[Steven Sullivan]

Dave wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

Millions of people fell in love with the Beatles's music based on tiny
transistor radio
or TV speakers and horrendously post-processed American LPs, for example.


That is very true. As I noted everyone enjoys music in different ways.

than what was available in the so called golden age you allude to.

Yes, we listened on transistor (AM no less) radios. We listened on record
players with ceramic cartridges. But that was the best out there at the
time. If you wanted a portable radio, the transistor with the 9V battery
was what was available.
If you wanted a record player, that was what was
available. The technology which allowed more realistic reproduction of
music was evolving, and we were UPGRADING when we bought the BSR with the
Shure cartridge, or when we traded in the cassette deck for a CD player. My
point, which may not have been clear, is that we are now DOWNGRADING or
BACKSLIDING... the technology certainly exists to do better, but WE'RE NO
LONGER INTERESTED IN BUYING IT.

What technology is that? Portable players are vastly superior to what they were in the old
days, and the difference between them and 'high end' vastly less.

The inherent sound quality of 128kpbs mp3's

Which is actually pretty good if you use a good encoder -- better than 60's era transistor
radio for sure -- but is also increasingly rare; iTunes switched to a 256 kbps encode rate
some time ago (which argues against degradation). And more an more people are aware of
lossless compression.(ditto)

is LESS than that of the commercial CD but that's the change we're making.
The sound quality of a compressed tune with 10dB of dynamic range is LESS
than what we got on a crappy LP, or perhaps as bad in a different way. Back
then that was the best technology could offer... now it's not.

It's hardly different from offering 45s and 'processed' LPs in the 60s. Except that today's
'45s' ' are vastly closer to their fancier counterparts than they were then.

The loudness wars have been with us since the days of 45s and car radio.

Yes, more truth. The almighty dollar will always win, and if 95% of the
music-buying population is satisfied with 128kpbs downloaded lossy files,
that's what the market's going to offer.

Have you done ABX comparisons of good 128 kbps mp3s vs source? You might be shocked at the
results.

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

[[email protected]]

On May 20, 10:53*pm, Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 20 May 2009 23:06:24 GMT, wrote:

On May 20, 12:57*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

So we have individual preferences. *But the fact that you don't like
multichannel is no reason to diss it, as happened in the original post of
this thread

I think it is a pretty darned good reason. This is a hobby of
aesthetics. If one doesn't like the aesthetic then one has a pretty
good reason to diss.

It is also a field of science and engineering. *Controlled studies
(see Toole's book for a review) have shown that multichannel
recordings are more accurate and believable conveyors of the original
event.

Now, if you don't like 'em, that's OK. *OTOH, you have no data or
science that validates your preference, so your 'dissing' doesn't rise
to more than a personal preference.


Huh? Preferences need data and science to be valid? Mine seem to work
just fine for me without any scientific validation.

[mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH [email protected]]

Harry Lavo wrote:

I have classical multitrack recordings where there is most emphatically
musical material coming from the side or back speakers. There
are plenty of classical pieces where the score specifically says that
that is supposed to be the way it should be in a live performance.
This include such things as offstage trumpets, singers or even whole
mini-orchestras at the real of the hall, etc.

Doug McDonald

[Dave]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 May 2009 15:13:15 -0700, Dave wrote
(in article ):

To me, it's bad.

Not "TO you", but "FOR you" it would be bad. I think the old adage "you
can't miss what you've never had" might come into play here. Don't get me
wrong, my kids and their generation are not unhappy people. _I_ would be
unhappy living at that pace, as I expect would you and many others of a
certain age, but it's all they've ever known. Since birth they've had 100
cable tv (now satellite) channels 24x7, the internet's been a force to
reckon with since they learned to read, video games have always been
network-based multi-player affairs and maybe 1 person out of 100 that they
know doesn't routinely text-message/Facebook/MySpace/Tweet. So much
information is available to them, all the time, that I'm quite sure just
filtering, collating and storing the useful bits is a technical skill one
must develop with practice... to the uninitiated it's just overwhelming and
unpleasant.

I believe something has been lost, but I'd bet good money my grandparents
said the same type of thing to my parents. Perhaps history will show that
something has indeed been gained as well.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


Huh? Preferences need data and science to be valid? Mine
seem to work just fine for me without any scientific
validation.

The problem isn't preferences, the problems often are the lessons in weird
science that often come with them.

Many of your comments about the audible deficiencies of digital vis-a-vis
vinyl come to mind.

[Kalman Rubinson[_3_]]

On 21 May 2009 15:08:37 GMT, wrote:

On May 20, 10:53*pm, Kalman Rubinson wrote:
Now, if you don't like 'em, that's OK. *OTOH, you have no data or
science that validates your preference, so your 'dissing' doesn't rise
to more than a personal preference.


Huh? Preferences need data and science to be valid? Mine seem to work
just fine for me without any scientific validation.

Sure but no one cares about your personal preferences unless
there is something generalizable that one can draw from
them. Apparently not.

Kal

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:


I have classical multitrack recordings where there is most emphatically
musical material coming from the side or back speakers. There
are plenty of classical pieces where the score specifically says that
that is supposed to be the way it should be in a live performance.
This include such things as offstage trumpets, singers or even whole
mini-orchestras at the real of the hall, etc.

Doug McDonald

True, Doug; there are several works with off-stage parts...several
operas, the Verdi Requiem, the new Corigliano work "Circus Maximus".
But the number is a drop in the bucket of the classical canon.

[Rockinghorse Winner[_4_]]

Rob Tweed writes:

On 20 May 2009 18:07:28 GMT, Sonnova
wrote:

Unfortunately, what you are saying (and you are right), is that commerce has
replaced culture. Very sad.

Come on now, it has always been thus. Even Mozart only wrote his
works for money at the end of the day.

I agree art has always ridden on the back of commerce. But these days,
commerce merely drags art alongside by a leash.

[ Moderator's note: please steer back towards more clearly
audio -related topics. -dsr ]


*R* *H*
--
Hug your sweetie today.

[Jim Cate]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
Had an interesting experience this last week.

I am actively involved in a local political campaign, and held a meeting
at
my house last week. Several folks commented on my audio system, and after
the meeting several asked if they could hear it. So I put the Beatles
"Love" album on, in all it's multichannel glory. Jaws dropped, but the
audition was very brief, and we had no time to talk afterward. Later
during
the week one of the listeners, a young man in his late '20's/early '30's
took me aside and said by a wide margin that was the best reproduced music
he had ever heard.

Now the interesting thing is....this guy is very bright, college
educated,
grew up in one of Connecticut's wealthy shoreline communities, is a
classical music buff, is fully IPhone'd and totally conversant and
involved
in today's technology. Yet he had NEVER IN HIS LIFE heard a really good
audio system or even knew they existed. This tended to confirm my
suspicion
that here in the USofA we don't sell more good audio because folks simply
don't know about of its existence. Thanks to our dumbed-down society and
the dominance of the big-box stores. Oh, to live in Britain!

How far we have fallen as a musically-literate society.

--
Harry Lavo
Holyoke, MA



Harry, you make several excellent points, and the discussion introduces
others. Three issues are of concern to me: Many young people have never
heard a good audio system (stereo, MC, or otherwise); Few people appreciate
good music, and few would have any interest in listening to a symphony or
concerto in one sitting (And I would never, ever attempt to introduce "good
music" to someone by playing Couperin, Buxtehude, Du Pre, or Jan
Pieterszoon.); Most "consumers" are so put off by the techno-babble and
ridiculous prices related to high-end components that, quite understantably,
they wouldn't want to deal with one of the few remaining high-end audio
dealers in the first place.

I see lots of good explanations and discussions of the problems, but I don't
see many suggestions for resolving the problems.

Here are a few suggestions: With respect to the fact that most people under
40 have never heard a good system (and definitely thinking "outside the box"
for a moment), it seems to me that it would be a worthwhile endeavor to
establish free or subsidized demonstration rooms to introduce more of the
public to high fidelity audio reproduction. This might involve our accepting
a small "tax" on purchases of high-end equipment, subscriptions to
Streophile, etc., in order to set up such a "demonstration program."
Support from benefactors of symphonies, opera companies, etc., would be
another possible source of funding. - How, where, by whom, and how much are
issues open to discussion, but my underlying theseis is that, in the long
run, greater public exposure to and appreciation of good music reproduced on
decent audio systems would benefit us all, from a cultural standpoint, and
even with respect to our budgets. For example, as some may remember, AR
introduced their air-suspension speakers (the AR1, AR2, and AR3?) by setting
up and sponsoring listening rooms in one or more of the large New York train
stations. Thousands of commuters and travelers could wander into one of
these listening rooms and enjoy listening to the new AR systems for a few
minutes without charge and without sales pressures, etc. Today it seems
likely that more public exposure could be achieved by demonstrations in
malls, convention centers, concert venues, etc. What might work would be a
travelling demonstration team/group, perhaps sponsored and partially funded
by one or more of the major audio firms, which would set up temporary
(month-long?) demonstrations in some of the many vacant properties in area
malls and the like, perhaps on a rotating schedule. The demonstrations
would be a public interest "plus" to the mall, bringing in customers and
perhaps justifying reduced charges. One important criteria IMO, would be
that the systems demonstrated should be limited to products readily
available at rational price levels. (No $20K amps or turntables.) In other
words, the purpose is to introduce good music reproduction to the public and
"sell" it as a worthwhile and practicable investment, not a high-end splurge
item.

The goal of such a program would be to introduce members of the public both
to good audio reproduction systems and to good music. To increase the
appreciation of both. - How would this benefit audiophiles from a financial
standpoint? If a greater percentage of the public was "educated" relative to
the existance of good audio reproduction at rational prices, and if more
audio systems were sold, the industry could become less of a high-end,
high-priced nitch market. Hopefully, more sales, to more "educated"
consumers, could result in more rational price levels as a result of greater
sales volumes.

OK. It might not work, and there are lots of issues to be worked out. -
What's your suggestion?

Jim

[Dave]

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
Here are a few suggestions: With respect to the fact that most people
under
40 have never heard a good system (and definitely thinking "outside the
box"
for a moment), it seems to me that it would be a worthwhile endeavor to
establish free or subsidized demonstration rooms to introduce more of the
public to high fidelity audio reproduction.

Interesting suggestion and, as you note, the only suggestion to date to deal
with a phenomenon we've been witnessing for a generation.

I like the idea of listening rooms, there is nothing like an actual
demonstration. I don't know as the cost/benefit ratio could be sold to any
manufacturers/resellers, it'd be a tough one given the tiny percentage of
audiophiles and concert-goers today. And, I wonder, are we the whale-oil
lamp affecionados as the era of cheap electric light begins?