highdudgeon;143922 Wrote: 
> Actually, our ears work pretty much the same.  So says my wife, the
> doctor.  They vary, with age or exposure to excessive sounds, in range
> and acuity.  I'm 41 and my upper limit is a shade over 14khz.  That's
> pretty good for someone my age, actually, and a minor miracle,
> considering the number of very loud concerts I have attended over the
> last twenty-five or so years.  By the time I'm fifty, statistically, my
> upper limit might be half of that.
> 
> Anyway, that's not the point.  The point is that, in fact, we hear the
> same things.  What differs are our expectations, tastes, etc.  These
> are qualities of the mind, not the ear.  Someone dedicated to rap, say,
> might like a system with a grossly exaggerated bottom end.  Someone
> devoted to the accurate reproduction of high quality classical and jazz
> recordings will be attracted to a system that is linear and highly
> precise.  Someone who specifically desires a warmer midrange and gentle
> rolling off of the top and especially bottom end (not unattractive with
> many recordings) might prefer a tube amp over a solid state amp.  And
> so on.  So: personal expectations lead to realistic choices of
> equipment -- most of which, we hope are made by honest manufacturers
> who will provide accurate information.  
> 
> Case in point: a Rolex or any other fine automatic is akin to a tube
> amp: no matter how complicated, it cannot be as accurate as a quartz
> watch.  This is a given.  They are luxury items and they appeal to us
> for reasons that can vary from a collector's interest to aesthetic
> enjoyment to, well, desire for a status symbol.  However, they don't
> pretend to be the most accurate watches in the world.  They are COSC
> certified and that means they function within certain published
> parameters.  My Explorer II is +1-3 seconds a day.  That means that it
> is off, assuming I keep it wound, by upwards of 15 minutes a year.  A
> $15 casio can do better than that.  So, do I own it because, to me, to
> my eyes, to my sense of time, it is more accurate?  Of course not.  It
> is equally not accurate to everyone.  However, I like it, so I own it.
> 
> I'm a dedicated solid state user and value equipment that is highly
> transparent and accurate.  However, one of the nicest-sounding pieces
> of gear I've heard in the last couple of years is the McIntosh MA-2275.
> If you call Mc and talk to Chuck Hinton, their technical rep, he'll
> tell you in a heart beat that it is not as accurate as the solid state
> stuff...it is for people who want a certain kind of sound.
> 
> Make sense? I'm not flaming anyone here...just trying to be clear and
> to draw what I think are some useful analogies.

excellent post..................................now, how about that
transporter lavry comparison?.........................pretty please?


-- 
tomjtx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28368

_______________________________________________
audiophiles mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles

Reply via email to