[
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
In Reply to: RE: I took it. Thanks to your post, I actually went out and bought a newstand copy posted by Bruce from DC on January 29, 2008 at 13:17:10
Bruce: “Thanks to your post, I actually went out and bought a newstand copy.”
Well, I’m flattered to learn that in my own small way I’m enhancing Stereophile’s bottom line.
Bruce: “And your point is?”
Bruce, my good man, you’re a successful attorney in D.C. And because of that fact your reading comprehension skills are, presumably, superior to many of those who frequent this thread. Admittedly, most here don’t agree with my position but they bloody well get it. So I’ll assume your question is rhetorical in nature. As for your other concerns:
Bruce: “Surely you are not going to argue that MP3s are indistinguishable from RBCD in any half-decent playback system.”
I argue no such thing and see no need for you to erect a straw man. I merely note that compressed files appear to be “good enough” for Teachout, Tommasini, and millions of consumers. Consumers, by the way, who readily grasp the fact that there are qualitative differences in audio components/formats, as with virtually all other products. (The concept of qualitative distinctions among products is hardly new or unique to audio.)
As I stated earlier, iPod users seem to be having considerably more fun than their audiophile counterparts, judging by the sardonic letters-to-the-editor one reads in audio journals, and the acrimony one encounters at this venue. The MP3 generation is enjoying music instead of getting bogged down in eternal debates and internecine warfare. So, who really has the problem here?
I readily admit that RBCD offers a qualitative improvement over compressed files, but do not think the difference is so great as some would have us believe. I deem it closer to a nuance than a night and day difference. And I doubt hoi polloi will be overly impressed by mere nuance.
Bruce: “And perhaps you didn't see a recent article by a non-audiophile in an non-audiophile publication that mentioned that JA and, IIRC, WP distinguished between two cables in an SBT, even though many of the run-of-the-show people were less successful in doing so.”
Now you’re off straw men and onto non sequiturs. What does this article have to do with my larger point i.e., that I see no evidence of media responsibility for the demise of hi-end audio? In my view the audio industry needs to take responsibility for its own problems, instead of looking for scapegoats. Mr. Fremer would disagree. Thus the title of his essay: “The Swift Boating of Audiophiles.”
Perhaps you reference this article because of my DBT suggestion. In any event, here’s what I took away from the article:
1) “One of the tests compared a high-quality MP3 file from an iPod with a CD on a $3,000 player. Three-quarters of the 24 people taking this test preferred the CD. That was no surprise. However, when I played .wav files on the iPod -- these are digital but uncompressed files; I was connecting the headphone jack to the amplifier -- 52% of the 21 who took this test preferred the iPod. That made me smile, not because snooty audiophiles got the ‘wrong’ answer, but because it suggests GREAT SOUND CAN COME FROM POPULAR, CHEAP GEAR.” {Emphasis mine}
2) A rep. from Audience LLC couldn’t identify {blind} his own $2,800 power-line conditioner a third of the time. He doesn’t recognize his own product yet neophytes and skeptics are supposed to be impressed by its benefits? Cut me a break.
3) JA insists the sonic difference between CD and compressed files is “not particularly subtle.” Which is another way of saying it’s fairly “obvious.” Obvious enough, presumably, that the masses would have little difficulty distinguishing between the two formats. Yet, 25 percent of the listeners, according to the article, preferred the compressed file or could not distinguish between the two. Citing this article is a curious way of making your case, counselor.
4) “I was struck by how the best-informed people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable.”
This flattering assessment of their skills contradicts Mr. Fremer’s notion that the mainstream press delights in ridiculing audiophiles.
5) “In absolute terms, though, the differences weren't great. Mr. Atkinson guesstimated the expensive cables sounded roughly 5% better.”
Again, we are back to mere nuance and I suspect that’s a deal breaker for most of the great unwashed.
6) “Remember, by definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound.”
See my response to number five.
7) “Attendance at the show was disappointing…”
Bruce: “Having now read both pieces (Atkinson's and Fremer's), I think it's fair to say that their basic point is that people need to be reminded of what music really sounds like,”
I’m sure it is, Bruce. But this is no different than Robert Parker insisting that people need to be reminded of what fine wine tastes like. But the vast majority of consumers have little interest in going to the time and expense of searching out First Growth Bordeaux; likewise hi-end audio gear. And I’m afraid the media aren’t going to be of much help insofar as changing those attitudes, at least anytime soon.
Concerning the media: As best I can discover, there’s no “swift boating,” or “constant attack” to harm the hi-end audio industry or to disparage audiophiles. I’m open to being persuaded otherwise. But I don’t see much evidence to support such claims. Do you, counselor?
Bruce: “and it's disappointing (to say the least) when people who listen to music seriously (like Teachout) promote the notion that playback quality doesn't matter (or doesn't matter very much).”
Life is full of disappointments, Bruce. But if that’s Teachout’s opinion then so be it. Would audiophiles rather he lie in order to promote their industry? Besides, methinks JA&MF credit Teachout and Tommasini with wielding too much influence. If their point is that two aging music critics are responsible for holding back an entire industry then perhaps they should rethink their position or take steps to revamp their industry.
Taking a confrontational approach with the media will only invite ridicule, which was my point when I wrote that I was afraid MF was on the verge of shooting himself in the foot. (I don’t think JA&MF would care to see their industry become fodder for SNL.)
If the hi-end industry wants more respect then let it get to work and earn it. But don’t complain, like petulant children, that the big boys won’t let you in their game. It’s unseemly.
If audiophiles wish to broaden their customer base then they need to prepare to meet with a healthy degree of skepticism. Therefore, it’s important to be logically consistent in one’s approach. Don’t, as Mr. Fremer does, insist the problem is that audiophiles are under “constant attack,” and then a short time later insist the problem is that audio “is not being covered.” One can’t have it both ways.
I suggest the audiophile industry get its talking points straight before drawing further attention to itself. So, what’s the position vis-à-vis the media going to be? Is the problem that the industry is under attack by a hostile media, or that the media are ignoring the industry?
Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]