Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site polaris.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!polaris!herbie
From: herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Linn/Naim seminar(results)
Message-ID: <242@polaris.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Nov-85 20:41:13 EST
Article-I.D.: polaris.242
Posted: Fri Nov  1 20:41:13 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 07:51:43 EST
References: <187@myrias.UUCP>
Reply-To: herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong)
Distribution: net
Organization: IBM TJ Watson RC
Lines: 118

In article <187@myrias.UUCP> dgt@myrias.UUCP (David Tang) writes:
>	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.

unsurprising given that Linn makes turntablesand such.  of course what
they say doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless all they played were
direct to disk records.  even so, there are so many flaws in analog
reproduction that it is amazing that it works as well as it does.

>	Elaborating, any audio system should obey the following hierarchy:
>
>a) Turntable - the basic chassis/motor/platter assembly
>b) Arm       - next in importance
>c) Cartridge - in the record playing system this is the least important
>d) Amplifier - preamp/amp combination of course
>e) Speakers  - least important overall

this is the MEANING OF AUDIO according to Linn.  they have to justify why
anyone would spend $1500 CAN for a Linn, after all.

>Thus when purchasing an audio system, the bulk of one's budget should go
>towards the "record player".  (An example would be say in a budget of
>$2000, $1600 should be spent on the table/arm/cartridge and the rest on
>amplifier/speakers.)  This is in sharp contrast to recommendations in the
>past that half of the budget be spent on speakers.

as in any system of any kind, the performance is determined by the
weakest link.  what kind of speakers and amplifier would you expect to
spend the remaining $400 on?  there is a very good reason for the many
recommendations on how to allocate your budget, it gets you the best
sounding system for a certain amount of money.  of course, if price is
no object, then no-one can make a reasonable recommendation on how to
apportion your money.

>	Comparisons were performed in a 'demo' fashion, as opposed to
>double-blind testing.  It is left up to the reader to draw Hir own
>conclusions as to the validity of results derived from this technique.

and leave the door open to be misdirected by purely psychological
effects.  you may have been aware of the possibility and negated the
possibilities, but what about the people that weren't?  even if 1 in
100 people who attend these buys a Linn, the marketing effort would
have been tremendously successful.  i have had a dealer try to sell me
a Linn for over a year.  until he can prove to me conclusively that the
Linn is better than my Technics (yucko Jap direct-drive table), i can't
see spending the money.  i'd rather get a better cartridge, or a very
nice CD player, or a reel-to-reel, or ...; you get the point.

>	In more or less chronological order, here is what transpired:
>
>1) The effect of a change in tracking force on the music.  The claim
>   is - increased tracking force is better.

for what?  not for record wear (though of course, too little is bad
too).  any cartridge will track better at the higher end of the
recommended tracking forces, without exception.  tracking better
automatically reduces various kinds of distortion.  whether the record
wear is acceptable is another question.

>2) Linn Sondek/Basik arm/cheap cartridge vs. Linn Sondek/Ittok arm/cheap
>cartridge vs. Linn Sondek/Ittok arm/better cartridge.  The claim -
>increasing levels of performance.  Also the first combination is con-
>sidered a better starting point than say a Rega turntable/Audio Technica
>AT37E cartridge.  The recommended order in upgrading is turntable, arm,
>then cartridge.

given the number of cartridges i have owned, i find this in direct
opposition to both my experiences and also the experiences of friends
into audio.  it also in counterintuitive, but that hasn't stopped a
lot of audio equipment from being sold.

>3) The superiority of Linn's new preamp/amp combination was demonstrated.
>Each channel had its own power supply, and the phono section could also
>be powered separately.

how was it supposed to be superior?  i have listened to Naim equipment
before and i always thought it was overpriced and not especially 
different from anything else selling at that price point.  snobbery
of high end audio is all it really aims at (my opinion).

>4) The rep next attempted to demonstrate the affect of having a third
>undriven speaker in the room.  Supposedly, the speaker cone(s) would
>respond to movement of air by the driven speakers and distort the music
>audibly.

no more so that the presence of people in the room, or the flexing of
the walls of the room.

>	What followed next was a query of each person attending as to
>what they had for a system, and recommendation as to upgrades.

based upon what criteria?  i could tell you that you need a
Monstersonic SuperFantasticAmp all day, but would you believe me if i
also told you that i make and market the things myself?  the person
telling you all these is less than objective.

>	Please note that all the demonstrations were done using Linn/Naim
>equipment.  What we were told to listen for was not increases in bass
>and/or treble response, or imaging, or depth of soundstage, etc., but
>changes in the flow of the music, whether the singer appeared to begin
>singing when you expected Hir to, whether the background violins could
>be heard while listening to the horns.  In each case, we were told that
>each change was audible.

this is well known in psychology.  the power of suggestion is very strong.

Herb Chong...

I'm still user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble....

New net address --

VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH
UUCP:  {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie
CSNET: herbie.yktvmh@ibm-sj.csnet
ARPA:  herbie.yktvmh.ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa