Re: The problem with 'borgs



ScottW said:

>> I don't have a turntable or any vinyl. I never owned a high-end turntable.
>> I switched to CDs as soon as the equipment got reliable and affordable.

>I bought my first CD player.. a POS Hitachi... I still have it in my closet
>of crap.

Donate it to Goodwill and take the writeoff.

>> I've only ever owned dynamic speakers (cones). I do like planars but
>> they're tricky to set up. I've heard some that were badly situated. So
>> have you, I understand.

> Planar magnetics like Maggies? I've never had the pleasure to hear 'em
>properly set up IMO.

I've heard several sets of Mags that were set up properly and several that
weren't. It makes a big difference.

>> But that's not what RAO is really about, is it?

> Why not? ... that should be part of it.

It can't be as long as Krooger is here, dumping his Kroo-turds on every
opinion-based thread.

>> Here's my primary view: Nothing
>> about consumer audio is subject to "proof" or "tests". Those are standards
>> for the laboratories and design shops.

> No argument from me. I don't think many feel strongly otherwise.

>> If you think something is overpriced or underperforming, don't buy it.
>> Do you buy music you don't like? Did you buy a car you don't like?

> yeah, for the wife :)

Not to belabor a point, but can one assume that she likes it?

>> Do you go around campaigning to shut down the manufacturers
>> of cars you don't like?

> No, nor audio equipment.

Glad you said that. I'll remember it.

>> There's something nutty about people who rage impotently about Stereophile
>> and expensive cables and all the other flashpoints you folks have.

> Why do you always insist on misrepresenting me?
> I'm not campaigning to shut down anybody.
> I've simply said I'd prefer DBTs in their reviews.
> And I think some equipment is technically a bad joke.

Have you really thought through the DBT issue? Seems to me the costs outweigh
the benefits by a large ratio.

>> Consumers don't do scientific testing because they are buying stuff
>> for pleasure. Consumers don't need to "prove" what they heard
>> really exists if they don't want to.

> I don't think anyone disagrees. But Stereophile and manufacturers
>aren't consumers.

Stereophile is in effect a consumer because they approach equipment from the
consumer's viewpoint. If you subscribe, aren't you glad that John does bench
testing to check on the claimed specs?


>> As an example, why do you think Stewrat Pinkerton is so antagonistic
>> towards high-end audio? He had very similar experiences to John Atkinson.
>> Both experimented with listening tests, and both came to the same
>> conclusions. Yet Stewart is always proselytizing and being nasty about
>> audio, while John has accepted the unresolved issues he's encountered.
>> this Maybe you can explain divergence.

> It's simple. They're not unresolved to Stuart. He knows some things sound
>different but I think he knows why they do.

Wrong.

> John represents a publication that says some things sound different
>but can't say why or show why

If you mean "why" in engineering terms, I'd guess all of that is irrelevant to
most consumers. If you mean "why" in terms of the system setup, people read the
reviews in order to get an idea of how a component can perform in the right
system.

> or even prove that they do.

Nobody can ever prove it will sound different to you. Besides, Stereophile is a
subjective review magazine. Why are you so hostile to that idea?

>He caters to an elitist culture

Say that again.

> that has a bit of a chip that puts
>more value on the ear than the equipment. You can hear it if you're
>astute enough....

You can read it that way if you want to. I choose not to.

>He also perpetuates a belief in magic. That there is much to be learned
>in the field of audio... Engineers don't like magic or the unknown.
>Their job is to make things known.
>And John makes a career to some degree off perpetuating some
>of those beliefs.

This is just you and your own prejudices. Most people people don't see "it
sounds better but I don't know why" as an ascription to magic.

>> The fact that you're so hostile to expensive audio gear prevents you from
>> seeing how demented the hardcore 'borgs are.

>WTF? Where have I expressed hostility to expensive gear?

Let me dig through the archives. Oh wait, here it is:

>He caters to an elitist culture

>I'd love to audition a setup of MBL 101s. I'd like some Sound Labs.
>I'm not to hip on Arcam CD players because I got one that must be broke
>according some. I drooled all over that Mitchell Gyro and Forsell Air
>References that were on Audiogon last I looked. If I'm hostile to stuff .. it
>isn't based on expense...its based on technology.
>Power conditioners for example is just a bunch of crap IMO.
>Interconnects should NOT have a SOUND with good equipment.
>Power cords are a friggin joke. etc.

So they should be taken off the market, right? Or at least have a mandatory
label saying "UNPROVEN TO BENEFIT ANYONE EVER!", right?

>> What do They gain from blowing snot all
>> over audio discussions among Normals?

> Too subjective for me to interpret.

Krooger.

> Most of the "snot" is simple miscommunication IMO.

That's a bizarre viewpoint.

> On the flip side....
> Why do some so called Normals hate engineers?
> Without them... they'd have nothing.
> and Why are some absolutely technophobic?

I don't know what you mean by this. Who on RAO hates engineers? Audio is a
gadget-driven hobby, so how can aficionados be "technophobic"? That's
contradictory.

>>Why do They care who buys what stuff and
>> how much they pay for it?

> They don't.

They do indeed. Haven't you read any of Ferstler's prattle? How about Krooger's
krapola? And Nousiane's drivel? They (and I do mean They) are fixated on how
much stuff costs because They can't afford it.

> They care about who is hawking it and for how much.
> Big difference.

So you don't care about the manufacturers but the merchants offend you?

>> Can't you see how irrational this behavior is?

> What I see as irrational is your representation of their & my
> (which may be different) position.
> It's just wrong on so many levels.

Glad you could put some distance between yourself and the 'borgs.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The problem with borgs
    ... > switched to CDs as soon as the equipment got reliable and affordable. ... No, nor audio equipment. ... He had very similar experiences to John Atkinson. ... John represents a publication that says some things sound different ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: PD170 Line In, Sound Devices 302 to the rescue?
    ... as always, on the sound front, it costs us dearly. ... The audio has distorted a number of times. ... that allows the signal from the mixing desk to be made usable ... Sorry to give you the obvious answer, but if they really want good sound, the best money they can spend is on SKILL, not equipment. ...
    (rec.arts.movies.production.sound)
  • Re: Newb getting cold feet
    ... quit my day job to pursue field audio as a career. ... I've been peeking around the interwebs for job postings, ... Do most sound jobs never even ... don't go into debt for equipment. ...
    (rec.arts.movies.production.sound)
  • Re: Robert desires victimization
    ... High end audio is doing a heck of a lot better than your ABX business. ... sound any better. ... equipment does not do so on the basis of ABX tests that they took. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: Multimedia Audio Controllers
    ... I remembered I had changed the sound card in this ... "John" wrote: ... Audio Controllers. ... I have tried to reinstall the driver from the driver CD ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)