Some of this I can agree with ....yes fifty something ....but as not bought anything in the last 20 years .... my hi fi spend over that time must be about £30k ....so I'd be more careful in your generalizations, otherwise more opeople will pick holes in them .....
agree about the music thing and loss ...if thats the right word to other genres
but where do you get secondrate sound from ? or is that just your opinion .....
laste year the sounds were all first rate or better ...not nessesarily my cup of tea ...but no way were they second rate and yes that my opinion !
I expect my opinions to be picked apart. That's the point. And they are generalisations; not everyone who attends a hi-fi show smells like a badger, only has two albums (and both of them are Brothers In Arms) and last bought an audio component when Harold Wilson was in power. But the same faces
do turn up to the same shows, ask the same question to the same person every year, pick up a carrier bag full of brochures and walk out. They never change, just grow older... as does their equipment.
A show has the same effect on sound quality, whether that show is amateur or professional. One person pitches up, spend 30 seconds plonking their equipment down in the corner of a room and it sounds magical. The guy in the next room spends two days tweaking, adjusting, running in and bedding down and it still sounds like two donkeys gargling bits of broken glass under a duvet. It's hard to find rules to determine why one works and one fails (although I guess room acoustics might be a factor).
The only difference between the likes of the Whittlebury Hall show and Salford is the magic pixie dust that makes everything sound good gets sprinkled in different places. In pro shows, the magazines and commercial websites praise almost everything for sounding wonderful, whether they do or not. Meanwhile, make any criticism of the sound of the amateur rooms in a forum and may God have mercy on your soul.
We all need to grow a pair. Everyone is too precious about their own sound to allow anyone to dare say that it might be mediocre. Well, in most shows the sound is just that. Last time I went to a show, I asked the same question throughout - "did you expect it to sound like this?" I wasn't the most popular man in the room in most cases, and I got a lot of PR-fluffy answers, but a surprising number of people were quite honest and shocked that no one ever asks that kind of question.
And I completely reject the "not my cup of tea" argument. It doesn't work - you don't walk out of a bad concert saying "well they were off key, out of tune and under-rehearsed, but that just makes them differently good." This is the sort of apology-led mind-set that made everyone think England's Word Cup team was made up of the Golden Generation of players, instead of a mob of moody millionaires who kick a ball with their egos. A system in a room should have the dynamic range, loudness headroom and lack of tonal anomalies to be able to replay a range of music well. I concede that someone who's musical tastes skew the system toward one aspect of performance over another will mean a system that favours a particular end of the equipment spectrum, but we need to forget this cracked notion of the 'classical' loudspeaker or the 'rock' amp, or even the 'British', 'German', 'American' or even 'Romulan' voicing.
In other words, if it sounds wrong, it probably is.