Has the changes in popular music has an effect in how we buy audio equipment today? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Has the changes in popular music has an effect in how we buy audio equipment today?



Pages : [1] 2

melvin walker
01-16-2008, 12:38 PM
The great musical arrangers are no longer around such as Paul Weston , Nelson Riddle , Henry Mancini , Gordon Jenkins etc. The great musical scores are a thing of the past
example : Laura , Stella By Starlight , As Time goes By etc.

The beautiful lush strings and background music is only a memory another example Jackie Gleason , Percy Faith , Mantovani etc.
Broadway with great composers and lyricists such a Lerner and Lowe , Rogers and Hart Hammerstein , George an Ira Gershwin etc.


The singers Sinatra , Cole , Crosby , Day , Ella , Sarah , Como etc.
The sound was less intrusive , more defined, more intimate.
Does not audio equipment also reflect that change also , surround sound , ipod ,amplified everything , loud is in soft out.
The issue is not what is better but what is different. Times have changed.

The LP appeared to capture that sound , tube equipment softened it , and speakers of that era played it.
Rock , Country , Rap ,etc just appear not to work out. The new audio equipment is at home with the changes that has taken place over the past decades. What do you think ?

johnny p
01-16-2008, 12:54 PM
I think there are a lot of powerful scores out there. Pans Labrynth is one example, but there are many.

Old equipment isn't out of date because of the changes in music, it's like cameras, even respected photographers have picked up digital cameras. The technology is better now, and you can get better equipment than you could 3 years ago.

That's just the way it is.....

melvin walker
01-16-2008, 01:53 PM
I think there are a lot of powerful scores out there. Pans Labrynth is one example, but there are many.

Old equipment isn't out of date because of the changes in music, it's like cameras, even respected photographers have picked up digital cameras. The technology is better now, and you can get better equipment than you could 3 years ago.

That's just the way it is.....

The question , was not comparing old equipment with new equipment. Cameras are video , humans see better than they hear. Even the big cats eyes are not as specialized as humans , they see better at night, we can see colors and we also have three dimension , not so with cats, also it is easier to fool the ears than the eyes.
Are you comparing Pans Labrynth with Gershwin , Porter , Rogers , Berlin etc. ? John Williams is more recent he very much could be compared. Who are the others ?
Music can be played on old , new , good or bad audio equipment.

The names listed in the previous post are creators of musical scores and arrangers of music not photographers.

mlsstl
01-16-2008, 02:47 PM
You could take your laundry list of composers and complain that none of them wrote like Mozart, Vivaldi or Bach. They wrote "popular music" in their day.

You can select well known artists and composers from any particular period in time in history and you'll find they didn't write and sing like the people before them nor the people afterwards. There is nothing surprising there.

And of course, musicians have always changed their works to use the instruments available to them. The invention of the microphone, speaker and tube amplifier changed the way popular music was played and sounded. The vocal skills that were necessary for a singer to be heard without amplification in a concert hall diminished in importance when mikes, amps and speakers arrived on the scene.

Before that, around 1700, a fellow named Cristofori changed the music world when he invented the modern piano. Prior to that, keyboard instruments were not capable of playing very loud. Afterwards, composers and artists changed the way they wrote and played music.

And I'm sure there were people who complained about those changes in music due to the piano just as others bemoaned that amplified speakers in theaters were causing a loss of skills in the music world.

While our favorite artists (or their styles) may not be as popular as they were years ago, I'm happy with the way things are today. I can listen to pre-Cristofori harpsichord music if I want or post-Cristofori piano music by great composers. I can listen to my collection of Ella Fitzgerald or I can listen to Thea Gilmore or Lucinda Williams. I happen to like 'em all. Big Band? Not a problem - Artie Shaw is right there on my music server just waiting for me to press the play button, as is the latest Gogol Bordello album.

And they all sound great on my stereo.

Ajani
01-16-2008, 02:55 PM
The great musical arrangers are no longer around such as Paul Weston , Nelson Riddle , Henry Mancini , Gordon Jenkins etc. The great musical scores are a thing of the past
example : Laura , Stella By Starlight , As Time goes By etc.

The beautiful lush strings and background music is only a memory another example Jackie Gleason , Percy Faith , Mantovani etc.
Broadway with great composers and lyricists such a Lerner and Lowe , Rogers and Hart Hammerstein , George an Ira Gershwin etc.


The singers Sinatra , Cole , Crosby , Day , Ella , Sarah , Como etc.
The sound was less intrusive , more defined, more intimate.
Does not audio equipment also reflect that change also , surround sound , ipod ,amplified everything , loud is in soft out.
The issue is not what is better but what is different. Times have changed.

The LP appeared to capture that sound , tube equipment softened it , and speakers of that era played it.
Rock , Country , Rap ,etc just appear not to work out. The new audio equipment is at home with the changes that has taken place over the past decades. What do you think ?

Times change, Music changes and so too does equipment.

However, you need to keep in mind that audio equipment handles different genres of music differently... eg... Klipsch has a strong reputation for Rock, B&W for classical, Monitor Audio for Pop etc.... so equipment of today is quite diverse in sound. Thus, if you look hard enough, you can probably find some products well suited for the style of music you like.

melvin walker
01-16-2008, 03:07 PM
Times change, Music changes and so too does equipment.

However, you need to keep in mind that audio equipment handles different genres of music differently... eg... Klipsch has a strong reputation for Rock, B&W for classical, Monitor Audio for Pop etc.... so equipment of today is quite diverse in sound. Thus, if you look hard enough, you can probably find some products well suited for the style of music you like.

Excellent point. Who would have thought that Klipsch would would work so well with rock. Paul Klipsch in 1940 developed the Kilpscchorn in a different time for very different music. Your first statement I totally agree with and your last statement is also excellent.

melvin walker
01-16-2008, 03:22 PM
You could take your laundry list of composers and complain that none of them wrote like Mozart, Vivaldi or Bach. They wrote "popular music" in their day.

You can select well known artists and composers from any particular period in time in history and you'll find they didn't write and sing like the people before them nor the people afterwards. There is nothing surprising there.

And of course, musicians have always changed their works to use the instruments available to them. The invention of the microphone, speaker and tube amplifier changed the way popular music was played and sounded. The vocal skills that were necessary for a singer to be heard without amplification in a concert hall diminished in importance when mikes, amps and speakers arrived on the scene.

Before that, around 1700, a fellow named Cristofori changed the music world when he invented the modern piano. Prior to that, keyboard instruments were not capable of playing very loud. Afterwards, composers and artists changed the way they wrote and played music.

And I'm sure there were people who complained about those changes in music due to the piano just as others bemoaned that amplified speakers in theaters were causing a loss of skills in the music world.

While our favorite artists (or their styles) may not be as popular as they were years ago, I'm happy with the way things are today. I can listen to pre-Cristofori harpsichord music if I want or post-Cristofori piano music by great composers. I can listen to my collection of Ella Fitzgerald or I can listen to Thea Gilmore or Lucinda Williams. I happen to like 'em all. Big Band? Not a problem - Artie Shaw is right there on my music server just waiting for me to press the play button, as is the latest Gogol Bordello album.

And they all sound great on my stereo.
Your musical history, is complementary. I can only add that we Americans create a music that is American. Broadway , and Music for Hollywood. Great music halls such as Avery Fisher Hall , Carnegie Hall etc.

I think that we both can agree , we would both not wish to see the great composers , singers, and arrangers forgotten and also the pioneers of American audio such as Avery Fisher . Saul Marantz , James Lansing etc.
The question is has the differences in music effected audio equipment. Remember the harpsicord was available to only the wealthy and so was the piano.
Recorded sound made music available to the average citizen. So there is a difference.

JohnMichael
01-16-2008, 03:25 PM
Melvin intersting thoughts. I listen to a lot of music you mention. Sarah, Ella and Frank on vinyl in my collection is played frequently. I listen to a lot of Gershwin by many artists as well as the young Joshua Bell and Michael Tilson Thomas. Recording technique has changed through the years as has technology. My system is fairly neutral and allows me to enjoy music from many periods.

I find it intersting to listen to an early classical composition and then compare it to what modern composers are doing today. Music like equipment has evolved. Tastes evolve as they have in any art. I have listened to music or examined a painting and not liked it. Then at another time I find I can enjoy the art or the music. Music for instance I have found that as my system has improved so is my enjoyment of a broader base of music.

When I think of music, recording and reproduction When one evolves I think it must push the others to new levels. As music became more complicated, dynamic and wider in frequencies the recording systems needed to be improved to capture the improvements which drove the home stereo to higher levels.

I think the lush strings of the past were not only the taste of the musical public but of importance to those recording the music. Certainly some older speakers were lush sounding which contributed further to the sound.

Yesterday I played "Rhapsody in Blue" on vinyl and later dropped Godsmack into the cd player. Two different types of music from different times. Both sounded good to me and conveyed the music.

bobsticks
01-16-2008, 04:03 PM
Absolutely the popularity of certain genres of music has changed the nature of some equipment. Fortunately we live in an era of almost endless possibilities and one can alter or customize their system to optimize their priorities, although admittedly this can be costly in both time and money.

I was about to attribute this to Buckley, but I think it was William Rusher that said--" The youth have always had, and probably will always have, a natural hankering for a less demanding, more accomodating world--a world in which the charms of irresponsibility are not so harshly penalized." The penalty for the Ipod generation, of course, is a reduction in sound quality...although I think it's a premature generalisation to attribute a complete and willful ignorance or apathy to that.

I'm proud to announce that the things of the past shall not be forgotten. The greatest thing we have going for us is the lessons and stepping stones of the past, both in accumulated knowledge and cultural experience. Most young people learn this sooner or later.

Melvin, may I suggest Diana Krall's Live In Paris? While you may find that Ms. Krall is not to your favor, you'd be hard pressed to convince even yourself that she and her magnificently talented band are anything short of reverent for the music of years gone by. There are many other examples of this, but as this product is available at any department, discount or video store, the mass availability of it tells me that it does not fall on deaf ears

It's out there, one must just reach out and grab it.

bobsticks
01-16-2008, 04:04 PM
Yesterday I played "Rhapsody in Blue" on vinyl and later dropped Godsmack into the cd player. Two different types of music from different times. Both sounded good to me and conveyed the music.

JM, you're full of surprises...

mlsstl
01-16-2008, 04:34 PM
Recorded sound made music available to the average citizen. So there is a difference.
I'd disagree with that statement to the extent that music has always been available to the average citizen. Mozart wrote many of his operas for the common folk - operas were the mass entertainment of the day back then. The only catch is that you had to go to the theater to see the performance. Church music for centuries was a way of communicating the liturgy to the common folk in an enjoyable way. People have gone to dances and concerts for probably as long as man has made music. People even learned to play musical instruments for their own enjoyment.

The advent of recorded music didn't expose people to music for the first time, it simply made it available in the home. People could listen at their convenience even if they didn't play. Prior to that even rich people had to have live musicians if they wanted music.

One catch is that as something becomes more commonplace, we tend to take things for granted. Many people probably don't appreciate music as much as they might have in the old days, but that is also true for things like cars, TVs and telephones. Welcome to the modern world and just think what its going to be like as we continue down the road of increasing technology.

That said, Ella Fitzgerald and her kin will no more be "forgotten" than Mozart or Bach have been forgotten. Sure, they are not going to get a lot of air time on the radio or TV, and their million seller days are long gone, but that is life. The people who care about that music have it available. Young people here and there will continue to discover the magic that music has to offer, but it is likely not to be on the same widespread level as during their heyday. (Even then there are exceptions. Tony Bennett experienced a resurgence of popularity with the young crowd a few years back.)

JohnMichael
01-16-2008, 04:40 PM
JM, you're full of surprises...




The local audio/music store staff used to refer to me as the towns oldest headbanger. I would have a recording of music by Erik Satie and a cd by Disturbed. Heavy metal helps me work out my inner rages.

Rich-n-Texas
01-16-2008, 05:14 PM
JM, you're full of surprises...
Yeah, full of surprises. Just when I thought I had him hatin' on somedody he gets all diplomatic 'n sh!t...
:incazzato:

frenchmon
01-16-2008, 07:05 PM
Absolutely the popularity of certain genres of music has changed the nature of some equipment. Fortunately we live in an era of almost endless possibilities and one can alter or customize their system to optimize their priorities, although admittedly this can be costly in both time and money.

I was about to attribute this to Buckley, but I think it was William Rusher that said--" The youth have always had, and probably will always have, a natural hankering for a less demanding, more accomodating world--a world in which the charms of irresponsibility are not so harshly penalized." The penalty for the Ipod generation, of course, is a reduction in sound quality...although I think it's a premature generalisation to attribute a complete and willful ignorance or apathy to that.

I'm proud to announce that the things of the past shall not be forgotten. The greatest thing we have going for us is the lessons and stepping stones of the past, both in accumulated knowledge and cultural experience. Most young people learn this sooner or later.

Melvin, may I suggest Diana Krall's Live In Paris? While you may find that Ms. Krall is not to your favor, you'd be hard pressed to convince even yourself that she and her magnificently talented band are anything short of reverent for the music of years gone by. There are many other examples of this, but as this product is available at any department, discount or video store, the mass availability of it tells me that it does not fall on deaf ears

It's out there, one must just reach out and grab it.

Oh I love Diana Krall..But I love Eliane Elias better! Ever heard of her?

frenchmon

bobsticks
01-16-2008, 07:59 PM
Oh I love Diana Krall..But I love Eliane Elias better! Ever heard of her?

frenchmon

Nope, but I'll keep an eye and an ear out. Thanks for the recommendation.

noddin0ff
01-17-2008, 05:02 AM
The singers Sinatra , Cole , Crosby , Day , Ella , Sarah , Como etc.
The sound was less intrusive , more defined, more intimate.
Does not audio equipment also reflect that change also , surround sound , ipod ,amplified everything , loud is in soft out.
The issue is not what is better but what is different. Times have changed.


We'll if I remember my History of American Pop Song course I took 25+ years ago...it was advances in audio technology and sensitivity of amplification that allowed this new breed of intimate crooner's to come into being. Prior to their era, amplification and recording was not as sensitive, therefore for a singer to be heard they really had to belt out a tune, sacrificing dynamics. IOW, it is precisely the advance in electronics and heightened dynamics that allowed intimate recordings. And this is how it goes, new technology - new creative styles to take advantage of new possibilities.

Now, as soon as technology advances to the point of time travel, then maybe those that chose can climb in and go back and live forever in the past...

Feanor
01-17-2008, 05:44 AM
...

The sound was less intrusive , more defined, more intimate.
Does not audio equipment also reflect that change also , surround sound , ipod ,amplified everything , loud is in soft out.
The issue is not what is better but what is different. Times have changed.

The LP appeared to capture that sound , tube equipment softened it , and speakers of that era played it.
Rock , Country , Rap ,etc just appear not to work out. The new audio equipment is at home with the changes that has taken place over the past decades. What do you think ?

Music per se has likely influenced what enthusiasts what buy. Beginning in the '50s with the growing influence of rock & roll and subgenres, I would propose that dynamics, (macro and micro), took on a greater importance. (This is what the Brits started to call "Pace, rhythm, and timining" or "PRaT", even though these terms seem more appropriate to describe performance rather than reproduction.) Lushness is not major priority with many people today, though tube equipment amongst audiophiles is a more popular than at any time since the widescale introduction of solid state.

The other factor today is the most enthusiasts are looking for duel-purpose, music and home theatre equipment, that this is no doubt an even bigger factor. HT demands digital signal processing, "DSP", and hence appropriate receivers or pre/pros. And again for HT, dynamics is more important than smoothness for the majority.

As for my own instance, I have both a stereo music system and a multichannel HT system. The latter, unfortunately I would say, is pretty typically modern one. What I'd really like would be a multichannel music system like my stereo system that has tube and smoother-sounding components.

By the way the OPPO has landed :cornut: So yesterday I listened to a couple of M/C pieces on my HT setup. With good recordings M/C certainly delivers realistic sense of ambience that stereo cannot -- sorry, folks, no real debate is possible on this point. Now if only my HT system was as nice as my stereo.
...

GMichael
01-17-2008, 06:30 AM
Sniff sniff... I get so worked up in side when I see our little family pull together like this.

Rich-n-Texas
01-17-2008, 07:00 AM
Just more of the same 'ol same 'ol IMO.

melvin walker
01-17-2008, 07:20 AM
We'll if I remember my History of American Pop Song course I took 25+ years ago...it was advances in audio technology and sensitivity of amplification that allowed this new breed of intimate crooner's to come into being. Prior to their era, amplification and recording was not as sensitive, therefore for a singer to be heard they really had to belt out a tune, sacrificing dynamics. IOW, it is precisely the advance in electronics and heightened dynamics that allowed intimate recordings. And this is how it goes, new technology - new creative styles to take advantage of new possibilities.

Now, as soon as technology advances to the point of time travel, then maybe those that chose can climb in and go back and live forever in the past...

It was the advance in technology that changed pop music forever. The microphone eliminated the tenor in pop music. pop singers using the microphone was able to become more intimate , to appear to sing to the individual. Bing Crosby was the first
major pop singer to take advantage of the new technology. Other singers notably Frank Sinatra improved on this new form of singing , and pop music would never be the same.

Baritones became the kings of pop music , the tenor would not appear again until Elvis Presley 40+ years later.
Today music is much less intimate reverting back to the days when intimacy was not used. Technology has improved , it has allowed those with little ability to prosper.
Popular music overall has gotten away from composition and melody. The song has taken second place to the singer.
Example " Stardust " has been recorded over 2400 times more than any other song. " Laura " over 1000 times.

There are few standards being produced today. Home entertainment systems is more
video than audio. Surround sound is more about effects than audio quality. I am speaking in general. Bose systems are examples of gimmicks rather than quality of sound.
Ipod I have read is inferior in quality to CD's , but it is new and we are seeing CD's began to take a backseat to Ipod's. Quality is no longer the issue , newness is.
It appears audio is moving into a new era .So has pop music, At one time the Academy Awards held it's breath when the music award was presented.
Recently the Awards thought of removing that category from the Awards , because of the low quality of the music that has become forgettable.
What songs have won the awards for the best music in the last five years ?

markw
01-17-2008, 07:32 AM
Cheez, mel. You were doing so good until you had to up your BS factor.


Popular music overall has gotten away from composition and melody. The song has taken second place to the singer.
Example " Stardust " has been recorded over 2400 times more than any other song. " Laura " over 1000 times

You're getting lost in your own BS again.

"Yesterday" is a pop song originally recorded by The Beatles for their album Help! (1965). According to the Guinness Book of Records, "Yesterday" has the most cover versions of any song ever written. The song remains popular today with more than 3000 recorded cover versions, the first hitting the United Kingdom top 10 three months after the release of Help!. BMI asserts that it was performed over seven million times in the 20th century alone, probably cementing the song as the most performed composition of all time. "Yesterday" was voted the best song of the 20th Century, in a 1999 BBC Radio 2 poll of music experts and listeners - despite never being a UK number one single.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yesterday_(song)

And, it's been around less time than the songs you mention.

Times change. Technogies change. Tastes Change. You don't.

Take this little intrusion into your own personal "reality" as a little warning. don't make me do a line-by-line analysis on your posts again.

GMichael
01-17-2008, 08:08 AM
So much for that group hug I was planning.

Groundbeef
01-17-2008, 09:02 AM
Today music is much less intimate reverting back to the days when intimacy was not used. Technology has improved , it has allowed those with little ability to prosper.



So says you. Just because you don't enjoy a genre of music doesn't make them of "little ability".

I think if anything, technology today has allowed many more people to become involved in music. Think of all musicians of yesteryear who were denied the opportunity to produce/distribute music because someone in an office in NY or LA didn't "like" them or the music.

Now with the advent of technology, small musicians can play, record, and distribute on YouTube, MySpace, etc without needing "approval" from snobby, elitist, blowhards such as yourself Mr. Walker.

Just like 50 years ago, if you don't like the music thats on, turn it off.

Groundbeef
01-17-2008, 09:05 AM
So much for that group hug I was planning.

I thought you were all hugged out after the Christmas party. Geeze, even Santa had to tell you to back off.

GMichael
01-17-2008, 09:22 AM
I thought you were all hugged out after the Christmas party. Geeze, even Santa had to tell you to back off.

Don't let Santa fool you. Didn't you see what he was packin' for me after that hug?

mlsstl
01-17-2008, 09:33 AM
We're noticing a pattern here, Melvin. It would seem in your world that the history of music did not begin until sometime in the 1930s or so, and it looks like it ended someplace in the 1950s. It would appear that everything that happened before and since are irrelevant in your book.

Humans behave like humans; it doesn't matter at which point in history you look at their goings-on. It was guaranteed on the day that Bing Crosby became wildly popular in the US that at some point down the road he would forfeit his crown to other singers, other styles of music and other fads. The music that is immensely popular with the public right now is doomed to the same fate.

Certainly technology plays a part in that, but it has always played an important role as witnessed by the example I gave of how musical styles changed when the modern piano was invented some 300 years ago.

Sure, the invention of mikes, amps and speakers "changed pop music forever" but changing musical styles due to technology was true before. A couple of years back, the Brookhaven National Laboratory documented the age of several Chinese flutes as between 7,000 and 9,000 years old. They are the first known multi-note musical instruments. You think maybe these might have had a radical impact on the style and manner of the music played by our ancestors? I think one could state that the invention of these flutes "changed pop music forever." And there are certainly technologies in use today that were not available 10, 25 or 50 years that are having a permanent impact on how musicians make the music we hear today and will hear in the future. (And, as with any tool or technology, sometimes they are used wonderfully while at other times nasty things are done in the name of progress.)

melvin walker
01-17-2008, 09:55 AM
So says you. Just because you don't enjoy a genre of music doesn't make them of "little ability".

I think if anything, technology today has allowed many more people to become involved in music. Think of all musicians of yesteryear who were denied the opportunity to produce/distribute music because someone in an office in NY or LA didn't "like" them or the music.

Now with the advent of technology, small musicians can play, record, and distribute on YouTube, MySpace, etc without needing "approval" from snobby, elitist, blowhards such as yourself Mr. Walker.

Just like 50 years ago, if you don't like the music that's on, turn it off.

I agree you are correct , there is more involvement by musicians of sorts than before because of technology. Because of the advances in technology we have today gangster rap , advocating the killing of police , rappers calling Black American women *****es "n"
hoes, four letter words are the norm. Rock artist are musicians using all kinds of language
promoting drug use and using drugs , etc, etc, etc. Going on stage almost naked, holding their crotch.

Technology has advantages and disadvantages. There is penicillin and there is the atom bomb. There was a "Code of Decency'' in Hollywood once. Music companies controlled
much of the music we heard once. Today's technology and other factors has changed all that.
Just think there was a time when men treated women with respect and foul language was not permitted in front of children.
Times have changed with a little help of technology.
Your post was right on the point. It was excellent !

