On 12 Jan 2006 11:02:42 -0800, " wrote:

As to 2006 vs. the 70s, of course it is. And look what it has brought
us. The typical listener today believes that what comes out of his/her
computer speakers is 'high-fidelity' because the speakers say "Bose" or
some such on them. The actually believe that a Bose wave radio is
capable of 'full fidelity sound reproduction'. So damned-near anything
will sound good with that as a measure. We have trained almost an
entire generation to "Television" sound... it ain't necessarily so.

The previous generation was trained to open-back tubed radios with
nothing below 100Hz or so, receiving 5kHz bandwidth AM transmissions.
Did you have a point to make?

As
to electronic amplification, not much has changed in the last 60 years
for tubes and 35 years for solid-state excepting around the edges. So,
a solid, reliable, 'flat' amplifier made in 1963, or 1971, or 2006
remains a solid, reliable, 'flat' amplifier today.

True, and pretty much a done deal above the most basic cost-stripped
units.

Speakers will use
better materials (sometimes) and tighter tolerances (sometimes), but
their essential function is unchanged. That the better materials and
tighter tolerances make them more efficient is a very good thing.

Actually, it doesn't necessarily make them more efficient, but it
makes them a heck of a lot more accurate!

But
we should never be fooled into believing that efficiency is the
sole-and-only driving force in speaker design.

Since when did *anyone* believe that?

What should be the
driving force, then, now and into the future is a given speakers's
ability to RE-produce sound as closely as possible to the
live-and-on-site experience.

Since when did anyone argue against that?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering