[Codifus]

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

LOL! I love the way you phrased that . . . .suggesting not so much the
quality in a surround setup but more of the whiz bang in 3D

CD

[Jenn]

On Nov 28, 5:06 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

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

My highest priority target.

You have "targets"?

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

Yep, if they claim to be music lovers but can only enjoy music through
SOTA gear, I would agree. Some folks, OTOH, like both. I see no
problem with that.


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.

Right. Just as some "mass market" audio gear isn't all that bad.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:28:01 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

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

I would think that things have scaled about 10X since 1969 and probably 5 to
7X from 1977. So, $200 30 years ago would be more like 1 to 1.5K today.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:31:12 -0800, Randy Yates wrote
(in article ):

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

Yes. For example, the Bose 301s.


http://cgi.ebay.com/Bose-Model-301-b...t-Ad_W0QQitemZ
110169155405QQcmdZViewItem

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.

But Klipschorns were always very expensive and pretty much of an acquired
taste. You could drive them to ear splitting volume with a typical
teen-ager's transistor radio, they were that efficient, but I never thought
that they sounded like music any more than Altec Lansing's A-7 Voice Of The
Theater speakers did - which is to say, not very much.

[willbill]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"MC" wrote

"Arny Krueger" wrote

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.

i agree.

movies are doing it "better"
and REAL people are BUYING!

fwiw, i find it darkly amusing
that hi end audio is riding
the coattails of multichannel
movie sound

bill

[bob]

On Nov 29, 7:28 pm, Sonnova wrote:

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

I would think that things have scaled about 10X since 1969 and probably 5 to
7X from 1977. So, $200 30 years ago would be more like 1 to 1.5K today.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is your friend:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Multipliers are 3.45 for 1977 and 5.69 for 1969. So $200 in 1977 would
be $689 today.

bob

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:32:21 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"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.

I had a pair of A-25s and I don't remember them as grimly as you do. Of
course I haven't heard a pair in years, but I seemed to remember the bass
being pretty good quality at the time and that the speakers sounded pretty
smooth. I replaced them with a pair of A-50's which, though they had deeper
bass, I didn't think sounded as good. I replaced them with a pair of Infinity
"bookshelf" speakers (damn big bookshelf!) I don't remember the model numbers
but they were huge. Big 12" woofers (paper cones coated in some kind of
tar-like substance) and a planar midrange and tweeter made for Infinity by a
company called Strathern in Ireland. Infinity called them "EMIM" for the
midrange and EMIT for the tweeter. They were pretty good (except that the
EMIMs and EMITs were unrelaible, IIRC) and I kept them until I scraped enough
money together to buy my first pair of Magneplanars - the eight-panel Tympani
IIIBs.

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.


I used to have a pair of the Minimus 7's too. I used them for early surround
speakers for video for a time. I didn't like them even as "workshop"
speakers. No bass, screechy, metallic highs. Yechhh!

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:28:01 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

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.

I would think that things have scaled about 10X since
1969 and probably 5 to 7X from 1977. So, $200 30 years
ago would be more like 1 to 1.5K today.

One reasonable price indexing scheme might be a doubling every 14 years.
1969 was 38 years ago, so there have been about 2 and a half doublings.
$200 in 1969 would be worth about $500 today.

However, there has been quite a bit of general improvement in
price/performance. For example a receiver with a certain power rating that
cost $300 in 1969 would probably be outclassed by one that cost $80-150
today.

I paid $900 for a CDP 101 in 1983, and it is easily outperformed for playing
CDs by a DVD player that costs less than $50-80 today. It also does all that
crazy video stuff! ;-)

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:36:16 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 29, 7:28 pm, Sonnova wrote:

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

I would think that things have scaled about 10X since 1969 and probably 5 to
7X from 1977. So, $200 30 years ago would be more like 1 to 1.5K today.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is your friend:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Multipliers are 3.45 for 1977 and 5.69 for 1969. So $200 in 1977 would
be $689 today.

bob

OK. I go by things like car prices (average car in 1969 was $2500, average
car today, $25,000+) A gallon of premium gas ($0.35 in 1969, $3.50 today) a
loaf of premium white bread ($0.25 in 1969, $2.50 today) an average house
($20,000 in 1969, $200,000+ today - depending on location, of course). I
guess the BLS figures it another way.

[Jenn]

On Nov 28, 5:05 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Long car rides turn out to be where I do most of my listening for study.

Just curious: what music do you study and for what purpose?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

On Nov 28, 5:05 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Long car rides turn out to be where I do most of my
listening for study.

Just curious: what music do you study and for what
purpose?

Stuff I record, for the purpose of QC and figuring out what to do better
next.

[windcrest]

On Nov 29, 5:32 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"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.

I have a pair of Dynaco A10's from 1972 10 inch aperiodic. Compared
to today they sound inefficient, slow, and a bit lifeless. But you
could not touch the build quality of them today for under $500. The
enclosures are a nice example of fine cabinet making and I was
thinking of putting in some newer drivers and retuning them. They
were my first serious purchase out of high school, today they are my
garage speakers with original grill cloth too.

[Rob[_8_]]

I would not call that derission. I'd call into question that conductor's
ural abilities when listen to live music.

"bob" wrote in message
...
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

[Rob[_8_]]

True. I personally have two listen modes. One is listening to the music, the
other is critical listening to the music on the playback system. Just a few
handful of times I listened to a system that was so transparent (WATTS,
Krell, Clear Audio) that both listening modes coincided.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"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.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:28:18 -0800, Rob wrote
(in article ):

True. I personally have two listen modes. One is listening to the music, the
other is critical listening to the music on the playback system. Just a few
handful of times I listened to a system that was so transparent (WATTS,
Krell, Clear Audio) that both listening modes coincided.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"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.

I certainly was not intimating that its a disability. Not caring about sound
quality and caring more about how the group is playing than how the system
sounds shows that the musician in question regards the reproduction apparatus
as merely a tool. A tool to help him be a better conductor and to help him
make the ensemble a better orchestra. After all, he has at his disposal the
ultimate hi-fi and he stands before it week in and week out. Who needs a
stereo system when you have REAL music at your fingertips and beck-and-call?
Maybe the Maestro realizes that a Hi-Fi, any Hi-Fi, pales so completely in
the face of the sound of real, live music played in real space, that the
pursuit of that particular muse is futile and not worth the effort.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:27:39 -0800, Rob wrote
(in article ):

I would not call that derission. I'd call into question that conductor's
ural abilities when listen to live music.

"bob" wrote in message
...
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


That's not the point. The point is that this anecdote is illustrative of the
discussion we had here some weeks ago about the difference between the
listening priorities of musicians and audiophiles. The Maestro, obviously,
can hear everything he needs to hear about his orchestra via the wave radio
and doesn't give a whit about wide frequency response, low distortion,
sound-stage, ambience retrieval, realistic listening levels, or any of the
other things that audiophiles hold as important. He's listening for ensemble
playing, dynamics, contrasts between sections, pace, missed entrance cues,
etc., and all of these things seem to come accross adequately for him on a
Bose Wave radio.

And as for "deriding average Joes" I don't see where you get that. Average
Joes don't care about those audiophile things either, so why deride them for
having other interests? I don't deride others because they don't like to
drive sports cars like I do. I don't deride others because they don't enjoy
skeet shooting, I don't deride people because they're not interested in
photography, so why should I deride someone for not having the level of
interest in audio that I have?

Who I will deride are those who claim to be audiophiles, post authoritatively
here on this forum, and yet demonstrate with almost every post that their
hearing or their powers of perception are so poor or underdeveloped that
they, essentially cannot (or will not) hear. I.E. If it measures good, it is
good. Shades of Julian Hirsch and all that. :-)

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:27:39 -0800, Rob wrote
(in article ):

I would not call that derission. I'd call into question that conductor's
ural abilities when listen to live music.

"bob" wrote in message
...
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


That's not the point. The point is that this anecdote is illustrative of
the
discussion we had here some weeks ago about the difference between the
listening priorities of musicians and audiophiles. The Maestro, obviously,
can hear everything he needs to hear about his orchestra via the wave
radio
and doesn't give a whit about wide frequency response, low distortion,
sound-stage, ambience retrieval, realistic listening levels, or any of the
other things that audiophiles hold as important. He's listening for
ensemble
playing, dynamics, contrasts between sections, pace, missed entrance cues,
etc., and all of these things seem to come accross adequately for him on a
Bose Wave radio.

And as for "deriding average Joes" I don't see where you get that. Average
Joes don't care about those audiophile things either, so why deride them
for
having other interests? I don't deride others because they don't like to
drive sports cars like I do. I don't deride others because they don't
enjoy
skeet shooting, I don't deride people because they're not interested in
photography,

But if they are intersested in photography I'd deride them if they compare
reality using 24 X 36 mm contact prints vs. 16 X 20 inch prints as I would
in comparing the sound of reality using a Bose CD/Wave Radio vs. a high end
speaker system. See whatever you want, hear whatever you want but "hear no
evil, see no evil, speak no evil"?

so why should I deride someone for not having the level of
interest in audio that I have?

Who I will deride are those who claim to be audiophiles, post
authoritatively
here on this forum, and yet demonstrate with almost every post that their
hearing or their powers of perception are so poor or underdeveloped that
they, essentially cannot (or will not) hear. I.E. If it measures good, it
is
good. Shades of Julian Hirsch and all that. :-)