|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.203.74.142
In Reply to: Interesting POV... posted by robert young on March 20, 2007 at 14:07:15:
manufacturers/dealers spend their $$ on ads (which keep the mags afloat) and send the review samples you enjoy reading about for one purpose only....SALES. I don't read car mags, but I doubt Audi or any other car maker provides cars for review purposes and/or ad $$ to car mags just so people who will never buy their cars can enjoy reading about them. Of course I'm sure both the editors of mags and manufacturers want the reviews (ads/columns/industry news as well) to be entertaining in order to attract readers, who in turn are the potential customers of the advertisers.While I understand your point about i-pods and the like, other than casual observations what can you site to back up the idea that the hi-end is shrinking (hmm, you did say "if there's a problem")? There seems to be an ever increasing number of companies making/selling a greatly increased number of hifi products when compared to, say, 15 years ago. Maybe JA could tell us definitively, but what I've seen at four S'phile shows certainly doesn't indicate diminishing attendance. AFAIK S'phile readership ain't in decline. Dunno about TAS and other mags, but just in the last few years a number of audio e-zines have sprung up and seem to be flourishing. It seems that for every hifi B&M retailer that fails or concentrates on HT a web hifi outlet opens.
I think you're wrong about fewer people learning to play instruments and/or taking music courses. Yes, maybe fewer amateurs than many moons ago before recordings were ubiquitous and people played/sung for entertainment in their homes. But I doubt there's less amateurs since 20-30 years ago, and I definitely don't believe there are less pros. I know first hand that Manhattan School of Music in NYC is packed with students, as is Julliard and quite a few other conservatories. Jazz programs have sprung up in colleges all across the U.S. where there had been no such program 20 years ago. When I finished my studies at Berklee (1971) there was a total of 300 students at the school, now they have over 3,000. I do agree that the work scene for musicians is worsening, but despite this young talented players (classical, jazz, and rock) are still streaming into NYC from all over the world every year.
I'll stand corrected if you can show me I'm wrong, but your view that "The existence of the information can't produce the desire: it is the desire needing the info that will make the enterprise successful..." seems to stand the whole concept of advertising on its head. Nobody is born with a desire to purchase 140 wpc tube amps, re-conditioned/re-plinthed idler wheel tt's, $7,000 cdp's, or even "budget" $2,000 systems (let alone Shun Mook, Shakti, the IC, Nespa, $5,000 racks, $2,000 power chords etc.). Reviews and ads create and spur the desire to get 'em. If it wasn't working mags like S'phile wouldn't exist.
Follow Ups:
"manufacturers/dealers spend their $$ on ads (which keep the mags afloat) and send the review samples you enjoy reading about for one purpose only....SALES. I don't read car mags, but I doubt Audi or any other car maker provides cars for review purposes and/or ad $$ to car mags just so people who will never buy their cars can enjoy reading about them."Maybe you missed the point of the post: I see no need to turn an enthusiast magazine into a consumer buying guide. The comparison I posited is between AUDIENCES, not ADVERTISERS, though I believe there are valid comparisons there as well. My analogy continues to hold true even with your "doubt:" Audi loves having the R8 reviewed, because people really like to read about supercars. There are very few made, and they are priced out of the stratosphere. What does Audi gain?? Trickle-down effect. They sell more A4s and A6s because they have a Posche-beater on the market. Audi sure doesn't hit their profit goals with an exotic sports car. The hit it by using the extreme to help market the technologies available down through the line. Likewise, WAVAC doesn't make their $350,000 amps to increase their profits, but to market their exclusivity and sell more of their reasonably priced amps.
The long and short? The mags compare well because the are ENTHUSIAST mags, not Consumer Reports.
"While I understand your point about i-pods and the like, other than casual observations what can you site to back up the idea that the hi-end is shrinking (hmm, you did say "if there's a problem")? There seems to be an ever increasing number of companies making/selling a greatly increased number of hifi products when compared to, say, 15 years ago. Maybe JA could tell us definitively, but what I've seen at four S'phile shows certainly doesn't indicate diminishing attendance. AFAIK S'phile readership ain't in decline. Dunno about TAS and other mags, but just in the last few years a number of audio e-zines have sprung up and seem to be flourishing. It seems that for every hifi B&M retailer that fails or concentrates on HT a web hifi outlet opens."Umm, this time you got it right. I DON"T think there is a problem with the high-end. My point I tried to make was that IF there was any problem, it certainly wouldn't be because of editorial policy in a couple of enthusiast magazines. IF there is a problem, I would be looking to other sources, like the dropping of music education in public high schools....
"I think you're wrong about fewer people learning to play instruments and/or taking music courses. Yes, maybe fewer amateurs than many moons ago before recordings were ubiquitous and people played/sung for entertainment in their homes. But I doubt there's less amateurs since 20-30 years ago, and I definitely don't believe there are less pros. I know first hand that Manhattan School of Music in NYC is packed with students, as is Julliard and quite a few other conservatories. Jazz programs have sprung up in colleges all across the U.S. where there had been no such program 20 years ago. When I finished my studies at Berklee (1971) there was a total of 300 students at the school, now they have over 3,000. I do agree that the work scene for musicians is worsening, but despite this young talented players (classical, jazz, and rock) are still streaming into NYC from all over the world every year."Well, I'm from Manhattan too, and I'm a bit surprised at your examples. Not because I don't believe you (I design music venues, among other cultural institutions, and was the designer of Zankel Hall under Carnegie, for one, so I am lucky enough to deal with the professional musician world frequently), but because I'm surprised you would use what happens in New York as an example of what's happening in the rest of the country. That is rarely, if ever, the case. And Berklee is a special case anyway. My point wasn't about professional musicians nor about college students: I was talking about public High Schools. Now are you going to tell me that public High Schools, who still "educate" a vast majority of the high-school-age students in thiis country, haven't cut music education to the bone?? Without treating music ass a major part of our cultural heritage, it becomes valueless to the masses who would eventually buy equipment and read audio mags. (The problem of the pro's is very different: they are not the most likely group to care about high-end music reproduction. They live with the real thing all the time, so the near-reproduction of what they do just doesn't seem too important...)
"I'll stand corrected if you can show me I'm wrong, but your view that "The existence of the information can't produce the desire: it is the desire needing the info that will make the enterprise successful..." seems to stand the whole concept of advertising on its head. Nobody is born with a desire to purchase 140 wpc tube amps, re-conditioned/re-plinthed idler wheel tt's, $7,000 cdp's, or even "budget" $2,000 systems (let alone Shun Mook, Shakti, the IC, Nespa, $5,000 racks, $2,000 power chords etc.). Reviews and ads create and spur the desire to get 'em. If it wasn't working mags like S'phile wouldn't exist."Oh dear. My "view" was an opinion: You don't have to be "corrected," and I don't have to "prove" an opinion. And no, it doesn't stan advertising on its head at all: what it means is that for someone to want to own a 140 wpc (there's the "info") tube amp (to use your example), one has to love the music first (there's the "desire" part). "140 wpc" doesn't mean diddly all by itself, and I doubt that an advertiser just throws that fact out there without any regard to their target audience. The "target audience" already has the desire. That same target audience is the readership of the mags, and they read them not because there are 140 wpc tube amps advertised in them, but because the auddience is drawn to the equipment because they have the desire: they have a passion for the reproduction of music. Without that PASSION, the mags wouldn't exist.
I thought we were on to some interesting issues....Oh well. I feel uncomfortable pulling quotes from a post I have in my in-box but was deleted from the AA record, so suffice it to say to your topic, " Either its semantics or we just disagree," I'll say it's both...
"I see no need to turn an enthusiast magazine into a consumer buying guide."I think this is semantics. I see nothing indicating the original poster didn't want the content of S'phile to be entertaining, rather than more cut&dry listings a la CR. But it seems obvious that S'phile's (or another hifi mag's) "audience" is also seeking guidance regarding purchasing decisions. CR's audience ain't looking for entertainment when seeking help determining what the best buy in microwaves is. The original poster was merely suggesting ways to make a hifi mag more helpful regarding purchasing decisions.
Take a look at the list of advertisers in your copy of S'phile. Who else but enthusiasts is the market for companies like Halcro, Classe, JPS Labs, Lamm, Revel etc .? Just as it is with any publication dependent on ad $$ for its existence, if/when readers of mags like S'phile stop *buying* what advertisers in the mags are hawking the mag will die. Why take that *buying* out of the equation and just categorize the readership of hifi mags as enthusiasts? No publication dependent on ad $$ survives merely because its readership is enthusiastic about the subject matter.
