[[email protected]]

In this week's online stereophile the editor bemoans the plight of "high
end",ie. price tag, audio. The boomers are no longer the buyers and
younger generations take their audio straight up, so to speak, as but one
part of several ongoing activities. The fear that audio gear will become a
commodity was raised, and it is a reality that fancy boxes as living room
set pieces have lost their appeal. Why the high cost spread when the ever
present smartphone brings in the tunes thank you.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/h...high-end-audio

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Monday, November 25, 2013 11:45:06 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2013 9:41:29 AM UTC-8, wrote:
In this week's online stereophile the editor bemoans the plight of "hi=
gh =20
end",ie. price tag, audio. The boomers are no longer the buyers and =
=20
younger generations take their audio straight up, so to speak, as but o=
ne =20
part of several ongoing activities. The fear that audio gear will beco=
me a =20
commodity was raised, and it is a reality that fancy boxes as living ro=
om =20
set pieces have lost their appeal. Why the high cost spread when the e=
ver =20
present smartphone brings in the tunes thank you.
=20
The only people who "fear" audio gear as a commodity are those invested =
in the "high end" business.=20
IMO, the performance gap is long gone between commodity gear and high en=
d in all categories=20
except speakers...and even that continues to close.=20
For those who accept personal listening systems, it's reversed. =20
The problem for the high end is that equipment costing many thousands doe=
sn't sound any better=20
than a Sansa clip and ear buds. Few are going to clutter their rooms an=
d spend thousands for gear=20
that arguably sounds no better (and probably sounds much worse, especial=
ly considering the=20
difficulty in creating clean deep bass in a typical home room) just to cr=
eate an in front of you sound=20
stage.
It's especially of little value to those who have grown up used to a soun=
d stage in their heads.

ScottW

I agree with you that the era has long passed where (with electronics, anyw=
ay) State-of-the-art performance =3D megabuck pricing. Most high-end audio =
is a result of price gouging, circuit design decisions that are unnecessari=
ly complex and result in high-priced components with no more performance th=
an could be attained with much simpler and cheaper circuit topologies. or s=
imply "bling". I can think of several manufacturers that have casework and =
fascia panels that must cost well over US$1000 to fabricate (and using the =
standard retail markup number that says that selling price =3D 6X manufactu=
ring cost means that the casework alone would cost six to twelve THOUSAND d=
ollars!).

But we part company when you start comparing iPod and iPod-like devices and=
ear-buds favorably with a good stereo system. Maybe such a playback is sat=
isfying to you, but I know many audiophiles including myself, that would no=
t find these portable devices anything more than a convenient way to carry =
their music with them when they need to do so.=20

[[email protected]]

On Monday, November 25, 2013 2:45:06 PM UTC-5, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2013 9:41:29 AM UTC-8, wrote:



The problem for the high end is that equipment costing many thousands doesn't sound any better than a Sansa clip and ear buds. Few are going to clutter their rooms and spend thousands for gear that arguably sounds no better (and probably sounds much worse, especially considering the difficulty in creating clean deep bass in a typical home room) just to create an in front of you sound stage.

It's especially of little value to those who have grown up used to a sound stage in their heads.



ScottW

I agree with ScottW's comments with respect to the sound of extremely high priced gear compared to that of far less expensive equipment. Additionally people who purchased expensive vintage gear when new and compare to the new high-end stuff realize quickly that if you ignore the "bling" of the new, the old stuff sounds as good or better. So unless their equipment goes belly up, they stay out of the market, content to smugly audition then go home and happily listen to their own. The many audiophiles that one individual might know who would not be satisfied with the sound of the personal hifi do not extrapolate into a large enough market segment to keep high-end alive IMO.

Finally, "Ipod and Ipod like devices" connect so easily to higher priced equipment and the resulting sound is so good that I would not be surprised if they found their way into systems of all but the most snobbish. I routinely borrow my son's Ipod and plug it into my Quad ESL63/Gradient based system..

ESTG/

[Scott[_6_]]

On Monday, November 25, 2013 9:41:29 AM UTC-8, wrote:
In this week's online stereophile the editor bemoans the plight of "high

end",ie. price tag, audio. The boomers are no longer the buyers and

younger generations take their audio straight up, so to speak, as but one

part of several ongoing activities. The fear that audio gear will become a

commodity was raised, and it is a reality that fancy boxes as living room

set pieces have lost their appeal. Why the high cost spread when the ever

present smartphone brings in the tunes thank you.



http://www.stereophile.com/content/h...high-end-audio

Since I first got into high end audio people have been bemoaning it's down fall. That was 30 years ago. And yet as JA points out..."Despite a lack of growth in high-end sales, our industry is more innovative than ever before. Take any product category, any price point in specialty audio: the performance of products today is at an all-time high. The Golden Age of Hi-Fi? This is it!"
Not much in this world has enjoyed substantial economic growth in the past 15 years. (other than vinyl ironically) So why would high end audio be the exception? For an industry that has been allegedly dying for the past 30 years it sure seems to be doing pretty OK.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:51:01 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2013 4:38:37 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
=20
=20
But we part company when you start comparing iPod and iPod-like devices=
and ear-buds favorably with a good stereo system.=20
=20
=20
=20
But you've said here before that your unique ear makes a std earbud a non=
-option for you. Perhaps you should try one of those custom forming buds b=
efore declaring them "unsatisfying" and implying your personal inability e=
xtends to so many.
=20
=20
=20
Maybe such a playback is satisfying to you, but I know many audiophiles =
including myself, that would not find these portable devices anything more=
than a convenient way to carry their music with them when they need to do=
so.
=20
=20
=20
Perhaps that is where "audiophiles" have become less about sound and more=
about something else. Reality is earbuds or headphones are audibly far mo=
re capable in every measure except soundstage at a fraction of the cost.
=20
=20
=20
As Scott said, it is the golden age of hi-fi. It's just not the era of bi=
g $$ hi-fi. Convincing young people they need to spend big $$ on audio gea=
r is going to take an ad campaign equal to the one the gov't is waging to c=
onvince them to buy overpriced health insurance.
=20
=20
=20
ScottW

OTOH it could just be that ear buds suffer from a set of inherent limitatio=
ns that preclude them from being something that some of us would ever consi=
der to be high end sound. The inability to cast a sound stage that can in a=
ny way shape or form create anything close to an illusion of live acoustic =
music precludes them from ever being high end in my book. I think it's grea=
t that we can get what we can get with portable audio these days. But IMO i=
t ain't high end audio.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:51:01 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2013 4:38:37 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:



But we part company when you start comparing iPod and iPod-like devices and ear-buds favorably with a good stereo system.

