Have we really moved that far in the past 30 years?

uglymusic

I keep seeing people posting on forums and social media that we haven't really progressed in hi-fi quality over the past N decades.

It crossed my mind that these are often the same people who spin vinyl and use valve amps. Something in common?

Off to don my suit of armour :-D 

:-h

Docfoster

You bloody idiot.
;-)

uglymusic

Waaaaa  (

PAC

A wind-up Shirly?  

Define "we" paleface :-)

Some things have and some haven't. DAC quality has and prices have dropped too.  As for Loudspeaker quality and amplifier design? Nope...not a bit.  Many of the circuits in amps are just the same or re-hashes of older designs.  Power outputs have generally speaking risen to cope with smaller less sensitive and efficient boxes, plus marketing bling has seen shinier more fashionable boxes for amps and speakers, but that's all.

The biggest change is in the technologies used to capitalise on economies of construction, the shrinking of circuits, improvements in some op-amps, improved wiring quality (and manufacturing techniques) plus tighter tolerances on some components (capacitors/inductors on some higher end kit), but component quality is nothing on its own.  How this translates in SQ is endlessly debatable.  Without the means to measure frequency response in-room and also subjectively appraise timbre (phase accuracy) then at best we have personal preferences.

I think that decent kit can be had for remarkably little these days where boxes and sources are concerned, but loudspeakers for all the hype, have not really improved radically at all.  I've lost count of the number of hifi shows demonstrating the good and the great with price tags to match and come away very disappointed or often appalled at what's been offered for the price of an average family car.  Demo rooms are never great but good enough to get pretty decent impression of potential.

As for analogue, don't knock it.  The sales of TT's today out strips sales of TT's 20 years ago....by a long way.  Digital streaming may be technologically way more advanced but having returned from a system where streaming was the only option today and settled into some vinyl, inferior as that little needle is scratching its way around squiggly grooves, boy does it sound easier on the ears and brain!

uglymusic

Define "we" paleface :-)

Us. The collective doo-dah of audiophiles.

These posters seem to want to be very inclusive, so I will be, too. :-)

Docfoster

Good post Paul. Even if slightly poluted at the end... ;-)

PAC

Good post Paul. Even if slightly poluted at the end... ;-)

Does that mean that I'm not environmentally friendly any more  (

PAC

Talking of 30 year old kit, here's a photo of some external crossovers I've just finished building for some 30 year old loudspeakers...

As to "how do they sound?"

........................no worse for being 30 year old speakers! 

 In fact, newly re-fettled (I replaced all drive units, re-damped them and re-designed and rebuilt the crossovers) they sound as good as anything I've heard at the National Audio show for mid range purity and imaging.  Beauty is with older kit like this, it was, at a certain level, often designed by people who cared about performance over profit more often than not, and bargains can be had by buying wisely and refurbishing to give another 30 years of musical satisfaction!

uglymusic

To be serious for a moment.

30 year old designs using modern components aren't necessarily going to have the same performance as those designs 30 years ago.

PAC

In some respects Dave.  You can't just change speaker drivers willy nilly for example and expect them to sound the same because impedance is the same. There's more to it (much more).  For the example above, I've had to recalculate inductance values to account for dispensing with the ferrite cored originals and the fact that they're in Aluminium enclosures (which change inductance values)...the originals didn't account for this and this is partly the reason that the designers had to experiment so much to get he values to sound right.  I've also had to re-calculate the low pass values for capacitance and shunt resistance to ensure that amp load is maintained as flat as possible (in this case at 4 Ohms).

For all that, the point was that re-fettled, many older designs pass muster today.  A good amplifier from 30 years ago will still be a good amplifier today providing that it remains serviceable.

uglymusic

I think we're actually agreeing here, Paul.

I'm saying that our hypothetical 30-year old gear will sound better with modern components and design approaches.

PAC

Ah, sorry,.  yes, in many respects, I agree with that.

IslandPink

Ah, so you weren't poking a finger at people who use vinyl and valve amps - just the 'Vintage' gear enthusiasts ?

Colin

From my minor experience old designs fitted with or built from scratch with modern day components do indeed sound on the whole much better.

uglymusic

Ah, so you weren't poking a finger at people who use vinyl and valve amps - just the 'Vintage' gear enthusiasts ?

Not really poking a finger. 

Perhaps vintage hi-fi is a lot like vintage cars. Very nice on their own merits, but lacking when you compare to modern ones?

Docfoster

Pah...just stick some new speakers on top of some larger older speakers.

PAC

Pah...just stick some new speakers on top of some larger older speakers.

ah...okidoki............got a step ladder I can borrow?

Yomanze

I think we're actually agreeing here, Paul.

I'm saying that our hypothetical 30-year old gear will sound better with modern components and design approaches.

Both my Audial DAC and LFD amp deliberately use obsolete components such as Black Gate caps, Shinkoh resistors, and my amp was only recontinued as Dr. Richard Bews found a box of the obsolete MOSFETs that he found the newer replacement to be inferior to the point of discontinuing the amp. The same rings true with the fact that I use long obsolete true multibit DACs, which were discontinued as delta/sigma DACs were much cheaper to produce, not needing 'analogue' silicon as it all happens in the digital realm. What I will say is there is a plethora of current manufacturers who bring out the true potential of these old chips, so it is a marriage of obsolete components and modern design that some people hold dearly.

uglymusic

Colin may tell a related story about how he helped out another amplifier designer by finding a source of components that were better than those that the other was using and had been discontinued, leaving  the without a way of producing certain amps.

But back to my theme ; 

Old design with new components, or old components with a new design, it doesn't matter. Either set of gear is of today, not several decades ago.

Things do move on, and the better things improve as they move on. Otherwise we'd still be living in caves.

IslandPink

This is just a convenient simplification, given the breadth of equipment and components that has been developed over the last 90 years . It's not just a case of looking back at the Leak Stereo 20 and some 1970's Wharfedale speakers and saying 'yep, things have moved on' .
There are a number of examples of outstanding pieces of equipment that are outstanding today, with no modification or updated parts : Quad ESL57's ; WE555 , Altec 288C,G&H , and Vitavox S2 compression drivers ; many of the light-coned alnico bass drivers like the Altec 414a, and 515's ; The Ortofon SPU and almost all of the best directly-heated triodes.
To say "Old design with new components, or old components with a new design, it doesn't matter. Either set of gear is of today, not several decades ago" is a major disrespect to the designers who developed these designs or pieces of kit. To say that the Western Electric 300B push-pull theatre amps are 'of today' because they are slightly better if you build them with the best of modern capacitors and transformers, is a slap in the face to the engineers who developed these wonderful designs. Some of the design tricks and original thinking in these amps has only been rediscovered in the last 10 years . That knowledge would certainly have been lost if everyone had the idea that "we've moved on - modern kit is really better you know" .

Docfoster

I feel "a slap in the face" is a bit strong. What current designers (Col...? / Paul...?) would claim that their designs are unimprovable either by design or by component?
If i've misunderstood the point, apologies.

IslandPink

If someone, in 20 years time puts a couple of better semiconductors into one of Colin's circuits, and claims it's 'Of Today', I don't think he'd be too impressed .

mattlynch

my opinion,

 of course things have moved on , but, there are a few classic designs that have simply not been surpassed , some Leak valve power amps , audiomaster valve power amps , garrard 401 /301 , rogers and audiomaster LS3/5a  just to name a few , 

there may well be 'better' now available but at what price and will people be still be talking about, using and truly enjoying current stuff  with the same vigor as these epic products? , there are exceptions of course , such as certain monster A class amps that have crept out in small numbers that will remain the stuff of hi fi legend , 

as for modern components being better , well yes some are ,but, try swapping the transformer in a leak stereo 50 for a modern equivalent and i will bet that it destroys the amps ability to engage the listener , fit the best tweeter currently available to a pair of audiomaster ls3/5a's , again it will destroy  the performance , all the chewers that love your royds (there is cream for that you know ;-b ) , there are lots of far 'better' speakers around if we believe the blurb and hyperbol from all those companies pumping out the latest and greatest , but do they engage you as a music lover in quite the same way .

i guess what i am trying to say is that truly great designs will remain and the rest will fall away , regardless of when it was made , Col (brain dead) is IMO in the same league as those folks that brought us products i mentioned above as he knows how to utilize the latest components to frightening effect and he will be first to say when an improved product is available .

sound per pound wise, things have definitely moved on but the truly great classics are way more than the sum of their respective parts as if they were just the sum of their parts i would able to go buy equivalent parts and make my own current versions that would be miles better , but, we cant and that is why we have huge market place willing to pay huge money to enjoy those classics but hey, thats just how i see it 

Docfoster

.

If someone, in 20 years time puts a couple of better semiconductors into one of Colin's circuits, and claims it's 'Of Today', I don't think he'd be too impressed .

You feel that he'd be upset that someone in a different time was seeking to take ownership of his established design

mattlynch

just as a matter of relevance to the convo, i am about to fit new 'better' op amps and a few other bits to my claymore on Cols recommendation( thats what i call after sales back up !!) , not so much to modernize or make it 'of today' , i feel its more a case of , if they were available to col back when he created the beastie he would have more than likely specced them at that time . only after i have done mod will i know if it will detract from sound i love.

uglymusic

This is just a convenient simplification, given the breadth of equipment and components that has been developed over the last 90 years...

We seem to have gone full circle here. My OP was partly challenging the blanket charge that we'd not moved on at all during the past decades.

I think Col's views are particularly interesting as he has improved older designs and developed new ones.

IslandPink

I thought I might as well get stuck in, as Dave was apparently off to get his suit of armour .

I think it's fair to say that the general level of HiFi quality has improved over thirty years, but good sound is a multi-dimensional beast . More than once I've been stopped in my tracks by certain older pieces of kit ( like the SPU cartridge for instance ) giving me a shock and a sudden re-adjustment of how good certain aspects of the sound could be . I agree with a great deal that Matt said, in this respect.

One of the most significant trends in audio in the last 30 years was the Japanese ( and then the Americans ) 'rediscovering' the simple no-feedback triode circuits of the 1930's and the products that came out of that DIY activity in the early 90's . I'm sure it pushed a lot of the solid state designers to re-appraise the potential of their circuits and improve them - and I will not argue that solid-state amps have come a long way in the last 30 years .

uglymusic

I thought my post might stir up some debate ;-)

I do believe, generally, hi-fi has improved, and seeing yet another post (this time on FB), I thought I'd post my irritation here.

PAC

I wouldn't mind at all if someone took something I've designed and built,  and improved it.  To me, that's not merely evolution of design, it can represent innovation where new thinking (using something differently) or new materials technology allows advancement of some description. I'd certainly not consider it as a slap in the face at all.  What would be a slap in the face is someone doing the same thing with say different materials and claiming that it was their idea.  

There's very little new or innovative in class A/B amplification and many circuits we see today are based upon literally a handful of design concepts, all with embellishments or improvements in one area or another.  Most modern valve amp designs are copies of designs dating back 40 years or more in some cases.

What makes or breaks a design isn't really the concept, its how well that concept is implemented and there is plenty of scope for getting it badly wrong.

Getting back to the OP...have things marched on...in certain specific terms, of course they have. In general terms and with some specific bits of kit (loudspeakers particularly) we need a benchmark by which to judge and as hifi has never employed a recognised standard benchmark to define high fidelity, we tend to fall back onto things like frequency response, S/N ratio and distortion.

Using these things for speakers, and looking at efficiency too, then one could argue that many designs today have even regressed. there are countless poor loudspeakers with telephone number price tags that are hopelessly inefficient, overly complex and measure pretty poorly for every one that doesn't.  Much of what we know today about loudspeaker science, plus ALL of the mathematics was known in the 1950's when Briggs published his loudspeaker guide...all that's improved are the materials, not the concept or the craftsmen.

Therein perhaps lies the explanation why it could be seen as a slap in the fact, but as Ben suggests, perhaps that's too strong a word.

IslandPink

I see you really picked up on the 'slap in the face ' bit !
It was specific to what Dave said -

"Old design with new components, .............................., it doesn't matter. Either set of gear is of today, not several decades ago."

So your comment :

"What would be a slap in the face is someone doing the same thing with say different materials and claiming that it was their idea." is really exactly that thing I was complaining about .

Forgive me for digging my heels in here , I'm a designer and engineer ( in optics ) and I don't take kindly to people taking credit for other peoples work, however long ago it was . There are a lot more people in this world taking credit for, and making a living out of, the work of talented designers and scientists, than there are people who can actually understand and perform that work .

Hey, this thread is an ideal vehicle for me to let off steam ;o)

Docfoster

Righto. If people are stealing ideas and claiming them as their own, then that is bad. Agreed.

uglymusic

I hear that happens in the hi-fi world quite a bit. With amplifier circuits...

Docfoster

Has Colin been talking to you as well about "his" Claymore circuit...? Tsk-tsk.

uglymusic

Wrong man ;-)

Colin

Hey, this thread is an ideal vehicle for me to let off steam ;o)

Did somebody mention tea! no sugar.

A few day,s ago my copy of a certain waste of time American audio design mag came,(now cancelled ) it was spouting of about this "New" Hybrid power amp that one of there "Designer" had done. It was a direct copy of a Mullard Design from 1961 but now with Silicon semi-conductor not those nice pink geraniums type.

It was rated at 50- 200W and had according to the hype a massive damping factor of  20 yes a massive twenty. And a BW of 20Hz-20KHz -3dB, strange the original was 10Hz- 100KKHz flat.

A later version of this circuit was used a few year ago by a English Valve amp manufacture, and they also though it was there original thought.

My point is we all read what interest us, we all take snippets of what we read and use it in our live's as hobby or profession I suspect neither of these two example was even aware that the "Tecno Bleed Thru" had happened. 

So what can we say is original though, not much I suspect, we had to learn our trades and absorb information and expand. But with Billions of people are doing that everyday you must expect some bleed over.

But new materials in science will help us to improve designs and the evolve designs into better and crap ideas.

OK coffee time at 2.24AM

Alan

English Valve Amplifier co. - I believe they are down the road fom here, and sell an integrated amp for approx. £13k. I have it on good authority that it sounds mighty fine too.

This is an interesting discussion, and I appreciate both Col's & island's contributions.

What is amazing is (some of) the designers of yesteryear were able to accomplish so much without modern components with their fine tolerances and capabilities. Instead they relied on a bit of test gear and lots of knowledge/experience, followed by much trial and error. I agree that there is little to be applauded when a johnny-come-70-years-lately pops on the scene and puts some shiny modern caps or silicone into the circuit (which, as Col has hinted at, was better when it was based on Germanium anyway)!

Chatting with Col over the years has led me to believe more has been forgotten in audio design than is currently utilised. Coupled with humans pathological need for certainty (this is best, it is the only best way to make this work), we are now presented with only a narrow view of what is possible.

Often a piece of equipment will be improved with a modern equivalent part, if the original is out of spec. But I don't think that's what we are debating. It seems that re-learning forgotten electronics from an age ago would be a fine foundation for building better things today.

PAC

I see you really picked up on the 'slap in the face ' bit !
It was specific to what Dave said -

"Old design with new components, .............................., it doesn't matter. Either set of gear is of today, not several decades ago."

So your comment :

"What would be a slap in the face is someone doing the same thing with say different materials and claiming that it was their idea." is really exactly that thing I was complaining about .

Forgive me for digging my heels in here , I'm a designer and engineer ( in optics ) and I don't take kindly to people taking credit for other peoples work, however long ago it was . There are a lot more people in this world taking credit for, and making a living out of, the work of talented designers and scientists, than there are people who can actually understand and perform that work .

Hey, this thread is an ideal vehicle for me to let off steam ;o)

I agree with you as both a designer and an engineer as well.  My hifi design is limited to the furniture, loudspeaker cabinets and crossovers and basic electronic circuits and I take no credit for anything else nor would I.

What you and Col have alluded to is spot on. If it wasn't so pathetic, I'd have been really cross, but at an audio show that shall remain nameless, in a manufacturer's room that shall remain nameless, almost every exhibit, be it an amp or a loudspeaker was a blatant copy of older or other manufacturers' current designs.  The amps circuits were possibly lifted out of a Far Eastern "book of 200 circuits" (mostly of UK origin!) and the speakers were a direct copy of a UK brand.  The sickening thing, as Col points out, is that the originals were/are so much better.

I agree with you too Alan in that there are areas of knowledge completely lost.  Partly because those with it never documented it, companies have been sublimated into larger ventures and records lost, or we simply have forgotten to look to the past to solve current day problems.  

IslandPink

Good stuff .
Definitely, there's a huge amount of 'lost' knowledge contained in circuits and technical papers from the audio archives , even if we are not talking about people directly copying entire circuits. This is why I don't want to hear people saying we can almost 'put the past behind us' . Often a short-cut to going forward to is to look carefully through what was done in the past to find interesting lost or abandoned ideas that ended up sidelined.
One good example is a trick Western Electric used in their 300B Push-pull amps of the 1930's, which a couple of the US DIY guys only rediscoverd about 10 years ago. It basically was a very simple tweak using a resistor in a specific location, that converted some residual 3rd-harmonic distortion into 2nd-harmonic . I myself used this tweak in a PP 300B amp I had at the time, and the effect on tone on vocals was quite significant .
This idea was effectively lost in the (paper) archives after the 1940's when people moved on to PP Pentode amps to get more power .

RobHolt

Interesting question and I think the answer depends on which parts of the audio chain we focus on.

Certainly I'd argue that not only has the analogue side not advanced - amps, vinyl front ends, loudspeakers - but you could argue that it's been in reverse gear for at least parts of the past three decades. Improvements have come in the form of efficiency, cost and consistency but I'd argue the sonics from the best 'class of 1980' is fully competitive today.

Every so often you get a wake-up call. A few years ago i had just such a call when trying some ESL57s and sitting in disbelief that something so good existed in the 1950s. Recently I've had a similar experience playing with some old 70s Acoustic Research loudspeakers that I'd restored. Wonderful sound that's better than many modern designs. I particularly dislike the way that loudspeakers have been shrinking over the years, (yes I know, Kensai is tiny ..... ) and while there is always a need to make products for niche markets, more generally the boxes have been getting ever smaller and sprouting under-deamped ports to give fake bass.

The best cartridges from Koetsu, Supex, AT, Sony and Technics were easily the match or better than we have today. All those wonderful high end Japanese DDs, the better Thorens, Linn, Michell, all around in the 70s and early 80s and nothing you can buy today is really better. Throwing a pile of acrylic together and putting engineering competence into reverse to make the typical 2013 vinyl spinner is definitely not progress!

Amplifiers - we had Naims, Exposures, all the best Japanese gear such as Sony Esprit, Accuphase, so again I don't see where there has been progress.

Digital is where it's at. Massive strides here from the early 14 bit single shared dac machines with primitive filters right through to the kit we have today, which to put it into context would destroy even the best high end recording studio gear 10-15 years ago. However i think that even digital has now peaked and can't really get any better - and it doesn't need to get any better as there are far weaker links in the chain. There will be progress in DSP for sure, but not in the raw sonic performance of dacs IMO.

Colin

Digital is where it's at. Massive strides here from the early 14 bit single shared dac machines with primitive filters right through to the kit we have today, which to put it into context would destroy even the best high end recording studio gear 10-15 years ago. However i think that even digital has now peaked and can't really get any better - and it doesn't need to get any better as there are far weaker links in the chain. There will be progress in DSP for sure, but not in the raw sonic performance of dacs IMO.

Your comment seems to be a contradiction of term for me yes massive strides to a poorer a sound and cheaper audio designs, if the source is "X" and you digitally cremate it can't be "X" it must be "X-x", now you have moved your standard reference, so new designer will never get to "X" it will always be "X-x-1" as the goal. 

So even the so called leap in Class D and T for small amps have the same problem.(not new Sinclair 1960's and Brown with tubes 1930's)

Then we make smaller wife friendly neat speakers and not only have we cut the top we have now screwed the bass the mid and phase.

So my conclusion good old fashion designs in recording and in the use of reproduction with modern materials and production techniques, and no snake oil it rots the BYTES.

 And to DSP aren't they same design foundations in the poor concept for audio quality,  used in car management system and look how reliable they are not. And tell me how DSP with information  input corruption can make it sound true to life and not just patch it up to sound better, OFF is often better.

mattlynch

im with you there Col, some so called 'hi end ' digital sources reproduce lets say an acoustic guitar with oodles more detail and scale than would be there if it was a real 'live' performance , its what i refer to as a 'chrome plated sound' , its all shiny in the showroom but has little to offer over the long term, i am not saying vinyl replay is any better as some folks just cant hear past the odd click or pop on a record and liken it to bacon frying , in the same way some of us can hear everything thats wrong with digital presentation and all the crazy processing that must happen to get to work , i do wonder where home audio would be if everyone was still using vinyl , if all the research money and engineering time that has been sunk into digital had went into analogue just how good would home audio reproduction be now  :-?

Colin

In the 1980,s a company I think is was Soundstream produce a credit card size optical analogue device but The Royal Philips Electronic company swamped the market with those bird scaring discs could CD and the credit card device vanished, I heard one it was very good. I say bring it back.