[Jenn]

I read this in the NYT, and stole the idea of posting it here from
someone in another group. Food for thought, perhaps, by Anthony
Tommasini, probably the most important classical music critic now
working.

"Hard to Be an Audiophile in an iPod World"

http://snipurl.com/1u5mx

[John Atkinson]

On Nov 25, 4:22 pm, Jenn wrote:
I read this in the NYT, and stole the idea of posting it here from
someone in another group. Food for thought, perhaps, by Anthony
Tommasini, probably the most important classical music critic now
working.

"Hard to Be an Audiophile in an iPod World"

http://snipurl.com/1u5mx

It's an interesting piece, Jenn, and follows a simialr piece in
the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago by Terry
Teachout. However, the idea that people in general will
choose convenience over quality is hardly new; it is why first
the cassette, then the CD, replaced LP. And High Fidelity
magazine didn't cease publishing because its readers were
no longer interested in sound quality, it died because of gross
mismanagement and incompetent editing. (See my thoughts
on its demise at http://www.stereophile.com/historical/489/index3.html
..)

But I am disturbed by the author's lack of recognition that
there _are_ still audio magazines alive and even thriving in
the new century. Perhaps I ceased to exist while I was
not looking? :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Jenn]

In article
,
John Atkinson wrote:

On Nov 25, 4:22 pm, Jenn wrote:
I read this in the NYT, and stole the idea of posting it here from
someone in another group. Food for thought, perhaps, by Anthony
Tommasini, probably the most important classical music critic now
working.

"Hard to Be an Audiophile in an iPod World"

http://snipurl.com/1u5mx

It's an interesting piece, Jenn, and follows a simialr piece in
the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago by Terry
Teachout. However, the idea that people in general will
choose convenience over quality is hardly new; it is why first
the cassette, then the CD, replaced LP.

Hey John,

True, of course, but well put, I thought.

And High Fidelity
magazine didn't cease publishing because its readers were
no longer interested in sound quality, it died because of gross
mismanagement and incompetent editing. (See my thoughts
on its demise at http://www.stereophile.com/historical/489/index3.html
.)

Also true, of course. I really liked it in its day, at least more than
I did Stereo Review.


But I am disturbed by the author's lack of recognition that
there _are_ still audio magazines alive and even thriving in
the new century.

LOL good point!

Perhaps I ceased to exist while I was
not looking? :-)

Far from it, pal. I continue to look forward to each issue, though I
wish you could include a bit more recordings reviews ;-)

I hope that you don't end up ruing the day you wrote that last sentence
on RAO!

[Harry Lavo]

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
...
On Nov 25, 4:22 pm, Jenn wrote:
I read this in the NYT, and stole the idea of posting it here from
someone in another group. Food for thought, perhaps, by Anthony
Tommasini, probably the most important classical music critic now
working.

"Hard to Be an Audiophile in an iPod World"

http://snipurl.com/1u5mx

It's an interesting piece, Jenn, and follows a simialr piece in
the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago by Terry
Teachout. However, the idea that people in general will
choose convenience over quality is hardly new; it is why first
the cassette, then the CD, replaced LP. And High Fidelity
magazine didn't cease publishing because its readers were
no longer interested in sound quality, it died because of gross
mismanagement and incompetent editing. (See my thoughts
on its demise at http://www.stereophile.com/historical/489/index3.html
.)

But I am disturbed by the author's lack of recognition that
there _are_ still audio magazines alive and even thriving in
the new century. Perhaps I ceased to exist while I was
not looking? :-)


Send him a gratis subscription, John.....and say just that!! :-)

[RapidRonnie]

On Nov 25, 5:26 pm, John Atkinson
wrote:
On Nov 25, 4:22 pm, Jenn wrote:

I read this in the NYT, and stole the idea of posting it here from
someone in another group. Food for thought, perhaps, by Anthony
Tommasini, probably the most important classical music critic now
working.

"Hard to Be an Audiophile in an iPod World"

http://snipurl.com/1u5mx

It's an interesting piece, Jenn, and follows a simialr piece in
the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago by Terry
Teachout. However, the idea that people in general will
choose convenience over quality is hardly new; it is why first
the cassette, then the CD, replaced LP. And High Fidelity
magazine didn't cease publishing because its readers were
no longer interested in sound quality, it died because of gross
mismanagement and incompetent editing. (See my thoughts
on its demise athttp://www.stereophile.com/historical/489/index3.html


One could argue of course that the LP was a convenience move from
tape or vinyl 78s....

