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!decvax!decwrl!Glacier!oliveb!hplabs!hao!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Linn/Naim seminar(results)
Message-ID: <240@opus.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Nov-85 02:35:03 EST
Article-I.D.: opus.240
Posted: Tue Nov 12 02:35:03 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Nov-85 20:49:33 EST
References: <187@myrias.UUCP> <194@opus.UUCP> <536@unc.unc.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO
Lines: 130

> I have a few complaints to register about article <194@opus.UUCP>,
> from rcd@opus.UUCP (written by Dick Dunn).  He writes:  
> ...
> >Linn/Naim was discussed in net.audio some time back.  They were generally
> >not well received (putting it euphemistically)...
> 
> Then why rehash?...

Because the original posting asked about Linn/Naim (including a request for
opinions).  If the issue comes up again (as many issues do on the net) and
it's been long enough since the last discussion, there are things which may
bear repeating.

> >	- 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...

The comma between the two adverbs means that both apply, separately, to the
adjective.  In other words, YES, I mean that Linn is anti-digital, and in
a manner which is BOTH rabid and irrational.  Being rabid, by itself, is
only a matter of curiousity, perhaps suspicion.  I know people who are
rabidly anti-CD, with some reasons which are at least plausible and perhaps
reasonable.  I know a few people who are generally anti-digital (which is
saying a lot more than anti-CD), but at least they have some "reasons" in
the sense that their explanations are mostly amenable to analysis--which I
do not find to be the case with Linn's arguments.  (Conspiracy theories are
notably difficult to analyze:-)

By my standards, if an audio manufacturer is going to take a vociferous
position against an idea which a large part of the industry holds to be
sound, the least we, as intelligent consumers, can demand is a decent
explanation.  "Because I know better" is not a decent explanation.  There
have been changes in attitude in the audio industry--it was once
fashionable to regard the difference between .0025% and .002% THD as
significant; this is no longer so regarded.  This change came about through
a vociferous minority--but it happened because they tested/explained/
analyzed/studied/measured, not because they raged like Lear.

> 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...).

If you examine their advertising, I believe you can discern something of
their state of mind.  Digressing a bit, giving my own very personal view
(note caveats, please), I find that when I read their advertising I must
conclude:  These guys must be three flavors of weird to believe this...and
if they don't believe it at all but publish it anyway, they must be FIVE
flavors of weird.  Perhaps I should have presented more evidence (e.g.,
excerpts from their advertising) to explain these views.

> >>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!

Hey, me too...but it seems to hold up again and again.  Actually, I don't
know--do they make the record-playing part of the system because that's
important, or do they call it important because that's what they make?  I
suppose I should be glad they're consistent, regardless of which of this
egg/chick pair came first--but internal consistency isn't enough.

> "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?

Clean it up, kid.  I'm not a jerk and neither are most of the other folks who
read this newsgroup.  Some of them (NOT me, but perhaps jj, ark, rfg, rdp,
etc.) have a decade or two of professional experience on you--and I mean
that they understand the business side of the industry as well as the
technical side.

Of course Sony has an investment in CD's!  They've over-promoted them!
They've marketed some players which haven't been very good.  And I will
criticize Sony for hyping their private interests just as I will criticize
Linn for hyping theirs.  Don't ask me to forgive Linn because of Sony's
sins, for heaven's sake!  The question was about Linn, so why should I
flame Sony in response?  Did it ever occur to YOU that Linn has a much
larger PROPORTION of their business invested in vinyl records than Sony
has in CD's--and that the driving factor for hype is not the absolute
number of dollars (pounds, yen resp.) but the proportion of investment?

> 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).

Yes, it is net.audio.   It is not net.flame, by the way.  "Ad Hominem" is
not a verb, by the way...say "attack" if that's what you mean.  [What are
"analog people"?  Doesn't everyone have analog amps?  Do you mean "anti-
digital?]  You are in no position to criticize "people who don't seem to
listen..."

Compact Discs and the associated technology and equipment are the most
recent major development in audio.  As such, they are likely to receive a
disproportionate amount of the discussion; that's just the way it works.
If there is some serious advance in another area of audio equipment,
discussion will shift that direction.  The CD wars were waged in net.audio
some six months to a year ago--I am no more eager to see them return than
you (or most of the rest of us).  I gladly admit that CD's have problems--
which to me means that I would like to talk about the problems and what to
do about them.  [I have a few abominable CD's and I'd like to have as few
more as possible!]  With CD's I have traded surface noise and dynamic range
for imaging (and some other properties which are hard to describe but
nonetheless real).  I'm as eager to talk about the problems of surface
noise in vinyl (if there's anything to be said or done about it) as I am
about the problems of CD's.

Oh, yeah, by the way--do you have any substantive support for Linn's
claims--or only criticism of what I said?  Are you willing to support the
claims, for instance, that:
	- a digital watch (with alarm) or telephone in the same room as
	  an audio system will seriously degrade sound reproduction?
	- distortion introduced earlier in the sound-reproduction chain
	  is more serious than distortion introduced by later stages?
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
   ...If you get confused just listen to the music play...