The Death of the Home Stereo System

[The Computer Audiophile]

What's going on in this thread? Can you bring it back on topic?

[Don Hills]

What's going on in this thread? Can you bring it back on topic?

 

 

Uh oh, here comes Dad...

 

I see the problem as being that a good home stereo isn't a status symbol any more. There's still some cachet in having a dedicated home theatre, but a good stereo just labels you as "one of those audionuts".

[crisnee]

Uh oh, here comes Dad...

 

I see the problem as being that a good home stereo isn't a status symbol any more. There's still some cachet in having a dedicated home theatre, but a good stereo just labels you as "one of those audionuts".

 

Now that's funny. And I don't mean audionuts.

 

Chris

[Don Hills]

Something relevant that I saw on Jan Didden's site:

 

"Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me".

 

Stereophile's founder J. Gordon Holt, interviewed by current Stereophile editor John Atkinson.

[Audio_ELF]

Something relevant that I saw on Jan Didden's site:

every [...] endeavor since Pascal.

Personally I always preferred Ada... But I don't recall any double blind testing on which is better :-)

 

Eloise

[Audio_ELF]

What's going on in this thread? Can you bring it back on topic?

Erm ... I doubt it!

[bluesman]

What's going on in this thread? Can you bring it back on topic?

What could be more on topic than analogies between home stereo systems and other past icons of high performance, Chris? The reasons for the decline of home stereo systems are pretty much those behind the declines of stick shift etc, starting with the fact that yesterday's top performance was below today's norm.

 

And the emotional drive for those of us who still love stick, separate analog components, "real" cameras etc is artfully expressed by Chris[nee] with the same irreverent sense of humor that distorts my own worldly perceptions:

 

I never said power shifting was faster; it's more fun and only done to your relative's cars anyway. And besides, I'm not racing my Toyota Echo except against turtles or snails--turbo powered or no. And obviously you don't enjoy the "true fun" of the stick: on a steep hill, at a stop light, a Lamborghini right on your tail, and the light turns green.

 

We even added sociology to the mix by acknowledging and debunking the foolish myths of the past regarding any lack of equality between the sexes. Most home stereo systems were purchased by men, with no more than grudging acquiescence from their (OK - our) wives. But today, I see as many women as men enjoying music both in their homes and on portable media. And science is helping us to understand some of the differences in the ways that women and men seem to perceive or interpret auditory input.

 

All in all, I think we've done pretty well with the topic.

 

David

[souptin]

All in all, I think we've done pretty well with the topic.

 

Indeed, it has been a triumph!

 

There's even been something about the physical nature of angels (they are 24bit, minimum).

 

Personally I would have liked to have more references to sheep, but that would just have been the icing on the cake.

[goldsdad]

There's even been something about the physical nature of angels (they are 24bit, minimum).

 

Implying that over 1.4556 x 10⁵⁷ bits can dance on the head of a pin.

[James1776]

Maybe you could tell us why it is "crap" and how you would do it so much better.

 

I believe the differences in a lot of gear, be it cables or amps, are real and can be discovered in ones own thoroughly familiar system with ones own music over a decent listening period. Often the difference is subtle but REAL. Testing protocols always seem to be on unfamiliar systems using unfamiliar music in short snippets. A very real change in ones own system gets lost in the sum of total changes on other folks gear (or even ones own) in the testing protocol. While they might hear a big change subtle ones are lost in the hash of the experience. They, when the 'test' is over, the side developing the flawed test claims victory. There is no change...

 

I contend the change is there, they just, under testing protocol, cannot find it.

[James1776]

The "folk tested" actually opted in to the test, kindly giving up their time to take part, plus they were members of the online audiophile community, and used their own equipment. Therefore, I "strongly suspect" that they were using better than average systems which were set up to perform well. Also I "strongly suspect" that there was a lot of thought put into the design of the test, and a lot of time put into conducting it.

 

Do you honestly think it is in any way fair to describe it as "crap"? Whenever anecdotal evidence or personal experiences are presented here on CA we tread on eggshells not to offend. Which I agree with, fwiw - personal experience, honestly described, is valuable not only to the individual but also to me as a third party. So why take us down to the gutter with such abusive language?

 

Yes....If the premise of the test is to maximize the ability of folk to hear possible difference, then yes, these tests do not do that.

[Audio_ELF]

James you realise the hypocrisy in your comments here: by your comments anecdotal evidence (that is sighted listening tests if you will) MUST be true because we're not allowed to doubt what people say, yet because it didn't agree with your conclusions a blind test is (it appears) automatically flawed.

 

You were asked for details in what way it was "crap" yet all you've done is repeated the "people don't have sufficiently resolving equipment"; "the people weren't trained to listen proper" and "the test was set up to fail" kind of arguments that are so beloved...

 

Eloise

[sandyk]

[Personally I would have liked to have more references to sheep, but that would just have been the icing on the cake.

 

Why ? Are you a Kiwi ? Perhaps you were referring to Archimago's followers ? (big grin)

[The Computer Audiophile]

What could be more on topic than analogies between home stereo systems and other past icons of high performance, Chris? The reasons for the decline of home stereo systems are pretty much those behind the declines of stick shift etc, starting with the fact that yesterday's top performance was below today's norm.

Surely you jest.

[James1776]

James you realise the hypocrisy in your comments here: by your comments anecdotal evidence (that is sighted listening tests if you will) MUST be true because we're not allowed to doubt what people say, yet because it didn't agree with your conclusions a blind test is (it appears) automatically flawed.

 

You were asked for details in what way it was "crap" yet all you've done is repeated the "people don't have sufficiently resolving equipment"; "the people weren't trained to listen proper" and "the test was set up to fail" kind of arguments that are so beloved...

 

Eloise

 

No, that is your strawman....My argument is far simpler. Unless you are listening to a very well known system and to very well known media, the chances of detecting all but the biggest differences is vanishingly small. So, the tests do not prove what their advocates say they do. They instead prove that under the test parameters used no difference can be heard. It is like reviewing art in a darkened room. To the blind everything looks alike.

 

The equipment in the test might be first class but it does not provide the two essential criteria for a valid test, LONG familiarity with the system used and deep familiarity of the media coupled with a prolonged test regime.

 

Going to your buddies house and his 100K system behind a blanket playing ten minutes snippets of music will not prove anything.

 

All that said, evaluating different media on a known system might work to determine the differences in the media; ie. the difference between an MP3 and a 24/96 file on a good audio system might be easily demonstrated. I just have never read of such a test.

[sandyk]

All that said, evaluating different media on a known system might work to determine the differences in the media; ie. the difference between an MP3 and a 24/96 file on a good audio system might be easily demonstrated.

 

I will go one further.

the difference between an MP3-320 and a 16/44.1 file on a good audio system can be easily demonstrated, assuming that the musical selection is well recorded, and has plenty of HF detail, including percussion. The leading edge of a drum "whack" has a VERY fast rise time and is easily seen in an audio editing program.

[wgscott]

I believe

 

That's the first problem. Wouldn't it be better to think?

 

...Testing protocols always seem to be on unfamiliar systems...

 

OK, this at least establishes you didn't even bother to read the testing protocol before you snottily dismissed it, simply because the results are at variance with what you believe they ought to be.

 

...under testing protocol, cannot find it.

 

Which means you have no idea whether it is real, or not.

[wgscott]

Surely you jest.

 

Stop calling him Shirley.

[sandyk]

wgscott

BTW, in the photo you posted of your listening room., I presume that the photo was taken from the actual listening position?

Alex

[wgscott]

Yes, slightly behind it.

[sandyk]

O.K.

Then I gather that the camera is making the listening position seem much more distant from the speakers than it really is ?

[wgscott]

13 ft.

 

Speakers are 9 ft separated.

[mayhem13]

I will go one further.

the difference between an MP3-320 and a 16/44.1 file on a good audio system can be easily demonstrated, assuming that the musical selection is well recorded, and has plenty of HF detail, including percussion. The leading edge of a drum "whack" has a VERY fast rise time and is easily seen in an audio editing program.

 

Again, Alex I must disagree with you here.....it's really not readily apparent and I submit that for you, with unfamiliar material, given your examples of some of the audible differences, I would say it unlikely that you would have any better than 50% accuracy on Identifying either.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Stop calling him Shirley.

Roger Roger.

[bluesman]

What could be more on topic than analogies between home stereo systems and other past icons of high performance, Chris? The reasons for the decline of home stereo systems are pretty much those behind the declines of stick shift etc, starting with the fact that yesterday's top performance was below today's norm.

Surely you jest.

Sadly (and essentially without precedent), I do not. As I approach my 8th decade of life, I can reflect with equanimity on many things I took far too seriously in prior years. I and those like me have always pursued the best sensory experiences we could find. This required complex home stereo systems, finicky and hard-to-maintain automobiles, recipes that took hours to follow, location of obscure wines, and what in retrospect amounted to a scavenger hunt for great stuff among Vance Packard's inspirations.

 

MP3s thru an iPod sound better than 99% of the home systems of the '50s and '60s (and probably '70s), and I can enjoy them anywhere at any time. Stick is no longer the fastest way around a road course or down a drag strip. I no longer need a Bessler enlarger with a Zeiss lens to make great prints. Guitars with bolt-on necks (e.g. Taylor, Collings) are the equal of set-neck legacies like Gibson and Martin.

 

The OP and initial responses were seminal:

 

Young people, weaned on MP3 and more intent in carrying their music with them via iPod, iPhone, iPad or whatever, often haven't a clue about sound quality and don't care...At the same time, many "high-end" manufacturers have decided that they would prefer to sell fewer units to the uber-rich and forget about offering affordable equipment to the less affluent members of the audiophile community.

 

Imagine, a new album release was the impetus for an evening with friends!

The home system didn't die - it morphed. Just look to social media for evidence that new releases stimulate communal enjoyment and discussion. Young people (however you define them) may no longer sit around a living room with vinyl on the stereo - but they share knowledge, experience and impressions using the communication channels they've evolved to meet their needs. We'd have been thrilled in 1965 with the sound quality of an iPod nano, and today's young 'uns have the sense to appreciate what they have. Those of us who care to go beyond are doing so, but the average level of home and personal audio today is better than ever and I cannot criticize it. Isn't this what Computer Audiophile is all about?