Last 20 Years - Any Real Audio Advancements?

[twich54]

Brian, I agreee with you, I saw no intent to flame.....as a matter of fact whats wrong in acknowledging the advances in analog over the past twenty years !! ?? There are plenty.....

first and foremost afordability, MC cartridges abound now along with capable phono-pre's at realistic prices.

the prolifiration of tt's at all levels is sweet indeed !

twenty years ago young people didn't give analog a second look, now I know plenty that are trully embracing it !

On another front if I may 'wax nastolgic' for a moment.......tube amplification; at all levels, integrated, stereo, monoblock is vastly improved over what and where it was twenty years ago.

 

[User211]

I think we have agreed that this thread should not discuss comparisons between analogue versus digital. However, feel free to discuss improvements in either field.

Dave - I am not sure analogue has improved that much, to be honest. Many of the cheaper MCs were around 20 years or so ago are still here now - AT OC9, Denon 103 etc and they are still top of the league carts at their price points - same as they ever were. The OC9 has become much cheaper in real terms, though. It may simply be that performance at a given price has just gotten better.

As far as arms and TTs are concerned, has precision mechanical engineering gotten any better? I'm not sure I know the answer to that. But perhaps more exotic materials have become available and been incorporated into TTs at lower price points.

OldMonolith - excellent post BTW.

 

[twich54]

I here ya' Justin...but....twenty years ago the 'trend' was away from analog so todays 'resurgance' has brought with it a far greater number of offerings.
with respect to MC cartridges, the multitude of lineups today, relative varying output levels, is damn near offered by many if not most of the mfgs.

To me anyways the biggest change / advancement is the fact that in '89 the death nail was being put into analogs coffin....fast forward twenty years....safe to say we're off life support !

I suppose if I look back on my system twenty years ago vs. what I have today my greatest advancement is in my analog front end. But that is more of a benefit of what I am able to afford than anything else I suspect. It's a shame though, 'cause good Lord knows my hearing was better back in'89 !!

 

[miljac]

I have seen a lot in last 40 years or so pursuing this hobby ... and can see Justin's standpoint only too well.

And guess what ... recently I have bought an old Sansui AU-719 amplifier for a friend on eBay. I hooked it up to a pair of Mission 770 MkII's from year 1980 that I still keep played back from my Thorens TD-126MkIII. The sound? Gives many a "high end" setup that I've heard recently a good run for its money ....

Not that these things were cheap back in '70s and '80s, but the result made me think twice. How much would one have to pay for the same level of performance today?

Let's assume that Sansui was 1000$ then (surely less), Missions were short of 400 pounds, Thorens about 1000$. Makes something like 3000$?

regards

miljac

 

[spectral]

I personally feel there has been significant improvement all around, materialized by better materials and construction techniques, but nothing truly revolutionary.

Analog sounds fantastically better than it did before (per another thread, I've gotten back to analog just recently after a 20 year hiatus), 16-bit 2-channel digital has improved significantly as well, especially with the advent of HDCD, and in addition we have some hi-rez formats that are fighting for market share, but with computer-based music servers on the rise, I feel that hi-res will finally become of age.

Better materials have enabled preamps and amplifiers (tubed or solid state) to also sound significantly better, albeit with not much radical change in designs per se, cables have certainly come a very long way, and I also feel some speakers do overall sound significantly better than most from 20 years ago ever did, save for a few exceptions (e.g. Apogee).

However, all this advancement - I feel - has come at exploding retail prices, so I think the "value" factor has gone down since 20 years ago.

 

[Bernard]

I here ya' Justin...but....twenty years ago the 'trend' was away from analog so todays 'resurgance' has brought with it a far greater number of offerings.
with respect to MC cartridges, the multitude of lineups today, relative varying output levels, is damn near offered by many if not most of the mfgs.

Dave, the thing that astounds me the most about MC's is how much the price has increased relative to other components. When I bought my first Koetsu (about 20 years ago), I paid the pricely sum (for that time) of $500, and I think it was the only Koetsu available at that time (but I may well be wrong). Today, the most expensive, "Hen's Blood" Koetsu, sold by Acoustic Sounds, is $20,000.

