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 products which provide the best in
sound quality *and* are designed using scientific principles and good
engineering practice. They are manufactured and tested with great care, and
are supported by excellent manufacturer's backup . It has nothing to do
with price, (although high quality doesn't come cheap) nor the use of exotic
materials for which there is no good engineering reason for their use.

S.

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 products which provide the best in
sound quality *and* are designed using scientific principles and good
engineering practice. They are manufactured and tested with great care, and
are supported by excellent manufacturer's backup . It has nothing to do
with price, (although high quality doesn't come cheap) nor the use of exotic
materials for which there is no good engineering reason for their use.

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


a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is
to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or


b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical
realization of the emotional experience commonly called music;
or


c) any relevant issues related to the use, design or theory about
a) or b).


Price is generally not significant in determining whether or not a
given component may be considered 'high-end'.


Products from mass-market corporations are less likely to be
considered high end insofar as such mass-market gear is designed
with apparent priority on things other than absolute sound quality.


--------------------------------------------------------------------


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.


Scott

Wow.... What a question.

RANT WARNING

Writing for myself he

I would have to divide what I believe High End *must* be into two equal
sections, neither of which is prime. So, in no particular order:

High end must be on the Physical side:

Well made: Well engineered using sound principles, good production and
assembly techniques, quality parts and reliable components. Due
consideration given for heat dissipation and cleaning.

Rugged: Able to be transported (within reason) without fear of damage.

Reliable: Solid, well-made parts assembled well (see well made) and
loaded well within design tolerances.

Easily serviced: Things do wear out or fail. Controls need to be
cleaned, lamps, tubes, fuses replaced.

Accepting of considerable hard use and forgiving of *some* abuse: Well
designed components have protection equipment or circuits or fuses
designed into the systems in a thoughtful way. Heat sinks if necessary
are oversized and well laid out.

Intuitive in operation: If you need to read the book to operate it, it
isn't right Perhaps to connect components and speakers, but for actual
use it should be self-evident.

Free of unnecessary clutter and dubious functions: Example "Loudness",
more than a pilot light, and go on from there.

Longevity: There is no conceivable reason why a well-made piece of
equipment with decent production values and reasonable tolerances could
not last several lifetimes with only mininal servicing of wearing
parts.

All of the above will be outcomes of the engineering and production
departments. And, BTW, careful design and excellent execution are no
more expensive than crappy production using poor design, likely less so
as the failure rate will be far less downline.

Sound: Whoooo---- BOY!

Now, we get into the esoteric. William of Occam had it down pretty well
with his razor: It either "IS", or it "IS NOT". And this is not a
simple intuitive statement. Water that is not HOT is not therefore
necessarily cold. It can be tepid, lukewarm, cold, frozen, any of
several states that are not hot. THAT is where Occam took his stand in
describing the "fallacy of opposites".

But for me, I would start with very low distortion within the operating
design limits and very low noise at any level of operation.

But, the definition of High End is necessarily a chimera. There are
those that believe that acoutrements such as cryogenic treatments,
solid silver wire, sand beds, granite plinthes, little cable towers,
big-dollar interconnects and line cords are a necessary part of "high
end". In their pursuit of the unreachable absolute, they expend vast
amount of time and treasure, when the brute fact of the matter is that
no (pick one of many issues) 5.25 inch speaker is capable of decent
sound all by itself no matter what. Belt-drive CD players.... Outboard
DACs, God help us.

So, any piece of equipment that 'produces' in a reliable and safe
manner for the long term and within 1% of the limits of the science is
about as close to "high end" as one can define. There is an AWFUL LOT
OF STUFF out there that can do this. Entire systems of such can be
built for less than the cost of one meter of 'High End" line cord.

I lean strongly to vintage stuff. Mostly it is far better made than
modern stuff, very easly serviced if necessary, and using more modern
means, methods and materials, vastly upgradeable without compromising
the basic design. Someone here once mentioned the Dynaco ST-120, an
early solid-state 60watt amp that had great specs, but sounded like
glass in a blender, blew output transistors every Thursday and drivers
on alternate Sundays... The absolute truth when the thing first came
out, right up to almost the end of its production. But with about $30
worth of easily achieved and very simple modifications, it can become
quite a sweet and nearly bullet-proof amp. Never high-end, but at least
up to its original promise.

Well, I am straying a bit, certainly.

High end sound is riveting. It draws one in and can keep one for hours
on end. It adds as little as possible and takes away as little as
possible. It will NEVER be perfect, but it will always be very, very
good. And it will NOT be complicate to achieve.

Weakest link in my experience: Speakers, followed closely by
amplifiers. Speakers fail at the edges and amplifiers simply cannot
deliver enough power to move enough air to provide valid sound. At
present, I have no less than nine (9) pairs of speakers of
substantially different design, and eight (8) different amplifiers
(power and integrated) of substantially different design. The most
satifying combination is the highest power amp with the widest range
speakers... funny thing. All the rest sound lovely, but the visceral
grab is not there. Including every part and piece I have from
tape-decks to tuners, I don't suppose I have even $10,000 in the
entire lot, less than some pay for a single mono-block amp. Go figure.

End Rant

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

wrote in message ...
Wow.... What a question.

RANT WARNING

Writing for myself he

I would have to divide what I believe High End *must* be into two equal
sections, neither of which is prime. So, in no particular order:

High end must be on the Physical side:

Well made: Well engineered using sound principles, good production and
assembly techniques, quality parts and reliable components. Due
consideration given for heat dissipation and cleaning.

Rugged: Able to be transported (within reason) without fear of damage.

Reliable: Solid, well-made parts assembled well (see well made) and
loaded well within design tolerances.

Easily serviced: Things do wear out or fail. Controls need to be
cleaned, lamps, tubes, fuses replaced.

Accepting of considerable hard use and forgiving of *some* abuse: Well
designed components have protection equipment or circuits or fuses
designed into the systems in a thoughtful way. Heat sinks if necessary
are oversized and well laid out.

Intuitive in operation: If you need to read the book to operate it, it
isn't right Perhaps to connect components and speakers, but for actual
use it should be self-evident.

Free of unnecessary clutter and dubious functions: Example "Loudness",
more than a pilot light, and go on from there.

Longevity: There is no conceivable reason why a well-made piece of
equipment with decent production values and reasonable tolerances could
not last several lifetimes with only mininal servicing of wearing
parts.

All of the above will be outcomes of the engineering and production
departments. And, BTW, careful design and excellent execution are no
more expensive than crappy production using poor design, likely less so
as the failure rate will be far less downline.

Sound: Whoooo---- BOY!

Now, we get into the esoteric. William of Occam had it down pretty well
with his razor: It either "IS", or it "IS NOT". And this is not a
simple intuitive statement. Water that is not HOT is not therefore
necessarily cold. It can be tepid, lukewarm, cold, frozen, any of
several states that are not hot. THAT is where Occam took his stand in
describing the "fallacy of opposites".

But for me, I would start with very low distortion within the operating
design limits and very low noise at any level of operation.

But, the definition of High End is necessarily a chimera. There are
those that believe that acoutrements such as cryogenic treatments,
solid silver wire, sand beds, granite plinthes, little cable towers,
big-dollar interconnects and line cords are a necessary part of "high
end". In their pursuit of the unreachable absolute, they expend vast
amount of time and treasure, when the brute fact of the matter is that
no (pick one of many issues) 5.25 inch speaker is capable of decent
sound all by itself no matter what. Belt-drive CD players.... Outboard
DACs, God help us.

So, any piece of equipment that 'produces' in a reliable and safe
manner for the long term and within 1% of the limits of the science is
about as close to "high end" as one can define. There is an AWFUL LOT
OF STUFF out there that can do this. Entire systems of such can be
built for less than the cost of one meter of 'High End" line cord.

I lean strongly to vintage stuff. Mostly it is far better made than
modern stuff, very easly serviced if necessary, and using more modern
means, methods and materials, vastly upgradeable without compromising
the basic design. Someone here once mentioned the Dynaco ST-120, an
early solid-state 60watt amp that had great specs, but sounded like
glass in a blender, blew output transistors every Thursday and drivers
on alternate Sundays... The absolute truth when the thing first came
out, right up to almost the end of its production. But with about $30
worth of easily achieved and very simple modifications, it can become
quite a sweet and nearly bullet-proof amp. Never high-end, but at least
up to its original promise.

Well, I am straying a bit, certainly.

High end sound is riveting. It draws one in and can keep one for hours
on end. It adds as little as possible and takes away as little as
possible. It will NEVER be perfect, but it will always be very, very
good. And it will NOT be complicate to achieve.

Weakest link in my experience: Speakers, followed closely by
amplifiers. Speakers fail at the edges and amplifiers simply cannot
deliver enough power to move enough air to provide valid sound. At
present, I have no less than nine (9) pairs of speakers of
substantially different design, and eight (8) different amplifiers
(power and integrated) of substantially different design. The most
satifying combination is the highest power amp with the widest range
speakers... funny thing. All the rest sound lovely, but the visceral
grab is not there. Including every part and piece I have from
tape-decks to tuners, I don't suppose I have even $10,000 in the
entire lot, less than some pay for a single mono-block amp. Go figure.

End Rant


Peter, I share your love for old stuff. I use an absolutely pristine Fisher
FM90B tube tuner, had (and regret selling) an equally pristine Fisher KX-200
amp, still use a pair of Advents in one system, and have a basement full of
gear going all the way back to the 1950's. But there are some things I
would note the above rant.

The build quality your cherish can be found in modern gear as well as
old..stuff such as the Audio Research gear, McIntosh gear, BAT gear, etc.
The older stuff you cherish was not cheap in its day....the Dynaco 500, the
AR-3A's brought up to date via an inflation index are quite costly. I
recently took the trouble to index the cost of two EV Aristocrat systems for
a guy on Audio Asylum...one was the Aristocrat I (using a SP23B and B-series
tweeter), the other was an Aristocrat III (using a 12TRX, and a top-line
midrange and tweeter). They costed out to between $700 and 900 each in
todays terms, or about $1400-1800 per pair. These were consider plebian
high-fidelity in those days...didn't hold a candle to the bigh JBL, Klipsch,
EV, Jensen, and Utah corner horns. In todays terms, those babies cost
$4000-6000 each. I also did a whole chart comparing '60's tube amps to
today...interesting for example that a 1965 McIntosh 275 adjusted for
inflaction would cost $2800, not much less than the $3500 McIntosh is asking
today. A lowly Dynaco Mk III, the biggest bargain of them all, would still
be a $1300 monoblock today, $2600 the pair. Want low end hi-fi? The Eico
HF-89 would be a $950 dollar monoblock today...about three times what an
Outlaw Monoblock costs.

So quality costs...I get pretty impatient with those who think it doesn't.

But quality and low distortion is not enough. The Crown 300 had build
quality out the kazoo...it sounded ... well, dreck. Much of the older
professional gear was extremely well built but sounded like crap.

Which leaves....sound? It is hard for me to tell exactly where you stand on
this. I happend to think your hot water example is correct...high end sound
is high end sound. There can be many other qualities of sound, some quite
nice...but true high end sound is something that has to be experienced to
believe. One contemporary achievement that I will add to the traditional
description of near-perfect timbre and dynamics and soundstaging is
near-complete-transparency. This is something I've never heard from older
equipment which otherwise I think very highly of and consider true high end
in sound. One of my gripes is that many today who have never really
experienced true high end sound belittle anything expensive, insisting that
the cheap, mass-produced stuff must sound as good. Some of it (not much,
but getting better) seems to; most doesn't. And without a reference, you
can't tell which is which.

I like the FAQ description...it seems to me to describe what is most
important....the sound and its ability to help one suspend disbelief and
evoke the emotional response of a live performance. And it seems to me that
any company oriented to deliver that sound is a high-end company. But like
you, I also appreciate the sheer quality of a really well-engineered piece
of gear. Unfortunately, today as yesterday that tends to cost a lot of
bread.

wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
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 products which provide the best
in
sound quality *and* are designed using scientific principles and good
engineering practice. They are manufactured and tested with great care,
and
are supported by excellent manufacturer's backup . It has nothing to do
with price, (although high quality doesn't come cheap) nor the use of
exotic
materials for which there is no good engineering reason for their use.

S.

