Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unc.unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!unc!rentsch
From: rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Linn/Naim seminar(results)
Message-ID: <536@unc.unc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 07:03:19 EST
Article-I.D.: unc.536
Posted: Wed Nov  6 07:03:19 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Nov-85 16:49:37 EST
References: <187@myrias.UUCP> <194@opus.UUCP>
Reply-To: rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch)
Distribution: na
Organization: CS Dept, U. of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 71

The following message has some rather harsh criticisms.  Please stop
reading now if you would rather not read them.




I have a few complaints to register about article <194@opus.UUCP>,
from rcd@opus.UUCP (written by Dick Dunn).  He writes:  


>[Commenting on a Linn/Naim presentation...]
>Linn/Naim was discussed in net.audio some time back.  They were generally
>not well received (putting it euphemistically).  The most noticeable
>difficulties with what they say and do:

Then why rehash?  More importantly, why say "everyone else thinks
Linn is bad"?  (Except to engage in one of the most questionable
kinds of arguing tactics.)



>	- They are rabidly, irrationally anti-digital.

"Rabidly" and "irrationally" don't necessarily go together.  I am
anti-CD; some people might call me rabid, and they are entitled to
their opinion.  But I am not irrationally anti-CD, not by anyone's
definition.  I have listened to CD's and they have all sounded bad
(this can instead be read as "worse than other sources" -- my
standards of what is acceptable might be different from someone
elses);  whether you agree with my conclusion or not, you must agree
that I have a sensible reason for my opinion.  Even if you think my
conclusion is not scientifically convincing (because of level
matching, double blind, or whatever), the conclusion was still
arrived at by rational means.

To say that the the Linn people are irrationally anti-digital means
you must understand not only what they give as their argument but
also their state of mind.  No doubt you will tell me that you know
their state of mind (and can discern it from their advertising...).



>>	Basically what was said can be summed up by the following statement:
>>Vinyl records (as opposed to tape/cd) provide the best possible reproduction
>>of music.  It then follows that the backbone of a good system lies in the
>>record player.
>
>...which is a notably good view for Linn, which is mostly in the business
>of turntables, tonearms, and cartridges...

Boy am I ever sick of this argument!  "Vested interest, that's why
Linn knocks CD's."  Did it ever occur to you jerks that Sony has
more money invested in CD's right now than Linn will ever see in its
life as a manufacturing corporation?  You think Sony doesn't care
about that investment?  You think the other CD manufacturers don't
care?  You bet they do.  And they have spent and will spend quite a
bit of effort protecting their investment and insuring that CD's are
a commercial success -- whether the CD's sound good or bad.



One last thing:  recently there was mention of nut.audio as the name
of this newsgroup.  Remember that the name of the newsgroup is
net.audio;  it is NOT net.audio.technology, or even net.audio.CD.  I
for one would be ecstatic if net.audio.CD came in to being so I
wouldn't have to listen to the pro-CD people constantly proclaim the
virtues of CD (and ad hominem the analog people).  In short, I'm
tired of listening to people who don't seem to listen to what other
people say (or, in some cases, who don't seem to listen at all).

Now, is that loud and clear?