"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
"ScottW" said:

Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the addition
of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.


Please note that second-hand quality audio gear seems to hold up its
value pretty well.

A used Krell, Mark Levinson, Rowland, Audio Research, yes even Quad or
Radford can't be had for a bargain.

But products from lesser known names that soound identical can be.

" said:

Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the addition
of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.


Please note that second-hand quality audio gear seems to hold up its
value pretty well.

A used Krell, Mark Levinson, Rowland, Audio Research, yes even Quad or
Radford can't be had for a bargain.


But products from lesser known names that soound identical can be.


That may be true, but with the brands mentioned above, it's not just
about sonical performance IMO.

The comment was directed at Robert, who stated that "the big audio
names seem to come in and out of fashion", with which statement I
disagree, at least where it concerns well-known brand names that are
with us for several decades now.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
" said:

Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the
addition
of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.


Please note that second-hand quality audio gear seems to hold up its
value pretty well.

A used Krell, Mark Levinson, Rowland, Audio Research, yes even Quad or
Radford can't be had for a bargain.


But products from lesser known names that sound identical can be.


That may be true, but with the brands mentioned above, it's not just
about sonical performance IMO.

That's pretty much been my point for some time. If you pay more for an amp,
CD player, or whatever, you don't get better sound, you get bragging rights.
Once you achieve flat response without any form of audible distortion or
noise, and the ability to drive difficult loads, you have a perfect piece of
equipment. Adding heavy faceplates or designer caps, and coils, doesn't
really get you better sound, but it might get you a longer product life.

Nothing wrong with spending whatever someone wants for their gear, but
people should be aware of the fact that it doesn't get them better sound as
the manufacturers and SP type reviewers would like us to believe.

The comment was directed at Robert, who stated that "the big audio
names seem to come in and out of fashion", with which statement I
disagree, at least where it concerns well-known brand names that are
with us for several decades now.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Mikey Bug-Eater eyes a snack. Oops, too slow. He stirs again. Will he make the
grab this time?

Nothing wrong with spending whatever someone wants for their gear, but

Except when you know about it.

people should be aware of the fact that it doesn't get them better sound as
the manufacturers and SP type reviewers would like us to believe.

Nobody wants you to believe anything. All they want is for you to buy their
stuff.

Apparently you believe nobody can enjoy their stereo unless they've been
brainwashed. Too bad your brain is too pickled to respond to ordinary stimuli.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Mikey Bug-Eater eyes a snack. Oops, too slow. He stirs again. Will he make
the
grab this time?

Nothing wrong with spending whatever someone wants for their gear, but

Except when you know about it.

people should be aware of the fact that it doesn't get them better sound
as
the manufacturers and SP type reviewers would like us to believe.

Nobody wants you to believe anything. All they want is for you to buy
their
stuff.

Then why all the agitprop about better sound?


Apparently you believe nobody can enjoy their stereo unless they've been
brainwashed. Too bad your brain is too pickled to respond to ordinary
stimuli.

Wrong again, so far you're batting a thousand.

I think people should be informed, after that whatever decision they make is
on them.

The problem is that they are being told by reviewers that stuff sounds
different when it can't actually be demonstrated that is so. Worse, is they
are being told that snake oil devices can improve the sound. I just don't
believe reviewers should be involved in helping to commit fraud. They
should subject all tweaks to some kind of testing to see if does anything,
since any improvement would include a FR variation, or some other measurable
effect. That's part of the normal purview of hobby magazines, testing for
the advertised effects.

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Mikey Bug-Eater eyes a snack. Oops, too slow. He stirs again. Will he
make the
grab this time?

Nothing wrong with spending whatever someone wants for their gear, but

Except when you know about it.

people should be aware of the fact that it doesn't get them better sound
as
the manufacturers and SP type reviewers would like us to believe.

Nobody wants you to believe anything. All they want is for you to buy
their
stuff.

Then why all the agitprop about better sound?


Apparently you believe nobody can enjoy their stereo unless they've been
brainwashed. Too bad your brain is too pickled to respond to ordinary
stimuli.

Wrong again, so far you're batting a thousand.

I think people should be informed, after that whatever decision they make
is on them.

The problem is that they are being told by reviewers that stuff sounds
different when it can't actually be demonstrated that is so. Worse, is
they are being told that snake oil devices can improve the sound. I just
don't believe reviewers should be involved in helping to commit fraud.
They should subject all tweaks to some kind of testing to see if does
anything, since any improvement would include a FR variation, or some
other measurable effect. That's part of the normal purview of hobby
magazines, testing for the advertised effects.


Any advertiser comments as to sound should be taken at face value. Like
adds for food or beer, (tastes best, less filling, etc.). Any fool
knows that. Well, evidently there is "at least" one fool named duh...Mikey
who doesn't.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Mikey Bug-Eater eyes a snack. Oops, too slow. He stirs again. Will he
make the
grab this time?

Nothing wrong with spending whatever someone wants for their gear, but

Except when you know about it.

people should be aware of the fact that it doesn't get them better sound
as
the manufacturers and SP type reviewers would like us to believe.

Nobody wants you to believe anything. All they want is for you to buy
their
stuff.

Then why all the agitprop about better sound?


Apparently you believe nobody can enjoy their stereo unless they've been
brainwashed. Too bad your brain is too pickled to respond to ordinary
stimuli.

Wrong again, so far you're batting a thousand.

I think people should be informed, after that whatever decision they make
is on them.

The problem is that they are being told by reviewers that stuff sounds
different when it can't actually be demonstrated that is so. Worse, is
they are being told that snake oil devices can improve the sound. I just
don't believe reviewers should be involved in helping to commit fraud.
They should subject all tweaks to some kind of testing to see if does
anything, since any improvement would include a FR variation, or some
other measurable effect. That's part of the normal purview of hobby
magazines, testing for the advertised effects.


Any advertiser comments as to sound should be taken at face value. Like
adds for food or beer, (tastes best, less filling, etc.). Any fool
knows that. Well, evidently there is "at least" one fool named duh...Mikey
who doesn't.
Your view of the role of hobby magazines is different than mine. I expect
ads to be less than structly honest. I expect magazines that review any
kind of technology, to subject the things they critique, to some basic
testing to let their readers know what usefulness a given device may have.

Praising something without testing to dertermine that the device can
actually do anything, is not only a disservice, but it is aiding and
abetting fraud.

Where's Forrest Gump when we need him? ;-)

Nobody wants you to believe anything. All they want is for you to buy
their stuff.

Then why all the agitprop about better sound?

Who taught you that word, Mickey? Robert has been trying to school you in
avoiding these explosions of language abuse.

In your persistent delusional state, you believe that marketing is theology. In
reality, it's entirely mundane. Grow up.


Apparently you believe nobody can enjoy their stereo unless they've been
brainwashed. Too bad your brain is too pickled to respond to ordinary
stimuli.

Wrong again, so far you're batting a thousand.

No, I'm quite right. Your patent inability to distinguish marketing from
proselytizing proves my point.

I think people should be informed, after that whatever decision they make is
on them.

If they want to be informed, that's their choice. It's not up to marketers to
inform buyers. Their role is to inflame buyers' interest in their products.

The problem is that they are being told by reviewers that stuff sounds
different when it can't actually be demonstrated that is so.

You're just plain dumb. No two ways about that.



..
..
..
..
..

"George Middius" wrote in message
...



Where's Forrest Gump when we need him? ;-)

Nobody wants you to believe anything. All they want is for you to buy
their stuff.

Then why all the agitprop about better sound?

Who taught you that word, Mickey? Robert has been trying to school you in
avoiding these explosions of language abuse.

In your persistent delusional state, you believe that marketing is
theology. In
reality, it's entirely mundane. Grow up.


Marketing is about selling, reviewing is about showing the efficacy or lack
of for the device being reviewed. I don't expect reviewers to be part of
the marketing.

Apparently you believe nobody can enjoy their stereo unless they've been
brainwashed. Too bad your brain is too pickled to respond to ordinary
stimuli.

Wrong again, so far you're batting a thousand.

No, I'm quite right. Your patent inability to distinguish marketing from
proselytizing proves my point.


Marketing is what the advertisers pay for. Reviews are supposed to be
independent of that.

I think people should be informed, after that whatever decision they make
is
on them.

If they want to be informed, that's their choice. It's not up to marketers
to
inform buyers. Their role is to inflame buyers' interest in their
products.

Reviewers aren't supposed to be part of the marketing.

The problem is that they are being told by reviewers that stuff sounds
different when it can't actually be demonstrated that is so.

