Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

Audio News
Topic: A great article from Peter Qvortrup

Page 1 of 1 (5 items)

Posted by Romy the Cat on 02-02-2018
Not that I agree with everything he said in here and as usually, Peter "massages"  some meanings, facts and definitions but still it is a very lucid writing.

Rgs, Romy The Cat

Posted by Paul S on 03-12-2018

"To me, it is perfectly clear that the resources being invested in improving absolute quality had largely evaporated by 1965, as marketing men, and accountants took over the main budget in most commercially-successful companies, a fact that seems to have gone unnoticed by both the audio press, and buying public."

-  Peter Qvortrup

Yes, this gets it about right.

Thanks, Romy.

Paul S

Posted by Romy the Cat on 03-13-2018
Well, first of all I am not completely agree with this Peter’s statement that “improving absolute quality had largely evaporated by 1965”. There is “some” accuracy in it but as a generalist I feel it is not correct.  Some people might say that jazz is dead from mind 50s, it is and it is not. So, I let Peter with his statement to escape… 
The second of all is the most important. What I think is very ironic is that the statement above came from a person who pretty much emblematic for “marketing men running audio business”. Particularly the Mr. Qvortrup’s personally who is embodiment of industry worse, to the point that is pretty much universally hated by his own colleges and not without reasons. This is a very ugly nature of the industry. Most of the industry participants are cultural retards and drop out from others failed fields. Peter Qvortrup on another hand is superbly refined in musical and cultural perspective (big rarity) but as most of the industry members he is a douchebag to a point that the douchebag of his caliber do not sit with him at the same table. 
What is absolutely brilliant in Peter observation is the part that it was “unnoticed by both the audio press and buying public.” The statement absolutely accurate but what foxy Mr. Qvortrup forgot to mention that since 1965 the audio press was forking for Qvortrups, he literally has them on payroll. Each time he pays his bills it was uninformed “buying public” aroused by “unnoticed…audio press” paid for this bill. 
So, I would recommend to provide some kind of weaver in the begin of the article with acknowledgment where he see himself in all of it.

Posted by martinshorn on 03-13-2018
this article is a pain to read. Its from and for old bitter „everything was better in the ol‘ times“ folk. It’s blindly (non selective/ unspecific) supporting any current vintage hype. Also it measures progress exclusively by the top notch? What a nonsense! If human mankind made it to the moon half century ago, it doesnt count at all that we can produce a car affordable for all lower middleclass nowadays that lasts 200k miles??

Posted by Paul S on 03-13-2018
I appreciated a couple of things, probably for different reasons than Q put them forward, I think.  For one thing, I more or less discount his timelines, and also the idea that certain audio components reached a high-water mark as "complete" achievements.  For one example, it appears to me that SET amps took quite a while to reach their best development, at least until we had decent capacitors and more dynamic recordings.  However, I find insightful his remarks that the best late 30's drivers appeared and disappeared before there was recorded media to fully exploit them, and it seems like he appreciates the irony of the "missed opportunities" of the "staggered development" of various audio components, even if the details seem somewhat arbitrary.

As for Q's remark about the press and the public missing the the shift in paradigms, one needs first to buy into Q's notion that the pursuit of ideal sound quality was pervasive, in the first place, while it may just as well be said that real "progress" in audio has always been more or less random, not to mention the fact that most audio consumers wouldn't know a good component (or what to do with it) if it bit them on the ass.  Personally, I find "nostalgic" the fact that hardly anyone talks intelligently about sound quality in reproduced Music, for any reason, ever, especially in terms of how that might be reasonably (let alone systematically) achieved via audio components.  Still "more nostalgic" is the fact that the previous situation never slowed anyone down (including Q, of course).

For me, Q's remarks seem to be steeped in vague (perhaps even contrived) nostalgia that - of course - becomes another way to sell things.  Still, the context of Q's own behavior only adds spice to his expressed thoughts, albeit one is -once again - forced to think for oneself in order to get the most from others' remarks.  And, after all, any truth clear and bright enough to actually light the way will yet be missed, ignored, dismissed, perverted, exploited, reviled, etc., etc., by the majority.

Paul S

Page 1 of 1 (5 items)