The death of High Fidelity?

[squeegy200]

I noticed this trend years ago when I worked in a retail audio store. From my experience, most of the customers who entered my store found quality of reproduction irrelevant. Most associated sound pressure with sound quality.

However, audio enthusiasts could still seek audio equipment that suited their tastes knowing that available software could sound good if the right equipment was reproducing it.

However, that may no longer be true.

See article from Rolling Stone
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity/print

[basite]

true, good recordings are becoming rare (mostly in the pop music business, classical music is almost always good recorded these days, and jazz is well recorded too, so are some other albums)

they still exist though, but most pop music is flat sounding, no imaging, no depth, disorted, no balance,...

High end audio equipment (or good equipment, to not use the word 'high end') is also still available, but there is just more crap out there than there used to be...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[Feanor]

...
See article from Rolling Stone
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity/print

"The loudness war" has been the occassional topic of conversation for years. Fortunately it doesn't affect classical recordings that I mainly listen to, at all.

It's true that the average slack-jawed yokel is not much interested in sound quality. But I question whether he ever really was. The heyday of hi-fi was the '70s and early '80s when advertising was stoking public interest and having a stereo was a status symbol. Think about it: what was missing in those days? Answer: home video equipment. The great unwashed lost interest in hi-fi once VCRs hit the scene. Hi-fi per se was at the same time displaced by portable equipment for which sound quality almost irrelevant.

But high fidelity isn't dead, it is just resticted to more dedicated aficionados. The fact is that there is more high quality equipment available today than ever before.

[Mr Peabody]

The problem is recognized, now will enough people care or enough people in the industry care, like those mentioned, to effect any change. Maybe they will leave it up to the artist. I remember way back when Supertramp's, Breakfast in America came out they got some recognition for putting the cassette version out on a high bias (chrome) tape opposed to the normal crap cassettes. If done properly I could almost see the reversal of the trend becoming a marketing tool. Joe Blow's new album now released in uncompressed high fidelity!

[squeegy200]

The problem is recognized, now will enough people care or enough people in the industry care, like those mentioned, to effect any change. Maybe they will leave it up to the artist. I remember way back when Supertramp's, Breakfast in America came out they got some recognition for putting the cassette version out on a high bias (chrome) tape opposed to the normal crap cassettes. If done properly I could almost see the reversal of the trend becoming a marketing tool. Joe Blow's new album now released in uncompressed high fidelity!


I've noticed a handful of artists releasing their work in digital format but also offering LPs in the first releases. In some cases, they've even overlooked the CD format. I know iTunes is also considering a "lossless" download store to parallel their regular download format. They would offer uncompressed recordings for enthusiasts.

Your fortune telling skills may not be far off.

[Mr Peabody]

Talking about going back in time, when a new release comes out on LP and not CD. If the LP is $30.00 like many of the new vinyl that will leave me out. I also to this point have not downloaded any music. If this is the future it may leave me out.

[emaidel]

High Fidelity has been "dying" almost since it got started. Many people purchased reel-to-reel tape decks to record their friend's LP's, and more often than not, used cheap tape to do so, not wanting to spend the extra money for better tape. The result? Generally poor recordings, and pale comparisons of the original material.

Then my favorite disabuse of quality happened - 8-track tapes which sold like hotcakes and sounded horrible. Eventually, 8-track went bye-bye, and cassette tapes took hold. All the while, whether it be reel-to-reel copies, 8-track or cassettes, the LP held supreme in terms of quality of sound, yet sold in the lowest numbers.

CD's all but killed LP's, and I won't go into the never-ending argument as to which sounds better, but at least all can agree that CD's are at least decent sounding (I have a much higher opinion). CD's are also the best available source material generally available today, but MP-3 has taken over due to the immense popularity of i-Pods.

Much as I hate to say it, the American consumer has almost always chosen convenience over quality, and continues to do so. It is people like us here at AR (and other similar sites) that keep "high-fidelity" alive.

[melvin walker]

Poor quality recordings started with the beginning of stereo. One reason that a mono recording of Miles Davis " Kind of Blue " is more valuable than the stereo version , although both was sold at the same time.
To sell stereo records the big recording companies introduced greater dynamics , dynamics was always a problem with analog recordings.
Popular , classical and jazz all suffered from the decision of the recording companies to appeal to the new market by adding more dynamics , which increased sales of records as well as audio equipment. All this began in the early 1960's.

The true audiophile found himself buying recordings pressed in Europe. Example RCA ,
and Columbia pressed records differently in Europe. One could buy a European version of a recording avoiding American versions. The problem was one had to go to Europe to buy the recording.
Than there was European recording companies , Philips and Grammophon which could be purchased in America.
Problem they only recorded classical music.

Later some small recording companies started using the digital process in recording.
The problem was that in transferring an analog recording to digital some of the detail was lost.
But with the change in musical taste to rock and country , and with the decline in jazz and classical it made little difference. We in America had dumb down in our musical taste .
It was only a matter of time before audio equipment caught up.

Do we care ? some do , others must make a living. I once heard it said that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of an American.

[basite]

Poor quality recordings started with the beginning of stereo. One reason that a mono recording of Miles Davis " Kind of Blue " is more valuable than the stereo version , although both was sold at the same time.
To sell stereo records the big recording companies introduced greater dynamics , dynamics was always a problem with analog recordings.
Popular , classical and jazz all suffered from the decision of the recording companies to appeal to the new market by adding more dynamics , which increased sales of records as well as audio equipment. All this began in the early 1960's.

The true audiophile found himself buying recordings pressed in Europe. Example RCA ,
and Columbia pressed records differently in Europe. One could buy a European version of a recording avoiding American versions. The problem was one had to go to Europe to buy the recording.
Than there was European recording companies , Philips and Grammophon which could be purchased in America.
Problem they only recorded classical music.