You're just plain dumb. No two ways about that.


Nasty comments from you are a badge of honor for me George, since you have
not a clue about audio technology, and have made your sole purpose on RAO
one of name calling an attacks against any sort of discussion of the
technical merits of audio gear.

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:30:26 GMT, "
wrote:


That's pretty much been my point for some time. If you pay more for an amp,
CD player, or whatever, you don't get better sound, you get bragging rights.
Once you achieve flat response without any form of audible distortion or
noise, and the ability to drive difficult loads, you have a perfect piece of
equipment. Adding heavy faceplates or designer caps, and coils, doesn't
really get you better sound, but it might get you a longer product life.

So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
difficult loads? Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
assertion means nothing.

paul packer wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:30:26 GMT, "
wrote:


That's pretty much been my point for some time. If you pay more for an amp,
CD player, or whatever, you don't get better sound, you get bragging rights.
Once you achieve flat response without any form of audible distortion or
noise, and the ability to drive difficult loads, you have a perfect piece of
equipment. Adding heavy faceplates or designer caps, and coils, doesn't
really get you better sound, but it might get you a longer product life.

So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
difficult loads? Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
assertion means nothing.

I can predict the answer. It will say something about ABXing
"proving" his beliefs. Except, of course, that so far (mere 40 years
of ABX history) every published report, on everything in audio,
resulted in "It all sounds the same" outcome- as long as ABX was the
test protocol. ("Published" means at least accepted by a mag. if not by
a peer reviewed journal. Web free=for=all does not qualify)

Since they continue to promote it one must assume that indeed to
those true believers everything does sound the same.
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
oups.com...

paul packer wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:30:26 GMT, "
wrote:


That's pretty much been my point for some time. If you pay more for an
amp,
CD player, or whatever, you don't get better sound, you get bragging
rights.
Once you achieve flat response without any form of audible distortion or
noise, and the ability to drive difficult loads, you have a perfect
piece of
equipment. Adding heavy faceplates or designer caps, and coils, doesn't
really get you better sound, but it might get you a longer product life.

So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
difficult loads? Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
assertion means nothing.

I can predict the answer. It will say something about ABXing
"proving" his beliefs. Except, of course, that so far (mere 40 years
of ABX history) every published report, on everything in audio,
resulted in "It all sounds the same" outcome- as long as ABX was the
test protocol. ("Published" means at least accepted by a mag. if not by
a peer reviewed journal. Web free=for=all does not qualify)


Why do you contiue this lie, even after you posted the evidence that refutes
it?

Since they continue to promote it one must assume that indeed to
those true believers everything does sound the same.
Ludovic Mirabel

One must conclude that the truth bothers you so much that you are willing to
keep repeating the same lie over and over. Why is that?

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

paul packer wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:30:26 GMT, "
wrote:


That's pretty much been my point for some time. If you pay more for an
amp,
CD player, or whatever, you don't get better sound, you get bragging
rights.
Once you achieve flat response without any form of audible distortion or
noise, and the ability to drive difficult loads, you have a perfect
piece of
equipment. Adding heavy faceplates or designer caps, and coils, doesn't
really get you better sound, but it might get you a longer product life.

So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
difficult loads? Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
assertion means nothing.

I can predict the answer. It will say something about ABXing
"proving" his beliefs. Except, of course, that so far (mere 40 years
of ABX history) every published report, on everything in audio,
resulted in "It all sounds the same" outcome- as long as ABX was the
test protocol. ("Published" means at least accepted by a mag. if not by
a peer reviewed journal. Web free=for=all does not qualify)


Why do you contiue this lie, even after you posted the evidence that refutes
it?

Since they continue to promote it one must assume that indeed to
those true believers everything does sound the same.
Ludovic Mirabel

One must conclude that the truth bothers you so much that you are willing to
keep repeating the same lie over and over. Why is that?
__________________________________________________ _____
You're under notice . I'll repeat my "lie" every time you
bring up your ABX "test" as your final, clinching argument.
Your taking the leaf out of the vocabulary of the RAO thugs
will not deter me.
What would do it is one single REFERENCE to a published
(web gossip does not apply) ABX test with a panel of 10 or more
listeners comparing any roughly comparable audio components whatsover
with a positive outcome:."Postive" means "Yes there was a difference"
as a statistically valid verdict by the majority of panelists. Take
loudspeakers or cartridges if you want..
Once you give such a reference you will not need to
shout "lie". You'll have a convert. I'll get busy ABXing .
Till then Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. Look up "reference" in your Webster or Oxford

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:30:26 GMT, "
wrote:


That's pretty much been my point for some time. If you pay more for an
amp,
CD player, or whatever, you don't get better sound, you get bragging
rights.
Once you achieve flat response without any form of audible distortion or
noise, and the ability to drive difficult loads, you have a perfect piece
of
equipment. Adding heavy faceplates or designer caps, and coils, doesn't
really get you better sound, but it might get you a longer product life.

So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
difficult loads?

If they measure within .1 dB of each other, it's likely they will sound
idnetical.

Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
assertion means nothing.

I have not but I have seen some of the research and that's the consensenus.
I'm satisfied that fropm my own experience, an audiophile approved power amp
like the Acoustat 120, doesn't sound audibly different than a Pioneer
reciever, or Scott integrated amp.

If 2 amps sound different there are reasons, clipping, inabilty to drive
difficult loads, or design problems. Sind it's so incredibly easy and
inexpensive to build an amp that has flat FR and inaudible distortion,
there's very little motivation to do otherwise.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:27:13 GMT, "
wrote:


So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
difficult loads?

If they measure within .1 dB of each other, it's likely they will sound
idnetical.

They may sound idnetical, but will they sound the same?

Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
assertion means nothing.

I have not but I have seen some of the research and that's the consensenus.
I'm satisfied that fropm my own experience, an audiophile approved power amp
like the Acoustat 120, doesn't sound audibly different than a Pioneer
reciever, or Scott integrated amp.

If 2 amps sound different there are reasons, clipping, inabilty to drive
difficult loads, or design problems.

Well, it's not clipping because I can hear clear differences on
headphones. Likewise inability to drive difficult loads. Design
problems? I'm thinking of the differences I was able to hear between a
Rotel RA931 Mk11 and my current Marantz PM8200, so I don't think it's
design problems unless all amps at every level are afflicted with
design problems. Unless of course you mean that some designers are
better than others, or use better components, then I might agree with
you.

In rec.audio.opinion paul packer wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:27:13 GMT, "
wrote:


So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
difficult loads?

If they measure within .1 dB of each other, it's likely they will sound
idnetical.

They may sound idnetical, but will they sound the same?

Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
assertion means nothing.

I have not but I have seen some of the research and that's the consensenus.
I'm satisfied that fropm my own experience, an audiophile approved power amp
like the Acoustat 120, doesn't sound audibly different than a Pioneer
reciever, or Scott integrated amp.

If 2 amps sound different there are reasons, clipping, inabilty to drive
difficult loads, or design problems.

Well, it's not clipping because I can hear clear differences on
headphones. Likewise inability to drive difficult loads. Design
problems? I'm thinking of the differences I was able to hear between a
Rotel RA931 Mk11 and my current Marantz PM8200, so I don't think it's
design problems unless all amps at every level are afflicted with
design problems. Unless of course you mean that some designers are
better than others, or use better components, then I might agree with
you.

How closely have you level matched them? And are you doing the
comparisons blind? Your amps *could* sound intrinsically different,
or they might really sound the same. How do you determine
which is actually the case?



--

-S

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:27:13 GMT, "
wrote:


So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
difficult loads?

If they measure within .1 dB of each other, it's likely they will sound
idnetical.



They may sound idnetical, but will they sound the same?

If you can't tell them apart they are identical.

Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
assertion means nothing.

I have not but I have seen some of the research and that's the
consensenus.
I'm satisfied that from my own experience, an audiophile approved power
amp
like the Acoustat 120, doesn't sound audibly different than a Pioneer
reciever, or Scott integrated amp.

If 2 amps sound different there are reasons, clipping, inabilty to drive
difficult loads, or design problems.

Well, it's not clipping because I can hear clear differences on
headphones. Likewise inability to drive difficult loads. Design
problems? I'm thinking of the differences I was able to hear between a
Rotel RA931 Mk11 and my current Marantz PM8200, so I don't think it's
design problems unless all amps at every level are afflicted with
design problems. Unless of course you mean that some designers are
better than others, or use better components, then I might agree with
you.

The criteria are as I explained, they need to measure within .1 dB of each
other. A difference of .1 dB or more is audible.