How good can high end audio ultimately get?

[caesar]

Another philosophical question for the members here. Seems like the gear has improved since the 70's and 80s. But many still love their Quad 57's. How good can high end audio ultimately get?

Bill Gates is no longer investing his money in human productivity and is choosing to pour his money down the swamps of Africa. (I know this seems heartless and not politically correct, but although it makes him and many others, even those who hated him in the past feel good, it does not necessarily mean it is a smart or a productive thing for our society. http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/files/Gates column WSJ.pdf.)

So what if, as a thought experiment, Gates donated his money to high end audio. Where would the money go? Digital, speaker enclosures, microphones, cables, acoustical materials....????

And if he were to spend his billions on the hobby, how good could the sound be in our homes?

 

[RogerD]

I'll bring the popcorn. Bill Gates has enough money to afford a full orchestra in his house every night or maybe Beyonce could vist him on request. How good can it get? Only limitation is the imagination and money.

 

[caesar]

I'll bring the popcorn. Bill Gates has enough money to afford a full orchestra in his house every night or maybe Beyonce could vist him on request. How good can it get? Only limitation is the imagination and money.

Very true. Kings and princes did have their own orchestras. But that's still missing the "time machine" elements as many musicians have died or can't do what they used to do. I see Gates commissioning the remastering of a lot of stuff.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I think it's much like the "war on cancer." You can pour trillions into research but you can't speed up the process of discovery. Discoveries are made in small increments, not giant leaps. Years ago they wanted to develop a system for screening basically every potential compound on earth for its anticancer properties--to wit many of the new biologicals found say in the tropical rain forrests. Never really bore any fruit though

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I wouldn't mind answering your philosophical question. A good one. I would have preferred however that you didn't post this:

Bill Gates is no longer investing his money in human productivity and is choosing to pour his money down the swamps of Africa.

then that

I know this seems heartless and not politically correct, but although it makes him and many others, even those who hated him in the past feel good, it does not necessarily mean it is a smart or a productive thing for our society. http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fac...lumn WSJ.pdf.

This statement shows a high level of contempt, arrogance and even ignorance that has no place here in the WBF (I speak for myself here) where I think members make every effort possible to remain respectful and polite. I would have preferred that such aren't repeated in subsequent discussions of high end audio. That will be my sole participation to your thread.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I see Gates commissioning the remastering of a lot of stuff.

If he would re-master all the horrible masters and re-masters of the past 20 years and restore their tonal balance and dynamic range, he would do more for audio quality than any investment in hardware could hope to achieve.

Tim

 

[rblnr]

If he would re-master all the horrible masters and re-masters of the past 20 years and restore their tonal balance and dynamic range, he would do more for audio quality than any investment in hardware could hope to achieve.

Tim

Yep, that'd be the place to start.

As for Africa, having worked in Nigeria for several months, I'm very glad I wasn't born there. Don't think I'd be too concerned about remasters in that case.

 

[NorthStar]

As far you wannit to go! The limit is only the equipment.

But the "Feels", the emotion is much more tangible than the most expensive sound system in the world!
And that you get from the recordings, the artists, and not the electronics!

That's what I think as a musician, a poet and an artist.

 

[caesar]

Hi

I wouldn't mind answering your philosophical question. A good one. I would have preferred however that you didn't post this:

then that


This statement shows a high level of contempt, arrogance and even ignorance that has no place here in the WBF (I speak for myself here) where I think members make every effort possible to remain respectful and polite. I would have preferred that such aren't repeated in subsequent discussions of high end audio. That will be my sole participation to your thread.

Interesting how you are so interested in posts regarding the objective proof that cables make a difference but ignore objective research evidence in other areas. I don't see what it impolite about stating ideas and analogizing audio to other areas. It is well documented, peer reviewed, accepted by economists both on the left and on the right why certain countries have grown in wealth faster than others. Economists have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't, but this is an off topic discussion. And I guess if having knowledge about an area is considered arrogant, I will accept that. But I would rather be arrogant than stupid and blind. I will always choose to see more than less.

I grant you it is not a realistic to expect Bill Gates to donate all of his money to research improvements in audio design. But the truth is it is just as silly for him to invest his resources in projects that will bring so little return on his investment other than to make himself feel good. But, again, this post is just a thought experiment...

 

[caesar]

I am surprised no one mentioned improvements in materials...

 

[NorthStar]

...Or improvements in music recording studios (microphone types & technics, plus acoustics).
Higher high res audio too (704kHz/128-bit)...

 

[JackD201]

Depending on who you ask it already is good enough or will never be good enough. I believe, removing all practical constraints, I belong in the latter group.

 

[fas42]

You people have no imagination! It will be better than the real thing, and by quite a decent margin, if only because the mics typically get the best seats in the house. Help, I was getting sound better than listening in the concert hall 25 years ago: a simple solution is to cross breed the best of PA with best of preciously pristine high end and you'll be pretty close ...

Frank

 

[JackD201]

Sure but can you and your date ever be 18 again?

 

[Steve Williams]

I was getting sound better than listening in the concert hall 25 years ago

so let me try to understand. You are saying that 25 years ago you could hear better than the actual event in the concert hall. Please explain

 

[NorthStar]

My take!

^ It has/will nava happen.

______________________

* Me think that your room have to be acoustically treated around your electronics...
Let me s'plain it more clearly please.

-> The Ultimate high end audio system is one that have all the electronics (loudspeakers, crossovers, preamplifier, amplifier(s), and the source(s)), all balanced (matched in unisson) perfectly together (blend), and in harmony with your room's acoustics (properly balanced & acoustically treated).

Furthermore, no one system is truly better than another one in real term from one room to another...
-> Each room is truly unique, and each piece of electronic gear has its own sound signature or characteristic as well.

Diversification is good for the soul. Various audio systems in various rooms have different acoustical sounds, and they can all be very pleasant.
Our ears too are all unique and different, and so are our taste.
- Some people prefer a smoother sound, with somehow veiled higher frequencies (for smoother ear massaging). And other people like clarity with very detailed original recording ambiance.

Best of both worlds is to have more than one Ultimate Sound System, but several of them in as many rooms.

The Ultimate Audio Sound System is Several of them; just like our various life emotions.
Because after all, some music recordings sound better with that gear in that room than this gear in that other room.
It is the exact same with women... Just let your imagination guide you...

What da ya think?

 

[fas42]

so let me try to understand. You are saying that 25 years ago you could hear better than the actual event in the concert hall. Please explain

Yes, that was quite a revelation! While I was in the first flush of achieving very good sound on occasion, I was also attending concerts in our "famous" Sydney Opera House. There was a piano recital, can't remember who, I was in a reasonable, not especially good seat and was struck by the fact that the sound lacked impact, failed to generate the visceral sensation I was getting at home.

And the reason is fairly straightforward: when a pianist is recorded the mics are placed in the absolutely optimum position to pick up every last, telling subtlety of what the instrument is producing, assuming the engineer is reasonably competent. So if the audio system is doing its job well it can't fail but to do a better job of conveying the power and sonorous nature of the instrument.

Full blown orchestral works are obviously harder, but if the system can handle the dynamics then it's at least as good.

The big problem back then is that I had a poor grasp of some of the issues that were involved in maintaining the quality of sound over a period of time: there would be a peak of excellence, and then it would fall away. This is something I have a much, much better handle on now ...

Frank

 

[herb]

I have had the same experience of thinking that the sound in a concert hall (e.g. Davies, SF, Opera House, SF) was inferior to my home system. Surely the home system can be more spectactular (punchy?) than the live event.
In the case of the piano, the miking can be precisely right, but an orchestra is not a point source while audio loud speakers are, so it seems to me that they cannot possibly offer the exact realism that a live performance in an acoustic space does -- as much as I REALLY, REALLY want it to.
And that may be the source of the difficulty, hearing what we want to hear, especially since we have invested so many dollars in the what's best gear.

 

[fas42]

I have had the same experience of thinking that the sound in a concert hall (e.g. Davies, SF, Opera House, SF) was inferior to my home system. Surely the home system can be more spectactular (punchy?) than the live event.
In the case of the piano, the miking can be precisely right, but an orchestra is not a point source while audio loud speakers are, so it seems to me that they cannot possibly offer the exact realism that a live performance in an acoustic space does -- as much as I REALLY, REALLY want it to.
And that may be the source of the difficulty, hearing what we want to hear, especially since we have invested so many dollars in the what's best gear.

But if the dynamics of the orchestral reproduction are not compressed or significantly distorted then the illusion can be very powerful and convincing. It's not a case of wanting to, it either happens or it doesn't: it's almost like a switch in your brain that flips over into accepting the playback as being the real deal when enough clues in the soundscape are correctly in place. A number of people can get this on a regular basis, so it definitely is a goer ...

As far as money being part of the picture, I have heard the most expensive systems do a terrible job of this, and extremely humble setups get the key things right. The ego has to be got out of the way, otherwise you haven't got a hope ...

Frank

 

[herb]

The ego has to be got out of the way, otherwise you haven't got a hope ...

Frank

Aaamen, amen, amen.