[Audio_Empire]

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...=