"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Iain M Churches wrote:
"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:40:18 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:02:18 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Iain M Churches wrote:

I don't have the opportunity to read Stereophile, as
I live on the other side of the world...

I've always thought the UK was a lot more cosmopolitan
than
that.

It's all that posting in a uk newsgroup and your name, Iain.

You are forgiven for misunderstanding Arny:-)) I am a British
citizen resident overseas. Like you, I enjoy writing in English on
a UK audio group.

In addition to the English language mags, we also have
Swedish, German, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish and
even Russian periodicals which are probably not
available in the US or the UK.

Given that the Russians used to virtually own Finland, but
not the US or UK that's understandable.

Don't really know what you mean by "virtually owned". Finland
has been part of Sweden, and was a Russian autonomy until
independence in 1916.

You even have a reindeer or two.

And bears, and wolves, and pretty, blonde scantily-dressed
maidens. The last of these three being the most
dangerous:-)

Only if you are afraid of girls... ;-)

No one said anything about being afraid:-))

Iain

RickH wrote:

IMO, most "electronic related" magazines are not what they used to be
pre 1980. They are all dumbed down for observers and not doers, and
foster a culture of end-users as opposed to true amateurs (lovers of
the hobby).

I wonder if fitness magazines are any different. Or glamour, or....

Dana Larsen wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:50:26 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Snip---------

I think that homebrew electronics is far less mainstream than it was
in the sixties and seventies. Hell, you don't even see kids building
up PCs from boards any more. We won't even talk about the death of
hotrodding.
--scott

The only thing that can be gained from building your own PC is higher
quality components chosen by you in the exact configuration YOU want and
no vendor slopware on the hard disk. It used to be cheaper to roll your
own, but if you are just looking for an average PC it doesn't pay.

Dell - or someone will do one cheaper indeed.

I'm running a homebrew though. How many ppl have mirrored disks ?

As for hotrodding, it's alive and well.
The kids are hotrodding the rice burners these days and it is extremely
popular, at least where I live.

I thought it was just rich kids paying the ppl with oily hands to do it for
them ?

Graham

Signal wrote:

Magazines are not *responsible* for a decline in interest in D.I.Y.

Right, the forces are greater than that, and the zines are only
reflecting the market, and inherently stopped contributing to the DIY
community. I remember a few years ago when Stereophile did foray into
DIY by telling everyone to put Armor All on their CD's (I presume to
make the binary data sound better). Well the stuff started soaking
into the polycarbonate and clouding up the surface to make a lot of
CD's unreadable, and a lot of subscribers mad. Their writers are
simply not qualified for anything except regurgitating ever more
creative adjectives to prop up the marketing behind products signing
their checks.

Pooh Bear wrote:

I'm running a homebrew though. How many ppl have mirrored disks ?
Graham


I'm running 1 terrabyte on a Raid-5 array. I was going to use
mirroring (Raid-1) but too expensive (space-wise). Usually Raid-1 is
only used for extremely critical applications like payroll or credit
cards, etc. I get great redundancy, lots of space, and the ability to
swap drives in/out with no data loss. Raid-1 mirroring is overkilll
and too expensive for my needs, Raid-5 is just right.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:04:06 +0100, Signal wrote:

"RickH" emitted :

IMO, most "electronic related" magazines are not what they used to be
pre 1980. They are all dumbed down for observers and not doers, and
foster a culture of end-users as opposed to true amateurs (lovers of
the hobby). I think it stems from the fact that the American male,
(with the exception of folks on groups like this), are no longer
do-it-yourselfers. By the time I was 7 I already knew how to square a
board, solder a wire, drill a hole, dismantle a 5 tube radio, etc.
Today boys grow up playing and watching video and not building or
dismantleing equipment. They get no feel for how things work, they
just see the output. I remember when every issue of Popular Science
had an electronic project to build, and when hi-fi magazines regularly
had speaker projects, or pre-amp projects, or whatever. Stereophile is
a classic case of this dumbing down effect, a magazine run by marketers
for folks with lots of money who couldnt fix a lamp cord and regularly
cross-thread their toothpaste caps.

Magazines are not *responsible* for a decline in interest in D.I.Y.

No, it simply REFLECTS it.

"William Sommerwerck" said:
..

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good".


What's wrong with that?

--

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

"RickH" said:


I do read the ranting letters to the editor in it though. I think any
magazine that even mentions a tube is a good thing because it will
create a demand for quality current-production tubes, as NOS wont last
forever. Stereophile just needs to dedicate at least one article a
month to the amateurs (in the classic definition), and not just
consumers in the form of all subjective reviews.


The market for tubes will shrink, and the largest chunk of them will
be sold to guitar players.

That means that only mainstream tubes like EL83, EL34, ECC83 et al
will continue to be made.

Until DSP takes it all over.........

--

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

Sander deWaal wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" said:
.

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good".

What's wrong with that?

The great un-eared love pseudo-bass for one. That background rumble that's
there when there's no actual bass instrument playing.

If you don't see what's wrong with that - you never will get 'hi-fi'.

Graham

Signal wrote:

"RickH" emitted :

IMO, most "electronic related" magazines are not what they used to be
pre 1980. They are all dumbed down for observers and not doers, and
foster a culture of end-users as opposed to true amateurs (lovers of
the hobby). I think it stems from the fact that the American male,
(with the exception of folks on groups like this), are no longer
do-it-yourselfers. By the time I was 7 I already knew how to square a
board, solder a wire, drill a hole, dismantle a 5 tube radio, etc.
Today boys grow up playing and watching video and not building or
dismantleing equipment. They get no feel for how things work, they
just see the output. I remember when every issue of Popular Science
had an electronic project to build, and when hi-fi magazines regularly
had speaker projects, or pre-amp projects, or whatever. Stereophile is
a classic case of this dumbing down effect, a magazine run by marketers
for folks with lots of money who couldnt fix a lamp cord and regularly
cross-thread their toothpaste caps.

Magazines are not *responsible* for a decline in interest in D.I.Y.

If we're talking about youngsters taking an interest in the subject ( as I
did many yrs ago ) I think the main issue is that it's not 'kewl' to have
hobbies any more.

You just hang out with your gangsta friends - that's 'kewl' !

Graham

Signal said:

Because you wind up with something that perfectly matches your exact
needs, instead of a product that someone in marketing decided would
meet most users' needs.

Can you give an example? I'm struggling to think of a D.I.Y.
electronics project that would impress a young person now.


A Tesla coil ;-)

--

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

Signal said:

Until DSP takes it all over.........

Have you experienced tube simulation Sander?


Not really, excpet for fiddling with an Aphex Aural Exciter and a
German DSP-based guitar amplifier (Engl).


If so... any comments?


Both of them didn't impress me very much.

But then again, that was some years ago and technology moves on.

--

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

Pooh Bear said:


Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good".

What's wrong with that?

The great un-eared love pseudo-bass for one. That background rumble that's
there when there's no actual bass instrument playing.


Those people usually don't care about how anything sounds, as long as
it provides a steady flow of non-silence.

Definition of a music system annum 2005: "A contraption that makes
noise in people's homes".


If you don't see what's wrong with that - you never will get 'hi-fi'.


Thank God.
My-Fi is my goal.

--

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

Pooh Bear wrote:
wrote:


jeffc wrote:

wrote in message
egroups.com...

Given that SP subscriptions are cheap, I may subscribe again
eventually.

,,,,,,,,

IMO, Stereophile crossed the "beyond worthless" threshold quite some
time ago. It is now simply an advertising vehicle for the
manufacturers. Period.


I don't know it for a fact but I'm inclined to believe you.

IMHO all stereo mags are worthless pieces of waste paper designed to feed their
authors' egos. ( oh and to drive ad revenue ).

This really doesn't belong in rap - hence trimmed.

Graham



I read somewhere that the percentage of ad revenue for a print magazine
is around 85% normally. That much of their income is from advertisers.
What the actual cover price is set at has more to do with detirmining
readership demographics than anything else--so the Robb Report costs $15
an issue not because it's printed with gold leaf, but just because they
want to get a higher subscriber average income when they do the surveys.
........
The potential for low-cost online delivers is huge, but there's a
common mentality that if it's only on a computer screen, it isn't worth
paying for. Most people attach the concept of price to the paper of a
print magazine, and don't see the connection with the ideas presented. I
have seen a few formerly-print magazines/newsletters go electronic due
to costs, and fail even though the electronic versions were much more
imformative than the print versions ever were, and with very-few-to-no
ads. ---I think much of it has to do with people who want to be able to
read without using a computer; lying in bed or at teh breakfast table or
whatever..... maybe as e-book reader type devices become cheaper we will
see a change. But for now a print magazine going to online-only is a
very tough sell; most of the ones doing it profitably are heavily
computer-oriented, and so the target audience spends a lot of time at a
computer anyway.

IMO, Stereophile crossed the "beyond worthless" threshold quite some
time ago. It is now simply an advertising vehicle for the
manufacturers. Period.


I'd want a magazine somewhat similar to Consumer Reports,
one that has no ads. One that will tell you that there
is no significant difference between "Ultra Essense" speaker
wire and 14 gauge power cord bought from Ace Hardware. But
costs about 1/50th as much (thus freeing up money you
could spend towards something that *will* improve your system).
Or that Brand A's tube preamp has good sound but they spent
too much making a "modern art" shaped item. Vs Brand B which
sounds quite nice as well and comes in a normal looking
metal and wood box. And costs 1/3 as much.
Or that system that sounds just like one of those crappy
boom boxes from WalMart....

If you are not satisfied, then a letter to the editor is the
best solution. Any editor who receives letters from dis-satisfied
readers in large numbers will certainly not ignore them.

Such letter writers likely represent ten other unhappy readers.
Most people will just stop buying the product and buy from
the competition. And not bother complaining, as they figure
that it would just be a waste of time. So an editor who
gets unhappy letters from 5% of his readership should know that
it means that another 50% are also unhappy. Or make that a
smaller number, as they probably no longer read the mag. But
add them back in if the editor wants to fix the problem.

I don't have the opportunity to read Stereophile, as I

live on the

other side of the world...


I've always thought the UK was a lot more cosmopolitan than
that.


Maybe he can't read it because competing mags blow it
out of the water and bookstores don't bother stocking it...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


Secondly, the nicer strip malls contain shops like Barnes
and Nobles as well as Borders, who have fairly cosmopolitan
magazine stands including a goodly number of international
publications.


so, there can't be any strip malls, yet the
nicer ones of these strip malls that cannot be
have and Barnes Nobles





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Any of these magazines ever come out and say that
Product X made by Company Y really sucked?

robert casey wrote:
I'd want a magazine somewhat similar to Consumer Reports,
one that has no ads. One that will tell you that there
is no significant difference between "Ultra Essense" speaker
wire and 14 gauge power cord bought from Ace Hardware. But
costs about 1/50th as much (thus freeing up money you
could spend towards something that *will* improve your system).
Or that Brand A's tube preamp has good sound but they spent
too much making a "modern art" shaped item. Vs Brand B which
sounds quite nice as well and comes in a normal looking
metal and wood box. And costs 1/3 as much.
Or that system that sounds just like one of those crappy
boom boxes from WalMart....


No, you need a 3 foot interconnect cable with a double A battery at one
end, with the positive terminal connected to the insulator and the
negative terminal connected to, well, nothing, made out of "unobtanium"
where the electrons flow with much less "sonic friction", for a mere
$500US. Or at least thats what the Stereophile marketers want you to
believe. Consumer reports, now we're back to reality.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:51:40 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

Signal said:

Until DSP takes it all over.........

Have you experienced tube simulation Sander?


Not really, excpet for fiddling with an Aphex Aural Exciter and a
German DSP-based guitar amplifier (Engl).


If so... any comments?


Both of them didn't impress me very much.

But then again, that was some years ago and technology moves on.

Some of these new modeling amps are pretty amazing sounding.

I suspect that's what Rick Nielsen of Cheap Trick was using when he
played different guitars for EVERY song during the set that I saw last
week. While most of his gear was humbucker-equipped, he played several
single-coil Telecasters. And there wasn't a single pedal of any kind
on the stage. It was the first time I had seen such a thing.

I suspect that he used a DSP preamp, possibly with auto presets. Or
maybe his guitar tech did some manual button-punching for each
song/guitar combo.

"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net...
Any of these magazines ever come out and say that
Product X made by Company Y really sucked?

The situation is that they are mostly reviewing extremely
expensive and high end products. Generally, such products do not really
suck.
Of course, there is the valid question as to whether
one can get comparable sound for less money than some of the
other high priced items. Careful and persistent reading of the magazine may
help steer
one in that direction.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

robert casey said:

I'd want a magazine somewhat similar to Consumer Reports,
one that has no ads. One that will tell you that there
is no significant difference between "Ultra Essense" speaker
wire and 14 gauge power cord bought from Ace Hardware. But
costs about 1/50th as much (thus freeing up money you
could spend towards something that *will* improve your system).
Or that Brand A's tube preamp has good sound but they spent
too much making a "modern art" shaped item. Vs Brand B which
sounds quite nice as well and comes in a normal looking
metal and wood box. And costs 1/3 as much.
Or that system that sounds just like one of those crappy
boom boxes from WalMart....

You don't want a magazine. You want a prayerbook.

Sander deWaal wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" said:
.

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good".

What's wrong with that?

By your standards, this means that juke boxes in red-neck
bars are on the same audio-quality level as the very best
Wilson WAMM systems.

Howard Ferstler

In article ,
DougC writes:
.......
The potential for low-cost online delivers is huge, but there's a
common mentality that if it's only on a computer screen, it isn't worth
paying for.

When are people going to get it? Unless you are really hard core,
you don't have a computer in the bathroom/water closet/crapper.
When/where do you think many magazines get read? I'm only 1/2 joking.

--
Chris Richmond | I don't speak for Intel & vise versa

Jocelyn Major wrote:
Phil Allison a =E9crit :
"Jocelyn Major"

(snip)

I find it disturbing that on some newsgroup so many people are so quick
to either insult or give unneccessary rude comment.

Welcome to newsgroups, I'm afraid.

(snip)

It is something that I see way to often. Because some people do not see
the other people they are writing they simply forget to be courteous.

In a recent issue of Rolling Stone, movie director Kevin Smith, in a
story on the Star Wars movies, had some interesting comments on the
foolish and hateful behavior that bedevils so many newsgroups and the
blogs.

Can't find the RS story online, but here are scans of the story he

http://www.newsaskew.com/images/KS-RS01.jpg

http://www.newsaskew.com/images/KS-RS02.jpg

Howard Ferstler said:


Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good".

What's wrong with that?

By your standards, this means that juke boxes in red-neck
bars are on the same audio-quality level as the very best
Wilson WAMM systems.


Doesn't that depend on the person judging the system?

BTW there are some very good sounding juke boxes (for a juke box) out
there.
All of them with tube amps ;-)

--

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

said:


Phil Allison a écrit :

snip

I find it disturbing that on some newsgroup so many people are so quick
to either insult or give unneccessary rude comment.

Welcome to newsgroups, I'm afraid.

And what's even more, welcome to the wonderful world of Phil Allison,
who single-handedly created the definition of a ******.

--

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

Clyde Slick wrote:
"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net...
Any of these magazines ever come out and say that
Product X made by Company Y really sucked?

The situation is that they are mostly reviewing extremely
expensive and high end products. Generally, such products do not really
suck.


SET amps, anyone? Shakti Stones? Shun Mook Mpingo discs? Bedini
Clarifiers? Power conditioners? High $ "interconnects"? High $ power
cords? Shall I go on?


Of course, there is the valid question as to whether
one can get comparable sound for less money than some of the
other high priced items. Careful and persistent reading of the magazine may
help steer
one in that direction.


To which magazine are you referring, Art? Surely, one cannot glean such
information by reading Stereophile.

In article ,
Jocelyn Major wrote:
Phil Allison a écrit :
"Jocelyn Major"

** What gives you the right to completely change someone's post before
adding your asinine reply ??
???? I simply don't understand what is your problem.

You've met Phil, I see. Politeness is wasted on him. So is oxygen.


Francois.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


robert casey said:

I'd want a magazine somewhat similar to Consumer Reports,
one that has no ads. One that will tell you that there
is no significant difference between "Ultra Essense" speaker
wire and 14 gauge power cord bought from Ace Hardware. But
costs about 1/50th as much (thus freeing up money you
could spend towards something that *will* improve your system).
Or that Brand A's tube preamp has good sound but they spent
too much making a "modern art" shaped item. Vs Brand B which
sounds quite nice as well and comes in a normal looking
metal and wood box. And costs 1/3 as much.
Or that system that sounds just like one of those crappy
boom boxes from WalMart....

You don't want a magazine. You want a prayerbook.


Preferrably one that hasn't been ****ed on.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

wrote in message
oups.com...


Clyde Slick wrote:
"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net...
Any of these magazines ever come out and say that
Product X made by Company Y really sucked?

The situation is that they are mostly reviewing extremely
expensive and high end products. Generally, such products do not really
suck.


SET amps, anyone? Shakti Stones? Shun Mook Mpingo discs? Bedini
Clarifiers? Power conditioners? High $ "interconnects"? High $ power
cords? Shall I go on?


Of course, there is the valid question as to whether
one can get comparable sound for less money than some of the
other high priced items. Careful and persistent reading of the magazine
may
help steer
one in that direction.


