Into the Future

[StephenJK]

Time keeps on ticking – into the future.

 

I find it interesting how nostalgia plays such a part with the audiophile experience.  We don’t need to get into specifics, but we all remember musical experiences in a kindly light.

 

That amp, that turntable, those wonderful speakers.  But it was the moment – a dark basement with black light posters, a little herb and Band on the Run looping on an 8 track player.

 

Point being, with someone the other day mentioning that Singer Sound and Snell speakers were the best thing ever and that started another thread on how that was true.

 

And it could be….but likely isn’t. 

 

The world of technology and materials evolves, changes and improves in so many ways.  With the reproduction of sound we would have to assume that would also be true.

 

But people still pay a premium for a Thorens TD124 rumble table – because “it has a great sound” from the 50’s. 

 

I’m a firm believer in how technology and continual advances have made everything better – stereo systems included. 

 

When people start to wax rhapsodically about how magical their reel to reel sounded, I comment on how many times I had to use an editing block and splices to cut out the mangled bits and did a high speed rewind to find 3,600 feet of tape coiled up on the floor.

 

I don’t really have a point with this other than to prompt a discussion on how, just maybe, at least with stereo gear – this is the best of times. 

 

With the updated system we have now, my wife and two Maine Coon cats hear things on recordings we’ve had for years that we’ve never heard before. 

 

I’m not going to bore you with a list of all the gear I’ve had over the years because none of that matters.

 

What I will say is that if you want modern sound, you need modern gear.   

[StephenJK]

34 minutes ago, Digi&Analog Fan said:

Re-arranging and mis-quoting someone's words in an attempt to make their words sound ridiculous has been tried before. Even outside of politics;  it seems. I said that Andy Singer in an online interview said that the Snell Type A III was "one of the best speakers of all time." NOT that they were THE BEST THING EVER as you state was said, which a quick look back would prove to be a deception.. If there weren't many exceptional products of the past I doubt if guys with "real ears" like Nelson Pass and others would be shelling out big bucks for vintage greats of the past. Do you think your average speaker of today has even one half of the openness, transparency, purity and naturalness of the original Quad 57 speaker from 1957?  Harry Pearson of The Absolute Sound said that after a close comparison that the Quad 57, within its limits, sounded more like music than the much more recent over $100,00 Infinity IRS speaker. So its not that there hasn't been much progress; its more that there are a lot of vintage products that are, as Panasonics old slogan, "slightly ahead of our time." Actually more than "slightly". There has been nice progress in speaker driver technology and the drivers in many modern speakers are a far cry from the drivers the "average" speakers of many decades ago used. But there were "above average" speakers back then; which are easily still good speakers today. You mentioned Thorens and an older Thorens turntable. That table used steel in places that more modern Thorens tables used cheaper more compromised materials which are more cost saving. That vintage table is not a turntable one buys for nostalgia only, its bought for great design, materials and sound, when many companies went all out, regardless of cost. The cost of shipping weighty items from both overseas and domestically, was only a smidgen of shipping costs today, and that also is a BIG factor in how something is built and what it is built with. The original owner of Thorens, if he is still alive, was known to have 1969 KLH model 9 electrostatics as his speakers of choice ( he has 4 of them). What about the Marantz model 9 (amps) from the early 1960s (or before)? Do you think those would be far outclassed by modern technology? They go for $25,000 and more, and are bought by knowledgeable audiophiles, who know their sound quality and what music sounds like. Overall much of today's equipment is more advanced and sounds a lot better in certain ways at least, but a lot of the equipment that was great equipment back then is still great equipment today. 

Nostalgia is all well and good - but it's exactly that.

 

For some inexplicable reason every single industry seems to have made considerable change and improvement over the past few decades except for stereo systems.  To my mind, that simply can't be true.

 

Those older Thorens turntables were never meant to be anything other than a cheap, affordable turntable using the materials available at the time.  Everything is built to a price point - that's basic manufacturing.  

 

I'm not saying that vintage equipment has no value - a premium item yesterday could still be competitive with some product lines.  If you want to make comparisons then do it with items of relative value adjusted for inflation. 

 

Stating that someone is willing to buy a Marantz 9 amplifier from the 60's for $25K implies that it will be competitive with a modern day amplifier at the same cost.  That, I would find unlikely.  People buy things for different reasons.  Nostalgia is fine and good but shouldn't be confused with how a system truly sounds. 

 

To use your example, if Quad 57's are so wonderful then why aren't they being sold today?  There are people who buy stereo gear because they want a great sound.  I think you will find many of them here.

 

Thanks for your comments.

[StephenJK]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

Best of times for who? Back when 8 track was around most folks had hifi's capable of decent playback. Now most folks have dreadful sounding digital systems. 

I certainly don't want to debate the merits of analog over digital.  I digitized all my LPs and play them that way.  I think it sounds great.  I still have a turntable and use it all the time, but the amplifiers I'm using digitize all inputs so there's no longer a "pure" analog path.  And I'm fine with that.  

 

Best of times for people who want a great sound at a good price.  Those HiFi systems that people had back in the 70's and 80's were mostly high powered and sounded OK.  My first "real" stereo system that I bought in 1978 cost me $3,500.  That would be roughly $15K today adjusted for inflation only.  Could I buy a better than decent system for $15K today?  Maybe that should be the question, whether on the new or used market.

 

I suppose one of the things that isn't often mentioned but that many people here will know is that when you start making improvements, that extra 10% increase in sound quality comes with a cost at least 3 to 5 times more - rough numbers of course but I'm sure you get the point.  

 

I'm talking about sound systems with resolution, soundstage, depth, detail and accurate positioning - where all components need to be in the same general area of quality and development.  That's not what I recall from systems back in the day.  

 

 

[StephenJK]

6 hours ago, Digi&Analog Fan said:

Once again, you tried to slip one in there, that simply wasn't ever said. I never said there hasn't been considerable progress in audio. That there were wonderful examples of great equipment from the past, doesn't mean that at all. Is a 1977 Rolls Royce Silver Shadow a piece of junk compared to a Hyundai, because the Hyundai was built more recently?  Hint: the Rolls is built worlds better and rides better and is quieter, despite being built in less "advanced" times. When barreling down the road the clock is supposed to be the loudest noise you hear.  I suppose the Quad 57 isn't built anymore because I suppose its like anything else. Its near record breaking number of years in production has run its course. I cannot think of too many things that haven't run there course long before that long a span; except the Klipschorn, which is meant to be placed in a corner. The Quads wide physical profile with its slanted legs and its decidedly 1950s look, ( no longer in style) were considerations too. Around 1981 or so they replaced the model after an incredibly long run with the Quad 63, which many people commented didn't have the midrange magic or clarity of the original, despite a few other pluses. That's the 1st time I've heard someone try to use as an argument that "if its so good, why don't they make it anymore" concerning a product that was made for around two decades and a half and that is considered the single most influential speaker of all time. Things are not nearly as "simple" as that.

Dude.  You're taking this way too personally.  We agree to disagree - have a great weekend.

[StephenJK]

More importantly is whether your cats like the music.  Max is a jazz cat, he particularly likes trumpet and is a big Weather Report fan.  Jax is more of a James Taylor, Jackson Browne kind of guy.  Obviously, we all like Hawkwind.  

[StephenJK]

18 hours ago, Rexp said:

Most of the time we're discussing digital sources on this site and I do think the future is bright, but so far, for the general population, digital has been a backward step. 

I disagree.  I recorded approximately 1,500 LPs with a few different turntables, cartridges and phono stages - with all hardware much better than decent quality.  At the time, I would record from the tape monitor loop of and Audio Research LS-27 to a Korg MR-2000S digital recorder.  

 

I could play the same track from the turntable or from the hard drive of the digital recorder.  Once the LP was mastered and stored on the music server I could play from that as well.  I did a lot of testing - initially discovering that the laptop used as a music server with USB to the DAC was the worst quality.  I went to a digital player instead of the laptop and between the LP, recorder or digital player while attempting to adjust for similar gain I seriously could not tell the difference.  

 

If you're saying that a lot of digital sources are very poor quality, you won't find any argument from anyone here.  I dropped my subscription to Sirius for that reason - it's equivalent to 96 kpbs. 

 

A lot of streaming services are 128 kbps with "high quality" at 250 kpbs - a long ways from even CD quality at 1,411 kbps, never mind  24/96 files.  I think we need to make a clear distinction with regards to that and not just say "digital is bad".  Because it isn't.

[StephenJK]

6 hours ago, Digi&Analog Fan said:

I can think of a guy who wouldn't even think of having his CD payer in the same room as vibration producing loudspeakers. He has a  long interconnect carefully going from his amplifier, out his window to his CD player situated and isolated on his porch. Whenever he wants to put on a new CD, he comes out his door and walks across his porch to his CD player and puts another selection on. 

 

 Right before he had a company install an iron gate, he had an UN-Welcome mat at the foot of his porch steps which read "Make like a tree and leave." I think it glowed in the dark too. Worst conditions: wind gusts; especially from the NW. Thinking outside the box (a house is sort of a box).  TDTS stands for total dedication to sound.

I would think that anyone who had a "total dedication to sound" would have got rid of the CD player some time ago. 

