But you will also know, presumably, that is is possible to wreck a decent high-power speaker by driving an under-powered amplifier into distortion, because the high-frequency harmonics from the resulting clipping will be fed via the crossover network through the speaker's tweeter, possibly exceeding its power rating.
But this isn't anything to do with the speakers rating, it's simply over driving an amplifier - you shouldn't be running it that loud
It's also more applicable to PA situations, although it's often considered an urban myth anyway. I can't say I've ever seen tweeters blown in this way, although I have seen them blown by incorrect crossover frequencies (Wharfedale funnily enough).
But in any case it's not really relevant to the point in question, feeding a pair of small bookshelf speakers from the amplifier built-in the TV.
It's true that most listening is done at much lower power levels than most people expect. But a more powerful amplifier gives headroom for transients, which is what makes the difference when listening to material at a fairly high ambient level.
Again, we're talking TV here - it's pretty well compressed and limited to death
Connecting a pair of the speakers mentioned directly to the TV output will absolutely transform the sound from the TV. The first time I did a similar thing I couldn't believe how good it sounded - just using a pair of small speakers from a scrap mini-HiFi.
We have two flat-screen TVs, the one in the front room is a new 32" Panasonic Viera, very slim and compact, ideal after the old 1980s LG 32" "elephant in the corner."
But it obviously has small rear-facing speakers.
The audio output from the TV, along with one scart lead from it and those from the CD/DVD and VHS video recorder in the stand below it, (the Humax PVR has an HDMI connection to the TV) are then connected to an old AV auto selector and then on to a Realistic three-way stereo selector, which also has connections to a record turntable, a cassette deck and two jukebox wallbox selectors. This selector is then connected to my vintage 1980s Leak 2000 tuner/amp and 1970s Goodmans speakers.
So it's possible to pass the audio from any of this stuff through the tuner/amp.
TV speakers ain't what they used to be. The old LG (which got "retired" rather than actually failed) had reasonably sized forward facing speakers numerous audio "presets" and a five band graphic equaliser.
I use the Leak for the sound of any film we watch whether it be a live transmission, a recording from the Humax, a DVD, or an old VHS video from my "film noir" collection.
If say they are rated at 20W RMS minimum and the TV amp is only 10W RMS maximum, then the amp won't have the power to drive the speakers.
As you say you will need to check the impedance as well, as this will affect their efficiency.
10W RMS to 20w RMS is only 3 db, doubling the power, but 3 db is the smallest increment in sound levels that the average person can detect. So quite a reasonable thing to do. If TV is only 3 to 6 W peak (quite usual) then there could be a problem.
As you say, matching the impedances is probably more important. If the TV amp is designed to use 16 ohm speakers ( common years ago) attaching modern 4 ohm speakers could damage the TV amp output stage.
And for a definite lift in sound quality for the minimum outlay, as a previous poster wrote, a modest PC 2.1 speaker set will invariable be so much better than the TV sound, and will plug into a simple 3.5 mm jack.
As sound is logarithmic, then the difference isn't that great - for example 100W is only twice as loud as 10W.
This is not quite right either as "twice as loud" can be subjective. 10W to 100W is a lift of around 10dB or doubling the power more than 3 times.. Note, the power requirement not the produced volume.
Sound is not logarithmic either although it obeys the inverse square law. The relationship between the power required to increase the sound level is logarithmic though.
This is not quite right either as "twice as loud" can be subjective. 10W to 100W is a lift of around 10dB or doubling the power more than 3 times.. Note, the power requirement not the produced volume.
Sound is not logarithmic either although it obeys the inverse square law. The relationship between the power required to increase the sound level is logarithmic though.
Exactly - ten times the power gives twice the volume, it's not really 'subjective' although there may be a tiny number of people who don't hear the same way as everyone else?.
Same for RF, ten times the power gives twice the range (in free space of course).
I have always had a music system, from a hand me down in the 1980's to a set of seperates now. My Dad also has one of the nice compact ones that Tandy used to sell with the metal speakers.
But the HiFi shop has closed, Currys have no stock and there is no longer any HiFi shops like there used to be.
I know that people have the MP3 player docks but this is nothing like even a basic music centre. For one thing having a pair of speakers far enough apart to 'reassemble' the sound that was recorded in the studio and no CD player.
So why do people no longer want even a compact HiFi any longer? Being selfish for a moment I do love my music and do miss having new things to try to give me more music enjoyment and new technology (my current seperates are over 10 years old now). The really good gang at the HiFi shop closed because the shop was being ignored. That was Watford - Aylesbury and St Albans shops shut too. Sad really.
Argo's have a fairly good selection of more regular mini/micro hifi.
For the deeper pocket, there are more specialist hifi dealerships around. Such as Richer sounds and Audio T.
I re-wired everything in my room today and the studio..even though i have a reasonable collection of different types of formats of music I still love listening to my cds. for me its the opening the box, seeing the cd covers, the artwork and the actual presence of something tangible, instead of 1s and 0s.
I love the sound of my records, cds and tape - once you invest in a decent hifi system and play decent quality music (its up to you what genre you think this fits in), you begin to notice the difference in quality, and turn from the modern compressed formats.
I use youtube, spotify to hunt out good artists then buy the cds as I want the quality.
I have not bought any new hifi equipment for years, the biggest purchase was about 10 years ago from richersounds and its all going strong and I think it will out last an ipod. Nowadays I buy if I want anything hifi wise 2nd hand, as I enjoy the hunt through the hookey shops and grabbing the bargins
I still think that because music these days is so accessible and on demand when we want it, it has become more disposable. Therefore people do not mind listening to crap quality and crap music, you just delete and download.
It's strange to see what quite a large % of people think of as hifi these days. Music centres (and before those, radiograms) wouldn't have been in the hunt, as far as reproduction of music was concerned, 25+ years ago. AV definitely wouldn't have been.
Music centres are widely available - Argos, most supermarkets, Curry's etc stock them with variations on CD/Dock/Radio + speakers, for between £75 and £300.
Online/in store there's Superfi and the other sources like Richer Sounds.
My problem with combined sound systems (AV + music) would be that there will be compromise, both technical and attention-wise, with such a system. I admit I would always spend more on the HiFi than the AV side because I prefer music.
I bought over half of my present HiFi 20+ years ago from W. Bradys, who I can't recommend highly enough for advice and customer support. As far as HiFi is concerned, I notice that there's a just as wide, if not wider choice of turntables available now than there was 25 years ago, especially at the 'budget end'. So I think there's life left in the HiF world yet.
When you consider how much you probably spend on CD's or legal downloads, if you love music then not getting a decent system (2nd hand if needs be) to hear it on is self defeating.
I re-wired everything in my room today and the studio..even though i have a reasonable collection of different types of formats of music I still love listening to my cds. for me its the opening the box, seeing the cd covers, the artwork and the actual presence of something tangible, instead of 1s and 0s.
I love the sound of my records, cds and tape - once you invest in a decent hifi system and play decent quality music (its up to you what genre you think this fits in), you begin to notice the difference in quality, and turn from the modern compressed formats.
I use youtube, spotify to hunt out good artists then buy the cds as I want the quality.
I have not bought any new hifi equipment for years, the biggest purchase was about 10 years ago from richersounds and its all going strong and I think it will out last an ipod. Nowadays I buy if I want anything hifi wise 2nd hand, as I enjoy the hunt through the hookey shops and grabbing the bargins
I still think that because music these days is so accessible and on demand when we want it, it has become more disposable. Therefore people do not mind listening to crap quality and crap music, you just delete and download.
grumble grumble pipe and slippers
I can understand the BIB.
For me, as obviously of an older generation, it's the selection of a track from the title cards on one of my jukeboxes, putting in a coin (I've a key of course for the box so I can take all the money out again, that's a strange additional pleasure!) the hefty click of the big solonoid switch as I press the selector buttons, the whirring of the carousel until the gripper arm finds the right 45, the soft click as the amplifier comes off mute and the anticipation with the sound of the stylus tracking in before the recording commences, pumped out through the two 8" and two 12" speakers, that give perfect undistorted reproduction from low to high volume.
It's strange, that younger people, the children of family and friends, born long after "the death of the 45" are entranced by what I call my "300lb iPods," if they've never seen one before.
As I mentioned earlier I'm using a 1980s Leak tuner/amp I bought on eBay for thirty quid as a replacement for a Philips 390, I bought in 1972.
Such great "unloved bargains" to be had for those who appreciate quality equipment.
Thanks for the input. I forgot about Richer Sounds - I think the lack of parking put me off calling in there. I also realized that with the closing of HMV will reduce people's interaction with new music and there are far less music spots on talk shows than there used to be. Going to a friend's house and listening to their (and their parents) music on the HiFi was good and if I bought a cassette along I could take a few select tracks home. Can't bring back the yesterday's but a shame what is popular now isn't as good.
HMV is coming back at least to 363 Oxford Street.
Music has evolved and I have found plenty of new bands on Spotify I have not heard of before. Newspapers and music magazines are also useful for learning about new music.
Some people prefer to be minimalist and not want massive equipment in their homes especially if space is sparse.
I have a decent Hi Fi I got from Argos which does the job and sounds great.
It's strange to see what quite a large % of people think of as hifi these days. Music centres (and before those, radiograms) wouldn't have been in the hunt, as far as reproduction of music was concerned, 25+ years ago. AV definitely wouldn't have been.
Music centres are widely available - Argos, most supermarkets, Curry's etc stock them with variations on CD/Dock/Radio + speakers, for between £75 and £300.
Online/in store there's Superfi and the other sources like Richer Sounds.
My problem with combined sound systems (AV + music) would be that there will be compromise, both technical and attention-wise, with such a system. I admit I would always spend more on the HiFi than the AV side because I prefer music.
I bought over half of my present HiFi 20+ years ago from W. Bradys, who I can't recommend highly enough for advice and customer support. As far as HiFi is concerned, I notice that there's a just as wide, if not wider choice of turntables available now than there was 25 years ago, especially at the 'budget end'. So I think there's life left in the HiF world yet.
When you consider how much you probably spend on CD's or legal downloads, if you love music then not getting a decent system (2nd hand if needs be) to hear it on is self defeating.
I go to the Bristol Hi-fi show every couple of years or so and it is always packed.
Music has evolved and I have found plenty of new bands on Spotify I have not heard of before. Newspapers and music magazines are also useful for learning about new music.
Some people prefer to be minimalist and not want massive equipment in their homes especially if space is sparse.
I have a decent Hi Fi I got from Argos which does the job and sounds great.
Yes there is online like Spotify but to me 'online' fails on so many counts. This is from my viewpoint remember.
1. Where to start? Even being a music fan I don't have the time or enthusiasm to trawl through endless artists to find one I may like.
2. Online music. I value a physical format that is something tangiable and has some value after I have paid for it. A download is easier for the distributor but not better for me.
3. Looking through the racks. HMV - especially the larger stores - had categories and new releases on the end of the racks. Just picking up a CD with an interesting cover has led me onto some new music.
4. The 12" rack. HMV used to have a 12" single area with limited run white labels, special DJ versions and a turntable/headphones to try them. I bought loads in the Watford branch and on selling some last year (after putting them onto metal tape) I got back 3-4 times what I paid. Some even included window stickers and other freebies. I discovered some great new music there (Royksopp - before they got into the mainstream).
5. Music video and DVD. The record shop in Aylesbury had a comprehensive rack of rare VHS tapes and DVD's of concerts, music shows and hard to find world music. These were expensive but 'online' has not replaced them as he got them from limited runs and was a music enthusiast himself so guided me onto what I may like.
6. Sound quality. Despite trying some music downloads I have given up with them. Some combination of compression, bad mastering and general ineptitude has messed up what could be a good thing. I tried downloading Steve Hackett's 'Cured' album but it fell way short of my old vinyl with a muddy and clogged sound (Amazon Music). Pop music was even worse and my recorder showed the signal as being constantly pegged at 0db.
7. Attention span. People with large collections on their MP3 player seem to constantly skip track/artist. I say 'leave that on' sometimes as I am fed up with the constant track skipping. With a cassette or LP you were encouraged to listen all the way through and in doing so listened to the album as a whole and not just the first 30 seconds of each track.
8. The good old 'B Side'. Yes, much dross but 1 or 2 in 10 were better than the A Side. Sparks extended 'Number 1 Song In Heaven', The Scaffolds sublime 'Buttons Of Your Mind' on the flip of the terrible 'Lily The Pink' are two.
9. Lastly the equipment. It seems like most stuff these days is either cheap tat or expensive audiophile grade. 20 years ago there existed a middle ground where one could pick up something simple but well built.
On the subject of records, I tried a few modern ones but all it was is the harsh MP3 recorded to vinyl - just with added surface noise. Total waste of money and cashing in on the hipster craze. I am ending up feeling like trying to enjoy modern artists is a futile effort so I am looking into artists from the 70's - 90's and picking up their tapes and CD's.
Yes there is online like Spotify but to me 'online' fails on so many counts. This is from my viewpoint remember.
1. Where to start? Even being a music fan I don't have the time or enthusiasm to trawl through endless artists to find one I may like.
2. Online music. I value a physical format that is something tangiable and has some value after I have paid for it. A download is easier for the distributor but not better for me.
I'll cut for brevity.
I use Spotify a lot, but then I also still buy a couple of monthly music magazines. Spotify is brilliant if you see an article, advert, or a review, of a band you haven't come across before as you can then listen to them on Spotify, assuming they are on there and most bands are, to see if you like them or not.
Spotify itself will also recommend artists based on what you've listened to and what others who have listened to similar have also played.
On the subject of records, I tried a few modern ones but all it was is the harsh MP3 recorded to vinyl - just with added surface noise. Total waste of money and cashing in on the hipster craze. I am ending up feeling like trying to enjoy modern artists is a futile effort so I am looking into artists from the 70's - 90's and picking up their tapes and CD's.
I think it depends on the music you listen to, I like progressive music and buy a lot of my vinyl from web sites such as Burning shed and they certainly aren't MP3s recorded to vinyl.
I think it depends on the music you listen to, I like progressive music and buy a lot of my vinyl from web sites such as Burning shed and they certainly aren't MP3s recorded to vinyl.
I wouldn't have thought any would be recorded from MP3's? - as a minimum they would be sourced from CD's.
Although as MP3's are probably higher quality than records, would it really matter that much?.
I wouldn't have thought any would be recorded from MP3's? - as a minimum they would be sourced from CD's.
Although as MP3's are probably higher quality than records, would it really matter that much?.
I have heard of examples where MP3s have been used as "masters" for vinyl albums but then been sold off as the "original" album, especially where the album is rare.
Tool's second album, Ænima, is a perfect example of this. An original vinyl version of the album is very rare and was only ever issued on black vinyl. They go for hundreds, even thousands, of pounds and yet the likes of E-bay have endless "original coloured vinyl" versions for sale, for a price of course, that are simply poor quality MP3 versions of the album.
I think what irks me the most is that consumer audio quality has gone down over the years. It should be loads better than it is now with stupid low DAB bitrates and fizzing MP3's. Its 'good enough' for 'normal people' we are told :-/
But with all the technical talent retiring and not being replaced (in TV and radio as well) whats to be expected?
Tool's second album, Ænima, is a perfect example of this. An original vinyl version of the album is very rare and was only ever issued on black vinyl. They go for hundreds, even thousands, of pounds and yet the likes of E-bay have endless "original coloured vinyl" versions for sale, for a price of course, that are simply poor quality MP3 versions of the album.
While people are stupid enough to pay silly money for a bit of plastic then there's always going to be crooks out there scamming them.
But if you're going to go to the expense of getting vinyl stamped why not use decent quality MP3's? (if you're going to source from MP3's at all). A decent quality MP3 is going to be better quality than the vinyl anyway.
But if you're going to go to the expense of getting vinyl stamped why not use decent quality MP3's? (if you're going to source from MP3's at all). A decent quality MP3 is going to be better quality than the vinyl anyway.
Why bother with MP3 is such circumstances ? Why not use the source material that the music was recorded on originally ? That's how most vinyl was sourced and released until recently.
I assume that your last sentence refers to the situation where the vinyl copy uses MP3 as the source ?
Why bother with MP3 is such circumstances ? Why not use the source material that the music was recorded on originally ? That's how most vinyl was sourced and released until recently.
It really depends if the original source is available, and for a pirate vinyl copy it's not likely to be.
I assume that your last sentence refers to the situation where the vinyl copy uses MP3 as the source ?
Not exclusively - a decent bitrate MP3 is likely to be better quality than a vinyl record, particularly with the wear on the record reducing the high frequencies every time you play it.
We shouldn't be too disparaging about mp3s, well 320kbps ones anyway, or aac audio at 250kbps+. Very few people will be able to tell the difference between one of them and a CD, whatever the equipment, except (perhaps) in a highly unusual A/B switching test setup. I have a 320kbps .mp3 recorded from a 'classical music standard' master 'tape' and it sounds better than the final commercially released CD (due to excessive dynamic compression and limiting for the CD master).
The quality problem these days is the absence from most people's homes of decent amplifiers and speakers, having been replaced by TV/computer/iPod setups.
But it's no worse for them than the cheapo record players, portable cassette players and music centres of days long gone. The main difference now is that just like good record shops, most hi-fi shops have gone from the high street so the few of us who value high quality audio gear find it hard to find. So we struggle on with our old audio gear even when past its 'best by' date and fail to upgrade or update when we know we should. We spend the money on a new computer and 50 inch TV instead. Sadly, the times they are a' changin'.
But it's no worse for them than the cheapo record players, portable cassette players and music centres of days long gone. The main difference now is that just like good record shops, most hi-fi shops have gone from the high street so the few of us who value high quality audio gear find it hard to find. So we struggle on with our old audio gear even when past its 'best by' date and fail to upgrade or update when we know we should. We spend the money on a new computer and 50 inch TV instead. Sadly, the times they are a' changin'.
To be fair if you have old amps and speakers then they are quite likely to still be pretty good as long as they were in the first place.
To be fair if you have old amps and speakers then they are quite likely to still be pretty good as long as they were in the first place.
Yes, the classic 'old' amps and speakers were great then, and still are now - there's not really been any significant advances in audio amplifier or speaker technology for a great many years.
To be fair if you have old amps and speakers then they are quite likely to still be pretty good as long as they were in the first place.
Some components can and do deteriorate though, after 30 to 40 years of use... even with high-end gear (some of which I still have and still use). Without test gear though, it's hard to know, unless distortion or crackles become clearly audible (and they usually don't).
My old Rotel RX-602 receiver from the mid 70s still sounds OK though and my Revox gear from the early 80s is mostly in good nick (though the amp failed quite a few years ago and I bought an arcam).
Some components can and do deteriorate though, after 30 to 40 years of use... even with high-end gear (some of which I still have and still use). Without test gear though, it's hard to know, unless distortion or crackles become clearly audible (and they usually don't).
If you can't hear any problems, does it really matter
'Wearing out' problems would normally be electrolytic capacitors crying out, and are the sort of parts you'd 'blanket change' if you were restoring an old amp.
Obvious 'wearing out' problems would be noisy controls and switches.
Essentially transistors don't wear, but valves do, and should be replaced on a fairly regular schedule - which is difficult now with valves so expensive, and not as high a quality as the old Mullard ones (for example).
Comments
But this isn't anything to do with the speakers rating, it's simply over driving an amplifier - you shouldn't be running it that loud
It's also more applicable to PA situations, although it's often considered an urban myth anyway. I can't say I've ever seen tweeters blown in this way, although I have seen them blown by incorrect crossover frequencies (Wharfedale funnily enough).
But in any case it's not really relevant to the point in question, feeding a pair of small bookshelf speakers from the amplifier built-in the TV.
Again, we're talking TV here - it's pretty well compressed and limited to death
Connecting a pair of the speakers mentioned directly to the TV output will absolutely transform the sound from the TV. The first time I did a similar thing I couldn't believe how good it sounded - just using a pair of small speakers from a scrap mini-HiFi.
But it obviously has small rear-facing speakers.
The audio output from the TV, along with one scart lead from it and those from the CD/DVD and VHS video recorder in the stand below it, (the Humax PVR has an HDMI connection to the TV) are then connected to an old AV auto selector and then on to a Realistic three-way stereo selector, which also has connections to a record turntable, a cassette deck and two jukebox wallbox selectors. This selector is then connected to my vintage 1980s Leak 2000 tuner/amp and 1970s Goodmans speakers.
So it's possible to pass the audio from any of this stuff through the tuner/amp.
TV speakers ain't what they used to be. The old LG (which got "retired" rather than actually failed) had reasonably sized forward facing speakers numerous audio "presets" and a five band graphic equaliser.
I use the Leak for the sound of any film we watch whether it be a live transmission, a recording from the Humax, a DVD, or an old VHS video from my "film noir" collection.
It makes a huge difference.
10W RMS to 20w RMS is only 3 db, doubling the power, but 3 db is the smallest increment in sound levels that the average person can detect. So quite a reasonable thing to do. If TV is only 3 to 6 W peak (quite usual) then there could be a problem.
As you say, matching the impedances is probably more important. If the TV amp is designed to use 16 ohm speakers ( common years ago) attaching modern 4 ohm speakers could damage the TV amp output stage.
And for a definite lift in sound quality for the minimum outlay, as a previous poster wrote, a modest PC 2.1 speaker set will invariable be so much better than the TV sound, and will plug into a simple 3.5 mm jack.
This is not quite right either as "twice as loud" can be subjective. 10W to 100W is a lift of around 10dB or doubling the power more than 3 times.. Note, the power requirement not the produced volume.
Sound is not logarithmic either although it obeys the inverse square law. The relationship between the power required to increase the sound level is logarithmic though.
Exactly - ten times the power gives twice the volume, it's not really 'subjective' although there may be a tiny number of people who don't hear the same way as everyone else?.
Same for RF, ten times the power gives twice the range (in free space of course).
Argo's have a fairly good selection of more regular mini/micro hifi.
For the deeper pocket, there are more specialist hifi dealerships around. Such as Richer sounds and Audio T.
I love the sound of my records, cds and tape - once you invest in a decent hifi system and play decent quality music (its up to you what genre you think this fits in), you begin to notice the difference in quality, and turn from the modern compressed formats.
I use youtube, spotify to hunt out good artists then buy the cds as I want the quality.
I have not bought any new hifi equipment for years, the biggest purchase was about 10 years ago from richersounds and its all going strong and I think it will out last an ipod. Nowadays I buy if I want anything hifi wise 2nd hand, as I enjoy the hunt through the hookey shops and grabbing the bargins
I still think that because music these days is so accessible and on demand when we want it, it has become more disposable. Therefore people do not mind listening to crap quality and crap music, you just delete and download.
grumble grumble pipe and slippers
Music centres are widely available - Argos, most supermarkets, Curry's etc stock them with variations on CD/Dock/Radio + speakers, for between £75 and £300.
Online/in store there's Superfi and the other sources like Richer Sounds.
My problem with combined sound systems (AV + music) would be that there will be compromise, both technical and attention-wise, with such a system. I admit I would always spend more on the HiFi than the AV side because I prefer music.
I bought over half of my present HiFi 20+ years ago from W. Bradys, who I can't recommend highly enough for advice and customer support. As far as HiFi is concerned, I notice that there's a just as wide, if not wider choice of turntables available now than there was 25 years ago, especially at the 'budget end'. So I think there's life left in the HiF world yet.
When you consider how much you probably spend on CD's or legal downloads, if you love music then not getting a decent system (2nd hand if needs be) to hear it on is self defeating.
I can understand the BIB.
For me, as obviously of an older generation, it's the selection of a track from the title cards on one of my jukeboxes, putting in a coin (I've a key of course for the box so I can take all the money out again, that's a strange additional pleasure!) the hefty click of the big solonoid switch as I press the selector buttons, the whirring of the carousel until the gripper arm finds the right 45, the soft click as the amplifier comes off mute and the anticipation with the sound of the stylus tracking in before the recording commences, pumped out through the two 8" and two 12" speakers, that give perfect undistorted reproduction from low to high volume.
It's strange, that younger people, the children of family and friends, born long after "the death of the 45" are entranced by what I call my "300lb iPods," if they've never seen one before.
As I mentioned earlier I'm using a 1980s Leak tuner/amp I bought on eBay for thirty quid as a replacement for a Philips 390, I bought in 1972.
Such great "unloved bargains" to be had for those who appreciate quality equipment.
Unfortunately the 2000 was after Leak had been taken over by Rank, so wasn't a 'true' leak
Although they weren't a bad unit.
HMV is coming back at least to 363 Oxford Street.
Music has evolved and I have found plenty of new bands on Spotify I have not heard of before. Newspapers and music magazines are also useful for learning about new music.
Some people prefer to be minimalist and not want massive equipment in their homes especially if space is sparse.
I have a decent Hi Fi I got from Argos which does the job and sounds great.
I go to the Bristol Hi-fi show every couple of years or so and it is always packed.
Yes there is online like Spotify but to me 'online' fails on so many counts. This is from my viewpoint remember.
1. Where to start? Even being a music fan I don't have the time or enthusiasm to trawl through endless artists to find one I may like.
2. Online music. I value a physical format that is something tangiable and has some value after I have paid for it. A download is easier for the distributor but not better for me.
3. Looking through the racks. HMV - especially the larger stores - had categories and new releases on the end of the racks. Just picking up a CD with an interesting cover has led me onto some new music.
4. The 12" rack. HMV used to have a 12" single area with limited run white labels, special DJ versions and a turntable/headphones to try them. I bought loads in the Watford branch and on selling some last year (after putting them onto metal tape) I got back 3-4 times what I paid. Some even included window stickers and other freebies. I discovered some great new music there (Royksopp - before they got into the mainstream).
5. Music video and DVD. The record shop in Aylesbury had a comprehensive rack of rare VHS tapes and DVD's of concerts, music shows and hard to find world music. These were expensive but 'online' has not replaced them as he got them from limited runs and was a music enthusiast himself so guided me onto what I may like.
6. Sound quality. Despite trying some music downloads I have given up with them. Some combination of compression, bad mastering and general ineptitude has messed up what could be a good thing. I tried downloading Steve Hackett's 'Cured' album but it fell way short of my old vinyl with a muddy and clogged sound (Amazon Music). Pop music was even worse and my recorder showed the signal as being constantly pegged at 0db.
7. Attention span. People with large collections on their MP3 player seem to constantly skip track/artist. I say 'leave that on' sometimes as I am fed up with the constant track skipping. With a cassette or LP you were encouraged to listen all the way through and in doing so listened to the album as a whole and not just the first 30 seconds of each track.
8. The good old 'B Side'. Yes, much dross but 1 or 2 in 10 were better than the A Side. Sparks extended 'Number 1 Song In Heaven', The Scaffolds sublime 'Buttons Of Your Mind' on the flip of the terrible 'Lily The Pink' are two.
9. Lastly the equipment. It seems like most stuff these days is either cheap tat or expensive audiophile grade. 20 years ago there existed a middle ground where one could pick up something simple but well built.
On the subject of records, I tried a few modern ones but all it was is the harsh MP3 recorded to vinyl - just with added surface noise. Total waste of money and cashing in on the hipster craze. I am ending up feeling like trying to enjoy modern artists is a futile effort so I am looking into artists from the 70's - 90's and picking up their tapes and CD's.
I'll cut for brevity.
I use Spotify a lot, but then I also still buy a couple of monthly music magazines. Spotify is brilliant if you see an article, advert, or a review, of a band you haven't come across before as you can then listen to them on Spotify, assuming they are on there and most bands are, to see if you like them or not.
Spotify itself will also recommend artists based on what you've listened to and what others who have listened to similar have also played.
I think it depends on the music you listen to, I like progressive music and buy a lot of my vinyl from web sites such as Burning shed and they certainly aren't MP3s recorded to vinyl.
I wouldn't have thought any would be recorded from MP3's? - as a minimum they would be sourced from CD's.
Although as MP3's are probably higher quality than records, would it really matter that much?.
I have heard of examples where MP3s have been used as "masters" for vinyl albums but then been sold off as the "original" album, especially where the album is rare.
Tool's second album, Ænima, is a perfect example of this. An original vinyl version of the album is very rare and was only ever issued on black vinyl. They go for hundreds, even thousands, of pounds and yet the likes of E-bay have endless "original coloured vinyl" versions for sale, for a price of course, that are simply poor quality MP3 versions of the album.
But with all the technical talent retiring and not being replaced (in TV and radio as well) whats to be expected?
While people are stupid enough to pay silly money for a bit of plastic then there's always going to be crooks out there scamming them.
But if you're going to go to the expense of getting vinyl stamped why not use decent quality MP3's? (if you're going to source from MP3's at all). A decent quality MP3 is going to be better quality than the vinyl anyway.
Why bother with MP3 is such circumstances ? Why not use the source material that the music was recorded on originally ? That's how most vinyl was sourced and released until recently.
I assume that your last sentence refers to the situation where the vinyl copy uses MP3 as the source ?
It really depends if the original source is available, and for a pirate vinyl copy it's not likely to be.
Not exclusively - a decent bitrate MP3 is likely to be better quality than a vinyl record, particularly with the wear on the record reducing the high frequencies every time you play it.
The quality problem these days is the absence from most people's homes of decent amplifiers and speakers, having been replaced by TV/computer/iPod setups.
But it's no worse for them than the cheapo record players, portable cassette players and music centres of days long gone. The main difference now is that just like good record shops, most hi-fi shops have gone from the high street so the few of us who value high quality audio gear find it hard to find. So we struggle on with our old audio gear even when past its 'best by' date and fail to upgrade or update when we know we should. We spend the money on a new computer and 50 inch TV instead. Sadly, the times they are a' changin'.
To be fair if you have old amps and speakers then they are quite likely to still be pretty good as long as they were in the first place.
Yes, the classic 'old' amps and speakers were great then, and still are now - there's not really been any significant advances in audio amplifier or speaker technology for a great many years.
Some components can and do deteriorate though, after 30 to 40 years of use... even with high-end gear (some of which I still have and still use). Without test gear though, it's hard to know, unless distortion or crackles become clearly audible (and they usually don't).
My old Rotel RX-602 receiver from the mid 70s still sounds OK though and my Revox gear from the early 80s is mostly in good nick (though the amp failed quite a few years ago and I bought an arcam).
If you can't hear any problems, does it really matter
'Wearing out' problems would normally be electrolytic capacitors crying out, and are the sort of parts you'd 'blanket change' if you were restoring an old amp.
Obvious 'wearing out' problems would be noisy controls and switches.
Essentially transistors don't wear, but valves do, and should be replaced on a fairly regular schedule - which is difficult now with valves so expensive, and not as high a quality as the old Mullard ones (for example).