[miklorsmith]

I disagree that hi-fi is dead.  In fact, the progress that has been made in the last three years by some of the younger, American designers has been staggering.

Products with which I am personally familiar - Zu, Red Wine Audio, and Modwright.

There are a number of other innovative firms, some active here, that are doing really cool things to further fidelity.  The concept of "hi fi" vs. "musical" has been discussed at length here and elsewhere.  Those new products are out there that aren't all about the fireworks and special effects if that's what you want to hear.

Of course the codger doesn't want to get into music servers - much easier to rip "those darn kids".

If you want an all vintage system, you can do that - the stuff is still available.  You can customize your vintage stuff with some modern flair to tweak the sound.  It's just like old times, but now you can choose other stuff that isn't the same as 50 years ago when you were a kid.

[sunshinedawg]

The real advances you're hopeful about are being severely hampered by unimaginative, backward thinking leadership.

You're right about that. The change will be slow and painful at times, that's just how things go sometimes. We will use coal to fire the electricity for a long time to come, but this is still better than having inefficient, polluting ICE's driving around. This could reduce our oil usage to really low levels. Hopefully we can trade coal for renewables, but like you said, some will try to control and profit from that as well. I'm just saying that its possible right now, and I think it will slowly navigate that way anyway for right and wrong reasons.

[csero]

It is really amusing when audiophiles accuse the masses with "ignorance about reproduction quality" and "good enough" attitude toward MP3, while when somebody suggest a better/other than equilateral stereo triangle solution, they respond with ignorance and "stereo is good enough" 

[miklorsmith]

Good point.  We The Concerned Audio People are like sieves - we filter a ton of claims and try to hang onto a few good nuggets, letting the rest go.  We largely assume .mp3 is worse than lossless.  I don't care, because storage is cheap and I like knowing I have captured the full, original waveform.  I do use .mp3 files for my portable player and they sound fine in that context.

We point the finger "those people" and rue their ignorance.  This is like the attorney accusing the chemist of ignorance in the law.  duh.  The chemist doesn't care about the nuances of tort reform.  And, the ipod hipster doesn't care that better sound is out there.  Pitting oneself against an opponent disinterested in victory is hollow chatter.  Widening the gap to an opponent who doesn't even recognize the engagement is sillier still.

As to the better acoustic model, there could be validity in it.  But, we all are limited in what we can pursue and have to make choices about what to spend our time on.  If it catches on and lots of people are "getting it", more will probably try it and in time it may become an acceptable alternative.

I wish more folks were into our hobby, as it would benefit all of us.  But to say that our small numbers guarantees bad sound forever is poppycock.

[csero]

I do use .mp3 files for my portable player and they sound fine in that context.

That is my point too. Stereo does not sound good enough in my context, large scale orchestral music or opera at home.

[aerius]

Let me rephrase. We are nowhere close to the necessary non-fossil-fuel-based electric power grid to support everybody driving electric cars.  As I see it, as long as fossil fuel companies can profit from a shift to V2G cars, we're going to be too slow switching away from fossil fuels.  "Some form of electric car coming out in 5 years" ain't a revolution, and ain't gonna cut it.  Should I assume that, like the current hybrid cars, these electric cars will be a novelty/fashion item for the next 10 years after that?  I think much more drastic action is needed, first and foremost by raising fuel efficiency standards immediately to buy more time.  The real advances you're hopeful about are being severely hampered by unimaginative, backward thinking leadership.

Bingo.  If we changed all our cars over to electric, it would take around 70 new nuclear generating stations to provide all the electricity needed to run those car.  For reference purposes, there are currently around 100 nuke plants in the US.  Then there's the fact that there's over 200 million cars which need replacing, just building all the new electric cars, even on a full scale war production footing is going to take a couple decades, and that's in addition to building all the nuke plants, uranium mines, fuel enrichment plants, upgrading the electrical grid, and all the other infrastructure work.  And on top of that you're going to be doing it in an economic contraction.  What we need right now is a centralized crash program for mitigation, massive fuel taxes, CAFE standards, fuel rationing, electric rail systems, the whole works, in other words, a full war economy setting to transition away from fossil fuels and onto sustainable energy.  That's the scale of the problem facing us right now.  It's not something which can be magically wished away by the free market fairies.  It's a problem which will require a lot of hard work and sacrifices to solve.

[miklorsmith]

That is my point too. Stereo does not sound good enough in my context, large scale orchestral music or opera at home.

Coolness - sounds like a great new thread!   

[Bob Reynolds]

I should add I'm at least as worried about global warming as I am about dwindling energy resources.  The steps to reduce pollution ain't happening fast enough.  Electric cars would help - you'd still have the power plants, but not the tailpipes.  But the scale of the reductions needed seems to elude people.

Update: the scale, and the time frame, that is.

For those of us concerned about the planet, this article may be of interest. It's something all of us can do at least three times a day.

http://www.cspinet.org/nah/05_07/cspinews.pdf

Here's a quote:

Livestock not only pollutes our water, air, and soil, said the FAO, it’s also “responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions... a higher share than transport.”

