Is what reasonable? My argument is supported by this fact IMO. I think my position is quite reasonable. Are SET enthusiasts reasonable? i cannot speak for such a large group, most of whom I don't know personally. I am sure many of them are reasonable people. Steven said or simply prejudice? ? Steven said Given the stuff I see daily on Audio Asylum, I must conclude the latter. Not really relevant to my point. Steven said Audiophiles can't have it both ways -- if something that they admit exhibits 'euphonic distortion' -- turntables, tube amps, speakers -- can also be considered fit for discussion on 'audiophile' newsgroups, then why not Bose? What are you talking about? First, not everyone who likes tube amps and turntables believe it is a distortion that leads to their preference. But even for the ones who do, what is it you are saying? That they must also like Bose speakers because they are distorted? Who said that SET enthusiasts believe Bose should not be discussed? This is a strawman. I have never riased such an issue. Steven said Are they saying that Bose *cannot* sound euphonic? No. The people who don't like Bose are saying in their experience they didn't sound euphonic. Steven said Are they saying that NO TRUE AUDIOPHILE could enjoy their sound? People say all kinds of things. Steven said Mr. Eickmeyer, who IIRC is no slouch in the audio gear department, would disagree. So? Steven said Moreover, who determines what a 'true' audiophile is? IMO everyone decides for themselves. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Stewart said
Fine, but we're not talking about your personal opinion (or mine), we're talking about the general perception. While you and I don't like SETs, they have a certain reputation among audiophiles in general, of whom Dorsey/Wheel is an example. I said Please don't speak for me unless you can manage to do so with reasonable accuracy. Stewart said You already spoke for yourself in this matter. Nope. Get your facts straight please. Feel free to quote any opinion I have expressed about the sound of SETs. Quote me. Stewart said I make no claim for universal appeal, since clearly the SET market is absolutely tiny. My point is that the typically snobbish self-acclaimed 'audiophile' seems to find the notion of SETs being in the same class as B&O or Bose to be quite offensive. See Dorsey aka Wheel's comments in this thread. I said I thought personal attacks were no longer allowed on RAHE. I am clearly being called a snobbish self-aclaimmed 'audiophile'. I'm guessing that the quotation marks are there just to show you don't think I am a real audiophile. Stewart said The reference was to your comments. Maybe you better review those comments for some understanding of them. It seems you don't understand them so far. Stewart said If you feel that you fit the description, that's up to you. I feel you have misrepresented my opinions. I said Talk about snobbery. Weren't you the one who said you think everyone who disagrees with you on audio was either an idiot or ignorant? Stewart said Yes, I did. Such a belief is the pinacle of snobbery IMO. Stewart said Of course, I failed to mention those who simply have an agenda, and *refuse* to maintain an honest debate. Well naturally! Anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest as well as stupid. And you call others snobby? Funny, you impy that I am dishonest, stupid and a snob and yet you base this on a complete misrepresentation of my opinions. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
S888Wheel wrote:
I said Of course you can find many dedicated audiophiles that are SET enthusiasts on Rec. Audio tubes and on the Audio Asylum. They have their own subcatagory there. Bose does not. Steven said Is that reasonable, Is what reasonable? My argument is supported by this fact IMO. I think my position is quite reasonable. Are SET enthusiasts reasonable? i cannot speak for such a large group, most of whom I don't know personally. I am sure many of them are reasonable people. Steven said or simply prejudice? ? sigh Let's try again. What is *your* explanation for the nonexistence of a subcategory for Bose on Audio Asylum? WHy have you asserted AA as an 'authority' in your argment here? -- -S. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Measurements vs Listening
mkuller wrote:
The 901s create an artificial ambience by reflecting sound in many different directions off room surfaces, rather than seeking to preserve the ambience captured by the microphones on the recording. It's just wrong. Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Fine, I entirely accept your argument. Wait - Pinkerton agreeing with me? Wow, this must be my lucky day. I'm going out to buy a lottery ticket... By the same token, we do not want cables that add anything to the uncoloured sound coming out of the amplifier, and we most certainly don't want an amplifier that has 'no highs, no lows, Unless you listen to music that has no highs or lows - like vocals, baroque or chamber music - where it doesn't matter. Or perhaps you use Quad ESL-57s or ESL-63s which are very similar to SETs - they have no highs or lows, can't play loud and have very limited dynamic range, but provide a very intimate, detailed and transparent view on the midrange. must be Bose' as a fundamental characteristic, such as you'll find with SETs, not to mention the total lack of dynamic contrast caused by the 'soft clipping' effect, and that artificial 'loudness' caused by the rapid onset of distortion above 1/3 power. SETs (and many other tube amps) have an additional problem, in that those large tubes suffer microphony and reverberation, creating an artificial ambiance, rather than seeking to preserve the ambience captured by the microphones on the recording. It's just plain wrong. Unfortunately, you've taken my comment a little too far as usual. Bench measurements don't tell the whole story about 'music reproduction'. No audio component is 'perfect' at reproducing an input - every component has some distortion somewhere. And some types of distortion get more in the way of music enjoyment than others. Personally, I prefer the distortion of a good tubed amplifier reproducing music than the distortions of most solid state amps, which irritate me over the long term. As far as SET amps go, they may measure poorly, but their proponents claim they provide a more realistic reproduction of music (based on comparison to live unamplified instruments) than other amps. They may not be your or my cup of tea, but they have their following - like Bose 901s. If there wasn't a market for them (like colored cables) they wouldn't be manufactured. To each his own, different strokes for ...and other cliches. Regards, Mike |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Can network, video and sound cables be combined to save space? | General | |||
Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion | Audio Opinions | |||
Cables used when rec. from tape to PC question. | General | |||
Kenwood DIN cables - custom lengths? can they be spliced? | Car Audio | |||
Ears vs. Instruments | High End Audio |