A quest for perfection.

[NorthStar]

I think it is somewhat funny/ironic that the most high-tech piece of audio gear in my house is the Onkyo TX-NR3010 AVR receiver I just bought which lies in a sealed box in my house due to my tendon injury. This thing does digital room correction and has electronic crossovers built in. Now mind you that my Home Theater room is in an entirely different part of my house and is isolated acoustically from my two-channel stereo room. I just bought the Mytek Stereo 192 DAC so I could play back DSD files in my he-man rig and now I read that the Onkyo TX-NR3010 can also play back DSD files!

I’m looking forward to healing from my operation that is scheduled for tomorrow and being able to set up my new AVR rig and improving the HT which I have neglected for years.

-----Mark, I can't wait! :b ...Heal right & quick! :b ...Eleven point two.

 

[microstrip]

I think it’s a somewhat lopsided two-legged race with digital on the lead leg and speakers on the trailing leg. In comparison to all other high-end doo-dads, trinkets, and gadgets, nothing else improves at the speed of digital IMO because that is where the most engineers and money are right now. I do believe that speakers are getting better in terms of the quality of the drivers, the cabinet materials/construction, and the software/hardware tools to make better crossover networks and integrate all of the pieces.

To my knowledge, no one is coming up with new designs for R2R tape decks and putting them in production. And please, don’t tell me that the Otari 5050 is a new design just because it is still in production supposedly. We are stuck with improving designs that have been around for many years. For those at the top of the cartridge food chain, people feel there are real advancements being made there. Of course everyone that builds turntables and arms would have you believe that the technology is advancing at warp speed. Ditto for amps and preamps.

Mep.

IMHO you are missing the true reason why there are real improvements - it because skilled people are understanding better the real objectives, current limitations and problems, and focusing in them. The technology that can be used today is not very different from what was used some years ago, but is used with more judgement. Also better development tools, based in simulation and CAD and CAM techniques have allowed the manufacturing of designs that were not possible some years ago.

INHO warp speed is not relevant in this debate, and yes, again IMHO there were real advances in analog playback of vinyl in recent years.

BTW, I am addressing sound reproduction in stereo - not any other technique.

 

[rbbert]

Unfortunately, despite the techniques and technology to accomplish the opposite, most currently released recorded music sounds dreadful. I hope that if nothing else that aspect of our obsession improves.

After improving source quality (read: mastering and hires digital) I have to think that active speakers and digital room correction have the potential for the most significant improvements in our listening experience. Both of those have significant psychological hurdles to overcome to appeal the the high end audiophile though.

 

[microstrip]

(...) ihmo, relative to 2-ch audio much of the current hardware particulary analog is just "old wine in new bottles" (as writen in the pages of TAS). I know many of you will dispute this as you have to justify your recent purchase of the mk III, special edition (fill-in-the-blank) latest and greatest acquisition.

IMHO just one of these nice general ambiguous sentences with little meaning and high sonority. Can you explain us with some detail what this expression means for 2ch audio? Just it is like the same product packaged in more attractive way, or something else? Then perhaps we can dispute or agree with it.

 

[mep]

Mep.

BTW, I am addressing sound reproduction in stereo - not any other technique.

Me too.

 

[NorthStar]

I had the pleasure of hosting an a'phile friend last night and he brought up what I thought was a great question. The question: what do you think will be the advancements that we are likely to see in audio in the next few years? Where will these advancements come from....the speaker side, the amp side, the digital side, the analog side or ?? or maybe a completely different area that is unexpected...( cables come to mind or power conditioners/delivery, as an example).
Since the quest for the "absolute sound" is probably endless, what or where in your opinion is the likely next breakthrough in sound reproduction in the home? Thoughts.

-----Just to remind our audience and panel of members here;
our OP's (Davey) first original post mentioned "absolute sound" (deja vu?), and no specifics if it's only mono or stereo.
So multichannel audio sounds fair to me as well.

Hi res audio encompasses several audio modes (various channels).

To stick with only stereo is to restrict ourselves.
And restriction is not an advancement in my book. It is a stagnation.

Better music recordings come from remastered LPs of good quality (200 gr) by pro music recording/engineers (at 45 rpm, and more money too to purchase them). And from the best R2R audio tapes (at the best speed; which are very rare to find).
And it comes from the best record labels on CDs.
And it comes from hybrid SACDs (stereo and multichannel).
And from hi res audio on Blu-ray (stereo and multichannel). ...Blu-ray video & Blu-ray audio.
And it comes from hi res music streaming and downloading (stereo and multichannel).
...DVD Audios (stereo and multichannel).

Methinks, and I just share it.

 

[NorthStar]

---Next are quality sources to play the music material (music mediums).

Then good speakers (quality monitors; two or up to eleven). ...Could be several towers too (full range).
...But not necessary.
Quality sub (two or even more is better).

Then good preamplification; stereo preamp or/and surround processor (good sound for fair price).

Then good amplification; stereo, multichannel, monoblocks, etc. ...Solid state or tubes.

Then good all around wiring; everything that is needed and no more.

________________________

* Power purifiers? ...And all that jazz? ...If it makes a difference for the better why not.

** The less components plugged to your preamp or surround processor the better.
And if you start analog, stay analog all the way. ...Same with digital. ...And don't mix.
Those, I truly believe and I aknowledged.

Perfection is dedication, precision, intelligence, and science with mathematics.
...For the optimum musical experience from reproduced music at home.
...No stones left unturned ....

We already have the 2012 perfection. :b ...Let's just keep it up with more and better music recordings. :b ...That's where the bulk of my investments is anyway, and I just keep adding and adding, and with better recordings (three, four, five, six times and more over for the same music material). ...And new ones for the true meaning of why I am a true music lover and an audiophile at the same time. There are some great artists out there in the year 2012. :b ...And some quality recordings worth searching for.

Perfection is the quest. ...The quest for better expansion of the emotional horizons provided by the aural sense. ...That better than anything else; investment in people (the artists), always first!

 

[puroagave]

IMHO just one of these nice general ambiguous sentences with little meaning and high sonority. Can you explain us with some detail what this expression means for 2ch audio? Just it is like the same product packaged in more attractive way, or something else? Then perhaps we can dispute or agree with it.

i do agree with the other posts the two areas of significant improvement have been digital and speakers, specifically moving coil drivers. call it what you want but a lot current gear owes its existence to older designs and is not an improvement in a lot of cases tover yesteryears gear im talking the last 20+years, im speaking of tube and SS amplification.

 

[puroagave]

INHO warp speed is not relevant in this debate, and yes, again IMHO there were real advances in analog playback of vinyl in recent years.

BTW, I am addressing sound reproduction in stereo - not any other technique.

real advances in analog playback, like?? lets go back 25-yrs and take the best cd players of the day like the cal tempest, stax quattro or meridian mcd and compare it to a hirez 24/192 file played over a dcs, weiss or berkeley of today and a child could hear the difference. now take a versa dynamics 2.0/vdh grasshopper from 1987 and id put it against any of the latest and greatest analog rigs of today and it would be a draw - imo, of course

 

[NorthStar]

---Are true analog lovers romanticists?

...In search of that impossible perfection but deep lovers of the visual rotations and aural clicks. :b

 

[Bill Hart]

The Quest is in some ways the same one for the 'tone' camp (SETs, vinyl, horns, field coils, etc.) and the multi-channel, DSP correction, digital crew. How we get there is where the differences are. And if you say that the sounds the two camps seek are extremely different, then you are going to prove my next point: the ability to tonally adjust the sound at the source. Equalizers and tone controls are just rearranging deck chairs after the boat has been built in the sense they are 'gross' adjustments. But with enough bandwidth to deliver a piece of program material into its constiuent parts, why couldn't the user 'adjust' the sound to the room and to his/her taste in much finer increments by making relative gain/tone/phase and other corrections to multiple tracks of the recording that are delivered to the end user as multitrack? (I'm not just talking about multiple channels, ala surround sound, but separating the horns from the drums from the vocals and giving the user the ability to adjust each of them). Yes, I know, in some ways unnatural, but as one thread here noted, very few recordings are set up for a 'natural acoustic' in the first place. And, without having everyone play recording engineer at home, with a complex board, you could have presets, both from the factory and from knowledgeable tweakers, tied to particular recordings. (Crowd-sourcing of presets?). Keep in mind that I'm not talking about DSP at the room end, although that may be important, but altering the fundamental balance of a recording at the source material playing in your room. Just a crazy thought.

 

[audioarcher]

The Quest is in some ways the same one for the 'tone' camp (SETs, vinyl, horns, field coils, etc.) and the multi-channel, DSP correction, digital crew. How we get there is where the differences are. And if you say that the sounds the two camps seek are extremely different, then you are going to prove my next point: the ability to tonally adjust the sound at the source. Equalizers and tone controls are just rearranging deck chairs after the boat has been built in the sense they are 'gross' adjustments. But with enough bandwidth to deliver a piece of program material into its constiuent parts, why couldn't the user 'adjust' the sound to the room and to his/her taste in much finer increments by making relative gain/tone/phase and other corrections to multiple tracks of the recording that are delivered to the end user as multitrack? (I'm not just talking about multiple channels, ala surround sound, but separating the horns from the drums from the vocals and giving the user the ability to adjust each of them). Yes, I know, in some ways unnatural, but as one thread here noted, very few recordings are set up for a 'natural acoustic' in the first place. And, without having everyone play recording engineer at home, with a complex board, you could have presets, both from the factory and from knowledgeable tweakers, tied to particular recordings. (Crowd-sourcing of presets?). Keep in mind that I'm not talking about DSP at the room end, although that may be important, but altering the fundamental balance of a recording at the source material playing in your room. Just a crazy thought.

That's a good idea. That would be pretty cool. It would of course take up allot of disc space. It would also not likely be marketable to enough people to make it profitable.

 

[DaveyF]

The Quest is in some ways the same one for the 'tone' camp (SETs, vinyl, horns, field coils, etc.) and the multi-channel, DSP correction, digital crew. How we get there is where the differences are. And if you say that the sounds the two camps seek are extremely different, then you are going to prove my next point: the ability to tonally adjust the sound at the source. Equalizers and tone controls are just rearranging deck chairs after the boat has been built in the sense they are 'gross' adjustments. But with enough bandwidth to deliver a piece of program material into its constiuent parts, why couldn't the user 'adjust' the sound to the room and to his/her taste in much finer increments by making relative gain/tone/phase and other corrections to multiple tracks of the recording that are delivered to the end user as multitrack? (I'm not just talking about multiple channels, ala surround sound, but separating the horns from the drums from the vocals and giving the user the ability to adjust each of them). Yes, I know, in some ways unnatural, but as one thread here noted, very few recordings are set up for a 'natural acoustic' in the first place. And, without having everyone play recording engineer at home, with a complex board, you could have presets, both from the factory and from knowledgeable tweakers, tied to particular recordings. (Crowd-sourcing of presets?). Keep in mind that I'm not talking about DSP at the room end, although that may be important, but altering the fundamental balance of a recording at the source material playing in your room. Just a crazy thought.

Which brings me to my thoughts on this question....A few years ago, I began to experiment with something called an 'amp modeler' in the guitar realm. Essentially what this little box does is to digitally model a reproduction of a particular amp sound and/or pedal sound and/ or room sound and/or delay sound, etc. Now as whart has so eloquently stated above, this digital modeling could have a very useful impact in the audio world. It should be possible to do the same thing in audio as is done daily in the pro-audio world. Naturally, at a very much higher level of reproduction...and again as whart has theorized by altering the fundamental balance of a recording at the source material playing in your room....Not such a crazy thought whart, at least IMHO.
We're NOT there yet, BUT i can definitely see a day soon when we will be.
Back to my OP...

 

[Bill Hart]

Which brings me to my thoughts on this question....A few years ago, I began to experiment with something called an 'amp modeler' in the guitar realm. Essentially what this little box does is to digitally model a reproduction of a particular amp sound and/or pedal sound and/ or room sound and/or delay sound, etc. Now as whart has so eloquently stated above, this digital modeling could have a very useful impact in the audio world. It should be possible to do the same thing in audio as is done daily in the pro-audio world. Naturally, at a very much higher level of reproduction...and again as whart has theorized by altering the fundamental balance of a recording at the source material playing in your room....Not such a crazy thought whart, at least IMHO.
We're NOT there yet, BUT i can definitely see a day soon when we will be.
Back to my OP...

I know Harley has a TM on its sound but I'm not sure Marshall or Fender do. I know what you are referring to on those amp modelers. Doesn't Garage Band or whatever the Apple 'studio' program is called even have that sorta thing?
Davey, this happens sometimes when the meds wear off....
PS: one thing I forgot: the recording ( or pack o' tracks) would come with some recommended presets if, god forbid, you wanted to listen to it the way the producer/engineer/artists intended.

 

[NorthStar]

The Quest is in some ways the same one for the 'tone' camp (SETs, vinyl, horns, field coils, etc.) and the multi-channel, DSP correction, digital crew. How we get there is where the differences are. And if you say that the sounds the two camps seek are extremely different, then you are going to prove my next point: the ability to tonally adjust the sound at the source. Equalizers and tone controls are just rearranging deck chairs after the boat has been built in the sense they are 'gross' adjustments. But with enough bandwidth to deliver a piece of program material into its constiuent parts, why couldn't the user 'adjust' the sound to the room and to his/her taste in much finer increments by making relative gain/tone/phase and other corrections to multiple tracks of the recording that are delivered to the end user as multitrack? (I'm not just talking about multiple channels, ala surround sound, but separating the horns from the drums from the vocals and giving the user the ability to adjust each of them). Yes, I know, in some ways unnatural, but as one thread here noted, very few recordings are set up for a 'natural acoustic' in the first place. And, without having everyone play recording engineer at home, with a complex board, you could have presets, both from the factory and from knowledgeable tweakers, tied to particular recordings. (Crowd-sourcing of presets?). Keep in mind that I'm not talking about DSP at the room end, although that may be important, but altering the fundamental balance of a recording at the source material playing in your room. Just a crazy thought.

-----I like that, I like that a lot. :b

* Reminds me of D-BOX technology for movies. ...From Odyssee Motion Simulator.

 

[DaveyF]

I know Harley has a TM on its sound but I'm not sure Marshall or Fender do. I know what you are referring to on those amp modelers. Doesn't Garage Band or whatever the Apple 'studio' program is called even have that sorta thing?
Davey, this happens sometimes when the meds wear off....
PS: one thing I forgot: the recording ( or pack o' tracks) would come with some recommended presets if, god forbid, you wanted to listen to it the way the producer/engineer/artists intended.

whart that's correct, Garage Band can simulate various 'classic' amps, etc. As an example, you want to play through a 50's Princeton tweed...no problem...then you want to add a little reverb or wah, no problem...pick which model and type of wah you want to add. Now you want to change the sound to a Blackface Super Reverb ...turn the knob. Four speakers, two speakers and on and on...I'm sure you are getting the point.
BTW, I agree it would be paramount to have a preset that was the way the producer/engineer/artist intended...at least according to the record companies way of looking at it.
In some ways we used to do this in the past in our systems...it was called an equalizer.

 

[NorthStar]

---...Tremolo. :b

 

[opus111]

The main advantages to come that I see are in the realm of increased synergy - that is getting more bang for the buck by integrating formerly separate components together.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

The main advantages to come that I see are in the realm of increased synergy - that is getting more bang for the buck by integrating formerly separate components together.

That's exactly what I said, but no one seemed to take notice.

Not sure if its the next thing, but I'm seeing more high-end quality Integrated amplifiers being introduced and getting some surprisingly wide acceptance. The move by baby-boomers into smaller homes, condos or townhomes might make that a very viable option.

 

[opus111]

What you said is less synergistic than what I was thinking. I forsee the integration of more embedded intelligence into audio kit - so that, for example the digital processor knows the volume control level setting and can introduce a volume-dependent loudness contour using DSP. It 'knows' (for another example) what amplifier power is available so ensures the downstream amp can't be driven into clipping. The amp 'knows' what speaker its driving and can determine the voice-coil temperature (say using dead reckoning, or perhaps instrumenting the voltage at known current) and send this back to the DSP to compensate for thermal compression. That kind of thing.