Newsflash. CNet Says "Audiophilia a Dying Sector"

[Ajani]

Theres a word for that...RIPOFF.\Why anybody pays several grand for a "music server" is beyond me when a 300$ pc can do the same job.
CIRCUIT CITY HAD A "MEDIA SERVER" for 500$, basicall a TOWER PC.
And dont tell me you have to be "computer literate" to use your PC for a music server, Itunes, etc betray that falsehood.
Maybe the "audiophille " isnt dying but just moved maybe he's listening to itunes piped through his stereo.
I keep hearing about people ditching their CD collections, burning their music to HD, maybe this is the future.
If so then we need a version of teh future that is as "audiophile" quality as possible.

lol... I have to agree.... In the past I've used a mac-mini connected directly to my preamp as a music server... Now I run itunes on my laptop and stream all my music (apple lossless format) via a Squeezebox Classic...

Rather than spend big money on an overpriced music server... just set up a cheap computer/squeezebox combo and buy a good DAC (if you must)....

[hermanv]

In my previous post, I did not mean to imply that AVR's are junk although I came off that way. Its just that back in the 70's you could get very good 2ch sound from a $150 receiver. (although if you browse this forum and mention that you want to use an AVR for quality 2ch music, many people try to steer you away from this saying that a sub 1K receiver cant possibly give you excellent sound quailty).

I used to own a $1799 NAD surround receiver, I had 1st class speakers (about $5K worth) and try as I might and no matter how hard I wished, the sound was never as good as my dedicated 2 channel system. I also used to own an all Denon system (about $3K worth), again I couldn't get the 2 channel sound quality I was striving for.

So while I have certainly not heard all brands of receivers, my personal experience is that this a a hard way to go if true audiophile sound is your goal.

Many well regarded stereo only people now make 2 channel integrateds or pre-amps with a bypass system to avoid duplication of expense but still allow a good mix of quality 2 channel and surround sound.

[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.

[Ajani]

I used to own a $1799 NAD surround receiver, I had 1st class speakers (about $5K worth) and try as I might and no matter how hard I wished, the sound was never as good as my dedicated 2 channel system. I also used to own an all Denon system (about $3K worth), again I couldn't get the 2 channel sound quality I was striving for.

So while I have certainly not heard all brands of receivers, my personal experience is that this a a hard way to go if true audiophile sound is your goal.

Many well regarded stereo only people now make 2 channel integrateds or pre-amps with a bypass system to avoid duplication of expense but still allow a good mix of quality 2 channel and surround sound.

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...

[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.

[E-Stat]

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.

There were many 76x receivers. Look here. The 763 does 100 watts all channels driven.

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.

I didn't take your comments that way. I'm an audio freak, too.

rw

[SlumpBuster]

Another thought to throw into the mix is the use of AVRs with separate amps. I have what a consider a decent mid level system: Yammie RX1500 with Yammie M-65 amp. I added the amp for two channel stereo. With the Pure Direct feature the AVR just becomes a straight preamp gain stage. Have I not just created a separates system for less than $1200? Plus, when I do wan't to watch a movie, the AVR is still right their to do the processing.

[hermanv]

There were many 76x receivers. Look here. The 763 does 100 watts all channels driven.

You made me look, found old paperwork it was a T770. Funny, manual on the site you listed seems to be missing any specs such as power/channel.

[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)....

[Ajani]

Another thought to throw into the mix is the use of AVRs with separate amps. I have what a consider a decent mid level system: Yammie RX1500 with Yammie M-65 amp. I added the amp for two channel stereo. With the Pure Direct feature the AVR just becomes a straight preamp gain stage. Have I not just created a separates system for less than $1200? Plus, when I do wan't to watch a movie, the AVR is still right their to do the processing.

Yep... you've essentially created a seperates system for under $1.2K... That's a pretty common practice now... another one is to get an integrated amp with HT passthrough in place of the M-65....

Since I'm a 2channel guy, I'd just opt to spend the entire $1.2K on either an amp/pre combo or an integrated amp, rather than have part of my budget spent on the Tuner (thanks E-Stat), extra channels of amplification and all those audio/video processing features....

[filecat13]

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)....

My pre/pro has a tuner, though it's not a touted feature. I don't use it or need it, but there it is, sitting unobtrusively for the most part.

When I moved, I hooked the pre/pro up to a two channel amp and used the tuner as the source while I put everything together. It was actually one of the better tuners I've used in terms of pulling stations and providing excellent FM sound. Still, without an analog signal strength meter, center tuning meter, and an illuminating STEREO light, it just didn't seem right. It's merely a digital readout on the LCD screen.

I don't think I've listened to it since.

FM radio seemed like an "audiophile" experience to me when I used to listen to Texaco Presents the Metropolitan Opera on the old Magnavox console as a kid, but it doesn't seem so anymore. Maybe HD radio? Haven't tried it.

[E-Stat]

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

I could have worded my observation a bit more tactfully. Should have included a smiley face.

Speaking of unused features, how many folks actually double up on the cable runs just to switch the video through the receiver?

rw

[Worf101]

I could have worded my observation a bit more tactfully. Should have included a smiley face.

Speaking of unused features, how many folks actually double up on the cable runs just to switch the video through the receiver?

rw

When your ole lady's as "technically challenged" as mine, if you can make the process of switching from DVD to TV a "one button process" by doubling up on your cables, you do it.

Da Worfster

[Ajani]

When your ole lady's as "technically challenged" as mine, if you can make the process of switching from DVD to TV a "one button process" by doubling up on your cables, you do it.

Da Worfster

Personally, I'd rather use a Logitech Harmony remote.... so when she wants to watch a DVD, she just presses DVD and everything that should be turned on is turned on and switched to the right settings (oh, and the DVD begins playing)... and when she needs to watch TV, the settings change and the cable box comes on... (depending on how much you spend to double up cable, the Logitech may be a cheaper option)....

[E-Stat]

Personally, I'd rather use a Logitech Harmony remote....

Sounds like a neat solution. I'm more averse to increasing the already busy collection of cabling. In my household, wifey is more the video champ so she's adapted to the three remote scenario (cable is third).

rw

[hermanv]

Although digital connections help a lot, it's kind of disgusting that the industry hasn't come up with a better cabling or signal distribution system. Not only are individual cables expensive, the resultant home theater rats nest makes it near impossible to figure out why one channel is dead, but only on DVD.

Even the "S" video cable had separate internal leads for luminance and chrominance, did they include a right/left audio channel, hell no.

RCA cables were fine for mono, how long ago was that? Multiple signals in one standardized format is hardly rocket science.

[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?

[pixelthis]

Another thought to throw into the mix is the use of AVRs with separate amps. I have what a consider a decent mid level system: Yammie RX1500 with Yammie M-65 amp. I added the amp for two channel stereo. With the Pure Direct feature the AVR just becomes a straight preamp gain stage. Have I not just created a separates system for less than $1200? Plus, when I do wan't to watch a movie, the AVR is still right their to do the processing.

This is the most popular (and probably best) way to have a "hybird"
system that can do double duty , both HT and stereo, certainly the most
inexpensive and convienent.
AS for FM I too dissed it for a long time, until I heard an actual, commercial JAZZ station on my car stereo.
So I set mine up, sounds quite good.
ALSO I have noticed that surround receivers tend to sound better when you use all channels, dont sound quite as good in stereo