• 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

Correct, that would be a transparent recording AND playback system. Since there is no recording system that is transparent to a live performance, that cannot exist.
It does almost exist. With my system I can do recordings in my listening room with the in ear microphones and do direct comparisons. The live and the playback are virtually indistinguishable.
What we strive for here is transparency in the reproduction equipment - which means transparency to what is captured in the recording - not to a live performance.
And the question stands. What system could even come close 25 years ago? My system can do that now using technology that did not exist 25 years ago.
 
It does almost exist. With my system I can do recordings in my listening room with the in ear microphones and do direct comparisons. The live and the playback are virtually indistinguishable.

If I recall correctly, you have a system topology (Roger Sanders' narrow-pattern electrostats + BACCH-SP processor) that makes this seemingly-impossible claim plausible, in my opinion.
 
I assert that the room is part of the system.

Absolutely.

A truly transparent audio system would be recording and playback that is indistinguishable from a live performance.

What recording and playback system from the 20th century even came close to doing that?

Assuming we are, in fact, attempting to recreate a live performance, such as a live concert. A lot of music is not a live performance, but a jumble of recorded "live performances" by individual musicians, processed to hell in a studio environment and then mixed down in the acoustic space of a control room followed by a a mastering room. Attempting to recreate the sound heard in these spaces can be problematic, to say the least.
 
Absolutely.



Assuming we are, in fact, attempting to recreate a live performance, such as a live concert. A lot of music is not a live performance, but a jumble of recorded "live performances" by individual musicians, processed to hell in a studio environment and then mixed down in the acoustic space of a control room followed by a a mastering room. Attempting to recreate the sound heard in these spaces can be problematic, to say the least.
True. Those recordings aren’t going to work in any attempt to gauge total recording/playback transparency

Which is not to say such recordings don’t have merit.
 
Absolutely.



Assuming we are, in fact, attempting to recreate a live performance, such as a live concert. A lot of music is not a live performance, but a jumble of recorded "live performances" by individual musicians, processed to hell in a studio environment and then mixed down in the acoustic space of a control room followed by a a mastering room. Attempting to recreate the sound heard in these spaces can be problematic, to say the least.
I don't think I could take a big band in my living room. Or a Mahler hammer strike.
 
New magnets not widely available before 2000 have more power and control over previous generations allow for not just more power but more precision and linearity with quicker changes of direction and less overshoot of coil/spider cone assembly. They are revolutionizing not only speakers but motors and generators as well as medical devices and scanners
 
The world has changed so much in every aspect that IMO the point of arguing that it did not is pretty pointless. If you went to the hi end audio shop 20 years ago with $100k they would deliver your dream system to you and kiss your feet. Try walking into a high end shop now with the same requirement. They will ask for a mortgage on your house and potentially even soul and $100k would be a down payment.

At the same time, with, say, Purifi or Hypex amplifiers, a good DAC, and a nice kit of speakers, you can get the same sound quality of a $100K system of 20 years ago for less than 10K today. I could share the design of my speakers, for instance (modified Beyma horn loaded AMT over bass reflex loaded FaitalPro 12PR300 and active ripole subs). And I am quite sure that once the Purifi tweeters are out there will be nice DIY projects that, in the worst case, one can ask somebody else to build for them.

And THIS is a problem for peddlers of high-end and esoteric stuff.
 
At the same time, with, say, Purifi or Hypex amplifiers, a good DAC, and a nice kit of speakers, you can get the same sound quality of a $100K system of 20 years ago for less than 10K today. I could share the design of my speakers, for instance (modified Beyma horn loaded AMT over bass reflex loaded FaitalPro 12PR300 and active ripole subs). And I am quite sure that once the Purifi tweeters are out there will be nice DIY projects that, in the worst case, one can ask somebody else to build for them.

And THIS is a problem for peddlers of high-end and esoteric stuff.
Indeed. I heard some higher end speakers in my last round, above the $10kish price point of my primary auditioning. Wilsons, Blades, B&W, etc.

In some cases inferior, and in others the difference just wasn’t that large. Maybe in the old days I was just impressed by low end extension (seems like that accounts for a lot of quality perception) but the differences seemed much larger then.
 
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.

All that carefully written knowledge and you still manage to abuse the apostrophe (unless your DACs are oddly possessive) … :)

But on to the main topic: today I can stream an astonishingly large percentage of the sum total of every recoding ever made from a tiny hand-held computer to wireless headphones that reproduce full-range, dynamic music with convincing spatiality (or to loudspeakers if I prefer, and throw in eg Atmos for spatiality) … but only since a decade or so into this century. So I’d say no, the OP premise is false.
 
Last edited:
Indeed. I heard some higher end speakers in my last round, above the $10kish price point of my primary auditioning. Wilsons, Blades, B&W, etc.

In some cases inferior, and in others the difference just wasn’t that large. Maybe in the old days I was just impressed by low end extension (seems like that accounts for a lot of quality perception) but the differences seemed much larger then.

In a normal home listening environment, very good monitors (like Purifi SPK16) over a one-per-channel active a ripole sub (easy to build), and then you have extended extension and state of the art transparecy and imaging, with all the oomph that you may need in the bass for music (not for movie special effects). End of the story. No need at all to spend more.

If one has a very large hall, of course they will also have the budget for something to fill that with sound.
 
I'll tell you what HAS flatlined in the last twenty years in some audio quarters - the attitude of a few long established 'flat earth' dealers who haven't moved on in forty years or so.. These people still belong to the same tribe I used to and they (at least here this side of the pond) still have influence, with a deep remaining suspicion of 'digital' and neutrality and relying on old flawed experiences and 'training' rather than trying to expend their knowledge and learn.

Rant over - as you were fellas :)
 
I listen to so many more musicians, types of music, sources of music, read more about music, have more portability of my music, music from all over the world, change songs, albums artists in seconds, with more and smaller better sounding devices than I did last century. How? THE INTERNET. Don't tell us tech has flatlined. IT HAS EXPLODED.
 
New magnets not widely available before 2000 have more power and control over previous generations allow for not just more power but more precision and linearity with quicker changes of direction and less overshoot of coil/spider cone assembly. They are revolutionizing not only speakers but motors and generators as well as medical devices and scanners

The strongest magnet material, Neodymium, was invented in 1982 in Japan. I have plenty of very early CD players (mid 1980s) with neodymium magnet voice coil drives for focusing the objective lens. They are 40 years old. Tweeters were appearing with Neodymium in the 80s and 90s.
 
The strongest magnet material, Neodymium, was invented in 1982 in Japan. I have plenty of very early CD players (mid 1980s) with neodymium magnet voice coil drives for focusing the objective lens. They are 40 years old. Tweeters were appearing with Neodymium in the 80s and 90s.
Not "invented", but rather used for magnet production. The actual element has been known for at least a century

 
Being among the outliers who likes to put drivers on the back of the box in a bid for "further refinements of radiation pattern", you caught my attention. Peter, if you read this, thanks for the encouragement!
Sadly Peter passed away June 22, 2017 at the ripe ole age of 91. :(
By which time he was no longer active in speaker reviews, etc.
He does/did follow the Floyd Toole school of speaker design and passed along
much of his knowledge to a few of his understudies.
The bulk of his publishing is still available here, lots of really good reading.
This is a good one.
 
Last edited:
There is something to be said about dr tooles and other peoples work in the fields of speaker and how we perceive them in home acoustic.
iE the importance of directivity has not yet penetrated the whole speaker market.

Some speakers are using the finest drivers and best crossovers but still has unimpressive off axis behavior and thus random and unpredictable behavior in normal listening rooms ( nearfield in the fully acousticaly treated studio is the only place they can work )
 
Indeed. I heard some higher end speakers in my last round, above the $10kish price point of my primary auditioning. Wilsons, Blades, B&W, etc.

In some cases inferior, and in others the difference just wasn’t that large. Maybe in the old days I was just impressed by low end extension (seems like that accounts for a lot of quality perception) but the differences seemed much larger then.
I've always been partial to tweeters. I hear much less out right offensive sets nowadays. More importantly this applies to lower tier offerings. I'm not surprised that a 10k speaker sounds good but sub $500/pair speakers are getting really good. Add an affordable DSP and most people are happy. Same applies to soundbars etc.

Sure, I'm yet to hear a $500 pair that has any business in actually great upper mid / high frequencies, still very far, but things have settled really nicely and you get far with a budget. That's progress.
 
Back
Top Bottom