Name a 'beautiful' amplifier.

[tuga]

Amplifier design is a mature technology. Distortion had been pushed down to inaudible levels way back in the 1940s and 50s. The only real developments in audio in my lifetime have been in digital audio. That is undeniable and has led to whole new opportunities, and can thankfully be integrated into any system of any age. Amplifiers and speakers are very slow moving, e.g. a late-50s pair of Quad II power amps driving ESLs is still better than anything you can find in most hi-fi shops today. People obsess over the tiniest differences because the concept of ‘new’ is so hyped-up by people with vested interests looking to sell you stuff.

The raw technology that has changed in amplifier design over the past 70 years are most obviously the shift from valves to solid state, then the move to switch-mode solid state with embedded digital frippery. That brought some gains in efficiency (a class D amp uses vastly less power than a class A valve amp) and convenience (lazy fat people like remote controls etc), but from a measurement perspective the performance was way below the level of audible distortion then, and it still is today. Meh. Speakers have moved forward far more slowly, largely hindered by the fashion/style insistence of too small to work sizes. As such distortion levels are likely higher now as ever-smaller drivers are being asked for ever-greater cone excursion (which always brings distortion).

The most depressing thing is this shift towards convenience and style trends has led to a market full of unserviceable crap that tends only to last a few years, maybe a decade tops. Useless unwanted junk that ends up in landfill at exactly the time the whole planet is facing a climate disaster. It really is time to start thinking outside the mass consumption box and grasping that accepting planned obsolescence is the responsibility of the buyer as well as the manufacturer. I chose to reject it.

This idea that there have been no developments and that vintage equipment was audibly "transparent" is an oversimplification with which I don't agree.
Audibility thresholds and psychoacoustics research are still in infants, we can't keep referencing to '50s levels. Psychoacoustics is important as it would explain why some people prefer vinyl over CD, clipping valve amps over push-pull negative-feedback solid transistors, "sterility" over"distortion".
Also, there's little research on the audible impact of out-of-band distortion (e.g. IMD) but developments in digital upsampling/filtering show that measureable improvements result in better sound.

I agree that the industry is trailing fashion in regard to speaker design, but they're there to make money. And you can still get large speakers with large woofers (or woofer arrays) but that has a cost (and you need a large room to begin with, and particularly nice neighbours who don't complain of loudness or thumping bass).

I am with you on the waste issue that results from rampant consumerism which is has become the motor of our society, and that this or any other hobby generates. But because we audiophiles are the ones who keep changing gear, the general consumer will buy one, maybe two systems in a lifetime, so it's as much our fault as the manufacturers'.


You often talk about your fondness for BBC monitors. The BBC RD designs were engineering-driven, if the speaker design department was still around they'd be making the equivalent of a Genelec, Dutch & Dutch or Grimm. The contemporary BBC LSs would produce much lower distortion than an LS3/5a, an LS5/9 or an LS3/6, smooter directivity, flatter response, more extension at frequency extremes. But many, including yourself, wouldn't like them. And I believe that this is simply because once one becomes accustomed to a certain sound which one likes it is difficult to change.
Besides all those BBC speakers have small mid-woofers and produce more distortion than equivalent contemporary offers (even those with smaller drivers, e.g. LS50 Meta).

I don't think that the problem lies behind developments not having brought improvements but that those improvements don't sound good to some people. We are creature of habit.
And then there's the issue of euphonic distortion, probably the cause of the whole objective/subjective debate.

 

[tuga]

Yes, consumption is a big problem because if people don't buy "stuff" then there will be mass unemployment and a global depression. The upshot is that it will actually do the natural world some good.

There's enough money to go round, it's just slipping out, untaxed, into offshores (and governments/voters are to blame for this). For the few, not the many. People could work less ours, subsidised, if big corp paid more tax instead of filling the pockets of a few share-holders and investors. "Redistribute", the R sorely missing from the environmental three-R motto "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle"...

According to Oxfam, "The world's richest 1% have more than twice as much wealth as 6.9 billion people."

 

[Tony L]

But because we audiophiles are the ones who keep changing gear, the general consumer will buy one, maybe two systems in a lifetime, so it's as much our fault as the manufacturers'.

To my recollection the only piece of hi-fi equipment I have ever thrown away was a Uher Report Monitor which was absolutely trashed and I only bought because there were a couple of decent mics in the lot (I still have one, a cute little vintage Beyer M55). That was a very long time ago (before pfm) and these days I’d give it away as there may be some spares that could save other units.

