Is Newer always Better

[prerich]

From the LP to the tape deck, to CD, DVD-A/SACD, then to...MP3. The question that's always asked - is newer always better? Stereophile in their latest issue had an article that described how speaker builders are now using the very technologies that they stated were flawed 20 years ago. I remember starting a thread that examined if speakers builders are selling out to looks vice performance. Now I must ask all of us here, I know in the world of video - performance has increased at an exponential rate! The benifits of new technology are visible so to say. However in the world of audio - there have been strides but in speaker technology and the issue of easy of use verses quality - does some of the newer technology try to sell us a bag of goods?

Tell the people what they need and they will fall for it (i.e. the world slowly becoming an itunes world). Many people that a few years ago wouldn't dream of looking a downloaded or streamed content are now crazed for Netflix, YouTube, and other streamed content ...over their Bluray players!!!! Smaller is better is another issue, newer is better, I'm starting to see some of the same tech that was new 30 years ago make a reappearance in new clothes. Will companies diminish quality to gain a larger consumer base? Chime in - with me there's no right or wrong in this tread - just personal opinion and a persons path.

[rpatt]

Great idea for a thread Rich. I think you know where I stand on this issue.

[prerich]

Originally Posted by rpatt

Great idea for a thread Rich. I think you know where I stand on this issue.

And how....!!!!

[stevo]

Wow !!! Where to begin! I for one am getting sick and tired of all of the latest changes and so called upgrades. Pursuing the holy grail or nirvana in the world of audio/video for the last 30 years i have gone through alot of gear! Don't get me wrong most of the changes have being stunning, but lately i think it is becoming insane! 3D, 2K - 4K resolution, HDMI 1.0 - 1.4a, whats next super HD audio next year? Come on!!! There was nothing wrong with Component video, it passed 1080p video, the same with Digital audio cable it is more than good enough to carry HD audio. Unfortanetly the industry is being controlled by the government, movie studios and copy write laws, hence HDMI! it has nothing to do with qaulity or a better format! Please leave Bluray, 2k video and HDAudio alone for a while, lets see if we get 10 years out of it like we got from DVD. My poket book has had about enough of obsolescence!!!

[lojack1976]

I don't think there's a blanket answer. We're in a Walmart and fast food world, and food is probably where all of this began. When technology was applied by the food industry to create cheaper food that lasted longer and was readily available the world as we once knew it changed forever.

Buying a healthy balanced meal costs twice as much as buying a combo at your closest burger joint. The cost cutting measures have been applied to every aspect of life now. Electronics are rarely hand built anymore and components are mass produced to reduce costs.

In the world of speakers eye candy is more important than the sound these days, and everyone wants small or slim speakers to match their flat panels. 80lb. speakers aren't particularly sexy to the masses no matter how attractive they are in actuality.

Furniture grade products are being pushed to the side for plastic, vinyl, and more plastic. Part of my gripe with the Martin Logan Motions that I demoed last night was the amount plastic they have. They are still good looking speakers, but build quality is more questionable than I expected especially for the money.

If you just see how small the Motion 10 is...man...for $1000/pair you may as well get a set of awesome bookshelf speakers IMO. The 12's are much larger, but they're also $1500/pair...$1300 on Amazon right now, but still.....And to think that these speakers replace the Preface. SMH.

[callas01]

Originally Posted by prerich

And how....!!!!

I think in some ways there have been advances in some of the designs and things used to make speakers. With some products its all about how inexpensive they can make something.

In some ways, I think that there is an evolution of a speaker company as much as say a musician or band has an evolution in their music. Look at the band U2, the music they started with is not the music they write now. Many like the original music they made. Many like what they produce now. Then others like all of their music.

Now say with speakers, my dad has B&W 603 S2s that are 12 yrs old, I think they are better then the JBLs that he gave to my older brother which he had about 20 yrs ago. Likewise the comparable CM9s(even tho my had has 600 series speakers the 683/684s just do match up correctly IMO, and my dad said he originally paid $1000 ea) are good but, IMO, slightly less musical. They both do great with HT, but the musical sound of the 603s IMO is better then the CM9s.

Thats not to say that the 683/684s or CMs are bad speakers, Its just that the sound of the my dads appeal to me more. Perhaps its because of the sound that I am used to or because its the nostalgia of them. However thats not to say that as the speakers/company evolved their sound changed slightly. Perhaps, the 683s/CMs have better resolution of details, and more controlled bass or something... but their sound evolved to a sound that I perhaps just like less. And its not that they sound vastly different, but enough that I notice.

When I mentioned Big Daddys speakers sounding better then the new Def Techs, perhaps thats because BDs have soft dome tweeters and the new ones use metal/aluminum tweeters. Perhaps that design change was to allow higher SPLs and be more adaptable to HT. To me it makes them sound a little more forward, and I like the older sound better. But some people may like the newer tweeters with the higher SPL levels and more forward sound.


NOW.... Recievers.... lets not go there. MFGs decreasing power and sound quality and keeping things the same price or more.... that is pure greed. JMO.

[BIslander]

High resolution audio, lossless codecs, and the equipment to play them back are all excellent enhancements. By way of perspective, Neil Young says audio technology has finally improved to a point that he is willing to release his life's work. Calibration software and room correction are another area where processing has gotten substantially better. Plus, all of this is being done at prices points that most people can afford.

[Blaumann]

Just personal opinions, huh. Ok.

If the high-end audiophile world wouldn't have removed itself so far from the science of audio, then maybe the pressure on mfg's to develop actual progress in speaker design would be higher?

Just check out the link to the above mentioned Stereophile.
http://stereophile.com/
Right at the beginning they have an article "Listening #96" about "Powerline Accessories". That's the problem right there. How do want to take a publication seriously, that endorses that kind of unscientific thinking? They should have called out the b.s. (easy to do with simple level matched blind testing, but the results would probably contradict about 90% of their opinions and reviews ... and ads ) and supported things that really matter in audio. But that ship has sailed a long time ago, i guess.

(and just for the record, i myself got sucked into buying "special" power cords 15 years ago, which is something i actually regret today. But i was young and had the money...)

So in order to answer the question, is newer always better? No, surely not.

[prerich]

Originally Posted by BIslander

High resolution audio, lossless codecs, and the equipment to play them back are all excellent enhancements. By way of perspective, Neil Young says audio technology has finally improved to a point that he is willing to release his life's work. Calibration software and room correction are another area where processing has gotten substantially better. Plus, all of this is being done at prices points that most people can afford.

I'll give you that one, Behringer is just a beast with their processors. Processing I think is the area of benefit here, but in the speaker area and amplification and the amount of new specs - some things were just uncalled for.

[callas01]

Originally Posted by BIslander

High resolution audio, lossless codecs, and the equipment to play them back are all excellent enhancements. By way of perspective, Neil Young says audio technology has finally improved to a point that he is willing to release his life's work. Calibration software and room correction are another area where processing has gotten substantially better. Plus, all of this is being done at prices points that most people can afford.

I definetly agree with that, there have been some vast improvement in terms of processing and lossless audio. Not to mention on the Video side of things, its gotten much better, PQ is far better then what it used to be 5, 10 and 20 yrs ago.

IMO, the biggest downfall is AVRs. I think at $899 and down, that a receiver not living up to its specs but doing well is fine, but once you get over $1000 that thing should live up to expectations.

With speakers, I go with my analogy that speaker companies want to evolve and def techs decision to go to Aluminum Tweeters to reach higher SPLs over the Soft Domes of yester-year, then go for it. Congrats. As Humans we evolve, NO ONE here is the same person they were 10 yrs ago. Why should we expect that companies be the same as they were 10 yrs ago. Whether we like the new you or not, its what we have to expect as a company evolves. Like people... some speaker MFGs get better with time; some get worse. I think it depends on what the ideals of the company is about.

Music. I like CDs and LPs. I don't like MP3s. Some MP3s sound good sure. Of course there is lossless music on different formats, and yes, that sounds even better then MP3. But as Rhett had said to me the other day, he listened to something on his new TT and then on his Naim music server, and the LP sounded better. So in that case older Tech is better, but it does have its disadvantages also. Where will you store 400 LPs and CDs? How can you take it with you? Do they have in-car TTs that don't skip when you hit a road reflector? Obviously not! So in that regard new Tech has its advantages.

Personally, I don't mind having some music on .XXXX file, and then having my favorites on LP and my next favorites on CD. Having a variety of music formats and storage and mobility of the music is a part of the Tech advantages, but also still holding fast to yester-years somewhat Higher Quality so I can enjoy certian things at my LEISURE.

Which is really what HI-FI and HT is about. Taking your time to enjoy your movie or your music, to listen and watch intently and focused on what is before you. We don't listen to music and enjoy it on fast-forward when it sounds like the Chimpmucks. We don't put in a blu-ray and press fast-forward to catch every 4th word. So while Technology has brought forth innovations that we should not run away from, Yester-years technology should still has its deserv-ed place in our lives as well. Both should be embrassed and enjoyed for what they offer and can provide. As pure audio-phites/video-phites, we should have fun and take advantage of both new and old technologies.

