MOTM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58447-2001Jun12.html

This is an article about audiophiles, their compulsion to upgrade the
equipment, and the expense of their habits.  Interesting reading.

Makes me think about all the MOTM vs. Moog vs. what-not arguements,
specifically about comparing the effects of individual transistor variations
in circuits.

--PBr

In a message dated 6/14/01 1:07:27 PM, noise@... writes:

<< This is an article about audiophiles, their compulsion to upgrade the
equipment, and the expense of their habits.  ... Makes me think about all the 
MOTM vs. Moog vs. what-not arguements >>

The main difference is that these "audiophiles" are all looking for the same 
thing; accurate reproduction.  They're using $1,200 interconnect cables where 
the original recording used Belden mic cables with Switchcraft connectors.  
Silliness, in my opinion.

A synthesizer is a musical instrument.  Various components affect the 
performance, thereby giving character to a particular brand or model.  There 
is no "right" way a synthesizer should sound.

Ivan

While I mostly agree, I doubt that you could get too many audiophiles to
agree on what "accurate reproduction" is.  And they might not know it when
they do hear it; you'd have to be familiar with the absolute source to know
for certain.  So while they may like one system over another because it's
more revealing or whatnot-- is that really more accurate, or is it simply
more pleasing?  Otherwise, there would be a clear champion / best
manufacturer-- it must be subjective.  So there really can't be a "right"
way for a stereo to sound, can there?

--PBr, who is plain happy with his "cheap" Cambridge Soundworks system.  :)

-----Original Message-----
From: ivancu@... [mailto:ivancu@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 5:11 PM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [motm] [OT] Do you hear what I hear...?



In a message dated 6/14/01 1:07:27 PM, noise@... writes:

<< This is an article about audiophiles, their compulsion to upgrade the
equipment, and the expense of their habits.  ... Makes me think about all
the 
MOTM vs. Moog vs. what-not arguements >>

The main difference is that these "audiophiles" are all looking for the same

thing; accurate reproduction.  They're using $1,200 interconnect cables
where 
the original recording used Belden mic cables with Switchcraft connectors.  
Silliness, in my opinion.

A synthesizer is a musical instrument.  Various components affect the 
performance, thereby giving character to a particular brand or model.  There

is no "right" way a synthesizer should sound.

You should come over and hear my all tube audio system or Pauls Levinson. I
would bet my MOTM you would change your mind.
Jim

ivancu@... wrote:

> 
> In a message dated 6/14/01 1:07:27 PM, noise@... writes:
> 
> << This is an article about audiophiles, their compulsion to upgrade the
> equipment, and the expense of their habits.  ... Makes me think about all the
> MOTM vs. Moog vs. what-not arguements >>
> 
> The main difference is that these "audiophiles" are all looking for the same
> thing; accurate reproduction.  They're using $1,200 interconnect cables where
> the original recording used Belden mic cables with Switchcraft connectors.
> Silliness, in my opinion.
> 
> A synthesizer is a musical instrument.  Various components affect the
> performance, thereby giving character to a particular brand or model.  There
> is no "right" way a synthesizer should sound.
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

In a message dated 6/14/01 5:27:46 PM, noise@... writes:

<< So there really can't be a "right"
way for a stereo to sound, can there? >>

Not really, but if you listen to most major classical recordings on a pair of 
B&W 801's in a non-reverberant room then you are close to hearing what the 
original recording engineer heard.

Ivan

In a message dated 6/14/01 5:23:33 PM, moog@... writes:

<< You should come over and hear my all tube audio system or Pauls Levinson. I
would bet my MOTM you would change your mind. >>

I've been in professional audio for around 20 years.  I've heard some of the 
best recording studio monitoring systems in the world.  Have been to CES and 
sat in the finest audio salons.  My current favorite would be Sovereign 
2001's with Cello electronics.  Yes, some of these systems provide great 
aural experiences.  But there is definitely a huge amount of snake oil with 
cables, connectors, and silly things like isolators for solid state amp 
chassis (oh yeah, those vibrating transistors!).  And terms like "skin 
effect" used to describe audio behavior in speaker wires (any of these people 
ever take Physics 101?).

My favorite are the "audiophile" ac cables.  Most are lighting instrument 
cables (teflon jacketed individual wires in a heat-insulating wrap) with 
heavy plugs, sold for hundreds of dollars.  Are you supposed to pull out all 
the Romex in your home too for REALLY good sounding ac power?

By the way, Romex makes EXCELLENT speaker cables as long as you don't have to 
re-route them.

Flame off.  I know that the "audiophiles" will argue all of this.  Funny 
enough, NOBODY that I know in the pro audio industry, considers themselves to 
be audiophiles.  Most of us just trade stories about silly audiophile gear.  
Hey, we just produce the equipment that this music is created on in the first 
place.  Guess it is up to the listener to make it that much better than it 
was recorded (what?!).

Ivan

At 8:30 PM -0400 06/14/01, moog@... wrote:
>
>You should come over and hear my all tube audio system or Pauls Levinson. I
>would bet my MOTM you would change your mind.

I think that's Mark Levinson :)  Anyway, there is a big difference between
a "consumer" stereo and an "audiophile" stereo.  It's just that it becomes
a matter of dimishing returns.

>ivancu@... wrote:
>
>> The main difference is that these "audiophiles" are all looking for the
>>>>same thing; accurate reproduction.  They're using $1,200 interconnect
>>>>cables where the original recording used Belden mic cables with
>> Switchcraft connectors.  Silliness, in my opinion.

They could hook up their speakers with jumper cables from K-mart, and it
wouldn't sound any different, imho.

>> A synthesizer is a musical instrument.  Various components affect the
>> performance, thereby giving character to a particular brand or model.
>> There is no "right" way a synthesizer should sound.

I agree.

Is any of this even remotely on-topic??

> >
> >You should come over and hear my all tube audio system or Pauls Levinson.
I
> >would bet my MOTM you would change your mind.
>
> I think that's Mark Levinson :)

That's actually: "Paul's Mark Levinson Model 383 integrated amp" connected
to his "B&W 803 Nautilus speakers"
driven with his "Rotel 960 CD player".

And it does sound wonderful. Not in the same league as a $50,000 system, but
I don't have the correct
room or budget.

Paul S.
audiophile

In a message dated 6/15/01 1:42:11 AM, mark@... writes:

<< Anyway, there is a big difference between a "consumer" stereo and an 
"audiophile" stereo.  It's just that it becomes a matter of dimishing 
returns. >>

Exactly.

However, the more MOTM you buy, the more synthesizing you can do!   ;-)

Ivan