advertisement


Has sound quality really improved?

Purité Audio

Purité Audio

Trade: Purite Audio
There is an interesting thread in the main forum discussing whether sound quality has really improved over the years , sadly ‘trade’ aren’t allowed to contribute.
I would suggest that state of the art digital has become ubiquitous and while still one has to examine a components measurements, good digital is inexpensive.
I believe the real advance is the understanding of exactly what constitutes a ‘good’ loudspeaker and how the loudspeaker’s interaction with the room plays a pivotal role in SQ.
Be interested to hear your thoughts.
Keith
 
Regardless of room, treatment or DSP/room correction, kit has improved massively over the last 20-30 years, especially digital in the latter 10 years.
 
It is incredibly difficult to answer this question objectively. Based on the kit I have heard, and the kit I own, I would say that my own opinion is no.

What has happened, and what delights me, is that quality music reproduction is very easily available through streaming. Meanwhile, amplifier and loudspeaker design have not moved forwards IMO and I am concerned that advances in bit rate have focussed manufacturers energies, understandably, in DAC's that major in this area as that is where sales are most likely. Given I changed to a high-end vintage DAC from a modern high-end DAC, it is clear that bit-rate is not the chief arbiter of quality.

There is no doubt that the speaker and its interaction with the room have the biggest influence on overall sound quality so it is heartwarming that there are manufacturers whose focus is on maximising this potential. Unfortunately, as with many products in the industry, the cost of speakers like the KIII and Dutch and Dutch are well beyond the pockets of many. I hope that the technology trickles down to lower cost products that employ a user-friendliness for non-experts like myself.
 
@oldius ... i get that, went from the Devialet D220 Pro with CI which is supposed to be at the cutting edge, to an Audionet DNA 2 which was designed 10 years ago. it uses 4xBB 1974A and two layers of clocking (IIRC). The digital and streaming inputs put the Devialet to shame IMHO.. Audionets ULA amplification has been developed and refined for some 30 years now... which this amp uses two of in dual mono. The DNA 2.0 was years ahead of the game, its a shame @Audionet Official stopped making this particular model... there's nothing quite like it IMHO. It has full DSP/room correction and also built in active digital cross-overs for a full on 2.2 system. http://en.audionet.de/machines/dna/
 
Cereal Killer said:
@oldius ... i get that, went from the Devialet D220 Pro with CI which is supposed to be at the cutting edge, to an Audionet DNA 2 which was designed 10 years ago. it uses 4xBB 1974A and two layers of clocking. The digital and streaming inputs put the Devialet to shame IMHO.. Audionets ULA amplification has been developed and refined for some 30 years now... which this amp used two of in dual mono. The DNA 2.0 was years ahead of the game, its a shame @Audionet Official stopped making this particular model... there's nothing quite like it IMHO. It has full DSP/room correction and also built in active digital cross-overs for a full on 2.2 system.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I had a bake off some years ago and most preferred my Denon PMA850 from 1977 to a Devialet (£11k) amplifier. Now the Denon was £700 in 1977 so it was a major investment at the time for someone, nevertheless, I was shocked given the praise that the Devialet had been given. A friend has now swapped £8k worth of Ayre phono stage and Art Audio amplification for a PMA850 too!

My Technics DAC from 1990 was chosen ahead of my previous favourite, a Bryston DDA-2. Again, the Technics was $10k so a part of the extreme high end but another example.

I like to think I have an open mind and I have been stunned by the quality available from tiny amplifiers costing less than £70, using new topologies. I stream using an SBT into a DAC, so I am not an analogue is the best kind of guy. My turntable though is a Sony TTS8000 and specifications for turntables do not really get any better, Grand Prix Audio apart.
 
Do you know what DAC chips are used in your Technics DAC?

I suppose a lot of the quality is in the design and not just the component selection. Tech may have moved on but that doesn't mean it's been implemented by current designers as good as they did 10-20 years ago... IMHO digital matured about 5-10 years ago. No we just have variants and options.
 
The level of fidelity on offer from amplification plateaued in the 60s. Sure the numbers have continued improving but you cant tell 0.01% apart from 0.001% so why bother?

The best Carts haven't improved sound quality in any meaningful way since the late 70s.

Digital has gotten better since its introduction, but that plateaued a decade ago too. We get better functionality and integration but that adds nothing to sound quality and fidelity. And now we have to put up with digital foo as well, Cat8 cables and other nonsense.

Passive speakers still seem to improve marginally as materials tech improves, better drive units, better cabinets more precise and lower loss crossover design. It's the integration of digital inside speakers that has jumped the furthest. These used to be total $hit now they're as good as better passive speakers and well chosen room treatment. Though I still prefer the flexibility of the latter.
 
I don't agree with amplification plateauing in the 60's... silicon tech and design had much to learn back then still, maybe in the 90's it was getting close.
 
recent demos at the wam show and the best sounds came from the els 57/63s and other classic speakers. preamps have mainly become line amps. phono stages are the one area that improvements have been made. Dacs have become all similar except from chorde .Streamers/NAS are all similar .Streamer sites are the only improvement in the last free years. Power amp designs haven't improved although got very expensive
 
rich46 said:
recent demos at the wam show and the best sounds came from the els 57/63s and other classic speakers. preamps have mainly become line amps. phono stages are the one area that improvements have been made. Dacs have become all similar except from chorde .Streamers/NAS are all similar .Streamer sites are the only improvement in the last free years. Power amp designs haven't improved although got very expensive
Click to expand...

Back in the day, a poor amplifier phono stage meant a poor amplifier; vinyl was the medium of choice so the chief guide as to whether your amplifier would sell or not. As CD took over, manufacturers took phono stages out of their amplifiers and reduced their costs and increased their margins. It was a sensible thing to do given the vinyl market was on its knees. Later, manufacturers managed to convince us to purchase separate phono stages at significant cost, items that were previously part of the amplifier. I have owned several high-end phono stages but there is no single influence on sound quality like the speaker and its interaction with the room. The phono stage is not as influential and, in my opinion, the high-end stages of today are not necessarily better than the stages found in the outstanding amplifiers of yesteryear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top