Do you agree with John Atkinson (and me)?
Point 1: In the recent thread entitled ’How much is too much to spend on a system?’, I contributed this comment: "The hi-fi shouldn’t be worth more than one’s music library." I said that half-jokingly, a wisecrack that I knew might be disagreed with.
Point 2: In the 1990’s I became a regular customer at the Tower Records Classical Music Annex store in Sherman Oaks, California. The store manager knew a LOT about Classical music, but also made no secret of his distain for audiophiles, whom he viewed as caring more about the sound quality of recordings than their musical quality.
Point 3: In the early days of The Absolute Sound magazine, the writers occasionally mocked audiophiles who had a serious high end system, but whose record collections merely consisted of a small number of "demo" discs. Those audiophiles collect records that make their systems sound good, rather than assemble a system that makes their records sound good.
I make the above points as a preamble to the following:
In the past few months I have fallen behind in my reading of the monthly issues of Stereophile that arrive in my mailbox. Yesterday I finally got around to reading the editorial in the January issue, written by John Atkinson (filling in for current editor Jim Austin, who is recuperating from surgery, I believe). The final two paragraphs of the editorial read as follows:
"Back in the day, I did an analysis of Stereophile reviewers’ systems. The common factor was that all the reviewers’ collections of LPs and CDs cost a lot more than their systems. The same is true of me, even in these days of streaming."
"Isn’t that the way it should be for all music-loving audiophiles?"
Well, is it?
An absurd premise. The equipment needed to play it well greatly exceeds the cost of the collection. I don't think my 4000 or so records has much value. Too much effort would be required to extract it. My heirs will probably give it away. The equipment they would sell cheap, but it would be worth something. If you went by "original retail cost", the equipment and media would come out about even. |
@bdp24 I make a delicious lasagne. |
@bdp24 As you subsequently note, music reviews on Audiogon, and in Stereophile, TAS, etc., are mostly about sound quality. But you're right: I'd forgotten that there's a "music" discussion topic on this forum. Be that as it may, my comment was addressed to this discussion topic, and in fact this particular thread. And I do very much believe there's an issue here (I've posted about it several times before). Literally none of my most musical friends care at all about audio sound quality. Thom Yorke of Radiohead, and Alan Parsons—just for example—have both expressly repudiated audiophilia. The thrill of music reproduction is not the same thing as the thrill of music. |
I think that it's wonderful that so many people embrace streaming and the endless catalogue of available music online. I suspect that if that had been the case when I was becoming an audiophile, I might have embraced it myself ---- but it wasn't ! We can argue about the tactile experience of priming, pampering and spinning our choice of audio delights but it isn't necessary to disparage those of us who had no other choice at the time. I'm too embarrassed to say how many LPs, cassettes and CDs I own but I can say with certainty that the required interactions with that library never detracted from the joy that I received in return. I hope that the more recent disciples of our treasured hobby can somehow extract the same sense of joy that comes from the more necessarily involving processes of the past that we older audiophiles experienced. |
