Question for the boomers: what was it like to live through major improvements in audio fidelity?

[Audionaut]

It was the pinnacle of home music reproduction, and it still hasn't been technically superseded as streaming is data compressed

With many streaming providers, the opposite is true: the quality and bit rate is higher than CD.

 

[sergeauckland]

With many streaming providers, the opposite is true: the quality and bit rate is higher than CD.

The bit rate may be higher, but I question whether the quality is better. As Red Book is already fully transparent, how can a higher bit rate be better? It just takes up more space.

S.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Some of the mechanics were incredibly ingenious, such as in Loom.

That was a magic game!

 

[Timcognito]

AM radio in SFBA: KYA KFRC (rock and roll), KDIA (soul) KDFC (classical) KCBS (news)
45 singles -> hear on radio -> go to a record store buy
Magnetic tape -> make and record your own, Boon to recording studios -> more and better music on radio
Solid state -> inexpensive gear from Japan w/ integrated features, no tubes
Stereo -> stimulates hobbyists and marketing dream
British Invasion -> shunned R&B and Blues stimulates shaggy hair dudes and upsets Top 40
FM radio -> plays Lp full sides in stereo, underground radio, Summer of Love, begins decline of AM
Lp mania -> hear on FM radio -> go to a record store buy, formerly classical domain
8 track Tape and FM -> music in the car -> lots of rewinding -> cassettes
CDs -> all digital, skipping tracks, small footprint, copy with computer, portable players, your music everywhere
Remote Control -> on, off, volume skip and pause from the chair
Multi-disc Jukebox -> 100 of Cds on one player, skipping albums, park your ass in chair for hours
Internet Radio ->music from all over the word, no broadcast limitations, thousand of choices and genres
Streaming -> no broadcast limitations, thousand of choices and genres, no DJ, decline of CD sales
Integrated Player + NAS -> no jewel cases or storage issues, one dashboard for all digital formats and personal collection

 

[Robin L]

The bit rate may be higher, but I question whether the quality is better. As Red Book is already fully transparent, how can a higher bit rate be better? It just takes up more space.

S.

I listen to a lot of older (1950s/60s) classical recordings. I'm finding that their "hi-rez" remasters on Tidal, for the most part, use a fair amount of digital delay/reverb to cover up the tears in the musical fabric. Pretty sounding but not accurate.

 

[krabapple]

Digital audio and digital "room correction", as well as advances in acoustics and speaker performance knowledge described in Floyd Toole's book, were all game changers.

 

[sergeauckland]

I listen to a lot of older (1950s/60s) classical recordings. I'm finding that their "hi-rez" remasters on Tidal, for the most part, use a fair amount of digital delay/reverb to cover up the tears in the musical fabric. Pretty sounding but not accurate.

Especially given that those recordings would have been done on tape with at best a 60dB S/N ratio, 3% peak distortion, using microphones that were drooping by 18kHz. Even Red Book standard is more than adequate. Modern remastering including using digital reverb might make the original recording more pleasant, but it doesn't need HiRes for that.

S.

 

[ZolaIII]

I listen to a lot of older (1950s/60s) classical recordings. I'm finding that their "hi-rez" remasters on Tidal, for the most part, use a fair amount of digital delay/reverb to cover up the tears in the musical fabric. Pretty sounding but not accurate.

It's very hard to pick good noise sample sometimes and most people who do it really should be doing something else in life. So when you wipe out part of energy information along with noise you brake space part and aim to get it back using reverb without fundamental (room). That done properly is most you could expect from such "remasters", God forbid if they make more mess.

 

[Robin L]

Especially given that those recordings would have been done on tape with at best a 60dB S/N ratio, 3% peak distortion, using microphones that were drooping by 18kHz. Even Red Book standard is more than adequate. Modern remastering including using digital reverb might make the original recording more pleasant, but it doesn't need HiRes for that.

S.

But the remastering work was processed 24/192, so why not toss the hi-rez version that into the market? I've noticed that "Sony" (used to be RCA Victor and Columbia) has released a lot of these sorts of 24/192 files on Tidal.

 

[Ropeburn]

I also find it interesting how much our imagination patched up the graphics back in the day. I remember the games of the 90s as having really good graphics and I had no problem immersing myself in the stories, while in reality it looked like this.

View attachment 444748

It actually looked better than that, because CRT monitors.

 

[Robin L]

It's very hard to pick good noise sample sometimes and most people who do it really should be doing something else in life. So when you wipe out part of energy information along with noise you brake space part and aim to get it back using reverb without fundamental (room). That done properly is most you could expect from such "remasters", God forbid if they make more mess.

I've heard some pretty impressive de-noising on a number of Warner Classics issues. The Warner Classics release of Schnabel's Beethoven sonatas, a good example. The earlier "official" reissue on EMI suffered from excessive digital de-noising, results were out of focus. The newer re-issue on WC is in hard focus, with very clear articulation and a much cleaner background. I think the Sony remasters use some subtle de-noising and probably too much reverb.

 

[sergeauckland]

But the remastering work was processed 24/192, so why not toss the hi-rez version that into the market? I've noticed that "Sony" (used to be RCA Victor and Columbia) has released a lot of these sorts of 24/192 files on Tidal.

I'd put it the other way round. Why release a wasteful format when there's no audible benefit? Processing at 24/192 makes a certain amount of sense for production, none whatsoever for distribution. There does seem to be an attitude that just because we can, we therefore should. I take the other approach. Every use of resources has to be justified by a benefit. When there is no benefit, use the minimum of resources necessary to get the job done.

S.

 

[Gorgonzola]

Yes, can remember the advent of the CD -- much anticipated by me and others.

The first CD players were, of course, pricey so I held off for a couple of years. My first CDP was a Yamaha CD-X1. How did it sound? Uhmm ... not so great: bright, sharp highs. My next CDP was Technics SL-PS70, a considerable improvement. I have have couple of players since then.

However I personally preferred the CD format vs. LP from the start. I hated the handling, cleaning, and turntable setup & tuning that LPs involved. Today I still buy CDs because they are a practical purchase medium for Classical music lovers. However I don't play them as such; for the last 15 years of so I have ripped everything to lossless computer file and played those thru a computer music player. I have down loaded a few recordings as well.

What I haven't done is dive into the streaming craze. As a mainly Classical listener my streaming service trials have show spotty selection and quite poor search/browse for Classical music.

Yamaha CD-X1 ...

Technics SL-PS70 ...

 

[anome]

Generation Jones here. A moment in time regarding audio that always stood out for me was the release of the Ry Cooder album Bop Till You Drop. A defining moment in the transition from the analogue to digital eras. Blending the two while transitioning to the later.

 

[levimax]

I was born late 1950's. For me the biggest technological quality improvement is for TV. Going from 12" black and white to 19" color to 87" OLED is a huge quality improvement. For audio the quality improvement is much more subtle. In the early 1960's you could get a McIntosh tube amp with Altec A7's and a good quality TT or RTR and a graphic equalizer and a well recorded Frank Sinatra or Ella Fitzgerald LP or tape and get very good sound quality, not quite as good as the best of today's gear but actually better than what most people listen to. For audio technology the biggest change is that the cost for quality gear and recordings has come WAY down.

 

[Deleted member 20765]

Yes, I was excited as heck to get into CDs. At work during this time, I was designing a video disc recorder/player. The requirements are very similar. I went to Japan in 1984 on business. I was given a tour of Toshiba's production facility. There were hundreds of optical modules undergoing life testing. I was very eager to share knowledge and ideas with the Japanese engineers. I bought my first CD player in Akihabara.

I came home and eagerly stored away my TT and LPs to make room for the CD player and CDs.

But bummer.....

I was not excited by the sound. Boring, no bass, no life. Very, very disappointed. Back out came the TT and LPs.

Even today, I find that CDs, in fact anything digital, does not have the ear grabbing power that LPs do.

That videodisc player and recorder I developed performed very well until it was superceded by VHS tape players. They were cheaper and not as prone to errors as videodiscs were.

I walked away from this technology and got into optical communications. No regrets at all.

 

[RayDunzl]

What's changed? Digital and all its ramifications.

Gear in general has improved, modern construction methods and chips and all that.

The only thing I would say is that "popular" music has suffered, in my opinion.

Maybe part of it is my lack of ingesting trendy chemical amusement aids, or not hanging with people listening to it, who knows.

Maybe that's just how it works as you age, but I'd likely be unable to identify anything on the Pop Charts from at least the last 20, or maybe 30 years.

I don't remember anyone asking me "Have you heard (whatever)" over multiple decades, not including my single Audio Buddy, of course, with whom I tend to share likes and dislikes.

The most recent tune (on the radio, WMNF) that caught my ear was an Elton John cover, by Fireside Collective. Not that I really like the original tune, but it's listenable in its original form, and I like the way these guys presented it.

Pop Music is still popular, of course, maybe by definition, just not so much with me.

I'll side with Rick. Here's what he considers the "The Most Complex Pop song of all Time". I like music where I have trouble guessing what the next notes will be. If I can guess, it's more like I've already heard it, and move on.

 

[MaxBuck]

I'm a definite Boomer. What have been the "big improvements" I remember most?

1. Solid state amplifiers with massive power, like the Ampzilla and the early SAEs. The headroom was fantastic, and remains so today!
2. Non-traditional speaker designs like the Dahlquist DQ-10s and the Ohms. Man, I'd love to see a Spinorama on the DQ-10s.
3. CDs
4. Subwoofers
5. Cheap, accurate DACs
6. Efficient Class D amps that provide cool power
7. Streaming

Each of these brought quantum improvements in sound quality and, in most cases, reduced prices compared to predecessor technologies. We're truly in a golden age for high fidelity music reproduction.

 

[hex168]

I grew up with my parents' AR speakers and turntable and Dynaco tube electronics, so the sound was always pretty good. Tweeters did improve quite a bit over time. I appreciated CDs as soon as they came out, mainly to not have to bother with cleaning each record before playing it.

 

[analogonly]

Mostly better and less expensive but with cheap power, we lost dynamics. We also lost timbre.