[doug s.]

you (and daryl) would have a good point - if single driver speakers & set amps resulted in low fidelity.  many folks know the opposite is true...

ymmv,

doug s.

This thread started with the premise that hi-fi is dying due to the proliferation of low-fi formats.  The idea was that since many people are deliberately choosing to listen to music with degraded fidelity, they apparently don't care about sound quality and therefore the hi-fi world is coming to an end.  (Personally I think that's clearly a silly idea - if more people listen to more music there's no way that's bad for hifi - but back on topic.)

Daryl's point was that one can apply precisely the same argument to many audiophiles.    How do we know MP3 is lower fidelity?  Because it has increased distortion, an altered harmonic balance, and it just sounds bad.  Well, guess what - SET amplifiers have much higher distortion than SS.  Vinyl has both lower resolution and much higher noise floor than CDs.  Single driver speakers have pretty terrible harmonic characteristics compared to conventional.  And all that degradation in sound quality can be heard quite clearly. 

So there you have it - a group of people deliberately choosing low fidelity!  Does that mean hi-fi is dying?   

[Daygloworange]

Ok, so distortion is now "fidelity"?

Ok. I get it now.

I guess that leaves me in a bit of a quandry then doesn't it?

I guess I must be bi-polar then.

I never knew. 

Thanks guys.

Cheers

[bpape]

Agreed.  Comparing the lack of dynamic range and resolution of MP3 with the TRADEOFFS of

vinyl (no losses in conversion - A/D->D/A, arguably more musical sound, no 'guessing' at conversions due to low redbook sampling rates, etc.)

tubes (shifted distortion into the more 'pleasing' harmonics, forgiving of digital hash from CD's on the top end, etc.)

single drivers (NO passive xover issues, phase shifting, etc.)

is just silly - sorry.  I'd call it 'different fidelity'.  Are there some things that other things do better - sure.  What are the positives for MP3 in trade for these things?  I'm not bashing Opiescene or anyone else - just pointing out that the logic does not follow.  It's like saying I'm choosing a low performance car because I choose to buy a Rolls Royce instead of a Ferrari because the measured performance of the Ferrari is better. 

Bryan

[macrojack]

I agree with DGO about the high horse. Opaqueice reminded us of the original theme while attempting to quell our overly indignant response to Daryl's comment. I can see his point and it makes me wonder about my own last response.
In fact, it makes me wonder about a lot of our assumptions. Just because there are quite a few of us in agreement about the superiority of high end sound reproduction, does not mean automatically that we are right. Certainly the majority opinion runs counter to our thinking. On the other hand, Budweiser outsells all microbrewers combined. That makes it the Bose of Beers.
Opaqueice was just trying to open our minds with logic and he did so politely and respectfully, if not successfully.
ScottF. is way out of line attacking him with that sarcastic approach and making assumptions about his qualifications.
I have 36 years experience in this hobby and can't begin to guess the thousands of hours I spent alone playing records and making tapes, changing equipment and calibrating turntables, moving speakers and trading gear. I have spent much of that time working in the industry and have dealt with, and gauged the response of, thousands of customers. I guess Scott could measure all that in minutes and say the same about me.
Despite all of that history, I don't feel confident that I can hear any better than the guy who is becoming a member right now.
We have to keep in mind that our beliefs about this equipment and the sounds it produces are purely subjective. That means that everyone experiences then differently and that no one is wrong. Personally, I think you are all out of your minds for not buying Zu speakers today but I don't think that opinion is any more or less valuable than the ones offered by shills for the house favorites.

I set my kids up with a teenager's dream out in our domesticated garage. JBL L-200 speakers with an Onix SP-3 and digital sources. Or so I thought. They much prefer sitting at their desks listening to their computers through headphones. Now and then, they will play a few LP's on my system but usually they just hang out alone. That's the future of Hi-Fi.

