JJZolx wrote: > I wish I had more money too. Those bastards with so much money that they > can buy nice stuff are just ... -stoopid-.
Julf wrote: > Luckily I have gotten to a point in my life where I have been able to > afford some pretty expensive toys (cars, motorcycles, electronics etc.), > but I don't see any point in paying for just a nice box and some silly > marketing. What is "stoopid" is to believe that the high cost, fancy cosmetics and glossy advertisements somehow mean that the equipment sounds better than less costly, plainer finished and unadvertised products. So if one wants to pay for a nice looking piece of equipment by all means go ahead but do not equate high cost with better sound because time and time and time again this has conclusively proven to be absolutely untrue. But then there is the second half of my initial post which mentioned Art Dudley's piece that ties oh so hard to justify sighted listening tests. And everyone knows that in sighted listening tests the better looking, more equipment ALWAYS sounds better than that cheap ugly junk. Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0 Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar Garage: SB3-JVC compact system Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso Server: SBS on dedicated windows 7 computer w/2 Drobos 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
