"Eiron" wrote in message
...
On 29/01/2011 10:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Your understanding of the 'Rolex thing' is on a par with your
understanding of 'high end' vinyl replay.

Rather a good comparison. A much cheaper watch can tell the time as well
if not better than a Rolex. In the same way as a decent CD player (with a
well made CD) p***es all over any vinyl system ever made. The difference
is any fool can tell if a watch is accurate or not. There can be no
argument there.

Any fool with an FM radio. DAB and satellite listeners only have a vague
idea of the time.
It's amusing to ask a few people the time. Those with digital watches are
usually least accurate.
At least the mechanical ones are usually set from an accurate source and
wound up each time they are used,
so it doesn't matter if they keep 'Rolex Time' (a phrase used by a friend
who is a watch dealer.)

I have two watches, a Rotary and a Citizen. Both quartz and the timekeeping
of both is good enough that I rarely need to correct them between the time
changes (GMT-BST). When I do check them I will use one of my MSF controlled
clocks.

David.

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
On 28/01/2011 20:54, Keith G wrote:

As to watches, I have bought 8 (eight) Rolexes in my time; the only one
remaining is my son's Submariner, I wear Timex these days. Context is
everything - back then they were not 'expensive' for me....

It's only a watch. There are plenty of excellent watches that cost a
fraction of the price of a Rolex, so why buy one (unless it's to show
off your wealth).


Your understanding of the 'Rolex thing' is on a par with your
understanding of 'high end' vinyl replay.

A Rolex is for impressing the punters. It won't impress anyone who knows
about watches.


This is a common mistake - Rolexes are more about impressing oneself. They
used to make them in platinum (probably still do) which looks exactly like
stainless steel. I asked my jeweller friend what was the point, he said it
was for when people didn't want others, employees for example, to know it
was an expensive Rolex.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Your understanding of the 'Rolex thing' is on a par with your
understanding of 'high end' vinyl replay.

Rather a good comparison. A much cheaper watch can tell the time as well
if not better than a Rolex. In the same way as a decent CD player (with a
well made CD) p***es all over any vinyl system ever made. The difference
is any fool can tell if a watch is accurate or not. There can be no
argument there.


It isn't all about accuracy, I had a customer who wore a Rolex about 20
minutes fast. When I pointed it out to him once he just shrugged. Probably
never looked at it for the time. What was odd was that the watch was filthy
and being worn in a building site environment - picture the bloke who
presents DIY SOS.

"Rob" wrote

Other reasons include perceived quality of engineering, looks,

Looks? They don't look much to me.

comfort/fit,

What's wrong with the comfort or fit of a sensibly priced watch?

investment

I don't wear my investments on my wrist, far too risky. Why attract muggers?

and (I think this is the most significant) because you can. It's just a
life opportunity after all so why forgo the experience?

Sorry, I really don't understand what you are saying here. Are you *really*
trying to tell me that wearing an overpriced watch is a "life opportunity"
or an "experience". What a sad life one must live if wearing a watch counts
as either.

That experience needn't include status, but if you're really worried about
status David buy a replica.

LOL! I don't get my "status" from my watch thank you very much.

I've been hanging around airports a lot recently and the walks between
terminals are utterly plastered with timepiece-bling (and investment
banking) with price tags that would, I suspect, cover several cooking
Rolexi.

Oh, I'm sure there are even more ridiculously overpriced watches to be had,
for those with more money than sense.

David.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
No, I'm not buying that - in the UK people will buy stuff at any price
and will put up with 'because we can' price hikes without a murmur.
Volvo and BMW are just two car makers that told their dealer network
'don't discount your cars, you don't need to in the UK'.

The only time a dealer gets away without offering a discount is where
demand exceeds supply. This might be occasionally the case with some BMW
and Volvo models - but certainly isn't the case with them all.


Back at the time I'm referring to 'Personal Import' was the thing to do (if
you could be arsed) - ISTR it was possible to save over 3,000 quid on a
mid-range BMW going this route.

Eiron said...

Any fool with an FM radio. DAB and satellite listeners only have a vague
idea of the time.
It's amusing to ask a few people the time. Those with digital watches
are usually least accurate.
At least the mechanical ones are usually set from an accurate source and
wound up each time they are used,

Well I never, I hadn't realised that chronophiles engage in the endless
analogue vs digital argument. Arnie; old bean, an opening for you
there, mucho debating points waiting to be scored:-)

Once you reach a certain age and state of memory deterioration it is
sufficient and can be a reason for self congratulation when one knows
what day it is.

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
m...
Eiron said...

Any fool with an FM radio. DAB and satellite listeners only have a vague
idea of the time.
It's amusing to ask a few people the time. Those with digital watches
are usually least accurate.
At least the mechanical ones are usually set from an accurate source and
wound up each time they are used,

Well I never, I hadn't realised that chronophiles engage in the endless
analogue vs digital argument. Arnie; old bean, an opening for you
there, mucho debating points waiting to be scored:-)

Once you reach a certain age and state of memory deterioration it is
sufficient and can be a reason for self congratulation when one knows
what day it is.


Which is why one of my watches (the one I wear all the time) is a day/date
Timex....

On 29/01/2011 12:18, David Looser wrote:
wrote

Other reasons include perceived quality of engineering, looks,

Looks? They don't look much to me.


Ah, OK, thought you might be a little 'different' :-)

Looks, or I suppose aesthetics, matter to quite a few people, and
nothing necessarily wrong in that.

comfort/fit,

What's wrong with the comfort or fit of a sensibly priced watch?


No idea, simply saying 'status' is only one factor.

investment

I don't wear my investments on my wrist, far too risky. Why attract muggers?


That could be said of virtually any possession you carry with you.

and (I think this is the most significant) because you can. It's just a
life opportunity after all so why forgo the experience?

Sorry, I really don't understand what you are saying here. Are you *really*
trying to tell me that wearing an overpriced watch is a "life opportunity"
or an "experience". What a sad life one must live if wearing a watch counts
as either.


I'm not sure about 'sad', I'd really not like to make that sort of
assumption. But I buy things I don't need, say a different brand of
marmalade, not because I need to or I'm out to impress, but because I'd
like to experience something different. Daft I know, especially when I
have a favourite marmalade, but there it is.

Now, if through no fault of my own my wealth expanded 1000 times, I
could easily make the occasional curious buy just for the experience.
Not one of those bling watches, but maybe an expensive car. Or, a home
with a better room for listening to music.

I'd like to think I'd share a great deal of my new wealth, but that
aside, what would I be supposed to do with it all?


That experience needn't include status, but if you're really worried about
status David buy a replica.

LOL! I don't get my "status" from my watch thank you very much.


Who'd have thought :-)

Rob

Rob said...


I'd like to think I'd share a great deal of my new wealth, but that
aside, what would I be supposed to do with it all?

Fund a research project at a university to conduct the definitive
double blind cable sound test and settle the matter once and for all.

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

In article ,
UnsteadyKen
wrote:
Rob said...


I'd like to think I'd share a great deal of my new wealth, but that
aside, what would I be supposed to do with it all?

Fund a research project at a university to conduct the definitive
double blind cable sound test and settle the matter once and for all.

AFAICR there have been a number of 'double blind' (or, more precisely,
'carefully conducted and assessed') comparisions over the years. And these
have generally satisfied professional engineers such as those in the AES
that - with some specific qualifiers[1] - no differences were audible for
all kinds of amps, cables, etc.

FWIW I've also been involved in similar tests using students and colleagues
that arrived at much the same conclusions when judged by the actual
results. But didn't ever bother to try and 'publish' them because they
would be just "me too" simpler duplicates of ones already done. Academic
and Professional Journals are rarely very interested in publishing papers
that simply say "Yup, we tried the same test as A and B and C and... and
came out with the same conclusions". Too busy publishing more novel and
interesting results.

Regardless of that, some people simply refuse to accept the results of such
tests. Instead then tend to argue "Because the tests don't give a result
which agrees with me, it follows that the tests must be 'flawed'." This for
various reasons. The most obvious being that when they report cases where
they say they "can hear a difference" there is often no way to tell *why*
and if it is for the "reason" they assert since their own comparisons tend
to use methods where a number of other 'causes' than the one they espouse
might have caused a perceived 'difference'.

So, no, such tests *don't* "settle" such matters "once and for all".
Except for many professional engineers and academics who have an
understanding of how such tests need to be done to ensure meaningful
results are likely to be produced.

Oh, and longer-term readers of this group may recall that a large cash
prize was on offer for many years to be given to anyone who managed to show
they *could* reliably hear a 'difference'. *Without* any need to pay up
themselves if they failed. So the only 'risk' to the person was to spend
some time and perhaps be embarassed to find they could not show they could
hear a difference in such a test, despite their claims that differences
were 'obvious' (or some similar claim).

So far as I know, we had one person after another appear and claim they
*could* hear such differences... only to make their excuses and decline
actually engaging in the proposed test. This meant that the problem became
that it was impossible to test the claims "once and for all" because all
the people making claims declined to put what they said to a test! The
problem wasn't the need for "funding" of a Uni project.

Slainte,

Jim

[1] List of simple control factors like ensuring similar gain / levels /
response / etc. And a method that ensures the listener only can judge on
the actual sounds produced. Plus then avoiding various statistical and
method errors that can make results skew or become without assessable
reliability.

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html