[BrianM]

"High fidelity" is just weasel wording. Originally a corporate brand name.  Fidelity to what?  The recording venue, the original master, the "spirit of the music"?  My own idea is that "fidelity" basically = low noise + low distortion + complete as possible reproduction of the original good/bad recording.  Whoop-de-do.  That ends up saying very little.  Distortion and noise only tell half the story, because you could have none of either without extracting all of the info that's there.  Or, you could extract all the info that's there but bungle its presentation & balance.  Trade-offs & gray areas.  If somebody's SET rig is high distortion, but sounds great, then why not just leave aside the "hifi" moniker and say it sounds great.  Sure it sounds good, but is it high fidelity???  In my experience most of what makes a stereo sound great, as opposed to just good, is the room it happens to be in.  Same as with live musicians.  Pavarotti in a practice room isn't nearly as impressive as Pavarotti on stage at the Met (ask me how I know).

Re: the $22000 speaker cables, now for only $3280...hot damn!  Wait'll my wife sees that.  I also hear that because of the surge in Iraq we can now finally reduce troop levels (back to what they were before the surge).

[BrianM]

Oh, and I don't buy macrojack's pessimism about the future of "hifi."  (That's provided I can bring myself to care, first.)  Kids will be kids.  Everybody grows up eventually and starts wanting nicer things.  Anyway the best thing that could happen to the industry would be for all the super-priced jewelry to die off.  You shouldn't need to spend tens of thousands for a killer stereo.

[macrojack]

Oh, and I don't buy macrojack's pessimism about the future of "hifi."  (That's provided I can bring myself to care, first.)  Kids will be kids.  Everybody grows up eventually and starts wanting nicer things.  Anyway the best thing that could happen to the industry would be for all the super-priced jewelry to die off.  You shouldn't need to spend tens of thousands for a killer stereo.

My boys are probably not good bellwethers for the future of high end audio because they are not very normal consumers. Dewey who's 17 is awaiting delivery of his new Eastman AR 810 CE guitar. He saved his money from cutting lawns and serving coffee and is paying $2035 for this hand carved, hollow-body jazz guitar. It would appear that he already wants nicer things. He also prefers vinyl to digital and won't even listen to my sound system in its present condition because he misses the Zu Definitions. Snob kid.

I have noticed, however, that the kids of today don't consider listening to music to be a group thing. They attend concerts to be there, not to listen. Personal stereos are where its at, and they don't hang out together like we did. I've talked to many other parents about this and all agree that the younger generation now takes their music in isolation. 
The emphasis is clearly on quantity. More value is placed on the number of songs or bits of music than on what it sounds like. Again, quantity trumps quality. Sign of the times?

[Daygloworange]

Personal stereos are where its at, and they don't hang out together like we did. I've talked to many other parents about this and all agree that the younger generation now takes their music in isolation.

I did that as a kid too.

I don't think it needs to be a communal thing. I built model airplanes in isolation as well. I read books in isolation as well.

Matter of fact, I still enjoy most of my hobbies by myself. I enjoy alone time.

I don't think that's harmful or unproductive. I think that is how you actually get more immersed into whatever it is you're doing.

Cheers

[BrianM]

I have noticed, however, that the kids of today don't consider listening to music to be a group thing. They attend concerts to be there, not to listen. Personal stereos are where its at, and they don't hang out together like we did. I've talked to many other parents about this and all agree that the younger generation now takes their music in isolation.

From a philosophical point of view, anyway, I'm down with that (aside from the concert as social gathering -- but when was that ever not the case, for many people?). Listening to music has always been a more or less private experience for me, and I've never felt entirely comfortable sharing it with someone else. Why? Because I invariably find I'm being watched for my reaction to something the other guy wants me to hear. I hate that, much as I have myself been guilty of it sometimes, too. Also, group listening sessions are often more about showing off (and envy!) than about sharing music.
 

The emphasis is clearly on quantity. More value is placed on the number of songs or bits of music than on what it sounds like. Again, quantity trumps quality. Sign of the times?

More value is placed on quantity because there IS more value there (economically).  But I don't think it's a zero sum game, i.e. the more quantity the less quality, by default.  Not that I know where "hifi" is headed, but it seems to me like from here, the baseline quality can only get better, much as with televisions and cars.  Switching from vinyl to digital (and smaller and smaller digital) was a momentary setback from the purely hifi perspective with some nevertheless HUGE payoffs for consumers and the music industry.  And today, good digital sounds as good as good vinyl IMO. (Like with cars, back in the day if you wanted good gas mileage you had to buy a flea-sized Datsun, or a VW Rabbit, but things ultimately evened out and the amenities caught up with the efficiency.)  And being able to fit all your stuff on a palm-sized device is nothing to sneeze at.  If they can find more ways to improve the sound of the more efficient media (like with SBs), nobody's going to refuse it, and people will pay extra for it.  What really needs to happen is to disabuse people of the notion that good/great sound requires big bucks.  But again, I really don't care what happens...widespread love of music is VASTLY more important to civilization than the quality of the playback, and that shows no signs of diminishing.  There will always be a niche for the audiophiles.

[Daygloworange]

The other seeds that have been sown today that I think vow well for audio in the future is the vast ability to be exposed to new music. That ability didn't exist years ago as it does today.

People are no longer slaves to radio. There are a vast number of ways people can randomly browse new music. Those are fantastic gateways to a vast world of music.

I think if anything, that is way healthier for the "art" of music.

In 10 years from now, Shania Twain wouldn't even get noticed for her (so called) musical talent, whereas today she is spun all over the radio. We are surrounded by mediocrity (sigh).

I think that with all of this, that the cream will rise to the top. That the pendulum will swing and that substance over style will prevail.

I see many more positives for the health of high fidelity and music, than I see negatives.

Cheers

[darrenyeats]

Also, group listening sessions are often more about showing off (and envy!) than about sharing music.

That's a pity. I had a listening party recently and, I must say, we had a great evening. I've never heard so much new music that wasn't just new to me, but great! And it was a good laugh. (Also, thankfully, there was only one other hi-fi head there and so it stayed a musical event.)

But again, I really don't care what happens...widespread love of music is VASTLY more important to civilization than the quality of the playback, and that shows no signs of diminishing.  There will always be a niche for the audiophiles.

The other seeds that have been sown today that I think vow well for audio in the future is the vast ability to be exposed to new music. That ability didn't exist years ago as it does today.

People are no longer slaves to radio. There are a vast number of ways people can randomly browse new music. Those are fantastic gateways to a vast world of music.

At the risk of peace and harmony breaking out over all of this thread...amen to that!!
Darren

[Double Ugly]

But again, I really don't care what happens...widespread love of music is VASTLY more important to civilization than the quality of the playback, and that shows no signs of diminishing.  There will always be a niche for the audiophiles.

The other seeds that have been sown today that I think vow well for audio in the future is the vast ability to be exposed to new music. That ability didn't exist years ago as it does today.

People are no longer slaves to radio. There are a vast number of ways people can randomly browse new music. Those are fantastic gateways to a vast world of music.

At the risk of peace and harmony breaking out over all of this thread...amen to that!!
Darren

Oh, no doubt!  God help us if *THAT* should happen! 

[dado5]

The other seeds that have been sown today that I think vow well for audio in the future is the vast ability to be exposed to new music. That ability didn't exist years ago as it does today......

Great point Dayglo!

Really the question should not be is Hi-Fi dead, but rather is "FCC monopoly limited air-wave market mediocrity dead"

The more sources for access to music that arise, the less traditional radio will viewed as the debut medium for new music. Competition, pure and simple. Of course small companies will drive this way first as most alternatives will be cheaper than the FCC monopoly . The flip side of the coin is that large-cap companies will use their resources to court the state into further market restrictions rather than adapt to new business models.   Eventually, the competing markets will eclipse the old (despite, or rather because of, state intervention) and even the old guard will have to adapt or die.

As I said earlier, the nature of digital means the quality of music (as far as file size is concerned) will only  increase. The growing number of music sources for the consumer means the quality of music (content-wise) will go up as well. A win - win for everyone - except the state and reactionary corporations that is.

[macrojack]

dado5 - Doesn't your sage commentary lead us back to the opening of this thread? The quality of content and performance will likely climb and accessibility will certainly increase, but the quality of the recordings will only be as good as is needed for MP-3. There will not be sufficient call for high rez, carefully miked production.

