[AdamCalifornia]

Deleted!

See you on the Deleted

Side of the Moon

Adam

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

if they could, SACD and DVD-A would have replaced the CD, but they didn't (sadly).

Read your own statement man and you will see why my answer is the valid one.

SACD and DVD-A are competitiors for "the standard" that if these idiots got together on instead of fighting over would have been long since a foregone conclusion .
And no,they would not have asked "may I" just like the record lables never asked if there was a preference in formats but decided

"here it is.Buy it or don't but you will have no choice in format,only in the music"

Quote:

I am not even saying one can recreate Alberts Hall in one's home. I am talking about making a Stradivari sound as good as a student violin in one's home, if one is willing to try.

Tonal accuracy is far easier than dynamic or spacial accuracy so yes,you can have a small scale performance or singular instrument reproduceed with uncanny realism in the listening room.If you can not then time to upgrade your gear .

the snake oil and your other comments ? enjoy the day.it is obvious this discussion will not go on from my end since talking to a brick wall is not my way even when that brick wall pretends to be another thing.Do some actual testing bro.Listen to somethinbg then we can have a discussion


Quote:

HI! I've read recently about an audio guru who proposes the following surround system as a standard: SIXTEEN.FOUR if everything goes HIS way!! How has he come with 16? The answer: he's added another 8 speakers to the already existing 8 speakers. What about FOUR subwoofers? See you on the "16.4" Side of the Moon Adam

you so funny ! hahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahaah !

I gotta call the family over so they also can share in your wit !

have fun people.Obviously you have no clue and never will

 

[markl]

Quote:

SACD and DVD-A are competitiors for "the standard" that if these idiots got together on instead of fighting over would have been long since a foregone conclusion .

Oh nonsense. VHS and Beta battled it out and one won and went on to become the standard for years and years. In the case of hi-rez, neither won the public over, they both lost in the free market to the mighty mp3.

 

[maf_au]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose I am not even saying one can recreate Alberts Hall in one's home. I am talking about making a Stradivari sound as good as a student violin in one's home, if one is willing to try. [..] I am not saying there is an easy way to improve upon stereo hi-fi but there is certainly lots of room for improvement, not based on snake oil but firmly established psychoacoustic principles known for decades.

Agree with that. And I think linked in there somewhere, there has to be something about improving the purity of the source, amplification, and transducers.

Albert Hall came up in response to rickcr42's suggestion that it is possible to duplicate the recorded ambience faithfully in the loungeroom. Whilst I think that is probably possible, it also requires a lot of data, and a lot of digital tinkering with the sound both in the recording and in fitting it into the room it's being played back in. Allow me to be openly skeptical that we will get better sound out of that.

The interesting thing is that a lot of ambience is already there in some of the recordings we have, and on occasions of happy recordings, components and rare insight, is available on 2 channel. With good ears and a fat wallet, you can make it happen more often...

 

[maf_au]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42 have fun people.Obviously you have no clue and never will

A few posts ago you were suggesting that you would shortly be selling me some form of multichannel sound.

As one of your self-proclaimed potential customers, I am dismayed at your lack of sensitivity.

 

[Garbz]

This has been an interesting read. Try taking another perspective. Look at one of the recordings on stereophile test disc 2. It was recorded in a church hall and the ambience was clearly there. You could hear a church, and it sounded in my very small room exactly like the Vivaldi concert we had at St Stephens here in Brisbane. There was no digital tinkering and faking things done, just careful placement of microphones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Oh nonsense. VHS and Beta battled it out and one won and went on to become the standard for years and years. In the case of hi-rez, neither won the public over, they both lost in the free market to the mighty mp3.

VHS and Beta doesn't apply because consumers have no fallback. They needed some and went and bought some causing the massive chaos of video stores storing titles in both formats untill one of em went **** up.

The SACD vs DVD-A war is difference since consumers can stay with a CD. There's no question about it. If Sony wasn't taking Toshiba heads on and there was only one high res format it would be very easy to force it upon people. It's called marketing, and before you argue against that even if it doesn't work on you, marketing itself could peddle anything usefull to a crowd.

I am a firm believer that if either format didn't exist, then we'd all be listening to nothing but high-res content.

 

[markl]

Quote:

It's called marketing, and before you argue against that even if it doesn't work on you, marketing itself could peddle anything usefull to a crowd.

"Anything useful". Exactly. No one can force a bad product on people, sorry. (In the case of SACD/DVD-A, it's clear no one can force a *good* product on people either.) As someone who works as a marketing professional, let me assure you of that.

It seems to me people are always over-estimating the power of marketing. And underlieing that is a sort of snobbery and elitism. "Well, that stupid junk doesn't work on *me* of course, but you know all those *other* stupid people out there, the brainless great unwashed? Yeah, they're always falling for that stuff like the dumb sheep they are." It's kind of insulting to the general public, of which people who say these things are members as well. And rest assured, there's some other smart-alec somewhere else saying the same thing about you for "falling for" some other so-called "marketing hype". Doubtless you have in your possession some product that many other people think is all "marketing hype". Just a thought...

 

[Garbz]

Valid points. Indeed I've fallen to maketing quite a few times. I admit it despite going out of my way to avoid things. I come from a business / marketing background too so we should be seeing reasonably the same way.

But marketing isn't the only thing these companies have. Let's assume that SACD was the only product. In mass it should be just as cheap to produce a SACD as a CD. This in theory would allow the format to transparently replace the CD. Now the remaing problem would be to get people to produce them. Sony is in a great position to do this themselves, but the trick it to convince other companies to do it. If the marketing machine went nuts, and i'm not saying a few shows or something, i'm saying DVD is the next comming of Christ kinda nuts I still firmly believe that this format could be theoretcially forced down consumer's throats. Like the DVD it provided considerable benefits. Sound, content, etc, and most importantly backwards compatability. Within a few years SACD would have been the only thing we have and the large companies stop focusing on CDs.

Add another competitor and the fact that both products are not so critical that a consumer can live with out it since they have the CD already, all of a sudden few comapnies will back either format. Thoes that do generally make hybrid players or players for both standards. Toshiba and Sony know that consumers will not be drawn into another format war because they are satisfied with their current products. So in the end, consumers won't make the jump, either company won't spend millions pushing the format because of the already tight margins in consumer electronics, and the industry won't back either format incase it fails and they are foced to change their extremely expensvie mixing desks.

I retract my statement that marketing is a be all and end all for any product, but the fact is that several threads have pointed out most people don't even know what a SACD or a DVD-A is. I still have no doubt that if there wasn't a format war that we'd all be listening to SACD or DVD-A discs now.

Also as an asside which makes things more critical, Sony / Philips CD patents expired recently so none of them gain royalty streams anymore. This would give them every reason to cram the SACD down consumer's throats. If it wern't Toshiba this would almost certainly be the case.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

A few posts ago you were suggesting that you would shortly be selling me some form of multichannel sound. As one of your self-proclaimed potential customers, I am dismayed at your lack of sensitivity.

Obviously again you read what you want to see and something expected from those who like to shoot meaningless wise a*s comments out to try and look like they actually know something.I got over such things in high school but some folks ?

My "I may sell something " was in response to the "don't give up the day job" crack and never once there did I say otherwise.But read things the way you want man.all good
I will say what passes for knowledge or intelligence around here is "ask a question then crack wise" when someone attempts to actually give a fully fleshed out answer.Details are like cannon fodder and better the simplistic "um yes" "er maybe" "uh I dunno could be" .
Why ? I can only think because the alternative,actually thinking or doing some actual research to prove or disprove far too hard.That would take thought and we can not have that in a discussion

Cracking wise is of course very easy.So much so a child can come up withits equal.again,all good and no big.

Could I show research in this area and that over a period of many years ? Point to where this was sooo close to reality by a single off shore company but the public was not ready ?Show how Quadraphonice made everyone gun shy,so much that it took dolby surround to break the multichannel "ice" ?
A big yes.Could I have explained theory and how these things work ? No problemo.Will I ? Not a chance.I care not a bit if anyone learns crap and if being a clown more important than a discusion of pros or cons then the circus has just left town and forgot to pick up all its clowns on the way out

Quote:

Oh nonsense. VHS and Beta battled it out and one won and went on to become the standard for years and years.

Sony shot themself in that foot on that one and the better format did not win the battle.Where it strays from this present format war is the video tape format war longevity was not really long but also it was a brand new thing and something everyone was excited about.
Never before was the ability to record TV programs available in the home so it was known from the start it would happen and the only question was which one would be the standard.The age of "time shifted viewing" was born and freedon to do something else without missing favorite shows,just set the timer and go about your business.
How did VHS win the day ? By sharing technology instead of keeping it to themself.Sony made the Betamax,seven or eight companies VHS so there were choices for the consumer NOT on which SONY model to buy and what featuers they would pay extra for but which company offered the most value per dollar.Sony was,is and most likely always will be a company that likes to keep its designs close and not share anything with others.It is usually "buy a Sony or go without" and that usually spells doom for whatever the "it" is.

The hi-res formats differ in that there is nothing really new offered as far as the average consumer is concerned.They have the CD for music which is good enough for 98% of consumers who think MP3 is the equal and the DVD for movies and so do not see any advantage to having a third disc based format in the home.Nothing special unlike the video recorder which was and the DVD which also was something of the "can not miss" type

 

[maf_au]

rickcr42.

Look, you can jump on me for throwing some humor around if you like, I've got a thick skin, but just remember who said: "have fun people.Obviously you have no clue and never will" No offence, but if you shoot some arrows into the bear cave, you have to expect that you'll get a response.

While I can see you have been following the whole multichannel thing for a long time, and you have got a lot of good information, I am always left non-plussed by multichannel sound for the following reasons:

1. Digititis. Everytime the geniuses add more processing to the sound, we the consumers lose out in sound quality. The technical solution is not always the best one. Just look at CD, and the lengths people are going to to get the information off the CD and back into an analog waveform. $1000 DACs are commonplace now, as are valves and other tweaks to try and win back lost ground.

How will adding more DSP'd channels help?

2. The cost. To do things right, and to preseve the best quality of our source, we have to pay attention to the amplification and the speakers. Just to pluck a figure out of the air, let's say a reasonable stereo setup excluding any source can be had for about $2k. That's Amp/Speakers only, and it equates to about $1k/channel, and maybe $500 per amp channel and $500 per speaker. At that price, I think it could be quite listenable, but nothing high-end, and of course, would depend on the source, which we are deliberately leaving out of the cost equation here.

Let's say the wizzkids find a way of doing great, immersive, ambient recordings with just 7.1 channels.

Explain how we can put that into peoples homes at anything like what they might be interested in spending, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Speakers alone are going to be as much as the previous system, even allowing for substantially smaller surround speakers, but of equivalent quality.

Do you see what I mean? The buffs will go out and buy this stuff, and spend the $7000 plus, if (and only if) the quality is up to scratch. But ma and pa, are going to get lumped with cheap quality gear that will sound worse that the 2 channel stuff they had last century. (or even the 5 channel stuff they might have now) End result? They won't like it or spend any time listening to it, which means the budget gets cut next time they buy, and their purchases of source recordings drops away.

If it's going to succeed, it needs a magic bullet. In fact it needs several magic bullets, mostly around the costs associated with doing things right for sound quality across all facets of the system, and the commitment by the industry to create and deliver it.

I'm a skeptic of multichannel audio, and I can't see this happening in any worthwhile sense.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Look, you can jump on me for throwing some humor around if you like, I've got a thick skin, but just remember who said: "have fun people.Obviously you have no clue and never will" No offence, but if you shoot some arrows into the bear cave, you have to expect that you'll get a response.

Dude.I AM the bear and it is my cave

you did not see the "please do not tease the bear" sign ?

Quote:

1. Digititis. Everytime the geniuses add more processing to the sound, we the consumers lose out in sound quality. The technical solution is not always the best one. Just look at CD, and the lengths people are going to to get the information off the CD and back into an analog waveform. $1000 DACs are commonplace now, as are valves and other tweaks to try and win back lost ground.

We are stuck with digital and no way around it.My actual "in house" surround system is passive all the way so should be telling on what I think of digital.No one asked me if I wanted the CD and just "took" the LP away as an option.Do any think it will be any different once the dust settles and they decide what the next big thing will be ?

Quote:

How will adding more DSP'd channels help?

Because the two front left and right main channels can be totally left alone is why.No changes to the original stereo signal.

Quote:

2. The cost. To do things right, and to preseve the best quality of our source, we have to pay attention to the amplification and the speakers. Just to pluck a figure out of the air, let's say a reasonable stereo setup excluding any source can be had for about $2k. That's Amp/Speakers only, and it equates to about $1k/channel, and maybe $500 per amp channel and $500 per speaker. At that price, I think it could be quite listenable, but nothing high-end, and of course, would depend on the source, which we are deliberately leaving out of the cost equation here.

Not true at all.You specifically do NOT want full range speakers at all postions and in fact only at the L/R front pair is it required in ANY surround sound/multichannel system.The DSP part also nothing and just code.amplification ? What about the multichannel amps presently available for movie surround ? already there so your prices are way out of line for the average consumer and would be the norm for those who must have the best toys so a non issue.Listenable ? Not my call....and neither will multichannel be.It will come in one form or another but come it will and we will not be asked if we want that particular format once the average joe accepts it.The same "joe" that thinks 128 kbps is just fine as a music format.hi end ? They do not knmow the meaning of the word unless talking about a $500 HT Receiver upgrade to their $300 HT Receiver

Quote:

Let's say the wizzkids find a way of doing great, immersive, ambient recordings with just 7.1 channels.

already been done 20 years ago before the technology and memory density of today was even thought of as possible.Before that with 16 channels 25 years ago.All relative.

Quote:

Explain how we can put that into peoples homes at anything like what they might be interested in spending, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Speakers alone are going to be as much as the previous system, even allowing for substantially smaller surround speakers, but of equivalent quality.

How about an ad campaign to get "mom" to allow a measly 2 more channels to an already present 5.1 system ? Sold correctly it is not only possible but probable.

Quote:

If it's going to succeed, it needs a magic bullet. In fact it needs several magic bullets, mostly around the costs associated with doing things right for sound quality across all facets of the system, and the commitment by the industry to create and deliver it.

No magic bullet but a natural progression of technology.In the early days of digital no one beleived we would see a near future where you could make a 1:1 copy of not just music but movies as well.Where 5.1 in the home would be the norm and not exception.A world where you can exchange music instantly electronically anywhere in the world and have it sound not much worse than the FM of the day.where a computer could be set up as a "whole house" server when even the computers of the day were no more than glorified word processors.

Quote:

I'm a skeptic of multichannel audio, and I can't see this happening in any worthwhile sense.

the old saying of "lead follow or get out of the way" holds true.Like it or not multichannel audio will be here in some form and is the only place for the industry to go with two channel being all it will ever be.The history is of tried and failed but never of "quit" so the hi res formats just the most recent attmept but if not this then the next attempt will be coming and what form is anyone guess.

all I said is "theoretically if i am forced into multichannel" how i would like it.The toher alternatives are no more than a special effect,Quadraphonics meet the Digital Age.

Not that I care really.I already have what I need and it suits me fine

 

[maf_au]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42 Dude.I AM the bear and it is my cave you did not see the "please do not tease the bear" sign ?

No, you must be sitting on it

Quote:

Not true at all.You specifically do NOT want full range speakers at all postions and in fact only at the L/R front pair is it required in ANY surround sound/multichannel system.The DSP part also nothing and just code.amplification ? What about the multichannel amps presently available for movie surround ? already there so your prices are way out of line for the average consumer and would be the norm for those who must have the best toys so a non issue.Listenable ? Not my call....and neither will multichannel be.It will come in one form or another but come it will and we will not be asked if we want that particular format once the average joe accepts it.The same "joe" that thinks 128 kbps is just fine as a music format.hi end ? They do not knmow the meaning of the word unless talking about a $500 HT Receiver upgrade to their $300 HT Receiver

Fullrange is not the issue. Quality is. If the spec says that the speaker should be less than fullrange for that position, that's fine, but it should be a good driver in a properly designed, engineered and built enclosure. That costs, no matter what the response spec is.

DSP being code is fine, being transparent is important, and likely as not, it won't be.

The multichannel amps of today already suck. Jamming extra channels in them will only make them more compromised than they already are.

Maybe things won't change so much, and people will not notice the degredation in the sound but the specialist hifi people will rescue what they can of the signal for the rest of us. I've only got about $3k/per channel in amp/speakers for my stereo setup, and it blows visitors away, many of whom wax about the sound, brands and costs of their HT gear before they listen here.

The other saving grace is the rise of the DIY gear, facilitated by the internet. Apart from source, which is increasingly difficult to construct for the average diy'er, you can build a very competent system for a surprisingly reasonable amount of money, as long as you don't place a value on your time.

Quote:

the old saying of "lead follow or get out of the way" holds true.Like it or not multichannel audio will be here in some form and is the only place for the industry to go with two channel being all it will ever be.The history is of tried and failed but never of "quit" so the hi res formats just the most recent attmept but if not this then the next attempt will be coming and what form is anyone guess. all I said is "theoretically if i am forced into multichannel" how i would like it.The toher alternatives are no more than a special effect,Quadraphonics meet the Digital Age. Not that I care really.I already have what I need and it suits me fine

Ok, there are things in there I agree with, and I see your position better now. For a while, you were coming across as an apologist for whatever latest multichannel fad was being hoisted up the flagpole. I never asked for the LP's to be taken away either, but I have to say, living in a dusty environment at the time of the advent of CD, it was not hard to pack them away, even if the sound was not as good as the turntable when it wasn't popping, clicking, and rumbling.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Ok, there are things in there I agree with, and I see your position better now. For a while, you were coming across as an apologist for whatever latest multichannel fad was being hoisted up the flagpole.

Clarity is everything I guess because I am in the exact opposite camp.
If I was into fads I would not to this day be using a fully passive surround sound/ambience extraction type system and on my main rig not even in the signal path until I hit a speaker selector box switch that actrivates the entire matrix so the left/right is "totally" isolated and pure.
I hate having all my music go through something just to add something so knowing this is not to be avoided am voicing what I think is at least the best of the worst knowing what has gone before and what at least worked with the least amount of "gotcha".

Quote:

The multichannel amps of today already suck. Jamming extra channels in them will only make them more compromised than they already are.

Too bold in statement.Quality multichannel amps are out there just as quality two channel amps are.There are also crap multichannel amps just like there are crap two channel amps but even that does not matter.I am running and old Dynaco as my rear channels and even though not close to my front channel SET 300B amp meaningless in use.
the reason is one requirements and the surround parts need only approximate the front to be effective since once sound travels it is changed by whatever surface it refelcts off of.And "back wall" or "side wall" or "ceiling" relections severely limited in both bandwidth and actual tonal matchups.
Like playing to systems side by side and then flipping an A/b switch.There is no doubt who the artist is but there will also be no doubt the two do not sound alike in sirect comparison.Listen to AC/DC on the car radio can compare it to a CD of the same song over the same system and you will have tow different sounds even though the same artist yet you can enjoy both equally.
Have someone talk to you then go into another room and say the same exact thing while you reamina in room #1 and you will KNOW who it is but no way will that person sound the same up close as they will from a distance.

Quote:

Maybe things won't change so much, and people will not notice the degredation in the sound but the specialist hifi people will rescue what they can of the signal for the rest of us. I've only got about $3k/per channel in amp/speakers for my stereo setup, and it blows visitors away, many of whom wax about the sound, brands and costs of their HT gear before they listen here.

I should NOT be forced to spend $3K per channel just to have acceptable sound.If not broken why do I need fix it but that is how things work.Break it then sell me the fix after telling me it is a step up.You can also piss on my leg and tell me it is reaining but I am not beleiving it

Quote:

The other saving grace is the rise of the DIY gear, facilitated by the internet. Apart from source, which is increasingly difficult to construct for the average diy'er, you can build a very competent system for a surprisingly reasonable amount of money, as long as you don't place a value on your time.

DIYers are immitators not innovators mostly.No more than tweak masters (?) who take the commercial ideas of others and plug in fad or boutique parts.More lemming than anything else once you "look under the hood" and actually see the same-ness in parts.Improvement ? At least not in the wallet area.Only the audio industry can sucker us into thinking a $50 RCA jack actually sounds better thana $45 RCA jack and the response is not "Yeah right ! Find another sucker pal".
Where else would you find a group that will pay $200 more for a cable just because it has a pretty $2 cover on it ?That MUST use techno babble to deveive and confuse or be recognised for the con artisits they are ?That eve the "so called" diyers copy and build copies not design so imitate the imitators and moutht he same babble ?that will with a straight face say

"this sounds pretty good and this sounds pretty good so it I combine the two with something else that sounds pretty good the end result MUST be better and then I can say it is something new and everyone will want one"
Common sense ? yeah.OK man.In my dreams maybe.Sameness and lemmings with not an original thought anywhere except on the "edges" and those are the ones who get attacked for being nuts.The outlaws and innovators usually do until there is a consensus and the "lemmings" find a new leader to follow but they are always palying catch up instead of actually leading.I respect "true" DIY which is an attempt at bettering the art but not much of what passes for it.


Quote:

it was not hard to pack them away, even if the sound was not as good as the turntable when it wasn't popping, clicking, and rumbling.

My vinyl system whips the hell out of my "fully tweaked and optimised" CD system head to head to this day and it is a modest one having not a lot of loot in it except in the phono stage where transformer costs are the sole reason for this
I don't care to have a sample of the music which is all digital is.What other time in the history of hi fi could someone look another person in the face tell them someothing is PERFECT (at 14 bit yet ) then a year later tell them "we need to add noise to make it better" in the attempt to "fool" the end user into thinking he really was not lied to then this "perfect medium" needs more bits,then more,then more and now is "not good enough" and must be replaced even though you can not improve on perfection so which is the lie ?
That it is not perfect (obviously) ? That hi-res is way better yet they need the "multichannel hook" to try and convince us ? That it does not matter because we will get whatever they give us and then we must make the system conform to the medium just to get it to sound good but by that time there is a new format being pushed.
Took a long time to get to good sounding digital from a crap sounding "perfect" medium and just when things are being sorted out and consensus reached on what is and is not good digital they want to put everyone back to square one but this time complicate it so much the ones that always push the improvements will be shut out.Shut out because the chips are an all inclusive closed system and not open architecture so experimentation off the list.
Buy the chip,put it in the product,close the lid,sell it.Screw whoever does not like it is where we are headed.Everything in a sealed box,the large scale integrated circuit (LSI) chip that at most the high end guys will be able to put a pretty cabinet around to stand out once the chips go to full scale production so the cost can come down.
Real step forward there :Tube stage and a pretty chassis combined with ultra expensive RCA jacks and all for the bargain price of $9,000 for the external "fix" while the real problem is locked away in the chassis in a huge chip that no one has access to the internals of so are stuck with.Of course they will tell us it is better so we mostly will lie to ourselve and agree as always even though we sjould by now know better

7.1 Surround (even though said i would not

)

Left/center/right front the 3.0 part-sets the stage,the performance area
left/right side brings us to 5.0-fills in the area between the back wall and the stage,this is the actual audience area
left/right rear the 7.0-sets venue size
A "true" sub woofer,deep and accurate bass is a must for realistic portrayal of "size"

 

[maf_au]

Hey rickcr42,

No-one's 'forcing' you to spend anything. If you are happy with what you have at whatever it cost, go for it. I happen to be reasonably happy with my kit, but I certainly don't consider it high-end.

Of course there are exceptional HT amps, but not in any reasonable price range. It's good to see that there are a growing number of HT processors on the market, at least you can choose your own amplification now.

You're wrong about DIY. If it was ever as you describe, it certainly isn't now, the internet has changed all that - it's a very co-operative environment now. Yes, you can copy commercial designs, but there are plenty of unique designs that work well too. DIY is not neccesarily about innovation. It's about getting your fingers dirty in the nuts and bolts of electronics, surprising yourself (hopefully) with the results, probably saving money if it all works out. and hey, maybe even learning something in the process. There are many very talented people involved and some even effectively donate their commercial designs to the DIY community. The beauty of DIY is the ability to have some custom gear that is designed or tweaked in some way to suit your own situation. Some of it leaves name-brand midrange gear lying in the dust for a fraction of the price.

I can't understand what you are on about regarding the rca jacks and speaker cable. The general DIY scene is more about building your own cable at a fraction of the cost of the fancy stuff, and tossing or rebuilding it until the results match expectations. I haven't spent any time on that, I'm not a big fan of cable tweaking. As far as the expensive rca jacks etc, some of these items do have merit based on their superior functional design, and they often turn up in the DIY space as group-buys where a bulk order is arranged at substantial discount from retail. I just buy reasonable parts from the local electronics store - so do most DIYers I've come across.

Lemmings? There you go shooting arrows again.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

No-one's 'forcing' you to spend anything. If you are happy with what you have at whatever it cost, go for it. I happen to be reasonably happy with my kit, but I certainly don't consider it high-end.

Oh no ? I was not "forced" to buy a CD player if I wanted new recordings ?What were my choices ?
My system IS high end but being 98% DIY not comparable in $$$ to another and built to suit me anyway so my idea of what is high end to please me only

Quote:

Of course there are exceptional HT amps, but not in any reasonable price range. It's good to see that there are a growing number of HT processors on the market, at least you can choose your own amplification now.

reasonable price is relative and especially so when dealing with audiophiles which is the type of human that inhabits an audio web site/forum.Paying $100 for an interconnect and with a straight face discussing if a $500 one will sound better is not exactly normal people.The rest ? The average consumer who will shop at Circuit city ? They will take whatever is offered and not worry about it one bit.

Quote:

You're wrong about DIY. If it was ever as you describe, it certainly isn't now, the internet has changed all that - it's a very co-operative environment now

It is you who are wrong.I not only am into DIY but moderate the DIY forum here at head-fi and have been active in DIY for over thirty years.I KNOW what passes for DIY and what IS DIY.
and one thing it is not is amatuers that know how to solder or stuff a pc board doing any "innovating" nor is it adding "parts" of other ciruits together in combination then calling it "new" rather than design from scratch with an end purpose,some actual plan of what the goal is.
What you call a co-operative environment is leader and followers or better put sellers and buyers with an original thought very rare.I wish it were not so but it is mostly.

And again man.For you to preach DIY to me means you have not done the minamal research to know the person you talk with.Kinda like telling the chef how to cook a burger

Quote:

I can't understand what you are on about regarding the rca jacks and speaker cable. The general DIY scene is more about building your own cable at a fraction of the cost of the fancy stuff, and tossing or rebuilding it until the results match expectations.

Again wrong.Sound quality takes a back seat to "the look" and that is fact.Far more effort is put into wrong areas if sonics were the important part but it is not.Yes you can build a $500 cable for $75 but an "ugly" $10 cable will whip both their a*ses though no one will build one.Just not cool enough

Quote:

As far as the expensive rca jacks etc, some of these items do have merit based on their superior functional design, and they often turn up in the DIY space as group-buys where a bulk order is arranged at substantial discount from retail. I just buy reasonable parts from the local electronics store - so do most DIYers I've come across.

Again wrong.A simple 10 for a buck nickel plated phone jack will sound just as good as the average gold rca jack but being "not gold" and too cheap will not be used even though sonically the equal or in some cases better.Not about how things function or sound at all and that in most of the DIY community who should know better but don't.
AND at the consumer end where status is everything and the appearance all.Why else you think tube gear has gone from everything either caged up or internal to "look at the pretty tunes" top mounted designs ?
Style over substance is why and no more.There is no valid reason for a commercail amp tobe designed that way other than style points and there is no way to convince me there is any "sonic" benefit.We get what we deserve which is conned.

Quote:

Lemmings? There you go shooting arrows again.

Lemmings and if I shoot arrows at least my aim is true.Always on target


In high end audio you gotta go along to get along or it is DARTS and ridicule but follow the crowd and you are "in" and cool.Not me talking but me observing and it is right there in every single audio forum with maybe this one the worst offender when it comes to fanboyism and FOTM .


"ooooh ! that looks great ! I bet it sounds good too" is the norm here rather than "Damn that sounds good ! Doesn't hurt that it looks good too" ............................