Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Greg Singh wrote:



Bruce J. Richman wrote:


As you've already hesitatingly admitted, you don't know anything about me

and

have never met me. Therefore, you have no idea about what I might or might

not

believe or what I mght or might not buy?

You, on the other hand, as many on RAO have pointed out, have never been

known

to concede that you don't know as much as you think you do about just about

any

topic under discussion. I've never bought any audio product without making
extensive comparisons first. And in answer to your stupid assumption about

my

buying habits, unlike the few suckers that you conned when selling gear,

I'm

not a member of the "component of the month or year" club. I've owned the

same

speakers, amplifier, etc. for a number of years and rarely upgrade pieces

of my

system without a very good reason to do so. And when I *didd* own a pair

of

Quad ESL 57's many years ago, I( certainly didn't buy them because of the
"brand name"; at the time I auditioned them, I knew very little about

either

electrostatics or Quads specifically.

Sorry to shatter yet another of your wildly inaccurate false claims.



Bruce, if you owned ESL57s and "graduated" to Martin Logans then you
went in the wrong direction. ESL57s, withing their operating limits,
are bordering on perfect. Especially if you have some really good
electronics behind them, which, unfortunately, you probably didn't.
Now, I may be wrong and you may have a valid explanation for the reasons
for switching to Martin Logans, but I tend to doubt it. You may also
have had good sounding electronics at one time, but I tend to doubt that
too. You do listen to vinyl, which is certainly a step in the right
direction, but if I remember correctly you listen to it on a VPI, which
tends to produce fairly unexciting, uninvolving sound. But of course
VPI, like Martin Logan, reviews well, so you could see why I would say
that you're merely buying brand names. Moreover, you alluded to the
"research" you do before making a purchase, which presumably has to do
with finding out which brands are reviewed well. You're bitching about
me "not knowing what I'm talking about" is simply a weak defense
mechanism, because you couldn't last five minutes in an audio
conversation with me.










As usual, you're lieing again.


"Lieing"--got it.


About both your knowledge re. audio and about
my reesearch, which you delusionally assume was based on magazine reviews.
Your stupidity re. how others evaluate equipment is duly noted. None of my
research was based on magazine reviews, other than to get a rough idea of what
brands might be worth personally auditioning.


Right, so in your mind if it doesn't show up in a magazine then it isn't
worth auditioning. Exactly as predicted.


95% of my research involved
actual listening comparisons. And of course, your comments about VPI
turntables are not shared by hardly anybody


'Not shared by hardly anybody'--got it.


that has made meaningful
comparisons. Unfortunately, you confuse neutrality and reasonably accurate
playback of what's on the vinyl with the "souped up" "hi-fi" quality of some
English turntables like Linn Sondek, which you probably favor (and probably
sold along with other English brands).


I use live music as a reference, you use magazine terminology. That's
accurate, right?


But thanks for validating my previous
observation that you've been known to bash other brands simply to try and
"sell" your biases to others. As for the electronics I've used, again you're
wrong, but given your biases and inability to concede your own errors in
judgment, why even discuss them?


True, who discusses audio on this group.