Re: Bose sucks

[raf40@oes.amdahl.com (Richard Funnell)]

>> And that's the problem with sound...everyone's taste (and ears) are
>> different.
>
>In a past life, I too was involved with high-end audio (and, Yes, I happen
>to own a few pairs of electrostatic speakers!) ... this canard about "ears
>being different" really doesn't hold any water.  However different my ears
>are from yours doesn't matter if we both use the same reference.

As even the most ardent audio fanatic knows, car stereos (or even home
stereos) don't generally come very close to original music, especially
where the original instruments were acoustic.  Given that fact, everyone
needs to choose which tradeoffs work best for them.  That certainly is true
in my house, where my wonderful wife frequently suggests that the large
Celestions really don't need to be so prominent.  She's prefer right
against the wall, or even better in the garage.  An issue of aesthetics vs
sound.

Another issue is that people's hearing differs greatly in the ability to
hear the differences between excellent and poor components.  I don't know
what it's like to not hear any difference, but I'm sure it would change my
taste in equipment.  Way back, I remember a fellow trumpet student in high
school who literally couldn't tell which note was higher when they were
several notes apart.  I wonder how stereos sound to him?

Bottom line: people's perception of music is a very complicated thing which
is not fully understood.  Anyone who really believes that the right lab
instruments can completely measure the quality of something like a speaker
is in for a big disappointment.

>Ideally,
>the goal is to reproduce the sound of live music as you hear it not as you
>would like it to be ...

---snip---

>
>     _             _
>    / l       l o l  \       l o   Jeffrey Goggin
>   /__l l l / l l l  l l l / l l   AudiDudi@delphi.com
>  /   l l_l \_l l l__/ l_l \_l l   http://people.delphi.com/AudiDudi
>
>


Richard Funnell,
San Jose, California
'83 urQ
'87 560 SL