[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
...
"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.

I agree Harry. I misread what you wrote. My apologies.

Accepted, thank you.


SE triodes were indeed never part of the hifi world of the 50s. P-P
triodes were, but SE triodes were long dead. They died in the early 30s
when push-pull was invented.

Thank you for reiterating what I just said.

And, that was my initial point. Your initial response was irrelevant, as
usual.

I see. Apoligize for "misreading", confirm that it was correct, and then
call it "irrelevant". Hey that's a five-and-a-half somersault with a full
twist, Arny. Congratulations, you scored 11.5 on a ten-point "debating
trade" dive.


(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".

That's the Harry I know and love to kick around. Keep changing what you
say Harry until like that room with a million monkeys, you finally make
sense.

What was it in my original statement about "hi-fi lovers" that you didn't
understand, Arny. I was talking about the high-fidelity market, Arny. You
are they one who only sees value in what the "masses" will accept.


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?


So you are saying the mass market does pay attention to sound quality? That
it is a main motivating force? And that they define sound quality as "more
accurate"?


(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.

Well Harry, if Big Boy's hamburgers are your reference standard for
burgers, you've already conceeded my point.

I tried to make it a reference that you as a denizen of lower Michigan would
understand, Arny. I doubt you've ever been to The Palm. My point is that
at the very least the LP can deliver "Big Boy" quality whereas early CD
delivered "Big Mac" quality at best. But getting a "Big Boy" requires more
effort.


So much for your sound quality argument.

So much for trying to make sense of your posts, Harry.

I do *SO* appreciate it, though, Arny! :-)





(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.

Like so many things Harry, you got it wrong.

Analog tape was part of the high-fidelity market.

That's why I sold so many analog R-R tape machines in the 60s at that
Lafayette store. That's why GIs brought so many R-R tape machines back
from Vietnam and Germany. That's why the local high end audio stores were
so proud of their Revox, Teac, Viking, Sony, and Tandberg franchises.

During the fifties, open-reel tape was for the well to do
audiophile...that's where stereo got started with almost exclusively
classical content. Sure , by the end of the sixties you sold lots of tape
machines, but only to people who were interested in sound quality and
home-recording...most people were not. And as you well know, while
Lafayette did serve as a "Radio Shack" of its day, it also served as a Hi-Fi
store and many of those people who bought tape machines from you were hi-fi
afficionados. As were those GI's who could buy machines dirt-cheap at the
overseas PX.


It was not part of the "mainstream"
market in the '50's and '60's.

Wrong.

Stereos were part of the "mainstream" market, Arny. What proportion of
stereo's had open-reel tape decks where you lived? In Chicago and the
Northeast where I hung out, not very many.


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".

IME, there never has been and never will be a high fidelity cassette
machine. But thanks Harry for admitting tacitly that you have tin ears.

I said "high-quality cassette decks", Arny. I did not say they were
high-fidelity. I furthermore said "even....they were seen as gimmicks".
That's a qualifier, Arny...it certainly doesn't imply high-fidelity.

Otherwise, if they were used at all, they were used as
dicatating machines.

In what alternative universe?

In the "mainstream" world of the mid-to-late '60's, Arny. Do your homework!



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.

I'm talking about formats, not specific recordings.

So am I. Cassettes could be a pain in the ass, although because of their
portability and small size they came to be the "convenient" choice.


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.

I can read, and that's one of your problems Harry. You called cassette a
high fidelity format, and thank you for making things so clear.

First you "misread me" again, Arny, and then you take me to task for
something I never said. Slow down and try to comprehend what I might be
saying, Arny. Before you take figurative "pen to hand".



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. ;-)

You have evidence or proof otherwise, Arny? You are the one who made the
initial claim that "poor measured performance = bad sound that almost
nobody likes" but the evidence you offered suffers under examination. Any
other evidence?


I'm simply saying that cassette rose to its prominence
primarily based on its convenience, *NOT* sound quality.

You've said far more than that Harry. But thanks for changing your story
once again.

The only changes were in your mind, Arny, since you "misread" me twice and
proceeded to set up strawmen.


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 never said any such thing, but thanks Harry for proving that you can't
read with any useful degree of accuracy.

Okay, I'll take back "first class". But would you please explain why the
remainder doesn't harken back to your staement that I've just quoted above?
You clearly stated in the "evidence" you provided that you believe the CD
won over LP's and tape ("analog") because it had more accurate sound
quality, and since people didn't like the "less accurate" sound quality of
analog, they flocked to CD?

" (3) LP format abandoned by the mainstream audio world."
" (4) Analog tape abandoned by the mainstream audio world."

Implied,of course, is that they were abandoned in favor of CD and digital
PCM, which you have stated explicitly elsewhere is your belief. But
implication is not evidence....and you stated your belief as fact.

So do I misunderstand you? And if so, where is you "proof" that your
assertions are correct, and my assertions are incorrect? Or even evidence
to suggest that my assertions are less likely to be the truth?


I'm saying
to the average consumer (your "mainstream") could care
less...they were happy with cassette sound.....

Nuts.

Hey, now there's a solid argument.


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.

As usual you got it all wrong. The CD format was a winner purely based on
sound quality. I know that goes against what they teach in your secular
religion of high end audio, but I did qualify what I said with
*mainstream*, didn't I?

I'm afraid Arny that most of us are no longer buying your repeated
assertions as "proof". Certainly I'm not.


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.

If the SQ of the CD format is so easy to better Harry, why can't you
provide me with a commercial recording that won't easily ABX as being
different when downsampled to 16/44 as opposed to say 24/96?

Another of Arny's fallbacks....dumb down your high-quality signal using my
lesser technology, and I'll prove to you you can't hear the difference.

0 for 2, Arny.

What are you going to do with the third pitch?