On Thu, 13 May 2010 06:19:37 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Wed, 12 May 2010 07:25:12 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
"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.
You're joking, right? They might be fine for speech in a
movie theater, but for music?
Last time I went to a movie, there was music and speech. It would seem to me
that reproducing a movie well precludes trashing the speech or music.
You know as well as I do, that's not right. Visual takes precedence over
audible in human senses. Just because a motion picture sound system
reproduces the speech clearly and has lots of bass for the explosions,
doesn't mean that anyone would want to critically listen to music over such a
system.
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.
I had a pair of A7s as a teenager. Got 'em free from a
local movie house that went out of business. The
contractor was renovating the theater into a furniture
store (if memory serves) and was throwing everything out.
I don't think the A7s were more than a couple of years
old at the time. They were real efficient (I only had a
pair of Knight 18-watt mono integrated amps at the time).
The thing that I remember mostly about them is that in
spite of having a 15-inch horn-loaded woofer, they had
little bass. I recall that they were about 10 dB down at
40 Hz. They also had this nasal coloration in the
midrange. This corresponded nicely to the frequency of
the ringing one would get from the treble-horn by
thumping it with one's finger. They were loud, though and
certainly were better than the home-made bass reflex
enclosures that I replaced with them. What ultimately
disillusioned me about them was when I heard a pair of
AR3s at friend of my dad's house. Real bass and decent
(for the time) top-end.
Excutive Summary: No, the respondent has never heard A4s.
I suspect that I've been to movie houses that had them, Arny. We have some
large first-run houses here in the San-Francisco Bay Area.
If one does a
little research, one finds that there is very little similiarity between A7s
and A4s, other than the "A". ;-)
I did some research of A4s before I responded. The treble horn looks exactly
like the one on my old A7s (since that was what we were talking about) That's
why I mentioned them. I suspect that they sound similar as well even though
the treble horn driver (A-288) is a newer design. A large part of the
character of horn drivers is the horn itself. The A7s horn was made out of
cast aluminum, I have to admit that I don't know what the A4's horn is made
out of.
http://www.audioheritage.org/html/pr...altec/vott.htm
Note that an A7 roughly resembles the A5x,
Yes, The A7 is is a late 1940's design.
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.
It's good enough to give a lot of musical pleasure to the
owner and his guests.
But it is out of place in a discussion of 1950s hardware.
I'm sorry, I was of the opinion that we were talking about equipment of the
50's and 60's - post war but pre-transistor.
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.
And what of your prejudices, Mr, Kruger?
Value.
To the exclusion of all else perhaps? And you have admitted to disliking
vinyl intently.
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.
That's even true today. Most modern commercial releases
on ANY format sound mediocre to dreadful, and the best
are excellent. Thus it has always been,
I think that is exactly right. In the days of vinyl, the medium was a major
stumbling block. Today, the major stumbling block is the people.
There's that pesky anti-vinyl bias rearing its ugly head again! I wouldn't
say that it was a "stumbling block". Vinyl, done right, was and still can be
excellent, but I would say that it was a limitation (as were the analog tape
recorders of the era).
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.
I would have thought that "for me" was understood.
Looked like a perfectly general statement.
In what way does a camera which keeps moving,
Not necessarily the case. And not necessarily a problem.
I have been known to create and/or otherwise provide graphic and video
content that is used during live performances. I'm under the impression that
there is a general perception among both event organizers and attendees that
it enhances the listening experience.
Visual takes precedence over audible in human sensual perception. "Seeing"
relegates "hearing" to second-class status, generally speaking. And while I
laud your restraint in keeping the camera still on a video production of an
audio event ( I guess that's what you are saying, above), most video
producers of audio events aren't so circumspect.
while the
sonic perspective stays static enhance the listening
experience, and would that experience be any better if
the sonic perspective followed the moving camera? The
entire notion is as ludicrous as it is confusing.
This opinion seems to be at odds with the preferences of the general public.
Now, I'm expected to answer for the general public? A public who's interest
in music is very superficial, at best? Let's face it most people don't care
about sound quality. If they did, more audio equipment would be sold. Most
are satisfied with boom boxes and iPods. I'm not belittling anyone for that,
different strokes and all that, I'm merely saying that public taste is public
taste and it's usually not the best arbiter what's actually good or right. In
fact, the "vox populi" is notorious for it's terrible taste in just about
everything.
Perhaps, the combination of audio and video would serve
the performance if the video were taken from a single
perspective. like the sound, and the camera remained
static. But they don't do it that way, do they?
When you're doing video, you do whatever you want to do that works for the
audience and event organizers, no?
I don't produce video at all and I disagree violently with how most music
events are presented on video. Remember, I don't listen to pop or rock -
EVER. I don't care about it. I mention this only to make sure that you
understand that my comments apply only to video concerts of classical (and
occasionally jazz) such as one sees occasionally on PBS. What they do in rock
and pop videos, I have no idea about because I don't watch or listen to those
kinds of music programs.
I'll also concede that opera performances are enhanced by
the video, because listening to (as opposed to
"watching") an opera is akin to listening to a movie with
the TV turned off.
This would appear to contradict much of what you previously said.
Not at all. Opera is a visual medium. Concerts are most an audio medium. I
"listen" to music, I "watch" operas.
To me an
opera is a movie with a ton of music that is performed live.
Actually, It's a stage play with a ton of music.
Being performed live puts some pretty dramatic contstraints on it, but it can
still be very enjoyable.
You've obviously never seen an elaborate stage production of one of Wagner's
"Ring Cycle" operas or you would not be saying that live performances are
restraining, dramatically. I recommend that everyone catch at least one major
production like this in their lifetime, even if, like me, you find the
overall concept fairly unapproachable. (Yes, I'm saying that I don't
particularly appreciate opera - although I love Wagner's music.).