Opinions on LINN
Jonathan P. Spence
tit seems a bit better since the last time I was here, so here goes.
I was wondering what people thought of the Linn equipment. They have been
getting rave reviews and I used to work for a dealer in IL, but we did not
carry all that much before I left. That and it is hard to find around here.
Just looking for personal opinions on their electronics, TTs, whatever.
Have at it.
Stephen McElroy
Spence" <jsp...@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
I like Linn: I have an LP-12, Linn electronics and Kabers. The way Linn is
marketed ("The Only Sound") is bound to bother some. Their speakers aren't
uniformly excellent at all price levels. They do have some genuine
innovations: switching power supplies for electronics, manufacturing
methods, active speaker crossovers, computer based all-house systems. The
CD12 is cool! I want my next cd player to be carved out of a solid block
of aluminum...
Stephen
George M. Middius
> I was wondering what people thought of the Linn equipment.
Their advertising is over-the-top ridiculous. "Linn: The Only
Sound" -- blech! Their stuff is probably as overpriced as Bose's.
Howard Ferstler
Quite some time ago, I read that the head man at Linn did
not like other speakers, telephones, or wrist watches to be
in the listening or dealer demo rooms when his speakers were
being auditioned. Supposedly, those items could color the
sound.
That says it all for me.
Howard Ferstler
bf...@attglobal.net
> "Jonathan P. Spence" wrote:
> > Hi, I have not been here for a while; the flaming was getting annoying. Bu
> > tit seems a bit better since the last time I was here, so here goes.
>
> not like other speakers, telephones, or wrist watches to be
> in the listening or dealer demo rooms when his speakers were
> being auditioned. Supposedly, those items could color the
> sound.
>
> That says it all for me.
>
> Howard Ferstler
Let's ignore Howard's illogical biases and talk about
the equipment and it's performance.
I have not tested any of the Linn products, but I have
auditioned them extensively in stores and in my own home.
Here's my personal, subjective, non-scientific opinion:
(1) Linn Electronics perform fine, but are overpriced for what
then do. Justification for the high price (for me) would
(but isn't) be based on styling, cachet, features (in that order).
If electroacoustic performance is your only priority, you can
do just as well for far less $
(2) Linn Speakers: I have always thought they did a few
things really well. First, although the FR is not the smoothest
you'll see, they sound (subjectively) very smooth. This only applies
to the generation of speakers dating back about 1 or 2 years
(newest ceramic tweeter design). Second, they all have very
modest bass capabilities, but the midbass isn't nearly as bumped
up to compensate as it is in many other speakers. Third, when
positioned properly, they throw a very deep, wide sound stage
in my home. Fourth, they image very well. Fifth, I can hear
more detail in large ensemble passages than with most other
speakers.
Fifth, they can't play very loud, and when you ask too much of
them in terms of volume, the first and fifth characteristics that
I mentioned go away.
If I were looking for a small set of speakers and I didn't need good
bass
extension or high SPL levels, I'd put the Linn Tukan (now the Katan)
near the top of my
list. THe 5140 would rank similarly for floor standing speakers with
a
small foot print. In terms of price, again, I don't think the
speakers
are any bargain. In terms of value, that's to personal a thing for me
to advise you on. If they were 70% less expensive, I'd also consider
the Linn Keltik, Kelih (sp?) nice speakers for the money.
John
Arny Krueger
"Francois Yves Le Gal" <fle...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:glm0mt0a6iooba9pe...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:06:43 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
>
> > I read that the head man at Linn did
> >not like other speakers, telephones, or wrist watches to be
> >in the listening or dealer demo rooms when his speakers were
> >being auditioned. Supposedly, those items could color the
> >sound.
>
>
> On a serious note, having a number of speakers in a demo room does
> impart the sound quality, particularly if their coils aren't
shorted
> while not in use. This is a known and accepted fact, not a figment
of
> Ivor Tiefenbrun's imagination.
..except to all the people who think it is...
;-)
Howard Ferstler
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> > "Jonathan P. Spence" wrote:
> > > Hi, I have not been here for a while; the flaming was getting annoying. Bu
> > > tit seems a bit better since the last time I was here, so here goes.
> >
> > Quite some time ago, I read that the head man at Linn did
> > not like other speakers, telephones, or wrist watches to be
> > in the listening or dealer demo rooms when his speakers were
> > being auditioned. Supposedly, those items could color the
> > sound.
> >
> > That says it all for me.
> >
> > Howard Ferstler
>
> Let's ignore Howard's illogical biases and talk about
> the equipment and it's performance.
Illogical biases? For pete's sake, Feng, the head Linn guy
is paranoid about wrist watches and telephones screwing up
the sound of his speakers during demos, and you are talking
about my illogical biases.
Well, you strive for pettiness - and you succeed.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:06:43 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
>
> >not like other speakers, telephones, or wrist watches to be
> >in the listening or dealer demo rooms when his speakers were
> >being auditioned. Supposedly, those items could color the
> >sound.
>
>
> On a serious note, having a number of speakers in a demo room does
> impart the sound quality, particularly if their coils aren't shorted
> Ivor Tiefenbrun's imagination.
Heck, you can feel woofer cones of disconnected speakers
when other speakers are playing loud and they are not
vibrating any more than the walls, windows, and a lot of
other artifacts in a typical room.
In addition, we obviously have a problem with mulichannel
systems, then, since in many cases we might have as many as
seven or eight, or more speakers in the same room. Heck,
even with stereo systems you have at least two speakers.
Howard Ferstler
Stephen McElroy
> If they were 70% less expensive, I'd also consider
> the Linn Keltik, Kelih (sp?) nice speakers for the money.
Keilidh. Both discontinued. I agree about the Tukan, though earlier models
were ultimately too bright for my friend who had them.
The 5140s are at 30% of the Keltiks' price, so they're "nice speakers for
the money"!
Linn speakers go right next to the wall, which helps the bass and gives
you more room, very important at Silicon Valley prices.
Some of the electronics are decently priced. For instance, buy the
hidously expensive A/V preamp and Linn will discount to cover the cost of
a $2700 five channel amp. (Perhaps a limited time offer; don't take *my*
word for it.)
Stephen
Stephen McElroy
> Quite some time ago, I read that the head man at Linn did
> not like other speakers, telephones, or wrist watches to be
> in the listening or dealer demo rooms when his speakers were
> being auditioned. Supposedly, those items could color the
> sound.
> That says it all for me.
By all means, ignore a major player on your beat.
Stephen
Gene Lyle
<hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
>
>Illogical biases? For pete's sake, Feng, the head Linn guy
>is paranoid about wrist watches and telephones screwing up
>the sound of his speakers during demos, and you are talking
>about my illogical biases.
>
>Well, you strive for pettiness - and you succeed.
>
>Howard Ferstler
Howard,
This is an allegation. Can you support it with anything factual?
Gene Lyle
Howard Ferstler
Not for you, I won't. You are not worth the effort.
PS: there was more than just one allegation in my comments.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
Oh, if they want to send me stuff to review I will be more
than happy to give them an even break. The will get the same
treatment that everybody else gets.
But, man, that wristwatch (digital wristwatches, as someone
interjected) and telephone stuff is absolutely weird.
Actually, I think the guys at the Boston Audio Society
pulled a fast one on Tiefenbrun when he was a guest at a
club meeting once. When he was raving about the sound of
something a couple of the members whipped out some digital
watches. They said he just smiled.
Hey, he plays the tweako-audio "game" expertly.
Howard Ferstler
George M. Middius
> > >the head Linn guy
> > >is paranoid about wrist watches and telephones screwing up
> > >the sound of his speakers during demos,
> > This is an allegation. Can you support it with anything factual?
> Not for you, I won't. You are not worth the effort.
Harold, you've claimed to relish the "debates" you engage in on
RAO. Some of these "debates" no doubt concern audio matters. This
one doesn't.
My question is: What kind of "debate" rules are you following?
The pathetic, lame-ass excuse you offer in this thread is almost
as weak as your "don't be so serious, get a life" masturbation.
When normal human beings do what we call "debate," the idea is to
state an opinion based on facts, evidence, or a testable
hypothesis. The most serious sort of debate is one that occurs in
a court of law, where somebody's freedom or worldly goods ride on
the outcome. Then there is the somewhat less serious variant used
in the political arena, where candidates brandish a type of
"debate" that is partly fact-based and partly showbiz. And the
members of corporate boards, legislative bodies, and other
deliberative groups all engage in an exchange of facts and
opinions and moral values and loud-shouting in attempt to get
their way.
And then there are the likes of you and Krooger, and Steindrone
and Booby Wumpkins, for whom "the debating trade" is just an
exercise in not-proving anything, followed by denials of denials,
slimy subject change, and infantile copouts.
You are such a phony, it's not at all surprising that a "writer"
with your "credentials" is a laughingstock in the real audio
press.
Howard Ferstler
> You are such a phony, it's not at all surprising that a "writer"
> with your "credentials" is a laughingstock in the real audio
> press.
Hello, George.
Good night, George.
Howard Ferstler
Gene Lyle
Howard,
This was a serious question. I would be interested in your source for
your allegationt.
Gene Lyle
Stewart Pinkerton
Yes, I've personally heard him claim it (the telephone thing) in a
demo around 1977-8, where he covered the receiver with his hand and
persuaded people that there was an audible difference. Ivor is
dishonest, but he's a *great* salesman! Hmmm, maybe there's some
correlation there? :-)
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
trotsky
Oh great, Stinky's back. More bullshit to follow.
Stephen McElroy
> Stephen McElroy wrote:
<snip>
> > By all means, ignore a major player on your beat.
> Oh, if they want to send me stuff to review I will be more
> than happy to give them an even break. The will get the same
> treatment that everybody else gets.
Sensible Sound like the Classik all-in-one.
> But, man, that wristwatch (digital wristwatches, as someone
> interjected) and telephone stuff is absolutely weird.
He also said that cd players weren't good enough. Then he made the best
one in the world. (IMO, of course.)
> Actually, I think the guys at the Boston Audio Society
> pulled a fast one on Tiefenbrun when he was a guest at a
> club meeting once. When he was raving about the sound of
> something a couple of the members whipped out some digital
> watches. They said he just smiled.
What a loony!
> Hey, he plays the tweako-audio "game" expertly.
Yes, actually, but you'd be hard pressed to see it in the product line.
His speaker wire is cheaper than Dunlavy's.
Stephen
Howard Ferstler
I got it from a report printed in the Boston Audio Society
Speaker a couple of decades back. (Even though I am a long
ways from Boston, I am a member of that club, because they
are a sharp bunch of people, and most of them are even
cheaper than I am.) As I recall (and it has been quite a
while), during a guest visit/talk by the guy, the club
members pulled a stunt where they secretly brought in some
digital watches. After Ivor finished raving about the sounds
he was hearing from some of his hardware that had been set
up (or maybe some other digital hardware, the old memory is
foggy), they whipped out the watches. As I recalled, he
smiled sheepishly and went on with his talk. Good grief, the
guy should have known how tricky those BAS guys were!
Hmmm. I have a bunch of those back issues. Maybe I ought to
dig through them, or if my kept copies do not go back far
enough, contact one of the genuinely long-time BAS members
for some specifics. If we are going to rake muck, we might
as well do it right. Right, Gene?
Besides, I need to contact some of the members to get some
information for the editing job I am doing on the
Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound.
Howard Ferstler
Stephen McElroy
> But, man, that wristwatch (digital wristwatches, as someone
> interjected) and telephone stuff is absolutely weird.
Say, was this a reference to possible LED noise? Tice Clock and all that.
Plenty of high end devices darken their displays...
Stephen
Gene Lyle
<hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
>
>I got it from a report printed in the Boston Audio Society
>Speaker a couple of decades back.
Thank you.
>Hmmm. I have a bunch of those back issues. Maybe I ought to
>dig through them, or if my kept copies do not go back far
>enough, contact one of the genuinely long-time BAS members
>for some specifics.
Yes, I think that would be a good idea.
> If we are going to rake muck, we might
>as well do it right. Right, Gene?
I'm not interested in raking muck, only in verifying the source of
your allegation.
Gene Lyle
Howard Ferstler
I believe that Mr. Pinkerton had information on another part
of this thread about Mr. Tiefenbrun's eccentricities
concerning telephones and audio systems.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
Yes, but the displays are built right into the unit and not
hanging on the wall across the room or on the listener's
wrist.
Besides, I would not know what darkening the display on the
unit would do to improve the sound.
The Tice Clock was a ludicrous scam.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Heck, you can feel woofer cones of disconnected speakers
> >when other speakers are playing loud and they are not
> >vibrating any more than the walls, windows, and a lot of
> >other artifacts in a typical room.
> problem. If other objects vibrate, why add some more artifacts?
Walls most certainly do audibly vibrate, even at normal
listening levels, particularly if the bass part of the
program is potent enough. And vibrating walls do add their
own colorations and resonances. In addition, most rooms have
windows, and windows can vibrate plenty. A typical room will
have a lot more window-glass area than what we have with
extra speakers in that room.
Any room that has walls that do not vibrate at all is
probably either a basement or a bank vault, and even then
the ceiling of the basement would still vibrate.
Incidentally, the walls in my main room are frame, with
6-inch studs on 16-inch centers. The wall covering is
3/8-inch paneling bonded and nailed over 5/8-inch drywall,
making a sandwich that is one-inch thick. The room, which is
somewhat larger than 18 x 22 feet, has one 4 x 8 foot window
and a 6 x 7 foot French door, plus another 6 x 7 foot door
to the rest of the house and a 3 x 3 foot window that
accesses the kitchen. That is really not a lot of glass area
for a room that size.
With decently loud program material, you can feel the walls
responding to the bass at times, and given the relative area
of those walls, compared to a typical woofer cone, I find it
hard to believe that additional speakers in the room would
be able to generate significant complementary signals when
other speakers were playing.
Typical ceilings are much larger in area than typical walls,
and it would be silly to think that the contribution of an
area that large would not be more significant than the
vibration of a couple of non-playing speaker-driver
diaphragms.
My listening room (pictured on the SurroundFreak's web site)
has pictures on the walls, book cases full of books and
recordings, and even a few trinkets on the shelves. I would
imagine that they vibrate just as vigorously as any unused
speakers in the room would.
> >In addition, we obviously have a problem with mulichannel
> >systems, then, since in many cases we might have as many as
> >seven or eight, or more speakers in the same room. Heck,
> >even with stereo systems you have at least two speakers.
> Irrelevant, Mr. Fertsler. You need two speakers for stereo (well, most
> of the time), and more for multichannel. And all are connected.
When I do my A/B speaker comparing, I use two different
amplifiers hooked up to the two pairs and use a switch box
hooked to the line-level inputs to each. Thus, both pairs of
speakers are hooked up to amps continuously. Therefore, you
could easily A/B them without the kind of
speaker-disconnected problem you noted.
> Having 20 or 30 pairs of speakers, such as in a typical demonstration
> room, is the problem pointed out by Linn and others.
The kind of room you note, with 20 or 30 pairs installed, is
probably a large open, demo area that no speakers would
sound good in, even if they were the only pair in the room.
Good comparisons are done in living-room-sized areas, and
areas like that are probably only able to demo two sets of
speakers at a time. That is the way I do it, and that should
be the way a good dealer would do it.
Note also that even in a demo that did involve multiple
pairs, the Linn speakers and the other speakers would all be
dealing with the same room/speaker vibration artifacts, so
the playing field would still be leveled.
Howard Ferstler
George M. Middius
> Besides, I need to contact some of the members to get some
> information for the editing job I am doing on the
> Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound.
I'm sure they'll reimburse you for a new hatchet.
George M. Middius
> The Tice Clock was a ludicrous scam.
There's a reason you only get 30 days to return store-bought
goods, Harold.
bf...@attglobal.net
>
> Stephen McElroy wrote:
> >
> > In article <3B604013...@mailer.fsu.edu>, hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu wrote:
> > > That says it all for me.
> >
> > By all means, ignore a major player on your beat.
>
> Oh, if they want to send me stuff to review I will be more
> than happy to give them an even break. The will get the same
> treatment that everybody else gets.
Howard, this is where your big mouth gets you into trouble.
You may think that the man who runs Linn is a nutcase. Fine.
That does not say it all about his products. They may very
well build products that perform well by your standards (ignoring
price). To say, "that says it all for me" is putting your head
in the sand for all the wrong reasons.
You might consider the current head of Ford a nutcase because he
choses to fly rather than drive (e.g. disagrees with your reasoning
on travel safety). What if he subscribes to herbal remedies for
medical maladies? And yet his company built a car that you liked enough
to buy.
John
Jonathan P. Spence
"Jonathan P. Spence" <jsp...@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BoU77.4857$J37.1...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> Hi, I have not been here for a while; the flaming was getting annoying.
Bu
> tit seems a bit better since the last time I was here, so here goes.
well I thought it was, but the usual 2-3 posts on-topic started another
pointless list of posts that had nothing to do with the products asked about
or the reasons for the opinions stated.
>
> I was wondering what people thought of the Linn equipment. They have been
> getting rave reviews and I used to work for a dealer in IL, but we did not
> carry all that much before I left. That and it is hard to find around
here.
> Just looking for personal opinions on their electronics, TTs, whatever.
>
> Have at it.
>
again, have at it about the Linn stuff (or even the Linn people, just try to
stay focused folks)
Stephen McElroy
> Stephen McElroy wrote:
> > Say, was this a reference to possible LED noise? Tice Clock and all that.
> > Plenty of high end devices darken their displays...
> Yes, but the displays are built right into the unit and not
> hanging on the wall across the room or on the listener's
> wrist.
And how close are those wrists to the listeners' ears? Hmmm?
May I suggest that some of these loony ideas are derived from plausible
premises? If undamped drivers can potentially muddy the sound, why exempt
telephone speakers from banishment? If LEDs emit RFI along with the light,
why would you want that near your stereo?
> Besides, I would not know what darkening the display on the
> unit would do to improve the sound.
Me, either, but it is less distracting visually. I have a memory that the
NAD 5000 that had some weird display related quirks, but I don't know if
they contributed substantially to the generally gritty sound
> The Tice Clock was a ludicrous scam.
Especially when you can get the same thing at Radio Shack...
Stephen
Arny Krueger
"Stephen McElroy" <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:smcatut-2707...@dial-80-5.ots.utexas.edu...
> May I suggest that some of these loony ideas are derived from
plausible premises?
Suggest away, but do try to try list some plausible premises.
> If undamped drivers can potentially muddy the sound, why exempt
> telephone speakers from banishment?
Not a plausible premise.
> If LEDs emit RFI along with the light, why would you want that
near your stereo?
Not a plausible premise.
> > Besides, I would not know what darkening the display on the unit
would do to improve the sound.
Welcome to the wonderful world of mixed-sensory perceptions.
> Me, either, but it is less distracting visually. I have a memory
that the
> NAD 5000 that had some weird display related quirks, but I don't
know if
> they contributed substantially to the generally gritty sound
Could be an example of mixed-sensory perceptions.
> > The Tice Clock was a ludicrous scam.
Highly probable example of mixed-sensory perceptions.
> Especially when you can get the same thing at Radio Shack...
But whose to say that if the Tice version "works", the RS version
didn't?
Arthur Collins
opinion on lack of knowledge and pre-existing bias. I do have to
disagree slightly though. The wristwatch thing was expoused more by
the late, great, Julian Verker of Naim. Who was a close friend of
Ivor's for 25 years before he tragically died of cancer. Ivor in a
recent interview with BAJ addressed the wristwatch thing and admitted
to it being extreme. However the problems of additional transducers in
the room is a valid and important one. You should audition speakers in
a single speaker demo room and additional speakers do color the sound.
There is no arguing that it does, the additional non-driven
transducers vibrate sympathetically with the speakers providing the
sound creating non-linearity. This also does not create a problem in a
surround sound system as all of the speakers are driven. It does
create a problem when you are listening to 2 channel material on a
surround sound system, Linn's processor has a "Limbik" mode on it that
does drive the additional speakers using a very light matrix, this
works with varying degrees of success based on the material.
Secondly, on the issue of value for the money. In the scope of
high-end audio, there is no real decent arguement that any equipment
offers good value for the money, when you can buy a shelf system for a
couple hundred bucks that will play all the same software. It is like
arguing that a Mercedes S class offers a good value, it absolutely
does not, a honda accord is a better value by any metric you could
use. However, the Mercedes may indeed be a great value to someone who
loves cars and in the context of other cars of the same caliber it may
be a great value.
Linn, in the context of high-end audio offers a great value when
compared to other prestige names like Mark Levinson, Krell and the
little boutique brands like Accuphase, Herron and Audio research. The
Linn LK series offers outstanding performance at a very modest price.
For instance, the Kollektor Pre-Amp is $1000, the LK-140 Amp is $1395
and the excelent Ninka speakers are $1400.00. So for $3800 an entire
Linn backend can be had that performs exceptionally. The Ninka's are
the very best speaker at that pricepoint and the Kollektor and LK-140
are very difficult to beat either. Also, there is a cohearant upgrade
path for this system. All Linn Speakers can be made Aktiv, whereas you
can remove the passive crossover from the signalpath and install
active crossover cards in the amplifiers. 40 % of the power from the
amp is lost in a passive crossover, also amps opperate more efficently
delivering a more narrow bandwidth signal. By adding a second LK-140
you would have a fully aktiv system that has outstanding performance.
There are many other gem's in their product line as well. The New
Espek speakers (5140 replacement) are also very good and have the
aktiv upgrade path. Also, Linn's source gear offers some of the best
performance available. The Genki at $1600 is the best sub 2k cd player
available, it is also extremely flexible with a host of output's . One
would have to go to a $2300 Naim CDX to better the performance, the
genki performs in the same class as the excelent $2000 Arcam FMJ-23 CD
players. There are many other high value products in the line up. The
statement products such as the climax and CD-12 are just that,
statements of what they can do and offer up the best performance for
people who just don't care what it cost's to get the best. I do
however agree that as is true with any manufacturer, certain products
are long in the tooth and due for an update. The Keltik and the 5103
are the two examples that come to mind.
Thirdly, It is a total misconception to think that Linn equipment
is tweaky. Linn (and Naim as well) are the absolute antithesis of
tweeky. They discourage using any kind of feet on their equipment,
recomend no powerconditioning just a simple wiremold no fuse, no surge
protection strip. Linn provides a high quality interconnect with each
component and recomends against third party interconnects, powercords
and all the other snake-oil stuff. They offer a single model of
upgraded silver interconnect that you can order either in premade
lenghts or as raw cables and ends. They even provide a single standard
of single, bi and tri-wire speaker cable. There is no tweeking
allowed, it is just plug and play. This may not appeal to some of the
more neurotic audiophile types who want their shatki stones and
strange tweeks, it is a very easy way for someone who is just a music
lover to assemble a very satisfying system without jumping through
hoops.
bf...@attglobal.net wrote in message news:<3B604AB3...@attglobal.net>...
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> Let's ignore Howard's illogical biases and talk about
> the equipment and it's performance.
>
> I have not tested any of the Linn products, but I have
> auditioned them extensively in stores and in my own home.
> Here's my personal, subjective, non-scientific opinion:
> (1) Linn Electronics perform fine, but are overpriced for what
> then do. Justification for the high price (for me) would
> (but isn't) be based on styling, cachet, features (in that order).
> If electroacoustic performance is your only priority, you can
> do just as well for far less $
> (2) Linn Speakers: I have always thought they did a few
> things really well. First, although the FR is not the smoothest
> you'll see, they sound (subjectively) very smooth. This only applies
> to the generation of speakers dating back about 1 or 2 years
> (newest ceramic tweeter design). Second, they all have very
> modest bass capabilities, but the midbass isn't nearly as bumped
> up to compensate as it is in many other speakers. Third, when
> positioned properly, they throw a very deep, wide sound stage
> in my home. Fourth, they image very well. Fifth, I can hear
> more detail in large ensemble passages than with most other
> speakers.
> Fifth, they can't play very loud, and when you ask too much of
> them in terms of volume, the first and fifth characteristics that
> I mentioned go away.
>
> If I were looking for a small set of speakers and I didn't need good
> bass
> extension or high SPL levels, I'd put the Linn Tukan (now the Katan)
> near the top of my
> list. THe 5140 would rank similarly for floor standing speakers with
> a
> small foot print. In terms of price, again, I don't think the
> speakers
> are any bargain. In terms of value, that's to personal a thing for me
> to advise you on. If they were 70% less expensive, I'd also consider
> the Linn Keltik, Kelih (sp?) nice speakers for the money.
>
> John
Howard Ferstler
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> >
> > Stephen McElroy wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3B604013...@mailer.fsu.edu>, hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu wrote:
> > >(snip)
> > > > That says it all for me.
> > >
> > > By all means, ignore a major player on your beat.
> > Oh, if they want to send me stuff to review I will be more
> > than happy to give them an even break. The will get the same
> > treatment that everybody else gets.
> Howard, this is where your big mouth gets you into trouble.
Look, pal, my big mouth is part of my personality. If some
manufacture or hobby enthusiast does not like my style, they
are free to avoid me. I suppose you want everybody out there
to be as accommodating as you are.
> You may think that the man who runs Linn is a nutcase. Fine.
Yeah. I am allowed to have opinions. The guy is probably not
a nut. He just knows how to work the high-end mantra
skillfully. I have little use for such personalities, but if
they make a good product they will get a good review from
me.
> That does not say it all about his products. They may very
> well build products that perform well by your standards (ignoring
> price).
Yep. They may be fine - even excellent. And I never let my
feelings about somebody color my reviewing technique. After
all, when John Atkinson sent me several of his compact discs
to review I gave them substantial praise.
> To say, "that says it all for me" is putting your head
> in the sand for all the wrong reasons.
OK. It says it all for me regarding my feelings about the
company philosophy. I prefer that manufacturers be a bit
more level headed or less eccentric, and I certainly trust
those who do not play "the game" more than I trust those
that do play it.
> You might consider the current head of Ford a nutcase because he
> choses to fly rather than drive (e.g. disagrees with your reasoning
> on travel safety). What if he subscribes to herbal remedies for
> medical maladies? And yet his company built a car that you liked enough
> to buy.
And as I said in my previous post: "If they want to send me
stuff to review I will be more than happy to give them an
even break. The will get the same treatment that everybody
else gets."
Howard Ferstler
Arny Krueger
<bf...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3B617E94...@attglobal.net...
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> >
> > Stephen McElroy wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3B604013...@mailer.fsu.edu>,
hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu wrote:
> > >(snip)
> > > > That says it all for me.
> > >
> > > By all means, ignore a major player on your beat.
> >
> > Oh, if they want to send me stuff to review I will be more
> > than happy to give them an even break. The will get the same
> > treatment that everybody else gets.
>
> Howard, this is where your big mouth gets you into trouble.
> You may think that the man who runs Linn is a nutcase. Fine.
> That does not say it all about his products. They may very
> well build products that perform well by your standards (ignoring
> price). To say, "that says it all for me" is putting your head
> in the sand for all the wrong reasons.
> You might consider the current head of Ford a nutcase because he
> chooses to fly rather than drive (e.g. disagrees with your
reasoning
> on travel safety). What if he subscribes to herbal remedies for
> medical maladies? And yet his company built a car that you liked
enough
> to buy.
Right.
In the case of Linn, it's my understanding that the backing for the
company is or was a metal-working firm. There are many parts to a
product, performance is just one of them. By most accounts and my
recollections, the Linn turntable does have some nice examples of
metal-working in it. Obviously they know how to do *something* right.
Since it is/was their main business, this all fits.
If you asked the head of Ford why he flies instead of drives, he
could answer that its all a matter of picking the right tool for the
job at hand. Since he uses good judgment instead of parochial
knee-jerk decisions to pick his mode of transportation, we have some
confidence that he's a reasonable manager. Since his job is managing
Ford, the fact that he makes reasonable choices about transportation
is good news for the customers and stockholders.
Howard Ferstler
>
> In article <3B616E9C...@mailer.fsu.edu>, hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu wrote:
>
> > Stephen McElroy wrote:
>
> > > Say, was this a reference to possible LED noise? Tice Clock and all that.
>
> > > Plenty of high end devices darken their displays...
>
> > Yes, but the displays are built right into the unit and not
> > hanging on the wall across the room or on the listener's
> > wrist.
> And how close are those wrists to the listeners' ears? Hmmm?
Are you suggesting that the digital watches are generating
audible sounds when the speakers are playing?
> May I suggest that some of these loony ideas are derived from plausible
> premises? If undamped drivers can potentially muddy the sound, why exempt
> telephone speakers from banishment?
Well, how about windows, which have flexible surfaces that
are way, way larger than telephone speakers - or even hi-fi
speakers, in most cases. What about the ceiling, which has
many, many, many times the surface area as any speaker in
the room? I mean, the whole damned room is going to vibrate
to an extent, and to say that a couple of tiny telephone
diaphragms or something in a digital wrist watch (God knows
what the watch has in it that is supposed to color the
sound), or even the diaphragm in a regular loudspeaker, will
have a significant impact is comic - or clever and designed
to further enhance the mysteries of high-end audio.
> If LEDs emit RFI along with the light,
> why would you want that near your stereo?
It obviously would be easy to check out the impact of LEDs
if the light-output is adjustable. Hide the readout from the
listener and then have somebody who can see the readout push
the dimmer button as required and do an A/B comparison. My
guess is that nobody would be able to hear the difference
with a fixed display. There would be two reasons for a
dimmer control: (1) to set the light level to a brightness
taste that suited the listener and (2) to further enhance
the mumbo-jumbo quotient that many high-end freaks demand.
> > Besides, I would not know what darkening the display on the
> > unit would do to improve the sound.
> Me, either, but it is less distracting visually.
Fine. And that is a good reason to have a dimmer.
