Schroder sq and the new talea

Talea Manufacturer Policy regarding bearing swaps noted. :-)
Thanks, Joel. I apologize for mis-speaking.

Dear all, There is this strange conviciton that we intend to impress or show off with our audio-system. But impress
who? All of my family members and all of my friends (one
excepted) think that I am crazy to spend so much money for
my system. Besides all the ladys without exception stated
that they would request divorce if their guy would dare to
buy speakers as I own (Usher BE-20). I have no idea why but
the ladys somehow think that the home furnishing is some kind of their prerogatives. So no wonder that we from all
parts of the world seek for some understanding or empathy in this forum. We are, it seems, strange people.

Regards,

Nandric, - that was a real good one !!!
Best,
D.

Interesting turn of discussion here... I am quite in agreement with Dertonarm regarding the differences between sound and music reproduction. I have had a number of profound "moments" over the years with cheap sound systems, as well as great ones, and in concert halls (no preference, in those cases). In these moments one doesn't think about the sound reproduction anymore--the message is in the music. In fact, I would contend that, if possible, the best way to hear music is by reading a musical score (or playing it), when possible; no intermediary, human and/or mechanical. But that's another story...

To me, one of the fundamental advantages of the live event (or the musical score) is that you can choose what to focus your attention on. Sometimes, what is most moving in a piece of music is pretty well hidden inside the texture and that, most often, will not be revealed by mechanical systems of low-ish resolution. It might not be the case for Beethoven's op.132, granted, by Schoenberg's Pelleas?? It's not just a question of getting the sense of space, dynamic range, etc; the problem is mostly that on car radios, you can probably hear the main tune, perhaps the bass line and a bit of something else, but unless you already know from past experience what's inside those thick textures and therefore can somehow "make them up" as you're listening, you aren't going to get much of it. My point is that one reason to strive for higher resolution--for me!--is to be able to have the same kind of choice when I'm listening to a recording as I do in a (good) concert hall: sometimes I want to pay attention to a secondary line, or further inside because it says something more important than the main line; or because I hadn't noticed it before. Or I want to hear specific notes inside chords because they lead to something unexpected; or whatever... pick your favorite music, that works just as well. Those things are an integral part of the musical experience.
Then, again, sometimes, it's the most obvious stuff that moves you, and then any old system will do, I agree.

Music is a source of knowledge as well as of enjoyment.
Joel

Dertonarm,

And sorry - no, I do not think that something simply has the value that people put on it.
I still have the naive thinking, that the real contend -i.e.: the inherent quality ( in the very sense of the word ) of a product/something ultimately qualifies its value.

Value comes out of declaration. I am pretty sure that 'inherent quality' is an assigned value also.

Is this the idea that there can be 'quality' regardless of what people think? 'Quality' by itself has no meaning, and meaning is only ascribed by humans, so far...

Not to put too fine a point on it, but my own efforts have been entirely to get as close to the original musical experience as possible. IOW, in service of the music only. Its cost me- for example I built our amps without feedback, because feedback violates a fundamental rule of human hearing. This limits the amps to speakers that are OK with that... if I was really going for 'high end', I would have had feedback so I could sell the amps to more customers.

So I just drew a distinction between serving music vs 'high end'...

Or did I miss something in your comment?