Justin, great thread, but I can't help but think that if the people who think we are duping ourselves when we say we can hear differences between cables (for example) spoke up, they would say that there have been no advancements.

 

[JMAUSGP]

For me the biggest advancements have come in multi-channel over the last 20 years. So much so that I no longer listen to any two-channel, which is just me.....I know it's blasphemy. But I even listen to my analogue TT in 5.1 surround sound, it just sounds better to me.

SACD, DVD Audio, Linear PCM (LPCM) - up to 8 channels of uncompressed audio.

Dolby Digital (DD) - format used for DVDs, 5.1-channel surround sound.

Dolby Digital Plus (DD+) - extension of Dolby Digital, 7.1-channel surround sound.

Dolby TrueHD - lossless encoding of up to 8 channels of audio.

DTS Digital Surround - format used for DVDs, 5.1-channel surround sound.

DTS-HD High Resolution Audio - extension of DTS, 7.1-channel surround sound.

DTS-HD Master Audio - lossless encoding of up to 8 channels of audio.

At least for me these are huge advancements in audio when coupled with the latest and greatest products from ML..........I'm sorry what were we talking about?

Oh yeah, and cables have made huge strides too, so much so I can't tell you how much.

 

[aliveatfive]

I've restrained myself from posting to this thread, but alas, I can no longer.

I've been at this stuff since about 1972. I've built my fair share of audio-related stuff also. Here are my conclusions:

There have been several true advances in the art since the 70's. Metal-film resistors and audio-grade capacitors were not available to designers in the early days. They do make a difference.

Solid-state circuitry has evolved. Early transistorized designs were called "quasi-complimentary" because matching NPN and PNP devices did not exist. Now they do. MOSFETS, JFETS and FETS did not exist in the early days. Solid-state designers now have a plethora of choices.

The importance of power supplies and regulated supplies was not understood to the extent that it is now. These innovations are audible.

Tube circuits have not changed all that much since their inception. Single-ended designs still exist, as do push-pull designs. The quality of the parts used in these circuits is very different from those that their inventors had to choose. Older tubes, however, did sound better than their contemporary counterparts. I will state, with certainty, that my current ARC Ref110 is a much better amp that my ARC Classic 60 of 20-some-odd years ago.

Audio has changed and not just from an analog-digital reference. You can take an old Dyna Stereo 70. Put in new circuit boards with modern components and it will sound better. Audio is a technology which is not resistant to new discoveries.

 

[Rich]

Aliveatfive brings up a good point that I had been thinking about in relation to this thread. It seems that component circuit designs haven't advanced so much as the quality of the available parts (resistors, transistors, diodes, pots, etc.) with which to build them. I think if we put our minds to it, we could probably build better tubes today than the NOS varieties, but there just isn't enough money in it to spur the innovation. But, by and large, manufacturers have much better tools and parts with which to build their components than they had twenty or thirty years ago, and the quality of these components certainly makes a difference in the sound.

I think that is where the primary innovation has come from. But let us not also forget the innovation in design. Although often more for esthetics than function, we have seen incredible innovation in design that has produced some beautiful products over the past few years. I think this is an important trend, as well. If you are going to spend several grand or more on a piece of audio gear, you really want it to look as good as it sounds.

 

[timm]

Yeah.. what Sleepysurf said.

playing high quality digital music on your home audio system without a disc. HUGE.

sort of on the topic Tom - I know you bought the DAC III - are you using the usb input? I know you were using it w/a cd player if I recall... how is it with the usb/computer.....?

 

[User211]

Good point Bernard - at the lower end, it looks like we have more bang per buck, with the carts I mentioned - but then again they have both been modified many times over the years. For all I know, a 20 year old OC9 may have been better. Maybe it's a bit like Mars Bars - the price can stay the same - but you get less.

In the high end cartridge market, things have become absurd. But what are the sales of these devices? Close to zilsch, I'd wager.

I think the component call is a reasonably genuine one. The Elna Silmics I have just stuffed in my 50 Watt tube amp significantly outperform the 20 odd year old Rubycons (no - not black gates) in terms of resolution. They have markedly changed the personality of the amp. Be interesting to see how much better it gets as they break in. One almost wonders whether component or circuit design is the most influential factor in determining sound quality.

One real problem here is audio memory. 20-30-40 years is a long time. None of us, honestly, hand on heart, can remember with complete accuracy what things sounded like back then. And when we do hear these old components, they are either aged or rebuilt using modern components.

For instance - were the Rubycons, when new, just as good as the Silmics? Whilst I tend to believe not, I can't honestly say so.

But my 1962 Scott 350 tuner, with aged components (apart from a new very high quality NOS tube set) systematically destroys anything more recent that I have tried for sound quality. Not for sensitivity. Not for selectivity. Not for tech spec in all sorts of areas. Why? I seriously don't know. Maybe I just like the colourations this tuner produces - but it seems to have a naturalness, particularly on voices, that nothing else I tried can touch. So how can it be coloured?

In a dramatic "loss of confidence" of understanding, I genuinely remain confused.

There you go - I have just argued one thing, and rejected it with another. No wonder I am often seen to be "changing my mind".

 

[MiTT]

But my 1962 Scott 350 tuner, with aged components (apart from a new very high quality NOS tube set) systematically destroys anything more recent that I have tried for sound quality. Not for sensitivity. Not for selectivity. Not for tech spec in all sorts of areas. Why? I seriously don't know. Maybe I just like the colourations this amp produces - but it seems to have a naturalness, particularly on voices, that nothing else I tried can touch. So how can it be coloured?

In a dramatic "loss of confidence" of understanding, I genuinely remain confused.

There you go - I have just argued one thing, and rejected it with another. No wonder I am often seen to be "changing my mind".

Justin - your sig today; The Smiths - "That Joke isn't Funny Anymore" right?

I hear you on the tuner thing. I sort of feel that way about a lot of things audio. Analog, Tubes, measurements as a whole. Often times some things sound more like MUSIC to me than other things, even though they are an antiquated or inferior technology. I think it just shows that the more we know the less we know sometimes. I was having a "discussion" with a fellow over on another forum wherein he basically told me I was nuts if I could hear a difference between the built in DAC on my Sonos and my Dodson outboard DAC because they should theoretically measure the same. Well, OK, but they sure sound different to me. Maybe we really don't know how to measure EVERYTHING yet.

For me personally, everything I have now sounds better than what I started out listening to 25 -30 years ago.

 

[Bernard]

Maybe we really don't know how to measure EVERYTHING yet.

Reminds me of an old TAS article which stated (to paraphrase), "If two things measure the same but sound different, then perhaps we are not measuring the right thing".

BTW I agree with you, Tim. We are truly in trouble when we think we know EVERYTHING.

 

[amey01]

Reminds me of an old TAS article which stated (to paraphrase), "If two things measure the same but sound different, then perhaps we are not measuring the right thing".

I think we learnt from another famous thread that we may well be capable of measuring everything, but analysing that data is another story.

Case in point - measuring distortion at 1kHz at only one input level is going to tell you diddly squat about distortion of the component. These are infinitely varying things.

Analysing distortion at every frequency, at every input level, driving every sort of load etc, etc is a task noone has yet managed.

 

[User211]

Justin - your sig today; The Smiths - "That Joke isn't Funny Anymore" right?

Yup - and today.

Scott 350 warning: I have two of them - one as spares for the other. Don't expect to buy one off ebay/audiogon and get brilliant results. You''ll need to get one in excellent condition and replace all the tubes. You should also get it checked to make sure it is still aligned correctly.

Basically agree with Tim/Bernard.

New technologies - shame not to have seen more on the loudspeaker front in the last 20 years. NXT panels - what happened to those in hi-fi? Mission released one a while ago and it sounded good. Anyone clued up on why they haven't "taken off"?

 

[JonFo]

Lots of progress in the past 20 years.

I’ve been following this hobby for 40 years now, and trying to stay at the bleeding edge as much as I could afford to along the way.

[Note: since my response is around 1K words, I’ve split it up into individual posts based on major topic]

Sources:

The rise (and occasional fall) of high-resolution multichannel digital : SACD / DVD-A / BluRay

Jitter-free linkups like DenonLink 4 allow all the above to be sent to a suitable preamp with no degradation.

Ever since CD-4 / SQ back in the 70’s I’ve lusted for better surround sound, and it finally has arrived in the past decade.

Now, with access to ultra-high quality multichannel, it’s the rest of the system that labors to keep up.

Server based music is a huge step in terms of convenience and with Preamps that decode inside (e.g. Denon AVP-A1HD), transports are no longer a concern.

 

[JonFo]

Amps

Amps:

New topologies refined, such as the Sunfire class G and many variants of Class D

We now have amps that can produce huge amounts of power (and current in the case of Class G) that don’t heat up a room and run up your power bill.

 

[JonFo]

Speakers

Speakers

Much could be written here, as the explosion of DIY has lead to many interesting designs. But primarily it’s the funded R&D at leading speaker manufactures the world over that is truly amazing.

I’ll select a few of the most significant that I’ve seen:

Coincident drivers, like the KEF UniQ and Vienna acoustics and Thiel, are all great improvements for point-source designs.

The use of computer-aided virtualized design, and high-resolution real-world testing (e.g. laser vibrometry) have allowed not only tremendous driver design improvements but introduced innovative speaker cabinet designs (e.g KEF Muon, Blade, B&W Nautilus)

Line sources have also progressed, with Wisdom audio providing good examples with a completely vertically integrate Sage line. Scaena has a great product as well. Unfortunately, this is a niche market due to size/price, but performance is out of this world.

Of course, this being the MLC, we’d need to talk about Electrostats.

I’d say the DualForce bass driver (in the CLX) is a truly innovative design that has yet to see its full potential exploited.
Other ESL progress, such as the Xstat microperf panels are more evolutionary. Cool, but not radical.

The rise in powered bass driver amplification is also notable as a major improvement in the line, allowing external amps to deal only with the panel.

 

[JonFo]

Room Acoustics

Room Acoustics

While it’s been known for a long time that acoustics are important, I feel that in the past 20 years we’ve seen a much greater emphasis on small room acoustics and the art of room tuning.
Accessible solutions like Realtraps, GIK and others are allowing more of us to tame the beast that is the small room.
Knowledge and research has also exploded on this topic, with introduction of books like Floyd Toole’s – Sound Reproduction a major landmark.

Much more accessible end-user tools for acoustic measuring are another huge boon. Laptops that run REW and other measurement software open up a whole new world of insight to individuals, providing problem identification and improvement validation.

 

[JonFo]

Room Correction

Room Correction

If I had to pick only one item as the most significant progress in the past 20 years, it would the arena of room correction.
Not only have the hardware solutions improved, but much of the research behind technologies such as Audyssey have been ground-breaking in terms of how to measure and how to integrate all that data into meaningful and accurate correction profiles.

While spectral domain corrections (e.g. parametric EQ) have been around forever, the true innovation is the ability to now integrate the temporal domain as well into the speaker/room correction models.
Again Audyssey is the ground-breaking tech here, with their convolved FIR-based corrections, they address critical issues such as delayed reflections and provide vastly improved soundstages.

On top of room correction, rides a whole new wave of dynamics management solutions:

Dynamic loudness compensation (e.g. Audyssey Dynamic EQ, DBX AutoWarmth, etc.) that provides spectral and relative-volume rebalancing as a function of the master volume level.

Dynamic Volume compensation (e.g Audyssey Dynamic Vol, Dolby Volume) which provides users with ‘smart’ gain riding and dynamic compression to equalize program material volume transitions and to allow for improved low-volume speech comprehension while maintaining a limited max level for late-night listening.

While all of the above is absolutely flabbergasting in terms of the audible, as well as usability improvements, we’ve only started to see what these and related technologies can provide. Stay tuned …