Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2014 14:39:14 GMT
what happened to the discussion around subjectivism and objectivism? Everyone concluded that I was right and the discussion ended I think
|
|
Paul
Rank: Trio
Posts: 157
|
Post by Paul on Jul 6, 2014 14:52:21 GMT
On the subject of 'emotively illegal', I have some feelings on this although the name could be changed to something more appropriate. In the educational sector, I see products which are bumped up in price 2x or 3x by educational suppliers because they know schools will just select and pay rather than do their market research. Teachers rarely have a say as schools often purchase centrally in bulk. I often look for the equivalent item in the general IT market and am amazed at the lower prices being charged. Consequently, I rarely use educational IT suppliers. I think Naim are in this category, especially with an example I have personal experience of, the NAP500. This power amp is jaw droppingly, eye wateringly priced. There is no earthly reason for the circa £18k list price that I can see. When we did a direct comparison with my Chord SPM-1200E, it comprehensively outperformed the Naim. The Chord is now circa £9k list. When I'm told that it, too, is expensive, I can at least point to the highly complex switched mode power supply and superb construction quality as some justification, as well as the very high sound quality. I'm sure, though, that no owner of a NAP500 would admit to being ripped off. Are Naim emotively charging is a far harder question to answer. The only earthly reason i can see for a price tag of £18k for the NAP500, is for some it will be a status symbol. They maybe won't even listen to it or any other part of system it will belong in. Most of this will be sold abroad to rich business types.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 6, 2014 15:29:39 GMT
I have just been repairing a mk2 A80 and everything I have done is objective, it has required no subjectivity at all. All the specs and figs are as should be. So why should I need to listen to it, job done. Well just have checked and it doesn't sound right, further strip down and explore and I find a bad joint, not faulty or disconnected just discoloured. I remake the joint and now the amp sings.
So much for my test gear, without my ears and my subjective assessment this would still have been a sick amp.
|
|
|
Post by DaveC on Jul 6, 2014 15:38:20 GMT
Are you saying your test gear did not find the bad joint ?
Dave
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2014 16:03:22 GMT
It does seem to me this discussion is a shill/spam *removed*
MODERATION: I see no shilling or spamming here.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 6, 2014 16:08:44 GMT
Are you saying your test gear did not find the bad joint ? Dave Can't you read!
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jul 6, 2014 16:16:16 GMT
From Pinky - "NVA refer to a plastic box, with some cables, an attenuator, input selector and connector sockets as a "Passive pre-amplifier" when it is nothing of the sort. It is a "control unit" (its not like the term hasnt been used before in HiFi). It doesn't amplify anything, and so can't be a pre or any other sort of amplifier." I agree, but it has become accepted parlance, so I just follow the herd in this case. And just a small "by the way" reference to plastic is just to create a bad image in the readers mind. It is like saying a silver bracelet is made of metal, so the public would think tin. The case is acrylic. "Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) is a transparent thermoplastic often used as a lightweight or shatter-resistant alternative to glass. Although it is not technically a type of glass, the substance has sometimes historically been called acrylic glass. Chemically, it is the synthetic polymer of methyl methacrylate. The material was developed in 1928 in several different laboratories by many chemists such as William Chalmers, Otto Röhm and Walter Bauer and was first brought to market in 1933 by the Rohm and Haas Company, under the trademark Plexiglas. It has since been sold under many different names, including Acrylite, Lucite, and Perspex." Apologies if there was any pejorative element in that. I am well aware that you use acrylic for specific design purposes. The component list was to point out nothing gets amplified. It was in a way related to my post about language being context sensitive. There was no implied comment about the quality of an NVA amp either way - just that everyone refers to it as an amplifier when it does no amplifying. But the term is understood and accepted none-the-less. It is defined by its usage. Like subjectivist and objectivist as terms are defined by their usage.
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jul 6, 2014 16:18:42 GMT
In the case of cables, I don't think this is as much the case as you imply. I think that far more common is that people think that a change of cable is going to be some sort of magic bullet that will transform a system into something that it is not. There are often far more fundamental issues to address than the connecting wires. Differences ascribed to cables are so often ridiculously over-exaggerated - you can usually make a bigger difference by moving the speakers a little or even drinking a glass of wine. The result is that after a honeymoon period, the system no longer satisfies as it did. So on to the next over-enthusiastically recommended wire. When you know what's going on, you stop worrying about wires and start enjoying music more. +1 with knobs on
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jul 6, 2014 16:27:47 GMT
It is purely a question of mathematics, what you are saying is not that that it is not a rip-off, which it unquestionably is, it is the fact that *you* don't mind being ripped-off. If you had the ability to put up poll and list my four costings and asked members if bargain, acceptable, rip-off, criminal then I am sure my POV would be the consensus. How much do you think the product in a bottle of Perrier costs? I remember this from the marketing consultants bought in to my accountancy firm 25 years ago when Chartered Accountants were first allowed to advertise. It falls from the sky and comes out of the ground. It's not even naturally gassy (sparkling) really - about one bubble every 10 litres, and is carbonated for sale like Coca cola. Lets go mad and say 1p for the water, 5p for the bottle. It sells for £1 or £2. People are buying the image, the brand, the experience, and are not being ripped off. Nobody suggests its criminal. Like Rolex watches or Chanel dresses - you are buying a brand not the bits of cloth or the tap water. I am inclined to take your view personally, and am not particularly inclined to spend excessive amounts on brand. But we are surrounded by people paying £100 for a pair of Nike that probably cost £10 to make in a 3rd world country. Because they chose to. And because the brand building advertising is very effective. Never mind Perrier, what do you think the ingredients cost is for a bottle of Pepsi selling for £1.50 in a pub. Don't tell me you've never bought one. People can chose.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 6, 2014 16:34:17 GMT
Of course people can choose, just the same as people can choose to comment on rip-offs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2014 16:39:21 GMT
|
|