Isn't an iPod enough?
Last Saturday night I was at a friend’s birthday party at a local cafe. With the music blaring in the background, one of the attendees stared when he learned that I contribute to the Absolute Sound. “Does anyone even need a stereo anymore?” he asked. “Isn’t an iPod enough?”
No, it isn’t. Anyone who listens to a good stereo system knows that there’s a lot more to be had. Whether it’s meaningful to you is another matter. But I thought his comment was a telling sign of the uphill battle that audiophiles confront: an uncomprehending public that has been seduced into believing that an iPod is the ne plus ultra of sound. Don’t get me wrong: I have nothing against iPods. Use the little devils to your heart’s content.
And yet, and yet… Why does an I-Pod have to preclude a stereo system? A kind of reverse snobbery has emerged, in which it’s fashionable to look down upon stereo systems as silly frivolities from an earlier era. Indeed, my interlocutor simply raised his eyebrows when he learned that my audio habit isn’t confined to CDs, but extends to vinyl.
I didn’t pursue the argument. It was a party and who wants to come across as a dreadful bore preaching to frozen smiles about the glories of audio. But sneering at audio seems like a peculiarly blinkered mindset at the very moment that more products are available, particularly in the analog arena, than ever before, offering better performance than anyone could have dreamed of even a decade ago. An audio Rip van Winkle, who emerged after a long sleep, would be amazed at the progress that the industry has made. Nowhere is this more true, I would wager, than in the sphere of vinyl playback.
There are several products currently flying under the radar that I hope to sample and that have already generated a good deal of buzz. Among them is Harry Weisfeld’s VPI Classic Turntable, which retails for a relatively inexpensive, as these things go, $2500. This retro design, which features an AC synchronous motor directly mounted to the platter, is said to be hot stuff. Then there’s the world of phono stages. The South Korean firm Allnic has three models out that, like the VPI, are throwbacks in their technological approach, relying upon hand wound transformers to boost the tiny signal emanating from the cartridge. The entry level H1200, which is imported by David Beetles of Hammertone Audio, lists for $1600 and, according to reports I’ve heard, is a giant killer. Like Allnic, transformers are also key to the pricier ($25,000) and very spiffy looking Ypsilon VPS 100 phono stage, distributed by Brian Ackerman of Aaudioimports.
I myself have not yet heard any of these products and so can’t comment on their performance. But the proliferation of analog products is striking and suggests that the audio industry is more vigorous than the naysayers comprehend or are willing to acknowledge. The losers aren’t the music lovers swaying to the beat of fine sound. The true loss is among those who aren’t even aware that it exists in the first place.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
My comeback would have been, No, it's not enough, but it is a good start."
iPods are like a gateway drug, they lead to harder stuff - music servers!
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
The responses that Jacob received that night are endemic of the whole Generation Y. It make sound like a rude generalization, but it's so true from the daily conversations about music with co-workers, friends, etc. It is an utterly disappointing uphill battle with no victor, except self-validation. Generationally-speaking, they are
presumptuous, self-entitled douche-bags, pure and simple. I can hear the rebuttals now... "You and your golden-earred know-it-alls are a dying breed...." Then bury me with my VPI.
-Glotz
iPods are like bread or french fries ... not much on their own, just delivery media for something else. The "something else" can be banal or it can be beautiful.
I've been playing with digitizing LPs recently, and am about to go deeper down the rabbit hole with some nicer gear. I've got to tell you - LPs that have been transferred well to a digital medium are very nice to listen to, especially on the go. Recording at high-res and then decimating to 16/44.1 makes a pretty nice file. Much nicer than the commercial issue CD of the same material.
So when I can't spin records for real, I can spin them virtually on the go. It's not equivalent, but it is much nicer than normal downloads or commercial CDs.
