"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
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.
As was everything else about audio.
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).
Actually, done right the Altec horns could sound pretty good. Ever hear a
pair of Altec A4s set up right? But, they were huge, they were expensive,
and they were not as good as their contemporary competition.
But amps and pre-amps were pretty good.
By modern standards they were marginal at best. Frightfully expensive in
inflation-adjusted dollars, required a lot of maintenance, large, wasted
energy, a good amp with only modest power was very heavy. There were only a
tiny number of what we would call a medium-powered amplifier today,and
nothing beyond that.
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.
The Citation 1 preamp was reviewed by Audio and High Fidelity magazines in
the early 1960s, which is was no doubt when it was introduced. Therefore,
it is not a product that was available in the 1950s. Just because something
sounds "fine" does not make it competitive with its modern competition.
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.
Some people pay more for the same or less, because they don't know better,
or because of their prejudices.
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.
Doesn't change the fact that the general run of LPs were mediocre or worse
by modern standards.
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.
You forgot to say "for me". Or perhaps you don't understand that you don't
set the tastes for all of modern mankind.