 
|
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 |
207.114.157.122
In Reply to: Re: Comments on Kait posted by Todd Krieger on February 7, 2007 at 23:51:41:
"Audio across the board is a corrupt industry, be it high-end, mainstream, or tweakdom. .I disagree. I believe that it's mostly about hubris, black magic and herbs but IMO that doesn't make it corrupt.
(This is why I no longer read the rags. I don't even read the internet rags.) It wouldn't make any difference if Kait's products were separable from high-end audio. Or any audio
I don't read the magazines because they are selectively objective. They can be positive and subjective on one hand at the same time negative and objective on the other. The claims made by proponents of Kaits or Bose aren't any more or less substantiable than claims made by proponents of most other gear.
The quality of sound reproduction has gone in the tank, and I really cannot blame some people for channeling their frustrations into hoping or believing the presence of a cheap clock or a jar of rocks will improve the sound of their audio systems.
As if buying a clock or jar of rocks is anymore hopeless than buying a new turntable or more expensive speakers for most audiophiles. Far as I can tell audiophiles are famous for making bad purchases - the fact is buying a jar of rocks is far less expensive than making a bad upgrade decision.
What's worse buying a jar of rocks and believing it makes an improvement or buying into the hubris (almost always marketing/magazine generated) surrounding some new recommended component only to end up with worse sound?
Singling out Bose and Kait's seems analagous to lubing up for the other manufacturers who are doing exactly the same thing.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Follow Ups:
Take Kait's jar of rocks. AKA Brilliant Pebbles.Then take DCS' Purcell upsampler. Which introduced asynchronous sample-rate conversion to the audio world.
One is a seemingly obvious questionable product, and has triggered some healthy debate over "snake oil" in audio.
The other I can explain why it's truly a questionable product that has set back the audio art for consumers across-the-board. Yet the press and even the so-called "scientific" audio community have accepted it as "advanced technology."
So I ask the question- Where's the deceit really coming from??
This is why I think the industry is corrupt. And why I don't trust the "scientific" audio community any more than I do the "audiophile" community.
I'm negative because it shouldn't be so damm difficult to attain good sound. That's what technology should be achieving. But it's failing miserably, in my humble opinion.
I personally think I've circumvented this corrupt entity, but I take no pride over that. For people shouldn't have to do that. Just like they shouldn't have to resort to a Timex clock with an orange Avery label stuck to its face.
"Then take DCS' Purcell upsampler. Which introduced asynchronous sample-rate conversion to the audio world."Where were dCS in the seventies, when this happened:
"Our (DECCA) converters were 'home designed and built' so we were again
able to learn from the horse's mouth how to keep them aligned for best performance. First converters 16
bit, later 20 bit. Tony Griffiths and his team were adamant the sampling rate should be 48Khz, Sony
plumping for 44Khz. This meant that when the CD came along sample rate converters had to be made in
order to produce master tapes for the CD production process as the factories mastered from U Matic
machines. When Mitsubishi produced their 32-track recorder it was capable of 44, 48 and 50K, also the
earlier 3M 32 track machines could be used at 48K."
bring bac k dynamic range
"Where's the deceit really coming from??"Two channel audio is an old technology that long ago surpassed the practical potential of the stereo format. That IMO is the big deceit. As far as I can tell it's been quite some time since a technolgical advance made a real difference and I'd say that last relevant technical advance was the introduction of the CD which has led to better sound at much lower price points. Really with the exception of digital 2 channel audio has been out of the R&D mode for decades.
What really bothers me about two channel audiophiles is they continue to believe that technological advances (including upgrades and improvements) somehow are going to reveal or unleash greater stereo performance. BS - the stereo format itself is the weak link in the chain. Beyond extreme loudness loudness and extended bass performance (impossible for most audiophiles) the only reasons to spend more money on hifi equipment are subjective individual sonic expectations.
As someone who believes decent midfi equipment is capable of providing objective performance more than adequete for the reproduction of most music I think high end audio resources should minimize the importance of objective performance and specialize on particular subjective perspectives. Objectivism seems to me a realistic proposition for mid fi fans while hi end audio should be a playground for the subjectivist. And generally speaking this is the way the industry appears to me - however I think many audiophiles will see it differently.
