Prospect of Pure Perfect Sound Heralds the Death of the Established Audio Industry

[RickSanchez]

Maybe they can install a socket in your skull to facilitate op-amp or tube rolling...

I, for one, am not looking forward to installing these in my skull when that day comes ...
https://www.entreq.com/products/accessories-17667732

"‘Vibb eaters’ consist largely of our own dedicated copper-based sand mixture with the addition of small quantities of, amongst other things , specific precious metals. The properties of this mixture offers very interesting characteristics, particularly in the areas of magnetic fields, field effects, as well as dealing with physical vibration & surface energy. When you place a ‘Vibb eater’ on top of your loudspeaker speaker or on top of your electronic equipment the vibrations and various magnetic fields that come from the box's are absorbed, then through the mechanical friction between the copper granular mixture the excess energy is converted into very low level heat."

 

[technoian]

When I read the opening post above, I at first thought it was a reprint from 1990, as 'pure perfect sound' was as available then as now. The only things to have improved significantly is power output, as low noise and distortion sufficient for transparency was available easily by then in electronics, and the better loudspeakers of the era were as good as much available today, although I'll accept that the newest DSP active loudspeakers are better than what was commonly available then. Although Meridian had DSP active loudspeakers then, but without integral in-room correction.

Since the late 1980s and early '90s, prices of the high end have got increasingly outrageous with no improvement in quality, as none was possible once transparency was reached. So, it's been style over substance and chasing increasingly small but inaudible technical improvements, 'because we can'!

Is it any wonder Joe Public can't see the point of it any more?

S

To condense my argument to its core; if we are able to achieve audible transparency even at budget prices then where do we go from there? Would this be the end game!

 

[sergeauckland]

To condense my argument to its core; if we are able to achieve audible transparency even at budget prices then where do we go from there? Would this be the end game!

For those for whom the music is what matters most, I think so. For those for whom the equipment and the chase for the ever better matters most, it'll never be over. Most forums and all the remaining magazines encourage the latter, so it may be some time yet , but as our generation die off, I can't see my children's generation or their children's taking to hifi in mass numbers.

S

 

[Wombat]

The marketing slogan "Pure, Perfect Sound - Forever" was used by Philips in conjunction with the launch of the digital compact disk in the early 1980's. The claim was greeted with scorn but it is only now, some 40 years later, that the other elements of the audio chain are about to get a digital makeover and those early claims may soon be realised.
For a start I think I need to define what I mean by perfect sound. To me a audio component displaying perfect sound is one with sufficiently low distortion so that none of those distortions are detectable by a listener. Currently it is in the field of DACs where were see many new products that are achieving this level of perfection so that a listener should not be able to detect any difference in the sound quality by substitution of any one of these 'top tier' DACS. Moving on to amplifiers it has been suggested that any amplifier exhibiting less than 0.01% THD+N (-80dB) distortion throughout its range of output power can be described as being audibly transparent and can therefore be said to have a perfect sound. There are several amplifiers now displaying this level of performance but they generally come at a premium price. How would you like to see this amplifier performance across all price levels? This prospect is now tantalisingly close with the development of the AX5689, a Class-D audio amplifier controller chip from a company based in the Netherlands named Axign. Axign was founded by former employees of NXP and the Philips Class-D division which was also the former employer of Bruno Putzeys who's subsequent work with Hypex and Purifi has done so much to raise the measured performance of class-D amplifiers. The theory behind the AX5689 chip is that a high speed analogue to digital converter (ADC) is used to sample the output of a class D amplifier and feeds that back to compare against the digital input signal. Any differences are then compensated for in the digital domain so that the amplifier output now closely matches the input signal. Just as a conventional amplifier uses feedback to improve performance this control chip uses a digital control loop to improve the performance of any class-D amplifier. What is especially impressive is that this technology can be used to improve the performance of existing class-D amplifier chips to raise their performance to that of our perfect sound criteria. This technology has been released into its first commercial product in the last month, namely the Harman Kardon Citation Streamer/Dac/Amplifier. We eagerly await its testing in ASR.
So now we have both the DACs and amplifier components exhibiting perfect sound we need to turn our attention to the elephant in the room. That elephant is the loudspeaker and it's performance is critical to overall sound quality but then so is the room itself who's contribution also needs to be addressed. Let's start with the loudspeaker. The loudspeaker is the highest source of distortions in the audio component chain and in a modern digital audio system has the biggest influence on perceived sound quality. The moving coil (dynamic) loudspeaker was invented at the end of the 19'th century and progress over the last 100 years has primarily centred on the use of new materials to tune the weight and stiffness of the drive units. Other loudspeaker technologies have been invented but it is still the dynamic loudspeaker with an number of drive units contained in a box that represents the vast majority of speakers sold today. The room in which the speakers are placed also influence the sound produced which varies with the dimensions and materials of the room itself. Compensation for room effects is now built in to most home cinema amplifiers and for stereo systems the DIRAC system is considered to be the current state of the art. So how might we compensate for the distortions and non-linearities introduced by the combination of speaker and room? What I foresee is an extension of the digital control loop circuit as created by AXIGN to now encompass both these additional components. A calibrated microphone could be used in conjunction with the ADC to feed back to the input of the amplifier which then compares the measured response to the original source signal and adjusts the signal to the amplifier to compensate for any differences. This is certainly not a trivial task with several problems to overcome but the technology needed is all in place today so I predict we will see a development of this coming to the marketplace in the next few years.
So now we can see how the use of digital feedback loop circuits could be key to bringing us perfect sound but how is this going to bring about the death of the current audio industry? I see this happening in two ways. Firstly if every audio system is now producing perfect sound there will be no incentive to upgrade unless you want additional features. Audio sites such as ASR will cease to exist as what is the point in testing anything when it all measures perfectly. Secondly it should be remembered that the digital feedback loop circuit is potentially cheap to implement alongside the existing individual components in the audio chain. The DAC/AMP/Speakers do not have to be individually perfect themselves to achieve a perfect result when subjected to a digital feedback loop. Therefore the technology promises to bring audio perfection at a low overall cost. Boutique audio manufacturers will cease to exist as they will be unable to compete in a market flooded perfect sounding systems all available at low cost.
Now where does the audiophile fit into this new future? Will this be an audio nirvana where we are finally able to concentrate on the music we play rather than on the audio systems we play it on or will an audiophile sub culture form where anything digital is dismissed as sterile sounding and analogue equipment from the 'golden age' is traded at vastly inflated prices to the advocates of analogue?
This is just my vision of the audio future. Would anyone care to comment?

More paragraphs and indentation please. My brain hurts.

 

[Blumlein 88]

To condense my argument to its core; if we are able to achieve audible transparency even at budget prices then where do we go from there? Would this be the end game!

With particular pieces you have probably had audible transparency in everything other than speakers for a generation. Ever more pieces reach that level at ever cheaper pricing. There are still reasons for features, looks, etc. to have various designs out there.

For sound quality it is mostly just speakers that count now. Not everyone believes that yet.

 

[Wombat]

This argument does not seem to appreciate the vast spectrum of motivations involved for buyers of audio equipment, especially those motivations that are not particularly logical.


This argument seems to greatly diminish the importance of ASR and its ability to independently verify (or disprove) manufacturers' published specs. Not to mention the many other contributions that ASR provides to the audio community.

We do not need 'perfect' sound for our limited physiology and perception. Somewhat less will do. Our physical and perceptual limitations are well known. And the beat goes on .................. .

 

[mitchco]

My post was intended to be read as a real-time continuously running loop with music as the source..

Compare what was sent in the past, to what is received in the present, and adjust the correction to be applied for the next iteration.

Ray have you seen or tried: https://meyersound.com/news/m-noise-test-signal/ While used for max SPL evaluation, maybe has potential...

@technoian Re: Pure, perfect sound. There is accurate sound reproduction. Have you heard it?

 

[RayDunzl]

Ray have you seen or tried: https://meyersound.com/news/m-noise-test-signal/ While used for max SPL evaluation, maybe has potential...

Not seen...

"M‑Noise can be used to determine the linear peak SPL of any loudspeaker system, regardless of manufacturer, size or design. "

---

I didn't read too much of the text yet.

I don't want to blow up my antique amps or speakers.

I've already performed "compression" test up to the levels I listen, at least, to maybe 10dB below peak SPL and didn't see signs of distress.

---

As for using it at lower levels, let's take a look...

Red - mnoise @96kHz
Green - mnoise resampled @48kHz in-room with no EQ on the Martin Logans
No smoothing

Oops.

Left a 40us delay on the right side from earlier experiments...

Made a little difference in the highs.

Blue - no delay on right channel

With Psychoacoustic Averaging applied to the above peak readings:

and add JBL LSR 308 - Gray

I need to remeasure and create a new filter... so no EQ applied here, which would make it closer and smoother.

But, looks reasonable anyway.

 

[Universal Cereal Bus]

I don't doubt the consensus that electronics are mostly audibly transparent yet, being a layperson, my ignorance makes me wonder whether this will hold true for future applications beyond the current scope of the hobby (i.e., listening to music and movies).

To use a very crude comparison and anecdote, in the early days of PC and console gaming, someone would invariably argue that you don't need more than 24 frames per second because that's what film uses and your brain fills in the information between frames, or some shit. Clearly, the interactive nature of the medium is different from movie watching and, yes, your brain does need more information. Then 60 frames became a loose standard but the nascent popularity of competitive gaming confirmed that even higher is better. VR experiences later showed that 90 frames was a bare minimum to reduce nausea. 25-30 years ago, kids arguing about 24 frames in the schoolyard could not have foreseen theses changes in their little hobby.

I think you can probably point to some tangible examples of rising standards in audio hardware when the hobby expanded to include the home theatre market. Keep your jokes about AVRs to yourselves--I'm thinking maybe multichannel (?), subwoofer technology (?), I dunno, HT isn't my thing.

Anyway, the point is there are some immature audio technologies on the horizon (3D audio, the aforementioned brain-interfaces), let alone audio technologies that have not yet been invented, all of which may reveal audibility problems with electronics currently believed to be transparent. Maybe it's the bias of my profession but I generally believe every technology that is state of the art will eventually be obsoleted.

 

[sergeauckland]

I don't doubt the consensus that electronics are mostly audibly transparent yet, being a layperson, my ignorance makes me wonder whether this will hold true for future applications beyond the current scope of the hobby (i.e., listening to music and movies).

To use a very crude comparison and anecdote, in the early days of PC and console gaming, someone would invariably argue that you don't need more than 24 frames per second because that's what film uses and your brain fills in the information between frames, or some shit. Clearly, the interactive nature of the medium is different from movie watching and, yes, your brain does need more information. Then 60 frames became a loose standard but the nascent popularity of competitive gaming confirmed that even higher is better. VR experiences later showed that 90 frames was a bare minimum to reduce nausea. 25-30 years ago, kids arguing about 24 frames in the schoolyard could not have foreseen theses changes in their little hobby.

I think you can probably point to some tangible examples of rising standards in audio hardware when the hobby expanded to include the home theatre market. Keep your jokes about AVRs to yourselves--I'm thinking maybe multichannel (?), subwoofer technology (?), I dunno, HT isn't my thing.

Anyway, the point is there are some immature audio technologies on the horizon (3D audio, the aforementioned brain-interfaces), let alone audio technologies that have not yet been invented, all of which may reveal audibility problems with electronics currently believed to be transparent. Maybe it's the bias of my profession but I generally believe every technology that is state of the art will eventually be obsoleted.

Both gaming and HT are not anything I'm remotely interested in, so I'll pass on comments there. I'm only interested in audio for reproducing recorded music, and for me, what's lacking in stereo and even in 5.1 surround is the full sound-field one gets at a real venue. I had some experience of sound-field synthesis before I retired, work done by the Fraunhofer institute together with the German company Lawo. This work used a Calrec Soundfield microphone to make recordings, then reproduced them in full surround, including height. It was fairly impressive, traffic noise in a city street reproduced pretty realistically, but, and it was a big but, it took some 200 loudspeakers, 500 channels of DSP and a ballroom sized room to do it in. Move out of more-or-less the middle of the room, and the effect collapsed. It clearly wasn't anything that could be used domestically, and attempts at reducing the number of individual channels also reduced the realism.

Even with 5.1 or 7.1 surround, it's very few people who can dedicate a decent sized room to it, and even fewer who would use it primarily for music, and fewer still bands or orchestras that release material in full surround. Most people struggle these days to have two loudspeakers well positioned for stereo, or care whether they do, the chances of significant numbers doing it for true sound-field synthesis are vanishingly small.

Without a potential market, I can't see this going anywhere, music on the go is far more in line with modern thinking. I truly think that the days of HiFi music listening as a dedicated activity are over except for a reducing band of brothers (and the occasional very welcome sister) such as most of us here.

S.

 

[BDWoody]

Anyway, the point is there are some immature audio technologies on the horizon (3D audio, the aforementioned brain-interfaces), let alone audio technologies that have not yet been invented, all of which may reveal audibility problems with electronics currently believed to be transparent. Maybe it's the bias of my profession but I generally believe every technology that is state of the art will eventually be obsoleted.

I agree with much of what you say. I saw this the other day, and while I obviously have no idea how it will work out in the real world, I'm very interested in seeing where these kinds of beaming technologies will go.

https://apnews.com/article/new-tech-device-sound-beaming-noveto-38327ae5fe116080a5eaf2374eb0f5c8

I think the creation of more 'holographic' audio space, like what @sergeauckland was talking about, is what's coming next, and what I'm most interested in.

 

[Universal Cereal Bus]

Yes, I agree that dedicated listening rooms are on the way out. And the HiFis in the non-TV room are being replaced by smart speakers, Sonos, etc. I think there's a clear trend in recent years towards HiFi music consumption at a desktop setting; the reviews and traffic on this very site are evidence of the popularity of desktop amps, dacs, headphones, and monitors. This hobby has a say in whether it itself continues or dies off. Any hobby that doesn't embrace change will stagnate and become a niche curiosity as its members age out.

If the community decides HiFi only stands for listening to stereo music in certain traditional environments, then its days are numbered. Addressing the HT market was one example of staying alive. Desktop is a recent one and I think it remains to be seen whether it's fully embraced. What's next?

More broadly, I believe that any technology driven hobby (essentially, any hobby where you need to buy gear) needs to keep pushing the technological envelope in order to stay interesting, relevant--and most importantly--profitable. It's a bit gross and very capitalist to think that way but I can't deny it. And it's more honest than the alternative.

Look at hobbies where the tech is "timeless." Why do people buy that stuff and keep the industry churning? It's mostly marketing or their version of snake oil. Mechanical watches, classic cars, vintage anything. Selling emotion and feeling is the only way to get new people into a hobby in which the tech has plateaued. Even they won't say with a straight face that its performance is any better.

So if this community decides that the tech (transducers excluded) simply can't get any better, then it can either die honestly or live and go down the pure snake oil route. A better path would be to expand its horizons and find new living rooms.

 

[Frank Dernie]

By a very considerable margin the recording quality is more variable and more important than any of the equipment we buy.
CDs did, and do, have the potential to store audibly perfect sound forever but, sadly, the sound stored on them rarely approaches "perfect" and very often isn't even "good".

 

[technoian]

Ray have you seen or tried: https://meyersound.com/news/m-noise-test-signal/ While used for max SPL evaluation, maybe has potential...

@technoian Re: Pure, perfect sound. There is accurate sound reproduction. Have you heard it?

If we were to hear truly accurate sound reproduction then would we even recognise it as such?
I entered a small shop in town once with my partner and there was piano music playing. I looked around the room before turning to my partner and saying "Where is the piano playing this music?". She turned back to me and said "Don't be stupid there is obviously no piano in here. The music is playing over the speakers." We went further into the shop only to find there was a doorway and in the other room there was a guy sitting and playing a piano. I though it best to pass no further comment at that point...

 

[Boris Badinov]

If we were to hear truly accurate sound reproduction then would we even recognise it as such?
I entered a small shop in town once with my partner and there was piano music playing. I looked around the room before turning to my partner and saying "Where is the piano playing this music?". She turned back to me and said "Don't be stupid there is obviously no piano in here. The music is playing over the speakers." We went further into the shop only to find there was a doorway and in the other room there was a guy sitting and playing a piano. I though it best to pass no further comment at that point...

You probably saved your own life that day

 

[mitchco]

If we were to hear truly accurate sound reproduction then would we even recognise it as such?
I entered a small shop in town once with my partner and there was piano music playing. I looked around the room before turning to my partner and saying "Where is the piano playing this music?". She turned back to me and said "Don't be stupid there is obviously no piano in here. The music is playing over the speakers." We went further into the shop only to find there was a doorway and in the other room there was a guy sitting and playing a piano. I though it best to pass no further comment at that point...

The simple reality is that one can only "reproduce" what is on the recording. The question then becomes how accurately can one reproduce what is on the recording. Technically speaking that is achievable with no frequency or time domain distortion arriving at ones ears with our current technology. That's as good as it gets.

 

[Robin L]

By a very considerable margin the recording quality is more variable and more important than any of the equipment we buy.
CDs did, and do, have the potential to store audibly perfect sound forever but, sadly, the sound stored on them rarely approaches "perfect" and very often isn't even "good".

Far too many people focus on the package or the delivery service at the expense of the contents.

 

[escksu]

Would sound still seem life-like to us if it were injected directly into the brain, bypassing the ears? Would correction be added to this injected signal to add an ear signature to it? Why not just use the ears and get if over with? It'd sure be cheaper!

Yes, it can be done. Direct stimulating of the brain. Basically, everything from your sensors (see, hear, taste, smell, touch) are all electrical signals to the brain. So, its entirely possible to replicate these signals and send them to your brain.

 

[Robin L]

Yes, it can be done. Direct stimulating of the brain. Basically, everything from your sensors (see, hear, taste, smell, touch) are all electrical signals to the brain. So, its entirely possible to replicate these signals and send them to your brain.

That will be one hell of an uncanny valley.

 

[escksu]

if every audio system is now producing perfect sound there will be no incentive to upgrade unless you want additional features.

I have to say that perfect sound does not exist. We do not have the means to reproduce a recording with 100% accuracy, neither do we have the means to capture the sound produced with 100% accuracy (equipment and technology limitation). Of course, technology and equipment does improve over time.

I will not get into subjective nature of it here....