| Author |
21st century sound quailty of home audio. Why isn't better? |
Maxxwire
Moderator
Premium Member
Rank: Sony Adept
Joined: Aug 29, 2002
Posts: 25735
From: Portland, Oregon - USA
 |  Posted: 2011-07-07 15:50
On 2011-07-07 10:46, Welwynnick wrote:
I'm not pretending that the DA9k sounds like an esoteric SET amp - it doesn't - but I think it does have some of their advantages.
Nick-I've auditioned some very fine pure silver point to point wired 300B SET Integrated Amps as well as many of the Sony Digital Receivers and in reviews that I wrote here at Agoraquest as far back as 8 years ago I have always felt that the Sony Digital Receivers had their own particular dispensation of Tube Magic in their sonic signature right up to their ultimate incarnation in the DA9000ES.
~Maxx~
-----------------
A Satisfied Sony Fan Since 1974!
The OCCC Furu-Charged Sony DB 930
|
|
mykyll2727
Rank: Sony Pro
Joined: Apr 30, 2004
Posts: 4171
From: Las Vegas
 | Posted: 2011-07-25 03:04
My thinking is that Richard (dahrich) certainly has a handle on what I've been wondering. Even though many audiophiles may have large sums of money to spend on audio gear (and in turn spend it) the audiophile market as a whole is comparatively small to video. But I think that was true in the '60s and '70s as well. So I think my feeling that audiophiles are now willing to settle is at least another piece of the puzzle. The emphasis in audio for the majority today is not SQ but ease and quantity. Yet those factors have been motivators since the '60s and didn't stop efforts in great SQ back then. There have been great strides in the source arena in audio this entire time fueled by the desire for ease and quantity. Tape, disc, MP3, etc., yet little fundamental changes in the rest of the audio chain, amplification and speakers. My feeling is that audiophiles along with being small in comparative numbers have also become conditioned to accept the law of diminishing returns and thus haven't been the recipients of greater advancements in SQ tech. Audiophiles have come to accept that small incremental steps in SQ improvement are what they're going to receive for very large cash expenditures. So for makers why rock the boat?
Philips has been one of the most inventive companies in the world for decades when it comes to the AV market. In particular the source arena of AV. In audio alone they invented the cassette back in the '60s and since have collaborated with Sony to come up with the CD, DVD, SACD, and BluRay and that's just a few of their accomplishments. I read recently where last year Philips made a decision to stop trying to be innovative in consumer electronics thru fundamental research. It makes me wonder what the overall attitude of consumer electronics firms is to innovation in the audio arena._mykl
|
Maxxwire
Moderator
Premium Member
Rank: Sony Adept
Joined: Aug 29, 2002
Posts: 25735
From: Portland, Oregon - USA
| Posted: 2011-07-25 03:45
On 2011-07-25 03:04, mykyll2727 wrote:
My feeling is that audiophiles along with being small in comparative numbers have also become conditioned to accept the law of diminishing returns and thus haven't been the recipients of greater advancements in SQ tech.
_mykl- There have been 100's of things which we have agreed upon over the years and in times past I may have agreed with these statements of yours because they do ring true for many Audio enthusiasts, but just within the last 6 months I have had my ears opened to the amazing opportunities for the improvement of the Sound Quality within my Audio System by employing the current advancements in Audio technology that I did not have access to before.
It has broken my heart to have to relegate my $25,000 Analog Separates Audio System to second string listening, but the new Audio System which has only 2 components being the desktop computer and my $600 Sony DB 930 Receiver sounds exponentially better and I hope that you will understand the reasons for the choice I've made to go with the current Audio technology.
I recently abandoned my $10,000 i2s Bus Digital front end which provided 5 picosecond jitter Digital Audio for my Audio System for the last 10 years in favor of the 24/96 Digital Audio that the sound card in my HP Elite desktop provides over the same Fused Silica Glass Toslink that connected the i2s Bus Digital front end to its Digital Transport.
The result has been an order of magnitude improvement in sound quality that far exceeds any improvements that I was able to coax out of dated Digital processing technology that the $10,000 i2s Digital front end used even though it was designed to and continues to have have 800% less measured jitter than iLink.
This wholesale improvement in the Sound Quality of my now greatly simplified Audio System has brought improvements in Sound Quality that I once only dreamed could be possible with the old 20th century Audio technology that I was using and I now consider myself to be a very grateful recipient of the great advancements that modern Audio technology can afford at such a deep discount compared to the much more expensive 20th century Audio technology that my Stereo Separates use.
~Maxx~
-----------------
A Satisfied Sony Fan Since 1974!
.....The OCCC Furu-Charged Sony DB 930
Sony H-9 MaxxPix
[ This message was edited by: Maxxwire on 2011-07-25 03:57 ]
|
mykyll2727
Rank: Sony Pro
Joined: Apr 30, 2004
Posts: 4171
From: Las Vegas
| Posted: 2011-07-25 05:18
Maxx_You make some very valid points. I agree that the advancements in AC delivery that Furutech (I'm sure other companies will scramble to follow suit if they haven't already) have delivered have been great with regard to SQ. From your experiences even game changing. Yet IMO their employment of pure copper instead of a copper alloy or some other metal isn't what I consider a fundamental leap in new tech. Like I said in my initial post it's an advancement in materials though no question it's a major technological leap forward in the ability to use pure copper. So I guess at the very least it quailfies on some level. Now AFA your sound card that might well be a different matter. Yet I think the force behind it still stemmed from the drive for ease (simplicity) and quantity. My feeling is that it also stemmed from the drive to provide a better gaming experience (AV) and a better movie experience (streaming and again AV) for computer users. I don't think it's intention was to provide audiophiles with a better music experience. I feel it came from the drive to improve the AV arena not audio although in all fairness that's a result. And still, if I'm not mistaken (and correct me if I'm wrong), your computer is still connected to 20th century amplification (your receiver) and speakers to provide the final sound. I think it's absolutely fabulous that with the advancements you've pointed out that a modestly priced reciver can compete and even better some VERY expensive seperates. (I've got a whole bunch of thoughts on the ramifications of this that I'll throw your way later.) But the receiver and seperates are still 20th centry tech. I love getting your take on this because as I said in the beginning it's very possible I'm ignorant to what's going on in 21st centry audio and my view on it could be slanted as well. Please continue to post your thoughts here as I think we may well be on a path to truly bring 21st century SQ to the members._mykl
|
Maxxwire
Moderator
Premium Member
Rank: Sony Adept
Joined: Aug 29, 2002
Posts: 25735
From: Portland, Oregon - USA
| Posted: 2011-07-25 05:45
_mykl- If you ever do happen to decide to sample the advantages of 21st century Audio technology and employ the world's first and only patented Pure Copper Outlet along with one of your excellent quality power cords to run your DA9000ES while hooked up to your computer as a Digital front end your understanding of the unique benefits of 21st century Audio technology will clarify instantaneously and you will have a level of understanding that I do not have which is how Digital amplification reacts to this level of application.
~Maxx~
-----------------
A Satisfied Sony Fan Since 1974!
.....The OCCC Furu-Charged Sony DB 930
Sony H-9 MaxxPix
[ This message was edited by: Maxxwire on 2011-07-25 05:49 ]
|
mykyll2727
Rank: Sony Pro
Joined: Apr 30, 2004
Posts: 4171
From: Las Vegas
| Posted: 2011-07-25 05:47
Maxxwire and jttar made some points about the home experience that I wanted to touch on. I agree that for many of us the home experience is more enjoyable than "going out". AFA HT I find my HT experince far preferable to "going to the movies". I also find that for the most part I'd rather listen to audio at home than live. I find it more enjoyable. I totally understand their points about the live experience. Joe pointed out if one can create certain aspects of the live experience, imaging etc., what more can you ask for. Well here's my thoughts on that.
If we accept, and I reiterate if, that recreating the "live" experience is the "Holy Grail" of the recorded music experience, then at it's ultimate isn't that what a recorded music experience should provide? Not better or worse but exactly (at least on a sonic level) the same? Shouldn't one be able to close one's eyes and have the exact same sonic experience that one would if he closed his eyes at a live performance? If so, no system I know of is able to do that yet. No source, no amplification, no speakers in any combination are able to do that. But is that really what we as audiophilles should be after? Or should we strive to create the most enjoyable listening experience possible? What I'm driving at is, taking the live performance as the reference point some may prefer a warmer than live sound. Others may prefer one that's more clinical, etc., etc. What should be the ultimate goal of an audiophile? If it's the perfect sonic recreation of the live sound then SQ tech has a way to go. If it's what most enjoyable for the listener then we may already be there and have been for decades._mykl
|
mykyll2727
Rank: Sony Pro
Joined: Apr 30, 2004
Posts: 4171
From: Las Vegas
| Posted: 2011-07-25 06:00
On 2011-07-25 05:45, Maxxwire wrote: _mykl- If you ever do happen to decide to sample the advantages of 21st century Audio technology and employ the world's first and only patented Pure Copper Outlet along with one of your excellent quality power cords to run your DA9000ES while hooked up to your computer as a Digital front end your understanding of the unique benefits of 21st century Audio technology will clarify instantaneously and you will have a level of understanding that I do not have which is how Digital amplification reacts to this level of application. ~Maxx~ ----------------- A Satisfied Sony Fan Since 1974!
.....The OCCC Furu-Charged Sony DB 930 Sony H-9 MaxxPix [ This message was edited by: Maxxwire on 2011-07-25 05:49 ]
Max_I certainly plan on doing just that. (I need to expand my computer skills and knowledge. Some thing I'm definitely ging to be working on.) Ironically part of my motivation stems from the very reasons I give for why there haven't been more advancements in SQ. It stems not only for a desire for better SQ but also a desire for ease/simplicity, quantity, and lower cost. So just maybe guys like me are part of the problem. Go figure._mykl
|
Maxxwire
Moderator
Premium Member
Rank: Sony Adept
Joined: Aug 29, 2002
Posts: 25735
From: Portland, Oregon - USA
| Posted: 2011-07-25 06:02
On 2011-07-25 05:47, mykyll2727 wrote:
Shouldn't one be able to close one's eyes and have the exact same sonic experience that one would if he closed his eyes at a live performance? If so, no system I know of is able to do that yet. No source, no amplification, no speakers in any combination are able to do that.
Please re-read my last post which outlines a set up that along with an LEDE application of Auralex Studiofoam has greatly surpassed the sound quality of the highly flawed acoustics of any live performance I have ever heard in that every room I've ever listened to a live performance the Music was horribly smeared by very poor room acoustics allowing the same original sound to reach the listener at several staggered instances which is referred to as Time Smear Distortion.
~Maxx~
-----------------
A Satisfied Sony Fan Since 1974!
The OCCC Furu-Charged Sony DB 930
|
mykyll2727
Rank: Sony Pro
Joined: Apr 30, 2004
Posts: 4171
From: Las Vegas
| Posted: 2011-07-25 06:15
Maxx_Exactly my point. I agree that (with the possible exceptions of the studio sessions I've heard at my friend's mastering studio and the Chicago Symphony and performances at the Opera House back in Chicago) live performances are marred by acoustics. Even at the studio EQ is applied to make the recordings actually sound better than live. I'm also reminded of some Mapleshade recordings where it's stated that the room acoustics are captured in the recording providing a "live" experience. I remember that I didn't find the sound all that enjoyable. So what is the Holy Grail? Exactly the same as live or something better/more enjoyable? Personally I lean toward something more enjoyable than most live performances._mykl
|
mykyll2727
Rank: Sony Pro
Joined: Apr 30, 2004
Posts: 4171
From: Las Vegas
| Posted: 2011-07-25 09:25
Well even though I may be perturbed at what I perceive as a lack of revolutionary advancements in the SQ of amps and speakers, I feel for many audiophiles there is a HUGE upside. Source tech (especially digital) and processing seems to advance almost by the day and may force one to make frequent upgrades to keep pace if one wants better SQ. Yet with regard to amps and speakers if one can be happy without having the newest offerings in these areas vintage gear may well be the way to go. With gear that is IMO fundamentally the same as it was decades ago fortunately many of these designs are still performing great. It seems that quality audio gear of yesteryear was not only made to sound great but it was also made to last. With care and maintenance some of this stuff is still going strong 40+ yrs later. In many cases with no apparent end in sight. I wonder how much of the audio gear being made today, no matter how expensive, can reasonably be expected to have lifespans measured by decades. Yes it may take the work of an expert to swap parts with more modern versions to bring it's SQ in line with what's available today but the cost is far less than that of purchasing a "modern" unit. And you still have that long lasting build of the original unit. Yes indeed I plan on feeding my system from my computer. Yes computer obsolescence happens in just a few years due to tech advancements such as processing power etc. but for me this is a minor inconvienence and cost compared to having to upgrade my computer and source components. I find it frustrating that no matter what digital sources I have, regardless of cost, will soon be nothing more than paper weights due to an advancement in source media tech. Along with that there's unit failure. I know that my CD player for example will become disposable in the far too near future as my laser fails and there won't be any replacements available. Yet for amps and speakers I don't see there being any tech that will make them truly obsolete sound wise in the forseeable future._mykl
|
mykyll2727
Rank: Sony Pro
Joined: Apr 30, 2004
Posts: 4171
From: Las Vegas
| Posted: 2011-08-07 11:29
.
[ This message was edited by: mykyll2727 on 2011-08-07 11:43 ]
|
mykyll2727
Rank: Sony Pro
Joined: Apr 30, 2004
Posts: 4171
From: Las Vegas
| Posted: 2011-08-07 11:36
.
[ This message was edited by: mykyll2727 on 2011-08-07 11:44 ]
|
mykyll2727
Rank: Sony Pro
Joined: Apr 30, 2004
Posts: 4171
From: Las Vegas
| Posted: 2011-08-07 11:43
On 2011-08-07 11:29, mykyll2727 wrote:
I received a short email newsletter today from Paul McGowen of PS Audio that I feel was very pertinent to what I was asking here.
He wrote, "Asking the same questions over and over again brings fresh answers as advances in technology change the lens we are looking through almost on a daily basis."
He goes on to say "Here are the fundamentals I am questioning:
Why are even the best high end audio systems still not convincing us we are listening to live music in our home? Is it even possible? What's holding us back?
Why do we need two speakers to create our stereo illusion? Can we do it with one?
Why do we sometimes perceive greater dynamics on vinyl than on CD when technically the two aren't even close?
Why are we OK accepting loudspeaker responses that are anything but flat--yet comfortable demanding electronics live up to a much higher standard? Simply because one can't get better and the other can?
Reexamining everything we take for granted leads to discovery. What are you questioning?"
_mykl
[ This message was edited by: mykyll2727 on 2011-08-07 11:46 ]
|
Maxxwire
Moderator
Premium Member
Rank: Sony Adept
Joined: Aug 29, 2002
Posts: 25735
From: Portland, Oregon - USA
| Posted: 2011-08-07 17:07
He goes on to say "Here are the fundamentals I am questioning:
Why are even the best high end audio systems still not convincing us we are listening to live music in our home? Is it even possible? What's holding us back?
Why do we need two speakers to create our stereo illusion? Can we do it with one?
I started asking myself the same question about the inability of high end Audio Systems to deliver a convincing live Music listening experience over a decade ago and as Paul says "Reexamining everything we take for granted leads to discovery" and I finally made a set of significant discoveries that completely solved this problem in my Audio System the presentation of which starts HERE.
I've found the question as to why we need 2 speakers to create Stereo imaging a much simpler one to answer.....we listen with 2 ears.
~Maxx~
 Sony H-9 MaxxPix
|
mykyll2727
Rank: Sony Pro
Joined: Apr 30, 2004
Posts: 4171
From: Las Vegas
| Posted: 2011-08-07 17:53
My feeling is if someone like the head of PS Audio is asking these questions (which are simliar to and some of the same as I'm pondering) then surely others in the industry must be doing the same. If so, then maybe some, if not all, of my questions regarding 21st century audio tech and SQ are right around the corner. I for one will be very interested in knowing the outcome._mykl
|
