Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.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?
Your raving mad nonsequitor is noted.
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.
You are not making sense at all Arny. I suggest that you check the
oxygen levels in your basement.
Guess what Scott - there is something of value in the middle that you
want
to exclude.
What are you raving about? Where in my post did I exclude anything? You
are not making any sense.
Digital can sound far better than the best vinyl,
I have heard 24/96 recording sound as fgood or better. I have yet to
hear it from any CD on any CD player in direct comparisons.
and good solid
state equipment can be economical and sonically accurate.
That's nice. Did I say otherwise? get a grip dude. You are babbling
about things that weren't said.
The combination of
mid-fi electronics, a really well-tuned room and better-than-mid-fi
speakers
is working and winning combination.
Tell me something I didn't already know dude.
That's why the most successful manufacturers don't rely solely on
measurements but use real listeners in real "acoustically average"
rooms.
In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can
measure the
difference between a poor room and a good room, but sometimes its
easier to
just use our ears.
Actually the most "successful" manufacturers rely on hype and
marketing.
If people don't know you have it for sale, why would the run out to
buy it?
Another weird nonsequitor.
They don't make very good speakers by and large.
I dunno about that.
Maybe because you are near deaf?
Bose might be an example of group that is financially
successful, but sells lesser home consumer speaker systems for
greater
prices.
Bose is the most successful speaker manufacturer on the earth. they
don't make very good speakers. That was my point.
OTOH, the Harman group, PSB, Boston Acoustics, Paradigm, etc., etc
do sell a goodly volume of really pretty good speakers and seem to
turn a
goodly profit. So much for Scott's broad and biased brush which
strokes
against reasonably-priced audio gear.
So much for Arny understanding the difference between pretty good and
very good.
OTOH there is nothing wrong with designing speakers to work
optimally in
"average" rooms. It is a sensible concept for making a product for
the
non-enthusiast.
I'm trying to figure out how one would make an optimal speaker for an
average room that wasn't SOTA. Can't be done.
You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer so it's no surprise that
this idea would ellude you.
I think this might be another
one of Scott's misapprehensions.
No, just another example of your hatred and distrust towards those
seeking excellence.
It is not sensible for manufacturers that are attacking the state
of the
art.
How can someone like Scott who is addicted to retro-technology like
tubes
and vinyl have the foggiest clue as to where the 2004 SOTA is?
Obviously the answer is over your little pin head.
Scott is
firmly grounded in 1978 technology, none later. That was then, but
this
discussion is about now.
You are babbling again Arny. Where in your bizarre brain did you come
up with that date though?
It is a safe assumption that hard core
enthusiasts who pursue SOTA and have the money to spend on it will
use
dedicated listening rooms that can be tailored to SOTA speakers
that
are designed with no compromises mandated by "average rooms."
If it was only that simple.
It actually is Arny.
If all dedicated listening rooms had equal or
comparable acoustical properties, perhaps.
I see, you don't understand the word "tailored."
In the real world there is very
little consistency.
As if you were the least bit in touch with the real world.
If accuracy is the goal, (accuracy being a concept that
Scott's EFX-laden system has no chance of addressing) then the best
approach
for the speaker designer is to make the speaker function more
independently
of the room, rather than being more dependent on the room.
I suggest you talk some speaker designers before making such an ass of
yourself. In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average room.
Scott Wheeler