[WGH]

Good point.  We The Concerned Audio People are like sieves - we filter a ton of claims and try to hang onto a few good nuggets, letting the rest go.  We largely assume .mp3 is worse than lossless.  I don't care, because storage is cheap and I like knowing I have captured the full, original waveform.  I do use .mp3 files for my portable player and they sound fine in that context.

I would agree with you, whenever I have listened to a .mp3 the sound has paled compared to the original, but...
everyone knows how much Robin loves his music (and his Lorelei's) so a recent response caught me by surprise:

Hey, they were talking about me,,,, I'm ahead of the curve and I'm not mourning the inevitable demise of CD's anymore than I was the LP's.  It's a new day,,,, the day of the mp3 (or whatever codec you're using). WMP9 VBR Q90 codec myself, 2833 albums on 3 hard drives strong It's a new day baby! 

Robin

Perhaps we all still have something to learn, though from the article it sounds like JGH stopped learning a long, long time ago.

Wayne

[Zero]

Blah - it all fake anyway. It's just a matter of selecting the fake that does it for you. ho-hum.

[WGH]

Blah - it all fake anyway. It's just a matter of selecting the fake that does it for you. ho-hum.

Oh so right, I like it.
Stereophile should use your quote under their logo.

Wayne

[Steve]

Blah - it all fake anyway. It's just a matter of selecting the fake that does it for you. ho-hum.

I can understand your sentiment completely Zero. Any new innovations that might help the music seem more real/live seems rare. There are several reasons, but I would guess one reason is that after all their time and expense, their design(s) may simply be copied and credit given to the less experienced and less knowledgeable individual and not necessarily to the original designers. This leaves the original designer's to eat their time and vast expenses. This has been attempted before.

I think an article by Martin DeWulf, criminal defense attorney, addresses another concern.

http://www.boundforsound.com/reviews.htm#Truth

So a question; is it the quality of a product that primarily determines the sales, or the perception placed upon the product that creates some of the sales? Does one want to take the chance and create a more accurate/real/live sound product, and advance what some would want as a goal? Or will the market be too small?

Hope this helps.

[JLM]

Regarding energy/oil:

Covering 10% of Nevada with solar panels or 10% of North Dakota with windmills could replace all current U.S. power plants.

There were 71 nuclear power plants built in the U.S., some of which will never produce another kW, but we don't know how to decommission them.

Even with clean power, thermal pollution is an inevitable byproduct of "artificial" human activities.


Audio:

Holt's point, that the industry has lost its way, is well proven by the diversity of view points in this thread.  (Everything from don't listen to your audio system if you want perfection, to MP3 is fine with me, to its all fake anyway.) 

All very sad to me.  IMO over 90% of audiophiles (does that term still have any validity?) have overspent on equipment for the room they have to listen in, so its easy to understand why they might be fustrated. 

What I mean is that their room is too small, too crowded, too domestically compromised, too poorly shaped, too poorly acoustically isolated, and just not available very often.  Frankly with the crummy rooms many have available, they should just stick with headphones.

[Bob in St. Louis]

Nathan hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned, but sometimes fewer words can say the same thing:

Blah - it all fake anyway. It's just a matter of selecting the fake that does it for you. ho-hum.

That's funny stuff right there! Amen brother, that's excellent!

Bob

[acd483]

RE: Holt; I happen to think this elder is wiser.

If this commentary came from Peter Aczel, Atkinson would never have published it.

[BrianM]

Covering 10% of Nevada with solar panels or 10% of North Dakota with windmills could replace all current U.S. power plants.

10% of Nevada is over 11,000 square miles, more than 7,000,000 acres. An area twice the size of Connecticut.  Just saying...I agree it should be done, but it won't be easy, politically or logistically.

Holt's point, that the industry has lost its way, is well proven by the diversity of view points in this thread.  (Everything from don't listen to your audio system if you want perfection, to MP3 is fine with me, to its all fake anyway.)

Since when does there have to be one united "way" in the audio industry?  It isn't as though people pursuing the Holt way don't exist.

All very sad to me.  IMO over 90% of audiophiles (does that term still have any validity?) have overspent on equipment for the room they have to listen in, so its easy to understand why they might be fustrated. 

What I mean is that their room is too small, too crowded, too domestically compromised, too poorly shaped, too poorly acoustically isolated, and just not available very often.  Frankly with the crummy rooms many have available, they should just stick with headphones.

It's true that the room element gets underplayed, though there are always people in this circle to constantly remind us all.  And it's precisely the reason why so many enthusiasts pay for less realistic gear. Because their rooms can't handle the truth.  So if Holt deeply cares about the future "way" of the audio industry he should spend more time talking about lo-WAF room treatments, and see how many people go along with him.

[miklorsmith]

I'm having a hard time understanding why there needs to be a unified mission in audio.     We all have different ideas about what's important to us personally.  There are a LOT of folks who hinge their notion of realism to soundstaging and imaging.  The "old" gear couldn't do anywhere near the precision possible today.

