Schroder sq and the new talea

Read the second paragraph again, Bill.

Much as you'll hate to admit it, you'll find yourself in complete agreement with me. Let me put this in simpler terms: hi-fi is NOT a life changing pursuit. We are talking about LUXURY items.

The point is however, that there are those who would look at a finished product - a simple collection of widgets - and say "I could have done that, and for a mere fraction of the price". The point is however that they have not done it.

Herb Papier came up with a brilliant design which has stood the test of time. Joel Durand patented azimuth adjustment on the fly. Frank Schroeder has his own innovative solutions.

Time will tell us where the latter two's innovations fit.

What's not to like?

Thom @ Galibier

Dertonearm,

The principle of Occam's razor is a valid design approach - whether you like it or not.

If I understand your post (not an easy thing for me) you appear to be in agreement with me on the point that something has the value that people put on it - whether it's for a luxury item or anything else.

Thom @ Galibier

Thom, first of all - the "principle" of novacula occami (Occam's Razor.... or more precise: Occam's scalpel ) is NOT a principle of nature nor ever used in that way by the man to which it's origin is related, but a phrase from a 19th century mathematic ascribed to an early 14th century german religious scientist (who again borrowed it from Aristoteles...) and then during viktorian times adapted in the hey-day of economic theory.
Personally I think it is an erratic phrase in the way it is used and promoted in our poor educated modern times and I like the phrase "nature knows no compromise" a lot more - but that's purely personal and again against the mainstream.

But ..."The principle of Occam's razor is a valid design approach - whether you like it or not." ...... of course, but the undisputed fact that it is indeed a "valid design" approach today (at least in the last 3 decades and ever increasing the past 10 years..... (BTW - I have studied marketing and industry-design in the late 1980ies)) doesn't tell anything about its value or whether that's good (in the positive sense ) or not.
And sorry - no, I do not think that something simply has the value that people put on it.
I still have the naive thinking, that the real contend -i.e.: the inherent quality ( in the very sense of the word ) of a product/something ultimately qualifies its value.
Certainly I am somehow in opposition to "modern ( read: today's...) approach", but I can live quite comfortable with that fact.
For me the price of something never automatically went hand-in-hand with a quality sign.
We have in contrary the omnipresent problem, that today something ( especially in high-end audio...) is not taken seriously at all (regarding it's level of performance ) if it is not in a certain ( high...) "price-range".

Dertonarm, Your eloquence is staggering but I am very puzzled with your statement: 'high-end audio has nothing to
do with love for music'. I know that describing something one way or the other matters so it may be the case that you meant 'high-end' in pejorative sence but to me it is about having music at home and attempting to get as near as
possible to the 'real thing'. Without love for music such
attempts look to me as absurd.
Regards,

... Without love for music such attempts look to me as absurd ...

Well, this is subjective. When you like the music it doesn't matter from what kind of source it is coming, MP3, Car Stereo or Gramophone.

High End Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound of real music performed in a real space. That was found difficult to achieve, and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never heard anything except amplified music anyway, forgot what "the real thing" had sounded like.
Today, "Good" sound is whatever one likes.