[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"avidlistener" wrote in
message
ps.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"avidlistener" wrote in
message
oups.com

Getting the most accurate reproduction possible,
through equipment that measures properly, connected
to speakers that add as little distortion as
possible, (and face it this is where most distortion
is generated) in a properly set up room,

OR

Simply picking out equipment that gives you what you
believe the music should sound like according to
your own criteria, preference, biases, and emotions?

Why would these necessarily be in conflict?

There is no right answer, since the end goal is to
make the listener happy when playing one's favorite
recordings.

Oh, a rhetorical post.

They don't have to be, they just seem to be quite
often.

Mostly in people's minds.

There seems to be two groups of audiophiles, one
devoted to measured accuracy and one that doesn't
care about measured performance, only about an
emotional connection.

For the vast majority of people, there is a fairly
strong connection between the two.

As I said, both are perfectly good reasons for
choosing equipment, and probably the lines cross very
often.

There's considerable evidence that poor measured
performance = bad sound that almost nobody likes.

Fairly strong statements, Arny, presented as facts, not
opinions. Your supporting evidence?

Supporting evidence:

(1) SE triodes abandoned by the mainstream audio world.
(2) Tubes abandoned by the mainstream audio world.
(3) LP format abandoned by the mainstream audio world.
(4) Analog tape abandoned by the mainstream audio world.

(1) SE triodes never were part of the mainsteam audio
world, at least as we have know it since "hi-fi" came
into being in the '50's.

OK Harry, so you are brain dead to what happened with audio before the
60s. Your lack of historical perspective is noted.

I grew up with the highest of 50's hi-fi, Arny. And they were not single
ended triodes. That's when the "high-fidelity" marketplace was born. Yes,
back in the '30's when my EE father was experimenting, he might have built a
single-ended triode. It was never part of the high-fidelity market. Which
is the only thing we (other than you) have been talking about.



(2) Tubes were abandoned, and
then "rediscovered" by hi-fi lovers *because* they sound
better than SS to many "hi-fi" lovers. They now account
for a sizeable chunk of the "hi-fi lovers" market.

Define sizable. As far as the mainstream audio goes, tubes are almost
entirely dead.

As far as "high-end" goes, they are very much alive and kicking, and very
much "mainstream".



As opposed to the mass market where convenience and not
sound quality holds sway.

Convenience in this case meaning more predictably higher quality.

You can't prefer "more
accurate" sound quality if you don't even pay attention
to sound quality, wouldn't you agree, Arny?

A truism.

Then why does your logic fail you?



(3) LP
abandoned because most people took abysmal care of their
LPs, hated the resulting noise, and abandoned them for
the "easy path" of CD. Convenience and freedom from care,
more than sound quality, Arny.

Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality.

Right....McDonalds hamburgers, rather than a Big Boy. So much for your
sound quality argument.



(4) Analog tape other than
cassettes (in other words, where *sound quality* was
king, never was part of the mainstream audio world,
Arny.)

Spoken like someone who is as ignorant of audio production in the 50s as
60s as he is of home audio.

Arny, I lived through it. Analog tape was part of the high-fidelity market.
It was not part of the "mainstream" market in the '50's and '60's. Even the
first five years of high-quality cassette decks were of appeal only to the
high-fidelity market as more or less a "gimmick". Otherwise, if they were
used at all, they were used as dicatating machines.




And cassettes were again superceded by the CD
because they were more convenient, Arny.

Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality.

Not necessarily...just less chance of breakage and requiring less care.



But thanks Harry for showing your disregard for sound quality by defending
the cassette format.

I'm not defending it for sound quality, quite the opposite Arny...can't you
read.


Most users were
perfectly happy with the sound of cassettes....and would
be today if they came in the form of indestructable
little disks.

Enjoy wearing that tinfoil hat, Harry. ;-)

I'm simply saying that cassette rose to its prominence primarily based on
its convenience, *NOT* sound quality. And was replaced by CD for the same
reason. You are the only one who thinks CD's represent first class sound
quality because they replaced the cassette. I'm saying to the average
consumer (your "mainstream") could care less...they were happy with cassette
sound.....but the CD could replace *BOTH* the LP and the cassette and was
more convenient than both..both in use and in freedom from consumer-induced
screw-ups...ticks, pops, scratches in the case of LP's and jammed tape,
distended tape, broken cassette shells, etc. in the case of cassettes.

Try as you might, Arny, you are on shaky ground trying to ignore the
convenience reasons CD's won out, and at the same time ignoring the
fundamental reason that professionals and "hi-fiers" are searching for
better sound, because CD sound can be bettered.