Whatever Happened to Hi-Fi, the American Pastime of a Passed Time?

[Mallette]

It started with the Quadapter discussion, but I got to thinking on why people quit buying good stereos and spending time listening like so many did in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. After a lot of thought, I realized it was a series of things, not just one.

I put this together in a blog entry if you have time to waste...

Dave

[Zen Traveler]

Definitely a thoughtful piece, but I I don't really understand what you are trying to convey...I experience High Fidelity on my system below, but if your point is most people don't go to the effort like they did in the past my guess is that so many other things are catching their attention, time and money. Look at technical advances since the 80s and with the advent of the computer communication can be done with strangers and friends alike instantaneously....I guess your reminiscing reminds me of how folks use to use telephones to talk to people and nowadays it seems with the modern (cell)phone the last thing people do with them is have a voice conversation. {

{EDIT: oops. I didn't realize that this was in the 2-channel section (or like we used to call it in the old days "stereo") that said,I do think most people listen to that media with headphones and the rest above is true.}

[Mallette]

Probably too bid a job for my poor skills, tdka. I have a pretty good idea in my head made up of all the bits and pieces I tried to describe, but putting that in a cohesive piece is pretty tough.

my guess is that so many other things are catching their attention, time and money. Look at technical advances since the 80s and with the advent of the computer communication can be done with strangers and friends alike instantaneously...

Agreed, but REAL music is not replaceable by any of those things, IMHO. People exposed to it always respond, but wouldn't have a clue how to obtain this at home anymore. They look at my system and think $$$$$ as the mid-range simply has ceased to exist. It's also the fault of compressed stuff that looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but is completely without any nourishment value.

OK, there I go...it's the above and a lot more. But I believe it is curable, perhaps not in my lifetime but someday.
Dave

PS - It is also the complete failure to produce a truly discrete 4 channel surround recording format that requires no thought to play, and provide music recorded using the principles I stated in that piece. It CAN be done in a studio, but only if the engineer REALLY understands a natural sound field.

[bracurrie]

I put this together in a blog entry if you have time to waste...

I do not consider reading your material a waste of time. As with a good many of the members here, your knowledge and experiance is facinating to an amatuer like myself. It is not a waste of time to read and discover something you may not have considered or understood. Besides I choose to read the blog entry and found that I wanted to re read it just so I could retain the concepts.

In my opinion, listening to music reproduction systems that try to faithfully put you in front of the performers again can be attempted in two basic ways. The first way is to throw gobs of money at it. I was floored, when after getting back into hi-fi after a 25 year hiatus, that people spend upwards of $100,000 for sound systems. I took that challenge and have done pretty well for a small fraction of that. The second way, that is much more in keeping with the old hi-fi tradition, is to learn, experiment and trade equipment until you find your sweet spot. But then you must in my way of thinking focus on the source material. Garbage in garbage out.

Now I tried quad way back in the middle seventies. I even found a recording or two that seemed to benefit from a well setup quad system, but 95% of the bands and music I listened to then didn't care to make the most of quad. So I abandoned it. Now that I have for the last three years been getting back into hi-fi its been exclusively 2 channel or even 3 channel and I feel now that improvements will come only at the margins. But after reading your blog entry I again believe that a true surround system will be a glorious achievement. After listening to the Klipsch tapes I get the simple path for mixing and mastering. Less is more.

But where is the source material going to come from?

[Mallette]

But where is the source material going to come from?

For purely acoustic recording it is as easy as I attempted to explain, and as you said, very much like simply adding two mikes and two channels to what PWK did. Problem is there is no distribution medium for it. The DVD, SACD, and BluRay people claim their systems are "discrete." If that were the case, you wouldn't need all that circuitry to decode it. I've only had the opprotunity to experiment with DVD-A, and it flat failed to deliver anything like playing my stuff back with dual soundcards and discrete files.

It's all about the distribution medium.

As to studio creations, it's about the engineers ability to re-create a natural sound field. I've no experience there but believe I could do it. However, I am quite happy with all-real world acoustic events.

Dave

[bracurrie]

Problem is there is no distribution medium for it.

