Have we witnessed the death of the audiophile? ...

[axolotls]

You find out, working with analog vs. digital computers that the results are always the same with digital and never with analog. Perhaps it is this lack of precision that they hear.

I'd have to see a lot of double blind studies before I would accept that even a small minority of the people can tell the difference.

I work both Grass Valley and Chico music festivals and frequently see people claiming the superiority of their brand of amp sometimes with tubes. But then they stick a mic in front of it and run it through an all digital system so people can hear it and nobody ever complains or even comments on any difference.

In any event it is clear that "better" is fairly sunjective. If you doubt this listen to a Chinese opera.

Modeling is becoming almost perfect now (I am happy with my stuff and it isn't as flaky as when you have tube bias poop all the time). Most musicians (that fought digital tooth and nail) are using pro-tools now because it's 10% the cost and more exacting to get an album out. And almost no one makes $$$ on albums anyways, so get it out, and start touring.

 

[Cydonia]

Of course the audiophile isn't dead, nor is he moribund, or likely to be anytime soon. I used to be a hopeless head-fi forums junky before my CPF days...

What Happened To Dynamic Range? is an important little article that brings up an often overlooked but critical (common sense) point - the recordings themselves differ vastly.

 

[StarHalo]

I bought this

(http://headphone.com/)

and these

(http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-MDR7506/)

in the last five years :thumbsup:

I also bought the wife an iPod Nano (with inscribing on the back of the case, a free option at the Apple Store http://store.apple.com/us) but that's definitely not audiophile hardware.

 

[Dynacolt]

What Happened To Dynamic Range? is an important little article that brings up an often overlooked but critical (common sense) point - the recordings themselves differ vastly.

I love my vinyl for the clean, live recording methods, the increased dynamic range and clearer separation of instruments. And CDs that are recorded with passion and care, rather than compressed to the upper limits of loudness, and pre-mixed to sound good on an ipod.
I believe digital can sound "audiophile", but with the trend of mp3 and readily-available, affordable digital gear comes a reduction in the quality of all the equiipment in the audio chain, from source microphones to speakers/headphones.
In the end, the output must be analogue for us to listen to it. A quality amplifier with solid accurate speakers will be a "night-and-day" difference compared to an op-amp amplifier coupled to anything not capable of full-range reproduction - even to a non-audiophile. And the same difference exists between "ear-buds" and amp-driven electrostatic headphones.
I enjoy listening to the music, but I get real pleasure when one end of my loungeroom appears to be filled with musicians putting on a show for me, rather than just sound coming out of a box. I agree, the cost of achieving this is significantly higher than an ipod and dock setup, but that's the choice I make because, for me, it is how I like to listen to my music.
Dave.

 

[Lit Up]

Have we witnessed the death of the audiophile?

I think that would be a safe bet. I mean, how much does one have to invest to listen to an annoyingly loud boom/thump along with the rattle of fiberglass/sheet metal in intervals of every 3 seconds or so?

Not to mention that most new music has took a nosedive unlike any in the history of recordings.

 

[Patriot]

I'm a pretty big Home Theater fan but does that mean that I can't consider myself and audiophile? I have Pioneer Elite components and a Mirage speaker system and still listen to plenty of two channel sound although movies are 5.1 or 7.1. I'm still passionate about the reproduction music at the highest level possible though.

The original thread quote and many of the posts seems like they're trying to separate two channel music and 7.1 home systems. Anyone with a high end home theater system is a button press away from high quality two channel sound and home theater systems are very common and popular today.

Additionally who says that an audiophile can only listen to stereo? There are some fantastic sound tracks recorded in 5.1 - 7.1 available now. Live music is condensed into two channels only because that's what the technology dictated at the time, but live music in actuality is often more than one channel.

Maybe I don't understand the definition of audiophile anymore or maybe it's changed. :thinking:

 

[Dynacolt]

who says that an audiophile can only listen to stereo?...
...Maybe I don't understand the definition of audiophile anymore or maybe it's changed.

The audiophile has historically adhered to seeking the most faithful reproduction of music, and stereo has always offered this possibility.
I think with the advent of surround sound, and the plethora of "home-theatre-in-a-box" units available from the mass-market stores, there has been a perception that 'surround' cannot not equal 'audiphile'. It can, but instead of an esoteric 2-channel amplifier and a pair of speakers, one must have 5 or 7 channels of quality amplification, numerous extra quality speakers, surround processor etc. Well worth the expense, especially given movie soundtracks tend to exploit the best of digital and dynamics. There is a phenomenal difference between the sound coming from a "home-theatre-in-a-box", and the full theatre exerience of a quality surround system.
I think with the market-flood of average digital recordings and devices, the cinema and live concerts will continue to thrive. For the average mp3 listener, these are sensory nirvana experiences in comparison, for the audiophile, something to try to better in their own homes.

Dave.

 

[fnmag]

There's nothing like the "glow" of thermionic valves.
One is no longer listening to the sound but rather "being one" with the music.
:thumbsup:

 

[LuxLuthor]

Audiophiles are not dying. Rather it is simply a case that music noobs do not know what quality is available. Once they experience the quantum shift in great quality they always say they had no idea. It spreads more slowly, but it is very much alive.

 

[IMSabbel]

I love my vinyl for the clean, live recording methods, the increased dynamic range and clearer separation of instruments.

Sorry, but dynamic range of vinyl is rotten. Where did you get the idea that its better? Or do you consider the noise to be signal? Even 128kbit mp3 is well better in that regard...

Also, "audiophiles dying" really made me feel good, until i read this thread and noticed they are still here

 

[NA8]

Have we witnessed the death of the audiophile? ...

I think marketing has had a bad effect on audio. I think back in the early 80's mass marketers moved away from quality sound equipment to cheap 15-30 watt receivers that they sold in mass quantities along with fiberglass and beer.

On the other extreme someone figured out there's a sucker born every minute or something and we saw an lot of extraordinarily high priced equipment that had dubious merit. Or more accurately, was way overpriced. I'm sure there was no way for the companies to stay in business without charging what they did, but that really doesn't say much for them.

Anyway, if audio took a big hit over the years, I think marketing had a lot to do with it.

I miss the days back in the late 70's when Kenwood sold their L07M mono amps with the included 3' speaker cable (the cable was included in the feedback loop of the amplifier). Not to mention their KILLER tuners. Great stuff, relatively cheap. Hell, even Pioneer would sell you a 165 (maybe 250 ?) watt/chn receiver you could barely lift for $400 if you walked into the store when it was on closeout. Did I mention the wood cover ?

 

[ABTOMAT]

The very, very early '80s were the end of the golden age of hifi. I used to have a Marantz 2600 reciever that cost $1600 in 1980. 400W per channel into four ohms, about 65 pounds, fan-cooled, had a built-in oscilloscope. No one was making stuff like that just a year or two later.

 

[Dynacolt]

Sorry, but dynamic range of vinyl is rotten. Where did you get the idea that its better?

I can't deny I love the convenience of CD, the ease of amplification and the always-clean sound. But comparing albums I have on both CD and vinyl, I almost always prefer the vinyl version.
-Vinyl may not support a huge dynamic range, but too many CDs have been compressed to sound louder - thereby decreasing their effective dynamic range at playback.
-CDs of older albums are often recorded from multi-generation analogue masters, whereas audiophile vinyl is often mastered from much earlier generations of tape.
-Vinyl versions of newer recordings have often been mastered with more care and less compression than their CD counterparts (Norah Jones is a good example).
So, my opinion and experience is that much of the vinyl offerings actually sound better than CD, and have an effectively greater dynamic range, despite the physical limitations of that medium.
Dave.

 

[Patriot]

The audiophile has historically adhered to seeking the most faithful reproduction of music, and stereo has always offered this possibility.
I think with the advent of surround sound, and the plethora of "home-theatre-in-a-box" units available from the mass-market stores, there has been a perception that 'surround' cannot not equal 'audiphile'. It can, but instead of an esoteric 2-channel amplifier and a pair of speakers, one must have 5 or 7 channels of quality amplification, numerous extra quality speakers, surround processor etc. Well worth the expense, especially given movie soundtracks tend to exploit the best of digital and dynamics. There is a phenomenal difference between the sound coming from a "home-theatre-in-a-box", and the full theatre exerience of a quality surround system.
I think with the market-flood of average digital recordings and devices, the cinema and live concerts will continue to thrive. For the average mp3 listener, these are sensory nirvana experiences in comparison, for the audiophile, something to try to better in their own homes.

Dave.

Dave, you make a good point about the "Home Theater in a box" crowd. Nothing against those who have and enjoy them but like you said, there is no comparison to these types of systems and true, "high end" specially systems which move a lot of air.



A younger friend of mine in his early 20s is a music maniac and I hardly ever see him without ear buds stuck in his head. The first time he played his music on my system his jaw dropped and I couldn't get him to leave. He came back later that week with more music and wanted to hear all of his favorite tracks on my system. I agree with Lux that the new generation of music listeners is fairly clueless as to what something can or should sound like, so in a way they're ignorant until enlightened. That said, I've also heard systems that make mine seem kinda sad but mine if first and foremost geared toward theater sound.

 

[Mike Painter]

The audiophile has historically adhered to seeking the most faithful reproduction of music, and stereo has always offered this possibility.
Dave.

I was just thinking about this becasue when stereo was available but records still advertized thy were in stereo, a friend absolutely refused to move from his monphonic system because it was "the most faithful reproduction of music."

Most of the music I hear outside the home is in stereo only when I get to hear them backstage or in the campground.

Something I really enjoy is watching a good blue grass band using a single microphone as they did it in "the old days"
It takes a lot of practice as the distance from the mic determines who has the lead and watching them move in and out is a kick.

A friend of mine and I have tlked about a "digital amphitheater" that would work the way the natrual ones do and project the sound from behind the performers.
We have decisded that there probably would be no need for monitors but the rest of the details will come about Real Soon Now (a polite term for vaporware from the 80's)

 

[StarHalo]

I was just thinking about this becasue when stereo was available but records still advertized thy were in stereo, a friend absolutely refused to move from his monphonic system because it was "the most faithful reproduction of music."

A lot of those early-adopter stereo LPs were *awful*, usually involved the engineer just putting the vocals and guitars on one side and the drums on the other, sometimes going back and forth from mono to stereo even in the middle of the track.. I would agree that the mono originals of some of those recordings are more faithful.

Something I really enjoy is watching a good blue grass band using a single microphone as they did it in "the old days"

The modern equivalent of that would be the single room live recording, where the performers just play it live with a mic each, but they're all in the same room, reverberations and all. This sounds so live and energetic if done correctly, a good example being most any recording from one of my favorite bands, the Squirrel Nut Zippers.

 

[fireboltr]

I currently run all Rotel electronics. I.E. pre-amp, amp,cd player,tape deck
Excluding the older technics turntable running shure m97xe stylus
speakers (for the moment trying to save up the coin for axioms) are polk audio rti-150's (they have a tighter transient response than ALOT of thier other speakers but they are amp demanding)
im running Canare quad star 4x14 for speaker cables
Monster interlink reference cables
And the not so ear friendly ipod nano (but for a good "random" it works for hours)

Usually i try to download music in lossless only as i can hear a loss in mp3's below 320kbps and burn them to cd as the frequency responce of the rotel cd player is much flatter then anything i have ever heard from apple (whoops i know im putting on the flame suit for that one)

 

[9volt]

I'm in the "lack of dynamic range is killing new music" camp. I'm sure it's out there, but I've had trouble finding new music that is worth sitting down and listening to.

That, and most of the time I might have spent listening has been taken up with movies and games. Just last week we watched some movie and it had a really good track at the end with the credits, and I just sat and listened to it thinking I should really spend more time with just music. It hasn't happened.

 

[StarHalo]

For those of you with smokin' full-room systems: An example of the live room recording technique, the aforementioned Squirrel Nut Zippers doing their thing; talk about energy! Guaranteed to put you right in the middle of the performance, download and enjoy (click to hear in your browser or right-click and "Save Link" to download):

http://members.dslextreme.com/users/starhalo/Squirrel_Nut_Zippers_-_Got_My_Own_Thing_Now.mp3

(This is a *swing jazz* track, trumpet, banjo, volume..)

 

[fireboltr]

Dianna Krall live from paris
This has some of the best mixing i have heard in a long long time...

Nadro John beatsurfer
Is extremely vast in dynamic range and mixed well