Non philes/music lovers and the cost of audio ? ? ?

sure, I love going out for live music but as far as the SQ is concerned I find live acoustic music to be best replicated on a quality home system.

 

I actually had a buddy of mine become wowed last night from something similar. He has heard plenty about how vinyl is supposed to sound good and all that, kept saying he listens to stuff on youtube and other things he had downloaded. he came over last night and mind you, I don't have the greatest system by any means but it definitely can produce some decent sound. I played The Misfits - Walk Among Us from 1982. yes it is punk but still. He was amazed. he also is a bit younger than I so he never received lyrics with his digital albums. I gave him the lyrics sheet to follow along with while he listened. His jaw about hit the floor haha. he had heard this before but never like this. He also was fascinated with the crazy lyrics and everything else about it. I personally enjoy sharing these things. especially with people who have not experienced them and can appreciate them. for the past little while he has now been discussing turntables, speakers and amps and wants to learn more. all fun for me! oh, and to point out why I quoted, he said all his downloaded versions of the misfits sound nothing like the vinyl and now must have the quality. hopefully an audiophile in the making.

 

I've got three very similar systems between two home that get most listening time. Two of them are practically the same in that I have Marantz integrated amps (PM8004 and PM6004) matched to NHT SuperOne 2.1 speakers. While I've got CD players in the system, I rarely use them these days preferring streaming. I find myself totally engaged with my music (which is mostly acoustic jazz) but I'm really impressed with vocals from singers like Sinatra, Diane Krall, and many of the classic vocalists. However, playing Quadrophenia isn't the same experience as when I saw the lads perform it at the LA Forum back in the day. Regardless, I am completely engaged with listening to music from these rather modest systems.

 

I have had quite a few interested parties check out my gear at my house, I think the tube amp draws the most attention, everyone asks more and more questions but of course cost is always one thing that comes up. I generally will help out in selecting a basic setup for them just so they can enjoy and listen to music comfortably and see what there is hidden that they haven't heard before. luckily this atleast sparks interests in people in my age group. my parents think it is fantastic that I care so much for my audio equipment (and of course laughed at first because I was going back to what they always used to use). my folks never could afford good sound systems or anything like that for quite some time growing up in Midwest on farms and then selling everything to move to Alaska. of course all that has changed now and have a great sound system. anyway, I just enjoy sharing with people that have interest in this. I miss when I could just listen to my music and not have any worries, just let it wash over me, people are so plugged into their phones nowadays that it is fantastic when I see a friend put their phone down while the record is spinning because they actually want to listen to it. just sharing. a little off topic! apologies!

 

Yeah, and let's not forget bad public sound systems. I've only been to a handful of concerts where the audio was stellar - usually those were acoustic/folk performances in very small venues. Many more have been disappointing sound wise. Recent poor-sounding examples from those I attended last year: Paul McCartney, Depeche Mode.

 

Wait, what?

You prefer recorded acoustic music to live acoustic music? Me no understand.

 

Yep,me too.

 

I understand, to an extent.

The room may not be ideal for the sound. The location where you are seated may not be ideal for the sound. At least with a recording I get the advantage of always being the equivalent of front row center. Listening to a string quartet from front row far right is not the same, and is certainly a compromised listening location.

And listening live means you sometimes end up listening to music that you aren't exactly in the mood for. I could be listening to the best live acoustic performance of some slow and emotional classical piece. But if I'm feeling more in the mood for upbeat bluegrass at the time I'm not likely to be able to get in to and appreciate what is being played. At home I get to choose what to play and can play what suits my mood at the time. It's much easier to get in to the music when it suits the mood you are in and when it fits with what your current musical interest is at the time.

 

Totally agree with this. When concentrating on the sound at a concert (best done with your eyes shut) I've often thought the quality of it really isn't something I'd want to replicate at home as such - especially non-acoustic performances. The scale and impact is another thing.

On the original subject, I really wouldn't have thought if a few years ago (when first getting properly in to hifi) that I'd eventually spend as much on the gear/upgrades as I since have; but such has been the priority-reward feedback loop. Most friends are amazed at the cost but also the perfomance of my (albeit midrange) system- mainly because it's just the first time they've seen someone choose to put their money/interest there. It's new to them. Some same friends happily spend hundreds or thousands on bike upgrades for weekend jaunts - their priority, cool. A few have also gone away and re-thought and improved their hifi systems. And I always say money spent well in used and ex-demo stuff really isn't dead money.

 

I don't think "preference" is the right word. In reference to being able recreate the SQ of a live concert, I feel I can come closer to doing that if we are talking about an acoustic performance.

The part a about seeing something live, being a part of a crowd that is in some way impacting the performance and the celebratory aspects of live concert can't be replicated at home. But then again, my home can't be replicated in a concert venue.

I really like seeing live music, I'm doing it tonight, and it is how I got interested in audio equipment and sound reproduction.

I'll never have a million dollar Meyers Sound Constellation system in my house (nor would it work in a house) but I would certainly say I have beat the SQ of many concerts with what I can do at home. I don't need ear plugs at home to keep my ears from ringing for the next three days, I have been to several concerts this year where that was not the case.

 

The prices of what? The extreme high end? All audio gear that can't be bought n a big box store?

 

Agree much. My generation, no I dont want to get into one of those arguments, always listened to music the way we do. Back then Friends would come over after I bought an album from Record World or Korvettes and we would listen intensely. Discuss the tracks, the sound, the songs themselves, the EQ settings all bathed in the looks and smells of the posters on all 5 surfaces of the room. It was just the way it was done in those days from the Tube to SS turnover and the so-called Golden Age of negative feedback receivers which were really alright in many respects. Turn down the treble though, they scream. I loved my Sansui 5050 receiver and KLH 32? speakers (prickly feeling blue color woofers) with a Garrard/Stanton setup.
Understand your view much, John M.

 

That sure brings back memories for me. I recall the days when a friend or myself would purchase an LP and a group of us would gather round and listen, then discuss what we heard what we liked and didn't about the album. No easily distracted people answering text messages or cel phones, just a group of enthusiast young folks getting lost in music's seduction.

 

With recorded acoustic music, what you lose in purity of tone you gain in volume and focus. And very frequently, a room that records well is not good for the audience. There's an aspect of 'tactile proximity' that gets lost in the translation from live to canned, but there are ways to produce more of that effect if one desires to go in that direction. That's what the tubes 'n' vinyl crowd is all about. When it comes to unamplified guitar, harpsichord or piano, it's easier to get the right volume and focus with a recording than 'live.' It's a lot easier to place the microphone in exactly the right spot than getting an audience seat in exactly the right spot.

 

I'm not sure I can agree with that. I reckon an acoustic guitar is going to sound more like an acoustic guitar when it's a guitar. Not a recorded guitar. In all but the most acoustically unfriendly circumstances. Plus, you know, watching musicians instead of Records spinning.

 

I close my eyes in both situations, when closely listening, musicians can be more distracting than a turntable.

 

An acoustic guitar, played in a large reverberant room without amplification, doesn't sound like much. When I heard Christopher Parkening in Ambassador Auditorium I didn't hear much. When I recorded Hopkinson Smith playing lute, he was more audible to me [with my microphones a few feet away from the instrument] than any member of the audience. By the time one was three rows back it was hard to hear much of anything. I wonder if you're thinking of amplified acoustic instruments. Of course, that doesn't sound as much like 'the real thing' as P.A. amplification always adds the colorations of there microphone, amp and speakers into the mix.

 

I haven't read all the posts but I get the gist of this thread. Thirty years of my career was spent in the HiFi trade and 17 of them with a well known audio chain in Western Canada. Although that chain offered audio from cheap to expensive, about 50% of audio sales were ~ $1000 packages. An instance came to mind as I was reading whereby a woman came in interested in a Sony system. In a sound room I set one up for her which she liked and wished to buy. During the presentation, she mentioned being a musician - acoustic guitar and piano. Before leaving the sound room, I suggested she listen to a 35 watt Luxman receiver on sale for the same price as the BOTL Sony she just heard. She allowed me to demo it with the speakers she picked and agreed it did sound noticeably better but wanted the Sony anyway. The reason was that her "audiophile"'uncle told her to buy Sony. Sometimes people, even those who appreciate what an instrument sounds like pick playback equipment for questionable reasons.

 

I believe that some people listen to music in a very different way than your typical audiophile. I don't so much mean the younger earbud and iPhone crowd, but some people seem to respond to something in music that isn't actually improved upon very much with higher resolving systems. For example, I know a few musicians who really seem to focus on very different aspects of the music and "better" sounding gear doesn't really seem to add much to their enjoyment so it's not a priority for them.

I would put my wife in that category: she loves music as much as any rabid audiophile, has a huge music collection and she's heard plenty of good sounding systems, but if it were up to her we'd just have a Bose sound dock and be done with it. It's not that she can't hear the things that a high end system brings to the party, it's more a case of those things just not moving her significantly.

 

It's true that even audiophiles focus on different aspects of sound reproduction. Some favor dynamics, some need accurate timbre and balanced tonal equalization/frequency response. Others like a smooth presentation, with no brightness, sibilance, compression and/or noise reduction artifacts. I tend to like a very nicely blooming wide soundstage presentation with imaging clarity and focus. But I also want a non-fatiguing sound that isn't harsh in the treble. I like a tight bass articulation and depth without boom or overhang, even if it sounds a little bit lean in the mid-bass sometimes - I don't like bass to overwhelm or obscure other voices in a recording, but it shouldn't be weak either.

 

When I first met my wife, I had my own 3BR home with (of course) a listening room. She made fun of me to her friends saying that I have a room with just a chair staring at a stereo. Why did we marry again?

Yeah, I bought the wife a big ol' Smart TV and guess what...she still only uses the SD channels. It is like pulling teeth to get her to use the HD channels.

 

This is exactly right

 

As a salesman back in 1978-82 for CrazyEddies on Long Island and customer at same store from 1972-1980, I would get the same responses. My own Mother a classically trained pianist and teacher would do the same thing. "Get the Sony". Unless it was in the previous decade of the 1960s then a Fisher would be the go to receiver and higher end ofcourse would go for Mac, Marantz, and consoles with BSR turntables and wonderful real great wood carpentry. It is true that even if you heard a sound more to your likening a customer would buy what company they were used to or was popular at the moment. They would betray their ears!

In the late 60s to75 or so and GE and Magnavox, Quasar, department brands-which were rebaged Matsushita products were the video and sometimes audio mainstays for the average husband and wife team. They were good in general at the electronics end-all in one stereos, TVs, clock radios but for speakers nevermind.
We used to say to customers, and it worked many times, that Japanese speakers were only good for Japanese music. The systems that went out the doors during the heyday of the mid 70s was a Sansui,Pioneer,Marantz or Kenwood receiver or intergrated and a Dual,Garrard turntable and then KLH,BIC,AR,Boston Acoustics, Cerwin Vega or JBL speaker setup depending on your East coast/West coast taste in tweeter character and ported or not ported bass reflex.
The cost for decent music reproduction set back my grandparents and then my parents during the 60s about 40% the price of a 1965 Chevy Impala SS. After my father passed away about a year ago I was going through some old papers and the Stereo system that included some of the better brands cost about 1200 dollars. The Chevy cost him 1977 dollars. When all things that mattered were made in the USA it cost a pretty penny (Autos were still a good deal but quality by the 70s was waning)but the Necessities of Living were very Cheap-food,electric,housing and automobiles so the luxuries like great Audio and video cost more and that made sense to me.

To live and breath and raise a family was possible on a meager one parent salary and only the extras in life were costly. Now its the opposite. The things you need are costly and home entertainment (Computers, phones and Ipod audio and the like) is a cheap proposition.
So the thinking and arguments are different and can be very convoluted for persons who lived in those days and are still going strong now.

Like the OP tmsorosk said in his opening post and a few times later how people spend their money and what is important to them has changed or the price has changed,not sure yet, and hense the Markets have reflected that and prices for everything theirof is the proof.
Im like tmsorosk and many others that would not spend for things "Away" from the home-vacations,clubs, bars, for lack of a better argument. Im one of the money stays in the home guys with expenditures on housing, furniture, Audio/Video. Im not as fortunate to be able to do both with verve so the importance is the comforts of home and in the home. The people that spend big bucks on Audio are audio and audio gear lovers because costs of living are prohibitive. Good sound can be had for the cheap but not the sound that most here strive for-close but no cigar. Just my opinion with some experience, take care and enjoy life wherever you can find it, John M.

 

Not a great picture to make the point but thoses hanging stacks of jbl's made quite a good sound especially when i was center stage about 15ft back. I've not heard any home system that can reproduce that sq.

The second band was bluegrass act and at one point they did a single mic all acoustic segment. I can assure you all that if i had a sbd copy of that portion it would sound better on my couch than it did live.

 

Please John call me Tim , I'd be honored.