Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dan and Tom, First, Tom I intended to offend no one, and didn't....Dan, yes, there are many in most fields who will pay for unmeasurable (in USE, not in the laboratory) "best".....this is the premise that the entire industry of "high-end" home audio is based on.....even the proponents of the highest end equipment are unwilling to accept that even THEY can't tell the difference.....that's why they discredit ANY kind of objective testing, even of their own equipment with THEM as the judge!!!....it just doesn't exist... There is no difference in a 3" patch cable from radio shack and a $1000 platinum/silver 'interconnect'....not even the owner will attempt to prove otherwise, nor will the seller....with their OWN ears.... The quality of the tools matters only to the user, and the quality of the photograph is a different matter altogether, usually 99% independent of the tools.....the Canonet GIII (good quality) really DOES produce the same GOOD/BAD result as the M6/35 asph.... That being said, I like Leica cameras/lenses, Collins radio, Fender (American) and G&L guitars, homebrew audio with the finest components, etc........I just don't try to justify their purchase or use based on results....even to myself. Walt On Sat, 13 Mar 1999, Dan Cardish wrote: > Even when the difference between best and second best is miniscule? > > Dan C. > > At 10:47 AM 13-03-99 EST, you wrote: > >Walt, I gladly pay the large differential for the highest quality. You are > >correct, the best costs a lot more than second best. It is worth it. > > > >Tom Shea > > >