The Death Of Hi-Fi

Dec 28, 2007 at 5:23 AM Post #2 of 72
It is a good article. Although I don't listen to the style of music fans of the magazine do (I'm hard-core classical), I appreciate the deteriorating quality. I started big in Hi-Fi back in the 60's when "solid-state" was the selling point, but went back to tubes when I learned more. LPs sucked (at least in American pressings), but eventually along came digitally mastered LPs which made a huge impression. Then CD's which frankly sounded like crap initially. Denon seemed to get it right, but boy, the EMI and CBS sound was so edgy and hard. Then at last nirvana: SACD. A good disk, in a great player, with great (tube) amplification and top-notch speakers (or headphones) and it just couldn't get better. But now, thanks to MP3 everyone wants to go backwards and lower the hard-won gains in quality. People just don't know any better, or care. Of course, in the 60's there were people who loved 45 rpm records, too, and they always sounded like crap. I use an MP3 player only when travelling, but I don't care how much you spend, how good the earbuds are, there's so much lost.
 
Dec 28, 2007 at 8:38 AM Post #4 of 72
"But even most CD listeners have lost interest in high-end stereos as surround-sound home theater systems have become more popular, and superior-quality disc formats like DVD-Audio and SACD flopped. Bendeth and other producers worry that young listeners have grown so used to dynamically compressed music and the thin sound of MP3s that the battle has already been lost."

There are signs that here in Spain the tendency has inverted, at least in the middle/high range. I have been recently speaking with the owner of one of the oldest hi-fi shops of my area. His founder was a pioneer in the field at the beginning of the past century, with several patents over audio technologies. His grandson, the owner at the present, told me that this past year he has not been able to sell home theater systems at all. He started to notice this tendency a few years ago after a long period of home theatre only. His clients have returned to stereo systems en masse. Why? His opinion is that low cost manufacturers killed the format with extremely low quality equipment. The quality brands do not find worthy home theaters equipment because the low prices most consumers are expecting, and consumers find that home theater sound like **** - because they are buying ****ty equipment.
And most people live in small flats not adequate for well tuned home theater systems, but big enough for traditional stereo systems. For them home theater is too complicated and they found that stereo sounds better in fact under real conditions. The standard sell at the present in this shop is one cd player/vynil turntable, one amplifier and two good speakers, like in the "old times"
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Dec 28, 2007 at 6:50 PM Post #6 of 72
[size=medium]"In the age of MP3s, sound quality is worse than ever"[/size]


The article to read:The Death of High Fidelity : Rolling Stone
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity/print

This is a MUST READ Article for anyone who visits this site, and those who actually care about the SOUND QUALITY of prerecorded music. (ie: Music you PAY FOR)!

Ya' know, we ALL may just be wasting money on Components, Parts, Equipment and DIY Builds - that ultimately will bring out the Worst - in (almost all) current and future prerecorded music.

(Todd ! TTVJ - A Renaissance Man.... !
redface.gif
)

There seems to be a handful of CARING ARTISTS bucking the trend, {SUPPORT THEM, PLEASE} but deep down I fear we are ALL just Sheep being led down the Path of Compression!

CANHEADS, AUDIOPHILES, and Consumers - UNITE!

PLEASE, PLEASE, EMAIL THOSE "THOUGHTFUL" Artists who care and THE RECORD COMPANIES...... who Don't !

The question MUST be asked...is spending your hard-earned dollars, sweat, and brain power to build cutting edge product going to still be a viable Hobby in our near future?

[size=small]Or will it Fade Away ?
confused.gif
[/size]
 
Dec 28, 2007 at 8:23 PM Post #7 of 72
About 10 or 15 years late, now that so much damage has already been done, but better than saying nothing like so many other music publications.
 
Dec 28, 2007 at 9:20 PM Post #8 of 72
For classical music fans things have never been better......new CDs today sound better than ever and remasters of early 1950s stereo recordings are just amazing sound quality!

Even budget price labels like Naxos sound better than ever, so there are winners in the MP3 age!
 
Dec 29, 2007 at 3:29 AM Post #9 of 72
JLX's post demonstrates that even typed words can be too loud.

But seriously the damage is done. 99% of everything currently 'bad' will never be remastered as an acceptable audiophile product. (We do live in an era when good recording sare systematically made worse).

Our only hope is that the loudness war will end sooner than the drug war and that artists in the future also produce good music (because they'll have the good records).
 
Dec 29, 2007 at 3:49 AM Post #10 of 72
Quote:

Originally Posted by mbhaub /img/forum/go_quote.gif
It is a good article. Although I don't listen to the style of music fans of the magazine do (I'm hard-core classical), I appreciate the deteriorating quality. I started big in Hi-Fi back in the 60's when "solid-state" was the selling point, but went back to tubes when I learned more. LPs sucked (at least in American pressings), but eventually along came digitally mastered LPs which made a huge impression. Then CD's which frankly sounded like crap initially. Denon seemed to get it right, but boy, the EMI and CBS sound was so edgy and hard. Then at last nirvana: SACD. A good disk, in a great player, with great (tube) amplification and top-notch speakers (or headphones) and it just couldn't get better. But now, thanks to MP3 everyone wants to go backwards and lower the hard-won gains in quality. People just don't know any better, or care. Of course, in the 60's there were people who loved 45 rpm records, too, and they always sounded like crap. I use an MP3 player only when travelling, but I don't care how much you spend, how good the earbuds are, there's so much lost.


So much lost in inaudible frequencies but not in audible frequencies. Do a proper ABX test with lossless and 256kb/s mp3 using foobar and you will be surprised. I've done this test on both myself and a freind and we both failed to be able to tell the difference. Used rock music and classical.
 
Dec 29, 2007 at 5:20 AM Post #12 of 72
Quote:

Originally Posted by Davey /img/forum/go_quote.gif
About 10 or 15 years late, now that so much damage has already been done, but better than saying nothing like so many other music publications.


So you'll never get some artist's stuff released in good quality. Oh, well. What about the guy that you haven't heard of, yet, who might have something for your ears to enjoy a few years down the road? That damage has not happened, yet. It does not have to.

*pouty child picture, next to a random logo that integrates the earth into it*
 
Dec 29, 2007 at 5:27 AM Post #13 of 72
Quote:

Originally Posted by mbhaub /img/forum/go_quote.gif
It is a good article. Although I don't listen to the style of music fans of the magazine do (I'm hard-core classical), I appreciate the deteriorating quality. I started big in Hi-Fi back in the 60's when "solid-state" was the selling point, but went back to tubes when I learned more. LPs sucked (at least in American pressings), but eventually along came digitally mastered LPs which made a huge impression. Then CD's which frankly sounded like crap initially. Denon seemed to get it right, but boy, the EMI and CBS sound was so edgy and hard. Then at last nirvana: SACD. A good disk, in a great player, with great (tube) amplification and top-notch speakers (or headphones) and it just couldn't get better. But now, thanks to MP3 everyone wants to go backwards and lower the hard-won gains in quality. People just don't know any better, or care. Of course, in the 60's there were people who loved 45 rpm records, too, and they always sounded like crap. I use an MP3 player only when travelling, but I don't care how much you spend, how good the earbuds are, there's so much lost.


Strawman--er, maybe non-sequitur. The damage was occurring well before MP3s, or anything similar; and better recordings make for better MP3s. It's a common excuse, but a BS one. Hearing over the din of a bar, or road noise, or the subway, etc., at least makes sense. Still, it should be done in the device.
 
Dec 29, 2007 at 2:10 PM Post #14 of 72
Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif
For classical music fans things have never been better......new CDs today sound better than ever and remasters of early 1950s stereo recordings are just amazing sound quality!

Even budget price labels like Naxos sound better than ever, so there are winners in the MP3 age!


I agree. I've been very much pleased with a lot of EMI, Decca, Mercury, DG, and Philips classical music titles. And what some of these labels have done with SACD is great, such as Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo.

However, the trend in most rock and even some blues is really disturbing for anyone who cares about sound quality. I will no longer buy any classic rock remasters on CD...period. Chances are good that the sound is cooked. Instead, I will gladly spend a few dollars and chase down a vintage vinyl pressing of the same title.

--Jerome
 
Dec 29, 2007 at 2:45 PM Post #15 of 72
It's a good article although somewhat onesided. Recording "hot" is nothing new; some bands sought to maximze effect in their recordings for 45s and 8-tracks when those media had their days. It is also a fact that we now are enjoying a revolution in quality sound recording and mixing as well. Artists and recordists are picking up the challenge of Rudy Van Gelder, Bob Ludwig, and Roger Nichols and making some truely wonderful modern recordings. In the end quality will out, because art without quality is not Art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top