Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Linn/Naim seminar(results)
Message-ID: <194@opus.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 01:36:16 EST
Article-I.D.: opus.194
Posted: Mon Nov  4 01:36:16 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 07:22:46 EST
References: <187@myrias.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO
Lines: 121

[Commenting on a Linn/Naim presentation...]
> ...I would like to repeat some of the points that were brought up, and perhaps
> solicit an opinion from some of you net.audio subscribers.
Please note in what follows that I'm responding to the Linn/Naim claims, as
reported in the parent article.  If I flame, it's at Linn, not at the
person who posted the article, who was only asking us for comment.

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:
	- They are rabidly, irrationally anti-digital.
	- A large portion of their marketing approach rests on convincing
	  people that the entire audio industry has hoodwinked them--and
	  that Linn/Naim is (only slightest of hyperbole) the only pair of
	  reputable hifi equipment manufacturers in the known universe.
	- Their advice flies in the face of generally established
	  principles of music reproduction, engineering, and testing human
	  response.  If it suits them, they will make claims which are
	  demonstrably impossible.
	- Their equipment is focused on endless refinement of (mostly)
	  irrelevant parameters.

> 	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...

> 	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

YES!  This is definitely the order in which things should work!  Connecting
speakers directly to the cartridge produces vastly inferior sound.
Seriously, what they have supplied is the path through the system (using
some selective interpretation to decide that the turntable comes first).
That doesn't prove much, though...a sequence does not dictate a hierarchy.

> 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.

This is one of their major bogus arguments.  Let us say that the turntable
has the first opportunity to help create good sound or to introduce
problems (distortion...).  That doesn't mean that most of the money should
go to the turntable.  In fact, most of the money in an audio system should
go into the components which produce the best improvement in sound when you
spend more money on them!  (Did that sound like a tautology?  I hope so.)
Some things are hard to make, so you have to spend more money to get them
right.  The main reason for the recommendation to spend lots on speakers is
that speakers have a very hard job to do.  When you start from modestly-
priced components and start upgrading for better sound, improving speakers
is one of the places your dollar does the most good.  (Of course, there's
another criterion for vinyl--your turntable/arm/cartridge should be good
enough not only to produce good sound but not to damage the records.  Get
this far before ANY other upgrades!)

Back to the "hifi hierarchy" pitch--it is true that if you introduce
distortion (or noise, etc.) early in the reproduction chain, no later
component can help it (generally speaking).  This is a major argument for
"putting the money up front", as Linn presents it.  However, it is equally
true that if you introduce distortion late in the reproduction chain, no
earlier component in the chain can help it!  In building or improving a
system, you want to focus on getting the most accuracy throughout.  This
means spending the most money on improving the least accurate components.

A Linn turntable is an interesting, generally well-made piece of equipment.
(Why they are so hard to set up is another matter!)  In some measures it is
the finest.  However, it is NOT well-engineered, in the following sense:
It does not show an overall balance of goals which it should meet...some
criteria are pursued with fanaticism; others are nearly ignored.  Overall,
it does not represent a cost-effective result.  I would guess that you'd
have to have several thousand dollars in the rest of your system (excluding
media) before you could justify a Linn turntable, assuming that it's the
best you can get (which I don't think it is, even outside the esoterica).

> 	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.

This is an important aspect of Linn marketing.  It is consistently used.  I
would suspect (but cannot prove) that Linn's reluctance to use double-
blind testing and their "extra-speaker-in-the-room" mythology are both
methods to help them avoid the use of the human ear's well-known ability to
note very minor differences in two sound sources when comparing them one
after another (A/B fashion).  In spite of the ear's excellent short-term
discrimination, long-term memory and comparison (long-term = anything more
than a handful of seconds) is poor.

By thwarting your ability to make actual comparisons, they allow themselves
to replace your judgment with their suggestions (if you allow it).

> 	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.
> 
> 	I must admit to not being able to hear any of the effects.

This places you in good company in net.audio--most people who have attended
Linn/Naim demonstrations with open minds and critical ears have come away
reporting that they heard nothing notable from the demos of different
equipment combinations or extra speakers.

I would be surprised if you had heard a range of different speakers without
noting any differences, however, as the smaller Linn speakers are truly
abominable.
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
   ...Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.