[[email protected]]

This weeks stereophile has this:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/snob-appeal-0

I think he doth protest too much and builds a strawman against which to
tilt. It appears to me he first offers the observation of someone who
declares that "audiophiles" are indeed snobs and otherwise, and then
demonstrates the very thing in himself while claiming to run through the
strawman.

[Oregonian Haruspex]

On 2013-12-02 19:26:26 +0000, said:

This weeks stereophile has this:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/snob-appeal-0

I think he doth protest too much and builds a strawman against which to
tilt. It appears to me he first offers the observation of someone who
declares that "audiophiles" are indeed snobs and otherwise, and then
demonstrates the very thing in himself while claiming to run through the
strawman.

Audiophiles as snobs, this is hardly a new idea. In every hobby there
are people who simply enjoy what they are doing, whether they use basic
instruments or equipment, and then there are those who obsess over
their equipment to the point that its ownership, care, maintenance, and
showing it off may perhaps exceed actually using it to listen to music,
take photographs, etc.

If you feel the need to enumerate the brand name of your gear, point
out the metallic content of your cables, talk about "jitter" outside of
your job as an engineer, sure, you're an audiophile snob. If you just
happen to own some nice equipment with which you enjoy music, you're
probably a music lover.

So, to reiterate, if you tend to like to talk about your gear, you're
an "audiophile" (ie snob, gearhead) and if you like to talk about music
then you're a music lover.

[Bob Lombard[_3_]]

On 12/3/2013 5:45 AM, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:

Audiophiles as snobs, this is hardly a new idea. In every hobby there
are people who simply enjoy what they are doing, whether they use
basic instruments or equipment, and then there are those who obsess
over their equipment to the point that its ownership, care,
maintenance, and showing it off may perhaps exceed actually using it
to listen to music, take photographs, etc.

If you feel the need to enumerate the brand name of your gear, point
out the metallic content of your cables, talk about "jitter" outside
of your job as an engineer, sure, you're an audiophile snob. If you
just happen to own some nice equipment with which you enjoy music,
you're probably a music lover.

So, to reiterate, if you tend to like to talk about your gear, you're
an "audiophile" (ie snob, gearhead) and if you like to talk about
music then you're a music lover.

I don't consider those techno-audiophiles to be snobs, that seems quite
inaccurate. Gullible and deluded maybe...

In the great majority of cases, one doesn't 'just happen to own nice
equipment'. He has paid a 'nice chunk of change' for it, and there must
be some reason why he walked past the 'mid-fi' displays to get to it.

bl

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 2:45:44 AM UTC-8, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
On 2013-12-02 19:26:26 +0000, said:



This weeks stereophile has this:



http://www.stereophile.com/content/snob-appeal-0

So, to reiterate, if you tend to like to talk about your gear, you're
an "audiophile" (ie snob, gearhead) and if you like to talk about music
then you're a music lover.

Just to be clear, are you saying that those two states of being are mutually
exclusive? Can't one be both a music lover and enjoy the equipment and the
technology behind it?

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Monday, December 2, 2013 7:45:51 PM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, December 2, 2013 11:26:26 AM UTC-8, wrote:

This weeks stereophile has this:


http://www.stereophile.com/content/snob-appeal-0

I think he doth protest too much and builds a strawman against which to
tilt. It appears to me he first offers the observation of someone who
declares that "audiophiles" are indeed snobs and otherwise, and then
demonstrates the very thing in himself while claiming to run through the
strawman.


They're both guilty of creating stereotypes. Audiophiles come in all forms, technical genius to illiterate music lovers to lovers of price tags.

I would disagree with his comments on record collectors. My luck in used vinyl is awful. Few if any of
my used purchases have been properly cared for.

I've even tried a local high end store with a nice collection that proudly displays a record cleaner by
the door of their vinyl room. It must be just for show but it doesn't really matter. No amount of
cleaning helps...I've tried.

Most people don't have a clue what it takes to maintain vinyl and fewer still have the discipline. I
know a few people who have built huge collections via thrift shops, yards sales and swap meets. I
am unimpressed as it really amounts to a collection of cover art with contents that are rarely worth
giving a spin.

ScottW

Not my experience at all, Scott. I have thousands of LPs, and a number of years ago I bought a
"Nitty-Gritty" record cleaning machine. I have found that any time my records get a bit grungy,
a good clean with the Nitty-Gritty will have them sounding pristine again. My records have few
scratches, and are put back in their sleeves as soon as I'm done playing them. While the Nitty
-Gritty works fine, It is not the best cleaning method I've ever encountered or used. I used to
work for a company that had a large ultrasonic cleaner in it's lab. The trough was just big
enough to almost swallow a whole LP. I cleaned many records with that thing and found that
it got records cleaner than new (because it also removed the manufacturing residue known
as mold release). Another great record cleaning methodology (alas, no longer available) was
a record cleaning goo sold by Empire Scientific. I do not remember what the stuff was called,
but it came in a tall plastic bottle with a cap similar to that on an aerosol can. The top had a
"teat" in the center the same size as a turntable spindle. When the top was removed, it exposed
a soft foam pad. To use it, you would invert the bottle and squeeze. Onto the pad would flow
a thick, mucous-like liquid with a not unpleasant chemical scent. When the pad had enough
liquid on it, one placed the LP to be cleaned on a clean, flat surface and smeared the goo
all over the playing surface of the record (avoiding the label area). You then picked the record
up and inverted it sitting the wet side down on the spindle in the cap. One then "slimed" the
opposite side the same way. After letting the two sides dry (about 10 minutes - a bit faster
if you let a fan blow across the disc), you took a piece of Scotch tape and applied it radially
across the record surface (again, avoiding the label area) and pressed it on good. Then using
the outside end of the piece of tape as a handle, you pulled up on the tape. The now-dry goo
would come off in one sheet forming a film "negative" of the record. With the goo, came all
of the dirt and grunge which have been encapsulated by the now dry liquid. Turn the record
over on the cap and repeat. Never have I seen dirty records come out so clean. They even
LOOKED clean! draw a record brush across the spinning record surface, and you could even
feel that the cleaned record offered less resistance to the brush! The only downside was that
you had to use your Zerostat on the record after cleaning it because the treatment caused static
electricity. I certainly wished one could still buy that stuff. It was cheap, easy to use, required
no other equipment and worked better than anything I've tried either before or since!

Often, I pull out records that I haven't played in years only to marvel at how good they still
sound. Yes, it takes some thought and rigorous technique (almost a ritual) to adequately
care for vinyl records. I have always found the trouble to be worth it. Not only do I get good
sound, but I have performances and even whole works that have never been released on
CD. I don't prefer records to digital, necessarily, but I do view it as another viable source of
music, just as rewarding as a good CD, SACD, high-res download, Blu-Ray disc or R-to-R
tape.

[Oregonian Haruspex]

On 2013-12-06 02:17:09 +0000, Audio_Empire said:

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 2:45:44 AM UTC-8, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
On 2013-12-02 19:26:26 +0000, said:



This weeks stereophile has this:



http://www.stereophile.com/content/snob-appeal-0

So, to reiterate, if you tend to like to talk about your gear, you're
an "audiophile" (ie snob, gearhead) and if you like to talk about music
then you're a music lover.

Just to be clear, are you saying that those two states of being are mutually
exclusive? Can't one be both a music lover and enjoy the equipment and the
technology behind it?

Why not? I don't care what gets other people off. A gear obsession
isn't really a bad thing in my opinion, but it usually has nothing to
do with the love of music.

Making an automobile analogy, there are people who obsess over every
little detail of their classic cars, bring them to shows, and so forth
with the purpose of showing them off. Then there are the people who
actually drive these things up and down the highway. Sometimes they do
both, but you'd be surprised at the number of classic cars that are
trucked into car shows.

What people do with their hobby is their business, but I reserve the
right to have an opinion on it.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Friday, December 6, 2013 7:47:26 AM UTC-8, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
On 2013-12-06 02:17:09 +0000, Audio_Empire said:



On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 2:45:44 AM UTC-8, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:

On 2013-12-02 19:26:26 +0000, said:







This weeks stereophile has this:







http://www.stereophile.com/content/snob-appeal-0



So, to reiterate, if you tend to like to talk about your gear, you're

an "audiophile" (ie snob, gearhead) and if you like to talk about music

then you're a music lover.



Just to be clear, are you saying that those two states of being are mutually

exclusive? Can't one be both a music lover and enjoy the equipment and the

technology behind it?



Why not? I don't care what gets other people off. A gear obsession

isn't really a bad thing in my opinion, but it usually has nothing to

do with the love of music.

I think maybe you don't know what "mutually exclusive" means. If they are mutually exclusive then a passion for one precludes a passion for the other. So it goes beyond having nothing to do with each other.



