[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
64.12.116.141
Yesterday, while at my favorite bookstore, I had occasion to peruse the current issue of Stereophile for the better part of an hour. I even took a few notes. I’ll preface my remarks by stating that I envy Atkinson and Fremer their passion for this hobby. I sense it is genuine and not merely a pose, as some cynics would contend.
Taking a page from Hillary’s book, JA&MF have resolved to combat what they view as a vast mainstream conspiracy that is preventing an ignorant public from discovering the joys of hi-end audio. The culprits in this conspiracy, according to JA&MF, are Anthony Tommasini and Terry Teachout. (Therein lies the flaw in their theory. More about that in a moment.)
An incredulous John Atkinson declares, “{I}t’s beyond me how anyone, let alone someone as musically literate as Anthony Tommasini, can feel that the sound quality of a low-bit-rate MP3 is ‘good enough.”’ Hmphh. I find JA’s absolutist position regarding this matter a bit puzzling for two reasons. Ever the relativist, why only now has he chosen to abandon his “live and let live” philosophy? Where is that wonderful liberal tolerance that’s usually on display? And since when does one’s musical literacy necessarily equate to an avid interest in audiophile gear?
JA’s major complaint, if I read him correctly, is that the MP3 “discards frequency information” and can “smear” other musical artifacts. It occurs to me that SETs do something very similar inasmuch as they fail to deliver the last word in musical information (especially at the frequency extremes), nor do they offer the ultimate in resolution. The late James Burnham was fond of saying, “He who says A must say B.” Yet I don’t see the big guns at Stereophile scolding SET devotees for the error of their ways.
JA goes on to state that the sonic difference between compressed files and CDs is “not subtle.” Then perhaps this is the ideal situation in which to introduce DBTs. If the difference is not subtle then one should have little trouble differentiating between the two sources, without the advantage of sighted listening.
Such an approach might prove beneficial insofar as convincing the masses that they are missing out on something quite important. Perhaps Stereophile and audiophile clubs throughout America can raise awareness with such demonstrations. Of course, if audiophiles are exaggerating said differences then one would understand their reluctance to enlist the aid of DBTs in this matter.
The major flaw in JA&MF’s thesis has to do with their insistence that the “mainstream press” is frustrating their best efforts to enlighten the general public as to the sonic superiority of audiophile -- relax, MF, I’m using the term in the best possible sense of the word – formats, compared to compressed files. JA complains it’s difficult to get his message out “with Teachout and Tommasini preaching the opposite, that’s hard to overcome.”
Hard to overcome? Why is that? For all their fevered rhetoric about the mainstream press torpedoing their best efforts, JA&MF can point to only two critics who are, as far as I can tell, merely stating their opinion that compressed files are “good enough” for them.
JA&MF will point to the fact that Tommasini and Teachout write for the NEW YORK TIMES and WSJ, respectively. Fair enough. But Mr. Fremer’s major quarrel with Teachout concerns an article Teachout published in COMMENTERY, hardly a mainstream publication, six years ago.
I suspect Stereophile’s target audience for this crusade is younger people. (Let’s face it, if the audiophile bug hasn’t bitten you by the time you’re 50, it probably never will.) But I suspect there are precious few teens subscribing to the WSJ, or faithfully reading the arts section of the N.Y. Times.
I spent 30 minutes googling “audiophile” slash TIME, NEWSWEEK, USA TODAY, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE L.A. TIMES, THE LONDON TIMES, ROLLING STONE, and others, and found no evidence of a concerted effort on behalf of the press to disparage audiophiles, by downplaying the sonic virtues of CD and vinyl. (I did find a USA TODAY article alerting readers that a pricey brand name speaker cable sounded better than zip cord and a similar article in a high profile financial publication.)
Mr. Fremer takes Teachout to task for insisting that the resurgence of turntables is an exercise in “nostalgia.” Fremer asks Teachout if he believes listening to the old music of Louis Armstrong is also an exercise in nostalgia? But his analogy is weak inasmuch as Teachout is referring to hardware and we all know that hardware can be fleeting. When was the last time Stereophile reviewed a cassette deck? But musicians, composers and literary authors are flesh and blood and quite capable of taking on a certain timeless appeal. Think Bach. Surely Mr. Fremer grasps the difference.
Fremer fumes that “The iPod is no more responsible for ‘thinning the ranks of audiophiles’ over the last decade than cheap fast food has depleted the ranks of gourmets…Consumers are demanding higher quality food and seeking out better wine. Why? Because gourmet wine and fine food continue to receive enthusiastic coverage in the mainstream press and people who appreciate them are respected, while quality sound gets ignored…audiophiles are looked upon as either ‘odd’ or deluded for paying the same attention to sound…I don’t mean to sound paranoid, but for some reason, and especially in America, music lovers who appreciate good music (aka audiophiles) are under constant attack.”
“Constant attack”? Again, where is the evidence that audiophiles are incurring a constant drumbeat of criticism from the mainstream press? Hi-end audio has always been on the periphery of society and that’s where it’s likely to remain. And, yes, people might be forgiven for viewing an individual who spends upwards of $50K on a pair of speakers and $90K on a turntable, sans cartridge, as being a bit odd. It’s perfectly understandable that the mainstream should harbor such a view.
I’m afraid Messrs. Atkinson and Fremer can’t win this one. When it comes to influencing the publics’ purchasing habits, a single Steve Jobs is superior to a thousand Charles Hansens. Moreover, it’s a given that a heck of a lot more people would rather eat and drink than listen to music. If you doubt my claim then I suggest you consider the number of obese people in the U.S., or consider annual wine and beer sales in this country. What’s more, people don’t have to be told that enjoying quality food is a pleasurable experience. They’ve known it since they were three.
But for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of time, less than the best cuisine is “good enough.” This attitude holds true for audio as well. Most consumers value convenience and portability over sonic quality, they aren’t overly concerned with coaxing the last scintilla of sonic purity from their tunes. They just want to hear some music when the mood strikes them.
And that’s why audiophiles will never succeed in attracting the masses, and why there need be no concerted effort on the part of the media to prevent such a thing from happening.
When venturing down the qualitative slippery slope things can become a bit dicey. Let’s grant the fact that iPod users will never experience the "hi-end." But neither will most audiophiles who have limited funds that only allow for modest systems. Sure, one might assemble a sonically pleasing “mid-fi” system costing upwards of $5K, but to experience the “hi-end” in all its glory one would have to spend something on the order of 10-15 times as much—judging from what I read in audio journals.
I wish JA&MF much luck in their crusade to convert the great unwashed, but I don’t foresee many “road to Damascus moments” in their future. Again, methinks convenience is bound to triumph over quality. Oh, sure, the Philistines will listen politely, compliment you on the “great” sound of your gear, and then go right back to listening to those user-friendly iPods. At the risk of stating the obvious, there’s nothing particularly pleasurable or sexy about cleaning a record each time one plays it.
If compressed files and cheap audio systems are “good enough” for many composers (I once read that Philip Glass listens to everything on a $300 Aiwa mini system), musicians and music critics, so be it. Presumably those people are deriving at least as much enjoyment from music as the rest of us. I suspect John Lee Hooker derived enormous satisfaction from his musical career, and yet his “system,” I’m told, consisted of an $80 boom box.
When questioning young people about their iPods one detects an enormous amount of exuberance and emotional satisfaction, it’s infectious. Compare their exuberance with the sardonic letters-to-the-editor that appear in Stereophile and it’s immediately apparent as to which group is having the most fun. And isn’t that what it’s all about, having fun?
Mr. Tommasini’s musical system is sonically pleasing to the only person who matters…himself. And who is to say that others can’t derive similar satisfaction groovin’ to compressed files?
Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]