Home » Audio » General » How would consumers re-difine audio re-production?
How would consumers re-difine audio re-production? [message #2427] Sat, 12 November 2005 19:07 Go to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
Say there was a paradigm shift in perception. What effect would that have for the marketting of audio gear?
Were the buying public to be made aware of the subtle nature of the experience; would they have any incentive to alter their existing buying habits?

Not when good enough is good enough [message #2430 is a reply to message #2427] Mon, 14 November 2005 08:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
GarMan is currently offline  GarMan
Messages: 960
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (2nd Degree)
I don't think the issue is whether they understand or are aware, but do they even care. We live in a world where "good enough" is good enough and it goes beyond audio. As much as we want to believe that quality should drive purchasing decisions, when it comes time to pay up, it sits pretty far behind other things like price, fashion/trend, acceptance by your social circle, etc.

You can sit someone down and show them what a tube based high efficient system can do for under $1500, but they'll still turn around, walk into Best Buy and buy a set of Bose because it cool and their friends think so too. And to them, it's good enough.

Here's an example. Look through your photo albums for photos you have out. Most of them are probably shot with a point-n-shoot and I can probably point out at least a dozen optically related distortion that's evident in each photo. But you don't care, because to you, they're good enough. Guess what, they're good enough for me too because my albums are also filled with imperfect point-n-shoot snapshots.

gar.


Re: Not when good enough is good enough [message #2433 is a reply to message #2430] Mon, 14 November 2005 14:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
akhilesh is currently offline  akhilesh
Messages: 1275
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (3rd Degree)
Good analogy, Gman.
For years, I was happy with my cambridge soundworks audio system, though I didn;t listen to it a whole lot. Suddenly, one day, I got into this tube amp mania, and wanted to learn how to get good sound from little money.
But You are right: the majority of public wants SATISFICING rather than optimizing.
-akhilesh

Re: Not when good enough is good enough [message #2436 is a reply to message #2433] Mon, 14 November 2005 21:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
Yeah; I am wondering if people exposed to better sound would not just look for better looking equipment. I asked because I truely would not know how to even begin to understand the workings of the consumer mentality.
Also I am pondering whether Mr. Geddes's point is that he knows he will not persuede the general public but in fact wonders will he be able to impact the debate within the audio community as seriously as research on this level should.
I think that is actually his target audience. It would be a sad commentary on human nature were his work to be ignored by the very people he seeks to involve in the process.
And to see at least the results of recording experts who apply some of the empirical conclusions expressed in the text.


Re: Not when good enough is good enough [message #2437 is a reply to message #2436] Mon, 14 November 2005 21:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MWG is currently offline  MWG
Messages: 344
Registered: May 2009
Grand Master
Another thing to consider is you're not just dealing with the consumer price concious mindset. There are people who cannot tell the sound of a quality setup from the mass merchandised stuff. For example, I had just saved and purchased my Mac MC-2505 & C-26 in 1971. I invited a friend over and let him audition the setup. I had Altec Valencias (still have them) for speakers and Bill's comment after listening was "I have an Airline stereo console at home that sounds just like that." I was mad and hurt at first but luckily I kept my mouth shut. After Bill left I got to thinking. Why were you mad? Was it because he didn't fill your ears with the correct responses you felt you had coming? He wasn't being funny or snide he really couldn't hear the difference. There are more people than you might think in that boat.

Re: Not when good enough is good enough [message #2439 is a reply to message #2437] Tue, 15 November 2005 06:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
Thats right MGW; I think a lot of us have experienced that sense of total de-flation upon hearing those comments after showing your prized system!
I resigned myself long ago to the fact that this is my hobby and as such I spend the time and effort to attain the neccessary skill set required to appreciate the capabilities of good audio.
The great body of folks who just don't care will have to suffer through their poor quality sound. And truthfully I really know it doesn't matter to them.
Years ago it was different when every house on the block had one of those old tube consols. They sounded soft and slow but musical and people actually listened to them on a daily basis.
What changed?

What changed? [message #2440 is a reply to message #2439] Tue, 15 November 2005 07:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
GarMan is currently offline  GarMan
Messages: 960
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (2nd Degree)
TV
Kids that require classes in dance, swimming, hockey, soccer, karate, pottery, yoga, .......
Internet
X-Box

MB, where have you been in the last 50 year?

I have another example of not caring. My wife that much better hearing than I do and she can spot more differences when I tweak. And while it's fun for her to hear the differences, she doesn't really care one way or another as long as it doesn't sound bad.

Face it, we are not representative of the general population. Our approach to audio is nothing more than a luxury. We should just be thankful that all the other areas in our lives are stable enough that we can absorb ourselves into this hobby.

gar.

Re: What changed? [message #2443 is a reply to message #2440] Tue, 15 November 2005 11:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
G-Man; you hit the nail on the head.
But they had some of these things also back when we were tykes. And I remmember those old stereos playing in the neighborhood all the time.
Now no one except us hobbiests listens to stereo anymore. The kids with their IPods; maybe that is the parrallel with us and our old transistor radios. Remmember those?

Re: What changed? [message #2446 is a reply to message #2443] Tue, 15 November 2005 12:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wayne Parham is currently offline  Wayne Parham
Messages: 18683
Registered: January 2001
Illuminati (33rd Degree)

Great thread, John. I think you're really on to something here. It's hard to strive for perfection, impossible to achieve. So it is easy to go to extremes either way. One can find themselves obsessively chasing the dragon, never satisfied and wasting efforts on minutia. Or they can find themselves giving up, settling for something that can't possibly satisfy. Seems the best thing to do is somewhere in between, but sometimes it's easy to find yourself moving towards one extreme or the other.


Re: What changed? [message #2448 is a reply to message #2446] Tue, 15 November 2005 15:33 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
Interesting concept; I think in terms of your designs which have always impressed me by their ability to straddle that fence. If a speaker can become representative of the philosophy of guys striving for audio absolutes in terms of sound then think about this:
The Pi's have a grasp of how to balance all of the neccessary attributes needed to realise the most rational approach to the speaker end of the equation. They are simple in the way that reflects Einstiens great maxim concerning theories," Make it as simple as possible; but no simpler."
They use resources in the most economical and effective way.
They offer true insight into the music.
They flatter most equipment.
They are uniquely customisable due to the simplicity of the design and construction.
They are cost effective.
No joke here; this kind of thing is not a superficial attempt at appeasing the average taste. It to me represents the most efficient way to describe whats important.
I was listening earlier and thought about this; thats where this comes from today. Doc. Geddes opened the door to this subject with his book and it makes sense to think through all the impressions we get from all of our equipment and musical experience.

Previous Topic: We should call "Craftsman" the "Maytag Forum"
Next Topic: Hat's off to Steve Brown for a great day!
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue May 07 14:58:52 CDT 2024

Sponsoring Organizations

DIY Audio Projects
DIY Audio Projects
OddWatt Audio
OddWatt Audio
Pi Speakers
Pi Speakers
Prosound Shootout
Prosound Shootout
Smith & Larson Audio
Smith & Larson Audio
Tubes For Amps
TubesForAmps.com

Lone Star Audiofest