The Signal Collection, LLC
North American Distributors
of Connoisseur-Grade Hi-Fi
The fact that you consider digitalized LPs supperior to digitalized master tapes proves that prefference for vinyl is a preference for (and solely for) the distortions produced by that medium. Commercial CDs are made from much higher quality sources than vinyl, and they're made with higher quality digital equiptment than any consumer is likely to have access to.
Ah, sorry, but you could not be more wrong. A huge number of audiophiles know how good vinyl lp can be in absolute terms, and fortunately, Lp quality has gone way up in the past several years, and until recently, jitter and timing problems in the clocks of these DAC in everyone's cd players or transports prevented truly great sound from CD, and for that matter the computer. Jitter is easily measured, and every magazine reviewer on the PLANET believes the once digital jitter was fully addressed from a development standpoint, ie- seperating the data into 2 discrete data streams, and getting the waveform timing right (or by other techniques), only recently has the digital medium come up to snuff with LP. I would be willing to guess that you haven't that you havent compared a truly high-end turntable vs. a truly high-end cd player, cost no object. Try checking out one of the audio shows and going in the myriad rooms available there, and then tell us that you think vinyl is so inferior. It aint, and it does some things that no digital music of ANY kind can do. Until you listen to top notch set ups (and I do mean truly top notch- many of the systems reviewed in TAS and the ones I've heard excel, get into the tens of thousands of dollars per component); it's really not fair to give an opinion. And keep in mind that TAS does a lot of reviewing on the manufacturers of analog and digital gear, and I assure you that from Classic Records to MoFi, they put a tremendously high cost - and quality- into creating vinyl.
-Glotz
Dude, the quality of vinyl is NOT the issue here. A digital transfer of a record will have all of the shortcomings of both media (however trivial you may believe the shortcomings of vinyl to be).
Oh by the way, the gentleman's company you responded to distributes turntables in the hundred of THOUSANDS of dollars range. His turntables are some of the most amazing pieces of audio manufacture in creation! Until you've heard what a truly great turntable can do, don't knock it.
-Glotz
I would not worry so much about the person at the party. If that person showed up at your house, I doubt he would either understand or appreciate what you have.
Most people who are not "audiophiles" have about a 5 minute attention span when it comes to our hobby / passion.
To be ignorant again!
My iPod does just fine and I agree that it is fabulous to be ignorant.
Having had sterio systems for forty years, and finally putting all of my 45s, albums, tapes and CDs in my one 'personal music player', I would say that yes, this is essentially the end of the road. The clutter, the disorganization, and the frustration are all gone (almost).
Anything else is just an add-on.
The latest iPhone and Touch are amazing devices, their potential not fully recognized. The mistake some (many?) reviewers have made is connecting Apple's latest directly to their home systems. In other words, they expect results the product was not designed for, and then report unsatisfactory results one could have predicted.
These products were not meant to drive preamps or amplifiers, period. They are meant to drive earbuds! We hear from some sources who have no way to know otherwise, that the electronics in these iPods are not very good. And there was no yellowcake in Iraq. Not true for either. WOLFSON DACs with direct drive, capacitorless, simple topology amps built into the two products mentioned are VERY good indeed, technologically as well as sonically, but cannot be directly compared with "real" amplifiers because there is no way to do the test honestly.
Properly installed hi rez files are able to produce better sonics than the best CD players and DACs extant, the digits don't need to go through drives, hard disks, cables, optical readouts, and other potential interference. Into earbuds that is, directly, Apple's top iPods will produce highly satisfying high end sound.
Given these observations, I agree that the speaker/home theatre high end experience is "different," one from the other. If one uses, for example, hi rez files and Shure 530 SE earbuds (throw out the volume control), and sets the EQ to flat in "settings", one might be astounded with the fully immersive full frequency response from the Ipod.
I have both, IPhone/Touch and two high end systems, I've played several instruments, listened to music for a half century, can still hear above 16K reliably in both ears. The experience with either iPod (subject to my instructions here) and a good high end system can be equally satisfying. I fully reject the elitist view -- and assertion -- that one, considering what the technology has achieved to date, is superior to the other.
The fact is, and I know this may hurt some egos, many audiophiles NEED to justify the expense (trade ins and so forth) they have indulged over decades.
Copy CDs directly to iTunes using WAV 44.1/16 bit, error correction checked off. Load these into the iPod Touch/iPhone, open a bottle of wine and let the others spend ten grand for a cable and an ego massage.
Been there; done that, sorry for offended egos.
@AGB
In fairness, I don't think many reviewers have failed to explore and exploit the potential of the iPod. But it's irrelevant here.
The iPod's usefulness and potential to return good results are not in dispute. The problem is with people who say 'the iPod is good enough'... because they are also usually the people who never experiment with different earbuds, EQ settings and the rest. And they are also generally the people who make the inverted snob claim that because they can't be bothered to investigate whether there's life outside of the standard settings, why should anyone else?
My own iPod is packed with ALAC files and works beautifully, both with earbuds and when docked to a system.
Aside from using ALAC over WAV, I also agree with with your settings, although it's worth checking that Sound Enhancer and Sound Check (in the Playback section of your iTunes Preferences file) are unticked, too - they make a big difference to performance.
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
I totally agree. The very big dollars one can spend on this stuff is little more than ego stroking. I have read the reviews, for example, about senheisers HD650 Headphones and all the BS about $1,000 cables and $5,000 headphone amps to improve the hi frequency sound. If the hi frequency response seems a little down on what one might expect for christs sake, just turn up the treble on the Amp.
I have a 60Gb iPod that connects to a Marantz dock which in turn plugs into a Denon 4306 Surround Sound Amp. The music emanates through JBL 4410 Studio Monitors which are now about 25 years old or my Sennheiser HD650s. I have over 5,000 songs available but can only get about half of them on to the iPod (I use the "Lossless" setting) and they sound great.
I believe that HIFI equipment compares well to red wine. My favourite red is about $60.00 a bottle. Australia's most revered red wine (Grange) can be 10 times that amount. Unfortunately, the additional quality of Grange which is marginal at best, just doesn't add up on a value for money basis.
I totally agree. The very big dollars one can spend on this stuff is little more than ego stroking. I have read the reviews, for example, about senheisers HD650 Headphones and all the BS about $1,000 cables and $5,000 headphone amps to improve the hi frequency sound. If the hi frequency response seems a little down on what one might expect for christs sake, just turn up the treble on the Amp.
I have a 60Gb iPod that connects to a Marantz dock which in turn plugs into a Denon 4306 Surround Sound Amp. The music emanates through JBL 4410 Studio Monitors which are now about 25 years old or my Sennheiser HD650s. I have over 5,000 songs available but can only get about half of them on to the iPod (I use the "Lossless" setting) and they sound great.
I believe that HIFI equipment compares well to red wine. My favourite red is about $60.00 a bottle. Australia's most revered red wine (Grange) can be 10 times that amount. Unfortunately, the additional quality of Grange which is marginal at best, just doesn't add up on a value for money basis.
@AJC:
Those who are not 'into' wine may think the idea of spending $60 on a bottle is excessive because they cannot determine the difference between a $60 bottle and a $10 one. Because you have an interest in the subject and that interest has led to you educating your palette, you have come to understand (and identify) why a $60 wine is preferable to a $10 one. On the other hand, others may think enjoying a $60 wine nothing more than 'ego stroking' on your behalf.
If you change the numbers accordingly, you can comfortably replace the word 'wine' with almost anything that can pique the interest of people. My wife can identify an expensive hand-dyed alpaca wool from cheaper machine-dyed merino wool just by running her hand over a skein of yarn - to non-knitters like me, it's just 'wool'. Meanwhile, I can feel the difference between a set of strings on my Fender Telecaster, vastly preferring D'Addarios EXL110s over Ernie Ball Regular Slinky and Rotosound Roto Yellows... even though they are all 10-46 gauge, nickel-plated steel strings - to non-guitarists like my wife, they are just 'strings'.
In other words, from the viewpoint of the insider, differences may be huge, but to those less interested in that specific aspect of the subject, such subtlety of differentiation is lost.
There is also a comfort zone that individuals reach, beyond which 'enough is enough'. You struggle to justify a continued interest in finding out why a $600 wine is preferable to a $60 one. In part, this is commercial reality hitting home - if you learn to like $600 bottles of wine, you may end up learning to like $1,200 bottles of wine and so on. If you continue to educate your palette to such an extent that - to you at least - a $60 bottle of wine seems as crude as a $10 bottle may currently do to you and your 'go to' red wine costs, say, $500, you might have to make big decisions about your wine consumption vs. mortgage payments. Some may make the decision to explore the lofty climbs of high-end wine regardless, deciding to make sacrifices elsewhere (being more discerning and drinking less, giving up some other aspect of their lifestyle, etc) and that's a decision individuals have to face as they reach plateaus in their interest.
I'm pleased that you have already reached your personal comfort zone in music replay. But not everyone shares the same plateau as you. Remember that just as much as you laugh at $1,000 cables and HD850 headphones, there's a $10 wine-drinker laughing at you wasting your money on 'BS' wine.
One further point I do take issue with concerns the use of tone controls to improve high frequency sound. That's missing the point, on two counts. First, the use of the high-end components you mention are not to 'increase' or 'decrease' high frequency response, but to help give the high-frequency performance its best possible start in life. Built-in headphone amplifiers are typically capacitor-coupled devices. This helps stop DC offset voltages from turning your headphones into smoking ruins. Problem is, capacitors have distinct and identifiable influence on the sound, such as 'coloration' (in this case, an emphasis toward the middle frequencies with the treble and bass sounding dull in comparison, and the high frequencies sounding 'off' in envelope, spectra and tonality) and a foreshortening of the dynamic range of well-recorded music. More up-market options include DC-coupled designs (such as the Creek OBH-21) and others (Lehmann Linear) treat the project as an extension of preamplifier design and build a discrete buffered and regulated output stage. These help reduce or even eliminate the potential for coloration and dynamically compromised sound seemingly endemic to built-in headphone amplifier 'afterthoughts'. Such designs would be impossible to build into a conventional hi-fi or home theater amplifier without adding significantly to the overall cost of the product. However, I do think that high-quality headphone amplifier circuits should be more commonplace on high-end integrated amps and preamps, where no such cost and space-saving considerations need to be made.
Second, I'd hesitate to use most current tone controls found on hi-fi and home theater amps and receivers as a fix for headphone treble anomalies. Unlike the parametric equalizers used in studios (and to build high-end home - and commercial - movie theaters), the treble and bass tone controls are designed to boost or cut across large swathes of frequency. Let's say you have a headphone set with a marked 6dB spike at 5kHz - both a tone control and a parametric EQ would 'slug' that spike, but while a parametric would work specifically at that 5kHz region, a conventional tone control would also do the same to everything from about 2kHz upwards (in many respects, this represents the worst of both worlds - the headphone sound still has that 6dB spike at 5kHz, and every other tone has been cut back in a pale effort to tame that). A graphic equalizer will also boost or cut specific parts of the frequency range, but in practice works somewhere between the precision of a parametric equalizer and the blunt tool of a tone control.
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
AGB, I enjoyed reading your comments and thiink you "hit the nail on the head". With ANY technology, there is ALWAYS "give and take". Analog, digital, LP's, iPods or CD's... just as examples, but true nonetheless; pros and cons for each and every one of these technologies. I feel if it sounds pleasing to your ears, go for it! Any or all of them. Why not? Thanks for the clear headed comments.
My iPod + my Grado 225 headset + my Emmeline "The Hornet" = Super sound, for the music on the go. Could be better, but it's a matter of money, Im going to improve this system soon.
It's one thing to have a mp3 player then have your home theater, but there are the Apple snobs that thing everything else is worthless. These are the people that haven't listen to music thru good speakers, or never heard music thru a tube amp. I love my mp3 player wich isn't a apple, and I am on my third set of high end headphones, and I Am sure all those Ipod people don't even bother getting better headphones. The Shure or EU headphones are amazing but break easy, so the studio styles are totally worth it.
My experience has been that when I've had people listen to my home system and then listen to their portable media players, or cheap equipment in general, they just say, "oh". They don't hear any difference. One system sounds as good as another and it seems crazy to spend thousands on audio equipment. I don't think there's anything wrong with their ears or anything special about mine. Maybe they could be trained to hear the differences or maybe they just aren't "wired" that way. Some people really "get" computers, while others haven't a clue about them. Maybe the same is true for audio.
@ Tim:
Over the years I've come to think of audiophiles not as especially gifted in the objective hearing department (i.e. wide band hearing like bats), but rather audiophiles have a different kind of attention that they pay to music.
As an example from my own life: I love chocolate, especially really nice dark chocolate. Never knew you're not supposed to gnosh right down on it. The really good stuff? Apparently its enjoyed best when it's allowed to melt in your mouth, little by little. When I finally tried it this way with a piece of some very exotic stuff, it was a very different experience. Savoring the details and nuances of the flavors as they revealed themselves little by little as the melting chocolate uncovered hidden layers of flavors mixed in with it. Turned out to be a pretty nice way to eat a chocolate!
Some folks don't now how to savor music, so the kind of attention and importance and meaningfulness we give to the experience is foreign to them. That doesn't mean they're incapable of delving deeper into the ecstatic parts of the musical experience ... it might just mean they didn't know it was there, or possible.
Chris
The Signal Collection, LLC
North American Distributors
of Connoisseur-Grade Hi-Fi
OR. Some people's attention spans are such that, like mine, BEFORE I trained myself to listen, simply hear nothing more than they know how to hear. It's like someone just learning French who can't trill the "r" in "etre" if their life depended on it, and someone who caresses it with their tongue and releases it into the air with their breath. It's all a matter of knowing, darlings.
There's an "r" in etre? ;-) And here I thought it was just the past tense of "eat" ... maybe I've been living in Atlanta too long.
Chris
The Signal Collection, LLC
North American Distributors
of Connoisseur-Grade Hi-Fi
I've had exactly the same conversation at a party recently. And from one particularly boorish type too, who decided that my profession would be the subject of loud ridicule. "I've got an iPod. I don't need anything better, why do you?" Fortunately, I noticed he was finishing off an extremely expensive bottled real ale from the UK equivalent of a microbrewery.
When his beer glass was empty, I asked if he'd like another. I returned with two cans of the cheapest lager I could find, saying "I don't need anything better, why do you?" It shut him up and the disgusting tasting lager was one of the sweetest I've ever drunk.
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
An iPod can certainly serve as a great music server if using Apple lossless or uncompressed format, and then bypassing the sickly DAC in the iPod by running it through the Wadia 170i - which is different than every other iPod dock out there. And, let's not get into the whole discussion about the Apple TV serving the same purpose for less money, as you completely lose the portability factor, to play music on the go.
" And, let's not get into the whole discussion about the Apple TV serving the same purpose for less money, as you completely lose the portability factor, to play music on the go."
But the Wadia 170i is hardly mobile gear.
Chris
The Signal Collection, LLC
North American Distributors
of Connoisseur-Grade Hi-Fi
Quite right Alan. I take it he was no longer, well, foaming at the mouth about the absurdity of the high end? In any case, my point wasn't that iPods should be banished, but that they shouldn't preclude, or induce snobbery, about good stereo equipment.
Jacob posed an interesting question: "Why does an I-Pod have to preclude a stereo system?"
