"Trickle up" theory

Twl, good to hear from you again! If you check my original statement, I didn't say all high-end sucks, giving as example the C-J stuff. So yeah, buying an expensive component can pay off, but expense is not an indicator of quality: for that, talent is needed. I am saying that we are often misguided (meaning guided by others to bad decisions: press, manufacturers, peers), and that we should take a closer look at why cheaper equipment is so often more musical. Your thoughts on simpler-is-better are spot on, and we should look closer at this. As to the idler wheel thing, if you check my other thread you will see that I own some "high-end" decks, which is why the idler-wheel drives blew my mind in the first place, as I was shocked to hear an old abandoned technology so easily blow my high-end 'tables (I own a Maplenoll and an Audiomeca, both of which easily blow the Linn in terms of information, which I hasten to add is not everything: I love the sound of classic three-point suspension designs). This discovery was a complete accident, which was heard by a certain millionaire I knew in Europe, who funded my investigations into this with the aim of producing a marketable design: the result being the Lencco/Rega pairing and chassis. But the timing was bad, as at that time everyone was abandoning vinyl (with Shure terminating prodcution and so on) and idler-wheel technology very expensive to implement. The rumble issue, as I've pointed out, is due to poor implementation: just as we now know that a resonant box is a no-no in belt-drive designs, leading to all the exposed subchassis designs, solid plinths and so on here - so this applies doubly to idler-wheel designs, due to the more powerful motors. The fix is cheap and easy: a heavy, solid plinth instead of a cheap resonant one to sink the vibrations. This works very well, even if it seems primitive. The rumble issue is old propaganda/dogma from the days that belt-drives were touted as the new great improvement, which reminds me of the early days when solid-state first appeared, and tubes were dismissed as inferior. Again I point to the revered Sugano, who we must assume had good ears and a revealing system. Your comments are a breath of fresh air, as is your attitude! And I share in your "upper middle level" philosophy, which I follow myself, as I don't like to be distracted by too much information (for instance, I don't want to hear that one of my favourite pieces of music sounds like crap, preferring equipment that strikes a balance in which I can hear the information, which, being an audiophile I love, but which makes all my recordings enjoyable).

Well, John, I have alot of similar feelings with respect to the audio environment, and the confusion that is rampant in the industry. I am hoping that this will settle out, and things will get back to solid thinking that used to be the norm in audio of the past.

Regarding the idler wheel issue again, it is entirely possible that a good implementation of idler wheel technology could yield an enjoyable turntable at a budget. Many times, it is the implementation that makes the difference between designs. Ultimately, the proof is in the listening, and I also prefer musicality(among other things) in my system over an analytical and dry presentation. As long as my listening needs are met, I am not picky about which technology is used to meet them. However, I am technically savvy, and I know which technologies are more likely to be able to meet my listening needs, so I have some certain prejudices, as most of us would. But, an open mind is always an asset, and we should be open to new ideas and concepts that may benefit us.

Keep up the good work.

My amps have very large power supplies and my speakers are also very large with complex crossovers. Maybe I could have achieved a great result with less, but my listening room is large and I enjoy the stereo even while standing 40 feet away in the kitchen. Moreover, my audiophile and, especially, my non-audiophile friends love to listen to the music. Even people who don't like to listen to music enjoy the music. Most importantly, my wife and I love the music. It really does sound like the singer is right there. Oh, and the sweet spot -- glorious!

My point: It's all in the design and in your personal tastes. Maybe my system shouldn't sound good, but it does. Someone must have compensated well. Go figure!

Johnnantais, thanks for the post. It's always good to question the status quo. It's always good to remind people to focus on the guts of the music and how it hits you in the guts.

Johnnantais, I'm curious about your feelings about time. Other than the Quads I know of no time coherent British loudspeakers. Aside from the new digital stuff (which I haven't enough experience with to comment on), the "fastest" electronics I've heard are the Spectral products. Interesting that both the digital and Spectral stuff seems to be lighter and smaller. You mention the C-J gear as an example (BTW that's what I'm currently using)of your position, yet I don't think many would say that their appeal is about "time-ing" or speed. Is your issue of time about speed and/or tempo. Speed may be good in that things may start and stop as they are intended or bad for not. Pace or tempo can be related to the above and/or be a byproduct of proper or even improper (unnatural, over emphasis) dynamics both micro and macro. Your implication that the use of mass may be unimaginative, is intersting. While there are no free rides and mass unto itself may bring extra materials, cost, shipping, storage both of the product itself and of unwanted energy, it still may be the best solution at present for the problem at hand. I don't think too much information is the problem with all gear all the time. I think having misinformation is the problem more often that not. I can't help but feel that you have been to narrow in your critisim of the current state of High Fidelity. The issues are much broader.

Ozfly, no disrespect intended for equipment such as yours.

Quite often, it is important to satisfy many requirements such as the ones you mention, and the choices I made do not qualify in many other applications and environments. In fact, my choices would be very poor where maximum SPL and deep bass response were the most important factors.

So please accept my humble apologies if there was any offense taken. It was just my awkward way of trying to make a point about simple sometimes being better.