http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9950368-7.html?tag=nefd.lede "Adieu
to the true audiophile?"

On Jun 4, 7:34 pm, "aesthe...@hotmail.com" hotmail.com>
wrote:

After I read that article, I felt like I am ready to be set out to
pasture in Jurassic Park--the Prequel.

On Jun 5, 2:03 am, "aesthe...@hotmail.com" hotmail.com>
wrote:

The author misses a critical point.

Traditionally, audiophilia has been driven by classical (and to a lesser
extent, jazz) listeners, whose music has an acoustic representation, and for
whom the accurate reproduction of that representation is important. Rock is
largely amplified noise, for which the accurate reproduction is not only
unimportant, but fundamentally meaningless.

As interest in jazz and classical declines, so does the number of people
interested in truly high-quality playback.

I once heard a salesman at a respectable high-end store try to talk a
customer out of buying a surge suppressor, informing him that it would
degrade his amplifier's sound. It's stuff like this -- not to mention Mpingo
disks -- that scares off potential audiophiles.

By the way, I use the same system for both audio and video. Except for the
controller (a Parasound C2), it comprises "conventional" audiophile
components.

PS: There's nothing wrong with a dedicated listening room, if you have the
space and money.

Quote from the article:

"I often wonder about the 30-year-old iPod," Guttenberg mused. "Will
someone still use an iPod in 30 years," like audiophiles do high-end
speakers?
The answer is, of course, not a chance.

And that has what to do with the price of eggs? Speaker technology
certainly doesn't change at the rate of the format that our music is
delivered with..... what about the rate of change of formats between
say, 1945 and 1975? Let's see: 78rpm to lp (with a bit of 45rpm
thrown in), stereo lp, not to mention the various tape formats with
their moments in the sun. For this "point" to be thrown in as a
dramatic closer to the article......hmm...I'm shaking my head.

"......but on the other hand, I did just drop $350 on a cartridge
for that, what's it
called.....turntable?"

Hi Neal -

What cartridge did you get?

And, a belated thank you for the DVD - most enjoyable!

- Bill

The article stupidly misuses the word "audiophile" to mean something like
"person who uses component stereo equipment." That said, the article is quite
correct about the prevailing listening habits of the under-25 population. There
is no reason, however, to assume that this is a permanent phenomenon.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

The second sentence is pure bullshit, and anyone who has been to a
concert involving a good rock group, would testify to having it (the
sound), reproduced, on record, as faithfully as possible.

The definition of 'noise' is in the eyes and ears of the beholder, and I
can think of plenty of 'acoustical' crap that would qualify as 'noise'
and needless 'pollution'.

Even the statement about jazz 'having an acoustical' representation,
betrays a bias that displays the author as not worth the bother of
continued reading.

Dawg (Taree)

On Jun 5, 1:52 am, Gregorius comcast.net> wrote:
But what do I

Ahh, yes! Nice to meet another shellac "snob". I still have a couple
thousand discs myself. Can't bring myself to part with them.

Regards,
Gary Stucka
Cellist, Chicago Symphony Orchestra

Paul Goldstein wrote:

Where does the 'under-25' statement relate to rock music? Most under 45s
don't know about rock, or other forms of electronic music, let alone the
'under-25s'. And what do they listen to, by perchance? Amy Winehouse?
Even she, when not 'shooting herself up' on stage, has a talent that far
surpasses that produced by some phonies many here are listening to.

Dawg (Taree)