Newsflash. CNet Says "Audiophilia a Dying Sector"

[hermanv]

Would you have paired a NAD C372 Integrated Amp ($1K) with $5K Speakers? The best you should really hope for in a NAD surround receiver is sound on par (though most likely less) than their top battleship grey integrated amp...

A HT Receiver is essentially an integrated amp with a pile of processing features for both audio and video & at least 3 times as many channels of amplification... Thus I never expect a HT Receiver to sound much better than an integrated amp for half its price....

You can definitely get a great sounding HT Receiver or Pre/Pro & Multi-Amp combo... you'll just have to spend about double what you would on an integrated amp...

In this case the primary use was home theater. I needed an AC-3 and PCM decoder and I had nice rear and center channels speakers.

There was little point in using the system for 2 channel, as I already had a dedicated set up. I would put the home theater set up into straight stereo mode for comparison, no processing, room enhancements or sub woofer (my main L/R speakers were good to 22Hz), I just expected sound that was close to my main system, if a little less refined, from the HT set up. I didn't get it.

The Denon was a 2 channel only set up. It had that etch, glare whatever you call it, a roughness with maybe a touch of white noise thrown in, centered at what sounded like 3KHz. What was sometimes called a transistor sound. By comparison the NAD had far less of this problem, it's main short coming was a muddling of sound, a lack of clarity, while somehow maintaining significant tweeter energy.

The closest I've heard to good stereo from an HT set up was the Outlaw, fewer negatives still, little or no improvement of the positives.

I realize budget is an issue and a good receiver system will still beat an iPod or Bose table radio hands down. A carefully chosen system will also beat the mass market "package" deals.

[E-Stat]

A HT Receiver is essentially an integrated amp with a pile of processing features for both audio and video & at least 3 times as many channels of amplification.

Hmmm. All the HT Receivers I've seen are receivers. While I don't know anyone who uses the AM/FM tuner section (never used mine), they do nevertheless have one.

I, too have a NAD unit (T763) that sounds pretty decent. While it doesn't have the refinement of the main system, it is still pretty neutral sounding. Since I'm a speaker guy, I could easily imagine driving some Maggies with it.

rw

[hermanv]

My NAD was also a T76?, did they make a T765? That sounds right. I think it was 70 or 75 watts/channel all channels driven. about 110 watts for stereo.

I certainly never meant to imply it was junk, if I wasn't an audiophile nut, I'm sure it would have been just fine.

[Ajani]

Hmmm. All the HT Receivers I've seen are receivers. While I don't know anyone who uses the AM/FM tuner section (never used mine), they do nevertheless have one.

LOL... my bad... I forgot to mention the tuner... since a Receiver is an Integrated Amp with a Tuner...

I guess it should be obvious how often I listen to the radio (apart from in my car - hmmm, just about never)....

[blackraven]

I'm not saying AVR's can compete with high quality separates, but you can still get very good sound from them. I'm using a $2200 Adcom AVR and I'll put it up against most sub $1,800 amps. Its 2ch sound is very good and it drives my Maggies without any problems at very high volume levels. Its all about equipment matching and synergy.

[Auricauricle]

I reckon I oughta weigh in here, as long as the dialog is still hot....

My opinion is that while the "audiophile" industry does not command the same presence as it once did, there are enough folks out there who enjoy good music and wish to have it reproduced in as exacting a way possible that there will always be a market. Unfortunately, computer-inspired music delivery systems, such as IPOD, MDISC, mp3, etc., have flooded the market and, armed to the teeth with aggresive marketing and the promise of "more for less", have pretty well knocked the ap industry to its knees. It's no wonder we see revered brands of old ponying up to the challenge and coming up with equipment that caters to the current market or pushes the envelope.

I use a two speaker and subwoofer system and don't plan to go further, speaker-wise. I am, first and foremost, a music lover. I take extreme measures, perhaps too much so, in searching for ways of reproducing music in as life-like a fashion as possible. This amounts to some processing, but if this gives me the ability to produce a sound that I consider aurally "true", then so be it....

I use a minidisc recorder and a cassette recorder, the latter being rather underused, but with the number of cassettes seen in thrift stores and friends' collections that I am interested in listening to, I keep it on hand and dub to the Minidisc if the material strikes the right chord. I do not consider the minidisc format to be a critically exciting medium, but as a source for material that either does not require critical listening or is "under consideration", the format is fine. A little expansion via the dbx, and I have enough juice for many hours of happy listening.

I will submit that while my enjoyment and demanding fashion of listening to music goes back to the Chromium Dioxide Age (post bronze and iron, LOL), my listening habits became decicively (sp?) more critical in the Walkman era, when Sony brought the portable to the mainstream and tape manufacturers like TDK and the like had to rush like mad horses to catch up. Things were brought to warp speed with the release of the CD which, at first, showed all the glories and awful limitations of the product. As I listenend more and more, I became increasingly demanding, and wanted nothing less than sonic perfection. Hence the many copies of "Dark Side of the Moon", incarnations of Beethoven's Ninth, all the gear and the tongue-in-cheek "Auricauricle" appellation.

Loving music and audiophilia are, as many of you have rightfully said, are different sides of the same coin. With most people, music is a pleasant foray that makes life's burdens a little easier to take and makes awful beer taste a little better. In the territory of the damned, where we tread, the love of music is not only these things but more. It is a blissful state that transports the soul. Like the enjoyment of any great art, the love of music inspires the deepest recesses of our very selves: the imagination. Think of any dead or lost civilization: there is no art. No music, no literature, no paintings, nothing remains of that creative spark. Without it, we are truly dead (ahem!).

So, is the audiophile industry dead? No. Is it changing? Yes. As long as you and I are around, to inspire others and to get misty every now and then when a pleasant strain comes through the ether, the love of music will never die, and there will always be people out there to make darn sure it doesn't.

Okay. 'Nuff rambling....

[hermanv]

As long as music represents an artistic collection of sound, people will go to live events and a few audiophiles will strive to recreate that emotional impact at home.

It may be worth mentioning that many of todays best selling music performers have little or zero artistic ability, this too may be contributing to the apparent decline of the audiophile industry. Why spend money to accurately reproduce drek?