But you've said here before that your unique ear makes a std earbud a non-option for you. Perhaps you should try one of those custom forming buds before declaring them "unsatisfying" and implying your personal inability extends to so many.

Sorry, I guess I have yet to discipline myself that with argumentative types one has to be super diligent and hyper precise in what one posts. You mentioned ear-buds in your OP. I was answering that and that only at the time. While you are right, I cannot use the so called "ear-buds" because I have nothing in my outer ear to hang them on (good memory, BTW). I certainly can use the kind of ear-wear that fits into my ear canal. They generally have better bass than "buds" anyway. But what I was really referring to was headphones in general. I find even the best of them unsatisfying. I call 'em a necessary evil and of course, I use them. But I do not find them anywhere even in the same ball-park as a good stereo system with speakers. I also have never heard an iPod or iPod-like device (such as Sansa models) that I though had a clean enough amplifier to make even the best headphones even sound their best.


Maybe such a playback is satisfying to you, but I know many audiophiles including myself, that
would not find these portable devices anything more than a convenient way to carry their music with them when they need to do so.



Perhaps that is where "audiophiles" have become less about sound and more about something else. Reality is earbuds or headphones are audibly far more capable in every measure except soundstage at a fraction of the cost..

There is another area where earphones (any of them) are less capable, and that's comfort. Also, I didn't know that cost was a part of this discussion. But you are right you can get a pair of earbuds for as little as five dollars, or you can spend five THOUSAND dollars for a pair of Stax phones with driver amp/power supply. So yeah, earphones can be had at a fraction of the cost of speakers, just not really GOOD phones.

As Scott said, it is the golden age of hi-fi. It's just not the era of big $$ hi-fi. Convincing young people they need to spend big $$ on audio gear is going to take an ad campaign equal to the one the gov't is waging to convince them to buy overpriced health insurance.

But the average joe has NEVER been into hi-fi. When I was a teen and just getting into the hobby, I knew only one guy, a tech-rep friend of my dads who was into Hi-Fi and had a decent system. I knew a number of people who loved music, including my high-school music teacher. They all had, what we called in those days, "brown-goods" hi-fis and stereos. These were consoles or luggage finished portables that had flea-Watt, single-ended amplifiers, tiny output transformers and cheap, stamped-basket speakers with one-ounce magnets. They sounded terrible, but that's what most people bought.
The only difference between today and then, is those same types of people now buy iPods instead of brown-goods.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Thursday, November 28, 2013 7:27:37 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 6:35:32 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:51:01 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
=20
=20
=20
On Monday, November 25, 2013 4:38:37 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
=20
=20
But we part company when you start comparing iPod and iPod-like dev=
ices and ear-buds favorably with a good stereo system.=20

But you've said here before that your unique ear makes a std earbud a=
non-option for you. Perhaps you should try one of those custom forming =
buds before declaring them "unsatisfying" and implying your personal ina=
bility extends to so many.

Sorry, I guess I have yet to discipline myself that with argumentative =
types one has to be super
diligent and hyper precise in what one posts. You mentioned ear-buds in=
your OP. I was answering
that and that only at the time. While you are right, I cannot use the s=
o called "ear-buds" because I
have nothing in my outer ear to hang them on (good memory, BTW). I cert=
ainly can use the kind of
ear-wear that fits into my ear canal. They generally have better bass t=
han "buds" anyway. But what I
was really referring to was headphones in general. I find even the bes=
t of them unsatisfying. I call
'em a necessary evil and of course, I use them. But I do not find them=
anywhere even in the same
ball-park as a good stereo system with speakers. I also have never hea=
rd an iPod or iPod-like
device (such as Sansa models) that I though had a clean enough amplifi=
er to make even the best
headphones even sound their best.=20
=20
I find that interesting in that the technical challenges of driving a set=
of earbuds is so many orders of magnitudes less demanding than a classic=
power amp required for speakers it's hard to compare. The load and signa=
l amplitude (both in power and voltage) required are so miniscule in compar=
ison that a distortion free signal capable of driving the load is really =
quite simple in comparison.

Yet every iPod-like device I try is seriously colored.=20
=20
Entire stages of power amplification and massively filtered AC/DC power c=
onverters are no longer=20
required.
=20
Think of all the battery powered low output MC preamps on the market and =
why.
=20
Same principles apply.=20

Yes, as far as it goes, you're right. But portable devices are hardly made =
to the standards of a good, battery-powered phono preamp, They rely on LSIs=
and "library" audio amplifier stages for the most part.=20

=20
Maybe such a playback is satisfying to you, but I know many audiophi=
les including myself, that=20
would not find these portable devices anything more than a convenie=
nt way to carry their=20
music with them when they need to do so.

Perhaps that is where "audiophiles" have become less about sound and =
more about something=20
else. Reality is earbuds or headphones are audibly far more capable i=
n every measure except
soundstage at a fraction of the cost.

There is another area where earphones (any of them) are less capable, a=
nd that's comfort.

Which is where custom or varied size inserts help.

Also, I didn't know that cost was a part of this discussion. But you a=
re right you can get a pair of=20
earbuds for as little as five dollars, or you can spend five THOUSAND d=
ollars for a pair of Stax
phones with driver amp/power supply. So yeah, earphones can be had at =
a fraction of the cost of
speakers, just not really GOOD phones.=20

Ah yes...the price =3D quality argument. I find it without merit in almo=
st all audio gear but especially in the personal music market.

It is without merit sometimes. Not in this case, however. Stax are the stan=
dard by which all earphones are measured and for good reason. They sound gr=
eat.=20
=20
FWIW, I am extremely happy with a pair of $60 Sony buds. I have tried to =
find something I thought=20
was better...but in every case they were just different and usually due t=
o some variance in FR. Some=20
may find that preferable, but it cannot be argued as technically better.

I'm not going to argue taste with someone about this stuff. It's an empty p=
rocedure. Suffice to say that I don't find portable audio satisfying in any=
way except convenience. If you do, great. Let's agree to disagree.=20

As Scott said, it is the golden age of hi-fi. It's just not the era of bi=
g $$ hi-fi. Convincing young people they need to spend big $$ on =
audio gear is going to take an ad campaign equal to the one the gov't i=
s waging to convince them to buy overpriced health insurance.
=20
But the average joe has NEVER been into hi-fi.=20

No...the average younger joe has grownup with hi-fi to the point they tak=
e it for granted. Big $$ systems aren't going to give them any appreciable=
value.
=20
When I was a teen and just getting into the hobby, I knew only one guy,=
a tech-rep friend of my
dads who was into Hi-Fi and had a decent system.

I knew a number of people who loved music, including my high-school mus=
ic teacher. They all had,
what we called in those days, "brown-goods" hi-fis and stereos. These w=
ere consoles or luggage
finished portables that had flea-Watt, single-ended amplifiers, tiny ou=
tput transformers and cheap,
stamped-basket speakers with one-ounce magnets. They sounded terrible, =
but that's what most=20
people bought.=20
The only difference between today and then, is those same types of peop=
le now buy iPods instead
of brown-goods.
=20
=20
=20
Are you seriously going to try to equate the sound from an ipod to a clas=
sic console with BSR/ceramic cart groove grinder? =20

No, I'm equating yesterday's buyers with today's buyers. Neither care or ca=
red about sound quality, and both bought what was popular at the time=20
=20
It's really hard to argue with such a fallacy.
I think you really mean that it's hard to argue with such a truism.

Reality is people every where are listening to great sounding audio and t=
he gap between the absolute best and consumer grade "brown-goods" ipods h=
as shrunk to near nothing.

That's certainly one opinion, but it is an opinion and not fact.=20

It's no wonder that people aren't impressed with expensive massive audio =
systems when the only=20
thing they do that their personal music players don't is change perspecti=
ve of the soundstage.

Oh, they do much more. A good stereo system can sound like music. I've yet =
to hear a portable system that can do that - especially when the average me=
mber of the iPod generation uses lossy (and often lousy sounding) MP3 to sq=
ueeze more songs onto their portable devices. I have friends with teens and=
young adult children. They are interested in quantity, not quality. I'm no=
t complaining, mind you. They have a right to listen to what they please, a=
nd as long as I can still get the good stuff, it's no skin off my nose that=
what they want to listen to for music sounds like crap. =20

It might be worth it to you having never become accustomed to their persp=
ective, but I know most aren't going to really care and certainly aren't wi=
lling to pay big $$ to get equivalent (or more likely worse with room inter=
action to deal with) with a normal perspective.

Nobody is asking them to. I certainly don't care. I'll go back to my origin=
al point. The average person has never cared for quality sound - ever. I se=
e no reason to expect that they should start now.=20

ScottW

[KH]

On 11/28/2013 8:27 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 6:35:32 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:51:01 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, November 25, 2013 4:38:37 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:

But we part company when you start comparing iPod and iPod-like devices and ear-buds favorably with a good stereo system.


I think you're kind of missing the bigger picture here. An iPod and
earphones are a much better "stereo system" than *I* grew up with. It
was an easily understandable desire, in our formative days, to want a
better 'standard' stereo system than we actually had. The difference
between "typical" and "good" stereo systems was simply enormous. At
least in my neighborhood.

snip

Maybe such a playback is satisfying to you, but I know many audiophiles including myself, that
would not find these portable devices anything more than a convenient way to carry their music with them when they need to do so.

I don't understand your point here. If you don't find these 'portable
devices' satisfying - at the time and place you use them - then why use
them, convenient or not? They are not, to me, *as* satisfying as my home
system is, but they are orders of magnitude more satisfying than the
dreck I grew up listening to.

There is another area where earphones (any of them) are less capable, and that's comfort.

Have to agree there.

snip

As Scott said, it is the golden age of hi-fi. It's just not the era of big $$ hi-fi. Convincing young
people they need to spend big $$ on audio gear is going to take an ad campaign equal to the one the
gov't is waging to convince them to buy overpriced health insurance.

But that's the thing; I don't think you will ever convince millenials
that they *need* high dollar audio gear. The iPod level gear they've
grown up with is not *so* far away from "good stereo" that they are
blown away (as I was, and you likely were) when they first hear one.
They are also used to a different musical environment, the convenience,
the streaming, etc., that simply wasn't a part of "our" equation.

In their world, they have to give up a lot to get that improvement in
sound. And most pop recordings don't allow for a huge difference in
quality either. So what's the "hook"? I don't see one, not for the
young folks I know.


But the average joe has NEVER been into hi-fi.

No...the average younger joe has grownup with hi-fi to the point they take it for granted. Big $$ systems aren't going to give them any appreciable value.

When I was a teen and just getting into the hobby, I knew only one guy, a tech-rep friend of my dads who was into Hi-Fi and had a decent system.

I knew a number of people who loved music, including my high-school music teacher. They all had, what we called in those days, "brown-goods" hi-fis and stereos.
These were consoles or luggage finished portables that had flea-Watt, single-ended amplifiers, tiny output transformers and cheap, stamped-basket speakers with
one-ounce magnets. They sounded terrible, but that's what most people bought.

Very true. But that's the point...they sounded *terrible*! That was
*our* baseline for comparison. We all knew they sounded like crap, but
that's what we had.

The only difference between today and then, is those same types of people now buy iPods instead of brown-goods.

Yes, but iPods don't sound like crap, or needn't anyway, and that's the
big difference. The Apple earbuds do, but that's another issue. You
may not like earbuds, and I don't use them except when traveling, but
the quality is simply orders of magnitude better than the "brown-goods"
junk I grew up with.


Are you seriously going to try to equate the sound from an ipod to a classic console with BSR/ceramic cart groove grinder?

You forgot about the penny taped to the headshell...

We had a Magnavox Mediterranean console big enough to bury a Hippo in.
Five bucks worth of electronics and the BSR etch-a-sketch. Boy could
that thing rattle. Gimme earbuds any day.

It's really hard to argue with such a fallacy.

Reality is people every where are listening to great sounding audio and the gap between the absolute best and consumer grade "brown-goods" ipods has shrunk to near nothing.

Well I certainly don't think you can go that far. There's still a huge
difference IMO. BUT, and it's a Huge BUT, for a Millenial that
improvement also requires a significant sacrifice in lifestyle - over
and above money - that we never experienced. It was ALL upside for us
as long as we had the cash.

Keith

[Scott[_6_]]

On Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:22:52 AM UTC-8, KH wrote:
On 11/28/2013 8:27 AM, ScottW wrote:
=20
On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 6:35:32 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:51:01 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
=20

=20
On Monday, November 25, 2013 4:38:37 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:
=20

=20
But we part company when you start comparing iPod and iPod-like devi=
ces and ear-buds favorably with a good stereo system.
=20

=20
=20
=20
I think you're kind of missing the bigger picture here.

he wasn't addressing any "big picture" he was addressing the assertion that=
current portable audio systems have bridged the gap between high end audio=
.. Something you seem to agree has not actually happened.

An iPod and=20
=20
earphones are a much better "stereo system" than *I* grew up with. It=20
=20
was an easily understandable desire, in our formative days, to want a=20
=20
better 'standard' stereo system than we actually had. The difference=20
=20
between "typical" and "good" stereo systems was simply enormous. At=20
=20
least in my neighborhood.
=20
=20
=20
snip
=20

=20
Maybe such a playback is satisfying to you, but I know many audiophi=
les including myself, that
=20
would not find these portable devices anything more than a convenie=
nt way to carry their music with them when they need to do so.
=20
=20
=20
I don't understand your point here. If you don't find these 'portable=20
=20
devices' satisfying - at the time and place you use them - then why use=
=20
=20
them, convenient or not? They are not, to me, *as* satisfying as my home=
=20
=20
system is, but they are orders of magnitude more satisfying than the=20
=20
dreck I grew up listening to.

Since Audio Empire has made it clear that he doesn't use them it is kind of=
odd to ask him why he uses them.=20
=20
=20
=20
There is another area where earphones (any of them) are less capable, =
and that's comfort.
=20
=20
=20
Have to agree there.
=20
=20
=20
snip
=20
=20
=20
As Scott said, it is the golden age of hi-fi. It's just not the era o=
f big $$ hi-fi. Convincing young
=20
people they need to spend big $$ on audio gear is going to take an ad=
campaign equal to the one the
=20
gov't is waging to convince them to buy overpriced health insurance.
=20
=20
=20
But that's the thing; I don't think you will ever convince millenials=20
=20
that they *need* high dollar audio gear. The iPod level gear they've=20
=20
grown up with is not *so* far away from "good stereo" that they are=20
=20
blown away (as I was, and you likely were) when they first hear one.=20
=20
They are also used to a different musical environment, the convenience,=
=20
=20
the streaming, etc., that simply wasn't a part of "our" equation.
=20
=20
=20
In their world, they have to give up a lot to get that improvement in=20
=20
sound. And most pop recordings don't allow for a huge difference in=20
=20
quality either. So what's the "hook"? I don't see one, not for the=20
=20
young folks I know.

There is no hook. It is as it has always been. Audiophiles are the exceptio=
n not the rule. But one has to know high end audio even exists to actually =
get into it. That has always been the issue for that market. There are no m=
ore or less potential audiophiles amongst today's youth than in the past. B=
ut there are some.
=20
=20
=20

=20
But the average joe has NEVER been into hi-fi.
=20

=20
No...the average younger joe has grownup with hi-fi to the point they t=
ake it for granted. Big $$ systems aren't going to give them any appreciab=
le value.
=20

=20
When I was a teen and just getting into the hobby, I knew only one guy=
, a tech-rep friend of my dads who was into Hi-Fi and had a decent system.
=20

=20
I knew a number of people who loved music, including my high-school mu=
sic teacher. They all had, what we called in those days, "brown-goods" hi-f=
is and stereos.
=20
These were consoles or luggage finished portables that had flea-Watt, =
single-ended amplifiers, tiny output transformers and cheap, stamped-basket=
speakers with
=20
one-ounce magnets. They sounded terrible, but that's what most people =
bought.
=20
=20
=20
Very true. But that's the point...they sounded *terrible*! That was=20
=20
*our* baseline for comparison. We all knew they sounded like crap, but=
=20
=20
that's what we had.
=20
=20
=20
The only difference between today and then, is those same types of peo=
ple now buy iPods instead of brown-goods.
=20
=20
=20
Yes, but iPods don't sound like crap, or needn't anyway, and that's the=
=20
=20
big difference. The Apple earbuds do, but that's another issue. You=20
=20
may not like earbuds, and I don't use them except when traveling, but=20
=20
the quality is simply orders of magnitude better than the "brown-goods"=
=20
=20
junk I grew up with.

But it still aint high end audio.=20
=20
=20
=20

=20
Are you seriously going to try to equate the sound from an ipod to a cl=
assic console with BSR/ceramic cart groove grinder?
=20
=20
=20
You forgot about the penny taped to the headshell...
=20
=20
=20
We had a Magnavox Mediterranean console big enough to bury a Hippo in.=20
=20
Five bucks worth of electronics and the BSR etch-a-sketch. Boy could=20
=20
that thing rattle. Gimme earbuds any day.

Not sure I see your point here? Are you suggesting that today's consumers a=
re not interested in current high end audio because earbuds sound better th=
an consoles from the 60's?


=20
=20
=20
It's really hard to argue with such a fallacy.
=20

=20
Reality is people every where are listening to great sounding audio and=
the gap between the absolute best and consumer grade "brown-goods" ipods h=
as shrunk to near nothing.
=20
=20
=20
Well I certainly don't think you can go that far.=20


And that was the point of contention that Audio Empire made.=20


There's still a huge=20
=20
difference IMO. BUT, and it's a Huge BUT, for a Millenial that=20
=20
improvement also requires a significant sacrifice in lifestyle - over=20
=20
and above money - that we never experienced. It was ALL upside for us=20
=20
as long as we had the cash.
=20
Completely agreed. And that is the difference between the audiophile who pu=
rsues high end audio and the average Joe that Audio Empire is talking about

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:22:52 AM UTC-8, KH wrote:
On 11/28/2013 8:27 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 6:35:32 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:51:01 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:



On Monday, November 25, 2013 4:38:37 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:



But we part company when you start comparing iPod and iPod-like devices and ear-buds favorably with a good stereo system.


I think you're kind of missing the bigger picture here. An iPod and
earphones are a much better "stereo system" than *I* grew up with. It
was an easily understandable desire, in our formative days, to want a
better 'standard' stereo system than we actually had. The difference
between "typical" and "good" stereo systems was simply enormous. At
least in my neighborhood.

Well, they're not better than the stereo system that *I* grew up with: Beogram
1000 with SP-12 cartridge, Viking 1/4-track Stereo R-to-R tape deck, Eico HFT-90
Tuner with Knight-Kit Stereo multiplex decoder (KS-11), two Knight-Kit model
83YX797 18 Watt integrated amplifiers (the system started out mono), Two bass
reflex cabinets in Walnut made for me by my Dad (who was a great amateur woodworker)
each containing a Knight version of the Electrovoice Wolverine 12" speaker (KN-812)
and a Layfayette supplied Japanese horn tweeter. Not much by today's standards. But
with a good FM station from Washington D.C. playing a live concert from the
Watergate barge or the State Department Auditorium or The Atrium of the Museum
of Natural History (National Symphony concerts). It sounded damn good to me
(no volume compression or limiting in those days).

But I digress and I think you are missing my point. I'm not comparing the "iPod"-like
appliances to the stereos of my youth, merely the buyers. An audio enthusiast is always
going to want a decent stereo system and always has, and the average joe is going to
want convenience, low prices and what's considered cool by the standards of the day
- always has.

snip

Maybe such a playback is satisfying to you, but I know many audiophiles including myself, that
would not find these portable devices anything more than a convenient way to carry their
music with them when they need to do so.

I don't understand your point here. If you don't find these 'portable
devices' satisfying - at the time and place you use them - then why use
them, convenient or not? They are not, to me, *as* satisfying as my home
system is, but they are orders of magnitude more satisfying than the
dreck I grew up listening to.

Forgive me, but that seems like a pretty naive question. Obviously, one can't carry one's
stereo system with them. That's what portable devices are for. Same with car stereos. Not
really satisfying on a performance level, but it's nice to have tunes in the car.

There is another area where earphones (any of them) are less capable,
and that's comfort.

Have to agree there.

snip

As Scott said, it is the golden age of hi-fi. It's just not the era of big $$ hi-fi. Convincing young
people they need to spend big $$ on audio gear is going to take an ad campaign equal to the
one the
gov't is waging to convince them to buy overpriced health insurance.

But that's the thing; I don't think you will ever convince millenials
that they *need* high dollar audio gear. The iPod level gear they've
grown up with is not *so* far away from "good stereo" that they are
blown away (as I was, and you likely were) when they first hear one.
They are also used to a different musical environment, the convenience,
the streaming, etc., that simply wasn't a part of "our" equation.

In their world, they have to give up a lot to get that improvement in
sound. And most pop recordings don't allow for a huge difference in
quality either. So what's the "hook"? I don't see one, not for the
young folks I know.

Once again, the vast majority IN ANY GENERATION are not that interested in audio quality on any level!

But the average joe has NEVER been into hi-fi.

No...the average younger joe has grownup with hi-fi to the point they take it for granted.
Big $$ systems aren't going to give them any appreciable value.

When I was a teen and just getting into the hobby, I knew only one guy, a tech-rep friend of
my dads who was into Hi-Fi and had a decent system.
I knew a number of people who loved music, including my high-school music teacher. They all
had, what we called in those days, "brown-goods" hi-fis and stereos.
These were consoles or luggage finished portables that had flea-Watt, single-ended amplifiers,
tiny output transformers and cheap, stamped-basket speakers with
one-ounce magnets. They sounded terrible, but that's what most people bought.

Very true. But that's the point...they sounded *terrible*! That was
*our* baseline for comparison. We all knew they sounded like crap, but
that's what we had.

I don't think that the people who bought that stuff knew it was crap or cared. It made a noise
"good tone". That's all they cared about. Todays kids listen to low bit-rate MP3s. Is there really
that much of a difference between those two types of buyers?

The only difference between today and then, is those same types of people now buy iPods instead of brown-goods.

I probably should have added here that the same types of people now buy iPods AS THEIR MAIN
MUSIC SOURCE.

Yes, but iPods don't sound like crap, or needn't anyway, and that's the
big difference. The Apple earbuds do, but that's another issue.

Again, kids use low bit rates so that that they can get more music into their 16 or 32 Gigs. They don't care about how it sounds


You may not like earbuds, and I don't use them except when traveling, but
the quality is simply orders of magnitude better than the "brown-goods"
junk I grew up with.

Again that's not the point. YES, an iPod-like device will surely sound better than the tiny
(and tinny) 6- transistor radios that we used to walk around with pressed to our ears,
but that was OUR portable music. And it isn't that I have anything against earbuds. it's
just that I can't wear them. They won't stay in!

I don't know about you, but even then, that transistor radio was my "portable" player,
not my main source of music enjoyment. I certainly never turned the thing on in my
room. I listened to my stereo system. Which sounded pretty goddamn good to me then.

Are you seriously going to try to equate the sound from an ipod to a classic console with
BSR/ceramic cart groove grinder?

You forgot about the penny taped to the headshell...
We had a Magnavox Mediterranean console big enough to bury a Hippo in.
Five bucks worth of electronics and the BSR etch-a-sketch. Boy could
that thing rattle. Gimme earbuds any day.

Sure, Kids today don't listen to RCA Victor Hi-Fis, or Magnavox, or Zenith, or Sears Silvertone.
They buy iPods, and Sensas, and use their smart phones or tablets as music sources - along with
earbuds.

It's really hard to argue with such a fallacy.

Reality is people every where are listening to great sounding audio and the gap between the absolute best and consumer grade "brown-goods" ipods has shrunk to near nothing.

Well I certainly don't think you can go that far. There's still a huge
difference IMO. BUT, and it's a Huge BUT, for a Millenial that
improvement also requires a significant sacrifice in lifestyle - over
and above money - that we never experienced. It was ALL upside for us
as long as we had the cash.

Keith

[KH]

On 12/1/2013 8:15 AM, Scott wrote:
On Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:22:52 AM UTC-8, KH wrote:
On 11/28/2013 8:27 AM, ScottW wrote:



I think you're kind of missing the bigger picture here.

he wasn't addressing any "big picture" he was addressing the assertion that current portable audio systems have bridged the gap between high end audio. Something you seem to agree has not actually happened.

Actually I was referring to the bigger picture relative to mounting a
"PR" campaign to convert the iPod generation. Which really has as much
to do with "culture" as it does with sound differential IME.

And no, I don't think headphone type devices are capable of fully
"bridging the gap" irrespective of source. But I didn't "grow up" with
headphone stereo either.

snip

But that's the thing; I don't think you will ever convince millenials
that they *need* high dollar audio gear. The iPod level gear they've
grown up with is not *so* far away from "good stereo" that they are
blown away (as I was, and you likely were) when they first hear one.
They are also used to a different musical environment, the convenience,
the streaming, etc., that simply wasn't a part of "our" equation.

In their world, they have to give up a lot to get that improvement in
sound. And most pop recordings don't allow for a huge difference in
quality either. So what's the "hook"? I don't see one, not for the
young folks I know.

There is no hook. It is as it has always been. Audiophiles are the exception not the rule. But one has to know high end audio even exists to actually get into it. That has always been the issue for that market. There are no more or less potential audiophiles amongst today's youth than in the past. But there are some.

Based on the young folks I know, I think you are incorrect. The numbers
are shrinking because of lifestyle issues as well as cost, AND the
shrinking disparity between cheap, modest, and over the top systems.

snip

Yes, but iPods don't sound like crap, or needn't anyway, and that's the
big difference. The Apple earbuds do, but that's another issue. You
may not like earbuds, and I don't use them except when traveling, but
the quality is simply orders of magnitude better than the "brown-goods"
junk I grew up with.

But it still aint high end audio.

Not the point.

Are you seriously going to try to equate the sound from an ipod to a classic console with BSR/ceramic cart groove grinder?

Seems like you just did that yourself in your last sentence.

You forgot about the penny taped to the headshell...



We had a Magnavox Mediterranean console big enough to bury a Hippo in.
Five bucks worth of electronics and the BSR etch-a-sketch. Boy could
that thing rattle. Gimme earbuds any day.

Not sure I see your point here? Are you suggesting that today's consumers are not interested in current high end audio because earbuds sound better than consoles from the 60's?

I stated that *concept* rather explicitly several times, yes.

The whole "Console" craze merely being an example that it's not always
about money alone - they were expensive - but also about style and
culture issues as well.


Reality is people every where are listening to great sounding audio and the gap between the absolute best and consumer grade "brown-goods" ipods has shrunk to near nothing.

Well I certainly don't think you can go that far.

And that was the point of contention that Audio Empire made.

Yes, and that was me agreeing with him...up to a point.

There's still a huge
difference IMO. BUT, and it's a Huge BUT, for a Millenial that
improvement also requires a significant sacrifice in lifestyle - over
and above money - that we never experienced. It was ALL upside for us
as long as we had the cash.

Completely agreed.

I'm not sure you do...

And that is the difference between the audiophile who pursues high end audio and the average Joe that Audio Empire is talking about

My point is that the "average Joe" of yesteryear was a different animal
than today's "Joe", and there area a myriad more differences that are
not related to money or sound quality. Add to that a shrinking audio
quality gap, and the audiophile recruiting pool shallows even further.

Keith

[KH]

On 12/1/2013 8:17 AM, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:22:52 AM UTC-8, KH wrote:
On 11/28/2013 8:27 AM, ScottW wrote:
snip

Well, they're not better than the stereo system that *I* grew up with:

Good for you, but you are much more the exception than the rule IME.

snip


But I digress and I think you are missing my point. I'm not comparing the "iPod"-like
appliances to the stereos of my youth, merely the buyers.

Nor was I, except to make the point that the desire to upgrade decreases
as the disparity in available quality decreases.

An audio enthusiast is always
going to want a decent stereo system and always has, and the average joe is going to
want convenience, low prices and what's considered cool by the standards of the day
- always has.

It's the level required for "decent" that has changed.

snip

Forgive me, but that seems like a pretty naive question. Obviously, one can't carry one's
stereo system with them. That's what portable devices are for. Same with car stereos. Not
really satisfying on a performance level, but it's nice to have tunes in the car.

Clearly then you use a different definition of "satisfying". With an
external DAC/amp for a nice set of "buds" I find the performance very
satisfying for the hours I spend in airports, on planes, in hotels, etc.
If I enjoy the music, and the sound is good enough that I am not
conscious of needing something better, I'm satisfied.

There is another area where earphones (any of them) are less capable,
and that's comfort.

Have to agree there.

snip

As Scott said, it is the golden age of hi-fi. It's just not the era of big $$ hi-fi. Convincing young
people they need to spend big $$ on audio gear is going to take an ad campaign equal to the
one the
gov't is waging to convince them to buy overpriced health insurance.

But that's the thing; I don't think you will ever convince millenials
that they *need* high dollar audio gear. The iPod level gear they've
grown up with is not *so* far away from "good stereo" that they are
blown away (as I was, and you likely were) when they first hear one.
They are also used to a different musical environment, the convenience,
the streaming, etc., that simply wasn't a part of "our" equation.

In their world, they have to give up a lot to get that improvement in
sound. And most pop recordings don't allow for a huge difference in
quality either. So what's the "hook"? I don't see one, not for the
young folks I know.

Once again, the vast majority IN ANY GENERATION are not that interested in audio quality on any level!

True, but as the quality delta decreases, and cultural impacts increase,
that majority will grow ever larger on a percentage basis.

snip

Very true. But that's the point...they sounded *terrible*! That was
*our* baseline for comparison. We all knew they sounded like crap, but
that's what we had.

I don't think that the people who bought that stuff knew it was crap or cared. It made a noise
"good tone". That's all they cared about. Todays kids listen to low bit-rate MP3s. Is there really
that much of a difference between those two types of buyers?

No. But for the ones who are concerned with quality, they have a
cheaper, easier upgrade path than we did.

The only difference between today and then, is those same types of people now buy iPods instead of brown-goods.

I probably should have added here that the same types of people now buy iPods AS THEIR MAIN
MUSIC SOURCE.

True. But they are still listening to better quality, typically, than
Old Joe did.

Yes, but iPods don't sound like crap, or needn't anyway, and that's the
big difference. The Apple earbuds do, but that's another issue.

Again, kids use low bit rates so that that they can get more music into their 16 or 32 Gigs. They don't care about how it sounds

Most do, but they have other options when/if they choose.

You may not like earbuds, and I don't use them except when traveling, but
the quality is simply orders of magnitude better than the "brown-goods"
junk I grew up with.

Again that's not the point. YES, an iPod-like device will surely sound better than the tiny
(and tinny) 6- transistor radios that we used to walk around with pressed to our ears,
but that was OUR portable music. And it isn't that I have anything against earbuds. it's
just that I can't wear them. They won't stay in!

JB Weld works wonders ;-)

I don't know about you, but even then, that transistor radio was my "portable" player,
not my main source of music enjoyment. I certainly never turned the thing on in my
room. I listened to my stereo system. Which sounded pretty goddamn good to me then.

Some of us were monetarily challenged. I didn't have a stereo until
college.

Are you seriously going to try to equate the sound from an ipod to a classic console with
BSR/ceramic cart groove grinder?

You forgot about the penny taped to the headshell...
We had a Magnavox Mediterranean console big enough to bury a Hippo in.
Five bucks worth of electronics and the BSR etch-a-sketch. Boy could
that thing rattle. Gimme earbuds any day.

