 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.168.149.115
A reference in Stereophile's online AXPONA coverage, and a quick search show, that John Marks is now selling an SPDIF cable under the Esperanto brand. I've always enjoyed John's writings and postings and wish him well but I do feel a little conflicted to read this news. Either he was hiding his design skills under a bushel and there is something special to justifies a new cable venture - or there isn't, and that would be a shame.
Regardless, I did also find his 'Tannhauser Gate' music review site, which is well worth a visit.
Regards
13DoW
Follow Ups:
John,
How much for a 3mile cable?
nt
I saw his first recommended system on the blog includes a $349 amp and about $1,200 worth of cables. I'm gonna stop short of shouting B******* but just barely. It's really hard for me to believe that that is a good way to spend $6,000 on a stereo.
Are you talking about the executive-office systems at Steinway & Sons?
Then, you REALLY have no idea what you are talking about.
Those are not MY systems, I don't own them. Each manufacturer decided independently how to price his own products.
I can assure you that all the products were paid for in real-world dollars. But some manufacturers went below dealer cost to place the products in a world-class venue. But that's none of YOUR business.
Furthermore, have you ever heard the Parasound Z-amp v2?
It's people like you who are ruining audio, by listening with your credit cards.
That was a system that had lots of sources and connections, but was played at not huge volumes, to be listened to at arm's length. So, more money for cables, and less for the amp. That amp is a killer, but you don't know that, because your credit card tells you what is good sound.
I am a professional. So are the trained musicians at Steinway. They are happy. You should stop talking about things you know nothing about.
JM
PS: The systems at Steinway DO NOT have any Esperanto Audio cabling. ALL cabling is from AudioQuest, and they all are high-value products.
I'm gonna sneak into that office on monday and trade the $1,200 worth of cables for $50 worth and see if he notices. I'm glad to hear nobody actually paid list price for those wires.
It's such an imperfect situation with such limited expectations, the thought of spending 6k on an office system that needs to look nice and be unobtrusive is hard for me to swallow. The thought of spending $1,200 on cables for that system is just ludicrous. Apparently I can't help but comment.
JM-
love your work and writings as always. How does Charlie Hansen fit into any of this matter?
Charlie offered constructive criticism as a friend.
I am fascinated by the theoretical aspects of signal-cable design.
The laying of the first transatlantic cable--before the US Civil War, was one of the civil-engineering achievements of the day. But the cable self-destructed from mutual inductance with the surrounding seawater, because the person in charge kept pouring on more power--which meant that the induced current in opposite polarity in the seawater retarded the signal even more.
Queen Elizabeth's message to President Buchanan, 92 words IIRC, took all day to send.
Oliver Heaviside's invention of coaxial cable, which is essentially, surrounding a DC conductor in a Faraday Cage, allowed much faster transmission. Heaviside's years of work are one of the intellectual triumphs of that age. Fascinating stuff.
I was thinking out loud to Charley, wondering why a length differences in inches in the cable made it sound differently, and he replied that a S/PDIF cable should be at least 20 feet long... .
Now THAT's fascinating!
John
> Queen Elizabeth's message to President Buchanan, 92 words IIRC, took all
> day to send.
Victoria, surely.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
My face is red.
I was so intent in making sure that the US President was right,* I lunched the Brit Monarch.
Yes, Victoria!
Thanks, John
John
*That that predated the US Civil War, I think is really something.
I look forward to your cables, JM. CH notwithstanding.
nt
My cable chops the words into three shorter words, and then throws away a random bit.
And it re-calculates the check bit for each new 5-bit "Quasi-DSD" word.
Except in Chattanooga, which is in its own time zone.
JM
We all need food on the table.
Even reviewers.
by going into the cable business ... silk clad "aged" conductors in that case if I recall correctly.
funny
Hi-
Thanks, I guess, for the notice.
I have been a loudspeaker design nerd since about 1966, and when I was hired to be the founding contributing editor and columnist for DIGITAL AUDIO magazine (IIRC 1982), I was both fascinated and horrified to learn that the only practical digital recording system was based upon its ability to use Sony's installed base of professional broadcast U-matic ANALOG television video-cassette recorders that had been designed to work with both 50Hz and 60Hz wall-current based video-scan formats.
Hunh? I thought this was a Brave New World?
So I then looked into things and realized that the reason Sony's standard prevailed (and Soundstream's failed) was that any radio/TV broadcaster, fr'instance in the EC, who had an installed base of the bog-standard Sony U-matic ANALOG video recorders had more than half of what they needed to record S/PDIF digital audio.
Indeed, back in the day, UHF Channel 44 in the Boston area, late at night, used to broadcast Boston Symphony live digital recordings over the air, as video programs one could record to a VHS cassette, and with the proper mod/demod, get digital audio. Criminy!
So then I went (compressing decades in slow motion) to puzzling about the 75-Ohm RCA roots of S/PDIF in analog television, to the origins of coaxial cable in the efforts to keep transatlantic telegraphic cables from blowing up under the strain of mutually-induced currents in the opposite polarity, to Oliver Heaviside's single-handed, pure-math based, invention of coaxial cable (1880).
Heaviside's invention--largely unheralded, because he was a self-taught peasant--was in effect (despite the facts that he had to co-invent vector analysis and independently invent an operational calculus that was functionally equivalent to Laplace transforms, that I had tried to get my mind around in prep school, but totally failed) was to enclose a solid-core DC conductor in a tubular Faraday Cage 2,000 miles long...
So, the Humility part is that I am not fit to tie Oliver Heaviside's shoes, and that I have never spent a moment thinking that I was smarter than the guys who made "PCM over S/PDIF" work.
Where was I?
Oh. Years ago, despairing of being able to afford a digital cable I loved, I did some half-assed design work (Charley Hanson says my math was unimpeachable, but that every one of my premises was faulty, yet: we remain friends) and I had made some prototypes.
So, when I escaped from Ceausescu's Romania in a hot-air balloon made out of rubber raincoats (kidding!), I ended up in the Peoples' Democratic Republic of Rhode Island, and I refined the prototypes, and I was thinking, I'd make a few cables for friends, but, a couple/few heavy hitters heard the most recent prototype and said, "Hey, Johnny Puddles, this here is your ticket out of the Federal Witness Protection Program," and I fell for that.
But at the last minute I panicked, and I made a couple of modifications.
So, not having heard the modifications, when the bill came due on the first production batch, I literally prayed, "Please let these not sound worse than the last prototype." When I heard a randomly-selected cable from the first batch, I had to wipe away tears of relief. I had dreaded having to give them away to Goodwill and write it all off.
I will never claim that I had made the best anything. But I really feel that if I was a consumer, this is a cable I'd be willing to buy.
I hope this provides the background. I never for a moment thought that I had a "name" to cash in on. I am just rather obsessive about "Material Culture and Technology," which is what I got my undergraduate degree in, and the curious history of cable design and of digital audio have always been of interest. E.g., PCM was invented in the 1930s as a way to increase the carrying capacity of transatlantic cables beyond their purely electrical capacity, by multiplexing... But, I obsess.
ATB,
John
John I say go for it hook, line & sinker! Unless anyone here has actually heard your cables and honestly thinks they sounded terrible, how can anyone here begin to question, condemn or ridicule what you're doing? I, for one, hope your wires sound great and that people who try them will like what they hear. I also hope word of mouth about your wires spreads like wildfire and hopefully that will be one of the reasons that causes your line of cables grow and your business prosper!I'm listening to: Strawberry Fields Forever - Songs By The Beatles by Daria
Thetubeguy1954 (Tom Scata)
Central Florida Audio Society -- SETriodes Group -- Space Coast Audio Society
Full-range/Wide-range Drivers --- Front & Back-Loaded Horns --- High Sensitivity Speakers
Edits: 05/01/16
nt
And could you please finish up the sixth book in the trilogy. I've been waiting for at least 42. 42 whats, I don't know.
Not Douglas Adams--rather, The Twilight Zone.
jm
If I'm going to eat soilent I would like it to be green.
nt
JM-
where are you going to launch your cable? Whom is your supplier/distributor?
Hi-
Thanks for your interest.
I have been signing up dealers slowly, because the cables are in small batches and half the first batch went to friends as thank-yous or to a reviewer or two to play with.
Serial #1 of the S/PDIF went to Tam Carlson of The University of the South, and #2 went to John Atkinson, and he duly noted its existence in an equipment list sidebar in a recent issue.
I have sold a quantity of BNC/BNC cables to people who are using them as Word Clock cables in setups that have external master clocks.
I have sold a set of AES/EBU cables to one listener, and I have begun sending AES/EBU cables to engineer friends to get their opinions.
