Audiophile equipment vs Computer equipment

[Pancreas]

If you look at computers, especially gaming and high performance, if you build or buy a high performance computer today, it will probably be outdated 2-3 years from now.

Does audio equipment stay relevant for longer?

If you buy some $2000+ Genelec speakers, for example, chances are, they will still be considered audiophile and high quality 10 years from now and you may not need to upgrade anything except occasional maintenance, maybe replacing a capacitor or the foam inside.

I read of people who have audiophile equipment for 20 years with zero maintenance.

Same could be said for tube amps and anything related to the music industry. Guitar tube amps remain relevant and high quality even though they are 20-30 years old.

When have you heard of a 20 year old computer that is relevant?

This is very different from computers, where you need constantly be upgrading to keep up with the advancement of programs, software, games, operating systems, etc.

The reason audio equipment may stay relevant for longer is because there is no software, programs or source that is constantly evolving.

High quality music has been the same since the 80s as CD quality. Most music on streaming services are at CD quality.

Your $2000 speakers will still keep with the music and audio quality 5 to 10 years from now, whereas a $2000 computer from today, will not

 

[DVDdoug]

Human hearing isn't improving.

There were some excellent speakers in the 60s & 70s, and maybe earlier. The basic design hasn't changed and we still mostly see 2 or 3-way sealed or ported speakers. The Thiele-Small research from a few decades ago, along with the easy access to computers has made it easier to model speaker design There also have been advancements that make it easier to measure real-world speaker performance. That means it requires less trial-and-error and it's easier to make a good speaker, and there's less chance of making a bad one. The "style" has changed with smaller main/surround speakers and a separate subwoofer becoming more common. (Surround sound requires a sub for the "point one" LFE channel.)

Active speakers/monitors allow for built-in EQ to improve frequency response. But of course that doesn't mean that every active speaker is better than every passive speaker and it doesn't mean that the best speakers are always active. (Passive speakers are still the standard for hi-fi and home theater, except for active subwoofers.)

Speakers (and acoustics) are still the weak link and maybe someday there will be a "game changing" breakthrough?

CDs were a big advancement, as was surround sound. But most music is still 2-channel stereo. "High resolution" doesn't necessarily sound better than CD, since CD is generally better than human hearing. And at some point, you've clearly surpassed human hearing.

Most amplifiers (and other electronics) is already better than human hearing, but amplifier power is cheaper per-watt with modern electronics, especially with class-D.

I'm not good a predicting the future... Maybe multi-channel music will eventually "catch on", and the number of surround channels seems to be ever-increasing. And there may be something to replace the Internet or cell network for streaming? Or more likely, there will be changes I can't imagine...

 

[Waxx]

It depends on what build quality you have. Some break in a few years, others last halve a century or longer. I have stuff from the 1960's that still is in almost mint condition, but i also got a cheap Asian amp that died beyond repair after 2 years of use... (and no, the "asian" is not cause of that, it was just not durable build).

Btw, my father still listens to his 1971's Warfdale Linton 3 (not 3XP), and they are still mint and were only recapped in 2008, for the rest full original. The amp he used when he bought them (a Dual it was i though) is dead since decades, and a few others did pass by (now a Pioneer integrated), idem with his turntable (no turntable anymore) and other sources. But the speakers remain going strong and still sound like it should.

 

[JeffS7444]

When have you heard of a 20 year old computer that is relevant?

It happens when you've got aging but still valuable equipment which was originally designed around a PC of the era. Examples include drum scanners for scanning photographic film, where it might be easiest to continue operating with a Power Mac G4 computer. In such instances, it doesn't really matter whether the computer continues to receive security updates, because it's being used as an instrument controller, not for general purpose/internet usage.

And then there was the employer who was still relying on Token Ring networking well into the 21st century, and the Token Ring -> Ethernet bridge cards used came in two flavors: NuBus and ISA

 

[Chrispy]

Some of the advanced multich processing is the closest I can think of as a comparison to computers, but doesn't take state of the art capabilities particularly. Old analog gear is what it is, and is fairly timeless.

 

[terryforsythe]

A significant issue with computers is that certain software continues to become more powerful (and/or more bloated), thus demanding more from the hardware on which it is executed. The demands of reproducing music have not changed much - human hearing today is the same frequency range today as it was 50 years ago, and less for those of us who were around 50 years ago.

Take a 20 year old computer that still works properly, and run on it less demanding software, e.g., Linux or Windows XP. The computer will run perfectly fine. (Caveat, Windows XP never ran perfectly fine, but you know what I mean).

Probably the biggest improvements in audio over the last decade or are the availability of low cost electronics that perform well, and a greater selection of speakers that perform well. Also, class D amplifiers and streamers have come a long way.

I replaced a 20 year old Adcom class A/B amplifier with a new Hypex Nilai class D amplifier (I needed to make more space in my audio cabinet). I very briefly compared the two (not a scientific A to B comparison), and there was not much difference in sound quality, if any at all. Any differences I thought I may have heard were extremely subtle, and could have been due to the placebo effect.

 

[Cbdb2]

Some of the advanced multich processing is the closest I can think of as a comparison to computers, but doesn't take state of the art capabilities particularly. Old analog gear is what it is, and is fairly timeless.

Yea, every time Dolby comes up with a new multichannel format your AVR is sorta obsolete.
And a computer that is only used for emails and web surfing can last 10 years, especially Macs, at least they used to last longer.

 

[Timcognito]

It's in the recording mostly. Some recordings from '50s trump much of today's music with so much compression.

 

[Chrispy]

Yea, every time Dolby comes up with a new multichannel format your AVR is sorta obsolete.
And a computer that is only used for emails and web surfing can last 10 years, especially Macs, at least they used to last longer.

To an extent, but it has not changed for a while now otoh and its still more about playback than the actual content, which has yet to catch up.

 

[Timcognito]

Garbage In = Garbage Out.

 

[Petrushka]

At least we survived the Zenith capacitor fiasco that made your TV into an x-ray emitter.

 

[TurtlePaul]

There are areas which are improving and those which aren’t. I think that speakers are pretty stable - we know how to make better speakers but they are big and heavy and hence costly.

On the other hand, I want my parametric EQ to be separate so it can be upgraded. I feel like the tech is there for Analog Devices ot TI to introduce a now line of ~2 ghz multicore DSPs to replace the current 400 mhz chips being used. Alternatively, I could see DSPs with phone chips becoming more common to utilize existing cheap chips. In the next five years I think we will have DSPs with 8x the FIR taps to allow for 96 khz operation with about 10 hz resolution.

 

[Devnull]

When have you heard of a 20 year old computer that is relevant?

AT&T 5ESS switches are still used in a lot of locales for providing old school analog landlines. IIRC they were rolled out on the early 80s and stopped being manufactured around 2000. So that's 40 year old technology still being used.

 

[kemmler3D]

Does audio equipment stay relevant for longer?

When it comes to electronics, yes.

Computer stuff becomes obsolete because 1) there isn't any obvious upper limit on how fast we would like computers to run and 2) the underlying technology is actually improving year over year.

This is not true for audio electronics. Manufacturing and tech has improved a bit so you can get better performance for less money now.

But we have had audio electronics that have effectively inaudible flaws / perfect quality for quite some time. If you couldn't hear the flaws 20 years ago, nobody can hear them now, either. So it's not obsolete.

Speakers have improved a bit due to computer modeling being employed more often in the design, but they're still a relatively mature technology, so the best speakers from 20 years ago aren't a joke now, either.

 

[Petrushka]

When it comes to electronics, yes.

Computer stuff becomes obsolete because 1) there isn't any obvious upper limit on how fast we would like computers to run and 2) the underlying technology is actually improving year over year.

This is not true for audio electronics. Manufacturing and tech has improved a bit so you can get better performance for less money now.

But we have had audio electronics that have effectively inaudible flaws / perfect quality for quite some time. If you couldn't hear the flaws 20 years ago, nobody can hear them now, either. So it's not obsolete.

Speakers have improved a bit due to computer modeling being employed more often in the design, but they're still a relatively mature technology, so the best speakers from 20 years ago aren't a joke now, either.

Frequency response in speakers hasn’t improved since the AR3a. Room effects swamp most of the differences among speakers. My opinion, just a guess, is that room correction is the next thing that will become essential.

 

[terryforsythe]

Frequency response in speakers hasn’t improved since the AR3a.

Yes and no.

For a long time there have been speakers with a flat on-axis frequency response. Off-axis response is a different story. There were some older speakers that performed well off-axis, but they were very expensive. Now, there are more moderately priced speakers that exhibit both good on-axis frequency response and good off-axis frequency response (at least horizontally). The only speakers I have seen that exhibit good vertical off-axis frequency response use concentric drivers.

 

[Petrushka]

Yes and no.

For a long time there have been speakers with a flat on-axis frequency response. Off-axis response is a different story. There were some older speakers that performed well off-axis, but they were very expensive. Now, there are more moderately priced speakers that exhibit both good on-axis frequency response and good off-axis frequency response (at least horizontally). The only speakers I have seen that exhibit good vertical off-axis frequency response use concentric drivers.

True. Speakers have improved.

But you could do worse.

 

[majingotan]

Look at the proliferation of single gain stage single ended triode transformer coupled amps on the market these days. Those designs are pretty much the 50's yet is still seriously considered by many as subjectively sounding good. I use one to amplify sound to my headphones right now

 

[DWPress]

Computers and audio gear are beginning to merge in some cases. Look at WiiM, Bluesound and recent streamer platforms and including a fair amount of the miniDSP kit - without software/firmware updates they can lose functionality pretty quickly just like computers.

 

[kemmler3D]

Frequency response in speakers hasn’t improved since the AR3a. Room effects swamp most of the differences among speakers. My opinion, just a guess, is that room correction is the next thing that will become essential.

To build on @terryforsythe 's comment, the reason that improvements in off-axis response are so important is precisely because of room effects swamping things. Good on-axis performance only gets you so far if the reflected sound is a mess.

So I guess saying that FR hasn't improved since the AR3a is like saying cars haven't gotten any faster since the 80s... in certain aspects they were equal back then. In other important aspects they are not.