Mapman; I knew what point you were trying to make. I agree with you, however I was simply stating that what i remember 40 years ago was the music, not the sound quality or equipment and the younger people today (most) really are the same as we were then. they don't really care much for expensive equipment or even sound quality (more later), but just the music. Sound quality is really subjective. If one hasn't a clue as to what music or instruments are supposed to sound like, then what they are hearing is the best (to them). Most music for younger people is electronic with drum machines, and other equipment that isn't close to simulating actual instruments. Cymbals don't sound anywhere close to real cymbols. same for other instruments. Therefore, they (the younger people) listening to this type of music are perfectly happy because they have never really heard the real instruments in the first place to determine that it isn't accurate or real. Their reference point is not where ours is now. Also, super compressed electronic MP3 music sounds the same (to me) on an Ipod as on a really expensive system. It is so compressed, that it sound bad to me anywhere. But, to the younger people, that is their music and how it is suppose to sound to them, so they are happy with what they have. So I do believe my point was relevant. Also, to touch on Czarivey's comment. $150 shoes and quality. That is definitely not what I was talking about. I was saying that younger people spend large amounts on shoes (basketball, etc.) and other things that they don't even use for their original purpose just because of fashion and peer pressure, not functionality. They spend $150 on basketball shoes (when they are 5'1" tall and can't and don't play that sport at all just so they can walk on their high school campus sporting the latest Jordan's. Because of peer pressure, fashion (another form of peer pressure) and the industry concentrating solely on the young market, they spend that kind of money easily (or their parents do). My point was why can't certain aspects of the high end industry market to young people in the way that Jordon's do or Beats?
Enjoy |
Dave_72 you already know about expensive mistakes, I have made a few mistakes myself, not anymore. I have a problem giving advice to anyone who has just entered this hobby and what to recommend because it will take a few years of trial and error to get a grip on what sounds good for yourself. It was of little consequence to try different products over time because it was very easy to turn gear over on Audiogon at the time, so very few dollars were lost, I don't think it is that easy now. I agree wholeheartedly. Yeah, I don't mind giving advice, but I always say that "you have to go out and compare and contrast each set of equipment until you find the one that pleases you the most" With that caveat, I don't feel guilty about it. I would hope this avoids the trial and error thing, but maybe not. No, the resale value on this stuff has plummeted from what I see on this site and other sites that make up the used market. The manufacturers price very high which makes it a chore to recoup that money when one would like to sell. If you buy an ultra high end amp for $80k, you're gonna at least lose $20k on it if you sell. And this is stuff that has high resale value and demand such as FM Acoustics and MBL. Either way, that's losing a big chunk of change! |
However, I have no idea what the sound recording engineer actually recorded or how that person intended the recording to sound. So, I am using my judgement in listening to the recordings. But, it would be interesting to have the acutal recording engineer sit in one's home and listen to the playback of their actual recording and see and talk about their reaction. That would be interesting. I have been in live unamplified concerts in large venues in great seats and the music was unfocused, and I couldn't place the performers with my eyes closed. So, live unamplified music can also be the wrong metric. So, my point is that it depends on the intent and ear of the recording engineer, the venue, and most especially, what the listener is actually doing and what they want. Exactly, it's a guessing game. The sound we get out of our systems might be totally opposite of what the engineers and artists wanted. Like you, I go by the sound of real instruments and compare and contrast. Again, like I said in the old post of mine, we're listening to imperfect recordings for the most part, especially, and I hate to say this, rock and pop stuff. And let's not fool ourselves, no matter how much money you throw around, there's no such thing as an absolutely perfect system, imo. You can get pretty close however, at usually quite a chunk of change. However, there are more modest systems out there that can and have slayed the 6 figure "holy grail" rigs. In my opinion, the spending limit on an ultimate state of the art holy grail system (with discounts new or used stuff) should be around $50k, no more no less. Yes, that is crazy in real world terms, but isn't the high end more about aspirations more than reality? lol. |
Minor,
I was listening to a pair of $29 Audio TEchnica headphones today off my standard issue HP computer at work. Source were my lossless FLAC files on my music server at home. The cymbals sounded amazing good even on those, as they do as well at home. The only thing missing was soundstage and imaging, which for sure most people could care less about.
If its true that young people today have no interest in how music sounds, then that does not bode well for high end audio. But I suspect there is more to it than that, that what they have ready access to these days can easily sound pretty good, if they even just care a little.
Neither of my teenagers care a lick about home audio, but are very particular about what earbuds or phones they use. |
I too echo Response34.
On the other hand, if you want to really feel like a duck out of water you've got to check out 1-2-3-4 GO Records (mostly LPs) on 40th Street in Oakland CA, They sell mostly Heavy Metal, Punk, and other genre I'd rather not dis because I've stopped keeping up. They've recently moved to a larger location because their business is growing.
It seems their customers priorities for purchasing vinyl has more to do with supporting the artist because the download industry is what it currently is and because owning the LP is a more tactile fruit of that art. The sound quality is often mentioned but it's not the primary reason for owning the LP.
Those stalwarts of brick and mortar new and used LP sales, Amoeba and Rasputin, are not jumping into this direction with both feet.
The owner of 1-2-3-4 GO suggested some selections an old fud like me might enjoy and I was pleasantly surprised. Not only by the contemporary-ness of the music but that I still had some attitude left in me to enjoy it. As a Draft dodging anarchist I've been back twice, your results may vary! Interestingly, because of this current state of the music industry and its unchecked digititus, many of these contemporary LPs were recorded digitally. I know what your thinking, "this music doesn't need to be recorded well." I'm a working Musician and I say it does qualify for the full treatment.
After listening to the recent testimony by recording artist before Congress about the issues that surround the run away download industry, it seems this is another contributing element to the increase in low quality production and an uncontrollable drain on artist royalties.
So, where are we going?
I feel it's incredibly important that the high end community (analog and digital) make this issue more than reminiscing the way it was because that's just not going to happen. We need to discuss the beginnings of a solution that benefits the artists so they receive their royalties. The producers to get back into the studio environment, and to somehow fairly regulate the distribution of the art.
So, if you must reminisce, reminisce about what our part had to do the resurgence of the LP and every time you told a mass market loved one, "yeah, the difference is amazing!" |
