fewtch
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Posts
- 9,559
- Likes
- 38
Quote:
Well, it's widely recognized that digital sources have improved quite a bit (and in fact probably so have analog).
The fact that tubes/analog are preferred by some doesn't say anything about technology improvements -- I'm sure today's tube amps are MUCH better than the tube amps of the 1950s, for example.
I think you're mixing up techology improvements with technology *shifts* -- for example, from analog to digital and from tubes to transistors. Such shifts aren't necessarily improvements, just differences... and it always takes time for the new technologies to catch up to state-of-the-art of the older one(s).
I don't know anyone who thinks that audio technology has gone backwards. The choices of consumers re: SQ vs. convenience may have gone backwards, but the technology itself is more capable of high fidelity sound than ever. I don't think anyone will dispute that, if you clearly separate the two concepts. Even hardcore turntable fans will acknowledge that digital playback (high end redbook or SACD/DVD-A) has improved.
Originally Posted by seacard I am interested in the implications of this thread. Technology has improved dramatically over the last few years. Today's $200 computer blows away a $20,000 one from the 80's. Today's $3000 TV destroys a $10,000 TV from just a few years back. iPods, XBOX 360, PSP, etc. etc. etc. However, in the audiophile world, there's this strange pull the other way. There's a strong preference for things old (vinyl, tubes, etc.). Same with headphones... some of these headphones that today are regarded as greatest of all time got very little attention when they were in production. Obviously there are two possibilities: 1) Audio technology is different from all others in the world and has actually gone backwards while the rest of the tech world was moving forward; or 2) Audio technology is no different from all others, and has moved forward, and just like IBM can sell a computer for $1000 that used to case $5000, Sennheiser or AKG or Sony can sell a much better headphone (or at least a "no worse" headphone) for much less money. Obviously, on Head-fi the former is the leading opinion. But is that the universal understanding, and if so, why is this the case? |
Well, it's widely recognized that digital sources have improved quite a bit (and in fact probably so have analog).
The fact that tubes/analog are preferred by some doesn't say anything about technology improvements -- I'm sure today's tube amps are MUCH better than the tube amps of the 1950s, for example.
I think you're mixing up techology improvements with technology *shifts* -- for example, from analog to digital and from tubes to transistors. Such shifts aren't necessarily improvements, just differences... and it always takes time for the new technologies to catch up to state-of-the-art of the older one(s).
I don't know anyone who thinks that audio technology has gone backwards. The choices of consumers re: SQ vs. convenience may have gone backwards, but the technology itself is more capable of high fidelity sound than ever. I don't think anyone will dispute that, if you clearly separate the two concepts. Even hardcore turntable fans will acknowledge that digital playback (high end redbook or SACD/DVD-A) has improved.