> I have a memory that the
> NAD 5000 that had some weird display related quirks, but I don't know if
> they contributed substantially to the generally gritty sound
Actually, I have a VCR with sequential LED level meters that
flicker with the input/output levels and they caused some
mild static interference when the unit was hooked into one
of the main audio systems a few years back. Turning the
display off eliminated the problem. However, you could
easily hear its effect, blind or sighted. There was no mumbo
jumbo about it.
> > The Tice Clock was a ludicrous scam.
> Especially when you can get the same thing at Radio Shack...
So I have read.
Howard Ferstler
bf...@attglobal.net
Stephen McElroy wrote:
> (snip)
>
> May I suggest that some of these loony ideas are derived from plausible
> premises? If undamped drivers can potentially muddy the sound, why exempt
> telephone speakers from banishment? If LEDs emit RFI along with the light,
> why would you want that near your stereo?
Sorry Steve, but I think that looney is not an inaccurate word
to describe these ideas.
John
bf...@attglobal.net
Arthur Collins wrote:
> (snip)
> However the problems of additional transducers in
> the room is a valid and important one.
Yes, when it exists to the extent that it makes an audible difference.
The telephone this is, for any practical situation I can think of,
just plain wrong. Ditto the wrist watch thing.
> You should audition speakers in
> a single speaker demo room and additional speakers do color the sound.
It's the safe thing to do, when you don't know if it's going to be
a real problem. The caveat is that you can't do this when you
are doing A/B comparisons. Howard's point of whether or not it
makes an AUDIBLE difference is a good one. Sometimes it can, and
sometimes it won't.
> There is no arguing that it does, the additional non-driven
> transducers vibrate sympathetically with the speakers providing the
> sound creating non-linearity.
The phenomenon are:
(1) Additional reflections, which change the indirect arrivals
that the listener receives
(2) Sympathetic vibration
(3) Not being able to listen to the speakers in exactly the same
location.
Of the three, I would personally rank #1 and #3 ahead of #2.
(snip)
> Secondly, on the issue of value for the money. In the scope of
> high-end audio, there is no real decent arguement that any equipment
> offers good value for the money, when you can buy a shelf system for a
> couple hundred bucks that will play all the same software.
That's a strawman argument. If the high-end system sounds different,
then there IS a real decent argument about more value for more money.
> It is like
> arguing that a Mercedes S class offers a good value, it absolutely
> does not, a honda accord is a better value by any metric you could
> use.
Strongly disagree. Try these metrics
(1) Isolation from irritating or fatiguing road-induced
vibration(Comfort )
(2) Isolation from irritating or fatiguing vehicle-induced
vibration(Comfort )
(e.g. from engine, etc)
(3) Isolation from irritating or fatiguing sounds(Comfort )
(4) Feel and durability of interior materials (quality)
(5) Handling in any condition/situation
(6) Acceleration and braking performance
(7) Safety in an accident
> Linn, in the context of high-end audio offers a great value when
> compared to other prestige names like Mark Levinson, Krell and the
> little boutique brands like Accuphase, Herron and Audio research.
Just for argument's sake. Lets say LINN made a speaker that cost $1000
a pair and that sounded worse than a pair of $500 speakers from NHT.
Is that pair of LINN speakers a good value for you? I think not.
When I think about value, it is a matter of what is important to you and
how much it costs you to acquire those priorities. If LINN
satisfies your priorities for less $$ than other brands then LINN is
the BEST VALUE for you. If it does so better than most other brands
then it's a better value for you than most other brands.
> The Linn LK series offers outstanding performance at a very modest price.
> For instance, the Kollektor Pre-Amp is $1000, the LK-140 Amp is $1395
> and the excelent Ninka speakers are $1400.00. So for $3800 an entire
> Linn backend can be had that performs exceptionally.
Great, and for me, a $750 pre-power set sounds just as good, and
therefore
represents a better value (haven't heard the new Ninka spkrs). At 3
times
the cost, the LINN electronics are simply a poor value for me. Why
should
I spend $1400 more when it gets me NOTHING extra that I find important.
Now, if I put more of a priority on cachet and styling, perhaps the LINN
electronics would be a better value for me.
> All Linn Speakers can be made Aktiv, whereas you
> can remove the passive crossover from the signalpath and install
> active crossover cards in the amplifiers.
If this is a priority for you, then this feature adds value to the
product. Me? I'm happy with passive crossovers, and my next step will
be to spkrs with built in D/A with DSP processing (ala Meridian, TAD,
etc.)
> 40 % of the power from the
> amp is lost in a passive crossover,
That's a gross generalization, and as such it's going to be wrong
a lot of the time. IF your top priority is getting more
acoustic output for the same wattage (and money is no object),
then this point could be important. Frankly, amplifier power
(good amplifer power, that is) is pretty cheap these days.
What LINN could do that would impress me is add active control
to their Aktiv upgrade. This would enable their speakers to
operate with less distortion over a wider frequency range.
> Thirdly, It is a total misconception to think that Linn equipment
> is tweeky.
I didn't say it was.
John
Arny Krueger
"Arthur Collins" <arthur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c30357.0107...@posting.google.com...
>The wristwatch thing was espoused more by the late, great, Julian
Verker of Naim.
Figures. But Ivor picked it up and ran with it, no?
> Ivor in a recent interview with BAJ addressed the wristwatch thing
and admitted to it being extreme.
It sure took him long enough to admit to that!
>However the problems of additional transducers in the room is a
valid and important one.
Ever try to prove it with DBT. There's this apocryphal story about
someone who sneaked a speaker into a room while Ivor was making these
bold pronouncements about sound quality. Ivor was totally
blind-sided, as it were...
>You should audition speakers in a single speaker demo room and
additional speakers do color the sound.
While the sales clerk is dragging those speakers in an out of the
room, your ability to hear subtle differences goes right down the
porcelain convenience. Then the sales guy tells you that you should
have heard a dramatic difference. Talk about getting control over the
customer's mind!
> There is no arguing that it does,
At least reasonable arguments...
> the additional non-driven
> transducers vibrate sympathetically with the speakers providing the
> sound creating non-linearity.
In a world with an infinitely low threshold of hearing, this might
even be true. But even then, the nonlinearity part is pretty
far-fetched.
> This also does not create a problem in a
> surround sound system as all of the speakers are driven.
Even if they weren't.
> It does
> create a problem when you are listening to 2 channel material on a
> surround sound system, Linn's processor has a "Limbik" mode on it
that
> does drive the additional speakers using a very light matrix, this
> works with varying degrees of success based on the material.
When a speaker is hooked to an operating amplifier, the cone responds
with sympathetic vibrations the same, whether it is being driven with
music or not. It works this way at least up to the point where the
cone's suspension becomes nonlinear, which we hope (and can
reasonably presume in a HiFi system operating properly) never
happens.
> Secondly, on the issue of value for the money. In the scope of
> high-end audio, there is no real decent argument that any equipment
> offers good value for the money, when you can buy a shelf system
for a
> couple hundred bucks that will play all the same software.
At least the writer is being consistently illogical.
>It is like
> arguing that a Mercedes S class offers a good value, it absolutely
> does not, a Honda accord is a better value by any metric you could
> use.
Interesting that the writer gives so much weight to intangible claims
about idle speakers in a room and gives so little weight to the
intangible properties of automobiles.
> However, the Mercedes may indeed be a great value to someone who
> loves cars and in the context of other cars of the same caliber it
may
> be a great value.
OK, after discounting the intangibles, he adds them back in, as an
afterthought, for the cars.
> Linn, in the context of high-end audio offers a great value when
> compared to other prestige names like Mark Levinson, Krell and the
> little boutique brands like Accuphase, Herron and Audio Research.
In someone's opinion, at least.
> The Linn LK series offers outstanding performance at a very modest
price.
Oh, and we can reasonably expect an explanation of that outstanding
performance?
> For instance, the Kollektor Pre-Amp is $1000, the LK-140 Amp is
$1395
> and the excellent Ninka speakers are $1400.00. So for $3800 an
entire
> Linn backend can be had that performs exceptionally.
Performs exceptionally how?
> The Ninka's are
> the very best speaker at that pricepoint and the Kollektor and
LK-140
> are very difficult to beat either.
Very best speaker, why?
> Also, there is a coherent upgrade path for this system.
What about coherent sound?
> All Linn Speakers can be made Aktiv, whereas you
> can remove the passive crossover from the signalpath and install
> active crossover cards in the amplifiers.
Interesting.
>40 % of the power from the amp is lost in a passive crossover,
And power amps cost $1,000 a watt so...
;-)
> also amps operate more efficiently delivering a more narrow
bandwidth signal.
Important since power amps cost $1,000 a watt so...
;-)
> By adding a second LK-140
> you would have a fully aktiv system that has outstanding
performance.
Outstanding performance in what terms, given that good clean
amplifier power is about the cheapest thing in any audio system.
> There are many other gem's in their product line as well. The New
> Espek speakers (5140 replacement) are also very good and have the
> aktiv upgrade path.
It's too bad that Linn has so little confidence in their speakers
with passive crossovers.
> Also, Linn's source gear offers some of the best
> performance available. The Genki at $1600 is the best sub 2k cd
player
> available, it is also extremely flexible with a host of output's .
How many outputs does a CD player need?
>One
> would have to go to a $2300 Naim CDX to better the performance, the
> genki performs in the same class as the excelent $2000 Arcam FMJ-23
CD
> players.
Ever hear the story about the woman that had 23 children and then her
uterus fell out? I get this feeling your "groundless asserter" is
about ready to fall out.
;-)
>There are many other high value products in the line up.
I'm the opinion that $1200 CD players and "High value" don't really
mix.
>The
> statement products such as the climax and CD-12 are just that,
> statements of what they can do and offer up the best performance
for
> people who just don't care what it cost's to get the best.
The best in terms of what?
> I do
> however agree that as is true with any manufacturer, certain
products
> are long in the tooth and due for an update. The Keltik and the
5103
> are the two examples that come to mind.
Somehow this monologue reminds me of one of those sports announcers
who is given a player-by-player evaluation of both teams in a sports
contest. Ever see any correlation between what he says and who wins?
> Thirdly, It is a total misconception to think that Linn
equipment
> is tweaky.
Please define "tweaky".
> Linn (and Naim as well) are the absolute antithesis of
> tweeky. They discourage using any kind of feet on their equipment,
> recommend no power conditioning just a simple wiremold no fuse, no
surge
> protection strip.
Really, then the "Skeets Floor Protectors" are in no way, feet? And
the spiked fee that
http://www.linn.co.uk/spec_sound/products.cfm?range=accessories&refer
erURL=http://www.linn.co.uk/index.cfm#59 says come with the Linn
speakers aren't feet either?
Wild.
;-)
Given what they do focus on, a fuse would seem like a breath of fresh
air.
> Linn provides a high quality interconnect with each
> component and recommends against third party interconnects,
powercords
> and all the other snake-oil stuff.
http://www.linn.co.uk/spec_sound/products.cfm?range=accessories&refer
erURL=http://www.linn.co.uk/index.cfm#59 pretty well clears up any
misunderstanding we might have about Linn products being "Tweaky".
Tri-wiring and Bi-wiring aren't "Tweaky"?
>They offer a single model of
> upgraded silver interconnect that you can order either in premade
> lengths or as raw cables and ends.
Check out the "specifications" for this stuff at
http://www.linn.co.uk/spec_sound/products.cfm?range=accessories&refer
erURL=http://www.linn.co.uk/index.cfm#59 .
>They even provide a single standard
> of single, bi and tri-wire speaker cable.
Not "Tweaky" at all.
;-)
>There is no tweeking allowed, it is just plug and play.
No feet, either.
;-)
>This may not appeal to some of the
> more neurotic audiophile types who want their shatki stones and
> strange tweeks, it is a very easy way for someone who is just a
music
> lover to assemble a very satisfying system without jumping through
> hoops.
Except for Bi-Wiring, Tri-Wiring and "Skeets Floor Protectors"...
;-)
bf...@attglobal.net
Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> bf...@attglobal.net wrote:
> >(snip)
> > Howard, this is where your big mouth gets you into trouble.
>
> Look, pal, my big mouth is part of my personality.
You got that right.
> If some manufacture or hobby enthusiast does not like my style, they
> are free to avoid me. I suppose you want everybody out there
> to be as accommodating as you are.
I am not accomodating any eccentricities of the head of LINN HiFi.
I am merely saying that the products may perform very well
despite the eccentricities of this fellow. For you to brush of
all LINN's products, based only on these eccentricities is
stupid.
> > You may think that the man who runs Linn is a nutcase. Fine.
>
> Yeah. I am allowed to have opinions. The guy is probably not
> a nut. He just knows how to work the high-end mantra
> skillfully.
Good, we share this opinion.
> > That does not say it all about his products. They may very
> > well build products that perform well by your standards (ignoring
> > price).
>
> Yep. They may be fine - even excellent. And I never let my
> feelings about somebody color my reviewing technique.
Great, it's nice to see you submit to logic and retract from an
incorrect position.
>
> > To say, "that says it all for me" is putting your head
> > in the sand for all the wrong reasons.
>
> OK. It says it all for me regarding my feelings about the
> company philosophy.
See, it's not that hard to say something with accuracy.
John
Arny Krueger
<bf...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3B61883C...@attglobal.net...
As stated, and in the original context, yes.
However, LEDs are diodes and diodes can have a lot of capacitance.
When driven at very high frequencies like a Toslink transmitter, the
high AC current can lead to radiation of some EMI, unless the diode
is kept well within the confines of the equipment enclosure.
Howard Ferstler
> However the problems of additional transducers in
> the room is a valid and important one. You should audition speakers in
> a single speaker demo room and additional speakers do color the sound.
> There is no arguing that it does, the additional non-driven
> transducers vibrate sympathetically with the speakers providing the
> sound creating non-linearity.
Well, when I compare two pairs of speakers I use two stereo
amps (which allows for level matching) and do my switching
via the line-level inputs. This means that all four speakers
are under the control of all the amplifiers, all the time.
This is how it always should be done, and it certainly
eliminates the problem that Ivor was worrying about.
Howard Ferstler
George M. Middius
> again, have at it about the Linn stuff (or even the Linn people, just try to
> stay focused folks)
How would you answer the question "What do you think of Ford
cars?"
George M. Middius
> Look, pal, my big mouth is part of my personality. If some
> manufacture or hobby enthusiast does not like my style, they
> are free to avoid me.
This is not what human beings call "debate", Pinheaded One. This
is just self-indulgent whining.
Stewart Pinkerton
>I agree with much of what you say, Howard is totally basing his
>opinion on lack of knowledge and pre-existing bias. I do have to
>disagree slightly though. The wristwatch thing was expoused more by
>the late, great, Julian Verker of Naim. Who was a close friend of
>Ivor's for 25 years before he tragically died of cancer.
Well, friendly until Ivor decided there was money to be made from
electronics, and dropped Naim like a hot brick.........
> Ivor in a
>recent interview with BAJ addressed the wristwatch thing and admitted
>to it being extreme. However the problems of additional transducers in
>the room is a valid and important one. You should audition speakers in
>a single speaker demo room and additional speakers do color the sound.
As much or more than windows and ceilings, do you think? :-)
Also, what has this to do with the tiny transducers in telephones and
wristwatches?
>There is no arguing that it does, the additional non-driven
>transducers vibrate sympathetically with the speakers providing the
>sound creating non-linearity.
Who told you that? Ever feel an unconnected speaker cone doing this?
Why would it be any worse than any other resonant surface, like a
shelf or a coffee table?
> This also does not create a problem in a
>surround sound system as all of the speakers are driven. It does
>create a problem when you are listening to 2 channel material on a
>surround sound system, Linn's processor has a "Limbik" mode on it that
>does drive the additional speakers using a very light matrix, this
>works with varying degrees of success based on the material.
Yeah, right..................
>Secondly, on the issue of value for the money. In the scope of
>high-end audio, there is no real decent arguement that any equipment
>offers good value for the money, when you can buy a shelf system for a
>couple hundred bucks that will play all the same software. It is like
>arguing that a Mercedes S class offers a good value, it absolutely
>does not, a honda accord is a better value by any metric you could
>use. However, the Mercedes may indeed be a great value to someone who
>loves cars and in the context of other cars of the same caliber it may
>be a great value.
The point is that the high-end gear mostly provides *zero* performance
benefit, just lots of nice shiny alloy and a 'designer' label. This is
not true of the Mercedes S-class, which has tangible benefits as
transportation.
>Linn, in the context of high-end audio offers a great value when
>compared to other prestige names like Mark Levinson, Krell and the
>little boutique brands like Accuphase, Herron and Audio research.
Oh, really? The CD-12 offers great value? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
> The
>Linn LK series offers outstanding performance at a very modest price.
>For instance, the Kollektor Pre-Amp is $1000, the LK-140 Amp is $1395
>and the excelent Ninka speakers are $1400.00. So for $3800 an entire
>Linn backend can be had that performs exceptionally.
But no more so than Rotel gear at a third of the price, with say KEF
or B&W speakers also at much lower prices.
> The Ninka's are
>the very best speaker at that pricepoint
That would be 'in your humble opinion', of course.......
My humble opinion would be that they are a sick joke in comparison
with the B&W N805, Dynaudio Contour 1.3, JMlab Electra 905, PMC FB1,
Proac Response 1, Spendor SP2/3, and even the Celestion A2. Of course
that's just an opinion, I wouldn't be so dumb as to suggest that any
one speaker was 'the very best' for every system, room and listener.
> and the Kollektor and LK-140
>are very difficult to beat either. Also, there is a cohearant upgrade
>path for this system. All Linn Speakers can be made Aktiv, whereas you
>can remove the passive crossover from the signalpath and install
>active crossover cards in the amplifiers. 40 % of the power from the
>amp is lost in a passive crossover,
Utter rubbish!
> also amps opperate more efficently
>delivering a more narrow bandwidth signal. By adding a second LK-140
>you would have a fully aktiv system that has outstanding performance.
Nope, a second LK140 *and* the active crossover, giving you a *very*
expensive system which would be totally destroyed by the ATC SCM20SLA
for less money, or indeed by a Rotel RMB-1090 driving B&W N804s for
the same cost. Active-drive Linn systems are stunningly poor value for
money by any measure, and ultimately never get past mediocre
performance even at fully active Keltik level (for £20k!!).
>There are many other gem's in their product line as well. The New
>Espek speakers (5140 replacement) are also very good and have the
>aktiv upgrade path. Also, Linn's source gear offers some of the best
>performance available. The Genki at $1600 is the best sub 2k cd player
>available, it is also extremely flexible with a host of output's .
Again, this is just *your* opinion, mine would be that the Arcam CD-23
is a comprehensively superior machine.
> One
>would have to go to a $2300 Naim CDX to better the performance, the
>genki performs in the same class as the excelent $2000 Arcam FMJ-23 CD
>players. There are many other high value products in the line up. The
>statement products such as the climax and CD-12 are just that,
>statements of what they can do and offer up the best performance for
>people who just don't care what it cost's to get the best.
So, just what do you think you get for your £12k from the CD-12 that
you don't get for £1200 from the Arcam CD-23? :-)
> I do
>however agree that as is true with any manufacturer, certain products
>are long in the tooth and due for an update. The Keltik and the 5103
>are the two examples that come to mind.
> Thirdly, It is a total misconception to think that Linn equipment
>is tweaky. Linn (and Naim as well) are the absolute antithesis of
>tweeky. They discourage using any kind of feet on their equipment,
>recomend no powerconditioning just a simple wiremold no fuse, no surge
>protection strip. Linn provides a high quality interconnect with each
>component and recomends against third party interconnects, powercords
>and all the other snake-oil stuff. They offer a single model of
>upgraded silver interconnect that you can order either in premade
>lenghts or as raw cables and ends. They even provide a single standard
>of single, bi and tri-wire speaker cable. There is no tweeking
>allowed, it is just plug and play. This may not appeal to some of the
>more neurotic audiophile types who want their shatki stones and
>strange tweeks, it is a very easy way for someone who is just a music
>lover to assemble a very satisfying system without jumping through
>hoops.
It's also a good way of locking you into *one brand* of overpriced
snake-oil wire.............
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Howard Ferstler
>
> Arthur Collins wrote:
> > There is no arguing that it does, the additional non-driven
> > transducers vibrate sympathetically with the speakers providing the
> > sound creating non-linearity.
> The phenomenon are:
> (1) Additional reflections, which change the indirect arrivals
> that the listener receives
I think this is certainly valid. If you are comparing two
speaker pairs and they are right next to each other, there
will be potential interference effects, particularly if one
or both pairs are extremely wide-dispersing models. More
directional speakers are less of a problem, but even they
will be impacted by the larger acoustic-baffle size if the
speakers are right up close to each other.
> (2) Sympathetic vibration
This might be a problem with woofers. However, if both pairs
are being driven by independent amps, the damping from the
amps will apply some control to the non-playing units. I
really do not see this as much of an issue, particularly
compared to what I noted above.
> (3) Not being able to listen to the speakers in exactly the same
> location.
Yes, there will be problems with imaging. If you stagger the
speakers (speaker pair A and speaker pair B) so that the
soundstages are the same width (AB/AB), you will not be able
to instantaneously judge imaging and center focus. If you
set them so that both image at the same sweet-spot point
(AB/BA), one pair will be more widely spaced than the other,
which will impact soundstaging comparisons pretty
emphatically.
Actually, it also not only makes for problems with speakers
that can be pulled out from the walls and set next to each
other, but also causes problems when comparing speakers that
are designed to be placed differently. When I compare my
wide-dispersing, against-the-wall IC-20 systems to speakers
that are designed to be pulled out from the front wall some
distance (the Dunlavy SC-II or Cantata models, for instance,
or the Triumph Signatures), I have to decide just how much
the IC-20s can stand to be blocked by the pulled-out
speakers. With big jobs like the Cantatas, this can be
tricky.
> Of the three, I would personally rank #1 and #3 ahead of #2.
Me, too. The location differences and the different
soundstaging and imaging problems they create are the
biggest problems I have had when comparing speakers. I rate
#3 as by far the most important, with #1 next (depending on
cabinet size and shape and radiation pattern), and then #2
way, way behind.
Howard Ferstler
bf...@attglobal.net
Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> bf...@attglobal.net wrote:
> >
It's rather frightening when we don't have
nasty things to say to each other!
John
Nousaine
>"Arthur Collins" <arthur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1c30357.0107...@posting.google.com...
>
>
>>The wristwatch thing was espoused more by the late, great, Julian
>Verker of Naim.
>
>Figures. But Ivor picked it up and ran with it, no?
>
>> Ivor in a recent interview with BAJ addressed the wristwatch thing
>and admitted to it being extreme.
>
>It sure took him long enough to admit to that!
>
>>However the problems of additional transducers in the room is a
>valid and important one.
>
>Ever try to prove it with DBT. There's this apocryphal story about
>someone who sneaked a speaker into a room while Ivor was making these
>bold pronouncements about sound quality. Ivor was totally
>blind-sided, as it were..
A number of years ago I was invited to a 'free seminar on How to Buy Hi-fi'. It
turned out to be a Linn sales pitch complete with some rather ridiculous sales
techniques.
During the course I asked if having another transducer in a room would
interfere with sound quality. The Host aknowledged that it most certainly
would. No sooner than he got the words out of his mouth the phone on the
conference room wall rang. He didn't even flinch but kept right on going.
Unbelieveably, after giving a heated pitch on a pair of small Linn speakers he
pronounced that he was now going to demo the better Linn speakers. Guess where
they were during the earlier part of the demo. Under the skirt of the table
cloth that covered conference table with theit printed sales brochures.
>
>>You should audition speakers in a single speaker demo room and
>additional speakers do color the sound.
>
>While the sales clerk is dragging those speakers in an out of the
>room, your ability to hear subtle differences goes right down the
>porcelain convenience. Then the sales guy tells you that you should
>have heard a dramatic difference. Talk about getting control over the
>customer's mind!
Actually I think it's just a merchandising technique to make sure competing
products aren't available for comparison.
The idea that undriven speaker drivers will color the sound is poppycock. I
never hear anyone suggest that a tweeter, midrange or woofer colors the sound
of other drivers in the same system through sympathetic vibrations when no
program content falls in their bandwidth. If they "do anything" it would be to
add a small amount of middle to lower frequency absorption of which there is
often an inadequate amount in typical rooms.
>> There is no arguing that it does,
>
>At least reasonable arguments...
>
>> the additional non-driven
>> transducers vibrate sympathetically with the speakers providing the
>> sound creating non-linearity.
>
>In a world with an infinitely low threshold of hearing, this might
>even be true. But even then, the nonlinearity part is pretty
>far-fetched.
Very, very far-fetched ! :)
.......snip.............
Stephen McElroy
Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "Stephen McElroy" <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:smcatut-2707...@dial-80-5.ots.utexas.edu...
> > May I suggest that some of these loony ideas are derived from
> plausible premises?
> Suggest away, but do try to try list some plausible premises.
I'm only reporting.
> > If undamped drivers can potentially muddy the sound, why exempt
> > telephone speakers from banishment?
> Not a plausible premise.
I include that as a "loony idea".
> > If LEDs emit RFI along with the light, why would you want that
> near your stereo?
> Not a plausible premise.
Ditto. "Loony idea".
> > > Besides, I would not know what darkening the display on the unit
> would do to improve the sound.
> Welcome to the wonderful world of mixed-sensory perceptions.
Hi!
> > Me, either, but it is less distracting visually. I have a memory
> that the
> > NAD 5000 that had some weird display related quirks, but I don't
> know if
> > they contributed substantially to the generally gritty sound
> Could be an example of mixed-sensory perceptions.
Sure.
> > > The Tice Clock was a ludicrous scam.
> Highly probable example of mixed-sensory perceptions.
The price was economic performance art.
> > Especially when you can get the same thing at Radio Shack...
> But whose to say that if the Tice version "works", the RS version
> didn't?
Not me.
Stephen
Stephen McElroy
Why are you sorry to agree with me?
Stephen
Stephen McElroy
> > > Stephen McElroy wrote:
<LEDs>
> > > Yes, but the displays are built right into the unit and not
> > > hanging on the wall across the room or on the listener's
> > > wrist.
> > And how close are those wrists to the listeners' ears? Hmmm?
> Are you suggesting that the digital watches are generating
> audible sounds when the speakers are playing?
Suppose they are spewing RFI or EMI and messing up a badly-designed high
end amp or other component.
To answer the question literally: no.
> > May I suggest that some of these loony ideas are derived from plausible
> > premises? If undamped drivers can potentially muddy the sound, why exempt
> > telephone speakers from banishment?
> Well, how about windows, which have flexible surfaces that
> are way, way larger than telephone speakers - or even hi-fi
> speakers, in most cases.
Windows: bad. Highly reflective. Ask Eckmeier.
> What about the ceiling, which has
> many, many, many times the surface area as any speaker in
> the room?
Get one of those "acoustic ceilings". Or a gobo.
> I mean, the whole damned room is going to vibrate
> to an extent, and to say that a couple of tiny telephone
> diaphragms or something in a digital wrist watch (God knows
> what the watch has in it that is supposed to color the
> sound), or even the diaphragm in a regular loudspeaker, will
> have a significant impact is comic - or clever and designed
> to further enhance the mysteries of high-end audio.
That's the exaggeration of a plausible point to which I refer. Ask Arny
which Schopenhauer applies.
> > If LEDs emit RFI along with the light,
> > why would you want that near your stereo?
> It obviously would be easy to check out the impact of LEDs
> if the light-output is adjustable.
No, it isn't.
> Hide the readout from the
> listener and then have somebody who can see the readout push
> the dimmer button as required and do an A/B comparison. My
> guess is that nobody would be able to hear the difference
> with a fixed display. There would be two reasons for a
> dimmer control: (1) to set the light level to a brightness
> taste that suited the listener and (2) to further enhance
> the mumbo-jumbo quotient that many high-end freaks demand.
Dimmers: bad.
> > > Besides, I would not know what darkening the display on the
> > > unit would do to improve the sound.
> > Me, either, but it is less distracting visually.
> Fine. And that is a good reason to have a dimmer.
Bzzz.
> > I have a memory that the
> > NAD 5000 that had some weird display related quirks, but I don't know if
> > they contributed substantially to the generally gritty sound
> Actually, I have a VCR with sequential LED level meters that
> flicker with the input/output levels and they caused some
> mild static interference when the unit was hooked into one
> of the main audio systems a few years back. Turning the
> display off eliminated the problem. However, you could
> easily hear its effect, blind or sighted. There was no mumbo
> jumbo about it.
Exactly. So if LEDs are bad, then why take them into the listening room?
Hypothetical question! My point is that some of these loony ideas have
plausible premises.
> > > The Tice Clock was a ludicrous scam.
> > Especially when you can get the same thing at Radio Shack...
> So I have read.
Those were the days.
Stephen
Goofball Howardsen-ap Flossy
>
>
>Arthur Collins wrote:
>
>> There is no arguing that it does, the additional non-driven
>> transducers vibrate sympathetically with the speakers providing the
>> sound creating non-linearity.
BJ:
>
>The phenomenon are:
>(1) Additional reflections, which change the indirect arrivals
> that the listener receives
>(2) Sympathetic vibration
>(3) Not being able to listen to the speakers in exactly the same
> location.
>Of the three, I would personally rank #1 and #3 ahead of #2.
>
Speakers are, by design, damped. The same cannot be said of most
household objects, note.
Joe Samangitak
>
>> If the walls vibrate at normal listening levels, you've got a room
>> problem. If other objects vibrate, why add some more artifacts?
>
>Walls most certainly do audibly vibrate, even at normal
>listening levels, particularly if the bass part of the
>program is potent enough. And vibrating walls do add their
>own colorations and resonances. In addition, most rooms have
>windows, and windows can vibrate plenty. A typical room will
>have a lot more window-glass area than what we have with
>extra speakers in that room.
So?
>Any room that has walls that do not vibrate at all is
>probably either a basement or a bank vault, and even then
>the ceiling of the basement would still vibrate.
Your point is?
>
>Incidentally, the walls in my main room are frame, with
>6-inch studs on 16-inch centers. The wall covering is
>3/8-inch paneling bonded and nailed over 5/8-inch drywall,
>making a sandwich that is one-inch thick. The room, which is
>somewhat larger than 18 x 22 feet, has one 4 x 8 foot window
>and a 6 x 7 foot French door, plus another 6 x 7 foot door
>to the rest of the house and a 3 x 3 foot window that
>accesses the kitchen. That is really not a lot of glass area
>for a room that size.
So?
I find it
>hard to believe that additional speakers in the room would
>be able to generate significant complementary signals when
>other speakers were playing.
Most driver diagphrams are more than sensitive enough to pickup sound from
other speakers , resonate, and generate very audbile artifacts. Speakers
have WALLS too
>Typical ceilings are much larger in area than typical walls,
>and it would be silly to think that the contribution of an
>area that large would not be more significant than the
>vibration of a couple of non-playing speaker-driver
>diaphragms.
You talk about more significance than another. But others prefer to
discuss any significance there coulb be.
>
>My listening room (pictured on the SurroundFreak's web site)
>has pictures on the walls, book cases full of books and
>recordings, and even a few trinkets on the shelves. I would
>imagine that they vibrate just as vigorously as any unused
>speakers in the room would.
This is one reason probably why you've never heard any difference between
any piece of electronics at all.
>
>> Irrelevant, Mr. Fertsler. You need two speakers for stereo (well, most
>> of the time), and more for multichannel. And all are connected.
>
>When I do my A/B speaker comparing, I use two different
>amplifiers hooked up to the two pairs and use a switch box
>hooked to the line-level inputs to each. Thus, both pairs of
>speakers are hooked up to amps continuously. Therefore, you
>could easily A/B them without the kind of
>speaker-disconnected problem you noted.
I must say this is a very energy- inefficient way of testing speakes.
>
>> Having 20 or 30 pairs of speakers, such as in a typical demonstration
>> room, is the problem pointed out by Linn and others.
>
>The kind of room you note, with 20 or 30 pairs installed, is
>probably a large open, demo area that no speakers would
>sound good in, even if they were the only pair in the room.
So the larger a room, the worse speakers sound? NOT
>
>Good comparisons are done in living-room-sized areas,
False. It all depends on the sensitivity and placement of the speakers.
That is the way I do it, and that should
>be the way a good dealer would do it.
who says? you?
>
>Note also that even in a demo that did involve multiple
>pairs, the Linn speakers and the other speakers would all be
>dealing with the same room/speaker vibration artifacts, so
>the playing field would still be leveled.
You probablay have an image in your head of a "large, open demo area" with
20-30 pairs of Linn speakers, all equidistant from one another, all with
the same distance from the back wall.....like a Circuit City demo room.
More than likely, their demo room is a bit more controlled than that.
Demo rooms should not all be "same". That's the easiest way. But ideally,
the room and placement should match the speaker's design. IF the room
is not prefectly suited and isolated from extraneous noise, Mr Ferstler,
why not attempt to adjust and isolate for the better? IF the dude
doesn't allow noisy watches and microphonic devices like telephones in
his listening room, so what. It is easy to hear someone's wristwatch
ticking from a few feet away, depending on the watch You think strict
clean room rules go overboard too?
Stewart Pinkerton
> I find it
>>hard to believe that additional speakers in the room would
>>be able to generate significant complementary signals when
>>other speakers were playing.
>
>Most driver diagphrams are more than sensitive enough to pickup sound from
>other speakers , resonate, and generate very audbile artifacts. Speakers
>have WALLS too
Speaker diaphragms are *specifically* designed to be non-resonant, as
are speaker cabinets. Hence, they are *much* less likely to cause
sympathetic resonsnce problems than almost anything else in the room.
This is simply a Linn scam to get the competition out of the room, and
is only believed by the gullible and/or ignorant.
trotsky
You have Linn confused with Bose. Quit being an idiot.
SdW
>You probablay have an image in your head of a "large, open demo area" with
>20-30 pairs of Linn speakers, all equidistant from one another, all with
>the same distance from the back wall.....like a Circuit City demo room.
>More than likely, their demo room is a bit more controlled than that.
FWIW:
Years ago, when I visited the Linn factory in Scotland, their
listening rooms were on the 2nd floor, smallish, with windows
and (presumably) thin walls.
Little furniture, but also just one pair of speakers in it.
This was about when the 5140 (?) was to come out, so
this must have been about 1995.
--
SdW
dotcom is really dotnl.
Stewart Pinkerton
Joe Samangitak
>Speaker diaphragms are *specifically* designed to be non-resonant, as
>are speaker cabinets.
A Webster definition of "diaphragm" is ; a thin disc that *vibrates* to
create sound. And one of their definitions of resonate is *vibarate*. Am
I missing something or is Trotsky's reply correct.
And as far as speaker cabinets go, theory is that cabinets should be
designed to be non-resonant. But it's fair to say that all speaker
cabinets have certain level of resonance.
Hence, they are *much* less likely to cause
>sympathetic resonsnce problems than almost anything else in the room.
Sheesh, it's just a simple theory that is correct in theory ie *passive
radiators*. Blind AB will probably say nothing is there, but so what
...it's Linn's eccentric salesmanship, and who doesn't use this kinda
stuff. And besides, who's ever serious about Linn speakers anyways.
>
>This is simply a Linn scam to get the competition out of the room, and
>is only believed by the gullible and/or ignorant.
Don't you own some Linn gear? Mr. Pinkerton ?
Stewart Pinkerton
>>Speaker diaphragms are *specifically* designed to be non-resonant, as
>>are speaker cabinets.
>
>A Webster definition of "diaphragm" is ; a thin disc that *vibrates* to
>create sound. And one of their definitions of resonate is *vibarate*. Am
>I missing something or is Trotsky's reply correct.
You're missing the fact that the Webster definition has nothing to do
with loudspeaker design...........
>And as far as speaker cabinets go, theory is that cabinets should be
>designed to be non-resonant. But it's fair to say that all speaker
>cabinets have certain level of resonance.
Not however nearly so much as most other items in a room which are
*not* designed to be non-resonant. Also, extremely difficult to excite
by an external acoustic wavefront.
> Hence, they are *much* less likely to cause
>>sympathetic resonance problems than almost anything else in the room.
>
>Sheesh, it's just a simple theory that is correct in theory ie *passive
>radiators*. Blind AB will probably say nothing is there, but so what
>...it's Linn's eccentric salesmanship, and who doesn't use this kinda
>stuff. And besides, who's ever serious about Linn speakers anyways.
Strangely, there is a weird cult out there which thinks that Linn
makes good speakers! :-)
>>This is simply a Linn scam to get the competition out of the room, and
>>is only believed by the gullible and/or ignorant.
>
>Don't you own some Linn gear? Mr. Pinkerton ?
No, and I never have done.
Howard Ferstler
> Ferstler said:
> >Walls most certainly do audibly vibrate, even at normal
> >listening levels, particularly if the bass part of the
> >program is potent enough. And vibrating walls do add their
> >own colorations and resonances. In addition, most rooms have
> >windows, and windows can vibrate plenty. A typical room will
> >have a lot more window-glass area than what we have with
> >extra speakers in that room.
> So?
So, a typical room will add colorations a lot more obnoxious
than what we get from the relatively pint-sized diaphragms
we find with a few additional speakers in that room. To say
that bringing in a second pair of speakers to do an A/B
comparison will cause either pair to have problems related
to vibration is ludicrous. Now, I will admit that having two
speakers right next to each other will possibly result in
baffle-related problems, and of course two pairs cannot
occupy the same positions, and those anomalies can cause
problems during comparisons, but this thing about vibration
causing sympathetic vibrations in other speakers is just
plain dumb.
> >Any room that has walls that do not vibrate at all is
> >probably either a basement or a bank vault, and even then
> >the ceiling of the basement would still vibrate.
> Your point is?
Most people listen in rooms that allow those rooms to add
vibration-related colorations at some frequencies,
particularly at high volume levels.
> >Incidentally, the walls in my main room are frame, with
> >6-inch studs on 16-inch centers. The wall covering is
> >3/8-inch paneling bonded and nailed over 5/8-inch drywall,
> >making a sandwich that is one-inch thick. The room, which is
> >somewhat larger than 18 x 22 feet, has one 4 x 8 foot window
> >and a 6 x 7 foot French door, plus another 6 x 7 foot door
> >to the rest of the house and a 3 x 3 foot window that
> >accesses the kitchen. That is really not a lot of glass area
> >for a room that size.
> So?
It is not quite as solid as a bank vault or basement, but it
is more solid than a rooms in typical frame homes. I think
it is a good compromise room. Have you seen the pictures of
it on the SurroundFreak's web site?
> I find it
> >hard to believe that additional speakers in the room would
> >be able to generate significant complementary signals when
> >other speakers were playing.
> Most driver diagphrams are more than sensitive enough to pickup sound from
> other speakers , resonate, and generate very audbile artifacts. Speakers
> have WALLS too
So? The driver areas (and speaker walls, whatever that
means) are but a fraction of the areas we have with walls
and ceilings.
> >Typical ceilings are much larger in area than typical walls,
> >and it would be silly to think that the contribution of an
> >area that large would not be more significant than the
> >vibration of a couple of non-playing speaker-driver
> >diaphragms.
> You talk about more significance than another. But others prefer to
> discuss any significance there coulb be.
Which akin to discussing the potential impact of a waterball
game on the wave action on the other side of Lake Superior.
> >My listening room (pictured on the SurroundFreak's web site)
> >has pictures on the walls, book cases full of books and
> >recordings, and even a few trinkets on the shelves. I would
> >imagine that they vibrate just as vigorously as any unused
> >speakers in the room would.
> This is one reason probably why you've never heard any difference between
> any piece of electronics at all.
Well, I suppose you listen in one of those basements or a
bank vault. Say, have you ever cranked up a system so that
frequencies between 20 and 30 Hz are hitting peaks of
105-115 dB? Give it a try sometimes, and see just how much
your room vibrates sympathetically.
And while I have heard differences between some electronics
(a slightly defective receiver once sounded different, at
least with a pink-noise source, and amps that clip sound
different from those that do not), I have at least gone to
the trouble to do level-matched, quick-switch comparisons.
With some of the ones I have been doing lately have even
been done with a double-blind protocol. Have you tried any
of that?
> >When I do my A/B speaker comparing, I use two different
> >amplifiers hooked up to the two pairs and use a switch box
> >hooked to the line-level inputs to each. Thus, both pairs of
> >speakers are hooked up to amps continuously. Therefore, you
> >could easily A/B them without the kind of
> >speaker-disconnected problem you noted.
> I must say this is a very energy- inefficient way of testing speakes.
Sure. However, it also allows you to adjust each amp
independently, in order to get the outputs of the speakers
matched up decently. If you use one stereo amp and just A/B
switch, speakers with different efficiencies will be
difficult to compare fairly. Using two amps that have
independent level controls allows one to deal with that
issue.
> >The kind of room you note, with 20 or 30 pairs installed, is
> >probably a large open, demo area that no speakers would
> >sound good in, even if they were the only pair in the room.
> So the larger a room, the worse speakers sound? NOT
There has to be a balance. Obviously, most systems would not
do well in a closet-sized room, although some automotive
systems can sound pretty good. Certainly, smaller rooms
allow for more powerful bass to be generated. A moderately
big room (mine is a bit larger than 18 x 22 feet) strikes a
good balance. A room that is too large, like big emporium
demo room, will not allow speakers with wide dispersion
patterns to demonstrate their smooth off-axis response.
After all, the biggest room of all - outdoors - usually
ruins the sound of any speaker.
> >Good comparisons are done in living-room-sized areas,
> False. It all depends on the sensitivity and placement of the speakers.
Since most listeners use their speakers in living-room sized
areas, it stands to reason that the best comparisons will be
done in living-room sized areas.
> That is the way I do it, and that should
> >be the way a good dealer would do it.
> who says? you?
If they want to be fair to people who will be using those
speakers in living rooms that will be the way to do it. What
I say has nothing to do with it.
> Demo rooms should not all be "same".
I never said they should all be the same, although in some
ways that would be a good idea. That would allow for
consistent impressions as customers traveled from dealer to
dealer and did their speaker shopping.
> That's the easiest way. But ideally,
> the room and placement should match the speaker's design.
Sure. I suppose if you are shopping for movie-theater
speakers or speakers that are going to be used outdoors, it
would be a good idea to compare somewhere besides a
living-room-sized room.
> IF the room
> is not prefectly suited and isolated from extraneous noise, Mr Ferstler,
> why not attempt to adjust and isolate for the better? IF the dude
> doesn't allow noisy watches and microphonic devices like telephones in
> his listening room, so what.
Well, it is his demo and his speakers, and I suppose he can
say anything he wants. However, what he is saying is mumbo
jumbo, and if people believe that claptrap they probably
will purchase exactly what they deserve.
> It is easy to hear someone's wristwatch
> ticking from a few feet away, depending on the watch You think strict
> clean room rules go overboard too?
Linn mentioned digital watches. Can you hear a digital
watch? Also, while you might be able to hear an old-style
watch ticking a few feet away, are you saying that you can
hear it when a big audio system is pumping away?
Howard Ferstler
Art Sackman
"Howard Ferstler" <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
news:3B605F70...@mailer.fsu.edu...
.
>
> Illogical biases? For pete's sake, Feng, the head Linn guy
> is paranoid about wrist watches and telephones screwing up
> the sound of his speakers during demos, and you are talking
> about my illogical biases.
>
> Well, you strive for pettiness - and you succeed.
>
> Howard Ferstler
Howard, have you ever considered that maybe it was because the guy didn't
want the sound of wrist watch alarms and telephone rings going off and
interrupting the listening sessions?
Art Sackman
> I got it from a report printed in the Boston Audio Society
> Speaker a couple of decades back. (Even though I am a long
> ways from Boston, I am a member of that club, because they
> are a sharp bunch of people, and most of them are even
> cheaper than I am.) As I recall (and it has been quite a
> while), during a guest visit/talk by the guy, the club
> members pulled a stunt where they secretly brought in some
> digital watches. After Ivor finished raving about the sounds
> he was hearing from some of his hardware that had been set
> up (or maybe some other digital hardware, the old memory is
> foggy), they whipped out the watches. As I recalled, he
> smiled sheepishly and went on with his talk. Good grief, the
> guy should have known how tricky those BAS guys were!
>
> Hmmm. I have a bunch of those back issues. Maybe I ought to
> dig through them, or if my kept copies do not go back far
> enough, contact one of the genuinely long-time BAS members
> for some specifics. If we are going to rake muck, we might
> as well do it right. Right, Gene?
>
> Besides, I need to contact some of the members to get some
> information for the editing job I am doing on the
> Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound.
>
> Howard Ferstler
The taboo on watches and phones was most likely related to not wanting to
have alarms from the watches and ringing from incoming calls on the phones
interrupting the listening session. Just like those items are resented at
live symphonic performances. Make sense?
Art Sackman
"Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3B62F5C0...@attglobal.net...
> Linn mentioned digital watches. Can you hear a digital
> watch? Also, while you might be able to hear an old-style
> watch ticking a few feet away, are you saying that you can
> hear it when a big audio system is pumping away?
>
> Howard Ferstler
Think: "Alarm"
Art Sackman
> bf...@attglobal.net wrote:
> Look, pal, my big mouth is part of my personality. If some
> manufacture or hobby enthusiast does not like my style, they
> are free to avoid me. I suppose you want everybody out there
> to be as accommodating as you are.
Howard, you've got to stop leaving yourself open like this.
By your constantly not thinking about the implications of your words, you
are just dishing way too much temptation for me to resist.
If you want to ascribe certain bodily parts, such as your mouth, to being
part of your personality, wouldn't it be true that other bodily parts
(specifically, the one located at the other end of your food processing
mechanisms) would also be a part of your personality?
Since right now you are only being a mildly bad boy, I decided not to use
the "A" word (hell, I haven't even gone near that far with Arny), but just
wanted to point out that you left yourself a big opening (pun intended).
George M. Middius
RAO. Some of these "debates" no doubt concern audio matters.
Others, obviously, do not.
My question is: What kind of "debate" rules are you following?
The pathetic, lame-ass excuses you offer are pathetic, from "It's
too much trouble to look it up" to your "don't be so serious, get
a life" masturbation.
When normal human beings do what we call "debate," the idea is to
state an opinion based on facts, evidence, or a testable
hypothesis. The most serious sort of debate is one that occurs in
a court of law, where somebody's freedom or worldly goods ride on
the outcome. Then there is the somewhat less serious variant used
in the political arena, where candidates brandish a type of
"debate" that is partly fact-based and partly showbiz. And the
members of corporate boards, legislative bodies, and other
deliberative groups all engage in an exchange of facts and
opinions and moral values and loud-shouting in attempt to get
their way.
And then there are the likes of you and Krooger, and Steindrone
and Booby Wumpkins, for whom "the debating trade" is just an
exercise in not-proving anything, followed by denials of denials,
slimy subject change, and infantile copouts.
You are such a phony, it's not at all surprising that a "writer"
with your "credentials" is a laughingstock in the real audio
press.
trotsky
I see--so do you understand that the more speakers that are in the room,
the more aberrations to the frequency responses occur?
George M. Middius
Stewart Pinkerton
Stop blowing smoke, Art. Ivor is a con artist par excellence, and his
objections to wristwatches and telephones had *nothing* to do with
interruptions. Indeed, his insistence on single-speaker demos (and his
policy of firing dealers who don't conform to his demands) *ensures*
interruptions if you want to hear competing speakers.....
Stewart Pinkerton
Stewart Pinkerton
>The taboo on watches and phones was most likely related to not wanting to
>have alarms from the watches and ringing from incoming calls on the phones
>interrupting the listening session. Just like those items are resented at
>live symphonic performances. Make sense?
As noted in another post, not *in fact* true.
Stewart Pinkerton
Probably the reverse is true, but you won't understand why......
trotsky
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> "Art Sackman" <idk...@home.com> writes:
>
> >"Howard Ferstler" <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
> >news:3B605F70...@mailer.fsu.edu...
> >.
> >>
> >> Illogical biases? For pete's sake, Feng, the head Linn guy
> >> is paranoid about wrist watches and telephones screwing up
> >> the sound of his speakers during demos, and you are talking
> >> about my illogical biases.
> >>
> >> Well, you strive for pettiness - and you succeed.
> >>
> >> Howard Ferstler
> >
> >
> >Howard, have you ever considered that maybe it was because the guy didn't
> >want the sound of wrist watch alarms and telephone rings going off and
> >interrupting the listening sessions?
>
> Stop blowing smoke, Art. Ivor is a con artist par excellence,
The CD12 is a con job? What measurements did you make to determine
*that*, Stewie?
trotsky
I see--well, instead of hiding your head and losing the argument
*again*, why not explain it to us? I can tell you from personal
experience that demo-ing speakers in the store in a room with about 30
speakers in it, and then setting up the same speakers in the customer's
home yields wildly different results. And no, the multispeaker demo
doesn't sound better. Do you have any personal experiences you'd like
to share, Stew? If not, why impede the discussions with your propaganda?
Art Sackman
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b63d387...@news.freeserve.net...
> "Art Sackman" <idk...@home.com> writes:
>
> >Howard, have you ever considered that maybe it was because the guy didn't
> >want the sound of wrist watch alarms and telephone rings going off and
> >interrupting the listening sessions?
>
> Stop blowing smoke, Art. Ivor is a con artist par excellence, and his
> objections to wristwatches and telephones had *nothing* to do with
> interruptions. Indeed, his insistence on single-speaker demos (and his
> policy of firing dealers who don't conform to his demands) *ensures*
> interruptions if you want to hear competing speakers.....
>
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
>
Wasn't trying to blow smoke. I was reading the thread and thought of a
logical explanation no on else was discussing.
I didn't read anything about that explanation having been eliminated.
Did the guy from Linn deny that explanation? Did he offer an alternative
one?
About his firing dealers who displayed competing lines in the same room, if
I were a dealer and if what you say is true, I would refuse to carry his
line, absolutely.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> trotsky <gsi...@qwestonline.com> writes:
>> >I see--so do you understand that the more speakers that are in the room,
>> >the more aberrations to the frequency responses occur?
>>
>> Probably the reverse is true, but you won't understand why......
>
>I see--well, instead of hiding your head and losing the argument
>*again*, why not explain it to us?
Simple, really. *If*, and it's a big if, you accept that another
unpowered speaker will affect the sound of a demoe'ed speaker due to
'sympathetic resonances', then a large number of such other speakers
will have *less* effect, due to the fact that their 'sympathetic
resonances' will be scattered throughout the audio spectrum.
This is pretty basic stuff for any competent mechanical engineer, car
designers make use of it all the time in NVH reduction.
>I can tell you from personal
>experience that demo-ing speakers in the store in a room with about 30
>speakers in it, and then setting up the same speakers in the customer's
>home yields wildly different results.
Gee whiz, imagine that - putting a pair of speakers in a different
room makes them sound different!! Who'd have guessed?
How the frell did you ever get a job selling audio?
> And no, the multispeaker demo
>doesn't sound better. Do you have any personal experiences you'd like
>to share, Stew?
Lots, which I have done over many years now.
> If not, why impede the discussions with your propaganda?
Why pollute the newsgroup with your snide and incompetent bullshit?
Stewart Pinkerton
It's a £12,000 CD player - *of course* it's a con, especially since
it's matched by the £1200 Arcam CD-23 and of course is comprehensively
blown away by any DVD-A player.
Typically, just another cheap and inaccurate shot with no relation to
the point being addressed.
trotsky
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> trotsky <gsi...@qwestonline.com> writes:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >>
> >> "Art Sackman" <idk...@home.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >"Howard Ferstler" <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:3B605F70...@mailer.fsu.edu...
> >> >.
> >> >>
> >> >> Illogical biases? For pete's sake, Feng, the head Linn guy
> >> >> is paranoid about wrist watches and telephones screwing up
> >> >> the sound of his speakers during demos, and you are talking
> >> >> about my illogical biases.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, you strive for pettiness - and you succeed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Howard Ferstler
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Howard, have you ever considered that maybe it was because the guy didn't
> >> >want the sound of wrist watch alarms and telephone rings going off and
> >> >interrupting the listening sessions?
> >>
> >> Stop blowing smoke, Art. Ivor is a con artist par excellence,
>
> >The CD12 is a con job? What measurements did you make to determine
> >*that*, Stewie?
>
> It's a Ł12,000 CD player - *of course* it's a con, especially since
> it's matched by the Ł1200 Arcam CD-23 and of course is comprehensively
> blown away by any DVD-A player.
I see--when something is "blown away", what kind of pyrotechnics are
involved, exactly? And whither the DBTs? You are obviously lying when
you say you can "reliably" tell the difference between any of these players.
>
> Typically, just another cheap and inaccurate shot with no relation to
> the point being addressed.
Mentioning a product is a "cheap shot"? How many proof is your high
tea, Stew?
trotsky
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> trotsky <gsi...@qwestonline.com> writes:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >>
> >> trotsky <gsi...@qwestonline.com> writes:
>
> >> >I see--so do you understand that the more speakers that are in the room,
> >> >the more aberrations to the frequency responses occur?
> >>
> >> Probably the reverse is true, but you won't understand why......
> >
> >I see--well, instead of hiding your head and losing the argument
> >*again*, why not explain it to us?
>
> Simple, really. *If*, and it's a big if, you accept that another
> unpowered speaker will affect the sound of a demoe'ed speaker due to
> 'sympathetic resonances', then a large number of such other speakers
> will have *less* effect, due to the fact that their 'sympathetic
> resonances' will be scattered throughout the audio spectrum.
>
> This is pretty basic stuff for any competent mechanical engineer, car
> designers make use of it all the time in NVH reduction.
Stew, this is all very vague. Don't you have any measurements or
specifications for what you're talking about? Do you ever? If you were
in university, all that hand waving bullshit would get you a failing
grade every time.
> >I can tell you from personal
> >experience that demo-ing speakers in the store in a room with about 30
> >speakers in it, and then setting up the same speakers in the customer's
> >home yields wildly different results.
>
> Gee whiz, imagine that - putting a pair of speakers in a different
> room makes them sound different!! Who'd have guessed?
Yeah, sure, you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a different room
has more effect on the sound than playing the speaker in a room with
multiple speakers. You're snockered, aren't you?
> How the frell did you ever get a job selling audio?
That's a damn good question. I've been doing it for 12 years now. It's
kind of analogous to the situation with the success of the high end wire
manufacturers. I think all this points to is that your opinion is for
shit, Stew. As usual.
>
> > And no, the multispeaker demo
> >doesn't sound better. Do you have any personal experiences you'd like
> >to share, Stew?
>
> Lots, which I have done over many years now.
You mean all your lying about DBTs?
> > If not, why impede the discussions with your propaganda?
>
> Why pollute the newsgroup with your snide and incompetent bullshit?
How many proof is your high tea, Stew?
Stewart Pinkerton
If you can't tell the difference between 5 channels of 24/96 and 2
channels of 16/44, it's time to get out of audio..............
>> Typically, just another cheap and inaccurate shot with no relation to
>> the point being addressed.
>
>Mentioning a product is a "cheap shot"?
It is when the discussion was about sales techniques....
Stewart Pinkerton
>
>"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3b63d387...@news.freeserve.net...
>> "Art Sackman" <idk...@home.com> writes:
>>
>> >Howard, have you ever considered that maybe it was because the guy didn't
>> >want the sound of wrist watch alarms and telephone rings going off and
>> >interrupting the listening sessions?
>>
>> Stop blowing smoke, Art. Ivor is a con artist par excellence, and his
>> objections to wristwatches and telephones had *nothing* to do with
>> interruptions. Indeed, his insistence on single-speaker demos (and his
>> policy of firing dealers who don't conform to his demands) *ensures*
>> interruptions if you want to hear competing speakers.....
>Wasn't trying to blow smoke. I was reading the thread and thought of a
>logical explanation no on else was discussing.
Logic never had anything to do with Ivor's scams! :-)
>I didn't read anything about that explanation having been eliminated.
>Did the guy from Linn deny that explanation? Did he offer an alternative
>one?
As I noted elsewhere in this thread, I have personally seen Ivor do
his trick of covering up a telephone earpiece and trying to persuade
people that this cleaned up the sound of the demo'd speaker. As others
have noted, this didn't prevent his cohorts also demoing 'better' Linn
speakers which had previously been concealed behind drapes in the same
room as the smaller models. Obviously, the rules get changed depending
on the sales pitch...
>About his firing dealers who displayed competing lines in the same room, if
>I were a dealer and if what you say is true, I would refuse to carry his
>line, absolutely.
Many dealers (including my local high-ender) did react in that way,
they are no longer Linn dealers. When considering hi-fi purchases, it
may be worth noting that a Linn dealer is *by definition* one who goes
along with Ivor's philosophy on selling snake oil...............
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> trotsky <gsi...@qwestonline.com> writes:
>>
>> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >>
>> >> trotsky <gsi...@qwestonline.com> writes:
>>
>> >> >I see--so do you understand that the more speakers that are in the room,
>> >> >the more aberrations to the frequency responses occur?
>> >>
>> >> Probably the reverse is true, but you won't understand why......
>> >
>> >I see--well, instead of hiding your head and losing the argument
>> >*again*, why not explain it to us?
>>
>> Simple, really. *If*, and it's a big if, you accept that another
>> unpowered speaker will affect the sound of a demoe'ed speaker due to
>> 'sympathetic resonances', then a large number of such other speakers
>> will have *less* effect, due to the fact that their 'sympathetic
>> resonances' will be scattered throughout the audio spectrum.
>>
>> This is pretty basic stuff for any competent mechanical engineer, car
>> designers make use of it all the time in NVH reduction.
>
>Stew, this is all very vague.
Only if you don't understand the basic principle of distributed
resonance.
> Don't you have any measurements or
>specifications for what you're talking about? Do you ever? If you were
>in university, all that hand waving bullshit would get you a failing
>grade every time.
How would you know? It is patently obvious that you never acheived a
passing grade in any engineering course, ever.
>> >I can tell you from personal
>> >experience that demo-ing speakers in the store in a room with about 30
>> >speakers in it, and then setting up the same speakers in the customer's
>> >home yields wildly different results.
>>
>> Gee whiz, imagine that - putting a pair of speakers in a different
>> room makes them sound different!! Who'd have guessed?
>
>Yeah, sure, you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a different room
>has more effect on the sound than playing the speaker in a room with
>multiple speakers. You're snockered, aren't you?
If you *don't* know this, then that just shows how appallingly
ignorant you are about audio. Of course, we knew that ever since you
claimed 'pretty amazing' differences between cables you couldn't tell
apart in a blind test, and when you claimed that Castle speakers were
high-end if you just knew how to place them correctly. BWAHAHAHAHA!
>> How the frell did you ever get a job selling audio?
>
>That's a damn good question. I've been doing it for 12 years now. It's
>kind of analogous to the situation with the success of the high end wire
>manufacturers.
Oh, right, your job is analogous to technobabble, bullshit and snake
oil, with absolutely *zero* audible advantage. Glad you finally
admitted it.
>I think all this points to is that your opinion is for
>shit, Stew. As usual.
>
>>
>> > And no, the multispeaker demo
>> >doesn't sound better. Do you have any personal experiences you'd like
>> >to share, Stew?
>>
>> Lots, which I have done over many years now.
>
>You mean all your lying about DBTs?
I'm not the lying snake-oil salesman here, Trots, and you are the one
who is the *proven* liar regarding DBTs.
trotsky
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> "Art Sackman" <idk...@home.com> writes:
>
> >
> >"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:3b63d387...@news.freeserve.net...
> >> "Art Sackman" <idk...@home.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >Howard, have you ever considered that maybe it was because the guy didn't
> >> >want the sound of wrist watch alarms and telephone rings going off and
> >> >interrupting the listening sessions?
> >>
> >> Stop blowing smoke, Art. Ivor is a con artist par excellence, and his
> >> objections to wristwatches and telephones had *nothing* to do with
> >> interruptions. Indeed, his insistence on single-speaker demos (and his
> >> policy of firing dealers who don't conform to his demands) *ensures*
> >> interruptions if you want to hear competing speakers.....
>
> >Wasn't trying to blow smoke. I was reading the thread and thought of a
> >logical explanation no on else was discussing.
>
> Logic never had anything to do with Ivor's scams! :-)
He is a Scot, after all!
trotsky
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> trotsky <gsi...@qwestonline.com> writes:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >>
> >> trotsky <gsi...@qwestonline.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Art Sackman" <idk...@home.com> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> >"Howard Ferstler" <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:3B605F70...@mailer.fsu.edu...
> >> >> >.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Illogical biases? For pete's sake, Feng, the head Linn guy
> >> >> >> is paranoid about wrist watches and telephones screwing up
> >> >> >> the sound of his speakers during demos, and you are talking
> >> >> >> about my illogical biases.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Well, you strive for pettiness - and you succeed.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Howard Ferstler
> >> >>
> >> >> >Howard, have you ever considered that maybe it was because the guy didn't
> >> >> >want the sound of wrist watch alarms and telephone rings going off and
> >> >> >interrupting the listening sessions?
> >> >>
> >> >> Stop blowing smoke, Art. Ivor is a con artist par excellence,
> >>
> >> >The CD12 is a con job? What measurements did you make to determine
> >> >*that*, Stewie?
> >>
> >> It's a £12,000 CD player - *of course* it's a con, especially since
> >> it's matched by the £1200 Arcam CD-23 and of course is comprehensively
> >> blown away by any DVD-A player.
> >
> >I see--when something is "blown away", what kind of pyrotechnics are
> >involved, exactly? And whither the DBTs? You are obviously lying when
> >you say you can "reliably" tell the difference between any of these players.
>
> If you can't tell the difference between 5 channels of 24/96 and 2
> channels of 16/44, it's time to get out of audio..............
Really? You are aware that the majority of DVD-A discs have two channel
mixes on them, right? You did read the extremely eloquent post I posted
on the subject yesterday, right? You have actually heard DVD-A discs
before, right? Could you name some of the ones you listened to, or are
you still in the realm of the theoretical at this point? Could you
inform us when you get around to real world experiences, please?
>
> >> Typically, just another cheap and inaccurate shot with no relation to
> >> the point being addressed.
> >
> >Mentioning a product is a "cheap shot"?
>
> It is when the discussion was about sales techniques....
Interesting. So you would like to pit your sales acumen against mine,
then? What sales experience do you have, Stew? Could you tell us about
some of your closing and trial closing techniques?
trotsky
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> trotsky <gsi...@qwestonline.com> writes:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >>
> >> trotsky <gsi...@qwestonline.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> trotsky <gsi...@qwestonline.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >> >I see--so do you understand that the more speakers that are in the room,
> >> >> >the more aberrations to the frequency responses occur?
> >> >>
> >> >> Probably the reverse is true, but you won't understand why......
> >> >
> >> >I see--well, instead of hiding your head and losing the argument
> >> >*again*, why not explain it to us?
> >>
> >> Simple, really. *If*, and it's a big if, you accept that another
> >> unpowered speaker will affect the sound of a demoe'ed speaker due to
> >> 'sympathetic resonances', then a large number of such other speakers
> >> will have *less* effect, due to the fact that their 'sympathetic
> >> resonances' will be scattered throughout the audio spectrum.
> >>
> >> This is pretty basic stuff for any competent mechanical engineer, car
> >> designers make use of it all the time in NVH reduction.
> >
> >Stew, this is all very vague.
>
> Only if you don't understand the basic principle of distributed
> resonance.
Oh, and that's a prerequisite for spouting audio opinions how, exactly?
>
> > Don't you have any measurements or
> >specifications for what you're talking about? Do you ever? If you were
> >in university, all that hand waving bullshit would get you a failing
> >grade every time.
>
> How would you know? It is patently obvious that you never acheived a
> passing grade in any engineering course, ever.
How did I get a degree from a well respected engineering school then?
The problem we seem to be having here, Stew, is that your statements are
very rarely connected to reality. I have a BSEE from the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. You know, the school where Hal the
computer was programmed. Was your alma mater mentioned in Kubrick film,
Stew? Recently, a sockpoopet claimed to have confirmed my having a
degree by looking it up on the U of I website. Are you claiming this to
be impossible?
> >> >I can tell you from personal
> >> >experience that demo-ing speakers in the store in a room with about 30
> >> >speakers in it, and then setting up the same speakers in the customer's
> >> >home yields wildly different results.
> >>
> >> Gee whiz, imagine that - putting a pair of speakers in a different
> >> room makes them sound different!! Who'd have guessed?
> >
> >Yeah, sure, you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a different room
> >has more effect on the sound than playing the speaker in a room with
> >multiple speakers. You're snockered, aren't you?
>
> If you *don't* know this, then that just shows how appallingly
> ignorant you are about audio.
Knowledge of audio has nothing to do with your level of inebriation.
This is a job for Mango.
Of course, we knew that ever since you
> claimed 'pretty amazing' differences between cables you couldn't tell
> apart in a blind test, and when you claimed that Castle speakers were
> high-end if you just knew how to place them correctly. BWAHAHAHAHA!
But here's the rub, Stew: I claimed differences, and then put my head on
the chopping block. You claim differences, but can never get beyond the
pud-pulling phase. I have busted you a million times for mentally
masturbating, and yet you continue. Do you have *anything* to say for yourself?
> >> How the frell did you ever get a job selling audio?
> >
> >That's a damn good question. I've been doing it for 12 years now. It's
> >kind of analogous to the situation with the success of the high end wire
> >manufacturers.
>
> Oh, right, your job is analogous to technobabble, bullshit and snake
> oil, with absolutely *zero* audible advantage. Glad you finally
> admitted it.
Stew, you are still at odds with reality. Where is Mango when you need him/her?
> >I think all this points to is that your opinion is for
> >shit, Stew. As usual.
> >
> >>
> >> > And no, the multispeaker demo
> >> >doesn't sound better. Do you have any personal experiences you'd like
> >> >to share, Stew?
> >>
> >> Lots, which I have done over many years now.
> >
> >You mean all your lying about DBTs?
>
> I'm not the lying snake-oil salesman here, Trots, and you are the one
> who is the *proven* liar regarding DBTs.
Actually, I think I've shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are the
liar. Unless you have specific DBT results comparing a CD23 to a CD12,
you really should apologize on multiple newsgroups for wasting
bandwidth. Your posts are like html without the html.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> trotsky <gsi...@qwestonline.com> writes:
>>
>> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >>
>> >> trotsky <gsi...@qwestonline.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Art Sackman" <idk...@home.com> writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >"Howard Ferstler" <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:3B605F70...@mailer.fsu.edu...
>> >> >> >.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Illogical biases? For pete's sake, Feng, the head Linn guy
>> >> >> >> is paranoid about wrist watches and telephones screwing up
>> >> >> >> the sound of his speakers during demos, and you are talking
>> >> >> >> about my illogical biases.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Well, you strive for pettiness - and you succeed.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Howard Ferstler
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Howard, have you ever considered that maybe it was because the guy didn't
>> >> >> >want the sound of wrist watch alarms and telephone rings going off and
>> >> >> >interrupting the listening sessions?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Stop blowing smoke, Art. Ivor is a con artist par excellence,
>> >>
>> >> >The CD12 is a con job? What measurements did you make to determine
>> >> >*that*, Stewie?
>> >>
>> >> It's a Ł12,000 CD player - *of course* it's a con, especially since
>> >> it's matched by the Ł1200 Arcam CD-23 and of course is comprehensively
>> >> blown away by any DVD-A player.
>> >
>> >I see--when something is "blown away", what kind of pyrotechnics are
>> >involved, exactly? And whither the DBTs? You are obviously lying when
>> >you say you can "reliably" tell the difference between any of these players.
>>
>> If you can't tell the difference between 5 channels of 24/96 and 2
>> channels of 16/44, it's time to get out of audio..............
>
>Really? You are aware that the majority of DVD-A discs have two channel
>mixes on them, right? You did read the extremely eloquent post I posted
>on the subject yesterday, right?
No, I have never read a post of yours which could reasonably be
described as eloquent.......
> You have actually heard DVD-A discs
>before, right? Could you name some of the ones you listened to, or are
>you still in the realm of the theoretical at this point? Could you
>inform us when you get around to real world experiences, please?
As ever, you have no answer to the point at issue.........
>> >> Typically, just another cheap and inaccurate shot with no relation to
>> >> the point being addressed.
>> >
>> >Mentioning a product is a "cheap shot"?
>>
>> It is when the discussion was about sales techniques....
>
>Interesting. So you would like to pit your sales acumen against mine,
>then? What sales experience do you have, Stew? Could you tell us about
>some of your closing and trial closing techniques?
I 'sell' $100,000 and up technical projects, not mid-fi stereo
systems..........
Oh well, Trots is as ever disinterested in advancing audio - back in
the plonker file.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> trotsky <gsi...@qwestonline.com> writes:
>>
>> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >>
>> >> trotsky <gsi...@qwestonline.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> trotsky <gsi...@qwestonline.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> >> >I see--so do you understand that the more speakers that are in the room,
>> >> >> >the more aberrations to the frequency responses occur?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Probably the reverse is true, but you won't understand why......
>> >> >
>> >> >I see--well, instead of hiding your head and losing the argument
>> >> >*again*, why not explain it to us?
>> >>
>> >> Simple, really. *If*, and it's a big if, you accept that another
>> >> unpowered speaker will affect the sound of a demoe'ed speaker due to
>> >> 'sympathetic resonances', then a large number of such other speakers
>> >> will have *less* effect, due to the fact that their 'sympathetic
>> >> resonances' will be scattered throughout the audio spectrum.
>> >>
>> >> This is pretty basic stuff for any competent mechanical engineer, car
>> >> designers make use of it all the time in NVH reduction.
>> >
>> >Stew, this is all very vague.
>>
>> Only if you don't understand the basic principle of distributed
>> resonance.
>
>Oh, and that's a prerequisite for spouting audio opinions how, exactly?
It's a prerequisite for spouting opinions about the supposed
deleterious efects of multiple speaker demonstartion rooms.
>> > Don't you have any measurements or
>> >specifications for what you're talking about? Do you ever? If you were
>> >in university, all that hand waving bullshit would get you a failing
>> >grade every time.
>>
>> How would you know? It is patently obvious that you never acheived a
>> passing grade in any engineering course, ever.
>
>How did I get a degree from a well respected engineering school then?
Presumably, by paying someone to sit your exams. Your gross
incompetence is a matter of record on this newgroup.
>The problem we seem to be having here, Stew, is that your statements are
>very rarely connected to reality. I have a BSEE from the University of
>Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. You know, the school where Hal the
>computer was programmed. Was your alma mater mentioned in Kubrick film,
>Stew?
Given that you had to invent a screen persona in lieu of a real
personality, you may not be aware that the HAL 9000 was entirely
fictional - like your degree, perhaps?
Certainly, you demonstrate a close to absolute zero grasp of
electrical engineering basics.
> Recently, a sockpoopet claimed to have confirmed my having a
>degree by looking it up on the U of I website. Are you claiming this to
>be impossible?
Nothing is impossible on Usenet..........
Gues...@work.com
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>trotsky <gsi...@qwestonline.com> writes:
>
>> Recently, a sockpoopet claimed to have confirmed my having a
>>degree by looking it up on the U of I website. Are you claiming this to
>>be impossible?
>
Well, actually, it was not available over the internet. At least not
through their web page. I actually had to ... well, lets just say I
can definitely confirm that shit-for-brains, did, in fact, earn a BSEE
from the otherwise respectable U of I, Urbana-Champaign.
Hey twots, if you give me express permission, I will work on posting
your transcript in all its glory. What do you say?
trotsky
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>
> Oh well, Trots is as ever disinterested in advancing audio - back in
> the plonker file.
Hiding your head in the sand, as predicted. Getting your ass kicked on
alt.home-theater.misc probably has something to do with this.
trotsky
I see. So we have a pseudo science based quandry here: I claim
empirical evidence experiencing the sonic differences of multiple
speakers in a room, and the mythos states that no DBTs are necessary
when discussing speaker differences, but you are saying the theory takes
precedence over the empirical evidence here. Are you sure you are
trained as an engineer?
> >> > Don't you have any measurements or
> >> >specifications for what you're talking about? Do you ever? If you were
> >> >in university, all that hand waving bullshit would get you a failing
> >> >grade every time.
> >>
> >> How would you know? It is patently obvious that you never acheived a
> >> passing grade in any engineering course, ever.
> >
> >How did I get a degree from a well respected engineering school then?
>
> Presumably, by paying someone to sit your exams. Your gross
> incompetence is a matter of record on this newgroup.
Stew, you are completely out of reality contact. I suspect multiple
e-mails from Mango will follow.
> >The problem we seem to be having here, Stew, is that your statements are
> >very rarely connected to reality. I have a BSEE from the University of
> >Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. You know, the school where Hal the
> >computer was programmed. Was your alma mater mentioned in Kubrick film,
> >Stew?
>
> Given that you had to invent a screen persona in lieu of a real
> personality, you may not be aware that the HAL 9000 was entirely
> fictional - like your degree, perhaps?
Yeah, sure--let me know when you take your medication and are able to
resume discussing facts.
> Certainly, you demonstrate a close to absolute zero grasp of
> electrical engineering basics.
Maybe, but I have hands on experience with audio and video equipment,
leading to something you don't have: valid opinions.
>
> > Recently, a sockpoopet claimed to have confirmed my having a
> >degree by looking it up on the U of I website. Are you claiming this to
> >be impossible?
>
> Nothing is impossible on Usenet..........
Plonk.
March Gibbs
<Glan...@ipo.net> wrote:
>You are such a phony, it's not at all surprising that a "writer"
>with your "credentials" is a laughingstock in the real audio
>press.
That's 'Alpha Laughingstock' to you, bud.
Howard Ferstler
> You are such a phony, it's not at all surprising that a "writer"
> with your "credentials" is a laughingstock in the real audio
> press.
What members of the "real" audio press have you polled for
opinions on this topic, George? At least I really do get
stuff into print, George. All you do is post dreck on RAO.
Howard Ferstler
Joe Samangitak
>> So?
>
>So, a typical room will add colorations a lot more obnoxious
>than what we get from the relatively pint-sized diaphragms
>
But less obnoxious is OK?
To say
>that bringing in a second pair of speakers to do an A/B
>comparison will cause either pair to have problems related
>to vibration is ludicrous.
That's kind of an exaggeration. 2 pairs in room probably won't have an
effect, but more than 10-20 *pairs*, all around a room , will have effect
on the sensitivity of the room. And depending on where placement is, who
knows. There could be other effects.
Now, I will admit that having two
>speakers right next to each other will possibly result in
>baffle-related problems, and of course two pairs cannot
>occupy the same positions, and those anomalies can cause
>problems during comparisons, but this thing about vibration
>causing sympathetic vibrations in other speakers is just
>plain dumb.
Having big boxes, like speakers, can extremely effect the sensitivity of a
room.
>
>> >Any room that has walls that do not vibrate at all is
>> >probably either a basement or a bank vault, and even then
>> >the ceiling of the basement would still vibrate.
Speakers have walls too. They can vibrate.
>
>> Your point is?
>
>Most people listen in rooms that allow those rooms to add
>vibration-related colorations at some frequencies,
>particularly at high volume levels.
For serious listetning , you think they should allow it?
>
>> >Incidentally, the walls in my main room are frame, with
>> >6-inch studs on 16-inch centers. The wall covering is
>> >3/8-inch paneling bonded and nailed over 5/8-inch drywall,
>> >making a sandwich that is one-inch thick. The room, which is
>> >somewhat larger than 18 x 22 feet, has one 4 x 8 foot window
>> >and a 6 x 7 foot French door, plus another 6 x 7 foot door
>> >to the rest of the house and a 3 x 3 foot window that
>> >accesses the kitchen. That is really not a lot of glass area
>> >for a room that size.
>
>> So?
>
>It is not quite as solid as a bank vault or basement, but it
>is more solid than a rooms in typical frame homes. I think
>it is a good compromise room. Have you seen the pictures of
>it on the SurroundFreak's web site?
Why? Many listenining rooms that exist have no windows and only one door.
so
>
>So? The driver areas (and speaker walls, whatever that
>means) are but a fraction of the areas we have with walls
>and ceilings.
How about big Dunlavy's ? huge electrostatics? huge horn speakers? some
or bigger than doors.
>Which akin to discussing the potential impact of a waterball
>game on the wave action on the other side of Lake Superior.
what?
>
. Say, have you ever cranked up a system so that
>frequencies between 20 and 30 Hz are hitting peaks of
>105-115 dB? Give it a try sometime and see just how much
your room vibrates sympathetically.
Why?
>
>And while I have heard differences between some electronics
>(a slightly defective receiver once sounded different, at
>least with a pink-noise source
But your definition of defect is difference...sort of like a robot.
I have at least gone to
>the trouble to do level-matched, quick-switch comparisons.
See. This puzzles most of us in the NG and probably even Arny Krueger. Why
do you even bother with A/B comparison when you already have your own
answer..."all audio electronics sound the same as long as they are not
defective" ! It seems to me that even Arny Krueger has proven to himself
that amps that are made to their designed specifications, can sound
different and can sound fine.
>With some of the ones I have been doing lately have even
>been done with a double-blind protocol. Have you tried any
>of that?
Yes! I have participated in publicly and professionally conducted proper
blind A/B comparison.
>
>Sure. However, it also allows you to adjust each amp
>independently, in order to get the outputs of the speakers
>matched up decently. If you use one stereo amp and just A/B
>switch, speakers with different efficiencies will be
>difficult to compare fairly. Using two amps that have
>independent level controls allows one to deal with that
>issue.
IMO this is going completely overboard. IF one cannot fairly judge two
pairs of speakers with one main system and a speaker switchbox, then
there is something wrong .!
>
>Since most listeners use their speakers in living-room sized
>areas, it stands to reason that the best comparisons will be
>done in living-room sized areas.
It is a weak generalization.
>ways that would be a good idea. That would allow for
>consistent impressions as customers traveled from dealer to
>dealer and did their speaker shopping.
So if the customer listened to system A in a horrible sounding, overly
damped demo room, it's best that the customer listen to system B in that
same room ? NO! By default, the impression of sytem A would be
worthless if the customer's goal were to get a worthy comparison. .
>
>> That's the easiest way. But ideally,
>> the room and placement should match the speaker's design.
.
>
>Well, it is his demo and his speakers, and I suppose he can
>say anything he wants. However, what he is saying is mumbo
>jumbo .
Nothing to get all bent out of shape over and publish in a book.
Also, while you might be able to hear an old-style
>watch ticking a few feet away, are you saying that you can
>hear it when a big audio system is pumping away?
When light classical is playing, possibly.
Art Sackman
>
> >I didn't read anything about that explanation having been eliminated.
> >Did the guy from Linn deny that explanation? Did he offer an alternative
> >one?
>
> As I noted elsewhere in this thread, I have personally seen Ivor do
> his trick of covering up a telephone earpiece and trying to persuade
> people that this cleaned up the sound of the demo'd speaker. As others
> have noted, this didn't prevent his cohorts also demoing 'better' Linn
> speakers which had previously been concealed behind drapes in the same
> room as the smaller models. Obviously, the rules get changed depending
> on the sales pitch...
I still don't have an explanation. The first question wasn't answered. The
second question was barely addressed by your anecdote. You described some
"unusual" behavior, but really didn't answer the question, which is ok, if
either you don't know his explanation, or (more likely), he never really
didn't explain it.
>
> >About his firing dealers who displayed competing lines in the same room,
if
> >I were a dealer and if what you say is true, I would refuse to carry his
> >line, absolutely.
>
> Many dealers (including my local high-ender) did react in that way,
> they are no longer Linn dealers. When considering hi-fi purchases, it
> may be worth noting that a Linn dealer is *by definition* one who goes
> along with Ivor's philosophy on selling snake oil...............
>
His weird requirements are probably why I never saw Linn speakers at any of
the high end retailers I ever visited. It seems the guy had some
questionable tactics. I would consider him unreasonable towards dealers. As
far as demo tactics, your description seems weird, but I would bet there was
more to it than your very brief two sentence description. I said "more to
it". I didn't say better or worse.
Even after all that, the question I would want to know is: Did the speakers
sound very good, and were they worth the price.
My benchmark for a speaker scam is more along the lines of the "White Van
Speakers" and Bose.
If the Linn's sounded comparable to other high end speakers in the same
range, I wouldn't consider that there was any scam.
George M. Middius
> > You are such a phony, it's not at all surprising that a "writer"
> > with your "credentials" is a laughingstock in the real audio
> > press.
> What members of the "real" audio press have you polled for
> opinions on this topic, George?
How about the staffs of Stereophile, TAS, and Fi (R.I.P.)?
> At least
It always comes down to the "least" with you. Sad.;-(™
George M. Middius
witless by my analysis of your pathetic plying of "the debating
trade". You couldn't even croak out two words in response.
> My question is: What kind of "debate" rules are you following?
> The pathetic, lame-ass excuses you offer are pathetic, from "It's
> too much trouble to look it up" to your "don't be so serious, get
> a life" masturbation.
Well, so be it. Your thickheadedness is hardly a concern anymore,
what with retirement looming and you circling the drain mentally.
However, before you check out of this reality and drift insensate
into the waiting arms of St. Alzheimer, I would like to put you
straight on the wackiest of your weird twists on reality.
Your friend BJ Feng -- you have him all wrong. Lately you've taken
to characterizing his responses to your posts as wanton attacks,
cheap shots, ganging up on poor Clerkie, and so forth. None of that
could be further from the truth. You're so far wrong regarding BJ
that you might as well be talking about audio equipment you've
never been in the same room with.
I really have to wonder about your self-professed "professionalism"
as a "writer," Howie, in light of your very poor ability to
comprehend what others write in direct response to your own
jabbering. It's perfectly clear that BJ wants you to be the best
possible Harold you can be. And yet you don't see it. What you
want, I believe, is for people to bow down to you, to accept your
self-professed "knowledge" as a gift from you unto them, and not to
question what you tell them is true. You've put in the years;
you've been ground up umpty-ump times by the "publishing" process;
you've established those credentials that should entitle you to a
pass from serious scrutiny. And yet you get exactly the opposite.
Certainly the lack of appreciation, of blind obeisance, galls you
no end. It's one thing when you get dissed by guys like dave or
Barry or stephen or me. (It's OK, I know you have no idea who I'm
referring to.) But Feng is supposed to support you because your
Audio Cause is the same as his Audio Cause.
I'm sure you'll never figure it out, but believe me -- Feng really
and truly does want to support you. The reason he doesn't will
forever elude you.
Jonathan P. Spence
In recent reviews the Linn Klimax has received a great deal of praise, as
has their all in one CD player/amplifier (I forget the name of that unit),
and people have been singing the praises of the LP 12 for years.
The point of the post was that I have not seen any reviews on some of their
older equipment. The Klout, LK100, Kairn, etc. If anyone has had
experience with their other amplifiers or preamps, I was looking forward to
reading some personal experiences and opinions regarding any of their stuff,
especially that which has not been in the media as of late; such as the
models I have mentioned above.
"George M. Middius" <Glan...@ipo.net> wrote in message
> How would you answer the question "What do you think of Ford
> cars?"
Well, I would likely mention which models I have driven (an '87 ford bronco)
and relate my experience with the vehicle along with possible comparisons to
other cars in the same price range or class. Or I could just wait in the
eaves for someone to say just about anything I did not agree with and
immediately pounce upon them claiming that they must have never driven, are
paid by Ford, or are basically lacking in any credibility or intelligence
whatsoever. (This is not directed at George, but at several folks
hereabouts)
Stewart Pinkerton
>
>"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3b642e9d...@news.freeserve.net...
>>
>> >I didn't read anything about that explanation having been eliminated.
>> >Did the guy from Linn deny that explanation? Did he offer an alternative
>> >one?
>>
>> As I noted elsewhere in this thread, I have personally seen Ivor do
>> his trick of covering up a telephone earpiece and trying to persuade
>> people that this cleaned up the sound of the demo'd speaker. As others
>> have noted, this didn't prevent his cohorts also demoing 'better' Linn
>> speakers which had previously been concealed behind drapes in the same
>> room as the smaller models. Obviously, the rules get changed depending
>> on the sales pitch...
>
>I still don't have an explanation. The first question wasn't answered. The
>second question was barely addressed by your anecdote. You described some
>"unusual" behavior, but really didn't answer the question, which is ok, if
>either you don't know his explanation, or (more likely), he never really
>didn't explain it.
Sigh.........
First question - the guy from Linn did not claim that watches and
telephones were a problem because of interruptions caused by them
ringing.
Second question - he *did* claim that they were a problem because they
contained electro-acoustic transducers and hence were as bad as having
another pair of speakers in the room.
>His weird requirements are probably why I never saw Linn speakers at any of
>the high end retailers I ever visited. It seems the guy had some
>questionable tactics. I would consider him unreasonable towards dealers. As
>far as demo tactics, your description seems weird, but I would bet there was
>more to it than your very brief two sentence description. I said "more to
>it". I didn't say better or worse.
Nope, that's all there was to it.
>Even after all that, the question I would want to know is: Did the speakers
>sound very good, and were they worth the price.
The Keilidh is the only one I'd give house room to, the rest of the
hi-fi range have a 'thin' balance which sounds fine with an LP12 front
end (surprise!), but doesn't match a neutral source. The HT range are
better balanced, but overpriced IMO.
>My benchmark for a speaker scam is more along the lines of the "White Van
>Speakers" and Bose.
>If the Linn's sounded comparable to other high end speakers in the same
>range, I wouldn't consider that there was any scam.
See above. The scam is in the deliberate difficulty of comparing them
to other speakers in a Linn dealership.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> trotsky <gsi...@qwestonline.com> writes:
>>
>> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Simple, really. *If*, and it's a big if, you accept that another
>> >> >> unpowered speaker will affect the sound of a demoe'ed speaker due to
>> >> >> 'sympathetic resonances', then a large number of such other speakers
>> >> >> will have *less* effect, due to the fact that their 'sympathetic
>> >> >> resonances' will be scattered throughout the audio spectrum.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is pretty basic stuff for any competent mechanical engineer, car
>> >> >> designers make use of it all the time in NVH reduction.
>> >> >
>> >> >Stew, this is all very vague.
>> >>
>> >> Only if you don't understand the basic principle of distributed
>> >> resonance.
>> >
>> >Oh, and that's a prerequisite for spouting audio opinions how, exactly?
>>
>> It's a prerequisite for spouting opinions about the supposed
>> deleterious efects of multiple speaker demonstartion rooms.
>
>I see. So we have a pseudo science based quandry here: I claim
>empirical evidence experiencing the sonic differences of multiple
>speakers in a room, and the mythos states that no DBTs are necessary
>when discussing speaker differences, but you are saying the theory takes
>precedence over the empirical evidence here. Are you sure you are
>trained as an engineer?
I'm sure that you ain't! You in *fact* claimed differences moving from
one room to another. That one of those rooms contained multiple
speakers may or may not be relevant. That the rooms were different
sizes and differently furnished is most certainly relevant. Other than
that, my statement above stands - there is no *logical* reason to
suppose that multiple speakers in a room will have a deleterious
effect on a pair of speakers placed in the optimum position.
Of course, multi-speaker demos using switchboxes to change between
numerous speakers stacked along the demo room wall are another matter!
Stewart Pinkerton
>On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:26:10 GMT, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk
>(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>>trotsky <gsi...@qwestonline.com> writes:
>>
>>> Recently, a sockpoopet claimed to have confirmed my having a
>>>degree by looking it up on the U of I website. Are you claiming this to
>>>be impossible?
>>
>Well, actually, it was not available over the internet. At least not
>through their web page. I actually had to ... well, lets just say I
>can definitely confirm that shit-for-brains, did, in fact, earn a BSEE
>from the otherwise respectable U of I, Urbana-Champaign.
Clearly, Trots was educated far beyond the limits of his ability to
comprehend..................
You suppose his current total lack of knowledge of electrical
engineering is a symptom of Alzheimer's?
trotsky
Stew, you claimed there was no way I could have a BSEE. Why did you lie?
trotsky
>
> Oh well, Trots is as ever disinterested in advancing audio - back in
> the plonker file.
One can only guess what "plonker file" means in his whiskey sodden brain.
Well, firstly, I don't know why you are responding since you said I was
back in the "plonker file". Secondly, I don't know why you lied about
my credentials, and refuse to acknowledge your error. Thirdly, when I
had a class in Acoustics--which I found to be one of my most difficult,
abstract technical classes--there was an absorbtivity factor, A, that
was used in calculations, and was affected by other things in the room,
particularly people. I would think that it would stand to reason that
other speakers in the room would have some level of absorbtivity of
their own, affecting the frequency response of the speakers that are
playing. It is my conclusion, therefore, that I have both experience
listening to speakers with and without other speakers in the room, and I
have a hypothesis as to what happens when there are speakers in the
room. What do you have, Stew, besides rancor and whinings?