[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:23:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 07:06:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

I'm happy for you that cheap satisfies you. It will (and
probably always has) save you a heap of money 8^)

It is all about being able to hear with the ears and not
have that affected by the eyes.

I agree, mostly. But It's also about being able to hear
with the ears and not have that affected by the
pocketbook.

In the crowd I hang here in Detroit, limitations of the pocketbook has never
been an issue. However, none of see any purpose in enriching audio
charlatans.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 09:40:13 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:23:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 07:06:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

I'm happy for you that cheap satisfies you. It will (and
probably always has) save you a heap of money 8^)

It is all about being able to hear with the ears and not
have that affected by the eyes.

I agree, mostly. But It's also about being able to hear
with the ears and not have that affected by the
pocketbook.

In the crowd I hang here in Detroit, limitations of the pocketbook has never
been an issue. However, none of see any purpose in enriching audio
charlatans.




No doubt that there are charlatans in abundance in the audio hobby. They sell
cables and interconnects and line cords that do nothing, green pens for your
CDs and DVDs that do nothing, cheap, digital clocks that have been "treated"
to act as line-noise eliminators when plugged into the same circuit as one's
hi-fi, and they do nothing either (except keep time). Then there are
myrtlewood blocks, which, when placed on top of your components, make them
"sound better" - needless to say, these are less than worthless. There are
such things as ceramic elevators to get your beautiful fire-hose sized
speaker cables up off your nasty carpets or wood floors, and of course, caps
for unused audio inputs which keep the stray electrons from "spilling out",
neither of which are of the slightest worth either.

But good equipment is a good audio investment. While you maintain that every
modern piece of electronic equipment sounds the same, I maintain that they
are all different. I do agree that the differences are inconsequential in the
long run (mostly. There are exceptions), and that lots of equipment is
overpriced for the performance advantage that it might enjoy over lesser
equipment, but I am sure that such differences do exist. It's up to you
whether or not they are important enough to you to pay the price.

Last time I was through Detroit, it looked like the entire populace would
have to pool their financial resources just to buy a newspaper! I've never
seen such poverty and urban blight in my life! The city is a disgrace to
this country. Detroit makes Oakland CA look like Beverly Hills by comparison!

[C. Leeds]

On 3/3/2011 3:16 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

No doubt that there are charlatans in abundance in the audio hobby. They sell
cables and interconnects and line cords that do nothing...
But good equipment is a good audio investment.

Oh no, audio equipment is a terrible investment. It is the very rare
component that actually appreciates; most of it is just a depreciating
asset and a lot of it ends up in a landfill.

That doesn't mean that good audio equipment can't be a good value, but
that isn't the same as a good investment.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 06:25:04 -0800, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

On 3/3/2011 3:16 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

No doubt that there are charlatans in abundance in the audio hobby. They
sell
cables and interconnects and line cords that do nothing...
But good equipment is a good audio investment.

Oh no, audio equipment is a terrible investment. It is the very rare
component that actually appreciates; most of it is just a depreciating
asset and a lot of it ends up in a landfill.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that audio equipment is a good FINANCIAL
investment, I mean that it's a good expenditure of one's audio dollars
because the stuff is well designed and well made. I have an Audio Research
SP11 preamp that I purchased used about 20 years ago. With a periodic change
of tubes and cleaning of the Alps pots and all the switches, as well as a
"de-tox" of all the connectors, it continues to perform yeoman service. It
even still exceeds it's published technical specs. I also have a pair of
Crown IC-150 preamps that still work perfectly. Both of these devices, when
they were made, were built like tanks. It shows.

That doesn't mean that good audio equipment can't be a good value, but
that isn't the same as a good investment.

There are exceptions. Macintosh and Marantz tube amps, preamps and tubed
tuners from Marantz (the 10B) and H. H. Scott (the 4310) still fetch many
times what they cost new, My SP11 is still worth about $4000 (I didn't pay
anywhere near that for it when I bought it). But most older equipment is just
that, old, used electronic gear and not worth anything but as land fill.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message



But good equipment is a good audio investment.

Really not so good if sonic performance is your main criteria.

While you
maintain that every modern piece of electronic equipment
sounds the same,

How many times do I need to correct this flagrant error?

I maintain that they are all different.

At some microscopic level, everything is different even the channels of
every component with 2 or more channels.

I do agree that the differences are inconsequential in
the long run (mostly. There are exceptions), and that
lots of equipment is overpriced for the performance
advantage that it might enjoy over lesser equipment, but
I am sure that such differences do exist. It's up to you
whether or not they are important enough to you to pay
the price.

The concept of "lesser equipment" is the question.

Last time I was through Detroit, it looked like the
entire populace would have to pool their financial
resources just to buy a newspaper!

There's a big difference between the demographics related to the 951,270 or
so people who live in Detoit and the over 4 million people who live in the
Detroit area.

However, you may be surprised to learn that even the city itself is far from
being homogenious, and there is plenty of honest money in some hands.

I've never seen such poverty and urban blight in my life!

There are worse places, even in the US. Detroit city is actually on a bit
of an uptick since about 6 years ago, even with the recession and all.
There was a period of about 20 years where vanishing numbers building
permits were issued. There is now a modest amount of new construction.

For example Detroit's riverfront was virtually 100% industrialized since the
late 1800s. There is now a scenic River Walk (a chain of privately-owned but
with 100% public access, as well as city and state parks) that runs for
about 4 miles of the river front, centered on downtown. It includes two
large very active entertainment venues, a medium-sized high fashion shopping
mall, a back-to-nature state park, new SOTA marinas for pleasure boats, and
other areas of interest. Some of these anchor elements have been around for
a while, but they are now all tied together. The older ones have been
refurbished just lately. My wife and I have been visiting it and inspecting
the new additions as they came on stream. (The stream being the nearly mile
wide Detroit River which is now pollution free). Great view of Canada to
the south. ;-)

The city is a
disgrace to this country. Detroit makes Oakland CA look
like Beverly Hills by comparison!

Detroit had a head start on passing its prime. :-(