China?

Interesting thoughts..



I have a friend with a PHD in microbiology, and he explained a theory that I found fascinating..

He pointed to many species, and explained how the species develops and changes over thousands of years, giving variations across the worlds continents over time.

Each type will vary slightly - perhaps in size, diet etc.

He went on to explain that in the vast vast majority of cases (across all species) the earliest form of species would be the first to become extinct - sometimes quite quickly sometimes over thousands of years. The latest variation of the species is normally always the one that becomes dominant.

In the case of human beings, the first discovered humans were in Africa, and then our own continent, and then the far east.

Is it not then likely that dominance/success of homo sapiens will follow a similar pattern?

Just thought I'd share that with you, as it leads to interesting thoughts I think

Chris

 

Biologically speaking, however, we are the same species. Therefore I am not sure that analogy works that well! But I can see what you mean.

 

Agreed. Humans aint microbes!
Makes no sense at all talking of different human species, unless you want to return to the discredited 18C "racial science" & start measuring the size of skulls
What we can talk of is different cultural developments, though as we've seen on this interesting thread, what counts as cultural-technological development (and who defines it) is a debatable issue.

Whatever, the chinese are going to be a hifi force to be reckoned with...

 

The Chinese are also making similar inroads in to studio electronics. They are making some very high quality mics for instance, many loosely based on Neumanns and costing a fraction of the price – these will sell like hot cakes if they are reliable and supported as studio guys don't care as much about the badge on the front as audiophiles. If the performance is similar and the cost just 25% then it's a no-brainer. Most studios will look at it as either getting a far better mic than was budgeted for or getting 4 for the same price. I bet the established quality manufacturers in this particular arena are bricking it!

Tony.

 

I think one of the examples he used was red and grey squirrels, and I think Ive messed up his idea completely!! oh well.

Anyway, cant wait until China imports and distributes its own kit, hopefully even going manufacturer-direct with a few lines!

I hope they blow the kilts right up those who survive on crazy margins

 

Joel, what does pretentious american voicing sound like?

hmmm..IMO most things apart from a few real innovators, are done by imitation.
That is how the world works. Evolve, take the industry std., see why it does what it does best, improve upon its weaknesses, move on, ad inf., everyone takes apart everyone else's to see how its done. Its an economic shortcut, rather than developing from scratch.
All apart from a few true innovators. My definition of genius is someone who does what others couldn't.
AS it is with guitar playing, you clone your heros' style, then add your own touches and develop your own. Most things as it happens.
With studio electronics, I think the top studios will not be turning to behringer or chinese stuff, they will rely still on the akg's, the neumann's, the manleys, the lexicons, the genelecs and atc's.

 

I suspect the Chinese are in with a good chance with mics at least. A good few years ago Octava (sp?) mics from Russia made a big splash in the semi-pro and pro market, these were a quality large diaphragm design similar to say 500-1000 quid AKG, Audio Technica and Neumann models in both design and sound quality, the difference is that they cost about 140 quid a throw, i.e. the price of a bog standard and comparatively nasty sounding Shure SM58. They sold in huge quantities despite having relatively poor sample consistency and reliability. If the Chinese can pull the same stunt, but with a reliable and consistent product they will clean up. Mics are a great way into the pro market as they are not something you just need a couple of – the more you have the more you can do.

Tony.

 

I think I said wannabee, not pretentious. And I think they have a very good reason for voicing their CDPs and amps that way: the US market.
Anyway, have you ever heard a pair of large, expensive black coffins kill music? I have and it wasn't funny - I didn't believe audio could do that until I heard it...
The Chinese kit (that I've heard, obviously) doesn't go that far, but like a lot of audio it is voiced with its potential customer base in mind, so we get: air; blackness; layers of sugary sweet, smooooth treble (but with a nice little boost in the midrange for the "detail")... you know.
I'm sure there is other Chinese kit out there more suited to my tastes. I can't wait to hear it.

How to say this nicely. "Top" studios couldn't give a toss about the brand name; many will and do use Chinese, Russian or even, even, Australian equipment.
A bit OT, but the whole "our kit is pro" schtick does get rather flogged to death: I have a couple of pairs of Videotone Minimax speakers kicking around which are pro studio speakers
In any case, I doubt Behringer could give a toss about "top" studios, of which there are very few, anyway. The concept of Behringer was to provide quality equipment at low everyday prices to the home recording market. Job done. They are doing very nicely from FoH and home studios.

 

hmmm, why?? expand more pray tell...I thought the yanks wanted big brash muscle equipment. Maybe lichtenstein would want something anon.

I have souds just like MF to me. no joke.And I have no idea how they do it.

 

My bubby in HK is organzing a preamp shoot up tonight which include the following items:

1. Sonic Frontier SFL-1 Signature
2. Audo Research LS8
3. Xindak XA3200 MK II.

with the following setup:

Power amp: Plinius SA100MKIII
Speaker: PMC OB-1
CD Player: Sony XA-7ES


Result to be feedback tomorrow.

 

http://buy.audiogon.com/cgia/fsb.pl?intatube&1&ctg&st1

 

The important issue with evolution is the adaptation to the local environment not global. Maybe this also plays a part in cultural tastes.

 

Interesting thought, and from my travels in the Chinese speaking world, I would say you have a point.
That said, like 17th century porcelain tea services, this stuff could be said to be Chinese Export ware. Nothing wrong with that. Antique Chinese porcelain tableware are among the finest mass produced goods ever made!

 

I think that in their recent history, most far eastern countries have excelled at copying western innovation, and producing it very cheaply.

As their expereince has increased they have managed to equal and exceed the West in many fields. So why not hifi. After all, 30 years ago, everyone was warning us to avoid the garbage coming out of Japan, but just look at some of the high end innovations that have been coming out of that country recently.

I am always amazed at the cost/performance ratio of Usher loudspeakers whenever I hear them. Sure they are copies but still represent frightening value for money at their price points.

the way forward for many UK speaker manufacturers surely has to be seperate ranges with direct sales of models manufactured in the Far East. The sooner the better IMO

 

Feedback from my HK friends:

In term of performance:

1.Xindak
2.Audio Research
3.Sonic Frontier

In term of price, the Xindak is a steal @ US$600 in HK. (US retailed it @ US$1500).

I've not heard it but it is not a surprise to me.

Merlin, I agreed with you but I believe China at present has already progressed beyond the state of solely copying.

VAL tube active speaker, Xindak Sandwiched Foil cables, JSMR ring are some of the examples relatively unknown to the West.

 

Very nice, but this doesn't tell us if it's any good

 

Drucker, what can you tell us about the amp in your avatar?

I always want to know more about new valve amps surely the most beautiful item of hifi after the turntable?

 

"Genetically Speaking Race Doesn't Exist In Humans". Says Researcher.
Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., professor of biology in Arts and Sciences at Washington University, has analyzed DNA from global human populations that reveal the patterns of human evolution over the past one million years. He shows that while there is plenty of genetic variation in humans, most of the variation is individual variation.
While between-population variation exists, it is either too small, which is a quantitative variation, or it is not the right qualitative type of variation -- it does not mark historical sublineages of humanity.

Using the latest molecular biology techniques, Templeton has analyzed millions of genetic sequences found in three distinct types of human DNA.

"Race is a cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans -- genetic differences," says Templeton.

"Evolutionary history is the key to understanding race, and new molecular biology techniques offer so much on recent evolutionary history.

http://www.crystalinks.com/biorace.html

 

thankyou bluemax, I did not know that.

I always assumed that physical differences between people of different countries - like eskimos and aboriginees for example.. was down to human evolution - evolving to the conditions.

perhaps my friend the microbiologist should have known better !

Oh well! thanks for the enlightenment.

 

Surely such differences are indeed largely, but not exclusively, down to evolving to suit the conditions.

Also, there must be genes that control the differences that we clearly see between races - Africans, Indians, Chinese, Celts, etc. Is templeton saying that there are no genetic aspects to racial differences at all?

Clearly though, we are one species and can breed without any racial considerations.

Bluemax, do you understand anything about the mechanisms that occur when species actually diverge? I remember seeing a programme about some Russian researchers who selectively bred Silver Foxes (a completely wild species), choosing characteristics such as less fear of humans. After several generations of gradual change they actually bred one 'freak' female who actively enjoyed human company. Breeding thereafter from this female, they produced animals that were 'pets'. Unfortunately, they didn't do any genetic tesing and, I believe, that the pet foxes could still breed with the wild foxes.

Fascinating stuff.