|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
80.2.121.65
Audio has reached its tipping point. The upcoming generations despise the concept of good audio, because they despise the audiophiles that push the concept of good audio. The generations who did buy audio have already bought audio and the only people still buying good audio equipment are largely our grotesquely wealthy Chinese owners, who pay vast sums of money to possess highly-polished trinkets they can pass off as status symbols.High-end audio is decadent and morally bankrupt. It will inevitably die off in the coming years. And we made it that way, by fashioning it in our image.
We were the people who demanded exclusivity and inch-thick panels on our artisan-made stereo equipment, and now we moan because that exclusivity excludes us. We were subjectivists when it suited us, but now the subjective-led products are priced out of our orbit, we become indignant objectivists. We were the ones who rejected digital audio when the rest of the world embraced CD, then wonder why our thin little voice is not heard when decrying iTunes. We cheer the counter-culture hipsters who buy LPs, but woe betide anyone who dares to try to play that disc on our record players.
We bitch about products we don't buy, dealers we don't deal with, magazines we don't read and music we don't listen to. If they changed to bow to our every wish, we still wouldn't buy them, trade with them, read them or listen to them; we'd just be upset that we had nothing to be upset about.
So, this is how it's going to end. Not with a bang, or even a whimper, but a protracted whine from our man-caves. We built our Rome, and we are fiddling as it burns. Except this time, we are fiddling with our speaker spikes.
Edits: 03/28/12Follow Ups:
"Audio has reached its tipping point. The upcoming generations despise the concept of good audio, because they despise the audiophiles that push the concept of good audio."
Piffle! They probably don't even know what an Audiophile is.
Humans enjoy entertainment, that's why we create it. As our knowledge and technology have progressed we have consistently come up with improved ways to deliver more entertainment to more people, more conveniently at far lower costs than ever before. Not too long ago only a tiny fraction of the world's population had access to the sorts of experiences that are now available to virtually everyone!
By and large it has been additive, the symphony still plays but I have the option to loll around and enjoy the balmy evening in the park while listening to the same work on my iPod if I want to. If I loll a few weeks later I can listen to the radio broadcast of that very performance and since I may well have been there it's fun to relive it.
Do you also believe that people that enjoy movies do so because they despise those that go to plays?
It surprises me that this innocuous hobby seems to induce self-loathing in some practitioners. Maybe we are too sensitive and introspective, just how many football fans do you know that are the least bit concerned about what others think of their asinine pastime?
Rick
There will be a resurgence of taste in artisitc reproduction again someday. It more or less peaked with the Baby boomers, although there are quite a few generation Xers like myself who appreciate high quality music playback and actually listening to music for enjoyment. However, we were far fewer than our parents. There is a downward trend through the younger generations but it might very well swing back again with the advent of other new technology or a deeper appreciation for the artistic power of music again.
To bad, so sad.
All you have to be is happy with what you have.
There is every sign that music is moving to "the cloud." My 27 year old daughter will occasionally imagine buying a CD, but my 17 year old would NEVER do that. Years ago there was a transition from 45 singles to LPs for buyers who wanted more. The Walkman portable cassette player, then Walkman CD player, then iPod changed all that, culminating in music protected by iTunes, played on an iPhone. We have convenience galore!
But these days, unless a stereo can play music directly off a phone (or the cloud it talks to), it will be dead in the water. iTunes has most people's music held captive, and anything marketed to the masses MUST interface with it. And how to get "full" rez (let alone high rez) delivered in this new paradigm? I honestly think people now feel any music library that won't fit on their iPhone is too large. I am not sure the masses want to sacrifice precious drive space for a fractional improvement in sound. Drives getting larger on iPhones is a good thing!
It is such a different paradigm. There is no collector instinct when the music is not a physical media, but this is the reality.
My 17 year old knows my system sounds good, and will listen to it...by playing her phone on it via a Belkin cable out the headphone jack to the preamp. She does not want a stereo in her room...and I have offered!
I am not sure what people are expecting, but times have changed.
I will go on the record saying this...iTunes could make more money by charging a nominal additional amount for full rez music. CDs are on the way out...at least let us have access to an equivalent sound, and leave the hi rez options to the companies that want to mess with that. Of course the supercompressed options allows easier acquisition of new music by downloading wherever you are, not just where a fast connection exists. So full rez would have to be an option only.
As we know, the real reason this worked is iTunes prevents the free exchange of music by ripping and burning identical copies at will("authorized" computers/devices). That's not all bad, but we have thrown out the baby with the bath water.
Steve
Actually the future has never been brighter!
Billions of kids now have access to really good audio and music almost for free! An Iphone, Android, Ipad, PC or Mac have relatively good sound. With a nice pair of $200 headphones it's pretty excellent, through in a USB box for another $150 and wha-la really good sound.Better then those $40 records (in today's dollars) played on a standard record player and receiver from the 1970's.
With Youtube HD, Streaming services, etc... Exposure to really great music from around the world is free and easy.
As these kids grow up, they'll want something a little better, and better, and better. Like we did.
I lent my kid my AKG 701s, never saw them back. His face lit up when I let him try my Senn HD800s, those I kept!
Edits: 03/29/12
It's an outdated paradigm certainly to have a rackful of equipment. Can't say I would encourage anyone to appreciate audio unless they were really into genres of music where it matters. Even then, I wouldn't recommend anything gold-plated except for a few connectors!
After a few decades of trying different equipment. including a real nice set-up: Response Audio Upgraded Hurricane Monos, CJ Act2, Nordost Vahalla.I've had a long list of Audio Candy including: Airtight 300b, a Cary F-1 Sli-80, an Ayon Spirit II, Big Krells, Pass stuff, on and on etc...
I found an unbelievable sounding integrated from China - the Bada Purer 3.3. Those wonderful tube like Toshiba Mosfets run in Class A, dual Toroidal Trannys, R-Core in the Pre-amp with 6922s driven in class A.
I've run one in my listening room and one in my office for years now - the sound is so rich, detailed, non-fatiguing. Bliss.This little unit cost $800, and is the best sound set-up I've ever had!
Just replaced the 6922 with Russian Rockets, and added some SR MIGS.Replaced the SR Tesla and Valhalla with Tellurium Q Ultra Blacks, saved $10,000 on cables, and the sound improved again!
The bottom line problem is most folks (especially dealers!) equate $$ spent to sound quality - that ain't so. We have been mislead into believing you need to spend $50K to get a great sounding system.
BTW: Love the vintage 70s stuff, just had a Kenwood KT-917 completely upgraded by RadioX - WOW does it sound great.
Edits: 03/29/12 03/29/12 03/29/12
"Billions of kids now have access to really good audio and music almost for free!"
Billions? I'm pretty sure that's not correct.
Even if you count ALL the kids in the world, lots of them DON'T have that access, 'cause they live in countries which insist on living in the fifteen hundreds. As much money as we, the ostensibly evil United States, have thrown at their governments in "foreign aid" over upteen decades, they still don't "get it".
That's one area where we can reduce our Federal budget and keep that money in our own pocket, instead of pissing it away on corrupt dictators and on people who won't pick up the ball and run with it.
Now, THERE's a rant. :)
OTOH, foreign aid isn't much of the budget -- much less than most people think it is -- and it's a lot cheaper to pay off a corrupt dictator than it is to fight a war!
"OTOH, foreign aid isn't much of the budget"So, should we piss away our money just because it's only a little here and a little there?
C'mon, Josh, you're smarter than that!
"it's a lot cheaper to pay off a corrupt dictator than it is to fight a war!"
Corrupt dictators have been our friends since forever. And then they turn on us, and we end up fighting a war anyway.
Are we fighting a war in Afghanistan? Didn't we just get done fighting a war in Iraq against our good buddy Saddam? How many millions of dollars did it cost us to pay off the Nicaraugian regime a few decades ago? How are we doing in Egypt and Libya and Somalia, etc.?
I really don't care that our "foreign aid" budget is small - it should be ZERO. Listen carefully: WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. WE'RE IN DEBT UP TO OUR EYEBALLS, and it hasn't gotten us - we, the American people - anything.
I'd be happy to keep MY money to pay my bills, instead of funding champagne and caviar dinners for the politicians. Have YOU ever spent 5 nights in a luxury suite at the Noga Hilton or the Intercontinental in Geneva? Neither have I.
I'm just sayin'.
:)
Edits: 03/29/12 03/29/12
"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money." :-)
But seriously, foreign aid is a small part of the federal budget, about 1%. The average American thinks it's 25% of the budget, and believes that it should be reduced -- to a level higher than it actually is. Go figure.
Hey, I saw the Hilton in Cairo once. I asked where the Nile was, and the guide said "behind the Hilton."
Anyway, I think you'd find that foreign aid buys us an awful lot. Pakistan, for example, would be an enemy without it -- this way, it's only half an enemy. That money gives us a lot of leverage in a part of the world in which business is done through palm greasing.
Somalia doesn't really have a government. I think Libya's doing well, that was a foreign policy triumph. The Egyptian dictators have been our allies for many years now.
Also, I think it's an exaggeration to say we don't have any money. We're still far and away the world's richest country. From an economic perspective, the domestic federal debt should be larger than it is, not smaller, because the economy is currently demand limited and monetary policy has been tapped out. The recession would have been over a couple of years ago if we'd taken the advice of economists, rather than demagogic politicians.
"Pakistan, for example, would be an enemy without it -- this way, it's only half an enemy."
lol That was good!
"That money gives us a lot of leverage in a part of the world in which business is done through palm greasing."
Do you mean like in Washington, D.C.? ;)
"The Egyptian dictators have been our allies for many years now."
Except that now they don't really have a government, and as things continue to take shape, it looks like the Camp David accords (remember Jimmy Carter?) are going to be thrown in the dumpster. More billions flushed down a rat hole.
My point isn't the percentage of the budget that goes to foreign aid, it's that we shouldn't do it at all. As the lefty liberals are so fond of saying (with regard to the space program, etc.), we could use that money to help people in America to get out of poverty or have better food or schools, or whatever. Don't get me wrong, those problems will never go away, I'm just saying that, when I get up in the morning, I don't see how my life is measurably better because we gave Dan Noriega or Hosni Mubarack a few billion dollars, but I AM entirely aware that I've got taxes to pay in a couple weeks, and I'd rather keep that $20 instead of giving it to guys like that. But if you're happy with the concept, I'll send you my address, and you can send me $20. :)
"We're still far and away the world's richest country."
Hmm, I don't think so, as much as we'd like to believe we are. Check out Singapore.
"The recession would have been over a couple of years ago if we'd taken the advice of economists, rather than demagogic politicians."
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying we should have listened to the liberal-leaning economists, or the conservative-leaning economists? In either case, Obama's position seems to be that since Bush ran up the debt and drove the car toward the cliff, now Obama's got to run it up even more and drive even faster in order to fix the problem. ;)
"Do you mean like in Washington, D.C.? ;)"
Man, if you think Washington is corrupt, you should visit Egypt! If you make reservations and show up at the hotel, you'll discover that you don't have a room. You have to take a tour or hire a local facilitator to grease palms just to get a hotel room.
It's sad, really, these countries are suffocated under a blanket of corruption, official and otherwise. It has a lot to do I think with the difficulty they're having with modernization. I don't think they see baksheesh the same way we do, as bribery: essentially, every transaction is still personal to them. They lack the generalized work ethic that says you should just do your job, and it makes hard for them to move to a more sophisticated economic model.
"Except that now they don't really have a government, and as things continue to take shape, it looks like the Camp David accords (remember Jimmy Carter?) are going to be thrown in the dumpster. More billions flushed down a rat hole."
I think the world should have imposed a settlement on the Israelis and Palestinians long ago. Everyone knows what it has to look like. But as things now stand, they're just going to destroy one another -- and the ill will and resentment that the conflict causes in the Islamic world is I think a major contributor to world terrorism, which threatens us.
"My point isn't the percentage of the budget that goes to foreign aid, it's that we shouldn't do it at all. As the lefty liberals are so fond of saying (with regard to the space program, etc.), we could use that money to help people in America to get out of poverty or have better food or schools, or whatever. Don't get me wrong, those problems will never go away, I'm just saying that, when I get up in the morning, I don't see how my life is measurably better because we gave Dan Noriega or Hosni Mubarack a few billion dollars, but I AM entirely aware that I've got taxes to pay in a couple weeks, and I'd rather keep that $20 instead of giving it to guys like that. But if you're happy with the concept, I'll send you my address, and you can send me $20. :)"
Well, I don't agree with them about the space program, either. :-) I'm not fond of what the national GOP has become in recent years, it has little to do with the aspects of conservatism that appeal to me, but in this, I think they have it all over the Democrats. Yes, helping people is important, but so is the human future. Besides, the cost of the space program is trivial. We each spend far more on entertainment than we do in taxes to fund the space program. Wouldn't a mission to Mars be more interesting than another teevee show?
As to foreign aid, well, I do want to help people who are hungry and poor, though much of the money and food aid that's supposed to do that just gets stolen. I think a prosperous third world is in our interest, because it's the failed states that threaten us -- countries like Iran and Somalia, which is fertile ground for Al Qaeda. Just look at China -- not our bestest friend in the world, but they sure aren't a threat like they were in the days of Mao, because their prosperity depends on the prosperity of their victims er trading partners. And I continue to think that in many cases we can buy more security with a bit of aid to dictators than the same money would buy us if we spent it on our military, though there's certainly a cost attached to that, including the not-entirely-unjustified perception that because we aid the dictators economically, we're supporting their repression.
" 'We're still far and away the world's richest country'.
"Hmm, I don't think so, as much as we'd like to believe we are. Check out Singapore."
I was referring to total GDP:
1 United States 14,637,661
2 China 5,767,346
3 Japan 5,567,898
4 Germany 3,397,562
5 France 2,673,853
In the case of GDP per capita,
1 Qatar 102,891
2 Luxembourg 84,829
3 Singapore 59,936
4 Norway 53,376
5 Brunei 49,517
— Hong Kong 49,342
6 United Arab Emirates 48,597
7 United States 48,147
I've noticed over the years that the countries that have a higher per capita GDP than ours are changing players, that is, they'll have higher GDP's than the US for a few years, then drop down on the list. For example, Ireland was near the top of the list before their economic catastrophe. Conversely, the US maintains its position near the top year after year. Right now, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. seem to be benefiting from economic growth in mainland China, and the fact that the region isn't in recession. Our idiotic globalization policies mean that our economic stimulus packages have been doing a great job -- for China.
"I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying we should have listened to the liberal-leaning economists, or the conservative-leaning economists? In either case, Obama's position seems to be that since Bush ran up the debt and drove the car toward the cliff, now Obama's got to run it up even more and drive even faster in order to fix the problem. ;)"
From my perspective, economics is supposed to be a science, and science doesn't care one way or another about politics and ideology. Either a theory works, or it doesn't. So the economists who interest me are those who have a good understanding of economic theory, and I don't care whether their personal ideology is liberal or conservative, any more than I care whether an engineer is, as long as the product he designs does what it should.
That to me means, among other things, accepting Keynesian economics, which I find so logically compelling as to seem self-evident, and which is backed up by overwhelming historical evidence.
The economy doesn't work like your checkbook. But since most people don't know anything about macroeconomics, they think it does -- and that makes it easy for whichever party is out of power to demagogue the other party's deficit. Both have done it. In actuality, federal deficits are neither intrinsically good or bad -- that depends on economic circumstances.
Bush turned a surplus into a deficit by cutting taxes when economists said that that was irresponsible and economically counterproductive. Obama, too, ignored the advice of the best economists, and we're now paying the price in the form of a slower recovery. But that advice was very different -- we needed a $2 trillion stimulus, rather than the $1 trillion stimulus that we got. (Geithner is now known to have mislead Obama, by intentionally changing the figures in the memorandum that a government economist prepared for Obama because he didn't believe $2 trillion was a politically realizable figure. But still, its Obama's responsibility to choose his people and vet what they say, and word is that like Bush he listens more closely to his political than economic advisors. Whereas Clinton is known to have listened to his economists, and reaped the benefits of doing so.)
Now, we're in a recession, and from a macroeconomic perspective, the situation is different -- we should be running deficits, though we shouldn't be doing so by cutting taxes, since research shows that people bank tax cuts rather than spending them, meaning that tax cuts offer little bang for the buck when it comes to fighting recessions by increasing demand. Rather, what we need is direct federal spending, which does increase demand. It doesn't much matter on what: it could be war, or social programs, or roads. Liberals always say we're hurting the economy by spending it on the military, conservatives by spending it on domestic programs. But neither of those assertions is true. The idea is to have the government print money, borrow it from itself, then spend it on *anything;* this puts people back to work, then they spend their wages, and the recovery becomes self-sustaining. And rather than costing us much, it makes us richer. People just don't get that, though, really, the concept isn't difficult: money is just paper or bits, whereas empty factories and unemployed workers make no goods.
Once a recession ends, the government has to dial back as demand increases to avoid inflation, a step that can be difficult (look at Roosevelt's premature budget balancing of 1937, the economic contraction during the demobilization after WW II, or the recession that cost George H. W. Bush office after he raised taxes to reduce the deficits he inherited from Ronald Reagan's decidedly Keynesian big-government policies).
Some interesting figures:
PERCENT CHANGE IN GDP (IN INFLATION ADJUSTED DOLLARS)
1. D FDR ('40-'44) 74.69
2. D FDR ('32-'36) 34.63
3. D LBJ ('64-'68) 21.81
4. D TRUMAN ('48-'52) 21.00
5. D JFK ('60-'64) 19.86
6. D FDR ('36-'40) 19.33
7. D CLINTON ('96-'00) 17.87
8. R REAGAN ('84-'88) 15.98
9. D CARTER ('76-'80) 13.67
10. D CLINTON ('92-'96) 13.53
11. R IKE ('52-'56) 13.45
12. R REAGAN ('80-'84) 12.63
13. R NIXON ('68-'72) 12.38
14. R IKE ('56-'60) 10.91
15. R FORD ('72-'76) 10.62
16. R BUSH SR ('88-'92) 8.81
17. R BUSH JR ('00-'04) 8.75
18. R BUSH JR ('04-'08) 2.00*
19. D TRUMAN ('44-'48) -9.04
20. R HOOVER ('29-'32) -25.60
Original figures are at http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
*Based on an estimate of economic performance in fourth quarter '08
What stands out I think is that the times of growth coincide with periods of higher government spending, whether on war or peacetime programs like the New Deal and Great Society.
When demand exceeds productive capacity, you start to have inflation, as in WW II (when we enjoyed the fastest economic growth in our history, but had to implement wage and price controls), or the "guns and butter" period of the Great Society and Vietnam Wars.
Conversely, cutbacks tend to lead to or worsen economic contractions, although they're frequently precipitated by cyclical economic instabilities caused by burst bubbles -- 1929, the Internet stock bubble, the subprime mortage bubble, or the more usual bull/bear cycle of Wall Street). It's all pretty much as Keynes predicted, except for stagflation, which occurs when the price of an essential commodity like oil rises -- that required a modification to the original Keynesian theory, which didn't envisage inflation and recession occurring at the same time.
Trivia question - and please answer truthfully without resorting to Google first: what percentage of the US budget do you believe goes to foreign aid?
So let's say 100 million (US, Europe, Japan, and BRICS) kids, with a device and into music today.
How many kids were into music with a decent stereo in the world in 1970?
1 million?
It's a new world out there. I find amazing groups on YouTube every week, not needing to rely on a top Hits DJ/PM to filter my choices.
Re: all this "us" and "we" talk....Audio appreciation is by and large a solitary hobby. I've been at it for decades and, while I've found a few like-minded pals over the years, they've been few and far between. My point is this, once you (I) have what we need, who cares about what comes next? Seriously, if I were to buy a Ferrari, I doubt I'd care much about whether Ferrari's are selling well or not. Or whether future generations will appreciate my Ferrari. Understand that I'm comparing the car to Audio appreciation as a whole, not just the mega-buck gear.
With less time left in front of me than behind, I find my concern about the 'state' of the audio industry to be non-existant. Old-timers will recognize that this isn't a new subject. Seems to me that it's been around 4ever. I remember TAS being involved with this audio advancement group made up of various pros within the industry. THAT was the last idea I heard about the subject that actually made any sense. It failed. I mean epic-going-down-in-flames failed. The only bed I lay in is the one made of my great-sounding music, punto!
but sarcasm aside, the market for luxury goods of all ilks will survive the various economic recessions and depressions. People forget their history; the 19th century saw two depressions and a Civil War and yet luxury goods of various types survived that tumultuous century. No electronics or audio obviously until the very end of that century but the consumption of luxury goods by people with disposable wealth continued on through it all. The first Edison Phonographs cost over $150 back in a time when people worked for a dollar a day wage or even less. So, you might say that audio has always been an expensive hobby for over one hundred and twenty years.
Now, as to high-end audio specifically, as has been stated before the distribution channels are changing but new markets are opening up at the same time. For example, there are over 700 high-end boutique audio companies world wide with apparently growing numbers of hobbyist interest in the Far East, such as in Singapore and Hong Kong, the Mideast in Dubai, South America Rio de Janeiro and South Africa, Johannesburg. The players may change but the game continues on.
.
fire. You'll feel better in the morning.
Your hyper-cynical rant reminded me of some of the political activists of the 60s Much of their ramblings struck me as intellectual masturbation with a touch of hedonism mixed with a liberal portion of self-righteous indignation.
Hope you can find some enjoyment in listening to quality sound. Most of us do.
Its Monster Cable's fault
I sue you!
I sue you bad!
I slept with with the entire team and don't even remember?
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
...I feel sorry for you - hope there's no bridge you can jump off of.
The future's so bright we gotta wear shades!
Sure things have changed over the past 20 years but there will always be music lovers who want to get more emotionally involved and closer to the music.
More people are listening to more music than ever before.
Maybe not like you do, but that's not their problem.
.
"Audio has reached its tipping point. The upcoming generations despise the concept of good audio, because they despise the audiophiles that push the concept of good audio."People in the mainstream don't "despise" the concept of good audio. They've not been exposed to the type of music they'd appreciate to a greater degree if played back with higher fidelity........
Without the artistic nuances in music to provide the passion to reproduce it with higher fidelity, "pushing" the concept of good audio will be a futile exercise. But I don't know of one audiophile outside of AA who actually "pushes" the concept.
"The generations who did buy audio have already bought audio and the only people still buying good audio equipment are largely our grotesquely wealthy Chinese owners, who pay vast sums of money to possess highly-polished trinkets they can pass off as status symbols."
What does "Chinese" have to do with this?? Sounds like a divisive stereotype.
The generations who did buy audio and the only people still buying good audio equipment are doing so mainly to enjoy the music to a greater degree........ Some might spend more, but one need not spend a lot to attain better playback fidelity.
"High-end audio is decadent and morally bankrupt. It will inevitably die off in the coming years. And we made it that way, by fashioning it in our image."
It will only die off if the appreciation of the artistic nuances in music dies off........ The music itself is the driving force.
"We were the people who demanded exclusivity and inch-thick panels on our artisan-made stereo equipment, and now we moan because that exclusivity excludes us."
We've only demanded the superior sonic performance........ Some might prefer the inch-thick panels, but by-and-large, if the equipment doesn't perform, it does not matter how the equipment otherwise looks. Unless "wife acceptance" is an issue as well.
"We were subjectivists when it suited us, but now the subjective-led products are priced out of our orbit, we become indignant objectivists."
There were always products "priced out of orbit"....... Remember the Infinity IRS, Goldmund Reference Turntable, and Audio Note Ongaku?
As long as there is a market for ultra-expensive products, there will be ultra-expensive products........ It's no different from Ferraris in "Car and Driver" magazine.......
"We were the ones who rejected digital audio when the rest of the world embraced CD, then wonder why our thin little voice is not heard when decrying iTunes."
We've wondered why our voices were not heard in decrying CD........
"We cheer the counter-culture hipsters who buy LPs, but woe betide anyone who dares to try to play that disc on our record players."
Do you think the hipsters buy LPs for their playback fidelity? After doing their "scratch" routines, the vinyl is likely tossed in the trash....... I don't think any of us "cheer" that.
"We bitch about products we don't buy, dealers we don't deal with, magazines we don't read and music we don't listen to."
The music we don't listen to........ It's because it's artistically barren and boring....... Only those who were conditioned to accept "loud" embrace it, because they haven't been fortunate to be exposed to alternative music. The culprit here is the mainstream media and particularly the network media.
"If they changed to bow to our every wish, we still wouldn't buy them, trade with them, read them or listen to them; we'd just be upset that we had nothing to be upset about."
That last sentence makes no sense.........
"So, this is how it's going to end. Not with a bang, or even a whimper, but a protracted whine from our man-caves. We built our Rome, and we are fiddling as it burns. Except this time, we are fiddling with our speaker spikes."
It will end only if we die off, and there is no one left to appreciate music at a higher artistic level....... But as long as people do appreciate good music, there will be a market to play it back with higher fidelity. Tiny it might otherwise be.
Edits: 03/28/12
"We've wondered why our voices were not heard in decrying CD........"
I think they were -- hence SACD and DVD-A.
"I think they were -- hence SACD and DVD-A."
If they were, vinyl would have never left the shelves of at least a few mainstream music stores..............
(I personally think SACD and DVD-A is worse than CD.)
I was consulting for Sony back then, and while I wasn't personally involved with SACD development I know that they were very aware of the sonic problems with the digital equipment and CD pressings of the time, and anxious to improve them. The story I always tell as I heard it from Dave Smith is that when they switched during a recording session from the live mic feed to the analog confidence master, the client's expression changed to one of dismay, and then when they switched to the digital master, it changed to one of horror! The converter experiments they were conducting indicated that a higher sampling rate substantially improved reproduction of the highs, and they found DSD sonically preferable to high-resolution PCM.
nt
What are your price point limits for reasonable inclusion?
Perfectly fine to discuss one's point of ridiculosity regarding Hi Fi proces.
... A complete load of ignorant xenophobic drivel.
There is more hi-end audio equipment sold world-wide than ever before. I guess your own little myopic existence just can’t comprehend reality.
Enjoy wallowing in your self-pity.
Smile
Sox
"We all made this bed. Now we have to lie in it!"
Ha. Speak for yourself, and leave me out of your misery.
.
Short’s the best position they is. Bullet in the Brain
I swear I have heard people saying that for 30 years now , It's pretty low on my list of things to worry about right around the earth being hit by a comet, the Mayan 2012 prediction actually happening and lastly my chance of getting a hot sex filled date with Christie Brinkley. Sooooo I'm pretty sure that the grim reaper of high end audio isn't knocking at the door anytime soon............ :^)
Yeah, sometimes it feels good to just let it all out. Irrational or not.
I disagree. Audiophiles were always an eclectic wine-snotish group. They used reel-to-reel when everybody was listening to 8-track. They used LP instead of casette. They used LP instead of CD. They demanded SACD, DVD-A and DVD-V in higher resolutions while people were on Napster downloading music illegally because nobody in the industry would admit to themselves that "software" was now an on-line commodity. Now the existence of the CD is beginning to fade as on-line music purchases take over.
Once lossy compression formats are made obsolete due to lower cost of drive space and higher connection speeds, things will actually get even better. Kids are listening with cans again and not worrying about the more fashionable and minimalist ear-buds - headphone listening is a great way to show people the benefits of quality gear. When cans were not an option, it was different - people settled for earbud sound because they thought they had to. Now, you can show a kid wearing cans at the bus stop what some good Sennheiser cans and a tube headphone amp can do for sonic euphoria!
Also, too, the high-end "jewelry" game is just that - a game. You can play or not play. You can try to get high-fi sound using upper-end mid-fi gear and finding hidden gems. You can use PC/Mac computers with special audio interfaces costing under $1000 that can beat out CDPs and transport/DAC combos from yesterday costing shameless amounts of money. You can do even do realtime upsampling on computers now all the way up to 24/192 when such hardware 15 to 20 years ago was tens of thousands of dollars. You don't HAVE to be money-centered and keep "upgrading" to more and more expensive components. That's just 'bigger money = better' thinking and is why we have 10,000 pound 500 horsepower SUVs that seat nine and get 4 miles per gallon. They have 20 computers and as the computers fry your $90,000 SUV becomes unusable. Wow. What an improvement over the common 4-door passenger car...
I think one needs to embrace technology and show young potential audiophiles how EASY and INEXPENSIVE it is to get good sound. There will always be wine snot elitists who look down their nose at someone with less than $50K or $100K invested in their "rig". SO what? Some people think you can't have a "driving experience" in a sub $100K vehicle either. They're called the stinking rich. If they scoff and say I'm not a "real audiophile" because I don't have a 2nd mortgage for my STEREO that's THEIR ISSUE not mine. There will always be wine snots and elitists, and they will ALWAYS believe that spending money in the 3rd standard deviation region of the cost-benefit chart is the "ultimate". That's also where the law of diminishing returns is most applicable as well...
What gets me going is taking $200 or $300 worth of decent quality audio components, and some decent home-made cabinetry, and a measurement mic, and about 20+ years of DIY experience, and a computer for a crossover, and making sound that makes people's jaws drop wide open. $100K equipment that sounds good had better sound good. And that's fun stuff. But $1K equipment that has no darned business sounding as good as it does is nothing but a total BLAST! It's really fun!
Besides, anyone WITH money can throw lots of money at a problem but not everyone is guaranteed better results because of it. That's why some get very pleasing results and are happy with surprisingly little expenditure, where others spend themselves into oblivion and are never satisfied and caught up in audiophile nervosa and trying to create 10,000 iterations looking for magical synergy to fix problems with recorded music playback that occured back before the CD or record was stamped and they can't fix anyways. DOn't get me wrong. Some guys with $50K/$100K+ systems are probably pleased as punch. But not all of them...
Be sick about it or love it. I love it. I love music and audio and speakers and building speakers and chatting here. If you don't love it, leave it. Life is too short. Find something that engages you, satisfies you, challenges you or just pleases you.
My kids will be audiophiles. My three year old daughter can turn on my PC audio rig: Computer, external drive, integrated, crossover and subwoofer amp LAST. She dances "like a princess" on her tippy toes to all kinds of music from classical, to classic rock, to hard rock and metal, to Lady Gaga and LMFAO. They call the "Poker Face" by Lady Gaga the "Ma Ma Ma" song... you'd have to know the song to understand.
I will pass on to them the joy I get from music. It's an inevitability. We're already enjoying music together. They won't sit and listen yet, but they are requesting songs and dancing!
Cheers,
Presto
N/T
CHECK OUT the AUDIO ASYLUM TRADER!
.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Had a hypo today. I am full of sugar now and don't feel like ranting anymore.
Hey, that's great Gag. Welcome back to earth.
...drugs and therapists to help with that.
"...drugs and therapists to help with that."
Yes there are, but sometimes the hypoglycemia wins regardless. That one crept up on me, and I was at a keyboard when it did.
Once again, apologies for the wild rant.
Sorry, I didnt see any wild rant.
Take care.
Cheers
Bill
See - it wasn't his fault. He's a victim.
;)
Yeah, Gag, sometimes we get bent out of shape over nothing. Especially when we've had too much to drink, er, when we're hypoglycemic.
Carefully selected mass-market gear CAN blow away midfi or even hifi of the past.
The real issue is... where is todays (wired) Dynaco?
rationalise all you want, people, he is right
On the bloody morning after, one tin soldier rides away,,,
Well, I am not too happy how this hobby has evolved into a continual spending spree either!
However, there are LOTS of interesting products out there because designers have got these ideas.
I have concluded that a lot more attention has to be given to system building and matching and far less to spending gobs of money. Then, we will be OK.
Are Jadis, Lamm, Halcro, VAC, Cary not building amps anymore?
Is Audio Aero, Ayre, Sim Audio, Esoteric, Meitner done?
Have Wilson, Karma, Verity Audio, and Avalon closed their doors?
"In this land right now, some are insane and they're in charge. To hell with poverty, we'll get drunk on cheap wine."
Why not add a slur about penis size or something?
I guess you already did.
sound quality is an illusion.
.
It has simply changed with regard to distribution channels. I've been interested in audio equipment for over 40 years as a means to enjoy listening to music. When I started this interest there was equipment I could afford and plenty I could not. Nothing has changed.There was also equipment back then that was styled and priced as audio jewelry. Nothing has changed.
The youth of america at the time decided how to spend its time and what products to buy. Nothing has changed.
I was in the minority at that time that enjoyed to spend time just sitting and actively listening to music as opposed to the masses that listened either on the car radio or over portable radios. Nothing has changed.
There were people at that time who didn't appreciate or didn't understand spending all disposable money on custom car modifications or stamp collecting, or model trains. Nothing has changed.
The audio industry sells a wide variety of products across all price ranges to anyone who will buy. That is free enterprise, and God bless that hasn't changed.
People will never stop enjoying music. People who take that joy seriously and seek equipment within their respective budgets in order to support that interest will always be a small niche. Those that focus on the equipment more than the music will be an even smaller niche. How much any of this is a hobby or a lifestyle is up to each of us to decide.
Edits: 03/28/12
I'll give you a clue because you obviously need one:
When writing a post have ONE POINT TO MAKE.
I have no idea what yours is.
"Lock up when you're done and don't touch the piano."
-Dr. Greg House
Maybe you know some who act the way you post but its not how most in this growing hobby act. Your point of view forgets the vast growing audiophile communities in other country's. When many boomers where young they used crappy sounding transistor radios some later moved to better sound but for most it wasn't a big issue. And the same is happening today some young folks are buying audiophile equipment just not the costly kit. There will always be a demand for better reproduction of music. Note the huge sales of Doc Dre beats headphones and Regas TT line. We also have a world market for audio its not just for the few with deep pockets. Also hobbies always attract those with strong feelings and opinion. And to me its mostly a good thing.
What a bleak dismal outlook. The sky is not falling. - Kloss
..unless we're talking about decimated home values in many areas of the US of A where the sky most definitely is very dark indeed -e.
Perhaps the home as ATM machine no mas has some feel'in blue and grouchy on the audio forums?
.
"In this land right now, some are insane and they're in charge. To hell with poverty, we'll get drunk on cheap wine."
"""The upcoming generations despise the concept of good audio, because they despise the audiophiles that push the concept of good audio"""
I disagree with that and feel if "better" or "good" products were more available more people would like them. Many, actually most people, don't even know they exist.
ET
Who cares? Those of us that really care about audio as a hobby will always find a way to participate in it. By buying Chinese owned (when new) used gear, vintage gear, D.I.Y. or just maintaining the gear we already have. Audio is for me in the second or third tier of stuff that is important in my life. Even as a hobby it's a ways down from the top. Rock Concerts, travel, sports cars, golf, and Tae-Kwon-Do all supercede audio in my life. Audio plays a small part in the enrichment of my life - not a medium or large part. To those pathetic souls this hobby plays a medium, large, or God forbid, a all encompassing part of their life - I truely feel sorry for them....Just one "thin little voice's" opinion.
........I was a vegetarian for 15 minutes... until the main course.
but shouldn't this be in Whiner's Woad or something?
LMAO sound like you have some issued Dude. Lighten Up
You really need to get a grip.
> > > The upcoming generations despise the concept of good audio, because they despise the audiophiles that push the concept of good audio. < < <
They don't despise the concept or audiophiles-if anything, they are ignorant of them.
> > > High-end audio is decadent and morally bankrupt. < < <
Wow, judgment much? You sound bitter.
> > > And we made it that way, by fashioning it in our image. < < <
Speak for yourself.
> > > We were the people who demanded exclusivity and inch-thick panels on our artisan-made stereo equipment, and now we moan because that exclusivity excludes us < < <
I don't recall demanding that, nor am I excluded from anything.
> > > We were subjectivists when it suited us, but now the subjective-led products are priced out of our orbit, we become indignant objectivists < < <
Speak for yourself, that doesn't describe anyone I know.
> > > We bitch about products we don't buy, dealers we don't deal with, magazines we don't read and music we don't listen to. < < <
Again, you speak for yourself only.
> > > So, this is how it's going to end. Not with a bang, or even a whimper, but a protracted whine from our man-caves. < < <
That certainly describes you pretty well. Hopefully, it will end soon.
Jack
"They don't despise the concept or audiophiles-if anything, they are ignorant of them."
Really? Ever been to CNET recently? Arstechnia? Slashdot? We are audiophools to them, and everything even remotely connected to our world is derided as audiophoolery. Even B&W MM1s are dismissed as expensive nonsense.
Are you really arguing that high-end audio is not considered decadent? Please answer, citing all those $100,000+ loudspeakers everyone gets hot under the collar about. Every other post here seems to be calling out high-end's low moral standards, pimping itself to the highest bidder, forgetting that we used to be the highest bidder.
If you've spent your life buying mainstream equipment then yes, 'we' is not 'you'.
Of course, rather than admit we can't play with the big boys anymore, it's easier to say that we didn't like that game anyway. It's why Peter Azcel has become the poster ancient for the new-audio-objectivist movement. He was a subjective turncoat before it was fashionable.
1 > > > Really? Ever been to CNET recently? Arstechnia? Slashdot? < < <
Can't speak for the last 2, but CNET is a measurement only type of site. There have always been (and always will be) folks like that. That certainly isn't new. Perhaps you don't remember Audio Review magazine.
> > > Are you really arguing that high-end audio is not considered decadent? < < <
That would depend on your definition of "high-end" and "decadent".
That is of course, somewhat relative. There's a good chance you would find much of what I enjoy as "decadent". I prefer the term "nice". To each his own.
> > > Please answer, citing all those $100,000+ loudspeakers everyone gets hot under the collar about. < < <
Huh? Are you saying if its not $100,000+ its not high end?
> > > Every other post here seems to be calling out high-end's low moral standards, pimping itself to the highest bidder, forgetting that we used to be the highest bidder. < < <
I don't recall reading that many such posts, except for yours (and your other sock puppets) and a few other whiners, but I don't read every post here. BTW, if you are bitching about prices now, you were NEVER the highest bidder.
> > > Of course, rather than admit we can't play with the big boys anymore. < < <
I admit it. I cannot play with the big boys. Feel better?
Jack
> Audio has reached its tipping point. The upcoming generations despise the
> concept of good audio,
Rubbish. They may have no interest in passively consuming the grossly overpriced, garish and often downright silly products of the audiophile luxury goods business but that is only one small part of audio.
> because they despise the audiophiles that push the concept of good audio.
Good audio? This is good audio as defined by an audiophile to mean the passive consumption of grossly overpriced, garish and often downright silly products of the current audiophile luxury goods industry? This is not what good audio means to youngsters (or oldsters that have not signed up to audiophile nonsense).
There has never been a time when good audio equipment for the home has been as cheap. On the other hand, there has probably never been a time when the mainstream marketing of audio has been as misleading.
OK, Audio as we know it is dying. What's left is headphones and IEMs. Some of these are excellent. Except that people are buying crappy overpriced Skullcandy and Beats instead of the excellent sounding products simply because they are fashionable.
The grossly overpriced, garish and often downright silly products are the ones that seem to be surviving in traditional audio's declining years. It's the sensible products that are struggling, ignored by the young (who just buy fashion statements) and the old (who if they buy anything, just buy grossly overpriced, garish and often downright silly products) alike.
Audio today provides better sound per inflation-adjusted dollar than it did back in any "golden age".
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
a
> OK, Audio as we know it is dying.
No it is not. Audio is fine and high performance audio is cheaper than it has ever been. Consider that something like this:
http://www.neumann-kh-line.com/neumann-kh/home_en.nsf/root/prof-monitoring_studio-monitors_nearfield-monitors_KH120A#
can be purchased for about £500.
And I would argue that audiophile is diluting rather than dying in the sense that audiophile products (valve amplifiers, expensive cables, record players,...), are being mass produced cheaply for department stores in the way they were not 10 years ago. Whether you think they are silly or sophisticated they are available cheaply if that is what you want to buy.
There also seems to be growth in the ultra expensive end of audiophile equipment if the range of products available is anything to go by. But the same has happened with women's handbags. These are luxury goods which sell primarily on marketing rather than function.
> It's the sensible products that are struggling, ignored by the young
> (who just buy fashion statements) and the old (who if they buy
> anything, just buy grossly overpriced, garish and often downright silly
> products) alike.
When purchasing luxury goods fashion statements have a significant role. What is wrong with that?
If you want to buy audio equipment for technical performance rather than for other attributes like fashion statements there is plenty of opportunity to do so. I strongly suspect that more youngsters are buying equipment of this type than oldsters.
.
"In this land right now, some are insane and they're in charge. To hell with poverty, we'll get drunk on cheap wine."
"can be purchased for about £500"
Just because something can be purchased, doesn't mean it is purchased. The interest in music is there; the interest in the sound it makes has gone away.
> Just because something can be purchased, doesn't mean it is purchased.
Not sure of your point. Active monitors of this type are popular with youngsters and generally offer a higher performance than similarly priced hifi amplifier plus passive speakers. One up for the youngsters?
> The interest in music is there; the interest in the sound it makes has
> gone away.
I think a genuine interest in sound itself is rare and always was rare. A hobby interest in home consumer products nearly always involves rather a lot more than the technical function of the gadget. I would agree that home audio products hold less interest than they used to and that they are increasingly integrated with other consumer products.
ho hum. for those of us interested in excellent sounding equipment there is more than plenty to go around. if some younger people reject it or rebel against it, so what, that is their right. audio is not a mass market thing. this is not something to be upset about.
relax.
-andre d
nt
//
Nothing good on TV?
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: