Keith G wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote

As Don said, as far as sound quality goes, almost any modern piece of
electronics will sound the same when you don't know the brand. Buy on
facilities and looks, as hopefully you'll be living with it a long time.

Having said that, high-end equipment isn't just about performance, looks
and build-quality come into it a great deal. ML equipment, as is Krell,
MF, Audio Research etc etc are very well built, perform superbly, are well
engineered and therefore are "good". They have achieved Brand values that
allows them to charge premium prices which other brands can't. I remember
years ago Sony, Technics, JVC and others had a "premium" range selling at
similar prices to other High-End brands and which I'm sure was just as
good, but very few shops carried them and enthusiasts shunned them. Their
Brand just couldn't carry the price.

So the earlier advice seems sound. There's nothing wrong with ML, and they
are well built etc, *but* performance-wise, you can get the same for a
*lot* less money.



The demise of 'famous names' in the face of steep competition isn't
restricted to hifi gear. I believe it's the inevitable consequence of
manufacturers try to retain a significant percentage of the available market
without fully understanding the radical changes needed to be able to keep up
('parts bin/existing designs' thinking for a start). The question is are
companies like ML and Krell in a healthy position? If so, I don't see any
problem - not everyone is impoverished scum and not everyone wants their
converted lofts/penthouses/yachts sullied with the *cheapest* kit that'll
get the job done....

(Unlike me, but then my kit isn't trying to be *furniture* or trying to
impress anybody other than by its *sound*....)

Having said that, I am nearing the end of my own 'audio quest' and have
proved I can get a pretty good sound from fairly basic kit and some
homebrew - any changes in the future are likely to be of an 'upward' nature
to kit that has a degree of 'aesthetic appeal', some twinkly bits and mebbe
a few nice, blue LEDs....

:-)

Remotes are good also....



I think you've put your finger on the reason for the current state of
"high-end" that seems to be all about architectural, sculptural,
aesthetic (choose your own term) appeal. It has nothing to do with sound
quality which is, as I think many of us agree, already of a very high
order. Consequently, what now distinguishes the high-end from the
"normal" stuff is the machined-out-of-solid casework, turntables that
could easily hold up the Parthenon, 'speakers that could *be* the
Parthenon and so on. It's moved on from a quest for audio "perfection"
to something that enhances the decor, becomes a talking point with
visitors, or is just pleasing to look at. Much like a statue, painting
or any other objet d'art.

S.

"Serge Auckland" wrote



I think you've put your finger on the reason for the current state of
"high-end" that seems to be all about architectural, sculptural, aesthetic
(choose your own term) appeal. It has nothing to do with sound quality
which is, as I think many of us agree, already of a very high order.
Consequently, what now distinguishes the high-end from the "normal" stuff
is the machined-out-of-solid casework, turntables that could easily hold
up the Parthenon, 'speakers that could *be* the Parthenon and so on. It's
moved on from a quest for audio "perfection" to something that enhances
the decor, becomes a talking point with visitors, or is just pleasing to
look at. Much like a statue, painting or any other objet d'art.


Absolutely, but is it really such a bad thing?

There's a scale (passing through good VFM) from cheap crap to OTT bling in
all things manufactured/purchased - food, clothing, furniture, tools, sports
equipment &c, but my favourite analogy for hifi is the subject of cars -
nowadays, they mostly all do the job they are designed for pretty well and
they are within the scope of anybody who is old enough to drive (more's the
pity). Cheaper models now have all the features that used to be only on the
most expensive marques and its up to the individual (and his
requirements/resources) as to what he spends his money on. (Apologies to the
Grammar Police...) In both cars and hifi, it's the top end of the market
that sets the standards and it's only a good thing when the cheaper (VFM)
stuff catches up, IMO...

There is no *need* to buy the biggest/best that money can afford and there
will be occasions and circumstances when this wouldn't be the best way
forward anyway, but the choice is there for anyone sufficiently interested
in it or whose lifestyle (and social standing?) requires it. POQ differs
with the individual and, although I probably would not go for silly-priced
gear myself, even if I could afford it, I don't blame anyone who does if
they don't have to sell a kidney to get it.

(Interestingly, it seems a common thing for the hoi polloi to scream
at/about those who do choose to spend at the 'bling' end of the spectrum but
I have yet to hear a 'bling purchaser' do the same to the people buying the
cheaper stuff...??)

There was a time when good 'hifi' sound was the exclusive province of people
like 'surveyors', bank managers and dentists (Quad Squad), the irony is that
now anyone can afford it seems they've let the standards of the
recorded/broadcast music *itself* go to the point where the 'quality' of the
kit matters less now than it ever did, provided the kit has enough poke to
get the sound levels high enough..!!

Just my toupee.....

"Nick Gorham"


** You are a pile of ****ing criminal garbage.






....... Phil

"Bob Latham" wrote in message

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bob Latham" wrote in message


No, the problem is that you base a far-reaching claim on
so-called listening tests that were probably utter crap.
They appear to be utter crap because there is no
indication of proper level-matching, no indication of
any checks to see that the amps are proper
representatives of their make and model, and above all,
no indication of any bias controls.

Right so at the demo I had no way of knowing what the
gain of the amplifiers were and so we employed a sound
pressure meter and a 1kHz CD test tone. I'm sure the
sound levels were within a db or perhaps at worst 2db.

More than enough to explain just about any kind of differences that you
think you heard.

But having done all of this, what are you supposed to do?

Recognize noisy data for what it is - noisy data.

1) Not bother to listen to it because they're all the
same.

How clueless does someone have to be to rerun the same straw man argument in
quick sucession?

Obviously, you have no pride in yourself, nor any respect for your readers.

2) Decide which you like the sound of but buy based
on price/facilities

At least that would be support by the relevant reliable facts.

3) Buy the one *you* think sounds
best *even* if it doesn't really.

Nonsense. You should have started and stopped with alternative 2.


When you get this home are you going to congratulate your
self for the life of the amp on the bargain you got or
the wonderful facilities it has (that rarely if ever get
used) or listen to the thing playing music?

Do what you want - base your purchase decisons on obviously false data, if
that's what you want to do.

Phil Allison wrote:
"Nick Gorham"


** You are a pile of ****ing criminal garbage.






...... Phil









I prefer "dead beef" myself, at least it can be expressed in binary :-)

--
Nick (\033653337357) Gorham

Keith G wrote:
snip

(Unlike me, but then my kit isn't trying to be *furniture* or trying to
impress anybody other than by its *sound*....)

Having said that, I am nearing the end of my own 'audio quest' and have
proved I can get a pretty good sound from fairly basic kit and some
homebrew - any changes in the future are likely to be of an 'upward' nature
to kit that has a degree of 'aesthetic appeal', some twinkly bits and mebbe
a few nice, blue LEDs....

:-)


Blue LEDs - it's the future Keith; don't resist :-)

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:
snip

(Unlike me, but then my kit isn't trying to be *furniture* or trying to
impress anybody other than by its *sound*....)

Having said that, I am nearing the end of my own 'audio quest' and have
proved I can get a pretty good sound from fairly basic kit and some
homebrew - any changes in the future are likely to be of an 'upward'
nature to kit that has a degree of 'aesthetic appeal', some twinkly bits
and mebbe a few nice, blue LEDs....

:-)


Blue LEDs - it's the future Keith; don't resist :-)



I know, I know!!

I wanted a pair of jimjams with blue LED buttons on for Christmas but didn't
get them:

a) I'm ahead of myself and they don't exist yet...

b) Changed my mind anyway - don't want to start a trend/mad rush and add
further to the planet's *global warming* problems!!

;-)

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Serge Auckland" wrote



I think you've put your finger on the reason for the current state of
"high-end" that seems to be all about architectural, sculptural,
aesthetic (choose your own term) appeal. It has nothing to do with
sound quality which is, as I think many of us agree, already of a
very high order. Consequently, what now distinguishes the high-end
from the "normal" stuff is the machined-out-of-solid casework,
turntables that could easily hold up the Parthenon, 'speakers that
could *be* the Parthenon and so on. It's moved on from a quest for
audio "perfection" to something that enhances the decor, becomes a
talking point with visitors, or is just pleasing to look at. Much
like a statue, painting or any other objet d'art.

I tend to regard it as "jewellery for boys". :-)


Absolutely, but is it really such a bad thing?

Yes - if the innocent or gullable are mislead into thinking you *have* to
pay for the above to obtain good quality results for the sound.

I'd certainly recommend people to buy equipment whose looks, features, and
durability are of a high order - if they are minded to agree that those
aspects are important to them. However the concern is for those who only
'known' what they have read by scanning a few magazines who go into a shop
and are mislead into parting with a lot of cash under the delusion that
these things are required for good sound.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Arny Krueger
wrote:
"Bob Latham" wrote in message


No, the problem is that you base a far-reaching claim on so-called
listening tests that were probably utter crap. They appear to be utter
crap because there is no indication of proper level-matching, no
indication of any checks to see that the amps are proper
representatives of their make and model, and above all, no indication
of any bias controls.

Right so at the demo I had no way of knowing what the gain of the
amplifiers were and so we employed a sound pressure meter and a 1kHz CD
test tone. I'm sure the sound levels were within a db or perhaps at
worst 2db.

Which, alas, is unlikely to be a close enough level match to exclude the
possibility that a change in sound level was mistaken for a change in sound
quality.

Nor would a precise level match, in itself, be sufficient to ensure that a
comparison would return a result which would be a reliable basis for making
a decision on any differences in the 'sound' produced. Unless one of the
units has a relatively gross or obvious problem, any differences may easily
be confounded or hidden by other factors.

But having done all of this, what are you supposed to do?

1) Not bother to listen to it because they're all the same. 2) Decide
which you like the sound of but buy based on price/facilities 3) Buy the
one *you* think sounds best *even* if it doesn't really.

4) Realise that the test you did may not have been useful as a guide to any
'differences', and that your conclusions on that may simply have been
unfounded.

The implication being that either unit may well have been fine. So it may
well not have made any difference which one you chose. In that sense, the
test was OK as you did not hear any clear problems with either amp. However
unless you tested them with the same speakers, ancilliary equipment, room,
etc, as they will be used with at home, the test may not have told you what
you really needed to know. So, for example, with different speakers at
home, one amp might have shown problems when the other did not.

Recall the story of your FM4 and your amp. An impedance interaction
affected the response. If you'd compared the amp with another in the shop
you might not have know that one would lead to this when you took it home,
but the other might not.

BTW Bob, have you read the papers I sent to you some months ago? Reply by
email if you wish.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

any changes in the future are likely to be of an 'upward' nature
to kit that has a degree of 'aesthetic appeal', some twinkly bits and mebbe
a few nice, blue LEDs....

:-)

Hi Keith

How about some laser lights shining around on the ceiling while the
music plays?

David