From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Preamp and Amp
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:12:06 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation

In article <1993Jan22.164100.2499@bnr.ca> gpz750@bnr.ca (Dave Dal Farra) writes:
>
>You don't think more expensive equipment, in general, sounds more musical,
>i.e. closer to the real thing?   Personally, I don't use $$$ as a measure
>of anything except: If you're a good shopper, you get what you pay for.
>

    As a general rule, maybe.  But there are some darling products
    with horrendous price tags that are really pieces of audio crap.

>I think you'd be surprised at how little I've paid for the end result
>I've obtained; being an electrical engineer with formal training in audio
>and acoustics gives me the benefit of being able to highly modify my gear
>and get a lot of bang for the buck.

   Whoopee.  I have a similar background, with a bit of added
   emphasis on psychology, perception, and classical music training.
   This makes me capable of understanding how much I DON'T know and
   thus very likely to listen to the folks like Bill V., jj, Max,
   Dick Pierce, who are obviously pro's far beyond my background.

>
>No, it's just that your vehement blasts against LP replay and what
>you call "LP bigots" raise questions over your LP playback
>equipment.  

Your first mistake is in assuming that I would be loathe to join in
a flame discussion AGAINST digital audio.  

For your benefit I will define LP Bigot.

    It is someone who, preferring the sound of LP, goes off the deep
    end and starts claiming superior technical performance in the
    areas of separation, bandwidth, or dynamic range.  

    If you'd care to discuss LP's intelligently, no problem.  I
    happen to be a big fan of LP's and a fairly harsh critic of
    cassette, CD, and LP media.  However I don't expect LP's to
    balance the national budget, make the world safe for humanity,
    or cure the heartbreak of psoriasis.   

    And your supercilious statements that anyone who doesn't agree
    with your conclusions and preferences is automatically assumed
    to have inferior equipment sounds more like "stylus envy" to me.
    Or that anyone capable of acknowledgeing the technical faults
    of LP must be listening to inferior equipment.   

    I totally fail to understand your attitude toward LP.  It seems
    that you must convince yourself and the world that LP is totally
    without technical faults in order to like it.  

    I just don't agree with that attitude or any automatic
    preference for EITHER medium with few exceptions:

    o  I reconfigure the response of my system upon changing between
       an LP source and CD source.   I even change the preamp
       loading when using alternate phono inputs.   

    o  If I want any distortion, euphonius or detrimental, I prefer
       to add it myself.  

    o  Out of my best recordings, only a few are LP, more are CD's.
       BUT there are really few examples of topnotch recordings in
       EITHER medium in my personal opinion.  Worse, some of the
       better technical recordings sound like crap musically [Telarc
       in general...]

    

>
>Time to cool off Lon.  Your continual insults weaken your arguments, which
>could be quite interesting.
>
   I usually respond in roughly the same tone as an attack.  If that
   bothers you, I could suggest an immediate remedy.
Newsgroups: rec.audio