Newer may not be better -- Pearson r

[garyrc]

I have often thought that sound reproduction today is

not

necessarily

better than the

very best

reproduction of as many as five (!) decades ago, when the

overall

subjective similarity to the sound of live music --

triggering the musical Gestalt

, as J. Gordon Holt put it -- is the criterion. I've played in several orchestras and one band, and usually compared reproduced sound to what I was used to hearing live. The problem with changes over the years is that there is a great deal of backsliding ..... even though a

few

new recordings over

certain

modern sound systems are as good as reproduced music ever was. More about backsliding later.

If quality got better over the years, one would expect a positive correlation between the variables of

recency

and

rated quality

. I decided to try something like that.

Just for fun, for this first exploration, I decided to rate

movie

sound,

as heard in the theater

, since it was some of the best and worst sound I've ever heard, and since it was played over some of the better amplifiers and speakers (some debate there)

of each era

. I only rated movies that I experienced with

stereo

magnetic

or

digital

soundtracks, because monaural magnetic tracks, optical tacks, and improved Dolby optical stereo tracks were all compromises, and were not anybody's idea of the best method of the given time (from three years before my 1955 starting point, on up). The

same

movie could be experienced in magnetic or optical, depending on the theater and the print they got. There was a whale of a difference, which is why I refused to rate optical. I

only rated movie sound that stuck in my memory, whether good or bad. I know that auditory memory has been faulted, but 1) I think it varies greatly with the individual, and mine seems to be good, 2) when, back in the year it was heard, one compared the reproduced sound to the sound of an orchestra one heard almost every day, the

results of that comparison

may be well remembered. Even so, I'm quite aware that there are threats to validity.

I chose to operationalize recency as the year of the recording (with the higher numbers being more recent, naturally) and did the ratings on a 9 point scale, with 9 being high.

I ended up giving high sound ratings to films that were spread through the decades, the earliest high rating being in 1955, and the most recent in 2005. Low ratings happened to be spread, also, with the worst being in 1972 & 1975.

Here's what I got:

No significant correlation

, r = -0.32

,

p

= .12, N = 25

You could try this with movies, or with your CDs, Lps. reel to reel tapes, or whatever, but for your CDs, Lps, etc., most of you would be using your modern equipment. The good folks at Vassar have provided Pearson r software that is easy to use to get the correlation:

http://www.virtualcurriculum.com/N4120/LA11.html

For those who need it:

• Enter each recording's year under x and the corresponding rating under y
• Double check to make sure you haven't disrupted the pairing; the correct year must always be paired with the correct rating
• It doesn't matter that the two sets of numbers -- years and rating -- are so different.
• It's O.K. to have the same year paired with several different recordings' ratings, just enter the year all over again under x, next to each separate year's recording's rating under y.
• The years must be entered in all 4 digits, because you will be crossing the line into the 21st century, and numerically higher must always mean "more recent," but that would break down going from 99 to 00, so you must go from 1999 to 2000, using all 4 digits.

The backsliding

In movie sound:

• The most convincing sound, IMO, was heard in 70mm movies with 6 channel magnetic soundtracks. Also, theaters equipped for 70mm tended to have the best sound equipment. Some 35mm presentations with magnetic sound were almost as good, in the right theater. Dolby magnetic actually didn't sound quite as good, to me, and Dolby optical was a compromise that was a distinct step down, even though it improved on the horrible standard optical. Digital theatrical sound is still slightly likely to be a bit harsh (for some reason, this harshness is less likely when my family runs movies at home). The old horn-loaded JBL /Ampex for Todd-AO speakers, with their wide wood surfaces to either side of the speakers, moved more air than some modern, smaller theater speakers, in the mid-bass. Of course they didn't have as much very, very low bass (from 40 Hz on down) as modern theatrical subwoofers, but we didn't miss it! I would put the dynamics of the thunderstorm, and the suggested earthquake sound -- in the theater, in 70 mm 6 channel -- in Ben-Hur up against any modern film sound, and I will always remember feeling the wind in the theater during those thunderclaps, from the 11th row.

