Which is more important?
"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
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
(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.
The part where you didn't make up a new term "hi fi
lovers" and then defined it and redefined it as many
times as you needed to make a dissmbling fool out of
yoursef, Harry.
I specifically used that term so you wouldn't have an
excuse to go off on a tangent about "audiophools", Arny,
as you are wont to do at the drop of a hat. I was using
a deliberately neutral term to describe what in the '50's
and '60's we called "high fi mavens". Hardly makes me a
dissembling fool except in your mind.
Harry, it seems like the only part of your brain that still works is the
imagination. Please post again when you can express yourself without making
up a whole new audio lexicon.
I was talking about the high-fidelity market, Arny.
Is that the same thing as what I meant in my OP by
"mainstream", Harry?
No
Good Harry, so you finally admit that you have nothing relevant to add.
End of non-discussion.
|