Soundstage, Imaging, Detail & Presence??

Sebrof, in rereading my previous post I realize my verbiage was a bit confusing. What I had intended to convey is that there seems to be two camps. What I might call the the analog camp favors tubes and vinyl; the digital camp, along with those who don't give a damn, favor solid state and discs.

One can argue the merits of tubes/solid state or vinyl/discs as they perceive them, but the fact is that auditory memory for detail is quite poor; we're much better at auditory classification. That makes sense, because the prime purpose of our hearing throughout its development has been to distinguish between the sounds of organisms we might eat and those that might eat us. Music, on the evolutionary scheme is very new.

db

Hi,
Nick, the simple point is our ears are great and can perceive the many nuances and subtle characteristics in music that as of yet can`t be quantified with measurements. These characteristics are what attract us to music and evoke the emotional responses that are so enjoyable. I`ll leave the creation/evolution debate to you, as it`s irrelavant to this thread.
Best Regards,

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50

Charles1dad,
That sentence, beautifully constructed,"...the simple point is our ears are great and can perceive the many nuances and subtle characteristics in music that as of yet can`t be quantified with measurements."...is so true as to be the crux of many disagreements.
Back in the day, I used to ask Jim Thiel why he didn't use better caps and air core inductors, resisters, etc, in his crossovers. He would coyly say, 'Because they measure as they do with the components I'm using.'

That was all well and good--but then the next day, I'd be talking to Bill Conrad of cj, and he'd be waxing poetically about the caps they were having made to their specs and how they spent hours deciding which cap goes where and so on. I was confused and frustrated with Jim, one of my icons.

Many years later, I realized that the 'pragmatic' business side of Jim was simply winning the battle for saving the world from bad audio, and keeping THIEL Audio in business.
Every, we'll call it 'additional' penny(s) a manufacturer spends on internal parts, is a penny that doesn't come back as profits. So, if a $.58 piece of stuff works, why spend $4.35?

It wasn't until the twilight of Jim's life that he publically changed that position by making the CS2.4SE. As you may know, it offered upgraded parts in the crossovers.
When interviewed, Jim said, 'Well, there are some things that can't be measured, but exist in audio.' I'm paraphrasing, but that's the intent of the comments.
These speakers came out AFTER my LSA Statements hit the streets, AND after Sherry Graham (formerly of THIEL and new owner of LSA speakers) came to work for LSA. There may have been NO correllation, but anyone who's heard the LSA1 or LSA2 Standard/Signature/Statements can easily attest to the differences, the ENORMOUS differences that higher quality parts can make in circuitry.
Hell, two carefully chose Amprex 6dj8 tubes Circa 1962 in my Statement LSA Amp, even using the ridiculously expensive parts we use, 'transform' that amp into another realm.

There was a transmission commercial on TV years ago, touting the quality of parts that a company used...the 'stupid guy' trying to make the opposite point, says, 'Parts is Parts'! That always resonated with me.
Great comment Charles1dad.

Larry

Hi,
Larry, thanks for the kind comments and for sharing such an insightful experience you had with the late Jim Thiel.I have much respect for engineers and scientists, but when it comes to audio there`s still so much that has yet to be explained or understood completely.Those who rely "exclusively" on the measurables and down play what we can clearly "hear" are in a state of denial IMO.