[Arny Krueger]

"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.

(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 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.


(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.

(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.

And cassettes were again superceded by the CD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

Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality.

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

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. ;-)