The answer, of course, is that it doesn't. Nevertheless, one thing I think that many performance-minded iPod/in-ear headphone enthusiasts understand is that their pocketable systems enjoy enjoy a huge price/performance ratio advantage vis-a-vis conventional stereo systems--at least in terms of achieving well-balanced, high resolution, full-range sound with spectacular dynamics. (Granted, no earphone-based system I have yet heard can equal the spatial/imaging characteristics of a good speaker system).
Let's take the basic system AGB described above as an example: an iPod Touch and a pair of Shure SE30 in-ear headphones. An entry-level iPod Touch costs $229 and a pair of Shure SE530's lists for $499 (but can bought on Amazon for $299). Net real-world system price = $528. Now here are two tough questions:
1. What stereo system priced at $528 (or anywhere near that sum) can equal the iPod Touch/Shure rig in terms of A) neutrality of tonal balance, B) frequency extension at both ends of the audio spectrum, C) resolution of inner details, and D) dynamics?
Answer: none that I know of.
2. How much would one have to spend on a stereo system to equal or decisively outperform the iPod/Shure combo?
Answer: A whole LOT more than $528 (I'm betting that we are talking about several multiples of that sum, at the very least!). Try working out some iPod/Shure-beater combos of your own and you'll soon see what I mean.
When individuals ask if an iPod isn't enough, they might not necessarily be exhibiting reverse snobbery or claiming that nothing better exists. Instead, they could be stating that they simply can't afford conventional stereo systems that can equal--let alone surpass--the levels of performance they already enjoy with their existing iPod/headphone rigs.
The problem isn't that the world of high-end audio can't show a sonically superior alternative; it can. Rather, the problem is that high-end solutions typically are not very cost-effective.
In my experience, the "uncomprehending public" actually does comprehend that high-end audiophiles are chasing after and sometimes achieving superior sound. What makes them shake their heads in amazement, however, is not the beautiful sound of our systems, but the fact that we are paying far too much money for the results we are getting.
Affordable high-end audio, anyone?
Chris Martens
Editor, Playback
Chris Martens
Editor, Avguide.com/Playback/The Perfect Vision
Very nicely put Chris,
Let me put a different spin on this... I'm an audiophile and have been most of my life now of 38 years... My passion is car audio... which MANY of the readers here would say is an exercise in futility! I consider it a challenge and a difficult one at that! In particular I enjoy overcoming the challenges of the basic environment of the automobile in regards to the accurate reproduction and presentation of the recorded sound. Then you start up the engine and move the vehicle... now you have another dozen set of variables which you must optimise or overcome to acheive the "best" sound environment possible. Many of the readers here would scoff at me for attempting (and succeeding to a very high degree.), to acheive a sonically accurate and capable audio reproduction environment in a moving vehicle at speed. My audio system in my vehicle is more accurate and better sounding (to me) than most mid-level high end home systems that I've had the extreme pleasure to listen too... (including my own). BUT, I've spent thousands of hours working on the vehicle, designing the system, choosing components, modifying the vehicle, fabricating components/parts to satisfy a need to the best of my ability. I have got at least a few more years worth of work before I will be completely done with the system, as time is the mitigating factor. I've also got over $10,000.00 in equipment ONLY, as I do all my own installation work (and have for over 23 years... when audio was about quality, not quantity...). Once again, many, many people would shake their heads in disgust that I would spend soooo much money on stereo equipment for a moving vehicle! It's NOT just about the sound though... (that's the icing on the cake...), its about the process; the learning how to overcome an obsticle, to acheive in reality what I know is possible in my mind, on my own. The satisfaction of doing it on my own, and the entire process of finding a solution, engineering and implimenting the solution and reaping the benefits of the hard work.
MOST people that I've talked to about my passion/hobby think I'm crazy!
Basically in a nutshell, if you can read what I just wrote and relate to the passion involved, regarding ANY hobby or interest, then you are "esoteric" in regards to that hobby in comparison with the average person.
