[JerryM]

I've spent more money on music than I've ever dreamt of spending on gear. That's the buy; the gear is just fine. 

[Docere]

We're audiophiles -- we're totally about the gear, not the music. That's why we spend lots of money on this hobby. And I have no idea why you guys keep forgetting that fact. Our high is in the buy.

I don't fit that label; I don't think of myself as an audiophile.

But there is nothing wrong with being an audiophile; there's nothing wrong being a music collector; there's nothing wrong with being both or neither. It's not so much what you do or spend your money on, but your awareness of - and attachment to - it.

Oh, back on topic: I support meaningful, significant continual improvement by manufacturers; I'm not talking about the very minor incremental "improvements" promoted as significant, game-changing, or innovative that, with the help of 'zines, set up a desire-trap and promote status anxiety for "audiophiles".

Cheers.

[JLM]

Frankly I see this as the best time ever to get into audio.  Prices for gear are relatively low, choices for types of gear (ear buds, headphones, desktop, lifestyle, HT, traditional stereo, vinyl/varieties of digital, varieties of speaker designs, tube/solid state) are all high, and with Tidal music sourcing is dirt cheap. 

But beyond that the "state of the art" hasn't changed much beyond the general movement towards a leaner/tighter/more constipated sound.

[JohnR]

The market is not shrinking! It's just changing...

[bluemeanies]

The market is not shrinking! It's just changing...

I agreed...thinking outside the box.

[goskers]

Oh, back on topic: I support meaningful, significant continual improvement by manufacturers; I'm not talking about the very minor incremental "improvements" promoted as significant, game-changing, or innovative that, with the help of 'zines, set up a desire-trap and promote status anxiety for "audiophiles".

Cheers.

Can you provide some examples as to what you consider significant improvements?

Just wondering as to how these may line up versus my short list.

[DaveC113]

I think the point of the article is the upper limits of HiFi haven't changed much for decades, yet we still see products that are being "continually improved".

The reasons for this are mostly that high end audio companies are small and the entirety of audio design knowledge doesn't rest in the hands (or minds) of their creators, they are continuously learning more about how to make their products better. This includes the bigger companies too, evidenced by JBLs major change in direction and firing of it's engineers, and Wilson's fairly massive improvement in their sound quality over the years although that has been more evolutionary.

I do agree with the article in absolute terms, the old horn systems and SET amps are arguably just as good as anything available today and some of the best modern designs (imo) started with very old concepts and parts, i.e. GOTO driver design started with WE drivers and they are some of the best drivers in existence. However, if you look more closely the industry as individual businesses has made some major improvements over the years and there is now less variation in the quality of offerings. I've been going to RMAF since it started and the early years were amazingly bad in all ways. I won't go so far as to say it's now consistently good, but the improvements are night and day...

I do think though, if you're introducing new models of XXX every 6-12 months it does make it seem like the design was never really mature... the main complaint in the article is this is used to drive sales and encourage neverending turnover/upgrade paths that aren't necessary.

[Elizabeth]

I do think though, if you're introducing new models of XXX every 6-12 months it does make it seem like the design was never really mature... the main complaint in the article is this is used to drive sales and encourage neverending turnover/upgrade paths that aren't necessary.

Is the 'problem the fault of the manufacturer? or or the consumer?
If there were zero folks with 'audiophilia' who must have the best, most current thing, manufacturers would have fewer 'updates'.

On the other hand, look what GOOD the current system of small upgrades does for the used market.. With the current system, plenty of nearly new gear shows up in the for sale sites.

So I blame US and not the manufacturer. And maybe it is a good thing as it is.

[jpm]

As in many (most?) other areas, the internet has had it's own powerful impact.  We no longer wait for the new editions of magazines to be published before gorging on a feast of information and temptation, then allowing it to recede for a while before restarting the cycle.  No doubt the constant stimulation of reviews, articles, forums has had it's effect not only on us, but also manufacturers driven to reduce product development and cycle times.

[Elizabeth]

As in many (most?) other areas, the internet has had it's own powerful impact.  We no longer wait for the new editions of magazines to be published before gorging on a feast of information and temptation, then allowing it to recede for a while before restarting the cycle.  No doubt the constant stimulation of reviews, articles, forums has had it's effect not only on us, but also manufacturers driven to reduce product development and cycle times.

That is a two edged sword. Used to be the magazines held a magic power.. Now, any and all reviews are mere blips is an ocean of noise.

[Tyson]

Can you provide some examples as to what you consider significant improvements?

