The future?

[aquapiranha]

http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/24/pioneer-and-onkyo-unite-home-av-groups/

Not sure myself

[Gordon Steadman]

Yup,

Don't see any alternative once this generation of hi-fi nuts is gone. Computers, streaming, compromised sound is where it will end up unless some genius makes a breakthrough in sound reproduction. It should happen but as people get used to the compression, it will become accepted as the norm - the trend is already there of course.

[Barry]

I'm too old for all of that now - I'll happily see out my days surrounded by piles of LPs and CDs and 'obsolete' technology!

[Tim]

Yup,

Don't see any alternative once this generation of hi-fi nuts is gone. Computers, streaming, compromised sound is where it will end up unless some genius makes a breakthrough in sound reproduction. **It should happen but as people get used to the compression, it will become accepted as the norm** - the trend is already there of course.
Not sure I agree with all of that Gordon, people are now actually learning the opposite, that lossless files sound so much better than compressed ones and with the advent of Pono, iTunes offering lossless imminently and now most of the download companies offering lossless files as well (CDBaby offer FLAC) I see an appreciation for quality sound actually gaining momentum.

With faster broadband making it into more peoples homes, affordable streaming will be lossless at some point too. But the decline of the 'hi-fi nut as you call it is nigh and inevitable. You will always have a small number of geeks though and the world will always have its die-hard trainspotters!

[Eagle owl]

I'm too old for all of that now - I'll happily see out my days surrounded by piles of LPs and CDs and 'obsolete' technology!

plus one.

[The Barbarian]

I see it like this. When people have thrown the whole concept of a proper Hi-Fi away for Digital files i can sit back & have a right good old laugh..

Kids! fine they will know no different but grown up's for heavens sake..

[Macca]

Hmm...'Internet savvy speakers'....come back to me when they are making them with 15 inch bass drivers and then maybe we'll talk. Until then I'll keep my obsolete legacy kit thanks all the same.

[Gordon Steadman]

Problem is of course, that every generation thinks the next has lost it. "Not like it was in my day" is the sad mantra for many. Its true though. Sometimes through developments (or 'improvements' perhaps) and sometimes because tastes and wants change.

If it weren't for that change, mankind would still be stuck in the stone age - I realise that some still are but that is another argument:eyebrows:

[The Barbarian]

Yeh ok Gordon

:rolleyes:

[Gordon Steadman]

Yeh ok Gordon

:rolleyes:

Yeah ok Andre:rolleyes: :ner:

[Macca]

If it weren't for that change, mankind would still be stuck in the stone age - :

Just like on 'The Flintstones'. :)

Technology is not always preferrable even if it is superior on paper. Otherwise no-one would be driving classic cars and vinyl sales would be going down and not up.
You have to include the human element.

[Gordon Steadman]

Just like on 'The Flintstones'. :)

Technology is not always preferrable even if it is superior on paper. Otherwise no-one would be driving classic cars and vinyl sales would be going down and not up.
You have to include the human element.

The human element is a bit hard to avoid:)

However, who is driving the classic cars?? I'm sure its mostly us old gits who couldn't afford them when they were new. The hi-fi I want is mostly what I wanted but couldn't afford when I was in my twenties.

It would be interesting to come back in a few hundred years to see what is considered classic then. Perhaps the whole world will be lusting after the one pair of Akai speakers left on the planet.

[f1eng]

There is a lot of confusion over compression since the same word is used (accurately) to describe two completely different and independent blights on sound quality.

The first is lossy compression, like MP3. and the difficulty here is that it is not a fixed problem since there is a huge range of compressions from the obviously inferior with much compressed files with loads of data discarded to indistinguishable from the original by most people where very little information is discarded.

Secondly there is dynamic range compression "loudness wars" where the dynamic range of the music is compressed and rammed up near maximum level. This is a, presumably, conscious choice made by artist/recording engineer to get the sort of sound they want, or think might sell.

These two are technically totally unrelated but are frequently confused with each other.
By Neil Young, for example...

In fact for my kids, who will probably never be able to afford a house big enough or a hifi of good quality, will almost certainly get the best sound for their money/location using good quality headphones and a good quality portable player.
IMO anyway.

[Rothchild]

[QUOTE=f1eng;562220].

Secondly there is dynamic range compression "loudness wars" where the dynamic range of the music is compressed and rammed up near maximum level. This is a, presumably, conscious choice made by artist/recording engineer to get the sort of sound they want, or think might sell.

