[Scott[_6_]]

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:51:01 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2013 4:38:37 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
=20
=20
But we part company when you start comparing iPod and iPod-like devices=
and ear-buds favorably with a good stereo system.=20
=20
=20
=20
But you've said here before that your unique ear makes a std earbud a non=
-option for you. Perhaps you should try one of those custom forming buds b=
efore declaring them "unsatisfying" and implying your personal inability e=
xtends to so many.
=20
=20
=20
Maybe such a playback is satisfying to you, but I know many audiophiles =
including myself, that would not find these portable devices anything more=
than a convenient way to carry their music with them when they need to do=
so.
=20
=20
=20
Perhaps that is where "audiophiles" have become less about sound and more=
about something else. Reality is earbuds or headphones are audibly far mo=
re capable in every measure except soundstage at a fraction of the cost.
=20
=20
=20
As Scott said, it is the golden age of hi-fi. It's just not the era of bi=
g $$ hi-fi. Convincing young people they need to spend big $$ on audio gea=
r is going to take an ad campaign equal to the one the gov't is waging to c=
onvince them to buy overpriced health insurance.
=20
=20
=20
ScottW

OTOH it could just be that ear buds suffer from a set of inherent limitatio=
ns that preclude them from being something that some of us would ever consi=
der to be high end sound. The inability to cast a sound stage that can in a=
ny way shape or form create anything close to an illusion of live acoustic =
music precludes them from ever being high end in my book. I think it's grea=
t that we can get what we can get with portable audio these days. But IMO i=
t ain't high end audio.