On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:23:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message
roups.com
Michael Conzo wrote:
In article , "audio_origami"
wrote:
ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and
out can help get the balance just right....although some rooms just
sound better!! # and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved
all the furniture and need a cup of tea..heheh
This is why most reasonable audiophiles and other educated
professionals understand the foolishness behind "high-end"
electronics, cables, green magic markers, etc.
You paint high end with a rather broad and biased brush.
As compared to your rose-colored glasses, smeared with vinyl and vacuum tube
dust?
The most important and unpredictable factor is ALWAYS
the room.
No it's the system as a whole which includes the room. Crap system in
a good room is just more obviously crap.
So here we have it. In Scott's book there is nothing but crap and utter high
end vacuum tube and vinyl retro-technology.
Guess what Scott - there is something of value in the middle that you want
to exclude. Digital can sound far better than the best vinyl, and good solid
state equipment can be economical and sonically accurate. The combination of
mid-fi electronics, a really well-tuned room and better-than-mid-fi speakers
is working and winning combination.
Why would you argue with what he said? Is it just because it's Scott?
Because I suspect that if Tom Nousaine said exactly the same thing,
you'd be jumping on board with both feet. Or do you really believe
that a great room can turn a "crap" system into something great?
Also, Mr. Conzo's statement right before that one is incorrect in one
respect - the room is probably the most PREDICTABLE (and constant)
factor, and the one that can be adjusted for the easiest. It's
certainly the one factor that one might be able to make good
predictions "on paper" as long as all of the room variables are
described. It's far easier to do that than to try to describe the
sound of a hi-fi system solely based on spec sheets.