• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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!

Why Do Old Technologies Persist in Audio?

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
If you are an audiophile and you aim to STAY an audiophile, you don't look for the best and most advanced solutions, because you'd end up simply listening to music. You're not an audiophile, you're just somebody who enjoys music. Boring, now you gotta invest tons of time looking for music you like.

Well that's no fun so let's imagine there's value in all the outdated stuff. Suddenly you have plenty of reasons to shell out money for things that have nothing to do with superior audio quality. It's "different" right? Play the same ten tracks but with a multitude of different gears. Audiophile for life!

I believe that, even if there is some sarcasm there, it's essentially correct.

I made that point to someone else recently on a forum who was concerned that the more he 'upgraded' his system the, more he sought higher quality playback, the less music he was satisfied with on his system. That he used to only listen to "just the music" and now he finds that harder to do.

My argument for why many audiophiles get in that rut is because they have conflated "sound quality" with "music." Sure they can interact, and music has some inherent association with sound. But they are divisible, insofar as music can be understood to be the notes, melody, instrumentation, production choices, performance etc, where "sound quality" can be seen as the sensuous qualities of the sounds itself.

So for instance, I can enjoy just "Music" on virtually anything, and do so: in my car, on my desktop computer, smart speaker, even on my iphone speaker. Same with anyone else in my family and a great many music lovers.

But when I sit down in front of my 2 channel system I expect something else, something more: the possibility of "better sound" - where the sound quality itself is appreciable. Certainly this can merge with enjoying the music as it often does. But it's not the same thing: if it was, then music lovers would have to be audiophiles, but they aren't, because audiophile denotes someone who cares about the quality of THE SOUND not simply "the music."

But if you conflate these two things, then you start thinking you can't enjoy "the music" unless you are also impressed by The Sound Quality.
That is the way to denuding your musical experiences.

I'm super picky about what will impress me or draw me in when it comes to audiophile sound systems. Most leave me cold, by which I mean while it's interesting to hear them, I don't feel particularly compelled to keep sitting there and keep listening. Because I could get up, go to my kitchen, and still enjoy that music on my smart speaker or iphone.

What I get from systems I love, is that I find myself rapt by the addition of the sound quality - it makes me want to "sit HERE" and keep listening, rather than go listen to a smart speaker while doing something else. But the two, sound quality and "music," remain divisible.

If you listen to music without regard to the sound quality, you aren't being an audiophile in that situation. It's when you devote time and attention to acquiring playback equipment because you appreciating what the equipment specifically brings to the listening experience, that you are being an audiophile. IMO. (To be more specific, I think being an audiophile isn't a one-time thing in that regard. Many consumers can be interested in the sound quality of a pair of speakers they are buying of course. Being an audiophile is more of an on-going interest and concern about audio equipment, it seems to me).
 

EJ3

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
2,153
Likes
1,661
Location
James Island, SC
This is completely off-topic, but I'm curious. How do you know the '79 meets 1996 Federal Emission Standards without cats? Not only is this virtually impossible with such a low-tech engine (actually, any gasoline engine), but removing a catalytic converter from a car that originally came with one is a federal crime. Very likely you're putting out more unburned hydrocarbons than a whole neighborhood of compliant vehicles. (Test case - when the car is sitting and idling, do you smell gasoline in the exhaust stream? If you can, passing any post-1975 emissions standards in the US isn't happening.)
Sorry to go off topic here but in order to respond, I feel I must.
Your last sentence shows your level of expertise on this subject. Cars over 25 years old do NOT have to meet USA emission standards. Also, not all of us live where USA Federal Laws have any pull. But, to answer your question:
OBVIOUSLY the car was tested without the CATs in place.
A $50,000 5 way gas anylizer probe was used in the exhaust to do the setup and tuning to be able to meet the standard. Many weekends were spent doing so, porting the heads, getting reversion right in the intake to get results, etc, etc.
But because it did not meet the visual inspection (due to not having a CAT), it currently has a pair 3" inlet & outlet CATs (which is legal, as a pair of CATs came on the limited production MACHO T/A (26 were made see: https://www.drivingline.com/article...from-dkm-was-the-fastest-late-70s-muscle-car/) with a NISSAN vacuum operated pulsed air setup to add oxygen to the exhaust (not required to do that except in CA). By the way, the car also met 1996 evaporative emissions (you know, when they put a dome over the car & test for vapors).
Perhaps you should do educate yourself on what DYI automotive mechanics can do. (And there are much better ones than me, most of whom do not have any degree in anything). Just as DIY technicians do in electronics (I currently use a multi-spark MSD ignition operated through a DAVIS UNIFIED IGNITION DISTRIBUTOR which burns the fuel better, creating both more power & less emissions)) they can easily beat what is required doing it a different & perhaps better way. So the car is fully compliant to be on any USA road in any state even though it is not necessary for it to be such.
Where do you think innovation comes from: school? They teach engineers how things have been proven to be able to be used & what ways exist. But they are not known for teaching how to come up with new solutions that work as well or better. (Although some break the mold & do due that).
And government regulation, instead of saying: this is the standard (of emissions, for example) that must be met, tells you what parts you must have to meet the standard of the emissions. Certain manufacturers benefit from having been the chosen to reap this financial benefit. And control is complete & innovation stifled. But their are many ways to meet the emissions standards: it should be not how you meet the standard but THAT YOU MEET THE STANDARD. Please educate yourself before posting drivel on things you don't know about or stick to topics that you do know about.
You should also look here: https://www.drivingline.com/articles/rising-phoenix-1-400hp-twin-turbo-79-trans-am/
 
Last edited:

steve59

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
Messages
1,017
Likes
726
More efficient and cheaper is better to most, but for the enthusiast money might not be a priority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EJ3

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,449
Likes
4,209
I think I became very sensitive to, and annoyed by, the character of digitally sampled/recorded instruments,
Welcome to the Michael Fremer Club!

You would last 1.1 seconds on Hydrogen Audio ;)
 

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,635
Likes
7,485
Around 1981-82 when I was 12 or 13 and got my first hi-fi system of my own, I saved my money and got a Technics SL-5, one of their compact linear tracking turntables. I loved it - although even then I played my new LPs once, to record them to good-quality cassettes, because I didn't want to wear down my records and I liked the transportability and lack of susceptibility to skipping of cassettes.

I got rid of the SL-5 not too long after I got my first CD player in 1985. Then around 4-5 years ago I got nostalgic for vinyl and found a good-condition SL-7 on eBay. It was the quintessential midlife-nostalgia purchase: same form factor and model line as the SL-5, but a superior model with quartz lock and a 15-lb metal sub-base. I got a new cartridge for it, but never got around to actually setting it up, mainly because Oppo announced the end of their business and I got a UDP-205, which I loved to pieces and which of course has no analogue inputs, let alone a phono preamp.

Just in the last two weeks I have begun selling off equipment I don't use, in order to stockpile funds for the purchase of active speakers (Neumann or Genelec). After selling an old preamp, I was prepping my rebuilt Marantz 2230 receiver for sale and figured, "This is my last piece of gear with a phono preamp, why not make sure the SL-7 is working so I can sell that too?" So I hooked it up - screwed the ground wire onto the back of the Marantz, put a cheap LP on the platter just in case, closed the lid, pressed the Start button, saw the arm cue up and slowly descend onto the record, and then heard the music coming out of the Marantz and the cheap test speakers I'd hooked up to it.

It put a huge smile on my face - I was so incredibly pleased that it worked, and it brought such a powerful feeling flooding back to simply engage in the process of putting the record on and seeing it play. I am still going to sell the SL-7 but I very notably did not put it up for sale when I put the 2230 up for sale. It's still sitting here, and for some reason I have not yet been able to actually list it online.

I know full well that I do not want a turntable in my system; as of last week I no longer have a phono preamp or even an analogue preamp input in my equipment collection; I know I prefer the sound of well-executed digital to vinyl; and I know I can and will sell this turntable and use that money towards something I actually will use. And yet I am having trouble letting go of this turntable right now.

And of course, the reason I have the Oppo 205 is because I really enjoy playing the physical discs in my CD/DVD-A/SACD collection, even though I have ripped everything and have a very convenient computer-based music server.

Nostalgia is incredibly powerful, and enjoyment is enjoyment. We don't always consciously choose what, how, or why we enjoy.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,449
Likes
4,209
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.
So your expectation is for humans to make universally rational decisions? ;)
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,449
Likes
4,209
And, come to think of it, what is not universally rational about seeking information from people who you think are experts on the subject, specifically the audiophile press, and pay heed to their recommendations and their deeply experienced observations about how this $100,000 amplifier deeply enhances the listening experience of music recordings in an intimate, organic, natural, and sublime way?
 

blueone

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 11, 2019
Messages
1,179
Likes
1,494
Location
USA
Sorry to go off topic here but in order to respond, I feel I must.
Your last sentence shows your level of expertise on this subject. Cars over 25 years old do NOT have to meet USA emission standards. Also, not all of us live where USA Federal Laws have any pull. But, to answer your question:
OBVIOUSLY the car was tested without the CATs in place.
A $50,000 5 way gas anylizer probe was used in the exhaust to do the setup and tuning to be able to meet the standard. Many weekends were spent doing so, porting the heads, getting reversion right in the intake to get results, etc, etc.
But because it did not meet the visual inspection (due to not having a CAT), it currently has a pair 3" inlet & outlet CATs (which is legal, as a pair of CATs came on the limited production MACHO T/A (26 were made see: https://www.drivingline.com/article...from-dkm-was-the-fastest-late-70s-muscle-car/) with a NISSAN vacuum operated pulsed air setup to add oxygen to the exhaust (not required to do that except in CA). By the way, the car also met 1996 evaporative emissions (you know, when they put a dome over the car & test for vapors).
Perhaps you should do educate yourself on what DYI automotive mechanics can do. (And there are much better ones than me, most of whom do not have any degree in anything). Just as DIY technicians do in electronics (I currently use a multi-spark MSD ignition operated through a DAVIS UNIFIED IGNITION DISTRIBUTOR which burns the fuel better, creating both more power & less emissions)) they can easily beat what is required doing it a different & perhaps better way. So the car is fully compliant to be on any USA road in any state even though it is not necessary for it to be such.
Where do you think innovation comes from: school? They teach engineers how things have been proven to be able to be used & what ways exist. But they are not known for teaching how to come up with new solutions that work as well or better. (Although some break the mold & do due that).
And government regulation, instead of saying: this is the standard (of emissions, for example) that must be met, tells you what parts you must have to meet the standard of the emissions. Certain manufacturers benefit from having been the chosen to reap this financial benefit. And control is complete & innovation stifled. But their are many ways to meet the emissions standards: it should be not how you meet the standard but THAT YOU MEET THE STANDARD. Please educate yourself before posting drivel on things you don't know about or stick to topics that you do know about.

Cars over 25 years old do not need to be tested. That is different than not having to meet the standards. The law against removing cats does not have a time limit. You can't meet a 1996 tailpipe standard without a 3-way catalytic converter, which is why I wondered what you were talking about. A multi-spark ignition and tuning alone will not reduce NOx. As for your comments on formally trained engineers not being taught to come up with new solutions, well, that's ridiculous. As is the story about auto manufacturers reaping some sort of benefit from using best known practices for emissions reduction. I haven't learned anything from your post about automotive technology, but I have learned a lot about your thinking.
 
Last edited:

Inner Space

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
1,285
Likes
2,938
Welcome to the Michael Fremer Club!

You would last 1.1 seconds on Hydrogen Audio ;)
That was super-selective quotation, even by your standards. The rest of his sentence was: "through playing keyboards from the 70's through to the late 90's (and somewhat beyond). I often had to fill out the sound with horn parts, string parts, grand piano parts etc, and always looked for keyboards and samples that sounded convincing. I never really found them, especially back in the early days, there was this thin, steely, glazed character to strings, horns and piano samples sounded plasticy and plinky."

If you're seriously arguing that digital simulations were OK decades ago, you're nuts. And if you're arguing that once recognized, things can be unheard, then you're at odds with Toole's trust in "trained listeners".

On the other hand, if all you were attempting was a cheap zinger, you're pathetic.
 

Offler

Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
414
Likes
399
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.
When it comes to CDs...

Well, there is something to buying a media disc of any type. You get the content you are looking for, packed with a external storage media. CDs and all other optical media are quite elegant because they dont wear simply by playing... And then the extra stuff like booklets and such.

Its similar to books, you want to have at least something physical attached to the content.
 
OP
Ron Texas

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,075
Likes
8,908
When it comes to CDs...

Well, there is something to buying a media disc of any type. You get the content you are looking for, packed with a external storage media. CDs and all other optical media are quite elegant because they dont wear simply by playing... And then the extra stuff like booklets and such.

Its similar to books, you want to have at least something physical attached to the content.
About 100 lb of CD's in cases will fit on a single 2.5" portable hard drive.
 

Enchy

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2021
Messages
40
Likes
45
Records are fun. Sitting on the floor by the fireplace listening to a record while holding the sleeve on my crappy 80s speakers is an experience I enjoy. It's not even a nostalgia thing for me, as I grew up in the post-vinyl era. The first record I owned I bought in 2015.
 

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,635
Likes
7,485
About 100 lb of CD's in cases will fit on a single 2.5" portable hard drive.

They absolutely will. I have my entire CD/SACD collection ripped and archived onto a 2.5" portable drive, and on an SSD inside my music-server computer.

But I still like to have the discs, and about 1/4 of the time I still play discs instead of streaming the files. I have all my discs on a couple of Ikea shelves in my listening room. They take up a grand total of about 2 square feet of floor space. Keeping my discs is by no means necessary, and I will freely admit that as recently as a year or two ago I listened using physical discs maybe 1/2 the time instead of my current 1/4 of the time. Nevertheless, I like them.

To each their own.
 

MakeMineVinyl

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
3,558
Likes
5,871
Location
Santa Fe, NM
Why is this even a topic? There is enjoyment in the hobby with both new and old technologies for those who are interested. Those who want a box which requires no further thought or interaction are free to go that route. To each their own.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,449
Likes
4,209
That was super-selective quotation, even by your standards. The rest of his sentence was: "through playing keyboards from the 70's through to the late 90's (and somewhat beyond). I often had to fill out the sound with horn parts, string parts, grand piano parts etc, and always looked for keyboards and samples that sounded convincing. I never really found them, especially back in the early days, there was this thin, steely, glazed character to strings, horns and piano samples sounded plasticy and plinky."
..and his very next words, ie the bit that you omitted, were, "those are still characteristics I pick up on when listening to recorded music, especially digital."

Hence his opinion is still current, so I'm right, you're wrong, and he's joined the Michael Fremer Club. Which makes your claim, that I'm the one being misleadingly selective, nothing short of ironic.

I will address the nasty parts of your post in another way.
 

Inner Space

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
1,285
Likes
2,938
Which makes your claim, that I'm the one being misleadingly selective, nothing short of ironic.
Yet - surprise - you don't quote the next part:
And if you're arguing that once recognized, things can be unheard, then you're at odds with Toole's trust in "trained listeners".
So which is it? Is scripture wrong? Or did you butcher someone's interesting point for a schoolyard taunt?
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,449
Likes
4,209
Did he, or did he not, say, "those are still characteristics I pick up on when listening to recorded music, especially digital." And did you, or did you not, omit it, thereby making yourself look right (insisting his comment was purely about the past), when you were wrong?

For reference (with easy-read highlights):
I think I became very sensitive to, and annoyed by, the character of digitally sampled/recorded instruments, through playing keyboards from the 70's through to the late 90's (and somewhat beyond). I often had to fill out the sound with horn parts, string parts, grand piano parts etc, and always looked for keyboards and samples that sounded convincing. I never really found them, especially back in the early days, there was this thin, steely, glazed character to strings, horns and piano samples sounded plasticy and plinky.

Unfortunately those are still characteristics I pick up on when listening to recorded music, especially digital. I'm often struck by how the sound of a string section, for instance, could easily be a digital sample patch played on a keyboard, and that annoys me. It's when instruments are unambiguously more "real" sounding, especially in terms of presence and texture, that I find more satisfying.

(That's one of the reasons I've stated for why I actually enjoy the sound of orchestral instruments on many vinly LPs. At least in my playback system, there seems to be a slightly added sense of texture that reminds me more of the real thing and doesn't sound like a digital sample. I often find strings sound to me more like 'real strings' to me on vinyl - just a couple nights ago I was listening to a vinyl copy of a Star Wars medley and was utterly blown away by how easy it was to imagine I was hearing real string sections digging away, rather than digital strings samples).
 
Last edited:

Inner Space

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
1,285
Likes
2,938
Did he, or did he not, say, "those are still characteristics I pick up on when listening to recorded music, especially digital."
This is precisely my point. Still. Per Amir, per Toole, once identified, an artifact becomes perpetually noticeable, sometimes intrusively. Someone who started with digital simulations many decades ago will have become aware of their defects at the time, and will hear their faint descendants forever. That's what "trained listener" means, per orthodoxy.

I think you must accept that awareness of artifacts is a thing. It doesn't go away. Unless you want to argue the whole "trained listener" thing is wrong.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,449
Likes
4,209
Toole was talking about awareness under controlled listening conditions. That's different. You are abusing his message if you think it applies to sighted listening, ie this case.
 
Top Bottom