Group: rec.audio.high-end
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Audiophile in an iPod World
Audiophile in an iPod World
Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at the state of
audio:
http :// snipurl,com /1u5mx
He frames his article with a false comparison between Stereo Review
and Gramophone, but in between he makes some cogent observations. One
such:
"Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."
bob
Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at the state of
audio:
http :// snipurl,com /1u5mx
He frames his article with a false comparison between Stereo Review
and Gramophone, but in between he makes some cogent observations. One
such:
"Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."
bob
Re: Audiophile in an iPod World
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:46:15 -0800, bob wrote
(in article <fiaumn023dk@news1.newsguy,com >):
> Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at the state of
> audio:
>
> http :// snipurl,com /1u5mx
>
> He frames his article with a false comparison between Stereo Review
> and Gramophone, but in between he makes some cogent observations. One
> such:
>
> "Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
> quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
> average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
> between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
> inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."
>
> bob
This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known symphony orchestra
conductor. He listens to music on one of the first generation Bose "Wave"
radios with the built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected to
the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the orchestra that I make for
him get cut to CD and that's what I give him (it used to be cassette tapes
before He got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of his). When
I'm over at his house he's invariably listening to my recordings of his
orchestra on that Bose. It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my
place and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens intently,
muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble playing or missed cues, but
never mentions how much better the orchestra sounds on my system than on his
Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something non-committal like "Very
nice,"
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:46:15 -0800, bob wrote
(in article <fiaumn023dk@news1.newsguy,com >):
> Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at the state of
> audio:
>
> http :// snipurl,com /1u5mx
>
> He frames his article with a false comparison between Stereo Review
> and Gramophone, but in between he makes some cogent observations. One
> such:
>
> "Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
> quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
> average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
> between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
> inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."
>
> bob
This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known symphony orchestra
conductor. He listens to music on one of the first generation Bose "Wave"
radios with the built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected to
the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the orchestra that I make for
him get cut to CD and that's what I give him (it used to be cassette tapes
before He got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of his). When
I'm over at his house he's invariably listening to my recordings of his
orchestra on that Bose. It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my
place and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens intently,
muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble playing or missed cues, but
never mentions how much better the orchestra sounds on my system than on his
Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something non-committal like "Very
nice,"
Re: Audiophile in an iPod World
On Nov 25, 11:25 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known symphony orchestra
> conductor. He listens to music on one of the first generation Bose "Wave"
> radios with the built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected to
> the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the orchestra that I make for
> him get cut to CD and that's what I give him (it used to be cassette tapes
> before He got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of his). When
> I'm over at his house he's invariably listening to my recordings of his
> orchestra on that Bose. It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my
> place and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens intently,
> muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble playing or missed cues, but
> never mentions how much better the orchestra sounds on my system than on his
> Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something non-committal like "Very
> nice,"
Sounds like one of those Average Joes you seem to enjoy deriding.
bob
On Nov 25, 11:25 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known symphony orchestra
> conductor. He listens to music on one of the first generation Bose "Wave"
> radios with the built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected to
> the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the orchestra that I make for
> him get cut to CD and that's what I give him (it used to be cassette tapes
> before He got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of his). When
> I'm over at his house he's invariably listening to my recordings of his
> orchestra on that Bose. It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my
> place and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens intently,
> muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble playing or missed cues, but
> never mentions how much better the orchestra sounds on my system than on his
> Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something non-committal like "Very
> nice,"
Sounds like one of those Average Joes you seem to enjoy deriding.
bob
Re: Audiophile in an iPod World
I would not call that derission. I'd call into question that conductor's
ural abilities when listen to live music.
"bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:fica5e02p0f@news4.newsguy,com ...
> On Nov 25, 11:25 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>
>> This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known symphony orchestra
>> conductor. He listens to music on one of the first generation Bose "Wave"
>> radios with the built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected
>> to
>> the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the orchestra that I make
>> for
>> him get cut to CD and that's what I give him (it used to be cassette
>> tapes
>> before He got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of his).
>> When
>> I'm over at his house he's invariably listening to my recordings of his
>> orchestra on that Bose. It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my
>> place and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens intently,
>> muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble playing or missed cues,
>> but
>> never mentions how much better the orchestra sounds on my system than on
>> his
>> Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something non-committal like "Very
>> nice,"
>
> Sounds like one of those Average Joes you seem to enjoy deriding.
>
> bob
>
I would not call that derission. I'd call into question that conductor's
ural abilities when listen to live music.
"bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:fica5e02p0f@news4.newsguy,com ...
> On Nov 25, 11:25 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>
>> This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known symphony orchestra
>> conductor. He listens to music on one of the first generation Bose "Wave"
>> radios with the built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected
>> to
>> the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the orchestra that I make
>> for
>> him get cut to CD and that's what I give him (it used to be cassette
>> tapes
>> before He got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of his).
>> When
>> I'm over at his house he's invariably listening to my recordings of his
>> orchestra on that Bose. It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my
>> place and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens intently,
>> muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble playing or missed cues,
>> but
>> never mentions how much better the orchestra sounds on my system than on
>> his
>> Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something non-committal like "Very
>> nice,"
>
> Sounds like one of those Average Joes you seem to enjoy deriding.
>
> bob
>
Re: Audiophile in an iPod World
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:27:39 -0800, Rob wrote
(in article <focn5r02koa@news1.newsguy,com >):
> I would not call that derission. I'd call into question that conductor's
> ural abilities when listen to live music.
>
> "bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> news:fica5e02p0f@news4.newsguy,com ...
>> On Nov 25, 11:25 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>>
>>> This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known symphony orchestra
>>> conductor. He listens to music on one of the first generation Bose "Wave"
>>> radios with the built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected
>>> to
>>> the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the orchestra that I make
>>> for
>>> him get cut to CD and that's what I give him (it used to be cassette
>>> tapes
>>> before He got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of his).
>>> When
>>> I'm over at his house he's invariably listening to my recordings of his
>>> orchestra on that Bose. It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my
>>> place and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens intently,
>>> muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble playing or missed cues,
>>> but
>>> never mentions how much better the orchestra sounds on my system than on
>>> his
>>> Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something non-committal like "Very
>>> nice,"
>>
>> Sounds like one of those Average Joes you seem to enjoy deriding.
>>
>> bob
>>
That's not the point. The point is that this anecdote is illustrative of the
discussion we had here some weeks ago about the difference between the
listening priorities of musicians and audiophiles. The Maestro, obviously,
can hear everything he needs to hear about his orchestra via the wave radio
and doesn't give a whit about wide frequency response, low distortion,
sound-stage, ambience retrieval, realistic listening levels, or any of the
other things that audiophiles hold as important. He's listening for ensemble
playing, dynamics, contrasts between sections, pace, missed entrance cues,
etc., and all of these things seem to come accross adequately for him on a
Bose Wave radio.
And as for "deriding average Joes" I don't see where you get that. Average
Joes don't care about those audiophile things either, so why deride them for
having other interests? I don't deride others because they don't like to
drive sports cars like I do. I don't deride others because they don't enjoy
skeet shooting, I don't deride people because they're not interested in
photography, so why should I deride someone for not having the level of
interest in audio that I have?
Who I will deride are those who claim to be audiophiles, post authoritatively
here on this forum, and yet demonstrate with almost every post that their
hearing or their powers of perception are so poor or underdeveloped that
they, essentially cannot (or will not) hear. I.E. If it measures good, it is
good. Shades of Julian Hirsch and all that. :-)
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:27:39 -0800, Rob wrote
(in article <focn5r02koa@news1.newsguy,com >):
> I would not call that derission. I'd call into question that conductor's
> ural abilities when listen to live music.
>
> "bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> news:fica5e02p0f@news4.newsguy,com ...
>> On Nov 25, 11:25 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>>
>>> This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known symphony orchestra
>>> conductor. He listens to music on one of the first generation Bose "Wave"
>>> radios with the built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected
>>> to
>>> the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the orchestra that I make
>>> for
>>> him get cut to CD and that's what I give him (it used to be cassette
>>> tapes
>>> before He got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of his).
>>> When
>>> I'm over at his house he's invariably listening to my recordings of his
>>> orchestra on that Bose. It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my
>>> place and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens intently,
>>> muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble playing or missed cues,
>>> but
>>> never mentions how much better the orchestra sounds on my system than on
>>> his
>>> Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something non-committal like "Very
>>> nice,"
>>
>> Sounds like one of those Average Joes you seem to enjoy deriding.
>>
>> bob
>>
That's not the point. The point is that this anecdote is illustrative of the
discussion we had here some weeks ago about the difference between the
listening priorities of musicians and audiophiles. The Maestro, obviously,
can hear everything he needs to hear about his orchestra via the wave radio
and doesn't give a whit about wide frequency response, low distortion,
sound-stage, ambience retrieval, realistic listening levels, or any of the
other things that audiophiles hold as important. He's listening for ensemble
playing, dynamics, contrasts between sections, pace, missed entrance cues,
etc., and all of these things seem to come accross adequately for him on a
Bose Wave radio.
And as for "deriding average Joes" I don't see where you get that. Average
Joes don't care about those audiophile things either, so why deride them for
having other interests? I don't deride others because they don't like to
drive sports cars like I do. I don't deride others because they don't enjoy
skeet shooting, I don't deride people because they're not interested in
photography, so why should I deride someone for not having the level of
interest in audio that I have?
Who I will deride are those who claim to be audiophiles, post authoritatively
here on this forum, and yet demonstrate with almost every post that their
hearing or their powers of perception are so poor or underdeveloped that
they, essentially cannot (or will not) hear. I.E. If it measures good, it is
good. Shades of Julian Hirsch and all that. :-)
Re: Audiophile in an iPod World
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fod3mc0102b@news3.newsguy,com ...
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:27:39 -0800, Rob wrote
> (in article <focn5r02koa@news1.newsguy,com >):
>
>> I would not call that derission. I'd call into question that conductor's
>> ural abilities when listen to live music.
>>
>> "bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
>> news:fica5e02p0f@news4.newsguy,com ...
>>> On Nov 25, 11:25 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known symphony
>>>> orchestra
>>>> conductor. He listens to music on one of the first generation Bose
>>>> "Wave"
>>>> radios with the built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected
>>>> to
>>>> the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the orchestra that I
>>>> make
>>>> for
>>>> him get cut to CD and that's what I give him (it used to be cassette
>>>> tapes
>>>> before He got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of his).
>>>> When
>>>> I'm over at his house he's invariably listening to my recordings of his
>>>> orchestra on that Bose. It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay
>>>> my
>>>> place and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens
>>>> intently,
>>>> muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble playing or missed cues,
>>>> but
>>>> never mentions how much better the orchestra sounds on my system than
>>>> on
>>>> his
>>>> Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something non-committal like
>>>> "Very
>>>> nice,"
>>>
>>> Sounds like one of those Average Joes you seem to enjoy deriding.
>>>
>>> bob
>>>
>
> That's not the point. The point is that this anecdote is illustrative of
> the
> discussion we had here some weeks ago about the difference between the
> listening priorities of musicians and audiophiles. The Maestro, obviously,
> can hear everything he needs to hear about his orchestra via the wave
> radio
> and doesn't give a whit about wide frequency response, low distortion,
> sound-stage, ambience retrieval, realistic listening levels, or any of the
> other things that audiophiles hold as important. He's listening for
> ensemble
> playing, dynamics, contrasts between sections, pace, missed entrance cues,
> etc., and all of these things seem to come accross adequately for him on a
> Bose Wave radio.
>
> And as for "deriding average Joes" I don't see where you get that. Average
> Joes don't care about those audiophile things either, so why deride them
> for
> having other interests? I don't deride others because they don't like to
> drive sports cars like I do. I don't deride others because they don't
> enjoy
> skeet shooting, I don't deride people because they're not interested in
> photography,
But if they are intersested in photography I'd deride them if they compare
reality using 24 X 36 mm contact prints vs. 16 X 20 inch prints as I would
in comparing the sound of reality using a Bose CD/Wave Radio vs. a high end
speaker system. See whatever you want, hear whatever you want but "hear no
evil, see no evil, speak no evil"?
so why should I deride someone for not having the level of
> interest in audio that I have?
>
> Who I will deride are those who claim to be audiophiles, post
> authoritatively
> here on this forum, and yet demonstrate with almost every post that their
> hearing or their powers of perception are so poor or underdeveloped that
> they, essentially cannot (or will not) hear. I.E. If it measures good, it
> is
> good. Shades of Julian Hirsch and all that. :-)
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fod3mc0102b@news3.newsguy,com ...
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:27:39 -0800, Rob wrote
> (in article <focn5r02koa@news1.newsguy,com >):
>
>> I would not call that derission. I'd call into question that conductor's
>> ural abilities when listen to live music.
>>
>> "bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
>> news:fica5e02p0f@news4.newsguy,com ...
>>> On Nov 25, 11:25 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known symphony
>>>> orchestra
>>>> conductor. He listens to music on one of the first generation Bose
>>>> "Wave"
>>>> radios with the built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected
>>>> to
>>>> the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the orchestra that I
>>>> make
>>>> for
>>>> him get cut to CD and that's what I give him (it used to be cassette
>>>> tapes
>>>> before He got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of his).
>>>> When
>>>> I'm over at his house he's invariably listening to my recordings of his
>>>> orchestra on that Bose. It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay
>>>> my
>>>> place and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens
>>>> intently,
>>>> muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble playing or missed cues,
>>>> but
>>>> never mentions how much better the orchestra sounds on my system than
>>>> on
>>>> his
>>>> Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something non-committal like
>>>> "Very
>>>> nice,"
>>>
>>> Sounds like one of those Average Joes you seem to enjoy deriding.
>>>
>>> bob
>>>
>
> That's not the point. The point is that this anecdote is illustrative of
> the
> discussion we had here some weeks ago about the difference between the
> listening priorities of musicians and audiophiles. The Maestro, obviously,
> can hear everything he needs to hear about his orchestra via the wave
> radio
> and doesn't give a whit about wide frequency response, low distortion,
> sound-stage, ambience retrieval, realistic listening levels, or any of the
> other things that audiophiles hold as important. He's listening for
> ensemble
> playing, dynamics, contrasts between sections, pace, missed entrance cues,
> etc., and all of these things seem to come accross adequately for him on a
> Bose Wave radio.
>
> And as for "deriding average Joes" I don't see where you get that. Average
> Joes don't care about those audiophile things either, so why deride them
> for
> having other interests? I don't deride others because they don't like to
> drive sports cars like I do. I don't deride others because they don't
> enjoy
> skeet shooting, I don't deride people because they're not interested in
> photography,
But if they are intersested in photography I'd deride them if they compare
reality using 24 X 36 mm contact prints vs. 16 X 20 inch prints as I would
in comparing the sound of reality using a Bose CD/Wave Radio vs. a high end
speaker system. See whatever you want, hear whatever you want but "hear no
evil, see no evil, speak no evil"?
so why should I deride someone for not having the level of
> interest in audio that I have?
>
> Who I will deride are those who claim to be audiophiles, post
> authoritatively
> here on this forum, and yet demonstrate with almost every post that their
> hearing or their powers of perception are so poor or underdeveloped that
> they, essentially cannot (or will not) hear. I.E. If it measures good, it
> is
> good. Shades of Julian Hirsch and all that. :-)
Re: Audiophile in an iPod World
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fic7le02lke@news4.newsguy,com
> This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known
> symphony orchestra conductor. He listens to music on one
> of the first generation Bose "Wave" radios with the
> built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected
> to the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the
> orchestra that I make for him get cut to CD and that's
> what I give him (it used to be cassette tapes before He
> got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of
> his). When I'm over at his house he's invariably
> listening to my recordings of his orchestra on that Bose.
> It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my place
> and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens
> intently, muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble
> playing or missed cues, but never mentions how much
> better the orchestra sounds on my system than on his
> Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something
> non-committal like "Very nice,"
I first learned this long ago when I had a college roomate who was a
musician. He loved my stereo. When it came time for me to set him up, he
specified something pretty humble by my standards at tht time. I think it
was composed of a mid-fi receiver, a mid-line Garrard changer with Shure
cartrdige, and a pair of AE4ax.
The point is that if you love music, and particularly if you are a skilled
musician, it really helps if you can extract the music from any particular
set of sounds that you you hear. You need to hear yourself, and you need to
hear other players that you work most closely with. The sonic environment
for performing is vastly different than the one for listeners.
In short, being able to enjoy music that is poorly reproduced is a
worthwhile skill, not the disability that some would like to make it out to
be.
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fic7le02lke@news4.newsguy,com
> This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known
> symphony orchestra conductor. He listens to music on one
> of the first generation Bose "Wave" radios with the
> built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected
> to the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the
> orchestra that I make for him get cut to CD and that's
> what I give him (it used to be cassette tapes before He
> got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of
> his). When I'm over at his house he's invariably
> listening to my recordings of his orchestra on that Bose.
> It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my place
> and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens
> intently, muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble
> playing or missed cues, but never mentions how much
> better the orchestra sounds on my system than on his
> Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something
> non-committal like "Very nice,"
I first learned this long ago when I had a college roomate who was a
musician. He loved my stereo. When it came time for me to set him up, he
specified something pretty humble by my standards at tht time. I think it
was composed of a mid-fi receiver, a mid-line Garrard changer with Shure
cartrdige, and a pair of AE4ax.
The point is that if you love music, and particularly if you are a skilled
musician, it really helps if you can extract the music from any particular
set of sounds that you you hear. You need to hear yourself, and you need to
hear other players that you work most closely with. The sonic environment
for performing is vastly different than the one for listeners.
In short, being able to enjoy music that is poorly reproduced is a
worthwhile skill, not the disability that some would like to make it out to
be.
Re: Audiophile in an iPod World
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:45:52 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fiflrg01rce@news3.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:fic7le02lke@news4.newsguy,com
>
>> This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known
>> symphony orchestra conductor. He listens to music on one
>> of the first generation Bose "Wave" radios with the
>> built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected
>> to the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the
>> orchestra that I make for him get cut to CD and that's
>> what I give him (it used to be cassette tapes before He
>> got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of
>> his). When I'm over at his house he's invariably
>> listening to my recordings of his orchestra on that Bose.
>> It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my place
>> and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens
>> intently, muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble
>> playing or missed cues, but never mentions how much
>> better the orchestra sounds on my system than on his
>> Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something
>> non-committal like "Very nice,"
>
> I first learned this long ago when I had a college roomate who was a
> musician. He loved my stereo. When it came time for me to set him up, he
> specified something pretty humble by my standards at tht time. I think it
> was composed of a mid-fi receiver, a mid-line Garrard changer with Shure
> cartrdige, and a pair of AE4ax.
>
> The point is that if you love music, and particularly if you are a skilled
> musician, it really helps if you can extract the music from any particular
> set of sounds that you you hear. You need to hear yourself, and you need to
> hear other players that you work most closely with. The sonic environment
> for performing is vastly different than the one for listeners.
>
> In short, being able to enjoy music that is poorly reproduced is a
> worthwhile skill, not the disability that some would like to make it out to
> be.
>
Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, the very word "audiophile" means love of sound.
That's the route to high-end audio that a lot of us took. I'm so interested
in the sound itself and things sounding good, that I could never take the
musicians' approach, but I kind of envy their ability to hear the music
through the limitations of whatever equipment or media they're listening to.
