tube fanatic
-
Posts
2981 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by tube fanatic
-
-
Some interesting points are raised here. Check out the date of original publication.........
-
I've been a bit of a broken record on this issue, but it's worth restating that when considering a type of equipment with which you are not familiar, it's always worth purchasing something new from a dealer who offers a money back return privilege. While purchasing vintage equipment and bearing the cost of having it properly restored may seem appealing, there's always the risk that you will not be satisfied with the results. Trying to sell it and recoup your investment is not always easy. Vintage equipment may also have been subjected to abuses which can result in failure of very costly, and possibly very hard to obtain, parts (power and output transformers in particular.) This is worth considering if you decide to go that route. Good luck! Maynard
-
Call Craters & Freighters and sit back and relax. They are phenomenal, will pick the speakers up from you, crate them, and ship them at fair prices. I've used them for everything from very large 30s console radios to speakers of all sizes and weights. The recipients all told me that they were packed to survive an airplane drop and arrived in perfect condition!
-
this is a one copy , no way to replace it. but it has some scraches, does anyone have a majis way to fix this common problem?
steve
please reply by email & here
thanks
Get a bottle of the Boston contact lens cleaner (original formula). It works amazingly well on DVDs, CDs, etc. It's only mildly abrasive so it shouldn't leave new scratches on the surface. Put a tiny amount on a soft cloth and rub both in the direction of the scratch and perpendicular to it as well. It may take a few treatments depending on the depth of the scratch.
-
When I first went for the new pair of glasses, I looked at the paper she wrote on after I looked through those 'binocular' things for them. Her values were 32, 65 and 33. I don't know what all this means so I'm presuming it means my right eye is 32 mm away from the center of my nose, left eye is 33mm's and the 65 is a check digit?
Regardless of what the numbers mean, I also peeked the second time I went back and ordered my current version. Those numbers are 29.5, 59.5 and 30.5. What the heck???
Why so different?
In fairness to them, it's certainly possible that I misunderstood what I was seeing or perhaps looked at the wrong number. I don't think I did since the numbers were viewed by me (backwards from across the desk) just after they wrote them down. To have the wrong numbers would imply that they took my measurements and wrote something different than what they saw....perhaps in code or something. Meaning, I saw the numbers & wrote them down as I was sitting there.
Strikes me as strange.
Your presumption about the numbers seems correct. The sum of the monocular PDs (stands for pupillary distance) should be what you stated in the first case. Why there was such a big difference when it was remeasured is a bit of a mystery, as is the 59.5 which is .5mm less than the sum of the individual measurements. Was it an optician who did the measuring, or just a "frame stylist?" I should have suggested that you insist on the optician taking all the measurements. I guess the proof is going to be in the final result. If you get the new glasses and all seems well, I wouldn't be concerned. What about the RX itself? Was is very different from what your ophthalmologist measured? The issue of providing people with their PD has been raging for some time. In an effort to prevent folks from purchasing glasses online, some docs refuse to provide that information. That's pretty sad. Others make patients sign a statement saying that they won't be responsible for improperly made glasses and that there will be a charge if they recheck your RX and find that the problem was a fabrication error. There's a lot of "attitude" in the eyecare field and always has been. Forty or so years ago, some docs even charged patients for their RX if they didn't want to purchase their glasses from them. As if that was going to create the goodwill needed to retain them as patients! So, when the new glasses come in, please post with your impressions.
Maynard
-
and I thought you were going to suggest I simply trim my eyelashes back....
Of course, that's always an option!!! Then, there's an eyelash curler......... But look at the positive side- if you were a woman you would be dealing with mascara streaks on the back of the lenses instead of just some oil.
-
The more I think about this the more I realize I need to at least have a conversation with them and.... be open to the idea of simply redoing an eye exam.
It's certainly possible that a mistake was made at my Dr's office. I guess it's equally possible that a number was transposed and these might be off by a fraction. So, figuring out what the underlying issue is would be the first challenge.
One last suggestion if you choose to have another exam. Ask the doc to put the measured near vision RX into a trial frame. This is the "old fashioned", huge clunky affair into which individual lenses can be placed to create any prescription. Once that's set up, verify that both eyes achieve maximum clarity at the same distance from your face by testing them alternately, and asking that they measure the distance for verification. There are times when a slightly asymmetrical reading RX is required to balance the focus. It takes only a minute or two and is worthwhile. Regarding your lashes hitting the back surface of the lenses when they're all the way up, if you happen to be using a metal frame with adjustable nose pads the fix is simple. The pads can be adjusted so that the frames are sitting just far enough in front of your face to prevent the rubbing. The frames can still be made to fit quite snugly. One last alternative, available for some frames, is to have them change the temples to the cable variety (the type which curls around the entire ear from top to bottom.) That will certainly keep them just where you desire. Good luck! Maynard
-
(Maynard?..... sounds like you might have some background in this area)
Long story cut down... I got to experimenting... closed right eye looked at something with left eye through the top of the new glasses. It was blurry. I then scanned down with the left eye to find the area of the glasses where the left image sharpened up. For arguments sake, let's say it was 25% up from the bottom of the lens. I then closed left eye, opened right eye (in my very scientific way!) and repeated.
What I noticed with the right eye is when I was at that '25% up from the bottom of the lens' area, the image was still out of focus. It really wasn't until the eye was looking at the lowest EDGE of the lens (which was very difficult to do) that the image sharpened up like the left eye.
In short, it almost seems as though the focus of the right lens is shifted a bit and needs to be raised.
You raised an issue that is very common, unfortunately. For a progressive lens to work correctly, the optical centering relative to your pupils has to be near perfect. A misalignment of even 1mm can throw the teaming of the eyes out the window! There are 2 possibilities here: 1) your refraction was not done correctly so that the RX generated is not correct, or 2) the optical centering of one or both lenses is not what it should be. When taking measurements for progressives, a device called a pupillometer should have been used (kind of looks like a pair of binoculars with you looking into one end while the doc or optician looks into the other) to determine the horizontal optical centering of each pupil relative to the bridge of your nose. Vertical measurements must be measured separately for each eye as well- often this is done with a plastic "scale" inserted into the frame and marked in millimeters, or by simply putting a little dot corresponding to your pupil location on the frame's "demo" lenses with a Sharpie pen or equivalent. Then, the vertical measurement can be taken. Obviously, given everyone's facial asymmetry, it's rare that the centering will be the same for both eyes. Other critical factors are whether the frame was sitting perfectly horizontally on your face, and whether it was sitting on the bridge of your nose in the exact place where you intend to wear it. Many opticians or docs place the frame where it "should" sit, which is rarely where a person prefers it. So, going back is absolutely essential. I'd insist on having the refraction remeasured, and if it comes out the same, having them remeasure the optical centering and make you new lenses (again- you place the frame where you intend to wear it, and also position your head as you normally hold it. Some people sit or walk around with their chin slightly lowered or elevated. If measurements are taken with your head perfectly erect, the lenses won't be correctly centered in your normal circumstances.) Even if they tell you that all is perfect, I'd demand new lenses as they can have all kinds of distortions which may not be readily measured. One last issue is the vertical size of the frame. Current styles tend to be very small vertically, often no more than 30 or 31mm, and sometimes less. Although there are progressives out there which are supposedly designed for that application, it results in severe crowding of the zones and can cause difficulty in selecting just the right spot for a particular viewing distance. My recommendation is to choose a frame with a minimum vertical height of around 37mm. The difference in lens performance can be profound. So, once all of this is done, you will be able to make a proper assessment of how progressives work in your situation. Maynard
-
Jun I have heard lots of tube amps. Through lots of speakers. The "3D soundstage" is not how I would characterize them as being different. Coloration for sure, and speakers exhibit this too.
The characteristics of the soundstage, imaging, and so on will vary with amplifier characteristics and with speakers. Much depends on the crosstalk (i.e. blending) between the channels (the 500B, while decent, isn't outstanding in that respect) which is why a pair of mono amps usually outshines a stereo amp with both channels sharing a common power supply. Other factors, such as the use of negative feedback, or no feedback at all as is typical of SETs will also affect the soundstage and imaging. That said, so can speaker placement and your listening position in relation to the speakers. But, I do agree with Craig (yes, we occasionally agree on some things!) that you need to listen to the basic tonality of the amp and, if it's pleasing, spend the money to have it properly restored to ensure safe and reliable operation. Afterwards, it may not sound better to your ears, but you will at least have a piece of equipment which is safe to use.
-
The 500B is a nice receiver which is capable of very good audio quality. Don't be fooled by the fact that the guy is still using it- equipment this age usually needs some degree of restoration. At the very least, don't leave it unattended when it's in use! That way, if something does go wrong, you'll be there to immediately shut it down.
Maynard
-
Just had a great idea. Craig and I can both sign up for this trip and be pod-mates for the rest of our lives!!! We could start a new company called Tube Amps From Mars. The possibilities are just limitless....... Guess I had a few beers too many with dinner!
-
-
Okay Mark you prodded me enough so its time to put up or shut up on both our parts
I will make this product in a dedicated line stage only version if you can find 5 people to pre-order for the total of 6 just like this was done. However it absolutely will not have a tape loop for EQ use. So get the 5 folks together (I already have one customer I'm building it line stage only for but at this point it will still have the phono stuff on the front and back) and we can hash out the details. Buit the product will be just this preamp with the phono option stuff remove and no I will not add a bunsh of BS other wise the name would kind of be hipocritical. My products are about the sound not things to fiddle with IMHO the more gadget crap you build in the further you get from the music. Been their done that!
I can easily tell you right now the MSRP will be $1799 and the pre-order double 10% off will apply so $1457.19 each plus shipping for the pre-order deal. You have 2 weeks to find the folks and get the $1000 down each to help me squeeze my finances and retirement fund by a minimum. I guess it doesn't matter since I will probably retire the day the burn me up and place me in a urn
Craig
Since commercial advertising now seems to be acceptable on the forum I'll take the opportunity to say that my associates and I are ready to come out of retirement to offer our services in the realm of tube electronics. We'll tackle almost anything from the restoration/repair/fabrication of tube amps and related equipment to restoration of old radios/communications equipment/ham radio equipment and lots more. To get rolling we need to take in enough work with deposits to cover the cost of the liability insurance which is unfortunately a necessity in the modern world, and very expensive. So, here's your opportunity folks. We have a couple of centuries of collective experience to offer. If enough work comes in we'll offer a nice initial discount to forum members and may even consider doing the first few jobs for the parts cost only. Email me with any questions that you have and we'll try to get up and running for you!!! Maynard
-
"Also, in what way did your 1998 work glasses damage your eyes? "
Fishbowl vision, they couldn't get the proper base curve, and the frames did not have the proper curvature so the eye could not stay in focus without moving the head in the direction you needed to view.
I was examined at the U of I teaching hospital, they got what I felt was my best prescription by manual refraction, it looked fantastic, but they refused to give it to me as I was just there for 'evaluation'. Then they damaged my right cornea by ramming something sharp into it. The head of the department looked at it, told me to come back tomorrow, and left me to drive home almost totally blind. I refused to pay their obscene bill for treating an injury they caused, and for not giving me the prescription.
Ok, so the glasses caused symptomatic problems as opposed to a permanent condition. Base curve issues are common and, for some unexplained reason, many eye docs and opticians don't even stop to think about how sensitive some people can be to even small changes in the curvature of their lenses. The same RX can be created through different combinations of front and back surface curvatures all of which can affect the magnification of the lenses and peripheral distortion, even when the RX is identical. For the future, it's a good idea to tell the eye doc to specify a base curve match to your present lenses if getting a new pair (very easily measured with a simple hand-held device which they should have), as well as a match of the optical centering of your current lenses (depending on the strength of the RX, this factor can create prismatic issues which often cause discomfort.) It also can't hurt to ask for the same lens material that you are accustomed to as the indices of refraction of the various plastics used are different and can cause some visual effects for some people. Some plastics, like polycarbonate which is typically used in safety eyewear, also have some chromatic aberration differences vs. other plastics which can be bothersome. I'm guessing that the object which presumably scratched your cornea was a tonometer used to check the pressure in the eyes for glaucoma. The hospital should be glad that you didn't drive straight to another eye doc for treatment and then sue them!
-
I can pass all the vision tests that I am subject to under the law (20/40), and the more stringent exams at my workplace.
"undercorrected"
Hermann Snellen used a woman that worked for him that he thought had good vision, the 20/20 reference was based on his subjective evaluation of this one individual.
The 20/x number does not directly relate to the eyeglass prescription
required to correct vision, because it does not specify the nature of
the problem corrected by the lens, only the resulting performance.
Instead an eye exam
seeks to find the prescription that will provide the best corrected
visual performance achievable. This may be greater or lesser than 20/20
for many reasons. In other words, 20/20 vision
does not necessarily correspond to the best possible visual acuity a
subject may achieve, but once this standard is attained the subject is
considered to have achieved "normal" visual acuity."Staying undercorrected also serves no purpose. "
It is more comfortable and my vision doesn't change as much over time.
"If you are in your 40s or older and have experienced such changes"
It was at age 13 that I started this journey. I would not have changed my 1986 prescription (I passed the vision test at work with it, and that is far more stringent that the state driver's exam and their 20/40 requirement) . They forced me (at my workplace) to use their inferior safety glasses rather than my superior ones, and would not duplicate my prescription because it was over two tears old. I was 32 in 1986, and I would not have changed the prescription I had been wearing since 1971 if some kid had not broken them while I was at the YMCA working out. I had to try and solder my 1971 pair back together while they tried to make a better pair for me in 1986, after three tries I gave up and keep their best attempt, and wore those until 1998. The 1998 work pair damaged my eyes and three tries were made at that time to get something useable. Around 2005 I had a single vision pair (non-safety type) made for use at the movie theater. They're comfortable (on the eyes), I had them made to 20/40 and had most of the astigmatism correction taken out.
(not) Sorry, but I view most eye quacks in a dim light.
Yes, you are correct in your assessment of how the 20/xx standard of visual acuity came about. Unfortunately, we are stuck with that reference in the medico-legal world. Ideally, visual performance would be assessed through other testing such as visually evoked potentials (you can look that up yourself as I would need many pages to cover that in detail), contrast sensitivity testing, and other methods of evaluation. The best visual performance a person can achieve is not to be attained by reducing the resolution of the eyes. With 20/40 acuity you will not be able to correctly recognize the 8.75mm tall 20/20 object at the 20 foot test distance. If a person's near acuity is 20/100, how is that beneficial vs. having 20/20? In the service, folks with 20/10 acuity are used to spot objects at the horizon which a person with 20/20 could not detect. And, few people can attain 20/10 due to retinal structural differences. So, it seems that you are one of the "lucky" individuals who can do an excellent job of blur interpretation, especially since you have given up most of your astigmatic correction which, as you know, further decreases resolution and contrast. But, everyone is truly different and has different needs. Some folks are bothered by the tiniest speck of dirt on their lenses while others can look through lenses smudged with grease and say they see just fine. As far as your vision not changing much over time, it's a reach to conclude that it's because of your undercorrection. It may have remained just as stable with a full correction. Also, in what way did your 1998 work glasses damage your eyes? And, as far as the eye quacks go, all professions have their good and lousy practitioners. I'm fortunate in knowing a number of excellent ones having spent much time over the last 40 years repairing ophthalmic medical equipment as an extension of my work in electronics. Wanting to expand beyond the audio/radio/TV arena I bagged a degree in optical science as well as a grad level degree relating to ocular pathology, ophthalmic optics, and so on (one can't repair the equipment used to diagnose diseases without knowing what to look for.) I'm enjoying this dialogue if you would like to continue! Regards-- Maynard
-
"Adults who go for the best possible visual clarity are no more likely to
need greater or more frequent RX changes than those who prefer staying
undercorrected."That's as bad as telling me I can't hear differences in audio gear.
I have personally experienced such changes so it disproves that overly general statement, and as bad as Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles telling me they can't see the difference between Beta and VHS.
If you are in your 40s or older and have experienced such changes, they are likely due to changes in the internal lenses of your eyes which will ultimately develop into cataracts. The changes in the collagen structure of the lens can induce either myopic or hyperopic progression in some people. It is not possible for a full optical correction to cause physical changes in the structure of the adult eye which will result in further progression. Staying undercorrected also serves no purpose. Why would a person prefer, say, 20/50 acuity for distance when their eyes are capable of 20/15? If your eye doc gave you such a scenario I hope he had you sign a waiver of liability in the event you get into an accident which could have been prevented if you were fully corrected! So, how far undercorrected are you at this point, and what kind of acuity do you get? Please indulge my curiosity--- Maynard
-
"but your next prescription will be even stronger,"
And you will need it changed at more frequent intervals.
Scool childred should be issued reading glasses so they won't need glasses when they get older, it would pretty much kill the huge eyewear business though.
The belief that decreased near focusing effort in children prevents the onset of myopia (nearsightedness), or slow the progression of those who already are myopic, goes back to a study by Robert Wick in 1947. Recent studies have refuted that, and a couple of studies done in recent years have actually shown a slight increase in myopia in kids who used bifocals to reduce their near focusing effort. There is no evidence that the use of reading glasses in childhood will prevent the need for glasses in later years, particularly when they reach their 40s and 50s when the ability of the eyes to accommodate (focus on near objects) has usually declined enough to make some kind of supplement necessary (unlesss the person is myopic to a sufficient degree to allow clear focus by removing their glasses.) As far as going for the best possible correction is concerned, that too does not fuel a more rapid progression of changes in RX (another recent study demonstrated that myopic kids who were slightly undercorrected progressed a bit more than the controls.) Adults who go for the best possible visual clarity are no more likely to need greater or more frequent RX changes than those who prefer staying undercorrected. In fact, the latter mode often makes people miserable as they are frustrated by their inability to see with the clarity that they desire.
-
I feel it's also worth mentioning that anytime someone goes to the optometrist for corrective eye-wear that 20/20 vision is simply a standard, not a physical limit.
With good correction, our eyes can do much better.
I figured if I'm going to have to park a big ol' set of lenses on my nose for the rest of my days, why not shoot for 20/10?
I just told the doctor in advance and he worked with me through the phoropter and acuity charts further than he typically would. I used the bottom-most line on the chart as my target...and didn't blink or squint when flip-flopping between diopters. When I was unsure about whether one setting was better than the other, I took my sweet time and A/B'd the piss out of them. Even if the doc happened to grow impatient (a good one won't), tough luck..I'm paying for it and its my vision at stake.
I'd wager most would be impressed at just how clear they can get their vision if they just took more time at the optometrist and insisted on perfect vision before leaving the chair.
Keep in mind that not everyone is capable of better than 20/20 acuity. This can be due to many factors such as the cell density in the fovea/macula, pathologies which affect those areas, clouding of the eye's internal lens (pre-cataract, or cataract type changes), dryness of the eye's surface, and higher order aberrations (as opposed to the lower order aberrations with which we're all familiar- myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism) to name just a few possibilities. The latter aberrations can be measured using computerized equipment which many ophthalmologists have (it is used prior to performing Lasik or other refractive surgeries), and it is possible in some cases to manufacture spectacle lenses which deal with those aberrations. Treatments such as reflection-free coatings on the lenses may also help to improve the eye's resolution in some cases. Your insistence on the doc spending some time working on the best possible vision was the right thing to do. Many people accept vision that's "good enough" by the doc's definition when in reality they are not totally satisfied. It's also a good idea to insist that the new RX be placed in a trial frame (the "old fashioned" device through which refractions were performed) as the physical presence of the phoropter can sometimes make it difficult to pin down the best RX. In today's insurance based medical system docs usually don't spend more than the minimal amount of time with a patient in an effort to cram in more patients per hour. This is not going to get better over time, so being a bit pushy will become even more necessary. The other option is to simply pay for the exam out of pocket and seek out a doc who offers the kind of care you are looking for. They are out there!
-
You can always use one of these and simply add an adapter for the female to female connection you want:
http://www.parts-express.com/term/line-level-attenuator?srch=line+level+attenuator
-
If you don't know your blood sugar levels after a 12h fast, I would recommend that one gets to know them when changes to vision are noticed. Vision changes are not always associated with aging. Blurring and difficulty in seeing can be a result of onset Type 2 diabetes. It tends to show up as having issues with reading. After a 12h fast blood glucose should be <100 milligrams per deciiter. Values >110 can cause blurring and other vision artifacts. Unfortunately eye exams tend to pick up the diabetic damage to the eye after the damage has occurred.
Valid point John. However, diabetic vision changes will affect not only the close vision, but the distance as well. Individuals in their 40s and 50s who have a stable distance prescription but begin noticing that "their arms are too short" are experiencing the usual presbyopic function changes which correlate with that age range. Eye exams should never be used as a substitute for having periodic blood work and a checkup with the MD. Both hypertension and diabetes can be present for many years before changes in the retina will be evident, as you stated. Even folks who don't need any glasses to see clearly should have periodic eye exams as well since conditions like glaucoma may be present for extremely long time periods before any symptoms will be noticeable.
-
Some interesting points have been touched upon in the various replies here. Unfortunately, no optical correction is going to be perfect under all viewing conditions. Regarding progressive lenses, the shape and contour of the zone immediately beneath the distance correction varies with manufacturer, and many offer different progressives which can favor different visual activities. A detailed discussion of your needs with the optician or optometrist should reveal what is best. As stated by others, progressives require a head movment when scanning from side to side, particularly when using the lens portion which covers the intermediate (i.e. arm's length) focusing range. This is usually adaptive, and automatic, after 2-3 weeks of constant use. The key is to keep them on full-time. If use is sporadic throughout the day, adaptation can take a very long time. The downside of conventional flat-top bifocals (i.e. visible line) is that one is locked into a distance or near scenario depending on which lens portion is used. Standing in a store and looking at something at arm's length is usually frustrating because it isn't clear with the top or bottom forcing one to either get closer or move back. Same issues for viewing a computer screen which is arm's length away. Lined trifocals eliminate this problem by offering a center, rectangular, window which has a prescription which corresponds to the arm's length distance. An advantage is that the non-distance segments are available in different widths (up to 45 mm across is typical) which can allow significant side to side scanning ability with no head movement. Keep in mind that your eye doc can arrange the prescription for any scenario that is suitable for you. Some people have lined bifocals with the intermediate prescription on top (for viewing the computer screen, for instance) and the reading prescription on the bottom. For those working in an office cubicle and having no need to look across the office, this works well. Bob mentioned using monovision contact lenses (i.e. one eye for distance, and one for near). If going that route, remember that it will markedly affect your depth perception which may or may not be an issue. And not everyone's brain can tolerate that mode of sight. Using a distance lens in one eye and a "multifocal" lens in the other can work well for some. So, in conclusion, discuss your visual needs in great detail with your practitioner and a workable solution will be easily found.
Can't believe I wrote so much! Time for a nap......
-
It depends on how much he wants for it. The output tubes should be 7695s (I'm stretching my memory a bit on this) which are really wonderful sounding and enormously reliable (the tubes are built like "battleships). In fact, I've used them in some of the custom single ended amps that I've designed/built for some audiophiles over the years. Output power will be low- probably in the range of 3 watts/channel which is plenty with your Fortes or Chorus' (assuming you don't listen at very high spls in a large room). I'd ask if there's any history on it, such as whether it has been modified or serviced. If it's original, it will need some restoration work to operate at maximum efficiency, and for safety, since it's around 50 years old iirc. Post or email if you want any more info or help with this.
Maynard
-
Hmmmm.... looking at the 3 posts made by your forum handle I suspect is real identity is tube fanatic .
Actually, John is a former colleague in the TV repair field in the old neighborhood back in the 60s. Craig, you know that I don't need anyone to speak up for me if I want to reprove you!!! I suspect he was just trying to be funny as he has a very dry sense of humor. I'm sure he cares as little as I do what name you give your preamp...............
-
To me thats the whole point about horn loaded high efficency speakers. It shouldn't cost that much to drive them well. Ok, I've got a push pull tube amp for the first time and I am not really sure what that means, but I have $500 in it. The sound stage and warmth to my ear is stunning, but its noisy. Is the extra money for a quieter amp?I try to think how a pair of $10,000 monoblocks sound
BradThe cost of a tube amp does not ensure low noise, or noise free, operation. Assuming that the amp's components are all functioning properly and that there are no cold solder joints, faulty switches, power supply problems and so on, the usual cause of noise is the tubes themselves. Tubes can have issues with gas (I can identify with that!) or pins not making excellent contact with the socket. But, even in the absence of such factors, the electron flow through the tube itself can cause noise. This is why many people enjoy (?) "tube rolling" in the hope they can find some which provide the solution to noise or other issues. Some degree of noise in tube amps is something which most users accept. Unless it is very noticeable at the listening position I wouldn't worry about it. Heck, the degree of noise when playing vinyl is usually far greater than anything the amp produces.
Maynard
The high end revisited!
in 2-Channel Home Audio
Posted
He did make some well taken points which are certainly valid today. For example, women and younger people having no interest. I have not encountered a female audiophile at any point in my career. Many have expressed appreciation for the sound quality, but that was all. Even my daughter, who grew up with state of the art sound, could care less and listens with ear buds 99% of the time. The comment about high end audio failing about making the public aware of its existence is also quite true. And even when a high end system is demonstrated for non-audiophiles, the comment often heard is that it sounds great and that "I never knew music could sound so involving, but my shelf system is good enough for me." Now, with so many recordings being absolutely awful in terms of compression and distortion, the need for super sounding equipment is somewhat reduced. I'd also love to see a study which analyzes the age range of the typical audiophile. My guess is that it would be at least in the 40s.