While I sympathize with your general point, I know enough people who love music and have what would
be considered excellent-sounding systems (myself included) to say there's not quite a direct adverse
relationship between cost of system and appreciation of music. However, stereotypes (pun intended,
in this case) don't come about from a complete absence of real-world examples!
One of my oldest "music buddies," a guy who has turned me on to countless good albums, used to be a
"high-ender" until his divorce forced a more modest lifestyle. He now has an iPod, a Mac Mini, his
large collection of CDs and a good pair of powered speakers that I recommended (the KRK 3-ways,
which can easily fill most listening spaces and move enough air for good bass). He listens to more
music now than ever, and admits it's much easier to just sit and enjoy music when not having to fuss
with and endlessly shop for finicky expensive gear. That said, he's now older and his hearing ain't
what it was when he was a "high-ender."
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nutt, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] WSJ on "High end record collectors"
> Yelling from the cheap seats: In my experience, almost always, the higher end the stereo system,
> the lower the musical curiosity, taste (can't think of a better word for taste) and knowledge the
> owner. If I see a beat up creaky-ass turntable and amp amidst piles of disordered vinyl, I know
> it's gonna be a pretty interesting evening.
> Kevin Nutt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Sam Brylawski
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 7:22 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] WSJ on "High end record collectors"
> The Wall Street Journal is running an article on rare rock collectors. It estimates annual sales
> of rare records is $10 million. (Art: $10 billion.)
> Sam Brylawski