That's not my cuppa but I embrace the opportunities and choices each of us has.  Of course, this galaxy doesn't have a roadmap and great confusion abounds.  I just don't understand how having so many choices available is a bad thing.  Figure out what trips your trigger and pursue that - don't sweat the hype that creates its own demand (you).

Yes, the room acoustic/speaker equation is a tough one.  Bigger speakers are always better, oh unless they're too big for your room which you won't know until they're placed - so take a flier!

There are too many dimensions of "truth" and they haven't properly been prioritized.  IMO, the core values are coherency, dynamics, and tone.  Beyond that, it's gravy.  IMO, get those things right and the complaints about realism melt away.

[Steve]

I'm having a hard time understanding why there needs to be a unified mission in audio.     We all have different ideas about what's important to us personally.  There are a LOT of folks who hinge their notion of realism to soundstaging and imaging.  The "old" gear couldn't do anywhere near the precision possible today.

That's not my cuppa but I embrace the opportunities and choices each of us has.  Of course, this galaxy doesn't have a roadmap and great confusion abounds.  I just don't understand how having so many choices available is a bad thing.  Figure out what trips your trigger and pursue that - don't sweat the hype that creates its own demand (you).

Yes, the room acoustic/speaker equation is a tough one.  Bigger speakers are always better, oh unless they're too big for your room which you won't know until they're placed - so take a flier!

There are too many dimensions of "truth" and they haven't properly been prioritized.  IMO, the core values are coherency, dynamics, and tone.  Beyond that, it's gravy.  IMO, get those things right and the complaints about realism melt away.

You leave alot of questions. If there are Many dimensions of "truth", then the vast majority would not prefer your interpretation, or any reviewer's interpretation. So why have any reviewers? We don't need you. So why shoot yourself into extinction so to speak?

Having so many "truths" opens up some dangers. First it would give an unscrupulous individual or reviewer the option of manipulating definitions/descriptions etc to suite his goals. (We have already seen definition changes in some manufacturer's ads. Always for someone's advantage and minipulate the perception to those purchasers.)

One may sit anywhere in the audience and receive his individual dose of reality, or "truth", the positioned microphone only allows one version of the "truth" at best, unless one is able to move the mic to one's sitting position.

As one moves and sits farther away from the mic, the spacial cues etc changes. This cannot be duplicated by changing the tonal balance of the audio system. So one is creating his own music. It may be to his liking, which is fine, but it is not the "truth" compared to where he would be sitting in the actual venue.

One might say, the recording from the mic is not accurate either. Should we stray farther away? Or, why not continue to work towards more truly accurate recordings and reproduction? We should not stop imo.

Having many "truths" allows one to comment his position/belief in one post/string/forum and then state an entirely different position/belief on another post/string/forum to fit the audience. Having multiple "truths" allows one an "escape" excuse while slyly desparaging one product and promoting another. How do we know which is truly superior? Any questions, hey it is just my version of the "truth". This is one of the very ways a shill/scam artists work. I would veare away from that model to be safe. We need to stay as pristine as possible.

Another result is that the rogue reviewer can change the perception of a product by simple phrase minipulation(s); therefore enhancing sales. Very subtly of course. On the contrare, with so many 'truths" how can one desparage any product or give any recommendation? Anyway, no one could effectively communicate a description when "truth" has so many meanings.

Of course, the real life music experience involves all the possible attributes, tonal balance, attack and decay times, dynamics, transparency, soundstaging etc in their proper relationships.

I hope this gets some thinking more deeply and the ramifications involved.

[Housteau]

Not that I have anything against the concept, but there's a beauty of simplicity about 2-channel audio...and it can sound darn good.  Good enough for most people, and deep enough for real enthusiasts to explore with a lot of satisfaction.  So keep shooting for the ideal, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water -- I doubt there is the consumer base to sustain it.  I.e., what kind of a room do I need for this ideal recreation of a 3D performance?  And what about all the recordings that aren't compatible with it?  Most of the good music has been recorded already, in stereo, don't forget.

Agreed.  I have yet to hear a multichannel system that bests a properly set-up two channel one in most areas.  Sound different, yes, but better, I don't know.  Most have sounded worse to me and artificial.  Maybe I need to get out more, but two channel does indeed present a very convincing and realistic 3D soundfield given a proper set-up in a room with good acoustics.

[Steve]

Well said Hous and Brian. Neat question.

Brian. May I suggest checking tonal balance, you know the routine etc and also some recordings like track 10 of Stereophile 3 cd and another closely mic performance. Track 10 involves a gent 50 feet back, in an auditorium, and is great at demonstrating if and how much depth distortion might be present; so one can get a sense if he really does sound 50 feet back (and walks towards the mic). And one would also get a sense if the closely mic recording does sound at the mic or too far back. "Old Man" is a nice close mic recording.

Just a thought and thanks for posing that question Brian.