E-Stat
01-17-2008, 09:57 AM
There are few standards being produced today.
I have a different take on the nature of the changes. Simply put, there are far more choices available today - both musically and for our entertainment time in general. I see that as a positive change. As for *popular* music, you are correct that it is by and large junk. I feel the same way about network television. I watch zero. None. Having said that, there are countless sources of good music and video that are not the *mainstream* product. The variety available for either pursuit is mind boggling - you just have to look. You are still thinking in a three channel television world when it is now a 200 channel broadband High Def video world. I love science based programs. Where there was once only Nova on PBS, now there is The Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, The Science Channel, Discovery Health, Discovery Times, etc. There's no reason to limit yourself.


Ipod I have read is inferior in quality to CD's...
You're comparing apples and oranges. An iPod is a player and Redbook CD is a format. iPods can store music in an equal fidelity lossless format. That is yet another choice you can make based upon your preferences. Which do you prefer? Greater storage or greater fidelity? Take your pick.

rw

Groundbeef
01-17-2008, 10:12 AM
I agree you are correct , there is more involvement by musicians of sorts than before because of technology. Because of the advances in technology we have today gangster rap , advocating the killing of police , rappers calling Black American women *****es "n"
hoes, four letter words are the norm. Rock artist are musicians using all kinds of language
promoting drug use and using drugs , etc, etc, etc. Going on stage almost naked, holding their crotch.

Technology has advantages and disadvantages. There is penicillin and there is the atom bomb. There was a "Code of Decency'' in Hollywood once. Music companies controlled
much of the music we heard once. Today's technology and other factors has changed all that.
Just think there was a time when men treated women with respect and foul language was not permitted in front of children.
Times have changed with a little help of technology.
Your post was right on the point. It was excellent !

Right, so Hip-Hop, and Slasher Rock define todays music? Please. Again, if you don't like them don't listen to it. I don't.

What about the countless other acts available? I suppose you don't like Pink Floyd because of some "alleged" substance abuse? They only held the longest streak on Billboard (so long Billboard changed the rules to knock them off).

Or what about that loser James Taylor, Billy Joel, and others?

A "Man" still treats women with respect. And people still swore back in the 50's. If you actually belived what you are posting, I suppose YOU call women "hoe's" and swear up a blue streak in front of the grandkids? Nahhhh, I thought not. People do what they like. And they have been doing it for years.

melvin walker
01-17-2008, 11:43 AM
Right, so Hip-Hop, and Slasher Rock define todays music? Please. Again, if you don't like them don't listen to it. I don't.

What about the countless other acts available? I suppose you don't like Pink Floyd because of some "alleged" substance abuse? They only held the longest streak on Billboard (so long Billboard changed the rules to knock them off).

Or what about that loser James Taylor, Billy Joel, and others?

A "Man" still treats women with respect. And people still swore back in the 50's. If you actually believed what you are posting, I suppose YOU call women "hoe's" and swear up a blue streak in front of the grandkids? Nahhhh, I thought not. People do what they like. And they have been doing it for years.

Are you implying that rappers are not men ? What are they ducks ? People used four letter words in the 50's but it was not on television are on records.
People are held in check by laws. No we cannot not do some of the things we like.

I may not listen to it , but the effects of the music today has changed the attitudes of our young people. They wear their pants low because they think they are imating convicts.
Rappers don't just call women B's and H's they treat them as B's and H's. Some women call themselves B's and H's.

I once read where if you ignored the Nazi's it would not effect you. Should we ignore entertainers such as Pink Floyd ? Billy Joel and James Taylor ? Will they go away as the Nazi's did ? It took a World War to get rid of the Nazi's , what will it take to get rid of rock and rap ?
When Hollywood , television , and the recording studios gave up control look at what happen ? The inmates have taken over.
As you pointed out technology helped.

Groundbeef
01-17-2008, 12:11 PM
Are you implying that rappers are not men ? What are they ducks ? People used four letter words in the 50's but it was not on television are on records.
People are held in check by laws. No we cannot not do some of the things we like.

I may not listen to it , but the effects of the music today has changed the attitudes of our young people. They wear their pants low because they think they are imating convicts.
Rappers don't just call women B's and H's they treat them as B's and H's. Some women call themselves B's and H's.

I once read where if you ignored the Nazi's it would not effect you. Should we ignore entertainers such as Pink Floyd ? Billy Joel and James Taylor ? Will they go away as the Nazi's did ? It took a World War to get rid of the Nazi's , what will it take to get rid of rock and rap ?
When Hollywood , television , and the recording studios gave up control look at what happen ? The inmates have taken over.
As you pointed out technology helped.

No, simply replying to your suggestion that "Men" today treat women like dirt. I was simply pointing out that "Men" don't do that. Sorry the distinction was lost on you.

As far as youth of today, its the same as it has been for 1000 years. Children are constantly trying to break out of the mold that their parents are/perceived to be in.

Unless your initials are JC, I'm pretty sure back in the day you felt your parents were "square" or whatever lexicon was in favor back in the 40's-50's.

Back then the trouble makers wore black leather jackets, and used motor oil to hold their "ducks" in shape. Or have you forgotten about that?

As far as Pink Floyd goes, you are literally off your rocker. I hope that someone lifts you back onto it before you catch a cold. Take a couple of hours, and take a listen to "Dark Side of The Moon". Its very good.

And why exactly would you want to ignore James Taylor? Or Billy Joel for that matter?

No more that 40 years ago people should have ignored Frank, Dean, and Sammy. After all, they were a bunch of drunk, mob affilated, womanizing dorks who could happen to sing. Sometimes not even do that very well. Ever hear Sammy sing "In the Ghetto"? What a train wreck!

BTW, GM, JM, or LJ, I do belive we have our first "Nazi" reference in this thread. Thats gotta count for something right?

melvin walker
01-17-2008, 12:27 PM
I have a different take on the nature of the changes. Simply put, there are far more choices available today - both musically and for our entertainment time in general. I see that as a positive change. As for *popular* music, you are correct that it is by and large junk. I feel the same way about network television. I watch zero. None. Having said that, there are countless sources of good music and video that are not the *mainstream* product. The variety available for either pursuit is mind boggling - you just have to look. You are still thinking in a three channel television world when it is now a 200 channel broadband High Def video world. I love science based programs. Where there was once only Nova on PBS, now there is The Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, The Science Channel, Discovery Health, Discovery Times, etc. There's no reason to limit yourself.


You're comparing apples and oranges. An iPod is a player and Redbook CD is a format. iPods can store music in an equal fidelity lossless format. That is yet another choice you can make based upon your preferences. Which do you prefer? Greater storage or greater fidelity? Take your pick.




rw
You are correct there are many more options than there was 30+ years ago. The average young American does not watch the shows you outlined.
As a nation we finish last are near last in testing compared to other western nation including the Japanese.
Newt Gingrich , ex College History professor and ex Speaker of the House ,stated that the average young American does not know who the combatants of World War Two was.

I prefer greater fidelity . I seldom listen to my Ipod , which I was awarded by Direct TV
for buying a subscription.
My car has a 6 disc CD changer in it. Came with the car. My wife also has a 6 CD changer in her car , again it came with the car. Our third car has a 6 disc CD changer in it also. That was a BMW thing I guess , although the newer BMW's comes with Ipod connection , no CD's.

Technology is great I just recorded on my DVD recorder The History of the American Jews.
Berlin , Kern , Rogers , Porter , Samuel Goldwyn , Jack Benny , Milton Burl , Sid Caesar,
the list is endless and you know what they all proved that you don't have to dress like a thug , use four letter words , take drugs . and have babies out of wedlock to be a success in show business !
Times have changed.

E-Stat
01-17-2008, 12:37 PM
The average young American does not watch the shows you outlined.
Nor did earlier generations of 'youts watch Perry Como and Lawrence Welk. No difference there.


As a nation we finish last are near last in testing compared to other western nation including the Japanese.
Every country (except maybe North Korea) has access to modern music and R&R. No difference there. If you're implying that R&R is responsible for lower academic performance, you'll have to find some real evidence.


That was a BMW thing I guess , although the newer BMW's comes with Ipod connection , no CD's.
That was a car thing, Melvin. Has nothing to do with BMW or Becker. No difference there either.

rw

mlsstl
01-17-2008, 01:03 PM
Melvin, once again you seem to be laboring under the impression that only good things happened during the time span you relish.

I'm not fond of many aspects of modern culture, but you can't ignore that the first half of the 20th century had Al Capone (born 1899, died 1947), Hitler (b.1889, d.1945) and a host of others who didn't have much in the way of reverence for the best in humanity.

There were also scum and other troubled types in Hollywood and the music industry during that period of time, though the press was a bit more active in helping cover-up than they are these days. (For example, try giving a short bio of Judy Garland without using the word "addict." She was hardly alone.)

As for complaints about young Americans, don't forget it was Plato who wrote some 2,400 years ago: ""What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"

Seems to me humanity is still pretty much the same as its always been.

melvin walker
01-17-2008, 04:05 PM
Nor did earlier generations of 'youts watch Perry Como and Lawrence Welk. No difference there.


Every country (except maybe North Korea) has access to modern music and R&R. No difference there. If you're implying that R&R is responsible for lower academic performance, you'll have to find some real evidence.


That was a car thing, Melvin. Has nothing to do with BMW or Becker. No difference there either.

rw You will find that earlier young people did watch Perry Como. Mr. Como had one of the highest TV ratings of all time. Como was the number one recording artist in America for several years. Lawrence Welk was another story.

There are many reasons for the poor showing of Americans in testing. Hip-hop and rock has been of no benefit. Rap especially is anti-education. Not so with earlier forms of music.

Many Japanese , American and European cars did not come with 6 disc CD changers as standard equipment . High end BMW's did.
You might say the downside of American popular music started with Elvis. Although the music of Elvis seams quite tame compared to the rap and rock musicians today.
At least Elvis's music used no four letter words and did not put down women.
Elvis's dress though looked down on in the 1950's is far better than the dress of most young people today.
Times have changed !

melvin walker
01-17-2008, 04:23 PM
Melvin, once again you seem to be laboring under the impression that only good things happened during the time span you relish.

I'm not fond of many aspects of modern culture, but you can't ignore that the first half of the 20th century had Al Capone (born 1899, died 1947), Hitler (b.1889, d.1945) and a host of others who didn't have much in the way of reverence for the best in humanity.

There were also scum and other troubled types in Hollywood and the music industry during that period of time, though the press was a bit more active in helping cover-up than they are these days. (For example, try giving a short bio of Judy Garland without using the word "addict." She was hardly alone.)

As for complaints about young Americans, don't forget it was Plato who wrote some 2,400 years ago: ""What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"

Seems to me humanity is still pretty much the same as its always been.

As usual you are correct , there was some bad people in the most violent century in the world's history , "The twentieth century". Let's give Hollywood a little credit there was the "Code of Decency " TV and the recording industry did try for many years to not allow the types that are so popular today. Elvis was not really excepted.

Again you are right Judy Garland had her problems and there was others. But remember these sorts was not excepted , many found themselves unemployed as was the case with Ms. Garland. Today's inappropriate behaviour is the norm.
They call them love babies today , in Garland's era that behaviour was unacceptable as well as drug use , which is excepted today.
No sir times are very different. Very different.

jim goulding
01-17-2008, 04:46 PM
Hardly for me. I buy gear for the same reason that I bought gear originally. The communication of art. Popular music is about business. Major labels got R&D people tracking trends so they know what kind of band to sign and what group of people to market. They know what groups of people spend the most money on entertainment by race, religion, age, education. And they know how these people will see and/or playback their entertainment. Good for them.

JohnMichael
01-17-2008, 04:53 PM
Melvin I have to ask are these posts to make you feel better about the times when you were young? As you age and life begins to pass you by, as it will eventually to all of us, are you clinging to your glory days? Times change and we all reach a point where we can no longer change with it. Enjoy memories of your prime but do not deny others their time in the sun.

bobsticks
01-17-2008, 04:55 PM
No sir times are very different. Very different...

And again, I ask "what is to be done?". The same freedoms that have allowed you to amass the wealth to afford a variety of hi-fi systems and three luxury cars are the same ones that allow for this unacceptable behavior. It's the hallmark of a free and capitalist society---the right to be petulant. Fortunately for you and I, we need not concern ourselves
with other people's behavior. It effects us not (though apparently it may "affect" us).

BTW, I'm not sure you want to use the ogrish "ex-college History Professor" Newt Gingrich as a source, as he more closely resembles the Nazis which you denigrate than any significant voice of conservatism. The man is so congenitively dishonest he had to have three young male aides screw his pants on every morning while his wife lay dying in bed of cancer. Any sample group of "young Americans" he might've used would certainly be from the two to five age range, if only to prove his obtuse and fear-mongering assertion.

E-Stat
01-17-2008, 05:35 PM
You will find that earlier young people did watch Perry Como.
Not I and I remember the day. Too cheesy.


Many Japanese , American and European cars did not come with 6 disc CD changers as standard equipment . High end BMW's did.
You should reconsider speaking on topics about which you lack the facts. I've had CD changers standard on my Hondas and Acuras since 1995. My current Acura came with a true 5.1 channel DVD-Audio system with satellite XM radio. Voice controlled at that. Yours most certainly does not.


You might say the downside of American popular music started with Elvis.
Then again you might not.

rw

O'Shag
01-17-2008, 08:40 PM
Melvin,

I understand your perspective, and cannot hold it against you. My dear old Dad, felt exactly as you did. He just couldn't see the variety of music that I listened to as being musical.

But in truth, music need not come in any particular genre to 'trancend' the listener to music nirvana. I love a lot of the music you mention, but I love other types of music too. Yes Mozart, Bach(s), Chopin, Schubert, Haydn, Mahler, Hindemith, Britten, Elgar, and many more great classical composers can send shivers up the spine and cuase goosepimples. So can Frank Sinatra, Oscar Petersen, Miles, Coletrane, Ella, etc, etc.
This goes for a lot of the great '70s musicians; Creedance, Allman Bros, Fogelberg, EL&P, Beatles and so many more. Then you have the 80's and there is a lot of great music from the 80's, 90's and beyond. The message and feeling of the music is different, but the good stuff, no matter what, can turn us on so to speak. A lot of people group rap and R&B. Some of it is not good, like every other genre. But some of it is special. Take R.Kelly. By all accounts not a pleasant bloke. But he was gifted, theres no doubt. He can write and sing musical and meaningful songs that are from the heart. What about Dr Dre? Some of his music, well you just can;t help moving to the music. The lyrics themselves may not connect to someone outside the culture, but the rythms and harmonies do. What about some of Eddie Van Halen's, Yngve Malsteen's, Steve Vai's, Eric Johnson's, Joe Satriani's, Frank Gamballi's or Stevie Ray Vaughn's amazing guitar riffs. They are unquestionably guitar virtuosos of the highest order. Different than Pepe Romero or John Williams, but virtuosi all the same.

This doesn't even account for a wonderful world of music from the east that most in the West are unfamiliar with; music that is beautiful. Have you ever heard of Jagjit Singh, Zakir Hussein, or the Sabri Brothers? Howa about some Japanese or Chinese music that is so utterly, hauntingly beautiful? Good music transcends genre, it cannot be captured alone by a specific, time, place, culture or person.

I was listening to the Richard Blade first wave show on Sirius Radio the other day, and a song came on that you probably wouldn;t know. Its a really silly song. It was meant to be. It was written by a guy who happens to be a very gifted artist. The song was Pop Muzik by M (Robin Scott). As silly as it is, it has something really cool about it that makes you want to move.

There can be greatness in any genre. Music is music.

But I respect your opinion, and love your great system, especially those wonderful Hartsfields..

mlsstl
01-17-2008, 08:46 PM
No sir times are very different. Very different.
We'll just have to disagree, then. Sex, drugs, violence and bad behavior have been with humanity as far back as you can reach. It is just a bit more publicly seen these days, thanks to the internet.

Ever read "In Cold Blood"? Those murders took place in 1959 in rural Kansas. Did you know that when Coca Cola first came out, it contained cocaine? Ever read about the violence that took place during Prohibition? Not too different than the violence seen with other illegal drugs these days. Did you know that marijuana was completely legal until 1937? Or that heroin, mixed with alcohol, was sold openly and without prescription in the early 1900s? A hundred years ago there were actually a large number of housewives addicted to heroin because of this.

Ethnic gangs who terrorized their neighborhoods have always been with us. Some mistakenly limit this to the Italian mafia (who were very busy during Prohibtion by the way) but they were hardly the only ones. We also had the rampant racism that was still widely prevalent. There were 2,805 documented lynchings between 1882 and 1930. That activity has never struck me as being in keeping with humanitarian values.

In short, we're back to the main difference between then and now is how these events are reported. I don't think Hollywood was particularly saintly. The censorship was not something they did out of a sense of morality. In 1921 comedian Fatty Arbuckle was accused of the rape and murder of a young girl, director William Desmond Taylor was found murdered; actor Wallace Reid died of a drug overdose; and America's sweetheart, actress Mary Pickford, obtained a quickie divorce to marry matinee idol, Douglas Fairbanks. These and other scandals resulted in state censorship boards and eventually led to the "Production Code." In short, a defensive public relations move to keep themselves out of hot water. The music industry wasn't much different. Same behavior with the same hard work to keep things covered up.

You still want to pretend that "times are very different"? Seems to me times are very much the same in terms of the activities taking place. Just the reporting of same is more brazen and open these days.

O'Shag
01-17-2008, 09:17 PM
I would tend to disagree with that. Yes, there has always been crime, drugs, sex, etc. But I think that Melvin is talking about a sense of morality that was definitely stronger in the era he's talking about. There's no doubt things are a little out of control in this day and age. The chances of one's 12 year old daughter coming home pregnant are a lot higher than they used to be, or of one's son having made a girl pregnant, just for one example. But this has little to do with music.

noddin0ff
01-18-2008, 04:56 AM
There's no doubt things are a little out of control in this day and age. The chances of one's 12 year old daughter coming home pregnant are a lot higher than they used to be, or of one's son having made a girl pregnant, just for one example. But this has little to do with music.

Disagree...people just didn't talk about it then. Simple underreporting.

Ajani
01-18-2008, 05:07 AM
Disagree...people just didn't talk about it then. Simple underreporting.

I strongly agree with this point.

Simple example - Look at the amount of media coverage given to President Clinton having an affair back in the 90's....

Do you really think that no other presidents cheated on their wives? JFK has been rumored to have had an affair with a certain Ms. Monroe for years, but that was never the subject of intense media scrutiny in its time as Clinton's afffair was.

What has happened is largely that more and more 'sensational' (IMO 'disgusting') news is highlighted now-a-days....

Things may indeed be worse in some respects, but not necessarily as bad as you think and definitely not for all people...

Try being an african american or other minority back in those 'golden' days of decency and morality that you so love, and then tell me if you still think times were better then....

markw
01-18-2008, 05:15 AM
I once read where if you ignored the Nazi's it would not effect you. Should we ignore entertainers such as Pink Floyd ? Billy Joel and James Taylor ? Will they go away as the Nazi's did ?Have you heard these artists? I think not.

You either don't have a clue as to what you're saying or have so much vitriol for anything new that you really feel this is justified, and that worries me.

And. Elvis wasn't the first. He simply combined certain existing musical elements. He's just the first that was noticed by middle class America. Pat Boone made more than a few pennies by covering one Richard Wayne Penniman's songs for white America for a few years prior.

And, morally I'd say he's better than Frank Sinatra, who was a mob groupie, or Bing Crosby, who was noted for his cruel treatment of his children. Billie Holiday, anyone?

markw
01-18-2008, 05:18 AM
Try being an african american or other minority back in those 'golden' days of decency and morality that you so love, and then tell me if you still think times were better then....Excellent point. Thanks for bringing this up.

E-Stat
01-18-2008, 06:49 AM
Have you heard these artists?
Sweet Baby James and Nazis in the same breath? I'm definitely missing something here.

James Taylor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EoNd_maBbY)

rw

Feanor
01-18-2008, 08:02 AM
Melvin,

I understand your perspective, and cannot hold it against you. My dear old Dad, felt exactly as you did. He just couldn't see the variety of music that I listened to as being musical.

But in truth, music need not come in any particular genre to 'trancend' the listener to music nirvana. ....

There can be greatness in any genre. Music is music.

But I respect your opinion, and love your great system, especially those wonderful Hartsfields..

"Chacun son got" as the French say; everyone to his own taste. The saying applies equally well to music, food, wine ... anything short of criminal acts.

Personally I listen to 90% classical, 5% jazz, 5% anything else (but never Rap, Hip-Hop, Metalica, Techno, etc.). As I alluded to earlier in this thread, I listed to Dark Side of the Moon in multichannel: nice, but frankly I got a little bored half way through. To me it is musically trivial

The point is that my own musically tastes are pretty limted, but it would be foolish and pointless for me to bemoan the fact that others like different stuff. Worse would to be for me imply some sort of judgement about them on account of their musical tastes.

mlsstl
01-18-2008, 09:35 AM
The chances of one's 12 year old daughter coming home pregnant are a lot higher than they used to be...

That's a common sentiment, but its not quite factual. The teenage pregnancy rate in 1950 was 81.6 per thousand. The rate in 2006 was 84.2 or within 3%. (What has changed dramatically are the number of out-of-wedlock births. Shotgun weddings aren't as popular as they used to be.)

Of course, the US population has doubled from 150 million in 1950 to 300 million now, so you'd expect twice as many teen pregnancies, as well as twice as much of everything else associated with human activity.

However, back to music, I think Melvin has forgotten that his beloved jazz musicians were once reviled by the learned and proper classes. Many were very upset when Benny Goodman played Carnegie Hall in 1938, for example, thinking it sacrilege to bring lowly jazz musicians to such a hallowed place. However, that didn't stop the hoi polloi from making it a wildly successful event.

However, these days those debauched jazz musicians have become the old guard. Instead of the NY classical snobs in 1938 defending the faith against jazz, we have some jazz snobs defending the faith against the current popular trends in music.

What's the old saying? "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

johnny p
01-18-2008, 11:40 AM
Rich-n-Texas
This message has been deleted by E-Stat. Reason: Uncalled for attack.

This is what happens when I don't check in often enough..... I'm sure I missed a gem here!!!!


As far as the whole "morality" debate that has sprung from this, let me just say this. I don't agree with censorship in any way, shape, or form. I think the majority of today's music is absolute garbage, but I'll defend the rights of the people who produce it and perform it until the day I die. The fact there is a show called "American Idol" out there makes me cringe, but if it can be successful, and continue to gain sponsors, etc. let them have their times of glory. I'll surf the channel guide when one of the show's contestants drags through a horrendous rendition of the National Anthem before a sporting event, because it's my choice to ignore them!

13 year olds getting pregnant, more drugs in the schools, more nudity and violence and cursing on T.V. and in the movies, rappers glorifying all things bad, clothing depicting/glorifying sex/drugs/violence, and all of these other perils of modern life. I will try to educate and raise my son with the moral integrity I feel necessary, and I don't think it's the government, or anyone elses' job to raise my son for me.

13 year old girls getting pregnant you say????? Good. That's called learning a lesson the hard way.

basite
01-18-2008, 11:44 AM
I once read where if you ignored the Nazi's it would not effect you. Should we ignore entertainers such as Pink Floyd ? Billy Joel and James Taylor ? Will they go away as the Nazi's did ? It took a World War to get rid of the Nazi's , what will it take to get rid of rock and rap ?


while I don't really like rap music, I do like rock.

