The High End and Glubglub

Sorry for my rant. I realize that you are generally talking about high-end specialty companies, rather than the corporate behemoths. A lot of the smaller niche companies start out with the best of intentions and put their customers first. Some of them even stay that way. Unfortunately, others do not.

As to the low-powered, high-efficiency debate, I don't really want to get into that one. All I will say is that there are pro's and con's to every scenario and a person has to decide which set of compromises he can best live with. But from an ecological perspective, the low-power, high-efficiency route makes a lot of sense.

It certainly is a laughable mess, Plato, and add to that the new "Copy Protected" CDs, which sound absolutely horrible in my system. Rsbeck, I'm not sure precisely what you're saying, but just in case, I am not pushing single-ended amps, which I do not own, but which, however, I have heard and liked. We are bound by love of music, I submit that if the internet is to have any role/meaning in the present or future, it's in its potential for grass-roots movements, to give the consumer a chance to be heard and answered. If a consumer isn't aware of possibilities due to prejudice dressed up as science - as the above cute quote demonstrates - then the music isn't being served, and THAT is important. This hobby/consumer niche is fun because it has so many aspects: science, engineering, music, philosophy, beliefs...that's why it gets such a hold on us: we can apply concepts to the physical world and hear the results, which sometimes end up in magic: and it's those moments we chase and try to understand. Good old philosophy, an important aspect of a human life. I would like to see this "magic" identified - if it can be -and incorporated into a new understanding/knowledge of component design. As for passion, interesting ideas/results come from changing the angle of our thought, and this requires some shaking up: like a chemistry experiment, where you throw in a new ingredient and stand back to see what happens. That's the purpose of a forum, isn't it? You never know when a future or present designer is listening and getting new ideas. Mitch Cotter's invention of the 3-point suspension belt-drive was the result of such thinking, as well as the Quad 57s, Class-A amps, MC cartridges, and so on. Perspective, maybe, but this is still serious stuff: as they say, "If something's worth doing, it's worth doing it right." But mainly, I just liked that passage, and want to see where it leads.

Methinks the "skeptic" is in a financial conundrum. Plato sez: "Basically consumers have no rights as to the type of products the corporate bureaucracy will produce for any particular demographic area"... - Hmmm, if we're talking mass-market, consumers may not have a *right* but they have power -- the power NOT to buy. In fact, some corps try to use CRM & focus groups to determine what product consumers might want. Which doesn't necessarily mean a good, bad, or useful product; just one that people would buy.
I don't think this applies to our niche hobby, though... it's low volume products & expensive manufacturing & marketing.

Plato, IMO, explains why:
"the corporate machine is driven by greed, not altruism" Even if I substitute the word "profit" for "greed" (to put it in softer terms), single-ended tubes are not really a mass market item that can be easily automated. Moreover, corporations usually tout INNOVATION & tech advances, etc. People often seem to buy into "innovative" -- how innovative LOOKING/SOUNDING is a tube amp, for example, compared to sacd? Remember the stir CD created & the GREAT business opportunities for h/ware & software Cos alike.

Efficiency: remember the 81db (in)efficient speakers that required huge amplification to reach whispering spl's? Those speaker required that we buy huge amps -- another good market opportunity. Nowadays that speakers are more efficient, many of us still buy hi-powered amps -- multi-channel or two-channel, for sonic purposes (headroom, etc). So, there's still a market.

So the skeptic says, "let me try to fulfill my desires, directly" -- and behold, diy, horn-loaded speakers and the like. What corporation would bother?? If we take Tannoy (one corp that bothers) the high price of its Prestige range is quite revealing.

Efficiency revisited: there is legislation in the EU whereby, by 2008, devices will HAVE to be energy "efficient" to conform to EU specs. So where does that leave class A? Probably pay an extra "inefficiency" (deterrant) tax or have circuitry to "circumvent" this legislation?

Sorry for rambling

I'm saying I have absolutely no problem with skeptics -- especially when it comes to high end audio. I wouldn't trust any "movement" which would seek to do away with skepticism. So, I am saying, if you find yourself frustrated when others won't suspend their disbelief and accept your argument or -- gads -- movement -- you're probably trying too hard. IMO, the goal shouldn't be to convert others to your "movement" -- I like to be spared from 99% of the TRUE BELIEVERS in the world --
you can usually count on me to move to the other end of the bar just as the foam starts to collect at the corners of the angry zealot's chops --
long before they start stretching my lapels -- the goal should be to trust your own ears, like what you like, vote with your pocketbook, express your opinion as passionately and entertainingly as possible and let the quality of your argument be your reward, rather than the number of converts one has made. That's my opinion.

I hope that's more clear.

Let's bear in mind that while scepticism is healthy and necessary, the sceptic in the quotation above is an irrational and biased sceptic, and this is not healthy. In the '70s there was a "movement" for pure measurement, which placed such things as intermodulation distortions and such-like at the forefront, thus making the arrogant claim that all that could be identified in the reproduction of music had been identified in labs, end of story. This was a "movement," led by a group of fanatics, which came from somewhere, i.e. the scientific/engineering community, and which negatively affected music reproduction for more than a decade. These were not recognized as fanatics at the time because they were "scientific". It was a "movement" founded in grass roots which said that such measurements did not explain the whole story, thus leading to today's much more liberal approach in which it is recognized that many components which "measure" badly are in fact incredibly musical, while others that measure very well in fact are musical disasters. Eventually this more liberal approach will lead to the identification of the phenomena which are responsible for the good sound, and we will then be able to design them more reliably into future equipment: advancement of the art. So today, measurements are taken with a grain of salt by the entire industry. Does this mean that there are no more problems now and so no more room for improvement? There are many professional reviewers trying to focus our attention on aspects of music reproduction for which they have no precise language, but which they consider important, a Factor X. We should kick this ball around, try to identify Factor X.