From: Paul Dormer
Date: 6/20/2004 10:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across
components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this
example as it's my most used source.

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12




--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t







CD palyer/ turntable, arm and cartridge/ preamp and power amp/ speakers and
room treatment

4/ 135/ 43/ 43

In article ,
Paul Dormer wrote:

I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across
components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this
example as it's my most used source.

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12

6 : 1 : 5

Oww.

Stephen

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message

I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across
components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this
example as it's my most used source.

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12

1:11:15

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MINe 109 said:

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12

6 : 1 : 5

Oww.

But Krooger's been telling us you're a "digitalphobe" or some such. Cash
in those bits on something analogous!


[LP : CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]

17 : 6 : 1 : 5

The extra phono preamp didn't help...

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across
components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this
example as it's my most used source.

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12




50% on speakers including powerd subwoofer.
The rest pretty evenly divided on amp, preamp, tuner, CD player and
electronic xover.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MINe 109 said:

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12

6 : 1 : 5

Oww.

But Krooger's been telling us you're a "digitalphobe" or some such.
Cash in those bits on something analogous!


[LP : CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]

17 : 6 : 1 : 5

The extra phono preamp didn't help...

You really are a sucker for all that hype about front ends, aren't you?

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MINe 109 said:

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12

6 : 1 : 5

Oww.

But Krooger's been telling us you're a "digitalphobe" or some such.
Cash in those bits on something analogous!


[LP : CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]

17 : 6 : 1 : 5

The extra phono preamp didn't help...

You really are a sucker for all that hype about front ends, aren't you?

"LP" includes: new table; used arm; used high end cartridge (at 20% of
new); used power supply; and a high end preamp. "CD" is a demo model
and a relative bargain at one tenth the price of the ultra high end DAC
that uses the same design.

Things look a bit skewed because of the used integrated amp, not that it
was expensive when new.

I suppose I should look for a high end integrated to make my proportions
look better, but if you look at new prices you get this:

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]

6 : 1 : 15

Not so bad...

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MINe 109 said:

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12

6 : 1 : 5

Oww.

But Krooger's been telling us you're a "digitalphobe" or some such.
Cash in those bits on something analogous!


[LP : CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]

17 : 6 : 1 : 5

The extra phono preamp didn't help...

You really are a sucker for all that hype about front ends, aren't
you?

"LP" includes: new table; used arm; used high end cartridge (at 20% of
new); used power supply; and a high end preamp.

IOW, sucker bait.

"CD" is a demo model
and a relative bargain at one tenth the price of the ultra high end
DAC that uses the same design.

IOW, more sucker bait.

And this changes my claim how?

Things look a bit skewed because of the used integrated amp, not that
it was expensive when new.

Speakers???

I suppose I should look for a high end integrated to make my
proportions look better, but if you look at new prices you get this:

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]

6 : 1 : 15

Not so bad...

This is supposed to mitigate the excess money spent on the front end?

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MINe 109 said:

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12

6 : 1 : 5

Oww.

But Krooger's been telling us you're a "digitalphobe" or some such.
Cash in those bits on something analogous!


[LP : CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]

17 : 6 : 1 : 5

The extra phono preamp didn't help...

You really are a sucker for all that hype about front ends, aren't
you?

"LP" includes: new table; used arm; used high end cartridge (at 20% of
new); used power supply; and a high end preamp.

IOW, sucker bait.

Analog costs money. Used 'tables (complete) like mine go for about what
I paid for my cd player. I could probably get a good phono stage for
half the cost of mine, but I would have to spends lots more to get a
better one.

Make it a used 'table and you get this:

6 : 6 : 1 : 6

(I short-changed my speakers first time around. No big deal.)

I'd still need a phono preamp, so I would look at a big NAD integrated:

6 : 6 : 3 : 6

"CD" is a demo model
and a relative bargain at one tenth the price of the ultra high end
DAC that uses the same design.

IOW, more sucker bait.

And this changes my claim how?

Well, it's still a specious claim. I've put together a high end system
for relatively little money.

I suppose you think any money spent on a turntable is "sucker bait" but
I find a turntable a handy way to play my thousands of LPs.

Of course, adding another source is going to change the proportions of a
"front end". I paid about the same for my integrated amp, tuner, DAT, CD
recorder, and cassette deck.

Things look a bit skewed because of the used integrated amp, not that
it was expensive when new.

Speakers???

New speakers equivalent to mine are about $6500. Mine are used.

I suppose I should look for a high end integrated to make my
proportions look better, but if you look at new prices you get this:

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]

6 : 1 : 15

Make that 6 : 1 : 16

Not so bad...

This is supposed to mitigate the excess money spent on the front end?

Excess? To me it looks like the new value of my system is about a third
for front end *and* amplification and two thirds for speakers.

Throw in what I paid for LP and it's roughly equal between speakers and
everything else.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/21/2004 5:09 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MINe 109 said:

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12

6 : 1 : 5

Oww.

But Krooger's been telling us you're a "digitalphobe" or some such.
Cash in those bits on something analogous!


[LP : CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]

17 : 6 : 1 : 5

The extra phono preamp didn't help...

You really are a sucker for all that hype about front ends, aren't you?









Maybe he is just a sucker for better sound.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/21/2004 6:17 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MINe 109 said:

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12

6 : 1 : 5

Oww.

But Krooger's been telling us you're a "digitalphobe" or some such.
Cash in those bits on something analogous!


[LP : CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]

17 : 6 : 1 : 5

The extra phono preamp didn't help...

You really are a sucker for all that hype about front ends, aren't
you?

"LP" includes: new table; used arm; used high end cartridge (at 20% of
new); used power supply; and a high end preamp.

IOW, sucker bait.

Yes suckers for better sound fall for this quite often.



"CD" is a demo model
and a relative bargain at one tenth the price of the ultra high end
DAC that uses the same design.

IOW, more sucker bait.

And this changes my claim how?

It doesn't. It is still an idiotic claim founded on ridiculous prejudices that
tend to be set against the persuit of excellence.



Things look a bit skewed because of the used integrated amp, not that
it was expensive when new.

Speakers???

I suppose I should look for a high end integrated to make my
proportions look better, but if you look at new prices you get this:

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]

6 : 1 : 15

Not so bad...

This is supposed to mitigate the excess money spent on the front end?








Good LP playback doesn't come cheap. But it is worth the money to those who are
interested in better sound.

Paul Dormer said:

I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across
components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this
example as it's my most used source.

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12

CD1: 4 (new in '97)
CD2: 2 (used)
LP frontend: 5 (incl. new arm and cart)
Stabilized power supply for TT: 1
Passive p 1
Phono p 2
MOSFET monoblocks: 3
Tube monoblocks: 5
Integrated tube amp: 3
Tuner: 1
Speakers:resp. 6, 4, 2. (used)
Cabinet and TT wall mount: 3
Music software CD: 15
Music software LP: 12
Music software aux:: 5
El. Piano: 8
Synths: 10
MIDI gear: 8
Monitor gear: 6 (used)
ADAT: 2 (used)
HD recording system: 4
16/2/4 Mixer: 2 (used)
Various effects: 5 (used)
Microphones: 3 (used)
Jazz Bass: 6 (used)
Bass amp: 4 (home brew)

Note: amps, preamps, most electronics and TT are home made, with most
components from the junk box.
..
Yep, I'm a cheap ass :-)

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across
components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this
example as it's my most used source.

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12

Would I be correct in assuming that you bought the components you
wanted and then calculated the ratios? IOW, you didn't start with
that ratio and buy components to suit?

Norm Strong

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Good LP playback doesn't come cheap.

It appears to be "priceless".

But it is worth the money to
those who are interested in better sound.

Not at all. If you are interested in better sound, you scrap vinyl! Just
about everybody but the die-hards did that decades ago.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Maybe he is just a sucker for better sound.

Prove that you have to spend almost half the price of your system on the
front end to get better sound.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/21/2004 10:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Good LP playback doesn't come cheap.

It appears to be "priceless".

No. You will find a price tag for just about any record or any piece of LP
playbeack equipment.


But it is worth the money to
those who are interested in better sound.

Not at all.

No doubt. Not all people interested in audio are actually interested in hearing
thier favorite music at it's sonic best.

If you are interested in better sound, you scrap vinyl!

Wrong.

Just
about everybody but the die-hards did that decades ago.

Quality is hardly determined by the masses. Besides, most people who turned to
CDs did so for reasons other than optimal sound quality. And most people who
turned to CDs were never aware of high end vinyl playback.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/21/2004 10:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Maybe he is just a sucker for better sound.

Prove that you have to spend almost half the price of your system on the
front end to get better sound.