It should be mentioned that the iPod is capable of good quality if a
better digital format than .mp3 is chosen, and that its quality would
be better yet if the unit were made a little larger to accommodate a
battery with enough current for better analog performance.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 25, 3:38 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
John Atkinson wrote:

On Nov 25, 4:22 pm, Jenn wrote:
I read this in the NYT, and stole the idea of posting it here from
someone in another group. Food for thought, perhaps, by Anthony
Tommasini, probably the most important classical music critic now
working.

"Hard to Be an Audiophile in an iPod World"

http://snipurl.com/1u5mx

It's an interesting piece, Jenn, and follows a simialr piece in
the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago by Terry
Teachout. However, the idea that people in general will
choose convenience over quality is hardly new; it is why first
the cassette, then the CD, replaced LP.

Hey John,

True, of course, but well put, I thought.

And High Fidelity
magazine didn't cease publishing because its readers were
no longer interested in sound quality, it died because of gross
mismanagement and incompetent editing. (See my thoughts
on its demise athttp://www.stereophile.com/historical/489/index3.html
.)

Also true, of course. I really liked it in its day, at least more than
I did Stereo Review.



But I am disturbed by the author's lack of recognition that
there _are_ still audio magazines alive and even thriving in
the new century.

LOL good point!

Perhaps I ceased to exist while I was
not looking? :-)

Far from it, pal. I continue to look forward to each issue, though I
wish you could include a bit more recordings reviews ;-)

I hope that you don't end up ruing the day you wrote that last sentence
on RAO!

A few random thoughts. As yet I never heard MP3 and I doubt if I will.
I don't miss a noise in my ears while I'm walking or typing this.
Music is something intended to be listeed to undistracted just as
books, not to mention poetry, are written to be read attentively and
paintings looked at without loudspeakers playing an accompaniment. in
the background.
This of course will classify me as a snob because my preferences are
not those of the self proclaimed non-snobs. In case someone tactfully
ascribes it to my age I'll say that I was the same kind of a snob from
the age of 15. The definition of a non-snob? He prefers pop to
Beethoven's last quartets. Some might say he suffers from pop-rock
snobbery but never mind...
Hi- fi at its best is still a compromise compared with llive. But I
will live with it. Which proves that we all have to adjust to reality
and the so -called audiophiles are also non-snobs, members of a
different "I'm not a snob"club..
Ludovic Mirabel....
.. -

[John Atkinson]

On Nov 25, 7:29 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
...
I am disturbed by the author's lack of recognition that
there _are_ still audio magazines alive and even thriving
in the new century...

Send him a gratis subscription, John.....and say just that!! :-)-

Excellent suggestion, Harry.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 26, 6:09 am, John Atkinson
wrote:
On Nov 25, 7:29 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
...
I am disturbed by the author's lack of recognition that
there _are_ still audio magazines alive and even thriving
in the new century...

Send him a gratis subscription, John.....and say just that!! :-)-

Excellent suggestion, Harry.

If that's all it takes, I'm not sure if there are still thriving audio
magazines either.:-)

[George M. Middius]

Ludo said:

Music is something intended to be listeed to undistracted just as
books, not to mention poetry, are written to be read attentively and
paintings looked at without loudspeakers playing an accompaniment. in
the background.

Uh-huh....

This of course will classify me as a snob because my preferences are
not those of the self proclaimed non-snobs.

Actually, it qualifies you as a fossil because your habits are ossified.

The definition of a non-snob? He prefers pop to
Beethoven's last quartets.

You're conflating artistic merit with emotional involvement. Great
classical music has the former, but all music that one enjoys like
engenders the latter. If your "preference" only leads you to one kind of
music no matter what your state of mind, then "snob" is not the right
term to describe you.

[George M. Middius]

Ludo said:

Music is something intended to be listeed to undistracted just as
books, not to mention poetry, are written to be read attentively and
paintings looked at without loudspeakers playing an accompaniment. in
the background.

Uh-huh....

This of course will classify me as a snob because my preferences are
not those of the self proclaimed non-snobs.

Actually, it qualifies you as a fossil because your habits are ossified.

The definition of a non-snob? He prefers pop to
Beethoven's last quartets.

You're conflating artistic merit with emotional involvement. Great
classical music has the former, but all music that one enjoys engenders
the latter. If your "preference" only leads you to one kind of music no
matter what your state of mind, then "snob" is not the right term to
describe you.

[Jenn]

In article
,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

On Nov 26, 6:09 am, John Atkinson
wrote:
On Nov 25, 7:29 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
...
I am disturbed by the author's lack of recognition that
there _are_ still audio magazines alive and even thriving
in the new century...

Send him a gratis subscription, John.....and say just that!! :-)-

Excellent suggestion, Harry.

If that's all it takes, I'm not sure if there are still thriving audio
magazines either.:-)

lol

[[email protected]]

On Nov 26, 6:25 am, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Ludo said:

Music is something intended to be listeed to undistracted just as
books, not to mention poetry, are written to be read attentively and
paintings looked at without loudspeakers playing an accompaniment. in
the background.

Uh-huh....

This of course will classify me as a snob because my preferences are
not those of the self proclaimed non-snobs.

Actually, it qualifies you as a fossil because your habits are ossified.

The definition of a non-snob? He prefers pop to
Beethoven's last quartets.

You're conflating artistic merit with emotional involvement. Great
classical music has the former, but all music that one enjoys engenders
the latter. If your "preference" only leads you to one kind of music no
matter what your state of mind, then "snob" is not the right term to
describe you
======================
Middius says:
If your "preference" only leads you to one kind of music no
matter what your state of mind, then "snob" is not the right term to
describe you
Thank you for remaining urbane. In self-defence I'll say that most
rock is preferable to most pop that preceded it. But I confess that
there are very few rock records I can listen to ( I mean LISTEN) for
longer than 20 minutes. But there are a few.
As for catholic (i.e. broad) taste how many of the pop listeners go to
chamber music concerts?
I don't follow your distinction between "artistic merit" and
"emotional involvement". Surely they are indistiguishable for any
single listener.
Ludovic Mirabel.

[George M. Middius]

Ludo said:

You're conflating artistic merit with emotional involvement. Great
classical music has the former, but all music that one enjoys engenders
the latter. If your "preference" only leads you to one kind of music no
matter what your state of mind, then "snob" is not the right term to
describe you

Middius says:

You don't really need to repeat the part you're replying to, you know.

Thank you for remaining urbane. In self-defence I'll say that most
rock is preferable to most pop that preceded it. But I confess that
there are very few rock records I can listen to ( I mean LISTEN) for
longer than 20 minutes. But there are a few.

Ah -- a distinction between "listen" and "LISTEN".

As for catholic (i.e. broad) taste how many of the pop listeners go to
chamber music concerts?

You'd have to ask them, but the premise of your question establishes
with certainty that they do not attend exclusively either popular or
classical performances.

I don't follow your distinction between "artistic merit" and
"emotional involvement". Surely they are indistiguishable for any
single listener.

I commend to you the distinction between "listen" and "LISTEN".

[MINe109]

On Nov 27, 3:01 am, "soundhaspriority" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

...

I read this in the NYT, and stole the idea of posting it here from
someone in another group. Food for thought, perhaps, by Anthony
Tommasini, probably the most important classical music critic now
working.

"Hard to Be an Audiophile in an iPod World"

http://snipurl.com/1u5mx

Five million turntables per year in the United States?
"turntables, with sales of five million a year in the United States,"

I am not a vinyl person, but it seems completely contradictory, suggesting
that the number of turntables sold annually is a sizeable fraction of the
number of ipods sold. Would anyone hazard a guess as to how many separate
households have turntables that are actually spinning away?

The ratio isn't ipods to turntables, it's turntables to microphones.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"Jenn" wrote in
message
...
I read this in the NYT, and stole the idea of posting it
here from someone in another group. Food for thought,
perhaps, by Anthony Tommasini, probably the most
important classical music critic now working.

"Hard to Be an Audiophile in an iPod World"

http://snipurl.com/1u5mx

Five million turntables per year in the United States?
"turntables, with sales of five million a year in the
United States,"


Speaks to the gross unreliability of turntables. That's 5 turntables sold
for every LP/EP sold. ;-)

[George M. Middius]

Robert said:

An untapped source of peak period electric power storage lurks in 5,000,000
turntables. Federal legislation could be enacted to require that each
turntable be fitted with a generator, turning each one into a mini energy
storage device. Controlled by a timer, each turntable would release stored
energy into the power grid during peak periods.

Speaking of impractical, do you realize how many turds the Krooborg has
hoarded? That's a ****load of potential energy.