:cool:
Printable View
Given that it was made in 1959, I thought it was a reasonably accurate portrayal of the newly emerging interest in hi fidelity. Flanders and Swann had a similar take on it with their 'Song of Reproduction': https://www.bing.com/search?q='A+Son...=EUPP_CPNTDFJS
The more recent 'Not The Nine o' Clock News' sketch reminds me of the bad old days in the '90s with the Linn/Naim hegemony seriously distorting the advice of dealers at the time. I had to lie to a dealer in Bristol in order to purchase a Linn Asak cartridge, who would only sell me one if I used a Linn turntable!
I always get so what is it? As if Im going to say one word like Bose or Sony. I end up saying well its a mixture of different brands some of which you probably haven't heard of.
I'll only go into more detail if asked but often by then they've lost interest and replied with a "Oh ok" or something similar :)
I blame the rise of the wireless speaker for this unholy ignorance..... Sinners all of them.
Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk
IME civilians invariably used to think that either Technics or Bang & Olufsen was the best money could buy. Now they just ask why you're not just using your 'phone to listen to music like everybody else does. According to a young colleague her Alexa thingammyjig 'sounds brilliant' and there's no need for anything else. What can you do?
It is apparent to me that although the SQ from many small Hi-Tech speakers is very good and clear, it must by physics, be of limited bandwidth.
The result of the ubiquity of usage of these things, is that restricted bandwidth is now becoming the social norm, and so when using a wide bandwidth system, speech is often unintelligible because of recorded but missed proximity mic. effects.
Much R4 and TV speech is very difficult to understand unless heard on restricted bandwidth speakers., often cheap ones.
Age will play a part as well, most of us are in or approaching the 'Speak up, sonny!' phase of our lives.