Does the "high end" drive the progress of consumer audio?

[JackD201]

There are two ways to look at this. This is mine. Home audio started as a luxury market. I don't think there is any debate there. The introduction of Solid State devices, cheap to make and assemble (Think the Ford Model T), allowed the market to expand until it became affordable for those in the median income brackets and later to those even below that. There is a split we should note and that is radio and personal music mediums. It was the transistor radio that hit critical mass first as a device not just for music but entertainment (radio plays) and information (News and Current Affairs). As TV superseded radio plays and news in the home, we see these pushed to portable and automotive use, leaving music listening in the home as a separate and distinct form of entertainment. Dr. Harman and others see this opportunity and proceed to unbundle the ubiquitous console to maximize returns on a component by component basis. Unbundled, you could incrementally improve your system in time without a large one time expenditure. It was also inviting because systems could now be individualized for practical considerations aside from cost like the size of the home and the effect of that on sound. This is the point where all hell breaks loose. A lot of this is mental for the old guard of the audio world. Thinking in terms of market share suddenly they find themselves shrinking. As it turns out it's now a whole new world and they have to be competitive in terms of price. They enter the fray but their days of dominance will never be regained again some fail, their trademarks now used for mass market gear, the saddest perhaps a once venerated company whose name now adorns plastic portable speakers. Somewhere in between, dissatisfaction with mass market offerings within a small but still economically viable market segment caused what is now called Performance Audio to be born. Was this segment only comprised of the old farts living in the past, unhip to the superior THD specs of SS and pining for the good old days driven only by nostalgia? I don't think so. One need only to look at the ages of the prime movers at that time.

Perception being everything to investors things go on its head. Suddenly with practically all patents in the public domain and cheap labor available elsewhere, profits are gone. No longer worthwhile to battle it out with price alone there are only two choices: name or quality as differentiators. Hmmmm. Where oh where to look? Performance Audio.

Small as it is, presence is deemed required. Name a mass market company and I will name a high end division or subsidiary for most of them. Within those divisions and subs you will see many, many names made in stints with Performance Audio companies in both in-house and consultant basis'. Not all mind you but many. In Japan where seniority is more prized we see the opposite. Many Luxman retirees for example are now pursuing what they couldn't under the yoke of management as manufacturers and designers in *** Performance Audio segment.

Ask for trickling down. Come on now. Yeah these guys will spend on acquisitions, consultancy and in house R&D never to use it. Get real.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Dolbys' solution to tape noise was in my opinion genius. As was Dr. Boses' attempt to solve the problems of small college room acoustics with cinder block walls. Both were hailed by the high-end press. Do I need to supply proof?

I don't have proof but my observations suggests that most innovations come from niche companies. They have the freedom to step out of the accepted protocol.

No need for proof. How do these two examples suggest that most innovations come from niche companies?

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

---NRC Canada contributed to speaker's development. ...For everyone; low and high-end people. :b ...Floyd O'toole.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

There are two ways to look at this. This is mine. Home audio started as a luxury market. I don't think there is any debate there. The introduction of Solid State devices, cheap to make and assemble (Think the Ford Model T), allowed the market to expand until it became affordable for those in the median income brackets and later to those even below that. There is a split we should note and that is radio and personal music mediums. It was the transistor radio that hit critical mass first as a device not just for music but entertainment (radio plays) and information (News and Current Affairs). As TV superseded radio plays and news in the home, we see these pushed to portable and automotive use, leaving music listening in the home as a separate and distinct form of entertainment. Dr. Harman and others see this opportunity and proceed to unbundle the ubiquitous console to maximize returns on a component by component basis. Unbundled, you could incrementally improve your system in time without a large one time expenditure. It was also inviting because systems could now be individualized for practical considerations aside from cost like the size of the home and the effect of that on sound. This is the point where all hell breaks loose. A lot of this is mental for the old guard of the audio world. Thinking in terms of market share suddenly they find themselves shrinking. As it turns out it's now a whole new world and they have to be competitive in terms of price. They enter the fray but their days of dominance will never be regained again some fail, their trademarks now used for mass market gear, the saddest perhaps a once venerated company whose name now adorns plastic portable speakers. Somewhere in between, dissatisfaction with mass market offerings within a small but still economically viable market segment caused what is now called Performance Audio to be born. Was this segment only comprised of the old farts living in the past, unhip to the superior THD specs of SS and pining for the good old days driven only by nostalgia? I don't think so. One need only to look at the ages of the prime movers at that time.

Perception being everything to investors things go on its head. Suddenly with practically all patents in the public domain and cheap labor available elsewhere, profits are gone. No longer worthwhile to battle it out with price alone there are only two choices: name or quality as differentiators. Hmmmm. Where oh where to look? Performance Audio.

Small as it is, presence is deemed required. Name a mass market company and I will name a high end division or subsidiary for most of them. Within those divisions and subs you will see many, many names made in stints with Performance Audio companies in both in-house and consultant basis'. Not all mind you but many. In Japan where seniority is more prized we see the opposite. Many Luxman retirees for example are now pursuing what they couldn't under the yoke of management as manufacturers and designers in *** Performance Audio segment.

Ask for trickling down. Come on now. Yeah these guys will spend on acquisitions, consultancy and in house R&D never to use it. Get real.

Can't say I disagree with any of that, Jack. But high end divisions and subsidiaries doing the R&D that trickles down to the mass market segments of those same companies, is not what I thought we were talking about. I thought you were saying that the high end, or performance audio segment's backlash against early SS and digital drove the refinement and development of those two technologies to what they are today, not that the mainstream consumer electronics companies' own high-end subsidiaries drove that progress, then pushed it down. Evidently I misunderstood you.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

Yes, and I offer a thank you to our friends up north who participate in that endeavor....class act.

Tom

-----Sweet! :b

 

[JackD201]

Can't say I disagree with any of that, Jack. But high end divisions and subsidiaries doing the R&D that trickles down to the mass market segments of those same companies, is not what I thought we were talking about. I thought you were saying that the high end, or performance audio segment's backlash against early SS and digital drove the refinement and development of those two technologies to what they are today, not that the mainstream consumer electronics companies' own high-end subsidiaries drove that progress, then pushed it down. Evidently I misunderstood you.

Tim

As usual you try to bring everything to a state of black or white by picking what fits for you. People make companies Tim. Look at the people and where they came from. Look at the entities where they did their pioneering work.

Dolby wasn't always a listed company. It was a little lab in the sixties that created something that allowed it to make bigger things.It took 5 decades to become publicly listed. Ray Dolby was an employee at Ampex. He struck out on his own and found fortune.

Kevin Voecks was a designer at Snell. Harman got him, backed him and they made Revel.

Von Schweikert helped design drivers that ended up in Polk, Bose, JBL and even Radio Shacks Optimus. He didn't only design for other hi-end companies. These are only those without non-disclosure agreements.

Johnson, Paravancini, d'Appolito, Linkwitz, the list goes on and on. Sony Studios does not use Sony or Philips converters. The use Meittner's. Just because you invented something doesn't mean you do it better.

While suits look at the bottom line, they look for those that are after improvement and can execute. THEN they bring it to market. What do you want to hear Tim? That only the big boys can do it because they have money? Big corporate entities do not have a monopoly on innovative ideas. As stated above, these ideas need not even be innovations per se. If we're talking better and not new, refinements qualify.

Then there are the modders that get called in by the companies whose gear they mod. I saw such an instance with my own eyes. I was in the room at a show. The guy's initials are AP. The company's name starts with T.

Even the big boys had to start somewhere and the story is always the same. Their founders started their ventures because they felt they could do BETTER. Those that stay big boys know they need fresh talent, fresh talent with fresh perspectives. We good here?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What I get from that is that the progress of consumer audio is/has been driven from many corners -- the DIY/mod community, premium divisions/products of mainstream companies trickling improvements down, individual designers and their small boutique companies innovating where large corps would be unlikely to go,etc. yes, we're good, except i think you missed one of the biggest contributors, pro audio. I suspect most of th progress of digital has come from that segment.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

I may even concede that. The pro market has its own high-end after all and they're swimming in both oceans.

 

[rbbert]

... pro audio. I suspect most of the progress of digital has come from that segment.

Tim

There's certainly some truth to that statement. But what do you suppose the impetus for that is?? (Hint) It's not coming from the mass market.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

There's certainly some truth to that statement. But what do you suppose the impetus for that is?? (Hint) It's not coming from the mass market.

Are you sure? Sure, a company like Apogee develops better and better clocks and DACs and ADCs to sell to pros (and, increasingly, semi-pros) for studio use. The target market is not mass market. But initial releases of such products tend to be very expensive (though prices drop rapidly, often as quality actually increases over time). And the technology moves forward very quickly, so the studios that want to stay at the front of the curve have to have pretty big capital budgets to keep up. They have to buy new stuff all the time. Do you think the guys who are funding those budgets do so for altruistic reasons? I think they do it because being at the front of the curve makes them a first-choice studio, draws the big talent, keeps the place booked, and keeps their hourly rate for studio time high. And top artists/producers gladly pay those rates. Do you suppose they do that for altruistic reasons? Or do you think they are willing to make a much bigger investment in recording because they think better recording will sell more records?

We may not like the compressed, processed recordings personally, but that's another thread. Studio owners, artists and producers are not paying top dollar to top studios that have the latest, most expensive pro gear because they're just sweet people. They're looking for a return on their investment, just like the rest of us capitalists. And where's the money? Mass market.

Just sayin'....

Tim

 

[rbbert]

A couple of other innovations from the "high-end":

Powered subwoofers

Meridian Lossless Packing (used in Dolby True HD as well as DVD-A)

 

[rbbert]

Re: pro audio



http://www.amazon.com/Grateful-Dead...1341768745&sr=1-1&keywords=gear+grateful+dead

The quest for better sound, even from a bunch of hippies, led to new technologies, new implementations of existing technologies, and a couple of good-sized pro audio companies that are still around today, like Meyer Sound.

And that's the bottom line in much of pro audio as well as consumer high end audio, the quest for better sound. We've got some of the pro audio community here (Bruce, Barry, Bill Blue); why don't you ask them?

 

[amirm]

Mike "Flash" Plaumer (now with his Berkeley Audio digital products discussed on the board) and KOJ developed HDCD and the Pacific Microsonics A2D and D2A. You might even be surprised that many of your CDs were mastered with the PM convertor, of which there were 200 (roughly depending on which series we're talking about) made and snapped up by the best studios around. Oh, and Alon at Magico has the PM convertor and uses at shows when demoing his speakers. It's a pretty special unit.

While on the subject, did you know that KOJ for a while had worked with Onkyo and designed some excellent sounding $1200 speakers about 20 years ago?

Or take another KOJ contribution to recording, that being the development of the focused gap tape deck used in all the early RR recordings, not to mention other companies.

Man, I feel insulted. You left out the most and relevant important bit about Pacific Microsonics. That your humble site co-owner acquired the company into his group at Microsoft and had the pleasure of Keith reporting to him for a year or so as a consultant. I only had a much less enjoyable time finding someone to manufacture those converters as they were all put together after days of listening and tweaking by likes of Keith which of course other companies could not do.

Back to your discussion.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Man, I feel insulted. You left out the most and relevant important bit about Pacific Microsonics. That your humble site co-owner acquired the company into his group at Microsoft and had the pleasure of Keith reporting to him for a year or so as a consultant. I only had a much less enjoyable time finding someone to manufacture those converters as they were all put together after days of listening and tweaking by likes of Keith which of course other companies could not do.

Back to your discussion.

Sorry Pretty sure you had discussed it previously on the board

 

[andromedaaudio]

In response to the topic :

No, if the same whizzkidds (big companies/big money)who develop mass market low price consumer audio products would set their teeth into high end audio , the level would be much higher .
Talent is atracted by money and high end audio is not where the big money is made , if the high end market would be much larger the level would be much higher as well

just my opinion

 

[Bill Hart]

Are you sure? Sure, a company like Apogee develops better and better clocks and DACs and ADCs to sell to pros (and, increasingly, semi-pros) for studio use. The target market is not mass market. But initial releases of such products tend to be very expensive (though prices drop rapidly, often as quality actually increases over time). And the technology moves forward very quickly, so the studios that want to stay at the front of the curve have to have pretty big capital budgets to keep up. They have to buy new stuff all the time. Do you think the guys who are funding those budgets do so for altruistic reasons? I think they do it because being at the front of the curve makes them a first-choice studio, draws the big talent, keeps the place booked, and keeps their hourly rate for studio time high. And top artists/producers gladly pay those rates. Do you suppose they do that for altruistic reasons? Or do you think they are willing to make a much bigger investment in recording because they think better recording will sell more records?

We may not like the compressed, processed recordings personally, but that's another thread. Studio owners, artists and producers are not paying top dollar to top studios that have the latest, most expensive pro gear because they're just sweet people. They're looking for a return on their investment, just like the rest of us capitalists. And where's the money? Mass market.

Just sayin'....

Tim

Tim, I thought you asked for developments in the high end that migrated to the consumer market. Are you now saying that because something was developed for the pro audio market, it doesn't count because it really was intended for the consumer at the end of the day?
Color me confused.

 

[microstrip]

The high-end is just a subset of the consumer audio, characterized by the high quality of the equipment it needs for a better performance and the enthusiasm of the people who assemble such systems, that invest effort, resources and time to optimize them. One way of looking to Tim's question is re-formulating it to do the achievements in high-end audio leak in non high-end consumer audio? Does the average audio consumer take any benefice from the high-end? Perhaps at some time in the past it was true, but today I think that the interests of the average audio consumer shifted towards convenience and AV, and the high-end has little to teach to the manufacturers.

My major experience with improvements in non high-end consumer audio was the acquisition of a Tivoli Audio model one FM receiver for our kitchen. It improved a lot the sound quality over the previous kitchen radio, that sounded horrible! Did Tom Devesto or Henri Kloss learn anything from high-end people?

 

[JackD201]

Are you sure? Sure, a company like Apogee develops better and better clocks and DACs and ADCs to sell to pros (and, increasingly, semi-pros) for studio use. The target market is not mass market. But initial releases of such products tend to be very expensive (though prices drop rapidly, often as quality actually increases over time). And the technology moves forward very quickly, so the studios that want to stay at the front of the curve have to have pretty big capital budgets to keep up. They have to buy new stuff all the time. Do you think the guys who are funding those budgets do so for altruistic reasons? I think they do it because being at the front of the curve makes them a first-choice studio, draws the big talent, keeps the place booked, and keeps their hourly rate for studio time high. And top artists/producers gladly pay those rates. Do you suppose they do that for altruistic reasons? Or do you think they are willing to make a much bigger investment in recording because they think better recording will sell more records?

We may not like the compressed, processed recordings personally, but that's another thread. Studio owners, artists and producers are not paying top dollar to top studios that have the latest, most expensive pro gear because they're just sweet people. They're looking for a return on their investment, just like the rest of us capitalists. And where's the money? Mass market.

Just sayin'....

Tim

That's another evolution we could talk about that follows exactly the same trend as the other one. In recording's case we're also talking about the expansion of the recordist market due to introductions of new formats in addition to analog tape. Another walk down memory lane? Recording in digital. Companies seeking to expand the market saw the opportunity in the home studio market realizing that analog multitrack was just too expensive. Welcome ADAT which used VHS tapes and MDR which used Hi-8 tapes which came at 8 tracks each and could be slaved to one generating time code to give you as many as you needed. Unfortunately you still needed an analog board to mix them. Fortunately location boards from the likes of Soundcraft were affordable compared to the likes of say SSL, NEVE, Studer or Trident. A certain album entitled Jagged Little Pill by a young Canadian cutie essentially recorded in a home studio goes multi-platinum. BOOM! Still ADAT and MDR is relegated mostly to TV, Radio and other commercial work. Running a parallel path were Digital Audio Workstations. In the early days these had no control surfaces so like ADAT and MDR were run line level through analog boards with the exception of high-end DAWs AMS-Neve and Studer. Again running in parallel was native computer processing power. DAW makers such as Protools and Paris provided boxes to do the processing. Eventually native speed went up and we see a second BOOM, the true Boom (no need for expensive boxes), with software such as PEAK. Digidesign/Avid counters with Protools LE, Apple who has been the supporting platform for the most part answers with LOGIC in a back to back swipe of Final Cut vs Avid. Goes really mass market with Garage Band. So where does Apogee come in? Apogee was not the mass market company selling Apogee Ones at the Apple Store. It was a company building and selling high end clocks and AD converters since users found the onboard ADCs on the DAW boxes needed improvement. Digidesign in an attempt to further corner the market released its own control surface the Control 24. With it they also sought to simplify the chains by incorporating the ADC of another manufacturer and in the early years actually co-branding with them. If it wasn't Apogee, it was one of their closest competitors. Forgive the brain fart. 5 years or so later I have an Apogee One driving my computer speakers.

Same pattern? Yup.

P.S.

I was certified for Protools AND AMS Neve/MADI. We could all hear the difference.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I thought the mention of Apogee might get you rolling down that path. If I'm not mistaken, Apogee's first "consumer" product was the stupid-good-for-$500 Duet. Just a couple of years ago. The home recording development path has been an amazing thing to watch, though I watch it from afar. My first home system was built around a 4-channel Tascam and a six (eight?) channel board. I had to borrow a 2 track or mix to cassette, but that was OK because it was just for demos and songwriting. Today I have 10 times the power, and fidelity, with a couple of good mics, a little Focusrite USB interface and the same MacBook that is my music server. Just mix to the same hard drive. And all stays clean, clean, clean. I don't know how much of pro audio's development is carrying over into the consumer world, but the progress there, in fidelity, power, flexibility and affordability, makes most of consumer audio look like an old clear lightbulb hooked up to a hand-cranked generator.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

I thought the mention of Apogee might get you rolling down that path. If I'm not mistaken, Apogee's first "consumer" product was the stupid-good-for-$500 Duet. Just a couple of years ago. The home recording development path has been an amazing thing to watch, though I watch it from afar. My first home system was built around a 4-channel Tascam and a six (eight?) channel board. I had to borrow a 2 track or mix to cassette, but that was OK because it was just for demos and songwriting. Today I have 10 times the power, and fidelity, with a couple of good mics, a little Focusrite USB interface and the same MacBook that is my music server. Just mix to the same hard drive. And all stays clean, clean, clean. I don't know how much of pro audio's development is carrying over into the consumer world, but the progress there, in fidelity, power, flexibility and affordability, makes most of consumer audio look like an old clear lightbulb hooked up to a hand-cranked generator.

Tim

Sure If we're just talking tracks it's gotta be more than 10 times more, the limit being the I/O. Quality too. Let's just not forget zee history