I am not going to argue with you over your straw man. Your question is
meaningless because of so many built in false assumptions. If you want to get
the best posible sound from LP playback it will cost you a lot of money
(depending on what one considers a lot of money of course) whether or not it
will cost you almost half the price of your system obviously depends on the
cost of the rest of your system.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Maybe he is just a sucker for better sound.

Prove that you have to spend almost half the price of your system on the
front end to get better sound.

Prove you can't.

"Paul Dormer" wrote

I would be interested to see how ppl spread their
costs across components. Here's mine, expressed
as ratio. I nominated CD in this example as it's my
most used source.

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12

1 : 1.6 : 0.4

"JBorg" wrote

Speakers ------ 17%

Pwr Amp ------- 17%

PreAmp -------- 18%

CD ------------- 17%

Subw ----------- 15%

Pwr
Conditioner ------ 8%

Mmmm... you're missing 8%, a new math paradigm ?

"JBorg" wrote in message

Paul Dormer wrote:


I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across
components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this
example as it's my most used source.

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12



Speakers ------ 17%

Pwr Amp ------- 17%

PreAmp -------- 18%

CD ------------- 17%

Subw ----------- 15%

Pwr
Conditioner ------ 8%

Just goes to show that you can't ask JBorg a simple question and get a
proper answer. Ask for 3 numbers and he gives you six. Furthermore, it
appears that he apparently can't do the simple math required to express his
results as the ratios that were asked for.

"S888Wheel" wrote

CD palyer/ turntable, arm and cartridge/ preamp and
power amp/ speakers and room treatment

4/ 135/ 43/ 43

"4"... Did you move next door to Bruce or something ?

From: "Powell"
Date: 6/21/2004 1:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote

CD palyer/ turntable, arm and cartridge/ preamp and
power amp/ speakers and room treatment

4/ 135/ 43/ 43

"4"... Did you move next door to Bruce or something ?










I bought a house in his state. Does that count?

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/21/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"JBorg" wrote in message

Paul Dormer wrote:


I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across
components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this
example as it's my most used source.

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12



Speakers ------ 17%

Pwr Amp ------- 17%

PreAmp -------- 18%

CD ------------- 17%

Subw ----------- 15%

Pwr
Conditioner ------ 8%

Just goes to show that you can't ask JBorg a simple question and get a
proper answer. Ask for 3 numbers and he gives you six. Furthermore, it
appears that he apparently can't do the simple math required to express his
results as the ratios that were asked for.









I don't think 3 numbers were specifically asked for. Just a breakdown on costs
of components. His numbers do break down into simple ratios. Lionel was the
only one to screw that one up. Even his was a minor screw up. There is the
missing 8% though. Accessories? Bad math?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/21/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"JBorg" wrote in message

Paul Dormer wrote:


I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across
components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this
example as it's my most used source.

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12



Speakers ------ 17%

Pwr Amp ------- 17%

PreAmp -------- 18%

CD ------------- 17%

Subw ----------- 15%

Pwr
Conditioner ------ 8%

Just goes to show that you can't ask JBorg a simple question and get
a proper answer. Ask for 3 numbers and he gives you six.
Furthermore, it appears that he apparently can't do the simple math
required to express his results as the ratios that were asked for.

I don't think 3 numbers were specifically asked for.


I'm sad to see that you have so little respect for JBorg that you think he
can't defend himself.

I'm also sad to see that you have no common sense, and think that everything
has to be stated specifically, or it has no meaning at all.

"S888Wheel" wrote

CD palyer/ turntable, arm and cartridge/ preamp and
power amp/ speakers and room treatment

4/ 135/ 43/ 43

"4"... Did you move next door to Bruce or something ?

I bought a house in his state. Does that count?

Hehehe... well, don't forget Ferstler in the mix, too.
So that can't be it.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/21/2004 10:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Good LP playback doesn't come cheap.

It appears to be "priceless".

No. You will find a price tag for just about any record or any piece of LP
playbeack equipment.


But it is worth the money to
those who are interested in better sound.

Not at all.

No doubt. Not all people interested in audio are actually interested in
hearing
thier favorite music at it's sonic best.

If you are interested in better sound, you scrap vinyl!

Wrong.

Just
about everybody but the die-hards did that decades ago.

Quality is hardly determined by the masses. Besides, most people who
turned to
CDs did so for reasons other than optimal sound quality. And most people
who
turned to CDs were never aware of high end vinyl playback.

Compared to the objectively superior performance of CD playback, high end
vinyl is a contradiction in terms.

The only reason to have an LP playback system IMO is to ply the things you
can't get on CD yet or in rare cases because no good LP to CD transcription
exists.

I believe you are incorrect in your assessment that most people did turn to
CD for the improved sound quality. Cassette's are smaller and less
expensive but CD clearly sound better. When radio stations started playing
CD's in became more obvious to more people that there was less noise, more
dynamic range, better bass, and an easier way to access your favorite songs.

When CD players hit the market they were available mostly to people who
could afford $1000.00 or more for a playback device. LP had been around for
a long while and was a known entity, as was cassette.

While consumers do tend to gravitate to smaller more portable audio
playback, CD was not really any smaller than cassette, and cassettes could
(after Dolby) reproduce pretty much the same FR as LP, CD just plain
outperformed both.

Powell wrote:


"S888Wheel" wrote

CD palyer/ turntable, arm and cartridge/ preamp and
power amp/ speakers and room treatment

4/ 135/ 43/ 43

"4"... Did you move next door to Bruce or something ?

I bought a house in his state. Does that count?

Hehehe... well, don't forget Ferstler in the mix, too.
So that can't be it.















Thank God Clerkie is at the other end of the state, with the subwoofer-eating
alligators.



Bruce J. Richman

From: "Powell"
Date: 6/21/2004 2:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote

CD palyer/ turntable, arm and cartridge/ preamp and
power amp/ speakers and room treatment

4/ 135/ 43/ 43

"4"... Did you move next door to Bruce or something ?

I bought a house in his state. Does that count?

Hehehe... well, don't forget Ferstler in the mix, too.
So that can't be it.














Did Ferstler spend big bucks on a CD player?

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/21/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/21/2004 10:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Good LP playback doesn't come cheap.

It appears to be "priceless".

No. You will find a price tag for just about any record or any piece of LP
playbeack equipment.


But it is worth the money to
those who are interested in better sound.

Not at all.

No doubt. Not all people interested in audio are actually interested in
hearing
thier favorite music at it's sonic best.

If you are interested in better sound, you scrap vinyl!

Wrong.

Just
about everybody but the die-hards did that decades ago.

Quality is hardly determined by the masses. Besides, most people who
turned to
CDs did so for reasons other than optimal sound quality. And most people
who
turned to CDs were never aware of high end vinyl playback.

Compared to the objectively superior performance of CD playback, high end
vinyl is a contradiction in terms.

Yeah but it is a subjective call.



The only reason to have an LP playback system IMO is to ply the things you
can't get on CD yet or in rare cases because no good LP to CD transcription
exists.

If you are truly interested in hearing recordings at their best you would
simply be wrong.



I believe you are incorrect in your assessment that most people did turn to
CD for the improved sound quality. Cassette's are smaller and less
expensive but CD clearly sound better.

They are not ascompact or easy to store for travel. Do you foget those cassette
brief cases people used to have in the car?

When radio stations started playing
CD's in became more obvious to more people that there was less noise, more
dynamic range, better bass, and an easier way to access your favorite songs.

Radio stations use tons of compression and most people listen to the radio in
their cars. I don't think it mattered.



When CD players hit the market they were available mostly to people who
could afford $1000.00 or more for a playback device.

They dipped down to less than three hundred dollars with two years. They didn't
take over the market until they became portable and available for cars.

LP had been around for
a long while and was a known entity, as was cassette.

So?



While consumers do tend to gravitate to smaller more portable audio
playback, CD was not really any smaller than cassette,

It was in terms of carrying many CDs with you compared to carrying many
cassettes with you. They are also more durable.

and cassettes could
(after Dolby) reproduce pretty much the same FR as LP, CD just plain
outperformed both.

My ears tell me otherwise. And that is what counts to me.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/21/2004 2:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/21/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"JBorg" wrote in message

Paul Dormer wrote:


I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across
components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this
example as it's my most used source.

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12



Speakers ------ 17%

Pwr Amp ------- 17%

PreAmp -------- 18%

CD ------------- 17%

Subw ----------- 15%

Pwr
Conditioner ------ 8%

Just goes to show that you can't ask JBorg a simple question and get
a proper answer. Ask for 3 numbers and he gives you six.
Furthermore, it appears that he apparently can't do the simple math
required to express his results as the ratios that were asked for.

I don't think 3 numbers were specifically asked for.


I'm sad to see that you have so little respect for JBorg that you think he
can't defend himself.


I thought you didn't believe in psychic abilities and yet you claim to know
what I am thinking. You don't and you are wrong.


I'm also sad to see that you have no common sense, and think that everything
has to be stated specifically, or it has no meaning at all.

Funny that you would attack my common sense while using such poor logic. Common
sense would be that a break down of components and costs ratios was asked for.
Bad logic or dishonesty could lead one to think there was a rule of three
numbers attached to the request.

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 6/21/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel - - lundi 21 Juin
2004 23:23 wrote:

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/21/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"JBorg" wrote in message

Paul Dormer wrote:


I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across
components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this
example as it's my most used source.

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12



Speakers ------ 17%

Pwr Amp ------- 17%

PreAmp -------- 18%

CD ------------- 17%

Subw ----------- 15%

Pwr
Conditioner ------ 8%

Just goes to show that you can't ask JBorg a simple question and get a
proper answer. Ask for 3 numbers and he gives you six. Furthermore, it
appears that he apparently can't do the simple math required to express
his results as the ratios that were asked for.









I don't think 3 numbers were specifically asked for. Just a breakdown on
costs of components. His numbers do break down into simple ratios. Lionel
was the only one to screw that one up. Even his was a minor screw up.
There is the missing 8% though. Accessories? Bad math?

Dormer requested a ratio.
A ratio is a ratio. The most popular in the world is named "percent" this is
the one I use like Mr. Borg... But it seems that he lost some bolts & nuts
in way.






Yeah but you didn't break yours down to the lowest common denominator. JBorg's
were broken down so all one had to do is ignore the % symbol and the answer was
there. Yours required a little bit of extra math to be finished. No big deal.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Michael McKelvy"

and cassettes could
(after Dolby) reproduce pretty much the same FR as LP, CD just plain
outperformed both.

My ears tell me otherwise. And that is what counts to me.

Technical tests support what you think you hear, S888wheel. The dynamic
range of vinyl is pretty pathetic, but its still better than say, type 2
cassette tape.

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 6/21/2004 3:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel - - mardi 22 Juin
2004 00:13 wrote:

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 6/21/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel - - lundi 21 Juin
2004 23:23 wrote:

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/21/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"JBorg" wrote in message

Paul Dormer wrote:


I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across
components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this
example as it's my most used source.

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12



Speakers ------ 17%

Pwr Amp ------- 17%

PreAmp -------- 18%

CD ------------- 17%

Subw ----------- 15%

Pwr
Conditioner ------ 8%

Just goes to show that you can't ask JBorg a simple question and get a
proper answer. Ask for 3 numbers and he gives you six. Furthermore, it
appears that he apparently can't do the simple math required to express
his results as the ratios that were asked for.









I don't think 3 numbers were specifically asked for. Just a breakdown on
costs of components. His numbers do break down into simple ratios.
Lionel was the only one to screw that one up. Even his was a minor screw
up. There is the missing 8% though. Accessories? Bad math?

Dormer requested a ratio.
A ratio is a ratio. The most popular in the world is named "percent" this
is the one I use like Mr. Borg... But it seems that he lost some bolts &
nuts in way.






Yeah but you didn't break yours down to the lowest common denominator.
JBorg's were broken down so all one had to do is ignore the % symbol and
the answer was there. Yours required a little bit of extra math to be
finished. No big deal.

You should stop to walk on the "cordes"...







You should try to make sense.

S888Wheel a écrit :

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 6/21/2004 3:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel - - mardi 22 Juin
2004 00:13 wrote:


From: Lionel ahc
Date: 6/21/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel - - lundi 21 Juin
2004 23:23 wrote:


From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/21/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"JBorg" wrote in message


Paul Dormer wrote:


I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across
components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this
example as it's my most used source.

[CD : AMP : SPEAKERS]
1 : 6 : 12



Speakers ------ 17%

Pwr Amp ------- 17%

PreAmp -------- 18%

CD ------------- 17%

Subw ----------- 15%

Pwr
Conditioner ------ 8%

Just goes to show that you can't ask JBorg a simple question and get a
proper answer. Ask for 3 numbers and he gives you six. Furthermore, it
appears that he apparently can't do the simple math required to express
his results as the ratios that were asked for.









I don't think 3 numbers were specifically asked for. Just a breakdown on
costs of components. His numbers do break down into simple ratios.
Lionel was the only one to screw that one up. Even his was a minor screw
up. There is the missing 8% though. Accessories? Bad math?

Dormer requested a ratio.
A ratio is a ratio. The most popular in the world is named "percent" this
is the one I use like Mr. Borg... But it seems that he lost some bolts &
nuts in way.







Yeah but you didn't break yours down to the lowest common denominator.
JBorg's were broken down so all one had to do is ignore the % symbol and
the answer was there. Yours required a little bit of extra math to be
finished. No big deal.

You should stop to walk on the "cordes"...








You should try to make sense.

Do you know what is a corde ? ;-)

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/21/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/21/2004 10:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Good LP playback doesn't come cheap.

It appears to be "priceless".

No. You will find a price tag for just about any record or any piece of
LP
playbeack equipment.


But it is worth the money to
those who are interested in better sound.

Not at all.

No doubt. Not all people interested in audio are actually interested in
hearing
thier favorite music at it's sonic best.

If you are interested in better sound, you scrap vinyl!

Wrong.

Just
about everybody but the die-hards did that decades ago.

Quality is hardly determined by the masses. Besides, most people who
turned to
CDs did so for reasons other than optimal sound quality. And most
people
who
turned to CDs were never aware of high end vinyl playback.

Compared to the objectively superior performance of CD playback, high end
vinyl is a contradiction in terms.

Yeah but it is a subjective call.

No, it's objective reality. Less noise, wider FR, and bigger dynamic range
make it objectively better.

The only reason to have an LP playback system IMO is to ply the things
you
can't get on CD yet or in rare cases because no good LP to CD
transcription
exists.

If you are truly interested in hearing recordings at their best you would
simply be wrong.

In your opinion.

I believe you are incorrect in your assessment that most people did turn
to
CD for the improved sound quality. Cassette's are smaller and less
expensive but CD clearly sound better.

They are not ascompact or easy to store for travel. Do you foget those
cassette
brief cases people used to have in the car?

No, still have one.

When radio stations started playing
CD's in became more obvious to more people that there was less noise,
more
dynamic range, better bass, and an easier way to access your favorite
songs.

Radio stations use tons of compression and most people listen to the radio
in
their cars. I don't think it mattered.

Then you'd be wrong. It was clearly obvious. Even with the compression.

When CD players hit the market they were available mostly to people who
could afford $1000.00 or more for a playback device.

They dipped down to less than three hundred dollars with two years. They
didn't
take over the market until they became portable and available for cars.

LP had been around for
a long while and was a known entity, as was cassette.

So?

So people knew what they sounded like.


While consumers do tend to gravitate to smaller more portable audio
playback, CD was not really any smaller than cassette,

It was in terms of carrying many CDs with you compared to carrying many
cassettes with you. They are also more durable.

Yet another selling point.

and cassettes could
(after Dolby) reproduce pretty much the same FR as LP, CD just plain
outperformed both.

My ears tell me otherwise. And that is what counts to me.

Get them checked, they are obviously failing.

Paul Dormer said:

I did not mention the plethora of other gear I have kicking about as I
thought it would only muddy the issue :-)

OK, so sue me :-)

Which is your primary source?

CD in the car (I travel 150 kms a day).

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/21/2004 10:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Maybe he is just a sucker for better sound.

Prove that you have to spend almost half the price of your system on
the front end to get better sound.


I am not going to argue with you over your straw man.

IOW, you have nothing intelligent to say that goes against my claim that
vinyl extracts a premium, because it is outdated technology.

Your question is
meaningless because of so many built in false assumptions.

You're the one makng the assumptions, S888wheel.

If you want to get the best posible sound from LP playback it will cost
you
a lot of money

That's what I said, and now you are agreeing with.

(depending on what one considers a lot of money of
course)

whether or not it will cost you almost half the price of your
system obviously depends on the cost of the rest of your system.

Right, the vinyl part of your system could run 90% of the price of your
system if the rest of it was cheap enough.



N

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Maybe he is just a sucker for better sound.

Prove that you have to spend almost half the price of your system on
the front end to get better sound.

Prove you can't.

As usual, what you say make no logical sense.

"The Devil" wrote in message
news:qp6gd0h67bgb6uk2mn8h737rku8k1oc2kd@rdmzrnewst xt.nz
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:04:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

1:11:15

Is that also the dollar amount?

This would be proof that you are so poorly-informed that you think that one
can buy a CD player for $1.

Even Norm strong has those bottoming out around $10. I've enver paid less
than about $30 so for one.

I guess you can get a pretty good wall wart and IC amp for $11.00.

Really? Do tell!