Experimental electric-guitar cables of my design are in fabrication this week, and when those are finished, I will send a couple out to people who can really play and who have a lot of experience with high-end guitar cables. If they say YESSS!, then those will go into production. If they say "meh," then, that's that.
You asked about suppliers. I specify the components, including the laser-engraved wood blocks that I hand-finish here, and then a cable fabricator from the telecommunications and broadcast fields fabricates the cables for me, and then I QC them, burn them in, and package them. In other words, I am not having an audiophile cable company OEM things for me.
For better or worse, the cables are of my own design. My goal is not to reinvent the wheel, but rather the make a really good wheel.
An online magazine will probably have some coverage in, I dunno, 4 to 6 weeks?
Now, having planed 50 Koa wood blocks yesterday, time to sand them! And then simmer them in hot orange oil!
(The olivewood blocks in the photo above are for the electric-guitar cables. The other blocks are American Black Walnut for the S/PDIF cables. The olivewood blocks come from a workshop in a Christian village near Bethlehem. The real Bethlehem. I like that. The Koa blocks come from Hawaii and the Walnut blocks from the Midwest.)
ATB,
John Marks
I like and will pay for cables that look pretty. I know first hand how difficult it is to make a cable (DIYed many, many cables) and even more how time consuming it is to make a good cable look good.
And those cables are really good looking! Plus skeptic doesn't mean (in my case) closed minded. I'm always hoping to try the ones that prove me wrong.
I even tried the green marker CD thing...
The S/PDIF cables have ID blocks made from American Black Walnut, from a woodshop in the Midwestern USA.
The AES/EBU cable is about twice as fat, so it gets a larger zip-up stuff sack and a much larger Koa wood block, from Hawaii. (Image above.)
The experimental Electric Guitar cables have my favorite blocks, Olive wood from a workshop in a Christian village near the real Bethlehem.
So, if the guitar cables sound no better than standard commercial cables, at least they will look pretty and come in nice gig bags.
Thanks for your kind words,
John
Nice pic! JM
are you planning to make interconnects (IC) of RCA/XLR?
Speaker cables?
Hi-
Thanks for asking.
I started with S/PDIF because the history of coaxial cables and of the pure math that made possible transatlantic cables that could carry signals at practical speeds has always fascinated me, as did the early history of digital audio's practical implementation. I believed that I could make a real contribution.
I think I can make a decent analog signal cable, but those engineering challenges are not as subtle, and there are many excellent analog signal cables. I would have to make prototypes and then test them.
Loudspeaker cables I think are a more complicated area than signal cables, and I also think that there are some unquestionably great loudspeaker cables. I am not going to devote energy at this time to playing around with speaker cable designs and costing when my day-to-day challenges are to rationalize my intensely hands-on production methods with a view toward outsourcing more tasks, and to sell the cables by setting up dealers.
In theory, I could do something of a USB cable, but that would I think have to be an OEM product made for me by another audio company in the USA, and therefore more expensive. That, because I do not want to sell a cable made in China.
JM
NB: My cables are assembled in the US from a variety of foreign and domestic components, none of which are from China. I do not claim "Made in USA," because pricing parts versus labor and processing is debatable and I don't want to get into any needless tussles. Some of my connectors say on them that they are made in Japan. The AES/EBU plugs say in nearly invisible Mouse Script MADE IN LIECHTENSTEIN. I'd think they'd want to shout that from the rooftops.
JM-
it would be of interest to me to read about the IC and SP cables that you do like, use or endorse. I am a "cable" guy 1st.
That said, I also have to say that for some companies, I have experience only with the more affordable cables, and for other companies mostly with the top end.
I have been very pleasantly surprised with what Audioquest can do for very short money. When I specified stereo systems for the executive suites at Steinway & Sons pianos, all the signal and speaker cabling was from Audioquest, as described in the linked-to blog entry.
In the past I thought that Nordost Blue Heaven was the "Great Cheap Chardonnay" in affordable cables, especially to sharpen up a system that was a bit nebulous. That line has changed a lot since I heard any.
Equally out of date, I thought that WireWorld's top of the line stuff was stellar.
The little I heard of Siltech was very good, but more system-specific than the norm I think.
I love Cardas' Clear ICs and speaker cables. I have not heard the Clear Beyond.
Philip O'Hanlon seems to use Kubala-Sosna at a lot of show demos; he has good ears.
All for now,
John
You used to be a big fan of Mogami 2534 ...
NT
This is the perfect thread to discuss all things cable!
Apparently not ....
Many Thanks! JM,
feel free to keep listing your "cable" experiences w/ the various brands out there. No harm in telling the good, bad and ugly!
I could answer a specific question from a Member, but because I am all of, Journalist, Music Industry Professional, and Manufacturer, I cannot just start a thread talking about products in the field I have products in.
Indeed, even though I consider myself as having a day job of classical music producer and recording engineer, I have just changed my ID to (M), so that nobody can quibble.
jm
Thanks! JM-
you can always send me a PM. Discretion is assured.
Good on ya- JM.
It is always good to read that someone is not junk-sourcing their wares to china.
.
nt
Seriously.
I was speaking with a major big-shot household name digital guy, and I--honestly, not being provocative or setting a trap--I asked, does anyone know offhand, converting time to distance, how LONG a SINGLE positive PCM pulse would be, if it were frozen in time?
In other words, given the interchangeability of frequency and time, and time and distance, if one froze a single positive PCM pulse in time, how long would a S/PDIF cable have to be, in order to hold a single frozen positive PCM pulse?
He laughed genially and said that he had never ever heard anyone even think about that, it could not possibly matter.
I replied, I am hearing differences at 44.1 kHz with a 3.5 inch difference in cable length...
So I sat down and did the math, and did the math, and did the math, and called him again and said I must be having a stroke, this can't be right.
That was almost 24 hours.
I walked him through my calculations, and he laughed and said, well, you have to be right!
ANYONE, please re-do it!
BTW, at that transfer function speed, the difference between 44.1 and 48 is no big deal.
OK, I calculate a singe positive PCM pulse (Zero to .25V and back to Zero), frozen in time, measured in length, as: THREE MILES.
So, what I heard in prototypes that were 3.5 inches different, can't possibly make a difference. But... people hear it.
I was trained as a translator of French poetry and I got a law degree and was co-author of peer-reviewed papers read at Harvard Law School, and, honestly:
I can't say whether the cables I sell sound good because of my work or DESPITE my work.
They are what they are. If they make people happy, I am happy.
John
What kind of a pulse are you talking about? What you see on the SPDIF cable? That would be at the SPDIF clock rate. Or are you talking about the analog pulses you would see at the output of an unfiltered NOS DAC. These would be at the word clock rate, e.g. 44100 Hz. The SPDIF pulses have to be at a much higher rate to allow for 20 or 24 bits of data per sample, 2 or 4 channels, and sending both the data and the clock.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Speed of light is represented by "c."
c = 1 foot per nanosecond
In one second, light travels 1 Billion feet (186,000 miles)
Given VPROP of .75c, in my cable, the electromagnetic flux travels 750,000,000 feet in one second.
To divide by fs of 44,100: 750000000/44,100
7,500,000/441
Solve to 17,006.8027
3.22 miles
A 3.5-inch difference is on the order of, 10 to -5 power.
???
JM
So what??? This is no basis for a proper cable design.
It's not the basis of the design--it was an INQUIRY (perhaps the wrong tree was barked up, so what) into why two cables otherwise identical except for length sounded differently.
NB, I discussed such issues with JA only after the cable was in distribution and use and the design frozen. These were purely theoretical and academic discussions. JA arrived at pretty much the same circa three mile figure I did, but of course he said that it was the "length" (as a function of time and drag) of the transition zone that was critical.
But Charley Hansen, for reasons of his own, said that a S/PDIF cable needs to be at least 20 feet.
I tried a few things over the course of a few years, and ended up with something I was happy with. I was ready to just make a few for family and friends when a couple of industry people, unpon hearing one used with familiar equipment, urged me to get serious with it. I made a final tweak in the design, the production units sound better than the prototype, and I have yet to find an explanation for that that to me is both understandable and plausible.
Just a matter of intellectual curiosity.
There are also aspects of the design I do not disclose or discuss publicly.
JM
S/PDIF transmits data serially in 32-bit subframes, each containing one audio sample. So for 24/96 PCM, the bit rate is 2 channels * 32 bits/sample * 96000 samples per second = 6.144 MHz (that was the spec for the original standard). S/PDIF uses bi-phase encoding, so the clock frequency is twice the bit rate = 12.288 MHz. And the width of one pulse on the wire is one half of a clock period = 4.069e-8s. If you assume your propagation velocity is 0.75c, which is relatively high (PTFE is around 0.7), then the length of a pulse on the cable is 9.15 meters. For 44.1 PCM, it would be 19.9 meters. Not 3 miles, but still a fair bit bigger than 3.5 inches.
