Future progress in reproduced sound

[PeterA]

What are the biggest impediments to realism in reproduce sound? How can they be addressed and will there be significant progress made to solving these issues in the foreseeable future?

I happen to think they are in the areas of clarity, scale, and energy. It’s not clear to me if it is more of a recording issue or a system presentation issue. Or is it something completely different like the fact that we all have different preferences and can’t agree on a common direction?

There was an interesting discussion on Ron’s podcast recently about the fragmentation in the hobby. Was it always like this? It didn’t seem so fragmented when I was younger and first becoming interested in the 1970s, but I was not paying a lot of attention back then to the industry at large.

I am curious to learn what others think about this topic.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

There was an interesting discussion on Ron’s podcast recently about the fragmentation in the hobby. Was it always like this? It didn’t seem so fragmented when I was younger and first becoming interested in the 1970s

no internet. how could you know about what was going on? just what was mainstream enough to be in magazines.

, but I was not paying a lot of attention back then to the industry at large.

I am curious to learn what others think about this topic.

the fragmentation was always there, but the internet did two things; it's allowed awareness to spread of pockets of interests, and brought more attention to those groups and attracted like thinking hobbyists. so each group went farther down their rat holes with more encouragement.....and separated further.

living situations have always been an influence; larger family homes and suburban life and large paychecks drove manufacturer/dealer and product and speaker size in the USA, even baby-boomer 60's rock focus with more desire for deep bass. and more dense population and smaller rooms were significant in Europe and Asia. also the classical music focus in Europe was a factor too and effected gear choices and speaker size, less low frequency focus levels, and horns. SET and horns in Japan was isolated for a time, then got recognized and became part of the big picture. hobbyist's became manufacturers of more esoteric narrowly focused gear.

the CD and then the i-pod and files, streaming and mobile listening, along with the change in the music business all had a hand in things too.

music listening in the 60's and 70's was turntables and the radio. cassettes then started to expand things.

these days with home ownership harder it might skew system footprint over time again for younger generations. but serious audiophiles are such a small fraction of the population not sure it will change things.

 

[Lee]

I think there are few impediments and, in fact, a lot of growth possibilities from science and technology.

My bet is that mathematics will continue to move forward in digital and create lower noise floors and better dynamics.

I think on the analog side, more precision in speed, isolation, and materials science will continue to drive down noise.

On loudspeakers there is a clear trend to better and better crossovers and drivers.

On electronics, there are better circuit designs, improving parts quality, and better power and grounding implementation.

On the recording side, new mic and ADC technology is improving.

In my opinion, some SOTA systems present astonishing realism like the M9 experience I had. But I believe even non-SOTA systems will materially improve.

 

[Lee]

As far as fragmentation, it seems a double-edged sword. The rise of virtual communities has created opportunities for niche segmentation. But it’s a tiny hobby already so arguably this doesn’t help industry economics.

Or am I wrong?

More segments may create new paths into the hobby. At TAS we saw portable audio, turntables, and computer audio as gateway drugs of sorts.

 

[Kbh57]

I think DSP will continue to evolve and offer increasingly effective mitigation of room issues. Not many have the luxury of a purpose built room. Treatments are important, but many don't have that option in shared spaces.There are likely a lot more untreated or under-treated rooms than properly treated rooms. Project down the road a few years, and advances in DSP will offer better and better outcomes for this common stumbling block, even though purists may not like it much.

Beyond that, digital music in general and streaming in particular will continue to improve. The analog vs. digital debate will be a lot different in the next decade. Class D (Maybe Class G,H, etc.) amplification will, I think, be a game changer as the technology improves. I heard Class D amps (GaNFET) at CAF and was amazed at how good they were- I doubt that many could ID the Class D amps in a blind test. Maybe not quite there yet, but If progress continues at the current rate, high quality amplification will become smaller, cooler and cheaper as we look 5-10 years down the road, maybe less. This bodes well for the future of one box, smaller footprint, maybe cheaper solutions. All of that will make it easier to cultivate/create the next generation of "high end" consumers if the industry is clever enough.

The high end business seems ripe for consolidation. The market seems unlikely to grow and more likely to contract as boomers depart or downsize. Most of the big name manufacturers are actually very small businesses and acutely sensitive to relatively small fluctuations in demand. The target market-boomers, for the most part- have done very well over the last 10-15 years, largely as a result of a very healthy stock market since the 2007-10 recession. That enables the big prices we see. Economic laws dictate, however, that another down cycle will happen and that will lead to lots of consolidation in this business.

I'm not quite sure what is meant by fragmentation. I do notice that a willingness to question one's own opinion is pretty rare among audiophiles. Whats best as the forum name asks, is inherently subjective. We can flyspeck the latest and greatest equipment, and certainly do, but every set of ears and every brain is unique. Nevertheless, we often insist on translating our own individual, subjective preference into a supposed objective and universally applicable truth. And, of course, the internet has changed everything, not always for the better.

Fortunately, its mostly harmless and often interesting.

 

[Joe Whip]

DSP and immersive audio, in my opinion, when done well, get you closer to the real thing, but that is just me.

 

[microstrip]

What are the biggest impediments to realism in reproduce sound? (...)

Interesting question. In fact the biggest impediment to realism is the stereo standard. Two channels has very strong limitation to realism, and playback needs too many uncontrolled additions and listener imagination that affect realism. But consumers do not want realism, they want enjoyment and convenience.

BTW, no need to refer to modern multichannel, any one having listened to proper three channel recordings knows they can be more realistic than the stereo versions.

I have listened to multichannel recordings that were surely more realistic than stereo, but I recognize I prefer stereo.

 

[PeterA]

But consumers do not want realism, they want enjoyment and convenience.

Not all consumers. I want realism and very little about my system is convenient.

BTW, no need to refer to modern multichannel, any one having listened to proper three channel recordings knows they can be more realistic than the stereo versions.

I have listened to multichannel recordings that were surely more realistic than stereo, but I recognize I prefer stereo.

Why do you prefer stereo?

 

[mtemur]

Interesting question. In fact the biggest impediment to realism is the stereo standard. Two channels has very strong limitation to realism, and playback needs too many uncontrolled additions and listener imagination that affect realism. But consumers do not want realism, they want enjoyment and convenience.

BTW, no need to refer to modern multichannel, any one having listened to proper three channel recordings knows they can be more realistic than the stereo versions.

I have listened to multichannel recordings that were surely more realistic than stereo, but I recognize I prefer stereo.

+1

As I said before somewhere else in this forum the biggest missed opportunity in my opinion is implementing and standardizing 3 channels. But unfortunately limitations of vinyl prevented this from happening.

 

[rob]

DSP and multi channel (immersive) audio, including fully active systems is an area that will continue to improve and become more accessible in the future.

 

[Lee]

DSP and immersive audio, in my opinion, when done well, get you closer to the real thing, but that is just me.

I had that experience hearing the master files of the Talking Heads catalog at One Union. Drugs in particular was mind blowing.

 

[microstrip]

Not all consumers. I want realism and very little about my system is convenient.

Ok, I was writing in general. Surely there are a few exceptions ...
Why your simple, non tweaked system is not convenient?

Why do you prefer stereo?

Probably because I am used to it and the music I listen is only available in stereo. In the past I had an excellent multichannel system, but I could not find music to feed it.

 

[PeterA]

Ok, I was writing in general. Surely there are a few exceptions ...
Why your simple, non tweaked system is not convenient?

Surely you understand that having only a vinyl front end is less convenient than a Digital front end. I could list cleaning records, the lack of remote, and many other things, but you understand it already. There are also the nine tube boxes which are certainly less convenient than solid state. But you surely understand this also.

Probably because I am used to it and the music I listen is only available in stereo. In the past I had an excellent multichannel system, but I could not find music to feed it.

This makes sense. If you don’t have the music in the format, you’re not going to enjoy listening to music much. The multi channel systems I’ve heard were not nearly as good as the best stereo systems I’ve heard. It was mostly a matter of tone and dynamics.

 

[microstrip]

Surely you understand that having only a vinyl front end is less convenient than a Digital front end. I could list cleaning records, the lack of remote, and many other things, but you understand it already. There are also the nine tube boxes which are certainly less convenient than solid state. But you surely understand this also.

It depends - my digital system has five boxes ... Although I accept that the absence or a remote is a real nuisance, but all other aspect depend on on far we want to go in inconvenience. Even cleaning recordings can be a very easy task. Tubes are only inconvenient if they cause reliability problems.

 

[PeterA]

It depends - my digital system has five boxes ... Although I accept that the absence or a remote is a real nuisance, but all other aspect depend on on far we want to go in inconvenience. Even cleaning recordings can be a very easy task. Tubes are only inconvenient if they cause reliability problems.

Only you can make an argument that it depends when discussing whether vinyl or digital is more convenient to play on a daily basis. Good grief!

 

[microstrip]

Only you can make an argument that it depends when discussing whether vinyl or digital is more convenient to play on a daily basis. Good grief!

Only you can change subject to a vinyl versus digital battle as soon as you can. We were friendly discussing YOUR SYSTEM convenience. Please read post #12. You changed direction next post, you seem obsessed with digital.

My opinion was always vinyl systems can be very convenient - it is one the reasons I praised Tech Das and SME turntables.

 

[PeterA]

Interesting question. In fact the biggest impediment to realism is the stereo standard. Two channels has very strong limitation to realism, and playback needs too many uncontrolled additions and listener imagination that affect realism. But consumers do not want realism, they want enjoyment and convenience.

BTW, no need to refer to modern multichannel, any one having listened to proper three channel recordings knows they can be more realistic than the stereo versions.

I have listened to multichannel recordings that were surely more realistic than stereo, but I recognize I prefer stereo.

I asked about impediments to realism and you in fact brought up the issue of convenience here in post #7. I do care about realism and enjoyment, so much about convenience.

Perhaps we can return to the subject of the original post, the impediments to realism. It has nothing to do with wants. It is about sound quality and technology.

 

[Ron Resnick]

What a great question, Peter!

I know that I cannot agree with Lee on this particular topic, because low noise floor is just not a thing for me. (More technically it is not one of my sonic cues.)

I think the biggest impediment to realism is the size of our listening rooms. I have always said the room is the most important component.

There's no easy way to conduct this experiment but my hypothesis is that if you took a good stereo system like we talk about on WBF and put it in a coat closet, and then gradually relocated it to larger and larger rooms believability would go up. (At some point, of course, like in a concert hall that stereo is not going to do very much.)

My point is that the room in which we listen to our systems matters a lot. Now I appreciate that the room size shouldn't really matter because with a good stereo whatever ambient recording venue cues are encoded on the recording should be reproduced faithfully by the stereo independent of the size of the room in which the stereo is playing. That just is not really my experience. Size matters, unfortunately. A small stereo in a small room which faithfully reproduces the acoustic venue of the recording is great and gets me part of the way there, but the volume of our listening room still is a significant factor in my experience.

So how do we enable our listening rooms to sound larger than they are? Perhaps DSP? I don't wanna go there!

 

[Kal Rubinson]

So how do we enable our listening rooms to sound larger than they are? Perhaps DSP? I don't wanna go there!

There be dragons.

 

[PeterA]

What a great question, Peter!

I know that I cannot agree with Lee on this particular topic, because low noise floor is just not a thing for me. (More technically it is not one of my sonic cues.)

I think the biggest impediment to realism is the size of our listening rooms. I have always said the room is the most important component.

There's no easy way to conduct this experiment but my hypothesis is that if you took a good stereo system like we talk about on WBF and put it in a coat closet, and then gradually relocated it to larger and larger rooms believability would go up. (At some point, of course, like in a concert hall that stereo is not going to do very much.)

My point is that the room in which we listen to our systems matters a lot. Now I appreciate that the room size shouldn't really matter because with a good stereo whatever ambient recording venue cues are encoded on the recording should be reproduced faithfully by the stereo independent of the size of the room in which the stereo is playing. That just is not really my experience. Size matters, unfortunately. A small stereo in a small room which faithfully reproduces the acoustic venue of the recording is great and gets me part of the way there, but the volume of our listening room still is a significant factor in my experience.

So how do we enable our listening rooms to sound larger than they are? Perhaps DSP? I don't wanna go there!

Thanks, Ron. I appreciate that you are taking the question seriously, and I like your response. I agree that the room plays a significant role in the system’ ability to convey a realistic presentation. But I think the system plays an equally significant role. A boom box in a great room isn’t going to sound great. Regardless of the room, we all make judgments about the quality of components in direct comparisons in the rooms we have and we hear which component sounds more real.

When formulating my question and the opening post of this thread, I had assumed that the system and room were already at a very high level. Given that, why doesn’t the experience remind us more of the real thing? That’s really the question. Now I understand that some of us think everything is compromised and we are very far removed from the sound of real instruments and others here actually think some stereo systems get quite close to creating the experience of live music depending on the recording they play. So we might have some disagreement about the baseline. But moving beyond that, I am enjoying reading some of the commentary from your suggestion about the room and other suggestions about multi channel. I’m wondering if it is the actual recording process and then transcribing that information into the medium and then into electrical signals. How much is lost in those early stages?

I wonder if the industry at large is stepping back and looking at it from that distance and in that holistic way. I don’t really know.