Later some small recording companies started using the digital process in recording.
The problem was that in transferring an analog recording to digital some of the detail was lost.
But with the change in musical taste to rock and country , and with the decline in jazz and classical it made little difference. We in America had dumb down in our musical taste .
It was only a matter of time before audio equipment caught up.

Do we care ? some do , others must make a living. I once heard it said that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of an American.


Hereby, I again understand that you think everything vintage is good and new things are evil.

I do find it weird that you gave Kind of Blue as an example (I own this both on CD as on Vinyl), because I find it really nice. This is were mono fails. It has depth, but IMO stereo introduced a critical new thing too. It's called imaging. When Davis' suddenly 'appears' midway between the speakers, that's fantastic. And I wonder what it is that you have against dynamics? I agree that overly agressive dynamics can be bad, but without the dynamics, music would be dull and boring sounding (also reffered to as 'flat').
I don't know if you own 'Ron Carter - Blues Farm', but you should definately try this.

Also, what's wrong with rock? I can understand you like jazz (so do I, I enjoy every bit of it, both new and old jazz, like Miles Davis, for example). But what's wrong with rock?

I also think I understand why you don't like modern recordings. When I look at your equipment list, I can only think about how hot a new recording must sound through those JBL('s)...

I experienced this myself with my Advents (The Large Advent speaker, by Henry Kloss), I had a double pair (I still have it, but I kinda ran out of space :)), driven by a Mcintosh integrated. I also found them sounding much better with vinyl as with CD's (of course, vinyl always sound better, but I think you get the point...). If a cd was recorded as being 'neutral sounding', the advents would sound pretty harsh, it kinda fell apart, and the vinyl recordings opened the Advents up, everything suddenly came alive. Now I have (new) Thiel speakers, and cd's also open up the speakers now (although only with good recordings), and so does vinyl.



Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[Mr Peabody]

Isn't dynamics the opposite of compression who is the bad guy in this story.

[melvin walker]

Hereby, I again understand that you think everything vintage is good and new things are evil.

I do find it weird that you gave Kind of Blue as an example (I own this both on CD as on Vinyl), because I find it really nice. This is were mono fails. It has depth, but IMO stereo introduced a critical new thing too. It's called imaging. When Davis' suddenly 'appears' midway between the speakers, that's fantastic. And I wonder what it is that you have against dynamics? I agree that overly agressive dynamics can be bad, but without the dynamics, music would be dull and boring sounding (also reffered to as 'flat').
I don't know if you own 'Ron Carter - Blues Farm', but you should definately try this.

Also, what's wrong with rock? I can understand you like jazz (so do I, I enjoy every bit of it, both new and old jazz, like Miles Davis, for example). But what's wrong with rock?

I also think I understand why you don't like modern recordings. When I look at your equipment list, I can only think about how hot a new recording must sound through those JBL('s)...

I experienced this myself with my Advents (The Large Advent speaker, by Henry Kloss), I had a double pair (I still have it, but I kinda ran out of space :)), driven by a Mcintosh integrated. I also found them sounding much better with vinyl as with CD's (of course, vinyl always sound better, but I think you get the point...). If a cd was recorded as being 'neutral sounding', the advents would sound pretty harsh, it kinda fell apart, and the vinyl recordings opened the Advents up, everything suddenly came alive. Now I have (new) Thiel speakers, and cd's also open up the speakers now (although only with good recordings), and so does vinyl.





Keep them spinning,
Bert.

I have the mono , stereo and CD version of "kind of Blue". Why add anything to a recording. That is the main reason in St.Louis several audiophiles purchased their LP's
in Europe to avoid the juice-up version of many recordings made in America.
As posted earlier the recording industry was more interested in attracting new buyers than
producing quality recordings. The American automobile industry followed the same path.
Pzazz rather than quality. Now we have home entertainment. systems , where audio has taken a back seat to video.

Rock music or rock and roll was no different , again quality was not it's most important product. Most rock entertainers can neither sing , dance or act. As they said in "Singing in the Rain" A triple threat. With most modern adolescent driven anything the end results is even lower quality , we now have hip-hop and rap . The glorification of the slums. The put-down of women.

To say that that the technology of today in audio is not an improvement is nonsense.
There is some outstanding audio equipment available. That does not mean that we do not have the Stradivarius of audio equipment. The equipment of a time when we cared about the music we listened to or the movies we watched. We respected women and removed our hats when entering a room.
As Frank Sinatra said in "That's Entertainment " We can wait around and hope but we will
never see that again.

[melvin walker]

Isn't dynamics the opposite of compression who is the bad guy in this story.
Why add or remove anything from a performance. Isn't thats what live vs recorded sound is all about? Audio is about ? The nearnest one can come to live !
Do we need to add more color to a rose ? more depth to a Monet painting ? are darken
a sunset ?
The bad guy is addition whether compression or dynamics.

[melvin walker]

High Fidelity has been "dying" almost since it got started. Many people purchased reel-to-reel tape decks to record their friend's LP's, and more often than not, used cheap tape to do so, not wanting to spend the extra money for better tape. The result? Generally poor recordings, and pale comparisons of the original material.

Then my favorite disabuse of quality happened - 8-track tapes which sold like hotcakes and sounded horrible. Eventually, 8-track went bye-bye, and cassette tapes took hold. All the while, whether it be reel-to-reel copies, 8-track or cassettes, the LP held supreme in terms of quality of sound, yet sold in the lowest numbers.

CD's all but killed LP's, and I won't go into the never-ending argument as to which sounds better, but at least all can agree that CD's are at least decent sounding (I have a much higher opinion). CD's are also the best available source material generally available today, but MP-3 has taken over due to the immense popularity of i-Pods.

Much as I hate to say it, the American consumer has almost always chosen convenience over quality, and continues to do so. It is people like us here at AR (and other similar sites) that keep "high-fidelity" alive.

Well said , there is very little to add !

[jim goulding]

Well, your inimitable friend will add something. There are artists, those who play instruments (a few) and those who record them (more than a few), who keep high fidelity alive. Labels (people), even. When was the last time the majority mattered to art? We're a few, and discovery is our pleasure.

[basite]

I have the mono , stereo and CD version of "kind of Blue". Why add anything to a recording. That is the main reason in St.Louis several audiophiles purchased their LP's
in Europe to avoid the juice-up version of many recordings made in America.
As posted earlier the recording industry was more interested in attracting new buyers than
producing quality recordings.

I was under the impression that Kind of Blue was a stereo recording...


Now we have home entertainment. systems , where audio has taken a back seat to video.

we have, and I don't like them. It's good for movies and such (only when one can get a good surround system, not some crappy HTIB thing)


Rock music or rock and roll was no different , again quality was not it's most important product. Most rock entertainers can neither sing , dance or act. As they said in "Singing in the Rain" A triple threat. With most modern adolescent driven anything the end results is even lower quality , we now have hip-hop and rap . The glorification of the slums. The put-down of women.

I'm no rap/hip-hop man too, so I won't speak about that. But there actually is some pretty darn good recorded rock too...
a few albums come to mind, like Dire Straits - Money for nothing, which, btw, is exellent on vinyl. and The doors - Riders on the storm, and things like that...
Eric Clapton has made nice recordings too, so did Pink Floyd (exellent recordings)
It is true, however, that today's heavily commercialized music is bad recorded, that's why I don't even bother buying them...


To say that that the technology of today in audio is not an improvement is nonsense.
There is some outstanding audio equipment available. That does not mean that we do not have the Stradivarius of audio equipment. The equipment of a time when we cared about the music we listened to or the movies we watched. We respected women and removed our hats when entering a room.
As Frank Sinatra said in "That's Entertainment " We can wait around and hope but we will
never see that again.

No, (although I definately respect women, but I don't wear a hat, so I can't take it of :)). But as you said too, there still is some outstanding audio equipment available. The people who build and design that definately care about music, albeit in different ways sometimes. And the people who buy that equipment also care about the music too. Besides, that's what our hobby is: enjoying the music, and getting the best out of it.

btw, if you can find it, look for an album called 'Trasnoche', by Enrico Pieranunzi (piano) & Marc Johnson (bass). It's one of my personal favorites (of the new music, that is), and is an exellent recording...
and if you like cuban jazz, also check out Orlando Cachaito Lopez, it's his only album, so there's no real title or so, also an exellent recording...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[Bernd]

Great thread, and welcome Melvin. Where have you been hiding?
The older I get the more I enjoy the less messed with music. I only have two titles on Vinyl in both Mono and Stereo and both times the mono sounds much more real. Not to take anything away from stereo or digital. There is room for all formats, but it's more and more difficult to find pure great analogue recordings, but just today I found an Aaron Copland record which just sounds sublime.

Peace

:16:

[melvin walker]

I was under the impression that Kind of Blue was a stereo recording...



we have, and I don't like them. It's good for movies and such (only when one can get a good surround system, not some crappy HTIB thing)



I'm no rap/hip-hop man too, so I won't speak about that. But there actually is some pretty darn good recorded rock too...
a few albums come to mind, like Dire Straits - Money for nothing, which, btw, is exellent on vinyl. and The doors - Riders on the storm, and things like that...
Eric Clapton has made nice recordings too, so did Pink Floyd (exellent recordings)
It is true, however, that today's heavily commercialized music is bad recorded, that's why I don't even bother buying them...



No, (although I definately respect women, but I don't wear a hat, so I can't take it of :)). But as you said too, there still is some outstanding audio equipment available. The people who build and design that definately care about music, albeit in different ways sometimes. And the people who buy that equipment also care about the music too. Besides, that's what our hobby is: enjoying the music, and getting the best out of it.

btw, if you can find it, look for an album called 'Trasnoche', by Enrico Pieranunzi (piano) & Marc Johnson (bass). It's one of my personal favorites (of the new music, that is), and is an exellent recording...
and if you like cuban jazz, also check out Orlando Cachaito Lopez, it's his only album, so there's no real title or so, also an exellent recording...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

Most of Miles Davis's recordings for Columbia records were recorded both in Stereo and mono ., as was most recording pre 1963. Kind of Blue was recorded in 1959. The mono recording is quite valuable.
Many of the stereo recordings of that period was not very good as stereo recording methods was new as well as stereo equipment. Many audiophiles of that period was hard pressed to make the change to stereo , becuase of the poor quality of stereo recordings.

What kind of musical training does most of the rock stars have ? Why is it that they dress so poorly ? Frank Sinatra was appalled by the dress of Elvis , jeans and white socks.
As for as a hobby , it all depends on how committed one is to a hobby. The difference between owning a 3 series BMW and a 6 series BMW. a receiver or separates.
I never knew an audiophile who owned a receiver. In the days of the LP a changer.
I also never came in contact with an audiophile that listen to anything other than classical.,
jazz , broadway or pop vocalist such as Sinatra , Cole , Day , Williams , Jones Torme
etc.
Times has changed.

[E-Stat]

To sell stereo records the big recording companies introduced greater dynamics...
I think you have that reversed. Compressing the signal has always been about optimizing the sound for radio play, typically listened to in a car.


The true audiophile found himself buying recordings pressed in Europe. Example RCA , and Columbia pressed records differently in Europe. One could buy a European version of a recording avoiding American versions. The problem was one had to go to Europe to buy the recording.
Other good labels were Decca, EMI, and Telefunken. One of my mentors subscribed to Gramophone and ordered vinyl across the pond (in the 70s).



Later some small recording companies started using the digital process in recording.The problem was that in transferring an analog recording to digital some of the detail was lost.
I'm surprised you haven't heard of Telarc. They released the first digitally sourced recordings using Dr. Tom Stockham's new open reel recorder. They were not transfers. One of the earliest releases (1978) was The Firebird with the ASO. I had the good fortune to witness that event and play a very minor role (I was the official timer).



It was only a matter of time before audio equipment caught up.
While that is an accurate portrayal of the mainstream, my view is not nearly that cynical. We have FAR better gear available today than in the past. While the best is still astronomically priced, one can get very good sound for a reasonable amount in inflation adjusted dollars.

rw

[E-Stat]

Many of the stereo recordings of that period was not very good as stereo recording methods was new as well as stereo equipment. Many audiophiles of that period was hard pressed to make the change to stereo , becuase of the poor quality of stereo recordings.
In order to add the lateral information for stereo, one had to compromise either playing time or dynamic range. With existing long playing mono records, there was only one approach. Clearly, the widest dynamic range vinyl I have is in the form of short playing time 45 RPM 12" discs. Whether it;s Madonna singles or RR of Berlioz, they are far better than the typical LP. You can count the grooves on them because of the wide spacing.


I also never came in contact with an audiophile that listen to anything other than classical.,jazz , broadway or pop vocalist such as Sinatra , Cole , Day , Williams , Jones Torme etc.
Times has changed.
While I largely agree, guys like Mel Torme offer zero musical interest to me (I'm 50). You must separate a period of time from the level of talent. I enjoy many of the Windham Hill artists like Liz Story (Juilliard trained), and a host of other acoustically oriented genres. I also like many soundtracks ranging from John Barry's old James Bond scores to current ones from the likes of John Williams and Hans Zimmer.

rw

[melvin walker]

In order to add the lateral information for stereo, one had to compromise either playing time or dynamic range. With existing long playing mono records, there was only one approach. Clearly, the widest dynamic range vinyl I have is in the form of short playing time 45 RPM 12" discs. Whether it;s Madonna singles or RR of Berlioz, they are far better than the typical LP. You can count the grooves on them because of the wide spacing.


While I largely agree, guys like Mel Torme offer zero musical interest to me (I'm 50). You must separate a period of time from the level of talent. I enjoy many of the Windham Hill artists like Liz Story (Juilliard trained), and a host of other acoustically oriented genres. I also like many soundtracks ranging from John Barry's old James Bond scores to current ones from the likes of John Williams and Hans Zimmer.

rw

Why separate the period of time , the issue is musical training. Very view pop artist of today take the time to attend music institutions. There was a time when recording companies , Columbia , RCA , Decca , Capital etc, took the time to select a recording artist. Not today all one needs is a mixer and a guitar. Talent is talent.

One can include comedy , where are the comedy writers , A star such as Jack Benny or Jackie Gleason might have as many as 20 writers. Today a comedian is lucky to have two !
Is music composition any different , where are the Gershwin's , Porters , are Richard Rogers , writers that wrote music with lasting qualities.
What we have today is anyone and anything writing music , with little or no musical training.
The fact that we except this low class sort of entertainment only proves the dumbing down effect we are experiencing not only in music but audio as well.

Who gives a heck about lyrics , melody , or composition. As in the motion picture industry , there is no need for dialogue when the actors are either in bed , engaged in a car chase or blowing someone away.
It is a cheap way of producing both music , movies and comedy. A very interesting time period.

[E-Stat]

Why separate the period of time , the issue is musical training.
True, but there is a difference between talent and taste. I have a friend in his upper 60s who has sung in the Atlanta Symphony Chorus for over thirty years. He has been on the symphony board and was the liaison between the ASO and Telarc. His musical library is counted in the high thousands. He was a reviewer for The Absolute Sound for decades. Having said that, I've never heard him play Frank Sinatra or Mel Torme. Not his speed. Nor mine. On the other hand, he does listen to show tunes. I have vivid memories from the 70s hearing A Little Night Music and Pacific Overtures on his Dayton-Wrights. It was there I developed my passion for full range electrostats.

Talent exists today outside of the pop world. The challenge is finding it since such gets little or no airplay. Exposure is everything.

rw

[basite]

What kind of musical training does most of the rock stars have ? Why is it that they dress so poorly ? Frank Sinatra was appalled by the dress of Elvis , jeans and white socks.

well, I'm not saying all of them were attending an auditorium or so, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Clapton
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_knopfler

these guys are legends...



I never knew an audiophile who owned a receiver. In the days of the LP a changer.
I also never came in contact with an audiophile that listen to anything other than classical.,
jazz , broadway or pop vocalist such as Sinatra , Cole , Day , Williams , Jones Torme
etc.
Times has changed.

I have never met an audiophile who onwed a receiver too...
I have an integrated amplifier (see these threads: http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=24812 and http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=23872)

Receivers are not considered high end.

Times have changed indeed, while I can presume most audiophiles like jazz and classical too, there are definately those who like other genres too...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[Feanor]

Poor quality recordings started with the beginning of stereo. ...
To sell stereo records the big recording companies introduced greater dynamics , dynamics was always a problem with analog recordings.
Popular , classical and jazz all suffered from the decision of the recording companies to appeal to the new market by adding more dynamics , which increased sales of records as well as audio equipment. All this began in the early 1960's.

The true audiophile found himself buying recordings pressed in Europe. Example RCA, and Columbia pressed records differently in Europe. One could buy a European version of a recording avoiding American versions. The problem was one had to go to Europe to buy the recording. Than there was European recording companies , Philips and Grammophon which could be purchased in America. Problem they only recorded classical music.

Later some small recording companies started using the digital process in recording. The problem was that in transferring an analog recording to digital some of the detail was lost.
But with the change in musical taste to rock and country , and with the decline in jazz and classical it made little difference....
...

I wasn't involved at the time, but I'll bet poor recordings when back further than stereo. But do I'll agree that there were always bad stereo recordings; my personal experience with audio goes back to about 1971. There were poor recordings then and that predates digital recording by several years and CD by over a decade.

Many early CDs, especially those that were originally LPs reissued on CD were quite bad. (Early CD players were pretty awful too, but that is another subject.) To hear some audiophiles you would believe that poor sound originated with CD but in fact there were always a few good CDs, and since the late '90s, at least for classical, most are pretty good. Personally I doubt that it ever was the CD medium, but rather poor recording or master practice that has caused so much abhorance of CD.

If fact there are far more great classical recordings being released today than ever before. I don't know (or care) about popular genre, but there it seems there current issue is too little dynamic range -- not too much as per Melvin.

[Slippers On]

This is a fast moving forum subject and so I'll keep it brief.

Basite.. you never cease to amaze me with your depth!!

Melvin... you speak with heart and knowledge!

Some of these posts belong in the "Audiophile Debate" forum. This is the sort of content which will bring future audiophiles along.


Regarding Miles Davis' Kind of Blue. I have Mono and Stereo versions on LP and CD..........then they fuc**d it up by discovering it was recorded at wrong pitch! Agast, I have to start collecting again!.

Are some of you guys saying that European versions of LPs are better than US?

Slippers shuffling

[basite]

some Basite.. you never cease to amaze me with your depth!!

Thanks :)



Are of you guys saying that European versions of LPs are better than US?

Slippers shuffling


yeah, I found that a bit odd too...

today we're paying more money for an American print, and even more money for a Japanese one :)

[Slippers On]

Going for a piss, just learn't that I've been ripped off for 30yrs:-(

[Mr Peabody]

I'll probably post a thread but I heard the Dynaudio Sapphires today and at $16.5k they must undoubtedly be the best value in speakers going. They have a unique cabinet design and finish and there are only going to be 1,000 pair made. You'd think a speaker of limited number and quality would cost much more. The Temptations are $35K. Going backward there were 2 Clayton Audio, Class A, 300 watt monoblocks, T+A preamp and SACD player. Wow, what an impressive system. This is not the first time I heard Clayton Audio but it is the first time I've been blown away by them, talking about power, and power in reserve. The bass response of the Sapphires being driven by the Clayton's was incredible. High Fidelity isn't dead, and you can get astounding sound but in this case it carries a price tag. There is much more expensive gear though and comparatively this system was fairly priced.

[MudFlap]

Okay .... Here's a post from the Audio Maven Peanut Gallery.

The death of HiFi....??

Nah.... as long as there's the few (or many) of us out there that appreciate the beauty of clean gear and perfect pitch there will always be room for HiFi.

Thank God.

My listening isn't as refined as many (or even most) .... but when I hear something special it keeps me wanting more.

mf

[pixelthis]

I just buy special editions and the like, hope for the best, you're really at the mercy of recording studios, so I stick to labels That I know love music.
As for a "mac" someday I will buy one, I USED TO LISTEN TO THEM FOR HOURS AT THE LOCAL AUDIO SHOP AS A TEEN, never heard anything better.
BTW anyone ever hear of Island records? They put out some pretty good jazz reissues
here a while back.
Nobody mentions the kinda blue SACD , which is amazing. If SACD surrives it will be the hope of audiophiles. I just hope it does:1:

[Feanor]

I just buy special editions and the like, hope for the best, you're really at the mercy of recording studios, so I stick to labels That I know love music.
As for a "mac" someday I will buy one, I USED TO LISTEN TO THEM FOR HOURS AT THE LOCAL AUDIO SHOP AS A TEEN, never heard anything better.
BTW anyone ever hear of Island records? They put out some pretty good jazz reissues
here a while back.
Nobody mentions the kinda blue SACD , which is amazing. If SACD surrives it will be the hope of audiophiles. I just hope it does:1:

The Kind of Blue SACD should lay to rest Melvin's quams about this album in stereo. As far as I know it is not available as a hybrid SACD however.

However, IMO, SACD's big advantage is multi-channel. All the high-end pundits say that SACD sounds better as a medium; however I can't vouch for that on my equipment, (including my ears: I don't hear much above 10kHz).

[E-Stat]

All the high-end pundits say that SACD sounds better as a medium; however I can't vouch for that on my equipment, (including my ears: I don't hear much above 10kHz).
Interestingly, the advent of the higher resolution formats has yielded better results for the lowly Redbook CD medium. The primary limitation of the 44.1k sample rate was not the resulting bandwidth per se, but rather the need for an abrupt filtering cutoff to assure that there is ZERO content above 22k. The original so called "brickwall" filters introduced phase shifts that lost resolution. My understanding is that virtually all recordings today are mastered at least at 192/24 allowing for a far more gradual filter slope (done digitally at that). Then remastered to 44/16. Win win for everyone.

rw

[Feanor]

... My understanding is that virtually all recordings today are mastered at least at 192/24 allowing for a far more gradual filter slope (done digitally at that). Then remastered to 44/16. Win win for everyone.

rw

I thought that filter high-frequency "noise" was necessary on playback. Does the pre-filtering you mention mean that for recordings done this way there is no need for filtering because there is no sound above 22kHz? I'm confused on this point because I thought you had the bits had to be at 44kHz in order to accurately reproduce 22kHz.

As understand it, there are DACs the neither oversample nor filter at all, (e.g. Audio Note?) If these DACs work and sound good, I'm wonder why all the fuss about over or upsampling???

[E-Stat]

I'm confused on this point because I thought you had the bits had to be at 44kHz in order to accurately reproduce 22kHz.
That is the so called Nyquist Theorem which states one must sample at least twice the desired frequency.


As understand it, there are DACs the neither oversample nor filter at all, (e.g. Audio Note?) If these DACs work and sound good, I'm wonder why all the fuss about over or upsampling???
I believe the over or upsampling schemes are designed to address the other difference between Redbook and the hi rez standards - the word size. That affects the ultimate low level resolution.

rw

[blackraven]

Here are 2 interesting addresses that I found a while back that are very interesting and concern upsampling.
www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/upsampling-vs-oversampling-for-digital-audio

www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology

[Mr Peabody]

The first article is almost scary as some one who uses an Audio Note DAC. I think I must have missed the intended info on the 2nd link.

[blackraven]

The second link just FYI for anyone interested in other audio reviews.

[pixelthis]

The Kind of Blue SACD should lay to rest Melvin's quams about this album in stereo. As far as I know it is not available as a hybrid SACD however.

However, IMO, SACD's big advantage is multi-channel. All the high-end pundits say that SACD sounds better as a medium; however I can't vouch for that on my equipment, (including my ears: I don't hear much above 10kHz).

I liked the surround for awhile, even woried about buying a Blu-Ray since my Sacd is using my multichannel in.
BUT after listening in stereo for awhile I have concluded that I prefer the stereo, which is the way most of this was intened to be listened to.
If the surrounds could be used for ambience fine, but how do you do that? So a lot of "surround" is just instruments and vocalists bouncing around you.
Kinda distracting, really.:prrr:
And I DONT NEED NO STINKIN HYBRID, HAVE THE cd:1:

[blackraven]

I have to agree with you on multichannel sound. It never really appealed to me. However, after hearing 2ch SACD sound with the marantz SA8001 SACD player which is a 2ch SACDP, I'm convinced that it sounds better that standard CD. If I had mostly SACD's then this would be my favorite format. Also, magnepans fill my room with sound that who needs multi channel except for hometheater.

[pixelthis]

:1:
I have to agree with you on multichannel sound. It never really appealed to me. However, after hearing 2ch SACD sound with the marantz SA8001 SACD player which is a 2ch SACDP, I'm convinced that it sounds better that standard CD. If I had mostly SACD's then this would be my favorite format. Also, magnepans fill my room with sound that who needs multi channel except for hometheater.

SACD is my favorite format.
After talking about it, got out my kinda blue, sounded amazing as usual.
Gonna play my Ivan Linns complilation later.
Sacd has been a pleasant surprize, unlike DVDAUDIO its a non gimmicky high rez format,
and seems to be hanging in there.
Sony did it right, appealing to the high end listener , they knew that this was the main market.
I hope it makes it, there needs to be something for those of us who want a modern high rez format, the video game generation have their cheap Mp3s, the "audio conoseuirs
their scratchy LPS and distortion laden tubes.
WE TYPES WHO JUST LOVE GOOD, PURE, ACCURATE AUDIO deserve our little piece of land also

[Mr Peabody]

Pix, I've never heard you talk about SACD before. I'm surprised you'd have an all but dead format :) You'd think Sony being a music company and SACD being their baby they would have supported it longer. Maybe they just knew the big Blu-ray war was coming. It is interesting though that many manufacturers keep making either SACD or universal players.

[bobsticks]

:1:

SACD is my favorite format.
After talking about it, got out my kinda blue, sounded amazing as usual.
Gonna play my Ivan Linns complilation later.
Sacd has been a pleasant surprize, unlike DVDAUDIO its a non gimmicky high rez format,
and seems to be hanging in there.
Sony did it right, appealing to the high end listener , they knew that this was the main market.
I hope it makes it, there needs to be something for those of us who want a modern high rez format, the video game generation have their cheap Mp3s, the "audio conoseuirs
their scratchy LPS and distortion laden tubes.
WE TYPES WHO JUST LOVE GOOD, PURE, ACCURATE AUDIO deserve our little piece of land also

I agree with Pix...and I'm not sure what to do about it.

[pixelthis]

I agree with Pix...and I'm not sure what to do about it.


I hear they are working on a cure.
As for SACD being a "dead" format, who told you that Mr p?
As you said, they keep making players and discs, theres a lot of discs out there, I have
several, for a "dead" format it seems to be doing Okay.
As for DVDAUDIO, that ones as dead as Abraham Lincoln's pecker, maybe you're thinking about that:1:

[pixelthis]

Its my hope that Sony will keep this format alive, they should since it could be the new LP, a quality standard.
Pioneer kept laser alive for a decade, which was much more expensive.
If their track record on Minidisc is any indication, theres hope.
ITS A POPULAR FORMAT(kinda) its not like its Elcassette or something:1:

[Feanor]

Pix, I've never heard you talk about SACD before. I'm surprised you'd have an all but dead format :) You'd think Sony being a music company and SACD being their baby they would have supported it longer. Maybe they just knew the big Blu-ray war was coming. It is interesting though that many manufacturers keep making either SACD or universal players.

SACD titles have grown at a steady but not exponential rate. But for pop/rock music SACD is dead -- in fact it was stillborn. But you pop/rock lovers need to realized that MP3 and horribly compressed CD is where that genre is at.

According to SA-CD.net (http://www.sa-cd.net/home), numbers of titles publishe are the following; (some might be discontinued):

All SACDS - 4999, (Jan 3/08, 11AM EST)
Classical - 2746
Jazz - 882
Pop/rock - 438

[GMichael]

SACD titles have grown at a steady but not exponential rate. But for pop/rock music SACD is dead -- in fact it was stillborn. But you pop/rock lovers need to realized that MP3 and horribly compressed CD is where that genre is at.

According to SA-CD.net (http://www.sa-cd.net/home), numbers of titles publishe are the following; (some might be discontinued):

All SACDS - 4999, (Jan 3/08, 11AM EST)
Classical - 2746
Jazz - 882
Pop/rock - 438



And the 438 listed for "pop/rock" are mostly rock. Almost nothing for the pop audience. They are happy with their 192k Ipods and MP3's.

Pix, while I agree with your "WE TYPES WHO JUST LOVE GOOD, PURE, ACCURATE AUDIO deserve our little piece of land also" statement, I don't understand why you don't feel the same way about video.

[Mr Peabody]

I believe Sony quit pressing SACD's over a year ago. I remember that being a big announcement. If they have begun again, please enlighten me. SACD is barely surviving as a nitch product. It would be interesting to from somebody like Acoustic Sounds what their LP & SACD sales figures are. My guess is vinyl sells more than SACD.

When listening to SACD vs Redbook on high quality players and equipment I just didn't hear enough difference to warrant the trouble of getting into another format. The high end shops in this area don't show support for it either which strikes me as odd because all of them carry the players. But really the manufacturers said for get making 3 or more different format players and started making universal players so you can't help but to have something that plays SACD. This also strikes me as odd that most all manufacturers would offer a unit that at least will play SACD for a catalog of 4,999. The electronics industry is starting to look like the government when it comes to common sense. So now you can buy a universal player that does the job of at least 3 players and I'm expected to believe the sound is just as good through these all in one box units as a stand alone player. I don't think so. It strikes me odd that an audiophile faction would embrace such a universal player while thumbing their noses at a receiver. Video circuits were so degrading to audio that Bryston and Classe had HT processors with no video ins/outs. I don't know if isolation has gotten better or they caved in to sales pressure, I know Classe processors do video now, I'm not sure about Bryston.

It also strikes me odd that some one who uses the word "pecker" would be kicking back and digging on the type of music available on SACD :)

[blackraven]

This issue with SACD's also helped me decide on going with the cambridge azur 740c/840c over the Marantz SA8001 SACDP. SACD does seem to be dying. The 740c sounded so much better in standard CD mode and approached the sound of SACD that it wasnt worth it to go with SACD.

[Feanor]

....

When listening to SACD vs Redbook on high quality players and equipment I just didn't hear enough difference to warrant the trouble of getting into another format. The high end shops in this area don't show support for it either which strikes me as odd because all of them carry the players....

I agree with you, Mr.P, that the sound quality difference between SACD and really well recorded RBCD is insignificant. Although check our AA's Hi-Rez forum to find a lot of people who strongly disagree.

What I would most regret about the passing of SACD would be the one high-quality multi-channel medium actually available. Obviously neither LP nor CD deliver this. Personally I would be content with a CD quality M/C medium, (DTS?), but for all intents and purposes there ain't one. :mad:

I've said it before and will say it again: vinyl might not kill CD as some have suggested, but it will (or already has) killed SACD. A pity because vinyl is the inferior medium from every rational perspective.


....
... But really the manufacturers said for get making 3 or more different format players and started making universal players so you can't help but to have something that plays SACD. This also strikes me as odd that most all manufacturers would offer a unit that at least will play SACD for a catalog of 4,999....
...

Not at all: for most consumers it's easy to avoid SACD. Universal players are more costly than the mass market offerings, and by no means all high-end DVD players support SACD.

Audiophiles who like SACD would like dedicated SACD players but have been abandoned by the makers. And most available, dedicated SACD players are stereo only, e.g. the Marantz SA8001.


....
It also strikes me odd that some one who uses the word "pecker" would be kicking back and digging on the type of music available on SACD :)

Huh?? Did I miss something here :confused5:

[Mr Peabody]

Feanor, my last comment was referring to something Pix said in his post, something like, "DVD-A is as dead as Lincoln's pecker", see post #42. He has quite a way with words.

I wouldn't mind hearing a good MC recording where the mixing and engineering was done properly. The few DVD concerts I've heard in 5.1 give some ambience but most of the surrounds just give clapping fill. And I don't think it's natural to have instruments coming out of the rears. Maybe for Classical and you were getting the perspective of the conductor. I've always wanted to hear the MC mix of Dark Side Of The Moon (Pink Floyd) to see what they done to that.

[E-Stat]

I wouldn't mind hearing a good MC recording where the mixing and engineering was done properly.
You need to hear a recent Telarc MC recording.


And I don't think it's natural to have instruments coming out of the rears. Maybe for Classical and you were getting the perspective of the conductor.
That's the difference between a recording that was mixed for MC as opposed to recorded for MC.


I've always wanted to hear the MC mix of Dark Side Of The Moon (Pink Floyd) to see what they done to that.
While you may get *cool sounding* results, you could never attain the underlying objective for MC - real time multi channel recording of the original event. I don't like hokey effects either.

rw

[Worf101]

I've watched this thread, twist, turn and morph over the past half hour I've been reading it. When done I was at first tempted to write some long treatise on the current state of recorded music et al. But in the end two lyrics kept popping up in my head.

"There's a sound sure for every time." - "Spongee Reggae" - Black Uhuru

"Rollover Beethoven and tell Tchikofsky the news!" Chuck Berry

Some 40 years ago my parents felt the same way about my brother's music (James Brown, Funkadelic etc...) and said so. 30 years hence folks from "generation z" will be saying the same thing about the pop drivel (probably being downloaded straight to the cranimum by then) present in that era.

Same song yesterday, same song yesterday..." The Last Poets.

As long as there's recorded popular music there will be old folks, like some here, railing against the garbage that passes for music in some future time. It's inevitable. Still in all it's a fun argument to have.

Da Worfster

[Woochifer]

I believe Sony quit pressing SACD's over a year ago. I remember that being a big announcement. If they have begun again, please enlighten me. SACD is barely surviving as a nitch product. It would be interesting to from somebody like Acoustic Sounds what their LP & SACD sales figures are. My guess is vinyl sells more than SACD.

What I read last year was that Sony's Terre Haute facility cut back the SACD production line to one daily run per week. SACD releases are still trickling out, but most of them are not for high volume titles.

Not sure how the vinyl volume would compare with SACD. Problem here is that SACDs also include hybrid discs, and there was always inconsistency as to whether hybrid discs would be counted as CDs or if the count would only include single-layer SACDs. I recall that when Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon was rereleased on a hybrid CD/SACD disc, that title alone outsold all of the new vinyl produced that year combined. Of course, it's probably only a small minority of people purchasing that title that use the SACD layer, so you can't really use that as a measure of SACD adoption either.


I wouldn't mind hearing a good MC recording where the mixing and engineering was done properly.

Try the San Francisco Symphony's Mahler series. Exceptional recordings and performances all the way around. I was in attendance at Davies Symphony Hall for the Symphony No. 5 recording session, and the mike placement is designed to emulate the conductor position. Comparing the multichannel mix with the two-channel mix, it's no contest -- the multichannel mix is far more realistic rendering of how the SF Symphony actually sounds inside of Davies Hall. This is not to say that the sound is perfect, because Davies Hall has always had issues with the acoustics. But, what these recordings do in the multichannel version is recreate the live experience inside Davies Hall, and to that end, the Mahler series does a great job.

Another reference quality title is the LA Philharmonic's recent release of Stravinsky: Le Sacre du Printemps. This recording has got some mindblowing sonics, and it's another great multichannel exploration. I've yet to see a concert at Disney Hall (which has gotten plenty of acclaim for its acoustics), so I have no idea how well this recording captures the experience. But, at a subjective level, this is a great listen.


The few DVD concerts I've heard in 5.1 give some ambience but most of the surrounds just give clapping fill. And I don't think it's natural to have instruments coming out of the rears. Maybe for Classical and you were getting the perspective of the conductor. I've always wanted to hear the MC mix of Dark Side Of The Moon (Pink Floyd) to see what they done to that.

Well, a lot of stereo recordings aren't all that natural either (nor are they supposed to be, given that nearly all pop recordings are purely studio creations). One advantage of multichannel is that it allows for more coherent differentiation between individual instruments. A stereo mixdown entails a lot of individual tracks getting crammed together, and creating that phantom center effect often requires a lot of EQ and processing. Spreading the instrumentation across five channels can actually make individual instruments sound clearer because a level of processing might have been removed. There are plenty of approaches to multichannel recording, and just there are plenty of good and bad stereo recordings, you have a similar differentiation between multichannel recordings.

DSOTM is actually not one of the better multichannel recordings that I've heard. If you want a good example of what multichannel adds to a studio recording, you might want to give Steely Dan's Two Against Nature and Everything Must Go a listen (those are DVD-As that also include DVD-V compatible 1.5k DTS tracks). In those cases, the instrument placement into the surround channels created a level of depth perception that I've rarely heard from any two-channel playback. The good multichannel recordings are not about creating a ping-pong effect with instruments coming at you from all angles, but rather creating a sensory envelopment effect that creates a very strong perception of depth.

[Mr Peabody]

I don't have SACD but I will have to look for one of those DVD's. Maybe if a MC music format takes off the engineers will be allowed to explore and do the MC recordings justice.

[audio_dude]

we always get at least one of these threads per year...someone else saying how hifi is dead! nobody wants it! the audio world is falling to bose! oh noes!

yeah... But it is fun discussing it all I guess...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Interestingly, the advent of the higher resolution formats has yielded better results for the lowly Redbook CD medium. The primary limitation of the 44.1k sample rate was not the resulting bandwidth per se, but rather the need for an abrupt filtering cutoff to assure that there is ZERO content above 22k. The original so called "brickwall" filters introduced phase shifts that lost resolution. My understanding is that virtually all recordings today are mastered at least at 192/24 allowing for a far more gradual filter slope (done digitally at that). Then remastered to 44/16. Win win for everyone.

rw

Just a few comments to your post. While you are correct about the brickwall filters being an issue, that issue was long put to rest when oversampling became the norm within CD players. Most all of the dedicated CD players I have owned use 8x oversampling which would push the filter response up to 352.8khz. So there is no need for brickwall filters anymore. Oversampling is also being used in digital recorders as well so the source recording does not have brickwall anti aliasing filters in the way during the recording process.

As far as music recording sample and bit rates, it depends on the medium the recording is destined for. Most music only recordings are done at 24/176.4khz or 24/88.2khz with the latter more prevalent. This makes downconversion to red book CD easy and less computational heavy. If a recording is bound for DVD-A, it is most likely recorded and archived at 24/96khz. 24/192khz is problematic in several ways. It requires alot of storage to archive and alot of computational power to process. There is some problems with bass lag and unnatural image expansion. Lastly there is no medium with the exception of bluray disc that could pass it in multichannel.

[E-Stat]

Most music only recordings are done at 24/176.4khz or 24/88.2khz with the latter more prevalent. This makes downconversion to red book CD easy and less computational heavy.
Thanks for your perspective.

rw