Don Pearce wrote:

... Now things like SETs do exactly that, and hence it is hard to
figure how they might merit a word like "best".

It's obvious: different people have different criteria for what they *like*.
"Best" doesn't neccessarily mean best within certain technical criteria to
do with some notion referred to as 'accuracy of reproduction'. So far as I
understand it, listening to music isn't about some abstract, and ultimately
unobtainable, 'accuracy', it's about what you *feel* when you listen to it.

It would seem that the definition of "best" being promulgated by certain
individuals rests in their presupposition that the 'accurate' approach to
reproducing sound is the *only* way to acheive this. This is the false
premise that I said Dave was proceeding from. To wit...

This means LP is *adding* something to the audio that it shouldn't.

Who says that something shouldn't be added? Where is the universal truth
upon which this assertion is predicated? There is none. It is predicated on
the supposition that use of audio equipment which doesn't 'add' something is
the only way to instill whatever it is that we seek to feel when listening
to music.


Err, no. It was an example of how your whole thinking is flawed.

LIS, the *only* way: "Think like me, or you're wrong".


You
are looking for an extremely coloured unnatural sound - ...

Keith has made it clear for at least two or three years that what he's after
from his kit is that it has to instill the right emotional response. Dave's
comment is not based on what Keith has said - it's baseless.


That use of words
gets up some people's noses, particularly when it is directed at a
newbie who is seeking guidance in Hi Fi. I can see why.

Two things: Caveat emptor; and a certain cable jockey with an aversion to
making an easy grand.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.