I think after this post:
the thread got diverted onto the value of second-hand items. Which didn't seem to be the intention. Anyway, Mark took things a step forward which made Amie's £50 double-triodes appear trifling:
Either way, if it's what the punter wants, and is prepared to pay for it to enhance the hi-fi experience, then go for it!
Exactly. Engineers can have a quiet chuckle, maybe
But, DA's original post, Hi-fi, why bother? he's saying that his inferior amplifier sounds nicer to him.
There's something wrong somewhere: his 'better' amplifiers, designed on sound principles, don't give him as much pleasure as the simple, cruder amps. And I presume he's achieved happiness without spending £50 on gold-print valves, £2,100 for esoteric cables, or even 10p for a couple of negative-feedback resistors!
Moving on: his amplifiers aren't at fault: his measurements have confirmed that.
So, what he's actually criticising, is the original artist's work. That must be the case: his 'good' amplifiers have been proven to add or subtract nothing (we'll leave loudspeaker discussions for now, as the same applies and these were presumably a constant factor anyway).
Amie Wrote:I see the ethics of catering to audiophool desires are being broached, can those of us who know that these people are being manipulated honestly say that, if for instance, we had in our hand, say a yellow print, jubilee, Mullard ECC82, and a Phool waved a £50 note under our nose for it, we would not snatch the cash?
Now come on
the thread got diverted onto the value of second-hand items. Which didn't seem to be the intention. Anyway, Mark took things a step forward which made Amie's £50 double-triodes appear trifling:
Mark Hennessy Wrote:If you want to be truly horrified, try some cable manufacturers...
...Cables in this range vary in price from £190 to £1,300 (rounded) for a half meter length. You can get 1m versions for about 60% more, meaning it's possible to pay £2,100 for one of these! Just to be clear, it is a piece of wire with a couple of phono plugs at each end...
Either way, if it's what the punter wants, and is prepared to pay for it to enhance the hi-fi experience, then go for it!
Amie Wrote:Forget the valve, or second hand. Who is at fault in the following scenario.
The manufacturer of the dubious HiFi, the shop that sells it, (assuming that the customer isn't so stupid as to order without trying for themselves), or the customer for believing the hype.
My point once more is, as has been said, in the instance the customer likes the sound, and believes there is sufficient value they will buy.
Exactly. Engineers can have a quiet chuckle, maybe
But, DA's original post, Hi-fi, why bother? he's saying that his inferior amplifier sounds nicer to him.
There's something wrong somewhere: his 'better' amplifiers, designed on sound principles, don't give him as much pleasure as the simple, cruder amps. And I presume he's achieved happiness without spending £50 on gold-print valves, £2,100 for esoteric cables, or even 10p for a couple of negative-feedback resistors!
Moving on: his amplifiers aren't at fault: his measurements have confirmed that.
So, what he's actually criticising, is the original artist's work. That must be the case: his 'good' amplifiers have been proven to add or subtract nothing (we'll leave loudspeaker discussions for now, as the same applies and these were presumably a constant factor anyway).