The goal both Audi and Wavac share is sales, and to that end they submit products -- including hyper-expensive flagship models -- to enthusiast mags for reviews in order to influence their potential customers. Enthusiasts are the market, the reviews and ads serve as encouragement and enticement to buy, and enthusiasts sure *do* buy what is reviewed and advertised. If a review ain't meant to be a kind of buying guide, then what is it?
Believe me, I didn't seek and get reviews of my cd in "enthusiast magazines" like Jazz Times, Jazz Improv, Cadence, All About Jazz, Jazz Week etc. just to entertain their readers, nor do their subscribers read reviews just for entertainment. Like S'phile, these jazz enthusiast mags have articles on topics of interest to their readers. But the reviews are meant to be helpful and informative *buying guides*, as are the reviews in hifi mags.
Re: music ed/appreciation ..... The point is not that MSM, Julliard, New School etc. are located in NYC and NYC is not representative of the rest of the U.S. Its that every year a new crop of entrants comes here *from all over the country and the rest of the world*. These new students seem to have received at least as good a preparatory education in high school as my generation got, if not quite a bit better. The orchestras/chamber groups/opera at MSM was shockingly good when I was there. Likewise, the constant influx of young jazz/classical/rock players seeking to become pros arrives in NYC at least as well trained as my generation, and they come from all over. It ain't like all the new students and/or budding pros in NYC got their high scholl training in NYC - mecca for music- and therefore don't represent kids who received their high school in Boise.
How does one judge the quality of jr.&sr. high school music training anyway? Go by the level of ability possessed by a young pro in Duluth? Go by what's popular among the masses in the "hinterlands"? Was Frankie Avalon's popularity in 50's symbolic of better music ed than Brittney Spears' popularity now? Dianna Ross's popularity in the '60's/70's indicates better music appreciation than Mariah Carey's popularity now? Rap's popularity shows a lack of music ed compared to the popularity of the Dave Clark Five decades ago?
I'm 59. When I was a teenager I was listening to Duke Ellington, Jackie McClean, Eric Dolphy. My high school peers were listening to Louie, Louie. The only kids I knew who listened to classical music at all played in the high school orchestra. I suspect their interest waned when they grew up and became accountants. They're probably buying Kenny G cd's now.
Rick,Thanks for the refined reply. I still have some disagreements with both you and Avocat, but they are becoming better defined as we continue this discourse.
First, I believe you confuse advertising goals with editorial goals. Certainly advertisers aim to get purchasers. That's a no-brainer. However, just because a manufacturer advertises in a given magazine doesn't mean that magazines editorial policy is PRIMARILY about readers buying those things. The PRIME policy of enthusiast magazines is to keep up the enthusiasm. This by nature means that advertisers are attracted to the readership. I bet you'd find that advertisers prefer enthusiast publications to buyer's guides by a very wide margin. Enthusiastic readers buy things more readily than uninspired ones. One should also note that with the exception of CR, there aren't any mags I can think of that are strictly enthusiast or strictly buyer's guide-types. Stereophile already has a lot of the buyer's-guide in it, but the balance, in my opinion, is positively to the enthusiast side. My issue with Avocat is that I believe he is proposing to shift the balance of Stereophile away from being primarily an enthusiast mag to being much more of a buyer's guide. That is something I am personally not interested in, and so I let my opinion on it be heard.
Secondly, I think you are way off on a tangent from my point about music education. You seem to be focussing your comments on professional musicians, and those who would become professionals. I'm not talking about those people AT ALL. I'm talking about music theory and appreciation being taught in high schools to students who are not likely to become musicians. One isn't able to opt-out of basic physics because one doesn't plan on becoming a physicist. Students today don't take much music in high schools because very few schools offer any courses at all. Go ahead: look up the curriculum of New York City public high schools. Look up the curriculum in Boise. You'l find that music theory, music appreciation, music instruction are at all-time lows in public schools.
