Should HiFi be much less expensive nowadays, because of technology and obsolescence?

[raistlin65]

Most music lovers listen on speakers. Headphones and ear buds are too uncomfortable and inconvenient for serious listening. I only use them on a bus or 'plane not a good environment for the admittedly fairly good SQ to show.
Good speakers, particularly full range and loud enough for a big room, are expensive.

That is very much a speaker fan biased view. If you hang out on headphone forums, you'll find plenty of serious music listeners. And in fact, given the popularity of headphones today, I would be very surprised if a substantially higher percentage of music lovers today use speakers over headphones.

In fact, I do more of my close listening with headphones, as I can do so from almost wherever I want. Speakers I use more often for music in the background when doing something else. In fact, I if had to choose between only having my Focal Elears or my Sierra 2EX, and no other headphone or speakers, I'd keep the Elears.

 

[gfx_1]

One thing is cheaper access to music. I used to buy records and later CD's probably spend thousands of guldens on them
which I really should spend on a house.
To play I had a sony cd-player later a cambridge audio CD6 over some DIY speaker kit and a Marantz amplifier.
Large screen TV's are cheaper the current 55" one is cheaper than the two previous ones and comes with a sat-tuner and some apps.
Harddisk storage is a lot less expensive than in the late eighties $100 for 1TB SSD. Raspberry pi's are a nice streaming platform for $40

 

[F1308]

While I agree that headphones have become the most popular way of listening to music, I don't think there's evidence to support young music listeners were more serious listeners 20 or more years ago. While today's listeners may have music on more often because of headphones, I'd be surprised if, for example, gen X spent more hours on average listening more seriously.

I never met anyone capable of listening to music without speaking but while at the opera or at the concert hall [and then even there you felt like or had to remember them where they were...]. Most people I know just consider music a high quality background noise you only have to pay attention to at times. A couple of 55$ Bluetooth small loudspeakers paired in stereo will be more than enough and many people will just use only one without the bother of pairing or buying the second one. And at those prices it will probably be submersible...!!!
Earbuds and headphones have change that. You are committed to hear what they play now and then. They make me remember those times when the pictures taken with that old 35 mm film cameras were often preceded with someone asking you to hurry while not smiling or participating actively....Selfies changed that: everyone smiling, everyone looking for the best place into the window, everyone in the submarine: where we go one, we go all.

 

[F1308]

I saw an article in What Hi-Fi: https://www.whathifi.com/features/10-worlds-most-expensive-turntables

View attachment 66238

I thought to myself " ... and then you drag a rock through a plastic groove".

What make the engine/engines running it are , Roll's Royce or Pratt& Whitney...?

 

[Frank Dernie]

That is very much a speaker fan biased view. If you hang out on headphone forums, you'll find plenty of serious music listeners. And in fact, given the popularity of headphones today, I would be very surprised if a substantially higher percentage of music lovers today use speakers over headphones.

In fact, I do more of my close listening with headphones, as I can do so from almost wherever I want. Speakers I use more often for music in the background when doing something else. In fact, I if had to choose between only having my Focal Elears or my Sierra 2EX, and no other headphone or speakers, I'd keep the Elears.

My experience is people using headphones are mainly using them to blot out the background noises of the open plan office they work in.
They are ideally suited for this, and being physically attached to the music system isn't such a pain when you are sitting at a desk doing something else anyway.

Even the finest headphones I have heard, and I have a stupidly large number for somebody preferring speakers, give too much "in the head" sound for me to consider them for serious listening at home.

Edit.
I am less a speaker fan and more a person who was forced by circumstance to use headphones whilst finding listening in a room much, much more natural.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Oh, yes, I know.
But the quality you get in places where those out of the world speakers are sadly not available is really terrific, and turns out to be the only way to have HiFi for those of us who are often away from home [ your Captain speaking...].
Even those bad environments will be turned into a non existing ones thanks to the noise cancelling service, be it active or passive...Music and nearly only music, HiFi every time you wish, everywhere.

I am retired now but as somebody away from home a lot and on an aeroplane most weeks I listened to my music on headphones and ear buds a lot over 30 years.
Perhaps that is why I am so happy not to need to do it any more!

 

[maverickronin]

My experience is people using headphones are mainly using them to blot out the background noises of the open plan office they work in.
They are ideally suited for this, and being physically attached to the music system isn't such a pain when you are sitting at a desk doing something else anyway.

I think the popularity of headphones is more about the lack of space for proper speakers.

Even the finest headphones I have heard, and I have a stupidly large number for somebody preferring speakers, give too much "in the head" sound for me to consider them for serious listening at home.

There are some rather nice DSP solutions for that now.

That said if I had room I'd prefer speaker for the full body impact.

 

[restorer-john]

This is an interesting thread Frank. Should HiFi gear be cheaper in real terms than it is?

Personally, I don't think much modern gear is particularly good value at all. In real terms, it's expensive and even much of the Chinese gear is overpriced for what it is. Take these little headphone "amplifiers" around US$400-$500 for example. They are an utter rip-off in my eyes. HiFi was so much better value in the past due to the massive economies of scale and Japanese efficiencies.

It's funny, I was thinking of doing an in depth comparison for ASR of three integrated amplifiers from the same manufacturer (Yamaha) that I happen to have floating around here, from 1977-8, 1992-5 and 2010-14. (CA-610, AX-570, AS-300). The CA-810 sold for just £155 (in the UK) back in 1978.

Speakers have become absolutely stupidly priced. At one end, you have cheap and cheerful little 6.5" 2 ways by the thousands offering nice little bedroom systems that, when coupled with a decent amplifier, you get some quite approachable sound. At the other end, you have US$10K-40K speakers that maybe are great, but again, extremely poor value for money. Consider what your NS1000M pair sold for. Even in 1991 I sold them for AU$3499 pair. Even the stupendous NS-1000X was AU$4999 pair. And they were the best speakers a company the size of Yamaha could produce. Even the Centenary NS-10000X were under AU$10K per pair.

Sony's most expensive (in '91) and extremely high performance TOTL pre/power pair was AU$4200 (1799+2399). Yamaha's TOTL pre/power pair was AU$4300 (2399+1899) and Pioneer's pair was $4200. (200/260/200 wpc). There was intense competition at the top end as well as the bottom from the Japanese. They were all bristling with features, build quality and operational functionality. Warranties were a minimum of three years (Sony ES and Pioneer) and Yamaha had 5 years. You are lucky to get 1 year now.

My opinion is we are not remotely in the second "Golden Age" of HiFi, despite what some others think. Instead of massive R&D budgets and enormous economies of scale, along with a limited number of manufacturers, we have disparate little garage outfits stuffing basic single function disposable PCBs in generic boxes. The big boys have long since given up on HiFi proper, so overall, it's more money for considerably less.

The current crop of Yamaha amplifiers may look pretty, but apart from the TOTL models, they are not a patch on products they produced decades ago. Sony, I just shake my head. Pioneer- gone essentially as far as real HiFi. Marantz, Denon, Onkyo in the same boat. It's up to the little upstart companies to scrape together a "range" of a few DACs and Headphone stages- basically picking up the crumbs under the table after the dinner guests have left.

 

[Mawclaw]

To have a serious second coming of the "golden age" there needs to be a demand that is not there. Also it makes no sense for companies to erode their margins in a luxury market.

On the flip side I do think the next 10 years are going to be great for a couple reasons.

Cheap and mature DSP is available and accepted.
Class D is mature
DACs are cheap
Computer modeling is accessible and powerful

Unfortunately, if I rub my crystal ball I don't think the innovations will be in stereo. It will be some homepod/soundbar abomination with insane software that will actually be good. Software is the future as with most things imo. The physics of speakers seem pretty well understood.

Items that I think are part of the "new age"
-Dutch and Dutch, super cheap for an apex product.
-MiniDSP
-DIRAC
-REW
-Homepod, even though its current iteration is trash.

Just my 2 cents

 

[restorer-john]

It will be some homepod/soundbar abomination with insane software that will actually be good. Software is the future as with most things imo. The physics of speakers seem pretty well understood.

You are right in my opinion. DSP based active speakers with a wireless setup microphone included in the box. Whenever you physically move the speakers or the furniture, you just press a button on the wireless calibration mic at your listening position and 20 seconds later, the speaker is optimized for the room.

Log into the speaker's on board web page and it will have "hints" on adding rugs or bass traps, wall treatments etc. "Try a shag pile rug from Ikea in front of the speaker" or "Hang a tapestry behind the speakers and retest".

And, they will be cheap, because everyone will be doing it. Forget the AVR or separate DSP route- put it all in the speaker and be done with it.

 

[Blujackaal]

It's already been cheap if you ignore the TOTL audiophiles. A ER2SE + EQ/DSP is pretty endgame worthy since crossfeed/speaker sims can make the Ety's rival the HD800.

No idea with speakers since I've never had one since i was 16.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Homepod, even though its current iteration is trash.

Shame. I haven't heard one and am not interested because it basically needs streaming from Apple music and Siri to work but I thought their re-calibration of themselves to their location was a neat bit of technology.

 

[ttimer]

You are right in my opinion. DSP based active speakers with a wireless setup microphone included in the box. Whenever you physically move the speakers or the furniture, you just press a button on the wireless calibration mic at your listening position and 20 seconds later, the speaker is optimized for the room.

Log into the speaker's on board web page and it will have "hints" on adding rugs or bass traps, wall treatments etc. "Try a shag pile rug from Ikea in front of the speaker" or "Hang a tapestry behind the speakers and retest".

And, they will be cheap, because everyone will be doing it. Forget the AVR or separate DSP route- put it all in the speaker and be done with it.

Nice idea. But the reality will be that the speakers only work with an app, use your smartphone mic and will require you to register an account with the manufacturer (better not forget that password...). Each speaker requires access to your wifi and will develop unpatched security holes within 1-2 years. The app itself will vanish from the appstore after 3-5 years or your speakers will no longer be supported.

Better hope they were super cheap because we will be buying and throwing away a lot of them over the lifetime of a good pair of passive speakers.

 

[Jimbob54]

What? Come on, you Luddite! The Bluetooth tooth-brush is a must-have.

I've had 2 with the function (when amazon heavily discount, the motors and batteries are better than the cheaper models) and disabled as quickly as I can find the section in the manual. I got one this week, it has a white plastic phone stand!!

 

[JeffS7444]

I'd argue that hifi has never been more popular than it is today, but as something you do with your mobile devices, not as single-purpose appliances sitting at home, wherever home is. And thanks to DSP incorporated into "party speakers", the music blaring from fraternity and sorority houses is no longer heavily distorted!

Sometimes I think longingly of the days I'd see McIntosh "Clinics" in progress, or pick up thick but pocket-sized Technics catalogs, but then I remember how I couldn't afford any of it, and suddenly feel a lot less nostalgic.

 

[sergeauckland]

I'd argue that hifi has never been more popular than it is today, but as something you do with your mobile devices, not as single-purpose appliances sitting at home, wherever home is. And thanks to DSP incorporated into "party speakers", the music blaring from fraternity and sorority houses is no longer heavily distorted!

Sometimes I think longingly of the days I'd see McIntosh "Clinics" in progress, or pick up thick but pocket-sized Technics catalogs, but then I remember how I couldn't afford any of it, and suddenly feel a lot less nostalgic.

I think this come down to the question, what is HiFi and what is it for? Yes, today's portable devices are objectively HiFi in terms of technical performance, the dBs and kHz are all good, but I question the use to which this HiFi is put to, and whether that then constitutes HiFi listening.

Wearing headphones on the bus or in the office implies that the wearer is doing something else at the time, and consequently listening is not the primary activity on which the wearer is concentrating on. It's the personal equivalent of in-store background music, an accompaniment to other activities. Is it therefore correct to call it HiFi? The equipment may be, but the circumstances aren't.

That's why I cannot find that listening to headphones, however good, is HiFi in the way that at home, sitting quietly concentrating on the music spread out in front of one, in the way it is at a concert or gig can be.

S.

 

[Lorenzo74]

I saw an article in What Hi-Fi: https://www.whathifi.com/features/10-worlds-most-expensive-turntables

View attachment 66238

I thought to myself " ... and then you drag a rock through a plastic groove".

you’re right.
this is totally nonsense if objective is accurate music reproduction.
amazing how many good things you can do (even save lives) with half million £/$/€

another story is if this stuff is designed to make happy rich people, indeed it’s a toy.
apologize upfront to be so blunt.
my Best
L.

 

[JeffS7444]

I think this come down to the question, what is HiFi and what is it for? Yes, today's portable devices are objectively HiFi in terms of technical performance, the dBs and kHz are all good, but I question the use to which this HiFi is put to, and whether that then constitutes HiFi listening.

Wearing headphones on the bus or in the office implies that the wearer is doing something else at the time, and consequently listening is not the primary activity on which the wearer is concentrating on. It's the personal equivalent of in-store background music, an accompaniment to other activities. Is it therefore correct to call it HiFi? The equipment may be, but the circumstances aren't.

This reminds me of an anecdote I read about Zen training:

The master advises the student "When you drink tea, just drink tea". Later, this student comes across the master drinking tea while reading the newspaper, and the master explains "When you drink tea while reading the newspaper, just drink tea while reading the newspaper".

 

[Robin L]

. . . That's why I cannot find that listening to headphones, however good, is HiFi in the way that at home, sitting quietly concentrating on the music spread out in front of one, in the way it is at a concert or gig can be.

S.

Nonsense. The purpose of Hi-Fi is to listen to music. If one is in the audience, the perspective is more like free-standing speakers. Surround is even more convincing. A lot of effort goes in maintaining the illusion of being in the concert hall or club. But if one is a performing musician, the perspective of headphones, where the singer is in the center and the guitarist sits beside her, is more in concordance with experience. Another factor is the direct quality of multiple musical voices via 'phones vs, the diffuse sound via speakers. If one wants to hear specific musical details, headphone listening is more productive.

This isn't a right or wrong issue, more of a "different strokes" reality. While it's true that headphones on subways are used in large part to increase social isolation and function as a filter from the surrounding audio pollution, one can just as easily focus on music in such a situation as not. Same thing applies to listening to car stereos while crusin' down the highway. One can easily ignore music while enjoying it with friends. Talking over music while drinking, laughing, is one of the communal joys of music. Some music, Eno is the best but not the only example, is intentionally composed as musical wallpaper. While many musical highlights within my experience came via "passive" listening at concert halls and smaller musical venues, some came via playing with others in living rooms and patios, sometimes coffee shops. Some of the most intense musical experiences came via headphone listening. And some came via the sound inside my head.

Glenn Gould was asked [actually, he hired a so-called 'interviewer' and handed him a script], about his decision to "drop out" of concert performance*: "Is your ideal a one to one relation of performer to audience?", Gould's response being that he preferred a one to zero relation. He said elsewhere that the very best music is the music audited via memory. He was a performer who performed at his best when no one else was around. It's a paradox, seeing as how so many performances of Glenn Gould have been listened to by so many people. Glenn Gould preferred microphone placement that would produce an audio perspective as close as possible to what he would hear while playing. Speaking as someone who's noodled more than a little on some fine pianos, It's a sonic perspective that is more realistic via headphones.

* truth to tell, Gould turned out to be a wizard at playing the stock market, didn't need to play in public in order to fiscally thrive, and found all aspects of public performance irritating in the extreme.

 

[raistlin65]

My experience is people using headphones are mainly using them to blot out the background noises of the open plan office they work in.
They are ideally suited for this, and being physically attached to the music system isn't such a pain when you are sitting at a desk doing something else anyway.

Even the finest headphones I have heard, and I have a stupidly large number for somebody preferring speakers, give too much "in the head" sound for me to consider them for serious listening at home.

Edit.
I am less a speaker fan and more a person who was forced by circumstance to use headphones whilst finding listening in a room much, much more natural.

I was part of the first mobile audio generation, having bought the Sony Walkman II when it came out during college. Also got a pair of Mission 77 speakers and NAD amplifier the next year.

So for me, speakers and headphones are different, but equally enjoyable. In fact, I find the around the around/in the head vs. out in front of me difference of headphones vs. speakers more of a non-comparable experience. In other words, for me it's not a ribeye to new york strip comparison, but good sushi to steak.

And so I can easily understand why anyone could prefer either one or the other for serious music listening.