"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

Can you give any figures for what percentage of all those who 'listen
to Stravinsky' choose to do so via SET amplifiers?

From talking to people in music groups and on RAT, the term SET comes up
remarkably often. In my own music circle I know of three people - more
than I would have imagined.

Unfortunately, that does not actually answer my question. You have snipped
your earlier comment which prompted my question, so I'll re-quote it below
in order to clairify the point of my question.

] From: Iain M Churches
] Subject: DBT a flawed method for evaluating Hi-Fi ?
] Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:25
] Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio
]
] I don't know what motivates people who listen to Stravinsky to buy SET
] amps. But the fact is that they do, as a matter of choice.

The second first sentence refers to "people" who fit the conditions you
specify. The second makes a statement as a "fact" about their choice. Tje
wording seems to me to indicate that you wish the statements to be taken
as
a general indication which is reliable for all those "people" referred to
in your first sentence.

I simply make an observation, and wonder why it may be so.


To be able to make such a statement, you would need to have reason to show
it was reliable for such a group. Yet your reply only refers to your own
"music circle" and "three" people.

Three from fifteen, makes 20%, a much greater percentage than I would
have expected. Three others have PP valve amps, so that makes 40% who
use something other than SS. I wonder why there should be such a high
percentage in a classical music group?

Hence your "fact" seems to be based on a fairly limited and selected (on
the basis of being known to you personally) group. Is there any reason to
assume the same statements apply in general to most of those people who
happen to like Stravinsky? From your reply, I see no reason to assume so.

No none whatsoever. However, I do know that there are several on, and on
the
fringes of,this NG who listen to SET, although they do not usually make the
fact
known. I wonder why not? :-((

On that basis your statement seems to simply say, "I know some people who
prefer SET amplifiers and who also listen to Stravinsky". That may be so,
but does it tell us anything applicable beyond that specific set of a few
individuals?

Your interpretation of what I say is correct.
I still wonder why these people choose SET. Any ideas?


I'm not clear why the group you pick out should be of particular
significance. But since you make a statement about them, I'd be
interested to know the answer to my question.

I use the music group as an example, because they are people I know,
with audio systems with which I am acquainted. It may be that others
in this NG have no one in their immediate circle with an SET amp.
This gives 0% - also a figure that I accept. If this was so in my own
case, I could have written "I wonder why none of those who listen to
Stravinsky use SET"

I am not really concerned with how many people listen to SET.
But I *am* interested to know why. Maybe an SS dominated group
is not the right place to ask the question:-))

It seems that SET performs especially well with small classical
ensembles.

I appreciate that this may be your opinion, and that of the specific few
people you know and were referring to. The problem is that your wording
seemed to be implying that this was something established as being 'valid'
on a more general basis. However the wording you now use is quite "weak"
in
that it includes "It seems" instead of "fact". And "especially well" is a
value judgement/opinion of relative merit, which might mean "does not
sound
as awful as SET used for some other things" just as easily as it might
mean
"better than anything else". :-)´

What is uyour personal opinion?
Do you disagree that SET performs especially well with small ensembles?


In addition, if we are considering selected groups. What percentage of
those who are involved in professional recording, mixing, etc, always
do so using SET amplifiers for their monitoring/listening at the time?

From my own experience? None:-) But I do know of several (myself among
them) who monitor with a large PP valve amp.

OK. This for me raises an interesting point. I assume that those producing
recordings/broadcasts set pun out to make then sound as 'good' as they
can. In this context 'good' presumably means they choose to use listening
and monitoring equipment that they feel will lead to excellent results
when
the produced CD, etc, are played at home on decent audio equipment. This
seems to imply some level of consistency or relationship between what the
monitoring and domestic equipment will produce.

Yes, as I have mentioned before, I also have a pair of Amcron MA600 which
I use in recording. Putting up the Radford STA100 often brings favourable
comments from those involved. I could work with either amplifier,
their sound is not greatly dis-similar.

In this context, it seems odd that those producing the recordings do not
do
so using, say, SET amps, *if* they feel this would give 'better' results.

I think, Jim, the explanation is simple.
SET cannot produce the power required for a large monitoring set up.


Cheers

Iain