Print

Print


	Please forgive the extreme gap of time between these original posts and my response, but I was, of necessity, weeding my email and felt compelled to respond to some ideas raised here.
	In regard to Tom's friend who admits that his hearing isn't what it used to be, I used to occasionally face that objection when I sold audio equipment.  My response was, "you use the same ears to listen to live music and recordings, don't you?"  My point being, that, generally speaking, a system that sounds more like live music tends to be a better system.  The highs may seem rolled off in both cases, but they will be rolled off the same amount whether live or recorded.  My goal was to put together a system that made the customer want to listen to music.
	As to the guy who assembled an incredible systems to listen to Kenny G and Yanni, well, not my cup of tea, but if that's what he really likes, I see nothing wrong with that.  I'm more contemptuous of those who buy incredible systems to listen to audiophile recordings which, while exceptionally well done, stir neither passion in the listener not, apparently, in the performer(s).  As Alan Parsons famously said, "Audiophiles don't use their equipment to listen to your music. Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment."

Larry Miller

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 4:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] WSJ on "High end record collectors"

Hi Kevin:

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.)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/m88ogw2
>
> Sam Brylawski
>
> *
> *
>
>