I forgot how fantastic this model sounds.A note on the photos:
It is impossible to photograph a receiver outdoors in natural light with the lights showing properly. When I show a photograph of a lit up receiver, I have combined (in Photoshop) a shot of the face with a separate shot of the lit parts, taken indoors in natural light using a tripod. I don't see this as anything other than using the available technology to make an accurate representation of what the machine looks like. I don't see it as dishonest. If you think I'm wrong, so be it.
Email me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think you mean you forget how fantastic you thought it sounded. It has been scientifically proved again and again that the human ear cannot discern the differences between a cheap amp and a very high end end amp. Sorry to rain on your parade. Google "Richard Clark Amplifier Challenge" for starters. If you are going to run an audio blog, you may as well get the facts.
Hey Anonymous,
Why do you need to leave a stinky in this room? The quote is "I forgot how fantastic this model sounds." His opinion, his blog and no where does he mention the "sound quality". This "audio blog" is about cool 70's stereos and really nothing more. Stop "raining on this parade" and start the debate somewhere like AudioKarma ( fine site ). I'm sure you can stir up all sorts of garbage/debates/discussions onn preceived sound quality.
With love,
Anonymous II
Hey Anonymous (the first one) - I'm an engineer (electrical) so I believe in things you can measure. I think you're dead wrong with your assertion. These old vintage amps have a colouration to the signals passing through them that some (many) of us find pleasing. Do a spectral analysis of the output of one of these vs. a cheap amp and you can 'see' the difference.
Go rain on somebody else's parade with your useless comments.
Anonymous III
Try taking the photo with a polarizing filter.That should get the results you are looking for.
Post a Comment