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:45:52 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fiflrg01rce@news3.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:fic7le02lke@news4.newsguy,com
>
>> This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known
>> symphony orchestra conductor. He listens to music on one
>> of the first generation Bose "Wave" radios with the
>> built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected
>> to the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the
>> orchestra that I make for him get cut to CD and that's
>> what I give him (it used to be cassette tapes before He
>> got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of
>> his). When I'm over at his house he's invariably
>> listening to my recordings of his orchestra on that Bose.
>> It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my place
>> and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens
>> intently, muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble
>> playing or missed cues, but never mentions how much
>> better the orchestra sounds on my system than on his
>> Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something
>> non-committal like "Very nice,"
>
> I first learned this long ago when I had a college roomate who was a
> musician. He loved my stereo. When it came time for me to set him up, he
> specified something pretty humble by my standards at tht time. I think it
> was composed of a mid-fi receiver, a mid-line Garrard changer with Shure
> cartrdige, and a pair of AE4ax.
>
> The point is that if you love music, and particularly if you are a skilled
> musician, it really helps if you can extract the music from any particular
> set of sounds that you you hear. You need to hear yourself, and you need to
> hear other players that you work most closely with. The sonic environment
> for performing is vastly different than the one for listeners.
>
> In short, being able to enjoy music that is poorly reproduced is a
> worthwhile skill, not the disability that some would like to make it out to
> be.
>
Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, the very word "audiophile" means love of sound.
That's the route to high-end audio that a lot of us took. I'm so interested
in the sound itself and things sounding good, that I could never take the
musicians' approach, but I kind of envy their ability to hear the music
through the limitations of whatever equipment or media they're listening to.
Re: Audiophile in an iPod World
True. I personally have two listen modes. One is listening to the music, the
other is critical listening to the music on the playback system. Just a few
handful of times I listened to a system that was so transparent (WATTS,
Krell, Clear Audio) that both listening modes coincided.
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote in message
news:fiflrg01rce@news3.newsguy,com ...
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:fic7le02lke@news4.newsguy,com
>
>> This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known
>> symphony orchestra conductor. He listens to music on one
>> of the first generation Bose "Wave" radios with the
>> built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected
>> to the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the
>> orchestra that I make for him get cut to CD and that's
>> what I give him (it used to be cassette tapes before He
>> got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of
>> his). When I'm over at his house he's invariably
>> listening to my recordings of his orchestra on that Bose.
>> It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my place
>> and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens
>> intently, muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble
>> playing or missed cues, but never mentions how much
>> better the orchestra sounds on my system than on his
>> Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something
>> non-committal like "Very nice,"
>
> I first learned this long ago when I had a college roomate who was a
> musician. He loved my stereo. When it came time for me to set him up, he
> specified something pretty humble by my standards at tht time. I think it
> was composed of a mid-fi receiver, a mid-line Garrard changer with Shure
> cartrdige, and a pair of AE4ax.
>
> The point is that if you love music, and particularly if you are a skilled
> musician, it really helps if you can extract the music from any particular
> set of sounds that you you hear. You need to hear yourself, and you need
> to
> hear other players that you work most closely with. The sonic environment
> for performing is vastly different than the one for listeners.
>
> In short, being able to enjoy music that is poorly reproduced is a
> worthwhile skill, not the disability that some would like to make it out
> to
> be.
>
>
True. I personally have two listen modes. One is listening to the music, the
other is critical listening to the music on the playback system. Just a few
handful of times I listened to a system that was so transparent (WATTS,
Krell, Clear Audio) that both listening modes coincided.
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote in message
news:fiflrg01rce@news3.newsguy,com ...
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:fic7le02lke@news4.newsguy,com
>
>> This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known
>> symphony orchestra conductor. He listens to music on one
>> of the first generation Bose "Wave" radios with the
>> built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected
>> to the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the
>> orchestra that I make for him get cut to CD and that's
>> what I give him (it used to be cassette tapes before He
>> got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of
>> his). When I'm over at his house he's invariably
>> listening to my recordings of his orchestra on that Bose.
>> It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my place
>> and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens
>> intently, muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble
>> playing or missed cues, but never mentions how much
>> better the orchestra sounds on my system than on his
>> Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something
>> non-committal like "Very nice,"
>
> I first learned this long ago when I had a college roomate who was a
> musician. He loved my stereo. When it came time for me to set him up, he
> specified something pretty humble by my standards at tht time. I think it
> was composed of a mid-fi receiver, a mid-line Garrard changer with Shure
> cartrdige, and a pair of AE4ax.
>
> The point is that if you love music, and particularly if you are a skilled
> musician, it really helps if you can extract the music from any particular
> set of sounds that you you hear. You need to hear yourself, and you need
> to
> hear other players that you work most closely with. The sonic environment
> for performing is vastly different than the one for listeners.
>
> In short, being able to enjoy music that is poorly reproduced is a
> worthwhile skill, not the disability that some would like to make it out
> to
> be.
>
>
Re: Audiophile in an iPod World
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:28:18 -0800, Rob wrote
(in article <focn7202kqs@news1.newsguy,com >):
> True. I personally have two listen modes. One is listening to the music, the
> other is critical listening to the music on the playback system. Just a few
> handful of times I listened to a system that was so transparent (WATTS,
> Krell, Clear Audio) that both listening modes coincided.
>
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote in message
> news:fiflrg01rce@news3.newsguy,com ...
>> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
>> news:fic7le02lke@news4.newsguy,com
>>
>>> This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known
>>> symphony orchestra conductor. He listens to music on one
>>> of the first generation Bose "Wave" radios with the
>>> built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected
>>> to the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the
>>> orchestra that I make for him get cut to CD and that's
>>> what I give him (it used to be cassette tapes before He
>>> got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of
>>> his). When I'm over at his house he's invariably
>>> listening to my recordings of his orchestra on that Bose.
>>> It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my place
>>> and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens
>>> intently, muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble
>>> playing or missed cues, but never mentions how much
>>> better the orchestra sounds on my system than on his
>>> Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something
>>> non-committal like "Very nice,"
>>
>> I first learned this long ago when I had a college roomate who was a
>> musician. He loved my stereo. When it came time for me to set him up, he
>> specified something pretty humble by my standards at tht time. I think it
>> was composed of a mid-fi receiver, a mid-line Garrard changer with Shure
>> cartrdige, and a pair of AE4ax.
>>
>> The point is that if you love music, and particularly if you are a skilled
>> musician, it really helps if you can extract the music from any particular
>> set of sounds that you you hear. You need to hear yourself, and you need
>> to
>> hear other players that you work most closely with. The sonic environment
>> for performing is vastly different than the one for listeners.
>>
>> In short, being able to enjoy music that is poorly reproduced is a
>> worthwhile skill, not the disability that some would like to make it out
>> to
>> be.
I certainly was not intimating that its a disability. Not caring about sound
quality and caring more about how the group is playing than how the system
sounds shows that the musician in question regards the reproduction apparatus
as merely a tool. A tool to help him be a better conductor and to help him
make the ensemble a better orchestra. After all, he has at his disposal the
ultimate hi-fi and he stands before it week in and week out. Who needs a
stereo system when you have REAL music at your fingertips and beck-and-call?
Maybe the Maestro realizes that a Hi-Fi, any Hi-Fi, pales so completely in
the face of the sound of real, live music played in real space, that the
pursuit of that particular muse is futile and not worth the effort.
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:28:18 -0800, Rob wrote
(in article <focn7202kqs@news1.newsguy,com >):
> True. I personally have two listen modes. One is listening to the music, the
> other is critical listening to the music on the playback system. Just a few
> handful of times I listened to a system that was so transparent (WATTS,
> Krell, Clear Audio) that both listening modes coincided.
>
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote in message
> news:fiflrg01rce@news3.newsguy,com ...
>> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
>> news:fic7le02lke@news4.newsguy,com
>>
>>> This is very true. I'm friends with a very well known
>>> symphony orchestra conductor. He listens to music on one
>>> of the first generation Bose "Wave" radios with the
>>> built-in CD player and he has a cassette deck connected
>>> to the aux inputs on the back! The master tapes of the
>>> orchestra that I make for him get cut to CD and that's
>>> what I give him (it used to be cassette tapes before He
>>> got the Bose - which was a gift from a lady friend of
>>> his). When I'm over at his house he's invariably
>>> listening to my recordings of his orchestra on that Bose.
>>> It seems to meet his needs. When he's over ay my place
>>> and I put one of his performances on my stereo he listens
>>> intently, muttering to himself about some sloppy ensemble
>>> playing or missed cues, but never mentions how much
>>> better the orchestra sounds on my system than on his
>>> Bose. When I bring it up, he just says something
>>> non-committal like "Very nice,"
>>
>> I first learned this long ago when I had a college roomate who was a
>> musician. He loved my stereo. When it came time for me to set him up, he
>> specified something pretty humble by my standards at tht time. I think it
>> was composed of a mid-fi receiver, a mid-line Garrard changer with Shure
>> cartrdige, and a pair of AE4ax.
>>
>> The point is that if you love music, and particularly if you are a skilled
>> musician, it really helps if you can extract the music from any particular
>> set of sounds that you you hear. You need to hear yourself, and you need
>> to
>> hear other players that you work most closely with. The sonic environment
>> for performing is vastly different than the one for listeners.
>>
>> In short, being able to enjoy music that is poorly reproduced is a
>> worthwhile skill, not the disability that some would like to make it out
>> to
>> be.
I certainly was not intimating that its a disability. Not caring about sound
quality and caring more about how the group is playing than how the system
sounds shows that the musician in question regards the reproduction apparatus
as merely a tool. A tool to help him be a better conductor and to help him
make the ensemble a better orchestra. After all, he has at his disposal the
ultimate hi-fi and he stands before it week in and week out. Who needs a
stereo system when you have REAL music at your fingertips and beck-and-call?
Maybe the Maestro realizes that a Hi-Fi, any Hi-Fi, pales so completely in
the face of the sound of real, live music played in real space, that the
pursuit of that particular muse is futile and not worth the effort.
Re: Audiophile in an iPod World
"bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:fiaumn023dk@news1.newsguy,com ...
> Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at the state of
> audio:
>
> http :// snipurl,com /1u5mx
>
> He frames his article with a false comparison between Stereo Review
> and Gramophone, but in between he makes some cogent observations. One
> such:
>
> "Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
> quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
> average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
> between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
> inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."
>
> bob
So what? Does this mean the hobby of trying to recreate sound via
recordings of the highest possible level is, was, and always had been,
illegitimate? I don't think so, nor would all those folks back in the late
50's, 60's, and 70's who led the assault on mediocrity. And who gave
meaning to the term high-fidelity.
"bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:fiaumn023dk@news1.newsguy,com ...
> Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at the state of
> audio:
>
> http :// snipurl,com /1u5mx
>
> He frames his article with a false comparison between Stereo Review
> and Gramophone, but in between he makes some cogent observations. One
> such:
>
> "Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
> quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
> average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
> between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
> inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."
>
> bob
So what? Does this mean the hobby of trying to recreate sound via
recordings of the highest possible level is, was, and always had been,
illegitimate? I don't think so, nor would all those folks back in the late
50's, 60's, and 70's who led the assault on mediocrity. And who gave
meaning to the term high-fidelity.
Re: Audiophile in an iPod World
"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:fic9s802ols@news4.newsguy,com ...
> "bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> news:fiaumn023dk@news1.newsguy,com ...
...
>> "Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
>> quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
>> average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
>> between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
>> inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."
...
> So what? Does this mean the hobby of trying to recreate sound via
> recordings of the highest possible level is, was, and always had been,
> illegitimate? I don't think so, nor would all those folks back in the
> late
> 50's, 60's, and 70's who led the assault on mediocrity. And who gave
> meaning to the term high-fidelity.
I think what it shows is that musicians and music listeners are not the same
people and do not listen to music the same way.
"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:fic9s802ols@news4.newsguy,com ...
> "bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> news:fiaumn023dk@news1.newsguy,com ...
...
>> "Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
>> quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
>> average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
>> between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
>> inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."
...
> So what? Does this mean the hobby of trying to recreate sound via
> recordings of the highest possible level is, was, and always had been,
> illegitimate? I don't think so, nor would all those folks back in the
> late
> 50's, 60's, and 70's who led the assault on mediocrity. And who gave
> meaning to the term high-fidelity.
I think what it shows is that musicians and music listeners are not the same
people and do not listen to music the same way.
Re: Audiophile in an iPod World
"MC" <mc@uga.edu> wrote in message
news:ficp1o02g37@news3.newsguy,com
> "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast,net > wrote in message
> news:fic9s802ols@news4.newsguy,com ...
>> "bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
>> news:fiaumn023dk@news1.newsguy,com ...
> ...
>>> "Any discussion of recording technology has to note one
>>> intriguing quirk in the story: Few musicians have been
>>> audiophiles. More than the average music-loving
>>> amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
>>> between recorded music and the real thing. They can
>>> listen through the inadequacies of any recording and
>>> focus on what they want to hear."
> ...
>> So what? Does this mean the hobby of trying to recreate
>> sound via recordings of the highest possible level is,
>> was, and always had been, illegitimate? I don't think
>> so, nor would all those folks back in the late
>> 50's, 60's, and 70's who led the assault on mediocrity.
>> And who gave meaning to the term high-fidelity.
>
> I think what it shows is that musicians and music
> listeners are not the same people and do not listen to
> music the same way.
Close. It shows that audiophiles listen to music in different ways than
musicians and music lovers.
"MC" <mc@uga.edu> wrote in message
news:ficp1o02g37@news3.newsguy,com
> "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast,net > wrote in message
> news:fic9s802ols@news4.newsguy,com ...
>> "bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
>> news:fiaumn023dk@news1.newsguy,com ...
> ...
>>> "Any discussion of recording technology has to note one
>>> intriguing quirk in the story: Few musicians have been
>>> audiophiles. More than the average music-loving
>>> amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
>>> between recorded music and the real thing. They can
>>> listen through the inadequacies of any recording and
>>> focus on what they want to hear."
> ...
>> So what? Does this mean the hobby of trying to recreate
>> sound via recordings of the highest possible level is,
>> was, and always had been, illegitimate? I don't think
>> so, nor would all those folks back in the late
>> 50's, 60's, and 70's who led the assault on mediocrity.
>> And who gave meaning to the term high-fidelity.
>
> I think what it shows is that musicians and music
> listeners are not the same people and do not listen to
> music the same way.
Close. It shows that audiophiles listen to music in different ways than
musicians and music lovers.
Re: Audiophile in an iPod World
"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:fic9s802ols@news4.newsguy,com
> So what? Does this mean the hobby of trying to recreate
> sound via recordings of the highest possible level is,
> was, and always had been, illegitimate?
Wow! What a defensive reaction!
Recreating an experience via recordings, at the highest possible level is
what audio has been about for over 100 years.
> I don't think so, nor would all those folks back in the late 50's,
> 60's, and 70's who led the assault on mediocrity.
Wow! What a boomer-generation-centric view of the history of audio.
Don't you think that say the transistion from acoustic playback of
recordings to electrical playback of recordings back in the 1920s was part
of the same process?
> And who gave meaning to the term high-fidelity.
Higher-fidelity has always been the game plan. Even the transition from no
recordings to tinfoil recordings was part of the ongoing process.
"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:fic9s802ols@news4.newsguy,com
> So what? Does this mean the hobby of trying to recreate
> sound via recordings of the highest possible level is,
> was, and always had been, illegitimate?
Wow! What a defensive reaction!
Recreating an experience via recordings, at the highest possible level is
what audio has been about for over 100 years.
> I don't think so, nor would all those folks back in the late 50's,
> 60's, and 70's who led the assault on mediocrity.
Wow! What a boomer-generation-centric view of the history of audio.
Don't you think that say the transistion from acoustic playback of
recordings to electrical playback of recordings back in the 1920s was part
of the same process?
> And who gave meaning to the term high-fidelity.
Higher-fidelity has always been the game plan. Even the transition from no
recordings to tinfoil recordings was part of the ongoing process.
Re: Audiophile in an iPod World
On Nov 24, 8:46 pm, bob <nabo...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at the state of
> audio:
>
> http :// snipurl,com /1u5mx
>
> He frames his article with a false comparison between Stereo Review
> and Gramophone,
I didn't take what he wrote as a comparison at all, but anyway...
> but in between he makes some cogent observations. One
> such:
>
> "Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
> quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
> average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
> between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
> inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."
>
> bob
I think that Anthony is largely correct here (as he usually is, IMHO.
He's a fine writer and he knows the classical music world very well.
He's probably the most important reviewer in the world at this point).
In my case, my listening listening for study and listening for
pleasure alone are really seperate activities. For example, some of
my best listening for study is done on my iPod when on walks or during
long lunches that I take three days a week in my car at a beautiful
beach location. The thought of instrumental/vocal timbres, soundstage
reproduction, etc. almost never enter my thoughts during those times.
When I listen to my home system, the music is still the most important
consideration, but I do listen much more for "stereo" things than I do
when I'm listening for study. It's almost like two very seperate
activities that happen to have music and sound in common.
I do have colleagues that care a great deal about the quality of music
reproduction in their homes. I know a hornist in the SF Symphony who
is a full-blown "audiophile", for example. And the great Michael
Tilson Thomas is an audiophile for sure (his system: Martin Logan
Sequel IIs, Oracle turntable, Audio Research amps, I forget the CD
player, etc.) Frederick Fennell was a self-described "stereo nut".
His last system was put together for him by Stan Ricker.
Now that I think of it, most of the pro musicians who are audiophiles
that I know are conductors. Interesting...
On Nov 24, 8:46 pm, bob <nabo...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> Anthony Tommasini, a classical music reviewer, looks at the state of
> audio:
>
> http :// snipurl,com /1u5mx
>
> He frames his article with a false comparison between Stereo Review
> and Gramophone,
I didn't take what he wrote as a comparison at all, but anyway...
> but in between he makes some cogent observations. One
> such:
>
> "Any discussion of recording technology has to note one intriguing
> quirk in the story: Few musicians have been audiophiles. More than the
> average music-loving amateur, working musicians understand the big gap
> between recorded music and the real thing. They can listen through the
> inadequacies of any recording and focus on what they want to hear."
>
> bob
I think that Anthony is largely correct here (as he usually is, IMHO.
He's a fine writer and he knows the classical music world very well.
He's probably the most important reviewer in the world at this point).
In my case, my listening listening for study and listening for
pleasure alone are really seperate activities. For example, some of
my best listening for study is done on my iPod when on walks or during
long lunches that I take three days a week in my car at a beautiful
beach location. The thought of instrumental/vocal timbres, soundstage
reproduction, etc. almost never enter my thoughts during those times.
When I listen to my home system, the music is still the most important
consideration, but I do listen much more for "stereo" things than I do
when I'm listening for study. It's almost like two very seperate
activities that happen to have music and sound in common.
I do have colleagues that care a great deal about the quality of music
reproduction in their homes. I know a hornist in the SF Symphony who
is a full-blown "audiophile", for example. And the great Michael
Tilson Thomas is an audiophile for sure (his system: Martin Logan
Sequel IIs, Oracle turntable, Audio Research amps, I forget the CD
player, etc.) Frederick Fennell was a self-described "stereo nut".
His last system was put together for him by Stan Ricker.
Now that I think of it, most of the pro musicians who are audiophiles
that I know are conductors. Interesting...