I wouldn't really call Pink Floyd an entertainer. An entertainer would be something like robbie williams, or justing timerlake :sleep:. Pink Floyd would more be like a Revolution (note capitol 'R').

We should not ignore what's new, we should try it out. If we happen to like it, we should find more of it, if we don't like it, we shouldn't bother about it.

I do agree that the Ipod has caused youngsters to listen to MP3's rather than to CD's or Vinyl Records. But in the meanwhile, the new genres like electro, house & techno, brings the youngsters in contact with vinyl, and has kept vinyl alive. So not all 'new' is necessarily inferior to the older things.


Also, the rock you hear on the popular radio stations today, is the popular rock, there are other, non-popular kinds and bands, who make exellent music, and exellent recordings. Ment to be played on high quality setups. the same with Rap, but less as with rock, there used to be Rap music (or hip hop), that was actually music, with a message in it. This message not being bad. Ok, it ain't miles davis, but it's definately better than many of the popular genres.

by the way, you say the young people like 'young' genres, but how did the young people like the popular music back then, in the 50's? and how did the older people like it then? I think it's kinda the same, back then the older people mostly liked classical music and blues (early blues), and thought they were better than Louis armstrong & Ray Charles. Why? because L. Armstrong & R. Charles were 'new popular music' back then.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

melvin walker
01-18-2008, 12:56 PM
while I don't really like rap music, I do like rock.

I wouldn't really call Pink Floyd an entertainer. An entertainer would be something like robbie williams, or justing timerlake :sleep:. Pink Floyd would more be like a Revolution (note capitol 'R').

We should not ignore what's new, we should try it out. If we happen to like it, we should find more of it, if we don't like it, we shouldn't bother about it.

I do agree that the Ipod has caused youngsters to listen to MP3's rather than to CD's or Vinyl Records. But in the meanwhile, the new genres like electro, house & techno, brings the youngsters in contact with vinyl, and has kept vinyl alive. So not all 'new' is necessarily inferior to the older things.


Also, the rock you hear on the popular radio stations today, is the popular rock, there are other, non-popular kinds and bands, who make exellent music, and exellent recordings. Ment to be played on high quality setups. the same with Rap, but less as with rock, there used to be Rap music (or hip hop), that was actually music, with a message in it. This message not being bad. Ok, it ain't miles davis, but it's definately better than many of the popular genres.

by the way, you say the young people like 'young' genres, but how did the young people like the popular music back then, in the 50's? and how did the older people like it then? I think it's kinda the same, back then the older people mostly liked classical music and blues (early blues), and thought they were better than Louis armstrong & Ray Charles. Why? because L. Armstrong & R. Charles were 'new popular music' back then.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

A very interesting question. It began in the 50's R&B than rock and roll , The traditionalist
were very upset. Middle class America was alarmed. Older people as you put it listened to
Sinatra , Como , Patty Page , Frankie Layne , Nat King Cole , Andy Williams , Johnnie Mathis etc., not classical music.

Louis Armstrong was not an issue , Ray Charles was , and so was other Black R&B singers. For the first time young people listened to their own music , went to drive inns , had their own cars , bought Playboy magazines , and even had their own record players !
Times were changing.

There was James Dean , Steve McQueen , Elvis Presley , Marlon Brando , etc. They dressed differently and even smoked. And the girls used birth control and went to young men's apartments alone.

Audio was new , few people could afford audio equipment are even knew about components. Until the late 1960's the audio industry was quite small. The LP had just been introduced in the late 50's and so had stereo. Consumer Reports rated the AR speakers as the best small speaker system. AR lead speaker sales for several years after that.

The rest is history , times change and the more they change the more they remain the same. We are a much richer country than we were 40 years ago. People have more free time and money to spend enjoying it with.
We can as Americans agree to disagree , that makes us strong. We can respect all opinions no matter how we may disagree.
We audiophiles would argue as to which was best Marantz or Mac?. Lansing or Bozak.?
AR or KLH ? and even mono vs stereo , tubes vs transistors. Has it really changed.

The only difference today is that older people live longer , and with that they will collide with younger people.
Yes the " good ole days " You are all living in the "good ole days ".TODAY !

noddin0ff
01-18-2008, 01:15 PM
The only difference today is that older people live longer , and with that they will collide with younger people.
Yes the " good ole days " You are all living in the "good ole days ".TODAY !


Live it, don't re-live it.

basite
01-18-2008, 01:28 PM
A very interesting question. It began in the 50's R&B than rock and roll , The traditionalist
were very upset. Middle class America was alarmed. Older people as you put it listened to
Sinatra , Como , Patty Page , Frankie Layne , Nat King Cole , Andy Williams , Johnnie Mathis etc., not classical music.

Louis Armstrong was not an issue , Ray Charles was , and so was other Black R&B singers. For the first time young people listened to their own music , went to drive inns , had their own cars , bought Playboy magazines , and even had their own record players !
Times were changing.

There was James Dean , Steve McQueen , Elvis Presley , Marlon Brando , etc. They dressed differently and even smoked. And the girls used birth control and went to young men's apartments alone.

Audio was new , few people could afford audio equipment are even knew about components. Until the late 1960's the audio industry was quite small. The LP had just been introduced in the late 50's and so had stereo. Consumer Reports rated the AR speakers as the best small speaker system. AR lead speaker sales for several years after that.

The rest is history , times change and the more they change the more they remain the same. We are a much richer country than we were 40 years ago. People have more free time and money to spend enjoying it with.
We can as Americans agree to disagree , that makes us strong. We can respect all opinions no matter how we may disagree.
We audiophiles would argue as to which was best Marantz or Mac?. Lansing or Bozak.?
AR or KLH ? and even mono vs stereo , tubes vs transistors. Has it really changed.

today we think about what sounds best. Mac or Krell, or Mark Levinson, or Accuphase, or Gryphon, or Wavac, or something else? Thiel, Avalon, Wilson audio, Dynaudio, Or something else?

And you typed Ray Charles was 'an issue', but I come to think of him as a 'something new', in the positive meaning of the words. I don't think Ray Charles (or other R&B artists) should be labeled as 'issues', but more like 'artists'. Just as Sinatra or Nat King Cole brung something, they bring something too. And I think we should respect that.

Not that the 'older music' (just a way to put it, no negative feelings :)), was bad from of then, but there just was more music to enjoy. not all the music is good, but there certainly is good 'new' music too.

Times keep changing, and while it does, we might just want to enjoy it.

just a few moments ago, I had a classical piece on: Shostakovich - symphony n 13, originally 'released' in 1961. You should try that out if you can, tell me what you think about it :)

oh, and also try (as I mentioned in the other thread), Enrico Pieranunzi & Marc Johnson - Trasnoche.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

mlsstl
01-18-2008, 01:55 PM
Lest some think that resistance to musical change is limited to jazz or rock and roll, here are some interesting items about classical musicians.

Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians dismissed Rachmaninoff's music as "monotonous in texture ... consisting mainly of artificial and gushing tunes ..." and said his work was "not likely to last."

In 1705 Bach got in trouble with the church where he was organist for his "surprising variations and irrelevant ornaments which obliterate the melody and confuse the congregation" so he was reprimanded for his "strange sounds" during the services. (He was also accused of entertaining "a strange damsel" in the organ loft of the church though he later married her.)

In a similar vein, Prokofiev was not well understood by his teachers at the conservatory and his early orchestral works were very poorly received in the early 1900s.

One doesn't have to read terribly deeply into the history of music and the lives of many composers and artists to understand that the 20th century was not alone in failing to understand the incipient genius of many musicians sooner rather than later.

melvin walker
01-18-2008, 01:58 PM
Live it, don't re-live it.
Those who don't read history are condemned to repeat it !

GMichael
01-18-2008, 02:01 PM
Those who don't read history are condemned to repeat it !

Read it.
Remember it
Learn from it
But don't get trapped in it.

melvin walker
01-18-2008, 02:20 PM
today we think about what sounds best. Mac or Krell, or Mark Levinson, or Accuphase, or Gryphon, or Wavac, or something else? Thiel, Avalon, Wilson audio, Dynaudio, Or something else?

And you typed Ray Charles was 'an issue', but I come to think of him as a 'something new', in the positive meaning of the words. I don't think Ray Charles (or other R&B artists) should be labeled as 'issues', but more like 'artists'. Just as Sinatra or Nat King Cole brung something, they bring something too. And I think we should respect that.

Not that the 'older music' (just a way to put it, no negative feelings :)), was bad from of then, but there just was more music to enjoy. not all the music is good, but there certainly is good 'new' music too.

Times keep changing, and while it does, we might just want to enjoy it.

just a few moments ago, I had a classical piece on: Shostakovich - symphony n 13, originally 'released' in 1961. You should try that out if you can, tell me what you think about it :)

oh, and also try (as I mentioned in the other thread), Enrico Pieranunzi & Marc Johnson - Trasnoche.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

In the 1950's Ray Charles was an issue as was Jackie Wilson , Fats Domino , Clyde McPhatter , Little Richard , Chuck Berry , Sam Cooke ,and many other Black R&B
singers.
No one compared R&B singers with Sinatra and Cole. This was a different time.
As a matter of fact Johnny Mathis was asked to perform with a big Show featuring R&B
Black singers , they were prepared to pay Mathis $50,000 per week.
Mich Miller the head of Columbia records popular music division , told Mathis that if he performed with any Black R&B artist , Columbia records would void his contract and he would not be able to work with any large record company.
Times were different. If you will note there was only a few Black singers that performed for a major recording label in the 1950's
if I remember correctly there was only three Johnny Mathis , Nat King Cole , Harry Belfonte and the Miles Brothers. Most Black recording artist performed for side labels.
The major American recording labels than was R.C.A. , Columbia , Capital , and Decca.
There was a few Black jazz artist that performed for the major labels Earrol Garner was one , Miles Davis did later both with Columbia.

Groundbeef
01-18-2008, 03:09 PM
Hey guys, heres a filmography/autobiography about Melvin Walker!!! No joking, heres the tagline:

comedy about a naive man who comes out into the world after being in a nuclear fallout shelter for 35 years

Heres the link:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124298/

I think you all will enjoy! Mr. Walker, shame on you for not clueing us in about you!

melvin walker
01-18-2008, 05:21 PM
Hey guys, heres a filmography/autobiography about Melvin Walker!!! No joking, heres the tagline:

comedy about a naive man who comes out into the world after being in a nuclear fallout shelter for 35 years

Heres the link:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124298/

I think you all will enjoy! Mr. Walker, shame on you for not clueing us in about you!

it appears sir that you are unable to discuss the issues. I am not the issue and neither are you. ! I don't know who you are and I don't care. What are you commenting on ?

melvin walker
01-18-2008, 05:23 PM
Read it.
Remember it
Learn from it
But don't get trapped in it.

First you must read it.

jrhymeammo
01-18-2008, 06:26 PM
I agree you are correct , I'm a douche bag!


Also, can we stop talking about what a great recording Dark Side of the Moon is on SACD? If it's a good mix, then great. But I think a 2ch Guy, like myself, is still allowed comment on SQ, right? Whatta hell are you guys hearing? Or maybe it's just what I'm not hearing. Ahh..who cares. I think most of here can agree that Melvin Walker is a douche bag.

Peace,

noddin0ff
01-18-2008, 06:48 PM
First you must read it.

The printed text was so much better in the old days too. Todays text just doesn't compare...

Seriously though, learning from the past is very different from avoiding the present.

melvin walker
01-18-2008, 08:04 PM
Also, can we stop talking about what a great recording Dark Side of the Moon is on SACD? If it's a good mix, then great. But I think a 2ch Guy, like myself, is still allowed comment on SQ, right? Whatta hell are you guys hearing? Or maybe it's just what I'm not hearing. Ahh..who cares. I think most of here can agree that Melvin Walker is a douche bag.

Peace,
I don't believe any other website would allow such language and disrespect for others.
It appears this one does.
What a pity.

E-Stat
01-18-2008, 08:05 PM
Todays text just doesn't compare...
That garamond thing just doesn't cut it, does it? :)


Seriously though, learning from the past is very different from avoiding the present.
Awareness of the past is only valuable when one applies it to the present.

rw

E-Stat
01-18-2008, 08:08 PM
"Melvin Walker is a douche bag."

Hey guys, lets play nice, huh? I've taken out one unnecessary post. Let's leave it at that. K?

rw

melvin walker
01-18-2008, 08:41 PM
This is what happens when I don't check in often enough..... I'm sure I missed a gem here!!!!


As far as the whole "morality" debate that has sprung from this, let me just say this. I don't agree with censorship in any way, shape, or form. I think the majority of today's music is absolute garbage, but I'll defend the rights of the people who produce it and perform it until the day I die. The fact there is a show called "American Idol" out there makes me cringe, but if it can be successful, and continue to gain sponsors, etc. let them have their times of glory. I'll surf the channel guide when one of the show's contestants drags through a horrendous rendition of the National Anthem before a sporting event, because it's my choice to ignore them!

13 year olds getting pregnant, more drugs in the schools, more nudity and violence and cursing on T.V. and in the movies, rappers glorifying all things bad, clothing depicting/glorifying sex/drugs/violence, and all of these other perils of modern life. I will try to educate and raise my son with the moral integrity I feel necessary, and I don't think it's the government, or anyone elses' job to raise my son for me.

13 year old girls getting pregnant you say????? Good. That's called learning a lesson the hard way.

Like it are not your son will be effected by his environment. You are effected by poor taste and bad manners. If you live in a large American city it is unsafe to walk the streets at night. if your son attends a public are private school today he is exposed to bad langage ,
sex , drugs , etc.

The poor behaviour of others effect you. America has the second largest prison population in the world , paid for by you a tax payer. When a car is stolen , you pay for it with higher insurance rates. When someone steals a loaf of bread in a food market are steals a shirt in a department you pay for it with higher prices. The same when a burglary
occurs you pay for it with higher home insurance rates.

You may not agree with censorship , we use it to protect others , would you not want some censorship in the school your son attends ? Are should the students speak what they choose. Maybe your son doesn't attend a public are private school , are attend movies , are use a computer , are read books and magazines. If your son goes put to play he is at risk , are maybe he doesn't go out to play.

You can ignore all that , but the world will not ignore you ! It's sad but that's the world we all live in.
I wonder if the people killed and injured at the World Trade center felt the way you do ?
What happen there changed all Americans lives , like it are not.
We are a nation and we are dependent on each other.
Thomas Jefferson wrote " If men were angels we would need no laws , but men are not angels" We need censorship.

melvin walker
01-18-2008, 09:06 PM
The printed text was so much better in the old days too. Todays text just doesn't compare...

Seriously though, learning from the past is very different from avoiding the present.

One learns from the past , that is why we have books. Experience is very expensive.
Than there are those that has an appreciation of the past.
They might collect fine cars , antiques , books , paintings , wines even audio equipment.

There are clubs that cater to that type of taste. There are many magazines that helps
locate and define past things.
One does not avoid the future when one discusses the past. There is a website that discusses men's clothing called Ask Andy.

The Ask Andy website discusses not only present clothing but clothing of the 20's, 30's
40's and 50's including the latest high end clothing of today.
Most of your high end men clothing books makes references to clothing of the golden years when men' s dress was more formal.
Example mens magazines such as Men's Vogue , Classic Style and the Rob Report has many discussions of the past. From cars to winter vacations.
The last Classic Style issue discussed Bogart and the history of the trench coat.
Stereophile magazine has many times discussed the history of audio.
I guess most members of this website could care less. Not all but most.

noddin0ff
01-18-2008, 10:37 PM
Collect, catalog, appreciate, learn, study, acquire, wear, worship, become a fetishist of the past. More power to you, these are wonderful, and enriching hobbies. You mention pursuits that are a matter of taste. You can refine your tastes, become an expert in your tastes, and be a fair critic. But, the subject here is music, the enjoyment of which is a matter of personal taste. Did technology destroy music? That's like asking if plumbing destroyed water. Technology is just a conduit for expression.

I read your posts and I think, "here's a guy that likes simple vocal melodies, performed with control and grace." He knows what he likes, he knows some things he doesn't like. Then he makes leaps to sweeping generalizations. There's a lot I agree with. There's merit to classic forms, I do believe they speak artistic truths. I don't like misogyny in music. I don't think shock equates with art. But, I disagree in that I believe pushing the boundaries of and forms of expression does equate to art--even if that expression is offensive. I believe classic forms are foundations to build and experiment upon. Not all experimentation is good, but a few lemons doesn't indicate that the fabric of society is breaking up. If Huckabee gets elected...then maybe I'll start looking over my shoulder for the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

"EXPERIENCE IS EXPENSIVE", huh? You don't purchase experience. You get experience from confronting ignorance and learning from the encounter.

My motto: Convince me I'm right and you grow my ego. Convince me I'm wrong and you grow my knowledge.

(My corollary: I'm right until proven otherwise.)

somebody should remind me not to log in when I should be sleeping. It makes me ramble.

basite
01-19-2008, 05:18 AM
In the 1950's Ray Charles was an issue as was Jackie Wilson , Fats Domino , Clyde McPhatter , Little Richard , Chuck Berry , Sam Cooke ,and many other Black R&B
singers.
No one compared R&B singers with Sinatra and Cole. This was a different time.
As a matter of fact Johnny Mathis was asked to perform with a big Show featuring R&B
Black singers , they were prepared to pay Mathis $50,000 per week.
Mich Miller the head of Columbia records popular music division , told Mathis that if he performed with any Black R&B artist , Columbia records would void his contract and he would not be able to work with any large record company.
Times were different. If you will note there was only a few Black singers that performed for a major recording label in the 1950's
if I remember correctly there was only three Johnny Mathis , Nat King Cole , Harry Belfonte and the Miles Brothers. Most Black recording artist performed for side labels.
The major American recording labels than was R.C.A. , Columbia , Capital , and Decca.
There was a few Black jazz artist that performed for the major labels Earrol Garner was one , Miles Davis did later both with Columbia.


yes, but why were they 'an issue'? I presume you mean 'issue' as 'a problem'...

johnny p
01-19-2008, 06:20 AM
would you not want some censorship in the school your son attends ?

Of course I wouldn't want censorship in his school. (he's less than 3 months old, so it's gonna be awhile)


I wonder if the people killed and injured at the World Trade center felt the way you do ?

I lost a family member in the WTC, and I don't feel the need to justify my viewpoints based on his, although I believe he would concur with me about many things. But either way, I don't wish to discuss this topic.

melvin walker
01-19-2008, 07:34 AM
yes, but why were they 'an issue'? I presume you mean 'issue' as 'a problem'...

Yes they were a problem. The music the Black R&B artist was performing was not the norm of that era. Their music was seen as a threat to middle class values. Black pop singers such as Nat King Cole , Johnny Mathis , Harry Belafonte , Bill Erskine The Mills Brothers etc. were not seen as threats

Most of the R&B music performed by Black artist was covered by singers such as Pat Boone , Gale Storm and other White performers. The major labels controlled most of the pop music played on radio , called payola.
The major labels did not hire Black R&B performers , as stated in an earlier post, they performed for side labels. Even Black jazz artist performed for side labels such as Miles Davis , Coltrane , Adderley , Peterson , Gillespie etc.

It was a different time. As for as high end audio , In the St.Louis area there were few Black audiophiles , only 13. Three doctors , three musicians , four postal workers , one federal judge , and two who worked in the private sector. I was one of those working in the private sector.
We all knew each other because. of the small size. None of us listened to R&B.
This was the 1950's. Things began to change in the 1960's with the passage of the civil Rights laws and the government put an end to payola.
A little history of the musical industry in America 50 years ago.

basite
01-19-2008, 08:27 AM
Yes they were a problem. The music the Black R&B artist was performing was not the norm of that era. Their music was seen as a threat to middle class values. Black pop singers such as Nat King Cole , Johnny Mathis , Harry Belafonte , Bill Erskine The Mills Brothers etc. were not seen as threats

Most of the R&B music performed by Black artist was covered by singers such as Pat Boone , Gale Storm and other White performers. The major labels controlled most of the pop music played on radio , called payola.
The major labels did not hire Black R&B performers , as stated in an earlier post, they performed for side labels. Even Black jazz artist performed for side labels such as Miles Davis , Coltrane , Adderley , Peterson , Gillespie etc.

It was a different time. As for as high end audio , In the St.Louis area there were few Black audiophiles , only 13. Three doctors , three musicians , four postal workers , one federal judge , and two who worked in the private sector. I was one of those working in the private sector.
We all knew each other because. of the small size. None of us listened to R&B.
This was the 1950's. Things began to change in the 1960's with the passage of the civil Rights laws and the government put an end to payola.
A little history of the musical industry in America 50 years ago.


I presume other people did like it. Otherwise, Ray Charles wouldn't have been so rich. You can't force someone to listen to a particular genre, so if someone started singing R&B, it must have been because he or she liked it. and as it happened other people liked it too. That's why there are different genres, because people have different tastes.

It's not because R&B appeared that Nat King Cole, Sinatra, Coltrane and others suddenly dissapeared. Another genre just appeared.
besides, what would have happened if no one else started making music after the legends like Sinatra and such? We can't listen to Frank Sinatra forever you know, new things are welcome, and if I don't like them, I don't listen to them. But if I do like them, then what's wrong with that?

And be proud that you are an audiophile, it's not a common hobby (not everyone can pay it too :)), so it's normal that there are less audiophiles. In fact, I'm only 17, and I'm an audiophile, guess how many 17 year old people actually are audiophiles? And which of them actually have a decent setup?

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

jrhymeammo
01-19-2008, 08:29 AM
OK. My

melvin walker
01-19-2008, 09:18 AM
I presume other people did like it. Otherwise, Ray Charles wouldn't have been so rich. You can't force someone to listen to a particular genre, so if someone started singing R&B, it must have been because he or she liked it. and as it happened other people liked it too. That's why there are different genres, because people have different tastes.

It's not because R&B appeared that Nat King Cole, Sinatra, Coltrane and others suddenly disappeared. Another genre just appeared.
besides, what would have happened if no one else started making music after the legends like Sinatra and such? We can't listen to Frank Sinatra forever you know, new things are welcome, and if I don't like them, I don't listen to them. But if I do like them, then what's wrong with that?

And be proud that you are an audiophile, it's not a common hobby (not everyone can pay it too :)), so it's normal that there are less audiophiles. In fact, I'm only 17, and I'm an audiophile, guess how many 17 year old people actually are audiophiles? And which of them actually have a decent s

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

There are 17 year old that drive $100,000 + cars. There are also 17 year old that own very expensive audio systems. I have seen parents buying their 17 year old children $10,000 watches, what else is new.

No one is forced to listen to anything , I would suggest that you do a little research , and you will find R&B artist in the 1950's had a very difficult time getting their music played on radio. Artist such as Ray Charles because of payola earned less money because of that. You should also remember R&B artist generally did not appear on television and
none had TV programs, Nat King Cole was the first Black singer to have a TV program and he could not attract sponsors. His program was cancelled after one season , although he had excellent ratings.

Artist such as Frank Sinatra's music is played today. So is Cole's , Mathis . Como .and as well as popular artist of the 30's , 40's , 50's and 60's.
Standards live on as does classical music.
Music is learned , class plays a major role in what we listen to. The more affluent we are the more likely our parents played a role in the type of music we listen to.
Generally lower class people are exposed to music by their peers. On the other hand classical , jazz , broadway etc , parents generally play a role in exposing their children to those forms of music.
There are exceptions.

I have many hobbies audio is only one. I am not proud of being an audiophile, it is only another hobby. I enjoy music , that is why I am an audiophile. Audio equipment enabled me to listen better because of the equipment I used.

basite
01-19-2008, 11:33 AM
There are 17 year old that drive $100,000 + cars. There are also 17 year old that own very expensive audio systems. I have seen parents buying their 17 year old children $10,000 watches, what else is new.

well, not here in belgium... you have to be at least 18 to drive a car, and my parents didn't give me a 10k watch, I paid my watch (a Swatch irony), myself. As I also payed my audio system myself.



Artist such as Frank Sinatra's music is played today. So is Cole's , Mathis . Como .and as well as popular artist of the 30's , 40's , 50's and 60's.
Standards live on as does classical music.


as well as Ray Charles is played on the radio today...

and other R&B artists.

and pink floyd lives on too.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

frenchmon
01-19-2008, 02:05 PM
Nope, but I'll keep an eye and an ear out. Thanks for the recommendation.

Go to you tube...she is great! I think Krall sorta took on her style. She is more polished on the piano than Krall. She's Mexican and is married to Randy Brecker, the brother of the late Micheal Brecker.

frenchmon

noddin0ff
01-19-2008, 08:59 PM
class plays a major role in what we listen to. The more affluent we are the more likely our parents played a role in the type of music we listen to.
Generally lower class people are exposed to music by their peers. On the other hand classical , jazz , broadway etc , parents generally play a role in exposing their children to those forms of music.

Generally, the affluent have no idea what the 'lower class' listen to. Generally the affluent avoid the 'lower class'. Am I to understand from your comment that you believe, generally, that the 'lower class' can't afford parents?

JohnMichael
01-20-2008, 09:51 AM
Generally, the affluent have no idea what the 'lower class' listen to. Generally the affluent avoid the 'lower class'. Am I to understand from your comment that you believe, generally, that the 'lower class' can't afford parents?



I am with you noddinOff. Melvins comments were the most offensive I have ever read. I grew up in a low income household but we were not "lower class". Education was stressed and the sacrifice was made so we could attend private schools. We were taught manners and so were comfortable in many social situations. We were exposed to music both in the home and at school. As the success of the family improved we never forgot from where we came.

How can you generalize "lower class"? I now hold you in such utter contempt. I would go on but I must moderate myself.

markw
01-20-2008, 06:28 PM
I paid my watch (a Swatch irony), myself. As I also payed my audio system myself.Aren't you glad they weren't made in Croatia? ;)

markw
01-20-2008, 06:31 PM
Am I to understand from your comment that you believe, generally, that the 'lower class' can't afford parents?From his postings here, I tend to believe that the lower class has only one parent, a female.

Nah, he's not an elitist, is he?

SlumpBuster
01-20-2008, 07:59 PM
Nah, he's not an elitist, is he?

At first blush maybe. But stop and think for a moment. He's rockin' fifty year old JBLs. Sure they go for 12 grand on audiogon, but not when he originally bought them. Jump to cars, since he is fond of that analogy. You can get 1985 Cameros on Ebay for 3 grand. In 30 more years they sure as hell will go for alot more than that! But that doesn't mean they are actually worth it with their 200hp d!ckcheese motors. Furthermore, he's rockin a USED! BMW - he says its better than the current version. Okay... sure buddy... whatever helps you sleep at night.

He's worse than an elitist... he's a posuer. He's an aspiring elitist that can't really run with the big boys. He talks sh!t about the Corvette, but drives a 15 year old BMW. I've driven the C6, and the BMW 7-5-3 series, and the Audi A8-6-4, and the various Diamlers. Helps to live in Detroit, where everyone is actually in the car biz and not just talking about what they saw in their dealer show rooms, Although not many people I know can swing the ZR1. Mel reveals that his ignorance runs the gamut of many hobbies when he compare the Corvette C6 to sports sedans and saloon cars.

I have no problem with him driving an old car. I'm saving up for an old Wrangler myself. But, to declare that you are driving your old, tired piece of crap because it is better than everything else just stinks of desperation. The same with clinging to your fifty year old speakers that were initially designed for mono reproduction. Visit a stereo shop already...jeez.

bobsticks
01-20-2008, 08:04 PM
Wow. I love it when Slumpy gets on a roll...

I'm sure Melvin will be indignant with the state of modern manners and yet surprised at the same time, since young people have no reading comprehension.

SlumpBuster
01-20-2008, 08:06 PM
Oh, and the best part about that 12 feet advice is that he offered it to a guy with Paradigm Studio 20s, I speaker he clearly has never heard. Has anyone seen or does anyone have their 20s set up 12 feet apart. I've never seen it! Twelve feet really is quite a distance.

One of the nicest showroom experiences I ever had was with the 20s, an Arcam integrated and Music Hall turntable, but apparently I was had, because they were only 6 or 7 feet apart at best.

bobsticks
01-20-2008, 08:14 PM
. One of the nicest showroom experiences I ever had was with the 20s, an Arcam integrated and Music Hall turntable, but apparently I was had, because they were only 6 or 7 feet apart at best.

Well, that's to be expected...folly of youth and all that.

Get regular oil changes.

SlumpBuster
01-20-2008, 08:16 PM
There are 17 year old that drive $100,000 + cars. There are also 17 year old that own very expensive audio systems. I have seen parents buying their 17 year old children $10,000 watches, what else is new.



Finally, Mel, this is why you can't be so shy about the use of words like "douchebag." If you have truely seen parents buying thier children 10k watches, you could have done something about it if only you had the word "douchebag" in your arsenal. It would have been the perfect time to deploy it! I don't know who the bigger douchebag is in that scenario, the parent for buying it, the kid for wanting it or those witnessing the scene for not declaring the parent and the child to be douchebags. What 17 year old kid wants a 10k watch!?! When I was 17 I needed only 3 things - gas in my stationwagon and a mix tape in my Clarion... so I could get the third thing. :cornut: Snootchies!

Maybe Mel's right times have changed if a 17 year old needs for than that.

SlumpBuster
01-20-2008, 08:18 PM
Well, that's to be expected...folly of youth and all that.

Get regular oil changes.


Sorry... that is what happens when your on a roll. I switched from the car showroom to the stereo showroom. If I found a showroom that carried Arcam and Chevy... I'd leave my wife. :D

bobsticks
01-20-2008, 08:22 PM
There are seventeen year-olds in my neighborhood with expensive 10k watches and those newer, less functional Bimmers...and they all particpate in activities decried by our protagonist as anti-ethical.

Rich-n-Texas
01-21-2008, 08:58 AM
Like it are{or} not your son will be effected by his environment. You are effected by poor taste and bad manners. If you live in a large American city it is unsafe to walk the streets at night. if your son attends a public are{or} private school today he is exposed to bad lang{u}age ,
sex , drugs , etc.

The poor behaviour of others effect you. America has the second largest prison population in the world , paid for by you a tax payer. When a car is stolen , you pay for it with higher insurance rates. When someone steals a loaf of bread in a food market are{or} steals a shirt in a department you pay for it with higher prices. The same when a burglary
occurs you pay for it with higher home insurance rates.

You may not agree with censorship , we use it to protect others , would you not want some censorship in the school your son attends ? Are{Or} should the students speak what they choose. Maybe your son doesn't attend a public are{or} private school , are{or} attend movies , are{or} use a computer , are{or} read books and magazines. If your son goes put to play he is at risk , are{or} maybe he doesn't go out to play.

You can ignore all that , but the world will not ignore you ! It's sad but that's the world we all live in.
I wonder if the people killed and injured at the World Trade center felt the way you do ?
What happen there changed all Americans lives , like it are{or} not.
We are{ :thumbsup: } a nation and we are dependent on each other.
Thomas Jefferson wrote " If men were angels we would need no laws , but men are not angels" We need censorship.
Get the picture? Weird huh?

Groundbeef
01-21-2008, 09:40 AM
Get the picture? Weird huh?

No, not really. He's so OLD, that the word "or" hadn't been invented yet. In fact "ARE" is a slightly more superior word than "OR". It has 3 letters instead of 2. This very fact proves that "ARE" is more better than "OR".

3 letters also cost more than 2. Why go cheap and only use 2 letters. Only low class people would consider paying less, and only getting 2 letters. When Melvin was a lad, his father insisted on only using words 3 letters or more. Less they appear to be part of the lower eschelon of society.

GMichael
01-21-2008, 09:56 AM
No, not really. He's so OLD, that the word "or" hadn't been invented yet. In fact "ARE" is a slightly more superior word than "OR". It has 3 letters instead of 2. This very fact proves that "ARE" is more better than "OR".

3 letters also cost more than 2. Why go cheap and only use 2 letters. Only low class people would consider paying less, and only getting 2 letters. When Melvin was a lad, his father insisted on only using words 3 letters or more. Less they appear to be part of the lower eschelon of society.

Would that make 4 letter words better?

Groundbeef
01-21-2008, 11:49 AM
Would that make 4 letter words better?

Well that depends. In the world of Alphophiles, yes. 4 letter words are superior to those of 3 letter words.

It gets a bit tricky over 5 letters. At this point, only the most talented and intelligent linguists should be using those types of words. In the wrong company, using 5 or more letter words can lead to an inflated ego, or worse. A sense of superiority over those that can only use the most basic of words (3 or less letters).

And don't get me started on those that use punctuation, thats an entire subset of the "letter snobs" that profess to hold more power over people than the "alphabet snobs".

According to the punctuation crowd, nothing happens without them. I tend to agree, but then again, why not. After all without a period, your just another run on sentance...(or pregnant depending upon the topic)

Rich-n-Texas
01-21-2008, 11:58 AM
Nothing burns me up more than sentences without periods!

JohnMichael
01-21-2008, 12:02 PM
Not only should those of us from the lower class minimize the number of letters we should also avoid using polysyllabic words.

JohnMichael
01-21-2008, 12:06 PM
Nothing burns me up more than sentences without periods!




Then do not try to read James Joyce's "Ulysses".

Groundbeef
01-21-2008, 12:18 PM
Not only should those of us from the lower class minimize the number of letters we should also avoid using polysyllabic words.

Thats a big word. I agree, those in the lower class should avoid them. Although the always popular "double entendre" is more than welcome. Because even if you don't have money, you can still...use big words?

GMichael
01-21-2008, 12:38 PM
U Guys R 2 Funny

melvin walker
01-21-2008, 12:40 PM
Oh, and the best part about that 12 feet advice is that he offered it to a guy with Paradigm Studio 20s, I speaker he clearly has never heard. Has anyone seen or does anyone have their 20s set up 12 feet apart. I've never seen it! Twelve feet really is quite a distance.

One of the nicest showroom experiences I ever had was with the 20s, an Arcam integrated and Music Hall turntable, but apparently I was had, because they were only 6 or 7 feet apart at best.

Electronic World reprint , George L. Augspurger Technical advisor for James L. Lansing speaker Corp. " To achieve maximum stereo effect it is suggested that the distance between stereo speakers should be no less than twelve feet , . therefor achieving maximum stereo imaging" . "This will allow the operation of various types of devices used professionally and in homes. "

Mr. Augspurger was referring to JBL's Horn loaded speaker systems. Which at the time was some of the finest speaker systems in the world.
The JBL Hartsfield was pictured on the front page of life magazine.
Mr. Augspurger was a noted engineer and audio scientist of his era.

You may find Hartsfields on Ebay since they weight in at about 280 lbs each the transportation cost alone is very expensive.
12 feet was my suggestion , if you disagree , that is your right , why make an issue of it.
At the time some audio engineers suggested 8 feet , it all depends on the type of speaker system used. It was only a suggestion.

Groundbeef
01-21-2008, 12:53 PM
Electronic World reprint , George L. Augspurger Technical advisor for James L. Lansing speaker Corp. " To achieve maximum stereo effect it is suggested that the distance between stereo speakers should be no less than twelve feet , . therefor achieving maximum stereo imaging" . "This will allow the operation of various types of devices used professionally and in homes. "

Mr. Augspurger was referring to JBL's Horn loaded speaker systems. Which at the time was some of the finest speaker systems in the world.
The JBL Hartsfield was pictured on the front page of life magazine.
Mr. Augspurger was a noted engineer and audio scientist of his era.

You may find Hartsfields on Ebay since they weight in at about 280 lbs each the transportation cost alone is very expensive.
12 feet was my suggestion , if you disagree , that is your right , why make an issue of it.
At the time some audio engineers suggested 8 feet , it all depends on the type of speaker system used. It was only a suggestion.

I'm gonna agree with Melvin on this one. I had my speakers 11'4" apart, and it was awful. I moved them back 8" and now, its like I have new equipment.

Who would have thought 8" would be such a big deal?

GMichael
01-21-2008, 01:01 PM
Electronic World reprint , George L. Augspurger Technical advisor for James L. Lansing speaker Corp. " To achieve maximum stereo effect it is suggested that the distance between stereo speakers should be no less than twelve feet , . therefor achieving maximum stereo imaging" . "This will allow the operation of various types of devices used professionally and in homes. "

Mr. Augspurger was referring to JBL's Horn loaded speaker systems. Which at the time was some of the finest speaker systems in the world.
The JBL Hartsfield was pictured on the front page of life magazine.
Mr. Augspurger was a noted engineer and audio scientist of his era.

You may find Hartsfields on Ebay since they weight in at about 280 lbs each the transportation cost alone is very expensive.
12 feet was my suggestion , if you disagree , that is your right , why make an issue of it.
At the time some audio engineers suggested 8 feet , it all depends on the type of speaker system used. It was only a suggestion.

Taken out of context. 12 feet may be the perfect distance apart for the room he was in and his seating position. To believe that 12 feet is the universal distance for all optimum listening, regardless of setting, is pure ignorance. You may have quoted the words, but you missed their meaning. Please stop quoting what you clearly do not understand.

Rich-n-Texas
01-21-2008, 01:02 PM
As luck would have it, when my new room layout is finished, my mains and surrounds will be 8' 2" apart. I better see big gains in imaging when I'm done.

GMichael
01-21-2008, 01:04 PM
As luck would have it, when my new room layout is finished, my mains and surrounds will be 8' 2" apart. I better see big gains in imaging when I'm done.

Can't you read? It's 12 feet or nothing.

Rich-n-Texas
01-21-2008, 01:07 PM
Welp, then one speaker will just have to stay on the porch I rekon. I think imaging will suffer though won't it?

JohnMichael
01-21-2008, 01:07 PM
Taken out of context. 12 feet may be the perfect distance apart for the room he was in and his seating position. To believe that 12 feet is the universal distance for all optimum listening, regardless of setting, is pure ignorance. You may have quoted the words, but you missed their meaning. Please stop quoting what you clearly do not understand.



GMichael this is exactly what I think everyone has been trying to get accross to Melman. You stated it well. You got a greenie for this one. :cornut:

markw
01-21-2008, 01:10 PM
Electronic World reprint , George L. Augspurger Technical advisor for James L. Lansing speaker Corp. " To achieve maximum stereo effect it is suggested that the distance between stereo speakers should be no less than twelve feet , . therefor achieving maximum stereo imaging" . "This will allow the operation of various types of devices used professionally and in homes. "

Mr. Augspurger was referring to JBL's Horn loaded speaker systems. Which at the time was some of the finest speaker systems in the world.
The JBL Hartsfield was pictured on the front page of life magazine.
Mr. Augspurger was a noted engineer and audio scientist of his era.

You may find Hartsfields on Ebay since they weight in at about 280 lbs each the transportation cost alone is very expensive.He wasn't and your answer was totally bogus. Now you're trying to justify it?

...and now you imply that we're beneath owning them ? Sheesh, melmen, give it a rest.


12 feet was my suggestion , if you disagree , that is your right , why make an issue of it.Yeah, I disagree with you trying to justify an answer to one particular situation as a one size fits all answer to all applications like you did here.


At the time some audio engineers suggested 8 feet , it all depends on the type of speaker system used. It was only a suggestion.No, it was a proclamation, not a suggestion.

I suggest you bone up on some speaker placement guidelines that have been set forth since JFK was president before spewing more verbal diarrhea here.

You really are too much of a pompous arsehole to admit you blew it big time, aren't you?

Rich-n-Texas
01-21-2008, 01:11 PM
GM gotta greenie?!?!?! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

He's gotta be out of the top ten by now, right?

Groundbeef
01-21-2008, 01:12 PM
Can't you read? It's 12 feet or nothing.

What foot standard are we talking? What if Rich's 12 feet are smaller than Melvin's 12 feet? And isn't that a little morbid. Where does one get 12 feet for measurement? The morgue?

I can just imagine that conversation:

RT: I need 12 feet to separate my speakers.

Morgue worker: Sorry bub, I only got's 7 feet and 1 peg leg.

RT: I really need 12 feet. What else you got?

Morgue worker: Well, maybe you can use some hands. 2 hands just about equal 1 foot.

RT. Ok, I'll take the 7 feet, 9 hands, and the peg leg. I'll use that to push the speakers into position.

Morgue worker: Just bring them back when your done. People dont like relatives to be buried without feet. It's unsightly.

GMichael
01-21-2008, 01:15 PM
Welp, then one speaker will just have to stay on the porch I rekon. I think imaging will suffer though won't it?

Nope. Twelve is the magic number. Anything else is a com-pro-mise.:incazzato:

GMichael
01-21-2008, 01:16 PM
GMichael this is exactly what I think everyone has been trying to get accross to Melman. You stated it well. You got a greenie for this one. :cornut:

OH NO! Now I'm in the rough. CADY! Bring me my pitching wedge!

GMichael
01-21-2008, 01:20 PM
What foot standard are we talking? What if Rich's 12 feet are smaller than Melvin's 12 feet? And isn't that a little morbid. Where does one get 12 feet for measurement? The morgue?

I can just imagine that conversation:

RT: I need 12 feet to separate my speakers.

Morgue worker: Sorry bub, I only got's 7 feet and 1 peg leg.

RT: I really need 12 feet. What else you got?

Morgue worker: Well, maybe you can use some hands. 2 hands just about equal 1 foot.

RT. Ok, I'll take the 7 feet, 9 hands, and the peg leg. I'll use that to push the speakers into position.

Morgue worker: Just bring them back when your done. People dont like relatives to be buried without feet. It's unsightly.

Funny stuff. Greenies to ya.

Rich-n-Texas
01-21-2008, 01:24 PM
Funny stuff. Greenies to ya.
I've been demoted haven't I? :sad:

melvin walker
01-21-2008, 01:24 PM
I'm gonna agree with Melvin on this one. I had my speakers 11'4" apart, and it was awful. I moved them back 8" and now, its like I have new equipment.

Who would have thought 8" would be such a big deal?

What must be remembered is that in the early days of audio , audiophiles used huge Bass reflex , front and rear loaded horns , and very large infinite baffle speakers enclosures. Since only one was needed most homes could accommodate them. With the introduction of stereo it spelled the end to these large speakers .

Horns were very expensive to build and needed two corners. Horns used the walls and ceiling for the mouth of the horn. Base reflex's were also large , the bigger the cabinet the better the base. Infinite Baffles could be installed in a garage using the entire garage as the enclosure. Example the Concert Grand used four 12inch base , two eight inch midrange and eight cone tweeters., the cabinet was 5 feet high with weight close to 300 pounds.
You needed two for stereo.

Where speakers of this size was placed was critical. There was a case in St.Louis in which the Bozak rep. using a Bozak system was able to crack his houses concrete foundation with bass so low. His system was featured in Stereo Review magazine.
Were these speaker systems better than today's speaker systems , no but you will have to spend a lot of money to better them.

GMichael
01-21-2008, 01:29 PM
I've been demoted haven't I? :sad:

Nope. But I still can't fire in your direction. :incazzato:

Groundbeef
01-21-2008, 01:29 PM
What must be remembered is that in the early days of audio , audiophiles used huge Bass reflex , front and rear loaded horns , and very large infinite baffle speakers enclosures. Since only one was needed most homes could accommodate them. With the introduction of stereo it spelled the end to these large speakers .

Horns were very expensive to build and needed two corners. Horns used the walls and ceiling for the mouth of the horn. Base reflex's were also large , the bigger the cabinet the better the base. Infinite Baffles could be installed in a garage using the entire garage as the enclosure. Example the Concert Grand used four 12inch base , two eight inch midrange and eight cone tweeters., the cabinet was 5 feet high with weight close to 300 pounds.
You needed two for stereo.

Where speakers of this size was placed was critical. There was a case in St.Louis in which the Bozak rep. using a Bozak system was able to crack his houses concrete foundation with bass so low. His system was featured in Stereo Review magazine.
Were these speaker systems better than today's speaker systems , no but you will have to spend a lot of money to better them.

Yeah, but now Bose has those little speakers. Who needs a 300lb elephant in your living room when you can fill an auditorium with 2 speakers the size of a lb of butter?

Plus you get all the prestige of owning equipment scientifically designed to separate you from your money.

BTW Melvin, did you remeber to return your 12 feet?

Rich-n-Texas
01-21-2008, 01:30 PM
Melvin's got a red chicklett!!! Little shameless behavior I'd say.

markw
01-21-2008, 01:31 PM
What must be remembered is that in the early days of audio , audiophiles used huge Bass reflex , front and rear loaded horns , and very large infinite baffle speakers enclosures. Since only one was needed most homes could accommodate them. With the introduction of stereo it spelled the end to these large speakers .

Horns were very expensive to build and needed two corners. Horns used the walls and ceiling for the mouth of the horn. Base reflex's were also large , the bigger the cabinet the better the base. Infinite Baffles could be installed in a garage using the entire garage as the enclosure. Example the Concert Grand used four 12inch base , two eight inch midrange and eight cone tweeters., the cabinet was 5 feet high with weight close to 300 pounds.
You needed two for stereo.

Where speakers of this size was placed was critical. There was a case in St.Louis in which the Bozak rep. using a Bozak system was able to crack his houses concrete foundation with bass so low. His system was featured in Stereo Review magazine.
Were these speaker systems better than today's speaker systems , no but you will have to spend a lot of money to better them.Did that 12 foot rule apply to mono systems, too?

Unless otherwise specified, we must assume that when a question is being asked here, it pertains to what's currently available, not what you remember from the days you really had hearing to justify a hi-fi system.

Your historical (hysterical?) perspective may contain nuggets of wisdom that was applicable fifty years ago to equipment made then, there have been tremendous changes (and improvements) in speaker design since then. FWIW, we've even gone beyond that new-fangled "stereo" into 6, 7 and more channels.


I suggest you google the "cardas method" if you want a little primer on speaker placement

We don't cure diseases by puttilng leeches on people anymoer, either.

mlsstl
01-21-2008, 01:34 PM
It would be interesting to see what qualifiers Mr. Augspurger attached to his comments regarding the 12 feet of left/right separation. (Or, for that matter, the 8 feet recommended by others.) I would suspect if asked, he would state that it is more important to understand the theory involved than to have memorized static numbers.

Stereo imaging is heavily dependent on room size and listening position. In a smaller room one would be at risk of creating a hole in the middle of the sonic image. In a very large room, where the the listening seats may be further back, 12 feet might not be enough.

Years ago when I still did some professional sound work I avoided arbitrary rules and distances like that. It wasn't really possible to determine the setup dimensions until you saw the room in question.

(Consider the issue of 12 feet between the left and right speaker of a headphone and one sees how quickly one gets a wedgie in their knickers with fixed dictums.)

A more useful concept for speaker placement is the Blumlein setup which allows for distances to vary with the specifics of the room. Blumlein even gets brownie points for having invented stereo!

GMichael
01-21-2008, 01:35 PM
We don't cure diseases by puttilng leeches on people anymoer, either.

What about drilling? My wife has a headache. Shouldn't I drill, to let the evil spirits out?

SlumpBuster
01-21-2008, 01:36 PM
I make an issue of it Mel because that is what you said you wanted to do. You said "Don't attack me. Lets discuss audio." Well, placement of speakers is discussing audio. You gave advice that was not stellar, after claiming you have enough experience to be authoritative. Maybe you are authoritative on horn loaded corner speakers, but Paradigm 20s are not that. They are small 2 way monitors with 5 1/2" woofers. The Paradigms will image like crazy, but I doubt most users will be spacing them 12 feet apart and thereby seating themselves 12 feet back.

The foundation of your assesment/opinion/advice was weak as it was based on an entirely different beast. It was an important disclosure.

markw
01-21-2008, 01:42 PM
What about drilling? My wife has a headache. Shouldn't I drill, to let the evil spirits out?That depends on where you're drilling, and what you're drilling with.

(can I say that here?)

GMichael
01-21-2008, 01:44 PM
That depends on where you're drilling, and what you're drilling with.

(can I say that here?)

Good catch. :ihih:
I must be slipping.:idea:

JohnMichael
01-21-2008, 01:53 PM
If we are bored talking about Melvin and audio we can talk about Tom Cruise and scientology.

Groundbeef
01-21-2008, 02:13 PM
If we are bored talking about Melvin and audio we can talk about Tom Cruise and scientology.

Why? Does he use a colostomy bag as well?

And do aliens keep their speakers 12' apart, or has their superior technology allowed them to move them to 11' apart?

GMichael
01-21-2008, 02:20 PM
Why? Does he use a colostomy bag as well?

And do aliens keep their speakers 12' apart, or has their superior technology allowed them to move them to 11' apart?

Speakers do not make any sound in a vacuum. (unless the bag is full)

Groundbeef
01-21-2008, 02:23 PM
Speakers do not make any sound in a vacuum. (unless the bag is full)

Don't be stupid. Aliens travel in space ships, not vacum cleaners. They tried a Hoover once, but it just sucked.

Plus, I've never seen an 11 foot vacum.

GMichael
01-21-2008, 02:34 PM
Don't be stupid. Aliens travel in space ships, not vacum cleaners. They tried a Hoover once, but it just sucked.

Plus, I've never seen an 11 foot vacum.

There's no need for name calling Dirtbag. I'd never call anyone a name Dirtbag. That's only for lowlifes Dirtbag.
Just because you've never seen an 11 foot dirtbag doesn't mean they does exist. Even been to a Harley rally?

Groundbeef
01-21-2008, 02:40 PM
There's no need for name calling Dirtbag. I'd never call anyone a name Dirtbag. That's only for lowlifes Dirtbag.
Just because you've never seen an 11 foot dirtbag doesn't mean they does exist. Even been to a Harley rally?

No why? Can you put your colostomy bag in the sidecar, and still be "cool"?

Where is Melvin. We demand answers. Plus, he never indicated if he returned his 12 feet, or if he kept them.

My guess is, they are still in his workshop. Waiting for further measurement. Lord knows they have shrunk after drying out. Probably about 10.5 feet now.

GMichael
01-21-2008, 02:45 PM
No why? Can you put your colostomy bag in the sidecar, and still be "cool"?

Where is Melvin. We demand answers. Plus, he never indicated if he returned his 12 feet, or if he kept them.

My guess is, they are still in his workshop. Waiting for further measurement. Lord knows they have shrunk after drying out. Probably about 10.5 feet now.

Maybe they were monkey feet.

Then they's be less than 12 hands.

melvin walker
01-22-2008, 05:09 AM
I make an issue of it Mel because that is what you said you wanted to do. You said "Don't attack me. Lets discuss audio." Well, placement of speakers is discussing audio. You gave advice that was not stellar, after claiming you have enough experience to be authoritative. Maybe you are authoritative on horn loaded corner speakers, but Paradigm 20s are not that. They are small 2 way monitors with 5 1/2" woofers. The Paradigms will image like crazy, but I doubt most users will be spacing them 12 feet apart and thereby seating themselves 12 feet back.

The foundation of your assesment/opinion/advice was weak as it was based on an entirely different beast. It was an important disclosure.

Cost was a major factor in the design of smaller speakers. Stereo and speaker placement was also a factor. Most houses could not except two large speakers. Consumers Report
helped the situation by rating AR as the best value. As a result AR became the number one selling speaker for several years.

AR was able to achieve exceptable bass in a smaller speaker. Spacing was not as critical.
I use both AR speakers and front loaded horns. The AR3a that I used has excellent base. The placement of the AR's is not as critical.

The front loaded Hartsfields require two unobstructed corners and a very large room.
Speakers such as the AR's and the need for stereo spelled the doom of the large speakers. I have two friends with Concert Grands , there is no need for corners , but the speakers need space. One other friend has two very large bass reflex speakers made by Stephens , at one time one of the top selling speakers.
The response from these speakers are outstanding. They were expensive than and if built today the cost would be unbelievable.

Listening to John William's " The phantom of the Opera " on a pair of Hartsfield is great.
A pair of Bozak Concert Grands also does an outstanding job.
One of the Bozaks is tri-amp , the owner uses 6 model 9 amps for power.
These speakers and others I have listed was built with no compromise either in cost are size. The cabinets were covered either in oiled walnut , African mahogany are teak. Premium woods that today is very expensive. Few speakers today cover their speakers in fine veneer. To costly.

Image is great but what about fidelity. Listen to Sinatra's breath when singing , the resin on a bass fiddle , the clean deep bass of an organ etc. It takes a big speaker well designed to achieve that , no gimmicks such as a Bose and the newer speakers that depends on gimmicks , because of cost.
Gimmicks sold to an unaware public. If it's new it must be better.

melvin walker
01-22-2008, 05:30 AM
Taken out of context. 12 feet may be the perfect distance apart for the room he was in and his seating position. To believe that 12 feet is the universal distance for all optimum listening, regardless of setting, is pure ignorance. You may have quoted the words, but you missed their meaning. Please stop quoting what you clearly do not understand.
You asked for the information as to what I used to base my opinion on , well there it is. Mr. Augspurger was one of the most respected audio engineer of his time.
. JBL was one of the industry leaders , in the development of speakers for both home and professional use. Mr, Augspurger headed their research and development department.

Rather than argue the point why not provide your counterpoint with some documentation.
Electronic World was and still may be one of the top electronic publications at the time this article was published.
Before you write that it was taken out of content , provide the full contents. The article was published in 1962. There was no mention of perfect.

You don't know me and you certainly don't know what I understand , you asked for proof well there it is . As for as I am concerned this matter is closed , unless you can provide countering data !

Rich-n-Texas
01-22-2008, 05:33 AM
Hey guys, he's putting Bose and "newer speakers that depend on gimmicks" in the same category. Who want's to go first?

johnny p
01-22-2008, 05:38 AM
Listening to John William's " The phantom of the Opera " on a pair of Hartsfield is great.
A pair of Bozak Concert Grands also does an outstanding job.

Also dependant on the space in which you're listening, but more often than not, I'd probably say this would be true.



Image is great but what about fidelity. Listen to Sinatra's breath when singing , the resin on a bass fiddle , the clean deep bass of an organ etc. It takes a big speaker well designed to achieve that

Not sure I can agree with that. Why would smaller speakers not be be able to produce these sounds? I'm not sure, but If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.


One other thing that needs to be addressed so we can all get that fuzzy feeling inside and put all of the aminosity behind us.

I'm not going to make any claims at being a reputable source of information on the subject, because to be quite honest, I don't even know much of the equipment you list, I certainly don't know the engineers and designers who pioneered the craft of audio as you, and others here do, and although I applaud the fact that you obtained and, retained, and regurgitated this information for us.

I made a claim that I had seen two pieces of equipment side by side, and one outperformed the other. JohnMichael I believe it was, stated I was incorrect. I did some research and found that the concensus was against me, which led me to believe that the side by side comparison (it was video) I had seen at my local hi-fi shop, was skewed to show the results that the hi-fi shop wanted me to see (maybe they didn't run one via HDMI, who knows) but the point is, I didn't blindly hold to my initial beliefs. If someone questions my equipments placement, settings, etc. I will research and go through the effort of testing and trial-by-error if you will, in order to find the results. I won't dismiss their thoughts as foolishness, nor will I lap it up and accept it as the gospel truth.

Groundbeef
01-22-2008, 05:41 AM
Hey guys, he's putting Bose and "newer speakers that depend on gimmicks" in the same category. Who want's to go first?

He might be right. Todays speakers rely on electricity to work. Mr. Walkers Grammaphone doesn't. Hence the gimmick angle. Electricity is just a passing fad.

BTW Bach does sound better on a wax cylinder. So does Sinatra.

Rich-n-Texas
01-22-2008, 05:41 AM
no gimmicks such as a Bose and the newer speakers that depends on gimmicks , because of cost.
Gimmicks sold to an unaware public. If it's new it must be better.
So what you're saying here mel is that all newer speakers depend on gimmicks to make the current generation think they're getting the best, right? If you've spent any time getting to know the members here and our opinions about Bose you'd know that across the board, NO ONE buy's into their marketing hype.

Yes, you truely are on the wrong discussion board old man.

Rich-n-Texas
01-22-2008, 05:45 AM
He might be right. Todays speakers rely on electricity to work. Mr. Walkers Grammaphone doesn't. Hence the gimmick angle. Electricity is just a passing fad.

BTW Bach does sound better on a wax cylinder. So does Sinatra.
I'm going to be in a good mood today thanks to your comedic talents beefy. Any day that starts off with a laugh is :thumbsup:

mlsstl
01-22-2008, 06:21 AM
The article was published in 1962.
Fascinating. The first time you mentioned the article, Mr. Augspurger was an unimpeachable authority and not to be questioned. After questions are raised, now you use the age of the article as an excuse. Which is it?

Knowledge does advance and materials and techniques do improve with time. The next time you go to the doctor, would you want diagnosis and treatment limited to what they knew in 1962 with only the medicines, surgical and other techniques available from 46 years ago?

Or, are you saying that unlike medicine, computers, astronomy and all the other fields of science that no one in audio has been smart enough to develop any new knowledge and that there have been no advancements in materials or manufacturing techniques for the past 46 years?

Have to say, Melvin, that you are certainly an interesting mix of contradictions.

markw
01-22-2008, 06:21 AM
You really think a snippet to aspecific large horn speaker in 1962 is germane to a bookshelf speaker made today?


You asked for the information as to what I used to base my opinion on , well there it is. Mr. Augspurger was one of the most respected audio engineer of his timeAnd, when was that? 1962? Columbus was a great navigator in his time but today we have GPS. ...and he got lost, IIRC


. JBL was one of the industry leaders , in the development of speakers for both home and professional use. Mr, Augspurger headed their research and development department.Again, when was this?

While the article you quote may have been valid in 1962, and for this particular speaker in a particuar situation, do you really think he would give the same answer for all speakers in all rooms like you did?

It looks like he still may be around. He was one of the leaders in this field up tp until at least the year 2000. Do you think he stopped his education and innovations in 1962? Think carefully on this one, old man.

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/our-thanks/contacts.htm

Didja know he did work for the Grateful Dead?

Tell ya what. mel. Since you're so fond of throwing his name and credentials around like he's a personal friend, why not ask him the same question the poster did and tell us what he says. I'm sure he's oblige an old buddy like you.

IOW, have him validate your answer here.


Rather than argue the point why not provide your counterpoint with some documentation.
Electronic World was and still may be one of the top electronic publications at the time this article was published.And Popular Mechanics of that era providesome amusing predictions of the future, too.

I wonder if Mr. Augspurger would have given the same answer to the question you TRIED to answer here. Odds are, no, since he knows that not all speakers and rooms are the same. something that you obviously cannot grasp.

didja ever look up the Cardas Method? ...or can't you use google, which is not just the sound you make when phlegm gathers in your throat.


Before you write that it was taken out of content , provide the full contents. The article was published in 1962. There was no mention of perfect.1962, and a recommendation for a specific large JBL Horn speaker.

Right.

Well, you're the one that states that 12 feet was the answer to the question at hand, weren't you? Do you even know what "context" means? I think not.


You don't know me and you certainly don't know what I understand , you asked for proof well there it is . As for as I am concerned this matter is closed , unless you can provide countering data !You're right, I don't know you and from your contributions here I don't want too. I ran into enough dotty old farts when my Mom was in the assisted living facility.

Do your grandkids know you're playing with their computer again?

markw
01-22-2008, 06:29 AM
He might be right. Todays speakers rely on electricity to work. Mr. Walkers Grammaphone doesn't. Hence the gimmick angle. Electricity is just a passing fad.

BTW Bach does sound better on a wax cylinder. So does Sinatra.Ol' melman will tell ya that nothing sounds as good as those old fashioned coal-fired speakers.

You know, those danged gimmicks designed to fool us gullible consumers, like thiele-Small parameters, Transmission lines, acoustic suspension. and planar speakers ,and who knows what other devil sent contraptions lurk out there.

Well, maybe white van speakers....

GMichael
01-22-2008, 06:34 AM
You asked for the information as to what I used to base my opinion on , well there it is. Mr. Augspurger was one of the most respected audio engineer of his time.
. JBL was one of the industry leaders , in the development of speakers for both home and professional use. Mr, Augspurger headed their research and development department.

Rather than argue the point why not provide your counterpoint with some documentation.
Electronic World was and still may be one of the top electronic publications at the time this article was published.
Before you write that it was taken out of content , provide the full contents. The article was published in 1962. There was no mention of perfect.

You don't know me and you certainly don't know what I understand , you asked for proof well there it is . As for as I am concerned this matter is closed , unless you can provide countering data !



HAHAHAHA Oh my God. You must be a troll. No one can be that stupid. Nice job. You sucked me in big time. I actually thought you had a point. Funny stuff man. Thanks for the laugh.
Now, who are you? Really.

markw
01-22-2008, 06:48 AM
HAHAHAHA Oh my God. You must be a troll. No one can be that stupid. Nice job. You sucked me in big time. I actually thought you had a point. Funny stuff man. Thanks for the laugh.
Now, who are you? Really.Actually, the real answer to how far speakers should be separated should be easy for him to answer.

All he has to do is look at his undergarments and say "depends".

melvin walker
01-22-2008, 06:55 AM
Also dependant on the space in which you're listening, but more often than not, I'd probably say this would be true.




Not sure I can agree with that. Why would smaller speakers not be be able to produce these sounds? I'm not sure, but If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.


One other thing that needs to be addressed so we can all get that fuzzy feeling inside and put all of the aminosity behind us.

I'm not going to make any claims at being a reputable source of information on the subject, because to be quite honest, I don't even know much of the equipment you list, I certainly don't know the engineers and designers who pioneered the craft of audio as you, and others here do, and although I applaud the fact that you obtained and, retained, and regurgitated this information for us.

I made a claim that I had seen two pieces of equipment side by side, and one outperformed the other. JohnMichael I believe it was, stated I was incorrect. I did some research and found that the concensus was against me, which led me to believe that the side by side comparison (it was video) I had seen at my local hi-fi shop, was skewed to show the results that the hi-fi shop wanted me to see (maybe they didn't run one via HDMI, who knows) but the point is, I didn't blindly hold to my initial beliefs. If someone questions my equipments placement, settings, etc. I will research and go through the effort of testing and trial-by-error if you will, in order to find the results. I won't dismiss their thoughts as foolishness, nor will I lap it up and accept it as the gospel truth.

Cost became a problem in the early days of stereo. AR's solved the cost problem. The problem with AR's , especially the AR'3s was power and they were 4 ohms.
Stereo was expanding , it was no longer the private reserve of audiophiles. Change was taking place. Many wives did not want monster speakers in their living rooms , amps all over the place. Receivers became the norm.

Transistors replaced tubes , book shelf speakers replaced floor standing speakers , the new listeners was not as critical. Rock replaced Sinatra. times were changing.
Many speaker and amp companies went out of business who could not make the change .
Stephens , Bozak , Electro-Voice . Jensens , University , even JBL a pioneer was purchased . The list also included tape companies such as Ampex , Crown and a long list of other companies TT companies bit the dust .

High fidelity got lost in the quest for profits and staying in business. Bose came out with a new gimmick . A table top radio could spread sound all over the room. Fidelity who cares.
CD' s , DVD's etc,etc, no one spoke of fidelity it was variety. it was new. A new generation of listeners was coming alone , many would never visit an audio shop are attend a classical concert. They wanted sound , loud ! Than came the home entertainment center in which audio took a back seat to video. Now there is Iphone and the list goes on.

The sad part in audio as posted earlier many young people are not really interested in the history of audio. In most European car clubs that is not the case. In other hobbies that is not the case , why is it the case in audio ?
Maybe it was caused by the decline of the audio magazines are the lost of most audio shops , and it could be the fact that stores such as Best Buy one of the leader in audio sales generally hires part time salespeople.
In the metro St.Louis area there was once 12 full time audio shops , today there is less than three.

Rich-n-Texas
01-22-2008, 06:55 AM
Can it not be said that today's planar speakers are about as large as his AR's? AT A FRACTION OF THE WEIGHT?

As for{far} as I am concerned this matter is closed , unless you can provide countering data !
I think you're leaving a lot of unanswered questions on the table mel. And if you haven't been paying attention, there has been nothing but countering data at just about every turn.

You really need to get with the times mel. You'll regret wallowing in the past when your number comes up in a few years.

Groundbeef
01-22-2008, 07:00 AM
So I guess the question really is this:

If I have 2 speakers that are 12' wide (think really big horns), can I just put them next to each other in the room?

Rich-n-Texas
01-22-2008, 07:02 AM
Again, the underlying theme of everything you say is that sound quality of today can't match the sound quality of yesteryear. Even now you can't be convinced otherwise. No matter what anybody says, you're stuck.

PEOPLE! This is what happens when you get old. Expand your horizons NOW while you're still young enough to appreciate the good things in today's life!

Groundbeef
01-22-2008, 07:13 AM
Cost became a problem in the early days of stereo. .

Cost is still a concern for many. I would LOVE to own some really nice gear, but I simply can't, and still make house payments, feed the 3 kids, pay off the mini-van, finish the basement, etc. So I bought the best that I could afford. Why is that an issue for you or anyone else for that matter?



Stereo was expanding , it was no longer the private reserve of audiophiles. .

And what? Isn't music supposed to be shared? Why is it only for those with money or super equipment?




The sad part in audio as posted earlier many young people are not really interested in the history of audio. In most European car clubs that is not the case. In other hobbies that is not the case , why is it the case in audio ?.

Why do I need to know the history? Unless I'm "in the club" so to speak, does it really matter if I know what a tube is? Is it important that I buy up every LP and listen to them? No, not really. Just like you said, unless your into your hobby, its just another thing to have.




Maybe it was caused by the decline of the audio magazines are the lost of most audio shops , and it could be the fact that stores such as Best Buy one of the leader in audio sales generally hires part time salespeople..

See response below.



In the metro St.Louis area there was once 12 full time audio shops , today there is less than three.

I'll tell you what. I TRIED to throw my local audio shop a bone when I was building my house. Just the sticks (2x4's) were up, and I wanted it wired up. I didn't even need any equipment, just wires (14 guage) and some boxes for the wires to pop out of the wall. All told it was going to be about 300' of wire and 16 junctions (Kitchen, LR, Master Bath, Master BR). Audio guy got back to me, and wanted $3000 THREE THOUSAND for hanging wire in a home with no drywall, and about 4 hours work. I told him to forget it, and I wired it myself for about $500 using THX certified in wall wire.

Thats why audio shops are going belly up. They try to screw the small customer base, not because BB or CC are stealing their customers blind. If I had gotten a REASONABLE bid, I would have gladly paid for it.

SlumpBuster
01-22-2008, 07:16 AM
Image is great but what about fidelity. Listen to Sinatra's breath when singing , the resin on a bass fiddle , the clean deep bass of an organ etc. It takes a big speaker well designed to achieve that , no gimmicks such as a Bose and the newer speakers that depends on gimmicks , because of cost.
Gimmicks sold to an unaware public. If it's new it must be better.


I've never heard anyone refer to a well designed 2 way monitor with a 5 1/4 to 8 inch woofer as a "gimmick." Are you suggesting that manufactures such as Paradigm are using gimmicks to keep costs down, because if that is the case it is not working. The Paradigm 20 retails for $850. Not exactly cheap. Lets look at some other examples

Audio Note - you pick your veneer.
http://www.audionote.co.uk/products/speakers/ax-1_01.shtml

Tyler - $3600 and you pick your veneer.
http://www.tyleracoustics.com/linbrook.html

Usher Audio - $3000 and veneerhttp://www.usheraudiousa.com/products/loudspeakers/dancer-series/Be-718

Mobile Fidelity: $1000 and you pick your veneer.
http://www.mofi.com/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=9&idproduct=18

They are not better because they are new. They are better because they are more flexible. They are still visually pleasing but not intrusive like cornerhorns. They will integrate well with separate subwoofers. Separate subs offer flexibility that a corner horn can't match. Corner horns require corner placement. If that happens to create a nasty room mode with a 20db peak, well you're screwed. Separate subs allow flexible placement to combat room modes and also allow introduction of room correction, whether as simple as a Behringer feedback destroyer or as complex as the lastest Wadia gizmo. But, I suspect your not really familiar with those.

markw
01-22-2008, 07:32 AM
Cost became a problem in the early days of stereo. AR's solved the cost problem. The problem with AR's , especially the AR'3s was power and they were 4 ohms.Are you congratulating or complaining?



Stereo was expanding , it was no longer the private reserve of audiophiles.Ah, there's the rub! It was no longer the domain of the elite few, right? The entry of the great unwashed into your little circle seems to be right where you seem to lose interest.


Change was taking place.As it always does. Learn to live with it.


Many wives did not want monster speakers in their living rooms , amps all over the place. Receivers became the norm.I guess "real" audiophiles in your day had to choose between big speakers and tons of equipment or a happy wife, no compromises. Personally, I'll take the happy wife. Thanks to her I've now got three sons and five loving grand-kids, with more to come.


Transistors replaced tubes , book shelf speakers replaced floor standing speakers , the new listeners was not as critical. Rock replaced Sinatra. times were changing.And so it goes. Can't live in the past, can ya?


Many speaker and amp companies went out of business who could not make the change .
Stephens , Bozak , Electro-Voice . Jensens , University , even JBL a pioneer was purchased . The list also included tape companies such as Ampex , Crown and a long list of other companies TT companies bit the dust,High fidelity got lost in the quest for profits and staying in business. And so? This is the business model that runs the world..


Bose came out with a new gimmick . A table top radio could spread sound all over the room. Fidelity who cares.Actually, even though it's overprices it's a pretty decent sounding little radio and many are happy with it. For most people (not you audiophiles, of course) it's all the "hi-fi" they need.


CD' s , DVD's etc,etc, no one spoke of fidelity it was variety. it was new. A new generation of listeners was coming alone , many would never visit an audio shop are attend a classical concert. They wanted sound , loud ! Than came the home entertainment center in which audio took a back seat to video. Now there is Iphone and the list goes on.Most people neverattended classical concerts anyway. And, CD's, when done right can sound pretty decent.

And, your hearing is so far gone by this time, you;ve got nothing to say about it. You're operating on here-say.


The sad part in audio as posted earlier many young people are not really interested in the history of audio. In most European car clubs that is not the case. In other hobbies that is not the case , why is it the case in audio ?If you're what lurks in the history of vintage audio, I can see why people shy away from you. You're nuckin futs! If you were my first encounter with vintage audio I'd run as far and as fast as I could.

There are some sites devoted to vintage audio and they seem to be growing. Please stay away from them. Your elitist attitude will drive them away in droves.



Maybe it was caused by the decline of the audio magazines are the lost of most audio shops , and it could be the fact that stores such as Best Buy one of the leader in audio sales generally hires part time salespeople.
In the metro St.Louis area there was once 12 full time audio shops , today there is less than three.And again. maybe it's caused by a paradigm shift in the market.

johnny p
01-22-2008, 07:54 AM
Melvin O Walker seems to be irritated that the masses can now enjoy higher fidelity at a lower cost.

basite
01-22-2008, 07:55 AM
Listening to John William's " The phantom of the Opera " on a pair of Hartsfield is great.
A pair of Bozak Concert Grands also does an outstanding job.
One of the Bozaks is tri-amp , the owner uses 6 model 9 amps for power.
These speakers and others I have listed was built with no compromise either in cost are size. The cabinets were covered either in oiled walnut , African mahogany are teak. Premium woods that today is very expensive. Few speakers today cover their speakers in fine veneer. To costly.

Image is great but what about fidelity. Listen to Sinatra's breath when singing , the resin on a bass fiddle , the clean deep bass of an organ etc. It takes a big speaker well designed to achieve that , no gimmicks such as a Bose and the newer speakers that depends on gimmicks , because of cost.
Gimmicks sold to an unaware public. If it's new it must be better.


and listening to any music on my thiels is even better than listening to it on your bozaks.

and no, there still are speakers with veneer, lots of them, in fact, every decent speaker uses veneer.
what has changed is that most brands don't use real wood anymore (they use MDF now, and HDF), but that's because real wood has a higher resonance frequency than MDF and HDF.

and yes, it takes a big speaker to reproduce big sound, but in the early days, they had monstrous speakers that produced a relatively small sound compared to their size. Today, speakers actually fit in a living room, and can easily reproduce 99% of the instruments, and project them in their real size, if you want the remaining 1 % too, then get a subwoofer, to get extremely low bass, which I remember was not the case with most early speakers, which crapped out under 40hz.

size is also why the monstrous speakers of the early days of audio were doomed, not because they were physically too big, but I want that violin sound like a violin, which is pretty small, and besides that, I want it to be there with me in the room. In the early days, you got the violin the size of a house, which is definatly not how it sounds in the real life.

and the bozaks are good speakers, but can easily be outperformed by todays speakers. No, a $100 speaker won't outperform it, but a $10k speaker DEFINATELY will. even a $5k speaker will outperform it on most factors.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

JohnMichael
01-22-2008, 08:11 AM
AR was able to achieve exceptable bass in a smaller speaker.




Did you mean acceptable bass?

SlumpBuster
01-22-2008, 08:15 AM
Another issue that hasn't really been raised is the fact that those early Bozaks and JBL and whatever were designed the why they were in large part to achieve their outrageous sensitivity ratings. These were essentially pro audio speakers brought into your living room. They needed sensitivity of 95db and greater because of the limitations in amplifier power. Marketable speaker design is, was, and always will be about balance. Without balance you end up with superspeakers. If all speakers were flagships and statement speakers, you wouldn't have much of a hobby community.

Bernd
01-22-2008, 08:21 AM
....I shall throw another log on the fire. What is a hifi system to do? Is it supposed to recreate the live event or is it an entity in itself, to play music for our pleassure, and has that changed during the last 50 years.

I recently went to the Royal Opera House to see a performance of Rossini's La Cenerentola. What a night that was. Terrific music, performed by top musicians in a wonderful acoustic environment. Fantastic.

I didn't spend much time analysing the sound itself, but a couple of things occurred to me. Firstly, at no time did the concept of 'volume' come into the equation at all. I could not even begin to approximate 'loudness' - from pianissimo to fortissimo, nothing was ever so quiet as to require any effort to hear it, nor was anything ever so loud that it was uncomfortable to the ear. The dynamic range was huge, in other words.

The orchestra pit covered the whole width of the stage (50 or 60 feet?). All I can say is that I have never heard a hifi system that can convincingly represent such huge body of sound.

So, in hifi terms, are we wasting our time? Does spending megabucks really get close to the real thing? Is it even reasonable to try to recreate a 50 foot wide orchestra layout in a domestic environment? Or should that be 12 feet? I am confused now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And surely if it can't be done today it certainly could not have happend some 50 odd Years ago. And why was everything so great 50 years ago-and why is it always the magic number 50.
I am feeling dizzy now.

Peace

:9:

E-Stat
01-22-2008, 08:21 AM
Mr. Augspurger was referring to JBL's Horn loaded speaker systems. Which at the time was some of the finest speaker systems in the world.
The JBL Hartsfield was pictured on the front page of life magazine.Mr. Augspurger was a noted engineer and audio scientist of his era.
It is helpful to provide such details to put them into perspective. Given that the Hartsfields were "folded corner horns", that recommendation is not suprising. They're supposed to be placed in the corners of the room! The speakers in question where you provided that perspective , however, were not. You'll note that the premier JBL of that day, the Paragon, had its drivers more like 8 feet apart.

http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/jbl/catalogs/1962/page16-17.jpg

rw

SlumpBuster
01-22-2008, 08:41 AM
I recently went to the Royal Opera House to see a performance of Rossini's La Cenerentola. What a night that was. Terrific music, performed by top musicians in a wonderful acoustic environment. Fantastic.

So, in hifi terms, are we wasting our time?

Nice. I just listened to that entire opera last month. Cecilia Bartoli's 1993 version. I was traveling on business and had a long drive in a rented Town Car. Not the most ideal stereo or environment, but I never even thought about that aspect. I just enjoyed the opera.

Here's another question. Does the Royal Opera House have a sound reinforcement system. Many halls have seamlessly integrated amplified sound reinforcement. What does that do to the whole "live" vs. "reproduced" question. What if while sitting in the middle of the opera house and you are really hearing a hybrid event of live acoustic amplified sound?

JohnMichael
01-22-2008, 08:46 AM
....I shall throw another log on the fire. What is a hifi system to do? Is it supposed to recreate the live event or is it an entity in itself, to play music for our pleassure, and has that changed during the last 50 years.

I recently went to the Royal Opera House to see a performance of Rossini's La Cenerentola. What a night that was. Terrific music, performed by top musicians in a wonderful acoustic environment. Fantastic.

I didn't spend much time analysing the sound itself, but a couple of things occurred to me. Firstly, at no time did the concept of 'volume' come into the equation at all. I could not even begin to approximate 'loudness' - from pianissimo to fortissimo, nothing was ever so quiet as to require any effort to hear it, nor was anything ever so loud that it was uncomfortable to the ear. The dynamic range was huge, in other words.

The orchestra pit covered the whole width of the stage (50 or 60 feet?). All I can say is that I have never heard a hifi system that can convincingly represent such huge body of sound.

So, in hifi terms, are we wasting our time? Does spending megabucks really get close to the real thing? Is it even reasonable to try to recreate a 50 foot wide orchestra layout in a domestic environment? Or should that be 12 feet? I am confused now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And surely if it can't be done today it certainly could not have happend some 50 odd Years ago. And why was everything so great 50 years ago-and why is it always the magic number 50.
I am feeling dizzy now.

Peace

:9:



Bernd that sounds like an incredible night. One night after a classical concert I went home ans listened to one of the pieces that was performed and it was like listening in miniature. I still enjoyed the music but that incredible sense of scale and dynamic range was absent.

Bernd
01-22-2008, 08:56 AM
Here's another question. Does the Royal Opera House have a sound reinforcement system. Many halls have seamlessly integrated amplified sound reinforcement. What does that do to the whole "live" vs. "reproduced" question. What if while sitting in the middle of the opera house and you are really hearing a hybrid event of live acoustic amplified sound?

To be honest I don't know. Saw no evidence of it, but you pose a great question. That could be on par with a backing tape running at a popular gig. One would feel cheated if not told in advance.
Also consider the size of the human mouth and how much db's come out of there. So a small speaker cone should do fine and often does.
Man, we are well of course here. Apologies.
Peace

:9:

Feanor
01-22-2008, 10:10 AM
Bernd that sounds like an incredible night. One night after a classical concert I went home ans listened to one of the pieces that was performed and it was like listening in miniature. I still enjoyed the music but that incredible sense of scale and dynamic range was absent.

Multi-channel comes a lot closer to replicating the sense of scale of a live performance -- not to say it will get you all the way there. Of course, really good M/C recording are still relatively scarce.

It's a real pity that some may audiophiles are vinyl die-hards, a fact that has retarded the acceptance of M/C media.

JohnMichael
01-22-2008, 10:17 AM
Multi-channel comes a lot closer to replicating the sense of scale of a live performance -- not to say it will get you all the way there. Of course, really good M/C recording are still relatively scarce.

It's a real pity that some may audiophiles are vinyl die-hards, a fact that has retarded the acceptance of M/C media.




Right on cue. Regardless of the presence of vinyl in my system I would still be listening to two channels.

Rich-n-Texas
01-22-2008, 10:54 AM
Not if you got with the times JM! :smilewinkgrin:

Ajani
01-22-2008, 10:56 AM
Did you mean acceptable bass?

:thumbsup: LOL

Ajani
01-22-2008, 11:02 AM
Multi-channel comes a lot closer to replicating the sense of scale of a live performance -- not to say it will get you all the way there. Of course, really good M/C recording are still relatively scarce.

It's a real pity that some may audiophiles are vinyl die-hards, a fact that has retarded the acceptance of M/C media.

I don't think vinyl has nearly the impact on M/C as the following:

1) Space - it is much easier to set up a good 2 channel rig than the 5.1 or more required for M/C.

&

2) $$$$$$$$$$ - 2 speakers and an integrated amp vs 5 speakers, sub and a receiver...

E-Stat
01-22-2008, 11:12 AM
2) $$$$$$$$$$ I agree and have disagreed with TtT on that topic in the past. Even having heard a superb all Magneplanar based MC system, I believe that one must necessarily compromise certain performance aspects for a given budget. It would be cost prohibitive to scale my system to five equivalent channels.

rw

JohnMichael
01-22-2008, 11:32 AM
Not if you got with the times JM! :smilewinkgrin:




Get with the times you say. Well I will have you know that the only component I own that is more then one year old is my turntable. I am campaigning for Hillary Clinton. I am an advocate for civil unions. Now how much more with the times can I be?:hand:

Ajani
01-22-2008, 11:42 AM
Get with the times you say. Well I will have you know that the only component I own that is more then one year old is my turntable. I am campaigning for Hillary Clinton. I am an advocate for civil unions. Now how much more with the times can I be?:hand:

Try Obama... Clinton is old school... lol

Rich-n-Texas
01-22-2008, 12:16 PM
Now how much more with the times can I be?:hand:
I don't see a center channel, a sub, and surrounds in your lineup! And an M/C pre-pro either. :nono:

JohnMichael
01-22-2008, 12:58 PM
Do you ever wonder how Melvin might have been received if he started off in Vintage Audio? Of course I am assuming he wanted to get along. I am just trying to understand the Melvin debacle.

GMichael
01-22-2008, 01:07 PM
Do you ever wonder how Melvin might have been received if he started off in Vintage Audio? Of course I am assuming he wanted to get along. I am just trying to understand the Melvin debacle.

I'm betting that he's just here to stir things up. He defies all logic to be on the level. Even Spanky has more of a clue.

Groundbeef
01-22-2008, 01:08 PM
Do you ever wonder how Melvin might have been received if he started off in Vintage Audio? Of course I am assuming he wanted to get along. I am just trying to understand the Melvin debacle.

I prefer to think of Melvin as a "gift". Unlike some of the more recent trouble makers, Lex, PS, Pixel (although he has come around quite a bit, and I can sometimes actually stomach a posting of his), Melvin is wholly unique.

Totally out of the loop, oblivious to his grammer/spelling errors while schooling others on theirs, quoting material decades old, and his relentless dogma regarding "new" music is nothing less than amusing.

I hope that he continues to post, and keep the thread alive.

Besides, where else have you seen James Taylor tied into Nazi's? You can't make that stuff up!

Rich-n-Texas
01-22-2008, 01:21 PM
He's helping me get closer to 2000 posts, at which point it'll be time for another...

Party at GM's house!!! :cornut:

bobsticks
01-22-2008, 01:25 PM
I prefer to think of Melvin as a "gift". Unlike some of the more recent trouble makers, Lex, PS, Pixel (although he has come around quite a bit, and I can sometimes actually stomach a posting of his), Melvin is wholly unique.

Totally out of the loop, oblivious to his grammer/spelling errors while schooling others on theirs, quoting material decades old, and his relentless dogma regarding "new" music is nothing less than amusing.

I hope that he continues to post, and keep the thread alive.

Besides, where else have you seen James Taylor tied into Nazi's? You can't make that stuff up!

Quite the opposite for me. I'm having an intolerable time separating my desire to respect my elders and my own appreciation for things vintage with his bloviating inanities and disconnection with reality.

NP: http://www.geocities.com/kulturkompasset/covHilary_HahnBach.jpg

markw
01-22-2008, 01:42 PM
Do you ever wonder how Melvin might have been received if he started off in Vintage Audio? His idea of vintage is to astigmatic for virtually all of the vintage fans I know. Most seem to feel that the pinnacle of vintage electronics was around the mid to late seventies. That's at least a decade after what he considered "worthwhile".

Besides, by that time almost anyone could afford good sound and, that rules out his "let 'em eat cake" domain.

Can you imagine the effect he could have on some newbie who just scored a Marantz 2230 and a pair of Original Advents? He'd have the poor kid feeling his stuff was a piece of dog excrement.

GMichael
01-22-2008, 01:52 PM
His idea of vintage is to astigmatic for virtually all of the vintage fans I know. Most seem to feel that the pinnacle of vintage electronics was around the mid to late seventies. That's at least a decade after what he considered "worthwhile".

Besides, by that time almost anyone could afford good sound and, that rules out his "let 'em eat cake" domain.

Can you imagine the effect he could have on some newbie who just scored a Marantz 2230 and a pair of Original Advents? He'd have the poor kid feeling his stuff was a piece of dog excrement.

I guess we're lucky that he doesn't seem to step outside of his own threads. (Much like Spanky)

johnny p
01-22-2008, 01:53 PM
There is no such thing as "vintage" there's pre-1960 Hi-Fi, and "Crap" I thought we all knew this!

markw
01-22-2008, 01:57 PM
I guess we're lucky that he doesn't seem to step outside of his own threads. (Much like Spanky)Remember, he first drew attention to himself when a poster asked about how to position a pair of paradigm bookshelf speakers, he recommended, no, stated unequivocally, that they should be placed 12 feet apart... period.

and, when confronted on whre he came up with that "fact", the bravado and bluster flowed like lava on Pompeii and the fine members of this forum acted like whiite blood cells on a virus.

At least spanky doesn't come off like he knows it all.

SlumpBuster
01-22-2008, 02:04 PM
I guess we're lucky that he doesn't seem to step outside of his own threads. (Much like Spanky)

There has to be a name for people like this. It is certainly and "interesting" personality trait.

GMichael
01-22-2008, 02:08 PM
Remember, he first drew attention to himself when a poster asked about how to position a pair of paradigm bookshelf speakers, he recommended, no, stated unequivocally, that they should be placed 12 feet apart... period.

and, when confronted on whre he came up with that "fact", the bravado and bluster flowed like lava on Pompeii and the fine members of this forum acted like whiite blood cells on a virus.

At least spanky doesn't come off like he knows it all.


All true. Spanky is very respectful. He's just special.
I think this guy is a plant. Too many things just don't add up. How can he be so pompous but still not know how to spell? How can he claim to know so much about sound, but not know that there is no "one size fits all" distance for speaker placement? He just can't be for real. He's got to be someone we know messing with our heads.

JohnMichael
01-22-2008, 02:10 PM
Quite the opposite for me. I'm having an intolerable time separating my desire to respect my elders and my own appreciation for things vintage with his bloviating inanities and disconnection with reality.

NP: http://www.geocities.com/kulturkompasset/covHilary_HahnBach.jpg


Bobsticks how is this Hilary Hahn recording. I do not have this one. Another of my favorite Hilary's. Would you recommend it?

melvin walker
01-22-2008, 02:19 PM
Another issue that hasn't really been raised is the fact that those early Bozaks and JBL and whatever were designed the why they were in large part to achieve their outrageous sensitivity ratings. These were essentially pro audio speakers brought into your living room. They needed sensitivity of 95db and greater because of the limitations in amplifier power. Marketable speaker design is, was, and always will be about balance. Without balance you end up with superspeakers. If all speakers were flagships and statement speakers, you wouldn't have much of a hobby community.
JBL speakers were very efficent , their horns needed less than 15 watts to drive them.
JBL base reflex speakers were also efficent , though not as efficent as the front loaded horns.

Bozaks on the other hand was inefficient needing more powerful amps , that is why many of the larger Bozaks were bi-amped and later the Concert Grands were tri-amped.
Electronic crossovers were used to help increase the power to each speaker , usually to the base speakers and the mid range speakers.

AR speakers on the other hand need much more power in order to give good clean base that the larger speakers gave.
The friend of mine that used 6 model 9 Marantz amps to drive his speakers produced wonderful sound.
Rudy Bozak visited Mr. Lloyd Smith's home to hear his set-up. As Lloyd was one of the first Bozak users to use the new tri-amp crossovers at the time.

Lloyd Smith system was reviewed in Stereo Review magazine. As a musician who performed with the Count Basie band and played part-time for the St.Louis Symphony,
Mr. Smith was a dedicated audiophile. He played the sax for both Basie and The St.Louis
Symphony.

markw
01-22-2008, 02:39 PM
One would hope that after fifty years in the hobby you'd get at least that right. ;)

melvin walker
01-22-2008, 02:39 PM
....I shall throw another log on the fire. What is a hifi system to do? Is it supposed to recreate the live event or is it an entity in itself, to play music for our pleassure, and has that changed during the last 50 years.

I recently went to the Royal Opera House to see a performance of Rossini's La Cenerentola. What a night that was. Terrific music, performed by top musicians in a wonderful acoustic environment. Fantastic.

I didn't spend much time analysing the sound itself, but a couple of things occurred to me. Firstly, at no time did the concept of 'volume' come into the equation at all. I could not even begin to approximate 'loudness' - from pianissimo to fortissimo, nothing was ever so quiet as to require any effort to hear it, nor was anything ever so loud that it was uncomfortable to the ear. The dynamic range was huge, in other words.

The orchestra pit covered the whole width of the stage (50 or 60 feet?). All I can say is that I have never heard a hifi system that can convincingly represent such huge body of sound.

So, in hifi terms, are we wasting our time? Does spending megabucks really get close to the real thing? Is it even reasonable to try to recreate a 50 foot wide orchestra layout in a domestic environment? Or should that be 12 feet? I am confused now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And surely if it can't be done today it certainly could not have happened some 50 odd Years ago. And why was everything so great 50 years ago-and why is it always the magic number 50.
I am feeling dizzy now.

Peace

:9:

Audiophile '" A high-fidelity audio hobbyist " Defined by The American Heritage Dictionary.
The Complete Guide to High -End Audio defines audiophile " A person who values sound quality in reproduced music "
The audiophile attempts to come as close to reproducing the sound you were referring to using audio equipment.

There were audio shows in which high-end audio manufacturers set-up live vs recorded sound. The audio equipment came very close.Maybe if you listened to some really outstanding audio equipment you might feel different.

As for as equipment today vs equipment pre 1970 . the equipment today is far better , the difference is cost. The cost in most cases is over $100,000 ! That is the problem.
An example would be how much would it cost for a car today to out perform a Farrari Daytona ? which cost new $18,000 . the cost today would be well over $250,000 !
I hope you get my point.

melvin walker
01-22-2008, 02:48 PM
Nice. I just listened to that entire opera last month. Cecilia Bartoli's 1993 version. I was traveling on business and had a long drive in a rented Town Car. Not the most ideal stereo or environment, but I never even thought about that aspect. I just enjoyed the opera.

Here's another question. Does the Royal Opera House have a sound reinforcement system. Many halls have seamlessly integrated amplified sound reinforcement. What does that do to the whole "live" vs. "reproduced" question. What if while sitting in the middle of the opera house and you are really hearing a hybrid event of live acoustic amplified sound?

There are great halls in America that has no need for amplified sound , Powell Symphony Hall St.Louis ,
Avery Fisher Hall Washington D.C. and Carnegie Hall in New York. I am sure there are others.
There was a live vs recorded sound exhibit in St.Louis sponsored by Bozak and Marantz.
in 1962 and 1970.

GMichael
01-22-2008, 02:50 PM
I hope you get my point.

Yeah,

There's this thing called inflation.

melvin walker
01-22-2008, 02:55 PM
It is helpful to provide such details to put them into perspective. Given that the Hartsfields were "folded corner horns", that recommendation is not suprising. They're supposed to be placed in the corners of the room! The speakers in question where you provided that perspective , however, were not. You'll note that the premier JBL of that day, the Paragon, had its drivers more like 8 feet apart.

http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/jbl/catalogs/1962/page16-17.jpg

rw
My second audio speaker system was the C34 enclosure using the 001 speaker system.
I sold that system and purchased a pair of Hartsfields.
Paragons was a completely enclosed speaker system. there was two speaker systems in the cabinet. The Paragon was originally designed to be used as a center speaker with Hartsfield on each end.

markw
01-22-2008, 02:57 PM
There are great halls in America that has no need for amplified sound , Powell Symphony Hall St.Louis ,
Avery Fisher Hall Washington D.C. and Carnegie Hall in New York. I am sure there are others.
There was a live vs recorded sound exhibit in St.Louis sponsored by Bozak and Marantz.
in 1962 and 1970

I've been to Avery Fisher Hall in NYC several times. but I wasn't aware there was one in Washington, DC as well.

I was unsuccessful locating anything about it on the internet. Could you please provide us with some information on that one?

I will give you that I agree that a well designed hall doesn't need amplification for symphonic music or opera.

melvin walker
01-22-2008, 03:01 PM
Multi-channel comes a lot closer to replicating the sense of scale of a live performance -- not to say it will get you all the way there. Of course, really good M/C recording are still relatively scarce.

It's a real pity that some may audiophiles are vinyl die-hards, a fact that has retarded the acceptance of M/C media.

You are correct , multi-channel does an excellent job.the question is the quality of the audio equipment . You can purchase inexpensive multi-channel audio equipment and you can purchase high end multi-channel audio equipment , there is a difference.

bobsticks
01-22-2008, 03:29 PM
Bobsticks how is this Hilary Hahn recording. I do not have this one. Another of my favorite Hilary's. Would you recommend it?

Get it and get it on SACD. Acquire this disc and save it for a rainy day after the honeymoon with the new gear is over, play it and remember why you do what you do.

Ajani
01-22-2008, 03:31 PM
Yeah,

There's this thing called inflation.

That's exactly what I thought when I read his post....

E-Stat
01-22-2008, 03:48 PM
Paragons was...
Yes, yes, Paragons were wonderful and "futuristic" looking back in the day.

More importantly - do you now understand the context in which Augspurger gave his "12 feet apart" recommendation? It pertained to a corner horn. It really helps to understand the "why" as much as the "what" so that you don't blindly follow (or give) some advice that leads you down the wrong path.

rw

bobsticks
01-22-2008, 03:48 PM
The written word is a lot like music. It has rhythm, pitch and timbre especially in the English language. The best examples of this can be found from T.S. Elliot to Jane Austen, from Hemmingway to Hunter Thompson, and of course, Shakespeare...have you ever "listened" to melvin's screed in your head? It's completely flat with no change of pace or inflection.

I believe English is not his native language. In fact, I suspect that melvin rarely communicates in any current spoken language as his programming is in MS-DOS.

melvin is a Super Phishing Computer in some hacker's warehouse in Latvia.

E-Stat
01-22-2008, 04:01 PM
An example would be how much would it cost for a car today to out perform a Farrari Daytona ? which cost new $18,000 . the cost today would be well over $250,000 !I hope you get my point.
The real story is that $18k in 1968 dollars would be about $105k today. The Corvette ZR-1 will considerably outperform the old Ferrari in every way and will be available for around $100k. No difference with inflation adjusted dollars.


!I hope you get my point.
I hope you update your point.

rw

mlsstl
01-22-2008, 04:28 PM
There were audio shows in which high-end audio manufacturers set-up live vs recorded sound. The audio equipment came very close.
Perhaps you are unaware that such comparisons (live vs recorded) date back to Thomas Edison's time.

From the Wikipedia entry on Edison: "Prior to the war Edison Records started a marketing campaign, hiring prominent singers and Vaudeville performers to perform along side and alternating with Edison records of their performances played on top-of-the-line "Laboratory Model" Edison Diamond Disc Phonographs. At various stages during the performances, all lights in the theater would be darkened and the audience challenged to guess if what they were hearing was live or recorded; accounts often said that much of the audience was astonished when the lights went back up to reveal only the Edison Phonograph on stage. According to a book published by the Edison company titled Composers and Artists whose Art is Re-Created by Edison's New Art, ca. 1920, the first such "comparison test" took place at Carnegie Hall on April 28, 1916 with Marie Rappold, of the Metropolitan opera providing the live vocal performance."

That is a fairly typical audience response for such comparisons, whether 92 years ago, or in 1962, 1970 or today. I hope you would not argue that meant Edison's un-amplified acoustic record represented the ultimate in playback quality just because the audience was thoroughly fooled.

With your logic, there would have been no need for any further advancement in audio engineering after 1920 or so.

For someone who spends as much time as you lecturing the young about their ignorance of audio history, you seem to be a bit shy on the subject yourself.

SlumpBuster
01-22-2008, 04:35 PM
There are great halls in America that has no need for amplified sound , Powell Symphony Hall St.Louis ,
Avery Fisher Hall Washington D.C. and Carnegie Hall in New York. I am sure there are others.
There was a live vs recorded sound exhibit in St.Louis sponsored by Bozak and Marantz.
in 1962 and 1970.

Ever hear the phrase "enough rope to hang himself?" Well, brother, you're running a frickin' rope factory. Here is everything you ever wanted to know about Carnegie Hall's amplified sound system. The most interesting part is why it was installed: to correct acoustical problems. It may be a great hall, but far from a perfect hall.
http://www.meyersound.com/applications/story.php?type=25&id=985

Oh, and a quick google search reveals that Fisher Hall and Powell Hall have amplified sound systems. Of course they do, ya knownothing.

E-Stat
01-22-2008, 05:34 PM
Oh, and a quick google search reveals that Fisher Hall and Powell Hall have amplified sound systems. Of course they do, ya knownothing.
In all fairness, the link you provided only spoke of the system's use for amplified musical venues: "But Carnegie Hall is not limited to classical music performances only, and many of the world's leading amplified jazz and rock acts have appeared there."

The greater question is whether or not such is used during classical concerts. Only at one of the Arkansas Symphony Orchestra performances I've attended (hey, you take what you can get) did they use their PA for a solo reinforcement. Sounded weird. Performer seated center stage. Sound came from far left and waaay up where the PA stacks are located in the walls to either side of the stage.

rw

markw
01-22-2008, 06:04 PM
The greater question is whether or not such is used during classical concerts. Only at one of the Arkansas Symphony Orchestra performances I've attended (hey, you take what you can get) did they use their PA for a solo reinforcement. Sounded weird. Performer seated center stage. Sound came from far left and waaay up where the PA stacks are located in the walls to either side of the stage.Several years ago the wife and I saw Christopher Parkening at the State Theatre in New Brunswick, NJ. This is a renovated vaudeville/movie theatre built in the early years of the last century.

All that was on the stage was a simple stool, an acoustic guitar on a stand, and various acoustic panels behind where he would be playing.

When he came on stage the audience went silent, he sat down, started playing, and we could hear every note. ...as clear as the proverbial bell. Not as loud as we would play it at home, but it was still clearly audible where we were sitting (around row 13 or so, IIRC) and, I assume he was heard in the back and in the balcony to some extent. There were no complaints, just silence from the audience.

If there was reinforcement, then it's technically sophisticated enough to be confused with magic. But I doubt there was. If so, I'm sure they would have upped it a few db.

SlumpBuster
01-22-2008, 06:10 PM
Yeah, that is fair enough. But, i wonder. I've seen amplification of soloists backed by a choir. I've seen amplification of entire chois too, come to think of it. La Cenerentola clocks in at three hours long, though. That is alot of singing for even the greatest divas. I wouldn't be surprised if their were a few hidden speaker arrays. Especially when you're competing with an orchestra.

E-Stat
01-22-2008, 08:52 PM
Several years ago the wife and I saw Christopher Parkening at the State Theatre in New Brunswick, NJ. Cool. I heard him play in Atlanta once, but it was at the Woodruff Arts Center. Hardly intimate. One nice thing, however, with living in a small college town is that sometimes you get such an opportunity. Last year, the wife and I heard the Katona Twins at a small university auditorium. First row. Similar minimalist setup. Incredible.

rw

markw
01-23-2008, 05:06 AM
Cool. I heard him play in Atlanta once, but it was at the Woodruff Arts Center. Hardly intimate. One nice thing, however, with living in a small college town is that sometimes you get such an opportunity. Last year, the wife and I heard the Katona Twins at a small university auditorium. First row. Similar minimalist setup. Incredible.

rwLate last year we saw John Sebastian in an (amplified) acoustic one-man show in a local church. Yes, it was amplified but not overdone and was still quite intimate. Sort of like him and about 300 close friends.

Rich-n-Texas
01-23-2008, 05:13 AM
:sleep:


:rolleyes:

noddin0ff
01-23-2008, 05:24 AM
The written word is a lot like music. It has rhythm, pitch and timbre especially in the English language. The best examples of this can be found from T.S. Elliot to Jane Austen, from Hemmingway to Hunter Thompson, and of course, Shakespeare...have you ever "listened" to melvin's screed in your head? It's completely flat with no change of pace or inflection.

I believe English is not his native language. In fact, I suspect that melvin rarely communicates in any current spoken language as his programming is in MS-DOS.

melvin is a Super Phishing Computer in some hacker's warehouse in Latvia.

Ha ha. I'd have to say pixels writing has the same lack of musicality, but I have no doubt s/he's and english speaker!

noddin0ff
01-23-2008, 05:31 AM
This 'reproduction of a live event' criteria kinda bugs me. So much of recorded music is not live and a fair amount could never be performed live. It'd probably be cool to see Beck live, e.g., but for listening at home I'd rather have a studio CD that in no way pretends to be a live performance.

On good recordings, I often find myself distracted by the crowd noise. Sure, if you listen to symphonies, there's a sense of grandeur you just can't reproduce. Maybe it's just because my classical tastes tend toward smaller groups that I want a reproduction of intimacy more than a reproduction of space? I'm not sure what my point is. I think I'm being Melvinized.

Ajani
01-23-2008, 05:41 AM
This 'reproduction of a live event' criteria kinda bugs me. So much of recorded music is not live and a fair amount could never be performed live. It'd probably be cool to see Beck, e.g. live, but for listening at home I'd rather have a studio CD that in no way pretends to be a live performance.

On good recordings, I often find myself distracted by the crowd noise. Sure, if you listen to symphonies, there's a sense of grandeur you just can't reproduce. Maybe it's just because my classical tastes tend toward smaller groups that I want a reproduction of intimacy more than a reproduction of space? I'm not sure what my point is. I think I'm being Melvinized.

The live event citeria bugs me as well, since I'm not a huge fan of live music.... simply because a lot of the music I buy sounds better out of the studio, than with screaming fans in the background....

melvin walker
01-23-2008, 07:20 AM
Perhaps you are unaware that such comparisons (live vs recorded) date back to Thomas Edison's time.

From the Wikipedia entry on Edison: "Prior to the war Edison Records started a marketing campaign, hiring prominent singers and Vaudeville performers to perform along side and alternating with Edison records of their performances played on top-of-the-line "Laboratory Model" Edison Diamond Disc Phonographs. At various stages during the performances, all lights in the theater would be darkened and the audience challenged to guess if what they were hearing was live or recorded; accounts often said that much of the audience was astonished when the lights went back up to reveal only the Edison Phonograph on stage. According to a book published by the Edison company titled Composers and Artists whose Art is Re-Created by Edison's New Art, ca. 1920, the first such "comparison test" took place at Carnegie Hall on April 28, 1916 with Marie Rappold, of the Metropolitan opera providing the live vocal performance."

That is a fairly typical audience response for such comparisons, whether 92 years ago, or in 1962, 1970 or today. I hope you would not argue that meant Edison's un-amplified acoustic record represented the ultimate in playback quality just because the audience was thoroughly fooled.

With your logic, there would have been no need for any further advancement in audio engineering after 1920 or so.

For someone who spends as much time as you lecturing the young about their ignorance of audio history, you seem to be a bit shy on the subject yourself.

I have accomplished one purpose if you have began reading audio history.

melvin walker
01-23-2008, 07:31 AM
The real story is that $18k in 1968 dollars would be about $105k today. The Corvette ZR-1 will considerably outperform the old Ferrari in every way and will be available for around $100k. No difference with inflation adjusted dollars.


I hope you update your point.

rw
You are correct , the difference is that the Ferrari will run at over 150 miles per hour all day , the Corvette will not. The AR-I like most American iron is designed to sprint.
How many Corvettes has won a World Manufactures Championship ? How many Corvettes has finished first at Le Mans ?

The are no 12 cylinder Ferrari that can be bought new for $105,000 !

melvin walker
01-23-2008, 08:00 AM
Yeah,

There's this thing called inflation.
Agreed. That is why we compromise. A Rolex Datejust cost $390.00 in 1970 today around
$6500 , a Porsche 911 S cost $7000 in 1970 today's equivalent $70,000.
A Hickey Freeman men's suit in 1970 cost $200.00 today $1500 +.

There have been many improvements in most items sold today. The difference is most people can't afford those improvements. A hotel room in Paris on the right bank was $50.00 a day in 1970, , today that same hotel room is more like $200.00 per day.

So what does the average American do , except less. Most young people today will not wear Rolex watches , drive Porsche cars , wear Hickey Freeman suits.
Most did not in the 1970's but al least the average working man could buy an excellent suit Hickey Freeman are afford a hotel room in New York at one of the 4 are 5 star hotels such as the Park Lane. The Park Lane was affordable.

Again so we compromise. Clothing . cars , watches , travel , wines , and audio !
We tell ourselves that because it is new it must be better. The 1970 Ferrari is no match for a 2008 Ferrari , but the difference in price is ten times greater.
There is no difference in a high end speakers made in 1970 , the price of today's
equivalent is ten times greater , don't fool yourselves.

Rich-n-Texas
01-23-2008, 08:08 AM
You're saying the same thing only from a different angle. Unless we have tens of thousands of dollars to spend on audio gear, we're not going to get the quality that was had in the 50's and 60's right old man?

So what does the average American do , except less. Most young people today will not wear Rolex watches , drive Porsche cars , wear Hickey Freeman suits
You make so many rediculous assumptions about the youger generation it is laughable. You're a pompous...

Ajani
01-23-2008, 08:20 AM
Agreed. That is why we compromise. A Rolex Datejust cost $390.00 in 1970 today around
$6500 , a Porsche 911 S cost $7000 in 1970 today's equivalent $70,000.
A Hickey Freeman men's suit in 1970 cost $200.00 today $1500 +.

There have been many improvements in most items sold today. The difference is most people can't afford those improvements. A hotel room in Paris on the right bank was $50.00 a day in 1970, , today that same hotel room is more like $200.00 per day.

So what does the average American do , except less. Most young people today will not wear Rolex watches , drive Porsche cars , wear Hickey Freeman suits.
Most did not in the 1970's but al least the average working man could buy an excellent suit Hickey Freeman are afford a hotel room in New York at one of the 4 are 5 star hotels such as the Park Lane. The Park Lane was affordable.

Again so we compromise. Clothing . cars , watches , travel , wines , and audio !
We tell ourselves that because it is new it must be better. The 1970 Ferrari is no match for a 2008 Ferrari , but the difference in price is ten times greater.
There is no difference in a high end speakers made in 1970 , the price of today's
equivalent is ten times greater , don't fool yourselves.

Did the 'Average American' wear Rolex watches & drive Porsche cars back in your day?

GMichael
01-23-2008, 08:29 AM
Agreed. That is why we compromise. A Rolex Datejust cost $390.00 in 1970 today around
$6500 , a Porsche 911 S cost $7000 in 1970 today's equivalent $70,000.
A Hickey Freeman men's suit in 1970 cost $200.00 today $1500 +.

There have been many improvements in most items sold today. The difference is most people can't afford those improvements. A hotel room in Paris on the right bank was $50.00 a day in 1970, , today that same hotel room is more like $200.00 per day.

So what does the average American do , except less. Most young people today will not wear Rolex watches , drive Porsche cars , wear Hickey Freeman suits.
Most did not in the 1970's but al least the average working man could buy an excellent suit Hickey Freeman are afford a hotel room in New York at one of the 4 are 5 star hotels such as the Park Lane. The Park Lane was affordable.

Again so we compromise. Clothing . cars , watches , travel , wines , and audio !
We tell ourselves that because it is new it must be better. The 1970 Ferrari is no match for a 2008 Ferrari , but the difference in price is ten times greater.
There is no difference in a high end speakers made in 1970 , the price of today's
equivalent is ten times greater , don't fool yourselves.

The receiver I bought in 1978 cost me 3 week's salary. That money could have bought me a 6 month supply of gas.
The receiver I bought in 2005 cost me less than 2 week's salary. That money would only buy me about 3 months worth of gas.

The new one sounds 10 times better.

Don't fool yourself. You can't match dollars. You have to match what those dollars were worth and how much they cost you from that time till now. You seem to be great with the details, but you keep missing the bigger pictures. (not seeing the forest through the trees and all)

mlsstl
01-23-2008, 08:37 AM
I have accomplished one purpose if you have began reading audio history.

You're taking credit for that? The fellow who seems to have no knowledge of anything outside of a 20 or 30 year period?

Now that is rich!

melvin walker
01-23-2008, 09:11 AM
Did the 'Average American' wear Rolex watches & drive Porsche cars back in your day?
I was a member of the Porsche Club of North America starting in 1972. There were several Porsche members that had average jobs. Several worked at McDonnell Douglas on the assembly line , there were a few that worked at The General Motors Plant in St.Louis .
There were a few Drug salesmen. After all the Porsche 911S in 1972 only cost $10,000 !

When I dropped out of the club in 1990 , the car was no longer affordable for those types of workers. Today I have several friends that are members of the Porsche Club.
Their incomes are in the triple numbers. Starting at about $70,000 the people who buy Porsche's today are very different in education and income from those who bought Porsches in the 70"s.

As for as Rolex's the same rules apply, one could buy a new Rolex in 1970 for less than
$400,00 , not a stretch for those who wanted one. Today it's more than a stretch.
I bought a Rolex DateJust for $384,00 in 1969. My son -in-law paid $6000.00 for the same watch. I bought a Cartier Tank for my wife in 1972 out of a catalog for $250,00 !
Saks was selling that watch for $500.00. Today that same watch list for over $4,000.

Audio is no different , A company called Classic Audio Reproductions in Michigan was
selling Hartsfield speaker systems for $17,000 each. The speaker system sold did not employ the driver that made the Hartsfield , instead the crossover point was 800
hertz rather than 500 hertz. the results would be a less defined bass.
The last year of the Hartsfield production when it added the 075 and an additional crossover was $1245 each.
$34,000 is out of the reach of most audiophiles, $1445 was not in the 1960's.

Feanor
01-23-2008, 09:16 AM
...
There is no difference in a high end speakers made in 1970 , the price of today's
equivalent is ten times greater , don't fool yourselves.

What do you consider a "high-end" speaker? An AR3a? A KLH 9?

The AR3a in 1970 was (?) $500/pr.. There are plenty of better speakers today for $5000/pr., e.g, to name just a few better known ones:

Paradigm Studio 100
PSB Synchrony 1
Monitor Audio GS60
Dynaudio Audience 82
B&W 703What did the KLH 9's run? $1500? Various much better planars are available today for less than $15,000:

Magneplanar 20.1
Sound Lab Millennium-3 PX
Quad ESL-2905
Martin Logan Summit (hybrid)

melvin walker
01-23-2008, 09:19 AM
Ever hear the phrase "enough rope to hang himself?" Well, brother, you're running a frickin' rope factory. Here is everything you ever wanted to know about Carnegie Hall's amplified sound system. The most interesting part is why it was installed: to correct acoustical problems. It may be a great hall, but far from a perfect hall.
http://www.meyersound.com/applications/story.php?type=25&id=985

Oh, and a quick google search reveals that Fisher Hall and Powell Hall have amplified sound systems. Of course they do, ya knownothing.
The only time these great halls would use amplified sound is if there was a rock concert.
Young people want it "LOUD " These halls were designed for classical , Opera , jazz and spop singers such as Como and Sinatra.
Powell Hall in St. Louis does not book Rock concerts . " THANK GOD"

melvin walker
01-23-2008, 09:24 AM
Perhaps you are unaware that such comparisons (live vs recorded) date back to Thomas Edison's time.

From the Wikipedia entry on Edison: "Prior to the war Edison Records started a marketing campaign, hiring prominent singers and Vaudeville performers to perform along side and alternating with Edison records of their performances played on top-of-the-line "Laboratory Model" Edison Diamond Disc Phonographs. At various stages during the performances, all lights in the theater would be darkened and the audience challenged to guess if what they were hearing was live or recorded; accounts often said that much of the audience was astonished when the lights went back up to reveal only the Edison Phonograph on stage. According to a book published by the Edison company titled Composers and Artists whose Art is Re-Created by Edison's New Art, ca. 1920, the first such "comparison test" took place at Carnegie Hall on April 28, 1916 with Marie Rappold, of the Metropolitan opera providing the live vocal performance."

That is a fairly typical audience response for such comparisons, whether 92 years ago, or in 1962, 1970 or today. I hope you would not argue that meant Edison's un-amplified acoustic record represented the ultimate in playback quality just because the audience was thoroughly fooled.

With your logic, there would have been no need for any further advancement in audio engineering after 1920 or so.

For someone who spends as much time as you lecturing the young about their ignorance of audio history, you seem to be a bit shy on the subject yourself.

The facts are that live vs recorded sound exhibits were held in the 1960's and 70's.
They were financed by several of the audio equipment companies of that era.
Why is it always personal ? can't you discuss audio without a personal comment ?

JohnMichael
01-23-2008, 09:31 AM
Melvin maybe it is because you bring out the best in us.

noddin0ff
01-23-2008, 09:40 AM
After all the Porsche 911S in 1972 only cost $10,000 !

When I dropped out of the club in 1990 , the car was no longer affordable for those types of workers. Today I have several friends that are members of the Porsche Club.
Their incomes are in the triple numbers. Starting at about $70,000 the people who buy Porsche's today are very different in education and income from those who bought Porsches in the 70"s.

In inflation adjusted dollars, $10,000 in 1972 is equal in buying power to approximately $50,000 today. Which is sufficient to buy many of Porche's current offerings.

Ergo, the same people can afford them now and then.

johnny p
01-23-2008, 09:42 AM
Melvin, if your elders told you that everything created prior to your birth in 1947 was better than everything created afterwards, would you not question it?

There are also worlds available outside of Branson, MO

The Grass is greener on the other side of Business HWY 65 brother.....

melvin walker
01-23-2008, 09:43 AM
What do you consider a "high-end" speaker? An AR3a? A KLH 9?

The AR3a in 1970 was (?) $500/pr.. There are plenty of better speakers today for $5000/pr., e.g, to name just a few better known ones:

Paradigm Studio 100
PSB Synchrony 1
Monitor Audio GS60
Dynaudio Audience 82
B&W 703What did the KLH 9's run? $1500? Various much better planars are available today for less than $15,000:

Magneplanar 20.1
Sound Lab Millennium-3 PX
Quad ESL-2905
Martin Logan Summit (hybrid)

The AR3a speaker in 1970 sold for $250.00 in oiled walnut. AR's were not considered high end speakers in 1970. A Paragon was and so was a KLH model 9 Electronic speaker costing $1140.00 in 1963.

AR;s was later reproduced and sold for around $1100 each. High end speakers pre 1970's were speakers selling for $900.00 are above for each. Concert Grands , Patricians , Churchills , Imperials , Hartsfields , etc were generally considered the finest speakers built at the time. If You wish to research high end speakers pre-1970's. Stereo Review Directory is a good place to look.

melvin walker
01-23-2008, 09:47 AM
Melvin, if your elders told you that everything created prior to your birth in 1947 was better than everything created afterwards, would you not question it?

There are also worlds available outside of Branson, MO

The Grass is greener on the other side of Business HWY 65 brother.....
My elders would never make such a statement. I never made such a statement. If I did
find the quote.
Never been to Branson, Mo. I have vacation on several continents and as a national sales manager for a fortune 100 company traveled through out America.
I am not your brother !

GMichael
01-23-2008, 09:48 AM
Why is it always personal ? can't you discuss audio without a personal comment ?

You talk down to people and still need to ask this?
It's like that guy who likes to push people's buttons to see them get upset. Then he questions why they are mad at him.
duh..

JohnMichael
01-23-2008, 09:51 AM
If You wish to research high end speakers pre-1970's. Stereo Review Directory is a good place to look.





Many of us do not and I think that is the point several are trying to make. We are interested in what is current and available to us.

Rich-n-Texas
01-23-2008, 09:58 AM
Melvin, if your elders told you that everything created prior to your birth in 1947 was better than everything created afterwards, would you not question it?

There are also worlds available outside of Branson, MO

The Grass is greener on the other side of Business HWY 65 brother.....
Brings up an interesting question: What came first? Melvin are the dinosaurs?

melvin walker
01-23-2008, 09:59 AM
You're taking credit for that? The fellow who seems to have no knowledge of anything outside of a 20 or 30 year period?

Now that is rich!
I enjoy history. Taught history for a few years. I would say that today , most young people show little interest in history. As a matter of fact the New York times in a survey found that most young Americans could not find Iraq on a map !
In another survey again done by the New York Times , many young people thought that Japan was an ally of America in World War Two " wow"

There have been great improvements in audio over the past years. We all agree to that.
Let's just not forget where it all began. The men and women who devoted their lives so that we Americans and other peoples to can enjoy what we now have.
Basketball didn't began with Michael Jordan and Audio didn't began with transistors.

Rich-n-Texas
01-23-2008, 10:02 AM
Man, I need to send some young people over to kick your old a$$

melvin walker
01-23-2008, 10:12 AM
You talk down to people and still need to ask this?
It's like that guy who likes to push people's buttons to see them get upset. Then he questions why they are mad at him.
duh..

I don't know who you are nor do I care. My only interest is a discussion on audio. If you feel someone is talking down to you that is your problem. I don't think this forum is about you are me.
If you disagree with my points than offer a counterpoint. To personalize this forum is to waste valuable Internet time.

We can agree to disagree , I have said that many times. Keep it at that. I will respond to your post when I feel it is in good taste and only if it concerns audio.
Again the issues here is not you and I but audio. if you can , let's keep it that way.
Now back to audio.

noddin0ff
01-23-2008, 10:15 AM
I enjoy history. Taught history for a few years. I would say that today , most young people show little interest in history. As a matter of fact the New York times in a survey found that most young Americans could not find Iraq on a map !
In another survey again done by the New York Times , many young people thought that Japan was an ally of America in World War Two " wow"

There have been great improvements in audio over the past years. We all agree to that.
Let's just not forget where it all began. The men and women who devoted their lives so that we Americans and other peoples to can enjoy what we now have.
Basketball didn't began with Michael Jordan and Audio didn't began with transistors.

Locating Iraq on a map would be an exercise in Geography, not History. Basketball didn't began... that would be a problem in grammar.

GMichael
01-23-2008, 10:15 AM
I don't know who you are nor do I care. My only interest is a discussion on audio. If you feel someone is talking down to you that is your problem. I don't think this forum is about you are me.
If you disagree with my points than offer a counterpoint. To personalize this forum is to waste valuable Internet time.

We can agree to disagree , I have said that many times. Keep it at that. I will respond to your post when I feel it is in good taste and only if it concerns audio.
Again the issues here is not you and I but audio. if you can , let's keep it that way.
Now back to audio.

If you stick to audio, then I'll stick to audio. Until then, I'll speak of anything I please. In fact, even if you do stick to audio, I'll still say what I want. If this bothers you, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Rich-n-Texas
01-23-2008, 10:27 AM
I don't know who you are nor do I care. My only interest is a discussion on audio. If you feel someone is talking down to you that is your problem.
If you feel someone is cursing at you that is your problem.

To personalize this forum is to waste valuable Internet time.
This is a community melvin and yeah, communities tend to have a personal nature.

We can agree to disagree , I have said that many times. Keep it at that. I will respond to your post when I feel it is in good taste and only if it concerns audio.
Again the issues here is not you and I but audio. if you can , let's keep it that way.
Now back to audio.
The problem with that is, you don't agree with anything anyone says. Again, you're stuck.

Groundbeef
01-23-2008, 10:30 AM
I enjoy history. Taught history for a few years. I would say that today , most young people show little interest in history..

No, I would say that most young people show little interest in "revisionist history". Such as what you are spouting off. Any time someone starts out with "Back in my day", "50 years ago we didn't have these problems", "The problem with youth,kids,people etc", I lose interest very quickly.

History as a pursuit of knowledge is noble. Using revisionist history to bash today is just stupid. The eras that you subscribe to as "the better ones" are not. Racisim was tolerated in the open, women were much more subservient to men (many couldn't even get jobs past the desk of an executive or the library), and the list goes on and on. I show an interest in history.

What does NOT interest me is your backwards, head in the sand, denial that anything positive could have occured in the last 50 years or so.




Basketball didn't began with Michael Jordan and Audio didn't began with transistors.

Your right. Audio began thousands of years ago, right after we crawled out of the mud, lost our fins and developed ears. And it didn't stop right after Sinatra took the stage.

markw
01-23-2008, 10:37 AM
Here'sa nifty tool you can use to compare apples to apples here, or anywhere for that matter.

http://googolplex.cuna.org/12433/ajsmall/story.html?doc_id=406

I saved this in my favorites when I first found it. It comes in very handy in threads like this.

Oh, I'm still waiting for some information on the Avery Fisher Hall in Washington, DC. Anyone able to find any info on this, or are mel's synapes firing randomly again?

GMichael
01-23-2008, 10:38 AM
The eras that you subscribe to as "the better ones" are not. Racisim was tolerated in the open, women were much more subservient to men (many couldn't even get jobs past the desk of an executive or the library), and the list goes on and on..

Maybe he feels that these were all good things.:idea:

GMichael
01-23-2008, 10:41 AM
Here'sa nifty tool you can use to compare apples to apples here, or anywhere for that matter.

http://googolplex.cuna.org/12433/ajsmall/story.html?doc_id=406

I saved this in my favorites when I first found it. It comes in very handy in threads like this.

Oh, I'm still waiting for some information on the Avery Fisher Hall in Washington, DC. Anyone able to find any info on this, or are mel's synapes firing randomly again?

Cool. This thing says that that old receiver in my basement cost me about the same as the new one in my living room.

melvin walker
01-23-2008, 11:57 AM
No, I would say that most young people show little interest in "revisionist history". Such as what you are spouting off. Any time someone starts out with "Back in my day", "50 years ago we didn't have these problems", "The problem with youth,kids,people etc", I lose interest very quickly.

History as a pursuit of knowledge is noble. Using revisionist history to bash today is just stupid. The eras that you subscribe to as "the better ones" are not. Racism was tolerated in the open, women were much more subservient to men (many couldn't even get jobs past the desk of an executive or the library), and the list goes on and on. I show an interest in history.

What does NOT interest me is your backwards, head in the sand, denial that anything positive could have occurred in the last 50 years or so.




Your right. Audio began thousands of years ago, right after we crawled out of the mud, lost our fins and developed ears. And it didn't stop right after Sinatra took the stage.

Your analysis of me is wasting your time. I am sure you have better. things to do.

I am curious , give me an example of revisionist history. When did I say we don't have this problem ? Bashing today !
Racism exist today , so does sexism. America has the second largest prison population in the world. America has the highest GPN of any nation in the world. America is the greatest military and economic power that has ever existed in the world's history.
What does that have to do with audio ?

The history of audio should be interesting to any audio hobbyist. If I think a speaker built 40 years ago is superior to one built today that is my opinion , my point. What is your opinion ?,your counterpoint ?
Why attack me ? why not my point. If I say Sinatra in my opinion is the greatest popular singer , that is my opinion again my point. Who is your favorite popular singer and do you consider that singer as the greatest ? That is how we engage in dialogue, but if you attack me because you disagree with my opinion and I attract you , than what happens.
No dialogue.

Please explain where you found revisionist history in my post ?

mlsstl
01-23-2008, 12:09 PM
The facts are that live vs recorded sound exhibits were held in the 1960's and 70's.
They were financed by several of the audio equipment companies of that era.
Why is it always personal ? can't you discuss audio without a personal comment ?

The point of discussion was that you had used a "fact" to support your "opinion." That opinion appears to be that speakers of the era you worship were so advanced that little or no improvement has taken place in the past 40 or 50 years.

I pointed out that your "fact" was of limited usefulness in that regard since live vs. recorded demos to prove the same thing predated your noted exhibits by approximately a half a century.

I stated that if fooling an audience in this regard is proof that a piece of equipment has reached its penultimate, then everyone should have quit further audio development and gone home in 1916. If it was not proof in 1916, then the same type of deficiencies will apply in 1962 and 1970. Or in 2008 for that matter.

"Progress, not perfection" is probably a good description of what has taken place. Yet you have consistently, either implicitly or explicitly, indicated that not much of worth has happened in the world of audio since your personally chosen golden age.


I enjoy history. Taught history for a few years....Let's just not forget where it all began. The men and women who devoted their lives so that we Americans and other peoples to can enjoy what we now have.

The problem, as with your lectures on spelling and grammar, is that the points you attempt to make are grandiose and overreaching. Marantz, Fisher and Bozak made valuable contributions, to be sure, but their work stood on the shoulders of Edison, Marconi, Tesla, Maxwell and many others. You can even go back to 1802 when Gian Domenico Romagnosi suggested a relationship between electricity and magnetism but his works went unnoticed by his contemporaries.

In short, your "history" seems to be based solely on your personal preferences from a narrow time band for which you have fond memories. History is not limited to the spurious recollections of a single individual who is unwilling to look at the larger world outside, both before and after.

As respects the "personal" issue, this is not the point as far as I'm concerned. You proposed a topic of discussion and it has been discussed and debated. As I recall, you were the first to introduce the issue of critiquing others on their spelling and alleged lack of historical knowledge. You opened that gate yourself which in turn invited the responses that have been seen.

I sense that you wish to be regarded as an elder statesman, dispensing pearls of wisdom to the young initiates who have gathered at the foot of your chair. Unfortunately, in your wake you have left far too much that was, at its most benign interpretation, extremely narrow in scope and application.

You wanted a discussion of audio? That's what you've gotten. If you're looking to lecture, then you'll probably need to look elsewhere for acolytes.

Ajani
01-23-2008, 12:15 PM
....
Why attack me ? why not my point. If I say Sinatra in my opinion is the greatest popular singer , that is my opinion again my point. Who is your favorite popular singer and do you consider that singer as the greatest ?

Michael Jackson.... regardless of the negative press he has received in the last twenty years for his 'skin condition' and fondness of sleepovers with small children... I still regard him as the greatest pop singer of all time.... He is/was both a great vocalist and a master stage performer... very few artists today are good at both.... I suspect (haven't checked the statistics though) that he outsold Sinatra....

GMichael
01-23-2008, 12:43 PM
Even though she doesn't fit into my style of music, MARIAH CAREY has a lot of singing talent. This seems to be what you are interested in. All the "greats" you brought up were singers. I am more into the music itself. But that doesn't mean that I can't spot singing talent when I see (or hear) it. I bet she could sing circles around Bing or any of the other singers you think so highly of.

As far as speakers & equipment? How long of a list are you looking for? There are hundreds of great brands out there today. Probably thousands of crap brands too. Back in your day, there were a few greats and a few not so greats. These days there is more to choose from. This can get the average Joe in trouble if they don't research. But research is much easier to do these days. No more depending on word of mouth or magazines. The internet is a wonderful tool. With a little work, Joe can bring home a fantastic system for the same number of loafs of bread it would cost to put together a system back in your heydays. Many others here have given you examples. Have you looked into any of them?

E-Stat
01-23-2008, 05:21 PM
You are correct , the difference is that the Ferrari will run at over 150 miles per hour all day , the Corvette will not.
On what do you base that assertion? The ZR-1 isn't breathing hard at 150 with its 200 mph top speed. Similarly, tire technology has progressed significantly in the past forty years.


How many Corvettes has won a World Manufactures Championship ? How many Corvettes has finished first at Le Mans ?
The same number as the production 365 Daytona.

rw

bobsticks
01-23-2008, 06:36 PM
You are correct , the difference is that the Ferrari will run at over 150 miles per hour all day , the Corvette will not. The AR-I like most American iron is designed to sprint.
How many Corvettes has won a World Manufactures Championship ? How many Corvettes has finished first at Le Mans ?

The are no 12 cylinder Ferrari that can be bought new for $105,000 !


Okay, I gotta call foul on this one. Anybody that has been within the whiff of petrol fumes of a Ferrari knows that they emphatically will not go all day. They'd be lucky to get 500 miles and, other than the Lambo, can probably be considered more of a status symbol than anything else. Perhaps a fortified racing model, but then again a skilled mechanic can make a Honda Civic that'll outrun it in the quarter...if you don't treat him like the pool boy.

And just because young people don't choose Hickey Freeman or Rolex doesn't mean they aren't fashion conscious. Brands like Armani, Valentino Couture, Zegna, Panerai, and Breitling have supersceded these in the eyes of those mindful of status. And isn't what that's all about anyway, I mean the Timex still keeps time as accurately...

Indeed, if the youth of today seek different symbols perhaps it's because they seek to differentiate themselves from the less seemly last bastions of a decaying age--anal relics whose tireless screeds master only the profundity of a fart from the pulpit.

jrhymeammo
01-23-2008, 07:53 PM
Goddamnit!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop It.

jrhymeammo
01-23-2008, 07:54 PM
Man, I need to send some young people over to kick your old a$$

No need for that, man. Perhaps a Reddie? Ahh...Fcuk it.

Rich-n-Texas
01-23-2008, 08:00 PM
Oh he got his Reddie alright. Book that!

bobsticks
01-23-2008, 08:18 PM
Goddamnit!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop It.


Stop what, jaybo?

jrhymeammo
01-23-2008, 08:27 PM
filth

melvin walker
01-24-2008, 04:51 AM
Okay, I gotta call foul on this one. Anybody that has been within the whiff of petrol fumes of a Ferrari knows that they emphatically will not go all day. They'd be lucky to get 500 miles and, other than the Lambo, can probably be considered more of a status symbol than anything else. Perhaps a fortified racing model, but then again a skilled mechanic can make a Honda Civic that'll outrun it in the quarter...if you don't treat him like the pool boy.

And just because young people don't choose Hickey Freeman or Rolex doesn't mean they aren't fashion conscious. Brands like Armani, Valentino Couture, Zegna, Panerai, and Breitling have supersceded these in the eyes of those mindful of status. And isn't what that's all about anyway, I mean the Timex still keeps time as accurately...

Indeed, if the youth of today seek different symbols perhaps it's because they seek to differentiate themselves from the less seemly last bastions of a decaying age--anal relics whose tireless screeds master only the profundity of a fart from the pulpit.

The number one selling high end watch is Rolex. Read Man's Vogue , Classic Style and The Robb Report , magazines that cater to high end men' s clothing. Armani and Valentino is considered so-so. Zegna does make excellent men's clothing but is not in the class with Kiton, Ralph Lauren Purple Label , Brioni , Oxxford , etc, in men's suits.
Shoes , John Lobb , Lattanzi , Edward Green , Crockett & Jones , Berluti, etc. are a few highly regarded men's shoes .Shirts include Ascot Chang , Turnbull & Asser ,Borrelli ,
Brioni etc,

Ferrari is an exotic car , Corvettes are made by General Motors. There is no comparsion.
Young people are no different from older people. Taste is learned, some young people
appreciate fine goods and services some don't. It all depends on parents and environment.
Stanley Marcus former chairman of Neiman Marcus wrote" Good taste , I am convinced ,
can be acquired through environment and education." Young people appreciate the items listed above as well as older people.

Rich-n-Texas
01-24-2008, 05:08 AM
The number one selling high end watch is Rolex. Read Man's Vogue , Classic Style and The Robb Report , magazines that cater to high end men' s clothing. Armani and Valentino is considered so-so. Zegna does make excellent men's clothing but is not in the class with Kiton, Ralph Lauren Purple Label , Brioni , Oxxford , etc, in men's suits.
Shoes , John Lobb , Lattanzi , Edward Green , Crockett & Jones , Berluti, etc. are a few highly regarded men's shoes .Shirts include Ascot Chang , Turnbull & Asser ,Borrelli ,
Brioni etc,

Ferrari is an exotic car , Corvettes are made by General Motors. There is no comparsion.
Young people are no different from older people. Taste is learned, some young people
appreciate fine goods and services some don't. It all depends on parents and environment.
Stanley Marcus former chairman of Neiman Marcus wrote" Good taste , I am convinced ,
can be acquired through environment and education." Young people appreciate the items listed above as well as older people.

What does that have to do with audio ?

I enjoy history. Taught history for a few years. I would say that today , most young people show little interest in history. As a matter of fact the New York times in a survey found that most young Americans could not find Iraq on a map !
In another survey again done by the New York Times , many young people thought that Japan was an ally of America in World War Two " wow"

Young people are no different from older people.
Do you see how often you contradict yourself melvin? I could make a conversation between you and yourself where you do this all day.

You just don't get it do you?

markw
01-24-2008, 05:22 AM
The number one selling high end watch is Rolex. Read Man's Vogue , Classic Style and The Robb Report , magazines that cater to high end men' s clothing. Armani and Valentino is considered so-so. Zegna does make excellent men's clothing but is not in the class with Kiton, Ralph Lauren Purple Label , Brioni , Oxxford , etc, in men's suits.
Shoes , John Lobb , Lattanzi , Edward Green , Crockett & Jones , Berluti, etc. are a few highly regarded men's shoes .Shirts include Ascot Chang , Turnbull & Asser ,Borrelli ,
Brioni etc, To pay Rolex prices for a watch that isn't as accurate shows an appeal to impress other snobs, not keep accurate times, which is t he goal of a watch in the first place.


Ferrari is an exotic car , Corvettes are made by General Motors. There is no comparsion.True. The Corvette will start when you turn the key.


Young people are no different from older people. Taste is learned,So is class. It's too bad you didn't learn any. From your posts here, it seems that taste relates directly to money spent and exclusivitiy.

You never really did accept the fact that AR and other "mass market" manufacturers like Fisher, Scott, H/K et al made it possible for "common" people to enter the realm of hi-fi along with the the moneyed elite. I'll bet you ran and washed your hands when you learned that, didn't ya?


some young people appreciate fine goods and services some don't.And some know when something is overpriced and it's only justification for doing so is to stroke one's ego by implying "I can afford this technically inferior but overpriced item. You can't, you inferior being"


It all depends on parents and environment.True. Yours failed you by raising such a snob and I'm pretty sure you passed this on to your children as well. I'm surprised you consented to have a pooping, crying child in your elite midst but, most likely the nanny did all that dirty work for you.


Stanley Marcus former chairman of Neiman Marcus wrote" Good taste , I am convinced can be acquired through environment and education." And so is class. Too bad you weren't exposed to it.


Young people appreciate the items listed above as well as older people....and most can smell snobbery and elitism from a mile away.

Any response to the Avery Fisher Hall in Washington, DC? I still can't find that durn thing anywhere. You wouldn't be a total fraud who is BSing us, now would you?

Fact it, you were never at Avery Fisher Hall, were you?

E-Stat
01-24-2008, 05:24 AM
Ferrari is an exotic car , Corvettes are made by General Motors. There is no comparsion.
Unless of course, you are referring to performance criteria like acceleration, top speed, braking, handling, and cornering.

rw

melvin walker
01-24-2008, 05:25 AM
On what do you base that assertion? The ZR-1 isn't breathing hard at 150 with its 200 mph top speed. Similarly, tire technology has progressed significantly in the past forty years.


The same number as the production 365 Daytona.

rw
You are not comparing a Corvette to a Ferrari are you ? Here we go again.
General Motors ? You might compare a Corvette to a Porsche are Jaguar , but even than it's a stretch.
Road and Track several years ago did compare a Corvette to a Mercedes , Jaguar and Porsche. What car do you think came in last ?
Road & Track " Corvette , The word that comes to mind is "Plastic" The image , like the styling is flashy , with lots of deliberately eye catching angles and gimmicks that aren't strictly necessary. Lacks finesse , like using a 5-lb. axe when a rapier , properly designed , could do as well. ", " The personality we associate with the Corvette is the Animal, one who prefers to attain the goal with brute strength and bared chest rather than art and fast footwork " Road & Track article.

I owned a Corvette Stingray in 1964 , It was loads of fun , I was a member of the Corvette car club. Compared to cars I purchased later , well let's say it's different.
The difference is that European sport cars will run at 150 per hour , for long periods Corvettes will not . Again Corvettes are mostly sprint cars. The Corvettes are a lot cheaper.
Even the Japanese Accura NSX is superior to Chevrolet's Corvette.

melvin walker
01-24-2008, 05:30 AM
Unless of course, you are referring to performance criteria like acceleration, top speed, braking, handling, and cornering.

rw
I must ask, are you writing that Chevrolet Corvettes outperform Ferrari's ??

markw
01-24-2008, 05:34 AM
Spouting off stuff from magazines and internet searches again.

He really expect us to think he's for real when, among other things, he totally blows the location of Avery Fisher Hall and then tries to ignore it like it never happened?

Great troll!

melvin walker
01-24-2008, 05:42 AM
To pay Rolex prices for a watch that isn't as accurate shows an appeal to impress other snobs, not keep accurate times, which is t he goal of a watch in the first place.

True. The Corvette will start when you turn the key.

So is class. It's too bad you didn't learn any. From your posts here, it seems that taste relates directly to money spent and exclusivitiy.

You never really did accept the fact that AR and other "mass market" manufacturers like Fisher, Scott, H/K et al made it possible for "common" people to enter the realm of hi-fi along with the the moneyed elite. I'll bet you ran and washed your hands when you learned that, didn't ya?

And some know when something is overpriced and it's only justification for doing so is to stroke one's ego by implying "I can afford this technically inferior but overpriced item. You can't, you inferior being"

True. Yours failed you by raising such a snob and I'm pretty sure you passed this on to your children as well. I'm surprised you consented to have a pooping, crying child in your elite midst but, most likely the nanny did all that dirty work for you.

And so is class. Too bad you weren't exposed to it.

...and most can smell snobbery and elitism from a mile away.

Any response to the Avery Fisher Hall in Washington, DC? I still can't find that durn thing anywhere. You wouldn't be a total fraud who is BSing us, now would you?

Fact it, you were never at Avery Fisher Hall, were you?


Your analysis of me is becoming a bore. You can do better than that !
if one is not willing to pay the price for an item , than that item is not for them.
That is why there are items to meet all interest.

Why name call ? no one forces anyone to buy anything. There are those who can afford and will except nothing but the best and are willing to pay for it. And there are those who have no interest in the the best and has no interest in paying for it.
We should respect both .

You don't know me, you have no knowledge of what class I am . Can you post one opinion without the personal attacts ?