Beyond that everything I have bought and wanted to move on has been sold, surprisingly often at a profit. I don’t buy crap. I never have done right since my very first system (second hand Lenco, Quad amps, 149s). I often move things on in better condition that when I obtained them as I’m pretty good at fixing stuff up.

You often talk about your fondness for BBC monitors. The BBC RD designs were engineering-driven, if the speaker design department was still around they'd be making the equivalent of a Genelec, Dutch & Dutch or Grimm. The contemporary BBC LSs would produce much lower distortion than an LS3/5a, an LS5/9 or an LS3/6, smooter directivity, flatter response, more extension at frequency extremes. But many, including yourself, wouldn't like them.

I’m sure I’d like all the speakers you mention, though I have very serious doubts as to their longevity and long-term serviceability, so I would not buy them myself. I am far happier in the classic audio marketplace as I actually add value and keep stuff out of landfill here. Win win.

 

[GT]

This idea that there have been no developments and that vintage equipment was audibly "transparent" is an oversimplification with which I don't agree.
Audibility thresholds and psychoacoustics research are still in infants, we can't keep referencing to '50s levels. Psychoacoustics is important as it would explain why some people prefer vinyl over CD, clipping valve amps over push-pull negative-feedback solid transistors, "sterility" over"distortion".
Also, there's little research on the audible impact of out-of-band distortion (e.g. IMD) but developments in digital upsampling/filtering show that measureable improvements result in better sound.

You often talk about your fondness for BBC monitors. The BBC RD designs were engineering-driven, if the speaker design department was still around they'd be making the equivalent of a Genelec, Dutch & Dutch or Grimm. The contemporary BBC LSs would produce much lower distortion than an LS3/5a, an LS5/9 or an LS3/6, smooter directivity, flatter response, more extension at frequency extremes. But many, including yourself, wouldn't like them. And I believe that this is simply because once one becomes accustomed to a certain sound which one likes it is difficult to change.
Besides all those BBC speakers have small mid-woofers and produce more distortion than equivalent contemporary offers (even those with smaller drivers).

I don't think that the problem lies behind developments not having brought improvements but that those improvements don't sound good to some people. We are creature of habit.
And then there's the issue of euphonic distortion, probably the cause of the whole objective/subjective debate.

I don't agree with any of that!

 

[tuga]

I don't agree with any of that!

I know you don't. You're stuck in the tabac-tinted warmth of an idyllic past.

 

[tuga]

To my recollection the only piece of hi-fi equipment I have ever thrown away was a Uher Report Monitor which was absolutely trashed and I only bought because there were a couple of decent mics in the lot (I still have one, a cute little vintage Beyer M55). That was a very long time ago (before pfm) and these days I’d give it away as there may be some spares that could save other units.

Beyond that everything I have bought and wanted to move on has been sold, surprisingly often at a profit. I don’t buy crap. I never have done right since my very first system (second hand Lenco, Quad amps, 149s). I often move things on in better condition that when I obtained them as I’m pretty good at fixing stuff up.

I was referring to audiophiles an consumers in general. Not everyone is irresponsible or carefree.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I don't agree with any of that!

I think I'm on board with the premise of the first paragraph:

This idea that there have been no developments and that vintage equipment was audibly "transparent" is an oversimplification with which I don't agree.
Audibility thresholds and psychoacoustics research are still in infants, we can't keep referencing to '50s levels. Psychoacoustics is important as it would explain why some people prefer vinyl over CD, clipping valve amps over push-pull negative-feedback solid transistors, "sterility" over"distortion".
Also, there's little research on the audible impact of out-of-band distortion (e.g. IMD) but developments in digital upsampling/filtering show that measureable improvements result in better sound.

 

[Joe Hutch]

Amusingly, most 'audiophiles' have aged ears that probably can't discern much about anything, yet are incredibly fussy about minuscule improvements/differences that even 20-somethings would have difficulty spotting (or caring about).

Disclaimer: I am very much in the aged ears category.

 

[mandryka]

Amusingly, most 'audiophiles' have aged ears that probably can't discern much about anything, yet are incredibly fussy about minuscule improvements/differences that even 20-somethings would have difficulty spotting (or caring about).

Disclaimer: I am very much in the aged ears category.

It is interesting, assuming they’re (we’re, you’re) not deluding themselves. It shows something about the way experience produces acuity - same in wine connoisseurship, and, according to Aristotle, judgements about right action (phronesis)

 

[thugger]

Can I suggest the Ayre KX-R Pre as an example of great design, externally and circuit wise. Plus any circuit revisions can be retrofitted to any original KX-R. Not cheap but once your in the club...

