| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Amazement
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 |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
On May 14, 12:07*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
How far we have fallen as a musically-literate society. "Music literacy" is not enshrined in a particular technology, vintage, modern or otherwise. I find it far more significant that if you had played Couperin, Buxtehude, Katchaturian, Du Pre, Hindemith, Shostakovich or Jan Pieterszoon Sweelink on ANYTHING, including their I-pod, you would have been met, instead, with yawns or blank stares. |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
On May 14, 12:07*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
*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. I pretty much have this sort of experience every time a stranger (to the house) visits. And I have maintained for years that that amorphous entity called "the electronics industry" has brainwashed the general public to believe that what comes from a 3" box or via ear-buds is "great sound". The entire W*v* R*d** industry is founded on this premise. Just as a giggle, the a few weeks ago, I purchased an Advent 500 via the auction venue. If you do not remember, it is Advent's digital delay system that sold for something on the order of $500 when-new and lasted perhaps 2 years in the market before it was withdrawn more-or- less in disgrace. It is a hoot. Not terribly "hi-fi" or terribly musical, but being able to go from Yankee Stadium to a phone booth is great good fun as these things go. Yes, I do know to reverse the phase on the rear speakers. But if the overall quality of the sound is not enough, kicking in the delay system drops a few jaws. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
"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. Yes, I had a similar experience recently. I had some houseguests, a friend of my wife and her fiance, who were in town for a wedding. I really hit it off with Jim, and after dinner one evening my wife and I and our two guests retired to the livingroom with another bottle of wine. My guests were smokers, and while they were out on the back deck indulging their habit, I quietly moved my Magnepans about 5' out from the wall (I have small children and a non-musically-inclined spouse... the fact that the Maggies are allowed to STAY in the livingroom at all I consider a victory) and set them up in front of the couch. My guests returned and I threw on Yo Yo Ma playing Bach's Cello Suites. It took a couple of minutes... 2, 3, 5? during which we talked less and listened more. Finally Jim's wife commented "this is incredible"... referring to the music. They're my age (41) and had honestly never in their entire lives heard anything that APPROACHED high fidelity. At first Jim tried to tell me about his great computer speakers but the longer we sat there the less he had to say about them. And these are both well-educated, techno-savvy folks (thrifty too... why buy a dedicated stereo when the computer can do the whole job?) The next morning he remarked "Dave, I think last night is going to cost me quite a bit of money". But that story... it's representative of society. My own siblings and I grew up in a house filled with music. My brother and I built a Scott LK-72 tube amp and FM tuner from kits with our Dad. My parents loved music, they had hundreds of albums. Throughout high school and college we all had our "killer stereos" and even more hundreds of albums. This winter I did a whirlwind tour of relatives. My older sister in Denver? She listens to music (very very rarely) through the built-in speakers on her iMac. My bro in SFO? He listens to the piped-in cable TV music via a pair of Sony 3" or 4" micro-satellites that came with his Xbox or Playstation. It actually came with a subwoofer too, but that's hooked up IN A DIFFERENT ROOM because, well, the cords weren't long enough to get it into the livingroom and he was out of power outlets anyway what with the video games, the TV and whatnot. Then to my brother's in Seattle... this was my biggest disappointment. Up until he met his current long-term girlfriend, he had a nice vintage setup... like a Technics or Pioneer receiver, a good turntable, a pair of old Large Advents, lots of records, CD's. Well, he's been downsized... got him a home theatre in a box, gone are all the decent components, albums and CD's. The CD's were ripped to 96kbps lossy mp3's (his explanation: "to save disk space, and you really can't hear any difference anyways"). A crappy 6" or 8" thin particleboard sub rounds out his system. What happened to these people? I find it odd that good quality audio equipment was found in most everyone's house when I was a kid... maybe not high-end stuff, but solid receivers and decent-sounding speakers... and people LISTENED to them. Nowadays I think the #1 requirement for people looking for an audio system is that it should be as small as possible and have a built-in iPod dock. I appreciate music more and more the longer I live and feel priveleged to be in a position to drop a little $$ on a system that can reproduce it in a way that's realistic and pleasurable. I guess I (we) are in the minority. Dave |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:07:19 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): 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. Well, you certainly have nailed part of it. I think another reason why most people never look at high-end audio is simply because the market has alienated the average music lover with it's snobbish approach to sales and marketing, coupled with outrageous prices which have NO relationship to actual costs, and topped-off with a very large amount of ritualistic mumbo-jumbo involving $4000/meter interconnects, $1000/ft speaker cables and things like myrtlewood blocks on top of amplifiers, ceramic "lifts" for speaker cables. Not to mention after-market power cords that are as big around as a baby's thigh, and often cost as much or more than the component that they are connected to! People don't know that most of this stuff is just nonsense and isn't necessary, but they see sales people trying to sell them on this crap because it's high-profit margin and they are turned off by it (if they ever even bother to investigate buying an audio system in the first place). I have had more than one person tell me that they'd love to have decent stereo system, but simply can't afford one after the sales guy starts telling them the prices of all the accessories that they need just to get up and running. I've helped several people buy decent stereos for not an arm and a leg, and they sound good. but the delta between a "mid-fi" receiver and a couple of cheap speakers and the good stuff is getting so large, that most people just go out and buy an A/V receiver that will work with their TV and will play CDs too along with a cheap surround speaker system and consider that their music system. |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
It isn't just the USA Harry.
A friend brought his son to me to talk about how to fruitfully spend his "hi-fi money". This young man spent the rest of the afternoon drooling over what could be accomplished. He had never heard a quality audio system, and (I suspect) neither had any of his friends. He had assumed that a high-end 'pod and headphones were the answer. Greg (in Australia) In article , "Harry Lavo" wrote: 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. |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote: 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. I very much agree, Harry. The vast majority of people have never heard good sound in their homes. They don't know what is possible with even modestly priced gear, well set up. Back in the early 80s, I had just spend a considerable amount of money (compared to my income at the time) on a "big box" system (from the now gone Federated store n SoCal). About a week later, when arriving early at a location in Santa Ana to pick up a friend from work, to kill time I wandered into Absolute Audio, which was about to close for the evening. What I heard, from a system that cost about what I had just spent, amazed me. I had no idea that one could get this much closer to the sound of live acoustic music. People just don't know what is possible. That said, I also don't think that most people care, and I think that that is more the case now than it was years ago. People don't just sit and listen as much anymore, in my experience. Chicken or egg? I also think that this is related to the present nature of so much of pop music. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
Sonnova wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:07:19 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): snip How far we have fallen as a musically-literate society. Well, you certainly have nailed part of it. I think another reason why most people never look at high-end audio is simply because the market has alienated the average music lover with it's snobbish approach to sales and marketing, coupled with outrageous prices which have NO relationship to actual costs, and topped-off with a very large amount of ritualistic mumbo-jumbo involving $4000/meter interconnects, $1000/ft speaker cables and things like myrtlewood blocks on top of amplifiers, ceramic "lifts" for speaker cables. Not to mention after-market power cords that are as big around as a baby's thigh, and often cost as much or more than the component that they are connected to! Absolutely agree there.. People don't know that most of this stuff is just nonsense and isn't necessary, Sorry, but I don't really buy that. I think most people have enough common sense to know *that* level of hogwash when they see it, and it turns them off at that point. but they see sales people trying to sell them on this crap because it's high-profit margin and they are turned off by it (if they ever even bother to investigate buying an audio system in the first place). If they even get to that point before being turned off. I have had more than one person tell me that they'd love to have decent stereo system, but simply can't afford one after the sales guy starts telling them the prices of all the accessories that they need just to get up and running. As I've said in years past, we still have "high-end" stores here that tell customers (with a straight face no less) that they absolutely "must" reserve 15-20% of their system budget for cables. Idiocy IMO, unless their system comprises about $100 worth of equipment. While not normally inclined to credit the public with an overabundance of logic or critical thinking ability, I nonetheless think that most folks are are sharp enough to recognize *that* recommendation as the hogwash it clearly is. If someone has $2000 to spend on a system, and a herd of salesdroids inundate him/her with the "oh you need to spend at least $400 of that budget on cables" schtick, with an air of "...clearly you're an uneducated fool if you don't already know this...", how can a sane person not walk away with a bad taste in his/her mouth? I've helped several people buy decent stereos for not an arm and a leg, and they sound good. but the delta between a "mid-fi" receiver and a couple of cheap speakers and the good stuff is getting so large, That seems something of an apples to aardvarks argument there, in that *anything* and a "couple of cheap speakers" will result in a crap system. I think it's more accurate to say that the delta between a system with junk speakers versus good speakers is very large, irrespective of the source and amplification equipment. I.e., put the money where it counts the most - speakers. that most people just go out and buy an A/V receiver that will work with their TV and will play CDs too along with a cheap surround speaker system and consider that their music system. Well, tilt as we might, that seems to be the way the current generation is going. Doesn't work for you, or for me, but if we want to deal with reality, I think it's plain that "high-end" is really becoming "dead-end". And while arguably unfortunate, it's still irrelevant that while any number of the "great unwashed" may be exposed to a real Hi-Fi system and think, "Wow, that's so great...", if (as seems increasingly to be the case) the cost, care, and feeding of such a system nonetheless exceeds the perceived benefit, they'll continue to iPod along and be happy. Having drooled over high-end gear for over 40 years, that attitude is hard for me to wrap my mind around, but then disco and hip-hop are/were popular too, so.... Keith Hughes |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
On 14 May 2009 16:07:19 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
. Thanks to our dumbed-down society and the dominance of the big-box stores. Oh, to live in Britain! Don't kid yourself. We're as dumbed down here in the UK as you are in the US. The scenario you paint is sadly pretty much the same over here. But from my experience few people have ever felt that experiencing truly hi-fi sound from their music sources was a particular priority, so I don't think this is a particularly modern phenomenon. Convenience and quantity (kids typically have thousands of songs on their MP3 players) are seen as more important. Still, it means we can gloat and feel superior, and it's nice to see that look of surprise when the odd few uninitiated folks hear it sound the way it should :-) --- Rob Tweed Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd Registered in England: No 3220901 Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com Register now for Out of the Slipstream http://www.OutOfTheSlipstream.com July 2nd 2009, Denbies Wine Estate, Surrey, UK |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
On May 15, 5:47*am, Jenn wrote:
In article , *"Harry Lavo" wrote: 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. I very much agree, Harry. *The vast majority of people have never heard good sound in their homes. *They don't know what is possible with even modestly priced gear, well set up. Back in the early 80s, I had just spend a considerable amount of money (compared to my income at the time) on a "big box" system (from the now gone Federated store n SoCal). *About a week later, when arriving early at a location in Santa Ana to pick up a friend from work, to kill time I wandered into Absolute Audio, which was about to close for the evening. * What I heard, from a system that cost about what I had just spent, amazed me. *I had no idea that one could get this much closer to the sound of live acoustic music. *People just don't know what is possible. That said, I also don't think that most people care, and I think that that is more the case now than it was years ago. *People don't just sit and listen as much anymore, in my experience. *Chicken or egg? *I also think that this is related to the present nature of so much of pop music. The audio hobby simply isn't what it used to be. One didn't even require music of *any* kind; enthusiasts had fun reproducing a railroad train running across the front of the room. For the men folk there's that long mentioned WAF to deal with, often a hobbyist is relegated to some unpleasant region in the basement. A care for sound reproduction is not dependent upon liking to listen to Yo Yo Ma, Pavarotti or The Beatles. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
|
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
Harry Lavo wrote:
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. I agree and have had this experience a number of times I got my latest equipment (Ingenium speakers from Teresonic and a 211 tube based amplifier). As an example a music teacher listened to a recording of Beethoven piano sonata no. 28 by Uchida and this teacher was sitting and could not believe how realistic the piano was reproduced by this equipment. The recording is technically wonderful but most importantly the artistic quality of this recording is just so good. Uchida has her own interpretation of this sonata that is really unique. I have had many visitors to my home listening to this stereo equipment who have never heard anything like it. And many of them have had decent stereo equipment themselves. 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! I have had an interest in listening to mostly classical music over the years (I'm 61 now) and have had a mix of various stereo equipment over the years and only recently got this high-end setup. My pleasure and interest in listening has not been limited to reproduction from very high quality equipment. Many times I have enjoyed music when driving in my car from a system that is far below the stereo in my home. Likewise listen to Callas opera recordings in my vacation house making food with my wife and a bottle of red wine can be a pleasure that goes beyond the technical reproduction quality. Having enjoyed music over many years, I also must say that hearing a very detailed reproduction of well known recordings is really interesting as many details didn't surface until I sat down and heard them again. I don't think I appreciated these details in the beginning. Listening to a very good setup is like being put in front of the musicians. I remember clearly the first time many years ago I was sitting right in front of a string quartet performing one of the string quartets of Beethoven (opus 59 no. 1). It was an amazing experience to hear all the details. Now putting a CD on the stereo is almost as good. All the details are there, but (of course) not the emotional experience of a live performance with the musicians in front of me. In my country it is also a minority who invest in good equipment (despite being the home country for Bang and Olufsen ;-) ) -- Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards, Hans Kruse www.hanskrusephotography.com, www.hanskruse.com |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
|
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
On May 14, 12:07*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
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 And whose fault is it? Best Buy, Circuit City? You would think so after they trounced those small boutique stereo shops like the listening room. I was happily surprised, though, to find that Stereo Exchange in NYC still exists and is even thriving. 5.1, 6.1, 7.2? When will this multichannel neurosis end?? I bet if George Lucas's THX came out with a 10.3 spec where the 3rd sub-woofer is a 42" sub-sub -woofer to produce the 5 Hz to 15 Hz range at 100 dB SPL to faithfully reproduce the sound of a NYC subway train crashing off of the Manhattan bridge, people would buy it. Of course that woofer has to be located exclusively in your garage with your car located at least 75 feet down the driveway to prevent the woofer from vibrating it to pieces  Forgive me, I rant We the people of the USofA are at fault and we should get back to more fully appreciating stereo 2.0 CD |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
It isn't just the USA Harry.
A friend brought his son to me to talk about how to fruitfully spend his "hi-fi money". This young man spent the rest of the afternoon drooling over what could be accomplished. He had never heard a quality audio system, and (I suspect) neither had any of his friends. He had assumed that a high-end 'pod and headphones were the answer. Greg (in Australia) In article , "Harry Lavo" wrote: 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. |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
"Jenn" wrote in message
... In article , "Harry Lavo" wrote: 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. I very much agree, Harry. The vast majority of people have never heard good sound in their homes. They don't know what is possible with even modestly priced gear, well set up. Back in the early 80s, I had just spend a considerable amount of money (compared to my income at the time) on a "big box" system (from the now gone Federated store n SoCal). About a week later, when arriving early at a location in Santa Ana to pick up a friend from work, to kill time I wandered into Absolute Audio, which was about to close for the evening. What I heard, from a system that cost about what I had just spent, amazed me. I had no idea that one could get this much closer to the sound of live acoustic music. People just don't know what is possible. That said, I also don't think that most people care, and I think that that is more the case now than it was years ago. People don't just sit and listen as much anymore, in my experience. Chicken or egg? I also think that this is related to the present nature of so much of pop music. Well, I get kicked around every time I say this, but I continue to believe it. I think it traces to early CD. Until the early '80's home music via records was doing fine, and even though cassettes were growing as a convenience item and sound quality was not up to LP standards, it was still analog and still sounded musical. Along came CD with its undisputed convenience factors, and people were told "perfect sound forever" and bought it. But the sound on many (and I will claim most) CD's during the first decade, especially when played on less than state-of-the-art gear, was just sterile, sterile, sterile....due to problems in the mastering stage and in the reproduction stage. They weren't beginning to be fixed before about 1992 (I remember the date well because I was considering starting a newsletter called "The Musical Truth" as an anti-digital screed at the time). As a result of this "sterility", a whole young generation was turned off to listening....because the music just didn't "communicate" in an emotionally-compelling way, and it became treated as background music. And a pattern was broken that has never been restored. Digital sound on CD and CD playback has gotten better, but compressed music and computers have added even more convenience while degrading this improved sound back to "background" quality.....and so the cycle continues. My view. No proof. But I lived through it as a semi-pro recordist, long-term audiophile, and concerned music lover. I stand by it. |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
|
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
On May 14, 12:07*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
How far we have fallen as a musically-literate society. Several people have already noted the fallacy of equating high-end reproduction with appreciation for music, but how many of us developed our love of music while listening to high-fidelity reproduction of same? (Harry, I understand, did, which would explain his perspective.) I learned the American Songbook from my mother's AM car radio and had an eclectic record collection long before I had a decently clean- sounding set of speakers. One thing about the iPod generation is that they listen to a LOT of music—certainly more than I ever did. After all, it's more convenient and accessible than it was in our day. Granted, most of it's pop, because, well, pop is popular. But some of them will expand their horizons one day, just as some of us did. BTW, I don't know if it's still true, but in the early years of the iTunes Store, classical music had a higher market share than it did in CDs. bob |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
On Fri, 15 May 2009 02:47:18 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ): In article , "Harry Lavo" wrote: 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. I very much agree, Harry. The vast majority of people have never heard good sound in their homes. They don't know what is possible with even modestly priced gear, well set up. Back in the early 80s, I had just spend a considerable amount of money (compared to my income at the time) on a "big box" system (from the now gone Federated store n SoCal). About a week later, when arriving early at a location in Santa Ana to pick up a friend from work, to kill time I wandered into Absolute Audio, which was about to close for the evening. What I heard, from a system that cost about what I had just spent, amazed me. I had no idea that one could get this much closer to the sound of live acoustic music. People just don't know what is possible. That said, I also don't think that most people care, and I think that that is more the case now than it was years ago. People don't just sit and listen as much anymore, in my experience. Chicken or egg? I also think that this is related to the present nature of so much of pop music. "I also don't think that most people care..." You said a mouthful, brother. You're right, they don't care. this current generation also doesn't care about their cultural heritage nor do they care to know about anything that occurred before they became cognizant of the world around them. To them art, music, literature, all of these things are "irrelevant". The only things that are relevant to them are the latest Snoop Dog "song" and the latest "graphic novel" and the latest lousy, overblown Hollywood "epic." As the snooty maitre d' at the restaurant says when confronted by Matthew Broderick and friends in "Ferris Beuller's Day Off": "I weep for the future." |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
wrote in message
... On May 14, 12:07 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: How far we have fallen as a musically-literate society. "Music literacy" is not enshrined in a particular technology, vintage, modern or otherwise. I find it far more significant that if you had played Couperin, Buxtehude, Katchaturian, Du Pre, Hindemith, Shostakovich or Jan Pieterszoon Sweelink on ANYTHING, including their I-pod, you would have been met, instead, with yawns or blank stares. I don't disagree with you Dick, except I would call that Classical Music "Super-Literacy". I was more speaking of people who simply incorporated music of any value -- show tunes, pop vocalists, etc -- into there lives by LISTENING to the music, as opposed to treating it as background. |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
codifus wrote:
On May 14, 12:07?pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: How far we have fallen as a musically-literate society. -- Harry Lavo Holyoke, MA And whose fault is it? Best Buy, Circuit City? You would think so after they trounced those small boutique stereo shops like the listening room. I was happily surprised, though, to find that Stereo Exchange in NYC still exists and is even thriving. 5.1, 6.1, 7.2? When will this multichannel neurosis end?? I bet if George Lucas's THX came out with a 10.3 spec where the 3rd sub-woofer is a 42" sub-sub -woofer to produce the 5 Hz to 15 Hz range at 100 dB SPL to faithfully reproduce the sound of a NYC subway train crashing off of the Manhattan bridge, people would buy it. Of course that woofer has to be located exclusively in your garage with your car located at least 75 feet down the driveway to prevent the woofer from vibrating it to pieces Forgive me, I rant We the people of the USofA are at fault and we should get back to more fully appreciating stereo 2.0 Your hyperbole notwithstanding, there are sound reasons for more than 2.0 channels. (And btw, Tom Holman of THX -- a Lucas spinnoff -- does advicate 10.2 surround) Better fidelity to 'live' events -- like, say, an orchestra in a concert hall --can be achieved with surround, than with stereo, for one. And certainly, fidelity to a movie experience -- which typically employs surround systems -- is improved by surround at home. And movie sound, unlike music production, actually adheres to *standards*. Musical literacy has little or nothing to do with the quality of home audio reproduction; the golden age of 'classical' music-as-popular-music in this country -- the days when Toscanini and Stokowski were 'stars' known to the average man -- occurred well before anything we would call 'high fidelity' playback today, existed. Millions fell in lvoe with classical music from low-fi *radio broadcasts* of that era. The fact is that we have far more competing musics --and other entertainments -- readily available to a wider public than we did then. Famliarity with Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and Britten has suffered as a results. Another fact is that incredibly good audio quality -- via cheap digital technology -- is now available to far more people that in the golden age of 'audiophile' culture. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:07:19 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): 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. Well, you certainly have nailed part of it. I think another reason why most people never look at high-end audio is simply because the market has alienated the average music lover with it's snobbish approach to sales and marketing, coupled with outrageous prices which have NO relationship to actual costs, and topped-off with a very large amount of ritualistic mumbo-jumbo involving $4000/meter interconnects, $1000/ft speaker cables and things like myrtlewood blocks on top of amplifiers, ceramic "lifts" for speaker cables. Not to mention after-market power cords that are as big around as a baby's thigh, and often cost as much or more than the component that they are connected to! People don't know that most of this stuff is just nonsense and isn't necessary, but they see sales people trying to sell them on this crap because it's high-profit margin and they are turned off by it (if they ever even bother to investigate buying an audio system in the first place). I have had more than one person tell me that they'd love to have decent stereo system, but simply can't afford one after the sales guy starts telling them the prices of all the accessories that they need just to get up and running. I've helped several people buy decent stereos for not an arm and a leg, and they sound good. but the delta between a "mid-fi" receiver and a couple of cheap speakers and the good stuff is getting so large, that most people just go out and buy an A/V receiver that will work with their TV and will play CDs too along with a cheap surround speaker system and consider that their music system. "(if they ever even bother to investigate buying an audio system in the first place). " I really do think this is more of the problem....the number of people exposed to high-end mumble and jumble is relatively small....because there are few dealers left who sell the stuff. Most of the retail industry has converted to audio-video (read video) or gone out of business. Most people's EXPOSURE to audio-only systems is in the big-box stores. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think our British friends still have a well-developed audio retailing industry and an absence of big-box stores....so I don't think it is an accident that they also have many more people (percentagewise) with an interest in having a good sound system, and a flourishing magazine trade catering to them. We have....box stores...and Stereophile...and hardly anything else anymore (Abso!ute Sound is becoming scarcer than hen's teeth at retail). And as you say, these tend to cater with mumble-jumbo more than addressing themselves to the great unwashed. |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
On May 15, 12:09*am, Sonnova wrote:
People don't know that most of this stuff is just nonsense and isn't necessary, but they see sales people trying to sell them on this crap because it's high-profit margin and they are turned off by it (if they ever even bother to investigate buying an audio system in the first place). Or they do know it's nonsense, and so assume that everything else about high-end audio is nonsense, too. Equally sad. bob |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
On Sat, 16 May 2009 03:04:25 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): codifus wrote: On May 14, 12:07?pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: How far we have fallen as a musically-literate society. -- Harry Lavo Holyoke, MA And whose fault is it? Best Buy, Circuit City? You would think so after they trounced those small boutique stereo shops like the listening room. I was happily surprised, though, to find that Stereo Exchange in NYC still exists and is even thriving. 5.1, 6.1, 7.2? When will this multichannel neurosis end?? I bet if George Lucas's THX came out with a 10.3 spec where the 3rd sub-woofer is a 42" sub-sub -woofer to produce the 5 Hz to 15 Hz range at 100 dB SPL to faithfully reproduce the sound of a NYC subway train crashing off of the Manhattan bridge, people would buy it. Of course that woofer has to be located exclusively in your garage with your car located at least 75 feet down the driveway to prevent the woofer from vibrating it to pieces Forgive me, I rant We the people of the USofA are at fault and we should get back to more fully appreciating stereo 2.0 Your hyperbole notwithstanding, there are sound reasons for more than 2.0 channels. (And btw, Tom Holman of THX -- a Lucas spinnoff -- does advicate 10.2 surround) Better fidelity to 'live' events -- like, say, an orchestra in a concert hall --can be achieved with surround, than with stereo, for one. While I certainly do not disagree with your statement, the fact of it, in and of itself, is reason enough for most people to be turned-off by the entire proposition. Most people find it a daunting enough task to integrate a two-channel system into their home environment. Call it "wife-approval-factor" or call it what you will, the point is that as the number of "necessary" channels increases, the more people are going to opt-out. Imagine an average living room with ELEVEN speakers in it! It may be desirable from a sound-field perspective, but it's damn unwieldy and bordering on the extremely impractical for most people. And certainly, fidelity to a movie experience -- which typically employs surround systems -- is improved by surround at home. And movie sound, unlike music production, actually adheres to *standards*. Musical literacy has little or nothing to do with the quality of home audio reproduction; the golden age of 'classical' music-as-popular-music in this country -- the days when Toscanini and Stokowski were 'stars' known to the average man -- occurred well before anything we would call 'high fidelity' playback today, existed. Millions fell in lvoe with classical music from low-fi *radio broadcasts* of that era. The fact is that we have far more competing musics --and other entertainments ..... and a severely dumbed-down populace to consume them. |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Sat, 16 May 2009 03:04:25 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): codifus wrote: On May 14, 12:07?pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: How far we have fallen as a musically-literate society. -- Harry Lavo Holyoke, MA And whose fault is it? Best Buy, Circuit City? You would think so after they trounced those small boutique stereo shops like the listening room. I was happily surprised, though, to find that Stereo Exchange in NYC still exists and is even thriving. 5.1, 6.1, 7.2? When will this multichannel neurosis end?? I bet if George Lucas's THX came out with a 10.3 spec where the 3rd sub-woofer is a 42" sub-sub -woofer to produce the 5 Hz to 15 Hz range at 100 dB SPL to faithfully reproduce the sound of a NYC subway train crashing off of the Manhattan bridge, people would buy it. Of course that woofer has to be located exclusively in your garage with your car located at least 75 feet down the driveway to prevent the woofer from vibrating it to pieces Forgive me, I rant We the people of the USofA are at fault and we should get back to more fully appreciating stereo 2.0 Your hyperbole notwithstanding, there are sound reasons for more than 2.0 channels. (And btw, Tom Holman of THX -- a Lucas spinnoff -- does advicate 10.2 surround) Better fidelity to 'live' events -- like, say, an orchestra in a concert hall --can be achieved with surround, than with stereo, for one. While I certainly do not disagree with your statement, the fact of it, in and of itself, is reason enough for most people to be turned-off by the entire proposition. Most people find it a daunting enough task to integrate a two-channel system into their home environment. Call it "wife-approval-factor" or call it what you will, the point is that as the number of "necessary" channels increases, the more people are going to opt-out. Imagine an average living room with ELEVEN speakers in it! It may be desirable from a sound-field perspective, but it's damn unwieldy and bordering on the extremely impractical for most people. Truth is, for home use four full range speakers will usually suffice for music, five if you are a purist. No sub required, and most multichannel gear lets you create a phantom center channel, so you don't even have to change your stereo setup. What really would help would be some good quality rear amplifiers from name manufacturers with built in receivers and a transmitter to accept signal at the preamp and transmit. Then setting up a room would pose little more challenge (in some ways even less) than setting up another stereo pair. But this assumes, of course, that there is a dealer network out there even remotely interested in selling a multichannel system with an emphasis on music instead of movies (two fewer speakers, less wattage, etc.). snip |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 08:18:21 -0700, wrote (in article ): Sonnova wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:07:19 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): snip People don't know that most of this stuff is just nonsense and isn't necessary, Sorry, but I don't really buy that. I think most people have enough common sense to know *that* level of hogwash when they see it, and it turns them off at that point. Why don't you think about that for a second? If, as you say, "most people have enough common sense to know *that* level of hogwash when they see it.." then the high-end industry wouldn't be awash with hundreds of companies selling this crap. "Most" people do recognize that mpingo disks and cable elevators, and their ilk, are audio foolery. They wouldn't have a big enough clientele to warrant such a large business. I don't believe it is a "large business", certainly not in relative terms. It appears to be an ever shrinking market segment, aiming at an ever narrowing client base - i.e. those with conspicuous wealth. Of, course, there is always the "bling" factor. Rich audiophiles might buy expensive cables simply because they look cool (which they do), IOW, audio jewelry. Very true. snip Well, without any knowledge about how wire works with AC signals, I think the average bloke can be easily sold a bill of goods wrt this stuff. The sales guy tells them how much better the system sounds with this expensive cable over that cheaper one, and even demonstrates. Not wanting to seem like a boob, the buyer agrees. Hell, even an experienced audiophile will "hear" a marked improvement with his new, expensive cable(s) over his old ones simply because he EXPECTS the new one to sound better. Shhhhhhhh...you're bordering on heresy here :-) I've helped several people buy decent stereos for not an arm and a leg, and they sound good. but the delta between a "mid-fi" receiver and a couple of cheap speakers and the good stuff is getting so large, That seems something of an apples to aardvarks argument there, in that *anything* and a "couple of cheap speakers" will result in a crap system. I didn't say or even intimate that. I said that the delta in price between the type of system one can get at Best Buy or Costco and even an entry-level "high-end" system is getting so large that most consumers cannot see the value in going with the high-end system (until they hear somebody else's, that is). I think it's more accurate to say that the delta between a system with junk speakers versus good speakers is very large, irrespective of the source and amplification equipment. I.e., put the money where it counts the most - speakers. Except that one can get a very decent receiver with more than adequate power for just a couple of hundred bucks while even an entry-level "high-end" integrated amplifier is five to ten times as much. The reality is that the receiver and the high-end integrated can have roughly the same power and be, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from one another, sound-wise. That is *exactly* the point I was making. There is, IME, no vast disparity between a mid-fi front end and a high-end front end when using quality speakers. Which makes it even more ludicrous to suggest (as I've seen happen in audio salons) to someone that they should invest in a $3K CD transport and DAC instead of upgrading their $250 speakers, because "the first piece in the audio chain is the most important". Makes selling the average consumer on a decent high-end amp very difficult. The fact that the high-end amp will be better made and will have switches and pots which will last for decades, while the receiver will have to be replaced in a couple of years because something will break is lost on most buyers in this throw-away economy. Absolutely. And let's face it, A/V is the market now. Here in a metro area of some 5M people, I think we have *one* audio-only store left. But a good A/V receiver with quality speakers will be hard to audibly improve upon by upgrading electronics. Keith Hughes |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
On May 14, 10:08*pm, "Dave" wrote:
[quoted text deleted -- deb] I find it odd that good quality audio equipment was found in most everyone's house when I was a kid... maybe not high-end stuff, but solid receivers and decent-sounding speakers... and people LISTENED to them. *Nowadays I think the #1 requirement for people looking for an audio system is that it should be as small as possible and have a built-in iPod dock. *I appreciate music more and more the longer I live and feel priveleged to be in a position to drop a little $$ on a system that can reproduce it in a way that's realistic and pleasurable. *I guess I (we) are in the minority. Dave Do you belong to any classical music discussion groups ?I do.It's amazing how many people in these groups ridicule what they call "audiophools",and seriously discuss buying their music as downloads. Roger |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
On May 16, 4:04*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
codifus wrote: On May 14, 12:07?pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: How far we have fallen as a musically-literate society. -- Harry Lavo Holyoke, MA And whose fault is it? Best Buy, Circuit City? You would think so after they trounced those small boutique stereo shops like the listening room. I was happily surprised, though, to find that Stereo Exchange in NYC still exists and is even thriving. 5.1, 6.1, 7.2? When will this multichannel neurosis end?? I bet if George Lucas's THX came out with a 10.3 spec where the 3rd sub-woofer is a 42" sub-sub -woofer to produce the 5 Hz to 15 Hz range at 100 dB SPL to faithfully reproduce the sound of a NYC subway train crashing off of the Manhattan bridge, people would buy it. Of course that woofer has to be located exclusively in your garage with your car located at least 75 feet down the driveway to prevent the woofer from vibrating it to pieces Forgive me, I rant We the people of the USofA are at fault and we should get back to more fully appreciating stereo 2.0 Your hyperbole notwithstanding, there are sound reasons for more than 2.0 channels. *(And btw, Tom Holman of THX -- a Lucas spinnoff -- does advicate 10.2 surround) Better fidelity to 'live' events -- like, say, an orchestra in a concert hall --can be achieved with surround, than with stereo, for one. And certainly, fidelity to a movie experience -- which typically employs surround systems -- is improved by surround at home. And movie sound, unlike music production, actually adheres to *standards*. Musical literacy has little or nothing to do with the quality of home audio reproduction; the golden age of 'classical' music-as-popular-music in this country -- the days when Toscanini and Stokowski were 'stars' known to the average man -- occurred well before anything we would call 'high fidelity' playback today, existed. *Millions fell in lvoe with classical music from low-fi *radio broadcasts* of that era. The fact is that we have far more competing musics --and other entertainments -- readily available to a wider public than we did then. Famliarity with Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and Britten has suffered as a results. Another fact is that incredibly good audio quality -- via cheap digital technology -- is now available to far more people that in the golden age of 'audiophile' culture. Speak for yourself.My favorite era of classical recording is the mono Lp era (1948-55),with early stereo and electrical 78s tied a close second.If you have never enjoyed a good Deutsche Gramophon Furtwangler 78,or a scroll Victor Frederick Stock on a fine tube system,you are missing one of the great musical experiences of all time.There are some 78s like the Desire Defauw "Birds" I would rank as some of the greatest sounding records of all time.Lo-fi is relative,a cheap tube radio will always sound better than an iPod. But I agree with you entirely about classical music no longer being as accessable as it used to be.That ended when the last of Lenny's "Young People Concerts " aired in the 70s.Pavarotti was the last classical music celebrity of that stature.I think we said goodbye to that world forever after Ronald Reagan,and his third term surrogate,Bill Clinton so completely changed the media landscape in this country.As someone who put their classical record collection together from thrift stores,as these people were dying out,I can say the sheer quantity of classical records the baby boomer's parents and grandparents bought was incredible. Roger |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
"Roger Kulp" wrote in message
... On May 14, 10:08 pm, "Dave" wrote: [quoted text deleted -- deb] I find it odd that good quality audio equipment was found in most everyone's house when I was a kid... maybe not high-end stuff, but solid receivers and decent-sounding speakers... and people LISTENED to them. Nowadays I think the #1 requirement for people looking for an audio system is that it should be as small as possible and have a built-in iPod dock. I appreciate music more and more the longer I live and feel priveleged to be in a position to drop a little $$ on a system that can reproduce it in a way that's realistic and pleasurable. I guess I (we) are in the minority. Dave Do you belong to any classical music discussion groups ?I do.It's amazing how many people in these groups ridicule what they call "audiophools",and seriously discuss buying their music as downloads. Roger That can be interpreted several ways. To me, it reinforces the idea that people, even classical music lovers like my friend about whom I wrote to originate this thread, simply don't know that really good sound can exist in a home. |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:02:03 -0700, Roger Kulp wrote
(in article ): On May 16, 4:04*am, Steven Sullivan wrote: codifus wrote: On May 14, 12:07?pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: How far we have fallen as a musically-literate society. -- Harry Lavo Holyoke, MA And whose fault is it? Best Buy, Circuit City? You would think so after they trounced those small boutique stereo shops like the listening room. I was happily surprised, though, to find that Stereo Exchange in NYC still exists and is even thriving. 5.1, 6.1, 7.2? When will this multichannel neurosis end?? I bet if George Lucas's THX came out with a 10.3 spec where the 3rd sub-woofer is a 42" sub-sub -woofer to produce the 5 Hz to 15 Hz range at 100 dB SPL to faithfully reproduce the sound of a NYC subway train crashing off of the Manhattan bridge, people would buy it. Of course that woofer has to be located exclusively in your garage with your car located at least 75 feet down the driveway to prevent the woofer from vibrating it to pieces Forgive me, I rant We the people of the USofA are at fault and we should get back to more fully appreciating stereo 2.0 Your hyperbole notwithstanding, there are sound reasons for more than 2.0 channels. *(And btw, Tom Holman of THX -- a Lucas spinnoff -- does advicate 10.2 surround) Better fidelity to 'live' events -- like, say, an orchestra in a concert hall --can be achieved with surround, than with stereo, for one. And certainly, fidelity to a movie experience -- which typically employs surround systems -- is improved by surround at home. And movie sound, unlike music production, actually adheres to *standards*. Musical literacy has little or nothing to do with the quality of home audio reproduction; the golden age of 'classical' music-as-popular-music in this country -- the days when Toscanini and Stokowski were 'stars' known to the average man -- occurred well before anything we would call 'high fidelity' playback today, existed. *Millions fell in lvoe with classical music from low-fi *radio broadcasts* of that era. The fact is that we have far more competing musics --and other entertainments -- readily available to a wider public than we did then. Famliarity with Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and Britten has suffered as a results. Another fact is that incredibly good audio quality -- via cheap digital technology -- is now available to far more people that in the golden age of 'audiophile' culture. Speak for yourself.My favorite era of classical recording is the mono Lp era (1948-55),with early stereo and electrical 78s tied a close second.If you have never enjoyed a good Deutsche Gramophon Furtwangler 78,or a scroll Victor Frederick Stock on a fine tube system,you are missing one of the great musical experiences of all time.There are some 78s like the Desire Defauw "Birds" I would rank as some of the greatest sounding records of all time.Lo-fi is relative,a cheap tube radio will always sound better than an iPod. I'll second that. I have a bunch of late 78-era London (British Decca) FFRR records, and although I haven't listened to them in years I do know that they sound SUPERB. The thing is that a lot of today's audiophiles are digital snobs. They turn their noses up at any all analog sources. Me? I look at mono LPs, stereo LPs, and even 78s as just another music source. Of course, I adjust my expectations accordingly, but still, I'm very often pleasantly surprised when the results sometimes far exceed my expectations. Its one of the things that makes this avocation exciting! But I agree with you entirely about classical music no longer being as accessable as it used to be.That ended when the last of Lenny's "Young People Concerts " aired in the 70s.Pavarotti was the last classical music celebrity of that stature.I think we said goodbye to that world forever after Ronald Reagan,and his third term surrogate,Bill Clinton so completely changed the media landscape in this country.As someone who put their classical record collection together from thrift stores,as these people were dying out,I can say the sheer quantity of classical records the baby boomer's parents and grandparents bought was incredible. It sure was. But classical music will weather the storm. It's been here for generations and it will continue to find new audiences with every new generation, even though that audience will be smaller than before. Remember pop music belongs to the generations that embraced it. When they're gone, so will, for the most part, the music. Sure, just as we still remember and people still perform songs like "Night and Day" and "Stardust", people will likely always remember and always play some of the Beetles better efforts and maybe a few more. But Snoop Dog?!! |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
On 2009-05-17, Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:02:03 -0700, Roger Kulp wrote (in article ): On May 16, 4:04Â*am, Steven Sullivan wrote: codifus wrote: On May 14, 12:07?pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: How far we have fallen as a musically-literate society. -- Harry Lavo Holyoke, MA And whose fault is it? Best Buy, Circuit City? You would think so after they trounced those small boutique stereo shops like the listening room. I was happily surprised, though, to find that Stereo Exchange in NYC still exists and is even thriving. 5.1, 6.1, 7.2? When will this multichannel neurosis end?? I bet if George Lucas's THX came out with a 10.3 spec where the 3rd sub-woofer is a 42" sub-sub -woofer to produce the 5 Hz to 15 Hz range at 100 dB SPL to faithfully reproduce the sound of a NYC subway train crashing off of the Manhattan bridge, people would buy it. Of course that woofer has to be located exclusively in your garage with your car located at least 75 feet down the driveway to prevent the woofer from vibrating it to pieces Forgive me, I rant We the people of the USofA are at fault and we should get back to more fully appreciating stereo 2.0 Your hyperbole notwithstanding, there are sound reasons for more than 2.0 channels. Â*(And btw, Tom Holman of THX -- a Lucas spinnoff -- does advicate 10.2 surround) Better fidelity to 'live' events -- like, say, an orchestra in a concert hall --can be achieved with surround, than with stereo, for one. And certainly, fidelity to a movie experience -- which typically employs surround systems -- is improved by surround at home. And movie sound, unlike music production, actually adheres to *standards*. Musical literacy has little or nothing to do with the quality of home audio reproduction; the golden age of 'classical' music-as-popular-music in this country -- the days when Toscanini and Stokowski were 'stars' known to the average man -- occurred well before anything we would call 'high fidelity' playback today, existed. Â*Millions fell in lvoe with classical music from low-fi *radio broadcasts* of that era. The fact is that we have far more competing musics --and other entertainments -- readily available to a wider public than we did then. Famliarity with Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and Britten has suffered as a results. Another fact is that incredibly good audio quality -- via cheap digital technology -- is now available to far more people that in the golden age of 'audiophile' culture. Speak for yourself.My favorite era of classical recording is the mono Lp era (1948-55),with early stereo and electrical 78s tied a close second.If you have never enjoyed a good Deutsche Gramophon Furtwangler 78,or a scroll Victor Frederick Stock on a fine tube system,you are missing one of the great musical experiences of all time.There are some 78s like the Desire Defauw "Birds" I would rank as some of the greatest sounding records of all time.Lo-fi is relative,a cheap tube radio will always sound better than an iPod. I'll second that. I have a bunch of late 78-era London (British Decca) FFRR records, and although I haven't listened to them in years I do know that they sound SUPERB. The thing is that a lot of today's audiophiles are digital snobs. They turn their noses up at any all analog sources. Me? I look at mono LPs, stereo LPs, and even 78s as just another music source. Of course, I adjust my expectations accordingly, but still, I'm very often pleasantly surprised when the results sometimes far exceed my expectations. Its one of the things that makes this avocation exciting! I feel strongly that the "problem" with the CDs is due to the recording engineers &/or producers. I have recorded my selected LPs onto CDs nearly 10 years ago & find that I regret throwing away some that have CDs available now as MY recorded CDs "sounded better". Much of the CDs now are cluttered for surrond sound when it isn't needed; there is a "Producer's Cut" in DTS format of Emmy Lu Harris singing that of times have the guitar she played coming out of the rear speaker while the voice is in the front. I don't believe Harris has a doppleglanger. Also the trend is to have the listener experience the music as if s/he is sitting in the middle of the orchestra/band. Then there is the boom box effect as the mid-bass is the only sound that counted/required for "truism"/hi-fi; even the some VW commercials has that with the windshield wipers moving to the heavy beat of the bass. A former co-worker was part of a rock band & had mentioned to me that they were going to get a "fuzz box" which sounded like equipment to produce distortion. With synthetic music & electronics, quality is only a matter of interpretation as can the equipment produce the synthetic sound reliably; kinda think that is part of the reason for the power shortages.... But I agree with you entirely about classical music no longer being as accessable as it used to be.That ended when the last of Lenny's "Young People Concerts " aired in the 70s.Pavarotti was the last classical music celebrity of that stature.I think we said goodbye to that world forever after Ronald Reagan,and his third term surrogate,Bill Clinton so completely changed the media landscape in this country.As someone who put their classical record collection together from thrift stores,as these people were dying out,I can say the sheer quantity of classical records the baby boomer's parents and grandparents bought was incredible. It sure was. But classical music will weather the storm. It's been here for generations and it will continue to find new audiences with every new generation, even though that audience will be smaller than before. Remember pop music belongs to the generations that embraced it. When they're gone, so will, for the most part, the music. Sure, just as we still remember and people still perform songs like "Night and Day" and "Stardust", people will likely always remember and always play some of the Beetles better efforts and maybe a few more. But Snoop Dog?!! How about the olde "monkey song"??? There were silly songs even in the old days. I did have to listen to a rap "song" while waiting at the stop light where the car in the next lane was blaring out "fu*k this, fu*k that" to a loud beat of the bass line; just 2 words, oops that's 3 words for the whole song. Songs don't have musicality as the singers just yell out the lyrics in a strained voice; sometimes it even sound like screeching... Just so long there is a very heavy beat...... |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
On May 18, 10:40*am, paul_0090 wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:02:03 -0700, Roger Kulp wrote (in article ): [quoted text deleted -- deb] I feel strongly that the "problem" with the CDs is due to the recording engineers &/or producers. *I have recorded my selected LPs onto CDs nearly 10 years ago & find that I regret throwing away some that have CDs available now as MY recorded CDs "sounded better". Much of the CDs now are cluttered for surrond sound when it isn't needed; there is a "Producer's Cut" in DTS format of Emmy Lu Harris singing that of times have the guitar she played coming out of the rear speaker while the voice is in the front. *I don't believe Harris has a doppleglanger. Also the trend is to have the listener experience the music as if s/he is sitting in the middle of the orchestra/band. Can you anyone refer me to a MC disc which *doesn't* have musical sound in its side/rear channels. I never hear any music coming from my sides or rear when seated in a hall. Then there is the boom box effect as the mid-bass is the only sound that counted/required for "truism"/hi-fi; even the some VW commercials has that with the windshield wipers moving to the heavy beat of the bass. A former co-worker was part of a rock band & had mentioned to me that they were going to get a "fuzz box" which sounded like equipment to produce distortion. *With synthetic music & electronics, quality is only a matter of interpretation as can the equipment produce the synthetic sound reliably; kinda think that is part of the reason for the power shortages.... But I agree with you entirely about classical music no longer being as accessable as it used to be.That ended when *the last of Lenny's "Young People Concerts " aired in the 70s.Pavarotti was the last classical music celebrity of that stature.I think we said goodbye to that world forever after Ronald Reagan,and his third term surrogate,Bill Clinton so completely changed the media landscape in this country. Can I either directly or indirectly blame poor Ronnie or Bill for putting musical sounds in side/rear channels of a MC disc? |
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
wrote in message ...
On May 18, 10:40 am, paul_0090 wrote: On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:02:03 -0700, Roger Kulp wrote (in article ): [quoted text deleted -- deb] I feel strongly that the "problem" with the CDs is due to the recording engineers &/or producers. I have recorded my selected LPs onto CDs nearly 10 years ago & find that I regret throwing away some that have CDs available now as MY recorded CDs "sounded better". Much of the CDs now are cluttered for surrond sound when it isn't needed; there is a "Producer's Cut" in DTS format of Emmy Lu Harris singing that of times have the guitar she played coming out of the rear speaker while the voice is in the front. I don't believe Harris has a doppleglanger. Also the trend is to have the listener experience the music as if s/he is sitting in the middle of the orchestra/band. Can you anyone refer me to a MC disc which *doesn't* have musical sound in its side/rear channels. I never hear any music coming from my sides or rear when seated in a hall. Of course you do....much of the sound you hear is reflected from the sides of the hall, and some from the rear. You are just not as aware of it because an infinite number of sound sources is more "invisible" than two or three of them. Then there is the boom box effect as the mid-bass is the only sound that counted/required for "truism"/hi-fi; even the some VW commercials has that with the windshield wipers moving to the heavy beat of the bass. A former co-worker was part of a rock band & had mentioned to me that they were going to get a "fuzz box" which sounded like equipment to produce distortion. With synthetic music & electronics, quality is only a matter of interpretation as can the equipment produce the synthetic sound reliably; kinda think that is part of the reason for the power shortages.... But I agree with you entirely about classical music no longer being as accessable as it used to be.That ended when the last of Lenny's "Young People Concerts " aired in the 70s.Pavarotti was the last classical music celebrity of that stature.I think we said goodbye to that world forever after Ronald Reagan,and his third term surrogate,Bill Clinton so completely changed the media landscape in this country. Can I either directly or indirectly blame poor Ronnie or Bill for putting musical sounds in side/rear channels of a MC disc? No, but what does THAT have to do with the dimise of classical music? |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
On May 18, 2:24*pm, " wrote:
I never hear any music coming from my sides or rear when seated in a hall. What are you talking about? Of course you hear sound coming from the rear and sides. What do you think happens when sound waves hit walls? They don't just evaporate. The reason you THINK all the sound is coming from the front is because your eyes are open, and they are telling you that's where the sound is coming from. But, as usual, your eyes are deceiving you. The trick of good MC is to get the side and rear speakers to mimic the reflections you'd hear in the hall. bob |
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
|
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
On May 18, 3:50*pm, wrote:
On May 18, 2:24*pm, " wrote: *I never hear any music coming from my sides or rear when seated in a hall. What are you talking about? Of course you hear sound coming from the rear and sides. He didn't say "sound" he said "music." |
|
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
On May 18, 6:50*pm, wrote:
On May 18, 2:24*pm, " wrote: *I never hear any music coming from my sides or rear when seated in a hall. What are you talking about? Of course you hear sound coming from the rear and sides. What do you think happens when sound waves hitwalls? They don't just evaporate. The reason you THINK all the sound is coming from the front is because your eyes are open, and they are telling you that's where the sound is coming from. But, as usual, your eyes are deceiving you. The trick of good MC is to get thesideand rear speakers to mimic the reflections you'd hear in the hall. "A trick not at all well performed. Low level sounds (in actual performance) are heard in the side and rear channels as being so called "reflections" when in fact they couldn't have been and aren't. It appears as a phoney gimmick, or "trick"; something like playing a 2 CH recording in a car and hearing the sound coming from all the surround speakers. From where I sit in several decent halls there aren't any side/rear refections of any appreciable volume. I can't hear a soprano's low level voice from side or rear walls. If it were the Met Opera House would have been torn down long ago. bob |
|
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazement
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "Roger Kulp" wrote in message ... Do you belong to any classical music discussion groups ?I do.It's amazing how many people in these groups ridicule what they call "audiophools",and seriously discuss buying their music as downloads. Roger That can be interpreted several ways. To me, it reinforces the idea that people, even classical music lovers like my friend about whom I wrote to originate this thread, simply don't know that really good sound can exist in a home. Well, I have to say that music enjoyment is a subjective and personal experience and don't want to seem in any way disparaging of people who can truly enjoy Rachmaninoff on their clock radio. Just think how much money they don't have to spend on expensive audio gear! Different people definitely enjoy music in different ways, I enjoy the audio illusion of "being there" imparted by decent (and the word "decent" is kind of a moving target) equipment playing high-quality recordings. Clarity, timbre, attack and decay, fortunately or unfortunately I hear those qualities and I really DO NOT ENJOY lesser-quality in my livingroom. I can hear it and it bugs me. But, take my wife for example. She can't carry a tune to save her life, and couldn't tell the difference between a pair of Magnepan 3.6's and a pair of JVC bookshelf speakers. Honestly, she can't. But she loves music nonetheless in some odd way which I try not to think about too much. What bothers me personally about the decline of high fidelity is that as we move forward our choices seem to be becoming more and more limited as far as what we are exposed to. Ultra-compressed CD's and FM radio (if anybody other than myself actually still listens to FM), 64kpbs (or less!) satellite radio, low-bitrate internet feeds... I listen to CBC-2 (I'm in Canada) via my cable TV provider's FM feed and during a recent period when the FM feed was interrupted I tried the internet feed... 64kpbs. And this is supposed to be high-quality programming! But by and large it's a market-driven choice: why provide high-quality content when the VAST majority of listeners don't demand it? This isn't a bar I really want to see lowered that much. Which leads back to a question I posed initially? What's changed? Why was music important enough in the 60's for my parents, who were by no stretch of the imagination wealthy, to spend the equivalent in today's dollars of probably $3K or $4k on a stereo with 5 hungry kids to feed and one beater car to drive around in? Why is it more likely people will by a home theatre in a box now? Why are 128kpbs downloads good enough? Why would people rather buy re-mastered compressed versions of CD's which were much higher quality in their original form? To a large extent these choices have already been made and it seems that as a society we have opted for quantity over quality in a great many areas of our lives. Dave |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Amazement, note | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