As I see it and I believe there is ample evidence for this belief, most
audio components provide excellent sound quality, if it is defined as
reproducing the signal from the source without any audible coloration.


Excellent is a subjective term. What is the evidence you believe exiata
that supports this assertion. You believe it is ample so it shouldn't
too hard to cite it.



This
has long been possible and nothing new has come along since the advent of
digital recording that is more accurate.


many opinions abound on just when such a thing happened. That being the
advent of digital recording that is actually more accurate.




The way music is mixed and how people react to that mix is another question
entirely, but it's safe to say that what is put on the CD is able to be
played back from the CD in just that way, no audible coloration, at least
until you get to the loudspeakers.


No it isn't safe to say that at all. I suggest you read the AESJ paper
about the making of the great CDs of the great Mercury recordings.





Differences between all the other components in an audio system are
virtually nonexistent, unless designed to deviate from flat response.


Prove it.



There
may be exceptions but I suspect they are very few.

For me, loudspeakers make all the really important differences, (along with
room acoustics of course) and choosing the best ones is either a matter of
taste or a matter of trying to get the most accurate response. Some folks
believe that the goal should be to get equipment that achieves the goal of
playback that sounds like a live performance, ( at least that what it seems
they are saying as I interpret it, and if this is not correct, I'm sure
someone will point it out). I don't care about this idea unless the
recording is of a performance that was recorded live,


No one I know of has ever suggested that anything other than recordings
of live music be used as a source when evaluating how life like a
system sounds.



and there are not that
many of them, except perhaps in the genre of Jazz and symphony music.


Wrong. There are thousands and thousands of them.




Symphony orchestras are a tough thing to record as I'm sure any recording
engineer will testify to, and while I'm not much of a fan of that sort of
music there are some works I like and they tend to sound best to me when
recorded digitally, as nothing else captures the dynamics of the orchestra
as well or is as accurate in terms of getting the sound of any instrument.


This may come as a surprise to you but orchestral recording are not
allways the most demanding when it comes to dynamics. you have to get
pretty darned close to an orchestra before it gets that lound. as for
the most "accurate" recordings of an orchestra are concerned I suggest
you get your hands on a copy of th Reference Recordings of Malcom
Arnold. Compare those to any digitally recorded orchestral rcordings
you have.



There is of course the problem of microphones and how each of the different
units affects the recording, and since they are essentially the inverse of a
loudspeaker, they are at least as important as the speakers used to playback
the recording.

I try to get the sound of that was laid down on the recording, warts and
all.


And how do you go about doing that? Especially given the fact that no
"sound" is laid down in a recording?


If I don't like that, I'm going to see who was responsible for the way
it was mixed and probably avoid that person's work in the future, unless
they work for an artist that I especially like.


Who are some of your favorite and leat favorite "mixing" artists?


I don't understand why
anybody would want to mess with their electronics and use them as equalizers
when you could just get an equalizer and be done with it.


Just because you do not understand it does not mean there isn't a valid
reason.




Unless you want to get down to finding out every detail of how a piece of
music was recorded, and the kind of microphones used, you are bound to get
whatever compromises the artist and the recording engineer came up with,


Well you are partly right here. Be it LP or CD we are all stuck with
the efforts of the recording engneers, mastering engineers and
manufacturers of CDs and LPs.



so
I try to get the most accurate speaker room interface I possibly can and
make sure that the electronics are capable of driving the speakers I choose.


How do you go about doing that?



If I don't like what comes out then, I have 2 choices, either accept it or
EQ it. YMMV



Yes it does. I have found other choices.



Scott

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 products which provide the best in
sound quality *and* are designed using scientific principles and good
engineering practice. They are manufactured and tested with great care, and
are supported by excellent manufacturer's backup . It has nothing to do
with price, (although high quality doesn't come cheap) nor the use of exotic
materials for which there is no good engineering reason for their use.

S.


That seems like a good working definition of high-end. Question is this:
Is the gauge-12 speaker cable commonly available from RS or Home Depot
high-end? It is demonstrably accurate, has excellent reliability, and
RS/HD will gladly refund your money if you don't like it or if it does
not work.

A cynical (but realistic) viewpoint:

"High End" is market that has been battered in the last 20 years by
competition from video games, DVDs, iPods, and the Internet.

Many more people now listen whilst mobile (in their cars and/or iPods)
than when they listened at home during the "glory" days of high end.

My dealer friends tell me it takes more time on their part to get
customers interested in quality sound reproduction because of these
other entertainment choices not available 20 years ago, and they
usually have to get to them through video: A typical scenerio is a
customer comes enquiring about a better TV or HDTV. They first do a
killer demo on their best screen and if the customer is enthusiastic
about the quality of the video, then they take them to another room
with equivalent video and a MUCH better sound system and show them the
merits of how having good sound enhances the video. Many customers like
the better sound, but I'm told a surprising of number really don't care
about the sound, they just want the big screen TV.

And they tell me virtually no one walks in these days asking for
stereo, unless they're an existing customer or an already "converted"
audiophile.

So it almost seems like the new "high end" people coming into the hobby
come in first looking for a big screen TV, then some appreciate how the
viewing experience is enhanced with a great 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 sound
system, then as they continue their personal audio and/or "high end"
journey, they finally end up listening to a good stereo and sometimes
become a convert.

YMMV, of course.

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 products which provide the best in
sound quality *and* are designed using scientific principles and good
engineering practice. They are manufactured and tested with great care, and
are supported by excellent manufacturer's backup . It has nothing to do
with price, (although high quality doesn't come cheap) nor the use of exotic
materials for which there is no good engineering reason for their us


A "high end" item leaves very little or zero room for improvement.

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.

First let's define "audiophile": Someone who cares not only about
music, but also about the nature and quality of the sonic reproduction
of music.

"High end audio" is a marketing term, describing a segment of the
consumer electronics industry which makes products aimed at
audiophiles, as opposed to the broader public. (Granted, the line here
is vague, and some companies make products for both the narrow and
broad markets.)

It's important to understand that high-end products are just the means
to the audiophile's ends. Some audiophiles confuse means and ends. The
product becomes the end--it's good because it's got some exotic
technology inside, or an obscure nameplate, or a high price tag, or all
of the above.

A real audiophile shouldn't care about those things; he should only
care about the sound. And he should recognize the very real possibility
that many mass-market products today are the audible equals of the best
technology on the market. But to audiophiles for whom the product--not
the sound--is the end, the suggestion that mass-market products can
sound just as good, or that exotica might be technical crap, is
anti-high end.

bob

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 products which provide the best in
sound quality *and* are designed using scientific principles and good
engineering practice.

Mass-market products are engineered well too.

They are manufactured and tested with great care, and
are supported by excellent manufacturer's backup.

So is much mass-market gear.

It has nothing to do
with price, (although high quality doesn't come cheap) nor the use of exotic
materials for which there is no good engineering reason for their use.

It certainly does have to do with price, at least in part. The line
between high-end and mass-market has never been quite clear.

The term 'high-end' is often used to refer to specialist manufacturers,
even though many firms that have made mass-market products have also
made equipment as expensive and as good as so-called 'high-end' goods.

Often, high-end simply means made in relatively small numbers by small
companies devoted exclusively to audio equipment, or even only one part
of the market. The Japanese tend to be more inclusive.

Yamaha, for instance, has made both high-end and mass-market products
in all segments of the market (headphones, speakers, amps, receivers,
CD players.turntables, etc.).

Denon and Sony have also made almost every kind of product at almost
every price point.

Pass, Levinson, Audio Research, Bryson, et al., make only amplication
equipment.
Magnepan and Wilson make only speakers.
Many British speaker manufacturers also make only speakers.







S.

wrote in message
...
wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
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 products which provide the
best
in
sound quality *and* are designed using scientific principles and good
engineering practice. They are manufactured and tested with great care,
and
are supported by excellent manufacturer's backup . It has nothing to
do
with price, (although high quality doesn't come cheap) nor the use of
exotic
materials for which there is no good engineering reason for their use.

S.

As I see it and I believe there is ample evidence for this belief, most
audio components provide excellent sound quality, if it is defined as
reproducing the signal from the source without any audible coloration.


Excellent is a subjective term. What is the evidence you believe exiata
that supports this assertion. You believe it is ample so it shouldn't
too hard to cite it.

The measured performance of every piece of SS gear I've ever seen reviewed.
The meaured performance of every CD player I've ever seen reviewed.
The measured performance of every SS preamp I've ever seen reviewed.

This
has long been possible and nothing new has come along since the advent of
digital recording that is more accurate.


many opinions abound on just when such a thing happened. That being the
advent of digital recording that is actually more accurate.




The way music is mixed and how people react to that mix is another
question
entirely, but it's safe to say that what is put on the CD is able to be
played back from the CD in just that way, no audible coloration, at least
until you get to the loudspeakers.


No it isn't safe to say that at all. I suggest you read the AESJ paper
about the making of the great CDs of the great Mercury recordings.

How about posting the relevant portions?



Differences between all the other components in an audio system are
virtually nonexistent, unless designed to deviate from flat response.


Prove it.

The DBT's that have been done on equipment that measure closely enough have
shown so far that there is nobody who can reliably hear such differences.


There
may be exceptions but I suspect they are very few.

For me, loudspeakers make all the really important differences, (along
with
room acoustics of course) and choosing the best ones is either a matter
of
taste or a matter of trying to get the most accurate response. Some
folks
believe that the goal should be to get equipment that achieves the goal
of
playback that sounds like a live performance, ( at least that what it
seems
they are saying as I interpret it, and if this is not correct, I'm sure
someone will point it out). I don't care about this idea unless the
recording is of a performance that was recorded live,


No one I know of has ever suggested that anything other than recordings
of live music be used as a source when evaluating how life like a
system sounds.

I have seen recomendations of several, make that virtually every recording I
have ever seen listed as good for evalution is something other than a live
performance.

and there are not that
many of them, except perhaps in the genre of Jazz and symphony music.


Wrong. There are thousands and thousands of them.




Symphony orchestras are a tough thing to record as I'm sure any recording
engineer will testify to, and while I'm not much of a fan of that sort of
music there are some works I like and they tend to sound best to me when
recorded digitally, as nothing else captures the dynamics of the
orchestra
as well or is as accurate in terms of getting the sound of any
instrument.


This may come as a surprise to you but orchestral recording are not
allways the most demanding when it comes to dynamics. you have to get
pretty darned close to an orchestra before it gets that lound. as for
the most "accurate" recordings of an orchestra are concerned I suggest
you get your hands on a copy of th Reference Recordings of Malcom
Arnold. Compare those to any digitally recorded orchestral rcordings
you have.

I have at least one Refernce Recording title and have compared it to other
digital recordings, and while some analog recordings come close they never
quite equal the clarity and dynamics of a digital recording to my ears.
YMMV

There is of course the problem of microphones and how each of the
different
units affects the recording, and since they are essentially the inverse
of a
loudspeaker, they are at least as important as the speakers used to
playback
the recording.

I try to get the sound of that was laid down on the recording, warts and
all.


And how do you go about doing that? Especially given the fact that no
"sound" is laid down in a recording?

I want the sound that's on the media, nothing more, nothing less.

If I don't like that, I'm going to see who was responsible for the way
it was mixed and probably avoid that person's work in the future, unless
they work for an artist that I especially like.


Who are some of your favorite and lesat favorite "mixing" artists?

As to recording engineers whose work I have enjoyed, Jack Renner, Russ
Freeman, Carl Griffin, Tom Pinch, Tim Pinch, Lee Hershberg, and George
Martin are but a few.

People whose work I didn't care for would include, David Bloom, Rhett
Davies, and Phil Brown.

I don't understand why
anybody would want to mess with their electronics and use them as
equalizers
when you could just get an equalizer and be done with it.


Just because you do not understand it does not mean there isn't a valid
reason.

Did I say there wasn't? I simply said I don't understand it. What would be
one, in your opinion.


Unless you want to get down to finding out every detail of how a piece of
music was recorded, and the kind of microphones used, you are bound to
get
whatever compromises the artist and the recording engineer came up with,


Well you are partly right here. Be it LP or CD we are all stuck with
the efforts of the recording engneers, mastering engineers and
manufacturers of CDs and LPs.



so
I try to get the most accurate speaker room interface I possibly can and
make sure that the electronics are capable of driving the speakers I
choose.


How do you go about doing that?

By following some basic guidelines for set up of speakers and getting
relaible equipment.

If I don't like what comes out then, I have 2 choices, either accept it
or
EQ it. YMMV



Yes it does. I have found other choices.



Such as?

Stewart,

I now have a moment to reply to your exhaustive reply. So, consider
this a supplement to my very brief (perhaps blessedly so) reply
yesterday.

Audio Note
Levinson
Naim
And many others may well be expensive. But, bluntly, if they are built
badly, it just isn't worth it. But apart from all that, there comes a
point of diminishing returns after which further reaching is simply
foolish. That is no barrier to enough individuals to keep these
companies in business and as long as there are such needs, then there
will be those to fill them. But to close the loop on
build/maintenance/operational quality (apart from sound), one is
entitled to certain expectations for one's hard-earned money, and poor
execution is not one of them.

Turntables.... Vinyl has its uses and its myths. But what is mostly
clear is that the first purpose of a TT/Cartridge/stylus combination is
to protect the vinyl. Then to make as good sound as is possible with
what's left. Considering that a cartridge/stylus combination is a
transducer just like a speaker, it too becomes a weak link in the
process. One can spend all sorts of money on a TT for very, very
marginal gains (if any), when a decently set-up, rather simple-minded
Rabco or Revox tangental table will do most anything *necessary*. When
discussing the true exotics, the question that should be asked is
whether the improvements realized by them will manifest in any
discernable way over the inherent difficulties with vinyl.

SET: OK. I have heard a SET system perhaps twice. I say "perhaps"
because they were both represented as such, but one of them looked like
it had way too many output-type tubes to qualify... hereby illustrating
my general ignorance of the species as it may appear. As I have said
before, both of them sounded ethereally beautiful when reproducing solo
voices with very small groups of instruments and at moderate volume.
But neither of them could manage any serious organ or brass music, nor
any full orchestra pieces at even moderate volume. It was like
listening through several layers of gauze... Note also: I had no way of
determining what I was hearing as compared to a non-SET system as both
were private and there was no AB potential to compare 'at the scene'.

Your comment on Yamaha is well taken. Generally good stuff, well made,
and great sound. My _only_ piece of Pacific-rim manufactured equipment
is a Yamaha CD player acquired when we were living overseas three years
ago as the only decent brand available. But the US-made equipment I
brought over with me was the envy of my neighbors and acquaintances...
even though it was very strictly middle-grade by any measure here.

My reasoning on amplification is that after a rather easily achieved
basic quality level, the issue becomes one of headroom. On other NGs,
much has been made in certain quarters over "fast" and "slow"
capacitors and power-supplies and all that good stuff... essentially
masking the basic question of how power is delivered over how long. If
sound can be compared (somewhat) to billiard balls, where a relatively
small voice coil moves a relatively larger diaphram (eliding
horns/cones/domes/electrostatics for the moment), which in turn pushes
molecules of air, which, in turn push other molecules and so forth...
the more noise to be made over the more distance requires more
molecules to be moved initially so they can bounce... and so forth
again. Physics suggests that this does not happen easily. And music
with a very broad peak-to-average needs Lots-O-Power at those peaks. 3
watts RMS even with 100,000uF of fast capacitance behind it ain't gonna
do it other than *possibly* blowing the voice-coil out the front of the
speaker if a stylus is accidentally dropped on the record, or some
similar transient hits. And that is notwithstanding difficulties within
the output transformer when that happens.

So, (again, within my universe), High-End is almost entirely divorced
from cost. Harry has it right when he states that "quality costs". And
at the same time, simply the capacity to do something costs. There is a
curve where the two meet, most equipment made for the mass market
attempts to skirt as close as possible to this meeting point. Much
high-end stuff (in my experience) appears to be ignoring the costs in
order to achieve a certain level of performance, yet it ignores some
very basic execution concerns. To stray a little bit to the maintenance
issue, something near-and-dear to me: B&O equipment, with specific
reference to their 30mm-thick stuff and such. It may be lovely. It may
even sound decent. But it is like a vintage Emerson Radio. Each section
is walled (soldered) in in order to assemble the next, like a
multi-level sandwich. And damned-near impossible to service if someting
in level-3-of-5 fails. B&O would love to think of themselves as "high
end". To me, it sacrifices far too much to design over function. And
when I am faced with the controls for my system(s), I *need* to know
three things: Source, volume and whether I am taping/recording it or
not. After that, having options is nice, but not absolutely necessary.

In fewer words, High End is a state-of-mind including a massive level
of personal choice and preference and belief. Rather like religion. We
all worship at slightly different altars, no one of which is absolute.
Of course, one of the natural outfall practices of many religions is
the denegration of other religions ----AND---- their adherents. THAT is
certainly practiced here and all too-often.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"bob" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:

snip

A real audiophile shouldn't care about those things; he should only
care about the sound.

Agreed. But if he (or she) is meticulous about the sound, he (or she) is
likely also to be meticulous about the equipment that reproduces that sound.

And he should recognize the very real possibility
that many mass-market products today are the audible equals of the best
technology on the market.

No problem recognizing the possibility. But also no trouble recognizing its
rarity in the marketplace.

But to audiophiles for whom the product--not
the sound--is the end, the suggestion that mass-market products can
sound just as good, or that exotica might be technical crap, is
anti-high end.

To the audiophile who loves build quality as well as sound, the former may
well be true.

To any audiophile, the latter is something they wish weren't true. But
occassionally experience.

But "anti-high-end" is reserved for those critics of audiophilia who seem to
have equipment or income envy, and feel compelled a) to insist that mid-fi
gear is as good as the best of the best, and b) to insist that anybody who
buys the best of the best is doing so for nefarious and illegitmate reasons
and is being "duped" by an unscrupulous industry.


bob

On 17 Feb 2006 00:28:19 GMT, " wrote:

Stewart:

"Expensive" does not necessarily equal "Good", example: any Cadillac or
any BMW.

I never said that it did. OTOH, what's your beef against BMW? Aside
from Bangle's God-awful styling, of course!

That there are companies that produce very expensive stuff and
customers that purchase said stuff does not make either of them wise
and knowing on things audio. Nor does it make the customer an audiphile
or the producer any good.

I think we are both saying this?

Yes. Indeed, I am both an audiophile *and* an Audiphile.... :-)

But one thing I do disagree on, sincerely: Good engineering an
production values are the most inexpensive means and methods for the
long run, not necessarily in any great quantity. Yes and most certainly
a lot of boutique stuff suffers greatly from the lack of such, but by
my definition they would be then excluded from the realm of 'high-end'.

Pity that many of the subjectivists don't seem to agree with you!

And stuff that uses _inexpensive_ materials and methods in a thoughtful
way might achieve that status. Liken it to using a torque-wrench and
anti-seize on spark-plugs. One can use twice-as-expensive plated plugs
and no such wrench and not necessarily strip the threads when they need
replacement in 30,000 miles, or one can use anti-seize and the wrench
and then it does not matter which plug. The boutique makers will brag
about the expense of their spark-plug equivalents but either not
tighten at all or have a moose tighten each one with his last, dying
strain. Neither makes sense, both are easily avoided.

Not easily avoided if you are technically incompetent, as are many of
the high-end audio 'designers', such as Yves Bernard Andre, Peter
Qvortrup and Julian Vereker.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 17 Feb 2006 00:31:57 GMT, "
wrote:

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 products which provide the best in
sound quality *and* are designed using scientific principles and good
engineering practice. They are manufactured and tested with great care, and
are supported by excellent manufacturer's backup . It has nothing to do
with price, (although high quality doesn't come cheap) nor the use of exotic
materials for which there is no good engineering reason for their us

A "high end" item leaves very little or zero room for improvement.

So does most mainstream audio electronics.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote:
wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
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 products which provide the
best
in
sound quality *and* are designed using scientific principles and good
engineering practice. They are manufactured and tested with great care,
and
are supported by excellent manufacturer's backup . It has nothing to
do
with price, (although high quality doesn't come cheap) nor the use of
exotic
materials for which there is no good engineering reason for their use.

S.

As I see it and I believe there is ample evidence for this belief, most
audio components provide excellent sound quality, if it is defined as
reproducing the signal from the source without any audible coloration.


Excellent is a subjective term.

In terms of hi-fi it means hi-fi, faithfull to the original, which in
the case of audio equipment means that the equipmnent does not alter
the sound of the recording in any audible way.

What is the evidence you believe exiata
that supports this assertion. You believe it is ample so it shouldn't
too hard to cite it.

The measured performance of every piece of SS gear I've ever seen reviewed.
The meaured performance of every CD player I've ever seen reviewed.
The measured performance of every SS preamp I've ever seen reviewed.


sorry but i don't buy the assumptions behind this responce.


Of course not. I suspect there is no form of bias controlled listening
that would satisfy you.

What defines excellent sound if not the performance of the equipment?
What proof is there that proper measurements do not correspond to
excellent sound as I just defined it.

What other definition relating to the playback equipment is there?
Either it plays back the signal without audibly changing it, or it
doesn't. If it does, then for me it is no longer worthy of my
consideration.




This
has long been possible and nothing new has come along since the advent of
digital recording that is more accurate.


many opinions abound on just when such a thing happened. That being the
advent of digital recording that is actually more accurate.

Many opinions abound on many things, bu that digital recording is more
accurate is not in any serious debate. The best analog can hope for is
to be as accurate, at least AFAIK. Is there some form of analog
recording equipment that is audibly quieter, or with more dynamic
range, or audbly superior frequency response


The way music is mixed and how people react to that mix is another
question
entirely, but it's safe to say that what is put on the CD is able to be
played back from the CD in just that way, no audible coloration, at least
until you get to the loudspeakers.


No it isn't safe to say that at all. I suggest you read the AESJ paper
about the making of the great CDs of the great Mercury recordings.

How about posting the relevant portions?


http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf
Check out
4. development of custom A/D transfer chain
5. production methodology

That link did not work for me. Could you at least indentify the title
of the paper and the author.


Can you not simply quote the relevant parts?

The one I found was written by Dennis M. Drake and says that the CD
reissues were indistinguishable from the master tapes.
That may mean they don't sound the same as the LP versions, but the way
I see it if they sound the same as the master then they sound like they
should.





Differences between all the other components in an audio system are
virtually nonexistent, unless designed to deviate from flat response.


Prove it.

The DBT's that have been done on equipment that measure closely enough have
shown so far that there is nobody who can reliably hear such differences.


There
may be exceptions but I suspect they are very few.

For me, loudspeakers make all the really important differences, (along
with
room acoustics of course) and choosing the best ones is either a matter
of
taste or a matter of trying to get the most accurate response. Some
folks
believe that the goal should be to get equipment that achieves the goal
of
playback that sounds like a live performance, ( at least that what it
seems
they are saying as I interpret it, and if this is not correct, I'm sure
someone will point it out). I don't care about this idea unless the
recording is of a performance that was recorded live,


No one I know of has ever suggested that anything other than recordings
of live music be used as a source when evaluating how life like a
system sounds.

I have seen recomendations of several, make that virtually every recording I
have ever seen listed as good for evalution is something other than a live
performance.


Examples?

I have seen Jennifer Warnes: Famous Blue Raincoat as a recomended
album.
Usually I find people recomend music that one is familiar with.

Supertramp's Even in The Quietest Moments is another.




and there are not that
many of them, except perhaps in the genre of Jazz and symphony music.


Wrong. There are thousands and thousands of them.

Examples?


Symphony orchestras are a tough thing to record as I'm sure any recording
engineer will testify to, and while I'm not much of a fan of that sort of
music there are some works I like and they tend to sound best to me when
recorded digitally, as nothing else captures the dynamics of the
orchestra
as well or is as accurate in terms of getting the sound of any
instrument.


This may come as a surprise to you but orchestral recording are not
allways the most demanding when it comes to dynamics.

I agree there are other forms of music that have plenty of dynamics,
but I was also thinking of how to capture the sound of a full
orchestra. I can't recall specific sources, but I have read that there
is disagreement on how to set up the mics. to get the best sound from
an orchestra. Are you a recording engineer?
What do you consider the most difficult types of performances to
record?

you have to get
pretty darned close to an orchestra before it gets that lound. as for
the most "accurate" recordings of an orchestra are concerned I suggest
you get your hands on a copy of th Reference Recordings of Malcom
Arnold. Compare those to any digitally recorded orchestral rcordings
you have.

I have at least one Refernce Recording title and have compared it to other
digital recordings, and while some analog recordings come close they never
quite equal the clarity and dynamics of a digital recording to my ears.
YMMV


I think it would be fun to put it to a blind test. you know, one where
you don't know which is the RR and which is the Digital.


As long as it is on a CD, it would be pointless otherwise.
As I said, there are some very good analog recordings, but what gives
them away as compared to a digital recording for me is the sound of
percussion. It just tends to be snappier when done digitally, IME.



There is of course the problem of microphones and how each of the
different
units affects the recording, and since they are essentially the inverse
of a
loudspeaker, they are at least as important as the speakers used to
playback
the recording.

I try to get the sound of that was laid down on the recording, warts and
all.


And how do you go about doing that? Especially given the fact that no
"sound" is laid down in a recording?

I want the sound that's on the media, nothing more, nothing less.


There is no sound on the media.

You appear to be having trouble with what I am trying to communicate,
so let me clarify by saying that I'm talkng about the different way a
recording sounds when recorded to CD as compared to LP, compared to the
master tape.

there is a signal that was derived from
a less than pure source when we are talking about recordings of live
music. We are also talking about a complete system from recording to
playback that is inherently colored. Why the intense interest in an
electrical signal derived from an inherently colored source?

Since it impossible AFAIK to get an exact copy of live performance, I
guess in that sense the recordings of everything are colored.
Recordings are tehn by nature a compromise agreed on by the artists,
the producers and the people doing the mix. At least that is how I
understand the process. When I play a recording, I'm trying to hear
what they agreed was the way it should sound in order to convey
whatever they decided was the best way to have someone experience that
performance on their playback equipment.




If I don't like that, I'm going to see who was responsible for the way
it was mixed and probably avoid that person's work in the future, unless
they work for an artist that I especially like.


Who are some of your favorite and lesat favorite "mixing" artists?

As to recording engineers whose work I have enjoyed, Jack Renner, Russ
Freeman, Carl Griffin, Tom Pinch, Tim Pinch, Lee Hershberg, and George
Martin are but a few.

People whose work I didn't care for would include, David Bloom, Rhett
Davies, and Phil Brown.

I don't understand why
anybody would want to mess with their electronics and use them as
equalizers
when you could just get an equalizer and be done with it.


Just because you do not understand it does not mean there isn't a valid
reason.

Did I say there wasn't?


Looked like you said it in effect.

I said I don't understand why people want to use their audio systems as
equalizers, since that seems to be leaving the area of hi-fi and
entering the area of MY-FI. That is a choice that people are free to
make, I just don't understand why they want to do it.

I simply said I don't understand it. What would be
one, in your opinion.


Steve Hoffman's use of tube equipment in his mastering. The use of tube
equipment and LP playback in home audio.


Fine for mastering, but I personally don't want to double the effect of
whatever the tubed equipment had in the mastering processs. There is
tubed equipment that can sound exactly like SS equipment, but I assume
that you are talking about some specific kind of effect produced
exclusively by using tubes. In that case it would not serve my purpose
to play it back through tubes. My goal is to hear what was recorded,
not to change it.





Unless you want to get down to finding out every detail of how a piece of
music was recorded, and the kind of microphones used, you are bound to
get
whatever compromises the artist and the recording engineer came up with,


Well you are partly right here. Be it LP or CD we are all stuck with
the efforts of the recording engneers, mastering engineers and
manufacturers of CDs and LPs.

The only reason for me to spend oney on an audio system is to reproduce
their efforts exactly as they intended.

so
I try to get the most accurate speaker room interface I possibly can and
make sure that the electronics are capable of driving the speakers I
choose.


How do you go about doing that?

By following some basic guidelines for set up of speakers and getting
relaible equipment.


That is a non-answer.

What more besides getting accurate playback electronics and the most
accurate speakers I can get should I be doing? I place the speakers
where they get the least amount frequency deviation and set them for
ear level. I use a small amount of EQ for the subwoofer to remove a
room induced peak.




If I don't like what comes out then, I have 2 choices, either accept it
or
EQ it. YMMV



Yes it does. I have found other choices.



Such as?


Seeking out alternative masterings.

As I have done in the past, but since I play CD's almost exclusively,
there aren't al ot of choices.

when one rejects all but CD as a
viable medium then one shuts that option off to a large degree.

I've shut off the less accurate sources, I don't see that as a problem.

Your preference for the sound of LP is already a matter of record as is
my prefernce for the IMO more accurate sound of CD.

bob wrote:
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.

First let's define "audiophile": Someone who cares not only about
music, but also about the nature and quality of the sonic reproduction
of music.

"High end audio" is a marketing term, describing a segment of the
consumer electronics industry which makes products aimed at
audiophiles, as opposed to the broader public. (Granted, the line here
is vague, and some companies make products for both the narrow and
broad markets.)

Actually it is a term that was fist used by Harry Pearson who was the
editor of TAS. It is a tem used by audiophiles, reviewers and
manufacturers. It is not just a marketing term.




It's important to understand that high-end products are just the means
to the audiophile's ends. Some audiophiles confuse means and ends. The
product becomes the end--it's good because it's got some exotic
technology inside, or an obscure nameplate, or a high price tag, or all
of the above.


It is a source for the imaginations of many objectivists. The above
being a fine example. But hey, if you can quote any audiophiles making
this claim for themselves....



A real audiophile shouldn't care about those things; he should only
care about the sound.


Who are you to decide who is and is not a real audiophile and how so
called real audiophiles should act?



And he should recognize the very real possibility
that many mass-market products today are the audible equals of the best
technology on the market.


Actually audiophiles should do feel free to do as they please and enjoy
the hobby and not be bound by other peoples' opinions.



But to audiophiles for whom the product--not
the sound--is the end, the suggestion that mass-market products can
sound just as good, or that exotica might be technical crap, is
anti-high end.

A fine argument built on an assumption for a premise. I for one do not
judge anything by it's price tag or name plate. Period. I care about
sound quality and reliability. I am quite happy to get better sound for
less money. That has been the sort of thing I hear from just about
every other subjectivist I know. Deal with that for a while. We are now
knee high in dead windmills. Thats enough to make most people stuck
where they are.



Scott

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 products which provide the best in
sound quality *and* are designed using scientific principles and good
engineering practice. They are manufactured and tested with great care, and
are supported by excellent manufacturer's backup . It has nothing to do
with price, (although high quality doesn't come cheap) nor the use of exotic
materials for which there is no good engineering reason for their use.

Dear Serge,

You certainly know how to set the table for controversy in a tactful
manner. I'm not a chicken****, so I will dive into this topic from a
few different vectors.

"High End", to me is not a very conclusive term. This could suggest
that we strive for the highest price, the highest technology, the
highest reliability, the highest... whatever. It is just not
descriptive enough to provide much of a scope of whatever we are
striving to achieve, or possess.

I would like to share observatons of various "audiophile types" over my
32 years of involvement in this hobby, passion, or insanity.

The "Power with Clarity is Realism" audiophile: This type likes the
musical experience to be physically enveloping. This type wants to
hear full spectrum sound with noticeably good clarity, that can be
delivered in enormous amounts of SPL. This is the religion of "You've
got to feel, or experience THIS!" "It will knock your socks off!" The
best equipment for these types is similar to high powered, professional
PA gear. Lots of power, high efficiency - high output speakers.
Durable equipment to stand the countless hours of aural and bodily
assult. Clean enough to impress most people with audible detail beyond
normal stereo, or home theatre equipment... and power you can feel
through the walls and floor.

The "Scientific Research is the Truth" audiophile. This type inhales
and digests specifications, reviews, and studies like a kid eating ice
cream. This type wants to espouse technology that is objectively
measured and studied to provide the most accurate sound reproduction
that science can quantify. The gear that this type purchases is backed
by the best specifications, the best technical reviews, and controlled
tests. This is the religion of "If you can't objectively and
scientifically measure it, then it is not meaningful or doesn't exist!"
"You should hear my critically acclaimed, measured best in class
system!" The gear that this type owns is usually very well made, very
clean of distortions and very linear response. Likely has had their
listening room acoustically treated and arranged to improve the
accuracy of the sonic performance. Sometimes you feel like you may
need a clipboard and lab jacket when visiting these types.

The "Tubes, Vinyl, Tape, Analogue" audiophile. This type believes that
the world of sound is an analogue world. Digital/Mathmatical
descriptions of sounds are "clinical approximations" of real sounds.
This type wants tube circuits, because tubes behave in a musical
complementary fashion. This is the type that says that it is all about
the music sounding natural, and musical. Analogue recording and
playback methods are viewed by this type as a more harmonious media.
No digital disassembling, analysis, and mathmatical reconstructions
need apply. This is the religion of "There's more important aspects of
reproduced sound than signal-to-noise ratio, or distortion products!"
"Jeez... these new tubes have such an open sound stage, and elicit
beautiful sonic details in a complementary way!" These types will have
very old to new tube fed gear. They have a beautifully maintained and
accurate turntable/tonearm/cartridge to play their vinyl with. Some
will be old school mono system ("mono is how it is meant to be!"), some
stereo... but that's about the limit. There's an odd, but engaging
psychosis happening here... and a defintely different world.

The "Reproduce Faithfully" audiophile. This type believes that a sound
reproduction system should be absolutely transparent. A straight wire
with gain. No distractions from the original program material. This
type wants to be fooled into believing that there is "no sound
reproduction system" in use. They only compare the reproduction with
the reality. This type doesn't read specifications, reviews,
controlled tests... et al. This type only believes with their own
senses. If something can bring them closer to a point of being fooled
when comparing reality to reproduced... That's what they want. This is
the religion of "The timbre of the trombones is not right, and the
piano is not positioned properly in the sound field!" "You should
experience the accuracy and positioning of the sound stage with my
sound system!" This type does not care about distortions, square
waves, slew rates, signal to noise, etc... They want to be fooled into
believing that the reproduction could be the actual sonic event. These
types will have a smorgasbord of equipment of various types, echelons,
etc... They use it in different combinations when considerng their
trusted source recordings of live performances, nature sounds, and
such. Comparing to the actual sonic events as often as practical.

These are my idea of four categories of "audiophile" that are commonly
found. Most "audiophiles" will have preferences and beliefs that span
two or more of these categories. Regardless, most "audiophiles" will
have their roots firmly entrenched in, or near one of these categories.
Every one of them will have some attachment with "HIgh End" that is
particular to their pursuits, passion and beliefs. It is different to
everyone.

One observaton that I have made over the years is that very few
"audiophile" types really have good powers of observation when
listening to sound reproduction systems. A lot of people are "on the
bandwagon" for various reasons, but most have not trained their senses
to discern and discriminate when listening. There is a ton of money
being spent on expensive equipment that 90% of people who categorize
themselves as "audiophiles" would not have a chance in hell of
identifying from different equipment.

In closing, my idea of the ultimate sound reproduction system would be
as follows...

Absolute realism - totally convincing that the reproduced sonic event
is identical to the real sonic event. As you can see, my roots are in
the 4th category.

All the best to you,
Skeeter.

wrote:
Stewart,

I now have a moment to reply to your exhaustive reply. So, consider
this a supplement to my very brief (perhaps blessedly so) reply
yesterday.

Audio Note
Levinson
Naim
And many others may well be expensive. But, bluntly, if they are built
badly, it just isn't worth it. But apart from all that, there comes a
point of diminishing returns after which further reaching is simply
foolish.

That's your opinion. Other may be willing and able to spend whatever is
asked.

That is no barrier to enough individuals to keep these
companies in business and as long as there are such needs, then there
will be those to fill them. But to close the loop on
build/maintenance/operational quality (apart from sound), one is
entitled to certain expectations for one's hard-earned money, and poor
execution is not one of them.

Turntables.... Vinyl has its uses and its myths. But what is mostly
clear is that the first purpose of a TT/Cartridge/stylus combination is
to protect the vinyl. Then to make as good sound as is possible with
what's left.

I doubt this is a concern of 'high-end'.