Just wondering as to how these may line up versus my short list.

Sure.  Digital vs vinyl.  Even now, digital is a lot better but still not better than vinyl.  And vinyl's been around since the beginning and has been making only marginal improvements since about the 70's.  Digital is a lot closer now (and I have a ton of hirez and pure DSD recordings).  But vinyl is still better. 

So here it is - the quality of the source hasn't been surpassed in many, many years.  Digital has been catching up, but only 'just now' is starting to pull even.  Pull even, not surpass. 

Amps - same thing.  Tubes just sound better than SS (to me anyway).  And tube amps of today are only marginally better than the best tube amps in the past.  Preamps, same. 

Speakers - OK, here's one area I think we've made improvements.  Planars and ribbons maybe not 'that' new, but they're more common now, which is an improvement, IMO.  Re: Cones/domes, we've had improvements in the diaphragm material and the motors, so yay (Beryllium tweeters are quite special, IMO).

Here's the thing - I have assiduously built and tuned my system over 20 years to come as close as possible to reproduce classical music.  Real instruments in real space.  I have some astonishingly well recorded pure DSD chamber and piano recordings.  I put them on my system, sounds great.  But then I go listen to an actual live performance and the gap between my system and the real thing is quite large. 

Are we a tiny bit closer now to 'live' sound now than we were 20 years ago.  Maybe a little.  But not substantially.  True live sound is still quite a ways off.

[Folsom]

Am the only one that thinks it's a little weird to get into a big huff about the idea of asking why buy anything new?

To me it seems like everyone has a lot of fun trying different stuff, and simple fact is that to facilitate that you need new stuff coming out. We can laugh at ourselves for trying things, wishing we had an old gear piece, ETC, but we're still doing something having a hobby or business.

You at least have to admit we are seeing a lot better looking stuff at all price levels.

[Early B.]

I've only been dabbling in this audiophile thing for just shy of 20 years and IMO, equipment has improved dramatically. Well --let me clarify -- the parts within some of the higher end equipment have improved. For example, capacitors and inductors have made huge leaps in recent years, driver technology has improved, there are a lot more options for volume control, there's a greater emphasis on eliminating noise and jitter, etc. Hell, 15 years ago, the rage was a Richard Gray power conditioner, Solen caps and an Alps blue velvet pot. Look how far we've come. 

I think if you're buying off the shelf "high end" brand name gear, then the changes over time may be incremental. But if you're a DIY guy or like to mod your gear, then there's more options at nearly all price points to get better sound than before.     

[kingdeezie]

Sure.  Digital vs vinyl.  Even now, digital is a lot better but still not better than vinyl.  And vinyl's been around since the beginning and has been making only marginal improvements since about the 70's.  Digital is a lot closer now (and I have a ton of hirez and pure DSD recordings).  But vinyl is still better. 

So here it is - the quality of the source hasn't been surpassed in many, many years.  Digital has been catching up, but only 'just now' is starting to pull even.  Pull even, not surpass. 

Amps - same thing.  Tubes just sound better than SS (to me anyway).  And tube amps of today are only marginally better than the best tube amps in the past.  Preamps, same. 

Speakers - OK, here's one area I think we've made improvements.  Planars and ribbons maybe not 'that' new, but they're more common now, which is an improvement, IMO.  Re: Cones/domes, we've had improvements in the diaphragm material and the motors, so yay (Beryllium tweeters are quite special, IMO).

Here's the thing - I have assiduously built and tuned my system over 20 years to come as close as possible to reproduce classical music.  Real instruments in real space.  I have some astonishingly well recorded pure DSD chamber and piano recordings.  I put them on my system, sounds great.  But then I go listen to an actual live performance and the gap between my system and the real thing is quite large. 

Are we a tiny bit closer now to 'live' sound now than we were 20 years ago.  Maybe a little.  But not substantially.  True live sound is still quite a ways off.

When I first started in this hobby, I got sucked into the rhetoric about "live" sound. I kept wanting my system to sound like "the performers were in my room!" As my system improved, that illusion was realized further and further, but it never was an exact facsimile.

Once I started to focus on how much I was enjoying the music from my system, and how well I felt the recordings were being reproduced, the less disappointment I experienced.

Yes recordings can sound great, with space, air, dynamics, and palpability. But, its never like being at the event. I don't know if it ever really was supposed to be.

[Elizabeth]

One thing about recordings.. They have ALWAYS been variable. From using poor to great microphones, to the placement, to the genius/idiot at the mastering board. Old faded master tapes trying to be resurrected one more time..

There are far more variations in recording and recording problems than in systems in general.
And new is no better than old. (even some old 78 transcriptions can knock anyone's socks off!)

On the other side is performance. There are plenty of fantastic performances which are poorly recorded, but absolutely still are masterpieces. And plenty of wonderfully recorded dreck too.

[Tyson]

When I first started in this hobby, I got sucked into the rhetoric about "live" sound. I kept wanting my system to sound like "the performers were in my room!" As my system improved, that illusion was realized further and further, but it never was an exact facsimile.

Once I started to focus on how much I was enjoying the music from my system, and how well I felt the recordings were being reproduced, the less disappointment I experienced.

Yes recordings can sound great, with space, air, dynamics, and palpability. But, its never like being at the event. I don't know if it ever really was supposed to be.

Agreed 100%.  I think that is what got me off the 'upgrade' merry-go-round.  I have just started to enjoy the system for what it does and stopped chasing after the unobtainable goal of live sound in the home.  I also go to more live music performances as a result. 

[Folsom]

I prefer to replicate the recording the best as possible. That means you lose on some recordings that suck, but win big on the ones that are nice. Otherwise you're so busy coloring and distorting everything to make it sound the same, to pathetically resemble a real performance. Howveer the closer I get to represent the recording, the more a raw recording comes to a point where you'd mistake a real instrument being in the next room.

IMO getting closer to the recording is a possibility that is closer in achievement than ever before. But people are still into lots of gear miles from that, and it's not too different from yesteryear.

[Tyson]

I prefer to replicate the recording the best as possible. That means you lose on some recordings that suck, but win big on the ones that are nice. Otherwise you're so busy coloring and distorting everything to make it sound the same, to pathetically resemble a real performance. Howveer the closer I get to represent the recording, the more a raw recording comes to a point where you'd mistake a real instrument being in the next room.

IMO getting closer to the recording is a possibility that is closer in achievement than ever before. But people are still into lots of gear miles from that, and it's not too different from yesteryear.

Cool.  Since speakers (and the room) are by far the largest contributors to inaccuracy, what have you done to address those massive shortfalls to accuracy?  I say that because the percent of "inaccuracy" from an amp, dac, preamp is quite miniscule in comparison.  Since this is the biggest problem area and it falls squarely into your most important category, I'd love to hear it what your approach has been.

Put another way - if accuracy is the goal, messing around with electronics is playing around in the kiddie pool.  They simply don't matter, in the context of a bad (or even mediocre) room.  I mean, if accuracy is your goal.

[Folsom]

I wouldn't say I entirely agree with that. Distortion figured are only in the voltage domain, for one. It's basically impossible to make the best speaker ever be truly good if the electronics can't keep up.

For speakers we've been working on compensating for the electrical problems in crossovers, in ways not used by anyone yet (that we are aware). That's the first goal before we get carried away with developing crazy speakers. We are planning to make a speaker. For example it's not that we think CD is wrong, but we aren't focused on that first because frankly there's so much else going on that it's not our first concern. Working with a cone and dome, so to say, has been very fruitful thus far, to lead us into something. In my mind without compensating for crossover and driver electrical issues you are faced with squeezing whisky from rocks in terms of room treatment etc. But that's coming from having electronics that can back it up.

Active setups may or may not work around the issues. With driver feedback it should be possible and that's something we're interested in for active speakers in the future. Right now it seems easier to get what we want from passive, as the crossover allows you to work with the woofer driver, almost like a reactive shield, instead of just changing the load on the amp without the driver changing. That's a bit premature to say... But so far it's true.

What Do we actually hear? Well IMD sound you're use to is something you have to search for... every album sounds totally different. Stand up bass, well, is standing, banjo's speed is natural. You just give up on needing to reason with half the stuff you listen for, because you're hearing music. Things aren't standing tall saying "look at me". But it's very easy to understand how much you hear the studio between you and the music. That's why some stuff sounds extremely natural, in the room, and other things clearly are adjusted and changed a lot. I'm blabbing on when the most concise way to describe the goal and sound is that it's very natural when the album has the ability to sound that way. Some album's sound very raw, which is usually optimal as then a guitar has the sound size you would expect from a real one, not the fake outline of a guitar you often hear in systems saturated with noise to make the imaging unreal.

[Folsom]

It's also made me anal about selection of early pressing etc of vinyl album's I like 

I should probably add that with speakers the amount if stuffing is very different as they change from work being done to them, and I find diffraction from tweeters to be more than a minor issue.