----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Meislik" <[log in to unmask]>
> One of the reasons for the discrepancy, is that today's youth have lower
> expectations of their media. To them it is a consumable, something to
> be enjoyed now. Longevity is not really a consideration in their minds,
> so the quality doesn't have to be as good to them. I think they also
> have much lower expectations from their media. We didn't grow up with
> media in this way. We have higher expecatations and also expect some
> level of longevity in our media.
> I completly agree with Tom's assesment that each generation has their
> own ideal and threshhold. I recall sharing an album with my
> grandfather, he was probably in his late 60's at the time, I thought it
> sounded wonderful, all he did was complain about the sound and talk
> about "echo chambers" (his words) and how people didn't sing anymore.
The interesting thing is, of course, that the people of the 1890's and
1900's were just fascinated by the fact that sounds and images could be
somehow recorded and reproduced...with little or no concern about the
accuracy of either/both processes. They had grown up in a world where
both were transient events!
As well, note that the vast majority of the "general public" had
minimal concern about the accuracy involved...after all, our organization
is, by definition, concerned with "Recorded Sound Collections"...and thus
Once technology had advanced to the point where accuracy could be
significantly improved, that became a concern...but only to a small
minority of the listeners/viewers...
Steven C. Barr