The professional world is independant from my comments, which were about searching for reasons why the high-end MAY seem troubled (again, I don't think it really is). Not caring very much about the QUALITY of music reproduction would be one problem (the new high-end may just be compressed mp3s). Not actively listening to music as a prime activity (as opposed to semi-listening as background to something else) may be another. Not knowing squat about music may be in there as well. This is the way the general public is now, and they aren't too interested in music, so why would they care about high-end equipment? Frankly, the reason it doesn't worry me that much is that the hi-end has never had a relationship with the general public: it is a niche specialist hobby. Avocat's position that it is the costly equipment reviews that have turned off the public is ludicrous: they have no problem dropping $4000 on a flat screen tv to watch brain anaesthesia, but the fact that they wouldn't spend $4000 on a really nice hifi says a lot more about the shifting priorities of the public than it does about the potentially flawed editorial policies of Stereophile.
"How does one judge the quality of jr.&sr. high school music training anyway? Go by the level of ability possessed by a young pro in Duluth? Go by what's popular among the masses in the "hinterlands"? Was Frankie Avalon's popularity in 50's symbolic of better music ed than Brittney Spears' popularity now? Dianna Ross's popularity in the '60's/70's indicates better music appreciation than Mariah Carey's popularity now? Rap's popularity shows a lack of music ed compared to the popularity of the Dave Clark Five decades ago?"
These are not meaningful questions, because there is a real lack of music education across the board, and poularity of music genres has nothing whatsoever to do with music knowledge.
I also grew up listening to DUke Ellington, Jackie McClean, Eric Dolphy, Brubek and Miles, and I still do...;)
The PRIME policy of enthusiast magazines is to keep up the enthusiasm."I still think some of this is semantics, and the chicken/egg thing I mentioned. Practically speaking, for a mag existing on ad $$ the degree of enthusiasm of its readers is measured by the amount of $$ they spend on advertisers' products. Krell is not gonna spend their advertising money on a mag whose readers are extremely enthusiastic if those readers ain't buying what Krell sells. One method hifi mags employ to "keep up the enthusiasm" is to review almost everything in glowing terms. Another is to emphasize small sonic differences between for ex. a $2,000 preamp and a $7,000 pre as if they were huge - in particular when attempting to either justify or avoid discussing the major price difference. They do sometimes lay the "diminishing returns" rap on us, but refuse to call a spade a spade and virtually never use their clout in a manner which could alter manufacturers'/advertisers' diminishing returns pricing for the betterment of the consumer -- their readership. Instead they say it ain't their job to make value judgements. You may agree with them, but that turns me off rather than keeping my enthusiasm up.
This is all kind of irrelavent anyway. It was a pleasant surprise when PF made a change in their listing of reviewers' equipment after a suggestion here. But generally speaking editors of successful audio publications ain't gonna change their policies due to the suggestions/complaints of a few AA inmates, and apparently the overwhelming majority of readers are relatively satisfied, including you. JA is no doubt correct that neither I nor Avocat represent his average reader.
I went to high school in the early-mid '60's. I lived in Montgomery County in Maryland. It was a fairly well off county with a good school system, and way above average spending on music. NONE of the band/orchestra/music classes were mandatory. There were approx. 2,000 kids enrolled in my high school. Including kids who took music appreciation classes, band, jazz band, and orchestra, the total represented considerably less than 10% of the enrollment because some of us did double/triple duty.
Robert, you rejected: what I said about the music education/training the new students at MSM/Julliard etc. received in their homes all over the U.S.; what I said about the training budding pros coming to NYC apparently received in their homes all over the U.S.; what I said about judging what's popular today vs. what was popular 50 years ago. What leads you to believe things have gotten worse? The general public's music education and taste has always sucked.
"Frankly, the reason it doesn't worry me that much is that the hi-end has never had a relationship with the general public: it is a niche specialist hobby."
Exactly, so stop rapping as if lack of interest in quality music reproduction (and/or what you or I define as good music) is due to the decline of music ed/appreciation classes in high schools. There never was much music ed/appreciation; to my knowledge what classes may have been offered weren't mandatory; plenty of people (if not most) who took such classes still prefer to buy and listen to crap thru their i-pod or boombox over Mozart or Sonny Rollins.
"Avocat's position that it is the costly equipment reviews that have turned off the public is ludicrous: they have no problem dropping $4000 on a flat screen tv to watch brain anaesthesia, but the fact that they wouldn't spend $4000 on a really nice hifi says a lot more about the shifting priorities of the public than it does about the potentially flawed editorial policies of Stereophile."
What shifting priorities? The public never had hifi or great music as a priority. The only person I knew when I was a kid who was into hifi was one uncle. As you say, its a niche market.