To which magazine are you referring, Art? Surely, one cannot glean such
information by reading Stereophile.


that's your problem, I have done well by them.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Pooh Bear wrote:
Sander deWaal wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" said:
.

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good".

To be fair to JA, in the Measurements section he'll say, after a dire set
of numbers, "I don't know why he liked it".


What's wrong with that?

The great un-eared love pseudo-bass for one. That background rumble that's
there when there's no actual bass instrument playing.

If you don't see what's wrong with that - you never will get 'hi-fi'.

*cough* Wavac 833 *cough*


Francois, speaking of dire.

wrote:


George M. Middius wrote:

William Sommerwerck said:


Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make.

You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their
choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to
tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as
"too much bass" or "great imaging".



If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you
whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too
much bass" or "great imaging".


Why? Because Hefner used to put stuff in Playboy to tell
rawboned farm kids who went to college after a stint in the Army,
(and went to work on Madison Avenue) which fork to use, what
clothes to buy and what hi-fi set to buy.

--
Les Cargill

robert casey wrote:
Any of these magazines ever come out and say that
Product X made by Company Y really sucked?

Stereophile does all the time. They aren't always right, but they at
least are vocal.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


Clyde Slick wrote:
"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net...
Any of these magazines ever come out and say that
Product X made by Company Y really sucked?

The situation is that they are mostly reviewing extremely
expensive and high end products. Generally, such products do not really
suck.


SET amps, anyone? Shakti Stones? Shun Mook Mpingo discs? Bedini
Clarifiers? Power conditioners? High $ "interconnects"? High $ power
cords? Shall I go on?


Of course, there is the valid question as to whether
one can get comparable sound for less money than some of the
other high priced items. Careful and persistent reading of the magazine
may
help steer
one in that direction.


To which magazine are you referring, Art? Surely, one cannot glean such
information by reading Stereophile.


that's your problem, I have done well by them.



My problem? Sorry, Art, but I see Stereophile for exactly the scam it
is. If you want to engage in a fantasy about getting a 'good value'
audio system by "the careful and persistent reading' of Stereophile,
good luck. Hope you don't go blind.

OTOH, can one "get comparable sound for less money than some of the
other high priced items"? Of course. But you don't need Atkinson's
Little Rip-off for that.

Les Cargill wrote:

Why? Because Hefner used to put stuff in Playboy to tell
rawboned farm kids who went to college after a stint in the Army,
(and went to work on Madison Avenue) which fork to use, what
clothes to buy and what hi-fi set to buy.

He was more often accurate on the hi-fi recommendations than on the
clothing recommendations, anyway.

Oh, well.
--scott
(Now, do I eat the antepasto with the salad fork?)
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

EddieM said:

If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to
tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as
subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging".

[snip mindless parroting]

You might want to get a flat screwdriver and have someone help you
unlocked the panel on top of your head.

Tinkering with his head might have caused Thing's current condition. A more
drastic remedy might be called for.

Signal wrote:

"Pooh Bear" emitted :

Magazines are not *responsible* for a decline in interest in D.I.Y.

If we're talking about youngsters taking an interest in the subject ( as I
did many yrs ago ) I think the main issue is that it's not 'kewl' to have
hobbies any more.

Was it *ever* "kewl" to stay indoors and build electronics projects?

Nobody ever 'dissed' me for doing it.


You just hang out with your gangsta friends - that's 'kewl' !

True, but you can't really blame them can you. It's just youthful
rebellion (rockers, mods, skins etc.) but taken to the next cultural
progression. The thing that gets my blood boiling is parents making
excuses like.. "Give Johnny a break... he smashes windows because
there's nothing for him to do where he lives."

Well... my hobby was sound engineering - which meant I went on to do sound for
bands which meant I met more girls.....

Fine by me ! :-)

And yes - the parents today are to blame. Too many stick their kids in front of
the TV and expect it to act like parents for them 'cos they can't be bothered.

Graham

Sander deWaal wrote:

Howard Ferstler said:


Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction
of "if it
sounds good, it is good".

What's wrong with that?

By your standards, this means that juke boxes in red-neck
bars are on the same audio-quality level as the very best
Wilson WAMM systems.

Hear tell that the very best WAMM systems aren't all that
grand sounding, once the hype is stripped away.

Doesn't that depend on the person judging the system?

Ferstler did say red-neck, didn't he?

BTW there are some very good sounding juke boxes (for a
juke box) out
there.

All of them with tube amps ;-)

Thanks for substantiating my comments about tube and vinyl
bigots, Sander.