Re: Hi-end on the truly cheap!

[John Stone]

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

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

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

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

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

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

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

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

> Look at an old McIntosh tube amp.

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

[Nickyrash]

;892639']On Nov 16, 10:39=A0am, John Stone > wrote:

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

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

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

> Look at an old McIntosh tube amp.

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

Hi,

Thanks for sharing this one