I have found that when introducing someone to the hobby of audio (home, automobile, portable... such as an iPod), and YES, I have all of them, you have to take the time to educate them on the nuances that separate the "stereo" from the "Hi-Fi (or) Quality audio reproduction device/system", in order for them to be able to have a reference point to notice and understand the "better" device/system. Once this introduction is completed, then they will be equiped with the ability to expand there knowledge of the more "esoteric" devices/systems and form their own opinions of what they like and don't like. If they don't care, then that's their loss. They don't have a clue what they're missing out on.
"In my experience, the "uncomprehending public" actually does comprehend that high-end audiophiles are chasing after and sometimes achieving superior sound. What makes them shake their heads in amazement, however, is not the beautiful sound of our systems, but the fact that we are paying far too much money for the results we are getting."
There's horsepower, and then there's HORSEPOWER. And while in many cases the former will suffice, in some cases only the latter will do. And the latter costs dearly.
The question is - how much do you care about the difference?
@ AJC: It's one thing to state that those who consume the latter variety are stroking their own egos - but that answer is too easily arrived at to actually be true. Chances are it has more to do with palliating one's own ego to come up with that answer to begin with, i.e. "My XYZ is good enough for me, which must mean it's good enough for the rest of humanity." How easy is it to criticize the consumer for being careless with their money? - - But it's rarely been the case in my experience with the products we sell, so I tend not to buy into that argument prima fascie.
Typically, the people I've dealt with are extremely conscious of the money they are spending, are intellectually curious about the differences between the items I represent and the less expensive alternatives in the market, and are hardly "impulse buyers." So the question that begs asking is simply: Why are people willing to pay so much for the experiences these products provide?
The answer I witness, time and again, is because the musical experiences wrought through these components are indelibly deeper and more meaningful than they have been through other systems, and that those musical experiences are valuable enough to warrant the investment.
Why are these solutions so much more expensive? Well - they're not all so much more expensive, but many of them are. The reason has to do with the fact that most of these cutting edge manufacturers are designing to ideals rather than price points, and inventing methods and technologies that aren't already in production somewhere else. So aside from having to invent the technology, they must also invent the means of production, and then face a fairly small market to boot ... so the opportunity to employ economies of scale are very rare in the high-end of our industry.
So the "value" issue is a moving target, an abstraction based on the value system that the buyer brings with him/her to the transaction. But I would venture to say that, compared to wine, all HiFi is a greater value simply because it has an equity value. You can use it for awhile, and sell it into the used marketplace for a portion of what you paid for it.
The same cannot be said for used wine.
;-)
Chris
The Signal Collection, LLC
North American Distributors
of Connoisseur-Grade Hi-Fi
The elephant in the room is how few younger people have ever experienced live, unamplified music of the highest quality a.k.a. the absolute sound.
Until that problem gets fixed, high quality audio will remain meaningless to most.
If a blind person thinks that there is somthing wrong with somebody, then its not a sterotype. its true. HOW many beers was this guy drinking.... tell this dude to take a bus. who needs a car anymore?.... YP? Use a biddie' and a wash cloth...
Hurry lets all go DIGITAL so we can REBUY ALL ouur OLD albums over again....
Oh that's why all the copy protection....
Mr. Sircom hits to the heart of the matter (as usual). A cursory interest in something generally leads to more introspect and searching (at least it seems to be the spirit in my generation), but I believe that an inherent respect of the music and culture that has came before is what sets apart this generation from the last. Rejection of morays and popularly-held beliefs are a good thing every generation, but distinction between what is being rejected and the replacement always deserves dissection by its culture. Why are people just now getting back into vinyl at a record pace (don't look at me... "any audiophile worth his/her salt should consider (a turntable)" reads the old Sterophile adage)?
Interest, passion, and respect are the key notions that I think are lost on a generation where Punk Rock's message was indeniably dilluted in the past 20 years, and at key junctures in pop music culture. Information overload and youthful arrogance are the culprit, but the rift is only now being grafted together again, thankfully to vinyl and old technology modernized in this age. Long live all of the American and British Hi-Fi magazines!!!
-Glotz