• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

HiFi Technology Flatlined Last Century

Class D design is completely and radically different than class AB. The switching power supplies that power it are also the same with respect to linear power supplies. The two combined bring high efficiency, small size and ability to produce a ton of power. And with advent of SMD and better power transistors, combined with proper feedback design, is able to produce an incredibly unique offering than that of the past. It is not at all a refinement.
OK then, I took your advice on Dacs, thanks for that, you are close to convincing me on class D amplification, but I don't think anyone ever will convince me that speakers have progressed in the last 50 years.
 
OK then, I took your advice on Dacs, thanks for that, you are close to convincing me on class D amplification, but I don't think anyone ever will convince me that speakers have progressed in the last 50 years.
Name some speakers of which you have a high opinion. Speakers have advanced some. While the parts might not be all that much better, how to put those parts together for a high quality result is much improved. But I'd be interested in what speakers you've found good and if you have heard an appropriate modern competitor.
 
OK then, I took your advice on Dacs, thanks for that, you are close to convincing me on class D amplification, but I don't think anyone ever will convince me that speakers have progressed in the last 50 years.
There have been huge steps in terms of material science. State of the art drivers can play a lot louder and with a lot less distortion than 50 year old drivers. There are drivers for which the design of the surrounds is far beyond what was possible 50 years ago. Plus before the 1980s people had no clue what you needed to do to make a good speaker, research for that really only started in the 80s. The tools to be able to do this at a budget have only really been available the past couple of years. A Klippel NFS is only a $150K, which is far less than building an actual anechoic chamber.
 
OK then, I took your advice on Dacs, thanks for that, you are close to convincing me on class D amplification, but I don't think anyone ever will convince me that speakers have progressed in the last 50 years.
People still love the AR3a. And against all odds, there are people on this forum that love Bose 901s.
 
Name some speakers of which you have a high opinion. Speakers have advanced some. While the parts might not be all that much better, how to put those parts together for a high quality result is much improved. But I'd be interested in what speakers you've found good and if you have heard an appropriate modern competitor.
Infinity IRS, Altec 604's, Quad 57 come to mind. As for monitors The large ATc's.
 
View attachment 354383
On 26 April 1939: Test pilot Fritz Wendel flew a prototype Messerschmitt Me 209 V1, registered D-INJR, over a three-kilometre, closed course at Augsburg, Germany, setting a new Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) world record with an average speed of 755.14 kilometres per hour (469.22 miles per hour). The aircraft was fitted with a Daimler-Benz DB 601 engine which was a supercharged, liquid-cooled inverted V12 with direct fuel injection.
View attachment 354384
As such, this engine represented the peak of internal combustion engine development. Apart from the use of computerised fuel management, the internal combustion engine has not developed in any significant way since. The engine in a 2024 Mercedes still uses a crankshaft, camshafts, poppet valves, fuel injection, pistons etc, just as the DB601 did in 1939.
I feel there is a corollary between this and HiFi.
HiFi as it stands has developed very little in the last few decades. The stand-out development has been in digital technology but as far as reproduction equipment is concerned, name me one big development. Let's explore this assertion.

Sources:

Turntables.
When did TT technology peak? It’s difficult to say for sure but my assertion is that a turntable has such a simple job to do, the peak must be when super accurate speed and negligible rumble was achieved. I’m sure there will be much controversy here but my pick is the Technics range of direct drive units. Having worked with the SL1000 and carried out repairs on them, the quality of manufacturing and the execution of the design has never been topped IMHO.
View attachment 354385
Ridiculously overengineered TT’s have been manufactured by niche outfits but if you take the OMA unit that has been widely discussed on ASR, you will find that the Technics SL 1500 turntable handily beats its rumble figure and is a fraction of the price.

Tonearms. The pivoting tonearm arguably reached it’s present state of technical development with a unit like the SME 3012, introduced in 1958.
View attachment 354386
This tonearm had a counterweight, an anti-skating mechanism and a soft lift. No real significant advancements since this model only differences in pivots, bearings and materials. Linear tonearms have made brief appearances but they are niche compared to pivoting arms. Some novel mechanisms have been developed for linear arms with air bearings and so forth but based on popularity, they seem to be a dead end.

Tape. Both analog and digital tape systems are effectively dead. Domestic analog tape reached a peak in the 1980’s with the advent of Dolby noise reduction. This development wasn’t really followed in professional analog tape equipment as it had already reached an optimum probably in the late 70’s when manufacturers like Studer were producing high quality multitrack and stereo mastering recorders.
View attachment 354387
However as a domestic technology, the compact cassette was the only tape format that was ever really commercially successful. While DAT and ADAT enjoyed a brief moment in the sun, both are now obsolete thanks to the dominance of HDD and high capacity memory digital recording. I don’t believe that there have been any new tape devices designed or manufactured for decades.

Digital Disk. Since the development of the SACD format in the 1990’s, there has been no significant technical advance in digital disk technology. Even though SACD was a flop commercially, it was a significant improvement on the original Digital Compact Disk from a technical perspective. As the format determines the specification of the playback device, there has been no significant improvement in this technology since then.

Digital file/streaming. From a technical and quality perspective, this is the only source medium that has had recent development. The advent of 32 bit float recording has pushed recording technology into the stratosphere and its capabilities far exceed anything that has preceded it. 32 bit float can record audio data +770 dB above 0 dBFS and -758 dB below. This gives 32-bit float recordings an incomprehensible dynamic range of 1528 dB. This figure is hard to fully grasp because the dynamic range between the quietest sound on Earth (an anechoic chamber) and the loudest sound possible (194 dB) is only 185 dB. With over 1000 dB of headroom above the quietest and loudest sounds on Earth, clipping is impossible. Distorted audio above 0 dBFS can easily be recovered in post by attenuating the signal. So, in theory, digital recording peaked in the last couple of years, certainly with reference to the capabilities of human hearing.

Components.

Amplifiers.
Have amplifiers really advanced functionally since the 70’s? Amplifiers really hit their stride in the 1970’s. Full-bandwidth 20-20khz power at extremely low distortion became commonplace. Whether it was the modest amplifier section in a mid-priced receiver like the Kenwood KR-5400 (35 watts/ch RMS from 20-20kHz at <0.5% THD) from 1974 or the Pioneer Spec 2 power amplifier from 1976 rated at 250 watts/ch 20-20kHz at <0.1% THD, amps in the 1970’s delivered the goods.
View attachment 354388
Since then, most development has been incremental based on tweaking circuits and incorporating modern components. Some may say “what about class D, that’s new”. Yes, it’s the latest development of an audio amplifying device that operates in the range of human hearing. Functionally, a modern class D amplifier is so similar to a Kenwood KR5400 that it really only rates as a refinement, not a fundamental redesign.

Speakers. One area of HiFi that has had so much time and effort poured into it for so little effect is speaker design. There’s an ocean of speaker manufacturers and designs stretching to the horizon and apart from some obvious differences, open versus closed for example, speakers from the cheapest to the most ludicrously expensive share the same fundamental mechanisms of operation, the moving coil, cone loudspeaker. The moving coil loudspeaker was developed by C.W. Rice and E.W. Kellogg in the early 1920’s.
View attachment 354389
Since then, the basic design has been refined and improved using modern materials as they became available. These improvements have brought the design to a plateau where the physical limitations of the device have been reached. Put simply, moving coil loudspeakers are as good as they will ever be. Someone with more knowledge than me might take a stab at when this plateau was reached but my guess would be the 80’s or 90’s when materials like carbon fibre and Kevlar were incorporated into the construction, thereby allowing the mechanism to get as close to its ideal as is practical. “What about electrostatics?”
View attachment 354391
Kudos to QUAD and the others who explored this technology as it was one of the few times that a fundamental change was achieved in speaker design. The shame is that, while electrostatic speakers showed much promise, the reality was that they lacked the properties that were already common in moving coil speakers. Electrostatic speakers did not reproduce low frequencies as effectively as conventional speakers and the SPL that was achievable was well behind also. It’s a bit like the piston engine vs the rotary engine. Rotary engines have some notable qualities when compared to piston engines, simplicity, reduced reciprocating mass and compactness. However, the rotary design has some built-in problems that can’t be refined out like the combustion chamber shape which lowers the efficiency of the engine.

