I think we're going down the wrong road here on the comparisons. Basically
there are three types of "stereo" equipment: low-cost, mid-fi and high-end.
Low-cost stuff usually shows up in Walmart, K-Mart, Office Town, etc.
Mid-fi stuff, usually shows up in places like Circuit City, although Circuit
City has it's share of low cost equipment; Circuit City, however, has no
high-end equipment.
High-end equipment is carried by audio/video specialty retailers, although
they also carry some mid-fi equipment (including B & 0) so they can still
make a sale after a customer faints at the price of the high-end equipment.
The lines between low-cost and mid-fi and mid-fi and high-end can be a
little blurry, and you can argue all day about which among the mid-fi lines
(Pioneer, post- 1980 Marantz, Technics, Panasonic, Toshiba, Yamaha, Denon,
etc. is the best), but none of them are high-end.
High-end is not about playing the music but about recreating the event (or
creating the impression that you are there), and it's just expensive as
hell. Has it ever crossed your mind to pay $10,000 for an 8' pair of
speaker cables?
With all due respect to Mr. Hirsch, all digital does not sound the same.
Yes, digital is all 1s and 0s, but all digital components contain analog
circuits, some of which are better than others, and some digital components
deal with time based anomalies in the transmission of digital data (jitter)
better than others, all of which influence the sound.
What's my point: if you're going to relate it to cameras, then:
low cost = throw-a ways at the low end and point and shoots at the upper
end.
mid-fi = 35mm SLR/rangefinders and interchangeable lens;
Yashica, Konica, Miranda, etc. at the low end and Canon, Nikon, Olympus and
Leica at the upper end
high-end = large format
I think Olympus cameras and lens are great and prefer them to all other 35mm
cameras (I wouldn't mind having a Leica M6), but they are not high-end. I
also like my Denon stereo components in my bedroom, but if I really want to
listen to the music, then it's off to my listening room for some time with
my Meridian gear.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lex Jenkins [mailto:lexjenkins@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 1:48 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [OT] hifi was:[OM] Lens Test
Hey, I'm glad you brought up Marantz. I always thought of them as the
Miranda of audio. Kinda quirky, kinda cool, but ultimately doomed.
Any objections to equating Olympus with B&O? Consider the diminutive
sizes...
Lex
===
>From: "John Cwiklinski/Beaverton/Contr/IBM" <johncw@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: [OT] hifi was:[OM] Lens Test
>Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 08:20:34 -0700
>
>...Olympus is not high-end, therefore, in the audio world neither
>is Pioneer, Marantz, etc. (and all the others that were massed produced in
>the late '70's and '80's).
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|