Low traffic on rahe

Andy

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
147
0
18,630
0
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

It is sad to see a very low traffic on rahe: just a few (10 or so)
messages per day. Is our hobby evaporating, involving and passionate
so few people?
Is quality music reproduction getting so un-relevant for most of us -
the average Joe?
Is good music itself (mostly classical and jazz, IMO, with some good
rock and pop) getting so un-relevant for most of us? Classical and
jazz record sales are dropping lower and lower (< 5% ??)

I see the same on EU groups I sometimes attend ...

Marco from Milan, Italy
 

Randy

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2003
56
0
18,580
0
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

From my experience I think the lower traffic on rahe has more to do
with the availability of alternative online forums and discussion
sites. When I first got into the Internet side of my audio hobby
back in the late 80s there were only a few audiophile BBS locations
and a few audio related news groups. There was a lot more traffic on
the newsgroups then because there was nowhere else to go online to
share this information. Over the past 10 years the landscape of the
Internet has changed significantly and there are a number of sites
that maintain forums and discussion groups duplicating most of the
same types of discussions that were once limited to newsgroups. While
the newsgroups are still a very good venue for hosting these
discussions, its no longer the only show in town. My guess is there
there even more online discussion of our hobby...it's just spread
around a lot more. Granted, much of this discussion has become
diluted with content related to home theater but in general I think
there is still a great deal of interest in high end music systems.

Randy
"andy" <andyluotto@excite.com> wrote in message
news:c4uto601qu3@news3.newsguy.com...
> It is sad to see a very low traffic on rahe: just a few (10 or so)
> messages per day. Is our hobby evaporating, involving and passionate
> so few people?
> Is quality music reproduction getting so un-relevant for most of us -
> the average Joe?
> Is good music itself (mostly classical and jazz, IMO, with some good
> rock and pop) getting so un-relevant for most of us? Classical and
> jazz record sales are dropping lower and lower (< 5% ??)
>
> I see the same on EU groups I sometimes attend ...
>
> Marco from Milan, Italy
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

andy wrote:

> It is sad to see a very low traffic on rahe: just a few (10 or so)
> messages per day. Is our hobby evaporating, involving and passionate
> so few people?
> Is quality music reproduction getting so un-relevant for most of us -
> the average Joe?
> Is good music itself (mostly classical and jazz, IMO, with some good
> rock and pop) getting so un-relevant for most of us? Classical and
> jazz record sales are dropping lower and lower (< 5% ??)
>
> I see the same on EU groups I sometimes attend ...

================================================

At the risk of starting something, it seems that this is the "normal"
message volume. But from time to time, the umpteen dozenth variation of
the Double Blind Testing Argument gets going again, driving message
volume up.

I do hope the hardware never becomes more important than the software.

-Gene Poon
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Gene Poon <sheehans@ap.net> wrote in message news:<NVWcc.91415$JO3.45810@attbi_s04>...
> I do hope the hardware never becomes more important than the software.

I think the very existance of threads like "cones of silence vs
Masterbase" and the cliams of dramatic difference in the sounds of
cables is sure existance proof that, indeed, the hardware has become
more important that the software, despite these peoples strident
claims to the contrary.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Yes software is where my heart is too.

HW investment = about $5K
SW investment = upwards of $40K

"Gene Poon" <sheehans@ap.net> wrote in message
news:NVWcc.91415$JO3.45810@attbi_s04...
> andy wrote:
>
> > It is sad to see a very low traffic on rahe: just a few (10 or so)
> > messages per day. Is our hobby evaporating, involving and passionate
> > so few people?
> > Is quality music reproduction getting so un-relevant for most of us -
> > the average Joe?
> > Is good music itself (mostly classical and jazz, IMO, with some good
> > rock and pop) getting so un-relevant for most of us? Classical and
> > jazz record sales are dropping lower and lower (< 5% ??)
> >
> > I see the same on EU groups I sometimes attend ...
>
> ================================================
>
> At the risk of starting something, it seems that this is the "normal"
> message volume. But from time to time, the umpteen dozenth variation of
> the Double Blind Testing Argument gets going again, driving message
> volume up.
>
> I do hope the hardware never becomes more important than the software.
>
> -Gene Poon
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"andy" <andyluotto@excite.com> wrote in message
news:c4uto601qu3@news3.newsguy.com...
> It is sad to see a very low traffic on rahe: just a few (10 or so)
> messages per day. Is our hobby evaporating, involving and passionate
> so few people?
> Is quality music reproduction getting so un-relevant for most of us -
> the average Joe?

I think there are several forces at play, primary among them is the fact
that it is truly difficult to purchase bad sounding electronics today. Even
the budget receivers of today are vastly superior to the high-end components
of 20 years ago. Whereas discussion over amplifiers used to be meaningful,
the nominal competance of the majority of today's amps has even the purest
subjectivists recognizing that audible differences between them are subtle
at best. The same can be said for digital source components, which really
only leaves speakers as a subject of meaningful discussion.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Excerpt:
> At the risk of starting something, it seems that this is the "normal"
> message volume. But from time to time, the umpteen dozenth variation of
> the Double Blind Testing Argument gets going again, driving message
> volume up.

Or down. This forum's name should be rec.audio.dead-end.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Vade Forrester" <vforrester@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uPoec.113985$gA5.1463578@attbi_s03...
> Excerpt:
> > At the risk of starting something, it seems that this is the "normal"
> > message volume. But from time to time, the umpteen dozenth variation of
> > the Double Blind Testing Argument gets going again, driving message
> > volume up.
>
> Or down. This forum's name should be rec.audio.dead-end.
>

My nomination is rec.audio.high-end-criticism., so that people know
what it's apparent purpose is. Because very little else goes down here.--
the
high-end-products are overpriced badly-engineered frauds, the people in the
industry corrupt charlatans, the press a self-serving lapdog, etc. etc. etc.
(but said more nicely than before :) ). And except for speakers, mid-fi
reigns!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Part of the problem is that this newsgroup does not allow posting with a
munged email address or with an alias. Too many of us have found that SPAMMERs
routinely harvest email addresses to add to their SPAMing lists, so we don't
post here. This is the reality of the Internet today. Too bad. . . .

Vade Forrester wrote:

> Excerpt:
> > At the risk of starting something, it seems that this is the "normal"
> > message volume. But from time to time, the umpteen dozenth variation of
> > the Double Blind Testing Argument gets going again, driving message
> > volume up.
>
> Or down. This forum's name should be rec.audio.dead-end.
 

Andy

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
147
0
18,630
0
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

> I think there are several forces at play, primary among them is the fact
> that it is truly difficult to purchase bad sounding electronics today. Even
> the budget receivers of today are vastly superior to the high-end components
> of 20 years ago. Whereas discussion over amplifiers used to be meaningful,
> the nominal competance of the majority of today's amps has even the purest
> subjectivists recognizing that audible differences between them are subtle
> at best. The same can be said for digital source components, which really
> only leaves speakers as a subject of meaningful discussion.

I would say: speakers and digital processing (room correction). I vote
for the claim that 'properly designed amplifiers tend to sound the
same'. Just be careful with idiosincratics pairs - e.g. SET amplifiers
(is it a right example of properly designed amplifier??) with low
impedance loudspeaker systems

I personally am not too much excited to discuss about 'how much
transparent that pre-amplifier is ...'

regards
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <c5h6cs$1lh7u$1@ID-99062.news.uni-berlin.de>,
andyluotto@excite.com (andy) wrote:

> > I think there are several forces at play, primary among them is the fact
> > that it is truly difficult to purchase bad sounding electronics today. Even
> > the budget receivers of today are vastly superior to the high-end components
> > of 20 years ago. Whereas discussion over amplifiers used to be meaningful,
> > the nominal competance of the majority of today's amps has even the purest
> > subjectivists recognizing that audible differences between them are subtle
> > at best. The same can be said for digital source components, which really
> > only leaves speakers as a subject of meaningful discussion.
>
> I would say: speakers and digital processing (room correction). I vote
> for the claim that 'properly designed amplifiers tend to sound the
> same'. Just be careful with idiosincratics pairs - e.g. SET amplifiers
> (is it a right example of properly designed amplifier??) with low
> impedance loudspeaker systems
>
> I personally am not too much excited to discuss about 'how much
> transparent that pre-amplifier is ...'
>
> regards

It is possible for the RIAA compensation to be off I suppose.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
A Audio 5

ASK THE COMMUNITY