Can anyone tell me where the progress in audio went?

@assetmgrsc 

I read a review today about a solid state DAC, professional reviewer, where the reviewer went on about bass performance, sound-stage, etc.   If you know anything about SS DACs designed to be accurate, then you will know that all this eloquent waxing about these magical properties is akin to the latest book from J.K. Rowling. I.e. high quality fiction. While perhaps, perhaps, they could tell this DAC apart from a similar design goal product, it would be very difficult for them, and these qualities they colorfully described would never come into it. Much of audio reviews is fiction. In another thread here, someone is claiming to be able to extract what would have to be a super subtle difference, from 192kpbs AAC Youtube videos with volume levelling, clipping and what appears to be some automatic gain.  Personally, most reviews are worth less than the bits used to communicate them.

Has there been extreme price increases?  I don't think so. There are extremely more expensive pieces, but for the most part, the same real quality level is close to the same price it has always been. When you look at DACs, Amplifiers, what is required to stream, and the music itself, access to music and pristine electronics has never been cheaper. Some amazing speakers under $2K with clarity and accuracy we could only hope of it the past, and active crossovers are setting a new level too..... But ..... and to your point, w.r.t. HiFi as a hobby, has it has changed. A new "hobby" exists that has little to do with sound quality and is all about feeding the machine and feeding egos.

My suggestion?  Music is mainly art. Music reproduction is mainly science with some art thrown in. Learn about the science, and then learn about how to apply your own artistic touches. Let others stroke their egos in vain and feed the machine.

@tannoy56 from what I remember Bob tried to make his SS amp in that instance sound like his tube amp and failed and made a bad amp. A better comparison would be his big tube amp against a Krell or maybe something Purifi based. I would take the latter two over the Carver tube in a heart beat. I never was a Carver fan. He voiced his amps and liked a particular sound, bad.

When you have audiophiles convincing themselves that turntables have magic properties, that tube amplifiers have magic properties, that cables can have magic properties, that digital has bad properties that don't actually exist and a whole host of other things that are never going to result in progress, then you will have an industry that is focused on feeding that neurosis, not progress.

Fortunately, as a portion of audio, "hifi" is small and even less when you consider the audio portion of movies and video. Hence while this industries plods along deifying 100 year old technology, the rest of the world developed dirt cheap high quality DACs, multi-channel object oriented surround sound, relatively dirt cheap and near straight-wire with gain class-D amps (with switching power supplies), DSP based crossovers, accurate room measurement systems that only require a $100 microphone, a whole host of room correction systems and bass management (that came out of home theater), DIY base management and low cost  multi-channel DACs, relatively good sized acoustic panels companies (HiFi is just a portion of their business), DSP subwoofers (another offshoot of home theater), a host of pro/prosumer ADCs that give performance light years beyond tape for < $1000 (and up of course). Well designed high end speakers today, for the most part, can achieve lower distortion at higher volumes (but perhaps not as high of volume), have much better dispersion, and flatter frequency response. They can do it at relatively lower cost too and if desired, in a smaller package (with trade offs).

 

The biggest hurdle to advancement in hifi is audiophiles.

@kairosman  -- Uber expensive speakers maybe, and even upper mid-end speakers. Most of the electronics tapped out ages ago. It is just marketing now.

@tannoy56 it cannot reveal any more dynamics, or energy than the system I or anyone else clicking on that video is listening to, in 192kbps AAC by the way. It sounds much better played directly even through Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnM8f95gzUE

Youtube videos for evaluating equipment?  :-(

What I posted was original and not a recording of speakers. It shows all that is missing and was added.  YouTube videos are near worthless to determine anything about audio components.

@moonwatcher , I would argue that lenses still have a long way to go, especially when price is taken into account :-)    Sensor technology has barely moved in what 7 or 8 years? Small incremental improvements but that is it. Even back side illuminated (BSI) are only a small improvement over front side with micro-lenses. There are some fundamental physical limits w.r.t. cameras. Look up Shot noise if you are unfamiliar.  I think computational photography is where mirrorless needs to go next. The processing in my phone is way beyond what is in my cameras. 

Back to your regular arguing (I mean programming) :-) [not directed at you Moonwatcher]

@moonwatcher ,

Perhaps with your camera analogy should be the recognition that some things you really can't improve or are as good as ever needed for human consumption. Look at pixel count. If you are not blowing it up and/or looking at a printed version close, 12 megapixels can display all the resolution our eyes are capable of picking up. You can add more pixels but you won't see any more as your eyes simply do not have the resolution.  No ones eyes have the resolution. The same is true of audio. This concept of "everything matters" has to be one of the dumbest things in audio yet I wonder how many people have typed it on these forums just this week? There are limits on what we can hear, let alone detect in music. They apply to everyone. There are minor differences but they are not all that great, and the main difference is training. This flawed idea has been used to justify all kinds of things are just nonsense and is used as a crutch by people to avoid accepting their own limitations. Just think if the spend in HiFi was redirected from all the things that make little or no difference into the things that actually do and the companies that do them?  Maybe it would make no difference, but given the op feels, and I tend to agree, that the industry is rather stagnant, change would be welcome.

I am a big fan of "Walking Around" lenses, you know those ones with big zoom ranges. Ken Rockwell may suggest framing with your feet, but try that over a body of water, or where access is restricted or physically impossible. Those still have a long way to go.  Inexpensive lenses still have a lot to be desired when used outside their sweet spot.   The Sigma Art stuff is nice.  One area of considerably improvement would be using plastic for internal lenses in the assembly. That would dramatically lower weight. The quality however is not there for plastics yet.

@dekay , that sounds better than the 1/2 million dollar system someone else keeps posting videos for on Youtube :-)

I am not familiar with those speakers. I see light coming from the back. Are they open back?

@kingdeezie

I am not picking on you, I am just using you as an example. Perhaps where audio has least progressed and has gone backwards is knowledge. I think the average audiophile today knows less about the underlying technology than the average audiophile 30-40 years ago, and consider the access to technology, that is not good. Manufacturers are absolutely complicit if not avoiding giving consumer knowledge intentionally.

Why "can" a tube amplifier sound "better":

1. A unique distortion profile (coupled with higher distortion). This is bandied around a lot, even on here. It is usually coupled with "Well solid state has higher distortion in the real world" and "tube distortion makes it sound fuller, etc.". Here is the thing, most solid state amps today have very low distortion at any frequency. The distortion of most tube amplifiers is low enough that the purported impact on audio is questionable at best (and good luck finding validated evidence). Simulate tube like distortion in a very low distortion systems and you need way more distortion than tube amps created till people even notice a difference.
2. The higher output impedance of tube amplifiers can result lower the distortion of some speakers? Heard that one before? There is truth to it, but it will depend on the the, in a given speaker. It wont be true for all speakers, and definitely not all drivers in any one speaker. Almost all drivers today are designed for a voltage source. That was not always true.
3. The comparatively high output impedance of most tube amplifiers coupled with often naturally non-flat frequency responses coupled with the impedance of the users speaker, and their room response (often without room treatment), results in a pleasing frequency response often with elevated upper base to lower mid-range (where bulk of vocals and instruments sit), enhanced the perceived clarity and providing warmth, while rolling off the upper end, perhaps softening harsher reflections.

I would note that one of the defining characteristics of D’Agostino amps is an output impedance more like a tube amp than a solid state amp, and that back in the 80’s Bob Carver made a $700 SS amp, sound just like, what is purported to be a very expensive high end tube amp and did it in only 4 days. (Carver challenge)

I can’t exactly replicate #2 above in a SS amp, but just simply adding a resistor in series will accomplish a good deal of that. Carver even put a switchable resistor in some of his amps. #1 is questionable whether it is truly a determining factor in the sound. I am not discounting that distortion can change the sound, just that most tube amps don’t have enough. That leave #3 as the remaining elephant. I can easily equalize an SS amp to have the exact response a tube amp has with any given speaker. Carver did it in hardware. I would do it in software.

@tannoy56  Most records are sold to hipsters who long for the simpleness of a past generation. As a portion of total music record and tape sales are minuscule.  Most audiophiles not lost in the last century know digital is superior, but often still have good analog rigs (I do) because it allows them to access masterings they would not otherwise be able to. They are under no illusions it is superior.  I find it funny that people who claim the superiority of vinyl keep trying to get their rigs to sound more and more like digital :-)

Conclusion?:  Because knowledge has stagnated if not declined in high end audio, a market of aspirin and sugar pills sustains itself, where the patient is not only never cured, but is discouraged from seeking treatment.

@tannoy56 ,

I expect that over the years, Carver has sold far more SS amplifiers than tube amplifiers. Carver as a company (considering it has been many) had by far its best commercial success in the 80's into 90's with SS amplifiers, the M series and Sunfire series. Did you know he sued Stereophile claiming bias ... essentially claiming it was bad for their business that he was competing with super expensive products on the cheap.

Supposedly the M1.0t sounds exceptionally close to a Conrad Johnson Premier Four.

However, to the point of my last post, tube amps don't sound better than SS, and often the latter is true too. With SS, the speaker and room is a system. With tubes, it is more accurate that the speakers, room and amp is a system. As a system, the sound is the total, not just one piece. I don't think you will find many saying tubes are the best compliment to big panel speakers.

I agree with the premise they want what sounds enjoyable @kingdeezie 

However I disagree and believe it is lack of knowledge. There is a big big difference between having what you like, which we can assume most audiophiles have achieved to some degree, and knowing what you like. They may have something they like, but they don't know what it is. Some do. By far most of them do not. They only know what it physically looks like. Because they do not, they can't replicate it when they move, and they can't intelligently work on improving it. They guess, and sometimes that is right, and sometimes it is wrong and most of the time it is exactly the same, but they convince themselves it is better or worse. That is what I mean by knowledge has stunted or even declined.

An objective approach to audio does not mean ignoring the subjective. That would be stupid. An objective approach ideally is about identifying the subjective qualities that you as an individual prefer, and giving you the tools to fine tune the objective qualities to your subjective preference.