[Scott F.]

DGO, High Horse....you are probably right. I should have tempered my response, for that I apologize.

The issue that I have is when people summarily dismiss a given technology. In both cases, if these guys had heard a system which has been properly setup, they likely wouldn't make statements such as they did. Sure, I could pick apart Opaqueice's post (and no it wasn't inflammatory, just inaccurate on a few points), but I chose not to. Was my reply an attack...maybe......trite....absolutely. I know better 
Am I going to get into the specifics? Nope. It isn't worth it. I don't feel like getting into a protracted discussion/debate about distortion characteristics of amps and speakers and how we perceive them, not to mention our personal bias's of sound reproduction.



As Bryan eluded, pick your compromise, nothing in audio is perfect and to dismiss or even slight the other is silly.

That said, my vote is that High Fidelity smells funny.

[macrojack]

That funny smell is decay. Rot. Stagnation. All organs have ceased to function. It's dead.

[TONEPUB]

I guess what really confuses me is why anyone thinks High Fidelity (whatever that is...)
is dead or even funny smelling.

There is more music available than ever before.  Everyone and their cousin is pressing
records and if you are a digital person, you can download darn near everything that's available
at a mouse click.  Now you can even download it in high res!

Granted there are less traditional hifi shops and record stores, per se, but ebay and
audiogon though they have some perils attached have made it much easier to buy
and sell gear of all different types.

The gear in the stratoshphere sounds amazing and a lot of this technology has tricked
down to the affordable gear and there are more guys than ever like ModWright and
Red Wine audio that make really good products if you don't want to go mainstream.

And thanks to forums like this, it's a lot easier to find other music lovers/audiophiles/whatever
you want to call yourself and share information.

So, how is this a bad day?

I think it's better than ever, just in a different format.  I'm enjoying hifi much more
than I did 25 years ago when I had to put up with the one grumpy hifi store owner
that was my only portal to the world of audio....

[Russell Dawkins]

An enthusiastic AMEN to everything TONEPUB just said!

[BrianM]

The quality of content and performance will likely climb and accessibility will certainly increase, but the quality of the recordings will only be as good as is needed for MP-3. There will not be sufficient call for high rez, carefully miked production.

I really don't see how this could apply to classical music, anyway (the genre I happen to give a shit about). Classical has historically been associated with superior quality recordings, and it's not in the interest of classical artists and producers to go very far toward compromising the recording quality (yes, I know many classical recordings are sub-hifi, but very few are downright *bad* if you have good playback gear).  I've taken part in many classical recordings and have yet to see one that wasn't carefully miked for the best possible representation of the artists (within the limitations of a particular engineer's tastes, resources and skill, of course).  Not only that, I find the number of reference or near-reference quality classical CDs has been on the rise, and that every label has been able to raise its game over the past 10-15 years.  I can't see them regressing from here.  Granted, someone can always bastardize or shrink the original for smaller file purposes...but at least the original will still be there.

[Daygloworange]

DGO, High Horse....you are probably right. I should have tempered my response, for that I apologize.

Bahhh.....Don't worry about it, it's cool.

The issue that I have is when people summarily dismiss a given technology.

I think that a lot of people could be somewhat guilty of that to some degree or another, no matter where their personal convictions lie. We all have preferences, and therefore, potential bias.

As Bryan eluded, pick your compromise, nothing in audio is perfect

Absolutely. All of us here love audio. Just different strokes for different folks.

I get a total kick out of seeing how passionate people are with their audio setups, no matter how left field compared to me they are. It's the passion for audio that I see in the forefront, not the gear.

That funny smell is decay. Rot. Stagnation. All organs have ceased to function. It's dead.

C'mon macro, you're depressing me!      

but the quality of the recordings will only be as good as is needed for MP-3. There will not be sufficient call for high rez, carefully miked production.

 How could you claim that? The vast majority of recordings done today are done with way better recording habits than years ago.

I'm sorry macro, I can't for the life of me, see how you've come to that conclusion.

Cheers