Audio_Empire
January 5th 14, 03:38 AM
On Friday, January 3, 2014 6:16:20 PM UTC-8, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> On 2014-01-02 22:52:00 +0000, Audio_Empire said:
>
>
>
> > On Monday, December 30, 2013 8:15:30 AM UTC-8, =
wrote:
> >> This week 's online stereophile continues in its series of =
articles>>
> >> bemoaning the poor state of hifi.
=20
<SNIP>
=20
> Excellent equipment can be had cheaply, if you know what to look for.
=20
Of course it can. But do the hi-fi mags ever =93highlight=94 that =
excellent
equipment? No. As I said, magazines like Stereophile emphasize
the high-priced equipment to the extent that it gives the impression
that these price points are where the entire market =93lives=94, and =
It=92s
simply not that way.
=20
> Consumer-grade hifi setups range (of course) from iffy to,
> surprisingly, amazing at this time. But the bigger issue is not
> Stereophile, it's the market. If Yamaha and Sony can produce a very
> respectable full system, speakers and all, for $600 on up where's that
> leave the niche player in the market? They will chase the high margin
> segment of the market where they can make decent profits shipping a =
few
> dozen to a few thousand units per year.
=20
=20
> Stereophile is a blip on the radar when it comes to influencing the
> market. I would guess Amazon's rating system influences ten thousand
> buyers for every one that Stereophile does.
=20
About this, I disagree. People IN THE MARKET for Hi-Fi visit Amazon and =
other
web-sites to buy, but they would go to the hi-fi magazines to get an =
idea what=92s
available and what they should be looking at. Mega-buck prices for elite
gear on the covers of these magazines gives those of casual interest, =
the idea
that this is what you must pay to get decent sound. I=92ve spoken to =
many people
who say that they stopped right there. =93I=92m not going to pay $10,000 =
for a CD
player (or amp, or DAC, or you name it).
=20
> Another thing to consider is the habits of consumers these days. Have
> you ever looked at the way that people's televisions are adjusted?=20
> They have the contrast cranked as well as the color, because the
> picture is 'bolder' that way. In fact new TVs come pre-****ed-over
> from the factory to give the person the impression that their TV is
> working properly! Realistic flesh tones? Fah! Stereos are another
> example - have you heard how people have their EQ adjusted? The
> manufacturers that produce respectable middle proced systems also have
> the default settings leaning way toward heavy bass so that the =
consumer
> is happy with their stereo. Then the consumer's first act, after =
setup
> (and likely before they even listen to any program material) is to
> crank the bass even more, or even to engage Super Bass or other types
> of systems that tend to come standard on every A/V receiver these =
days.
=20
Well, that=92s always been true. Back when people had big console radios
In their homes, one would invariably find the =93tone=94 control turned =
all
the way to the =93maximum bass and minimum treble=94 side. If the =
console
was of sufficient quality and of an age where separate bass and treble
controls were present, the bass was boosted and the treble cut =96 even =
if
the console included FM. But those aren=92t the people who might have
nascent audiophile interests. IOW, the average consumer is irrelevant
to the audiophile market and always has been.
=20
> It's not a big deal though, I don't think. These settings can be
> adjusted properly by a knowledgable listener and most halfway decent
> consumer stereos can sound really good when properly adjusted. For =
the
> people who care, who can listen, and who have ears, the equipment =
works
> fine after a bit of fiddling. For those who don't care, what's the
> point in trying to convince them?
=20
None, and I don=92t recall anyone in this thread suggesting that they =
should
Be convinced!
=20
<SNIP>
=20
And you totally ignored the role that inexpensive audio kits COULD play
in fostering interest in hi-fi asa hobby. But since they don=92t exist =
any=20
more...=
> On 2014-01-02 22:52:00 +0000, Audio_Empire said:
>
>
>
> > On Monday, December 30, 2013 8:15:30 AM UTC-8, =
wrote:
> >> This week 's online stereophile continues in its series of =
articles>>
> >> bemoaning the poor state of hifi.
=20
<SNIP>
=20
> Excellent equipment can be had cheaply, if you know what to look for.
=20
Of course it can. But do the hi-fi mags ever =93highlight=94 that =
excellent
equipment? No. As I said, magazines like Stereophile emphasize
the high-priced equipment to the extent that it gives the impression
that these price points are where the entire market =93lives=94, and =
It=92s
simply not that way.
=20
> Consumer-grade hifi setups range (of course) from iffy to,
> surprisingly, amazing at this time. But the bigger issue is not
> Stereophile, it's the market. If Yamaha and Sony can produce a very
> respectable full system, speakers and all, for $600 on up where's that
> leave the niche player in the market? They will chase the high margin
> segment of the market where they can make decent profits shipping a =
few
> dozen to a few thousand units per year.
=20
=20
> Stereophile is a blip on the radar when it comes to influencing the
> market. I would guess Amazon's rating system influences ten thousand
> buyers for every one that Stereophile does.
=20
About this, I disagree. People IN THE MARKET for Hi-Fi visit Amazon and =
other
web-sites to buy, but they would go to the hi-fi magazines to get an =
idea what=92s
available and what they should be looking at. Mega-buck prices for elite
gear on the covers of these magazines gives those of casual interest, =
the idea
that this is what you must pay to get decent sound. I=92ve spoken to =
many people
who say that they stopped right there. =93I=92m not going to pay $10,000 =
for a CD
player (or amp, or DAC, or you name it).
=20
> Another thing to consider is the habits of consumers these days. Have
> you ever looked at the way that people's televisions are adjusted?=20
> They have the contrast cranked as well as the color, because the
> picture is 'bolder' that way. In fact new TVs come pre-****ed-over
> from the factory to give the person the impression that their TV is
> working properly! Realistic flesh tones? Fah! Stereos are another
> example - have you heard how people have their EQ adjusted? The
> manufacturers that produce respectable middle proced systems also have
> the default settings leaning way toward heavy bass so that the =
consumer
> is happy with their stereo. Then the consumer's first act, after =
setup
> (and likely before they even listen to any program material) is to
> crank the bass even more, or even to engage Super Bass or other types
> of systems that tend to come standard on every A/V receiver these =
days.
=20
Well, that=92s always been true. Back when people had big console radios
In their homes, one would invariably find the =93tone=94 control turned =
all
the way to the =93maximum bass and minimum treble=94 side. If the =
console
was of sufficient quality and of an age where separate bass and treble
controls were present, the bass was boosted and the treble cut =96 even =
if
the console included FM. But those aren=92t the people who might have
nascent audiophile interests. IOW, the average consumer is irrelevant
to the audiophile market and always has been.
=20
> It's not a big deal though, I don't think. These settings can be
> adjusted properly by a knowledgable listener and most halfway decent
> consumer stereos can sound really good when properly adjusted. For =
the
> people who care, who can listen, and who have ears, the equipment =
works
> fine after a bit of fiddling. For those who don't care, what's the
> point in trying to convince them?
=20
None, and I don=92t recall anyone in this thread suggesting that they =
should
Be convinced!
=20
<SNIP>
=20
And you totally ignored the role that inexpensive audio kits COULD play
in fostering interest in hi-fi asa hobby. But since they don=92t exist =
any=20
more...=