I got my first cd player in 87 it was a Luxman with little tubes in front 103 and had digital output !
State of the industry - Roy Gregory Editorial
- Thread starter Elliot G.
- Start date
Tell me what you have to say in a straightforward way.
As regards names of systems, no I don't mind whatever they are called. I suspect I am in a minority in that regard; others seemed unable to get past his name. A name, imo,is less meaningful than what is named. I agree names can have power. I thought Peter described his system and his perspective for changing to what he did in a way that was both clear and enlightening. I did not need to agree with him in order to appreciate his account.
Edit: perhaps your need for a feeling of inclusiveness should not put you at the mercy of what others have to say. Think of where you find agreement and emphasize that to start... then offer why the differences in your view are what they are. Be confident in your views, you only have to validate them to yourself.
Last edited:
We have different views on the forum mission. IMHO we do not need guidance on building and accessing audio systems and people telling us how we should proceed. We need a proper debate on preference and on what the different methods and systems can give us.
BTW, I surely appreciate well written contributions, but IMHO the high value of this forum comes mostly from the casual contents of many posters who share their experience and opinions.
IMHO the real need of this forum is having more active members participating in our threads.
Perhaps the former is a pre-condition for the latter. The guiding and assessing should be a function one's basis of preference. I think people should have a reasonably clear notion of where they themselves stand before debating the preference of others.
I fully agree .
I think its the highest an audioforum can achieve
I like to read about what other people choose i just dont like to get it shoved in my throat.
This goes for any purchase one makes.
Imagine i bought a bmw and all i read is that i made shitty purchase and i should have bought a mercedes.
If preference, why do we need a debate? By definition, preference is not objective. There is no point of trying to argue one’s preference is superior or tell one why I choose this preference.
No off course its not nescessary .
What is interesting is the "why" people choose what they buy / make .
However telling other people what they should do , is utterly useless / waste of time afaic
Especially when one's preference is clearly superior.
I agree, adyc - this is a key point. A few years back I proposed a means for characterizing what I call 'the basis of preference' - the ideas, theories, beliefs we have behind our preferences, the 'grounding' of preference - where one stands. It identified two primary bases of preference and named them 'naturalist' and 'synthesist'. That may be too narrow and I continue to invite efforts to identify concepts from which one's preference(s) derive.
The naturalist bases their preferences on live acoustic music. The synthesist bases their preference on what appeals to themselves, or their own notion of what their stereo should sound like. Neither has a positive or negative connotation; they are what they are. I do not believe one's basis of preference can or should be questioned - each of us chooses our direction. There is no right direction or wrong direction for all of us. There may be other bases of preference; I just haven't heard such presented. The names are not essential, but the idea behind each name is cogent. Some got hung up on the names though few presented alternatives.
No problem Tim, after the money I've spent, the angst I've wrought, and the time I've put in, justifying to myself is the only thing I need to do. And I'm good on that point after a major low point a few years ago.
The issue was not the name of the system thread, it was the constant comments that stuff like Entreq by definition can't help achieve a natural sound. And by extension almost all named cables, footers, room treatments etc.
At that point, natural sound the phenomenon as one person's take of their brand spanking sound becomes Natural Sound TM, a proprietary approach, only applicable to the zero tweak outlook. And then for readers like me, it becomes anything other than an inclusive concept, and more like a strict philosophy.
For the record, I've found a lot in common in Peter's journey and what he's found most valuable in a natural sound to what I've heard in Bill's horns and Tom's original Tannoys, and tried to engineer my sound in those directions. I know deep down I'd love Peter's sound and what he's achieved.
Last edited:
To me this is the nub of the contentious issues
the Natural sound “brigade“ do not consider these things necessary, and possibly deleterious to achieving “their” aim.
here we move beyond “ preference” in that most of those things listed above have little basis in any objective analysis.
Everyone, can buy and sell, and opine on their beliefs , and ‘’preferences” but preferences that go along with objective observation are I believe imho more that just a preference
I can say the sky is green, and it’s my preference to say it’s green, because I like green , greens fantastic blows blue out of the sky
objectively though it’s blue, scientifically it’s blue , but you can have whatever preference you like , this is a symptoms of the industry in my opinion.
Yes, perhaps I used to wrong word. Debate can sound too aggressive - I meant addressing and explaining preference, ours and those of others, in a friendly exchange - my use of "debates" was due to my feeling that presenting alternative, even conflicting views is sometimes the best way to reach some depth in sound reproduction. I f we do not understand them we can't understand equipment performance and choice views. BTW, in my view a debate does not imply any superiority or imposition.
Splitting preference in such two classes is artificial, meaningless and surely creates a conflict. IMHO "naturalists" are just one of the classes of the overall "synthetisists". When one group claims that he is the holder of the live music reference he is being myopic and and starting a war.
Particularly because the high end is an industry with a market and the word "natural" always had strong marketing use. It is too general to have well defined meaning, often needing clarification by opposition to artificial - the best way to create an unfriendly useless discussion.
.
I was thinking the same. Tima's Natural and Synthetic is a huge slog of mud in the eye.
When I was first introduced to audio forums maybe 6 years ago, it seemed different. When someone said this or that sounds great, it set off a search to see what the product was all about.
Now when someone says something is great, it comes off as, your stuff is crap. My stuff is Natural. Yours is fake and Synthetic. Yours was a waste of money. You were duped by a salesman.
Now when someone says something is great, it comes off as, your stuff is crap. My stuff is Natural. Yours is fake and Synthetic. Yours was a waste of money. You were duped by a salesman.
I don't expect you, Franscisco, to agree with my views, nor do I expect you to offer something alternative. Think of my use of 'Naturalist' as a proper name, or use whatever word you like; for me the meaning stays the same, the taxonomy stays the same. From my perspective you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I'm saying. -- no problemo -- have a nice day.
If my words cloud your vision, try reading something else.
When you say "it comes off", what does that mean?
Similar threads
