![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
167.181.12.201
In Reply to: The Lure that Motivated Improved Sound Reproduction..... posted by Todd Krieger on December 10, 2006 at 12:48:25:
and, as you can see, you hooked the fish. FYI, there's a UNIVERSE of folks out there (who attend live concerts as reference) who have achieved "you are there" audio quality using digital sources. My bias, if you want to call it that, is to use tubes, anti-jitter, dipole speakers and a few tweaks to make it so. By all means, have your preference. By by now means, think it is "right...absolutely".P.S. -- Your "profound observation" simply isn't true. The real reason is that audiphile reproduction simply is not a high priority amongst the many sources of entertainment that are out there now. Video and computers have taken over. Add to that the research, trial-and-error and outright expense of achieving that last ounce of audiophile nirvana and you have a slam dunk for why the audience is declining. Blame on "digital" if you want -- Teresa will have your baby!
![]()
Follow Ups:
"FYI, there's a UNIVERSE of folks out there (who attend live concerts as reference) who have achieved 'you are there' audio quality using digital sources."Who? Where? With what products?
I don't think this is the case. Or even close to being the case.
But then again, "you are there" is a subjective and relative perception, and maybe lot of people think this has been achieved with iPods playing MP3 or with the typical fare sold at Best Buy.
And I wouldn't even question such sentiment, for the exposure and perception of most in the mainstream may be of a totally different paradigm from my own. (This is why I've never had a problem with Bose or people who use its products. And would never question the tastes of anyone who likes music that I personally think is awful.)
"The real reason is that audiphile reproduction simply is not a high priority amongst the many sources of entertainment that are out there now."
I've made similar comments in recent times, but it raises the question- Are the "sources of entertainment" a natural human progression or influenced by circumstances where the technology may have compromised human perception of entertainment? Where a lot of people think it's solely the first reason, I personally think it's a combination of the two. I really think the direction popular music has gone would have been very different had digitized audio never become a part of everyday life.
![]()
![]()
"Who? Where? With what products?"I can only be VERY specific, and crazy-vague at the same time on that...me, and "the others" who post here? Dunno, maybe we can do a search for "happy" and "digital". However, that point is moot. What IS true is that "not everyone is unhappy with digital" -- even audiophiles. We'll leave it there.
Re "you are there", I'm sure that my experience mirrors your own (hundreds of live concerts, operas and ballets), so I think I understand "the reference" accurately and can frequently achieve something very close to it (better in some ways for small ensembles).
Re your last point about "sources of entertainment", I agree. Technology HAS changed (compromised) perception of entertainment...I think that's the point. But, I cannot attribute that to "digital". I think it's a combination of shortening attention span, portability (or, "the need to take it on the go"), "the music itself" (no such thing as "non electronic electronic music and (of course) a population less educated/aware of "the music that is rendered better in higher fidelity.
With regard to the very, very last point (things would be different...), I'll just say this: OK, you have your opinion. The idea of "digitized music" somehow being PERCEIVED differently, however, is not sustainable.
![]()
*
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
![]()
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: