Are we in the golden age of audio quality?

When Albums Ruled the World »

 

I think maybe we're in the 3rd golden age, the late 50's was the 1st golden era. The 70's-early 80's was the 2nd golden era. What the previous two and this one do not share in common is the awareness of great specs and knowing what they mean. In the 21st century, hi rez is taken for granted, not really questioned as much, and really doesn't need to be... not to the extent of previous technologies. For example, does anyone know what "damping factor" means? How does your amplifier's damping factor affect bass response, and the control of your speakers? The synergy of a tube setup, or quality solid state setup really required a great deal of research and careful selection of components. There is currently a tremendous renaissance in high fidelity, vinyl records too!

 

I believe the point, is this the Golden Age of Music, is answered with a yes, but each coming year also has the potential to be and certainly if you look forward ten years it should be incredibly better. Was there ever a period in which the music choices between the way one could listen to music or hear music was worse than the decade before? Concerts sound systems have gotten better, professional and home equipment all have advanced. The media in which we choose to listen is growing and improving and much of the older technology has also improved and has gone through its own renaissance, think vinyl.

 

As long as you can still get Linn LP12s, Rega Planets, NAD 3020s, LS3/5As and Dynaco A25s ...

 

Technology yes, content no - particularly modern mastering approaches.

 

In this world today you might as well smile and keep moving, no one is listening when you say anything that is not the accepted norm of the herd, pick your topic.
Especially when it comes to audio, like we have all seen , peoples eye's glaze over and you can see the look of how do I get out of here on their faces.
Makes you feel like you are in the twilight zone.

 

Oh, got it. Makes sense then.

 

NO! Not even close! Too many affordable options sound worse than 1968 did in separates. Until we can better 1968 in separates, in sound, in build, or reliability and add convenience, we're behind (SOTA high end options exceptions).

 

But not even close to the whole universe of recorded music. Even top popular acts are not there. Tons of old stuff never will be there. Stuff that is there now will be removed...

You got sold rather easy.

 

Actually, I don't even have Internet, so I've bought nothing.

I mistakenly took the word of friends who have these services, and are still a bit ga-ga over what's on offer.

But surely it's only a matter of time before some streaming app is able to provide pretty close to everything?

 

As time passes, the hardware progresses while the software digress

I think the opposite will happen. The overlap among streaming providers will shrink. Artists will negotiate better deals with exclusive providers. But, there will likely be some sort of "aggregator" app that will use each of the sources one subscribes too.

 

But when my friends come over, take off their iPhones, leave Spotify behind, and hear me crank old Stones (or Ludwig Van for certain friends) on the TT, turn up the volume, and plunk them in the perfect spot, they are either smitten or way better actors than I could have imagined!

 

Yes, very well said.

 

That thing looks like something NASA would have.

 

I couldn't agree more than with your statement, "nothing does that better IMO than a system comprised of gear made back in the era when that stuff was recorded."

Nothing more needs to be said with regard to that.

I have never heard your W90's. I don't think that I have to, to imagine what they sound like. There is a reason that your W90's weigh 125-lbs., because making them that way, they sound good. Sound from these types of speakers was and remains today, full, natural and effortless.

Try reproducing that same level of sound reproduction with smaller, modern, speakers and the sound will not be the same. It will sound more forced and unnatural.

I had 150+ pound speakers in the early 70's. When I wanted to play rock music, I PLAYED rock music!

Speaking of which, when I want to show someone what a rock concert sounds like, back then or now, I put on Steppenwolf Live.

If there was ever a such thing as reproducing a live concert in your living room, this would be the album and Monster would be the song.

Long live Altec A7's!

 

It's funny, I am enjoying rebuilding my library with albums from my era. Some of which I have owned before, some of which, I knew about but did not personally own. But some of the most fun part to me, is that I can discover music like jazz that was around in my time, but so much of it was when I was a toddler and before that. Even when I was growing up, it may have been around, but, since it was never played on the radio, it was off my radar.

That was OK too, because we really got into the music of our day, in the sixties and seventies. The late 70's ushered in disco and dancing became popular again. With the advent of MTV, we were introduced all kinds of new talent in the eighties, that would have not come to national prominence, had it not been for the music video. Don't know too much about the next 20-25 years, been away from stereo for a while after CD's came into being. Never cared much for the sound of CD's, something about them just didn't seem right to me, didn't care too much for the music I did hear.

To me, it is a golden age of audio quality, because there is so much out there to listen to. It can be listened to on new gear or vintage gear, choices are more abundant now, then they ever were before. Vinyl has made a big comeback. Tubes, of all things are back in a big way. Tubes went away, when I was a kid. For the next half century it was all solid state. I knew that they still made tubes somewhere because of guitar amplifier's mainly (I thought). A stereo tube amplifier, no such thing. Now I own our of them!

New talent doesn't have to try to get on the radio, the don't even need it to be successful. Good thing, since most radio stations are corporately owned and local programming is determined by suit clear across the country. Gone are the radio days where the local DJ could sift through a stack of records and play what ever he wanted to. It is sweet justice, that, to a certain extent, they have been rendered unnecessary.

Many, don't seem to think that this can be part of that sacred golden age. To that extent, I'm not part of that many. In the past five years, I have heard so much new talent. In many ways, music is better today that it has been for a long time. New artists are not pigeonholed into genera specific music, they are more free to be their creative selves. Audiences today, I also believe are more accepting to different kinds of music across a broad spectrum.

To the naysayer's, I say, whatever we are doing wrong, keep it up!

S&G

 

Totally agree! 230kbps done right can be remarkable. In fact Pandora One at a maximum of 192kbps, can sound good if done right.

If bit rates get higher, that's great also. If I can get things sounding good at bit rates this low, when the are increased, so much for the better.

What am I going to do, not listen to music because the bit rate isn't high enough, but the end result sounds good? Doesn't make much sense to me.

 

Not sure about golden age. You have to work at it to get it. Golden music doesn't just flow to you.
However, in terms of having options to connect to the music you created or made into "gold" and carrying it with you or slinging it around the world then yes we're are in a convenience age.
But to get gold you have to WORK for it. If you like mediocrity then this music is everywhere, available cheap. Admittedly which is what I listen to on Google play (320kb streaming) 80% of the time with the exception of first press CDs & SACD. The latter is Gold & it ain't cheap!

In terms of gear I put a Yamaha RX-777 head to head with a non recapped Sony STR 7055. It wasn't a blow out as I expected it would be. I expected 40 years of technological innovation to clearly stomp the Sony.
It didn't.
Let me give credit where it's due. The Yamaha did have all the golden caps, resistors & films inside such as Elna filters, silmics, Nichicons etc. So really good solid class A stuff.
So did the Sony. Albeit a bit older. An interesting match up for sure.
The Sony came away sounding more musical, definitely had a better depth when it came to bass and it held the music note longer.
The Yamaha has crystal clear sound almost ot the point of it being "glassy". Clinical but not cold. Not warm either. Sterile is the better term. It lacked the depth for bass but mids & highs it shined.


So there it is. A modest comparison of two very well built models that in the end really leave it up to the individual listener to decide if "audio quality" has really excelled. On this I'm sure. Listening to both most would say no.

 

Basically, anything lower than 320kbps on my setup just becomes too noticeable in terms of quality-loss, so I try to avoid that stuff. As my system has improved, so has it's ability to expose the differences between lossless and lossy, the lossier the more-noticeable, so I find myself playing less and less of the sub-320kbps stuff these days (which is a good thing, I guess).

 

**** No. Not while brickwalling is still an issue.

 

I made a typo on my previous post, it should read 320kbps, not 230kbps.

Because, I like Pandora One, I had made it my mission to get it sounding good. I rip the CD's to FLAC and 320kbps.

Pandora One uses AAC, which would comparable at 256kbps to 320kbps MP3's. The 192kbps, is just slightly below the 256kbps and is workable, but only if done correctly. I have spent a great deal of time and effort to make this work and it has paid off.

The mastering is all important! With good mastering, it can be very close to the CD. I have good equipment, DAC's, preamps, amps and speakers. What I have accomplished with the 192kbps, is better than you would expect and my system can bring out the details. If it didn't, I would not listen to it. This is coming from someone who has had, in the past, an extreme dislike for MP3 music. As you say, 320kbps, does seem to to be the magic number.

I figure, music resolution will continue to improve. I am fine with that and welcome it. As it does, I expect things will keep on getting better and better, with regard to SQ.

I do agree, as our systems improve, both the good and the not so good, become more noticeable.

 

To them, we ARE in the Twilight Zone!

 

There is no "golden age" of audio. There is only the very slow progression of different technologies to replace previous technologies.

 

Before I get to this post, just wanted to say, I kinda' figured the 230kbps thing might have been a typo. Something happened at some point over the last year to year and a half where my system started sounding noticeably-better. Prior to that, there was a slight bit of hiss in the signal that I was able to hear with the headphones or if I stuck my ear up against one of the tweeters in my W90's, and I wasn't sure what was causing it. I thought it could have been the Fisher 800C, but with the shoddy electrical where I live, I figured there was also a good chance it was caused by that somehow. Anyway, at some point, that hiss has completely-disappeared, which is making me thing it was related to the electrical outlets/wiring/etc., and since then, the sound quality of my system has improved in a big, big way. I had no idea how much detail was being obscured by the hiss/noise in the signal path (I had already bought a high-grade, $500+ uninterruptible power supply to help deal with the electrical issue, but even that didn't get rid of the hiss, despite the immense difference it made in terms of overall sound quality). So, now I'm hearing things like never before, especially in terms of high-frequency details, and that's when I really started noticing the difference between, say, 320kbps and 230kbps ( ), and at this point, the acceptable threshold is 320 and above (unless it's the only copy I have of something I like).

But getting back to gear, you would surely dig the W90's. If someone put up a thread about which speakers have the greatest midrange, the W90's would get mentioned on the first page right next to the Quad ESL-57. They use the same kind of alnico Super 3 tweeters and 12" alnico woofers as the OB-type SFB3 model, which can easily trade blows with ESL-57's (and actually out-does them in many ways, according to an old review/comparison as well as a fellow forum member I know who has all three models, the SFB's, the Quads, AND the W90's). What the W90's do better than either of those other two models is classic rock/pop/funk/soul/etc. That's their thing. The SFB3's and possibly the Quads might be a slightly-better choice for classical stuff and maybe certain kinds of jazz, but the W90's really are tops when it comes to popular music from back in the day (Their sweet spot seems to be everything up to about 1975... At that point, certain albums/groups might do better with a model from the '70's, and W90's really aren't what I would consider well-suited for '80's music).

But you have to cater to them to get the most out of them. Placement has to be spot-on, and they seem to prefer tube gear with a warm, lush, bloomy character. They LOVE Fishers, especially with tubes like the Westinghouse 7591's and the longplate RCA's (The mileage varies in terms of the phono section and the phase inverter or whatever that's called, but I wouldn't consider the old Wharfedales well-suited for Telefunkens or any other overtly-neutral tube brands... They feed off of the bloom, and they seem to like a bit of warmth).

But like I said, the W90's are jaw-dropping when it comes to classic popular music. I guarantee the designers didn't know it in the early '60's, but the W90 is somehow able to dish out those classic rock guitar sounds and classic effects units like the Arbiter Fuzz Face (Think Hendrix or Clapton's Cream-era tone) and the Dallas Rangemaster (think Clapton's Bluesbreakers tone) like none other. Same goes for the old Hammond organs and other classic keyboard-based instruments like the Mellotron as well as the classic echo and modulation effects (The old Wharfedales like analog-based music and analog-based instruments and effects). It might be the 5" midwoofers, or perhaps it's a combination of that plus the front-firing Super 3 cone tweeters (The SFB3 uses an upfiring Super 3 tweeter), but this is where that term "spooky-real" comes into play. That's how they are with rock/pop music from the '60's and early '70's (And the funny thing is, Gilbert Briggs hated pop and rock music... He was into classical and that sort of thing, and that signature Wharfedale tone was his doing, and he was still running the company when they designed the W90). Anyway, if classic rock is your thing, then you'll want to look into the W90's at some point. Like I said, they love the old analog-based instruments like electric guitars w/ analog-based effects as well as the old tube guitar amps, and they also love horn instruments and the Hammond organs and analog keyboard stuff, so old rock/pop music, old funk/soul, psychedelic rock, classic country, blues, etc. (including old mono blues from the '50s/'60's) is definitely their thing. I mention this stuff a lot because they do it so damn well. It's uncanny. And considering how much they usually fetch on the market, they're quite-reasonable in terms of price (I've seen a couple Fleabay sellers who get greedy and slap a $1000 or $1200 a pr price on them, but unless that pair is over in Japan, I guarantee they're still unsold).

I remember the first time I played the Black Crowes' 2nd album ("Southern Harmony & Musical Companion"). That's when the analog-based thing became clear. They make that album sound amazing, and that's because that band went full-on old school with that album. The recording gear, the guitars, amps, effects, etc. All analog-based, with a focus on the vintage-type sound from the late '60's to early '70's (That's my golden age). That album also has a nice, rich midrange as well, which helps (Think Steppenwolf). Any recordings like that are the W90's forte. Same goes for most Lenny Kravitz stuff (Fiona Apple's first and especially her 2nd album sound really-good as well, which makes sense because of the Mellotron). Again, great mids and a general focus on vintage-style, analog-based gear. Anyway, enough of my blathering on. I need breakfast (I didn't realize how much I had typed... Damn... But I guarantee, you get a pair of those running off a nice, bloomy-sounding vintage tube rig, and you'll be blathering on as well... I've seen it happen ).

By the way, mine are the early, alnico W90's. The ceramic-loaded ones are okay too, but the later ones with dome tweeters (W90D's) don't have the subdivided woofer enclosure, and a few other things are different, so I can't speak for those.

 

Golden age? Capacitors, resistors, speaker drivers, cabling, etc.... absolutely YES! Remastering old music and cutting new records? YES!


New music mastering, listening to music on phones, LQ streaming.... NO!