P Floding wrote:
> pfarrell Wrote:
>>Is the audiophile world that old? I think The Absolute Sound is
>>only about 15 years old. Maybe a little older.
>
> Why should TAS define "audiophile",
They were the first to use the term "high end"
Which is where mortals start to think of the term 'audiophile'
The old normal stereo fans seem to have fallen away,
moving to video or surround. From what I can see
"stereophile" is the only US magazine still availble and alive.
The mass market (mostly Japanese) receivers, turntables,
and CD players of the late 70s drove the magazines to
a "all amps sound alike" approach, which was bad for
business and the hobby. The audiophile karma points out
that they are not alike, and brought back tube amps, vinyl
and other relics from the past.
> and why do you think being an
> audiophile is equivalent to buying expensive interconnects?
Look at the advertisements in TAS, Stereophile, The Audiophile Voice
and tell me what the magazines, and their advertisers think
are defining lusts?
> being an audiophile. Some of the highest quality recordings around were
> made in the 50's -and I guess the masterful people making these
> recordings were their time's audiophiles.
I agree that the 50s "hi-fi" hobby and 'stereo' that swept
the colleges in the late 60s and 70s are the precursors to
today's audiophiles.
I don't think of audiophile as being a universal positive term.
IMHO, too much attention is spent on 'gear' and not enough
on the music.
--
-- toc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.curmudgeon4.us/
_______________________________________________
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
