wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:
It has been recently commented that I appear to be anti-high-end. This
has
made me think about what High-end actually means. I think it would be
useful
(at least to me) if we could have views on what high-end means to us on
this
ng.

To start things of, High-end to me means etc etc.
S.

this is how it is defined by the rules o this newsgroup

2.0 -- Definition of High-End Audio


The working definition of 'high-end audio' under which this
newsgroup operates is etc etc.




It seems a bit different than yours. i think it best that when you
consider the assertion that yo are anti high end that this is the
definition being considered. Based on your definition above I would not
make that assertion myself but i would assert that you have narrowed
the scope for your own purposes.


It is, as you say, a bit different, but not, as far as I can tell, no
different in substance.

I don't see, therefore that I have narrowed the scope, but I would be happy
to learn how you think I have done this. Regarding the comment that I have
done it for my own purposes, if I have done it, then I have clearly done it
for my own purposes rather than anyone else's, but I can't think what those
would be.

S.
Scott

Serge Auckland wrote:
wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:
It has been recently commented that I appear to be anti-high-end. This
has
made me think about what High-end actually means. I think it would be
useful
(at least to me) if we could have views on what high-end means to us on
this
ng.

To start things of, High-end to me means etc etc.
S.

this is how it is defined by the rules o this newsgroup

2.0 -- Definition of High-End Audio


The working definition of 'high-end audio' under which this
newsgroup operates is etc etc.




It seems a bit different than yours. i think it best that when you
consider the assertion that yo are anti high end that this is the
definition being considered. Based on your definition above I would not
make that assertion myself but i would assert that you have narrowed
the scope for your own purposes.


It is, as you say, a bit different, but not, as far as I can tell, no
different in substance.

I quie disagree. You narrow the scope with the following. " *and* are
designed using scientific principles and good
engineering practice."
There is no such secondary requirement in the RAHE definition. That has
to narrow the scope. If you are looking for an example just go to the
Joule Electra website.




I don't see, therefore that I have narrowed the scope, but I would be happy
to learn how you think I have done this. Regarding the comment that I have
done it for my own purposes, if I have done it, then I have clearly done it
for my own purposes rather than anyone else's, but I can't think what those
would be.


Well at least we agree that you have done it for your own purposes.



Scott Wheeler