Making an automobile analogy, there are people who obsess over every

little detail of their classic cars, bring them to shows, and so forth

with the purpose of showing them off. Then there are the people who

actually drive these things up and down the highway. Sometimes they do

both, but you'd be surprised at the number of classic cars that are

trucked into car shows.


There is no doing both if they are mutually exclusive.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Friday, December 6, 2013 7:47:26 AM UTC-8, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
On 2013-12-06 02:17:09 +0000, Audio_Empire said:



On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 2:45:44 AM UTC-8, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:

On 2013-12-02 19:26:26 +0000, said:

snip

Making an automobile analogy, there are people who obsess over every
little detail of their classic cars, bring them to shows, and so forth
with the purpose of showing them off. Then there are the people who
actually drive these things up and down the highway. Sometimes they do
both, but you'd be surprised at the number of classic cars that are
trucked into car shows.

Take from a dyed-in-the-wool classic Italian sports car buff. You really can't
practically do that. A car that is shown on the Concours circuit must be better
than 95 points (a perfect restoration is 100 points). That's actually better than
new for many cars. When you drive a car, it wears. When it wears, it loses points.
restorations are so expensive these days (500 hrs @ US$100/hr+ just to refresh
an 80-90 point car to 95 points+) and takes so long, (up to 6 months for a
refresh) that none but the most filthy rich do that. Show cars, for the most
part are NOT driven unless a tour is a part of the concours, like it is at
Pebble Beach. Even then, many "trailer queens" do not participate.


What people do with their hobby is their business, but I reserve the
right to have an opinion on it.

I'm not arguing with you, I just wanted to know if you thought that an
audiophile couldn't be a music lover as well.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Friday, December 6, 2013 8:33:10 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, December 5, 2013 6:19:21 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:



Not my experience at all, Scott. I have thousands of LPs, and a number of years ago I bought a "Nitty-Gritty" record cleaning machine. I have found that any time my records get a bit grungy, a good clean with the Nitty-Gritty will have them sounding pristine again.



I have records over 30 years old that play very well. They've never seen anything less than an AR TT and Shure M91 cart in my college days.

Every play is preceded by a simple dust removal with moistened brush.

My VPI record cleaner has helped (though I thinks it best value is cleaning a new album before ever
playing it) but it isn't a miracle worker and I've tried quite a number of cleaner solutions (disc doctor
seems to work as well as any for me). It isn't dirt that I can clean away that has turned me off to used
vinyl.

It's playing them on crappy gear, or a worn stylus, or excessive tracking force or misaligned cart or
grinding the dirt in with a stylus.
A large number of factors can cause excessive wear or damage.
Once the vinyl itself is damaged, no cleaner will repair it...and vinyl is actually quite soft.

No argument there.

My experience (or luck) is that the used vinyl market is mostly worn out abused junk. It's simply not
been worth the effort.

Well it does take care, that's for sure. I've been lucky. I examine used disks carefully before buying.
I look for signs of wear, and where I buy used vinyl, I ask the attendant to play a bit from several
places on both sides. I can generally tell the sound of surface wear from the sound of dirt. I will
purchase a dirty record, I will not purchase a worn or scratched one. I don't do that any more though.
I figure I've enough LPs. some of which are more than 60 years old.

Now it's very possible that classic music collectors might typically take more care, though my few
acquisitions in that category haven't born fruit either.

Well, that's all I buy is classical.

I'm not going to argue (much ) with your experience with the goo cleaner but I do recall when it was
out. One evaluation I read indicated (and seemed to make sense) was that the liquid was too thick to
penetrate deep into the the groove or the modulation of the vinyl. It cleaned the surface and made it
look clean but didn't have much effect where the diamond hits the plastic..

That evaluation was incorrect. Obviously, the writer never actually tried it. Looking at the surface
of a goo-cleaned record under a microscope before and after showed that the records were clean
as a whistle. It was amazing, really. And like I said, they felt clean too when you ran a record brush
over them as they spun on the turntable, and those brush fibers went down into the grooves. Before
cleaning you felt a slight tug on the brush, afterwards, much less.

A major component of every liquid cleaner is a wetting agent to allow deep groove penetration.
Often I find that imperfections or marks/stains I can see don't have an audible impact. Old cheap
paper sleeves used to mark up my pop albums just inserting them, but it never caused any noise.
The dust they produce was another matter.

You're right there. That surface abrasion that paper liners caused was superficial and caused no
audible damage. But dust and bits of paper that got pushed into the grooves by the stylus look
like boulders under the microscope and those you could certainly hear.

ScottW