So to me it's a matter of expectations. Stereo is an old and limited format - we shouldn't expect much other than subjective takes. Thinking a jar of rocks is going to make it sound better isn't IMO a whole lot different than thinking objective performance improvements are going to make it sound better.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
I think that you are full of crap! Putting down our efforts to make better audio products only slows down acceptance by the mid-fi manufacturers to make better sounding products. I continue to research on how to make better analog designs, and I applaud manufacturers who delve to make CD playback more acceptable sounding. I still think that it sucks, and only really well tweaked CD players have ever given me sound that is worthwhile to listen to. I don't even listen to it in my auto, even though I have a CD player. It just sounds too 'digital' to me.
I personally don't care if many people are happy with their existing CD player and mid fi electronics. I won't attack their conclusions about quality sound for themselves, but I resent them getting nasty regarding my efforts to make better sound.
I am continually working to make better sounding products. Just this week, I hope to tweak a pair a JC-1 power amps in order to make them even better sounding. Why should I when they already have an 'A' rating in 'Stereophile'? Because I want to make the best sound that I can with my best designs, and it is a never ending quest.
I am sure that it is the same with car designers, as they constantly evolve and hopefully improve their latest models. Certainly, a 1979 Honda is not the same as a 2007 Honda, even if the basic characteristics of the compact auto sedan have been defined for many decades.
"I think that you are full of crap! Putting down our efforts to make better audio products only slows down acceptance by the mid-fi manufacturers to make better sounding products. I continue to research on how to make better analog designs, and I applaud manufacturers who delve to make CD playback more acceptable sounding.Stereo is an ill-defined format. "Better sound" sound long ago became a matter of subjective opinion. I applaud any audio designers attempts to bring us "better sound" - however the reality of the situation is all such attempts end in results of a subjective nature. You might argue some real objective and measureable improvement and I'd say so what if the majority of stereo recordings don't "sound better" to most listeners.
Even after all of these years the majority of consumers are happy with lower fidelity - ie. they ignore benefits of high fidelity. Obviously even if such benefits are easily apparent to the masses (and I'm not so sure it is, of course it is for me) it is not worth the additional expense to them.
Even amongst those of us who believe that it's worth the additional expenditure to get higher fidelity are opinions differ. You go ahead and continue to deliver "better sound" - I applaud you. Just remember, even amongst those of us who believe, not all of us are going to agree with what you come up with. And given the fuzzy nature of 2 channel recordings it's unreasonable for you to expect such agreement.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
The majority of consumers accept fast food too! So what? Down with quality resturants?
Chefs are only hucksters trying to sell you atmosphere and subjective alterations of food?
"The majority of consumers accept fast food too! So what? "That's why fast food restaurant proliferate - and that's why lofi abounds. That's reality. Offering better food and better audio reproduction at price points consumers are willing to afford will reap rewards.
"Down with quality resturants?"
Often when dining in "fine" restaurants I find the menu impossible, the presentation ridiculus and the "taste" off putting. The fact that the restaurant is "fine" or expensive" isn't enough to make it preferable to "fast food". Though my favorite restaurants are on the more costly side the reality of the situation is that often I prefer less expensive restaurants to more expensive restaurants.
So it is with audio gear as well. Being expensive or more costly is not enough to make it preferable.
"Chefs are only hucksters trying to sell you atmosphere and subjective alterations of food?""Hucksters" is your word. Good Chef's are artistic craftsmen who desire to share culinary visions with the public.
Good audio designers are artistic craftsmen who desire to share their sonic perspectives with the public.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
"You might argue some real objective and measureable improvement and I'd say so what if the majority of stereo recordings don't 'sound
better' to most listeners."You see poor Donny either has no talent for picking components, or can't affort good ones, or just doesn't have what it takes to assemble a superior system that makes the best of the vast majority of recordings.
The irony is that he projects his ill fortune onto audiophiles in general... nothing more (pathetically) funny than a fool's hubris!
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
The issue is not about CD, as Aczel wisely stated in one of his articles, digital is in improvement in method nor an improvement in results, CD is in improvement in method, not results, CD like most of the formats before it was limited to 2ch. any real development requires moving away 2ch format.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Even thought I personally don't agree with it....I think the problem is when more than two channels are involved, the restrictions/compatibility in setup, "sweet spot", and execution of recording negates the potential advantages.
