I do not know that they say about “size” and “ways to use it” but in audio “ways to use” unquestionably rules. It is funny how Audio people create cult of abstract “better” audio components of element but completely discard any sensibility to use those “better” elements. Generally the rule of sum is following: an audio person accumulate the audio components that he or she believes do “better audio”. Then the person piles them up in a room and he expects that as the result she of he would have “better sound”. Nothing could be further form truth.

It is unbelievable how many (practically all of them) installations I heard that was built by more or less “capable” elements but that sounded so horrendous that I hardly knew if I had to laugh or cry when I heard them.  In a way I understand why the system owners did it and how they end up with those results. In Audio for Morons ™ the capacity of audio elements determined by amount of drummed buzz the component have managed to create. Let even presume that the component does deserves it and is capable stay behind own reputation. So, what then?

Unfortunately nothing. An avenge audio person learn to learn about audio elements but this person learns about audio elements form the most ignorant, pompous, egotistic amateurish and absolutely hollow source – the audio reviewers. Those people run their lips in order to incentive consummates to buy components and they feel that “audio” is over since the sale is committed. The problem is that “the real audio” juts started then.

No one educate audio used what to do with audio when audio in his/her room. Reviewers are not qualified as they are clueless themselves, not to mention that no one pays for it to them. However, right in there when all “peaces” are paid, sitting in the room and connected the most important things start. Now a listener should learn to understand the audio results, react to the results and make decision about the understanding of those audio results. Let pretend that equipment could not be sold or bought. So, what is left is sense of the system owner how to organize own system enabling the system to do what the system can do well and do not let the sustain to go what it will slip. There is many-many ways to do it but practically no audio people USE their send to navigate their playbacks to a desirable direction. As the result most of their playbacks have cookie-cuter identical sound resembling to the dead sound of voice-automated answering service at Fidelity Investments.

There is very-very-very-very-very few really personalized, tailored playback installations and one of the reasons because audio people do not use “ways to use it” but instead explicitly exploit the alleged “size” proposed by the reviewing magnifier glass….

I have seen the people use senses. I have seen how even using not necessary capable elements people made the playbacks to sound very-very interesting. I applauded those people and to look how they organized their installations (if it was intentional) is like read someone’s novel. As of course there are other people – the dominating army of Audio zombies with high confidence, high pomposity and high patronizeabilety but with remarkably-identical generic “dildo-sound”. I always said that any technology in the hands of barbarian produce barbarian results. Well, why do you think that it does not work in audio? Do barbarian results identify barbarisms? I would not think so. But the barbarian results do identify the barbarian intentions. In the  “Les Misérables” was said: “It is time for us all to decide who we are…” The intentions! Sometime it is too tricky to say to own playback “stop” and do not let the playback to portray own sense of sonic barbarism... Sometimes it is very indicative…

Rgs,
Romy the caT

stuck.wilson wrote:

one of the most heinous-  outside public opinion-  is the current state of 'studio recording'-  not scrupulous and thorough transparent use of good recording equipment, but the economics-derived aesthetic of 'louder is better' overcompression of everything so that screechy/boomy pop music is louder than commercials!  sadly.. i think few people hear human produced music in any context.. so the idea of 'harmonic integrity' is a really confusing ideal to people who haven't grown up around live music. and to a certain extent, it's difficult to find even amongst instrument builders, who cater to musicians expecting hyper-exciting tonal balances out of their instruments as thats what they hear on the radio!

I think the sorry state of the music industry (s/ware, sound) is primarily due to:

a) the trend toward audioVISUAL and the ensuing market for products
b) how people listen to music

A) I believe this is self-explanatory; the bulk of the market invests in VISUAL supplanted by audio. As this is a digitally controlled medium, it results in "canned" sound most of the way -- unless of course one invests hideous amounts of money which is not a mass market habit anyway.
Here the sound is secondary and supportive to the visual element. Excepting videos of musical performances, the sound "quality" and dynamics are largely dependent on sound-effects rather than unamplified (or electrical) instruments and volume (i.e. sound pressure) is more important than the actual changes in volume (i.e. dynamics -- or whether the sounds are natural: most aren't, as in the sound of two people kissing, or fighting.
So intelligibility of dialogue is important, but otherwise sound quality is not (hence the "dialogue" speaker).

B) Most people use reproduced music as an alternative to background noise or in a car. The other use is entertainment. In both cases, this is passive listening. Research has it, few people nowadays listen to music as an occupation. We (audio + music philes) can get together "to listen to music"; this is not a mass practise any more.

SO:
1) Dynamics must be banished, or you have to fiddle with a volume cotrol all the time. The sound must be flat. Think about it: Without compression even Madonna is difficult to listen to in a car without having to turn the volume up or down many times during just one track. The situation is worse with classical of course... Not good for "background music".
2) Music is also used to create entertainment ambience /atmosphere. Here the volumes are high (110 dB) and are conducive to "mass" entertainment psychology: everyone is reacting together as a group to one individual -- the DJ. Dynamics MUST be limited here too -- or the equipment will self-destruct really quickly...
3) Intelligibility, detail, etc are unimportant because in both cases above (v. low volume or v. high volume) they are NOT audible. Timbre, harmonics, etc are a non-issue as the music played does not contain any such elements in a crucial role.
4) People are jsut as happy using low resolution media as others -- and this hurts industry sales leading to heavy cost-cutting. This in turn means that the cheaper the recording & mastering process the better. "Worse" , for a few decades now, artists themselves take an important part of the profits... (ah, the good old times when you paid the artist only if there was left over money)

...so many engineers are required to produce a low-production cost product to keep bread on their table...


A final point which is the worst of all: ROmy states above that many (most) hi-end systems sound mediocre. It's usually due to set-up in my experience and to injudicious choice of components. 
I would add that systems sound horrible given the investment -- but they look very good. {Most systems I've heard fall into one of two categories: good for girl with banjo or good for girl with cello -- ONE cello. Add a subwoof and you get two notes fm the double-bass}

But given the mediocrity of sound, how can ANYONE expect a non audiophile to catch on, to be impressed, to consider the audio & music hobby if, for the sum of a few $10k's the result is not obviously different from their $250 Sony minisystem (including sales tax). If it were obviously different and better I am sure they (anyone) would hear the difference.

Gregm wrote:

{Most systems I've heard fall into one of two categories: good for girl with banjo or good for girl with cello -- ONE cello. Add a subwoof and you get two notes fm the double-bass}

"Good for girl with banjo, or good for girl with cello - one cello, or good for girl with a cello - bad cello, or good for girl with a good cello - the girl can’t play. Use anything out of scope of the above formulation and the Hi-Fi chokes, or the listener's awareness chokes!!!"

Regarding the rest. I think the biggest problem, since audio became an ordinary commerce commodity, is the state of marketing representation of audio success. As I always said that problem are not the people designing poor audio but the industry idiots (primary the marketing junk) who keep promoting all that garbage as the 8th wonder of the world.  Since the marketing dirt apply their target efforts to the lover denominator of prospective consumer then have no other option besides selling the cheaply-substitutable, quantifiable virtual, artificial quality. Do you want an explanation how they do it? He is a material that I have written in the end of the 90s. Ironically, no mater now absurd my writing is but it is not a subject of my fantasy but literal description of the event that I experienced in the listening room of one of the dealers:


"However, if I were a dealer I would perhaps have difficulty selling audio equipment. It would be much easier for me to demonstrate to my client other equipment: "My dear friend! For another $15K you will have the ability to hear how the stomach of your favorite artist consumes a ham sandwich which the artist ate a day before the recording...Oh! I'm sorry, you are not a proctologist... in such case, did you know that when a drummer hits the cymbals, the impact of the drum stick with metal surface actually consists of 50 micro-hits and you could entertain yourself by counting them. Let do it together... 1,2,3,4,5... Or you know what? For additional $5K I could offer you a portable device that could count it for you. Even more ...if you get both of them today then I will provide you with two years of free battery replacement and promise to inform you when a new state-of-the-art device detecting the positioning of the drum stick relative to the North Pole will be available...." Absurd? Not at all. It is a necessary routine that dealers must follow in order to be in the business. They need to provide evidence that a model they are pushing now is far superior to the model they sold last year. It is easy to demonstrate quantitative differences to a client than to force the client to read books, go to concerts, and visit museums for a long time before entering a Hi-End store.”

Rgs,
Romy the caT

Sure the video imaging might be beneficial or devastating. Sometimes a great camera work can and good acting can embrace performances the push them way out there and sometime video can wreck even the best play. Sometimes, when I come across video that impresses me, I shut down the screen and try listening just soundtrack. Interesting that since I have seen the video then the visual chain frequently reconstructs itself in my mind, despite of my intention do not do it.

It is well know, that classical music severely suffers from disability of the most cinematographers to bund their efforts with musical impressionisms. How many times we have seen that image zoom-in on something that is completely inappropriate in the context of the given musical impressionism, given tempo or give accents. How many times we have seen that the camera people have juts no sense of tact (I use word tack in Europeinean meaning), no sense of taste or no sense of the event that they are filming…  How many time we have seen the cheesy and tacky attempts to make kitsch video even from good music.  I really wonder how the new MET broadcasts will be done. If they do it tastefully I would be wonderful and I will be first who go the theater….

Ironically the most powerful cinematographic moments of classical music come from “no presents of camera” type of work, sort of documentary. One of the most powerful and the most interesting moments that I even experienced and the same time the moment when the presents of video was no juts justified but very much worked affinity with sound was in the DVD “The Art of Piano - Great Pianists of 20th Century”. In the mid of the film there was an episode where I believe it was Alfred Cortot teachers his student about the syntax and phonetic of Schubert’s notes. Listening his voice, the why how he plays, seeing his expression on his face and looking at what he is trying to say to his student.. is absolutely amazing experience…