the one that got away - how do you handle grief?

@douglas_schroeder OK. I retract the statement about you getting paid by the word, please accept my apology.

Here is some friendly advice. Dial it down a notch or two. Some editing (reducing word count) and humility goes a long way.

For example, “My posts have been pertinent” (says you and only you) vs, “I try to write posts that are helpful.”

Also, when presenting yourself as a professional journalist, typos and bad grammar aren’t really acceptable. “phusius”?

Just a suggestion.

the one that got away - how do you handle grief?

Funerals are used to say goodbye to loved ones, perhaps something similar? ;)

@thecarpathian what an effing shame. The fun police. 

Indeed. Anyone reading it who has even the slightest sense of humor could tell it was all in fun nonsense.

But enough with such matters. Now my mind bogglingly stupendous intellect is attempting to unravel the mystery of what the heck "Seabream? Really?" means.

@twoleftears ,

What the heck does "Seabream? Really?" mean??!

Is it the code name of one of your agents in the field and you communicate through this forum? Your new boat? Someone ordered it for dinner and you're questioning their judgment? I must know!!

@douglas_schroeder wrote:

My posts have been pertinent, because many audiophiles believe that by chasing vintage gear ( again, not speaking directly to parkergetdean’s philosophy of system building, as I do not know it) and spending far less, they can achieve sound quality on par with systems costing many multiples more built with current gear. 

Entertain for a while that eventually choosing vintage gear doesn’t necessarily equate into initially chasing it. In any case, is it so hard to fathom that some vintage solutions may actually approach or in some areas even exceed current solutions - for a lesser price, no less? 

Indeed I’ll gladly take the gun to my head on that one; choosing select vintage solutions (not least from the pro arena) certainly can approach or exceed current dittos costing their multiples, however my aim here is improving on the amp-to-driver interface in the process by going active from what is, essentially, a physically uninhibited framework, and hereby maximize the potential of amps as well as drivers - in both cases with what are excellent designs. I won't claim the outcome is State of the Art, but I can assure you that in some respects (not only dynamics) it will improve on setups some will find to be SOTA. 

From my chair such a solution - and the point is not really that it’s vintage of not, but rather what it’s made to be - will steam roll over current, and most often passively configured designs in a range of core areas, and moreover make the investments upstream all the more worthwhile simply by revealing what’s less of a bottleneck downstream with regard to named interfacing, design and physical prowess. 

... thriftiness is not to be equated to a person with a lower budget. That is why I stated that I have nothing against budget audiophilia. However, I was a budget audiophile because I was thrifty, not because I could not afford better gear. 

This is important information because it shows where you’re coming from, but not only that you go on to make it a core premise of your "thesis," which is a very limiting outset for what should be a more thorough investigation, if you ask me.

Say, if instead being thrifty comes from being on a more limited budget, making smarter decisions suddenly is paramount when the objective is to make the most of your monetary means to achieve the best sound possible - that is, when you don’t want to settle for less.

The thing is though the hifi Industry (yes, that’s a capital ’I’) would love to shoehorn you into their business model motto that you get what you pay for, and so what to do when you don’t want them to dictate what you can achieve unless you abide by their monetary "demand" and design choices? You go rogue, say to hell with their straitjacket and start broadening your horizon - with an open mind. Also, throw a bit of vanity by the wayside. 

Or, what if the ones who are economically well versed and choose to be thrifty by your standards have found ways, smartly, to make less of an outlay and still find great sounding solutions? I could certainly imagine that. 

Which leads to the comment regarding shows and systems. Yes, obviously there is quite a spectrum of performance of systems at shows. True, a person’s home system may be quite a bit better than some show systems. I have several times heard audiophiles - I think, following every show I have attended, I have heard or seen audiophiles comment that their system was better than all the show systems they have heard.  However, that determination cannot be made apart from direct comparison in the same room. Many audiophiles presume to judge an entire show worth of setups, much less particular products, without hearing any of them in their room. I suggest the tendency to do so is motivated by thriftiness.

My context earlier was focusing on the show sound only, not comparing it to home setups. With that in mind you seem to evade my observation that exhibitors at a show are all given less-than-ideal conditions, and so if I find some exhibitors to provide better sound than those with much more expensive gear the former has made a better job under the conditions given. Why then would I spend a gazillion $$ on speakers and amps when a presentation with large, active Genelec monitors sound better to my ears - at $20k/pair? That’s not being "thrifty," it’s simply acknowledging what sounds better. 

Now that’s just going by a show context, but even so it’s meant to give you an idea of the sonic potential of a range of products and also how they compare to each other. 

Summarizing: Vintage gear is seen by some as a way to beat the system, to get the best sound on the cheap. I took the opportunity to discuss low cost gear and thriftiness, as the OP was about a vintage speaker. Thirfty people cover the socioeconomic spectrum. In absolute terms, being thrifty inhibits system building. The performance spectrum is far, far wider than most thrifty audiophiles are aware.

I don’t see how the actual OP is about vintage gear per se, but rather that he lost out on a bid on a pair of speakers he’d been chasing for 10 years. At least it comes off that part of the (hidden?) agenda of your book is promoting expensive and new high-end gear...