Quote:
| Really? First and second generation machines are better? |
Absolutely !
When a consumer technology is introduced it is geared to the High End audio show and the review magazine.The company is trying to show off what they have comne up with so the early models are built as they should be.Once this "new thing" is accepted by the populace (after being convinced by the "experts" they
MUST have this !) the entire line is re-engineered for ease of assembly and increased profit margins.
Consider the "show and tell" stages as just another part of R&D and market evaluation.Offer crap and no one notices.Build in unreliability and the entire technology will get a bad rap if one or a few break on the reviewer or in the middle of a show.So they build the best unit they can while keeping the price at least semi-reachable for the affluent consumer.Those who always buy the latest and the greatest because they have the means.
But that will not float an entire class of products and like the VCR,like Surround sound and like the DVD player only when the technology enters the living room of joe nameless does it become the norm and accepted as a standard.That means a streamlined assembly line using unskilled workers.that means lower cost at the consumer end and that means cutting corners in the quality and reliability areas.
Gone is the heavy metal damped chassis.A device formerly weighing in close to 20-30 pounds will now be shaved down to seven or five by replacing metal parts with plastic.By replacing individual circuit cards with a single chip.By taking the high end chassis isolation feet off and internal chassis damping out.By removing the former heavy face plate and replacing it with a piece of injection molded plastic.
These things are understandable because like I said,it is the mass market that determines what is accepted as the norm and not a few audiophiles/videophiles or those with enough disposable income" to have their
toys.
When the VCR was introduced most were huge top loaders going for what would be around $3K in adjusted dollars.Beautiful machines that had a solid feel and a mechanical integrity that screamed relaibility.It is my thought that many would still be in use if not fo the fact that they pre-dated VHS- Hi-Fi which enabled the "Home Theater" to take hold (mono audio).
Being that expensive only a select few could purchase them so it was mostly a "fringe" technology for the elite.The companies knowing they were on to something that if marketed right would be a cash cow began the "add features/shave cost" phase of the design (once the format wars were over anyway
).Second and third generation machines were smaller and lighter but still retained that "high end gear" feel due to the build quality.As the technology began to shake out and the big players knew what direction it was taking in came the mass production all-in-one chips,the cheasy mechanisms that would eat your tapes,the low profile front loading casing that would allow stacking with other componants for WAF and living room integration.Plus added features no one ever needed .
What was once a platform that not only could be depended on to last reliably for 20+ years,that had audio level meters and volume attenuators for making high quality audio recordings (spelled death to open reel in the home),that had user controls for every aspect of the transport now was an easily integrated small black box with all controls in a hand held remote.
The cost savings from removing ACTUAL features and hardware replaced by VIRTUAL features no one used or could figure out all in a chip controlled from a hand held remote allowed the technology to be within the reach of anyone that could afford to own a TV.
This began a decades long process where not only did the cost continue to fall (along with quality hence the days of the warranty are no more) but allowed for the creation then expansion of the Video Store and in home surround sound Home theater.Without the VCR there would have been no Blockbuster.Unlike music where you buy the software and play your favorites many times you may watch a movie only one time so the cost vs. value to consumer not good.Especially since the early tapes went for $50-$70 !!!!!
This low cost "movies at home" is now a stable worldwide.So went the CD.So went the DVD.Maybe hi-res digital though the future does not look bright considering the length of time it has tried and failed to enter the average home.
Being somewhat a witness to audio and video trends and also being one that payed attention to those trends the timeline goes somethong like this :
QAURAPHONICS :
1-Good idea in theory bad in athe actual implementation.They never figured out if they wanted it to be a "gimmick",a special efect or the attempt to recreate the live performance.
2-Format wars.CBS SQ Matrix,Sansui QS Matrix,Electro Voice "Universal Matrix",Hafler "passive" matrix.All semi compatible,all very confusing to the consumer.To make matters worse we also had "Discrete Quadraphonics" competing with "Matrixed Quadraphonics" and more confusion added to the consumer who does not want to THINK but DO !
3-The "Tate" steering logic is added to the matrixed formats to increase the apparent effect.
4-Format wars continue and the public loses interest.Bye bye.
AMBIENCE RECOVERY AND SIMULATION :
Convinced that multichannel audio is the way of the future companies begin research into "Venue Acoustics" and the attempt to recreate the concert hall in the home by adding a rear channel delayed electronically to portray the distance to the back wall (or lack of) of the live event venue.
Realising that stray "out of phase" (left minuas right) information was being recorded along with the "in phase" (left and right) information a simple L-R "difference amp" could be extracted (see Hafler Dynaquad from above
) then electronically delayed by a specific amount to recreate the size of the original event.If the back wall of the concert hall was fifty feet away then just add 50ms of delay to the L-R rear channel to recreate the original right ? Well not exactly....................
There is no SINGULAR reflective surface in a concert hall but MANY paths where the sound is bouncing around,being attenuated,phasing changing,some signals being reinforced by the walls/ceiling,etc. so a single delay path would be no more than a gimmicky sound.it would in reality be "reverb" and not "ambience" so two addtional speakers would not cut it.
It was also realised that high frequency attenuation takes place and that more extreme as the acoustic path lengthened so some high frequencty limits need to be imposed or the rear channel would be heard not as a diffuse ambient field but as a distinct sound source competing with the left and right main channels.That was the weak spot of the original Hafler Dynaquad.Having no ability to get the speakers far enough away for the delay effect and having no upper frequency cut-off they not only competed directly with the front channels but usually being closer to the seated position would be the first sound heard so taking precedent !
Acoustic Research (AR) along with several other interested parties around Cambridge Mass. went about creating a "Travelling Ambience Extraction Demo System" that consisted of 16 channels with each level further from the listener having more electronic delay but less high end.The speakers were mounted high up rather than at ear level and aimed at each other across the room rather than at the listener so in effect not a direct but an indirect sound,as it should be with any enhancement which should NEVER be the dominate sound.
It worked and it worked exceedingly well but this was an excercise to push technology and understanding but no way would the industry ever be able to convince the consumer to add another 14 speakers and 14 more amp channels driven by 14 delay devices in a living room setting for a "gimmick" that only appealed to the audiophile and scientist no matter how good the end result.
A company named Audiopulse whittled the system down to only 2 additional channels by using a "Digital Delay Line" for the overall distance delay then adding "taps" at preselected intervals along that delay then mixing them together at the output plus "crossfeeding" the left and right delays to simulate the original 16 discrete channels of the all out AR system.It worked and well but at $1200 (around $3500 in 2005 dollars) and had fairly complicated but limited controls.Not for the masses so a Model 2 was introduced.This unit was slightly less complex,simplified the control structure and added the rear channel amp internally so one less thing to purchase and all for this $500 !
It sold fairly well (I still have mine
),well enough that others took notice and introduced their own versions so an niche industry was born right ?
Again wrong.
This technology only worked with live recordings (and very well i can say from experience) so next up was the "Ambience Simulator" !!!!
This was an attempt to make the dry studio recording sound like a live recording and from my perspective doomed from the start (as it is still to this day).Adding something artificial to music that was never there just does not work but they do try and this particular attempt was a play off the "Ambience Extraction device" and was created by taking the delayed signal of the above device and feeding it back to the input of the other channel.Rather than delaying the natural L-R signal being picked up accidently by a live microphone this new device was taking a L+R mono signal,delaying it,feeding it to the other channel after some phase manipulation and then feeding THIS to the rear speakers !
No better than the spring reverb of the fifties but hey,this is audio and a sucker is born every minute so they gave it a shot anyway.
Once this was grabbed onto by a large amount of manufacturers we had Ambience Extraction Devices,Ambience Simulation Devices,Combination Devices and consumer confusion.How the hell would joe nameless know the difference and not knowing the difference how would he adjust it for natural sound ?
The entire format ttook the hit and slid from view even though backed by some serious companies (Audiopulse,AR,Yamaha,Advent,Sony,ADS,KOSS and many many more).
Again format wars raised its ugly head and again the consumer lost interest there being no defacto standard.We like to sit on the sidelines while it gets sorted so we do not get stuck with a Betamax while the industry goes with VHS
SURROUND SOUND :
A brilliant marketing job mated to the early pioneering concepts mentioned above.Instead of keeping this in the music domain where only the audiphile nut jobs take notice this was aimed squarely at the living room and movie viewing ! Who in the house does not watch a movie ? What wife would bitch about the addtional channels being added when the end result is bringing the movie theater experience into the home ?
Who could justify NOT buying in when "all you need is a crappy set of "anyspeakers" and another amp and you too can receate the movies in your home"
The combination of the VCR format wars ending (with the inferior technology winning due to default of having stereo first !) and Hi-Fi VHS arriving this was a natural matchup.
Take the original Hafler Dynaquad matrix and add the Audiopulse Digital Delay extraction method and you have Dolby Surround !
The only thing not taken from the earlier methods is the Center Channel but this was directly taken from the movie theater !
Since the early thirties all theaters were three channel systems with a left,a right and a center channel.
All Dolby Surround did was add the rear "Delayed Dynaquad" channels to the original three channel theater set up and we have a new (
old) medium.
The idea brilliant,the intended target consumer brilliant but that alone is not what made it go.What allowed Dolby to become the standard is there was NO format war !
No competing methods meant evey surround recording was made to a single standard as were all decoders.No longer did the consumer need to choose between competing formats but only competing manufacturers and as competition grew the prices (and quality in many cases as is witnessed by "surround sound in a box" systems) dropped and the semiconductor manufacturers wheedled the multiple circuits down into a single LSI chip again reducing manufacturing/consumer cost.Standards mean large scale manufacturing and competition which always equates to reduced cost and accessability.Nothiong is successful until it is commonplace and attainable by the average non-technical/non-audiophile person.
As was the CD player.As was the DVD player.
Until there was ONE standard for each the technolgy was stalled and could not get a toe hold.Having hi-res format wars and for so long says to me the outlook is bleak for any standard now and in fact I fully expect this to remain a fringe technology that will have its followers and those who will preach the merits but until the mid level or average consumer has a product they can purchase,one that offers something in return for the addtional cost as did surround sound,will be mostly ignored in the mainstream
The winner does not have to be the BEST alternative as Betamax and Redbook CD have proved but just a standard.
Any standard so the major companies can get to mass production and lower cost rather than trying to impress audio review magazines or trade show reporters.
Things that have absolutely nothing to do with the average citizen who could not give a crap what Stereophile recommends.Could not care less what impressed at the last CES.They have no use for techno babble or feature laden add copy but want to know the bottom line ;
"so what does it do,how do I work it and how much does it cost"
I don't see a market for something that only aims for the elite user.Multichannel is nothing-they already have surround sound.Being a disc is nothing.We already have a CD player or DVD player.The added "supposed" sonic quality is meaningless when the average consumer thinks the MP3 is the full equal to the CD because at their level of system sophistication it IS !
Not willing to spend $$$$$$$$$$$$ on an entire system upgrade just to enjoy the benefits means the new formats will most likely go the way of Quadraphonics,maybe to be resurrected down the road as another thing as in the Dolby Surround example.
Just my opinion but history is a good teacher and usually dead on when it comes contemplating the future and probabilities.
Read the past-see the future
