[Moderators' note: Recently some posts have been approved with toned
down curse words as in this one. Please stop using them from now on.
Those words are potentially inflammable and will no longer be
accepted. -- deb]
On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:11:18 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/bu...html?ref=busin
"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological. For
decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like a
new flat-screen TV today.
I sense a ton of confusion and maybe just as much if not more
sentimentality. Most ca. 1950 audio systems were pretty bad sounding by
modern standards. It took a ton of relatively large, intrusive, and
expensive hardware to deliver sound quality that could really be compared to
a good portable digital player and a nice pair of IEMs., or a quality but
still relatively small sub/sat speaker system.
That depends on what you're talking about. Certainly, speaker technology in
the 1950's was very primitive. People had Karlson Kabinets with big 12" or
15" Altec Lansing or Electrovoice drivers in them or Klipschorns - and they
still didn't have any low-end. cone tweeters were mostly just small speakers
with a capacitor hung on them to keep the lows out, or they were compression
horns like the Altec 500 Hz treble horns (awful).
But amps and pre-amps were pretty good. I've a friend with a pair of Dynaco
Mark III 60-Watt tube "monoblocs" and a Harman-Kardon Citation 1 stereo
preamp driving a pair of Magnepan MG-3.6s. The system sounds fine.
Certainly, in those days, the best signal source was live FM (vinyl records
could be excellent, but the players were primitive and couldn't get the most
from them). It sounded magnificent, even if it was in mono. Much better than
any FM station today. First of all, FM stations rarely do live concerts any
more and if/when they do, they are crippled by signal compression and
brick-wall limiting. In the 50's and most of 60's, FM stations were so far
and few between (even in large metropolitan markets) that while laws for
over-modulating did exist, nobody took them seriously (even the FCC) there
was simply no harm in over-modulating your transmitter as there were no
closely adjacent stations for you to interfere with. Unlike today's crowded
FM dial where overly processed audio is pumped into transmitters crowded
tooth-by-jowl against each other on the dial.
Of course, hypercriticality of modern technology is very stylish in certain
circles.
Some people demand more than others and don't mind paying for it. This is a
double-edged sword, however. Because audio is technical and most audio
hobbyists aren't, this gives rise to a lot of unfortunate charlatanism that
seems rampant in the audio hobby. Things like "boutique" interconnects and
speaker cables, wood blocks placed on one's amp cover to make it "magically"
sound better, cable lifts to keep one's speaker cables up, off the carpet,
caps for one's unused RCA connections on their preamp (ostensibly to keep
them from drooling random KiloHertz, perhaps?) etc.
During most of the 1950s just about everybody was limited to listening to
mono vinyl. While there are great-sounding recordings from that era, most
weren't (and still aren't) all that great. The good news is that many of
their problems can be circumvented with skilled remastering. But, even so...
Some were so good that they haven't been equaled and careful remastering such
as that done by JVC shows just how good both some of these early recordings
and Redbook CD can sound. And as I said above, the best source in the 1950's
and '60's wasn't vinyl, but was, rather, live FM.
But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com,
which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an object
of scorn.""
Stereos were an object of scorn most of my life! Stereos did become
mainstream from the Vietnam era until home theater succeeded it as the
mainstream. Maybe 25 years. Home audio without video is no longer SOTA.
Bull! Home audio without video might not be fashionable, but video does
NOTHING to enhance the listening experience. In my house my stereo and my
"home theater" aren't even in the same part of the house! When I watch
video, I watch video, when I listen to music, I listen to music and as far as
I'm concerned, they're (for the most part) mutually exclusive concepts.
In Fremer's case, I wonder if he is generalizing from his own experiences,
which must be unusual given his commitment (some might say obsession) with
audio.
Who knows. He makes some good points though.