IMO the hifi industry (certainly dealers) is generally speaking much more interested in selling mega-buck gear to loaded and gullible stock brokers who don't know an oboe from an English horn than in actually getting the Circuit City boombox public interested in "budget" hifi as an entry point for future greater interest. NON-audiophile niche TV, radio, print mags and e-zines have plenty of ads for HT and expensive flat screen TV's. How many ads for relatively inexpensive Rega/Creek/MF/Jolida/ etc. (or expensive Lamm/Ayre/CJ/VPI/Teres/Dcs etc. for that matter) have you seen in media the general public reads/watches/listens to? How many non-audiophiles do you know that have ever even heard of Sonus Faber/Rowland/EMM Labs/Supratek/Morch etc.?
From my vantage point hifi is doing fine, and I'm sure as hell not worried that new products won't be continuously appearing in the marketplace. Nor do I doubt that a tiny segment of society will continue to be interested in hifi/hi-end. But I have no illusions that the general publics' taste/interest in either sound or music will ever be radically uplifted.
Hey, we may disagree about all this stuff, but I'm glad to hear you're into jazz. Looks like you have a damn nice system too. Happy listening.
Good morning Rick!We may just have to accept that we disagree on a number of things, but that's ok. The world would be quite boring if we all saw things the same way...
"One method hifi mags employ to "keep up the enthusiasm" is to review almost everything in glowing terms. Another is to emphasize small sonic differences between for ex. a $2,000 preamp and a $7,000 pre as if they were huge - in particular when attempting to either justify or avoid discussing the major price difference."I've got a couple of issues here: first, "glowing terms" doesn't apply across the board. I read a lot of reviews that end with a series of caveats that would mean I probably wouldn't be too interested in the product. I've learned to interpret reviews based on my knowledge of the reviewer. It isn't that difficult to determine what a reviewer thinks is good and what is great. Now, where are the "bad" reviews?? Well, if I was a reviewer, I wouldn't waste my time on products that didn't interest me in some way. Generally, this means that given the limited time a reviewer has to do his job, there is a "pre-screening" of equipment that occurs. Nothing wrong there: I want to read about really good stuff, not bad stuff (this is where the "enthusiast" part comes in.) Secondly, I can speak from experience about the sonic difference that $5000 represents: I have an Air Tight preamp, one that has been very highly regarded, and I have a Nagra. The price difference was about $5000. The Nagra is significantly better, and worth every penny. If it wasn't, I would have returned it...no use wasting money I could spend on another toy!
"Robert, you rejected: what I said about the music education/training the new students at MSM/Julliard etc. received in their homes all over the U.S.; what I said about the training budding pros coming to NYC apparently received in their homes all over the U.S.; what I said about judging what's popular today vs. what was popular 50 years ago. What leads you to believe things have gotten worse? The general public's music education and taste has always sucked."I didn't reject ANY of your statements, Rick: I simply stated that they were irrelevant to my point. Again, it is that music education in public high schools is simply not there. The vast cuts in expenditures have caused this, and it is why MTV and VH1 have special "fundraisers" to assist in getting music education back in the schools (its really a marketing move to apear hip to the kids). The pro's don't matter: most likely the people who go on to serious music study after high school have had private tutors. They certainly didn't get it from band practice. Let me try another approach: do you acknowledge that there's a problem when more than half the high school seniors polled don't know the capitol of Utah? Or that 30% can't say who fought in the Civil War? Or that nearly half don't know that the First Amendment is part of the Constitution? These people go out into the world with a less-than-satisfactory education. It is highly unlikely that they will be active in local politics (unless they are wacko militia types, for whom education seems to be a problem anyway), as their base knowledge of our history and political system is completely lacking. They may not have become politicians, but they might have had a better chance of being active intelligently if they had been taught something. Music education is similar: without even the slightest bit of music theory taught even as an elective in most public high schools, what is the chance that these students will have even the slightest interest in music? (I'm not talking about iPod background here, or stuff to dance to, or something to upset one's parents: I'm talking about being really interested in music, and I don't care whether it's pop, rap, or classical). And with little interest in music, what would be the point of a high-end rig? Why are home theaters selling much faster than hi-fis? Because there are more people interested in movies than there are interested in music.
"Exactly, so stop rapping as if lack of interest in quality music reproduction (and/or what you or I define as good music) is due to the decline of music ed/appreciation classes in high schools. There never was much music ed/appreciation; to my knowledge what classes may have been offered weren't mandatory; plenty of people (if not most) who took such classes still prefer to buy and listen to crap thru their i-pod or boombox over Mozart or Sonny Rollins."Well, then you agree with my points, but why can't I disagree with Avocat's position?? "Stop rapping??" I was RESPONDING. That ought to be allowed, don't you think?
'"Avocat's position that it is the costly equipment reviews that have turned off the public is ludicrous: they have no problem dropping $4000 on a flat screen tv to watch brain anaesthesia, but the fact that they wouldn't spend $4000 on a really nice hifi says a lot more about the shifting priorities of the public than it does about the potentially flawed editorial policies of Stereophile."What shifting priorities? The public never had hifi or great music as a priority. The only person I knew when I was a kid who was into hifi was one uncle. As you say, its a niche market.'
What shifting priorities, you say?? Priorities shift all the time. And it doesn't have to have anything to do with buying expensive equipment. How the general public spends its disposable income represents its priorities at the time it spends it. Big screen TVs today, SUVs a couple of years ago. All that matters is that priorities shift. Music has NEVER been a general public priority, which was why I said that the costly equipment reviews didn't have any impact on the public: it just doesn't matter because they don't care. It is also why I said (and you noted this before) that I don't think there is a problem with the high-end. It has NEVER been on the general public's radar.
"IMO the hifi industry (certainly dealers) is generally speaking much more interested in selling mega-buck gear to loaded and gullible stock brokers who don't know an oboe from an English horn than in actually getting the Circuit City boombox public interested in "budget" hifi as an entry point for future greater interest. NON-audiophile niche TV, radio, print mags and e-zines have plenty of ads for HT and expensive flat screen TV's. How many ads for relatively inexpensive Rega/Creek/MF/Jolida/ etc. (or expensive Lamm/Ayre/CJ/VPI/Teres/Dcs etc. for that matter) have you seen in media the general public reads/watches/listens to? How many non-audiophiles do you know that have ever even heard of Sonus Faber/Rowland/EMM Labs/Supratek/Morch etc.?"I don't think the manufacturers of high-end rig care one way or the other. Lamm would only sell to a "loaded and gullible stock broker" if it had passed muster to survive in the marketplace, and a dealer demo'ed it for him. Lamm does ok because their products are great, not because they're expensive and a broker thinks they're cool. I was in the loft of one of those brokers last week, and he spent quite a bit of time telling me how great his Bose system was, that it was "the best." He certainly isn't going to learn the difference between an oboe and an English horn with Bose. Now, was he gullible to the high-end, or to marketing hype? He could have spent more money and gotten better product if he'd been gullible to Krell, and would learn the difference if he didn't previously, but that just doesn't seem to happen too often.
By the way, Sonus faber sells through Harvey. I know a lot of people who aren't audiophiles who have bought them because when they went to buy a TV, they heard them. Now two of them have bought nice turntables, and they're expanding their listening tremendously. ALso, Teres, Morch and EMM Labs don't advertise to ANYONE, never mind in the mainstream media. However, Martin-Logan IS taking a cue from Bose and is advertising all over the place...it will be interesting to see if it is successful.
"From my vantage point hifi is doing fine, and I'm sure as hell not worried that new products won't be continuously appearing in the marketplace. Nor do I doubt that a tiny segment of society will continue to be interested in hifi/hi-end. But I have no illusions that the general publics'
taste/interest in either sound or music will ever be radically uplifted."I think we agree. So why should we follow Avocat's lead and change Stereophile to a buyers' guide? I think a lot of audiophiles really enjoy reading about mega-buck equipment they may never own.
"Hey, we may disagree about all this stuff, but I'm glad to hear you're into jazz. Looks like you have a damn nice system too. Happy listening."Disagreeing is ok. There's no "correct" when we're debating ideas, interpretation and opinion...
Yes, I'm a jazz nut. Doesn't hurt living two blocks from the Village Vanguard!! Thanks for the comments on the system as well: it makes me very happy. The Teres/Schroeder/Allaerts combo into Nagra to Sonus faber is quite a bit of synergy. If only I could figure out how to deal with NYC dust....;)
"I've got a couple of issues here: first, "glowing terms" doesn't apply across the board. I read a lot of reviews that end with a series of caveats that would mean I probably wouldn't be too interested in the product. I've learned to interpret reviews based on my knowledge of the reviewer."Ok, I agree. Read reviews carefully and one can often detect clues and caveats that may give you pause. Your last sentence is basically what I was unsuccessfully trying to get to with Dr. S. Knowing what a reviewer spent his/her own $$ on is one of the clues that's helpful to interpret their reviews.
Robert, there are expensive products that are clearly worth the extra bucks over products considerably less expensive. But I have left the room shaking my head in amazement after hearing quite a few very expensive products which received rave reviews. IMO they weren't even close to being worth thousands more than much cheaper alternatives. True, this is subjective, and a reviewer may feel differently. But I could count on one hand the number of times I've seen anything like this in a review....."The Farquar mk.2 is an excellent sounding dac. But it has no more features than quite a few other dacs I've auditioned, and costs $4-5,000 more than the similar and equally good sounding dacs I compared it with in my review. Therefore I can not recommend it. I'd recommend auditioning the Jot-Jot, Zeus, Maz mk.3, and/or Goo dac instead. They're all the Farquar's equal and cost significantly less."
"....but why can't I disagree with Avocat's position??" You can, and I agree with you.
C'mon, I'd have to be an idiot not to also agree that many U.S. kids are getting a rotten excuse for an education. I attempted to point out that even in the '60's, in a well off county wherein parents and school board considered the arts important enough to adequately fund music departments, only a small % of students were interested and enriched. Of that small % an even smaller % grew up to appreciate what you and I would call great music, let alone great sound.
I was hooked on jazz at age 8, after hearing Ziggy Ellman's solo on a 45 of Benny Goodman's version of "And The Angels Sing". Why? I have no idea. It certainly wasn't because I was musically educated. Only one of the four women I've lived with in my adult life (she was a cellist) have gotten into either jazz or classical, despite being exposed to both almost daily. Judging from thousands of posts I've read on AA, I'd bet even amongst audiophiles a large % prefer music I'd call crap (no, I don't post to ridicule other inmates' musical taste). We just disagree. I do not believe lack of music ed/appreciation classes is the cause of the general public's disdain for jazz/classical, nor is/was it the cause of their love of groups like ACDC or Queen.
"What shifting priorities, you say?? Priorities shift all the time."
Yes, but they don't seem to ever shift towards great music or sound.
"I don't think the manufacturers of high-end rig care one way or the other. Lamm would only sell to a "loaded and gullible stock broker" if it had passed muster to survive in the marketplace, and a dealer demo'ed it for him."
Agreed. I was really relating my comments to lack of ads in mainstream media and how some dealers survive. I was in a well known NYC hifi store waiting to pay for what I'd just bought in the early '90's. I'd previously spent around $2,500 at that retailer. Being the novice I was, I asked if I could get some kind of discount on my new purchase due to being a repeat customer. The several salesmen around the counter laughed, and told me I'd have to spend $30-40,000 before I'd get a discount. I was kind of incredulous and asked how many customers they had like that, feeling that it sure as hell couldn't be many. They told me that most weeks a couple loaded businessmen/lawyers/doctors who couldn't hear the difference between Apogee and Bose spent that much at the store. According to them, without such customers the store couldn't exist.
Well, as you said, nuthin' wrong with disagreeing. On a lighter note, I have Sonus Faber spkrs. myself. Mine (discontinued Minuettos) are nowhere near yours, but I love 'em and think they were a pretty good deal at $1,500. Yeah, my place (West Side in the 70's) is a veritable dust factory too. Enjoy your Sunday music.
Nice post, Rick. I agree with your points right down the line.Love those Minuettos. They were one of the reasons I was so keen on first hearing, then buying, the Amati homages. The Sonus faber sound does it for me....
Good story about getting hooked on jazz. For me it was finding my dad's copy of Brubek's "Time Out" that did it. Fresh on the heels of burning out on Sex Pistols and Joy Division. Well, there's no acounting for taste. Now it's almost exclusively jazz. Duke Ellington "This One's for Blanton" spinning right now. What a recording....
Too bad Avocat himself can carry on a good disagreement without getting personal! Otherwise I'd really be enjoying myself right now....
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: