The Larger Picture [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : The Larger Picture



okiemax
07-23-2004, 10:27 AM
Regardless of whether audiophile cables sound better than inexpensive wire, they are a highly profitable item for audio and video equipment dealers, and make it possible for these merchants to take a lower mark-up on speakers, TV monitors, and other items. Therefore, the yeasayers who spend big bucks on fancy cables are in a way subsidizing the naysayers who buy speakers and other equipment.

A rational person is supposed to act in his best interest. A naysayer who tries to persuade yeasayers to stop subsidizing him would not appear to be acting like a rational person. He may argue that he is motivated more by altruism than selfish self-interest. However, if people are pleased with their audiophile cable purchases, and other consumers get an economic benefit from these purchases, who is being harmed? Perhaps naysayers' preoccupation with measurements and blinded testing is so intellectually narrowing it gets in the way of seeing the larger picture.

jneutron
07-23-2004, 10:55 AM
Regardless of whether audiophile cables sound better than inexpensive wire, they are a highly profitable item for audio and video equipment dealers, and make it possible for these merchants to take a lower mark-up on speakers, TV monitors, and other items. Therefore, the yeasayers who spend big bucks on fancy cables are in a way subsidizing the naysayers who buy speakers and other equipment.

A rational person is supposed to act in his best interest. A naysayer who tries to persuade yeasayers to stop subsidizing him would not appear to be acting like a rational person. He may argue that he is motivated more by altruism than selfish self-interest. However, if people are pleased with their audiophile cable purchases, and other consumers get an economic benefit from these purchases, who is being harmed? Perhaps naysayers' preoccupation with measurements and blinded testing is so intellectually narrowing it gets in the way of seeing the larger picture.

""and make it possible for these merchants to take a lower mark-up on speakers, TV monitors, and other items""

It may make it "possible".

But do you really believe that the vendors are that altruistic?

You are basically asking the vendor to NOT look at inventory throughput, overhead costs, and markups, but to simply look at dollars in...and then, compensate all the speaker and monitor shoppers by tagging the wires higher?

It is extremely easy to mark up a dollar item to ten dollars, which is a typical manu to counter markup percentage...then bring it up to 15 without really killing many sales...but a TV, made for 50 bucks, sold for 500, to suddenly be marked up to 750?

And when I go to best buy, I can SEE the picture on the screen..I can walk around, and clearly spot the better pic, the worse one...very easy...form factor, it's all there...and with many manu's to choose from....very competitive..

If I need a wire....what input can I use to consider the item? A salesperson? Packaging wording? What?...The competitive aspect there is not what is heard, or seen...it is the marketing...

How many people understand skin theory, flux, gauss, RCL, inductance, capacitance, whatever...

It's the sales pitch...it's the packaging...but, altruism?...nah...they have to pay the bills and the salaries. They may have loss leaders to get you into the store, but it's not the big ticket speakers and monitors..

Cheers, John

skeptic
07-23-2004, 11:09 AM
This is the most unique rationalization for cheating people out of their money I have seen in a long time.

okiemax
07-23-2004, 11:55 AM
""and make it possible for these merchants to take a lower mark-up on speakers, TV monitors, and other items""

It may make it "possible".

But do you really believe that the vendors are that altruistic?

You are basically asking the vendor to NOT look at inventory throughput, overhead costs, and markups, but to simply look at dollars in...and then, compensate all the speaker and monitor shoppers by tagging the wires higher?

It is extremely easy to mark up a dollar item to ten dollars, which is a typical manu to counter markup percentage...then bring it up to 15 without really killing many sales...but a TV, made for 50 bucks, sold for 500, to suddenly be marked up to 750?

And when I go to best buy, I can SEE the picture on the screen..I can walk around, and clearly spot the better pic, the worse one...very easy...form factor, it's all there...and with many manu's to choose from....very competitive..

If I need a wire....what input can I use to consider the item? A salesperson? Packaging wording? What?...The competitive aspect there is not what is heard, or seen...it is the marketing...

How many people understand skin theory, flux, gauss, RCL, inductance, capacitance, whatever...

It's the sales pitch...it's the packaging...but, altruism?...nah...they have to pay the bills and the salaries. They may have loss leaders to get you into the store, but it's not the big ticket speakers and monitors..

Cheers, John

The bottom line for the merchant is total return on investment. If not for the sale of audiophile cables, either (a) other items would have to be priced higher, or (b) the total return would be lower. Investment in retailing and manufacturing is not attracted by low returns.

okiemax
07-23-2004, 12:05 PM
This is the most unique rationalization for cheating people out of their money I have seen in a long time.

Thanks for the compliment, skep. Are many audiophile cable buyers complaining about being cheated?

jneutron
07-23-2004, 12:05 PM
The bottom line for the merchant is total return on investment.

Agreed


If not for the sale of audiophile cables, either (a) other items would have to be priced higher, or (b) the total return would be lower.

You make an assumption. Have you any basis in fact to support that? And, your statement means that there are no TV or monitor vendors who can survive without gouging people via cable sales...


Investment in retailing and manufacturing is not attracted by low returns.

Obviously. But, then why are there TV's and monitors at Best Buy??

A question...If a cable vendor sells only cables...then why is it the prices are soooo high? Are they giving away TV's and speakers?

If so, please save me some..

Cheers, John

mtrycraft
07-23-2004, 08:07 PM
Thanks for the compliment, skep. Are many audiophile cable buyers complaining about being cheated?


How can they? They have no idea what they are doing, just following their herd.

okiemax
07-23-2004, 10:42 PM
Agreed



You make an assumption. Have you any basis in fact to support that? And, your statement means that there are no TV or monitor vendors who can survive without gouging people via cable sales...



Obviously. But, then why are there TV's and monitors at Best Buy??

A question...If a cable vendor sells only cables...then why is it the prices are soooo high? Are they giving away TV's and speakers?

If so, please save me some..

Cheers, John

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "assumption" and "basis in fact." What I said to be true should be self-evident. All other factors being equal, profit lost on one item has to be made up from other items in a retailer's line of merchandise or return on investment will suffer. If audio/video equipment retailers stopped selling audiophile cables, their losses would have to be made up some way or returns would be lower. To offset the losses and maintain profit levels, these merchants would have to raise prices on other items and/or sell more merchandise. Of course if selling more goods is a possibiity, the question would be why aren't they already doing it?

I don't doubt most audio/ video equipment retailers could survive without selling audiophile cables. But my subject was not about dealer survival. It was about purchases of cables subsidizing purchases of other items. I have to confess I don't know how the retail profit margin on cables compares with speakers, TV monitors, and related goods. An outrageously high mark-up on cables is mentioned so frequently on this Forum, however, that I have accepted it as being true(is it myth?). So I would put audiophile cables in the same category as other purchases that are gravy for retailers such as alcoholic drinks in restaurants and sports wheels on new cars. The diner having the martinis is subsidizing the non-drinker's meal. The buyer of the Honda Civic with the $1,000 wheels( just saw one) is subsidizing the buyer of the plain Civic. Why would cables from a full-line audio and video equipment retailer, regardless of whether it's a boutique, a discounter, or a mail order firm, be exempt from subsidizing the purchase of related goods?

The exclusive cable vendors are another matter. A purchase from a firm that sells only cables obviously doesn't subsidize the purchase of items that the firm doesn't sell. Indeed, to the extent it takes away sales from the full-line retailer, the purchase from the "cables only" firm could reduce subsidies that might otherwise occur. The exclusive vendors I know about are the little producers, such as Heartland, Bluejeans, and SignalCable, which make and sell cables for relatively low prices(e.g., $40 for an interconnect). You might get a free lollipop with a purchase.

Mash
07-24-2004, 04:37 AM
Ain't nobody's purchases subsidizing anyone else's purchases, okiemax. Each retail transaction is an independent event. All merchandise must individually offer a business justification (profit or traffic-buiilding) in its own right or a merchant will stop offering it. Individual ROI rules.

I doubt that anyone here has ANY objection to YOUR spending YOUR $1000 on a pair of 3 metre interconnects. It's your money, so enjoy. I think the objection arises here when neophytes, who are asking for experience-based advice, are urged to spend substantial money on wires when no objective test (i.e. DBT, for example) has EVER demonstrated the proof-of-benefit for expensive wires.

The only time I have EVER heard differences among SUBSTANTIALLY different amps that were played within their power limitations was with Magnepan speakers. These same quite-different amps sounded all the same when played through either cones-in-a-box speakers or electrostatic speakers. So how really different CAN mere wires sound?

skeptic
07-24-2004, 04:54 AM
You know it never occurred to me but okeimax might have an interesting point. We think of a retail or even e-mail electronics store as a place where we buy stereo or HT components and they just happen to sell audio cables on the side because people need them to hook up the equipment anyway and this is an item they can make a large profit on. Maybe we should look at it the other way around. Perhaps for some or many of these businesses, their primary sales offering is the cables, and selling the low markup stereo equipment is just a way to entice you to buy the cables. Kind of like a supermarket's loss leaders to get you into the store to buy the high markup items.

E-Stat
07-24-2004, 06:37 AM
How can they? They have no idea what they are doing, just following their herd.
*****STOP THE PRESSES*****

For only the second time (if memory serves), I will agree with you in part. It is a sad state that there are some "audiofools" who buy all their components because they think they "should" as opposed to having a firm conviction based upon experience.

When I worked at a hi-fi shop in the seventies, we had one customer who owned about ten records and about $5k worth of gear. He bought and sold no fewer than three sets of Dahlquist speakers that we sold. He heard they were good and bought them. Then he heard of some other speaker was better, sold the DQ-10s and bought them. Didn't like the new speakers and came back and bought more Dahlquists. The guy was a fool.

rw

E-Stat
07-24-2004, 06:39 AM
Kind of like a supermarket's loss leaders to get you into the store to buy the high markup items.
Or the proverbial "give away the razor and sell them the blades" approach.

Unfortunately, I know of zero big box retailers who sell any really good "blades".

rw

pctower
07-24-2004, 07:28 AM
Regardless of whether audiophile cables sound better than inexpensive wire, they are a highly profitable item for audio and video equipment dealers, and make it possible for these merchants to take a lower mark-up on speakers, TV monitors, and other items. Therefore, the yeasayers who spend big bucks on fancy cables are in a way subsidizing the naysayers who buy speakers and other equipment.

A rational person is supposed to act in his best interest. A naysayer who tries to persuade yeasayers to stop subsidizing him would not appear to be acting like a rational person. He may argue that he is motivated more by altruism than selfish self-interest. However, if people are pleased with their audiophile cable purchases, and other consumers get an economic benefit from these purchases, who is being harmed? Perhaps naysayers' preoccupation with measurements and blinded testing is so intellectually narrowing it gets in the way of seeing the larger picture.

Just my $0.02 worth of comment: Philosophically, I don't believe any distortion to the efficient operation of the marketplace is good, whether it be by fraud, deception, ignorance of consumer or government fiat or forced allocation.

If certain products are being subsidiezed by cables that demand high price because of fraud or deceptive advertising, I don't think that's a good thing. I'm not necessarily saying that's the case, but I sensed that buried in your statement was an assumption that the cable mark-up in and of itself is not justified.

Pat D
07-24-2004, 12:04 PM
Ain't nobody's purchases subsidizing anyone else's purchases, okiemax. Each retail transaction is an independent event. All merchandise must individually offer a business justification (profit or traffic-buiilding) in its own right or a merchant will stop offering it. Individual ROI rules.

I doubt that anyone here has ANY objection to YOUR spending YOUR $1000 on a pair of 3 metre interconnects. It's your money, so enjoy. I think the objection arises here when neophytes, who are asking for experience-based advice, are urged to spend substantial money on wires when no objective test (i.e. DBT, for example) has EVER demonstrated the proof-of-benefit for expensive wires.

The only time I have EVER heard differences among SUBSTANTIALLY different amps that were played within their power limitations was with Magnepan speakers. These same quite-different amps sounded all the same when played through either cones-in-a-box speakers or electrostatic speakers. So how really different CAN mere wires sound?

Very good points. However, it is quite likely that the Magnepan speakers offered a much more difficult load than the other speakers, and so the differences may well have been that one or more of the amplifiers couldn't handle the load.

E-Stat
07-24-2004, 12:27 PM
Very good points. However, it is quite likely that the Magnepan speakers offered a much more difficult load than the other speakers, and so the differences may well have been that one or more of the amplifiers couldn't handle the load.
Nope. Magneplanars have always presented a fairly linear high impedance resistive load to amplifiers unlike some speakers like my Advents. High resolution speakers render discerning amplifier differences easier.

rw

Geoffcin
07-24-2004, 04:07 PM
So how really different CAN mere wires sound?

I've just replaced all my factory issued steel jumpers with silver wire on my maggies. Guess what? A detectable improvment. To prove to myself that I wasn't just imagining it I put everthing back stock and the improvment went away. It wasn't a huge improvment, but I can tell it's there, and that's all that matters to me. There's a whole homegrown industry modding maggie crossovers, and from what I've seen it can make a difference.

Now to bypass the fuses!

mtrycraft
07-24-2004, 04:27 PM
*****STOP THE PRESSES*****

For only the second time (if memory serves), I will agree with you in part. .

rw


Hard to argue probabilities :)

mtrycraft
07-24-2004, 04:30 PM
High resolution speakers render discerning amplifier differences easier.

rw


That is yet to be demonstrated.

E-Stat
07-24-2004, 05:19 PM
That is yet to be demonstrated.
For only those with non-experience like yourself.

rw

mtrycraft
07-24-2004, 08:07 PM
For only those with non-experience like yourself.

rw


Then you can refer me to the evidence? Not hearsay evidence but the real deal. Maybe even published? Or, just testimonials as usual?

E-Stat
07-25-2004, 04:02 AM
Then you can refer me to the evidence? Not hearsay evidence but the real deal. Maybe even published? Or, just testimonials as usual?
You'll never understand until you decide to experience life. It really is better than just reading about it.

rw

Mash
07-25-2004, 06:25 PM
Mity-C
Some friends and I compared 3 amps driving Tympani in 1977 : A quasi-complimentary SS, a full push-pull SS (Bongiorno design) an a dual-mode Futterman. These amps all sounded very different on the Tympani, with the quasi-complimentary SS having a disagreeable, prickly character and the Futterman being very smoothly detailed. The Bongiorno design was OK. When I tried the same test on Double-KLH-9's, there were NO apparent sound differences amoung the amps. Maybe the complicated L-C electrical characteristics of the KLH-9's matching transformers etc. filtered the amps' sonic differences out, while the almost-purely resistive nature of the Tympani allowed the amps' sonic differences to pass thru to the listeners.

I have also heard few, if any, differences amoung amps when they are used to drive cone speakers. Again, the complicated L-C electrical characteristics of the cone speakers may filter out the differences.

And yes, membrane speakers do offer far more detail than do cone speakers. I replaced my bedroom cone speakers with those cheapie MMG speakers, and the improvement in detailing would be obvious to anyone with decent hearing.

skeptic
07-26-2004, 03:00 AM
"And yes, membrane speakers do offer far more detail than do cone speakers. I replaced my bedroom cone speakers with those cheapie MMG speakers, and the improvement in detailing would be obvious to anyone with decent hearing."

If you are trying to generalize about the superiority of one generic type of speaker over another, you will need a lot more evidence than the cone and box speakers in your bedroom versus a pair of MMGs. There are tens of thousands of different models out there and no two sound exactly alike. It might interest you to know that about 35 years ago several respected reviewers published in their magazines that Rectilinear III a box and cone speaker was a virtual dead ringer for the sound of Quad ESL 63 an electrostatic speaker except that the Rectilinear III had better bass. That model was also highlighted in Popular Science Magazine as the speaker in an article "The Sound System I Wish I Owned." The fact that it didn't become a universal runaway best seller in its price category demonstrated that there were many people who didn't particularly like it.

okiemax
07-26-2004, 11:27 AM
Ain't nobody's purchases subsidizing anyone else's purchases, okiemax. Each retail transaction is an independent event. All merchandise must individually offer a business justification (profit or traffic-buiilding) in its own right or a merchant will stop offering it. Individual ROI rules.

I doubt that anyone here has ANY objection to YOUR spending YOUR $1000 on a pair of 3 metre interconnects. It's your money, so enjoy. I think the objection arises here when neophytes, who are asking for experience-based advice, are urged to spend substantial money on wires when no objective test (i.e. DBT, for example) has EVER demonstrated the proof-of-benefit for expensive wires.

The only time I have EVER heard differences among SUBSTANTIALLY different amps that were played within their power limitations was with Magnepan speakers. These same quite-different amps sounded all the same when played through either cones-in-a-box speakers or electrostatic speakers. So how really different CAN mere wires sound?

I do not agree that "each retail transaction is an independent event." A sale of speaker cables accompanying a sale of speakers obviously is a related transaction. Even if the sale is for speaker cables alone, it is related to a previous sale of speakers.

I am not sure what you mean by "individual ROI rules." Isn't variable mark-up a common practice in retailing?

Monstrous Mike
07-26-2004, 11:48 AM
You'll never understand until you decide to experience life. It really is better than just reading about it.

rw
Of course, personal experience is what drives us to make our buying decisions. This works especially well when our choices are based on preference.

However, when performance is deciding factor, you usually need to look a little deeper to figure out the hows and whys. Most audio products are sold on the basis of testimonials and personal experience, so that puts it into the preference category, not the performance category.

This is really the beef I have. People tend to push their preferences by citing performance.

In general, there is a large group of consumer products which may or may not be beneficial and are part of a class of product that has no scientific backing, only testimonials. This is why a lot of these products are called snake oil, because snake oil fit into this category. And whether people like to admit it or not, lots of audio products fall into this category, including audio cables.

okiemax
07-26-2004, 11:50 AM
Just my $0.02 worth of comment: Philosophically, I don't believe any distortion to the efficient operation of the marketplace is good, whether it be by fraud, deception, ignorance of consumer or government fiat or forced allocation.

If certain products are being subsidiezed by cables that demand high price because of fraud or deceptive advertising, I don't think that's a good thing. I'm not necessarily saying that's the case, but I sensed that buried in your statement was an assumption that the cable mark-up in and of itself is not justified.

No, I didn't mean to imply the mark-up on cables is not justified. I don't have data on the mark-up for different audio and video products, but I have heard cables have a higher mark-up than the other items. I suppose if the difference was extreme, you might question the justification. But then you could question the justification for the prices of a lot of things.

E-Stat
07-26-2004, 03:10 PM
Most audio products are sold on the basis of testimonials and personal experience, so that puts it into the preference category, not the performance category.
If you return to our resident ditch digger's comments to which you are responding, it is his profoundly shallow assertion that all amplifiers sound alike. My guess is that you do not share that opinion since you own a tube amplifier yourself despite the "poorer" generic specifications. That reminds me, did you ever test your theory that there are no warmup effects with amplifiers? Remember I suggested you try a simple experiment that I did with my VTLs? To wit: turn them on and check the tube bias. Check them an hour later and see if there is any difference. I get decidedly different readings. And sonics.



This is really the beef I have. People tend to push their preferences by citing performance.
The observation that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of amplifiers with more sonic truth than the chip amp in my Sony boombox is so incredibly obvious for anyone with remotely articulate hearing and musical awareness. But not, of course, for our ever perspicacious vanguard of the mediocre and trumpeter of non-experience. It is only once you get substantially beyond that basic truth that particular preferences come into play. No disagreement there. I do not assert that everyone will prefer my VTLs over say a Pass Labs amp. Each one excels in different areas.

rw

E-Stat
07-26-2004, 03:21 PM
And yes, membrane speakers do offer far more detail than do cone speakers.
Although I am a planar and electrostat fan from way back, I would have to disagree with this broad generalization. Cones have come a long way especially when coupled with ribbons at the top.

rw

Mash
07-27-2004, 06:31 PM
Skep
I seem to remember the Rectilinear brand, but I fail to see the overwhelming merit to your historical nugget that "It might interest you to know that about 35 years ago several respected reviewers published in their magazines that Rectilinear III a box and cone speaker was a virtual dead ringer for the sound of Quad ESL 63 an electrostatic speaker except that the Rectilinear III had better bass. "

I mean, so what? Why should I, or you, care what reviewers writing in commercial mags write about equipment?

I bought my Stereo-60 Futterman amp in 1973 for $300 after I heard a Futterman Stereo-60 driving Tympani at a Doctor's house. I bought my matched pair of Mono-100 Futterman amps in 1974 for $500. Good lord, man, at that time there had not been a review of Futterman amps ANYWHERE since about 1961! And note that in 1973 Mr. F had a 3 month order-backlog strictly from word-of-mouth sales. By 1974 Mr. F's word-of-mouth sales-backlog was 9 months. Could Rectilinear have managed success with word-of-mouth sales? Heck, no. Rectilinear bought ads.

Futtermans were neither advertised nor reviewed anywhere until after Harvey R. had bought the patents from Mr F. in 1976 after which he started NYAL. After Harvey started buying big ads for his expensive Futtermans, the reviews appeared. Pure coincidence, I am sure...... People to this day blame Mr. F for how expensive his amps were, but they should thank Harvey.

Other people's opinions and published reviews are strictly for my amusement or awareness, but not for my deciding how I spend my money. The gear I buy MUST reproduce the live recital. That is my only criteria. I have read Stereopile reviews from time to time but only for giggles. I read the blah-blah nitter-natter part, and then I read the test results and 'test summary & conclusions' after which I would try to guess (before looking) how big an ad the manufacturer had bought: full page, half-page, or what?

I also found that Stereopile's recommended-equipment classifications correlated fairly well with the equipments' retail prices: Class A equipment always seemed to cost much more than Class B equipment which cost more than Class C equipment. Equipment not advertised never seemed to be reviewed. I think the justification was along the lines that the equipment had to be "readily offered for public sale" which seemed to imply the equipment had to be advertised. Equipment had to be rereviewed perodically to continue being recommended.

So why should you or I care, then or now, that ".......several respected reviewers published in their magazines that Rectilinear III a box and cone speaker was a virtual dead ringer for the sound of Quad ESL 63...." ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??????????????????????????

skeptic
07-27-2004, 07:10 PM
"I seem to remember the Rectilinear brand, but I fail to see the overwhelming merit to your historical nugget that "It might interest you to know that about 35 years ago several respected reviewers published in their magazines that Rectilinear III a box and cone speaker was a virtual dead ringer for the sound of Quad ESL 63 an electrostatic speaker except that the Rectilinear III had better bass. "

I heard this speaker on several occasions and I thought very highly of it myself. Unfortunately, I couldn't afford them at the time. I didn't have an opportunity to A/B it against Quad ESL 63. However, if what the reviewers said was true and I have no reason to believe it wasn't, it puts the lie to the notion that somehow membrane speakers are inherently different due to improved clarity, resolution or whatever else someone wishes to claim for them.

"I also found that Stereopile's recommended-equipment classifications correlated fairly well with the equipments' retail prices: Class A equipment always seemed to cost much more than Class B equipment which cost more than Class C equipment. Equipment not advertised never seemed to be reviewed."

I have always considered Stereophile Magazine a rag. I don't know what they do now but the few times I read through a few issues many years ago, they had no measurements to back up anything they said. Why should it surprise anyone that the quality ratings of equipment on their recommended list correlates to the prices of the equipment they advertise while non advertised equipment doesn't make it on to the list? The first thought that occurs to me is that they are pandering to their advertisers. (I am a skeptic after all.) Just one more reason for me to view it as a rag written by whores.

BTW, I was a great admirer of Julius Futterman's work and his designs. He solved an electrical engineering problem nobody else could. As I've written in other postings, I thought NYAL did a fantastic job modernizing it and I attended seminars and demos associated with the AES convention in NYC in 1983. It is unique among all vaccum tube amplifiers and sounds as clear as a fine solid state unit demonstrating again to my satisfaction that the major shortcoming of other vacuum tube amplfiers is the high impedence plate output and the impedence matching transformer, and that neither transistors nor tubes have an inherent sound quality of their own. The real shortcoming of the NYAL amplifier is that if you ever need to have it repaired or its bias volatges adjusted, there is only one place in the world that has the equipment and skill to do it and that at Croton on Hudson....if they still exist.

mtrycraft
07-27-2004, 07:25 PM
It really is better than just reading about it.

rw


Which parts? Much of it is not. Oh, maybe the actual music? I do listen to music, not the components.

mtrycraft
07-27-2004, 07:42 PM
If you return to our resident ditch digger's comments to which you are responding, it is his profoundly shallow assertion that all amplifiers sound alike.


Perhaps if you exerted yourself, just a tiny bit, you would be more forthright and not distort, or make up things as you go. But, reality is not in you.




The observation that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of amplifiers with more sonic truth than the chip amp in my Sony boombox is so incredibly obvious for anyone with remotely articulate hearing and musical awareness. But not, of course, for our ever perspicacious vanguard of the mediocre and trumpeter of non-experience.

And, your tireless distortions are up to your usual self.

E-Stat
07-28-2004, 04:44 AM
Which parts? Much of it is not.
Much of life is better read about than experienced? Man, you need to get out of the house more often.



I do listen to music, not the components.
Yeah, that ol' boom box sounds identical to symphony hall. :D

rw

Mash
07-28-2004, 04:55 PM
Skep- Ted Hammond, the former tech whiz at NYAL, updated my Futtermans to the NYAL config including the auto-bias scheme. No more periodic adjustments with a DMM. I also use a home-built soft-start box [which saved me some blown output tubes many years ago when a diode failed. Mr F fixed that little problem.].

Gotta say, tho- you hafta hear the Futterman-Tympani combo to believe it....

I think the Fournier amps may be clones.

skeptic
07-29-2004, 07:44 AM
Did they upgrade you to the solid state power supply too?

Mash
08-03-2004, 06:03 PM
Good question... I never looked. $400 incl new tubes only goes so far....... Still, 30 years and counting on an amp is a pretty good ROI.

I do believe you otta try a tube-driven Magnepan with its linear voice-wires-on-membranes sometime. Cone speakers have those 'voice coils' wound on bobbins that therefore have inductance ( as I remember inductance is the equiv of a 'mass' in mechanical mass-spring-damper systems). Soldering up AL voice wires is a trip when you want to mod..........