Why Do Old Technologies Persist in Audio?

[bloodshoteyed]

Some of us still have a VCR flashing 12:00 for reruns of The Love Boat.

damn, i cringed at both....

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Kal,

Don't you have a professional background in Neuroscience and Physiology?

If so, you of all people should seem well placed to understand the psychology behind these things (vs the facile takes we often see on the subjects).

Physiology and psychology are not the same.

 

[blueone]

It's not lunacy! When it is recorded, the Boesendorfer is no better than a digital piano--just a recording of piano sounds. When it is played in a large room (for comparison to the live electronic piano), the listener will hear a double-dose of room effects, and the electronic piano will sound cleaner. When recorded to eliminate room effects--and that could only happen with a recording made in an anechoic chamber--it has to be played in a large room to be tolerable. Etc.

An electronic instrument such as a Moog is its own thing. It's not trying to sound like an acoustic instrument. Thus, it's amplified sound is a primary sound (performer to keyboard/device/amplification to listener). A piano live performance is also a primary source (performer to piano to listener). A digital piano is trying to simulate a real piano, and will not be able to capture the dynamics or sound field. When played live, an electronic piano is a secondary sound because it is a model of an acoustic instrument (Performer to piano to simulation of piano to listener). All models are false, even if some are useful. A recording of a grand piano is at best tertiary source (Performer to piano to microphone/recording apparatus to transmission medium to playback apparatus to speaker to listener, with at least two of these steps nowhere near "transparent").

The secondary source of a live electronic piano might very well best a tertiary source of a grand piano recording, depending on the quality of the implementation of these.

Rick "recalling the use of digital samplers in lieu of percussion instruments we could not afford in an amateur orchestra back in the day" Denney

I don't agree with any of this argument. For one thing, I was talking about a piano as an instrument, not a recording of it.

Have you ever heard a grand piano in an intimate environment? (A large residential room, a medium-sized ballroom, or a large recording studio.) Huge auditoriums don't count for this discussion, IMO. Even a five foot baby grand is large instrument in a 10,000 cubic foot room, and while a large percentage of the sound seems to emanate from an area about mid-way down the sound board, sound is radiating omni-directionally, though not with equal volume in all directions. And it depends if the lid is open or not, and how high it is open. No digital piano I'm aware of reproduces the sound field of an acoustic piano. And when you're recording these instruments, you're recording the room as much as the instrument.

As someone who has owned (and recorded) three pianos over the years, including a Baldwin grand, and I hear synthesized pianos now and then too, I don't think there's any comparison. I also think a good recording played on near-SOTA speakers will easily reveal an acoustic source from a digital one. I can enjoy a good performance on a digital piano, but an acoustic piano is in another league, IMO.

 

[rdenney]

I don't agree with any of this argument. For one thing, I was talking about a piano as an instrument, not a recording of it.

Have you ever heard a grand piano in an intimate environment? (A large residential room, a medium-sized ballroom, or a large recording studio.) Huge auditoriums don't count for this discussion, IMO. Even a five foot baby grand is large instrument in a 10,000 cubic foot room, and while a large percentage of the sound seems to emanate from an area about mid-way down the sound board, sound is radiating omni-directionally, though not with equal volume in all directions. And it depends if the lid is open or not, and how high it is open. No digital piano I'm aware of reproduces the sound field of an acoustic piano. And when you're recording these instruments, you're recording the room as much as the instrument.

As someone who has owned (and recorded) three pianos over the years, including a Baldwin grand, and I hear synthesized pianos now and then too, I don't think there's any comparison. I also think a good recording played on near-SOTA speakers will easily reveal an acoustic source from a digital one. I can enjoy a good performance on a digital piano, but an acoustic piano is in another league, IMO.

Hmm. Well, let's see. Why, yes, that is indeed a grand piano sitting in my living room, right over there. I wondered what that big honkin' piece of furniture was. Who knew?

But the statement you challenged as lunacy was that a live electronic piano might sound better than a recording of the real thing. It's not lunacy at all, though in any one case it may be true (or not). Perhaps one of us was reading it incorrectly.

And I think the other statements in my post rather supported the notion that a live grand piano cannot survive the recording process. Let's consider an electronic piano to be a recording of a real piano, one key at a time, or something like that. Thus, it is generationally removed from the acoustic instrument, even when played live. But the recording of a real piano is at least as far removed, and maybe even further removed, because there are generational losses in the microphones and recording setup, further losses in the process and medium, and further losses in playback. So, there's no guarantee that a recording of a grand piano will sound as good as a simulated grand piano played live.

Rick "whose piano is not a Boesendorfer, but neither is it a baby grand furniture piano" Denney

 

[Jim Shaw]

Mostly about having fun, and the fact that some of those old technologies are very clever and quite interesting. I have no illusions that tubes are "better" than BJTs or FETs (though they do have some very nice characteristics), but they glow in the dark.

A lot of people like playing with equipment as much as they like listening to music, and there isn't anything wrong with that.

OK. Just don't try to convince me old tech sounds more authentic to the original -- which (very, very arguably) is what Hifi was originally intended to do.
You know, as in High Fidelity?

I have been around sound reproduction since the mid-'50s (which doesn't make me worshipful for anything). But in that time, I've seen more trends toward 'hifi' equipment creating sounds which were never there -- and alternately, really trying to closely reproduce an original sound.

I tend to follow the latter and leave the former to metalheads. Try as I might, I have no clue as to what Metallica is supposed to sound like. 'Wall Of Sound' isn't my cup of tea. (Maybe a 1940's Wurlitzer jukebox would be more appropriate for these.) Somebody here try that out and report back. It worked great on Bing Crosby.

I do know what a string quartet, symphony orchestra, jazz band, solo cello-violin-piano-French horn-clarinet-oboe-flute-real snare drum-tympany-celeste-harp-pipe organ-etc., actually sound like. Reproducing them is hard, but we get better at it every year.

Color me new school on equipment and old school on source material.

Tubes, transformers, vacuum rectifiers, and such were fine -- when that was all we had. So was a 50's Cadillac convertible. But that, to me, doesn't mean I want any of them back in my house or garage. If I want them, I'll see them in a museum.

 

[MattHooper]

Physiology and psychology are not the same.

Of course! *slaps forehead* Sorry I had a brain fart - read "physiology" as "psychology."

I wonder if this thread has shed any light?

 

[AnalogSteph]

Having just retired from auto tinkering (vision related) I think the preference for older vehicles ended with ECU tuned motors - when skill and attentive maintenance did make cars run better.

Tinkering with carbs and points ignition is all fine and dandy if you enjoy doing that (and can be done with relatively modest means), but chances are it has to be done quite regularly... for all the people who just want reliable transportation, electronic ignition and EFI would have constituted major progress.

I guess tinkering with vinyl setups has similarly romantic qualities as tinkering with old cars, except I don't think there are very many people that would vehemently argue for carbs and points ignition being superior in performance (car people are sufficiently used to objective data). Besides, I'm not the one to be denying the attraction of a 12" cover complete with liner notes and credits (often rather lacking in the digital age)... too bad they won't fit in my mailbox.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

For the same reason some people are going to continue to own electric vehicles instead of taking public transport or the train....
I suppose you rent your hifi installation.

No, but I own no CD's, vinyl, books, or DVD/Blue rays. Everything is streamed or on a hard drive.

 

[restorer-john]

I'm not the one to be denying the attraction of a 12" cover complete with liner notes and credits (often rather lacking in the digital age)... too bad they won't fit in my mailbox.

Sure it will! Our posties see "do not bend" as a kind of puzzle, challenge or dare.

I almost had to cut open my mailbox the other week to retrieve three CDs they'd managed to get through the slot. I don't know how they did it- total mystery and, the CDs were not damaged at all. Bloody magicians they are.

 

[watchnerd]

Back in the 60's we all spun vinyl and used tube electronics because that's what was available. Solid state electronics and digital audio came along. We are now in yet another era with switching power supplies, Class D amplification, and the move away from CD's to downloads and streaming.

Somehow the old technologies persist. I can sort of see with vinyl there is the ritual of handling the media. The rest of it is bewildering.

I think I'm going to get rid of my Class D switching amps and go back to Class A.

It's a better retro look to match my LPs and reel to reel.

I can hide the Pi and DAC behind the cabinet.

 

[Ken1951]

If I was going back, it would be to one of my favorites I heard in about 1974: it would be Tympani 1-Ds bi-amped with a Mac 2300 and an AR Dual 76, an AR Sp-3a, and a Thorens TD-125 Mk2 with an SME 3009 S2. But that ship has sailed. But I understand the attraction. But more for vintage stuff than stupid priced current equipment.

 

[MattHooper]

Why Do Old Technologies Persist in Audio?​

Why not? It's not about what's better, it's about what people prefer. People still wear leather shoes and wool sweaters, don't they? They still read books printed on paper, don't they? They still drink old wine and eat old cheese, don't they? Why should audio be any different?

Indeedy. I kind of thought we'd got beyond this question....

 

[retroflex]

I think selection bias (or perhaps survivor bias) is a large part of it. The people who just want to listen to their tunes bought a Sonos speaker and a Spotify subscription, and they're happily listening away, far from any audiophile internet forums. We who still bother with traditional stereo setups are all weirdos in one way or another. And I wouldn't get on a high horse about it, because the whole idea of perfect sound reproduction is a mirage anyways.

 

[mhardy6647]

old cars are louder

Sure enuff! They didn't have to pipe faux engine/exhaust sounds into the lead sleds of yore, did they?

 

[mhardy6647]

He might be kidding around.

 

[EJ3]

For the same reason some people are going to want to continue to own their own vehicles when we develop autonomous, rapidly re-chargeable all electric vehicles. Even though they could meet all their transportation needs every bit as well, if not better, with shared vehicles (and reduce traffic and pollution and parking issues as well), some will still opt for their "very own" vehicle. For those people, a world where they own nothing and like it is beyond their ability to envision.

Some of us don't live in cities & (having done so) will never again live in a city. My traffic is already reduced (parking issues? What's that?), I share my vehicle with only those I want to be with, I don't have to wait to go where I want, I grow, hunt or fish for my food & the island I live on is 1200 miles away from any mainland. I already don't have any of the problems you mention. And if I can't take the transportation through the underbrush it is completely useless. On foot or on horseback would be better. Obviously your thoughts about how I should live are different than my thoughts about how I do live. There are, however, many millions like me.

 

[EJ3]

This has been stated/asked many times but the answer is dependent on your definitions/standards for inexpensive and excellent. Change your adjectives and the options change.

I don't want it to be "inexpensive" (which usually is a euphemism for "cheap junk") priced at a level that you might actually get what you payed for, good quality with good sound. It doesn't have to be excellent but "quite good" quality would be nice.

 

[MattHooper]

I don't have to wait to go where I want, I grow, hunt or fish for my food & the island I live on is 1200 miles away from any mainland.

My idea of hell. (I'm a city boy, situated where pretty much everything is easy to get to).

But I'd never question any one else's bliss. I do get the appeal (for others) of living among natural splendor.

 

[mhardy6647]

Heck, we can walk to our newspaper box from our house*; what more does one need?
This is the view about halfway down the hill on the walk to get the paper.

_____________________
* about 0.95 miles (1.5 km) each way. Y'all city slickers do remember printed newspapers, yes?

 

[EJ3]

My idea of hell. (I'm a city boy, situated where pretty much everything is easy to get to).

But I'd never question any one else's bliss. I do get the appeal (for others) of living among natural splendor.

My wife is from a city of 38 million people (Chongqing, China, it is 355 sq. miles). I was there for a whole 10 days. It was neat but... I have also lived in the big places of New Orleans (in the French Quarter, saving money there was not possible for me) & downtown Washington, DC (17th & P NW). I currently live on deep water on a barrier island of the southern east coast of the USA. So, been there, done that (& New Orleans was FUN!)
But my actual home is on an island in the Western Pacific about 15 degrees N. of the equator where it doesn't go below 73 F, it doesn't change more than 8 degrees in a day & when you throw an anchor into 100 feet of water, you can see it hit the bottom.