[QUOTE]

I think you have to be careful about tarring all dynamic range compression with the loudness wars brush. Most rock, pop or contemporary music would sound like a pale imitation without at least a little bit of compression (and some without a lot of it - the led zep drum sound for instance).

Whilst the loudness wars is about dynamic range compression those sorts of RMS levels are actually normally achieved using 'look ahead' peak limiters, yes a limiter is a compressor but it's one where the ratio is at least 10:1 or higher (ie it reduces the gain of the signal by 10dB for every 1dB the signal goes over the threshold) normally, at a track level, one isn't going to be using such severe levels of gain reduction.

Indeed one of the reasons that people find 'tape sound' so desirable is that it naturally compresses the sound as it saturates. It's also the case that early CD (pre loudness wars) releases tend to have less compression than their vinyl counterparts because there is the dynamic range available in the playback media to do so, whereas in vinyl if the master wasn't compressed the needle would jump out of the groove!

I suspect you probably know this as I know you also make your own recordings but I think it's useful to understand that compression is not, per-se, a bad thing and not only used for loudness.

[Firebottle]

Good post there Marc, it's not unusual that things are not as simple as they seem.

:cool: (Speckled hen at the mo') Alan

[Rothchild]

Thanks Alan,

If anyone missed Frank's clever little swipe at Neil Young I'll leave this here: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Personally I'm a big fan of Monty's approach and fully recommend all the videos and info in this series at xiph although I know it's not fully approved of by a few residents of this parish, but none of them have as yet provided as much logical or empirical sense as he has, so I'm inclined to believe him more.

[Macca]

Well if the modern stuff gave a better sound I would be using it. I don't use vintage kit because I have to or because I feel the need to be different. Also I think for most people it takes age to learn our lessons for us. When we are young we follow trends but as we get older we start to have an overview and can make more informed choices.

[Gordon Steadman]

When we are young we follow trends but as we get older we start to have an overview and can make more informed choices.

Some of us.

[f1eng]

Well if the modern stuff gave a better sound I would be using it. I don't use vintage kit because I have to or because I feel the need to be different. Also I think for most people it takes age to learn our lessons for us. When we are young we follow trends but as we get older we start to have an overview and can make more informed choices.

Well, as I have written before, Scalford shows what a wide variety of sounds enthusiasts consider as "good". Since it is only a matter of opinion, and we only have ourselves to please, it does't matter much what our individual preferences are.

[f1eng]

[QUOTE=f1eng;562220].

Secondly there is dynamic range compression "loudness wars" where the dynamic range of the music is compressed and rammed up near maximum level. This is a, presumably, conscious choice made by artist/recording engineer to get the sort of sound they want, or think might sell.

[QUOTE]

I think you have to be careful about tarring all dynamic range compression with the loudness wars brush. Most rock, pop or contemporary music would sound like a pale imitation without at least a little bit of compression (and some without a lot of it - the led zep drum sound for instance).

Whilst the loudness wars is about dynamic range compression those sorts of RMS levels are actually normally achieved using 'look ahead' peak limiters, yes a limiter is a compressor but it's one where the ratio is at least 10:1 or higher (ie it reduces the gain of the signal by 10dB for every 1dB the signal goes over the threshold) normally, at a track level, one isn't going to be using such severe levels of gain reduction.

Indeed one of the reasons that people find 'tape sound' so desirable is that it naturally compresses the sound as it saturates. It's also the case that early CD (pre loudness wars) releases tend to have less compression than their vinyl counterparts because there is the dynamic range available in the playback media to do so, whereas in vinyl if the master wasn't compressed the needle would jump out of the groove!

I suspect you probably know this as I know you also make your own recordings but I think it's useful to understand that compression is not, per-se, a bad thing and not only used for loudness.

You are completely right of course. Not all dynamic range compression is bad, as you point out LPs wouldn't be possible without.

I was trying to keep it simple and point out that some people confuse lossy compression of digital files and dynamic range compression since both are usually called "compression" without qualification and both effect recorded music, but neither have anything to do with each other.
One can have a non-compressed 16/44 (or even 24/192) file of a dynamically compressed music recording and one can make a low data rate MP3 compressed file of a dynamically uncompressed recording...

[awkwardbydesign]

Hmm...'Internet savvy speakers'....come back to me when they are making them with 15 inch bass drivers and then maybe we'll talk. Until then I'll keep my obsolete legacy kit thanks all the same.
I used to have 15" speakers, 10" were considered small. I now have 10" speakers and they are considered big. At the moment I am listening through 6" speakers.
Yuk. Everything is sounding compressed (in whichever way you like!). And even my wife says they have no scale.

[Marco]

Technology is not always preferrable even if it is superior on paper.

'On paper' is one thing. Reality can be another.

For me, whether or not I embrace the use of new technology (in audio or in any other context) is based on one thing and one thing only: whether or not (to me) it is unquestionably superior in every way to that which it replaced. If it is, and it's relevant to my lifestyle, then I'll buy into it.

If the answer is 'no' (which these days is more often than not the case), then no amount of peer pressure, 'concern' about what is or isn't fashionable, being 'up to date' or any other nonsensical bullshite, will make me use it! :nono:

Marco.

[It Cost How Much!?!]

It will be interesting to see as Neil Young is now CEO, what changes are made and whether he has better luck with this venture than his previous technology ventures.

I think the days of downloads are coming to an end, streaming is the path forward, as people don't want to have to store the files and there will be Internet access everywhere on mobile devices.

A few unanswered questions about the Pono sytem;

1. Where are they going to get the hi-res files from? I can't see the existing record companies supplying them, as they have deals with other vendors like YouTube, Spotify etc.. In order to be a success for a new medium you need Pink Floyd, Genesis, Led Zep etc.. to back it, as that is what people replace first in their collections.
2. The device is quite big, possibly too big to carry about easily, especially for runners and such. Will it end up as another device in a music system? I didn't see a remote control, so that will be a pain, so nothing much digital sells without a remote for home systems.
3. How will it compete against the other "high" quality portable players? I'm not saying iPhones are great, but the global perception is that they are a quality music player and they have all sorts of other features built in or with apps.
4. There has been scant mention of what music will be available at launch, the suggestion is $10 for an album, not sure this is either enough to distinguish it or cheap enough to be a nobrain purchase.

I get the feeling this is another DCC or DVD-A mess about to happen, but you never know, maybe a storm force of old hippies will buy the things and keep the old boy going.

[struth]

Streaming may take over for a time but like the fad for minimalism it will revert again...just look at the vinyl revival...

[The Barbarian]

I know what i think about streaming & the reasons behind it but i 'll zip it for fear of flames..

[vinyljunky]

I have yet to listen to a lossless file that comes anywhere near vinyl some of my 12 inches sound amazing with the extra information they have in the wider grooves.Lossless files may be ok for convenience but I always thought the whole point of music was to listen to it at its optimum.

[synsei]

Funny that this thread is entitled The Future and yet us old fogies are all :ner:'ing at it from last century. Progress is what progress is and there will always be chaps (and chappesses) who rail against change, usually of a certain age. Some will deem that anything new cannot possibly match equipment from past era's, which is obviously total BS. There exists a lot of excellent modern gear which is extremely capable but also tends to come with a hefty price tag, much like the vintage gear some of us are using did when it was 'cutting edge'.

[Marco]

Lol, Dave... I think if you read my post #22 you'll see that the reason why I haven't embraced much new technology is not because of 'old fogeyism', simply that in my opinion a lot of it isn't significantly better (and often worse) than that which it replaced - and this doesn't just apply to audio.

If new hi-fi gear was genuinely and significantly better (to me) than the best of the old stuff, I can assure you that my system would dripping with it! ;)

The fact is, genuine 'progress' has not been achieved if something new is not fundamentally better at its core function than its predecessor was. The age of the stuff I use doesn't interest me one iota; quality and performance does!

Marco.

[synsei]

Perhaps my post is a little generalised but my point is that amongst todays crop of hifi gear sit tomorrows classics which will be fondly remembered by todays younger generation. Nothing illustrates this more clearly than the prices the original 20gb iPods fetch on ebay these days. Individually we may not all agree what makes a classic but society has its own ideas and ideals.

[Marco]

Sure, I agree. However, that doesn't mean I'd give any sort of iPod house room, not even an 'original' one... Horrible tinny sounding things!

For portable top-notch sounds, give me an original Sony Walkman Pro, fed with a quality NOS chrome or metal tape, meticulously recorded from vinyl reproduced on my system, attached to some kick-ass 'proper-sized' headphones...

Bulky? Who gives a f*ck!! :eyebrows:

Marco.

[Stratmangler]

Sure, I agree. However, that doesn't mean I'd give any sort of iPod house room, not even an 'original' one... Horrible tinny sounding things!



Have you actually listened to one that's loaded with material that's been ripped at decent bit rates?
Tinny isn't a word I'd use ....

