I think the reason live music is such a 'thing' now is that the very young don't know how good music can sound on a decent system, which does not mean a really expensive system. Just, you know, what we boomers had in our youth, a receiver, a source (then a turntable, now a streamer), and a couple of decent speakers. Used to cost under $500 back then, probably could do it for way less than that amount adjusted for inflation now. Instead they stream from their phone to a crappy $79 BT speaker.
But since they are so used to earbuds and cheap headphones, there does seem to be some interest in higher spec headphones and 2.1 systems like that.
- ...
- 112 posts total
stuartk A very astute observation. Is it live or is it Memorex? Before long, partaking of music could be like the sex in the Stallone movie 'Demolition Man! simao No offense meant and certainly none taken. We're just having what has turned out to be an interesting discussion concerning aging audiophiles, with a 'well done' nod to tubelvr11. |
Us Boomers had a choice of in-home entertainment of three TV channels or listening to music, and later an Atari and a wired remote VHS that required you to drive to the store to use. And even though I'm retired now, I sit and listen far less because I have so many other choices. So it's not a surprise that in the past 20 years I haven't run into anyone under 50 who cares about equipment, much less sitting and listening. But I have run into many who have some form of home theater system. The equipment shows I've been to look like retirement seminars. |
- 112 posts total