Anyway, it's the transitions that matter, not the length of time between transitions.
BTW, in a private email, John Atkinson quoted different numbers, and again in a private email, Charley Hansen quoted different numbers.
I have always said that my cable design is what it is, it sounds as it sounds, and whether it sounds good is despite my efforts rather than because of them doesn't matter if the customer is happy.
(I know competent engineers who claim that any properly working DAC can cope with minute timing errors and therefore cables cannot matter... .)
I have never claimed that my cable is "best." I think digital cables are rather system-specific. I think that my cable is a valid option and I am happy with its sound, at the price. I could (in theory) make a hugely expensive cable but at this point I have no idea whether it would sound better.
Anyway, it's "Countdown-to-Campari Time" here at Esperanto Audio's worldwide headquarters' executive suites.
Tee hee.
John
Pretty sure I was off by a factor of two because I didn't need to double the clock rate.
Anyway, if we knew the bandwidth of a typical transceiver driving the cable, we could estimate the rise & fall times on the transitions. Or you could just measure them with a scope. It wouldn't surprise me if the length of a transition is on the order of the length of the cable, meaning the cable isn't easily characterized by either transmission line or lumped impedance models.
However, the pulses actually going down that cable are at a much faster rate, going at least 40 times faster. (stereo and 20 bits). So the individual pulses are measured in a few hundred meters. If you are worrying about the SPDIF cable, why are you worrying about word clock pulses, pulses that are generated at the opposite end of the DAC from where the cable enters?
If you are looking for an explanation as to why changing the cable length a few inches matters, well that's because the DAC gets a different signal, albeit one with the same bits. Then, given slightly different input it produces slightly different output. (This isn't logically or mathematically necessary, rather it happens due to the way the DAC is built.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Thanks, but could you please elaborate on...
"If you are looking for an explanation as to why changing the cable length a few inches matters, well that's because the DAC gets a different signal, albeit one with the same bits."
If the bits are the same, then how is the signal different?
I am not being argumentative or provocative, I am genuinely curious. My design process was closer to a blindfolded kid with a stick's trying to thwack a pinata than anything else. But people with no need to pat me on the head have bought cables and recommended them.
ATB,
John
The same bits can be conveyed by slightly different waveforms due to noise and timing issues associated with the transmitter at the transport, the digital cable, or the digital receiver in the DAC. In an ideal world, the digital receiver in the DAC would correctly interpret the bits and would eliminate all of the noise and timing issues. In the actual world, this does not happen and some of the variations make it to the analog output of the DAC.
Here are two strings of bits that are the same, but are physically different on the screen:
0 1 0 1 0 01 0 1 1 1 01
0 101 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Dear Tony,
Thanks.
I think then we are using different terms for the same thing or the same constellation of phenomena... .
I believe, as apparently you may also, that suboptimal terminations (including the wiring behind the panel jacks, either RCA or BNC) can result in reflections such that when the reflection makes a round trip and comes back to the DAC, the reflection can degrade the timing accuracy of a later-dispatched signal.
(BTW, if this is the case, then should we not want higher-loss cables rather than lower-loss cables? If the cable were not capable of carrying those micro-level reflections back and forth, would not the Digital Eschaton thereby be Immanentized? Only half joking.)
I believe that cable length is an important factor in determining when the reflection arrives with respect to the zero crossings of the later-dispatched signals, which is why I do not offer cables in lengths such as half a meter and one meter.
I do have to tell you though, and I am sure that this will be no news to you, that more than one engineer has told me that if a DAC cannot cope with such small levels of induced jitter, it was either incompetently designed or is broken, and therefore all properly-fabricated, non-broken digital cables sound the same.
ATB,
John
"I do have to tell you though, and I am sure that this will be no news to you, that more than one engineer has told me that if a DAC cannot cope with such small levels of induced jitter, it was either incompetently designed or is broken, and therefore all properly-fabricated, non-broken digital cables sound the same."
This pretty much covers every DAC that has ever been made, although few designers seem to be honest enough to admit this applies to their products. There is another side to this. Even if such a DAC were to be made, there would be few subjective audiophiles honest enough to admit that they could not hear any differences caused by digital cables.