 

[Darren L]

Ok, looks then. It wasn't clear to me.

No, good design is not just about looks, regardless of the product, whether a pair of boots , a fishing reel, an amp, car, bike or anything else it's about how we as human beings interact with the product, this includes aesthetics as we have eyes and most people have some idea of the things they like to view. Good design can also take into account more aspects, like how something feels.

 

[tuga]

No, good design is not just about looks, regardless of the product, whether a pair of boots , a fishing reel, an amp, car, bike or anything else it's about how we as human beings interact with the product, this includes aesthetics as we have eyes and most people have some idea of the things they like to view. Good design can also take into account more aspects, like how something feels.

I am reasonably confident that I know what design means (I'm an architect), but I was trying to understand what GTAudio meant when he said "I guess there is beauty (in the eye of the beholder) and there is also good/great design..."

 

[paulfromcamden]

Amusingly, most 'audiophiles' have aged ears

True of course - and I've wondered myself if that's what is going on when I've heard systems at shows that were astonishingly bright/harsh.

On the other hand you only have to look at the amount of work musicians put into ear training to realise there's more to listening than just having recently grown ears.

 

[GT]

I know you don't. You're stuck in the tabac-tinted warmth of an idyllic past.

You couldn't be further from the truth if you tried. Despite servicing and restoring vintage electronics in a previous life, I use the best technology to produce the best performance whether new or old. Despite approaching my mid 60s I am very computer and technically literate. I drive modern cars and motorcycles. I ride modern bicycles and I run in the latest technical running shoes. I also use and keep abreast of modern tech and I am always trying to see if modern parts can do a better job than previous technology. The end result has to come down to differentiating whether new is better. Sometimes it is, but most of the time it isn't...

The real test in audio is always compared to live music, or a live event and most modern equipment doesn't even resemble that. Its the same with anything, just because the numbers say a piece of electronics is better, doesn't mean it is. If people in audio understood what is needed to produce a live and natural sound then we might actually get some where.

 

[tuga]

I like the look of most Kimura/47labs gear:

 

[tuga]

The real test in audio is always compared to live music, or a live event and most modern equipment doesn't even resemble that. Its the same with anything, just because the numbers say a piece of electronics is better, doesn't mean it is. If people in audio understood what is needed to produce a live and natural sound then we might actually get some where.

Realism comes from the recording first and foremost. If the production didn't have realism as a goal then a live and natural sound is only a matter of opinion, of personal taste.

I tried to set out my views about this in the soundstage topic -> https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/soundstage-is-it-only-a-constuction.254917/#post-4349819

 

[sideshowbob]

Tabac is lovely stuff, tbf

 

[GT]

Realism comes from the recording first and foremost. If the production didn't have realism as a goal then a live and natural sound is only a matter of opinion, of personal taste.

If you are trying to achieve a realistic sound in your home you must have a reference, and that reference is live music. Whether it is someone singing in your hall, or playing a piano, or even a child playing a recorder. That is the sort of reproduction you should be trying to achieve in your room. An alternative is to go to a live classical concert, say at Kings Place or Wigmore Hall in London. Listen to a few of these concerts and get your ears adjusted to live music. It can take time but you can train your ears to hear better. Try to buy some good recordings, preferably of the same artist you heard at the concerts, then play these back in your system. If it sounds like what you heard and experienced at the live event then you are on the right track. If not then you know you have work to do...

 

[GT]

I was trying to understand what GTAudio meant when he said "I guess there is beauty (in the eye of the beholder) and there is also good/great design..."

Pretty obvious I would have thought. Here are a few cars as examples:

Three are great designs...

 

[S-Man]

If you are trying to achieve a realistic sound in your home you must have a reference, and that reference is live music. Whether it is someone singing in your hall, or playing a piano, or even a child playing a recorder. That is the sort of reproduction you should be trying to achieve in your room. An alternative is to go to a live classical concert, say at Kings Place or Wigmore Hall in London. Listen to a few of these concerts and get your ears adjusted to live music. It can take time but you can train your ears to hear better. Try to buy some good recordings, preferably of the same artist you heard at the concerts, then play these back in your system. If it sounds like what you heard and experienced at the live event then you are on the right track. If not then you know you have work to do...

Based on what I heard of your system at a hifi show a few years ago, I can understand where you are coming frm.
However, IMHO there were some serious compromises in the sound to achieve your particular interpretation of "liveness".

Many choose a different compromise. I think it's important to get a coherent sound in which the melodies and rythyms are readily apparent. This makes the playback more like real music to my ear than impressive dynamics and ultra clean transients.