Is Hi-Fi sound quality actually that much better than it was 10-20+ years ago?

[lindsayt]

Some trends in hi-fi.

Field coil speakers - eg Klangfilm - died out.

Compression drivers and horns are a lot less common than they used to be.

Sealed box speakers have almost died out.

The average diameter of bass drivers has reduced.

The average baffle width of speakers has reduced.

SET valve amplifiers died out 40 years ago and then made a bit of a come-back.

Over the last 10 years streaming has been taking over from CD players.

Class D has become more common.

Sales volumes of new equipment have reduced.

Used equipment sales have taken an increasingly large proportion of market share.

There are fewer hi-fi dealers than 35 years ago.

DSP is becoming more common.

Vinyl is less common than 35 years ago.

Mainstream music CD's started becoming more compressed 25 years ago. 99.7% of 2017 mainstream original CD releases will be grossly over-compressed.

 

[nick8858]

And of course you can combine both. My brand new Pioneer amp is hooked up to a nice old Michell Focus TT. Works a treat. Lucky the Pioneer has a phono stage. Must try it one day with my Pioneer SX450 receiver...

 

[chebby]

Sealed box speakers have almost died out.

The average diameter of bass drivers has reduced.

The average baffle width of speakers has reduced.

Especially those three. Regrettably due to fashion mostly. (As agreed by a couple of speaker designers including 'AEJim' on a past thread.)

Smaller room sizes dictated that even an 8" bass/mid in sealed cabinets with correctly proportioned baffles (that can be used on book cabinets and against walls) have now 'morphed' into 4.5" bass/mid drivers enclosed in 6" wide cabinets up to a foot (or more) deep that have to be kept at least a metre away from walls and corners. Thus, ironically, taking up more space than their older counterparts. (Sorry to mix imperial and metric.)

This is blamed on the so-called WAF but really it's down to paring down costs. No more strengthening battens or struts, or panel damping, or use of different panel thicknesses, or internal veneering or wool wadding. All these are in use on my JPW Sonatas which were originally cheap compacts (32cm or 13" tall) sold in high volume, discounted hi-fi outlets in the early 1990s but still had real wood finish, strengthening cross bracing, internal veneering etc.

Nowadays it's just the ubiquitous machine folded and glued slab of mdf (or moulded plastic) finished in gloss black to match the tv.

Going now as I am rambling a bit (Sorry.)

 

[lindsayt]

I totally agree Chebby and Tonky.

Of the trends that I listed and all the trends I didn't list, some will have been good for sound quality, some bad and some indifferent.

I'd agree that the 3 trends you highlighted Chebby are probably the ones that are most responsible for no net gain in sound quality over the last 35 years.

Hi-fi is different to cars. There are very few trends in cars that have resulted in them being worse to use or own. The only one I can think of is the trend for government forced cleaner exhaust emissions, which are bad for car ownership but good for reducing carcinogens in the atmosphere.

Same thing applies to computers, mobile phones, TV's where the overwhelming majority of trends have been positive. Only negative trend I can think of for computers is that keyboards have gotten worse (cheaper springs?).

 

[tonky]

Sealed box speakers have almost died out.

The average diameter of bass drivers has reduced.

The average baffle width of speakers has reduced.

Especially those three. Regrettably due to fashion mostly. (As agreed by a couple of speaker designers including 'AEJim' on a past thread.)

Smaller room sizes dictated that even an 8" bass/mid in sealed cabinets with correctly proportioned baffles (that can be used on book cabinets and against walls) have now 'morphed' into 4.5" bass/mid drivers enclosed in 6" wide cabinets up to a foot (or more) deep that have to be kept at least a metre away from walls and corners. Thus, ironically, taking up more space than their older counterparts. (Sorry to mix imperial and metric.)

This is blamed on the so-called WAF but really it's down to paring down costs. No more strengthening battens or struts, or panel damping, or use of different panel thicknesses, or internal veneering or wool wadding. All these are in use on my JPW Sonatas which were originally cheap compacts (32cm or 13" tall) sold in high volume, discounted hi-fi outlets in the early 1990s but still had real wood finish, strengthening cross bracing, internal veneering etc.

Nowadays it's just the ubiquitous machine folded and glued slab of mdf (or moulded plastic) finished in gloss black to match the tv.

Going now as I am rambling a bit (Sorry.)

Lot's of truth in it all - it's nice to reminisce - many standmount speakers are so deep now - the frontal area of these boxes looks small - but the internal volume can be quite large due to their increased depth. JPW sonatas are highly respected speakers.

In the not too distant future - health permitting - I quite fancy a speaker project build. I have a fancy for Falcon acoustics LS3/5 design or an IPL build model - Has anybody built/listened to the Falcon LS3/5 BBC designed version?

cheers tonky - (corrected my spellings and typos - have brain ache today!)

 

[MajorFubar]

Some things have improved, some things have plateaued, some things have declined. Computer control and refinments in design have resulted in products built to higher efficiency with greater tolerances, where the 1st example off the production line is just the same as the 100,000th. Cars, hifi, whatever. But somehow...there's something missing. They may well be identical clones of each other, but their soul is gone. Probably applies more to cars than hifi, but still. An engineer would no doubt say 'what you call a soul we called design-flaws, manufacturing inconsistencies and poor tolerances, so we eliminated them'. Doesn't change my opinion though.

 

[Leif]

Cars, hifi, whatever. But somehow...there's something missing. They may well be identical clones of each other, but their soul is gone. Probably applies more to cars than hifi, but still.

I'd rather drive a nice modern car, with an engine that starts straight away, traction control that prevents a skid, ABS that controls emergency breaking, body panels that do not rust overnight and which fit together properly etc. And I'd rather have my lossless CD music files on my iPhone than a Sony Walkman with cassettes. Mind you, I'm using my ~20 year Sennheiser HD600 which has stood the test of time.

I like the look of old hifi, machined aluminium dials are gorgeous and walk over plastic buttons.

I suspect we get far more for the money than we used to, at the lower end anyway.

 

[TomC]

I would say that basic principles of amplifiers and loduspekers did not change last twenty years. On other hand presence of marketing in hi-fi world in that period rasied I would say at least 5 time. In general, it means that focus is moved from sonic performance to presentation of some features which usualy don't have direct impact on sound; how many inputs, what can be connected to amplifier, how it was bulit, what technology is used, finishes and bla bla....something we can call comfort of usage.

When I connect my B&W 302 (1996) and compare them with B&W 685 s2 (2015), I hear difference, but honestly that is something which is resoult of size of box..not the kevler, and metal dome twitter... even they look much much more atractive

 

[bignige]

interesting. I have a 20 year old Audio Analogue Puccini amp and Rotel RCD991 CD player.

purely as I now find space is at a premium in my lounge I am looking at selling them and getting smaller units - e.g.: Cyrus

But, what would I need to spend today to get units at least as good if not better then I currently have?

 

[Al ears]

interesting. I have a 20 year old Audio Analogue Puccini amp and Rotel RCD991 CD player.

purely as I now find space is at a premium in my lounge I am looking at selling them and getting smaller units - e.g.: Cyrus

But, what would I need to spend today to get units at least as good if not better then I currently have?

You need to delete one of your duplicate threads on compacts.

 

[Gaz37]

I'm thinking out loud here rather than stating my belief.

Is it possible that as equipment gets "improved" we buy it expecting it to be better and then either, convince ourselves that it does, or are disappointed if it doesn't because we expected too much?

The only comparison I can give between old & new was when we bought our son a Marantz 6005 amp for Xmas to find it wasn't a patch on my old NAD 3020.

 

[nopiano]

I'm thinking out loud here rather than stating my belief.

Is it possible that as equipment gets "improved" we buy it expecting it to be better and then either, convince ourselves that it does, or are disappointed if it doesn't because we expected too much?

The only comparison I can give between old & new was when we bought our son a Marantz 6005 amp for Xmas to find it wasn't a patch on my old NAD 3020.

That's a good example because by any objective standpoint the Marantz is superior - more power, less noise, etc. - but the NAD always had a winning sound, even if not strictly accurate. The distortions it had were sympathetic to musical sounds, but not all amps are. That's the divergence today between sounding nice and being true to the original sound. T'was ever thus!

 

[tonky]

I'm thinking out loud here rather than stating my belief.

Is it possible that as equipment gets "improved" we buy it expecting it to be better and then either, convince ourselves that it does, or are disappointed if it doesn't because we expected too much?

The only comparison I can give between old & new was when we bought our son a Marantz 6005 amp for Xmas to find it wasn't a patch on my old NAD 3020.

Many years ago a friend of mine bought a Linn Sondek, NAD 3020 amp driving a pair of Linn Kans - the sound was amazing - musicality - detail - separation. The separate strands of sound just hung in the air.

A classic amp! Obviously the Linn products helped too! But the NAD was not out of place in this set up.

cheers tonky

 

[lindsayt]

I'm thinking out loud here rather than stating my belief.

Is it possible that as equipment gets "improved" we buy it expecting it to be better and then either, convince ourselves that it does, or are disappointed if it doesn't because we expected too much?

The only comparison I can give between old & new was when we bought our son a Marantz 6005 amp for Xmas to find it wasn't a patch on my old NAD 3020.

The psychology behind hi-fi is generally more interesting than the equipment itself.

The people whose judgment I trust are able to put aside any emotional attachement they have to any particular component / manufacturer / equipment genre and are able to report the results of their listening test in a relatively fair and unpartial manner.

Adusted for inflation the 3020 originally retailed at pretty much the same price as the 6005.

When it comes to hi-fi demos, expect the unexpected. And just when you start expecting the unexpected; the expected happens!

And did you send the Marantz back and buy one or two used Nad 3020's (or Creek CAS4040's or A&R A60's) for your son instead?

 

[tonky]

A and R A60

Super sounding amp - My first real hifi. _Don't start me off reminiscing again! (Don't forget the Pioneer A400 too!)

tonky

 

[ellisdj]

This is an interesting video I watched yesterday for very old speakers

From the Munich Show this year - the sonng demo at the end sounds great until half way then for me loses it however lots of factors involved obviously.

However at the beginning they do sound really good

 

[Gaz37]

I'm thinking out loud here rather than stating my belief.

Is it possible that as equipment gets "improved" we buy it expecting it to be better and then either, convince ourselves that it does, or are disappointed if it doesn't because we expected too much?

The only comparison I can give between old & new was when we bought our son a Marantz 6005 amp for Xmas to find it wasn't a patch on my old NAD 3020.

The psychology behind hi-fi is generally more interesting than the equipment itself.

 

The people whose judgment I trust are able to put aside any emotional attachement they have to any particular component / manufacturer / equipment genre and are able to report the results of their listening test in a relatively fair and unpartial manner.

 

Adusted for inflation the 3020 originally retailed at pretty much the same price as the 6005.

When it comes to hi-fi demos, expect the unexpected. And just when you start expecting the unexpected; the expected happens!

 

And did you send the Marantz back and buy one or two used Nad 3020's (or Creek CAS4040's or A&R A60's) for your son instead?

You make a good point about the price of the NAD & the Marantz however after 30 years of technical improvements it's not unreasonable to expect the newer amp to sound better at the same price point, this is the crux of this thread.

No we didn't return the Marantz, my son prefered the more up do date styling of it.

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

IF (and its a big if) speaker designers have access to modern finite element analsis (FEA) and or comptational flow dynamics (CFD) software, which 25 years ago probably needed a microvax to run on properly / efficiently * then arguably they could use said software to analyse the snot out of cones, cabinets etc. to iron out any nasty resonances and whatnot.

Also, I suspect the quality ( in the engineering sense meaning consistency) of the various transistors, capacitors, diodes and coils has improved significantly, meaning a more consistent "brand X model Y" sound from unit to unit.

But all the bells'n'whistles like USB, ipod, ethernet, etc. won't improve the final sound quality a jot. Worse. If the unit has been built to meet a set price point, adding such features could result in cost cutting elsewhere.

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

IF (and its a big if) speaker designers have access to modern finite element analsis (FEA) and or computational flow dynamics (CFD) software, which 25 years ago probably needed a microvax to run on properly / efficiently * then arguably they could use said software to analyse the snot out of cones, cabinets etc. to iron out any nasty resonances and whatnot.

Also, I suspect the quality ( in the engineering sense meaning consistency) of the various transistors, capacitors, diodes and coils has improved significantly, meaning a more consistent "brand X model Y" sound from unit to unit.

But all the bells'n'whistles like USB, ipod, ethernet, etc. won't improve the final sound quality a jot. Worse. If the unit has been built to meet a set price point, adding such features could result in cost cutting elsewhere.

* I used to be an FEA engineer. Started out on a 486, then got part time use of a DEC Alpha, then bought my own Sparcstation.

 

[Al ears]

IF (and its a big if) speaker designers have access to modern finite element analsis (FEA) and or computational flow dynamics (CFD) software, which 25 years ago probably needed a microvax to run on properly / efficiently * then arguably they could use said software to analyse the snot out of cones, cabinets etc. to iron out any nasty resonances and whatnot.

Also, I suspect the quality ( in the engineering sense meaning consistency) of the various transistors, capacitors, diodes and coils has improved significantly, meaning a more consistent "brand X model Y" sound from unit to unit.

But all the bells'n'whistles like USB, ipod, ethernet, etc. won't improve the final sound quality a jot. Worse. If the unit has been built to meet a set price point, adding such features could result in cost cutting elsewhere.

* I used to be an FEA engineer. Started out on a 486, then got part time use of a DEC Alpha, then bought my own Sparcstation.

I used a DEC PDP11 once, about the size of a single wardrobe with magnetic tape. But then I am getting on a bit.

 

[Vladimir]

The best LF reproduction I've ever heard (in every conceivable way) coming out of a loudspeaker was from my ex AR-11Bs. However, they craved power like nothing. I could have plugged them in the mains and get an unscaved I-pitty-you-Vlad look from them. I've never enjoyed classical music and well recorded solo piano concerts like with those 11s, that was almost all I wanted to listen to. Drums sound sublime with sealed enclosers, it's one of their best features, rapid, viceral transients. I even loved the small AR-6s. They pair very well with that NAD 3020 for jazz.

Sealed enclosures (acoustic, not infinite baffle) is the type of speakers I owned most in my total hobby experience. Currently enjoying these old Canton's built for Sony, which were inspired by later AR-Teledyne acoustic suspension designs.

 

[nopiano]

The best LF reproduction I've ever heard (in every conceivable way) coming out of a loudspeaker was from my ex AR-11Bs. However, they craved power like nothing. I could have plugged them in the mains and get an unscaved I-pitty-you-Vlad look from them. I've never enjoyed classical music and well recorded solo piano concerts like with those 11s, that was almost all I wanted to listen to. Drums sound sublime with sealed enclosers, it's one of their best features, rapid, viceral transients. I even loved the small AR-6s. They pair very well with that NAD 3020 for jazz.

Sealed enclosures (acoustic, not infinite baffle) is the type of speakers I owned most in my total hobby experience. Currently enjoying these old Canton's built for Sony, which were inspired by later AR-Teledyne acoustic suspension designs.

I may have told you before that my first speakers were AR4xa, also infinite baffle. The AR7s and 6s had just come out, and mine were the older model, by comparison.

I realised when auditioning my ATC a few months ago that I'd missed that tight, "crunchy" bass. It makes me wonder if there's something about that first experience that we want to relive, as there are so many other types of bass loading.

 

[Vladimir]

The best LF reproduction I've ever heard (in every conceivable way) coming out of a loudspeaker was from my ex AR-11Bs. However, they craved power like nothing. I could have plugged them in the mains and get an unscaved I-pitty-you-Vlad look from them. I've never enjoyed classical music and well recorded solo piano concerts like with those 11s, that was almost all I wanted to listen to. Drums sound sublime with sealed enclosers, it's one of their best features, rapid, viceral transients. I even loved the small AR-6s. They pair very well with that NAD 3020 for jazz.

Sealed enclosures (acoustic, not infinite baffle) is the type of speakers I owned most in my total hobby experience. Currently enjoying these old Canton's built for Sony, which were inspired by later AR-Teledyne acoustic suspension designs.

I may have told you before that my first speakers were AR4xa, also infinite baffle. The AR7s and 6s had just come out, and mine were the older model, by comparison.

I realised when auditioning my ATC a few months ago that I'd missed that tight, "crunchy" bass. It makes me wonder if there's something about that first experience that we want to relive, as there are so many other types of bass loading.

I can definitely relate to that. Part preference, part nostalgia, an odd behavioral formula.

 

[lindsayt]

]I may have told you before that my first speakers were AR4xa, also infinite baffle. The AR7s and 6s had just come out, and mine were the older model, by comparison.
I realised when auditioning my ATC a few months ago that I'd missed that tight, "crunchy" bass. It makes me wonder if there's something about that first experience that we want to relive, as there are so many other types of bass loading.

In this case, as Vladimir has already quite rightly pointed out, it's more a case of AR being a company who, at their peak, knew how to get good overall sonic performance out of domestically acceptable speakers.

AR speakers like the 4xa's were reasonable when they were new. They're still reasonable today.

There's a school of thought that as time has gone by, more and more companies have chased meaningless specs, such as bass extension, efficiency, THD, power output, power handling. IE designs, in general, have become more and more lead by the marketing department and less by the engineering. So that speakers like the 4xa's may not measure that well in certain respects but they do sound relatively good for what they are.

 

[Andrewjvt]

]I may have told you before that my first speakers were AR4xa, also infinite baffle. The AR7s and 6s had just come out, and mine were the older model, by comparison.  

I realised when auditioning my ATC a few months ago that I'd missed that tight, "crunchy" bass.  It makes me wonder if there's something about that first experience that we want to relive, as there are so many other types of bass loading. 

In this case, as Vladimir has already quite rightly pointed out, it's more a case of AR being a company who, at their peak, knew how to get good overall sonic performance out of domestically acceptable speakers.

AR speakers like the 4xa's were reasonable when they were new. They're still reasonable today.

 

There's a school of thought that as time has gone by, more and more companies have chased meaningless specs, such as bass extension, efficiency, THD, power output, power handling. IE designs, in general, have become more and more lead by the marketing department and less by the engineering. So that speakers like the 4xa's may not measure that well in certain respects but they do sound relatively good for what they are.

Please give me your thoughts on jbl708p

I'm seriously considering them but testing is difficult