Considering that a cartridge/stylus combination is a
transducer just like a speaker, it too becomes a weak link in the
process. One can spend all sorts of money on a TT for very, very
marginal gains (if any), when a decently set-up, rather simple-minded
Rabco or Revox tangental table will do most anything *necessary*.

'Necessary'? What if I'm looking for more than what is 'necessary'?

When
discussing the true exotics, the question that should be asked is
whether the improvements realized by them will manifest in any
discernable way over the inherent difficulties with vinyl.

Those are different problems.

SET: OK. I have heard a SET system perhaps twice. I say "perhaps"
because they were both represented as such, but one of them looked like
it had way too many output-type tubes to qualify... hereby illustrating
my general ignorance of the species as it may appear. As I have said
before, both of them sounded ethereally beautiful when reproducing solo
voices with very small groups of instruments and at moderate volume.
But neither of them could manage any serious organ or brass music, nor
any full orchestra pieces at even moderate volume.

Can't you afford two or three amplidfiers?

It was like
listening through several layers of gauze... Note also: I had no way of
determining what I was hearing as compared to a non-SET system as both
were private and there was no AB potential to compare 'at the scene'.

Your comment on Yamaha is well taken. Generally good stuff, well made,
and great sound. My _only_ piece of Pacific-rim manufactured equipment
is a Yamaha CD player acquired when we were living overseas three years
ago as the only decent brand available. But the US-made equipment I
brought over with me was the envy of my neighbors and acquaintances...
even though it was very strictly middle-grade by any measure here.

Curious.
(snip)


So, (again, within my universe), High-End is almost entirely divorced
from cost.

High-end means the most expensive, generally: the high end of the price
range. What you mean is 'high-performance'. High end is usually
high-performance to ultra-high-performance.

Harry has it right when he states that "quality costs". And
at the same time, simply the capacity to do something costs. There is a
curve where the two meet, most equipment made for the mass market
attempts to skirt as close as possible to this meeting point.

There are many price points.

Much
high-end stuff (in my experience) appears to be ignoring the costs in
order to achieve a certain level of performance, yet it ignores some
very basic execution concerns.

Specifics?

To stray a little bit to the maintenance
issue, something near-and-dear to me: B&O equipment, with specific
reference to their 30mm-thick stuff and such.

B&O is not 'high-end'.

It may be lovely. It may
even sound decent. But it is like a vintage Emerson Radio. Each section
is walled (soldered) in in order to assemble the next, like a
multi-level sandwich. And damned-near impossible to service if someting
in level-3-of-5 fails. B&O would love to think of themselves as "high
end". To me, it sacrifices far too much to design over function. And
when I am faced with the controls for my system(s), I *need* to know
three things: Source, volume and whether I am taping/recording it or
not. After that, having options is nice, but not absolutely necessary.

In fewer words, High End is a state-of-mind including a massive level
of personal choice and preference and belief. Rather like religion. We
all worship at slightly different altars, no one of which is absolute.
Of course, one of the natural outfall practices of many religions is
the denegration of other religions ----AND---- their adherents. THAT is
certainly practiced here and all too-often.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

A real audiophile shouldn't care about those things; he should only
care about the sound. And he should recognize the very real possibility
that many mass-market products today are the audible equals of the best
technology on the market. But to audiophiles for whom the product--not
the sound--is the end, the suggestion that mass-market products can
sound just as good, or that exotica might be technical crap, is
anti-high end.

Only a few quibbles he

Replace "shouldn't" with "won't" and you will describe an audiophile
much more accurately.
One who focuses on product over specific performance is by absolute
definition not an 'Audiophile', but an Acolyte of a specific brand of
Religion. This may be many things, but not Audiophilia.

"High-End" as a term-of-art separate from "High-Fidelity" is a pure,
exclusive and unadulterated marketing term created for the sole and
only purpose of differentiating an approach to High-Fidelity using
qualities, beliefs, myths and creeds OTHER THAN purely objective
measures and well-designed, repeatable and well-defined tests.

That being written, as it *might* apply to this NG, High-End could be
defined (or better stated: I would define it) as being that equipment
and material that approaches the limits of the science in High Fidelity
while also being well-made, reliable and rugged. If it does approach
those limits, "well designed" is a given. Without pointing fingers at
any individuals, this position appears to be anathema to some. Old
stuff can't be good stuff. New, inexpensive stuff can't be good stuff.
Cheap stuff (new or old) can't be good stuff. Well, as the little song
says: It ain't necessarily so.

I will put an example on the table: I have three amplifiers in regular
use at this moment. One is an AR Model R Receiver attached to AR-3a
speakers. I have replaced all the low-value electrolytics with film
caps, replace the PS electrolytics, and installed carefully (by me)
matched-pair outputs and drivers and including all the factory-designed
bias updates. One is a Scott LK-150 attached to another pair of AR-3a
speakers, one is a Dynaco ST416 attached to an AR Sub/Sat system using
the TSW-110 as the satellites, and a dual 10" woofer box as the sub. To
me, they all sound excellent, but quite different. I am sure that the
differences are measurable, it may even be due to various amounts (or
not) of distortion present, or not. I like all three. All three can
produce substantial volume and do have the visceral 'grab' of a good
low end, with the 416/sub/sat combination having the cleanest response
on difficult passages, and the LK-150/3a having the cleanest deep bass
response. And they are all quite restful to listen to for extended
periods. The receiver/3a combination sound great, and it is comfortable
for my wife to use... simple and few controls to consider... a major
virtue. All the acoutrements of "High-Fidelity", although I can hear
the "High-End" snobs already snickering from here.

So, we need to be careful in our definitions. If by high-end, we are
discussing those means and methods (equipment and approaches) within
the top 1% of the realm of High Fidelity (so, on an asymtoptic curve,
that section that most nearly approaches perfection (1)) well and good.
If there is a "price of admission" measured in currency, then we are
discussing - as noted before - Religion, as it uses arbitrary means of
measurement and separation of true-believers from the hoi-polloi.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

OTOH, what's your beef against BMW? Aside from Bangle's God-awful styling, of course!

Opinion he

BMWs are wannabe cars. They wannabe a Porsche or they wannabe a
Mercedes, they do neither very well but fall (and that is the operative
word) flat somewhere between (and well behind) either. Add to that,
their build quality has been plummeting lately.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Harry Lavo wrote:
"bob" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:

snip

A real audiophile shouldn't care about those things; he should only
care about the sound.

Agreed. But if he (or she) is meticulous about the sound, he (or she) is
likely also to be meticulous about the equipment that reproduces that sound.

And he should recognize the very real possibility
that many mass-market products today are the audible equals of the best
technology on the market.

No problem recognizing the possibility. But also no trouble recognizing its
rarity in the marketplace.

But to audiophiles for whom the product--not
the sound--is the end, the suggestion that mass-market products can
sound just as good, or that exotica might be technical crap, is
anti-high end.

To the audiophile who loves build quality as well as sound, the former may
well be true.

To any audiophile, the latter is something they wish weren't true. But
occassionally experience.

But "anti-high-end" is reserved for those critics of audiophilia who seem to
have equipment or income envy,

That seems to be a snobbish term used by people who send megabucks on
their equipment and don't think there is anyway mass market electronics
can equal theirs. They are of course completely and totally wrong at
least as far as solid state gear is concerned. Unless you own
difficult to drive speakers, then virtually any SS amp is the equal of
any other so long as not driven to clipping.

and feel compelled a) to insist that mid-fi
gear is as good as the best of the best, and b) to insist that anybody who
buys the best of the best is doing so for nefarious and illegitmate reasons
and is being "duped" by an unscrupulous industry.

See above. The fact is that many audiophiles are threatened by the
fact that a $399.00 reciever can sound the same as their $3000.00
intefrated amp or power amp/preamp separates. That's the same reason
they despise ABX or any other double blind listenig protocols. They
get results that show they can't tell them apart, so they claim the
test is the problem and not their perception of what makes a poece of
equipment sound right.

I recently had a chance to compare a Pioneer receiver to an Acoustat
power amp, Carver Preamp combo. The Pioneer is a THX certified 7
channel 120wpc unit. Under less than what would be required for an ABX
test to be considered optimum, it was not possible to tell which was
which when not looking. I suppose their might be something that would
be revealed in an ABX test that was missed in the comparison I was able
to do, but I think it unlikely.

Consider the new Behringer A500 power amp, that can be bought online
for $180.00!
TAC reviewed it and found the power rating to be 120 wpc instead of
theadvertised 160 wpc and that it has a slight rolloff in the HF. but
still it's $180.00. It doesn't take another several thousand dollars
to achieve flat response.

I'm perfectly willing to spend as much as it takes to achieve good
sound, but have learned that the best place to concentrate is on
loudspeakers, the rest is just shopping for features.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 17 Feb 2006 00:28:19 GMT, " wrote:


But one thing I do disagree on, sincerely: Good engineering an
production values are the most inexpensive means and methods for the
long run, not necessarily in any great quantity. Yes and most certainly
a lot of boutique stuff suffers greatly from the lack of such, but by
my definition they would be then excluded from the realm of 'high-end'.

Pity that many of the subjectivists don't seem to agree with you!

Funny, you didn't agree with him either.



And stuff that uses _inexpensive_ materials and methods in a thoughtful
way might achieve that status. Liken it to using a torque-wrench and
anti-seize on spark-plugs. One can use twice-as-expensive plated plugs
and no such wrench and not necessarily strip the threads when they need
replacement in 30,000 miles, or one can use anti-seize and the wrench
and then it does not matter which plug. The boutique makers will brag
about the expense of their spark-plug equivalents but either not
tighten at all or have a moose tighten each one with his last, dying
strain. Neither makes sense, both are easily avoided.

Not easily avoided if you are technically incompetent, as are many of
the high-end audio 'designers', such as Yves Bernard Andre, Peter
Qvortrup and Julian Vereker.


Please tell us how any of the following equipment is incompetently
designed
http://www.audioplusservices.com/yba/mission.html
http://www.audionote.co.uk/



Scott

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 17 Feb 2006 00:28:19 GMT, " wrote:

Stewart:

"Expensive" does not necessarily equal "Good", example: any Cadillac or
any BMW.

I never said that it did. OTOH, what's your beef against BMW? Aside
from Bangle's God-awful styling, of course!

That there are companies that produce very expensive stuff and
customers that purchase said stuff does not make either of them wise
and knowing on things audio. Nor does it make the customer an audiphile
or the producer any good.

I think we are both saying this?

Yes. Indeed, I am both an audiophile *and* an Audiphile.... :-)

But one thing I do disagree on, sincerely: Good engineering an
production values are the most inexpensive means and methods for the
long run, not necessarily in any great quantity. Yes and most certainly
a lot of boutique stuff suffers greatly from the lack of such, but by
my definition they would be then excluded from the realm of 'high-end'.

Pity that many of the subjectivists don't seem to agree with you!

Well, then, why don't you go to the new listserve and see if their is
agreement that RAHE's definition of "high end" will be changed. As it
stands now, the subjectivists are right to resist.

And stuff that uses _inexpensive_ materials and methods in a thoughtful
way might achieve that status. Liken it to using a torque-wrench and
anti-seize on spark-plugs. One can use twice-as-expensive plated plugs
and no such wrench and not necessarily strip the threads when they need
replacement in 30,000 miles, or one can use anti-seize and the wrench
and then it does not matter which plug. The boutique makers will brag
about the expense of their spark-plug equivalents but either not
tighten at all or have a moose tighten each one with his last, dying
strain. Neither makes sense, both are easily avoided.

Not easily avoided if you are technically incompetent, as are many of
the high-end audio 'designers', such as Yves Bernard Andre, Peter
Qvortrup and Julian Vereker.


Ah, the usual whipping boys. As if that excludes Levinson, Krell, ARC, BAT,
Bryston, Halcro, Boulder, Grace, Benchmark, and many others.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 17 Feb 2006 00:31:57 GMT, "
wrote:

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 products which provide the best
in
sound quality *and* are designed using scientific principles and good
engineering practice. They are manufactured and tested with great care,
and
are supported by excellent manufacturer's backup . It has nothing to do
with price, (although high quality doesn't come cheap) nor the use of
exotic
materials for which there is no good engineering reason for their us

A "high end" item leaves very little or zero room for improvement.

