Hi-Tech is Making Hi-Fi Very Affordable

[Jim Naseum]

The price of extraordinary HiFi is falling like a rock. Just as the price of MIPS fell to where we can all have super computing power, so too is the price of HiFi falling in at least some directions. Digital has brought the cost of media down, the cost of media players down, the cost of amplifiers down, and the cost of control pieces down to drastically lower levels than a generations ago. 

 

You can buy a great sounding DAC for $150. You can buy a great sounding Class D/T amplifier for $100. And, what recently caught my attention was the  ridiculously high quality sound of Pioneer's $126 'Andrew Jones' bookshelf speakers released in 2012, (Klipsch starts around $500, I think that's a different category than "starter"). For less than $500 you can be listening to an extraordinary high quality sound. Of course there's nothing wrong with spending $5 grand or $50 grand on a sound system if you like, but you will be chasing small improvements, or just louder play, I think.

 

Working it backwards to say 1975, $500 today is like $112 in 1975. What kind of system could you buy in 1975 for $112? Maybe an all in one record player? Analog is still very expensive, because turntables are not easy to cost reduce, contain too much raw material, and aren't made in enough volume for robotics to come into play. A linear amplifier likewise still contains many many pounds of copper and other expensive raws. 

 

So, if you take the premise that audio interest begins young, and young people are generally poor, digital is the only  future there is! 

[Mallette]

Agree totally, josteph...though I'd say even more so.  There is a LOT of resistance amongst music lovers and audiophiles to the idea that cheap can sound great  For me, the biggest bargain is that for my ears Class D is equal to or better than some stratosphere priced SS amplifiers. 

 

Probably where the improvement is much less in price would be speaker and phono equipment.  PWKs laws limit the first and science (at least so far) limits the second.

 

Some of the Dayton small speakers in the sub-100.00 range are downright amazingly listenable.

 

Love to see a bit more drop in DSD capable DACs, especially multi channel capable.  As the electronics should be all that much more I suspect that may be a matter of volume...though I am no engineer and just guessing.

 

Dave

Edited September 21, 2015 by Mallette

[Mallette]

Come to think of it, even tube amps can be had in the reasonable range now and that hasn't been the case until the past few years for nearly half a century.

 

Dave

[LarryC]

I also wonder if there has been a general move to listening more to the music itself, rather than to a variety of strengths and flaws in the audio reproduction of that music.  In part because there seems to be a greater homogeneity of audio quality at higher levels, these days.

 

Or maybe it's just changes in my hearing.

 

Anyway, it seems to me that the broad younger populace thinks of music as merely "tunes".  No wonder audio bricks and mortar seems to be on a downward slide.

Edited September 21, 2015 by LarryC

[Mallette]

Anyway, it seems to me that the broad younger populace thinks of music as merely "tunes". No wonder audio bricks and mortar seems to be on a downward slide.

 

Conditioning.  They still react with enlightenment when exposed to high quality audio.  Some even imprint enough to begin to expect more.  It will change.  Storage space as basically cheap enough to where it is no longer an issue and we aren't too far away from adequate bandwidth to the point the compression becomes unnecessary. 

 

Do I expect some sort of reactionary new world of everyone into high end audio?  Of course not...but I do foresee a time when it will at least return to the levels of the 60s and 70s where far more aspire to it and others recognize it.

 

Dave

[Schu]

economies of scale... it doesn't surprise me one bit because audio is healthy.

 

individual companies might be struggling or under bottom line pressures, but that is because the competition is so fierce and healthy.

 

Better stay on top of it Klipsch.

[Jim Naseum]

Anyway, it seems to me that the broad younger populace thinks of music as merely "tunes". No wonder audio bricks and mortar seems to be on a downward slide.

Conditioning. They still react with enlightenment when exposed to high quality audio. Some even imprint enough to begin to expect more. It will change. Storage space as basically cheap enough to where it is no longer an issue and we aren't too far away from adequate bandwidth to the point the compression becomes unnecessary.

Do I expect some sort of reactionary new world of everyone into high end audio? Of course not...but I do foresee a time when it will at least return to the levels of the 60s and 70s where far more aspire to it and others recognize it.

