superczar said:nice. nice..
will be in Bangalore end of this month for a day...will hopefully be able to get to hear these![]()
Hasnt chaos shifted to mumbai?
superczar said:nice. nice..
will be in Bangalore end of this month for a day...will hopefully be able to get to hear these![]()
vij said:Hasnt chaos shifted to mumbai?
vij said:2L for an audio setup :S
blr_p said:Has not mentioned what the music budget is
In fact thats the odd thing out in the picture.
Where's the shelves of LPs or the digital hookup, with wireless touchscreen for selection.
cranky said:Well, people spend five times that on cars that pollute the environment and get you from one place to the other, a function easily fulfilled by your legs. I don't see anything to be so surprised @.
cranky said:Well, people spend five times that on cars that pollute the environment and get you from one place to the other, a function easily fulfilled by your legs. I don't see anything to be so surprised @.
Figure it out dude, which is the more expensive hence most desirable element of an audio system ?
cranky said:If I start detailing some of the systems I've seen in the last few years, those people will go blind just from raising eyebrows.
cranky said:Your ears?
Is it not clear as this point that you cut yourself out of a lot because you demand the best sound
cranky, cat got your tongue
cranky said:I'm no salesman. You need to be less offensive.
cranky said:And so what if I do? I buy my CDs or hi-res audio, sometimes from secondhand shops on the street. I save for it, because it is important to me. Maybe that is incomprehensible to people who download stuff all the time.
cranky said:I see no reason to own lossy music, much less steal it, as it is worthless.
cranky said:I see no point in continuing the discussion. Someone here raised eyebrows at a 2L setup, and I frankly think it's inappropriate.
Ppl that spend so much on the equipment tend to spend less on the actual playback material
My contention here is because you have experienced better sound that it then becomes a prime criteria for listening
Lets not forget its the tune that first hooks you and then the better sound is icing on the cake.
cranky said:Generalisations are not a good thing in any field. I know people who have over 4,000 CDs, and about the same number of records, and have spent a dime on equipment in the last decade. From them, I learn there may be people with lots more.
cranky said:I'm only at about 1,000. That is still about 3 times my current equipment cost, at roughly 550/CD (Yes, I import a lot of them).
cranky said:For you, maybe. Not for me, it's chicken and egg. I still listen to a lot of stuff with very bad recordings (think 80s rock). I don't complain. The music is always most important. But my taste has evolved and changed. And that is not only in the direction of better 'sound'. I listen to a lot of alternative and modern rock, which is pretty badly recorded. Some old jazz recordings are not very well made, and for the most part, vintage blues is terribly recorded.
cranky said:In my collection I could look at about 10-20 CDs and point them out as examples of great recordings. The rest are music (and not always the best kind either). My last purchases from amazon.com had three CDs of Jackson Browne, who probably puts out the worst recordings in history. This was after I purchased my BE-718s, so no, the SQ was never the prime criteria....
cranky said:Again, music is an experience. I respect the fact that everybody's experience, requirements and senses may be different. So no, it is not always the tune that hooks me. Just like a flat voice sounds dull, uninspiring and unpalatable, a harsh, bloated or otherwise bad reproduction system spoils the experience for me. No matter how good the song is. OTOH, when I hear a song on a good system, I can start to appreciate something I've heard only briefly before, or discover new things about the music I already have.
Never compare experiences. You don't know what the other person's journey is about.