FUTURE OF HI-FI

[MajorFubar]

It's probably just me, but even if the technology already existed for me to walk into my living-room and shout "Play" to a near-invisible perfect-sounding HiFi, I wouldn't want it.

Does that make me an oddball luddite?

 

[chebby]

Does that make me an oddball luddite?

Yes, but your signature system does reveal some obstacles. (Voice activated remote control of a Thorens TD160 is going to hold you back as will the cassettes!)

 

[shooter]

Must admit the idea of having a box built in the attic and (presumably) a hole of some kind in the ceiling doesn't exactly appeal...

When i was reading that all i was thinking was "brown note"!

 

[BenLaw]

Was just wondering if Andrew was saying there was a previous failed business from 5 years ago.

Bizzare interpretation of the day ahoy! No, just that I remember we wrote about this back in the days of Home Cinema magazine (of blessed memory), and it really hasn't caught on since. I don't see it gaining many fans...

Thanks for the clarification Andrew, I thought you must be referring to something more than was on the website itself. Fair enough, although I still think it's a good on-topic illustration of the alternatives to the traditional cone in box speaker. The site was first brought to my attention by a 'bass enthusiast'. There are many such people and it seems to me the ability accurately to reproduce low sub bass is an obvious area of exploration for the industry.

 

[Anonymous]

Must admit the idea of having a box built in the attic and (presumably) a hole of some kind in the ceiling doesn't exactly appeal...

Isn't that the hot water tank?

 

[Anonymous]

Entry level and mid-priced stereo amps and CD players will graduately disapear from the market. There will be two distinct segments: rubish domestic equipment based on computer sources and multi channel amplification and other high priced stereo audiophile equipment. That's been hapenning since the begnning of this century.

 

[plastic penguin]

Isn't it best to worry about current trends as opposed to what might happen in 5, 10, 15 years time?

 

[The_Lhc]

Isn't it best to worry about current trends as opposed to what might happen in 5, 10, 15 years time?

Not in this thread it isn't.

 

[plastic penguin]

Isn't it best to worry about current trends as opposed to what might happen in 5, 10, 15 years time?

Not in this thread it isn't.

Fair s'nuff - thought I'd pose the question.

Back to my book: "The history of Richard Carpenter's hair styles".

 

[busb]

"The message is that thre are things we know we don't know & there are things we don't know that we don't know" The Unknowns - Voice of Cod. The Future is like that & the past just isn't what it used to be.

 

[ID.]

"The message is that thre are things we know we don't know & there are things we don't know that we don't know" The Unknowns - Voice of Cod. The Future is like that & the past just isn't what it used to be.

And I always thought that was Donald Rumsfeld. Always makes me think of the Dunning Kruger effect

 

[CnoEvil]

"The message is that thre are things we know we don't know & there are things we don't know that we don't know" The Unknowns - Voice of Cod. The Future is like that & the past just isn't what it used to be.

The "Unknowns" sound a bit fishy to me.

 

[busb]

"The message is that thre are things we know we don't know & there are things we don't know that we don't know" The Unknowns - Voice of Cod. The Future is like that & the past just isn't what it used to be.

And I always thought that was Donald Rumsfeld. Always makes me think of the Dunning Kruger effect

It was Donald Rumfold suffering from illusory superiority. I put forward it was more interesting quoting its use in a song.

 

[StevenKay]

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. It is very interesting to read the different views about the future of Hi-fi. Whatever form it is going to take because of rapid changes in technology, one thing is for sure. There would always remain a sizeable population on this Earth who is keen to listen to audiophile quality music thereby ensuring that both music and playing equipment would continue to be made to cater to that section of the market.

 

[Anonymous]

Excellent thread and question.

I think hi-fi will gradually disappear, as it almost has already, under a welter of MP3s and cheap and handy price-only gadgets.

The reason for this I think is the record companies. There simply isn't much new of any quality to play anymore outside of classical, Jazz and the odd artist like Katie Melua. The modern CD is now compressed and clipped to beyond believable levels so everything just sounds like a constant loud drone. I played a Sky 3 album the other day on vinyl and actually jumped at the dynamics. Try ripping and viewing a modern CD into Audacity or SeeDeclip and look at what you get. No wonder vinyl is making a comeback!

Because the modern CD has all dynamics surgically removed so a simple guitar is as loud as guitar+drumkit+vocalist+bass it's now all very boring.

This ignores the shrieking harsh class B transistor amps that seem to dominate the low end, the peculiar grating CD reproduction of the day and the special class of snake oil salesmen and their stupid cables, voodoo products, and the strange relation between magazine advertising and favourable reviews. Carry on like this and pretty soon most people won't care about sound quality at all, and will assume the dreadful DAB radio is as good as it gets because they haven't heard radio 4 through a decent 1950s tube tabletop radio before.

So to summarise, if you plot the falling standards of audio over the years and extrapolate forward hi-fi hasn't got much longer to live. Most places only survive hawking their overpriced tat because the Chinese haven't get got their act together. Once someone like the owner of Hobbyking moves into Hi-Fi I'm not convinced there will be many UK manufacturers left. For instance the Cyrus stuff - how much!!??. A regular stereo tube amp from China - £300, a lowe power one from Quad, £4.5k. All the Chinese need to do is spend about £15 more of each one and there would be scant competition.

But as I said before - the decline of the whole market is firmly led by the record companies, who are happy churning out mangled and dead musak on low format CDs that are easily copied and turned into MP3s. If they had kept the dyamics and used a DVD 24/192kHz format Hi-Fi would be a big deal, but feeding in such a damaged product into the top of the chain has had the inevitable effect.

Plus all the hi-fi sounds the same now - go to any hi-fi store and you can hear the tidy, slightly coloured small sound coming out of various boxes. Now the emphasis is to sound more like hi-fi than the next guys, accuracy to the original instruments seems to have been lost.

 

[CnoEvil]

Hi Globs (and wecome to the forum).

I enjoyed reading your post, as it's always good to hear other view points that are elegantly put. Whereas I agree with elements of it, I think it is bit of a generalization.

I have been into hifi for 35 years, so have lived through the changes from vinyl / reel to reel/tape into CD/ripping/streaming. I love the sound of a record deck (owned LP12), but it was a lot of "faff" and there were bad recordings their too.

IMO CDs were a bit of a con and a backwards step.....but they can still sound very good (listen to an Audio Note system with its NOS dacs). 24 bit is now restoring the balance.

I agree about the loudness war, but good recordings still exist,and for that matter, good modern artists - you just need to do a bit of digging.

The digital age has also brought 24 bit, which at the moment is mostly in niche genres of music....but that is growing.

As for kit, provided you avoid the likes of Currys, and go to a good specialist dealer, all tastes are accomodated......from Tubes to SS Class A to Class D. Mass market c*!p hifi has always existed. Speaker-wise you can go from Harbeth/Sonus Faber to ATC/Focal.

I think its a shame that low bit (large quantity) seems to have taken such a hold with the young folk, over higher Quality. I can't even persuade my teenagers to use 320kbps.

I don't think things are as black as your painting them.

Good Luck

Cno

 

[matthewpiano]

Welcome to the forum Globs. Great first post.

It strikes me that you like a musically involving sound with proper dynamics and accurate tonal reproduction of the instruments and voices involved, much like me. I don't think that has been lost yet, by any stretch, and there is plenty of equipment out there that is capable of achieving this but I largely think its smaller brands like Icon Audio, Audio Analogue, Opera, Sonus Faber, Unison Research and the like that fit the bill. There are a couple of exceptions such as Creek, NAD and Arcam but I do sometimes think the established big names miss the musical point too easily.

Low-rent kit has always existed. I well remember listening to my Pioneer PL12D, Sansui amp and Wharfedale speakers as a youngster/teenager and enjoying very good sound whilst most of my contemporaries were using rubbish Bush or Alba mini systems or over-sized Sony midis with harsh and even larger Jamo speakers. On the portable front some of the cheaper personal stereos such as those by Bush, Alba etc. and even some of the entry level Sony, Aiwa and Panasonic models could be very ropey sounding - poor speed stability, loads of magnetic tape hiss, and shockingly bad headphones.

I agree about the massively compressed pop recordings we get now and I hate listening to them. I sometimes wonder whether the people who make them ever listen to them at all.

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that the solution for me will be to gradually build up my ultimate system, with only one more change per component, and cherish it as a constant musical companion. I really think my current system is as good as budget components can go and there is no point in sideways changes. I envisage a really good vinyl front end, valve phono stage, one of the Italian integrated amps (or the jaw droppingly beautiful sounding Creek Destiny 2) and some nice Opera or Sonus Faber floorstanders. For the digital side I'm not sure whether another CD player or a DAC with a Hard Drive based set-up will win through and I may well end up with a disc spinner that also enables other items to use its in-built DAC. This will be my aim over the next 3-4 years and when its complete I'm hoping good care and servicing will keep it running for a lifetime. Then I won't have to worry about whether kit of that quality is affordable or available later on because I'll already have it. There are people still using 60s Quad and the like 40-50 years on so there is no reason why my aim shouldn't be possible and then the future is only about the music.

 

[the record spot]

Digital has always been good. Listen to any well mastered first edition recording on a decent system now and that throws (with respect) CnoEvil's take into touch right away. CD wasn't a backwards step at all and having listened to plenty of recordings that have been well and lovingly mastered simply shows the medium wasn't the problem.

You can achieve a great sound without spending thousands. Incidentally, you don't lose out to vinyl. As someone who's also been into hifi for over 30 years, my recordings never sounded better. I've heard some top systems over the years costing thousands (most recently one that would've set me back about £12k) but the gap is significantly smaller now thanks to technology enabling great audio reproduction for a three figure sum. You read it right.

The crux of the matter is the quality of the recording, not so much the bitrate - it always has been irrespective of the playback medium but digital seems to induce some of the most uninformed comments out there. Most people can't tell 320kbps from WAV. Most people struggle from 192kbps upwards anyway, so the "I can spot mp3 playback a mile off" type claim is dubious at best IMO - maybe ten or twelve years ago in the early days but not now.

I do agree that compression and excessive limiting and EQ-ing in recordings is throttling the music. That said, I'd rather have a great 128kbps recording over a trashed SACD one anyday, but the easy accessibility of music shouldn't lead to some boneheaded rationale in the major labels that sound quality is a side issue.

 

[matthewpiano]

I agree with a lot of what you say here RS, but whilst I agree that CD is too often unfarily derided, I do disagree with your comment about a CD fronted system not missing out to vinyl. I still think vinyl is the most completely satisfying format overall. Even a basic budget deck like my little Pro-ject can be spellbinding, but go further up the foodchain and I think vinyl is pretty much impossible to beat.

I also agree with you that superb sound can be had for 3 figure sums (my own system proves that very capably), but I do think a careful move upwards still reaps pretty major benefits. I have also heard a system that would cost approximately £12k and it blew everything else I've ever heard out of the water for depth, realism and total musical involvement. Oh, and it had a vinyl front-end and glowed in the dark!!

 

[the record spot]

Wasn't the McIntosh turntable by any chance?!

Have to say MP I'd have agreed with you once upon a time, but not now. Vinyl's good, but it loses out too much on its limitations. I have a good set-up - Rega P3 and AT440-MLa cartridge, but the hifi knocks it for six. My reference recordings are all digital, on CD, but I also have them on vinyl too. The CDs have greater reach, a massive soundstage and while I enjoy vinyl, I'm not kidding anyone, least of all myself, that it's better.

There's a lot of emotional attachment to vinyl, it offers a more tactile experience and is more immersive as such compared to CD, or other digital replay, but that's it although I think this is what drives a lot of the thinking (or sentimentality) around the medium. For pure sound quality though, CD doesn't fall short and digital in general likewise.

 

[matthewpiano]

Unison Research turntable, through physically and sonically impressive Unison Research valve amplification and some big Opera floorstanders. Absolutely stunning.

 

[the record spot]

Matthew, you can quote brand names at me till your face matches the glow in the dark colour of the deck you heard the other night! I'm sure the Unison Research stuff sounded good, but great sound is no linger the preserve of high ticket hifi no matter how many brand names are quoted.

Still, to provide some balance - Genelec 8040, laptop with WAV files of a Barry Diament mastered disc, can't recall the DAC but was blown away by it. Left the £11k system I heard in the Spring wanting.

 

[CnoEvil]

Digital has always been good. Listen to any well mastered first edition recording on a decent system now and that throws (with respect) CnoEvil's take into touch right away. CD wasn't a backwards step at all and having listened to plenty of recordings that have been well and lovingly mastered simply shows the medium wasn't the problem.

You can achieve a great sound without spending thousands. Incidentally, you don't lose out to vinyl. As someone who's also been into hifi for over 30 years, my recordings never sounded better. I've heard some top systems over the years costing thousands (most recently one that would've set me back about £12k) but the gap is significantly smaller now thanks to technology enabling great audio reproduction for a three figure sum. You read it right.

The crux of the matter is the quality of the recording, not so much the bitrate

RS

I'm quite happy being kicked into touch and have my opinion challanged, but in this case I'm not sure I'm wrong. I didn't say CD was bad, only less good than Vinyl. The con was the way it was marketed as being indestructable and far superior. CD has limited info available (1411 kbps) and Stonewall filtering, which cuts out too much info (often a lot of the ambient background), which is why the likes Peter Qvortrup of Audio Note, remove the filtering from their dacs.

24/192 gives 9216 kbps and this is only starting to approach the detail on a record, which being in the analogue domain, has no such restrictions. The quality of the recording is crucial for enjoyment, but doesn't invalidate my arguement. Linn excel at producing well mastered recordings, but their 24 bit sounds better than the Redbook version, which in turn sounds better than that in 320kbps. Just because some people can't hear the difference, doesn't mean it's not there.

Anyway, passion about a subject is good, and there's room for everyones opinion

Cno

 

[the record spot]

Of course, vinyl is riddled with issues - wow/flutter, distortion and so on, while the "ambient" reference that's thrown around with abandon by the likes of Audio Note's guy is the kind of thing that gets lost when blind testing comes into it. What people hear against what they claim to hear are two vastly different things in my experience. Plus, of course, Audio Note, like many high end hifi companies, have a product to sell and they'll tie in the features to their marketing.

Again, CD (or digital more accurately) is not less good than vinyl - it might spec out as the "lesser" of the two if you chart the numbers, but in practice, doesn't pan out. In any case, I'm not out to invalidate your argument. I just think it's wrong - no offence again - but the usual "...some people can't hear the difference, doesn't mean it's not there..." is a high end hifi staple and one I've always thought weak.

Don't get me wrong, I like my vinyl, still got all my records and love the experience, but I know what I can hear alright and I'm pretty comfortable with that, plus of course, I've compared a £500 turntable setup with a £600 CDP with very well-known recordings at home so any differences between those two are shown up, which to my understanding puts the "you can't hear what I can" theory to bed.

 

[matthewpiano]

Matthew, you can quote brand names at me till your face matches the glow in the dark colour of the deck you heard the other night! I'm sure the Unison Research stuff sounded good, but great sound is no linger the preserve of high ticket hifi no matter how many brand names are quoted.

Still, to provide some balance - Genelec 8040, laptop with WAV files of a Barry Diament mastered disc, can't recall the DAC but was blown away by it. Left the £11k system I heard in the Spring wanting.

You asked me what it was I'd heard so I told you! It was sometime last year.

I've got no chance of ever having a system like that but it was nice to hear it! Again, I'm not really questioning the fact that affordable kit can sound incredible. My amp cost me £180 and it is absolutely stunning, and the Aviano 2s sound far better than they have any right to, as does the little Pro-ject turntable. However, I do still think you get some pretty worthwhile improvements when you move up to 4 figures, and I don't think the law of diminishing returns truly sets in until you get above £1500 per piece. Above that, the improvements can still be there but you pay a lot more for each percentile of improvement!

I'm also quite ready to believe that those Genelecs could be incredible, and I've got no opposition to CD and digital sources whatsoever, I just think vinyl offers some qualities that you don't get elsewhere.