[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:03:41 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Aug 28, 7:03am, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,

cjt wrote:
Anybody with $100K for speakers should spend that money attending live
performances. That would support the music, which buying the speakers
does not.

I used to attend live jazz concerts. Then they started to amp them up.
The sound at home became better than the sound in the hall. What really
irritated me was the hall was fairly small and didn't need any
amplification.

I've had similar experiences with musicals so I stopped going.

So far classical music seems to have remained unamplified but I think it
is only a matter of time.

I wouldn't worry so much about classical music being amplified. There
has been a wonderful movement in modern concert hall design and in the
past 10 years there have been a substantial number of new concert
halls all over the world that offer new levels of excellence in
acoustics.


I don't think that matters. I've been in wonderful sounding venues that
absolutely had no NEED for sound reinforcement, but used it anyway because
"it was there" (with pop and rock, with their electronic instruments it's
essential because much of what they do doesn't exist in real space).

Because most modern pop recordings that one buys are acoustically, horribly
compressed, it is assumed that what the listener wants to hear is music that
has no dynamic range and is the same level (loud) all the time. So to make
the "live" event sound more like a recording concert organizers and
performers insist on gain riding sound reinforcement.

I once attended a concert by a jazz quartet that was NOT amplified. As we
were leaving I heard some young attendee remark to his companion, "It was a
good concert, but I wished it had been louder. Why didn't they use sound
reinforcement". IOW, this youngster EXPECTED it and was disappointed that it
was not employed.