A critique fo the magazines

http://www.high-endaudio.com/magaz.html

Somewhat dated but still spot on.

> wrote in message
ink.net...
> http://www.high-endaudio.com/magaz.html
>
> Somewhat dated but still spot on.
>

[Sander deWaal]

> said:

>http://www.high-endaudio.com/magaz.html
>
>Somewhat dated but still spot on.


Like this excerpt about "The Audio Critic"? ;-)

- begin quote: -

The new problem for me, and most others, is the editor no longer
believes that any component, other than loudspeakers, can make an
audible difference (improvement) in the sound; a cheap (powerful)
receiver will sound as good as any power amplifier; the same with CD
players, cables, preamp line-stages etc. He states he can prove all
this with ABX testing. He also feels analogue, meaning phono
reproduction, is far inferior to any CD player and that "tubes are for
boobs". No, I am not exaggerating.

While I concur about the prime importance of speakers and listening
rooms, I don't agree with their position on tubes, phono reproduction,
and everything else sounding the same, though I do feel that the sonic
differences in most cases are greatly exaggerated. Frankly, if I felt
the same way the editor did about audio components, I wouldn't even
bother being involved with an audio magazine in the first place. It
would be too boring, and besides; What's the point?

According to their own findings and philosophy, all you have to do to
get the best sound possible is to buy the cheapest receiver, CD player
and cables you can find, then buy your favorite loudspeaker with all
the money you saved. Further, the only improvement you will ever be
able make in the future is with a better pair of speakers. Everything
else must be, in effect, perfect, because it all sounds exactly the
same. There is also a continually angry, bitter and negative tone to
the writing that may put one off.

- end quote -

--

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

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> > said:
>
>>http://www.high-endaudio.com/magaz.html
>>
>>Somewhat dated but still spot on.
>
>
> Like this excerpt about "The Audio Critic"? ;-)
>
> - begin quote: -
>
> The new problem for me, and most others, is the editor no longer
> believes that any component, other than loudspeakers, can make an
> audible difference (improvement) in the sound; a cheap (powerful)
> receiver will sound as good as any power amplifier; the same with CD
> players, cables, preamp line-stages etc. He states he can prove all
> this with ABX testing. He also feels analogue, meaning phono
> reproduction, is far inferior to any CD player and that "tubes are for
> boobs". No, I am not exaggerating.
>
> While I concur about the prime importance of speakers and listening
> rooms, I don't agree with their position on tubes, phono reproduction,
> and everything else sounding the same, though I do feel that the sonic
> differences in most cases are greatly exaggerated. Frankly, if I felt
> the same way the editor did about audio components, I wouldn't even
> bother being involved with an audio magazine in the first place. It
> would be too boring, and besides; What's the point?
>
> According to their own findings and philosophy, all you have to do to
> get the best sound possible is to buy the cheapest receiver, CD player
> and cables you can find, then buy your favorite loudspeaker with all
> the money you saved. Further, the only improvement you will ever be
> able make in the future is with a better pair of speakers. Everything
> else must be, in effect, perfect, because it all sounds exactly the
> same. There is also a continually angry, bitter and negative tone to
> the writing that may put one off.
>
> - end quote -
>
> --
>
I didn't say it was perfect.

I don't agree with AC's notions about there being not being any components
other than loudspeakers that can affect the sound of an audio system,
obviously the WAVAC can. Phono cartridges seem to as well as their preamps,
but as for the rest...................

