I shouldn't do this, but, - why that gear cost so much

[Soundminded]

I have to disagree with you John. I personally know of shilling and how the game works. I am a manufacturer, discussed it with other manufacturers over the years, and have literally seen the hammer destroy my products because I did not give a special deal. I have witnessed the buddy buddy system, reviewers, and shills.

I have alot more experience, and contacts which backs up my claims.

Cheers.

I do not see the rational logic of a $100,000 or $150,000 turntable and tonearm. I would not swap either of my Empires for Fremer's turntable.

 

[JohnVF]

I have to disagree with you John. I personally know of shilling and how the game works. I am a manufacturer, discussed it with other manufacturers over the years, and have literally seen the hammer destroy my products because I did not give a special deal. I have witnessed the buddy buddy system, reviewers, and shills.

I have alot more experience, and contacts which backs up my claims.

Cheers.

That's not marketing. That's called business. Every business is like that, no matter what you're selling. It's contacts, connections, networking. Those that can't do that stuff fail in any business pursuit.

 

[Isotonic]

I bought a Pioneer SX 950 receiver in mint condition at a garage sale for $20 about 5 years ago. It's an excellent receiver. How much more do you get new for $2000 or $20,000? Why draw the line there and not go for $200,000? What makes rational sense and what doesn't?

We all have to draw a line somewhere with what is rational and what is not. There are people who can afford the high end. They will draw a line at a different place. This is probably another source of disagreement. The insult cuts both ways. People lower budgets are galled by the presumption that they should sell all their gear to buy something with dubious value. High end guys seem to feel that they have to defend their purchases against those who cannot afford it.

In some cases it may even appear to be a rich dude bragging about his expensive things. Generally this is considered rude.

 

[rcspkramp]

Yep, almost all do. And it is amazing how the same mistakes are made over and over in designing, but the marketing hype and so called "designers" claim that since it was done 50 years ago, it must be true.

But marketing beats sound engineering almost every time (I try to never say "all".).

On another forum, there is a string on checking coupling capacitors. Too small a value is used, so the accurate one, which should sound thin, is rejected while the "full" sounding one, which is inferior, is chosen.
So de-evolution of capacitors is occuring.

But they know more than real engineeers, and a little bit of leaven fattens the head.

Cheers.

What marketing are you referring to? Can you provide an example?

 

[Soundminded]

Good for you but other's think your TT is a POS (I have read it on other forums - just trying to show everyone has an opinion about equipment). I have no opinion on it. Just saying what is another man's garbage is another's diamond.

Just saying your opinion is just that opinion - it is not right or wrong AND IT DEFINITELY IS NOT FACT.

There's a guy on another site who sells among other things Empire 208 turntables with his own tonearm. Naturally he "fixes" the Empire turntable itself. What's wrong with the Empire arm? According to him the bearings were too lose. Then he said they were too tight. Is his tonearm dynamically balanced the way the Empire arm is? No but not only didn't he seem to know why that mattered, I'm not sure he knew what it meant. It may not satisfy audiophiles today but Empire 698 with Shure V15Type V MR is all the turntable I'll ever need. 398 with Empire 4000D/III and 999VE works very well too. Nope, I'm not trading for one of those stupid looking things you have to push to start and has a hundred feet of plastic fish tank tubing to connect to air bearings.

 

[stereofanboy]

Assuming desire and appropriate resources, the spending can go on forever for all of me. What I don't like to see is spending in pursuit of something that isn't there, egged on mostly, but not exclusively, by those who stand to benefit financially.

................It is the nuances you are paying for. You are listening to Robertson starting to edge towards Clapton on the stage, which you don’t get with the lesser gear ........................................

.......................Sorry, Adderall just kicked in

Back to the OP. I'm confused. "The Last Waltz" was mentioned. The OP talked about hearing Robertson getting closer (physically) to Clapton. I'm trying to remember that song. Weren't they both playing electric guitars? Did Robertson's amp roll with him? Are you talking about the vocals?

My take is what AK is all about - 'ALL AUDIO - NO ATTITUDE' that latter is what I think is important. Don't like the prices, don't pay it. Just don't look down your nose at people that do - the same can be said from the other side also.

I think the OP's post, which I didn't read because it was more of a rant, does a disservice to this forum and it's members.

ALL AUDIO - NO ATTITUDE forever!!

Funniest post of the thread. It's like saying, "I've never tried mayonnaise because it tastes gross"

 

[JohnVF]

Yep, chokes in or near the decoupling capacitor. One wishes the least amount of reactance in a power supply. A perfect power supply needs to be a constant voltage source with infinite current.

Adding a choke, especially near the de-coupling capacitor adds reactance to the supply, especially since the de-coupling capacitor is nowhere near perfect.

As the musical signal frequency varies, the isolation between the de-coupling cap and previous cap varies, often by thousands of ohms. So what the "top" of Rp (plate resistor) sees varies vs frequency.

I absolutely have to leave, to St. Louis. Will be back in a few days. Can we put this on hold until then?

Just a quick ex. EW, a manufacturer had a video with JJ present, an AES presentation. JJ traveled some 5k miles RT to attend and speak. A few months later, JJ was attacking a competitor of EW's business.

Thanks.

Nothing you are talking about is marketing. Its called "business". Your issue is with how all business is conducted, as nothing you've stated is unique to audio. People work with who they know. Often they got to know these people because of some deal conducted via a handshake and agreement. You give deals to your friends, your friends give back in kind. That is how the WORLD works.

That isn't marketing. That is business. I am a marketer. I know what marketing looks like, and I know both manufacturers, reps, distributers, and dealers in the high end industry. I know what you're speaking of, I just see it from a different perspective. I see business transactions, you see nefarious marketing. I know that people are smarter than you give them credit for. You think you know more than they do how they should make decisions that only impact their lives.

 

[BigElCat]

Most of the really creative and inventive people in this world, certainly the ones I know won't waste their time or energy in this area. There are far more interesting and exciting things for them to focus on. IMO while the reasons high end audio is a dying industry are many and complex, one of them is that there hasn't been any real advances in this technology since introduction of the CD over 30 years ago and it still follows the failed 2 channel paradigm for home audio that's over 50 years old. They just regurgitate the same old ideas over and over again in new packaging.

Huh?

"the failed 2 channel paradigm for home audio that's over 50 years old"....?

It's still going strong, and will be for at least another 50 years. Maybe you don't like it, but it's not a failure.

***sent from my lazyboy recliner via cordless keyboard***

 

[sebrof]

I'm convinced that the vast majority of audiophiles who believe the "high end" marketing have no idea how electronics and electro-mechanical systems work, nor do they have the slightest inclination to bother learning. To them, it IS magic. The "high end" marketers take every advantage of their willful ignorance.

I'm convinced that the vast majority of audiophiles who poo-poo the "high end" have no idea how the brain interprets music, nor do they have the slightest inclination to bother learning. To them, nothing can sound better than the rack of gear they have sitting in front of them. They listen with willful ignorance.

 

[grooveman]

I'm convinced that the vast majority of audiophiles who poo-poo the "high end" have no idea how the brain interprets music, nor do they have the slightest inclination to bother learning. To them, nothing can sound better than the rack of gear they have sitting in front of them. They listen with willful ignorance.

:thmbsp: Sad but true!

 

[DougMac]

I'm convinced that the vast majority of audiophiles who poo-poo the "high end" have no idea how the brain interprets music

How do you know how the brain interprets music? Does that come free of charge with high end equipment?

 

[sebrof]

How do you know how the brain interprets music? Does that come free of charge with high end equipment?

I never said I did.
I don't have high end equipment.
I just copied and reworded what I found to be slightly offensive and completely contrary to the AK "All Audio No Attitude" mantra.

I guess my point is that it has as much to do with neurons as it does electrons, probably more.

 

[Soundminded]

Huh?

"the failed 2 channel paradigm for home audio that's over 50 years old"....?

It's still going strong, and will be for at least another 50 years. Maybe you don't like it, but it's not a failure.

***sent from my lazyboy recliner via cordless keyboard***

Audiophiles and industry knew in the 1960s what some audiophiles don't seem to know today, that 2 channel audio is not adequate. That's why there was a major push for quadraphonic sound in the 1970s. That idea disappeared for one simple reason, it was a technical failure. You could think of it as 4.0 multichannel, the father of all multichannel systems today. Industry retreated to 2 channel afterwards because by that time those who had the brains to advance the technology were doing much more interesting things, a million of them in fact. With computers, aerospace, microbiology and other technological challengers not only far more difficult but much more lucrative. And so the last engineering breakthrough in this industry was the Digital Compact Disc. It's been dead ever since. IMO the people in it are just not up to the challenge so they do the best they can with tweaking what others learned before.

 

[JohnVF]

Audiophiles and industry knew in the 1960s what some audiophiles don't seem to know today, that 2 channel audio is not adequate. That's why there was a major push for quadraphonic sound in the 1970s. That idea disappeared for one simple reason, it was a technical failure. You could think of it as 4.0 multichannel, the father of all multichannel systems today. Industry retreated to 2 channel afterwards because by that time those who had the brains to advance the technology were doing much more interesting things, a million of them in fact. With computers, aerospace, microbiology and other technological challengers not only far more difficult but much more lucrative. And so the last engineering breakthrough in this industry was the Digital Compact Disc. It's been dead ever since. IMO the people in it are just not up to the challenge so they do the best they can with tweaking what others learned before.

Well why don't you get involved and save us, audio superman?

 

[BMWCCA]

Audiophiles and industry knew in the 1960s what some audiophiles don't seem to know today, that 2 channel audio is not adequate.

Two speakers and a good room have worked well for me for over fifty years. My current 4-ways with 18-inch woofers offer all the soundstage I need in my home. I've never put the band or orchestra behind me in a live performance so why would I want to do that in my home? The room is my hall effects. :thmbsp:

 

[Soundminded]

Two speakers and a good room have worked well for me for over fifty years. My current 4-ways with 18-inch woofers offer all the soundstage I need in my home. I've never put the band or orchestra behind me in a live performance so why would I want to do that in my home? The room is my hall effects. :thmbsp:

I must conclude that you've never heard a live symphony orchestra in a great or even a good concert hall. If you had, you'd know why. There's no comparison in the sound between that and what any electronic home sound system can produce.

 

[fulljam]

Most drumsticks are hickory.You might be able to tell if they are nylon,or wood tip.Or,on older jazz records,if the drumheads are calfskin,or (mylar) plastic,but the type of wood? I question this(I play and teach drums for my living).

 

[sebrof]

There's no comparison in the sound between that and what any electronic home sound system can produce.

I think this is true, but I can't really think of another similar type of simulation where it is close to the real thing.
IOW when my kid plays XBox he doesn't mistake it for a real car or real WWII, and when I watch a football game I don't get mixed up and forget that I'm not at the stadium. What's better or more convincing than stereo in the home?

To be honest, if it were much more "adequate" I'd be out of a job, divorced and broke, and my kids would be on crack from lack of fraternal supervision because I'd never get out of my chair.

 

[BigElCat]

Audiophiles and industry knew in the 1960s what some audiophiles don't seem to know today, that 2 channel audio is not adequate. That's why there was a major push for quadraphonic sound in the 1970s. That idea disappeared for one simple reason, it was a technical failure. You could think of it as 4.0 multichannel, the father of all multichannel systems today. Industry retreated to 2 channel afterwards because by that time those who had the brains to advance the technology were doing much more interesting things, a million of them in fact. With computers, aerospace, microbiology and other technological challengers not only far more difficult but much more lucrative. And so the last engineering breakthrough in this industry was the Digital Compact Disc. It's been dead ever since. IMO the people in it are just not up to the challenge so they do the best they can with tweaking what others learned before.

That's plain goofy. Industry has a consciousness, and knowledge?

Two channel is a valid paradigm. High Fidelity is intended to be an accurate reproduction of a live musical performance. The surround stuff is just Hollywood 'ping-pong' effects. You generally don't sit in the middle of an orchestra to listen to it.

 

[House de Kris]

That's why there was a major push for quadraphonic sound in the 1970s. You could think of it as 4.0 multichannel, the father of all multichannel systems today.

Uh, isn't stereo the father (or is it grandfather) of all multichannel systems today?