Dave

I don't speak from authority on this, but I think young people are just coming at it through a different path then we did. They don't start with a receiver and speakers, they start with a phone and computer speakers. I see lots of audio geeking by young guys on YouTube, for instance. A lot of other audio forums have young guys building digital systems. I'm just guessing that the action is robust on budget digital stuff, and small speakers.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Mallette]

What I was referring to was not being exposed to high quality music.  Conditioning.  Yes, the increasingly solitary "enjoyment" of music is an issue.  I made a point of music listening being a social event "back in the day."  It was.  Most of my friends weren't anything like audiophiles or even general music lovers.  But most had decent systems for the time and sought good advice when buying.  Those with nothing going would gather, have a few beers, maybe some weed, giggle, and listen.  Sometimes we'd crank it and just travel with it for a while.  When it was done we'd make intelligent remarks like "Wow.  Far out!' and "Bitchin!" or "Don't bogart that joint!"  We had good times...but even those friends I shared those times with are mostly Borg today...not that we don't still care about each other.  There are still a couple who want to share the music.

 

I don't know whether the current craze of walking the streets like robots, completely oblivious to all around with earbuds stuffed in is here to stay or will change.  There is certainly no music I personally can enjoy that way...it's way too important.  I have a decent car stereo and rarely listen to anything other than NPR and such on it as it would be way too distracting. 

 

Dave

[jason str]

Why bother buying products built here in the USA, (thats if you can still find any) when you can buy something made in Communist China for a fraction of the price.

 

Quality stuff is still expensive and even more so if its made here but most just take the cheaper way out unfortunately.

[Speed]

 

Anyway, it seems to me that the broad younger populace thinks of music as merely "tunes". No wonder audio bricks and mortar seems to be on a downward slide.

 

Conditioning.  They still react with enlightenment when exposed to high quality audio.  Some even imprint enough to begin to expect more.  It will change.  Storage space as basically cheap enough to where it is no longer an issue and we aren't too far away from adequate bandwidth to the point the compression becomes unnecessary. 

 

Do I expect some sort of reactionary new world of everyone into high end audio?  Of course not...but I do foresee a time when it will at least return to the levels of the 60s and 70s where far more aspire to it and others recognize it.

 

Dave

 

It was the great musical artists of the 60's and 70's that got most of us into music, and high end audio. I don't see this repeating. It would take a new music revolution to get youngsters into music, like we did back in the day...

[Mallette]

Quality stuff is still expensive

 

Not at all.  It just isn't what we do here anymore, but we could build this stuff just as cheap if we wanted to.  Can't recall the product, but I read recently a Chinese manufacturer was building a large plant here as the quality workforce and other things the US still has made it competitive. 

 

Same thing happened in Japan. 

 

Dave

[joessportster]

"Quality stuff is still expensive and even more so if its made here but most just take the cheaper way out unfortunately."

 

 

Agreed Higher Fidelity or SQ is still costly While I agreed you can build a modest / Decent system on a budget, It will be a far cry from Hi-Fi as thought of by most people in audio

 

Lo-Fi, not a problem to build a system on the cheap

 

Mid-Fi now you are getting into some more $$$$$, And I seriously doubt you could put something together for under 1000, And that will be a task

 

Hi Fi  Skys the limit on what you can spend but if you want the SQ that dictates HiFi in most peoples opinion in this hobby I would say 2000+

 

$$$$$ do not always equal quality, but for the most part it takes $$$ to get quality Higher Fidelity products

 

I have a lowly Headphone system that cost one tenth of some systems I have had in the past and to get here with headphones still costs over 4000 (new) and that is using digital as the source I would hate to add up what the digital sources have costs total 

 

"High fidelity—or hi-fi or hifi—reproduction is a term used by home stereo listeners and home audio enthusiasts (audiophiles) to refer to high-quality reproduction of sound^[1] to distinguish it from the poorer quality sound produced by inexpensive audio equipment, or the inferior quality of sound reproduction that can be heard in recordings made until the late 1940s. Ideally, high-fidelity equipment has minimal amounts of noise and distortion and an accurate frequency response."

Edited September 21, 2015 by joessportster

[Jim Naseum]

I think if behind a scrim, and played at say, 90dB levels @ 10 feet, experienced audiophiles would not be able to make a statistically significant choice between a $500 digital system and a $5,000 one. I'd bet a hot dog on that. In other words, out of 100 listeners, the preference for A or B would fall about 50-50. 

[Mallette]

Fully agree, jo56.  100.00 class D amp on high efficiency speakers is, IMHO, equal to or superior to any SS amp at any price.  Obviously others mileage will vary.  That's fine.  However, for those of us who don't listen to dollar signs it's a wonderful time!

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

Fully agree, jo56.  100.00 class D amp on high efficiency speakers is, IMHO, equal to or superior to any SS amp at any price.  Obviously others mileage will vary.  That's fine.  However, for those of us who don't listen to dollar signs it's a wonderful time!

 

Dave

 

You got it brother man!

 

To deny the technical cost/benefit breakthrough in audio would be like saying today's $1,000 I7 Desktop is no improvement over a 1975 calculator. 

 

The best DAC chips are readily available at ridiculously low prices. That's the whole beauty of digital audio -- massive scale and cost of silicon going down yearly. Moore's law is working for digital audio just like for computers. This model is 180 degrees different than the old analog model where you start with a 15 pound copper transformer and a massive steel chassis and 6 sheets of plywood and so on. 

[Chris A]

Working it backwards to say 1975, $500 today is like $112 in 1975. What kind of system could you buy in 1975 for $112? Maybe an all in one record player? Analog is still very expensive, because turntables are not easy to cost reduce, contain too much raw material, and aren't made in enough volume for robotics to come into play. A linear amplifier likewise still contains many many pounds of copper and other expensive raws. So, if you take the premise that audio interest begins young, and young people are generally poor, digital is the only future there is!

 

Probably where the improvement is much less in price would be speaker and phono equipment.

 

I also wonder if there has been a general move to listening more to the music itself, rather than to a variety of strengths and flaws in the audio reproduction of that music. In part because there seems to be a greater homogeneity of audio quality at higher levels, these days...it seems to me that the broad younger populace thinks of music as merely "tunes". No wonder audio bricks and mortar seems to be on a downward slide.

 

These are pretty good observations.  For me, the observation about loudspeakers and turntables is the most insightful in terms of where things are going:  I believe that really good loudspeakers still cost real money, because there has been no technology disruption like there has been for electronics and digital media. 

 

I've attached a couple of charts for reference:

 

 

The above chart says why we no longer worship hi-fi electronics and media anymore: because those markets are mature or declining, managed basically for cost reduction and new standards sweeping through the marketplace.  When the marketplace was young in the 50s-70s, people paid real money and integrated their systems themselves (gladly) because they were happy just to have access to the technology at all.

 

 

The above chart tells you how disruptive technologies enter a market on the low end and eventually drive out the existing marketed products from the bottom up in terms of quality and performance.  This is also called the Christensen Technology Disruption chart, the same chart that so impressed Steve Jobs at Apple (i.e., "The Innovators Dilemma"). 

 

 

The last chart above show a few examples of product-technology disruptions that have occurred in the consumer marketplace over time.  This isn't about "mass", but disruptive technologies, and the aging of the product markets themselves.

 

It's interesting to note that loudspeakers haven't been disrupted yet (or have they?).

Edited September 21, 2015 by Chris A

[Jim Naseum]

It's interesting to note that loudspeakers haven't been disrupted yet (or have they?).

 

 

One point of view on this would be that earbuds and maybe the player itself have disrupted loudspeakers as us older guys know them. 

 

Another view is that development and manufacturing technologies have begin to disrupt speakers. Once more I bring up Pioneer's Andrew Jones speakers. They are dirt cheap at $125/pair. But they contain high levels of design and manufacturing sophistication, like curved cabinets, wave guides, highly customized special materials, and probably the benefits of massive scale. Result is a small, cheap speaker that hits about 10X above it's weight class. No sir, they don't rock a big room at 128dB, but then, that's not the market anymore (my view). The market is the kid who was using ear buds or computer speakers. 

 

I also notice an "attitude" among younger listeners which mistrusts the whole stink of the "snobery of high end". They are better at physics and just say bunk to the nutty claims. Partly because they can't afford $10,000 speakers, and partly because of this non-belief. That's just my observation from reading around on various forums. 

