to sugarbrie:
while i agree there are some studios that spend tons of money to get incredible quality recordings, the bottom line is that the vast majority of pop, country, rock, etc. listeners will do as you said, listen on ipods or relatively inexpensive and not so great quality equipment. the music is geared towards selling to the masses. so again, how is spending $40k supposed to make rush or pink floyd sound so much better as to justify the cost? i would also venture to guess that $38k of that $40k is markup anyway. i used to sell audio equipment and know the wholesale/retail ratios in general. the other question is--and i'll preface this by saying that some equipment to me clearly sounds better than other equipment--is it really better sound or our perception of what we would consider better sound that makes us purchase these expensive pieces?
while i agree there are some studios that spend tons of money to get incredible quality recordings, the bottom line is that the vast majority of pop, country, rock, etc. listeners will do as you said, listen on ipods or relatively inexpensive and not so great quality equipment. the music is geared towards selling to the masses. so again, how is spending $40k supposed to make rush or pink floyd sound so much better as to justify the cost? i would also venture to guess that $38k of that $40k is markup anyway. i used to sell audio equipment and know the wholesale/retail ratios in general. the other question is--and i'll preface this by saying that some equipment to me clearly sounds better than other equipment--is it really better sound or our perception of what we would consider better sound that makes us purchase these expensive pieces?