Equating the DCS upsampler with the brilliant pebbles is stretching things a bit. I know you have a personal crusade against ASRC but you can't say that the DCS is snake oil and doing nothing. I personally agree with you that in general ASRC seems to do something unnatural to the sound but I have heard a full DCS stack and it is damn good. I have also heard a full Esoteric stack and it is damn good.
"Equating the DCS upsampler with the brilliant pebbles is stretching things a bit."Even the DCS people themselves haven't been able to come up with a rationale of why ASRC might sound good. It's a technological black hole just like Brilliant Pebbles is a technological black hole.
In fact, I brought this up because my very point is the while equating DCS' upsampler to Brilliant Pebbles may seem like a stretch to a lot of people, technologically speaking, I really think it isn't a stretch!! Expressly because the ASRC is also a "black hole" technology.
And since my equating DCS' upsampler to Brilliant Pebbles is perceived to be a stretch, that's where I think the ASRC comes a lot closer to being deceitful technology!!! For unlike Brilliant Pebbles, it has not raised flags with a lot of people in regard to possibly being "snake-oil" technology.
Not to mention, for how phony Brilliant Pebbles might be, at least unlike ASRC, it hasn't really **hurt** sonics..... Nor has it set back the art of sound reproduction.
So if anything, DCS' upsampler technology may actually be **worse** than Brilliant Pebbles!!
No Todd, I didn't make your point for you despite your trumpeting otherwise (very Clark Johnsen of you BTW).DCS may not understand exactly HOW upsampling is affecting the sound but they do know WHAT they are doing to the digital signal and it is clear that they ARE doing something to the digital signal. Can't you see the difference here to the brilliant pebbles? Clearly manipulating the signal will result in sonic differences but that is not at all clear with the brilliant pebbles.
It is not a "black hole" in the sense that they know exactly what they are doing with the digital signal, do they not? The sonic consequences are another issue.
The pebbles are a black hole in terms of efficacy and function.
The brilliant pebbles have no known mechanism and indeed it is not clear that there is ANY mechanism other than sound simply bouncing off of them, in which case any old rocks will do. You are right though, doing nothing is less damaging than do something that may be actively unpleasant.
taking a jab at yet another product you obviously know nothing about.You're a Reviewer for a major audio internet publication? Have you been living in cave in the Alps? LOL
GK
Funny guy...almost as funny as your products.
nt
Funny you should say so. Lucky for you they don't burn people for voodoo and witchcraft anymore. As for me I got a Ph.D in analytical chemistry in 2000 so I guess that makes me a 21st century scientist! Livin' the dream baby, livin' the dream.
the Appeal to Authority. LOLCan one assume by your response that you, like some other highly educated Reviewers around here, know Everything? You really are living a dream. LOL
"Appeal to Authority"What the appeal to myself? Why not?
"Can one assume by your response that you, like some other highly educated Reviewers around here, know Everything?"
There you are, taking it to extremes again.
Who ever said such a silly thing? Don't put words into my mouth, mister. However; I do know a lot about how light interacts with matter. Take that for what you will.
I take it as an attempt by you to claim you anything at all about light-matter interaction, much less anything relevant. What happened to the Brilliant Pebbles argument? Do you feel more comfortable with the chip? Fine!If you'll pardon me for saying so, from what what you've said so far, other than ego boosting yourself, you haven't demonstrated knowing much of anything relevant to these discussions..
...the deleted links from your BP white paper on the ability of a mineral to absorb light energy? On which your theory of their ability to absorb mechanical energy is based...
Remove the pebbles from your keyboard so that you can type something readable. Chips Ahoy!!
much funnier than I am, after all.Have a Nice Day
If you had wanted to have a technical discussion regarding your devices you would have but it is clear from your evasiveness, not with just with me but with basically everyone who questions you, that this was never going to happen. So, I might as well act like you and make a joke out of it.
I am not being evasive. This is *not* a forum for peer review -- where did you ever get the idea that it was? I won't engage in technical debates on this forum as it's totally inappropriate.Anyway, do you really think your counter-arguments, assuming for the sake of argument you actually have any, would "prove" my products don't work any more than my theories of their operation "prove" they do work? LOL!
So far, your "arguments" are nothing more than the usual, "they can't possibly work," "science doesn't allow it," "I am a PhD and I say they can't work," statements you naysayers hold so dear. LOL
By the way, you are *not* acting like me, as you state - you're simply acting like many other know-it-all types that populate audio forums.
