High Fidelity died a long time ago, way before DRC, and the audiophile community continues to dwindle. The proliferation of digital media players has popularized a number of compression formats. The basis for marketable sound to the masses isn't overall sound quality but how well the music sounds to the user. Adding better headphones to an MP3 player helps make music sound better even though it isn't necessarily from a high-fidelity source. High Fidelity is losing out on another level. Now that TV and Video have surround sound modes, stereo sound is beginning to flicker away. Most people don't invest in receivers and 6 or more speakers. Instead, they aim for the prepackaged surround sound audio systems. Wattage on these follow very loose parameters and, on most systems selling for less than $600, don't even broach high-fidelity. Sound augmenting video is less critically analyzed by the average person. The HiFi home enthusiasts had a great time as sound playback technology evolved in the 1950's to peak in the 70's through 90's. With the transition from analog waves to digital code expressions, HiFi concepts become more nostalgic - sort of like radio to TV as home entertainment. When it comes to driving the music business, it's what the music sounds like to the indoividual that sells. It seems many are opting for compressed music files. than worrying whether they're losing sound quality.
Atane
· 3 weeks ago
True. I think the decline in hifi started when people wanted speakers to be heard and not seen. So companies started making these tiny, cone, "lifestyle" speakers to blend with the decor. This essentially relegated audio to take a backseat to aesthetics.
Then the HTIB (home theater in a box) came out, and basically sold the public a heaping serving of bovine feces. I do realize that after years of the onslaught of substandard audio being marketed to the masses, the masses for the most part just don't care about fidelity. It's an afterthought sadly.
p0ps
· 3 weeks ago
I agree with marcuswelby's comment and extend the thought - it's what the listener imagines from the music that's most important. A distant, mono source of audio can create an elaborate, fulfilling experience in the mind of the listener. It is in the mind that the action takes place, that's where the music lives. It is the effort the listener puts towards it that determines the quality of what is heard. Even though a person may be surrounded by rich and deep articulated audio environment, other thoughts and desires may completely shut down the sound for that person. Chasing the false god of technical sound performance does not guarantee that you will feel the music. And if you want to feel the music, you'll be able to reach you mind into the smallest audio source to do it.
Atane
· 3 weeks ago
You'll get no argument from me p0ps. My collection of mono lps can attest to that. However, I will disagree with your point of "chasing the false god of technical sound".
It's one thing if a record sounds poor because it is an old recording, or because recording conditions were poor. Old blues records from Ma Rainey, Robert Johnson and Bukka White sound pretty bad technically, but that is understood given the conditions those artists recorded their songs in. I recognize that, and enjoy them for what they are.
However, what we have today are sound engineers deliberately recording music poorly. Excessive DRC that removes the highs and lows of the tracks is not a good thing, and never will be. That has nothing to do with sound technicality. It's not how the song sounds at all. Why would I want the sound to be altered to the detriment of fidelity? That is something I just can't support, and I can't see how any music lover would support sound engineers destroying the music put forth by the artist. It's downright arrogant imo.
p0ps
· 3 weeks ago
Sure. anyone in their right mind would agree with your rebuttal. But, since I'm crazy, I want to look at like this: the artist(s) & producer(s) have an audience they want to reach, the engineer(s) works with them to make the sound capable of reaching the audience through the systems and devices the audience uses. Like the studio and the reproduction equipment are an instrument the engineer(s) use to deliver the appropriate tone for the material. Like Ornette using a plastic sax, Don Cherry on a pocket trumpet to reach the audience with a sound that fits their intent.
There is no universal standard, no reference.
When I was a kid, recorded music was mixed to sound powerful through car AM radios. And it did, it was a great experience. Now pop music must sound good in MP3 through cheap ear buds if it's going to do it's job and have a chance to be popular. Who can say what the song is suppose to sound like?
We're way past the day when live performance is the standard. Which mics and what settings on what kind of PA systems in what size venue is correct? There is no right way to do it.
Only classical concert halls attempt to allow the sound of non-amplified instruments and voice reach an audience - there the sound is shaped by the hall itself. Besides, half the time they're miced anyway or playing electronic instruments.
Most music that most people hear is recorded music, most live performances and most instruments played in public are amplified. Music is a matter of taste and tastes change. I'm only concerned about people enjoying the music. However they enjoy it.
If you and many others want to enjoy audiofile recording and playback - beautiful. I apologize for saying you're chasing a false god. It's what you enjoy, have fun. If you want to tell recording engineers they're doing it wrong, fine, free country.
HiFi was never alive for me. I like highly compressed recordings, through ear buds, it's what sounds good to me, today. Tomorrow may be different.
Yes. It's been a major problem for many years, and it seems to be getting worse as the time goes by.
marcuswelby
· 4 weeks ago
Any audio recording is, at best, an image of the real thing. It's nice to have around and allows others to share a reasonable likeness of the original performance. Nothing comes close to being in a good concert hall or theater. For me, even the best recording is merely a shadow of the reality. It could be edited, enhanced, and digitized. HiFi or not, it's reality shaped by a fantasy of what one implies and believes reality is. Ultimately, the sound you hear is your own personal construct.
Jesse Joseph
· 4 weeks ago
As a classical music lover, I have hundreds of recordings (CDs, LPs, DVDs and Blue Rays) with music compositions that are never or rarely performed in the concert hall or opera house. Nobody would ever hear these works, some great and some merely entertaining. Also, most people can't even afford to go to live music concerts whereas right now you can purchase CDs very cheaply on the Internet, sometimes for less than $5.00 a CD if you buy a box of several CDs.
Atane
· 3 weeks ago
I do agree with you Jesse. Up until the last year, I was pretty much a regular at local jazz clubs in the Village here in NYC like the Village Vanguard, Blue Note & Cafe Wha? It was manageable a few years ago to catch live shows at modest prices, but now it is simply out of reach for most people. I was at the Blue Note last week to see the Dizzy Gillespie all-stars (Roy Hargrove's big band w/ Roberta Gambarini) A table for two was $70. After drinks and food, it was a little under $200. Unless you're wealthy (I'm not), doing this adds up fast.
So yes, while nothing beats a live show, it's just not feasible for most people, and you have to wait for that specific musician to come to your town. My hifi rig will always be there, as will the music. You also avoid the loud talkers, and clanging glasses. For the life of me, I will never understand the people who pay for tickets to shows, only to ignore the act and talk throughout the show.
schlitzie
· 2 days ago
Well, I'm a long way from understanding what some of these commentors are talking about. The thirty year old speakers I have in one room have a lot more charater than the pint size "shelf speakers" that I have in another, using the same amplifier. I assumed the the distance from the amp was the problem. I'm pretty much stuck in the pre 80's era but some of the remakes I have purchased could use a little help. One of the companies that I have bouht from, "Readers Digest", seems to be doing it right as the sound is crystal clear with a clean base. It seems the present generation couldn't care less as long as it has guitars, drums and some angry guy sreaming at mike
Rezanate
· 2 days ago
this is so true. Being an artist myself, I can hear the subtle nuances of sound this article speaks of. Thought I was just crazy and being way to sensitive on the subject as the average person feels that way when I say there's something missing while listening to a track.
marilynmonroe
· 2 days ago
Still sounds like the same old crap. There has basically been no change in music (i.e., "rock") over the last 40 years. It's more visually interesting than it is aurally interesting. That's why "music" videos were invented -- since there was nothing of interest to listen to any more, there had to be something to look at. And we all know what that has led to: nothing but pre-sex noise.
Frank A.
· 2 days ago
Ask a youth if they know anything about frequency range or signal-to-noise ratio and they'll probably think your speaking in a foreign tongue. Kids today don't appreciate music much less the art of sound reproduction. I have 2 young girls who thankfully have an ear for music, can carry a tune and understand what pitch means. In order to help preserve some of the old standards and quality High Fidelity Sound - I started collecting stereo components, receivers, amps, turntables, Reel/Reels, Cassette decks & even a couple of 8-track players, speakers, equalizers and real turntables. My focus has been from the late 60's to early 80's equipment. Hopefully when they grow up they'll have an even higher appreciation for music. Just hope they don't throw all their (mine) equipment on EbaY.
All Comments
High Fidelity is losing out on another level. Now that TV and Video have surround sound modes, stereo sound is beginning to flicker away. Most people don't invest in receivers and 6 or more speakers. Instead, they aim for the prepackaged surround sound audio systems. Wattage on these follow very loose parameters and, on most systems selling for less than $600, don't even broach high-fidelity. Sound augmenting video is less critically analyzed by the average person.
The HiFi home enthusiasts had a great time as sound playback technology evolved in the 1950's to peak in the 70's through 90's. With the transition from analog waves to digital code expressions, HiFi concepts become more nostalgic - sort of like radio to TV as home entertainment. When it comes to driving the music business, it's what the music sounds like to the indoividual that sells. It seems many are opting for compressed music files. than worrying whether they're losing sound quality.
Then the HTIB (home theater in a box) came out, and basically sold the public a heaping serving of bovine feces. I do realize that after years of the onslaught of substandard audio being marketed to the masses, the masses for the most part just don't care about fidelity. It's an afterthought sadly.
the listener imagines from the music that's most important. A distant,
mono source of audio can create an elaborate, fulfilling experience in
the mind of the listener. It is in the mind that the action takes
place, that's where the music lives. It is the effort the listener
puts towards it that determines the quality of what is heard. Even
though a person may be surrounded by rich and deep articulated audio
environment, other thoughts and desires may completely shut down the
sound for that person. Chasing the false god of technical sound
performance does not guarantee that you will feel the music. And if
you want to feel the music, you'll be able to reach you mind into the
smallest audio source to do it.
It's one thing if a record sounds poor because it is an old recording, or because recording conditions were poor. Old blues records from Ma Rainey, Robert Johnson and Bukka White sound pretty bad technically, but that is understood given the conditions those artists recorded their songs in. I recognize that, and enjoy them for what they are.
However, what we have today are sound engineers deliberately recording music poorly. Excessive DRC that removes the highs and lows of the tracks is not a good thing, and never will be. That has nothing to do with sound technicality. It's not how the song sounds at all. Why would I want the sound to be altered to the detriment of fidelity? That is something I just can't support, and I can't see how any music lover would support sound engineers destroying the music put forth by the artist. It's downright arrogant imo.
There is no universal standard, no reference.
When I was a kid, recorded music was mixed to sound powerful through car AM radios. And it did, it was a great experience. Now pop music must sound good in MP3 through cheap ear buds if it's going to do it's job and have a chance to be popular. Who can say what the song is suppose to sound like?
We're way past the day when live performance is the standard. Which mics and what settings on what kind of PA systems in what size venue is correct? There is no right way to do it.
Only classical concert halls attempt to allow the sound of non-amplified instruments and voice reach an audience - there the sound is shaped by the hall itself. Besides, half the time they're miced anyway or playing electronic instruments.
Most music that most people hear is recorded music, most live performances and most instruments played in public are amplified. Music is a matter of taste and tastes change. I'm only concerned about people enjoying the music. However they enjoy it.
If you and many others want to enjoy audiofile recording and playback - beautiful. I apologize for saying you're chasing a false god. It's what you enjoy, have fun. If you want to tell recording engineers they're doing it wrong, fine, free country.
HiFi was never alive for me. I like highly compressed recordings, through ear buds, it's what sounds good to me, today. Tomorrow may be different.
So yes, while nothing beats a live show, it's just not feasible for most people, and you have to wait for that specific musician to come to your town. My hifi rig will always be there, as will the music. You also avoid the loud talkers, and clanging glasses. For the life of me, I will never understand the people who pay for tickets to shows, only to ignore the act and talk throughout the show.
The thirty year old speakers I have in one room have a lot more charater than the pint size "shelf speakers" that I have in another, using the same amplifier. I assumed the the distance from the amp was the problem. I'm pretty much stuck in the pre 80's era but some of the remakes I have purchased could use a little help. One of the companies that I have bouht from, "Readers Digest", seems to be doing it right as the sound is crystal clear with a clean base. It seems the present generation couldn't care less as long as it has guitars, drums and some angry guy sreaming at mike