DAC’s. As I pointed out in another of my posts, there are only a few manufacturers of high quality DAC chips for audio reproduction. Subsequently, only the supporting circuitry is different between manufacturers.
View attachment 354392
A quality DAC chip costs around US$50 so a $10,000 DAC will have the same practical performance as a $200 dollar unit with the same chip. DAC chips probably also represent another true advancement in audio reproduction technology inasmuch as some of them include digital signal processing (DSP) that can be employed to compensate for room acoustics amongst other things. This technology probably still has some room left for development but for the HiFi stereo crowd, the prospect of digitally processed multi-speaker systems brings out their inner Luddite. The “High End” acolytes will never accept this sort of meddling and just want to slink off and try to tweak their pure two speaker equipment closer to perfection.

At this point in time, just about anyone can have an audio reproduction system that does everything so well that there’s no point in trying to improve it. In fact, for most components, the listener could put together a system composed entirely of devices made last century and be assured that they perform just as well as anything they could purchase in 2024. Without any question, speakers are the last link in the chain and the performance of those components will have the greatest perceivable effect on the quality of the sound being reproduced. Speaker choice has many variables, budget, available space and subjective performance. However, speaker technology is at the same place it was in 1970 in all but detail.

I think that this situation has produced all of the laughable tweaks and snake-oil products that are currently swamping the HiFi scene. As there’s nowhere to go as far as the basic equipment is concerned, once you’ve reached the limit of what you can spend on components, if you desire more from your gear, you’re a prime target for hokey products that claim to be able to improve the unimprovable. The old quote “a lie repeated loud and long enough becomes the truth” has never been more accurate when applied to HiFi components and accessories. A lot of time, money and effort has been put into creating products that do nothing but thanks to the malleability of human perception, masses have been hoodwinked into believing that these things are having a positive effect on the performance of their audio equipment. Has this held back true development and improvement in audio equipment? I don’t think so. The DAC chip is a prime example of how there are still genuine, engineering-driven developments going on in the field of audio. Notice though that something like a DAC chip is not being developed by and for “High-End” HiFi applications but for broad application in entertainment devices like televisions and media centres. HiFi equipment manufacturers just ride on the coattails of these developments and repackage them to try to convince the punters that they’re getting something “special” for the inflated price.
Has anyone mentioned that the word flatlined usually means dead?
 
Bullshit.

Active speakers were around and sold in the 1970s and sold by several companies including Philips, who also incorporate motional feedback into their (MFB) active lodspeakers in 1975, as were Class D amplifiers (Sony 1978) and "DSP" existed at the dawn of Compact Disc and was commercialised and sold into mainstream HiFi gear in the mid 1980s.

Don't make stuff up and don't attempt to re-imagine history. It's tiresome.
Advent powered speaker?
 
OK then, I took your advice on Dacs, thanks for that, you are close to convincing me on class D amplification, but I don't think anyone ever will convince me that speakers have progressed in the last 50 years.

You seemed to like Tekton. Is that what you are using as a modern reference?
 
Name some speakers of which you have a high opinion. Speakers have advanced some. While the parts might not be all that much better, how to put those parts together for a high quality result is much improved. But I'd be interested in what speakers you've found good and if you have heard an appropriate modern competitor.
I have speakers I bought in 1993 or so that still sound very good (as they should, they weren't cheap), and I rotate them in regularly to remind myself of the very small differences between competent equipment. Yes, I know materials and manufacturing tolerances and such have improved, but the design principles are still the same and the big question is how much better current offerings truly sound. For sure the big change is that one can get fantastic performance at price points that seemed unimaginable back then...

And streaming music from a computer or the "cloud" was a huge change for me. I love music, and now it's so easy to have great sounding music on most of the day.

As to digital processors (room correction and such), sure it is a huge advancement, but EQ is not that new... many of us had them with a bunch of sliders in the early 90s, but of course without the built-in feedback that today's room correction systems like Dirac at al provide, which made them fun yet of questionable real value.
 
Infinity IRS, Altec 604's, Quad 57 come to mind. As for monitors The large ATc's.

image.jpeg.1b5fd5ead17aac986b244384638ff752.jpeg


This is good? Lets not even talk about the drivers actually falling apart because driver material science was still in its infancy. Current ATC's aren't are also not even close to what is actually possible with loudspeakers these days. Quad 57's I can't really take seriously, I understand people love electrostatic loudspeakers but I can't get over the lack of SPL and low end output.

Infinity can be good, especially 1990s onwards because they were Harmon owned and actually used science to create good loudspeakers.
 
Infinity IRS, Altec 604's, Quad 57 come to mind. As for monitors The large ATc's.
Only heard the 604s briefly once and they did not sound too good, but maybe not used well. IRS I've heard quite a bit and they are a good speaker. Owned Quad 57s and 63s. Don't know the ATCs.

I think all of those can sound good, but do have a sound. A good sound. Some of the better modern speakers don't give much of anything up to those, but are so easy to get sounding good in most rooms. Those you list usually take some care and attention not to sound less than good. Nothing wrong with that. Just an issue if you don't have the right room for them.

I don't know if you've spent time with some of the better measuring speakers from the last decade. How good they are can kind of sneak up on you because they are more even without any particular bit of character that stands out. Feed them a really good recording however and they can be impressively good.
 
Last edited:
You seemed to like Tekton. Is that what you are using as a modern reference?
Actually, I have never even heard any Tekton speakers, I was just half hardheartedly defending the guy because in spite of his faults he does have credibility and everybody was ganging up on him. Since his line is not available in Europe I cloned a couple of his designs for my own curiosity . They are certainly not my reference but they are as good, if different, from other commercial designs costing several times the price. I don't have a modern reference, The Wilsons, Sonus Faber, Magicos, and Focals I have heard are all pretty good speakers, but that is not much of a compliment for speakers costing 100's of thousands, which kind of proves my point that speakers have not advanced one bit in the high end of the market.
 
View attachment 396195

This is good? Lets not even talk about the drivers actually falling apart because driver material science was still in its infancy. Current ATC's aren't are also not even close to what is actually possible with loudspeakers these days. Quad 57's I can't really take seriously, I understand people love electrostatic loudspeakers but I can't get over the lack of SPL and low end output.

Infinity can be good, especially 1990s onwards because they were Harmon owned and actually used science to create good loudspeakers.
The 604's in the right room set up with Jean Hiraga electronics in the right room are very impressive. Agreed, the Quads have limited SPL and the driver surface arcs and deteriorates, they are not for me either but the midrange at moderate volume has yet to be surpassed.
 
The 604's in the right room set up with Jean Hiraga electronics in the right room are very impressive. Agreed, the Quads have limited SPL and the driver surface arcs and deteriorates, they are not for me either but the midrange at moderate volume has yet to be surpassed.
I guess they work low power amplifiers like that because of the high sensitivity, but the frequency response is still all over the place. Good you mention the room, because for ancient speakers like that the room really matters. Well designed modern loudspeakers sound better in more rooms due to better controlled radiation patterns.

Actually, I have never even heard any Tekton speakers, I was just half hardheartedly defending the guy because in spite of his faults he does have credibility and everybody was ganging up on him. Since his line is not available in Europe I cloned a couple of his designs for my own curiosity . They are certainly not my reference but they are as good, if different, from other commercial designs costing several times the price. I don't have a modern reference, The Wilsons, Sonus Faber, Magicos, and Focals I have heard are all pretty good speakers, but that is not much of a compliment for speakers costing 100's of thousands, which kind of proves my point that speakers have not advanced one bit in the high end of the market.
Naming Wilson and Sonus Faber among the good brands makes me question your references with regards to good speakers. Its is well known that both these brands don't really adhere to any modern design principles. Never heard any of their speakers sound good. But I guess your point makes sense, because they haven't really progressed in terms of design over the past 30 years. So you technically listening to an old design.

I'd suggest you go listen to KEF Blade META series for a look at what a high end loudspeaker sounds like these days, plus they aren't really that expensive (the bigger ones are 35K per pair). On a budget? Try the Revel Performa3 F208 which are only $5000 a pair or the MoFi 888 at $6000.

But I mainly think we differ in what we consider high-end. You consider a high price high-end, I consider high performance high-end. High performance: linear, controlled smooth directivity, low distortion, low compression at higher SPL levels.
 
Last edited:
Infinity IRS, Altec 604's, Quad 57 come to mind. As for monitors The large ATc's.
Infinity IRS in a whole different world build and designed to the highest level possible in 1980 BUT,
The IRS sold for $90,000 in 1980, today that would equal about $345,000

Quad 57 were very detailed but highly compromised in many ways that could be beaten today by $500 stand mounts.
We are many many steps beyond what was possible 50 years ago, miles if you bring quality/dollar.

Has anyone mentioned that the word flatlined usually means dead?
LOL, a good or bad thing depending on who we're talking about. ;)
 
View attachment 396195

This is good? Lets not even talk about the drivers actually falling apart because driver material science was still in its infancy. Current ATC's aren't are also not even close to what is actually possible with loudspeakers these days. Quad 57's I can't really take seriously, I understand people love electrostatic loudspeakers but I can't get over the lack of SPL and low end output.

Infinity can be good, especially 1990s onwards because they were Harmon owned and actually used science to create good loudspeakers.
Apart from this shit driver you're right.. :D
1727925689845.png
 
My prediction is that analogue electronics has already reached its peak when it comes to audible performance of HiFi equipment. Ditto for A/D and D/A converters. There may be room for improvements in price/performance relationship, user friendliness etc..., but any performance improvements, while they may be measurable, will not be audible.

In digital domain, I can still see potential improvements especially in digital signal processing and its usage in compensating challenges in transducers and listening space acoustics.

The greatest potential for audible improvements is imho in transducers. I would not be surprised, if in not too distant future some radically new concepts would emerge to replace current speaker and/or headphones technology. How about having means to bypass our ears and stimulate our brains directly in a way that makes us experience the result as music. That way we could for example maybe increase the frequency range our brains would detect as music and consequently open a whole new kind of artistic opportunities.
Don't know if that can ever be done noninvasively.
 
It's evolutionary developments, not revolutionary.

I had a computer talking in the very early 1980s.
3D printing is nothing more than a glue gun on an X-Y plotter. It's just evolved a bit, and nowhere near as fast as it should have. Stepper motors, controllers and extruding is practically ancient technology.
We were building micro mice in the 1980s that could solve mazes and robots that could map a room and then draw (with a solenoid operated pen) a basic room layout themselves. (I was still in secondary school then).

As for HiFi, it's gone backwards in many ways and forward in others.
HiFi is pretty much a solved problem.
 
Possibly, but that's a different issue from technological progress being stalled.


A very big topic, but if we share the benefits of AI rather than a few people hoarding them, people being put out of work is a good thing. If people don't need to sell the bulk of their waking hours just to survive, I'd call that a win. They'll be free to spend their time as they please instead of hustling to keep food on the table. Ultimately this might even lead to more good, public-domain science being done!


I'm a fan of the Ghost in the Shell and Black Mirror series, and so (as you might imagine) I think brain-computer interfaces will be extremely problematic at best, if we ever get them.


Turns out they've finally started to crack gene therapy: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41587-023-00016-6 - the Big Pharma answer to cures vs. treatments is what you'd expect - charge an arm and a leg for the cure. They're happy to sell you a cure instead of treating you forever - they can charge the full cost up front. But at least there's a cure.


This is getting at cost-effectiveness vs. technological progress. Slow planes are more practical. But we do have the technology for fast ones.


+1
You really don't want to invent a cure. You want to invent a therapy that has to be purchased continuously over a long period of time. More money that way.
 
As for HiFi, it's gone backwards in many ways and forward in others.
John, in what area do you feel HiFi has gone backwards?

Or are you talking about the interest in obsolete tech so popular today?
 
Back
Top Bottom