~ Cheers, GK
this is a Technical Forum. If you want to avoid technical conversations, you should post elsewhere."I won't engage in technical debates on this forum as it's totally inappropriate." Why is that? This forum was started for just that reason: technical debate. Now how about it?
Robert, I appreciate your concern, but I'm referring to discussions regarding my paper on the IC. As I've stated, I do not regard this or any other AA forum as a proper forum for peer review of the paper, as contradictory as that might seem.Other than that, I do not avoid technical discussions here or elsewhere.
Interestingly, a review of your posts here on Prophead reveals zero technical content. Perhaps it's actually *you* who should not be posting here. Now, how about it?
I haven't been posting here very much, because I am an admitted techno-neophyte. Not knowing, and not having the appropriate degrees, doesn't mean I haven't an interest nor does it mean that I don't have the aptitude. Although I started with Heathkits and Dynacos, and have built several speakers and turntables, I do not profess to have the body of knowledge necessary to contribute in a meaningful way to the technical discussions on this board. However, as an experienced human, and skilled recognizer of bad behavior and BS (the kind that has an enormous impact on the ability of people to actually learn something from a good debate), I have never shied away from responding to the culprits when necessary. Maybe you got me there, Geoff. I was just..."responding.""Other than that, I do not avoid technical discussions here or elsewhere." Other than what? I don't see any technical discussions from you anywhere at all, so I guess I just don't understand your claim that you'll converse technically (excepting peer-review of your paper.). I'll just continue to lurk and learn here, but it is getting difficult.
nt
The ability to delete one's unresponded-to posts as one's rancor builds is a nice feature of the Asylum, no?But it is certainly fun to have a record of your blood pressure starting to boil.
by the way, your first reply wa by far the most reasonable, and actually one that I could have supported.
You sure go on, don't you, big fella? My advice to you is find somewhere else to troll, have you tried Outside?
Amazing. What exactly am I trolling about? Please do tell. You seem to know a lot of things that no one else does. Maybe you can help.Too bad this set of posts is so far down the page that you and I are the only one's seeing it.
No Robert, I see it just fine. I would love to see these other posts he deleted though! I would also like to find out exactly WHERE he talks technical about this stuff. Perhaps in the shower instead of singing or maybe his cat? I am just SURE he is attending conferences on quantum dots and entanglement and presenting the results of the IC in front of his physics peers...RIIGGGGGGHHHHHHTTTTT!
maybe you two can commiserate with each other. LOL~ Cheers
Resorting to the old name calling now are we, Geoff. So childish but of course expected when you don't want to talk tecnical in a technical forum. I guess there is not much left for you to do here but to taunt the people who want to engage in meaningful discussion.Oh, BTW, please feel free to let me know which conferences you will be guest speaking about the technical aspects of the IC or brilliant pebbles. Or maybe you are giving a talk on the CLC at an upcoming timepiece convention (you know they have one every year here in Basel). Since you won't discuss technical issues on a technical forum I can just go where you will discuss it. I won't hold my breath for your (non)answer.
The pleasure has been all mine, Brad. Thanks for all the "meaningful discussion."Many thanks for all of YOUR technical input. I expected nothing less from a Reviewer for a Major Audio Publication and will be looking forward to more of the same from you in the future. :-)
Have fun living in your shell.
~ Cheers, GK
typical tactics, when in doubt call everyone who doubts you a troll. Go on call Don T one too afterall he bothered to reply as well.
"Definition of an Internet Troll (from Wikipedia) - In Internet terminology, a Troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others. Trolls can also be existing members of such a community that rarely post and often contribute no useful information to the thread, but instead make argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person."~ Have a Nice Day
"Trolls can also be existing members of such a community that rarely post and often contribute no useful information to the thread, but instead make argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person, more often than not based on what they thought was said rather than what was actually said by the other person, concentrating almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others. The latter are primarily, though not always juveniles from other countries who don't have enough understanding of the language to realize that there is nothing to argue about, the points are truly irrelevant to the conversation, or they just don't care and are simply trying to cause the other poster grief with their frivolous and irrelevant arguments."It seems that just like the science behind jthe IC and the CLC, something was left out of the description.
