On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:53:41 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Keith G wrote:
"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Is because I ****ING SAY SO!


(huge Snip)

Keith! Have you been at the cooking sherry again? :-=))))



Nope (I'm totally tea, azittapens) it's called a 'wake up call'....!!! ;-)






Maybe I am missing something here, but there seems to be two camps, both
trying to claim ownership of the word better (well three at least, as
valve and vinyl are not together for all). But the problem seems to be
no one has talked about what they are better AT.

We have one group of people, who tend (understandably, to be from the
pro audio world) who argue that the better amplifier is one that has the
least effect on the signal, other than making it bigger (or changing it
from a voltage to a current source, anyway). And its easy to see why
this is a good thing, especially for use in monitoring situations. And
they argue (with merit) that they think this should also be the goal for
home use as well. I don't think that anyone on the NG would argue that
its unlikely for a valve amplifier to measure as well as a SS one.

The same goes for CD, it can be shown that the format is more than
adequate for audio reproduction, and the bandwidth and resolution is
more than good enough to produce on their outputs a analogue of what
went into the production of the CD.

Then we have the other group, that argue, that the better amplifier is
the one, that allows the ear/mind to recreate the illusion of the
original performance (cos thats all it is a illusion, there is no
performer there, its just a few things moving, and so moving the air).
In this group (And I place myself in there as well), the use of valves,
in some way (and Andy has expressed this better than I can) allows this
illusion to be much more convincing.

And again the same can be said for vinyl, I much prefer listening to
vinyl, and think (as others such as Keith do), that the resultant sound
is more engaging, and produces a stronger effect of "being there". but I
don't for one minute think that in absolute terms the incredibly crude
process of playing vinyl will provide anywhere as electrically accurate
reproduction of the originally signal.

I think valves and vinyl are better than CD and SS, thats just my
thought, doesn't mean anything much, certainly doesn't mean anyone else
is wrong, and doesn't mean my "better" is better (or even the same) than
someone else "better". So I think that objecting to the use of the term
better doesn't work anymore than saying its ok to have a preference.

Can't we just agree to differ, I know, silly idea....

Anyway, I should stop reading this group and go and listen to my nice
new Kontrapunct cartridge, through my work in progress 211 SET, (Yes
Keith you win, I did give in and change from the GM70's).

Nicely argued, although we do seem to have a few oddballs from the
pro-audio world who like valves! :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering