[[email protected]]

There is mention of a download page where full fidelity recordings can be
had for $2.49.

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.

But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com,
which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an object
of scorn.""

[bob]

On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote:
There is mention of a download page where full fidelity recordings can be
had for $2.49.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/bu...ml?ref=3Dbusin

=A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.=
For
=A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
=A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like=
a
=A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today.

=A0 =A0But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com=
,
=A0 =A0which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an obj=
ect
=A0 =A0of scorn.""

Fremer would know something about objects of scorn. :-)

The article itself predictably muddles the issues of data compression
and dynamic compression--and, of course, fails to note how much more
benign the former is. It also fails to note the single biggest
difference between listening to a high-end rig and listening to an
iPod--the transducers.

Fewer people sit and just listen to a good audio system these days.
OTOH, more people listen to more music than ever before. I'm not
convinced that their lives are poorer for this.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 10 May 2010 09:29:55 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote:
There is mention of a download page where full fidelity recordings can be
had for $2.49.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/bu...ml?ref=3Dbusin

=A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.=
For
=A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
=A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like=
a
=A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today.

=A0 =A0But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com=
,
=A0 =A0which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an obj=
ect
=A0 =A0of scorn.""

Fremer would know something about objects of scorn. :-)

The article itself predictably muddles the issues of data compression
and dynamic compression--and, of course, fails to note how much more
benign the former is. It also fails to note the single biggest
difference between listening to a high-end rig and listening to an
iPod--the transducers.

Fremer has a point. As I said in a related post yesterday, most commercial
releases fall far short of being as good as their release format CAN BE,
whether that format be vinyl, Redbook CD, SACD, DVD-A or some high-res WAV
file.

Fewer people sit and just listen to a good audio system these days.
OTOH, more people listen to more music than ever before. I'm not
convinced that their lives are poorer for this.

How or how much each person listens as well as what each person listens to is
his/her own affair and no one is the poorer for it. That is, UNLESS the
industry takes these listening habit trends as indicators that the public
doesn't care about sound quality at all, and starts recording musical
performances in ways and with formats and techniques that are less than the
very best that modern technology can provide. In that case, all our lives,
and indeed our very culture would be the poorer for it.

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2010 09:29:55 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote:
There is mention of a download page where full fidelity recordings can be
had for $2.49.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/bu...ml?ref=3Dbusin

=A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.=
For
=A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
=A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like=
a
=A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today.

=A0 =A0But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com=
,
=A0 =A0which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an obj=
ect
=A0 =A0of scorn.""

Fremer would know something about objects of scorn. :-)

The article itself predictably muddles the issues of data compression
and dynamic compression--and, of course, fails to note how much more
benign the former is. It also fails to note the single biggest
difference between listening to a high-end rig and listening to an
iPod--the transducers.

Fremer has a point. As I said in a related post yesterday, most commercial
releases fall far short of being as good as their release format CAN BE,
whether that format be vinyl, Redbook CD, SACD, DVD-A or some high-res WAV
file.

That's been true forever. It's just that since CD, the potential of
what they 'can be' has been so great, the gap between the possible and
the actual has been all the more depressing. I'd say roughly that we
hit a gap minimum around the late 80s/early 90s (the first wave of
remastered CDs 'from original master tapes') but it's been widening since,
primarily due to the loudness race (NOT lossy compression).

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[jwvm]

On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote:

snip

=A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.=
For
=A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
=A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like=
a
=A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today.

With advances in technology, better quality performance is available
at much lower prices. An implicitly negative comment was made about
portable music players but in actuality, they actually provide
excellent sound quality, at least with decent headphones and vastly
better than cassette players. For portable music in the 1950s, there
was the wonderful AM transistor radio which was truly low fidelity.


=A0 =A0But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com=
,
=A0 =A0which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an obj=
ect
=A0 =A0of scorn.""

I am not sure why he thinks that modern stereos are scorned but they
are no longer status symbols since they are low-cost commodity
products.

The description of lossy compression causing crackling artifacts is
surprising. Perhaps Fremer needs to use better software. The only
crackling that I can recall is an artifact from LPs. Indeed dynamic
range compression is a real problem unlike modest use of data
compression.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 10 May 2010 12:01:48 -0700, jwvm wrote
(in article ):

On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote:

snip

=A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.=
For
=A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
=A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like=
a
=A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today.

With advances in technology, better quality performance is available
at much lower prices. An implicitly negative comment was made about
portable music players but in actuality, they actually provide
excellent sound quality, at least with decent headphones and vastly
better than cassette players. For portable music in the 1950s, there
was the wonderful AM transistor radio which was truly low fidelity.


=A0 =A0But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com=
,
=A0 =A0which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an obj=
ect
=A0 =A0of scorn.""

I am not sure why he thinks that modern stereos are scorned but they
are no longer status symbols since they are low-cost commodity
products.

Good ones aren't. Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive. For
instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers below about the $1K
level (actually I only know of one really decent speaker below $1K and that's
the Magnepan MMG at $599.

The description of lossy compression causing crackling artifacts is
surprising. Perhaps Fremer needs to use better software. The only
crackling that I can recall is an artifact from LPs. Indeed dynamic
range compression is a real problem unlike modest use of data
compression.

I certainly hear artifacts in lossy compression, but I wouldn't exactly
characterize them as a crackling noise, I would say that it's more like a
buzzing bee-like distortion that rides the waveform. It's only audible during
low level passages and during transitions between loud and soft passages (and
vice versa) and then only on headphones and very loud speaker listening. As
background music and in the car, lossy compression artifacts are lost in the
ambient noise.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

Good ones aren't. Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive. For
instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers below about the
$1K
level (actually I only know of one really decent speaker below $1K and
that's
the Magnepan MMG at $599.

I certainly hear artifacts in lossy compression, but I wouldn't exactly
characterize them as a crackling noise, I would say that it's more like a
buzzing bee-like distortion that rides the waveform. It's only audible
during
low level passages and during transitions between loud and soft passages
(and
vice versa) and then only on headphones and very loud speaker listening.
As
background music and in the car, lossy compression artifacts are lost in
the
ambient noise.

I find it ironic that the entirety of the previous comments could be put
into a vastly different perspective if unbiased listening techniques were
used by the writer.

Many misapprehensions about both MP3s and quality inexpensive speakers can
be dispelled with blind listening. I've said enough about misapprehensions
about quality MP3s lately so I won't repeat myself.

I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a $12,000 speaker
system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a
European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for under
$400 the pair. They did sound a little different from each other. The
listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred based on
dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all agreed that both pairs of
speakers sounded very, very good.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a $12,000 speaker
system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a
European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for under
$400 the pair. They did sound a little different from each other. The
listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred based on
dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all agreed that both pairs of
speakers sounded very, very good.

So, what were the speakers?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a $12,000
speaker
system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a
European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for under
$400 the pair. They did sound a little different from each other. The
listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred based
on
dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all agreed that both pairs
of
speakers sounded very, very good.

So, what were the speakers?

Behringer B2031A

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:17:06 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

Good ones aren't. Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive. For
instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers below about the
$1K
level (actually I only know of one really decent speaker below $1K and
that's
the Magnepan MMG at $599.

I certainly hear artifacts in lossy compression, but I wouldn't exactly
characterize them as a crackling noise, I would say that it's more like a
buzzing bee-like distortion that rides the waveform. It's only audible
during
low level passages and during transitions between loud and soft passages
(and
vice versa) and then only on headphones and very loud speaker listening.
As
background music and in the car, lossy compression artifacts are lost in
the
ambient noise.

I find it ironic that the entirety of the previous comments could be put
into a vastly different perspective if unbiased listening techniques were
used by the writer.

I don't need a DBT to tell me what I hear. I'm not comparing anything to
anything here, so I cannot see what good "unbiased" listening tests would do.
It's not a question of whether this sounds different from that, it's a
question of whether these artifacts are present or not, and if they are
present, are they audible? I can hear them. I acknowledge that certain kinds
of music effectively mask these artifacts, and I acknowledge, that ambient
noise in the listening environment will do likewise. I'll also give you that
most of the iPod generation doesn't seem to care that the artifacts exist,
and that possibly, many people have never developed the listening skills to
discern these artifacts. Non of that alters the fact that some of us do hear
them and find them objectionable. I for one would much rather put-up with the
tics and pops in an LP than listen to the "correlated" distortion of an MP3.
Apparently you feel just the opposite.

Many misapprehensions about both MP3s and quality inexpensive speakers can
be dispelled with blind listening. I've said enough about misapprehensions
about quality MP3s lately so I won't repeat myself.

I don't have any misapprehensions about MP3. For the types of music that I
listen to and the way I listen, MP3 is inadequate - even at the higher
bit-rates. Even Sony's ATRAC lossy compression algorithm was better and less
objectionable than MP3.

I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a $12,000 speaker
system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a
European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for under
$400 the pair. They did sound a little different from each other. The
listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred based on
dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all agreed that both pairs of
speakers sounded very, very good.

I'll bet that the 400 mini-monitors don't have as much or as good quality
bass as did the $12000 system nor could it load the room like a big system.

Sure, you can design tests which minimize differences in things like
amplifiers and speakers. I could easily construct a DBT where a small
mini-monitor and a large full-range system would sound as similar as possible
- I'd just play solo harpsichord or flute music, or something similar that
has no bass and little in the way of dynamic contrast.

I can name a bunch of small, inexpensive, so called mini-monitors that sound
excellent on small scale works. They image great, and can be delightful to
listen to. But don't play large scale orchestral works on them, or try to get
them to sound right on rock-'n-roll played at high SPLs with a driving kick
drum providing the beat. Very unsatisfying, I would suspect.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:17:06 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

Good ones aren't. Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive. For
instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers below about the
$1K
level (actually I only know of one really decent speaker below $1K and
that's
the Magnepan MMG at $599.

I certainly hear artifacts in lossy compression, but I wouldn't exactly
characterize them as a crackling noise, I would say that it's more like
a
buzzing bee-like distortion that rides the waveform. It's only audible
during
low level passages and during transitions between loud and soft passages
(and
vice versa) and then only on headphones and very loud speaker listening.
As
background music and in the car, lossy compression artifacts are lost in
the
ambient noise.

I find it ironic that the entirety of the previous comments could be put
into a vastly different perspective if unbiased listening techniques were
used by the writer.

I don't need a DBT to tell me what I hear.

Nobody does. A DBT can't possibly tell you what you hear.

The alternative to bias-controlled listening is to *hear* with your
prejudices fully engaged.

If you want to listen to the true quality of sound, then you must take
advantage of bias controlled tests.

If you want to reinforce your prejudices, then avoid bias controlled tests.

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:17:06 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

Good ones aren't. Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive. For
instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers below about the
$1K
level (actually I only know of one really decent speaker below $1K and
that's
the Magnepan MMG at $599.

I certainly hear artifacts in lossy compression, but I wouldn't exactly
characterize them as a crackling noise, I would say that it's more like a
buzzing bee-like distortion that rides the waveform. It's only audible
during
low level passages and during transitions between loud and soft passages
(and
vice versa) and then only on headphones and very loud speaker listening.
As
background music and in the car, lossy compression artifacts are lost in
the
ambient noise.

I find it ironic that the entirety of the previous comments could be put
into a vastly different perspective if unbiased listening techniques were
used by the writer.

I don't need a DBT to tell me what I hear.

You could very well need on to tell you if what you believe, is true.


anything here, so I cannot see what good "unbiased" listening tests would do.
It's not a question of whether this sounds different from that, it's a
question of whether these artifacts are present or not, and if they are
present, are they audible?

"Present or not' is another way of saying 'different or same'.In the
former you are comparing to an idea of what it SHOULD sound like,
in the latter you are comparing to a second external stimulus.


I can hear them. I acknowledge that certain kinds
of music effectively mask these artifacts, and I acknowledge, that ambient
noise in the listening environment will do likewise.

The codec and bitrate also matter. For the zillionth time, just saying 'mp3'
doesn't define either.

Since the format involves perceptual encoding, beyond a rather low bitrate
you generally need a DBT to validate a claim that these artifacts are audible
to you.


None of that alters the fact that some of us do hear
them and find them objectionable.

But you haven't defined 'them', much less proveded evidence to conclude
'some of us' actually heard artifacts in specific cases.

I for one would much rather put-up with the
tics and pops in an LP than listen to the "correlated" distortion of an MP3.
Apparently you feel just the opposite.

A tick or pop correlated to the revolution rate of a disc was always pretty
annoying to me.

I don't have any misapprehensions about MP3. For the types of music that I
listen to and the way I listen, MP3 is inadequate - even at the higher
bit-rates. Even Sony's ATRAC lossy compression algorithm was better and less
objectionable than MP3.

What type of music, what bitrate what codec what controls for bias etc. You should
know the drill by now.

I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a $12,000 speaker
system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a
European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for under
$400 the pair. They did sound a little different from each other. The
listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred based on
dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. They all agreed that both pairs of
speakers sounded very, very good.

I'll bet that the 400 mini-monitors don't have as much or as good quality
bass as did the $12000 system nor could it load the room like a big system.

Sure, you can design tests which minimize differences in things like
amplifiers and speakers. I could easily construct a DBT where a small
mini-monitor and a large full-range system would sound as similar as possible
- I'd just play solo harpsichord or flute music, or something similar that
has no bass and little in the way of dynamic contrast.

I'm sure you could, but why do you assume Arny's test was like that?



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 11, 7:17=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I recently participated in blind listening tests comparing a
$12,000 speaker
system from a well-known designer with excellent technical chops to a
European-designed, China-built studio monitor system that sells for under
$400 the pair.
The listening panel was about evenly split as to which they preferred base=
d on
dynamic range, tone quality and imaging. =A0

I can believe this easily. In addition well under a thousand Canadian
dollars spent on a classic iPod and Sennheiser IE7 headphones produces
what, to my ears, is a genuinely high end sound. I am sure the equal
could easily be provided by less expensive equipment. In fact I
believe that Apple could provide genuinely high end sound from
headphones at very little extra cost if they cared to. Alas, they
don't, but I am fairly sure that they could if they wished.

Ed

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 11, 7:17=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I find it ironic that the entirety of the previous comments could be put
into a vastly different perspective if unbiased listening techniques were
used by the writer.

In this regard an article at the PCWorld web site dated May 24 may be
of interest. It is titled "Audio Compression May Not Be as Bad as You
Think" and adds "Our tests with a jury of music professionals found
that they had a hard time distinguishing between compressed and
uncompressed song". The whole article may be found at:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/19596...t_be_as_bad_a=
s_you_think.html

The test methodology is described and the article contains hyperlinks
to the actual samples used, so you can make the comparison yourself.

I found the link to this article today at
"www.marginalrevolution.com", which I generally read daily. It is not
a site about audio and the link rather surprised me.

[Andrew Haley]

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On May 11, 7:17=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I find it ironic that the entirety of the previous comments could be put
into a vastly different perspective if unbiased listening techniques were
used by the writer.

In this regard an article at the PCWorld web site dated May 24 may be
of interest. It is titled "Audio Compression May Not Be as Bad as You
Think" and adds "Our tests with a jury of music professionals found
that they had a hard time distinguishing between compressed and
uncompressed song". The whole article may be found at:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/19596...t_be_as_bad_a=
s_you_think.html

The test methodology is described and the article contains hyperlinks
to the actual samples used, so you can make the comparison yourself.

Their methodology isn't that great, but the result isn't very
surprising. The classic paper [1], now twenty years old, did the test
double-blind, and was much more thorough.

Encoders have improved since that paper. I don't know if anyone has
redone the tests more recently.

Andrew.

[1] Soulodre, G., Grusec, T. & Lavoie, M., Thibault, L. (1998)
Subjective Evaluation of State-of-the-Art 2- Channel Audio Codecs,
Journal of the Audio Engineering Soc., pp. 164-177
http://audiopages.googlepages.com/Co...ationtests.pdf

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 02:07:03 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On May 11, 7:17=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I find it ironic that the entirety of the previous comments could be put
into a vastly different perspective if unbiased listening techniques were
used by the writer.

In this regard an article at the PCWorld web site dated May 24 may be
of interest. It is titled "Audio Compression May Not Be as Bad as You
Think" and adds "Our tests with a jury of music professionals found
that they had a hard time distinguishing between compressed and
uncompressed song". The whole article may be found at:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/19596...t_be_as_bad_a=
s_you_think.html

The test methodology is described and the article contains hyperlinks
to the actual samples used, so you can make the comparison yourself.

I found the link to this article today at
"www.marginalrevolution.com", which I generally read daily. It is not
a site about audio and the link rather surprised me.


I don't doubt these findings at all - especially since the "jury" was a group
of musicians. It is my experience that most musicians don't listen to music
in the same way as do audio enthusiasts. We listen for sound quality, they
listen for such things as intonation, pacing, playing technique, etc. I had a
well known symphony conductor (and world-class cellist) tell me one time that
he didn't even have a stereo (and wasn't interested in getting one) and that
he could hear what he was listening for on an AM table radio! I've heard
similar stories from other musicians.

IOW, I'd be more willing to accept the results of this test, if the "jury"
had been experienced audio enthusiasts rather than "music professionals" for
the simple reason that audio enthusiasts train their "ears" to hear the SOUND
of music as opposed to strictly it's substance.

One result that I do agree with, however is that WMA sounds better than MP3.
It does. So does Sony's ATRAC compression scheme.

[Greg Wormald]

When the new version of iTunes arrived with it's ability to
automatically convert to 128 kbps from lossloss for music transferred to
a mobile player, I set up a blind test of some tracks. I would love to
have the ability to throw out my reduced bit duplicates.

I compared the 128k versions to the lossless that I have saved, using a
couple of tracks with which I am very familiar and which I consider
'challenging' for a reduced bit system to manage. I linked random
versions to my living room stereo, and had the computer decide which
version to play and build a playlist for reference.

I got each tracks' bit rate correct, easily, and I disliked the 128k
versions.

I have been using 192k versions for my mobile listening, and do find
that OK for the purpose, but given the results I won't be going to 128k
for mobile use, and certainly won't be converting my 160 GB of music
from lossless.

Greg

[Dick Pierce]

On May 10, 6:06=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2010 12:01:48 -0700, jwvm wrote
(in article ):
Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive.

So are bad speakers, and some especially bad ones are
especially expensive.

For instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers
below about the $1K level

There is no intrinsic reason fr this to be. The major
cost components in a speaker are magnet assemblies,
cabinets, profit and overhead (and the ordering is all
over the map). Everything else seldom adds up to be
equal to any of of these components.

To reduce the cost, two areas to go after are the cabinet
size and finish and the magnet structure. The end result
is a speaker which is inefficient, restricted bandwidth,
limited power handling or some tradeoff of these. But
within these limits, there are no intrinsic physical limits
that limit quality. Honestly, it costs just about the same
to make the diaphragm and voice coil of a $120 tweeter
as it does a $20 tweeter in the vast majority of cases.

Another area for cost reduction the profit and overhead.
The latter is essentially managed by going to commodity
scales and finding the cheapest labor pool, while the former
is managed by also going for commodity scales.

Unfortunately, this usually means moving to a manufacturing
base like China, which puts a severe disconnect between
the market and the maker. It's not that the Chinese, for
example, are incapable of making high-quality components
to spec, it's that they are simply unwilling. I have worked
with clients that required that sort of economics and I have
seen both prototypes and product runs of drivers that are
simply stunning in terms of performance, but the factory
reserves the right to, without any notice at all, to arbitrarily
modify a product for any reason they see fit, and, at their
sole discretion, use or sell your design to anyone that'll
buy it.

But, that being said, the ability to produce an under $1k
speaker of high quality is a function primarily of designer
competence and knowledge as well as marketing and
sales prowess, both of which are in increasing short
supply in the high-end or component audio market,
which itself is becoming a vanishingly small portion of
the total audio market.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 11 May 2010 12:23:25 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

On May 10, 6:06=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2010 12:01:48 -0700, jwvm wrote
(in article ):
Good speakers, especially, are quite expensive.

So are bad speakers, and some especially bad ones are
especially expensive.

For instance, there is little decent in the way of speakers
below about the $1K level

There is no intrinsic reason fr this to be. The major
cost components in a speaker are magnet assemblies,
cabinets, profit and overhead (and the ordering is all
over the map). Everything else seldom adds up to be
equal to any of of these components.

I agree, but most expensive speakers are made by small companies and are the
result of small-scale economics. Plus a lot of high-end speakers use exotic
materials like carbon fiber and dense space-age resins for drivers and
cabinets. Wilson audio comes to mind here. Also, development costs get
amortized over far fewer units of any one model in small company as well. I
guess the analogous situation, cost wise, would be Ferrari. Ferrari cars are
outrageously expensive, If Ford built a car like a Ferrari, it would sell for
half the cost or less (they actually did. Back in the early 2000's Ford built
a modern re-interpretation of their 1960's era GT-40 race car. It was very
similar to build quality and performance to a Ferrari 360 Modena, but
list-priced for almost half. and that was still a limited production model).

[Dick Pierce]

On May 11, 6:56=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 12:23:25 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):
There is no intrinsic reason fr this to be. The major
cost components in a speaker are magnet assemblies,
cabinets, profit and overhead (and the ordering is all
over the map). Everything else seldom adds up to be
equal to any of of these components.

=A0I agree, but most expensive speakers are made by
small companies and are the result of small-scale
economics. Plus a lot of high-end speakers use exotic
materials like carbon fiber and dense space-age resins
for drivers and cabinets.

well, given that I am actually in that business, the materials
you list are NOT expensive at all, not in the quantities found
in loudspeakers. And, frankly, materials like carbon fiber
and "dense space-age resins" are simply not exotic in the
rest of the world. They might well be in high-end audio
circles, but that's because the high-end audio biz is late
to the party. I was specing off-the-shelf OEM carbon fiber
drivers 20 years ago, and B&W was doing kevlar drivers
35 years ago.

Also, development costs get amortized over far fewer
units of any one model in small company as well.

Again, being in the business, the amortized development
costs are a small part of the total cost of pretty much
ANY speaker, be they from large or small companies.
And, by the way, those are sunken costs, not amortized
costs. You spent them up front and you don't get to pay
them over time. Now, maybe you get to use your current
cash flow to fund the next experiment, but you don't get
to travel back in time.

Plus the fact that most of these high end speaker
companies,despite what you might read, do NOT have
very large engineering budgets.

Like I said, the MAJOR cost elements of speakers are
magnet structure, cabinet, overhead and profit. When
I said "everything else seldom adds up to be equal to
any one of these components," that included what
you're talking about here.

And it's still my contention having been intimately
involved in the business for a long time, that there
is no intrinsic physical basis behind your assertion
that "there is little decent in the way of speakers
below about the $1K level." If there is truth to your
claim, it's due to grotesque incompetence, cultural
biases, add the fact that the market is so small
that no competent practitioner could afford to be in
this business, leaving the hucksters, cranks,
charlatans and loonies to run loose in the high-end
business, always encouraged by the rabid blitherings
of their high-end magazine groupies

If Fremer believes "stereo has become an object of
scorn," he has but himself and his ilk to blame. And
while we're at it, we can line up people Lumely, Pearson,
Cardas, Tice, mPingo, and the rest of the blithering
hordes against the proverbial wall.

MP3 ain't to blame for the decline of stereo, the high-end
yahoos are.

[Scott[_6_]]

On May 11, 12:23=A0pm, Dick Pierce
wrote:

But, that being said, the ability to produce an under $1k
speaker of high quality is a function primarily of designer
competence and knowledge as well as marketing and
sales prowess, both of which are in increasing short
supply in the high-end or component audio market,
which itself is becoming a vanishingly small portion of
the total audio market.

So are these just grossly overpriced speakers?
http://viewer.zmags.com/showmag.php?mid=3Dghsfs#/page2/
If one can produce something of "high quality" for under 1K what does
one get from these guys for the extra 21K?

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On May 11, 12:23 pm, Dick Pierce
wrote:

But, that being said, the ability to produce an under $1k
speaker of high quality is a function primarily of
designer competence and knowledge as well as marketing
and
sales prowess, both of which are in increasing short
supply in the high-end or component audio market,
which itself is becoming a vanishingly small portion of
the total audio market.

So are these just grossly overpriced speakers?
http://viewer.zmags.com/showmag.php?mid=ghsfs#/page2/
If one can produce something of "high quality" for under
1K what does one get from these guys for the extra 21K?

I would presume that all those drivers provide more dynamic range and better
directivity control at low-middle frequencies. The dyamic range reserves may
have no audible signficance at normal listening levels, and the directivity
control may have minimal benefits in many fairly absorbtive listening rooms.

[Steven Sullivan]

jwvm wrote:
On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote:

snip

=A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.=
For
=A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
=A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like=
a
=A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today.

With advances in technology, better quality performance is available
at much lower prices. An implicitly negative comment was made about
portable music players but in actuality, they actually provide
excellent sound quality, at least with decent headphones and vastly
better than cassette players. For portable music in the 1950s, there
was the wonderful AM transistor radio which was truly low fidelity.

indeed, this is the real revolution -- that *extremely* high quality
sound of gear and formats routinely available to consumers for a pittance,
compared to the 'good old days' of vinyl.




--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Arny Krueger]

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.

Of course, hypercriticality of modern technology is very stylish in certain
circles.

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...

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.

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.

[Audio Empire]

[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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Audio Empire]

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?

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.

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.



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?

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,

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. In what way does a camera
which keeps moving, 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. 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?

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

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. If one does a
little research, one finds that there is very little similiarity between A7s
and A4s, other than the "A". ;-)

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/pr...altec/vott.htm

Note that an A7 roughly resembles the A5x,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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. To me an
opera is a movie with a ton of music that is performed live. Being
performed live puts some pretty dramatic contstraints on it, but it can
still be very enjoyable.

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
There is mention of a download page where full fidelity recordings can be
had for $2.49.

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.

But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com,
which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an object
of scorn.""

Michael F. confuses 'audiophile pretension' with 'stereo'.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[XYLOPHONE]

On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote:
There is mention of a download page where full fidelity recordings can be
had for $2.49.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/bu...ml?ref=3Dbusin

=A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.=
For
=A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
=A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like=
a
=A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today.

=A0 =A0But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com=
,
=A0 =A0which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an obj=
ect
=A0 =A0of scorn.""

I am truly convinced that the highest quality audio is from analog
records,
recorded from professional studio tapes. as follows:

First half of century: 78 rpm was the only spread technology. From
listening
experience, they got better as years went by. Especially as they went
from
non-electrical technology to the arrival of master tapes. Of course
the real
challenge is to find 78s in EX or Mint condition and use the right
stylus to
benefit.

1950s: Vinyl 45s and LPs arrived from 1949 on. A media war began.
With the RIAA standards adopted in 1953 or so, the recordings then had
to
have a standard balance between bass and treble. From listening
experience, late 78s in pristine condition played with good stylus
really
make your body vibrate and fell "live in the studio", really! The
other day I
listened to "Slow Train Blues" from Leathernecks on Mercury 78 from
1955,
and I really felt that, because I cleaned the record and I evaluated
it as EX or
better. The downside of 78s is truly wear, and the loss in quality is
more significant due to them playing on vintage equipment, with heavy
styli
or not always the right one. Second top would be of course the 45,
then the
LPs. Still analog with truly high fidelity if record is clean and
played with a
good stylus. The advantage is that vinyl is less fragile than 78s. I
find the
higher the speed the better the quality, because you cover more
material
per unit of time. CDs reissus of 50s performances will sound clearer,
yes,
but I feel I can't feel the vibrations, like I do with LPs or higher
speed
playbacks.

1960s: 78s stopped in 1960, so the top is now 45s, then LPs. Vinyl
continues to provide high fidelity and makes you vibrate. 60's records
have
deep grooves, more distant, probably because the songs are shorter
(average 2 to 3 minutes). Therefore they play loud and imperfections
or
defects are much less noticeable. Still getting copies in good or
better,
new condition, will give you the top in high fidelity. Original
pressings are the
way to go. If impossible, I would get a re-issue, provided it's been
manufactured no later than 1980s, to make sure it's analog throughout
the whole recording process from master tapes.
An example: I preferred spending $325 on an original pressing of a
45rpm
from Underworld "Go Away"/"Bound" on Regency R-979 than getting the
2007 re-issue from Garage Greats at $15. They pretend it's the same,
but no. I listened to both, and the original truly makes me vibrate.
The grooves
on the reissue are not as deep, and I have never been able to
determine what
is their source and if digitalisation was involved. And my original
pressing is
only VG-, many clicks, but main thing is the overall quality is there!

1970s: From mid 70s on, technology permitted to enhance sound
clearness.
Grooves are less deep, but I feel a wide range of sound effects can be
detected, especially if I use headphones. Some record companies are
better
than others, but in general, all records allow me to enjoy a
continuous
analog signal I can feel with my body. I use a $50 Shure stylus, but I
can
imagine if someone uses a more high-end one he can get even more from
his vinyl!

1980s: As for synthetizers, computer-assisted studio sound effects,
robotic
voices, etc... 1980s is the STATE OF THE ART decade, and I think it
will
remain 1st on the High Scores forever! Yes, simply because everything
has
been pressed on vinyl. I still find 45s are unbeatable because more
material
is covered per time unit, still LPs continue to bypass CD, even more
MP3 by
far. For example, I find Vertigo records make really good products.
Listening
to a Tears for Fears 45 is really a fantastic experience, I feel
people who
don't have vinyl are missing.

1990s to today: If processing is analog right from studio tapes to
record
pressing, consider it's the TOP like 80's. Otherwise, if any digital
process is
involved, you will probably won't feel the listening experience even
if they
try to make you believe it will by pressing it to vinyl.

Portability: The real disadvantage of analog records is it's not
portable. The
solution I use is to record my vinyl onto Metal or CrO2 tapes and
listening
with my good'ole Walkman! Yes I lose a bit of quality with respect to
the
original records, but I find it's still way ahead iPods :-)

Luc

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:54:12 -0700, XYLOPHONE wrote
(in article ):

On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote:
There is mention of a download page where full fidelity recordings can be
had for $2.49.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/bu...ml?ref=3Dbusin

=A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.=
For
=A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
=A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like=
a
=A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today.

=A0 =A0But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com=
,
=A0 =A0which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an obj=
ect
=A0 =A0of scorn.""

I am truly convinced that the highest quality audio is from analog
records,
recorded from professional studio tapes. as follows:

Subjectively and generally speaking, I tend to agree. Although, from a
technical standpoint, I do not pretend to understand why this should be so.
OTOH, the most palpably real audio recording I've ever heard, is one of my
own making and on a 44.1 KHz/16 bit CD, it sounds almost as good as it does
the 24-bit/192KHz master! Both sound better than ANY commercial recording
that I've ever heard irrespective of source or media or technology used.

First half of century: 78 rpm was the only spread technology. From
listening
experience, they got better as years went by. Especially as they went
from
non-electrical technology to the arrival of master tapes. Of course
the real
challenge is to find 78s in EX or Mint condition and use the right
stylus to
benefit.

