|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: RE: True, but IF you had subscribed for YEARS... posted by John Atkinson on September 17, 2015 at 05:42:01:
""I compare the sound of the product against that of live, unamplified music."
Really? I know this is a common meme, coined by Harry Pearson back in 1973 when he founded The Abso!ute Sound. But, as I have argued in the past, it doesn't hold together with two-channel reproduction, in which the ambient sound at the original event is folded into the front channels."
Actually the promise that one day it would be achieved and that was the goal long preceded Harry Pearson in 1973, in fact it was the goal at the invention of high fidelity sound and even before. Why is that no longer the goal? The answer is simple, the problem has beaten those who tackled it to a pulp. It's hardly surprising to me. I've met many of these people and frankly they're not remotely up to the challenge. They are not the sharpest knives in the drawer no matter how much they think of themselves or each other. The really sharp people are working on much more interesting problems like engineering DNA and how to get a human to Mars and back alive. Their one commercial effort that recognized what they'd been doing wasn't going to work was Quadraphonic sound. It was a commercial disaster because it demonstrated a complete lack of understanding and was therefore a technical failure. And so the industry went back to what it knew how to do and has been doing it in an infinite number of variations since 1958. It didn't work then and it still doesn't work now. And there is no prospect in the offing that this will change anytime soon. And so the goals have become instead doing more of the same only trying to do it better whatever that means. But don't take my word for it, read Gordon Holt's articles on the subject. He went from despondent to crestfallen.
Before anyone can solve this problem they will have to rethink the entire concept from square one and come up with some very different answers. Until then audiophiles will shop and swap 'til they drop, drooling over the newest best offerings which have ever escalating prices. Each one promises to be the silver bullet that will quench all of their frustrations. In the 1960s the most expensive stereo system you could buy was the price of a new luxury car. Today it's the price of not just a house but a mansion. Is the difference really worth the cost? Where does the silliness end and the sanity begin?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: True, but IF you had subscribed for YEARS... - MarkJohns 06:56:17 09/17/15 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