[rded]

Originally Posted by callas01

Music. I like CDs and LPs. I don't like MP3s. Some MP3s sound good sure. Of course there is lossless music on different formats, and yes, that sounds even better then MP3. But as Rhett had said to me the other day, he listened to something on his new TT and then on his Naim music server, and the LP sounded better. So in that case older Tech is better, but it does have its disadvantages also. Where will you store 400 LPs and CDs? How can you take it with you? Do they have in-car TTs that don't skip when you hit a road reflector? Obviously not! So in that regard new Tech has its advantages.
.

No. I did not say that! What I said was that based on the what I heard on my secondary system, the regular pressed Pixies Doolittle LP album is significantly better than the ALAC file found in my ipod, docked onto my Fatman itube dock. However, the .WAV, MoFi version of Doolittle stored in my Naim Uniteserve is just plain ridiculous sounding. But they are on different systems. And don't try and sway me into plugging the TT into my main rig! I am too lazy and don't have the patience to set it up!

[Mr.Poindexter]

Lots of the newer technologies have been bastardized over time. Look at CD and how its dynamic range has been increasingly compressed in an effort to increase overall loudness, especially in the last 10 years.

Many of the "advances" are certainly advances in marketing or delivery but not in performance and often are trading some performance for benefits in other areas.

Video advances have been substantial, of that there is no doubt. Source quality and projectors have come a long way, although some of the advances have come at a cost as well. I cannot stand to look at the new 120Hz LED/LCD panels because what I see on the screen does not look like a film - it looks like a stratified video game and what meshed well in the theaters doesn't look so good on the little 55" screen where I can immediately see what is live action, what is a painted backdrop, which things are models and what has been added via video chroma key and CGI.

On audio, I still have yet to hear something in the last 20 years that beats my old sound system I had 8 years ago in my previous house. I am fairly certain I never will either - certainly not from the newer equipment that is being pushed to market.

[botley]

It's not about the format. It's about the source. Consumer formats are getting closer and closer to having EXACT duplicates of the master that the artists created and approved. Home video has never looked or sounded as good as it does on Blu-ray, and with audiophile digital downloads, the sky's the limit. I have tonnes of albums in 24-bit lossless files, which sound better than any CD I've ever owned and even give vinyl a run for its money.

[jomari]

great topic prerich!

aside from comments already posted on here, i guess my opinion about the newer technology is the fact that most of us arent benefiting from our speakers maximum potential. if the foundation of the listening area isnt up to par, then introducing a 'new' component in the mix doesnt do justice at all.

i guess what im saying is that the basic fundamentals should first be implemented to get the best bang for your buck. proper speaker placement, acoustic treatments, toe in, speakerwire gauge, proper isolation, etc, are just a few to name as examples.

ive seen a good number of speakers in my time, but ive seen oddly enough, some great vintage material out there, that sparkle in their own atmosphere simply because the room was also prioritized to a certain extent.

in regards to media, well, that my friend i will post on tomorrow. times a ticking, and i have to attend a christmas party.

[ScarredLungs]

In short: NO. There are too many "new" items out there. I think that in some cases that new is better, but not always. As mentioned it is too broad to be a blanket answer. All too often when it is new, it is just another company throwing a line into the water to see if they can profit from the market.

[ZoetMB]

You have to define what "better" means. To some people (in reference to audio, for example), better means higher audio quality. To other people, better means more convenient and/or less expensive. Certainly, the dominance of compressed MP3 formats is the expression of convenience over quality.

While my ears aren't what they were decades ago, when I first got into quality audio, there were playback systems that were so good, they actually used to make me sweat. I remember as a kid spending hours in front of a record store that had the best sounding playback system. And you know what? That system was probably a piece of thrown-together junk. Acoustic Research (AR) had a listening room in Grand Central Station. At 12 or 13 years old, I would go up there and "die" over the sound of acoustic guitar playing on an AR Turntable, a Dyna preamp and a Dyna-70 power amp (which were sold either as a kit or already assembled) and an AR-3a loudspeaker system, which I could never see affording. (I did eventually buy an AR Turntable and the much smaller AR-4ax loudspeakers.)

Since I want to replace my current, mostly 30-year-old playback system, I've been going to audio retailers lately and listening to new, very expensive systems. Do they sound good? Sure. Do they sound better than what I already have? Not really. How much of this is the system and how much of this is my ears, it's hard to tell.

Back in the "golden age" of hifi, the CEOs of companies were the guys who actually designed the equipment. Avery Fisher, H.H. Scott, Edgar Vilchur, Roy Allison, Henry Kloss, etc. each developed their own distinctive sound with their own designs. That doesn't really exist today (except perhaps in speaker design.) Most equipment uses pretty much the same designs and the same ICs. Today, the CEOs of audio companies are primarily finance people. This is similar to what happened to the recording industry. We used to have people like Ahmet & Neshui Ertegun (Atlantic), Jim Stewart (STAX), Jac Holzman (Elektra), Moses Asch (Folkways), Berry Gordy (Motown), and Leonard Chess (Chess/Checker). Now we mainly have accountants. Which is one of the reasons why music today largely sucks.

Subjectively, even though the systems were lower powered and hum was frequently a problem, I just feel like those old tube-based systems sounded better. They might have sounded better because the distortion they generated composed of odd-harmonics and we "like" the sound of odd-harmonic distortion, but subjectively, they just gave me more of a thrill.

But one thing that I think is better today in most cases is performance/cost ratio. I recently sold my OPPO and while waiting for the BDP-95 to be released I picked up a Sony Blu-ray player for $138 as a temporary measure. It does an ok job of playing CDs and SACDs and a superb job of playing Blu-rays, plus it has all kinds of networking capability with WiFi built-in. I can access my Pandora account, watch Amazon or NetFlix on demand, etc. For $138, that's a freaking miracle. On the other hand, with companies trying to pawn off $500 cables, the cost of high-end esoteric audio is higher than it's ever been.

And in spite of the MP3 quality issues, MP3 players are freaking miracles as well. When I was a kid, I thought it was miraculous that I could fit my singles collection on two reels of 7" tape (as long as I recorded at the reduced 3 3/4 ips speed.) To fit thousands of songs on something the size of a credit card with a quality that's never going to get worse, in spite of the compression artifacts and the extremely low-powered playback systems is still really incredible.

So some things get better and some things get worse. That's true for most things.

[prerich]

Speaking of formats....I've got to get a Turntable that plays 78's! I've just come into a bunch of Blues and Jazz 78's from I believe the 1940's and 50's!!!! These came from my wife's great aunt that passed away - my son found them in the storage house out back and our aunt let us keep them! Old Savoy, Peacock and other lables.

[Drew664]

Before I posted in this thread, I had to visit family and scope out which speakers my dad actually had. They are Lafayette Criterion speakers, model 2003a.



Some Google research says they were a bargain speaker back in the day, but the sound that a single large woofer brings to speakers is unique, whereas today's speakers have multiple woofers to do the same job. I'm a fan of the older style of speaker (single large woofer), but I'd really like to do a side by side some time to get a feel for how exactly different the design sounds.

[LordoftheRings]

Generally Newer is better: HDMI, High Res Video 1080p, High Res Audio with DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD, Auto Room EQ & Calibration, Network features, Internet interactivity, High Res Audio Streaming, Video Processors, etc.

* But few Older things remain better: some great amplifiers, preamps, CD players, Turntables, and other electronics of that sort for a 2-channel Stereo setup.

More of what is new now have to do with Home Theater Multichannel Audio setups and Video displays.

Makes sense?

[prerich]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Generally Newer is better: HDMI, High Res Video 1080p, High Res Audio with DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD, Auto Room EQ & Calibration, Network features, Internet interactivity, High Res Audio Streaming, Video Processors, etc.

* But few Older things remain better: some great amplifiers, preamps, CD players, Turntables, and other electronics of that sort for a 2-channel Stereo setup.

More of what is new now have to do with Home Theater Multichannel Audio setups and Video displays.

Makes sense?

As far as newer technologies for formats that give you more bits...yes. However you state some other things such as Internet interactivity, streaming (not the High Res audio type)...these things are fun to have but are not always better. Multi-channel audio setups still have a few things in common with 2 channel such as speakers and amps. A good amp is a good amp, the main purpose of a speaker is still audio reproduction. We have a tendency to put the buggy before the horse nowadays. People get all the tech but try to run it with teeny tiny speakers (for the sake of the look) and feel that they are getting the true experience. Then they have the nerve to criticize others for having "older" gear. Believe it or not I've been in the market for a new receiver - but depending on what I really feel about 3D - I just may go backwards (I saw a Marantz SR-9600 that I just love - it can output hdmi audio as LPCM)! It all depends. I've demo'd quite a few speakers while on my winter break (B&W's...again, Paradigms, Quad...again) and I just couldn't justify getting rid of my present fronts - I plan on a demo of Klipsch Cornwalls and see if they can get me stirred up. The only thing I felt justified in upgrading is my subs. Even though the audio tech is getting better, it's not as impressive as the leaps and bounds of the video tech. The one exception in audio...active DSP Equalization and crossovers (thinking about a second dcx2496 and bi-amping the front array and bypassing the crossovers and using the dcx2496).