So now we're cheap because we choose not to spend $20K on a sound system? Ok, this is where I bow out of this thread.
chris On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > You guys need to go listen to some vinyl on a $20K > system. If you cant hear the difference between > that and a $2K system, you are practically deaf or > just very cheap and trying to justify it in your > mind. A $20K system allows for the use of MUCH > higher quality loudspeakers which make for a tremendous > difference in what you hear. > JCO > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 12:25 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: vinyl Was: RE: Digital/Film body pricing > > > The funny thing here is I think we old folks need a better sound system then > the > younger folks. Why? Well, I at least have a far harder time separating > noise, so > the less noise the better the sound to my ears. Current consumer sound is: > 1. > loud. 2. excessively bassy. 3. noisy. > > That said I don't think many of us could tell the difference between a good > $2000 system and a fine $20,000 system, but most of us who care can easily > tell > the difference between a $2000 high fidelity system and a $500 home theater > system. > > Note that "us who care" part up there, I understand that that is only about > 30% > of the music listening public. The other 70% would be happy with a $29 > system. > > That kind of applies to us photographers also. There is a lot of lip service > to > quality on this list. But if quality was really important to us we would not > be > shooting 35mm, we would be using 4x5 or larger. We would not be using over > saturated films. We would hate the lack of tonality in digital prints. We > would > hate the over sharpened look of digital prints. Funny thing is most of us on > this list think all those things I just listed are positive rather than > negative > features. Well they do say beauty (quality) is in the eye of the beholder. > > -- > > Bob Walkden wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Friday, November 21, 2003, 4:41:29 AM, you wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >>A friend of mine is a Dr of Music. > >>According to him, anyone over the age of 50 who figures they can still > >>appreciate the joys of an expensive sound system are fooling themselves. > We > >>lose much ability to discern subtle tonal variations as we age, and the > >>expensive stereos become so much vanity. > > > > > > I've have some serious ear problems, so I'm no judge of sound quality at > all. > > When I first starting having these problems, and regular audiology tests, > > I asked the consultant what they used as the baseline for the comparisons. > He > > told me it was the average of a large sample of tests made on 6-year-olds, > > because their ears have stopped developing, but haven't yet started to > decline. > > > > The lesson from that is, get a 6-year-old to choose your sound system. > > > > -- > graywolf > http://graywolfphoto.com > > "You might as well accept people as they are, > you are not going to be able to change them anyway." > >
