"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,

You, sir, don't know the English language. "Lush, room-filling sound"
is about as subjective and nebulous as a phrase can be. Therefore,
it cannot, by definition, be a lie.

I disagree that it's nebulous -- it has a fairly clear meaning -- but
nebulosity is a form of misrepresentation.


I have no objection to people buyng an expensive table radio. I object
to them buying an expensive table radio that's of much lower quality
than they could have gotten by buying a modest component system
for the same price.

That is the right of every individual. I think my Toyota Avalon is a far
better automobile than your Mercedes, on every count, but I don't tell
you that you're an idiot for buying the car you choose to buy. Who made
you the protector of consumers?

My superior knowledge did. And if I were about to buy a Mercedes and you
thought it was a poor decision, why _shouldn't_ you tell me how you feel?


No, it's not. Some speakers are worth $11,000. Why don't you listen
to the current QUADs and decide for yourselft?

No thanks. I couldn't afford them even if I did like them. Either way,
they're hardly relevant to a discussion of table radios.

They are when people claim that expensive products are rarely, if ever,
worth what they cost.


My "non-loony" system is Apogee Divas and Parasond SA-21 amps.
Care to tell me what your "sensible" system is?

Why? So you can accuse me of being sonically illiterate? Music Reference
RM-5 and RM-9, and Vandersteen 2s. Oh, and my speaker wire came from
the audiophile department at Home Depot. I'm sure you'd be unhappy, but
for
my naive ear, it's good enough.

I've never cared much for Vandersteens, because I find them (as I find many
audiophile speakers) insipid-sounding. But...

Did you buy the Vandersteens and the Music Reference electronics because
some unknown writer at Popular Science told you how great they sounded? Or
because you blindly believed the advertising literature? I doubt it. You
bought them because you sat down and listened carefully, COMPARING THEM WITH
OTHER PRODUCTS, and decided that this was the that it met your needs, and IT
was reasonbly priced for the sound it delivered. Right? It was a more or
less rational decision, not one (much) influenced by advertising hype or
lies about the products.

If someone had told you that there were other brands of speakers or
amplifiers you might like better, would you have listened to them before
making your final decision? You probably would have, because you no doubt
wanted to spend your money wisely. And it doesn't matter whether you're
spending $500, $5,000, or $50,000.

Do you think most Wave customers make their purchase on a similar basis?
What shouldn't they be told they're making a mistake? Do you _like_ seeing
people waste their money?



Finally, as far as people being entitled to their position without being
able to justify it, they most certainly are.

If you can't justify your position, then you're merely spewing. Harlan
Ellison agrees.

(Then I guess you were spewing when you said that PCs are "superior
in every respect" to Macs, because I'm pretty damn sure that there isn't
a shred of evidence anywhere in the world to substantiate such a
ridiculous claim.)

I said nothing of the sort. You read what you wanted to read.

There is an odd parallel between the Mac and the Bose, and Windows and
component systems. The former are pretty much closed systems, the latter are
far more "open". The main difference, though, is that when you buy a Mac,
you get a good computer at a reasonable price.

Windows machines, though, do offer a wider range of software and hardware.
This may or may not be a good thing, depending on your needs.