Cables, are surely not going to change or improve anything. I don't want
anything to do with tubes, and I certainly have yet to hear a difference in
CD players, or any of the amps or receivers I've owned.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:07:30 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
>> > said:
>>
>>>http://www.high-endaudio.com/magaz.html
>>>
>>>Somewhat dated but still spot on.
>>
>>
>> Like this excerpt about "The Audio Critic"? ;-)
>>
>> - begin quote: -
>>
>> The new problem for me, and most others, is the editor no longer
>> believes that any component, other than loudspeakers, can make an
>> audible difference (improvement) in the sound; a cheap (powerful)
>> receiver will sound as good as any power amplifier; the same with CD
>> players, cables, preamp line-stages etc. He states he can prove all
>> this with ABX testing. He also feels analogue, meaning phono
>> reproduction, is far inferior to any CD player and that "tubes are for
>> boobs". No, I am not exaggerating.
>>
>> While I concur about the prime importance of speakers and listening
>> rooms, I don't agree with their position on tubes, phono reproduction,
>> and everything else sounding the same, though I do feel that the sonic
>> differences in most cases are greatly exaggerated. Frankly, if I felt
>> the same way the editor did about audio components, I wouldn't even
>> bother being involved with an audio magazine in the first place. It
>> would be too boring, and besides; What's the point?
>>
>> According to their own findings and philosophy, all you have to do to
>> get the best sound possible is to buy the cheapest receiver, CD player
>> and cables you can find, then buy your favorite loudspeaker with all
>> the money you saved. Further, the only improvement you will ever be
>> able make in the future is with a better pair of speakers. Everything
>> else must be, in effect, perfect, because it all sounds exactly the
>> same. There is also a continually angry, bitter and negative tone to
>> the writing that may put one off.
>>
>> - end quote -
>>
>> --
>>
>I didn't say it was perfect.
>
>I don't agree with AC's notions about there being not being any components
>other than loudspeakers that can affect the sound of an audio system,
>obviously the WAVAC can. Phono cartridges seem to as well as their preamps,
>but as for the rest...................
>
>Cables, are surely not going to change or improve anything. I don't want
>anything to do with tubes, and I certainly have yet to hear a difference in
>CD players, or any of the amps or receivers I've owned.

You should test your ability to determine *subtle* differences with
dbts.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :

> You should test your ability to determine *subtle* differences with
> dbts.

You should test your ability to hear *big* frequency hole in bull****
speakers before trying to teach the others... ;-)
Considering your review of Trotsky speakers your HiFi credibility is
nearly zero Dave.



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
link.net...
>
> .... and I certainly have yet to hear a difference in CD players, or any
> of the amps or receivers I've owned.
>

At this point, I'm not even sure that you
have listened to any of them, yes, that you have
even listened to any of your own equipment.

Instead of actually listening to Respighi's The Pines of Rome,
all you had to do was read a review by someone else
who listened to it, and voila, you have acquired
perfect understanding of the work.

[Steven Sullivan]

Sander deWaal > wrote:
> > said:

> >http://www.high-endaudio.com/magaz.html
> >
> >Somewhat dated but still spot on.


> Like this excerpt about "The Audio Critic"? ;-)

> - begin quote: -

> The new problem for me, and most others, is the editor no longer
> believes that any component, other than loudspeakers, can make an
> audible difference (improvement) in the sound; a cheap (powerful)
> receiver will sound as good as any power amplifier; the same with CD
> players, cables, preamp line-stages etc. He states he can prove all
> this with ABX testing. He also feels analogue, meaning phono
> reproduction, is far inferior to any CD player and that "tubes are for
> boobs". No, I am not exaggerating.

THe writer's incredulity tells a tale on him.


> While I concur about the prime importance of speakers and listening
> rooms, I don't agree with their position on tubes, phono reproduction,
> and everything else sounding the same, though I do feel that the sonic
> differences in most cases are greatly exaggerated. Frankly, if I felt
> the same way the editor did about audio components, I wouldn't even
> bother being involved with an audio magazine in the first place. It
> would be too boring, and besides; What's the point?


Speakers and room treatments and recordings constitute a rather
large scope for reviewable items -- as do the feature-sets available
on most modern components (minimalist hi-end nonsense excluded).

The writer simply lacks imagination in this instance.


> According to their own findings and philosophy, all you have to do to
> get the best sound possible is to buy the cheapest receiver, CD player
> and cables you can find, then buy your favorite loudspeaker with all
> the money you saved. Further, the only improvement you will ever be
> able make in the future is with a better pair of speakers. Everything
> else must be, in effect, perfect, because it all sounds exactly the
> same.

This is , in effect, an exaggeration of what Aczel has written.
And the writer presents no evidence that real sonic improvements
routinely accrue from changing cables, CD players, or receivers.
That's because there isn't any.

There is also a continually angry, bitter and negative tone to
> the writing that may put one off.

Just like Mikey Fremer was put off by the writer, I guess.


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:07:30 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
>>> > said:
>>>
>>>>http://www.high-endaudio.com/magaz.html
>>>>
>>>>Somewhat dated but still spot on.
>>>
>>>
>>> Like this excerpt about "The Audio Critic"? ;-)
>>>
>>> - begin quote: -
>>>
>>> The new problem for me, and most others, is the editor no longer
>>> believes that any component, other than loudspeakers, can make an
>>> audible difference (improvement) in the sound; a cheap (powerful)
>>> receiver will sound as good as any power amplifier; the same with CD
>>> players, cables, preamp line-stages etc. He states he can prove all
>>> this with ABX testing. He also feels analogue, meaning phono
>>> reproduction, is far inferior to any CD player and that "tubes are for
>>> boobs". No, I am not exaggerating.
>>>
>>> While I concur about the prime importance of speakers and listening
>>> rooms, I don't agree with their position on tubes, phono reproduction,
>>> and everything else sounding the same, though I do feel that the sonic
>>> differences in most cases are greatly exaggerated. Frankly, if I felt
>>> the same way the editor did about audio components, I wouldn't even
>>> bother being involved with an audio magazine in the first place. It
>>> would be too boring, and besides; What's the point?
>>>
>>> According to their own findings and philosophy, all you have to do to
>>> get the best sound possible is to buy the cheapest receiver, CD player
>>> and cables you can find, then buy your favorite loudspeaker with all
>>> the money you saved. Further, the only improvement you will ever be
>>> able make in the future is with a better pair of speakers. Everything
>>> else must be, in effect, perfect, because it all sounds exactly the
>>> same. There is also a continually angry, bitter and negative tone to
>>> the writing that may put one off.
>>>
>>> - end quote -
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>I didn't say it was perfect.
>>
>>I don't agree with AC's notions about there being not being any components
>>other than loudspeakers that can affect the sound of an audio system,
>>obviously the WAVAC can. Phono cartridges seem to as well as their
>>preamps,
>>but as for the rest...................
>>
>>Cables, are surely not going to change or improve anything. I don't want
>>anything to do with tubes, and I certainly have yet to hear a difference
>>in
>>CD players, or any of the amps or receivers I've owned.
>
> You should test your ability to determine *subtle* differences with
> dbts.

Should the need arise, I will.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> .... and I certainly have yet to hear a difference in CD players, or any
>> of the amps or receivers I've owned.
>>
>
> At this point, I'm not even sure that you
> have listened to any of them, yes, that you have
> even listened to any of your own equipment.
>
> Instead of actually listening to Respighi's The Pines of Rome,
> all you had to do was read a review by someone else
> who listened to it, and voila, you have acquired
> perfect understanding of the work.
>
You can believe whatever you want, it matters nothing to me.

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote
>>Clyde Slick wrote
>>> nyob123 wrote
>
>
>
>>> .... and I certainly have yet to hear a difference in CD players, or any
>>> of the amps or receivers I've owned.
>>>
>>
>> At this point, I'm not even sure that you
>> have listened to any of them, yes, that you have
>> even listened to any of your own equipment.
>>
>> Instead of actually listening to Respighi's The Pines of Rome,
>> all you had to do was read a review by someone else
>> who listened to it, and voila, you have acquired
>> perfect understanding of the work.
>
> You can believe whatever you want, it matters nothing to me.




* * * *

It matters nothing to you of course as long as empowered to
smother and asphyxiate your chicken a little bit at a time.


* * * *

It's all a gutless recreant objectivist wants.