What improvements have we seen in high end audio in the last 25 years?

[dingus]

You took the easiest example possible. How about setting up a a laptop as a music server, installing Jriver, Foobar, etc,, and then installing an outboard DAC and have your software ready to play pretty much any digital file up to DSD. Also, factor in setting up the software on both your computer and an iPhone, iPad, etc, so they can act as a remote to control the server. Tell me how easy that is.

its pretty much as easy as you describe. most folks who can install a free player like Foobar can handle Jriver or whatever software they want to use. in addition to the installation, there are going to be lots of settings one will want to enable and disable in the software. its time consuming and sometimes irritating, but its pretty easy if a person has the patience.

i dont, so for an even easier method i went with an out-of-the-box solution with the Vortexbox Appliance.

 

[BlueFox]

You took the easiest example possible. How about setting up a a laptop as a music server, installing Jriver, Foobar, etc,, and then installing an outboard DAC and have your software ready to play pretty much any digital file up to DSD. Also, factor in setting up the software on both your computer and an iPhone, iPad, etc, so they can act as a remote to control the server. Tell me how easy that is.

A real audiophile does not use a general purpose computer for a music server.

They use a dedicated file player. For example, I use the Bryston BDP-1. This is a piece of cake. Attach a USB drive to it with your files, use mPod on your iPhone to control it, and away you go. But yes, there is a minor learning curve to go through, but no where near as difficult as learning how to adjust your cartridge and tonearm.

 

[mep]

A real audiophile does not use a general purpose computer for a music server.

They use a dedicated file player. For example, I use the Bryston BDP-1. This is a piece of cake. Attach a USB drive to it with your files, use mPod on your iPhone to control it, and away you go. But yes, there is a minor learning curve to go through, but no where near as difficult as learning how to adjust your cartridge and tonearm.

Again, you are talking about a basic 'out of box' solution vice those that have to figure out how to make their computer 'talk' to their D/A and play back files correctly. As far as using a "general purpose computer," I'm talking about taking a laptop and stripping out things that you don't need to play music and making it a dedicated music server. Specifically, the instructions that Gary Koh was nice enough to give all of us sometime ago.

 

[Robh3606]

You took the easiest example possible. How about setting up a a laptop as a music server, installing Jriver, Foobar, etc,, and then installing an outboard DAC and have your software ready to play pretty much any digital file up to DSD. Also, factor in setting up the software on both your computer and an iPhone, iPad, etc, so they can act as a remote to control the server. Tell me how easy that is.

Hello Mep


The basic statement that Myles made was how hard it was and that you average person couldn't do it, What I said is typical for your average Joe as far as difficulty and the software used. I wouldn't waste my time doing what you are talking about. What you are talking about is outside the scope of your average user. I doubt they would even know what a DSD file was.

Rob

 

[mep]

Hello Mep


The basic statement that Myles made was how hard it was and that you average person couldn't do it, What I said is typical for your average Joe as far as difficulty and the software used. I wouldn't waste my time doing what you are talking about. What you are talking about is outside the scope of your average user. I doubt they would even know what a DSD file was.



Rob

I could be wrong, but I think Myles was talking about doing things at the level I described and not some Windows music server software and plugging in an idoo-dad player that is instantly recognized.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I could be wrong, but I think Myles was talking about doing things at the level I described and not some Windows music server software and plugging in an idoo-dad player that is instantly recognized.

I'm not going to go to that effort to listen to 16/44. Nor are most people outside of audiophiles and thus will be an even tinier niche market. Why don't Rob and the others ask our Far East members what format dominates in Asia?

 

[edorr]

A real audiophile does not use a general purpose computer for a music server.

Any PC phobic audiophile can order a prebuild CAPS 3 and be up and running with Jriver and Jremote based library control in a heartbeat.

 

[PeterA]

Why don't Rob and the others ask our Far East members what format dominates in Asia?

Because we already know the answer Myles.

 

[TheMadMilkman]

The goalposts in this thread have jumped so many times now that I'm not even sure what team I play for anymore.

 

[mep]

I'm not going to go to that effort to listen to 16/44. Nor are most people outside of audiophiles and thus will be an even tinier niche market. Why don't Rob and the others ask our Far East members what format dominates in Asia?

I meant in terms of difficulty that you were describing previously,not what the average Joe would use. Average Joe digital is easier than "Look ma, no brains!"

 

[microstrip]

(...) I rip mine while I listen to music. You would be surprised how many you can do in a week.

Rob

Rob,

I could consider ripping CDs while reading or writing posts in WBF, but ripping while listening to music would definitively spoil my listening pleasure. YMMV.

 

[hvbias]

You start with your favorites, and do, maybe, ten or more, a week. It quickly adds up, and certainly isn't difficult. If this is to difficult for somebody then they will also have trouble tying their shoes, and crossing the street.

On the other hand, for newer, and future, releases you can just download the files. I will be downloading the new Led Zeppelin releases in 96/24. The same files used to cut the vinyl, but without the compression/equalization needed to put into analog.

That is funny since the 24/96 files are more compressed than the Classic Records vinyl and my good original US and UK vinyl

Those files could have been way more dynamic than what they are. Should have given the audiophiles a different mastering than just a higher rez ceedee.

 

[JackD201]

You start with your favorites, and do, maybe, ten or more, a week. It quickly adds up, and certainly isn't difficult. If this is to difficult for somebody then they will also have trouble tying their shoes, and crossing the street.

On the other hand, for newer, and future, releases you can just download the files. I will be downloading the new Led Zeppelin releases in 96/24. The same files used to cut the vinyl, but without the compression/equalization needed to put into analog.

Difficult no, hassle yes

 

[Alan Sircom]

I am seriously concerned that the audiophile world is getting marginalised because of its own curmudgeonliness. It's already marginalised because of price, availability, snobbery (and inverted snobbery), and the fact that audio products are intended to last 20+ years is antithetical to people more used to 18-month product life cycles.

One of the strange things about computer audio is it is a largely intuitive, iterative, and automated process to those who have gone down that route, but to those who hold out, the explanation of that process appears daunting. However, the same could be said of any computer-side process, if described in minute detail. Think of the entire set of processes required to get online, pointing a browser at a search engine, finding a forum of like-minded specialist audio enthusiasts, registering on that forum, and commenting on topics on that forum. It's a miracle that anyone posts anything here. The processes required to introduce computer audio to an existing system is no more or less complex.

According to the most recent European GfK statistics I can find (to year end 2013), computer-side audio separates products (USB digital converters, networked streaming products, etc) outstrip sales of CD players and turntables combined. This did not include portable devices (which includes iPods, tablets, phones, and Sonos: Play style products); if these were included, the sales of computer audio products would eclipse the whole traditional audio market. We can dismiss this increasingly important sector of the market as just 'nerd stuff', but then we don't have the right to be surprised if the buyers of 'nerd stuff' dismiss our world in return.

While individually, audiophiles can reject different aspects of the audio world, as a wider group we need to be more encompassing. The fallacy of the 'true' audiophile is just that: a fallacy of equivocation. If someone is interested in the way music sounds enough to invest in separates audio equipment, they are an audio enthusiast. If someone likes computer audio and solid-state electronics and box speakers, and you are a turntable, tubes, and horns man, the two of you are just taking different paths up the same mountain. They are not the 'enemy'; the 'enemy' (such as there is an enemy, here) is 'meh!'. Meh! as in 'why should I bother with all that?'

 

[FrantzM]

I am seriously concerned that the audiophile world is getting marginalised because of its own curmudgeonliness. It's already marginalised because of price, availability, snobbery (and inverted snobbery), and the fact that audio products are intended to last 20+ years is antithetical to people more used to 18-month product life cycles.

One of the strange things about computer audio is it is a largely intuitive, iterative, and automated process to those who have gone down that route, but to those who hold out, the explanation of that process appears daunting. However, the same could be said of any computer-side process, if described in minute detail. Think of the entire set of processes required to get online, pointing a browser at a search engine, finding a forum of like-minded specialist audio enthusiasts, registering on that forum, and commenting on topics on that forum. It's a miracle that anyone posts anything here. The processes required to introduce computer audio to an existing system is no more or less complex.

According to the most recent European GfK statistics I can find (to year end 2013), computer-side audio separates products (USB digital converters, networked streaming products, etc) outstrip sales of CD players and turntables combined. This did not include portable devices (which includes iPods, tablets, phones, and Sonos: Play style products); if these were included, the sales of computer audio products would eclipse the whole traditional audio market. We can dismiss this increasingly important sector of the market as just 'nerd stuff', but then we don't have the right to be surprised if the buyers of 'nerd stuff' dismiss our world in return.

While individually, audiophiles can reject different aspects of the audio world, as a wider group we need to be more encompassing. The fallacy of the 'true' audiophile is just that: a fallacy of equivocation. If someone is interested in the way music sounds enough to invest in separates audio equipment, they are an audio enthusiast. If someone likes computer audio and solid-state electronics and box speakers, and you are a turntable, tubes, and horns man, the two of you are just taking different paths up the same mountain. They are not the 'enemy'; the 'enemy' (such as there is an enemy, here) is 'meh!'. Meh! as in 'why should I bother with all that?'

Excellent Post

 

[JonFo]

Going back to the original question, to me the most significant improvements have been:

Our increase in understanding of the importance and science around small room acoustics, so everything from knowledge like that captured in Floyd Toole's book on Sound Reproduction to the affordable and powerful room measurement solutions available now that enable users (or their advisors) to optimize the most important aspect of audio: the interface between the sound reproduction system and the room.

The growth in the acoustic treatment options, both in quantity and variations as well as affordability that now allow us to take the knowledge and information the item above gives and apply them to our rooms.

The power of modern computing as applied to audio-centric processing in measurements, room correction, active DSP crossovers and even amplification (see DDFA) all combine to deliver levels of performance that were impossible 25 years ago.

Again the power of computing and materials sciences as applied to speaker design, driver design, cabinet modeling and construction all combine to deliver some impressively capable transducers in a variety of formats (planars, dynamic box, horns, etc.)

The rise of the active speaker system as the highest-performance architecture for the output end of the reproduction chain.

Not just high-rez digital recording and content delivery systems, but now full 3D positional audio with objects (Dolby Atmos) finally breaking us out of the constraints of specific channel counts and locations.

So yes, huge, huge leaps forward in the past 25 years. And the pace is actually accelerating in terms of innovation and change. Can't wait for the next 25.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Going back to the original question, to me the most significant improvements have been:

Our increase in understanding of the importance and science around small room acoustics, so everything from knowledge like that captured in Floyd Toole's book on Sound Reproduction to the affordable and powerful room measurement solutions available now that enable users (or their advisors) to optimize the most important aspect of audio: the interface between the soud reporduction system and the room.

The growth in the acoustic treatment options, both in quantity and variations as well as affordability that now allow us to take the knowledge and information the item above gives and apply them to our rooms.

The power of modern computing as applied to audio-centric processing in measurements, room correction, active DSP crossovers and even amplification (see DDFA) all combine to deliver levels of performance that were impossible 25 years ago.

Again the power of computing and materials sciences as applied to speaker design, driver design, cabinet modeling and construction all combine to deliver some impressively capable transducers in a variety of formats (planars, dynamic box, horns, etc.)

The rise of the active speaker system as the highest-performance architecture for the output end of the reproduction chain.

Not just high-rez digital recording and content delivery systems, but now full 3D positional audio with objects (Dolby Atmos) finally breaking us out of the constraints of specific channel counts and locations.

So yes, huge, huge leaps forward in the past 25 years. And the pace is actually accelerating in terms of innovation and change. Can't wait for the next 25.

I agree, but we face an enormous hurdle in getting these concepts across to an audience that has only just got past outright hostility toward that side of the topic.

The very real danger here is that important developments in audio get sidelined through active disinterest by today's audiophile 'community' holding back what's changed in the last 25 years in order to preserve what was the status quo 35 years ago.

It's very difficult to overcome this. Manufacturers, magazines, and dealers are all reluctant to face up to this disinterest, because it has no 'benefit of the doubt' component. Try to promote these concepts professionally, and the best you can hope for is it's viewed as some kind of charming character flaw; more likely, you've just lost that person to your product. Often for good – I spent precisely three years working on both home theater and hi-fi titles toward the end of the 1990s (as part of a general step up the career ladder) - and I still get UK audiophiles telling me that everything I write about audio is tarnished because they consider me a turncoat.

We forever seem to take one step forward and two back with respect to room treatment and correction, and active loudspeakers. And as for multichannel sound, no matter how good the performance, even the slightest suggestion of there being something more than one-speaker per ear, or a visual component to a reproduced musical event, invites angry dismissal.

 

[prerich]

Any PC phobic audiophile can order a prebuild CAPS 3 and be up and running with Jriver and Jremote based library control in a heartbeat.

This is so true!

 

[prerich]

I am seriously concerned that the audiophile world is getting marginalised because of its own curmudgeonliness. It's already marginalised because of price, availability, snobbery (and inverted snobbery), and the fact that audio products are intended to last 20+ years is antithetical to people more used to 18-month product life cycles.

One of the strange things about computer audio is it is a largely intuitive, iterative, and automated process to those who have gone down that route, but to those who hold out, the explanation of that process appears daunting. However, the same could be said of any computer-side process, if described in minute detail. Think of the entire set of processes required to get online, pointing a browser at a search engine, finding a forum of like-minded specialist audio enthusiasts, registering on that forum, and commenting on topics on that forum. It's a miracle that anyone posts anything here. The processes required to introduce computer audio to an existing system is no more or less complex.

According to the most recent European GfK statistics I can find (to year end 2013), computer-side audio separates products (USB digital converters, networked streaming products, etc) outstrip sales of CD players and turntables combined. This did not include portable devices (which includes iPods, tablets, phones, and Sonos: Play style products); if these were included, the sales of computer audio products would eclipse the whole traditional audio market. We can dismiss this increasingly important sector of the market as just 'nerd stuff', but then we don't have the right to be surprised if the buyers of 'nerd stuff' dismiss our world in return.

While individually, audiophiles can reject different aspects of the audio world, as a wider group we need to be more encompassing. The fallacy of the 'true' audiophile is just that: a fallacy of equivocation. If someone is interested in the way music sounds enough to invest in separates audio equipment, they are an audio enthusiast. If someone likes computer audio and solid-state electronics and box speakers, and you are a turntable, tubes, and horns man, the two of you are just taking different paths up the same mountain. They are not the 'enemy'; the 'enemy' (such as there is an enemy, here) is 'meh!'. Meh! as in 'why should I bother with all that?'

So nice it should be posted twice Bravo!

 

[FrantzM]

Rob,

I could consider ripping CDs while reading or writing posts in WBF, but ripping while listening to music would definitively spoil my listening pleasure. YMMV.

Why?