So does most mainstream audio electronics.


There is an old saying that summarizes correctly the appropriate response:
b*s*t! Why, then, do the "state-of-the-art" models from Denon, Yamaha,
Marantz, Sony (mid-fiers all) cost several thousand dollars? Pure greed?
The lower-priced models in the line do leave room for improvement....that's
why there are high-end models. Show me one popularly priced HT receiver
that is state-of-the-art? Or one speaker? Or one tuner? Or one SACD
player? b*s*t explains it all!

wrote in message ...
A real audiophile shouldn't care about those things; he should only
care about the sound. And he should recognize the very real possibility
that many mass-market products today are the audible equals of the best
technology on the market. But to audiophiles for whom the product--not
the sound--is the end, the suggestion that mass-market products can
sound just as good, or that exotica might be technical crap, is
anti-high end.

Only a few quibbles he

Replace "shouldn't" with "won't" and you will describe an audiophile
much more accurately.
One who focuses on product over specific performance is by absolute
definition not an 'Audiophile', but an Acolyte of a specific brand of
Religion. This may be many things, but not Audiophilia.

"High-End" as a term-of-art separate from "High-Fidelity" is a pure,
exclusive and unadulterated marketing term created for the sole and
only purpose of differentiating an approach to High-Fidelity using
qualities, beliefs, myths and creeds OTHER THAN purely objective
measures and well-designed, repeatable and well-defined tests.

That being written, as it *might* apply to this NG, High-End could be
defined (or better stated: I would define it) as being that equipment
and material that approaches the limits of the science in High Fidelity
while also being well-made, reliable and rugged. If it does approach
those limits, "well designed" is a given. Without pointing fingers at
any individuals, this position appears to be anathema to some. Old
stuff can't be good stuff. New, inexpensive stuff can't be good stuff.
Cheap stuff (new or old) can't be good stuff. Well, as the little song
says: It ain't necessarily so.

I will put an example on the table: I have three amplifiers in regular
use at this moment. One is an AR Model R Receiver attached to AR-3a
speakers. I have replaced all the low-value electrolytics with film
caps, replace the PS electrolytics, and installed carefully (by me)
matched-pair outputs and drivers and including all the factory-designed
bias updates. One is a Scott LK-150 attached to another pair of AR-3a
speakers, one is a Dynaco ST416 attached to an AR Sub/Sat system using
the TSW-110 as the satellites, and a dual 10" woofer box as the sub. To
me, they all sound excellent, but quite different. I am sure that the
differences are measurable, it may even be due to various amounts (or
not) of distortion present, or not. I like all three. All three can
produce substantial volume and do have the visceral 'grab' of a good
low end, with the 416/sub/sat combination having the cleanest response
on difficult passages, and the LK-150/3a having the cleanest deep bass
response. And they are all quite restful to listen to for extended
periods. The receiver/3a combination sound great, and it is comfortable
for my wife to use... simple and few controls to consider... a major
virtue. All the acoutrements of "High-Fidelity", although I can hear
the "High-End" snobs already snickering from here.

So, we need to be careful in our definitions. If by high-end, we are
discussing those means and methods (equipment and approaches) within
the top 1% of the realm of High Fidelity (so, on an asymtoptic curve,
that section that most nearly approaches perfection (1)) well and good.
If there is a "price of admission" measured in currency, then we are
discussing - as noted before - Religion, as it uses arbitrary means of
measurement and separation of true-believers from the hoi-polloi.


Actually, Peter, when Harry Pearson first started using the term he was
speaking strictly about the "high end" of the performance curve...those
companies that were after the very finest performance they could achieve in
the quest for ultimate in-home musical fidelity...and these companies by
definition were less concerned with cost than they were with listening
performance..if they thought something contributed to better sound, it was
used. So "high end" became associated with "high cost", but it wasn't
defined that way.

Skeeter wrote:

You certainly know how to set the table for controversy in a tactful
manner. I'm not a chicken****, so I will dive into this topic from a
few different vectors.

"High End", to me is not a very conclusive term. This could suggest
that we strive for the highest price, the highest technology, the
highest reliability, the highest... whatever. It is just not
descriptive enough to provide much of a scope of whatever we are
striving to achieve, or possess.

I would like to share observatons of various "audiophile types" over my
32 years of involvement in this hobby, passion, or insanity.

The "Power with Clarity is Realism" audiophile: This type likes the
musical experience to be physically enveloping. This type wants to
hear full spectrum sound with noticeably good clarity, that can be
delivered in enormous amounts of SPL. This is the religion of "You've
got to feel, or experience THIS!" "It will knock your socks off!" The
best equipment for these types is similar to high powered, professional
PA gear. Lots of power, high efficiency - high output speakers.
Durable equipment to stand the countless hours of aural and bodily
assult. Clean enough to impress most people with audible detail beyond
normal stereo, or home theatre equipment... and power you can feel
through the walls and floor.

The "Scientific Research is the Truth" audiophile. This type inhales
and digests specifications, reviews, and studies like a kid eating ice
cream. This type wants to espouse technology that is objectively
measured and studied to provide the most accurate sound reproduction
that science can quantify. The gear that this type purchases is backed
by the best specifications, the best technical reviews, and controlled
tests. This is the religion of "If you can't objectively and
scientifically measure it, then it is not meaningful or doesn't exist!"
"You should hear my critically acclaimed, measured best in class
system!" The gear that this type owns is usually very well made, very
clean of distortions and very linear response. Likely has had their
listening room acoustically treated and arranged to improve the
accuracy of the sonic performance. Sometimes you feel like you may
need a clipboard and lab jacket when visiting these types.

The "Tubes, Vinyl, Tape, Analogue" audiophile. This type believes that
the world of sound is an analogue world. Digital/Mathmatical
descriptions of sounds are "clinical approximations" of real sounds.
This type wants tube circuits, because tubes behave in a musical
complementary fashion. This is the type that says that it is all about
the music sounding natural, and musical. Analogue recording and
playback methods are viewed by this type as a more harmonious media.
No digital disassembling, analysis, and mathmatical reconstructions
need apply. This is the religion of "There's more important aspects of
reproduced sound than signal-to-noise ratio, or distortion products!"
"Jeez... these new tubes have such an open sound stage, and elicit
beautiful sonic details in a complementary way!" These types will have
very old to new tube fed gear. They have a beautifully maintained and
accurate turntable/tonearm/cartridge to play their vinyl with. Some
will be old school mono system ("mono is how it is meant to be!"), some
stereo... but that's about the limit. There's an odd, but engaging
psychosis happening here... and a defintely different world.

The "Reproduce Faithfully" audiophile. This type believes that a sound
reproduction system should be absolutely transparent. A straight wire
with gain. No distractions from the original program material. This
type wants to be fooled into believing that there is "no sound
reproduction system" in use. They only compare the reproduction with
the reality. This type doesn't read specifications, reviews,
controlled tests... et al. This type only believes with their own
senses. If something can bring them closer to a point of being fooled
when comparing reality to reproduced... That's what they want. This is
the religion of "The timbre of the trombones is not right, and the
piano is not positioned properly in the sound field!" "You should
experience the accuracy and positioning of the sound stage with my
sound system!" This type does not care about distortions, square
waves, slew rates, signal to noise, etc... They want to be fooled into
believing that the reproduction could be the actual sonic event. These
types will have a smorgasbord of equipment of various types, echelons,
etc... They use it in different combinations when considerng their
trusted source recordings of live performances, nature sounds, and
such. Comparing to the actual sonic events as often as practical.

These are my idea of four categories of "audiophile" that are commonly
found. Most "audiophiles" will have preferences and beliefs that span
two or more of these categories. Regardless, most "audiophiles" will
have their roots firmly entrenched in, or near one of these categories.
Every one of them will have some attachment with "HIgh End" that is
particular to their pursuits, passion and beliefs. It is different to
everyone.

I like your approach, although I think you loaded the deck a bit when
you labeled the final category the "Reproduce Faithfully" crowd. That
term would better describe pretty much ALL audiophiles--it's that goal
which separates audiophiles from the far larger pool of music lovers.
We are all seeking the illusion of live music in our listening rooms.
What your types represent are different approaches we use to create
that illusion. And, because it's an illusion individual to each of us,
no one approach is necessarily better than another. It's what works for
you.

Sadly, some audiophiles cannot accept this. It isn't enough for them to
accept that they are trying to create an illusion. They need to "know"
that their illusion is consonant with some external reality--that what
sounds like live music to them does so because it really is like live
music, rather than simply because they perceive it to be so. If people
could get over this, all these silly arguments we have would go away.

bob

On 18 Feb 2006 01:42:46 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 17 Feb 2006 00:28:19 GMT, " wrote:

And stuff that uses _inexpensive_ materials and methods in a thoughtful
way might achieve that status. Liken it to using a torque-wrench and
anti-seize on spark-plugs. One can use twice-as-expensive plated plugs
and no such wrench and not necessarily strip the threads when they need
replacement in 30,000 miles, or one can use anti-seize and the wrench
and then it does not matter which plug. The boutique makers will brag
about the expense of their spark-plug equivalents but either not
tighten at all or have a moose tighten each one with his last, dying
strain. Neither makes sense, both are easily avoided.

Not easily avoided if you are technically incompetent, as are many of
the high-end audio 'designers', such as Yves Bernard Andre, Peter
Qvortrup and Julian Vereker.

Ah, the usual whipping boys. As if that excludes Levinson, Krell, ARC, BAT,
Bryston, Halcro, Boulder, Grace, Benchmark, and many others.

Indeed, Mark Levinson has produced some real howlers, such as the
$10,000 'Reference' DAC which is jitter-sensitive, Krell produced some
very doubtful CD players early on, ARC have a varied lineup, with some
superb and some distinctly average, but BAT, Bryston, Halcro, Boulder
and Benchmark seem pretty blameless, good solid gear with arguably
overkill build and/or specification, but not actually badly designed
by any reasonable definition.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 18 Feb 2006 01:43:15 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 17 Feb 2006 00:31:57 GMT, "
wrote:

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 products which provide the best
in
sound quality *and* are designed using scientific principles and good
engineering practice. They are manufactured and tested with great care,
and
are supported by excellent manufacturer's backup . It has nothing to do
with price, (although high quality doesn't come cheap) nor the use of
exotic
materials for which there is no good engineering reason for their us

A "high end" item leaves very little or zero room for improvement.

So does most mainstream audio electronics.

There is an old saying that summarizes correctly the appropriate response:
b*s*t! Why, then, do the "state-of-the-art" models from Denon, Yamaha,
Marantz, Sony (mid-fiers all) cost several thousand dollars? Pure greed?

No, fancy casework with immaculate build quality and 'battleship'
construction, overkill build and/or specification, and a market which
will bear added pricing for 'flagship' items

The lower-priced models in the line do leave room for improvement....that's
why there are high-end models.

Not in their sound quality.............

Show me one popularly priced HT receiver
that is state-of-the-art?

The $1,000 Denon, Pioneer or Yamaha offerings sound as good as
anything else, they simply lack some power and some features when
compared with 'high end' rigs. Of course, with all that signal
processing going on inside, it's likely that there will be sonic
*differences*, so that one particular 'house sound' or procesing
algorithm will be preferred. I like Pioneer's way of doing things, but
that's purely personal preference. You really aren't getting anything
'better' with say the top Lexicon or Theta rigs, just different
choices.

Or one speaker?

No one *ever* suggested that top-class speakers were not expensive. Of
course, you *can* pay a lot of money for some real dogs, but that's
true in any markeyplace.

Or one tuner?

What modern programming justifies a great tuner? OTOH, any Rotel or
Sony will do justice to any FM transmission. In 99.9% of
installations, the antenna is much more important than the tuner.

Or one SACD player?

Pretty much any universal player above say $100.

b*s*t explains it all!

Only your side of the argument, Harry, only your side........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 18 Feb 2006 01:35:17 GMT, " wrote:

OTOH, what's your beef against BMW? Aside from Bangle's God-awful styling, of course!

Opinion he

BMWs are wannabe cars. They wannabe a Porsche or they wannabe a
Mercedes, they do neither very well but fall (and that is the operative
word) flat somewhere between (and well behind) either. Add to that,
their build quality has been plummeting lately.

