That's my question:

Does "high-end audio" *rise to the level* of high art, or is it merely
pedestrian appliances??

(The question is *not* if *all* "high-end audio" is art...)

Also, it is fairly obvious that relatively ubiquitos and unremarkable
"black box" gear (e.g. Adcom, B&K, Bryston, etc...) except in the
broadest sense (perhaps viewed from a distance of 50-100 years)
is not "art" but rather an appliance intended to serve a function. Nothing
wrong with that, btw.

Yes, the 1950s Waring blender is today considered to be "art" thanks
to its 50's modern chrome and sleek lines, but in its day it was merely
an appliance - so some items, thanks to aesthetic considerations, are
elevated *later* to the status of *art* - but this is rare, and usually -
if not always - an accident not an intentional outcome.

No, I'm referring to more correctly those items that are built and
designed *with the express intent* of emobodying more than mere
utility in terms of aesthetics, materials selected and even circuit
design and layout. Do these items - and in some cases their associated
price tag (which has been decryed here on rahe many times) - rise
to the level of *art*??

Is *art* a defacto justification for the price (be it high or low)??

Inquiring audiophiles want to know!

:-)

_-_-bear






--
_-_- BEAR Labs
- Custom Audio Equipment, Cables, Mods, Repairs -
http://www.bearlabs.com

BEAR wrote:
That's my question:

Does "high-end audio" *rise to the level* of high art,

No.

I don't think it reaches the same level as making actual musical
instruments, as the best it can do is reproduce them, with the possible
special exception of electronic music, which may not benefit from accurate
systems in every case. (or even the majority of cases)


or is it merely pedestrian appliances??

I wouldn't characterize something that reproduces with precision that way.
I think you are drawing an extreme comparison.

BEAR wrote:
That's my question:

Does "high-end audio" *rise to the level* of high art, or is it merely
pedestrian appliances??

Audio performance and aesthetics are orthogonal goals. You can have
high-performance gear that does not look attractive to some people, or
some really nice-looking gear that performs in a medicore way.


(The question is *not* if *all* "high-end audio" is art...)

Also, it is fairly obvious that relatively ubiquitos and unremarkable
"black box" gear (e.g. Adcom, B&K, Bryston, etc...) except in the
broadest sense (perhaps viewed from a distance of 50-100 years)
is not "art" but rather an appliance intended to serve a function. Nothing
wrong with that, btw.

Yes, the 1950s Waring blender is today considered to be "art" thanks
to its 50's modern chrome and sleek lines, but in its day it was merely
an appliance - so some items, thanks to aesthetic considerations, are
elevated *later* to the status of *art* - but this is rare, and usually -
if not always - an accident not an intentional outcome.

No, I'm referring to more correctly those items that are built and
designed *with the express intent* of emobodying more than mere
utility in terms of aesthetics, materials selected and even circuit
design and layout.

To design a circuit that performs well, at the lowest cost, is an art.
So far I have not seen that in expensive audio gear.

Audio gear that looks good but fail to perform well is not high-end, IMO.

Do these items - and in some cases their associated
price tag (which has been decryed here on rahe many times) - rise
to the level of *art*??

Is *art* a defacto justification for the price (be it high or low)??

Yes, beautiful gear can fetch a higher price. No problem with that.


Inquiring audiophiles want to know!

:-)

_-_-bear






--
_-_- BEAR Labs
- Custom Audio Equipment, Cables, Mods, Repairs -
http://www.bearlabs.com

BEAR wrote:


That's my question:

Does "high-end audio" *rise to the level* of high art, or is it merely
pedestrian appliances??

(The question is *not* if *all* "high-end audio" is art...)

It would seem that you hold a prior notion that some of it is.

Also, it is fairly obvious that relatively ubiquitos and unremarkable
"black box" gear (e.g. Adcom, B&K, Bryston, etc...) except in the
broadest sense (perhaps viewed from a distance of 50-100 years)
is not "art" but rather an appliance intended to serve a function. Nothing
wrong with that, btw.

Interesting that brands such as Bryston which cost far more than pedestrian
brands that sound exactly the same are now classified as "appliance" and no
longer "high-end."

Yes, the 1950s Waring blender is today considered to be "art" thanks
to its 50's modern chrome and sleek lines, but in its day it was merely
an appliance - so some items, thanks to aesthetic considerations, are
elevated *later* to the status of *art* - but this is rare, and usually -
if not always - an accident not an intentional outcome.

I don't consider the Waring Blender to be modern art. Like the PT Cruiser, new
Waring models are simply an attempt to cash in on retro-styling for increased
sales.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. But any appliance that uses retro-styling
with modern function hasn't necessarily reached 'art.'

But even is that were so ..... from a sound quality aspect, who cares?

There's a business close to here that refurbishes and restores Avanti
automobiles.

The styling was IMO "art" in its day, and it "looks" good to this day. But, 6
years of driving by this place I've never seen a single Avanti driving on the
road; or a single one idling in the lot.

Even IF would consider the vehicle as "art" .....so what? If you can't use one
for its original function it's ANTIQUE ....not art.

No, I'm referring to more correctly those items that are built and
designed *with the express intent* of emobodying more than mere
utility in terms of aesthetics, materials selected and even circuit
design and layout. Do these items - and in some cases their associated
price tag (which has been decryed here on rahe many times) - rise
to the level of *art*??

Maybe. But IF they perform worse or identically to modern products why not just
put them in the view-case to ponder the "art?"


Is *art* a defacto justification for the price (be it high or low)??

Inquiring audiophiles want to know!

:-)

_-_-bear

Inquiring enthusiasts ask "How Can This Device Improve The Performance Of My
System." If it cannot; then it's merely an interesting artifact.

We have a SMWTMS member who is a radically bent antique audio enthusiast. He's
complied a "Top 10" recordings list with archive records that dates back to the
turn of the century; and regularly brings "art" reproduction equipment to
meetings (wax recordings, etc.) for display and occasionally playback.

It's great. But he never implies (like Clarke Johnson) that some how this gear
eclipses modern playback gear.

But, how much of our gear is also "art?" I'd nominate the mid-1970s Heahkit
AA-1640 power amplifier. It had two detachable heat sinks of which one channel
could be detached for service; a removable 25-lb transfomer to reduce shipping
if service were needed, a damn-near fool-prove protective system that could
deal with a dead-short and would deliver 500 watts into a 4-ohm load.

Similar design features were found on many "high-end" models well into the 90s.
My 1976 model still boots; service has been one power supply capacitor
replacement and eventual removal of the power meters. AND it sounds exactly
like my 2 Bryston 4B-NRBs which have been sent back for service 3 times between
the 2 of them in about 10 years.

I don't know if this is "art" But I'd guess this unit "might" qualify.

On 14 Nov 2003 00:47:23 GMT, BEAR wrote:

No, I'm referring to more correctly those items that are built and
designed *with the express intent* of emobodying more than mere
utility in terms of aesthetics, materials selected and even circuit
design and layout. Do these items - and in some cases their associated
price tag (which has been decryed here on rahe many times) - rise
to the level of *art*??

Is *art* a defacto justification for the price (be it high or low)??

Only the purchaser can tell you that. For myself, I would consider say
an Oracle CD player hooked to a Unison Research Smart 845 amp, driving
Avantgarde Trio speakers, to be an excellent example of art for art's
sake, but also capable of very fine musical reproduction.

OTOH, I would probably spend that budget on a Denon 2900 hooked to a
Bryston 4B-SST driving B&W N800s................... :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

BEAR wrote in message
...
That's my question:

Does "high-end audio" *rise to the level* of high art, or is it merely
pedestrian appliances??

This sounds like a false dichotomy to me. Art is a form of expression, and I
doubt many people think of an amplifier as an expression of anything. (They
may think their purchase of it expresses something about themselves, but
they could think the same thing about a pack of cigarettes.)

For that matter, I wouldn't even say that musical instruments are art, in
and of themselves. On the other hand, *making* a fine musical instrument--or
amplifier--is "an art," which is something different. But what makes it "an
art" is how well it is designed for its intended use. (The word "artist" has
more than one definition.)

Finally, of course, anything can be thought beautiful, inthe visual sense.
But many beautiful things are not art. Something can be both visually
beautiful and functionally elegant, one or the other, or neither. In no case
is it necessarily art.

(The question is *not* if *all* "high-end audio" is art...)

Also, it is fairly obvious that relatively ubiquitos and unremarkable
"black box" gear (e.g. Adcom, B&K, Bryston, etc...) except in the
broadest sense (perhaps viewed from a distance of 50-100 years)
is not "art" but rather an appliance intended to serve a function. Nothing
wrong with that, btw.

Given how straightforward it is to design a functional amplifier, then,
perhaps it wouldn't be appropriate to call it "an art." But some in the
engineering profession might plausibly disagree.

Yes, the 1950s Waring blender is today considered to be "art" thanks
to its 50's modern chrome and sleek lines, but in its day it was merely
an appliance - so some items, thanks to aesthetic considerations, are
elevated *later* to the status of *art* - but this is rare, and usually -
if not always - an accident not an intentional outcome.

No, that blender still isn't art. It's considered beautiful today, and sold
for its looks rather than its function.

No, I'm referring to more correctly those items that are built and
designed *with the express intent* of emobodying more than mere
utility in terms of aesthetics, materials selected and even circuit
design and layout. Do these items - and in some cases their associated
price tag (which has been decryed here on rahe many times) - rise
to the level of *art*??

To repeat, art is a form of expression. What are these manufacturers
expressing? "We can take a relatively simple item and make a rococo mess of
the thing!"? Some high-end audio gear reminds me of "Elvis on Velvet."

Is *art* a defacto justification for the price (be it high or low)??

Prices don't need to be justified. If someone is willing to pay the price,
that's all that matters. I get the sense reading RAHE that there are people
who spend more on amplifiers than they admit they need to, in part because
they appreciate the "artistry" of fine engineering.

Inquiring audiophiles want to know!

Out of curiosity, why do you ask?

PA

Audiophiles already know. Art is in the eye (or perhaps ear in this
case) of the beholder.
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"BEAR" wrote in message
...
That's my question:

Does "high-end audio" *rise to the level* of high art, or is it
merely
pedestrian appliances??

(The question is *not* if *all* "high-end audio" is art...)

Also, it is fairly obvious that relatively ubiquitos and
unremarkable
"black box" gear (e.g. Adcom, B&K, Bryston, etc...) except in the
broadest sense (perhaps viewed from a distance of 50-100 years)
is not "art" but rather an appliance intended to serve a function.
Nothing
wrong with that, btw.

Yes, the 1950s Waring blender is today considered to be "art"
thanks
to its 50's modern chrome and sleek lines, but in its day it was
merely
an appliance - so some items, thanks to aesthetic considerations,
are
elevated *later* to the status of *art* - but this is rare, and
usually -
if not always - an accident not an intentional outcome.

No, I'm referring to more correctly those items that are built
and
designed *with the express intent* of emobodying more than mere
utility in terms of aesthetics, materials selected and even circuit
design and layout. Do these items - and in some cases their
associated
price tag (which has been decryed here on rahe many times) - rise
to the level of *art*??

Is *art* a defacto justification for the price (be it high or
low)??

Inquiring audiophiles want to know!

:-)

_-_-bear






--
_-_- BEAR Labs
- Custom Audio Equipment, Cables, Mods, Repairs -
http://www.bearlabs.com

(Nousaine) wrote:
I don't consider the Waring Blender to be modern art. Like the PT Cruiser,
new
Waring models are simply an attempt to cash in on retro-styling for increased
sales.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. But any appliance that uses retro-styling
with modern function hasn't necessarily reached 'art.'

But even is that were so ..... from a sound quality aspect, who cares?


"Art" and advancing "state-of-the-art" are two completely different things.
Some products that advanced the sota in the past are considered art today.
Like a 1963 Corvette compared to a new one today, a comparison Tom should
understand. It may have advanced the sota in 1963, but today it's performance
pales in comparison. But I would much rather own a 1963 Vette than a new one.
It's Art versus appliance.

Even IF would consider the vehicle as "art" .....so what? If you can't use
one
for its original function it's ANTIQUE ....not art.

snip
Maybe. But IF they perform worse or identically to modern products why not
just
put them in the view-case to ponder the "art?"


Look to Japan where 1950-60's Marantz tube gear (Model 8 and 9, for example) is
regarded as Art. It may be used in a sytem but is more likely to be in a
display case giving its owner much status among audiophiles.

Inquiring enthusiasts ask "How Can This Device Improve The Performance Of My
System." If it cannot; then it's merely an interesting artifact.


What audio products today might be considered art in 10 or 20 years? Perhaps
the Hovland line, Pass X-series, maybe Halcro amps. Certainly none of the
black boxes (like Bryston) regardless of their audio performance.
Regards,
Mike

On 14 Nov 2003 02:55:49 GMT, in article ,
stated:

BEAR wrote:
That's my question:

Does "high-end audio" *rise to the level* of high art,

No.

I don't think it reaches the same level as making actual musical
instruments, as the best it can do is reproduce them, with the possible
special exception of electronic music, which may not benefit from accurate
systems in every case. (or even the majority of cases)

So you're really saying that, in in most cases, electronic music may just as
well be reproduced through inaccurate systems?

or is it merely pedestrian appliances??

I wouldn't characterize something that reproduces with precision that way.
I think you are drawing an extreme comparison.

My $179 Pioneer CD recorder reproduces Redbook CDs with the utmost precision.
It is at once very high tech and also very pedestrian. Such is the wonder of
the digital world.

Paul Abelson wrote:



snip



Yes, the 1950s Waring blender is today considered to be "art" thanks
to its 50's modern chrome and sleek lines, but in its day it was merely
an appliance - so some items, thanks to aesthetic considerations, are
elevated *later* to the status of *art* - but this is rare, and usually -
if not always - an accident not an intentional outcome.

No, that blender still isn't art. It's considered beautiful today, and sold
for its looks rather than its function.

Oddly, I am referring to the original blender, not the copy sold today.

Oddly, the Museum of Modern Art in NYC just happens to have this very
blender as part of their permanent collection, along with some other
things like certain Herman Miller chairs and other items along those
lines.

Of course, one man's art is another man's trash (literally and figuratively)...



snip



Inquiring audiophiles want to know!

Out of curiosity, why do you ask?

To devine the perceptions of others and to glean insight in to their thoughts

_-_-bear



PA

--
_-_- BEAR Labs
- Custom Audio Equipment, Cables, Mods, Repairs -
http://www.bearlabs.com

"Paul Abelson" wrote in message ...
For that matter, I wouldn't even say that musical instruments are art, in
and of themselves.

One might raise examples of the Christian Muller organ in St. Bavo,
Holland, any number of Schnitger organs in the Low Countries (e.g.,
St. Laurenskirke in Alkmaar, some modern instruments, all having
integrated both acoustical and visual design integrity rather
spectacularily well, as well as harpsichords by Hemsch and others
as counter examples to this thesis.

To repeat, art is a form of expression. What are these manufacturers
expressing? "We can take a relatively simple item and make a rococo mess of
the thing!"? Some high-end audio gear reminds me of "Elvis on Velvet."

Sometimes, Elvis on velvent actually sounds better.

Is *art* a defacto justification for the price (be it high or low)??

Prices don't need to be justified.

They do in the context of the buyer and seller. Otherwise, no
transaction would take place.

goFab.com wrote:

I don't think it reaches the same level as making actual musical
instruments, as the best it can do is reproduce them, with the possible
special exception of electronic music, which may not benefit from accurate
systems in every case. (or even the majority of cases)

So you're really saying that, in in most cases, electronic music may just as
well be reproduced through inaccurate systems?

If the producer/composer, etc. LIKES the sound, who cares? If you don't
like it, don't buy their work.