In home audio or movies:

• Analog recording was replaced by digital, which still hasn't come up to the quality of the best reel to reel 15 ips first or second generation (real time duplicated) tapes, IMO
• Tubes were replaced by solid state electronics, which, in most cases, for many years, were harsher and "less musical" than a moderately good tube preamp / amp. Even though there are now some fine sounding solid state devices, I long for the sound of tubes
• Starting very slowly in the very late 50's, with the first acoustic suspension speakers mated with the available amplifiers, coming to a head in, say, in the 90's, dynamic range was sacrificed by some recordists (by limiting and/or compressing) and most loudspeaker manufacturers. The big JBL, Altec, Electrovoice, etc., speakers of the past, (or our current Klipschorns, La Scalas, and a few others) could produce peaks of 115 dB at the listener's ears, using moderately powered amplifiers, and with relatively low distortion.

[Don Richard]

When I go to an audio salon these days and listen to new equipment I am always amazed at how good my stuff compares. In fact, except for very, very expensive stuff, there is no comparison. In the "does it sound real?" test my old speakers still sound closest to reality. Undoubtedly it is their dynamic range capability that makes the difference. Most of the new stuff is laughably poor in the dynamics department.

[dtel]

A long time ago I gave away a Sansui 8080, two record players/records and an Akai reel to reel to a relative when the "new" Ht receivers came out, wow it's Dolby Pro Logic must be good. [+o(]

Will never make that mistake again, my HK 930 sounds much better than a fancy new " modern " receiver and would love to have that Sansui and Akai back.

[Oblio]

Ouch ....

Still love my 8080

[SWL]

Will never make that mistake again, my HK 930 sounds much better than a fancy new " modern " receiver and would love to have that Sansui and Akai back.

The good news is.....at least in my neck of the woods.....is that these awesome pieces of vintage gear are out there and can be had for cheap.

I've been piling up mid-70's Marantz solid state and Harmon Kardon twin powered receivers lately, all for right around the $100-$150 range. The most expensive piece of gear I've bought in the last year or so was a Marantz 2325 vintage receiver for $300.00 and that was just yesterday. Serious balls.

[Oblio]

I looked at 8080's not too long ago and they were pretty cheap. The most expensive had a total rebuild and was still less than the original price, not inflation adjusted. Adjusted it would have been a couple of hundred in then year dollars.

[dtel]

I never had the Sansui at the same time as the HK, but from what I remember that Sansui sounded great as does this HK. That Sansui was the first good receiver I had, it was connected to a pair of diy speakers I built from a book that was a dead match for Cornwalls, horns and all.

This was about 32 years ago, right before I met my wife. I bought the Sansui 6 months old from a friend who switched to an all in one rack Nakamichi system, he was impressed, I liked the Sansui, especially for $350, which was alot of money back then ( for me ). When I gave it away the only thing wrong with it was one bulb on the front panel was burned out, the place where I went to get it fixed wanted $80 per hour to look at it so I never got it fixed, this was a long time ago, I should have kept it.

[stereohermit]

I have a 6060...still chuggin along great. Love the sound, rich and full, I think they were going for the Mc Intosh sound. Incredible tuner , too, for what its worth.

[Invidiosulus]

I had an HK-430 and it sounded soft and tubby compared to my Yamaha HTR-5540 surround sound receiver.

The HK was kind of warm and pleasing at low volumes but to my ear quickly sounded desperate and out of control as the SPL was raised.

The tuner and phono pre were nice though but I couldn't bring myself to keep it in my main system more than a day or two at a time.

-Josh

[stripedcat99]

Thats a seriously good price for a 2325 Marantz. The best examples are going for 2,3, or 4 times that, and well worth it! I have one of the last 2325's that was made (in 1977) driving my Forte II's. Way more power than they need, of course, but the sound is so sweet! The 2275 has similar characteristics, if you don't need as much power. In fact, the tuner sections are identical.

And I agree - my favorite source is an Akai GX-747 open reel deck, playing recordings of either CD or vinyl...