dgt@myrias.UUCP (David Tang) (10/30/85)
On Oct. 28 I attended a Linn/Naim seminar held at a local dealer here in Edmonton, and conducted by a Canadian representative of Linn/Naim. I would like to repeat some of the points that were brought up, and perhaps solicit an opinion from some of you net.audio subscribers. Basically what was said can be summed up by the following statement: Vinyl records (as opposed to tape/cd) provide the best possible reproduction of music. It then follows that the backbone of a good system lies in the record player. Elaborating, any audio system should obey the following hierarchy: a) Turntable - the basic chassis/motor/platter assembly b) Arm - next in importance c) Cartridge - in the record playing system this is the least important d) Amplifier - preamp/amp combination of course e) Speakers - least important overall Thus when purchasing an audio system, the bulk of one's budget should go towards the "record player". (An example would be say in a budget of $2000, $1600 should be spent on the table/arm/cartridge and the rest on amplifier/speakers.) This is in sharp contrast to recommendations in the past that half of the budget be spent on speakers. Comparisons were performed in a 'demo' fashion, as opposed to double-blind testing. It is left up to the reader to draw Hir own conclusions as to the validity of results derived from this technique. In more or less chronological order, here is what transpired: 1) The effect of a change in tracking force on the music. The claim is - increased tracking force is better. 2) Linn Sondek/Basik arm/cheap cartridge vs. Linn Sondek/Ittok arm/cheap cartridge vs. Linn Sondek/Ittok arm/better cartridge. The claim - increasing levels of performance. Also the first combination is con- sidered a better starting point than say a Rega turntable/Audio Technica AT37E cartridge. The recommended order in upgrading is turntable, arm, then cartridge. 3) The superiority of Linn's new preamp/amp combination was demonstrated. Each channel had its own power supply, and the phono section could also be powered separately. 4) The rep next attempted to demonstrate the affect of having a third undriven speaker in the room. Supposedly, the speaker cone(s) would respond to movement of air by the driven speakers and distort the music audibly. What followed next was a query of each person attending as to what they had for a system, and recommendation as to upgrades. Please note that all the demonstrations were done using Linn/Naim equipment. What we were told to listen for was not increases in bass and/or treble response, or imaging, or depth of soundstage, etc., but changes in the flow of the music, whether the singer appeared to begin singing when you expected Hir to, whether the background violins could be heard while listening to the horns. In each case, we were told that each change was audible. I must admit to not being able to hear any of the effects. The suggestion that a difference was audible with each change was strong enough that I actually thought I did several times, but I am not certain of that. I will not discredit any of the points raised, but neither will I support them. I merely report them to you and ask you to formulate your own opinions.
shauns@vice.UUCP (Shaun Simpkins) (10/31/85)
> > On Oct. 28 I attended a Linn/Naim seminar held at a local dealer > here in Edmonton, and conducted by a Canadian representative of Linn/Naim. > I would like to repeat some of the points that were brought up, and perhaps > solicit an opinion from some of you net.audio subscribers. > > > Basically what was said can be summed up by the following statement: > Vinyl records (as opposed to tape/cd) provide the best possible reproduction > of music. It then follows that the backbone of a good system lies in the > record player. > > > Elaborating, any audio system should obey the following hierarchy: > > a) Turntable - the basic chassis/motor/platter assembly > b) Arm - next in importance > c) Cartridge - in the record playing system this is the least important > d) Amplifier - preamp/amp combination of course > e) Speakers - least important overall > Don't believe anything you hear from Linn/Sondek. Actually, don't believe anything they say you can hear. I believe that these folks were responsible for the claim that digital discs were so bad that you couldn't even hear the rythmn, much less music. Linn has been doing poorer over the past few years. The dealers in my area that used to stock Linn have switched to other, less expensive, equal quality and more reliable (!) turntable brands. Apparently good old Ivor can't handle the digital age. Quite frankly, I'd spend more money on the cartridge than the table and definitely not over $600 for the pair, and a TON of money on the speakers, if they were worth it. If I sound to be rabidly anti-Linn, I am. I think they make a good product but their approach is distinctly audiophobe and opprtunistic. What you just attended bears all the earmarks of a religious cult's sales pitch, what with all the normal words with special meanings and the "well-meaning" expert's guiding words as to what you should be listening for. I'd think that seminars like this were funny, but the sad thing is that many people are taken in by this unadulterated horsepuckey. The wandering squash, -- Shaun Simpkins uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!vice!shauns CSnet: shauns@tek ARPAnet:shauns.tek@rand-relay
herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong) (11/02/85)
In article <187@myrias.UUCP> dgt@myrias.UUCP (David Tang) writes: > Basically what was said can be summed up by the following statement: >Vinyl records (as opposed to tape/cd) provide the best possible reproduction >of music. It then follows that the backbone of a good system lies in the >record player. unsurprising given that Linn makes turntablesand such. of course what they say doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless all they played were direct to disk records. even so, there are so many flaws in analog reproduction that it is amazing that it works as well as it does. > Elaborating, any audio system should obey the following hierarchy: > >a) Turntable - the basic chassis/motor/platter assembly >b) Arm - next in importance >c) Cartridge - in the record playing system this is the least important >d) Amplifier - preamp/amp combination of course >e) Speakers - least important overall this is the MEANING OF AUDIO according to Linn. they have to justify why anyone would spend $1500 CAN for a Linn, after all. >Thus when purchasing an audio system, the bulk of one's budget should go >towards the "record player". (An example would be say in a budget of >$2000, $1600 should be spent on the table/arm/cartridge and the rest on >amplifier/speakers.) This is in sharp contrast to recommendations in the >past that half of the budget be spent on speakers. as in any system of any kind, the performance is determined by the weakest link. what kind of speakers and amplifier would you expect to spend the remaining $400 on? there is a very good reason for the many recommendations on how to allocate your budget, it gets you the best sounding system for a certain amount of money. of course, if price is no object, then no-one can make a reasonable recommendation on how to apportion your money. > Comparisons were performed in a 'demo' fashion, as opposed to >double-blind testing. It is left up to the reader to draw Hir own >conclusions as to the validity of results derived from this technique. and leave the door open to be misdirected by purely psychological effects. you may have been aware of the possibility and negated the possibilities, but what about the people that weren't? even if 1 in 100 people who attend these buys a Linn, the marketing effort would have been tremendously successful. i have had a dealer try to sell me a Linn for over a year. until he can prove to me conclusively that the Linn is better than my Technics (yucko Jap direct-drive table), i can't see spending the money. i'd rather get a better cartridge, or a very nice CD player, or a reel-to-reel, or ...; you get the point. > In more or less chronological order, here is what transpired: > >1) The effect of a change in tracking force on the music. The claim > is - increased tracking force is better. for what? not for record wear (though of course, too little is bad too). any cartridge will track better at the higher end of the recommended tracking forces, without exception. tracking better automatically reduces various kinds of distortion. whether the record wear is acceptable is another question. >2) Linn Sondek/Basik arm/cheap cartridge vs. Linn Sondek/Ittok arm/cheap >cartridge vs. Linn Sondek/Ittok arm/better cartridge. The claim - >increasing levels of performance. Also the first combination is con- >sidered a better starting point than say a Rega turntable/Audio Technica >AT37E cartridge. The recommended order in upgrading is turntable, arm, >then cartridge. given the number of cartridges i have owned, i find this in direct opposition to both my experiences and also the experiences of friends into audio. it also in counterintuitive, but that hasn't stopped a lot of audio equipment from being sold. >3) The superiority of Linn's new preamp/amp combination was demonstrated. >Each channel had its own power supply, and the phono section could also >be powered separately. how was it supposed to be superior? i have listened to Naim equipment before and i always thought it was overpriced and not especially different from anything else selling at that price point. snobbery of high end audio is all it really aims at (my opinion). >4) The rep next attempted to demonstrate the affect of having a third >undriven speaker in the room. Supposedly, the speaker cone(s) would >respond to movement of air by the driven speakers and distort the music >audibly. no more so that the presence of people in the room, or the flexing of the walls of the room. > What followed next was a query of each person attending as to >what they had for a system, and recommendation as to upgrades. based upon what criteria? i could tell you that you need a Monstersonic SuperFantasticAmp all day, but would you believe me if i also told you that i make and market the things myself? the person telling you all these is less than objective. > Please note that all the demonstrations were done using Linn/Naim >equipment. What we were told to listen for was not increases in bass >and/or treble response, or imaging, or depth of soundstage, etc., but >changes in the flow of the music, whether the singer appeared to begin >singing when you expected Hir to, whether the background violins could >be heard while listening to the horns. In each case, we were told that >each change was audible. this is well known in psychology. the power of suggestion is very strong. Herb Chong... I'm still user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... New net address -- VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH UUCP: {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie CSNET: herbie.yktvmh@ibm-sj.csnet ARPA: herbie.yktvmh.ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
gt3403b@gitpyr.UUCP (Ray Chen) (11/04/85)
Sheesh, I thought I'd heard propoganda before but this is absurd.
Ok. Let's see what the Linn people said here:
1) Vinyl records (as opposed to tape/cd) provide the best possible reproduction
of music. It then follows that the backbone of a good system lies in the
record player.
2) The majority of a stereo budget should be spent on turntable/arm/cartridge.
(The example given was spending $1600 on the combo and $400 on the speakers,
amp and preamp.)
Demos were done (demo-style -- no double-blind or single-blind testing)
and the following were supposedly demonstrated:
1) The higher the tracking force the better.
2) The "superiority" of the Linn pre-amp (whatever the hell that means and
superior to what we don't know).
3) The effects of an undriven speaker on sound. Specifically, the "fact"
that an undriven speaker cone will respond to the air movements and
distort the sound audibly.
Boy, I have so many gripes with Linn now I don't even know where to start.
From the top, then.
Points 1 & 2 are the best examples of "proof by outrageous assertion"
that I've seen in a *long* time.
1) I don't know *anybody* who will say flat-out that analog is better than
digital. I know of lot of people (including myself) who will say that
analog is better than digital AT THE MOMENT BECAUSE (and give a list
of reasons). However, almost all of those people will agree that given
time, digital will win.
This is because the digital media is capable of reproducing music
more accurately than the analog media given the distortion that is
introduced when an analog signal is processed/amplified/reproduced.
The advantages of digital are inherent properties of the way digital
signals are stored.
2) This is just plain silly. A stereo system is as good as its
weakest component. A $1600 turntable setup and a $1000 amp/preamp
combo are going to sound like crap coming out of a pair of
$100 el-cheapo speakers. Ditto for the $1600 table, $1000 speakers
and the $100 receiver. The components of a stereo system form
a signal processing path with each component in the signal path
adding distortion and noise. Having n-1 perfect components does
you very little good if the nth component is so bad that the distortion
it generates dominates the signal coming out of the stereo.
In general, I recommend the ratio 1:1:1.5 (table/arm/cartridge:preamp/
amp:speakers) as a good rule-of-thumb ratio. It should hold up pretty
well up to the $2000 range. After that, though, you have to really
watch what you're getting for the dollar. How much you put into
a CD player or tape deck depends on your tastes.
Now, to the demos. This is what really burns me. Linn takes a bunch
of people into a room, tells them what they should here, makes them
listen to something, and since what they should hear is so obviously
and authoritatively true (after all the Linn rep said it was true and
he knows what he's doing, right?), a lot of people will think they
hear something no matter *what* actually went on.
I'll leave tracking force to those better qualified to deal with it.
The superiority of the Linn preamp, I won't even bother with. Superior
to what???
The myth of the "undriven speaker" is something else though. Sure,
an undriven speaker cone will move in reponse to the air and cause
some sort of effect. However, did the Linn rep also tell you about
the effects of open or closed doors in the listening room? Rugs?
Open or closed curtains behind the speakers? Wandering cats?
The empty beer can on your table?
In other words, this is a myth that has been propogated
by Linn and some high-end snob-shops. (It gives salesmen a great
excuse for not A/B'ing speakers as the cones in the other speakers will
distort the sound so badly that you won't be hearing what the speakers
really sound like...)
As a matter of fact, this topic was discussed at *length* (sigh) sometime
last spring(?) in net.audio. You may want to ask if somebody archived it.
(Hey, I know sites that archive net.FLAME...)
In general, things are so fuzzy in audio, you shouldn't believe
any absolute statements, especially by a manufacturer who has vested
interest in making you believe what they want you to believe. (Does Linn
make speakers?)
Listen to them, try and figure out if there's something they said that might
make sense, and try and test it independently by listening or measuring
if you can get the equipment.
Anyway, enough for now.
Ray Chen
gitpyr!chen
UUCP: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!chen
USnail: Georgia Insitute of Technology, Box 33403, Atlanta GA, 30332ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (11/04/85)
> In general, things are so fuzzy in audio, you shouldn't believe > any absolute statements, especially by a manufacturer who has vested > interest in making you believe what they want you to believe. (Does Linn > make speakers?) Yes, they do.
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (11/04/85)
[Commenting on a Linn/Naim presentation...] > ...I would like to repeat some of the points that were brought up, and perhaps > solicit an opinion from some of you net.audio subscribers. Please note in what follows that I'm responding to the Linn/Naim claims, as reported in the parent article. If I flame, it's at Linn, not at the person who posted the article, who was only asking us for comment. Linn/Naim was discussed in net.audio some time back. They were generally not well received (putting it euphemistically). The most noticeable difficulties with what they say and do: - They are rabidly, irrationally anti-digital. - A large portion of their marketing approach rests on convincing people that the entire audio industry has hoodwinked them--and that Linn/Naim is (only slightest of hyperbole) the only pair of reputable hifi equipment manufacturers in the known universe. - Their advice flies in the face of generally established principles of music reproduction, engineering, and testing human response. If it suits them, they will make claims which are demonstrably impossible. - Their equipment is focused on endless refinement of (mostly) irrelevant parameters. > Basically what was said can be summed up by the following statement: > Vinyl records (as opposed to tape/cd) provide the best possible reproduction > of music. It then follows that the backbone of a good system lies in the > record player. ...which is a notably good view for Linn, which is mostly in the business of turntables, tonearms, and cartridges... > Elaborating, any audio system should obey the following hierarchy: > > a) Turntable - the basic chassis/motor/platter assembly > b) Arm - next in importance > c) Cartridge - in the record playing system this is the least important > d) Amplifier - preamp/amp combination of course > e) Speakers - least important overall YES! This is definitely the order in which things should work! Connecting speakers directly to the cartridge produces vastly inferior sound. Seriously, what they have supplied is the path through the system (using some selective interpretation to decide that the turntable comes first). That doesn't prove much, though...a sequence does not dictate a hierarchy. > Thus when purchasing an audio system, the bulk of one's budget should go > towards the "record player". (An example would be say in a budget of > $2000, $1600 should be spent on the table/arm/cartridge and the rest on > amplifier/speakers.) This is in sharp contrast to recommendations in the > past that half of the budget be spent on speakers. This is one of their major bogus arguments. Let us say that the turntable has the first opportunity to help create good sound or to introduce problems (distortion...). That doesn't mean that most of the money should go to the turntable. In fact, most of the money in an audio system should go into the components which produce the best improvement in sound when you spend more money on them! (Did that sound like a tautology? I hope so.) Some things are hard to make, so you have to spend more money to get them right. The main reason for the recommendation to spend lots on speakers is that speakers have a very hard job to do. When you start from modestly- priced components and start upgrading for better sound, improving speakers is one of the places your dollar does the most good. (Of course, there's another criterion for vinyl--your turntable/arm/cartridge should be good enough not only to produce good sound but not to damage the records. Get this far before ANY other upgrades!) Back to the "hifi hierarchy" pitch--it is true that if you introduce distortion (or noise, etc.) early in the reproduction chain, no later component can help it (generally speaking). This is a major argument for "putting the money up front", as Linn presents it. However, it is equally true that if you introduce distortion late in the reproduction chain, no earlier component in the chain can help it! In building or improving a system, you want to focus on getting the most accuracy throughout. This means spending the most money on improving the least accurate components. A Linn turntable is an interesting, generally well-made piece of equipment. (Why they are so hard to set up is another matter!) In some measures it is the finest. However, it is NOT well-engineered, in the following sense: It does not show an overall balance of goals which it should meet...some criteria are pursued with fanaticism; others are nearly ignored. Overall, it does not represent a cost-effective result. I would guess that you'd have to have several thousand dollars in the rest of your system (excluding media) before you could justify a Linn turntable, assuming that it's the best you can get (which I don't think it is, even outside the esoterica). > Comparisons were performed in a 'demo' fashion, as opposed to > double-blind testing. It is left up to the reader to draw Hir own > conclusions as to the validity of results derived from this technique. This is an important aspect of Linn marketing. It is consistently used. I would suspect (but cannot prove) that Linn's reluctance to use double- blind testing and their "extra-speaker-in-the-room" mythology are both methods to help them avoid the use of the human ear's well-known ability to note very minor differences in two sound sources when comparing them one after another (A/B fashion). In spite of the ear's excellent short-term discrimination, long-term memory and comparison (long-term = anything more than a handful of seconds) is poor. By thwarting your ability to make actual comparisons, they allow themselves to replace your judgment with their suggestions (if you allow it). > Please note that all the demonstrations were done using Linn/Naim > equipment. What we were told to listen for was not increases in bass > and/or treble response, or imaging, or depth of soundstage, etc., but > changes in the flow of the music, whether the singer appeared to begin > singing when you expected Hir to, whether the background violins could > be heard while listening to the horns. In each case, we were told that > each change was audible. > > I must admit to not being able to hear any of the effects. This places you in good company in net.audio--most people who have attended Linn/Naim demonstrations with open minds and critical ears have come away reporting that they heard nothing notable from the demos of different equipment combinations or extra speakers. I would be surprised if you had heard a range of different speakers without noting any differences, however, as the smaller Linn speakers are truly abominable. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
ssp@sun.uucp (Stephen Page) (11/04/85)
In article <187@myrias.UUCP> dgt@myrias.UUCP (David Tang) writes about a Linn/Naim seminar: > > Basically what was said can be summed up by the following statement: >Vinyl records (as opposed to tape/cd) provide the best possible reproduction >of music. It then follows that the backbone of a good system lies in the >record player. That's only part of the religion. "The music is only as good as the original signal -- Garbage In, Garbage Out" is the justification for spending all the money on the front end. (Mr. Tang goes on to describe the various standard Linn/Naim demos -- the presence of an extra speaker, systems with expensive front ends vs systems with cheap front ends, etc.) > I must admit to not being able to hear any of the effects. The >suggestion that a difference was audible with each change was strong >enough that I actually thought I did several times, but I am not certain >of that. I will not discredit any of the points raised, but neither will >I support them. I merely report them to you and ask you to formulate >your own opinions. But was the Linn Sondek compared with any other turntables? Linn make a fantastic record player that is streets ahead of 99% of all other turntables, regardless of price. There are a lot of very ordinary turntables out there, and very few good ones. This is part of the problem of talking about Linns sensibly. According to the Linn litany, all the people who will flame back at this posting own turntables stupendously worse than Linn Sondeks, so they don't know what they're missing. Using a great turntable will make a tremendous difference to the quality of the music coming out of your stereo, in mysterious areas like tunefulness, rhythmicity (sp?), detail. If you don't have one, what's missing can't be put back, no matter how expensive your amp and speakers are. This probably sounds like religion again. So go listen! The only way you can decide is to choose a price range and compare a a {Linn front end, cheaper amp and speakers} with whatever else you are tempted to buy. I did, and was totally sold on the '50% on the turntable' concept. Alas, my finances couldn't stretch to a Linn front end, so I bought the poor man's Sondek: a Rega, complete with cheap cartridge. Then, when it was time to upgrade my speakers, I wanted the special sound of Magneplanars more than the improvement a Sondek + cheap speakers would give me (I guess that excommunicates me from the Linn faithful). But it's still a dream for me. The best sounds I've ever heard have come from the {Linn Sondek/Naim/triamped Linn Isobarik} system. Has anyone out there heard the $1675 Linn/Naim system Linn has been advertising? Has anyone out there bought another system instead after hearing it? Keep an open mind; something, alas, Linn/Naim acolytes -- and people who've never heard the Linn Sondek -- lack. Stephen Page {ihnp4,decwrl,ucbvax}!sun!spage ---------------------------------------------------------------------- {My opinions, not my employer's} "Cupid & Psyche '85" by Scritti Politti : proof that perfection is possible in an imperfect world.
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/04/85)
> > 2) This is just plain silly. A stereo system is as good as its > weakest component. A $1600 turntable setup and a $1000 amp/preamp > combo are going to sound like crap coming out of a pair of > $100 el-cheapo speakers. Ditto for the $1600 table, $1000 speakers > and the $100 receiver. The components of a stereo system form > a signal processing path with each component in the signal path > adding distortion and noise. Having n-1 perfect components does > you very little good if the nth component is so bad that the distortion > it generates dominates the signal coming out of the stereo. > Actually, anything that introduces a mechanical component into the audio chain and therefore involves craftsmanship rather than mere design to produce good results is going to be inordinately more expensive. This is why speakers and the turntable complex is likely to be the most expensive part while the straight electronic parts are going to cost less and less as time goes by. For instance, while $1000 for a turntable is reasonably good quality, the best CD players go for $400-600 these days. Tape Decks, when you rate quality by something other than the rampant featurism that plagues these devices, is frequently based on the transport and the more expensive decks yield better sound due to the mechancial quality rather than electronic. -Ron
rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) (11/06/85)
> In general, things are so fuzzy in audio, you shouldn't believe > any absolute statements, especially by a manufacturer who has vested > interest in making you believe what they want you to believe. (Does Linn > make speakers?) Would it be redundant of me to point out that ALL manufacturers have a vested interest in making you believe what they want you to believe?
rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) (11/06/85)
The following message has some rather harsh criticisms. Please stop reading now if you would rather not read them. I have a few complaints to register about article <194@opus.UUCP>, from rcd@opus.UUCP (written by Dick Dunn). He writes: >[Commenting on a Linn/Naim presentation...] >Linn/Naim was discussed in net.audio some time back. They were generally >not well received (putting it euphemistically). The most noticeable >difficulties with what they say and do: Then why rehash? More importantly, why say "everyone else thinks Linn is bad"? (Except to engage in one of the most questionable kinds of arguing tactics.) > - They are rabidly, irrationally anti-digital. "Rabidly" and "irrationally" don't necessarily go together. I am anti-CD; some people might call me rabid, and they are entitled to their opinion. But I am not irrationally anti-CD, not by anyone's definition. I have listened to CD's and they have all sounded bad (this can instead be read as "worse than other sources" -- my standards of what is acceptable might be different from someone elses); whether you agree with my conclusion or not, you must agree that I have a sensible reason for my opinion. Even if you think my conclusion is not scientifically convincing (because of level matching, double blind, or whatever), the conclusion was still arrived at by rational means. To say that the the Linn people are irrationally anti-digital means you must understand not only what they give as their argument but also their state of mind. No doubt you will tell me that you know their state of mind (and can discern it from their advertising...). >> Basically what was said can be summed up by the following statement: >>Vinyl records (as opposed to tape/cd) provide the best possible reproduction >>of music. It then follows that the backbone of a good system lies in the >>record player. > >...which is a notably good view for Linn, which is mostly in the business >of turntables, tonearms, and cartridges... Boy am I ever sick of this argument! "Vested interest, that's why Linn knocks CD's." Did it ever occur to you jerks that Sony has more money invested in CD's right now than Linn will ever see in its life as a manufacturing corporation? You think Sony doesn't care about that investment? You think the other CD manufacturers don't care? You bet they do. And they have spent and will spend quite a bit of effort protecting their investment and insuring that CD's are a commercial success -- whether the CD's sound good or bad. One last thing: recently there was mention of nut.audio as the name of this newsgroup. Remember that the name of the newsgroup is net.audio; it is NOT net.audio.technology, or even net.audio.CD. I for one would be ecstatic if net.audio.CD came in to being so I wouldn't have to listen to the pro-CD people constantly proclaim the virtues of CD (and ad hominem the analog people). In short, I'm tired of listening to people who don't seem to listen to what other people say (or, in some cases, who don't seem to listen at all). Now, is that loud and clear?
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) (11/07/85)
In article <536@unc.unc.UUCP> rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) writes: > >I have a few complaints to register about article <194@opus.UUCP>, >from rcd@opus.UUCP (written by Dick Dunn). He writes: > >>> Basically what was said can be summed up by the following statement: >>>Vinyl records (as opposed to tape/cd) provide the best possible reproduction >>>of music. It then follows that the backbone of a good system lies in the >>>record player. >> >>...which is a notably good view for Linn, which is mostly in the business >>of turntables, tonearms, and cartridges... > >Boy am I ever sick of this argument! "Vested interest, that's why >Linn knocks CD's." Did it ever occur to you jerks that Sony has >more money invested in CD's right now than Linn will ever see in its >life as a manufacturing corporation? You think Sony doesn't care >about that investment? You think the other CD manufacturers don't >care? You bet they do. And they have spent and will spend quite a >bit of effort protecting their investment and insuring that CD's are >a commercial success -- whether the CD's sound good or bad. What in the world does Sony have to do with Dick Dunn -- or this argument? We aren't arguing digital vs. audio here. Dick's article never mentioned buying a CD Player *instead* of a Linn. In fact it never advocated CDs at all. It merely said that the price performance of a Linn wasn't worth the cash. >In short, I'm >tired of listening to people who don't seem to listen to what other >people say (or, in some cases, who don't seem to listen at all). > >Now, is that loud and clear? You bet, Tim. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
ben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder) (11/07/85)
>>1) The effect of a change in tracking force on the music. The claim >> is - increased tracking force is better. > >for what? not for record wear (though of course, too little is bad >too). any cartridge will track better at the higher end of the >recommended tracking forces, without exception. tracking better >automatically reduces various kinds of distortion. whether the record >wear is acceptable is another question. In most cases, record wear will be reduced by setting the tracking force towards the *high* side of the recommended range. As you said, any cartridge will track better at the high end of the range, and a cartridge that tracks better does less damage to the grooves. In nearly every case, the reduction of groove damage caused by better tracking will more than counter the increased wear of the slightly heavier tracking force. This is particularly true of some older cartridges. A few years back, manufacturers tended to suggest tracking forces that were less than optimal for their cartridges, since customers used these suggestions as a criterion for selecting a cartridge in the first place. Ben Broder ..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben ..ihnp4!princeton!moncol!ben
michaelk@azure.UUCP (Mike Kersenbrock) (11/08/85)
>~ >Boy am I ever sick of this argument! "Vested interest, that's why >Linn knocks CD's." Did it ever occur to you jerks that Sony has >more money invested in CD's right now than Linn will ever see in its >life as a manufacturing corporation? You think Sony doesn't care >about that investment? You think the other CD manufacturers don't >care? You bet they do. And they have spent and will spend quite a >bit of effort protecting their investment and insuring that CD's are > commercial success -- whether the CD's sound good or bad. > Ummm, my turntable is a SONY (PSX-800) . Sony is cutting its own throat by pushing CDs. Why doesn't Linn? I suspect that Sony's turntable sales volume probably will be cut by more than Linn's entire sales volume. > > >One last thing: recently there was mention of nut.audio as the name >of this newsgroup. Remember that the name of the newsgroup is >net.audio; it is NOT net.audio.technology, or even net.audio.CD. I >for one would be ecstatic if net.audio.CD came in to being so I >wouldn't have to listen to the pro-CD people constantly proclaim the >virtues of CD (and ad hominem the analog people). In short, I'm >tired of listening to people who don't seem to listen to what other >people say (or, in some cases, who don't seem to listen at all). > >Now, is that loud and clear? Um, you want net.audio.analog ? Everybody is listening, but noone believes. Except for some technical subjects ("how much is the list price for xxx?") this net can at most give pointers for personal research or to provoke thought into things that you didn't concider (but that you still want to decide yourself). The only thing that gets me is when the same things get repeated too much. I don't see any practical way around it due to the transitory nature of this net's participants. Of course if it seems that everyone is argueing against you, maybe it isn't them that ain't listening. Heck, I plug my ears with cotton before running netnews.... Mike Kersenbrock Tektronix Software Development Products Aloha, Oregon -- Mike Kersenbrock Tektronix Software Development Products Aloha, Oregon
gt3403b@gitpyr.UUCP (Ray Chen) (11/08/85)
In article <486@brl-sem.ARPA>, ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: > Actually, anything that introduces a mechanical component into the audio > chain and therefore involves craftsmanship rather than mere design to > produce good results is going to be inordinately more expensive. This is > why speakers and the turntable complex is likely to be the most expensive > part while the straight electronic parts are going to cost less and less > as time goes by. I agree, which is the main reason behind my putting an upper limit on the cost ratio I recommended. If you're after an good level of performance from all parts of your stereo system and you put enough money into it, the mechanical components will begin to dominate the cost. If I was putting together a $6000 system, I could see putting say, $2000 into the speakers, $3000 into the table/arm/cartridge and $1000 into the preamp and amp. Electronics (both design and manufacturing) are improving faster than mechanisms, so I also expect the electronically-oriented components to get cheaper and cheaper as time goes by (which means the ratio will have to get tweaked). So, anybody got $6000 they want to give me ?? :-) Ray Chen gitpyr!chen Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!chen
gt3403b@gitpyr.UUCP (Ray Chen) (11/09/85)
Thank you Dick, for saying what I wanted to say far more eloquently.
Ray Chen
gitpyr!chen
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!chenrcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (11/12/85)
> I have a few complaints to register about article <194@opus.UUCP>, > from rcd@opus.UUCP (written by Dick Dunn). He writes: > ... > >Linn/Naim was discussed in net.audio some time back. They were generally > >not well received (putting it euphemistically)... > > Then why rehash?... Because the original posting asked about Linn/Naim (including a request for opinions). If the issue comes up again (as many issues do on the net) and it's been long enough since the last discussion, there are things which may bear repeating. > > - They are rabidly, irrationally anti-digital. > > "Rabidly" and "irrationally" don't necessarily go together. I am > anti-CD; some people might call me rabid, and they are entitled to > their opinion. But I am not irrationally anti-CD, not by anyone's > definition... The comma between the two adverbs means that both apply, separately, to the adjective. In other words, YES, I mean that Linn is anti-digital, and in a manner which is BOTH rabid and irrational. Being rabid, by itself, is only a matter of curiousity, perhaps suspicion. I know people who are rabidly anti-CD, with some reasons which are at least plausible and perhaps reasonable. I know a few people who are generally anti-digital (which is saying a lot more than anti-CD), but at least they have some "reasons" in the sense that their explanations are mostly amenable to analysis--which I do not find to be the case with Linn's arguments. (Conspiracy theories are notably difficult to analyze:-) By my standards, if an audio manufacturer is going to take a vociferous position against an idea which a large part of the industry holds to be sound, the least we, as intelligent consumers, can demand is a decent explanation. "Because I know better" is not a decent explanation. There have been changes in attitude in the audio industry--it was once fashionable to regard the difference between .0025% and .002% THD as significant; this is no longer so regarded. This change came about through a vociferous minority--but it happened because they tested/explained/ analyzed/studied/measured, not because they raged like Lear. > To say that the the Linn people are irrationally anti-digital means > you must understand not only what they give as their argument but > also their state of mind. No doubt you will tell me that you know > their state of mind (and can discern it from their advertising...). If you examine their advertising, I believe you can discern something of their state of mind. Digressing a bit, giving my own very personal view (note caveats, please), I find that when I read their advertising I must conclude: These guys must be three flavors of weird to believe this...and if they don't believe it at all but publish it anyway, they must be FIVE flavors of weird. Perhaps I should have presented more evidence (e.g., excerpts from their advertising) to explain these views. > >>Vinyl records (as opposed to tape/cd) provide the best possible reproduction > >>of music. It then follows that the backbone of a good system lies in the > >>record player... > >...which is a notably good view for Linn, which is mostly in the business > >of turntables, tonearms, and cartridges... > ... > Boy am I ever sick of this argument! Hey, me too...but it seems to hold up again and again. Actually, I don't know--do they make the record-playing part of the system because that's important, or do they call it important because that's what they make? I suppose I should be glad they're consistent, regardless of which of this egg/chick pair came first--but internal consistency isn't enough. > "Vested interest, that's why > Linn knocks CD's." Did it ever occur to you jerks that Sony has > more money invested in CD's right now than Linn will ever see in its > life as a manufacturing corporation? You think Sony doesn't care > about that investment? Clean it up, kid. I'm not a jerk and neither are most of the other folks who read this newsgroup. Some of them (NOT me, but perhaps jj, ark, rfg, rdp, etc.) have a decade or two of professional experience on you--and I mean that they understand the business side of the industry as well as the technical side. Of course Sony has an investment in CD's! They've over-promoted them! They've marketed some players which haven't been very good. And I will criticize Sony for hyping their private interests just as I will criticize Linn for hyping theirs. Don't ask me to forgive Linn because of Sony's sins, for heaven's sake! The question was about Linn, so why should I flame Sony in response? Did it ever occur to YOU that Linn has a much larger PROPORTION of their business invested in vinyl records than Sony has in CD's--and that the driving factor for hype is not the absolute number of dollars (pounds, yen resp.) but the proportion of investment? > One last thing: recently there was mention of nut.audio as the name > of this newsgroup. Remember that the name of the newsgroup is > net.audio; it is NOT net.audio.technology, or even net.audio.CD. I > for one would be ecstatic if net.audio.CD came in to being so I > wouldn't have to listen to the pro-CD people constantly proclaim the > virtues of CD (and ad hominem the analog people). In short, I'm > tired of listening to people who don't seem to listen to what other > people say (or, in some cases, who don't seem to listen at all). Yes, it is net.audio. It is not net.flame, by the way. "Ad Hominem" is not a verb, by the way...say "attack" if that's what you mean. [What are "analog people"? Doesn't everyone have analog amps? Do you mean "anti- digital?] You are in no position to criticize "people who don't seem to listen..." Compact Discs and the associated technology and equipment are the most recent major development in audio. As such, they are likely to receive a disproportionate amount of the discussion; that's just the way it works. If there is some serious advance in another area of audio equipment, discussion will shift that direction. The CD wars were waged in net.audio some six months to a year ago--I am no more eager to see them return than you (or most of the rest of us). I gladly admit that CD's have problems-- which to me means that I would like to talk about the problems and what to do about them. [I have a few abominable CD's and I'd like to have as few more as possible!] With CD's I have traded surface noise and dynamic range for imaging (and some other properties which are hard to describe but nonetheless real). I'm as eager to talk about the problems of surface noise in vinyl (if there's anything to be said or done about it) as I am about the problems of CD's. Oh, yeah, by the way--do you have any substantive support for Linn's claims--or only criticism of what I said? Are you willing to support the claims, for instance, that: - a digital watch (with alarm) or telephone in the same room as an audio system will seriously degrade sound reproduction? - distortion introduced earlier in the sound-reproduction chain is more serious than distortion introduced by later stages? -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...If you get confused just listen to the music play...