Ah, coming out of the woodwork again?...One thing the Wikipedia definition doesn't mention is that you trolls will argue until you're blue in the face. LOL
Everyone's still laughing at you.
I just consider the source: knuckleheads, like yourself, for example. LOLHe who laughs last laughs best.
Couldn't come up with something better than "knucklehead??" Name-calling really does womders for your credibility. You really need to practice more if you want to play in the game.
I count myself fortunate not to be part of whatever game you think you're in. LOLNice playing Whack a Mole with you, Mr. Mole.
Tell me again how your Brilliant Pebbles "work." If you could do that, this thread would turn back towards the technical. But probably not.
You can have the last words, Geoff. You are no longer entertaining, just embarrassing.
Get the thread back on track??! As if it was ever ON track. LOL
~ Adios, Mr. Mole
"Get the thread back on track??! As if it was ever ON track. LOL"Of course it couldn't have possibly been on track when you are involved in the thread. After all you are self avowed non-technical discusser even though it is a technical forum. Why don't you go troll around tweaks where no justification for what you say is necessary.
Ironic, Morriclam, that you should accuse me of not posting technical content when you have scrupulously avoided technical content here yourself.Unless you want credit for "I am a PhD" and "I know a lot about light-matter interaction." LOL
~ Cheers
Go read my discussions about amplifiers in other parts of this forum, Geoff. Plenty of technical there. Too much for you perhaps as you would prefer the non-technical troll around town.
Thanks anyway, but I find technical talk about amplifiers quite dull. Dull to the point of nodding off to sleep, actually. All these discussions about amplifiers, speakers, cables - they're all so 1980s. Does it never end?Has everyone on audio forums around the world gone to sleep?
Rock a bye baby, in the treetop...~ GK
Searched for technical content from you...all that turned up was a definition of troll: See Geoff Kait.The discussion of amps is timeless because of its relative importance in the whole scheme of a stereo system. Unlike your tweaks a stereo makes no sound if there is no amp. Therefore it has a fundamental and profound affect on the sound coming out of the speakers.
Zzzzzzzzz. Thanks for the nap, I needed that. You fit right in with the other 1980s oriented folks fascinated/obsessed with the technical details of how amplifiers work and such. Not "timeless" but "interminable."
Deleting your posts when you say stupid stuff, Geoff?LOL!
No, only posting better way of saying what I wish to say. It's called editing.Name-calling seems to be frequent tool of 1980s types like yourself. Life is comfortable in your fishbowl, eh?
~ GK
Have you even taken a university level physics course and did it include quantum mechanics? Do you have a science education...at all?
If you don't know I ain't gonna tell you. Anyway, what possible difference could it make? You've already gone to great lengths to demonstrate at how persistently close-minded a person with a PhD in Chemistry (or so you say) can be. Gee, I always though science was all about discovery, inquiry and all of that.If I were you, I'd seriously consider obtaining a refund from wherever you went to school.
~ Cheerio
Since you obviously know so little about how real science is done and that skepticism, including to ones own ideas and observations, is part in parcel with making real discoveries and not imaginary ones. If you haven't figured out that scientific method evolved to prevent faulty observation then you know very little about the failed scientific and mythical theories that have floated around throughout history.I guess tweak salesman is what you are most qualified for after all.
In your case I would simply call it trolling, not skepticism. And I'd guess what you are most qualified for is shaking down spoon-benders and ghost-hunters . Bye, bye Mr. Troll.
"spoon-benders and ghost-hunters" is that the company you keep? Geoff the tweaker hanging out at those seances and with those tarot card readers. Its good to know now what angle you are coming from though.
Morricab, have you ever considered extensive deprogramming? Perhaps you can locate some competent folks there in Switzerland and arrange for them to visit you way up on that mountain where your cave is located.Meanwhile, I suggest you contact Randi Foundation as I think you'll find them very supportive of your "ideas."
~ Cheers
Actually I live in Zürich, which is consistently rated as the best city in the world to live in. You can crawl back under that pile of brilliant peebles you came from.
Must be all the banks, nice and cozy. LOLSuggest you tread a bit more softly, Morriclam; people might get the impression all reviewers of major audio publications are mean-spirited, small-minded neophytes.
~ Have a Nice Day :-)
Oh and BTW, editing is what you should think about doing before you hit the "Submit Follow Up" button.