Removing noise from digital signals is well understood in the field of military electronics, where it is needed in encryption devices that must keep separate "red" signals corresponding to classified information from leaking into "black" signals being sent over cables or airwaves. If as much money flowed into high end audio as flowed into military electronics our problems with digital cables would have long been solved.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
If the Pentagon were given this problem, we'd spend a decade and many millions funding contracted R&D projects to evaluate alternatives, a couple more years and millions arguing and negotiating over requirements, a bunch of competitive prototypes demonstrated, a source selection, a protest of the result, a development contract eventually awarded to productize the winning interface, the result would be unaffordable for its original purpose, other companies wouldn't adopt it because they hadn't invented it, something would get produced if for no other reason to show some return on the investment, but by the time that happened it would already be obsolete. Don't ask me how I know this :)
nt
I don't believe any of the "variations" can me be measured in any way at the analog output of the DAC.
And if what you are saying not simply wonky theory, then the market it littered with broken digital cables, transports, and DACs.
I don't believe any of the "variations" can me be measured in any way at the analog output of the DAC.
They are routinely measured. Ever seen a jitter test?
These variations can be, and have been, measured on the analog output of DACs. Usually when this has been successfully accomplished the measurements or experimenter have been discredited or the equipment under test decreed to be defective.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"..when this has been successfully accomplished the measurements or experimenter have been discredited or the equipment under test decreed to be defective."
Can you cite specific examples of this please.
"...well that's because the DAC gets a different signal, albeit one with the same bits."
File this under "pseudo technical gibberish"....:)
I appreciate your support, but, I take Tony seriously! I am always willing to learn.
However, the other end of the equation is the scene from "Brideshead Revisited" (the novel or the ITV teledrama) where the priest asks Rex, what if the Pope had told him it was raining, but in the window behind the Pope, the day was clear?
I had an irreligious girlfriend who would razz me about that. Like clockwork.
JM
I like Tony too.
In the dictionary of internet forum personality types, he would be known as "The Professor", they are compelled to educate with every post, even when the "lesson" is unsolicited.
But I think in this case, it was a bit of a "if you can't impress them, just dazzle them with BS" type post. LOL.
All good.
I guess that is one of the reasons he resigned from Stereophile. Good for him. Putting up your shingle is a cool thing to do.
Although I wonder why in 2016 he would be selling SPDIF cables when SPDIF sources are a dying breed. Oh well.
Totally agree on his music site. Thumbs up.
Thanks for your kind words.
I want to clarify that I left Stereophile because among other reasons, I felt that audio in general was getting Balkanized, and that people were no longer really talking to each other...
I can't think of a better way to put into words those nebulous feelings, at the moment.
AND ABOVE ALL, I want to emphasize that every thing I ever submitted to Stereophile, I submitted in hopes that it would interest, inform, or entertain John Atkinson; and that I continue to be proud to call him my friend. He is a real mensch, and we communicate by email a few times evey week.
It was time to make changes in my life; but when I resigned, I had no idea what those changes would be. Boatbuilder? Bartender? Gigolo?
As noted elsewhere, I had been for about three years sitting on a self-designed cable, but I really doubt I would have taken the plunge except for a few industry friends whose confidences I will respect by not naming them.
Ciao,
John
What does "Balkanized" mean?
It's one thing to prefer vinyl as your main source.
It's another thing to claim that someone who does not routinely listen to vinyl "has no business writing for an audio magazine," which is what someone wrote on AA about me when I was writing for Stereophile.
Which, as a matter of audio engineering, is rather farcical.
In the past I produced vinyl records. A 2-LP set I was the driving force behind every detail of just sold USED on eBay for $588. To declare that I am unqualified is Balkanized thumb-sucking.
In previous decades, audio people were generalists. Support for generalization has been eroding in the audio media such as magazines and websites; people now self-identify often as headphone listeners, computer audio listeners, turntable listeners, etc., rather than as music listeners.
Personally, I think this happens because it makes it easier to sell "targeted" ads and track the results.
But that's just me.
jm
I enjoyed your columns, it was regular reading for me, I especially liked the enthusiasm, the unearthing of really good, high value products, and the the liberal mention of esoteric, off the beaten path music.Very best of luck.
Edits: 04/20/16
I am trying to re-establish a balance in my life (so I don't end up looking like the Michelin Man) but I am also trying to put three new entries on my blog each week.
John
JM-
is your music review site up and running? If so, where can I find it?
nt
I will check it out- JM.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