[synsei]

But that's you Marco and your personal preferences and there's nought wrong with that btw ;) Time marches on however producing generations which have different aspirations and ideals to ours and they do consider a first generation iPod to be a classic, in much the same way you revere your Tannoys and likewise, I do my Quad 306 and B&W DM2's. The worm turns :)

[Marco]

Hi Chris,

Yes, but it still sounds 'tinny' to me, compared with the 'old school' option I've described above. There's plenty of bass, for sure, but no real scale, texture or finesse to the sound.

Each to his or her own, though. If you like iPods, then fill yer boots. Other than a car stereo, I've no need for a portable music device :)

Marco.

[Marco]

But that's you Marco and your personal preferences and there's nought wrong with that btw ;) Time marches on however producing generations which have different aspirations and ideals to ours and they do consider a first generation iPod to be a classic, in much the same way you revere your Tannoys and likewise, I do my Quad 306 and B&W DM2's. The worm turns :)

I'm not arguing any differently, mate, but that doesn't mean I have to like it! :D

Marco.

[synsei]

What are you like :ner: :D

I plucked the iPod out of the air because I nearly fell over backwards when I saw one go for over 300 quid last week. T'was boxed and minty fresh mind. I could just as easily have highlighted a pair of Harbeth SHL5's, a modern speaker which knocks spots off many a vintage design ;)

[Marco]

Except that the 'DNA' of the Harbeth harks back to a much earlier era... A 'modern speaker' it may be, but its BBC heritage most certainly isn't! ;)

That's like saying my Copper valve amp is a 'modern amp', because it forms part of Anthony's current product portfolio, but the fact is, the circuit it uses comes from 1950s technology!! Sorry, daftee, you ain't winning this one... :eyebrows:

Marco.

[synsei]

In regards to the cabinetry you are of course absolutely correct, but the drive units are bang up to date... So there... :lol:

[synsei]

Actually this is hair splitting in the extreme and frankly I buy what I like (when I can afford it) regardless of whether it is new or else came out of a caveman's gaff... :D

[Stratmangler]

Hi Chris,

Yes, but it still sounds 'tinny' to me, compared with the 'old school' option I've described above. There's plenty of bass, for sure, but no real scale, texture or finesse to the sound.

Each to his or her own, though. If you like iPods, then fill yer boots. Other than a car stereo, I've no need for a portable music device :)

Marco.

No real scale, texture or finesse to the sound - you been listening to them MP3 things, and they're not the best.
I prefer to listen to AAC files at 320kbps - they sound much more satisfying. Put it this way - I can't distinguish between AAC at 320kbps and CD spec files.

I don't have an iPod myself - I am referring to my son's device.
We did a 30 second comparison between feeding the car stereo with a file from my smartphone and then Alex's iPod, and the iPod won hands down.
The files were identical too - just the actual players were different, so I'm talking about the sound quality via the earphone jack.

It's unfortunate that iPods and similar have been tarred from the start with the quantity not quality brush.
At the beginning storage was short in supply and expensive in cost, and most folks using them dropped quality in favour of putting the maximum amount of tracks on them.
And thus was born the fallacy that all MP3 tracks sound shite! It never has been true that all MP3 files sound shite, just that the vast majority of them do because of the lowly bitrates used.
Things have moved on since then, and the sound quality has gone up.

One thing you won't find me doing though is buying stuff from iTunes - they still don't provide material at a high enough quality to pull me in as a customer.
All the rips I've been talking about have been done on the desktop computer here at a higher quality level than iTunes can provide.

[Marco]

In regards to the cabinetry you are of course absolutely correct, but the drive units are bang up to date... So there... :lol:

Lol - it's nothing to do with the cabinetry (or rather that's not as significant as other factors) - it's the design heritage and how the speakers have been voiced to reproduce music. I'm a big fan of the best 'BBC heritage' speakers, having used Spendor SP100s (and numerous other Spendor and Harbeth designs) before I got into big vintage Tannoys, so oi kens wot I is talkin' aboot ;)

In terms of what you've written in your last post, I totally agree! :)

Marco.

[Marco]

No real scale, texture or finesse to the sound - you been listening to them MP3 things, and they're not the best.
I prefer to listen to AAC files at 320kbps - they sound much more satisfying. Put it this way - I can't distinguish between AAC at 320kbps and CD spec files.

I don't have an iPod myself - I am referring to my son's device.
We did a 30 second comparison between feeding the car stereo with a file from my smartphone and then Alex's iPod, and the iPod won hands down.
The files were identical too - just the actual players were different, so I'm talking about the sound quality via the earphone jack.

