<JamesGangNC@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:76c6eca6-4b0d-4466-aaf6-3ea84907d4d2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 8, 11:24 am, JamesGan...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On May 8, 10:49 am, "Dave" <dspear9...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "James" <ja...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> >news:T-ydnXj3AMjzcL_VnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > "EADGBE" <hwbossh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >
>news:fc4ee70d-78c2-4b73-888e-40ca25ab15dc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > >> Dave:
>
> > >> BRAVO.
>
> > >> I could not possibly have said it any better.
>
> > >> It's nice to know that I'm not the only one to "hear the light", so
> > >> to
> > >> speak.
>
> > > Be that as it may those pioneers really do not have any features
that
> > > would make them any better than newer recievers. Those both were
> > > models
> > > for the masses.
>
> > Never indicated that older was better, simply sought to dispel the
> > commonly
> > held myth that newer is better.
>
> > And maybe, just maybe, it's not about "features" but about sound? What
> > kind
> > of features do you really need in an amplifier? I could spend $24,000+
> > on a
> > pair of Mark Levinson monoblock amplifiers. You know what "feature"
> > sells
> > them? The sound. No knobs, no effects, no digital signal processor,
> > surround sound, subwoofer output, HDMI interface. No. Analog input.
> > Speaker output. Good sound. Hardly for everyone, but I just want to
> > illustrate that there is a ****tion of the population whose #1
> > requirement
> > isn't a system which necessarily fully integrates all audio and video
> > functions into a single connected system with a single remote control.
I
> > believe this is what you mean when you talk about "features"... I may
be
> > wrong.
>
> > I don't think anybody would buy a 70's or 80's receiver like the
Pioneer
> > we've been talking about as the cornerstone of their home theatre
setup.
> > But if your requirements are good clean two-channel sound and good
build
> > quality (and REALLY cheap price) then these units fit the bill
> > perfectly.
>
> > Again, not that the masses are ready to be sold on the environmental
> > impact,
> > but I feel good about spending a (very) few bucks repairing something
> > which
> > is perfectly good and does what I want as opposed to buying into the
> > modern
> > paradigm which says it's cheaper to replace than repair. Go to your
> > local
> > landfill and have a look at the gargantuan pile of electronic
equipment
> > awaiting destruction.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I was not meaning 'wiz-bang' features either. Just basics. Nothing
> wrong with those receivers. If you have one and it still does what
> you need that's fine. But I did mean to say that they are not any
> better than a basic, under $200 stereo receiver made today. Pioneer,
> marantz, and others did make some top of the line discrete gear that
> is more sought after as well as having some pretty good specs. But
> it's not the 750/780s. And it's not anything with the stks in it.
> Those were the beginning of conformity in low/mid range stereos.- Hide
> quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And I don't need any amplifier to "contribute" to the sound. Just
reproduce the signal. I think most would agree that the speakers are
the biggest factor in sound anyway. Amplifiers don't add "warmth" or
"color" to the music. If they do then something is wrong with them.
Indeed, and any amplifier that performs to modern standards will sound
indistinguishable from any other provided that the load is within design
parameters. Which brings me to the question as to why a Mark Levinson pair
at $24K would be any better than, say, a Behringer at a few hundred $. I
can
accept that the ML looks more impressive, it could well be "better made"
which means it will last longer, and has the cache of being expensive and
therefore exclusive. However, will it sound any better? I would expect
not.
S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com
|
