Does the "high end" drive the progress of consumer audio?

[opus111]

Or we could talk about the work of Mark Porzilli, who received his PHD in physics at a very young age (I seem to remember 21) who designed the Melos series of electronics, Pipedream speakers and this latest, very unique approach to digital playback:

http://www.thememoryplayer.net/#!d2d

Interesting - let's talk about this. From the website:



Something here is an innovation serving the progress of audio? If so I'm missing what it is.

All DACs do not have internal circuitry on the output of the DAC. Some (like TDA1541A, TDA1545A, PCM1702 ...) have current outputs. A DAC with '100% of the output circuitry and on chip components' bypassed would no longer be a DAC.

I can't see any technical advances here at all, just marketing FUD. What am I missing?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Sure If we're just talking tracks it's gotta be more than 10 times more, the limit being the I/O. Quality too. Let's just not forget zee history

Not just tracks. In software, I have the equal,of racks full of processors -- compressors limiters, eq, all kinds of reverb, etc. lots of usefull gear I could never afford back in the day. And all of it super clean -- miles of cabling, switches, power supplies ... Potential for noise' gone. Much of it is wasted on me, as I prefer to keep,things simple, but the capability, for an incredibly small investment, is pretty mind- boggling. And no, I won't forget the history. I wish I still,had that old deck...much cooler to look at than a screen interface.
Tim

 

[JackD201]

Funny, I ordered a Tascam iU2 from Sweetwater a week ago. My M-Box was always way too quirky. I'm looking forward to using an iPad for recording.

 

[Gregadd]

No need for proof. How do these two examples suggest that most innovations come from niche companies?

Tim

By definition innovation means outside the box. Big companaies tend to take less risk. If you want to start a project you have to prove it's going to make them money. In order to exist a small comapny has to do something different.
For example let's take The Wankel(rotary) engine for example That's a tough sale asking the big three to retool and engage in the product development of a new engine. Morevoer no one needed Wankel to make a conventional engine. If he wanted to get in he had to make something different. He ended up taking it to Japan.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

By definition innovation means outside the box. Big companaies tend to take less risk. If you want to start a project you have to prove it's going to make them money. In order to exist a small comapny has to do something different.
For example let's take The Wankel(rotary) engine for example That's a tough sale asking the big three to retool and engage in the product development of a new engine. Morevoer no one needed Wankel to make a conventional engine. If he wanted to get in he had to make something different. He ended up taking it to Japan.

I guess I'll take the risk of being attacked rather than let this kind of misinformation pass unmolested:

The integrated circuit: multiple international fathers, made practically applicable in that garage called Texas Instruments

Digital media (cd,DVD, blu ray): Sony, Philips, Toshiba

GUI: Xerox

Far too many practical innovations to mention: That little skunkworks known as NASA

And I haven't even touched the mother loads of innovation that are or have been 3M, GE, Bell labs, Apple....

The freedom to take risks is cultural, it happens easier in smaller organizations, for sure, but it is most effective where the cultural freedom meets deep pockets.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Tim I guess it depends on your point of view. Here we go again. Big companies are where ideas go to die. Do I really have to give a litany of examples. It rellayy get's old having to repeat the obvious. Remember this thread started because of your speculation.

Remeber saying this

There's a lot about the high-end that I don't know, Myles, and I have no trouble admitting that, thus the "honestly, I don't know."

Why don't you do a little research before making blanket staetments. All those products had potential for great profit as I said. NASA is of course paid for by the tax payer -cost plus profit.

You are right about one thing, thanks for venture capital.

Maybe you should watch a little tv program called Shark Tank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim I guess it depends on your point of view. Here we go again. Big companies are where ideas go to die.

"Big companies are where ideas go to die." I like that. That's a big blanket statement my proletariat roots and anti-corporate leanings would love to believe in. But I have this bad habit of questioning blanket statements and ideological arguments, and I asked myself what was the really big stuff of the last 50 years or so...you know, the kind of stuff that seeped into everything and impacted many millions of people. It was a heck of a 50 years, but I immediately came up with ICs, digital media (add photography, printing, image processing to audio if you like) and the graphical user interface. At this point, in a first-world country you can't get out your front door in the morning without touching all three. Then I indulged another bad habit of mine; it's really so easy these days -- I did a little research before answering your blanket statement, and found out where those technologies were developed.

Why don't you do a little research before making blanket staetments.

Oh yeah....

All those products had potential for great profit as I said.

Sure, it looks that way from here. But all of them were crude in their rough beginnings, and mocked by many users of the existing technology; ask any 50 year old photographer or programmer. Ask an audiophile. It took years of investment in those technologies for them to reach their potentials. They were far from a sure bet.

NASA is of course paid for by the tax payer -cost plus profit.

Well, you got one. The easy one. Do a little research next time.

Tim

 

[treitz3]

Guys, can we please lighten up the conversation a little?

As you know, personal attacks and harassment are not allowed on this forum. If the thread is to remain open, please discuss the topic as if each of you were in a discussion with your college professor(s). If you feel that this can not be done, please feel free to use the ignore button. Cordial participation is a key requisite to being a member of this forum as described in the TOS.

 

[microstrip]

Gentleman,

At the risk of being fired by both contenders, I enter your debate. IMHO, you are mixing innovation and invention, two very different concepts.
Tim is mainly addressing inventions and Greg innovation. High-end is mainly driven by innovation.

 

[rbbert]

I think the thread has pretty much run its course. It's clear to most (or all?) of us that there are plenty of well-documented instances of high-end and/or niche audio companies and individuals developing products or technologies with both broader and trickle-down uses.

 

[JackD201]

Yup. I thought it was all tied up a couple of pages ago.

 

[NorthStar]

--- Personally, I don't usually believe in end of 'roads' (threads).
They can always be brought back on tracks; with some simple & ingenious 'rerouting'.

True high-end audio is a niche market, and does not drive necessarily the consumer market; its evolution.
The two are seperate entities with some common goals: sound performance.

The rich and the poor end up at the same place on the road to perfectionism;
they just don't have the same equal room (the poor can have a much better room than the rich).
Plus, knowledge is not a thing of the rich.

 

[JackD201]

Well the OP did say he was good so I figured we all were. I was.

 

[NorthStar]

--- Do we truly know the OP?

 

[JackD201]

The rockin' rebel hiding behind the distinguished professor disguise? He will forever be a mystery!

 

[caesar]

Phelonius,

I would say no. Most people stopped buying cd;s when iTunes arrived and got established. People started downloading music through the internet. Music industry tried to fight back via dvd audio and sacd, but it was futile. Consumers started consuming music differently and also started to break out of the album model of music and demand individual tracks as opposed to entrire cd's. Digital tracks and compression, which results in convenience, has won out over quality, as people are able to listen to the songs of their choosing, in the order of their choosing, and on the device of their choosing.

But you know all of that!! So what's the point of your post? To aggravate some audiophiles?

 

[JackD201]

Not to nitpick but that started happening some years before iTunes got established. iTunes just monetized the process. I don't think they were the first to do it either.

 

[NorthStar]

--- I dunno, but were MP3 and iPods before iTunes?

 

[JackD201]

Yup. Billboard actually started tracking legal downloads 10 years before the iTunes store opened. Just some trivia

 

[caesar]

Not to nitpick but that started happening some years before iTunes got established. iTunes just monetized the process. I don't think they were the first to do it either.

Jack, I have no doubt you are correct about the industry pioneers, but the iPod was the killer app that in effect destroyed the music industry.

My overall point, though, is that our hobby - high end audio - is a completely different experience than it is for the mainstream consumer market.