Hmmm. It's generally felt in the UK that BMW are *better* than
Mercedes, which has definitely fallen from grace in the last ten
years. I've never known *anyone* think that they are 'wannabe
Porsches', aside from the obvious clash of the Z4 and Boxster, which
are fundamentally different designs. Having said that, many people are
now comparing the M6 and 997, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
BMW have persisted with the classic straight six, for which IMHO they
are to be commended, as it is fundamentally a perfectly balanced
engine, in both primary and secondary balance, not true of anything
else apart from a V12 - which is of course two straight sixes.

OTOH, BMW is an aspirational brand of sales guys and middle management
*******, and has a *very* bad reputation in the UK for aggressive and
discourteous driving, which for me precludes any chance of ever
driving an M3. I agree about the general quality problem in supposedly
premium brands, which is one area where Audi is raking in loads of
sales in what was previously both Mecedes and BMW territory. I may
have to sell all my hi-fi (and the wife) to get an RS4............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 18 Feb 2006 01:38:36 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 17 Feb 2006 00:28:19 GMT, " wrote:


But one thing I do disagree on, sincerely: Good engineering an
production values are the most inexpensive means and methods for the
long run, not necessarily in any great quantity. Yes and most certainly
a lot of boutique stuff suffers greatly from the lack of such, but by
my definition they would be then excluded from the realm of 'high-end'.

Pity that many of the subjectivists don't seem to agree with you!

Funny, you didn't agree with him either.

That's because I'm a subjectivist - didn't you know that ABX is a
*listening* test? And I agreed with the second part. Truly high-end
audio should possess immaculate build quality as well as the best
sound quality.

And stuff that uses _inexpensive_ materials and methods in a thoughtful
way might achieve that status. Liken it to using a torque-wrench and
anti-seize on spark-plugs. One can use twice-as-expensive plated plugs
and no such wrench and not necessarily strip the threads when they need
replacement in 30,000 miles, or one can use anti-seize and the wrench
and then it does not matter which plug. The boutique makers will brag
about the expense of their spark-plug equivalents but either not
tighten at all or have a moose tighten each one with his last, dying
strain. Neither makes sense, both are easily avoided.

Not easily avoided if you are technically incompetent, as are many of
the high-end audio 'designers', such as Yves Bernard Andre, Peter
Qvortrup and Julian Vereker.


Please tell us how any of the following equipment is incompetently
designed
http://www.audioplusservices.com/yba/mission.html

I am referring in particular to the 'blue laser' CD player, also to
the 'mechanical ground' spikes on the amplifiers.

http://www.audionote.co.uk/

All the Audio Note stuff uses single-ended triodes - this is enough to
disqualify it. The CD player doesn't have a reconstruction filter,
i.e. it is completely missing an *essential* part of the process!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 18 Feb 2006 01:38:36 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 17 Feb 2006 00:28:19 GMT, " wrote:


But one thing I do disagree on, sincerely: Good engineering an
production values are the most inexpensive means and methods for the
long run, not necessarily in any great quantity. Yes and most certainly
a lot of boutique stuff suffers greatly from the lack of such, but by
my definition they would be then excluded from the realm of 'high-end'.

Pity that many of the subjectivists don't seem to agree with you!

Funny, you didn't agree with him either.

That's because I'm a subjectivist


OK let me get this straight. You don't agree with hm but you think it
is a pity that you don't agree with him?


- didn't you know that ABX is a
*listening* test?


No kidding? No, I thought it was more of a frat hazing ritiual. ;-)


And I agreed with the second part. Truly high-end
audio should possess immaculate build quality as well as the best
sound quality.


Is that a pity or not a pity that you agree with the second part?




And stuff that uses _inexpensive_ materials and methods in a thoughtful
way might achieve that status. Liken it to using a torque-wrench and
anti-seize on spark-plugs. One can use twice-as-expensive plated plugs
and no such wrench and not necessarily strip the threads when they need
replacement in 30,000 miles, or one can use anti-seize and the wrench
and then it does not matter which plug. The boutique makers will brag
about the expense of their spark-plug equivalents but either not
tighten at all or have a moose tighten each one with his last, dying
strain. Neither makes sense, both are easily avoided.

Not easily avoided if you are technically incompetent, as are many of
the high-end audio 'designers', such as Yves Bernard Andre, Peter
Qvortrup and Julian Vereker.


Please tell us how any of the following equipment is incompetently
designed
http://www.audioplusservices.com/yba/mission.html

I am referring in particular to the 'blue laser' CD player, also to
the 'mechanical ground' spikes on the amplifiers.


OK *how* do they make those designers technically incompetent.




http://www.audionote.co.uk/

All the Audio Note stuff uses single-ended triodes - this is enough to
disqualify it.


No it isn't. Do the amps work? Do they do what the designer set out for
them to do? That is how you measure the competence of any designer.


The CD player doesn't have a reconstruction filter,
i.e. it is completely missing an *essential* part of the process!


Again, the questions are does it work? Does it do what the designer set
out for it to do?



Scott

Graham:

Lemme see... I drive a 1999 Mercedes SUV embarking on its second
100,000 miles (after a previous Volvo 850 wagon sold at 220,000 miles)
Nothing but standard maintenance other than the harmonic-balancer
replacement (secret recall, guys and gals). My wife drives a 2001 Saab
9-5SE wagon which is a relative baby at 23,000 miles, but this is after
a previous Saab sold at 125,000 miles, and a VW Diesel sold at 90K. She
sold the Bug because we have a grand-child, making 4 doors a necessity.
I get an average 20mpg out of the SUV in 40% highway, 60% standard
driving on mid-grade. My wife gets about 18mpg on mostly short hops on
regular. Both of us get very substantially better on long trips. My job
requires that I move in bad weather... I have never had a problem even
in our last howler some days ago.

Let me know about your BMW around 80K miles or so (with specific
reference to the electical systems, central locking and dashboard
instruments). Until then, be quiet as even a Yugo had a fair chance of
that first 50K with minimal trouble. Also, let me know how your BMW
does in marginal driving condtitions as a pretty front-heavy RWD
vehicle. How does that back-end do? (And a Mercedes RWD wouldn't do
much better, I agree).

I have heard quite a number of very high-end systems. Some with
price-tags approaching six figures. They can be wonderful. They can
also be a peck of trouble and half-the-time-in-the-shop... about
equally split as experienced by friends of mine. Those that do well do
exceedingly well. I would never deny it. Ever. There is a Yiddish term,
I will try to spell it phonetically - yuihches -. It means why one
would purchase the same suit from Brooks Brothers vs. Krass Brothers
(local Philadephia thing, BTW). It is an interesting term as it is not
at all derogatory, just a recognition that there are individuals who do
require a label to be happy. It is manifest most obviously in designer
clothing with signature/trademark material incorporated into the
design. By virtue of the label, it will be judged to be "quality".
Right! High-End as it is often defended here has exactly that same
sort of superficial cachet in my experience. My interest is High
Fidelity. I believe I can achieve it to a remarkable degree without
spending vast amounts of money. I find that by unabashedly
bottom-fishing, I can enjoy the hobby a great deal more, enjoy a
constant stream of different pieces for comparison, and skim the very
best right off the top to be retained as daily drivers. Others enjoy
the hobby differently. The only point of all of it is the *enjoyment*.
That I have strong opinions is based on now 30 years of enjoyment of
the hobby, of which 20 years has been at the
solder-under-the-fingernails level... as a self-taught hobbyist, BTW,
not as a tech.

New does not necessarily equal "better". There are those who would deny
the CD as not equalling vinyl (not me, but there are those). And for
the record and for the life of me, I do not "get" SET, unless my sole
goal were to listen to restricted source at low volume. It can be
Ethereally Beautiful (how often have I said that??). But, with all due
respect to the species, a decent little PP EL84-based amp dropped in
place of the SET amp (all behind a curtain, of course), and I defy
anyone here to tell the difference... until some challenging source
comes along, of course. Then the SET system will fail when the fleas
get tired. Sheesh... it should be done because it can be done? However
marginal the results? This is not me being a Luddite (which BTW, only
too well understood technology, they did not at all deny it. The term
is mostly misapplied), but being a skeptic. I would LOVE to be
convinced otherwise. I have even had some "high-end" amps in my systems
(Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, et.al.), and I was just not convinced.
Awfully nice, no denial. Just not measurably or perceivably different
than my already awfully nice sounding equipment. So, on they went.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 18 Feb 2006 01:43:15 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 17 Feb 2006 00:31:57 GMT, "
wrote:

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 products which provide the
best
in
sound quality *and* are designed using scientific principles and good
engineering practice. They are manufactured and tested with great
care,
and
are supported by excellent manufacturer's backup . It has nothing to
do
with price, (although high quality doesn't come cheap) nor the use of
exotic
materials for which there is no good engineering reason for their us

A "high end" item leaves very little or zero room for improvement.

So does most mainstream audio electronics.

There is an old saying that summarizes correctly the appropriate response:
b*s*t! Why, then, do the "state-of-the-art" models from Denon, Yamaha,
Marantz, Sony (mid-fiers all) cost several thousand dollars? Pure greed?

No, fancy casework with immaculate build quality and 'battleship'
construction, overkill build and/or specification, and a market which
will bear added pricing for 'flagship' items

* Their casework is not fancier but perhaps a bit larger and heavier
(vibration damping, anyone?).
* Their build and specifications are overkill in whose eyes other than your
own? Not to those people who buy them. Or to the engineers themselves.
* The market will bear the price. Then I guess the companies have added to
the real or perceived value, no? Isn't that what product design is supposed
to be about?

A mass of subjective opinion masquarading as fact.

The lower-priced models in the line do leave room for
improvement....that's
why there are high-end models.

Not in their sound quality.............


More subjective opinion. Did you forget how to use "IMO"??

Show me one popularly priced HT receiver
that is state-of-the-art?

The $1,000 Denon, Pioneer or Yamaha offerings sound as good as
anything else, they simply lack some power and some features when
compared with 'high end' rigs.

Then they are not "state-of-the art" when it comes to HT, are they?

Of course, with all that signal processing going on inside, it's likely
that there will be sonic
*differences*, so that one particular 'house sound' or procesing
algorithm will be preferred. I like Pioneer's way of doing things, but
that's purely personal preference. You really aren't getting anything
'better' with say the top Lexicon or Theta rigs, just different
choices.

You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but none of this has much to do
with my claims.


Or one speaker?

No one *ever* suggested that top-class speakers were not expensive. Of
course, you *can* pay a lot of money for some real dogs, but that's
true in any markeyplace.


Did I claim they were not expensive? I simply asked "name me one lower or
mid-priced speaker that claimed to be "state-of-the-art". The appropriate
answer is "none".


Or one tuner?

What modern programming justifies a great tuner? OTOH, any Rotel or
Sony will do justice to any FM transmission. In 99.9% of
installations, the antenna is much more important than the tuner.

Tell that to the guys on Audio Asylum tuner forum, or to those posting at
fmtunerinfo.com. There are vast differences in sound, and if you are
interested in pulling distant stations in order to get good sound, vast
differences in sensitivity. In fact the mid-fi tuners have gotten so bad
that just picking up the local stations has become a chore....thus the
emphasis on antennas. My late '60's Fisher picks up better on a folded
dipole than the modern tuners do with a $100 whip antenna.


Or one SACD player?

Pretty much any universal player above say $100.

Then you don't know diddley about SACD players or universals, Stewart.



b*s*t explains it all!

Only your side of the argument, Harry, only your side........

I'll gladly leave the reader decide who has the facts on his side, Stewart.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 18 Feb 2006 01:43:15 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 17 Feb 2006 00:31:57 GMT, "
wrote:

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 products which provide the
best
in
sound quality *and* are designed using scientific principles and good
engineering practice. They are manufactured and tested with great
care,
and
are supported by excellent manufacturer's backup . It has nothing to
do
with price, (although high quality doesn't come cheap) nor the use of
exotic
materials for which there is no good engineering reason for their us

A "high end" item leaves very little or zero room for improvement.

So does most mainstream audio electronics.

There is an old saying that summarizes correctly the appropriate
response:
b*s*t! Why, then, do the "state-of-the-art" models from Denon, Yamaha,
Marantz, Sony (mid-fiers all) cost several thousand dollars? Pure
greed?