[joessportster]

I think if behind a scrim, and played at say, 90dB levels @ 10 feet, experienced audiophiles would not be able to make a statistically significant choice between a $500 digital system and a $5,000 one. I'd bet a hot dog on that. In other words, out of 100 listeners, the preference for A or B would fall about 50-50. 

you clearly need to hear some of the better DA converters, there are large differences between some, I am not going to argue the point you will believe what you want but until you can post a list of the dacs that you have had in your possession for extended listening periods,and found they all sounded the same this is purely conjecture 

 

I have been able to EASILY hear differences in DACs, I have had people that could care less about music AB dacs and they could clearly hear differences

 

Exactly what would setting up a test with 2 unknowns prove ?? You are dealing with hearing which is SUBJECTIVE in other words what A likes B may hate and so all your test would prove is that people have different preferences (which is already a Known)

 

To find out if people could hear a difference between the 2 pieces all you could ask is can you hear a difference between A and B I suppose you could then go on and attempt to catch them by playing more tracks and asking if it were A or B, (then pointing out oh! He only picked the one he said he liked 50% of the time) and all that would prove is another well known fact that Listener / Hearing Memory is short lived at best

Edited September 22, 2015 by joessportster

[joessportster]

 

Fully agree, jo56.  100.00 class D amp on high efficiency speakers is, IMHO, equal to or superior to any SS amp at any price.  Obviously others mileage will vary.  That's fine.  However, for those of us who don't listen to dollar signs it's a wonderful time!

 

Dave

 

You got it brother man!

 

To deny the technical cost/benefit breakthrough in audio would be like saying today's $1,000 I7 Desktop is no improvement over a 1975 calculator. 

 

The best DAC chips are readily available at ridiculously low prices. That's the whole beauty of digital audio -- massive scale and cost of silicon going down yearly. Moore's law is working for digital audio just like for computers. This model is 180 degrees different than the old analog model where you start with a 15 pound copper transformer and a massive steel chassis and 6 sheets of plywood and so on. 

 

The DAC chip is but a SMALL part of the design, while the chip may be cheap there lies another 90% of the product to be complete........................No one is saying you can not get decent sound on the cheap, I am saying IMHO you wont get HIFI SQ on the cheap

 

Now if decent sound is your idea of HIFI thats great this is all subjective after all what you consider good sound I may consider dribble and vice versa, and you very well may be able to put YOUR interpretation of HIFI SOUND together for 500,

 

Make no mistake though that is your perception of sound and not the majorities perception 

[Jim Naseum]

I think if behind a scrim, and played at say, 90dB levels @ 10 feet, experienced audiophiles would not be able to make a statistically significant choice between a $500 digital system and a $5,000 one. I'd bet a hot dog on that. In other words, out of 100 listeners, the preference for A or B would fall about 50-50.

you clearly need to hear some of the better DA converters, there are large differences between some, I am not going to argue the point you will believe what you want but until you can post a list of the dacs that you have had in your possession for extended listening periods,and found they all sounded the same this is purely conjecture

I have been able to EASILY hear differences in DACs, I have had people that could care less about music AB dacs and they could clearly hear differences

Exactly what would setting up a test with 2 unknowns prove ?? You are dealing with hearing which is SUBJECTIVE in other words what A likes B may hate and so all your test would prove is that people have different preferences (which is already a Known)

To find out if people could hear a difference between the 2 pieces all you could ask is can you hear a difference between A and B I suppose you could then go on and attempt to catch them by playing more tracks and asking if it were A or B, (then pointing out oh! He only picked the one he said he liked 50% of the time) and all that would prove is another well known fact that Listener / Hearing Memory is short lived at best

It doesn't seem like you got what I said before. I didn't say there wouldn't be sound differences. Surely there will be some. What I said was quite different. I said that if 100 audiophiles listened to the two systems without seeing them that the PREFERENCE would fall about equally for A and B. That means that even though A sounds different than B, each would sound right (best) to about half the listeners. Different doesn't mean better.

What measurement in the $2,000 DAC is responsible for making it sounds BETTER than the $150 DAC? Unless there's an answer to that, which any tech in the world can verify, then any sonic difference is just due to small personality differences, not superiority. Certainly all components have personality (tone) differences, but those don't define better.

My proposed test isn't a trick of any kind. It's a straight up taste test. It purposes that if the $5000 system is objectively superior to the $500 system, then 100 audiophiles given the choice will conclusively pick the expensive system as sounding best. Conclusively means that most people will pick the expensive system as best. Perhaps around 75 of the 100. If the split is close to even like 45/55, it means A and B were just different, and one wasn't better than the other.

Most choices in audio are just preferences. One guy Iikes more bass, another likes more midrange. One guy likes tight precision, another one like spacey sound. These preferences are why hundreds of very different speakers all have devoted followers!

True superiority is defined by general agreement and proof by measurement. For example it's generally agreed that distortion is a negative trait. A unit with less distortion, especially audible distortion, is superior to one with more. That's what I mean by superior. But if a guy says warm is superior to cold, that's not superior, that's just preference.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk