For most of us, I think it may take a good 2 or 3 decades of familiarizing yourself with the market in this hobby to get to a reliably good enough level of experience with which you can feel good about your chances of success at downsizing and getting away with it. It takes that long for most of us to become familiar with the width and depth of the market and it may not come at all unless you’ve made a number of purchases, for both good And ill, and have lived with the results for a long enough while.
But, just remember: having gone down the slippery slope, every time some audiophile proclaims their rallying cry in print that the paying of the exorbitant prices is ’unquestionably’ the only way to go, there’s another manufacturer that says to themselves: "See that? More proof that if I introduce a new product to the market at a temptingly competitive price that I know I can still make a profit at, then I know it won’t be taken seriously by anyone unless I price it 2-4 time higher". This is how the industry is pricing itself out of existence.
Of course, the original problem was created by the makers, pressuring us whenever possible in subtle and in not-so-subtle ways to spend more than last time. But, it’s a runaway train and about everybody is at fault.
I would suppose the only sane thing to do for both our own And the hobby’s sake Is to learn how to downsize from the top...or maybe better yet, to finally put in the time it takes to learn how to never actually go down the all-out-assault path to begin with - or at least not without extreme care - surely a tricky and time-consuming thing, particularly if you’ve ruled out all expensive purchases from the start.
OK everybody, now relax and just enjoy the music...if you still can. :(
|
@Wolf, great points! That's probably the best answer to my post above, since I knew I was kinda stuck not being able to resolve for everyone the problem as I see it, but that does it well enough.
"If it sounds great, it's great...period". I like that line.
|
@folkfreak "So what does this mean? It means that "good sound" is an intensely personal affair, and that also it’s likely that we all tune our ears to appreciate a certain acoustic aesthetic. Think about the times when you’ve made a change and thought at first "I hate it" but once you listen through the removal of some prior tonal or temporal distortion you realize that the thing you’re missing is just a coloration." I must admit, even though it could conceivably be considered a rationale for the slippery slope (which I've always had to fight to try to stave off), I couldn't have said it better! Another great point! |
Hello Mike and welcome aboard! Nice post and thanks for weighing in here - we may only occasionally get the perspective of someone with your extensive experience. Hope you decide to stick around with us!
Regards,
John |
@aberyclark
Good point.
I have a MoFi CD edition of Billy Joel's Turnstiles (1976) and a BluSpec CD edition of the same exact album. The BluSpec one happens to sound great across the board, no issues at all. The MoFi by comparison happens to sounds terrible, rather muffled and veiled both in tone and dynamic shadings. Possibly ok sounding in its own right, but in comparison with the BluSpec on my system it is noticeably lacking in a couple ways. Despite the fact that the BluSpec makes no claim about this disc being sourced from the master recording and the MoFi version does.
So, does that mean that MoFi on this release just had unfortunate access to crappy mastering equipment? I'm inclined to think not (I could be wrong), and I know that a lot of their other releases in their catalog can sound quite good. But, why would a mastering not made from the master tape sound plainly better than from one that is? (And here I'm throwing out the possibility, in this case anyway, that the original master tape has deteriorated due to age, as a factor - both sound fine in that regard). Does this rilly mean that lots of bad mastering equipment is still out there in use (all those terrible sounding remasters that we come across all the time), or is it more of a case of bad mastering techniques rather than equipment?
I'd say that you're right and that maybe we don't need $5k USB cables, but that maybe the music industry should stop long enough to take a harder look at what kind of cables they are connecting their mastering equipment with. Something at that end seems to be off somewhere.
Just a thought.
Cheers, John |
@inna
The above is only my own personal take. Why not a $5k USB cable? Hey, if anyone is inclined, I'd say go for it...but for me, considering where I happen to be with it all at the moment, it's just a question of having different priorities, I guess....but, I know you're right, the industry isn't listening to us audiophiles. |
@geoffkait
"There are two high ends for audio. One is in the solid grip of upgraditis, that one tends to be solidly Anti Tweak, believing that the secret to sound quality is the electronic circuit, expensive parts and “solid engineering” - in quotes. The other high end is more of a tweak-oriented group, focused on improving the sound through cleverness and thoughtfulness. THIS high end operates by assessing the weaknesses in the audio system and coming up with solutions. You know, the group that doesn’t read reviews any more. The ones who don’t buy Stereophile or The Absolute Sound anymore."
Exactamente |
@bo1972 "The thing what I hope people will learn and understand is that trial en error does not garantee you anything." It's ok, bo...it doesn't guarantee anything. I think that's why they call it trial and error. Just sayin' |
@gdhal "While I'll agree that @geoffkait post is more accurate and thought out than many of his other posts, to some extent it is not entirely correct because there is yet a third (that I can think of, perhaps there are more) high-ends for audio.
The third condition combines elements of both high-ends as indicated in his description." Oh, I can buy that...there's usually a middle ground of some kind. Regards John |
