Of course, nothing "dirty" in the content
The writer could have tried to make the point of "style over function", tenuous, but a point nonetheless. As it is, there is no point other than what you wrote.
AmenLooks like it might be working.
The Ugly Truth Behind Hi-Fi's Growing Infatuation For Nostalgia
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Tenuous indeed - not much punch to that. But there is a possible alternative spin that might be taken from the article, which, if true, offers at best a point poorly made. I'll stand by the charge of loose logic as well as it lacking a clear point with no or mediocre answers at best.
Let's take the same quote as I used before and include two more sentences
The author might be saying that the nostalgia effort is the result of a "small but significant minority feeling short-changed" by "the path that mainstream hi-fi has taken". In other words hi-fi was somehow 'truer' in the past when its primary components such as tube amplifiers, turntables, and speakers found in wood cabinets ruled the day. The so-called 'Golden Era of Hi-Fi', the world of Klipsch, Altec, Altec Lansing and JBL, even Advent, AR, Thorens, Garrard, and Micro-Seiki, etc. etc. What some peg today as vintage audio.
If that was the guys point, I think there may be some truth to it - apparently a truth he did not see. He cites contemporary products that look more than sound like their predecessors. He seems focused more on look than sonics yet couldn't even turn that into style over function. So maybe he had the germ of an idea that could have made for a worthwhile read, but, alas, it failed to germinate and ended up a garbled mess, a failed crop. But that didn't really matter, the title hook captured eyeballs and thus fulfilled its publication.
The problem here is, you guys are giving What Hi-Fi far too much credibility as being a halfway credible Hi-Fi magazine.
There is an unstated assumption the writer, which is that new technology is superior, yet he offers no proof or reasons why.
There is also the assumption that these products are made to rekindle retro tastes in an older generation, when it's obvious that the real target market is much younger. Retro fetishism/fashion is strong and building in the under 40 crowd.
There is also the assumption that these products are made to rekindle retro tastes in an older generation, when it's obvious that the real target market is much younger. Retro fetishism/fashion is strong and building in the under 40 crowd.
Some views on vintage components/trend :
Thanks for that CK. That article had promise and it is more interesting than the article in the OP.
Yet the Soundstage author never quite comes to a conclusion much less a satisfying one.
Between the two articles and the overall discussion there seems one possible emperor's-new-clothes answer that no one dare speak of or must not be said: maybe, just maybe some of the so-called vintage gear sounds better.
Tim, this is a good observation. Roy Gregory did mention this in his essay, but it did not get much discussion.
The Nostalga Phenomenon for vintage British made electronics and transducers has for many years now been driven by collectors from the Far East , Singapore, particularly Hong Kong ( where the Leak 12.1 and LS35A rule ) and of late Malaysia and mainland China.
Early Tannoy , Leak , PYE , Rogers , Garrard , Armstrong , Lowther , Audiomaster etc.etc all sell very well and in general the cost of ownership ever rises.
Early Tannoy , Leak , PYE , Rogers , Garrard , Armstrong , Lowther , Audiomaster etc.etc all sell very well and in general the cost of ownership ever rises.
I agree completely with Tucker completely. Retro 70's looking speakers are drawing in a new and younger audience. Take a walk through Williamsburg, Brooklyn bars, and coffee shops and you will see vintage speakers playing everywhere. Look at the success Klipsch is having with their old-school speakers with updated driver technology, or JBL with L-100 derivatives. IMHO, anything that brings new blood and a younger audience (which 30-40 year-olds with discretionary income certainly are) into the hi-fi hobby is good for everyone. If it takes an "everything old is new again" approach so be it.
i actually love this renewed design aesthetic. The Technics receiver looks bomb, and the JBLs, Wharfedales, and Klipsch natty too. But the technology is not my ball of wax, except maybe some Klipsch for a clubroom . I saw a pair of nice untouched Klipsch Kornwalls for sale in my local Craigslist this weekend for $6000 and I was sorely tempted! But I don't need another project!!!
. I saw a pair of nice untouched Klipsch Kornwalls for sale in my local Craigslist this weekend for $6000 and I was sorely tempted! But I don't need another project!!!
With all apologies to CK.
Letting space on SoundStage to r/ anything is right up there with reading the NYT instead of just opening ( pre-takeover collapse) Twitter. This, probably well meaning, article had no central motive bar exposing how uniformly large the rift is. These "Kids" are the exact same as you were at that exact same age. Minus the resources and vitality this hobby offered anyone exposing adult interests. 1970 hi-fi reproduction was terrible but at least it held forth a separation between 6th hand copies of a basement repress (you could certainly find instructions for that on Reddit) stickered as rare exclusive new goods - awfulness.
Putting anything technically 'period' audio related into a high end basket is facetious at best. Which is exceedingly the wont in this new era of fashion and emporiums.
Very recently started a conversation pointing towards audio show debut of what must be the most unblushingly retro-future (rugless) 70's speakers in production. That garnered not a single reply. Fetishization of, nostalgia for, something generation currently in their dotage fondled well beyond licit means? The figure a vintage horn speaker cuts? My ass.
Letting space on SoundStage to r/ anything is right up there with reading the NYT instead of just opening (
pre-takeover collapse) Twitter. This, probably well meaning, article had no central motive bar exposing how uniformly large the rift is. These "Kids" are the exact same as you were at that exact same age. Minus the resources and vitality this hobby offered anyone exposing adult interests. 1970 hi-fi reproduction was terrible but at least it held forth a separation between 6th hand copies of a basement repress (you could certainly find instructions for that on Reddit) stickered as rare exclusive new goods - awfulness.Putting anything technically 'period' audio related into a high end basket is facetious at best. Which is exceedingly the wont in this new era of fashion and emporiums.
Very recently started a conversation pointing towards audio show debut of what must be the most unblushingly retro-future (rugless) 70's speakers in production. That garnered not a single reply. Fetishization of, nostalgia for, something generation currently in their dotage fondled well beyond licit means? The figure a vintage horn speaker cuts? My ass.
Nostalgia nothing new in audio of course, read the following that I copied from another thread: old 78 rpm LPs sound better for chamber music because the microphones used at the time, particularly by Victor and EMI, were better at capturing harmonics. Any reason why that would be so or sheer nostalgia on Stanley’s part?
LPs sound better because
LPs sound better becauseWhat was the old microphone technology that is referred to here? A megaphone in reverse, or some pure mechanical means ? Just curious about what the tech was.
Regarding modern microphones, I have found that ribbon mics generally have better timbre than the more usual condenser (electrostatic) mics.
Regarding modern recording media. I have found the most lifelike playback of my voice was when I once recorded it direct to disc . I spoke into a microphone and a tube driven cutter put it right in the lacquer(vinyl?). Timbre and dynamics sounded…like me in a way I haven’t heard in any analog tape and 24/96 digital recordings that I have tried this with since.
So, what Stanley Slome proposes is,
the objective is to record everything that moves air, including air itself (ultimate resolution)
but to record the way we hear or perceive sound...
I skimmed it. it's doesn't brim with the cadence and rhythm of fine prose. It almost feels as though they needed column inches and set Ketan to bloviate till the lunch bell rang. (the inmates are starving, somebody get up there and talk until the food arrives.) The fact that he decided to over-state his title, highlights the weakness of his premise. I understand what he's saying, I just don't think style has a great deal to do with audio progress or the lack thereof. Everyone borrows from what came before, but to assume that a modern product hasn't added to older achievements (if only materially) due to looking like an older model, would seem to me to be a poor assumption.
The ugly truth behind hi-fi's growing infatuation with nostalgia
What's the fascination with retro?www.whathifi.com
This seems to me to be a broadside and somewhat uneducated attack on currently manufactured products grounded in vintage design philosophies.
I find the article a bit incoherent, and I'm not even sure what "ugly truth" the author thinks he's exposing.
Am I reading this wrong?
If this was the point and if it was properly reasoned we would be able to discuss it, even presenting our arguments supporting it or disagreeing with it.
The way it was written it will mostly trigger nostalgic reactions ...