If I am 1980s then what are you? Prehistoric witchcraft? At least in the 1980s we try to really know how and why things work rather than "have faith in the special powers of the rocks". LOL!
hmmmm...now that you mention it, one wonders why...
The pleasure has been all mine, Brad.Indeed - obviously you've "LOL" yourself to death. Me? I didn't think it was funny and in fact I'm embarrassed for you. But what the hey - at least you've enjoyed it.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Sorry, can't please everyone.As you said, at least I've enjoyed it.
...how digital operates?Remember when three lasers were all the rage? Hah!
And why does vibration isolation help?
What's up with digital interconnects? Why?
Etc. etc.
As an old-time optical man I can tell you of flaws in that department too.
There's a long, long way to go... and the result will not be achieved until the moment CDs are no longer made.
I explained this to the Boston Audio Society in 1986; they were aghast.
clark
Someone knew enough about how digital works to invent the damn medium to begin with.
...knew enough about records to invent them, and about television to invent it, and... and...Would you argue that engineered inventions are all, or mostly, perfect right out of the gate, as digital was (we were told) "perfect"?
If so... huh!
clark
OK, this is my third and last try to respond to this post. The first two attempts (mysteriously not-posted) were brilliant essays on the subject, breaking new ground and sure to have astonished everyone. But memory being what it is, all I can say is, no, I don't think inventions are perfect from the word go. But the tenor of many, many posts here, especially regarding digital, seems to me to be one of utter dismissal of the original invention...cd's in this case. And that's where my gripe is....(Like I said the posts that didn't make it were much richer with insight and argument).
Somewhere around fifteen years ago I discovered CD "degaussing", and it's gotten better ever since. Nor was I loathe to admit, I had been wrong about blaming 16/44 PCM. Lots of the usual suspects jumped on me with their Aha! moment, but the fact remained, I told them, that without ameliorization CDs still sound like crap. Then perhaps five years ago I discovered that a well-treated CD sounds as good as, or better than, the equivalent SACD. Well!That said, most of the vocal supporters of the medium have settled for the shrill, edgy sound they somehow have come to enjoy, and therefore defend 16/44 PCM to the end. They are completely wrongheaded.
clark
Thanks Clark for your clarification. Regards, Tom...
Hey Tom,Perhaps the problem is that the potential of the inventiion was hijacked by commercial interests that contradicted that very potential....(16/44.1?)
...about how carefully the Compact Disc Group (remember them?) managed their strategy.clark
(nt)
One has basically lead to the other.....And both end up "snowballing".....
How about hypocritical beyond recognition?
You, who uses Bybee line conditioners and Hubbell Cryo IG5362 outlets, are casting casting stones at snake oil salesmen like Kait?
Look at all the nonsensical rubbish in your system. Who bought it?
1 RCA OD3A (glows purple pink!) for the weak mind to see and the weaker mind to hear.
It would be laughable were it not so pathetic.TK - I'm negative because it shouldn't be so damm difficult to attain good sound.
Jensen H222 and Von Schweikert Audio 'VR4.5 Mod VR-5' ought to make it difficult to attain good sound LOL. No voodoo spell, amp, conditioner, pebbles, wires or clocks will change that.
cheers,
AJ
I contend that we are both atheists; I just believe in one fewer god than you. When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours
....that one of my primary choices for source material is Mexican rock music..... With a "ROTFLMAO" thrown in to finish it off.....
Guess you had high hopes increasing the PH anti-hobbist membership!ROTFL
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
HOW have you circumvented it (corrupt industry I take you to mean)? The endless chain of upgrading ought to come to an end somewhere, but I have difficulty figuring out where or with what. So, what is it that you do (if you could summarize it)? Thanks!
First discovered his products listening to several different systems in the area. When I met him a couple years ago, and found out his products were relatively inexpensive, all the rest was history.I think the key to his superior designs is the use of audio tubes outside the norm (6BY5, 6AQ7, 6W6, etc.), and combining classical objective measurements with listener feedback. His designs are constantly being refined, and when listening to it, the focus is more on the music than on the gear.
To say I was fortunate in discovering him is an understatement. I think of the merry-go-rounds I'd still be on had that not occurred.
Does he have a web site? A google search turned up nothing relevant. Thanks.
With the requested info. Good luck.
Good to hear you're in the same boat.
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 ]