No, fancy casework with immaculate build quality and 'battleship'
construction, overkill build and/or specification, and a market which
will bear added pricing for 'flagship' items

* Their casework is not fancier but perhaps a bit larger and heavier
(vibration damping, anyone?).

Aside from Turntables, and tube amps, what needs vibration damping?

* Their build and specifications are overkill in whose eyes other than
your
own?

Anybody who knows that you don't need massive cases for an amp, preamp,
tuner, or CD player, unless it's getting moved a lot. All that's required
is something rugged enough that the guts don't fall out when the unit is
picked up.

Not to those people who buy them. Or to the engineers themselves.

Are you sure? How many engineers have you asked about this. Customers may
and do think a lot of things that aren't always true.

* The market will bear the price. Then I guess the companies have added
to
the real or perceived value, no? Isn't that what product design is
supposed
to be about?

A mass of subjective opinion masquarading as fact.


And that's different that most things in audio how exactly? :-)

The lower-priced models in the line do leave room for
improvement....that's
why there are high-end models.

Not in their sound quality.............


More subjective opinion. Did you forget how to use "IMO"??

It's not an opinion, it's something that is verifiable.

Show me one popularly priced HT receiver
that is state-of-the-art?

The $1,000 Denon, Pioneer or Yamaha offerings sound as good as
anything else, they simply lack some power and some features when
compared with 'high end' rigs.

Then they are not "state-of-the art" when it comes to HT, are they?


Sure they are, many features on HT equipment are nice to have but aren't
really neccessary. After you get all the decoders that are used on the DVD
or whatever media, the other stuff is frills.

Of course, with all that signal processing going on inside, it's likely
that there will be sonic
*differences*, so that one particular 'house sound' or procesing
algorithm will be preferred. I like Pioneer's way of doing things, but
that's purely personal preference. You really aren't getting anything
'better' with say the top Lexicon or Theta rigs, just different
choices.

You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but none of this has much to
do
with my claims.


Many of your claims have nothing to do with what constitutes SOTA
performance or high end.

Or one speaker?

No one *ever* suggested that top-class speakers were not expensive. Of
course, you *can* pay a lot of money for some real dogs, but that's
true in any markeyplace.


Did I claim they were not expensive? I simply asked "name me one lower or
mid-priced speaker that claimed to be "state-of-the-art". The appropriate
answer is "none".

Is a $500.00 HT reciever that is THX certified low to mid priced? if so
then Pioneer has at least one that I think easily qualifies as state fo the
art. 7 x 120wpc with DTS, Dolby Digital, and every decoder that one will
need, plus a bunch of other convienence features.

Or one tuner?

What modern programming justifies a great tuner? OTOH, any Rotel or
Sony will do justice to any FM transmission. In 99.9% of
installations, the antenna is much more important than the tuner.

Tell that to the guys on Audio Asylum tuner forum, or to those posting at
fmtunerinfo.com. There are vast differences in sound, and if you are
interested in pulling distant stations in order to get good sound, vast
differences in sensitivity.

That's one of those bits of hyperbole that audiophiles engage in all the
time, the "vast differences" tag rarely lives up to it's hype. There's only
so much difference that can be had.

In fact the mid-fi tuners have gotten so bad
that just picking up the local stations has become a chore....thus the
emphasis on antennas. My late '60's Fisher picks up better on a folded
dipole than the modern tuners do with a $100 whip antenna.


Or one SACD player?

Pretty much any universal player above say $100.

Then you don't know diddley about SACD players or universals, Stewart.

Show where there are any performance differences in any of them.

b*s*t explains it all!

Only your side of the argument, Harry, only your side........

I'll gladly leave the reader decide who has the facts on his side,
Stewart.


So you can't really back it up then?

wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 18 Feb 2006 01:43:15 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 17 Feb 2006 00:31:57 GMT, "
wrote:

Serge Auckland wrote:

snip, to shorten things


A "high end" item leaves very little or zero room for improvement.

So does most mainstream audio electronics.

There is an old saying that summarizes correctly the appropriate
response:
b*s*t! Why, then, do the "state-of-the-art" models from Denon, Yamaha,
Marantz, Sony (mid-fiers all) cost several thousand dollars? Pure
greed?

No, fancy casework with immaculate build quality and 'battleship'
construction, overkill build and/or specification, and a market which
will bear added pricing for 'flagship' items

* Their casework is not fancier but perhaps a bit larger and heavier
(vibration damping, anyone?).

Aside from Turntables, and tube amps, what needs vibration damping?


At least one of my CD players, which sounds substantially better with it
than without.



* Their build and specifications are overkill in whose eyes other than
your
own?

Anybody who knows that you don't need massive cases for an amp, preamp,
tuner, or CD player, unless it's getting moved a lot. All that's required
is something rugged enough that the guts don't fall out when the unit is
picked up.

Not to those people who buy them. Or to the engineers themselves.

Are you sure? How many engineers have you asked about this. Customers
may
and do think a lot of things that aren't always true.


And engineers generally resist building anything they think is TOTALLY
superfluous.



* The market will bear the price. Then I guess the companies have added
to
the real or perceived value, no? Isn't that what product design is
supposed
to be about?


You cut out Stewarts response here.


A mass of subjective opinion masquarading as fact.


And that's different that most things in audio how exactly? :-)


Only in the sense that Stewart presents it as a settled fact, when it is
not.


The lower-priced models in the line do leave room for
improvement....that's
why there are high-end models.

Not in their sound quality.............


More subjective opinion. Did you forget how to use "IMO"??

It's not an opinion, it's something that is verifiable.


Neither Stewart nor you have run tests showing that the lower priced items
in a manufacturers line are as close to state of the art in sound quality as
their high end. Nor have such tests been published. Such tests would
involve which drive complex loads to lound volumes in fairly large home
theatre rooms without noticeable or audible strain. You are simply
surmising here, and in my opinion, guessing wrong. As was Stewart.



Show me one popularly priced HT receiver
that is state-of-the-art?

The $1,000 Denon, Pioneer or Yamaha offerings sound as good as
anything else, they simply lack some power and some features when
compared with 'high end' rigs.

Then they are not "state-of-the art" when it comes to HT, are they?


Sure they are, many features on HT equipment are nice to have but aren't
really neccessary. After you get all the decoders that are used on the
DVD
or whatever media, the other stuff is frills.

State-of-the-art means what it says. Can't sound better. Can't perform
better. Has every useful control or adjustment known or desired by the
user. Nothing you have said suggests a lower priced HT receiver can match
the higher priced in the manufacturer's line in any of these regards.


Of course, with all that signal processing going on inside, it's likely
that there will be sonic
*differences*, so that one particular 'house sound' or procesing
algorithm will be preferred. I like Pioneer's way of doing things, but
that's purely personal preference. You really aren't getting anything
'better' with say the top Lexicon or Theta rigs, just different
choices.

You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but none of this has much to
do
with my claims.


Many of your claims have nothing to do with what constitutes SOTA
performance or high end.

In a home theatre invironment...which is what I asked the questions about?
You are wrong.



Or one speaker?

No one *ever* suggested that top-class speakers were not expensive. Of
course, you *can* pay a lot of money for some real dogs, but that's
true in any markeyplace.


Did I claim they were not expensive? I simply asked "name me one lower
or
mid-priced speaker that claimed to be "state-of-the-art". The
appropriate
answer is "none".

Is a $500.00 HT reciever that is THX certified low to mid priced? if so
then Pioneer has at least one that I think easily qualifies as state fo
the
art. 7 x 120wpc with DTS, Dolby Digital, and every decoder that one will
need, plus a bunch of other convienence features.


And what does "THX certified" have to do with state-of-the-art? Not much.


Or one tuner?

What modern programming justifies a great tuner? OTOH, any Rotel or
Sony will do justice to any FM transmission. In 99.9% of
installations, the antenna is much more important than the tuner.

Tell that to the guys on Audio Asylum tuner forum, or to those posting at
fmtunerinfo.com. There are vast differences in sound, and if you are
interested in pulling distant stations in order to get good sound, vast
differences in sensitivity.

That's one of those bits of hyperbole that audiophiles engage in all the
time, the "vast differences" tag rarely lives up to it's hype. There's
only
so much difference that can be had.


Have you surveyed a dozen tuners at one time, as I have. Have you heard a
tuner that was completly opaque and "flat" in depth and sounded like
cardboard. I have. Have you heard a tuner that sounded okay in some
respects, but on transients like audience clapping simply and audibly fell
apart? I have. Have you heard a tuner with a thick, murky bass that
colored not only music but especially male voices? I have. Have you heard
a tuner with rolled-off bass, so that music sounded thin and insubstantial?
I have. Side by side. Same broadcast. There are "vast differences" in
tuners.



In fact the mid-fi tuners have gotten so bad
that just picking up the local stations has become a chore....thus the
emphasis on antennas. My late '60's Fisher picks up better on a folded
dipole than the modern tuners do with a $100 whip antenna.


And what did you cut out here? Most of my answer to a prior question, as
well as the question itself.


Or one SACD player?

Pretty much any universal player above say $100.

Then you don't know diddley about SACD players or universals, Stewart.

Show where there are any performance differences in any of them.

All one has to do is listen to a few of them. It is not hard to hear. I
have three Sony's at home, as well as a Pioneer. They all have basically
the same output and I can run and instantly switch between three of them at
a time in my system. I have two SACD's of two different recordings,
including Ray Charles' Genius Loves Company, which features many different
voices, male and female. I also have the same recording on both DVD-A and
SACD. They all sound different. Between some, the difference is not subtle.
The Sony C2000ES is highly transparent; the Pioneeer 578a is equally so when
playing DVD-A. Chesky's "Swing Live" sounds identical on the two. Switch
to the two "Genius Love's Company" disks, and the Pioneer loses the ambience
apparent on the Sony. The 578a does SACD less well than DVD-A. Play those
same disks on the C2000ES and it's predecessor, the C222ES, and you hear
markedly different sound. The predecessor sounds smooth, less dynamic, and
far less transparent than the C2000ES. The differences are apparent. They
are not all that subtle for the most part.



b*s*t explains it all!

Only your side of the argument, Harry, only your side........

I'll gladly leave the reader decide who has the facts on his side,
Stewart.


So you can't really back it up then?

I just have. What have you contributed to support your claims?

On 18 Feb 2006 21:35:19 GMT, " wrote:

Also, let me know how your BMW
does in marginal driving condtitions as a pretty front-heavy RWD
vehicle.

One of BMWs main design credos is a virtually perfect 50/50 front/rear
balance. We're not talking about Yanktank muscle cars here.......

Personally, I prefer Audis, but there's no way that any current BMW is
'front heavy', and of course the X3 and X5 are four wheel drive SUVs,
just like your Alabama-built Mercedes.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 18 Feb 2006 01:43:15 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:




Show me one popularly priced HT receiver
that is state-of-the-art?


The $1,000 Denon, Pioneer or Yamaha offerings sound as good as
anything else, they simply lack some power and some features when
compared with 'high end' rigs.

OTOH, there are many high-end rigs that lack features (and/or power)
found in those $1K receivers. Which makes you wonder whether those rigs
are really high-end.

"chung" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 18 Feb 2006 01:43:15 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:




Show me one popularly priced HT receiver that is state-of-the-art?


The $1,000 Denon, Pioneer or Yamaha offerings sound as good as
anything else, they simply lack some power and some features when
compared with 'high end' rigs.

OTOH, there are many high-end rigs that lack features (and/or power) found
in those $1K receivers. Which makes you wonder whether those rigs are
really high-end.

They can be high end without being state of the art in all aspects, so long
as they are striving for it in sound.

On 19 Feb 2006 18:09:48 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

State-of-the-art means what it says. Can't sound better. Can't perform
better. Has every useful control or adjustment known or desired by the
user. Nothing you have said suggests a lower priced HT receiver can match
the higher priced in the manufacturer's line in any of these regards.

Oh, so you are now arguing that virtually all amplifiers previously
thought of as 'high end', must now be exluded because they don't have
tone controls or power meters?

'High end' has nothing do with *features*, Harry, indeed many would
argue quite the reverse - less is more. It's the *sound* that matters,
not how many sound effect processing options or additional channels
over the basic 5.1 are available.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering