Amazement
Harry Lavo wrote:
"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.
There's nothing *inherently* wrong with downloaded classical music -- and it's
a regrettable reflex among some 'audiophiles' to act as if there was. Downloaded
classical lossy files, like any other music, can either be well-encoded or not.
Lossless downloads, should, of course, be no different sonically from hard-format
counterparts.
The ridicule that audiophiles have brought upon themselves stems from supporting a market that
straight-facedly sells them, for example, $400 USB cables, LP demagnetizers, and cable
lifters, as means to 'improve' sound.
--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine
|