I have a bunch of British Decca (London) "ffrr" classical 78s that sound
stupendous. Highs to roughly 15 KHz, good bass, and fairly quiet surfaces.
These are all from the late 1940s (post WWII).

1950s: Vinyl 45s and LPs arrived from 1949 on. A media war began.
With the RIAA standards adopted in 1953 or so, the recordings then had
to
have a standard balance between bass and treble. From listening
experience, late 78s in pristine condition played with good stylus
really
make your body vibrate and fell "live in the studio", really! The
other day I
listened to "Slow Train Blues" from Leathernecks on Mercury 78 from
1955,
and I really felt that, because I cleaned the record and I evaluated
it as EX or
better. The downside of 78s is truly wear, and the loss in quality is
more significant due to them playing on vintage equipment, with heavy
styli
or not always the right one.

More usual for 78's was being played with a WORN stylus. Most record players
in the 78 days used steel needles. They were meant to be replaced after each
play, but usually weren't. Often they weren't changed until the worn needle
started to change the color of the record from shiny black to a dull brown.
By then it was too late.

Second top would be of course the 45,
then the
LPs. Still analog with truly high fidelity if record is clean and
played with a
good stylus. The advantage is that vinyl is less fragile than 78s. I
find the
higher the speed the better the quality, because you cover more
material
per unit of time. CDs reissus of 50s performances will sound clearer,
yes,
but I feel I can't feel the vibrations, like I do with LPs or higher
speed
playbacks.

Can't feel the VIBRATIONS??????!!!!! I don't follow you. All sound is
"vibrations".

1960s: 78s stopped in 1960, so the top is now 45s, then LPs. Vinyl
continues to provide high fidelity and makes you vibrate. 60's records
have
deep grooves, more distant, probably because the songs are shorter
(average 2 to 3 minutes). Therefore they play loud and imperfections
or
defects are much less noticeable. Still getting copies in good or
better,
new condition, will give you the top in high fidelity.

??????????

Original
pressings are the
way to go. If impossible, I would get a re-issue, provided it's been
manufactured no later than 1980s, to make sure it's analog throughout
the whole recording process from master tapes.
An example: I preferred spending $325 on an original pressing of a
45rpm
from Underworld "Go Away"/"Bound" on Regency R-979 than getting the
2007 re-issue from Garage Greats at $15. They pretend it's the same,
but no. I listened to both, and the original truly makes me vibrate.

I still don't understand what you mean by "makes me vibrate"?

The grooves
on the reissue are not as deep, and I have never been able to
determine what
is their source and if digitalisation was involved. And my original
pressing is
only VG-, many clicks, but main thing is the overall quality is there!

Groove depth is irrelevant because it's the same for all stereo LPs, In fact,
the standard 45/45 system of cutting LPs dictates the depth of the groove
which is determined by the standard LP groove width and the isosceles
triangle formed by the groove width and the 90 degree angle of the two groove
walls. Groove PITCH (number of grooves per centimeter) is variable on LP
cutting, groove width and depth are not. All stereo records have the same
groove width and depth.

1970s: From mid 70s on, technology permitted to enhance sound
clearness.
Grooves are less deep, but I feel a wide range of sound effects can be
detected, especially if I use headphones. Some record companies are
better
than others, but in general, all records allow me to enjoy a
continuous
analog signal I can feel with my body. I use a $50 Shure stylus, but I
can
imagine if someone uses a more high-end one he can get even more from
his vinyl!

Again all stereo grooves are the same depth.

1980s: As for synthetizers, computer-assisted studio sound effects,
robotic
voices, etc... 1980s is the STATE OF THE ART decade, and I think it
will
remain 1st on the High Scores forever! Yes, simply because everything
has
been pressed on vinyl. I still find 45s are unbeatable because more
material
is covered per time unit, still LPs continue to bypass CD, even more
MP3 by
far. For example, I find Vertigo records make really good products.
Listening
to a Tears for Fears 45 is really a fantastic experience, I feel
people who
don't have vinyl are missing.

1990s to today: If processing is analog right from studio tapes to
record
pressing, consider it's the TOP like 80's. Otherwise, if any digital
process is
involved, you will probably won't feel the listening experience even
if they
try to make you believe it will by pressing it to vinyl.

Portability: The real disadvantage of analog records is it's not
portable. The
solution I use is to record my vinyl onto Metal or CrO2 tapes and
listening
with my good'ole Walkman! Yes I lose a bit of quality with respect to
the
original records, but I find it's still way ahead iPods :-)

Luc

Much of this seems to be nonsense. I'll give the poster the benefit of the
doubt here because his first language is obviously NOT English.