I would offer that it would be best served through a downloaded format. Most of us have good internet connections and the DSD DXD formats seem to be as good as studio master quality. Why not trade down a little and double the channels?

[sunburnwilly]

I got to thinking on why people quit buying good stereos and spending time listening like so many did in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

Too many other distractions out there . Back in the day tv stations would sign off , there was no internet , no way to record video and no answering machines .

We had more free time .

[Islander]

Thanks for that. It was a good read. As it happens, not everyone has given up on surround music and its possibilities. Are you familiar with The Flaming Lips and their experimental recordings? Zaireeka, for example, was recorded on four separate CDs that are meant to be played back simultaneously on four separate audio systems. There also was "The Parking Lot Experiments", involving 40 cassettes, meant to be played back over 40 car stereos at once.

You can read about some of this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaireeka

On a more accessible level, Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots 5.1 is a remake of their excellent stereo CD called Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots. Both recordings have really interesting soundscapes and unexpected turns, but the 5.1 version gets really creative with the instruments moving around between channels. Yoshimi 5.1 includes a CD and a DVD-Audio disc, with "Frequency Waveform Cartoons" that are kind of more distracting than rewarding, but the music and how it's presented is really interesting.

Some info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshimi_Battles_the_Pink_Robots

Some reviews: http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/the_flaming_lips/yoshimi_battles_the_pink_robots_5_1_f1/

[Islander]

As for stereo, last night I watched a rerun of SNL that featured Justin Timberlake as the host and musical guest. I usually listen to TV in 6.1, but switch to straight stereo if good music comes on, to get the full benefit of the bi-amped JubScala IIs. I find that for critical listening, the lesser amps and speakers dilute the fine sound coming out of the best parts of the system.

JT's music is not what I usually listen to, especially a big band number like Suit and Tie, but with the big band and the vocalists across the stage, the soundstage was amazing. I could hear every performer, and the overall effect was very impressive, especially with the volume up.

See what you think: http://vimeo.com/61633411

[tube fanatic]

Excellent article Dave, but I disagree with your comment that most homes had console radios by the 40s. Their higher cost made affordability a great problem for most wage earners which is why the ubiquitous "all American 5" table radio continued to be the one of choice. Those with a little more money to spend often chose radios which included some shortwave coverage, but those were still less costly than a console. Anyway, I'm not nitpicking, but just clarifying the issue!

Maynard

[Mallette]

I would offer that it would be best served through a downloaded format.

Fully agree...but you still need a package that keeps all as a single file with everything in the right place and a media player capable of handling four channels discretely. I had to use Sound Forge for playback. Audacity, free, can do it as well as other editors. However, these are not simple media players and people want SIMPLE. Needs to be WMP and whatever Apple uses for the mainstream. If JRiver, VLC, Winamp, etc would do this it would provide an impetus...assuming desirable material was made available by the producers.

Dave

[Mallette]

Zaireeka, for example, was recorded on four separate CDs that are meant to be played back simultaneously on four separate audio systems.

Excellent illustration of the fact there is no players available that can deliver absolutely discrete tracks to the masses. This is the biggest obstacle to mainstream interest, IMHO.

Dave

[Mallette]

Excellent article Dave, but I disagree with your comment that most homes had console radios by the 40s.

I'm honored! If that's what you disagree with I've done much better than I thought! []

Seriously, you might be right. My statement there is based on my own experience. No, I wasn't around in the 40s, but I (shamefully, if innocently) participated in the destruction of many of these consoles in the mid-50s when they were relegated to the garage after being replaced with the boob tube. Some of my friends were from pretty modest circumstances, but it seems they all had these things. My own family had a Zenith radio record player from the 40s, I call it "mid sized" as it was bigger than your basic table top radio but smaller than a console.

However, even if you consider the "cathedral" style the average, the speaker and performance of those things was pretty good. My understanding is that the original Philco cathedral was a marketing concept to provide a "classy" look to a low end model for the financially challenged.

Dave

[bobgn1]

Your Blog's a good read Dave I agree, but take heart "what once was old is new again" I'm looking at purchasing a mono phono cartridge for my 2-channel system, and you can buy LP vinyl recordings on Amazon now!

[Mallette]

Thanks, Mark. High praise from a high priest who experienced this change up close and personal.

As to your single explanation, I agree but only as part of a much larger and more complex technological and sociological change.

Dave

[Mallette]

Right. I was just trying to reduce it down to some "seed" of destruction.

Yessir. Itunes and it's spawn were the last nail in a coffin already pretty much sealed.

Dave

[tube fanatic]

Excellent article Dave, but I disagree with your comment that most homes had console radios by the 40s.

Seriously, you might be right. My statement there is based on my own experience. No, I wasn't around in the 40s, but I (shamefully, if innocently) participated in the destruction of many of these consoles in the mid-50s when they were relegated to the garage after being replaced with the boob tube. Some of my friends were from pretty modest circumstances, but it seems they all had these things. My own family had a Zenith radio record player from the 40s, I call it "mid sized" as it was bigger than your basic table top radio but smaller than a console.

However, even if you consider the "cathedral" style the average, the speaker and performance of those things was pretty good. My understanding is that the original Philco cathedral was a marketing concept to provide a "classy" look to a low end model for the financially challenged.

In the pre-WWII days, console radios were typically purchased by the more affluent consumers such as doctors, lawyers, etc. Over the years I acquired quite a number of them from original owners who related stories about possessing the only console radio in the entire neighborhood! More than one described having Saturday night dance parties in their living room to which all of the neighbors were invited since the fidelity was so much better on the console than on the little radios. After the war, when civilian production resumed, the consoles were still largely unaffordable for the multitudes who returned from the service to low paying blue collar jobs. This was the situation in the NY area at least. Perhaps in other parts of the country, the financial circumstances were different.

The manufacturers tried all kinds of things to make their products more desirable than those of their competitors. Some even went to the point of using 2 tubes to do a job which was traditionally done by a single tube just so they could claim that their circuit was "better", "more sensitive", "more powerful" and so on. The competition among the radio manufacturers was positively fierce. You could be corrct about the Philco cathedral sets as many weren't the best in terms of performance, but looked pretty. I'll have to research that aspect when I get the chance! Well, I better get off of the soap box before I go into free spin talking about tube type radios!!!

Maynard

[Mallette]

Maynard, I hauled around a small, but very heavy collection of old radios for 10 years or so in the 80s. Had a particularly gorgeous and HEAVY Majestic with a vast tube complement and a huge 12" speaker.

The only one I kept was a low end RCA console with a magic eye from the 40s and a fine old Neutradyne table model and it's battery cabinet/horn loaded speaker stand from the 20s.

Probably the dumbest move was the complete to 1943 or so set of the massive blue standard schematic references (can't recall the name, but I'll bet you can) that collectively probably weighed 150 lbs and filled a trunk. Sold'em for 100 bucks. Heck, I've seen guys getting 3 bucks for a photo copy of a single page from these things.

Dave

[ChadHahn]

Like what has been alluded to, there used to be only a few channels of TV, they probably didn't come in very well and the stations went off the air at night. A stereo, on the other hand, could play hundreds of songs all day and night if you wanted it too.

I think once cable became mainstream there was more entertainment for those who weren't musically inclined or who just wanted something they could turn on and play. For those who liked electronics or to tinker computers were the latest thing.

Chad

[Mallette]

I think once cable became mainstream there was more entertainment for those who weren't musically inclined or who just wanted something they could turn on and play. For those who liked electronics or to tinker computers were the latest thing.

Chad, I carefully considered that. What I settled on was what I believe to be the main issues. There were many more, including what you mention. But it doesn't explain why average people spent as much or more on either a dedicated mainstream hifi or twice the price to get a big console hifh with TV. Yes, status explain some, but not everything. My mother sacrificed to purchase her console stereo with no TV, and she really only listened to country music and similar. She could have purchased a simple table record player, but chose to spend 3 times that much. I've little doubt she could hear and appreciate the difference. When she finally got a color TV it was a big, really (by the standards of the day) used RCA hifi/TV combo that cost every bit as much as a brand new standalone color TV would have, but she did it anyway.

My fundamental hypothesis is based on what I stated up front: Music is fundametal to all human history and there is more to its decline as an activity as simply "other choices." Whether I have it right or not, I do not believe I am too far off.

Dave