"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net
In article
.com,
Karl Winkler wrote:
In the photo
newsgroups, equipment is discussed endlessly while the
.technique groups see very little activity. Clearly,
it's easier to discuss the merits of equipment rather
than to focus on what really makes the difference: the
recording or photography techniques, etc.

First of all, most buyers of hi-fi equipment are limited
to just reproduction of what somebody else has recorded.
Just about the only creative input is which track to play
next.

Agreed.

However, my guess is that for the technically inclined
people it is much easier to talk about features of
equipment than to talk about, for example, photography
techniques.

Anybody can recite the name of some new expensive piece of equipment and
write poetry about it. You actually have to understand what you are doing to
credibly discuss technique.

On Mar 7, 2:22 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

IME, salemen as a rule just don't know any better. Only a few of them have a
strong background in tech. I'm not sure this is *always* a bad thing, as one
can know too much to be an effective salesman.


Add "honest" and your premise stands.

In my opinion, the OP chooses simply not to get it. Writing for
myself, I have a disproportionate amount of audio equipment about the
house, and were it not for my twice-yearly purges at the Kutztown
Vintage Radio meet, I would be over my ears (and divorced) in short
order. Put simply, audio equipment is great good fun. Its
permutations, combinations, differences and similarities while not
endless are certainly entertaining if one has that turn-of-mind. And
in my case after nearly 40 years of dabbling (started in my early
teens), I am slowly starting down the murky home-brew path.

Furthermore, the poor fools as described by the OP are few and far
between. Enough to support an industry certainly. But that is not
surprising given the total population. Some get into the esoteric
because they can. A perfectly valid position and by no means
indicative of a fetish. Some do so because that aspect of the hobby
does not require any sort of basis in fact or practice and so they may
spout endless babble without challenge. Also no indication of a
fetish. Some even make a living at it. Certainly no fetish there.

I would posit that the OP's fascination with its chosen target is just
as indicative of a fetish as its target's purported behavior.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

On Mar 8, 1:36 am, (Philip Homburg) wrote:
In article .com,

Karl Winkler wrote:
In the photo
newsgroups, equipment is discussed endlessly while the .technique
groups see very little activity. Clearly, it's easier to discuss the
merits of equipment rather than to focus on what really makes the
difference: the recording or photography techniques, etc.

First of all, most buyers of hi-fi equipment are limited to just
reproduction of what somebody else has recorded. Just about the only
creative input is which track to play next.

However, they could discuss the way the gear is set up, i.e. speaker
placement, acoustical treatments, etc. But instead, they talk mostly
about the gear from the standpoint of religious fanaticism. Just like
with politics. I think it's interesting that religion, politics and
brands are often discussed with the same level of fervor.

However, my guess is that for the technically inclined people it is much
easier to talk about features of equipment than to talk about, for example,
photography techniques.

Yes, because photography techniques require work and real learning,
along with getting off one's duff and *doing something*, while
features of equipment requires rote memorization.

And even if the participants know the concepts to discuss a piece of music
or a photograph, there is such a wide range in tastes, that a discussion
may not go anywhere.

True. However, it seems to me that more might be learned if people
talked about attempts they've made, the trouble they found in trying
it that way, the results they got, and what they learned. Certainly,
there are those who do this. But there are far more that talk about
FPS, MP, VR, etc. and perhaps more importantly, why one brand's
versions of these things are better than another. As if these things
existed in a vacuum.

So in the end, it is quite possible that equipment oriented forums will
see the most activity.

Yes, definitely.

Same goes for many of the musician forums. People talk about
instruments, amplifiers, effects, types of wood, types of strings,
types of rosin, types of varnish, etc. And then the discussions about
how to PLAY the instruments are anemic by comparison. Again, there are
those who do discuss the techniques, but not nearly in the same
numbers.

My point was that all these things are related and perhaps in the Hi
Fi circles, we see the most fanatical. But this type of general
behavior is widespread and seems to cover just about any area where
art and technology meet.

-Karl

In article .com,
Karl Winkler wrote:
Same goes for many of the musician forums. People talk about
instruments, amplifiers, effects, types of wood, types of strings,
types of rosin, types of varnish, etc. And then the discussions about
how to PLAY the instruments are anemic by comparison. Again, there are
those who do discuss the techniques, but not nearly in the same
numbers.

My point was that all these things are related and perhaps in the Hi
Fi circles, we see the most fanatical. But this type of general
behavior is widespread and seems to cover just about any area where
art and technology meet.

On an audio or Hi-Fi group surely the discussion should be about things
technical, although plenty seem to look down their noses and say it should
be about music - despite there being countless groups specifically for
that.

--
*(on a baby-size shirt) "Party -- my crib -- two a.m

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article .com,
Karl Winkler wrote:
However, they could discuss the way the gear is set up, i.e. speaker
placement, acoustical treatments, etc.

How you expect that to work? "Where do I place speakers in my almost, but
not quite square room?"

But instead, they talk mostly
about the gear from the standpoint of religious fanaticism. Just like
with politics. I think it's interesting that religion, politics and
brands are often discussed with the same level of fervor.

So you think that talking about speaker placement or acoustical treatments
is much better use of ones time then talking about minute difference between
hifi equipment?

However, my guess is that for the technically inclined people it is much
easier to talk about features of equipment than to talk about, for example,
photography techniques.

Yes, because photography techniques require work and real learning,
along with getting off one's duff and *doing something*, while
features of equipment requires rote memorization.

No, just pointing a photo camera and pressing the button is much less
work than listing the rather heavy high-end hifi equipment.

And even if the participants know the concepts to discuss a piece of music
or a photograph, there is such a wide range in tastes, that a discussion
may not go anywhere.

True. However, it seems to me that more might be learned if people
talked about attempts they've made, the trouble they found in trying
it that way, the results they got, and what they learned.

But how does that help? In talking about selecting hifi equipment or
about photography is is hard work to come up with general principles, and
most of those are already covered in books about the subject.

"What I did to take this picture", or "the hifi equipment I had in the past",
just isn't likely to stimulate discussion.

Just saying 'brand X' is best, is guaranteed to generate fireworks.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

On Mar 8, 9:08 am, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article .com,
Karl Winkler wrote:

Same goes for many of the musician forums. People talk about
instruments, amplifiers, effects, types of wood, types of strings,
types of rosin, types of varnish, etc. And then the discussions about
how to PLAY the instruments are anemic by comparison. Again, there are
those who do discuss the techniques, but not nearly in the same
numbers.
My point was that all these things are related and perhaps in the Hi
Fi circles, we see the most fanatical. But this type of general
behavior is widespread and seems to cover just about any area where
art and technology meet.

On an audio or Hi-Fi group surely the discussion should be about things
technical, although plenty seem to look down their noses and say it should
be about music - despite there being countless groups specifically for
that.

Well, there are technical things then there are technical things. I'm
not sure how useful it is to endlessly argue about one capacitor
dielectric vs. another one, although of course there are times for
such discussions. I just think that the OP's point is interesting, and
there is ample evidence pointing to what he is saying.

-Karl

On Mar 8, 9:31 am, (Philip Homburg) wrote:
In article .com,

Karl Winkler wrote:
However, they could discuss the way the gear is set up, i.e. speaker
placement, acoustical treatments, etc.

How you expect that to work? "Where do I place speakers in my almost, but
not quite square room?"

Why not?

But instead, they talk mostly
about the gear from the standpoint of religious fanaticism. Just like
with politics. I think it's interesting that religion, politics and
brands are often discussed with the same level of fervor.

So you think that talking about speaker placement or acoustical treatments
is much better use of ones time then talking about minute difference between
hifi equipment?

Not necessarily - only that it's interesting in that the discussions
are so lopsided in favor of minutiae rather than information and
discussions most people can use.

However, my guess is that for the technically inclined people it is much
easier to talk about features of equipment than to talk about, for example,
photography techniques.

Yes, because photography techniques require work and real learning,
along with getting off one's duff and *doing something*, while
features of equipment requires rote memorization.

No, just pointing a photo camera and pressing the button is much less
work than listing the rather heavy high-end hifi equipment.

I assume you meant "lifting"? Sure it's easier. But what of it? Is it
easier to create a photograph that people would want to look at than
to just turn on your audio system?

And even if the participants know the concepts to discuss a piece of music
or a photograph, there is such a wide range in tastes, that a discussion
may not go anywhere.

True. However, it seems to me that more might be learned if people
talked about attempts they've made, the trouble they found in trying
it that way, the results they got, and what they learned.

But how does that help? In talking about selecting hifi equipment or
about photography is is hard work to come up with general principles, and
most of those are already covered in books about the subject.

Perhaps, but the drawback of books is that in terms of the technology,
they are usually out of date. Not only that, but the style of
photographs is also out of date. Yes, general principals are well
covered in the books and anyone desiring to learn more about the craft
has a wealth of information from which to learn. But discussions are
different because they are interactive and there may be the
opportunity to hear from someone who has encountered your specific
situation or knows about what you are trying to accomplish.

"What I did to take this picture", or "the hifi equipment I had in the past",
just isn't likely to stimulate discussion.

Maybe not - but that's the core of this thread isn't it? Why aren't
those topics likely to generate discussion?

Just saying 'brand X' is best, is guaranteed to generate fireworks.

Of course, but why?

-Karl

On Mar 8, 1:30 pm, "Karl Winkler" wrote:

Not necessarily - only that it's interesting in that the discussions
are so lopsided in favor of minutiae rather than information and
discussions most people can use.

Karl:

You are taking the romance out of the hobby. The OP is clearly
trolling for a fight as well as stating the common perceptions dressed
up in the authoritative clothing of "A psychologist's view..." But the
perceptions stated are entirely anecdotal. Also typical of the species
(both psychologists and trolls).
_________________________________

Information people can use? Try this:

After some pretty basic parameters are met, there is not a whole
helluva lot to choose between amplifiers, pre-amplifiers, tuners, or
other forms of electronics.

*All* other things being equal, more power is always better than less
power.

Speakers are the weakest link in any system. Effort and attention
expended on speakers will pay off infinitely more than equal efforts
and attention spent on electronics.

Only you are the final judge of any given system.
Said system can only be judge in your listening area with your choice
of material.

After some pretty basic parameters are met, any given CD player is as
good as any other given CD player.

After some pretty basic parameters are met, a good antenna will do
more for your reception (AM or FM) than a fancy tuner. NO tuner can
overcome the limitations of a poor antenna. An excellent antenna can
put most tuners (after said parameters are met) on a near-as-much-as-
matters equal footing. NO tuner will correct bad information coming
in. Good antennas are cheaper than excellent tuners, however not every
location will permit a good antenna. So there is always a reason to
search for the very best tuner one can afford as long as the
limitations are fully understood.

Vinyl is the last true realm of black-magic in audio. The most costly
item in any vinyl system is the vinyl, so the primary attention should
be on protecting it. As it happens, systems good at protecting vinyl
typically do a fair job of reproduction as well. As with speakers,
care, time and attention here has a disproportionately positive
result. As with everything else, only you can judge the results.

After a certain point, improvements are inaudible. Only you can
determine that point.

If it seems not to make any sense, it likely does not improve sound
either.

If it cannot be explained in simple terms and with less than 20 words,
it likely does not improve sound either. Not the details, but the
concept. Codicil: Terms describing similar items should be common to
both descriptions.

If you like it and continue to like it, that is entirely enough.

Expense does not equal quality. Quality is not necessarily expensive.
Codicil A: $1000, some patience, care and attention and a modicum of
pure blind luck will net a better system from eBay, flea-markets and/
or garage sales than from your local high-end shop at 5 x that number.
Exceptions are anything that touches vinyl unless you are a good
technician, and cartridges and stylii nearly always. Codicil B: After
a certain point, increases in quality are at the inverse square to the
increase in cost. That is, the cost curve goes nearly straight up to a
gently sloping nearly linear quality curve.

Many things such as speaker placement, room treatments and similar
items are ultimately only for you to decide.

If you are given advice, you don't have to follow it. If you seek
advice, at least try it, but you still do not have to follow it to the
end of time.

You have the right to change your mind. Always. And for no reason at
all.

If you are not having fun/enjoying the hobby STOP. This isn't a
fetish, after all.
______________________________

Information that can be used, based on my experience. As it is only
based on my experience, it is limited in utility and not to be taken
as holy writ, endowed with great (any) authority or much more than a
vaguely humorous reply to your post.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

In article .com,
"Peter Wieck" wrote:

After some pretty basic parameters are met, a good antenna will do
more for your reception (AM or FM) than a fancy tuner. NO tuner can
overcome the limitations of a poor antenna. An excellent antenna can
put most tuners (after said parameters are met) on a near-as-much-as-
matters equal footing. NO tuner will correct bad information coming
in. Good antennas are cheaper than excellent tuners, however not every
location will permit a good antenna. So there is always a reason to
search for the very best tuner one can afford as long as the
limitations are fully understood.

This idea is not entirely true with regards to tuners. One problem that
a tuner with specs beyond those of "some pretty basic parameters" can
correct, that the best antenna can't correct is the reception of distant
stations with strong local adjacent channel stations on the same compass
heading. Another problem that "some pretty basic parameters" are not
likely protect against are 3rd order RF IM problems in the front end of
the tuner which make reception of certain distant stations impossible, a
better antenna often makes matters worse in this situation.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

On Mar 8, 2:33 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article .com,

This idea is not entirely true with regards to tuners. One problem that
a tuner with specs beyond those of "some pretty basic parameters" can
correct, that the best antenna can't correct is the reception of distant
stations with strong local adjacent channel stations on the same compass
heading. Another problem that "some pretty basic parameters" are not
likely protect against are 3rd order RF IM problems in the front end of
the tuner which make reception of certain distant stations impossible, a
better antenna often makes matters worse in this situation.

Trust you, John, to go there.

"Pretty basic parameters" would include (at least) 3 & 4 gang tuning
systems (or electronic equivalents) able to deal with the above
issues. So, for instance, a Dynaco FM-5 (or AF-6) would not meet those
parameters, whereas a Revox A720 (which is also a creditable pre-amp)
does. As would lots of Kenwoods, Sansuis, any number of Sanyos, of
course Accuphase. Harmon-Kardon, Pioneer, and others come up as well.
Even latter-day Marantz & McIntosh tuners after the "legendary" tube
stuff.

Tube tuners are different beasts and problematic, as the Marantz 10B
is prone to exactly the problems you describe with or without a good
antenna. The Dynaco FM-3 does barely OK, but perhaps better than its
SS descendents, and not as well as the 10B. Some Scotts and Fishers do
better than both. If one must have tubes.

So, with patience, care and attention, a reasonable tuner should be
doable for less than $400. With luck less than $200. Certainly less
than the going rate for a 10B for better performance. Spend the rest
of the tuner-allocated $$ on that antenna. Make sure it has a rotator,
of course.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA