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

[NorthStar]

--- Two different entities for two very different groups of people: the 'groupies' and the 'groomies'. :b

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

This thread has morphed, again, to a completely different subject. A good thing, as the old one had run its course. The new one has been well covered in the past. Here's where it ends -- iTunes didn't kill the music industry, it monetized downloads, something the music industry was in a much better position to do themselves, had they not been too busy prosecuting teenagers, and it gave consumers the freedom to buy the song they wanted without paying for 11 they didn't. Good consumer choice often creates opportunity for those who figure out how to profit from it, at the peril of those who have profited from denying it.

The music industry died of old age, or committed suicide. It was killed by it's own inability to change.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Any wrong statement can can be refuted. No need for research to state the obvious.

 

[JackD201]

I'm with Tim on the history albeit the iPod looks like the killer now. P2P sharing started the ball rolling, going further back one could say it was the day people were given the power to rip CDs into files in the first place. In 2005, in Europe, I already saw many people listening to ripped or shared music on their pre-smartphones.

I will agree with Caesar on his point that the audiophile experience is different. It's that way for anything with a mass and top end. One of my points is just that this was never the case in the beginnings of any entertainment media. Even books were at the start only for the wealthy or well positioned until movable type made mass printing possible.

 

[Bill Hart]

The file sharing was really done by the fringe until Napster, which made it mainstream and front page news. After that got shut down, a number of clones followed on its heels. In the meantime, the various labels and publishers licensed some sites, including a few which provided 'backbone' service to others. But, those who were used to downloading for free really weren't buying it, and while there were a few handheld MP3 players, the market was tiny. Apple revitalized it (and themselves) with the introduction of the iPod- now, the ability to access small digital files made more sense to the consumer and the rest is history. Of course, none of that was about quality, but my suspicion is, if you look at format changes over the course of history, few are.

 

[JackD201]

Yessir! Except now we might just see an unusual reversal of sorts. Quality requires drive space so pushing HD for audio and video can help push device upgrades. iMatched Cloud streaming sounds horrible. I don't know the bit rate pushed but boy is it as bad as a twenty something kbps internet radio. Hi-Res for the high end and cloud streaming for the mass market with the present as a placeholder? Looking more and more like it.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Any wrong statement can can be refuted. No need for research to state the obvious.

No you're right, I didn't need to do the research, I just checked out of a desire to be complete.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

... Hi-Res for the high end and cloud streaming for the mass market with the present as a placeholder? Looking more and more like it.

----- Right there; the two opposite camps. :b ...Each driven by its own force, clientele.
- I'm in the first camp; the minority, like most of you guys & gals here. :b
...We are the true hardcore remaining audio gladiators!
...And we are keeping the good traditions alive!

Let's celebrate the true essence of life!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

----- Right there; the two opposite camps. :b ...Each driven by its own force, clientele.
- I'm in the first camp; the minority, like most of you guys & gals here. :b
...We are the true hardcore remaining audio gladiators!
...And we are keeping the good traditions alive!

Let's celebrate the true essence of life!

And then there's the middle ground: MOG. It's like Spotify -- streaming the world's record collection to your server, at 320kbps. Now I know people who swear they can spot 320kbps easily, some that even claim they just can't stand listening to it. And I know they're not lying to me; they're just fooling themselves.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

---Middle ground? Where's that? Where the hobbit lives?

 

[Gregadd]

Jim Winey left 3M to found Magnepan.

 

[JonFo]

One more on the original question:

I believe Room Correction was a 'High-end' innovation. I first heard of and auditioned a SigTech unit in the early '90s at a high-end audio salon. It was revolutionary.

Unfortunately, the high-end is biased against things they don't understand and it went nowhere for a decade. Not until TacT pushed through with modest success did it become more accepted.

Conversion into mass-market happened thanks to Audyssey, who through a licensing-based business model, successfully penetrated average gear at mid-market prices.
So today, your $800 receiver can perform significant (+/-15dB, and 1sec decay time) improvements to in-room performance. So what was a $15,000 dream in the early '90's is now common on pretty much any receiver.

 

[JonFo]

As other have mentioned, Pro-audio has contributed a lot to advancement of consumer audio

My nomination there:

Active speakers - Studio monitors and stage systems with built-in amps and active crossovers


Although a high-end company - Meridian - gets the kudos for pushing that tech in audio harder and longer than others.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

One more on the original question:

I believe Room Correction was a 'High-end' innovation. I first heard of and auditioned a SigTech unit in the early '90s at a high-end audio salon. It was revolutionary.

Unfortunately, the high-end is biased against things they don't understand and it went nowhere for a decade. Not until TacT pushed through with modest success did it become more accepted.

Conversion into mass-market happened thanks to Audyssey, who through a licensing-based business model, successfully penetrated average gear at mid-market prices.
So today, your $800 receiver can perform significant (+/-15dB, and 1sec decay time) improvements to in-room performance. So what was a $15,000 dream in the early '90's is now common on pretty much any receiver.

I think you can give the high end credit for putting it in a single box and hiding the processors (mostly EQ), doing the work, but I'm pretty sure studios and pro sound reinforcement were correcting rooms before the high end eliminated tone controls, probably before they even started calling themselves the high end.

Tim