Quote Originally Posted by jovo View Post
I've told this story before, but it remains significant to me. About 25 years ago I went to a very high end audio store in Westchester County, NY to audition the Wilson WAMMS that then were selling for around $80,000 and a set up that included a Goldman Reference Standard turntable, Mark Levinson pre amp and amp, interconnects and speaker cable probably made from the pubic hair of leprechauns etc., etc. The entire rig was offered for something in the neighborhood of $125,000. I was treated very courteously and offered a comfy chair in front of this awesome array to audition an audiophile disk that was given a ritual cleaning on some high end dust sucker, and then the performance began. I heard the most resonant, gorgeous, musical, palpably present clicks, pops and garbage I've every been exposed to. The dealer was deeply apologetic and immediately went to a bin where he pulled a brand spanking new copy of the previous recording. It sounded wonderful, but by no means $125,000 wonderful. The point is that I didn't then, and do not now have the scratch to repurchase vinyl records that are RIAA limited, and far more fragile than they should be. With good, and not impossible to afford reproduction equipment, CD's (but not ever MP3s), can sound wonderful without any of the headaches of vinyl, and that's my choice for life. Photography is not a spectator sport, so to speak. It's a hands on craft that can be mastered with a lot of effort, sweat, and maybe even tears. But digital, or analog, it's a world apart from listening to music that one is not actually making one's self. The analogy is totally spurious to me.
I smile when I read this, John.

It's well stated that photography involves our hands, our brains, and our senses in order to get some results we like. The whole aspect of involvement clearly sets it apart from music listening.

I think I'll go into the darkroom today and make some prints. While I listen to some mp3 files via my radio while I'm down there...

(I don't like any of the equipment you mentioned above, regardless of price. I've heard a lot less expensive equipment that sounds better than that. It's like matching your paper to a paper developer, and then making your negatives fit that combination. It's all about matching components, and if it isn't done right, it doesn't matter what the price tag it, it will still sound like garbledegook. I have heard transistor radios that were more fun to listen to than the Mark Levinson stuff).