 

I went through that whole "Oh, this one is better" because while so many manufacturers had the same digital components (and still do), the analog stage was something you could tweak to really make something special.  The Bryston CDP comes to mind.

 

And then, when people were getting rid of their audiophile transports I went that route - digital out right to the DAC. 

 

I still buy CDs. But, I think like most people they get ripped and added to the music server for playback through whatever digital chain you prefer.  

 

There's nothing wrong with CD playback, but it's just the first step on the digital journey.

 

[StephenJK]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

Digital is digital. There are just various forms of storage of the "data", and electronic processes are needed to retrieve this information, and transfer it to the DAC, on the fly. All one needs is for that electronic chattering to be completely isolated from the analogue side of the ship - the hard bit, pun intended, is that fulfilling the "completely" adjective just turns out to be mighty hard ... at the moment. Of course, one could line up millions of trained monkeys on the digital side of the DAC, each pushing a simple switch down at exactly the right moment; and so get get rid of the electronic warbling - but that could take some time to organise 😉.

 

I like CDs. Magnetic storage in my mind is highly subject to Murphy's Law - if there is something dumb that can be done to wipe out lots of such data, then it's certain to happen, one day.

 

I'm not sure what your point is, and would appreciate if you could elaborate.

 

You seem to be OK with CDs as a digital music medium but not as a digital file stored on a computer because of it's fragility?

 

Did I read that right?  

 

[StephenJK]

4 hours ago, Digi&Analog Fan said:

Re: SJK. I guess according to your thoughts no one on here has CD sound as good as your sound. Lets bow to the king. You have proven many times foolishly that you are not the logic king.

Dude, you keep making this personal - we should be able to have a discussion without people being insulted.

 

My point wasn't that there's anything wrong with CD players, but more that most system design today does not include that element.  While all CD players can read the digital data well, the implementation of the analog side is where the true art form exists.  The CD players that do analog very well tend to be expensive units and for good reason.

 

However, by ripping a CD to a digital file, the key element now becomes the quality of the DAC that you have in your system.  If your stereo has a DAC already, and within any budget, you can buy a much better DAC because you no longer need that CD player with a DAC that likely isn't as good as a standalone unit.  That's why high-end CD players can be had at a reasonable cost, it's the buggy whip of the past.  

 

And, by ripping the CD to a digital file you have many more options on how that file can be played back with different software programs that allow for a system to be tweaked, upgraded or changed for a desired goal.  

[StephenJK]

6 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

many times a cd transport can sound better (either using their internal dac or an external one) than playing the same file from a software player.

I only ever owned one transport - can't remember what it was as I didn't have it very long as part of a "transitional" system.  I agree that a transport allows you to play the CD without the built-in DAC getting in the way.  I'm not clear as to how that could be better than playing back a file from software.  

 

To your mind, is that because the software is inadequate or do you think the file ripping process is the culprit?

[StephenJK]

2 hours ago, Norton said:

There certainly seems to be something of a small revival of interest in CD players and transport across various forums.  I don’t know whether this is just clever pre- marketing from the likes of Schitt or something more.  A back to back test of SOTA CDT/CDP vs file based replay would  be interesting.  Personally I find  that file playback from a custom thumb drive  or SD card  card transport beats both streaming and disc SQ wise, and is more convenient than a CD player too.

I think that the world of digital music playback has moved beyond the hardware and well into the software/configuration side of things.  

 

I don't claim to be an expert on the topic - like most here I'm an enthusiast, a music fan, an audiophile and the member of a like-minded community.  

 

Playback of an accurate digital file, where that original file is never changed, is with so many combinations and permutations as to make your head spin.  Man.  I've jumped from laptops to digital players to DACs to streaming DACs and back to laptops.

 

The most telling point I can share with anyone here is when I was doing a test drive with Roon, and admittedly with hardware that was "Roon Ready" - with Devialet Expert Pro 440 monoblocks.  

 

We've been using JRiver Media Center for years, and have always supported their every upgrade - because they need the support.  It's all they do, and they do it well.  They use the Devialet AIR driver as an output. 

 

Roon, with their association with Devialet have developed their own driver that enables streaming directly with an embedded driver.

 

The difference was subtle, but certainly an improvement if that makes any sense - it just sounds better.  The point is, and key words here - if you have the hardware capable of fully resolving your music, significant gains can be made on the software side.  

 

I wouldn't have believed it years ago.  I do now. 

[StephenJK]

2 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

playing a dsd file in a thumb drive on my sr6013 sounds damn good.

Hey, that's what it's all about.  You don't have to chase the brass ring.  Play what you like, kick back and enjoy your day.