It's unfortunate that iPods and similar have been tarred from the start with the quantity not quality brush.
At the beginning storage was short in supply and expensive in cost, and most folks using them dropped quality in favour of putting the maximum amount of tracks on them.
And thus was born the fallacy that all MP3 tracks sound shite! It never has been true that all MP3 files sound shite, just that the vast majority of them do because of the lowly bitrates used.
Things have moved on since then, and the sound quality has gone up.

One thing you won't find me doing though is buying stuff from iTunes - they still don't provide material at a high enough quality to pull me in as a customer.
All the rips I've been talking about have been done on the desktop computer here at a higher quality level than iTunes can provide.

Fair enough, Chris. I accept that. You've obviously done rather more experimenting than I have in this area. iPods (and other modern portable music devices) simply aren't my thing :)

Marco.

[synsei]

Actually Chris (and I know Marco won't agree with me here) what has surprised me over the past few months is just how good material streamed from Spotify sounds through my system. For example I am listening to Land Like A Bird by Stacy Speace just now and I can clearly hear a wonderful 'presence' in the production. Considering I have a Premium account therefore am streaming at 160kb's that is truly impressive. Earlier I had Tony Joe White's, Live in Amsterdam album playing and enjoyed some of the best sounds I have ever heard from the system. I'm beginning to wonder whether a lot of what is written about high bitrates is a bit of a red herring... :scratch:

[Marco]

I actually do agree with that, Dave, as it's what I've heard whenever I've listened to Spotify properly on a good system.

Marco.

[synsei]

I actually do agree with that, Dave, as it's what I've heard whenever I've listened to Spotify properly on a good system.

Marco.

Ah cool, then please accept my apologies... :)

Sometimes I am simply amazed at the quality of what comes down the pipe from Spotify plus it is such a great resource for discovering new artists and material, before today I'd not heard of Speace or White and now they are saved in my artist folder...

[Stratmangler]

I think the tech guys at Spotify have become very adept with the DSP implementations they use, and yes, Spotify does sound a lot better than you'd give credit for.

Something I find quite interesting and intriguing is bitrate.
I have purchased an vinyl from Amazon, and I have been instantly eligible to download the album in MP3 format. I also received a download card with the vinyl, and downloaded that too.
A quick A/B comparison between the two downloads, and I prefer the one from the download card, as it has more finesse and sounds less forced. What's more I can consistently pick out the versions with a blind A/B test over headphones using the ABX plugin with Foobar, and my preference is for the slightly higher bitrate files that came with the download card in the record sleeve.

There's only around 60ish kbps difference, yet the differences are quite audible to me, and my ears are knackered 'cos of the regular hammering they get.

On the plus side for me is that I grew up listening and learning to play music, and continue to do so.
Maybe my grey matter is better conditioned to decipher what me knackered lugholes pick up, but I do know that I listen to music differently to non musicians.

[synsei]

It has been quite a while since I last played an instrument but I think my 'musicians' ear still functions okay. I definitely appreciate good technical skill and technique and as a result It is also obvious to me when a musician is 'winging' it or else doing just the bare minimum to carry a part. I become annoyed when I come across this in a recording and thus invariably I will stop listening and choose something else. To put it simply, if the hairs on the back of my neck don't prickle I am not remotely interested. The fact that Spotify (and other streaming services) are of sufficient quality to allow me to detect this is quite remarkable IMO ;)

[purite audio]

Actually Chris (and I know Marco won't agree with me here) what has surprised me over the past few months is just how good material streamed from Spotify sounds through my system. For example I am listening to Land Like A Bird by Stacy Speace just now and I can clearly hear a wonderful 'presence' in the production. Considering I have a Premium account therefore am streaming at 160kb's that is truly impressive. Earlier I had Tony Joe White's, Live in Amsterdam album playing and enjoyed some of the best sounds I have ever heard from the system. I'm beginning to wonder whether a lot of what is written about high bitrates is a bit of a red herring... :scratch:

Premium is I believe 320 kps, make sure you have 'high quality' ticked in preferences,
Keith.

[synsei]

Premium is I believe 320 kps, make sure you have 'high quality' ticked in preferences,
Keith.

In which case I have the package below Premium Keith, which is no longer available. I pay five quid a month for it incidentally. That gives me advertisement free 160kb/s streaming and no bleedin' Facebook, which suits me just fine as I detest the platform... ;)