[bob]

Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at the state of
audio:

http://snipurl.com/1u5mx

He frames his article with a false comparison between Stereo Review
and Gramophone, but in between he makes some cogent observations. One
such:

"Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."

bob

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:46:15 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at the state of
audio:

http://snipurl.com/1u5mx

He frames his article with a false comparison between Stereo Review
and Gramophone, but in between he makes some cogent observations. One
such:

"Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."

bob

This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known symphony orchestra
conductor. He listens to music on one of the first generation Bose "Wave"
radios with the built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected to
the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the orchestra that I make for
him get cut to CD and that's what I give him (it used to be cassette tapes
before He got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of his). When
I'm over at his house he's invariably listening to my recordings of his
orchestra on that Bose. It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my
place and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens intently,
muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble playing or missed cues, but
never mentions how much better the orchestra sounds on my system than on his
Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something non-committal like "Very
nice,"

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at the state of
audio:

http://snipurl.com/1u5mx

He frames his article with a false comparison between Stereo Review
and Gramophone, but in between he makes some cogent observations. One
such:

"Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."

bob

So what? Does this mean the hobby of trying to recreate sound via
recordings of the highest possible level is, was, and always had been,
illegitimate? I don't think so, nor would all those folks back in the late
50's, 60's, and 70's who led the assault on mediocrity. And who gave
meaning to the term high-fidelity.

[Jenn]

On Nov 24, 8:46 pm, bob wrote:
Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at the state of
audio:

http://snipurl.com/1u5mx

He frames his article with a false comparison between Stereo Review
and Gramophone,

I didn't take what he wrote as a comparison at all, but anyway...

but in between he makes some cogent observations. One
such:

"Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."

bob

I think that Anthony is largely correct here (as he usually is, IMHO.
He's a fine writer and he knows the classical music world very well.
He's probably the most important reviewer in the world at this point).

In my case, my listening listening for study and listening for
pleasure alone are really seperate activities. For example, some of
my best listening for study is done on my iPod when on walks or during
long lunches that I take three days a week in my car at a beautiful
beach location. The thought of instrumental/vocal timbres, soundstage
reproduction, etc. almost never enter my thoughts during those times.
When I listen to my home system, the music is still the most important
consideration, but I do listen much more for "stereo" things than I do
when I'm listening for study. It's almost like two very seperate
activities that happen to have music and sound in common.

I do have colleagues that care a great deal about the quality of music
reproduction in their homes. I know a hornist in the SF Symphony who
is a full-blown "audiophile", for example. And the great Michael
Tilson Thomas is an audiophile for sure (his system: Martin Logan
Sequel IIs, Oracle turntable, Audio Research amps, I forget the CD
player, etc.) Frederick Fennell was a self-described "stereo nut".
His last system was put together for him by Stan Ricker.

Now that I think of it, most of the pro musicians who are audiophiles
that I know are conductors. Interesting...

[MC]

"bob" wrote in message
...
Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at the state of
audio:
....
"Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."

In the humorous "Serviceman's Experiences" column in _Radio News_ in the
1930s, they recounted a fictionalized encounter with a classical musician
who had recently bought his first radio. He didn't care about sound quality
at all but was very concerned with the quality of the performances being
broadcast, many of which he thought were badly flawed, and the radio
serviceman couldn't do a thing about it.

[bob]

On Nov 25, 11:25 am, Sonnova wrote:

This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known symphony orchestra
conductor. He listens to music on one of the first generation Bose "Wave"
radios with the built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected to
the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the orchestra that I make for
him get cut to CD and that's what I give him (it used to be cassette tapes
before He got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of his). When
I'm over at his house he's invariably listening to my recordings of his
orchestra on that Bose. It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my
place and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens intently,
muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble playing or missed cues, but
never mentions how much better the orchestra sounds on my system than on his
Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something non-committal like "Very
nice,"

Sounds like one of those Average Joes you seem to enjoy deriding.

bob

[MC]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"bob" wrote in message
...
....
"Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."
....
So what? Does this mean the hobby of trying to recreate sound via
recordings of the highest possible level is, was, and always had been,
illegitimate? I don't think so, nor would all those folks back in the
late
50's, 60's, and 70's who led the assault on mediocrity. And who gave
meaning to the term high-fidelity.

I think what it shows is that musicians and music listeners are not the same
people and do not listen to music the same way.

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"bob" wrote in message
...
Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at the state of
audio:

http://snipurl.com/1u5mx

He frames his article with a false comparison between Stereo Review
and Gramophone, but in between he makes some cogent observations. One
such:

"Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."


Well then, how about performing rather than just listening? What of the time
and expense most accomplished performing musicians go through in order to
aquire an instrument of their desired sound quality.
Joshua Bell spent close to 4 million dollars for a particular sound:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...ll-6-2003.html

Even when a parent chooses a piano for one of their youngsters, the sound of
the instrument is of considerable concern. (For that matter, sound is of
importance even when buying a cuckoo clock.)

bob

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
On Nov 24, 8:46 pm, bob wrote:
Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at the state of
audio:

http://snipurl.com/1u5mx

He frames his article with a false comparison between Stereo Review
and Gramophone,

I didn't take what he wrote as a comparison at all, but anyway...

but in between he makes some cogent observations. One
such:

"Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."

bob

I think that Anthony is largely correct here (as he usually is, IMHO.
He's a fine writer and he knows the classical music world very well.
He's probably the most important reviewer in the world at this point).

In my case, my listening listening for study and listening for
pleasure alone are really seperate activities. For example, some of
my best listening for study is done on my iPod when on walks or during
long lunches that I take three days a week in my car at a beautiful
beach location.

So then, when you perform on an instrument , rather than merely "listening
for study", you don't care about how your instrument sounds? And when you
conduct aren't you concerned about the sound _quality_ your group produces?

The thought of instrumental/vocal timbres, soundstage
reproduction, etc. almost never enter my thoughts during those times.
When I listen to my home system, the music is still the most important
consideration, but I do listen much more for "stereo" things than I do
when I'm listening for study. It's almost like two very seperate
activities that happen to have music and sound in common.

[Steven Sullivan]

bob wrote:
Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at the state of
audio:

http://snipurl.com/1u5mx

He frames his article with a false comparison between Stereo Review
and Gramophone, but in between he makes some cogent observations. One
such:

"Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."

So could anyone whe ever fell in love with the Beatles' music via a cheap
transistor radio....or an LP...or cassette...or 128 kbps mp3.

I don't think this 'talent' is peculiar to musicians.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Jenn]

On Nov 25, 1:23 pm, "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
In my case, my listening listening for study and listening for
pleasure alone are really seperate activities. For example, some of
my best listening for study is done on my iPod when on walks or during
long lunches that I take three days a week in my car at a beautiful
beach location.

So then, when you perform on an instrument , rather than merely "listening
for study", you don't care about how your instrument sounds? And when you
conduct aren't you concerned about the sound _quality_ your group produces?

Norman, I'm sorry, but I don't know how you drew that conclusion. OF
COURSE I care about how my instrument sounds and about the sound
quality of the group. Those are the primary considerations. But when
I'm studying a work via recordings (which is the last and least
important part of the study process, if used at all), the differnence
in sound between the iPod and my home stereo is unimportant. I'm
listening for form and structure, tempi, important cues, etc. The
sound quality that I'm after is already "in my ears" and is not
determined by any recording.

[Jenn]

On Nov 25, 1:32 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
bob wrote:
Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at the state of
audio:
http://snipurl.com/1u5mx
He frames his article with a false comparison between Stereo Review
and Gramophone, but in between he makes some cogent observations. One
such:
"Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."

So could anyone whe ever fell in love with the Beatles' music via a cheap
transistor radio....or an LP...or cassette...or 128 kbps mp3.

I don't think this 'talent' is peculiar to musicians.

I don't think that AT is implying that it's peculiar to musicians. I
think that what he is pointing out is that in spite of the fact that
quality of sound is a vital part of the pro musician's ability to make
a living (as opposed to the music lover you site in the Beatles
example), many of us don't connect that to the quality of what we
listen to at home.

[Steven Sullivan]

Jenn wrote:
On Nov 25, 1:32 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
bob wrote:
Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at the state of
audio:
http://snipurl.com/1u5mx
He frames his article with a false comparison between Stereo Review
and Gramophone, but in between he makes some cogent observations. One
such:
"Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."

So could anyone whe ever fell in love with the Beatles' music via a cheap
transistor radio....or an LP...or cassette...or 128 kbps mp3.

I don't think this 'talent' is peculiar to musicians.

I don't think that AT is implying that it's peculiar to musicians. I
think that what he is pointing out is that in spite of the fact that
quality of sound is a vital part of the pro musician's ability to make
a living (as opposed to the music lover you site in the Beatles
example), many of us don't connect that to the quality of what we
listen to at home.

But he;'s not saying you don't get that 'quality of sound' at home.

In fact, people, musicians included, can 'hear' what they need to,
emotionally, even in far less than 'audiophile' conditions.
One can get a satisfactory musical fix from the music, almost
regardless of the hardware.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 25, 12:06 pm, Jenn wrote:

Now that I think of it, most of the pro musicians who are audiophiles
that I know are conductors. Interesting...

Something like that.

It is my experience (albeit limited to perhaps a dozen "serious"
musicians) that those who play instruments (or sing) have tin ears
except as it applies to their instrument and their playing. Given that
in a stage setting, even with monitor speakers, they are absolutely
*not* hearing what the audience hears, that is no surprise at all. If
they are ensemble players, they are listening for cues and keeping
time, listening to *their* instrument and worrying about blending or
standing out depending on the moment... they are working their trade
vs. listening to music. And with singers - even very good ones - when
they listen to others, they are critics, when they listen to
themselves, they are harsh critics. I am not so sure they would even
notice clarity, sound-stage, presence to define it - although I would
suspect that they would be more than ordinarily sensitive to clarity.

Of course, there are exceptions - I know one (1) serious musician who
does strive for good sound. But he would be the first to admit that
when he is listening to "music" vs. critiquing his work or that of
others, he listens at an entirely different level.

Piloting a jet does not mean one must drive a Ferrari.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at
the state of audio:

http://snipurl.com/1u5mx

He frames his article with a false comparison between
Stereo Review and Gramophone, but in between he makes
some cogent observations. One such:

"Any discussion of recording technology has to note one
intriguing quirk in the story: Few musicians have been
audiophiles. More than the average music-loving amateur,
working musicians understand the big gap between recorded
music and the real thing. They can listen through the
inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want
to hear."

You don't have to be a musician to be able to listen through the
inadequacies of any recording or reproduction thereof, and focus on what you
want to hear. That's what normal music lovers do. That's what almost all
ordinary people do.

Audiophilia is a peculiar condition that afflicts only a tiny minority,
which makes it difficult or impossible to for them to listen through the
inadequacies of any recording or reproduction thereof, and focus on what
they want to hear.

Audiophilia is therefore a kind of unnatural disability that disables a
normal function of the human brain. The good news is that it is usually
learned behavior, and with proper counseling and listening exercises, it can
be overcome.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known
symphony orchestra conductor. He listens to music on one
of the first generation Bose "Wave" radios with the
built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected
to the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the
orchestra that I make for him get cut to CD and that's
what I give him (it used to be cassette tapes before He
got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of
his). When I'm over at his house he's invariably
listening to my recordings of his orchestra on that Bose.
It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my place
and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens
intently, muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble
playing or missed cues, but never mentions how much
better the orchestra sounds on my system than on his
Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something
non-committal like "Very nice,"

I first learned this long ago when I had a college roomate who was a
musician. He loved my stereo. When it came time for me to set him up, he
specified something pretty humble by my standards at tht time. I think it
was composed of a mid-fi receiver, a mid-line Garrard changer with Shure
cartrdige, and a pair of AE4ax.

The point is that if you love music, and particularly if you are a skilled
musician, it really helps if you can extract the music from any particular
set of sounds that you you hear. You need to hear yourself, and you need to
hear other players that you work most closely with. The sonic environment
for performing is vastly different than the one for listeners.

In short, being able to enjoy music that is poorly reproduced is a
worthwhile skill, not the disability that some would like to make it out to
be.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


So what? Does this mean the hobby of trying to recreate
sound via recordings of the highest possible level is,
was, and always had been, illegitimate?

Wow! What a defensive reaction!

Recreating an experience via recordings, at the highest possible level is
what audio has been about for over 100 years.

I don't think so, nor would all those folks back in the late 50's,
60's, and 70's who led the assault on mediocrity.

Wow! What a boomer-generation-centric view of the history of audio.

Don't you think that say the transistion from acoustic playback of
recordings to electrical playback of recordings back in the 1920s was part
of the same process?

And who gave meaning to the term high-fidelity.

Higher-fidelity has always been the game plan. Even the transition from no
recordings to tinfoil recordings was part of the ongoing process.

[Arny Krueger]

"MC" wrote in message

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"bob" wrote in message
...
...
"Any discussion of recording technology has to note one
intriguing quirk in the story: Few musicians have been
audiophiles. More than the average music-loving
amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
between recorded music and the real thing. They can
listen through the inadequacies of any recording and
focus on what they want to hear."
...
So what? Does this mean the hobby of trying to recreate
sound via recordings of the highest possible level is,
was, and always had been, illegitimate? I don't think
so, nor would all those folks back in the late
50's, 60's, and 70's who led the assault on mediocrity.
And who gave meaning to the term high-fidelity.

I think what it shows is that musicians and music
listeners are not the same people and do not listen to
music the same way.

Close. It shows that audiophiles listen to music in different ways than
musicians and music lovers.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:44:57 -0800, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 25, 1:23 pm, "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
In my case, my listening listening for study and listening for
pleasure alone are really seperate activities. For example, some of
my best listening for study is done on my iPod when on walks or during
long lunches that I take three days a week in my car at a beautiful
beach location.

So then, when you perform on an instrument , rather than merely "listening
for study", you don't care about how your instrument sounds? And when you
conduct aren't you concerned about the sound _quality_ your group produces?

Norman, I'm sorry, but I don't know how you drew that conclusion. OF
COURSE I care about how my instrument sounds and about the sound
quality of the group. Those are the primary considerations. But when
I'm studying a work via recordings (which is the last and least
important part of the study process, if used at all), the differnence
in sound between the iPod and my home stereo is unimportant. I'm
listening for form and structure, tempi, important cues, etc. The
sound quality that I'm after is already "in my ears" and is not
determined by any recording.

Very well explained. Most musicians seem to feel this way and its difficult
for a non-musician, especially an audiophile, to understand. Musicians tend
to listen to the PERFORMANCE rather than the sound (and sometimes even the
music being played becomes irrelevant to their listening).

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:45:52 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known
symphony orchestra conductor. He listens to music on one
of the first generation Bose "Wave" radios with the
built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected
to the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the
orchestra that I make for him get cut to CD and that's
what I give him (it used to be cassette tapes before He
got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of
his). When I'm over at his house he's invariably
listening to my recordings of his orchestra on that Bose.
It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my place
and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens
intently, muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble
playing or missed cues, but never mentions how much
better the orchestra sounds on my system than on his
Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something
non-committal like "Very nice,"

I first learned this long ago when I had a college roomate who was a
musician. He loved my stereo. When it came time for me to set him up, he
specified something pretty humble by my standards at tht time. I think it
was composed of a mid-fi receiver, a mid-line Garrard changer with Shure
cartrdige, and a pair of AE4ax.

The point is that if you love music, and particularly if you are a skilled
musician, it really helps if you can extract the music from any particular
set of sounds that you you hear. You need to hear yourself, and you need to
hear other players that you work most closely with. The sonic environment
for performing is vastly different than the one for listeners.

In short, being able to enjoy music that is poorly reproduced is a
worthwhile skill, not the disability that some would like to make it out to
be.


Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, the very word "audiophile" means love of sound.
That's the route to high-end audio that a lot of us took. I'm so interested
in the sound itself and things sounding good, that I could never take the
musicians' approach, but I kind of envy their ability to hear the music
through the limitations of whatever equipment or media they're listening to.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:44:56 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message

Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at
the state of audio:

http://snipurl.com/1u5mx

He frames his article with a false comparison between
Stereo Review and Gramophone, but in between he makes
some cogent observations. One such:

"Any discussion of recording technology has to note one
intriguing quirk in the story: Few musicians have been
audiophiles. More than the average music-loving amateur,
working musicians understand the big gap between recorded
music and the real thing. They can listen through the
inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want
to hear."

You don't have to be a musician to be able to listen through the
inadequacies of any recording or reproduction thereof, and focus on what you
want to hear. That's what normal music lovers do. That's what almost all
ordinary people do.

Audiophilia is a peculiar condition that afflicts only a tiny minority,
which makes it difficult or impossible to for them to listen through the
inadequacies of any recording or reproduction thereof, and focus on what
they want to hear.

Audiophilia is therefore a kind of unnatural disability that disables a
normal function of the human brain. The good news is that it is usually
learned behavior, and with proper counseling and listening exercises, it can
be overcome.


Even we audiophiles are able to "listen in context." IOW, when I'm in my car,
I don't expect the (decent) car audio system to sound as good as my home
stereo. I likewise don't expect a portable radio to sound very good, so I can
lower my expectations while listening to those. OTOH, I can't stand to listen
to second rate sound on my home stereo or on my iPod because I expect them to
sound better than second-rate.

[bob]

On Nov 25, 12:06 pm, Jenn wrote:

In my case, my listening listening for study and listening for
pleasure alone are really seperate activities. For example, some of
my best listening for study is done on my iPod when on walks or during
long lunches that I take three days a week in my car at a beautiful
beach location. The thought of instrumental/vocal timbres, soundstage
reproduction, etc. almost never enter my thoughts during those times.
When I listen to my home system, the music is still the most important
consideration, but I do listen much more for "stereo" things than I do
when I'm listening for study. It's almost like two very seperate
activities that happen to have music and sound in common.

There's an audiophile conceit--for lack of a better word--that high-
quality sound reproduction promotes the listener's 'emotional
involvement' with the music. Without saying so explicitly, Tommasini
is challenging that notion, and it sounds like you and most of those
who have responded here agree with him. Emotional involvement is
mostly about how the musicians play, and what you as a listener bring
to the table--both your musical experience and your state of mind at
the time. The fact that serious musicians tend to be no more
"audiophilic" than the general population suggests that sound quality
isn't that important to musical enjoyment and appreciation.

Which isn't to say that you can't or shouldn't care about sound
quality. Presumably, everyone here does. But it helps, in audio
discussions, to keep the distinction in mind.

To Tommasini's braoder point, which is that people care less about
sound quality than they used to, I think there are a few factors at
play. First, if you added up the combined circulation of Stereo
Review, High Fidelity, and Audio in their heyday, it would totally
dwarf the circulation of S-phile, TAS, and T$S today. There's no
getting around that.

At the same time, whether you're an audiophile or not, the sound
reproduction quality you're getting today is leagues better than what
you could get 25-30 years ago. I spent $500 on my first system in
1978. It pales in comparison to what you could get for $500 today--let
alone whatever that $500 is in inflation-adjusted dollars. To some
extent, people can take decent sound for granted today, in ways they
couldn't in the 70s.

Two further thoughts: First, we all know how important speaker-room
interaction is. But you can't buy that off the shelf (at least not
cheaply), No, earbuds can't give you that you-are-there experience,
but most people either couldn't get or wouldn't know how to get that
experience in their living rooms (and I'd include a lot of audiophiles
in that latter group). So it's hard to blame them for settling for the
pretty good sound that comes out of their iPods.

Finally, the high-end "industry" deserves a good bit of blame here. In
the real world, they're viewed as something of a joke, so even the
things they do right get ignored. A pity, but I don't see it changing,
given the economics.

bob

[Jenn]

On Nov 26, 3:44 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Audiophilia is a peculiar condition that afflicts only a tiny minority,
which makes it difficult or impossible to for them to listen through the
inadequacies of any recording or reproduction thereof, and focus on what
they want to hear.

Audiophilia is therefore a kind of unnatural disability that disables a
normal function of the human brain. The good news is that it is usually
learned behavior, and with proper counseling and listening exercises, it can
be overcome.

I think that you're being a bit over-general here, Arny. Sure, there
are some audiophiles who claim they can only enjoy via systems that
they judge to be SOTA. Others (an I suppose that I'm in this camp)
LIKE to listen in that fashion and enjoy it when they can, but can
enjoy music reproduced by a clock radio. Perhaps it's a bit like
those who enjoy what they consider to be fine wine: Some will only
drink what they consider to be the best and all else is poison, others
really enjoy fine wine but can also enjoy throwing back some stuff
that comes in a cardboard box. ;-)

[MC]

"bob" wrote in message
...

At the same time, whether you're an audiophile or not, the sound
reproduction quality you're getting today is leagues better than what
you could get 25-30 years ago. I spent $500 on my first system in
1978. It pales in comparison to what you could get for $500 today--let
alone whatever that $500 is in inflation-adjusted dollars. To some
extent, people can take decent sound for granted today, in ways they
couldn't in the 70s.

Right! And I think that makes it harder to be an audiophile. In 1960 you
could regularly have the experience of being dazzled by someone else's
high-end sound system. Now mid-fi is a lot closer to hi-fi, and you're less
likely to be dazzled.

[Jenn]

On Nov 26, 8:36 pm, bob wrote:
On Nov 25, 12:06 pm, Jenn wrote:

In my case, my listening listening for study and listening for
pleasure alone are really seperate activities. For example, some of
my best listening for study is done on my iPod when on walks or during
long lunches that I take three days a week in my car at a beautiful
beach location. The thought of instrumental/vocal timbres, soundstage
reproduction, etc. almost never enter my thoughts during those times.
When I listen to my home system, the music is still the most important
consideration, but I do listen much more for "stereo" things than I do
when I'm listening for study. It's almost like two very seperate
activities that happen to have music and sound in common.

There's an audiophile conceit--for lack of a better word--that high-
quality sound reproduction promotes the listener's 'emotional
involvement' with the music. Without saying so explicitly, Tommasini
is challenging that notion, and it sounds like you and most of those
who have responded here agree with him. Emotional involvement is
mostly about how the musicians play, and what you as a listener bring
to the table--both your musical experience and your state of mind at
the time. The fact that serious musicians tend to be no more
"audiophilic" than the general population suggests that sound quality
isn't that important to musical enjoyment and appreciation.

I generally agree. While I think that it's often easier to gain
increased emotional involvement in music when the sound quality is
first-rate, high quality isn't an absolute requirement (at least for
me). I think that it's usually more FUN to listen through a fine
system, but I can be "taken away" by a great performance of great
music played through a Newcomb record player.


Which isn't to say that you can't or shouldn't care about sound
quality. Presumably, everyone here does. But it helps, in audio
discussions, to keep the distinction in mind.

To Tommasini's braoder point, which is that people care less about
sound quality than they used to, I think there are a few factors at
play. First, if you added up the combined circulation of Stereo
Review, High Fidelity, and Audio in their heyday, it would totally
dwarf the circulation of S-phile, TAS, and T$S today. There's no
getting around that.

At the same time, whether you're an audiophile or not, the sound
reproduction quality you're getting today is leagues better than what
you could get 25-30 years ago. I spent $500 on my first system in
1978. It pales in comparison to what you could get for $500 today--let
alone whatever that $500 is in inflation-adjusted dollars. To some
extent, people can take decent sound for granted today, in ways they
couldn't in the 70s.

True, I'm sure. Kind of like computers, I guess (remembering my
first, a Sanyo two floppy drive black and white screen no hard drive
"40% IBM compatible" for "only" $2000!)


Two further thoughts: First, we all know how important speaker-room
interaction is. But you can't buy that off the shelf (at least not
cheaply), No, earbuds can't give you that you-are-there experience,
but most people either couldn't get or wouldn't know how to get that
experience in their living rooms (and I'd include a lot of audiophiles
in that latter group). So it's hard to blame them for settling for the
pretty good sound that comes out of their iPods.

Again, has always been true, I guess. Remember the Walkman?

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:44:57 -0800, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 25, 1:23 pm, "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
In my case, my listening listening for study and listening for
pleasure alone are really seperate activities. For example, some of
my best listening for study is done on my iPod when on walks or during
long lunches that I take three days a week in my car at a beautiful
beach location.

So then, when you perform on an instrument , rather than merely
"listening
for study", you don't care about how your instrument sounds? And when
you
conduct aren't you concerned about the sound _quality_ your group
produces?

Norman, I'm sorry, but I don't know how you drew that conclusion. OF
COURSE I care about how my instrument sounds and about the sound
quality of the group. Those are the primary considerations. But when
I'm studying a work via recordings (which is the last and least
important part of the study process, if used at all), the differnence
in sound between the iPod and my home stereo is unimportant. I'm
listening for form and structure, tempi, important cues, etc. The
sound quality that I'm after is already "in my ears" and is not
determined by any recording.

Very well explained. Most musicians seem to feel this way and its
difficult
for a non-musician, especially an audiophile, to understand. Musicians
tend
to listen to the PERFORMANCE rather than the sound (and sometimes even the
music being played becomes irrelevant to their listening).

Unfortunately a "PERFORMANCE", but in poor sound, cannot be properly
evaluated. E.g., can you even tell the difference between a Steinway,
Baldwin, Boesendorfer, etc. etc., and for all other quality instruments as
well, but all being in poor sound. I think not, so a lot of a recording's
value is lost to all (musician, non-musician, casual as well serious music
listener).

[Jenn]

On Nov 26, 3:44 pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 25, 12:06 pm, Jenn wrote:

Now that I think of it, most of the pro musicians who are audiophiles
that I know are conductors. Interesting...

Something like that.

It is my experience (albeit limited to perhaps a dozen "serious"
musicians) that those who play instruments (or sing) have tin ears
except as it applies to their instrument and their playing.

Wow, that's not my experience at all, neither in the classical world
(where I have a great deal of experience) nor in my admittedly limited
pop exposure (limited to my small acoustic guitar career and the large
careers of SOTA players like friends Laurence Juber, Ed Gerhard, Doug
Smith, et al.)

Given that
in a stage setting, even with monitor speakers, they are absolutely
*not* hearing what the audience hears, that is no surprise at all. If
they are ensemble players, they are listening for cues and keeping
time, listening to *their* instrument and worrying about blending or
standing out depending on the moment... they are working their trade
vs. listening to music. And with singers - even very good ones - when
they listen to others, they are critics, when they listen to
themselves, they are harsh critics. I am not so sure they would even
notice clarity, sound-stage, presence to define it - although I would
suspect that they would be more than ordinarily sensitive to clarity.

Of course, there are exceptions - I know one (1) serious musician who
does strive for good sound. But he would be the first to admit that
when he is listening to "music" vs. critiquing his work or that of
others, he listens at an entirely different level.

Piloting a jet does not mean one must drive a Ferrari.

Of course, but I'm not sure that the metaphor is apt. I think that
more pro classical folk, for example, are into good sound at home than
most people believe, usually limited by budget. Those who do well on
the pay scale (members of major orchestras, for example) are often
willing to spend the needed money for good sound. The two world-class
orchestras (with world-class pay scales) that contain members whose
systems I'm familiar with (San Francisco Symphony and L.A.
Philharmonic) have many members who care a great deal about sound in
their home and have systems that reflect that.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:24:05 -0800, Norman M. Schwartz wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:44:57 -0800, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 25, 1:23 pm, "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
In my case, my listening listening for study and listening for
pleasure alone are really seperate activities. For example, some of
my best listening for study is done on my iPod when on walks or during
long lunches that I take three days a week in my car at a beautiful
beach location.

So then, when you perform on an instrument , rather than merely
"listening
for study", you don't care about how your instrument sounds? And when
you
conduct aren't you concerned about the sound _quality_ your group
produces?

Norman, I'm sorry, but I don't know how you drew that conclusion. OF
COURSE I care about how my instrument sounds and about the sound
quality of the group. Those are the primary considerations. But when
I'm studying a work via recordings (which is the last and least
important part of the study process, if used at all), the differnence
in sound between the iPod and my home stereo is unimportant. I'm
listening for form and structure, tempi, important cues, etc. The
sound quality that I'm after is already "in my ears" and is not
determined by any recording.

Very well explained. Most musicians seem to feel this way and its
difficult
for a non-musician, especially an audiophile, to understand. Musicians
tend
to listen to the PERFORMANCE rather than the sound (and sometimes even the
music being played becomes irrelevant to their listening).

Unfortunately a "PERFORMANCE", but in poor sound, cannot be properly
evaluated. E.g., can you even tell the difference between a Steinway,
Baldwin, Boesendorfer, etc. etc., and for all other quality instruments as
well, but all being in poor sound. I think not, so a lot of a recording's
value is lost to all (musician, non-musician, casual as well serious music
listener).

Tell that to the majority of musicians who listen on what most of us here
would consider inadequate equipment.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:20:11 -0800, MC wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message
...

At the same time, whether you're an audiophile or not, the sound
reproduction quality you're getting today is leagues better than what
you could get 25-30 years ago. I spent $500 on my first system in
1978. It pales in comparison to what you could get for $500 today--let
alone whatever that $500 is in inflation-adjusted dollars. To some
extent, people can take decent sound for granted today, in ways they
couldn't in the 70s.

Right! And I think that makes it harder to be an audiophile. In 1960 you
could regularly have the experience of being dazzled by someone else's
high-end sound system. Now mid-fi is a lot closer to hi-fi, and you're less
likely to be dazzled.

Speakers are the area of the most discrepancy, IMHO. Cheap speakers still
sound like cheap speakers. In light of the fact that amplifier design - even
at mid-fi levels, has come on in leaps and bounds as good solid-state design
practice has filtered down, it seems that the speakers are where the lion's
share of one's stereo budget, no matter how meager, should be spent. Anybody
remember when one could buy a pair of really decent Dyna A-25s for $99 each?

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message


On Nov 25, 12:06 pm, Jenn
wrote:

In my case, my listening listening for study and
listening for pleasure alone are really seperate
activities. For example, some of my best listening for
study is done on my iPod when on walks or during long
lunches that I take three days a week in my car at a
beautiful beach location.

Long car rides turn out to be where I do most of my listening for study.
However, I cheat - my car's audio system as adjusted, is actually quite
accurate.

The thought of
instrumental/vocal timbres, soundstage reproduction,
etc. almost never enter my thoughts during those times.

Agreed. For me the core of music is communication of thoughts, memories, and
attitudes, both verbal and non-verbal. Especially non-verbal.

When I listen to my home system, the music is still the
most important consideration, but I do listen much more
for "stereo" things than I do when I'm listening for
study. It's almost like two very seperate activities
that happen to have music and sound in common.

There's an audiophile conceit--for lack of a better
word--that high- quality sound reproduction promotes the
listener's 'emotional involvement' with the music.

I think I know what you mean by conceit, but its not always so. The theory
of communications via audio/visual presentations including live performances
includes the importance of removing or at least reducing distractions due to
technical failures.

Without saying so explicitly, Tommasini is challenging
that notion, and it sounds like you and most of those who
have responded here agree with him. Emotional involvement
is mostly about how the musicians play, and what you as a
listener bring to the table--both your musical experience
and your state of mind at the time. The fact that serious
musicians tend to be no more "audiophilic" than the
general population suggests that sound quality isn't that
important to musical enjoyment and appreciation.

I think that the strong emotional influencers are the music itself and how
it is played.

Which isn't to say that you can't or shouldn't care about
sound quality. Presumably, everyone here does. But it
helps, in audio discussions, to keep the distinction in
mind.

Again, issues like hall acoustics, and quality of reproduction are more
likely to be distractors.

To Tommasini's braoder point, which is that people care
less about sound quality than they used to, I think there
are a few factors at play. First, if you added up the
combined circulation of Stereo Review, High Fidelity, and
Audio in their heyday, it would totally dwarf the
circulation of S-phile, TAS, and T$S today. There's no
getting around that.

No doubt, because Stereo Review, Audio, and High Fidelity were each maybe
4-6 times or more the present circulation of the three dwarves.

At the same time, whether you're an audiophile or not,
the sound reproduction quality you're getting today is
leagues better than what you could get 25-30 years ago.

I think the degree of improvement decreases with cost. I suspect that a
modern boom box would be leagues better than a cheap phonograph from the
60s, but as you go up the price scale, the advantage becomes less. High end
for the early 60s would be less capable and have poorer fidelity than a
modern mid-fi system in the over-$1000 range.

I spent $500 on my first system in 1978. It pales in
comparison to what you could get for $500 today--let
alone whatever that $500 is in inflation-adjusted
dollars. To some extent, people can take decent sound for
granted today, in ways they couldn't in the 70s.

Agreed.

Two further thoughts: First, we all know how important
speaker-room interaction is. But you can't buy that off
the shelf (at least not cheaply),

You can't buy rooms off the shelf!

No, earbuds can't give
you that you-are-there experience,

But, neither can speakers.

but most people either
couldn't get or wouldn't know how to get that experience
in their living rooms (and I'd include a lot of
audiophiles in that latter group). So it's hard to blame
them for settling for the pretty good sound that comes
out of their iPods.

What they get can have better frequency response and dynamic range than just
about any room-speaker combination under maybe $5000.

If you want to spend some money on IEMs and getting them fitted to your
particular ears, there are some pretty amazing things to hear from a
portable digital player. The worst thing about the iPod is that its
electrical output lacks the power levels required to do it right, but that
is a relatively simple matter to deal with.

Finally, the high-end "industry" deserves a good bit of
blame here. In the real world, they're viewed as
something of a joke, so even the things they do right get
ignored.

Yes, all of the years of worshipping snake oil has dramatically reduced
their credibility in the public's eyes.

A pity, but I don't see it changing, given the economics.

Also, people are better educated and more knowlegable, and simply have more
things to spend their money on. The stereo system is far from being the only
home entertainment option.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

On Nov 26, 3:44 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Audiophilia is a peculiar condition that afflicts only a
tiny minority, which makes it difficult or impossible to
for them to listen through the inadequacies of any
recording or reproduction thereof, and focus on what
they want to hear.

Audiophilia is therefore a kind of unnatural disability
that disables a normal function of the human brain. The
good news is that it is usually learned behavior, and
with proper counseling and listening exercises, it can
be overcome.

I think that you're being a bit over-general here, Arny.

No, I was being tongue-in-cheek!

I dropped the smileys to see who would get it and who would not. ;-)

OK, a little bit serious about audiophiles who take themselves way to
seriously.

Sure, there are some audiophiles who claim they can only
enjoy via systems that they judge to be SOTA.

My highest priority target. They call themselves music-lovers but in fact
they are techno-freaks & materalistic status-seekers.

Others (an
I suppose that I'm in this camp) LIKE to listen in that
fashion and enjoy it when they can, but can enjoy music
reproduced by a clock radio.

You still remember that you are a musician. That's good! ;-)

Perhaps it's a bit like
those who enjoy what they consider to be fine wine: Some
will only drink what they consider to be the best and all
else is poison, others really enjoy fine wine but can
also enjoy throwing back some stuff that comes in a
cardboard box. ;-)

Thing is, some of that cardboard box stuff really isn't all that bad. Look
what happened to Gallo - when I was a boy their stuff would have come in
cardboard boxes if cardboard wine boxes had been invented.

[bob]

On Nov 28, 6:38 pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:20:11 -0800, MC wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message
...

At the same time, whether you're an audiophile or not, the sound
reproduction quality you're getting today is leagues better than what
you could get 25-30 years ago. I spent $500 on my first system in
1978. It pales in comparison to what you could get for $500 today--let
alone whatever that $500 is in inflation-adjusted dollars. To some
extent, people can take decent sound for granted today, in ways they
couldn't in the 70s.

Right! And I think that makes it harder to be an audiophile. In 1960 you
could regularly have the experience of being dazzled by someone else's
high-end sound system. Now mid-fi is a lot closer to hi-fi, and you're less
likely to be dazzled.

Speakers are the area of the most discrepancy, IMHO. Cheap speakers still
sound like cheap speakers.

Perhaps true, but my original point was a bit different. The question
is, do budget speakers today sound better than budget speakers of 30
years ago, and have they narrowed the performance gap with their price
brethren? I'd be interested in Dick Pierce's perspective on that, if
he cares to weigh in.

bob

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:09:00 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 28, 6:38 pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:20:11 -0800, MC wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message
...

At the same time, whether you're an audiophile or not, the sound
reproduction quality you're getting today is leagues better than what
you could get 25-30 years ago. I spent $500 on my first system in
1978. It pales in comparison to what you could get for $500 today--let
alone whatever that $500 is in inflation-adjusted dollars. To some
extent, people can take decent sound for granted today, in ways they
couldn't in the 70s.

Right! And I think that makes it harder to be an audiophile. In 1960 you
could regularly have the experience of being dazzled by someone else's
high-end sound system. Now mid-fi is a lot closer to hi-fi, and you're
less
likely to be dazzled.

Speakers are the area of the most discrepancy, IMHO. Cheap speakers still
sound like cheap speakers.

Perhaps true, but my original point was a bit different. The question
is, do budget speakers today sound better than budget speakers of 30
years ago, and have they narrowed the performance gap with their price
brethren? I'd be interested in Dick Pierce's perspective on that, if
he cares to weigh in.

bob

Good question. But were there "cheap speakers" 30 years ago? Everything was
pretty cheap then and like I mentioned earlier, a pair of Dynaco A-25s was
less than $200 and they're still excellent. Cheap speakers that cost, in
adjusted dollars, what cheap speakers cost today would have been $25
-$100/pair and I just don't remember what they were like.

[MC]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Also, people are better educated and more knowlegable, and simply have
more
things to spend their money on. The stereo system is far from being the
only
home entertainment option.

Yes... right now people seem more interested in having the sound come from
as many directions as possible.

[bob]

On Nov 28, 10:42 pm, "MC" wrote:

Yes... right now people seem more interested in having the sound come from
as many directions as possible.

Sound comes from many directions--even if you're listening in
mono.

bob

[bob]

On Nov 28, 10:41 pm, Sonnova wrote:

Good question. But were there "cheap speakers" 30 years ago? Everything was
pretty cheap then and like I mentioned earlier, a pair of Dynaco A-25s was
less than $200 and they're still excellent. Cheap speakers that cost, in
adjusted dollars, what cheap speakers cost today would have been $25
-$100/pair and I just don't remember what they were like.

Well, I'm sure you could get speakers for almost nothing back then at
Lafayette or Radio Shack, and what can be had for $200/pr today would
certainly be a huge improvement. But a better comparison would be
something like $200 30 years ago vs. $500 today.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


Speakers are the area of the most discrepancy, IMHO.

No doubt.

Cheap speakers still sound like cheap speakers.

At most price points, speakers sound better than they did.

In light
of the fact that amplifier design - even at mid-fi
levels, has come on in leaps and bounds as good
solid-state design practice has filtered down,

True for maybe 20 years or more.

it seems
that the speakers are where the lion's share of one's
stereo budget, no matter how meager, should be spent.

Agreed.

Anybody remember when one could buy a pair of really
decent Dyna A-25s for $99 each?

They bottomed-out at about $60 each. I personally owned 2 pair of them, as
well as a pair of Larger Advents. They were a far better value at about $110
each.

Since then, the trend has been for speakers to become smaller. That means
that for given bass extension, they have to be far less efficient. That
exploits the improvement in amplifier price-performance.

The A-25s only had bass extension down to about 60 Hz, which can be
duplicated with modern mini-speakers. The Larger Advents had bass extension
down to about 45 Hz, which is mostly duplicated by sub/sat systems. In
terms of air-handing capacity, the 8 inch woofer in an A-25 can be easily
duplicated by a modern 6.5" driver. The woofer in the Larger Advent was a
bit of a funny driver - an approximate 10 inch cone in a 12 inch frame with
a fiberboard spacer. Modern 8 inch drivers can easily match that.

[Randy Yates]

Sonnova writes:
[...]
But were there "cheap speakers" 30 years ago?

Yes. For example, the Bose 301s.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Bose-Model-301-b...QQcmdZViewItem

Everything was pretty cheap then

Not true. For example, the Klipschorns were, in 1983, around $2500/pair - a
"bit" more than most low-end stuff.
--
% Randy Yates % "She tells me that she likes me very much,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % but when I try to touch, she makes it
%%% 919-577-9882 % all too clear."
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


Good question. But were there "cheap speakers" 30 years
ago? Everything was pretty cheap then and like I
mentioned earlier, a pair of Dynaco A-25s was less than
$200 and they're still excellent.

Not really. I have a friend who has a pair in excellent condition, which
I've heard lately. OK for workshop speakers, but not ready for prime usage.
They don't sound bad, but their woofers and tweeters don't perform all that
well by modern standards. The basic "Aperiodic" design was more hype than
substance. Damped ports aren't as effective as well-tuned ports. The price
paid was reduced bass extension for the size of the box and the level of
efficiency. The tweeter was not bad, but the best cheap modern drivers are
smoother and have more power-handling capacity. The woofer had only modest
linear travel by modern standards, and the crossover was simplistic.

Cheap speakers that
cost, in adjusted dollars, what cheap speakers cost today
would have been $25 -$100/pair and I just don't remember
what they were like.

Pretty grim. The boxes usually had real wood veneer, but the contents were
usually pretty grim. One cheaper speaker from about that era that was
well-received was the Realistic Minimus 7. I have a number of them that are
still in good condition. I did some listening and measuring a few years back
and was surprised with how mediocre they are by modern standards. One real
surprise is that the tweeters had a lot of broadband non-linear distortion,
probably due to a bad motor design. The woofer is fragile and has a
relatively short stroke by modern standards. Again, not really bad, but not
good, even at the price point which went down to about $30 each on sale.

[Arny Krueger]

"MC" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Also, people are better educated and more knowlegable,
and simply have more
things to spend their money on. The stereo system is far
from being the only
home entertainment option.

Yes... right now people seem more interested in having
the sound come from as many directions as possible.

Well, that's how things work in the real world of live sound. I don't think
we're doing the best job of duplicating it, though.