Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Conservatism

Expand Messages
  • mm
    Well, Bert Whyte of Audio would have taken notice as he did of the Cogent Research processor. And Audio bit the dust when the underground magazines became the
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 6, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Well, Bert Whyte of Audio would have taken notice as he did of the Cogent Research processor.
      And Audio bit the dust when the underground magazines became the spokesperson for the High End industry.
      A pity.

      Yip


      --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "musica_pt" <ricardo_franca@...> wrote:
      >
      > I guess nowadays audio is above all just business.
      > Why would one invest into R&D of new technologies and risk a commercial failure because such products aren't really what consumers look for?
      > Audio magazines are not exempt from responsibility either; in my view they should have educated consumers instead of focusing on trivia and mindlessness...
      >
      > Cheers,
      > R
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Audio is amazingly conservative as technological fields
      > > go. Look at all the things that have been invented
      > > Carver's Sonic Hologram, Glasgal's Ambiophonics and stereo dipole,
      > > Q Sound, Circle Surround, Finsterle's system and on and on--
      > > all essentially ignored.
      > > And yet, Finsterle's system for example worked amirably.
      > > I heard a convincing demo indeed of this. It did not
      > > alter anything except for making the stereo image much
      > > more stable and convincing. And still, this came and went
      > > while people went on reviewing cables and little dots that
      > > one glues on the wall with a mystic sign inside and so on.
      > >
      > > Good ideas that would really change things appear, but ah
      > > over the sands the silent sands of Time they go.
      > >
      > > It is really odd. When you think about it, the vinyl based exhibits at THE show --and there were many--were not in any fundamental way different from what one might have heard at a show in 1970. And
      > > indeed they were not all that much better in fundamental ways. I had a
      > > strong feeling that if I had been able to put a mint condition AR turntable with a Stanton of 1970 and played that into Rectilinear 3s
      > > with Marantz tubes,
      > > that system could have been slotted right in without embarrassment.
      > > Really. And if one had used old Quads it would have been one
      > > of the better sounds at the show except for absolute loudness,
      > > in any reasonable sense of the word better.
      > >
      > > This is a startling thought--42 years ago and still acceptable
      > > or in the case of the Quads, (deep breath) 55 years ago.
      > >
      > > Of course, it is reassuring in a way--those of us of a certain age lived with good stuff in our youth! But still, if one thinks of other technical fields....
      > >
      > > Incidentally, I do not just think this about the turntable. I actually know it directly. Paul Seydor not many months ago played for me his mint AR(he found a new in the box one somewhere) over the Quad 2805s. Lovely sound. Really no iffs ands or buts except in the bass where the absence of arm damping (the AR arms is damped
      > > only as it descends to the record--when it plays it is undamped) makes
      > > the bass a bit loose and warm--not a bad thing,e especially with the Quads.
      > >
      > > It is as if the criteria and the methods were frozen in time.
      > > But perhaps now that DSP is here, this will change.
      > > I am not holding my breath however.
      > > It may take a while
      > >
      > > REG
      > >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.