Audiophiles: Dead or Dying?

[John Dyson]

14 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I don't think many here would dispute that Mid-Fi systems are better capable today than they were 20 years ago. If you feel that equates with not needing a high-end or expensive system that's fine. I'm just not buying the social "oppression and robbing of the wealth of the middle/lower classes" argument. Wealth disparity has always existed and there has always been oppression and poverty. If you consult sociologists I would wager that such things have been more pronounced in previous centuries. I'm not saying it makes it right today, I'm saying in my opinion it is not a credible argument against the demise of the audiophile hobby.

 

 

 

In the 80s and 90s all I could do is drool over the gear that I wanted to buy. I had kids going to expensive schools, mortgages to pay and discretionary spending didn't include such luxury items. They were "un-obtainium". I really don't see it much differently today. There will always be rich (younger) people that inherited lots of money. I had to work for every cent. Either way, I don't think the high performance audio market is dying. At least, not for reasons of social injustice or financial hardship or that 'old white males with too much money than sense' are dying off (an argument I've heard elsewhere). Yes it is an expensive hobby and like many other expensive hobbies one can argue that it is not necessary. There will always be people interested in beautiful things, creating them and enjoying them, and pursuing a hobby that allows them to do that IMO

 

I still claim that given the quality of commonly available recordings, a very expensive or super high quality system is a ludicrous mismatch.  I am on the side of great sound for sure, but I wouldn't waste much more than about $1-2k with the hellaciously bad digital recordings availalble (including some Telarc stuff.)  I have the feeling that those who do love legacy recordings, their hearing must be suppressing the -50dB of hiss, when the actual tape is -60dB or better.   We are being cheated against, very very badly.  10-15dB of compression at high frequencies (actually more than that) can do a lot of damage.  But, I'd guess that most of us cannot hear the 15dB of damage because that is at about 12kHz or higher.

 

There ARE very good recordings out there, not damaged with all kinds of severe and stealth compression, but unless one listens to the 'good stuff' kind of material, then a super quality system is a nice, expensive piece of furniture...

 

The motivation for being a true audiophile is limited by the consistently damaged material available.

After 40yrs, I do have the correct tools to undo a lot of the damage, but I am still trying to learn to use them.   It is a nasty thing that has been done to all of our pop recordings (and even some premium stuff.)  Once I learn better how to use the tools, then I can communicate it to others -- but as it is now, no reason to spend lots of money unless provided with 'good stuff' to play.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

In some ways an analogy might be there is no justification for a great playback system because most modern music these days isn't good enough. I'm not buying it. There still remains plenty of good music and there still remains plenty of decent recordings.

 

John, like yourself, I lament the tragedy of poorly recorded and mastered music. Regretfully I suspect there's very little really that can be done but I hold out that people like yourself can at least be partly successful in the quest to reverse engineer the problems. Much of these issues have already been discussed elsewhere so my opinion stands that bad recordings sound bad and pretty much irrespective of the playback system, some are more revealing than others. Sure, you can still enjoy the music.

 

However, it is an entirely different proposition to suggest that mediocre recordings should only justify mediocre playback systems, bad recordings can only justify bad playback systems...... and state-of-the-art playback systems are only for perfect recordings. With 100% resounding and emphatic conviction, I'm of the view (and hearing) that the better the playback system the greater the potential rewards in sound quality (playing less than perfect recordings). I can't say I've ever heard a perfect recording, or for that matter a perfect playback system but as each respectively improves, the benefits accrue.

 

It has been this way for as long as I remember and I will wager that it will continue to be that way and that the audiophile hobby is not dead or dying. There is breathtakingly beautiful sound quality in high-end gear these days that far surpasses previous generations of high-end gear, and there will always be those seeking beautiful sound in the service of beautiful music.

 

I understand & agree with the sense that a better system can reproduce a recording better  -- but sometimes that better reproduction is just a more clean representation of noise and distoriton.   The quality of a great system can go so very far BEYOND diminishing returns that higher quality only further unveils more defects.

 

A simple and exaggerated example: an extremely hissy recording, sometimes all you can do is to 'turn down the tone control' or something similar.  I am not claiming that a better system isn't better.  A better designed system actualy DOES reproduce a signal better  -- it is just that many recordings, including 'excellent' ones from 'Telarc' and other 'high quality' brands have the same defects that I have been speaking of -- and are so defective, that higher quality system just reproduces the 5-10% LF distortion more cleanly, and the intermod between the hiss and the signal is more clean...  Those don't make a 'better' listening experience.   There IS a law of diminishing returns, and spending much more than a few $K is starting to be very wasteful for MOST commercial recordings.   The exact same damage that I am speaking of is manifest both on AP's Nat King Cole Story recordings, Telarc's 'very wide dynamic range' (NOT) recordings, the old Carpenters stuff, the Cars, Bangles, Styx, and much commercial classical stuff -- need I go on?

If you have some of the GOOD STUFF (recordings without the damage tantamount to serious distortion and noise), then a great system can be better taken advantage of.   Also, there is nothing wrong with a nice wood finish.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

2 minutes ago, tapatrick said:

But where are the numbers? When I was in my 20's it was a cultural phenomenon to sit around with friends listening to and sharing albums on 2 speaker systems. We sought out where the good systems were and got ourselves invited round. My daughter who is in her 20's (and her friends from what I have seen) has 1 speaker in the corner and listens to music in the background. Her generation, that I know of does not get together to sit and listen only and definitely not to stereo. Sure she has ear buds and appreciates great music from her phone, but the culture has changed as it does.

Ham radio is similar in very limited respects.   There was a certain nerdy 'elitism' in ham radio in the past, now it is almost a quaint 'odd fellows' society of sorts.   Now, everyone has a 'ham radio', and it is called 'cell phone'.  Not only a change in culture but also a major change in technology -- not really an evolutionary move, but a total redo of how things are done.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, charlesphoto said:

 

Funny this - it points out cultural differences towards music and hifi even in the past. When I was in my twenties, I can't recall once anyone talking about or comparing hifi gear - we were all too busy making music or going to shows (we're talking 1984-1994 and admittedly my friends were the likes of Mudhoney, Soundgarden, etc). Getting together and comparing records, yes, of course, but really no considerations to how they sound - esp since most were pretty poorly recorded in the first place, so it really didn't matter. A hifi setup usually consisted of a Japanese receiver of some sort, Technics turntable (maybe a Dual or equivalent as well) and Advent or Speakerlab speakers. Louder was the key element = get the party started right! Often bought used at the local Naim dealer, Hawthorne, who are still there (bought my 160 BD from them last month). Thing is, very few of us had any disposable income so never even bothered with the rooms on the right hand side of the store where all the Naim etc gear resides. 

 

So in a nutshell, we cared deeply and passionately about music, but I and most of my peers gave little thought to the actual delivery of it, and I suppose this is much like the youth of today. 

You are right!!!   I didn't realize this, but I never had the urge to compare my equipement or talk incessantly about the characteristics of this or that.  I just wanted to buy/build the best 'toy' (reproduction device) that I could.   The joy was in selection, not so much telling everyone else about the little details.   Most of my electrical engineering friends could have made good technical conversation, or my artist type friends would listen and mention the imaging and clarity (or not) of my system, but NEVER made a big deal out of it.  A conductor type person mentioned the naturalness of the sound of my system -- but we didn't make ANY big deal out of it afterwards.

 

From the technial side, I was more interested in finding CD material that was good enough that it sounded like the recordings that I used to make -- but never did.

 

Times HAVE changed.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

8 hours ago, tapatrick said:

Exactly - It is indeed a mystery to me why certain battles go on and get repeated endlessly in some of the threads here. Without each other there would be no discussion. Death of the audiophile? is it not in the abstraction of the other through desperation to further ones own agenda? 

I do believe that being an audiophile alone has little to do with wanting to talk about some of the audiophile subjects.  However, being an audiophile and interest in talking about it does enable some of the competency to discuss certain things.   The big problem is the good old syndrome that says that people sometimes don't understand the limits of their knowledge -- that is when there are sometimes arguments that are impossible to resolve.

[John Dyson]

5 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

The problem with that syndrome is that it always applies to somebody else😁

Interesting fact is that there is some implication in the syndrome that those who really know what they are talking about sometimes UNDERESTIMATE their knowledge.   Geesh, I cannot remember the name of that syndrome...   I guess I don't know :-).

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

3 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

  

 

 

Dunning Kreuger?

 

And I just got the joke... I think. Still working on morning coffee.

Bingo...   I do find the syndrome really interesting in a way.   I have seen the manifestation in my self and others, not intending to be accusatory -- just interesting.

[John Dyson]

13 hours ago, GUTB said:

I don't think failing to appreciate good quality audio is an ability issue. Well, I guess you could be hard of hearing or have some neurological condition. There are people definitely more discerning in their senses than others; for example, most people who hear high-resolution music can tell it's better, but may not be able to clearly define what, specifically, is better about it.

 

People who deny the existence of high quality audio aren't deaf, they just have a ego / identity to protect so they don't try finding it for themselves. Take whatever low-end chip-amp, switching power, opamp consumer 10-lbs speaker trash systems they have: sit them down in front of my or any of the audiophile's systems on this forum and is he SERIOUSLY going to claim he can't immediately tell the vast superiority in sound?

Sometimes the problem with being satisfied is TOO MUCH acuity and being too aware of the impairments.

 

John