In message <5076a55ba7noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> writing at 15:28:44 in his/her local time
opines:-

>> As with most things 'Hi-Fi' turned from being a high value specialist
>> product sold to at least the semblance of a discerning public, to a mass
>> market price sensitive product, where bullshit sold more amps than
>> quality,.
>
>> Personally I blame socialism. Too much disposable income in the hands of
>> people with no taste and even less discretion ;-)
>
>I tend to point at the dealers who valued an exclusive dealership with a 40
>percent markup over actually selling gear that simply did the job with no
>hype or an inflated price. But I guess 40 percent of a high price, and no
>local competition, was simply too tempting.
>
>And of course 'reviewers' who moved to fantasy island when writing their
>articles. :-) The result was a decade or more where anyone who doubted
>the magic brands and bull was obviously not to be taken seriously. Hate to
>think how much damage that did to many makers and engineers who simply
>wanted to produce decent kit, but weren't in the magic circle. Jim Sugden
>springs to mind as an example I recall of someone who decided that the bull
>made the game one worth walking away from.
>
>The remains are with us still. e.g. Mains cables that cost over a 1000 quid
>and have pretty blue lights on them to 'improve the sound', etc. <sigh>
>
>> Having said that, I no longer do, nor do I really care much about the
>> quality of the audio equipment I have.
>
>It matters a lot to me for the reason you give below...
>
>> In the end, I want to listen to the music, not the equipment.
>
>That's why I still care about the audio gear I use, and that I should use
>it in an optimum way. It allows me to enjoy the results more. But I do that
>in ways that do make engineering sense to me. Not by buying eyecandy or
>jewellery for audiophiles. :-)
>
>
>> Being 'in the business' ruined the experience of a live rock concert for
>> many years..
>
>Fortunately I realised after a few years that I was focussing on things
>like watching waveforms on a scope or trying to hear the quack from LS
>cones to find problems, not listening to music. Once I'd realised this I
>changed tack. I now rarely buy equipment and mostly just enjoy the music.
>
>Most of the main gear I use for audio is decades old. Still works fine. And
>unlike a lot of modern kit is easy to fiddle with if needed.
>
>I do still experiment and try to learn more, though. Most recent example
>being a look at using Linux boxes for playing audio. I was not surprised to
>find some problems, but pleased that they could be sorted out OK. If anyone
>is interested, the results are here
>
>http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Linux/Sou...Computing.html
>
>However I do wonder how many people are listening to systems that are
>fudging up the sounds without them knowing this or that they can be
>improved. I was able to generate and measure test files to find the
>problems. But I guess most people can't/don't do this, and then presumably
>either think it is OK or if not, may blame something else.
>
>Slainte,
>
>Jim

Ah the Armstrong 223! I had one of these, and I well remember buying the
stereo decoder add-on and installing it - thus becoming one of the
pioneers in hearing the Northampton stereo 'birdies'.

Funny how 10 (genuine, RMS) watts could practically make your ears bleed
back then, and my home cinema, today, alleges it puts out 850.

But the Rogers Cadet Mk III could certainly drive that pair of 8in
Wharfedale RS/DDs, in their kit cabinet, and the Garrard SP25 with its
cheap Goldring cartridge did the business.

That was entry level hi-fi back then, IIRC; but the gap between that and
the 'finest' radiogram was a yawning chasm, populated by more coloration
than a Disney cartoon.

And the finest radiogram was dearer than that system - though it did
have space to store some LPs at least.

For me, it was never 'money no object' - it was always 'how cheap can I
get good sound?'

What did for the old-style 'hi-fi', IMHO, was a closing of the gap - to
the point where the second-best system in our house, a £180 JVC micro
setup, needs close A/B listening to distinguish it from the Arcam CD/
Audiolab amp/ Spendor BC1s setup I now have; at 'normal' listening
levels at least.

So no wonder hi-fi went three ways - cheap mug's-eyeful stuff that is no
better than it should be; £kkk bling that says 'look at me' instead of
'listen to me'; and the honest but narrowing middle ground where the
good stuff still wins out over the mass-produced - but you have to
concentrate to hear the difference.

Hell, even the best MP3 players sounded like they were underwater until
a few years back - but my iPod Touch (with Sennheiser PX200s, of course)
beats my last-generation Sony Walkman cassette player into a cocked hat
(and doesn't skip like my portable CD player, even though that may be a
little better, objectively and subjectively, if I can keep it still
while I play it).

But what about the modern, subjective, 'hi-fi' review? I have to confess
they send me screaming as being just too unscientific and sometimes
outright bullsh; but even back in the old days, I knew the 'B&K graph'
reviews in HI-FI News were missing something, when the graphs from the
Shure 75EJ stylus looked just like those from the 75ED - yet two seconds
was all it took to tell them apart when you swapped them over.

And it was pretty 'subjective' when I took the Cadet to the local hi-fi
repairer and said that it sounded sort of 'like a lorry struggling up a
hill instead of the car cresting it that it always used to' - and he
found the main power supply capacitor had failed, which sounded like a
pretty plausible explanation.

Do cables make a difference? Sure they do. With Litz cables on my Luxman
M300, whacking the treble over to full would make it oscillate rather
badly.

Do they ever make a *good* difference? Pass. But to put the £30 Tesco
DVD player with HDMI, on our 20in Bravia TV in the bedroom, I wasn't
going to spend the same again on an HDMI cable (let alone the twice
that, like the QEDs that feed BluRay to the 46in behemoth in the
lounge), so I bought a £3.50 one.

Just for grins, though, I tried it in the lounge. None of us could see
any difference, even on my THX demo disc (though in fairness that isn't
BluRay, but other discs we tried were).

OTOH, £20 SCARTs showed a visible difference over in-box freebies.

But none of this was double-blind of course, so don't take my word for
it :-)


--
Roy Brown 'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be
Kelmscott Ltd useful, or believe to be beautiful' William Morris