do you dwell in audio Hell?

[wkhanna]

LINK to what i thought was an interesting article concerning the 'addiction' most of us here share....

[Alaric]

Good read. My criteria is "Do I like it?" Not very scientific , but if I don't like it the reasons don't matter.

[wkhanna]

so when was the last time you & i cared what anybody else thought? :roflmao:

[Alaric]

Well , it was some time before the divorce. LOL

[Lex]

My accountant strongly advised against getting involved with another woman Lee. Who can you trust if you can't trust your accountant? Certainly not your Lawyer! LOL.

Audio? I've fought this war since the 70s Yeah Yeah Yeah...

[wkhanna]

when interviewing potential accountants, i asked, "what is 1+1?"

i hired the one who answered, "what do you want it to be?"

[Ovation]

I'm pretty utilitarian when it comes to audio gear. My criteria are as follows:

Does it sound better than what I already have?
Can I afford it?

If I can answer yes to each, then I buy it. If not, then I don't.

For me, it's about enjoying the tunes and the hunt. I go to audio shows and play with stuff I could never afford (for fun) and my shopping research when I want to upgrade can take years (around 18-24 months on average, maybe a bit longer for speakers), but ultimately my two criteria are always in play.

[Alaric]

My accountant strongly advised against getting involved with another woman Lee. Who can you trust if you can't trust your accountant? Certainly not your Lawyer! LOL.

Audio? I've fought this war since the 70s Yeah Yeah Yeah...

My lawyer? You should see my lawyer. OMG. She is , shall we say , quite the looker.

[JonMarsh]

I must lead a very simple and deficient life, as I have no lawyer, and no accountant. (OTOH, my GF does. Though neither is a looker.)

OTOH, I did like the article and agreed substantially with the general gist, though I'd make the argument that a really accurate and transparent system will make some of those funky recordings more memorizing if only because they reproduce what's there with as much clarity and presence as you can hope for. BUT, I do agree any system that homogenizes stuff and makes it all sound the same in some regards, is probably not be to be trusted, unless that really, really is the flavor you like.

Example; tube gear can sound very fun and euphonic, but if you listen to much live acoustic music, it's clearly adding stuff in that wasn't there. Same thing with the imaging prized by vinyl people at times; there are some funny phase things that are going on in a lot of phono cartridges that is euphonic and potentially addictive- but did it originally sound like that? OTOH, a lot of digital (i.e., most) has serious limitations to reproduction of an acoustic space, and frankly doesn't hold a candle to my old vinyl system from the 70's in that regard- Rabco arm, Denon DL103 cartridge, my own design phono preamp (ultra accurate passive RIAA processing). Only the most recent (last 5-7 years) digital gear has been fixing that, and rubidium based re-clocking.


These opinions are purely my own and do not represent the management or ownership of HT Guide, and possibly not most of it's members. No one paid for this announcement, but I approved the content of this message in it's entirety.

[Alaric]

My vinyl rig from the 80s is still my favorite source of all time. My current disc spinner (in my sig) has done a remarkable job of convincing me that digital source material doesn't have to be horrid noise. That was not an easy conversion. It still doesn't hold a candle to a Yamaha PX 2 linear TT with a Klipsch(!) Ruby cantilever cartridge , though. Jon , if you remember old gear , the Yamaha fed a Tandberg amp and pre amp stack (forget the series , 3xxx 150 wpc) and a pair of A/D/S L1530 speakers. I'm a sucker for soft dome mids and tweeters. That rig caused my mother to stop and say "Oh my God. Led Zeppelin has some very good musicians!" LOL The CD players I tried through that system convinced me digital had no future. And that's why I don't buy lottery tickets.

[madmac]

I must lead a very simple and deficient life, as I have no lawyer, and no accountant. (OTOH, my GF does. Though neither is a looker.)

OTOH, I did like the article and agreed substantially with the general gist, though I'd make the argument that a really accurate and transparent system will make some of those funky recordings more memorizing if only because they reproduce what's there with as much clarity and presence as you can hope for. BUT, I do agree any system that homogenizes stuff and makes it all sound the same in some regards, is probably not be to be trusted, unless that really, really is the flavor you like.

Example; tube gear can sound very fun and euphonic, but if you listen to much live acoustic music, it's clearly adding stuff in that wasn't there. Same thing with the imaging prized by vinyl people at times; there are some funny phase things that are going on in a lot of phono cartridges that is euphonic and potentially addictive- but did it originally sound like that? OTOH, a lot of digital (i.e., most) has serious limitations to reproduction of an acoustic space, and frankly doesn't hold a candle to my old vinyl system from the 70's in that regard- Rabco arm, Denon DL103 cartridge, my own design phono preamp (ultra accurate passive RIAA processing). Only the most recent (last 5-7 years) digital gear has been fixing that, and rubidium based re-clocking.


These opinions are purely my own and do not represent the management or ownership of HT Guide, and possibly not most of it's members. No one paid for this announcement, but I approved the content of this message in it's entirety.

Hehehehe!!!! I love the disclaimer at the end !!! Hilarious !