Sure, Kids today don't listen to RCA Victor Hi-Fis, or Magnavox, or Zenith, or Sears Silvertone.
They buy iPods, and Sensas, and use their smart phones or tablets as music sources - along with
earbuds.

And they are lucky to be able to do so.

The sad fact is that we could have had a decent stereo for the price of
that music dumpster. Of course, in that event, I would have been
subjected to "high quality" reproduction of my folks' country favorites.
The mind shudders...

Keith

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sunday, December 1, 2013 8:12:29 PM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, December 1, 2013 7:17:58 AM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:





But I digress and I think you are missing my point. I'm not comparing the "iPod"-like



appliances to the stereos of my youth, merely the buyers. An audio enthusiast is always

going to want a decent stereo system and always has, and the average joe is going to

want convenience, low prices and what's considered cool by the standards of the day - always has.



My point is that as the qualitative difference between what you consider decent and what's readily available shrinks....the number of audio enthusiasts who see value in that difference shrinks as well.



ScottW

Maybe. Yet we are having this discussion in the midst of a youth driven massive surge in sales of new vinyl. It's funny how each generation manages to grow up, grow older and more sophisticated and diverse in their tastes and interests. I really don't see Ipods as the downfall of high end audio. Some youngsters will look for more. It happens with every generation

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Monday, December 2, 2013 4:18:36 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
On Sunday, December 1, 2013 8:12:29 PM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
=20
On Sunday, December 1, 2013 7:17:58 AM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:
=20

But I digress and I think you are missing my point. I'm not comparing=
the "iPod"-like=20
appliances to the stereos of my youth, merely the buyers. An audio en=
thusiast is always =20
going to want a decent stereo system and always has, and the average =
joe is going to =20
want convenience, low prices and what's considered cool by the standa=
rds of the day - always
has.=20

My point is that as the qualitative difference between what you conside=
r decent and what's readily
available shrinks....the number of audio enthusiasts who see value in t=
hat difference shrinks as well.=20

ScottW
=20
=20
=20
Maybe. Yet we are having this discussion in the midst of a youth driven m=
assive surge in sales of new vinyl. It's funny how each generation manage=
s to grow up, grow older and more sophisticated and=20
diverse in their tastes and interests. I really don't see Ipods as the do=
wnfall of high end audio. Some
youngsters will look for more. It happens with every generation.

Nothing changes to affect human nature. The same type of youngster that was=
attracted to music and audio in my day, is probably attracted today. I kne=
w youngsters in high-school and college who grew up with Brown goods, but d=
ecided that they wanted a better musical experience and went for component =
Hi-Fi as it was called then. I'm sure that there are youngsters today who w=
ould like to upgrade their listening experience from "iPods" to high-end au=
dio too. But you know what? It wouldn't surprise me to find that the prices=
of a lot of this stuff are very off-putting to them. When I was a kid, you=
could get kits from Heath, Knight (Allied Radio), Eico, even H.H. Scott, o=
ften at prices that a high-school kid with an after-school job could actual=
ly afford. Not so much anymore.=20

[Scott[_6_]]

On Monday, December 2, 2013 11:10:05 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, December 2, 2013 4:18:36 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
My point is that as the qualitative difference between what you consi=
der decent and what's readily available shrinks....the number of audio enth=
usiasts who see value in that difference shrinks as well.=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
Maybe. Yet we are having this discussion in the midst of a youth driven=
massive surge in sales of new vinyl.=20
=20
=20
=20
I've seen those entry level turntables offered up to youth at Frye's etc.=
I don't think that's a rush to high end.

Never meant to say it was a "rush" to high end. But it is bait. Don't sell =
them all short. We have all kinds of 20 somethings over at Hoffman.tv inqui=
ring about high end audio now that they have gotten into vinyl. Getting int=
o vinyl can be the first step. Clearly a lot of youth are there right now t=
aking what may be that first step.=20
=20
And this "massive surge" is only massive when measured as a percent incre=
ase.

Or when measured against the niche market known as high end audio.=20

=20
Vinyl bounced from a low of 1M up to 4.6M and remains much less than a fr=
action of a percent of the downloads.

If I were in the high end audio business I would see that as the pot of gol=
d at the end of the rainbow. That is where your future market lies.=20

=20
=20
=20
It's funny how each generation manages to grow up, grow older and more =
sophisticated and diverse in their tastes and interests. I really don't see=
Ipods as the downfall of high end audio.
=20
=20
=20
Nor do I except when "high end" is defined by the likes of Stereophile or=
AE.

How do they define it and how will Ipods be the end of that version of high=
end audio?

=20
IMO, personal music players can be an excellent source of music, arguably=
as good (and by that I mean it's strictly preference that separates them) =
as anything the classic and apparently in need of revival high end industry=
can offer.

we have already had that argument on this thread. No point in rehashing it.=
Of course my first point is I don't think there is any need of any revival=
.. From all appearances high end audio is alive and doing as well as ever.=
=20
=20
=20
=20
Some youngsters will look for more. It happens with every generation
=20
=20
=20
The question is it enough to sustain even a cottage industry?


When one looks at the state of the market now compared to 30 years ago I wo=
uld say all indicators say yes at least for the near future.=20

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Scott" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:51:01 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, November 25, 2013 4:38:37 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:

But we part company when you start comparing iPod and iPod-like
devices and ear-buds favorably with a good stereo system.

Techincally speaking there are no audible techical deficiencies such as
noise and distortion in the better iPod-like devices. They measure as well
if not better than a good stereo receiver driven by a good CD player.

Headphones and earphones are a different story. It is undeniable that they
bypass room acoustics and HRTFs. While neither room acoustics nor HRTFs are
exactly accuracy-enhancing components of the listening experience, their
absence suggests the need for a period of acclimatizing that not every
listener is going to emerge from as a happy camper.

But you've said here before that your unique ear makes a std earbud a
non-option for you. Perhaps you should try one of those custom forming
buds before declaring them "unsatisfying" and implying your personal
inability extends to so many.

I wonder if the unique ear is a medical condition or a behavioral one.

Maybe such a playback is satisfying to you, but I know many
audiophilesincluding myself, that would not find these portable devices
anything more than a convenient way to carry their music with them when
they need to do so.

Something about old dogs and new tricks?

Perhaps that is where "audiophiles" have become less about sound and more
about something else. Reality is earbuds or headphones are audibly far
more capable in every measure except soundstage at a fraction of the
cost.

Agreed.

OTOH it could just be that ear buds suffer from a set of inherent
limitations that preclude them from being something that some of us would
ever consider to be high end sound. The inability to cast a sound stage
that can in any way shape or form create anything close to an illusion of
live acoustic music precludes them from ever being high end in my book. I
think it's great that we can get what we can get with portable audio these
days. But IMO it ain't high end audio.

Why the "could just be"? The major issue was conceeded explicitly: "...more
capable in every measure except soundstage..." I would add that if you wear
earphones or headphones for hours and hours they can become painful if not
well-fitted, and sweaty even if well fitted.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 6:01:26 AM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...



On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:51:01 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:



On Monday, November 25, 2013 4:38:37 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:



But we part company when you start comparing iPod and iPod-like

devices and ear-buds favorably with a good stereo system.



Techincally speaking there are no audible techical deficiencies such as
noise and distortion in the better iPod-like devices. They measure as well
if not better than a good stereo receiver driven by a good CD player.

I'd like to see some some proof of that assertion, please? And even if what you say
were true, what good would all of those "great specs" be when the youngsters
attached to them have filled them with 32 or 64 KBpS MP3s of terrible-sounding
(even on a good system) pop recordings?


Headphones and earphones are a different story. It is undeniable that they
bypass room acoustics and HRTFs. While neither room acoustics nor HRTFs are
exactly accuracy-enhancing components of the listening experience, their
absence suggests the need for a period of acclimatizing that not every
listener is going to emerge from as a happy camper.


The world's best headphones just aren't as good a listening experience as
a decent pair of speakers, by virtue of the comfort factor, even if nothing else.


But you've said here before that your unique ear makes a std earbud a
non-option for you. Perhaps you should try one of those custom forming
buds before declaring them "unsatisfying" and implying your personal
inability extends to so many.

I wonder if the unique ear is a medical condition or a behavioral one.

Mr. Kruger; my "unique ear" is not all that unique. I lack (as do many people) the
turned-over fold below my ear canal that allows ear buds to hang from them. It's
a physical difference, neither a medical nor a behavioral condition. IOW. ear-buds
won't stay in my ear. They fall out! BTW, I see your above comment as unnecessary
and somewhat offensive to me.


Maybe such a playback is satisfying to you, but I know many
audiophilesincluding myself, that would not find these portable devices
anything more than a convenient way to carry their music with them when
they need to do so.

Something about old dogs and new tricks?

Is it really necessary to engage in personal rancor?


Perhaps that is where "audiophiles" have become less about sound and more
about something else. Reality is earbuds or headphones are audibly far
more capable in every measure except soundstage at a fraction of the
cost.

Agreed.

So, you're agreeing that people who prefer to listen to speakers over listening to
earbuds and other forms of headphones have that preference because they care
more for equipment than music? It couldn't be because music sounds better and more
realistic and therefore more satisfying through speakers than through ear-buds could it?


OTOH it could just be that ear buds suffer from a set of inherent
limitations that preclude them from being something that some of us would
ever consider to be high end sound. The inability to cast a sound stage
that can in any way shape or form create anything close to an illusion of
live acoustic music precludes them from ever being high end in my book. I
think it's great that we can get what we can get with portable audio these
days. But IMO it ain't high end audio.


Why the "could just be"? The major issue was conceeded explicitly: "...more
capable in every measure except soundstage..." I would add that if you wear
earphones or headphones for hours and hours they can become painful if not
well-fitted, and sweaty even if well fitted.

Then why are you complaining about people who don't particularly like headphone
listening, and use them ONLY because they are a necessary evil with portable players?
Why the overall tone of criticism aimed at those who think of earphones only as worthy of
private and/or portable listening?

[allen]

On 6 Dec 2013 00:05:18 GMT, Audio_Empire
wrote:

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 6:01:26 AM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:

snip

Techincally speaking there are no audible techical deficiencies such as
noise and distortion in the better iPod-like devices. They measure as well
if not better than a good stereo receiver driven by a good CD player.

I'd like to see some some proof of that assertion, please? And even if what you say
were true, what good would all of those "great specs" be when the youngsters
attached to them have filled them with 32 or 64 KBpS MP3s of terrible-sounding
(even on a good system) pop recordings?


I'm not Arny.

Stereophile 2003:

"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players—ironic,
considering that most of the time it will be used to play MP3 and AAC
files, which will not immediately benefit from such good performance.
But if you're willing to trade off maximum playing time against the
ability to play uncompressed AIFF or WAV files, the iPod will do an
excellent job of decoding them. Excellent, cost-effective audio
engineering from an unexpected source.—John Atkinson"

http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...r-measurements

And your 32-64Kbps MP3 reference is a straw man if I ever read
one...who listens to MP3s encoded at such a ridiculous bit rate..?

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Friday, December 6, 2013 7:48:00 AM UTC-8, allen wrote:
On 6 Dec 2013 00:05:18 GMT, Audio_Empire
=20
wrote:
=20
=20
=20
On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 6:01:26 AM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:
=20
=20
=20
snip
=20
=20
=20
Techincally speaking there are no audible techical deficiencies such a=
s=20
noise and distortion in the better iPod-like devices. They measure as =
well =20
if not better than a good stereo receiver driven by a good CD player.


I'd like to see some some proof of that assertion, please? And even if w=
hat you say=20
were true, what good would all of those "great specs" be when the youngs=
ters=20
attached to them have filled them with 32 or 64 KBpS MP3s of terrible-so=
unding =20
(even on a good system) pop recordings?=20

I'm not Arny.

Yes, I'm aware of that.=20

Stereophile 2003:
=20
=20
=20
"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players=EF=BF=BDiron=
ic,=20
considering that most of the time it will be used to play MP3 and AAC

files, which will not immediately benefit from such good performance.
But if you're willing to trade off maximum playing time against the
ability to play uncompressed AIFF or WAV files, the iPod will do an
excellent job of decoding them. Excellent, cost-effective audio=20
engineering from an unexpected source.=EF=BF=BDJohn Atkinson"

Did those measurements include the built-in headphone driver amplifier? You=
r quoted text
doesn't say. My experience is that those amps aren't very good - and the la=
ter ones sound
worse than the early ones.=20

http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...-player-measu=
rements

=20
And your 32-64Kbps MP3 reference is a straw man if I ever read=20
one...who listens to MP3s encoded at such a ridiculous bit rate..?

Kids. "I have more songs on my iPod than you do on yours" I know youngsters=
who readily=20
admit that they use low bit-rates to maximize their available storage.=20

Audio_Empire