Comments on: Adieu to the true audiophile?

True connoisseurs of home stereos will take exception to the notion, but complicated home stereos may be going the way of baby boomer taste-setting.

[biggstuu]

The blame for the falling off the audiophile market is not the commoditization of music, but rather the audiophiles and the companies that cater to them. For years the quest for the perfect sound was the holy grail for audio enthusiasts, but then marketing took hold, and now you have people selling adamantium tipped copper phosphated silicon anondized .0001 THD digital speaker wire for the truest audio reproduction to connect to an analog speaker. It stopped being about the products and more about the accessories. Brands like monster and ethereal, et al have had junior/entry level enthusiasts running for the exits because the cost of entry is for all intents and purposes, well, ridiculous.

The mindset now is well you've spent $2k on a plasma/lcd, $1k on an AV receiver, might as well put another $2K into some speakers, and dont forget another $500+ into some quality wires to connect it all or you've just wasted all that money. Which is rubbish. In this day n age, where everything is digital anyway, as long as the 0's and 1's, reach their destination in the same form as they left, you are fine, no need to spend $100 on 5 ft of Monster HDMI when the same length could be had for $15-20 from Mono or Blue Jeans.

Also the entry level enthusiast is pushed away by the seasoned audiophile, when he seeks to gather more info or share an opinion. Check the AVS forums and immediate examples appear. Thread wars are very prevalent over orbit altering issues like Bose vs. (fill in the blank), Bose sucks because, and it goes on ad infinitum. Some audiophiles bash Bose because they market to the common man and sell cheap systems at high dollar prices, well maybe they should put their money where their mouth is and maybe they too would have the market penetration and brand awareness that Bose does. Im not defending Bose's product by any stretch, but this is an example of what kills the industry. Just my $3.36 worth.

[berbar]

I wanted to comment, but this says it all. I WAY TOO expensive to be an audiophile these days. I would add however. Our lives have been filled with SO MANY things to do (books, video games, internet, movies, TV series, sports, outdoor and social activities, etc.), that we no longer have time to JUST sit and listen to Dark Side of the Moon (42:59) back-to-back. However, I still try.

[Fil0403]

"In this day n age, where everything is digital anyway, as long as the 0's and 1's, reach their destination in the same form as they left, you are fine, no need to spend $100 on 5 ft of Monster HDMI when the same length could be had for $15-20 from Mono or Blue Jeans."

Exactly: IF the 0's and 1's reach their destination in the same form as they left.

[busyrat]

I mostly agree with biggstuu's original comment but disagree with some of the replies. Regarding the $100 HDMI cables, this is a total waste of money. If any of the 0's and 1's fail to reach their destination then the entire signal is rejected by the recipient (you don't just lose part of the signal and get lower quality audio or video .. either the signal gets through intact or it gets rejected due to error detection codes that allow the recipient to tell if even a single bit in the signal has changed). Quackery like this (and the overpriced pseudo-audiophile products from Bose et. al.) make it SEEM too expensive to be an audiophile these days, but in reality you can get much better stuff for less money than ever before (thanks to advances in technology). It just takes some effort (and a little intelligence) to avoid the hype (and strongly biased opinions of self-proclaimed "audiophiles" on various blogs) and dig for the good stuff.

[-fjtorres-]

A 30 year-old iPod? Uh, has Mr Guttenberg ever *owned* an iPod? Sealed batteries, sir; the things are built to self-destruct in two years, never mind 20 or 30...
Of course the basic premise is wrong; the true audiophile market is as big as it ever was; the golden ears crowd is still there. What is shrinking is the *aspirational* audiophile market, what is dying out is the golden-ear wannabe. Most have become golden-eyeball wannabes and are into plasma displays atop the fireplace and 100" 720p projectors instead of $3000 audio systems fed via cassette. ;-)
True audiophiles never really bought the low-end Kenwood or JVC stuff that made up the bulk of their sales and profits, it was really the folks interested in good, affordable sound--and being able to pretend they could hear the difference that made vinyl better than CDs. Live by the yuppie, die by the yuppie...

[jacobk397]

The audiophile is not dead. I, myself, hope to call myself such. I'll tell you that I'm an American teen who believes earbuds will be the death of music and that DRM is the dumbest thing on Earth. The problem is in the audio companies. Last Christmas, I went out to spend my hard earned cash on a nice stereo to replace my godforsaken iPod dock. Whoa and behold, there were NO speaker systems! I eventually ended up having to buy a "home-theater" setup to get the quality I was looking for. So I ask you audio companies, where are my stereos?

[-fjtorres-]

Where are your stereos? Try B&M specialty stores. They exist and they have the stuff you need. They don't advertise on TV or the sunday paper but they're out there and they know their stuff. Or, if you're comfortable buying on reputation and specs, you can find it online. Where you won't find it is at the BBs and CCs of the world. True Audiophile quality has *never* been a high-volume business.

[TechTraction_Bret]

The audiophile is going the way of the dinosaur for reasons of convenience. I'd much rather have a small device and carry around my entire music collection than give up large portions of my living room to high end audio gear that forces me to listen in one location. Music, first and foremost, is about enjoyment beyond description. Simulating the "live" musical experience enhances musical enjoyment but it does not define it.

The "true" audiophile has always been a minority. I believe that minority will continue to thrive because of their elitist attitude towards sound. They believe that analog is superior to digital because it's warmer and richer and that their own ears are capable of hearing frequencies that the "average" person cannot. They'll never give up their excessively priced high gear because doing so would be an admission of audio error and inferiority.

The audiophile I think you're referring to is really the mid level audio consumer. They desire to be a "true" audiophile but have settled for products from JVC, Sony, Pioneer etc purely because they was more reasonably priced. These consumers represent the majority of the audio equipment consumer and these are the people that are giving up and leaving in large numbers. Convenience and cost drive their audio purchase decisions. The iPod and similar products are simply more convenient, more cost effective, and the basic sound quality is "good enough."

[Kev Orng]

There's still hope for audiophiles if we're talking about movies. For some reason, lots of people are still enthusiastic about hearing an Orc battle or a spaceship flyby in "realistic" true sound, and I think at the same time they have the potential to learn to understand the difference between an orchestral movie soundtrack rendered through an iPod versus a home theatre or digital cinema experience. On top of that, there are still some high end iPod docking stations that will kick out better sound, and 5 minutes with the demo models at Best Buy will demonstrate the difference - assuming the audio tracks are encoded at an acceptable bit rate.

As to music, don't forget that the high-end headphone market is picking up steam, slowly but surely. Biggest problem for the iPod generation audiophile is that purchased/downloaded/ripped tracks encoded at 192kHz simply aren't good enough to make a better speaker truly shine, so why buy better speakers? If there's an imperative in the music industry to save the high-end speaker industry, they'll insist that online music stores deliver 256 kHz at the absolute minimum, higher if possible. ITunes can rip MP3s up to 320 I think, but AAC is a better codec, so hopefully potential audiophiles will start to use AAC to rip their disks. I'm not sure what limitations transferring them to an iPod will impose, but I do know that the earbuds will put a fine layer of grit over everything; that's why you buy the speakers or high-end headphones. By the way, AAC is not an Apple-proprietary codec as some people believe, it's an open standard. AIFF is Apple. You can play AAC files in any operating system, although a lot of media players won't play it. This is where the iPod deserves some kudos, for not limiting itself to MP3. Forget WMA, it's proprietary, and there's no reason to expect other manufacturers to pay Microsoft the WMA license fee to be able to play them.

[ugim]

MP3 compression voluntarily lowers sound quality (this is part of the compression) - no need for equipment able to reproduce high sound quality when available music is of poor quality. There were little investments to replace CD by a higher quality technology. The question is why ?

[Maccess]

The article answers it: Why do the under-30s only recognize Bose? Because Bose has adapted designing new products that people want. Why haven't any of these other "audiophile" brands made a hi-fi iPod docking amplifier? I still use a classic EICO HF-89 tube amp, attached to an iPod or a Nokia Phone. My high-end cassette and CD-Players are gathering dust.

There will still be a market for good speakers, or even good powered speakers, but where are they? Most of the speakers found today are computer speakers. The high-end brands still make large bookshelf speakers, instead of trying to do something like Bose.

Home theatre is also a fast growing market. Where are these brands' home theatre products? Make products for the market, and they will sell. Stick with outdated concepts, and well, they may as well be making buggy whips.

Even with car stereos, all ofthe big name brands still insist on including an optical drive, whether a CD or, egads, a DVD player, yet among the best selling models in the East are car stereos from China WITHOUT a mechanical player, but a good radio, a decent amp, and either an iPod dock, a front panel line-in socket, or a USB port.

Sony even makes one that has bluetooth connectivity to play music stored on a Sony Walkman phone...yet insists on including a CD/DVD player. They can take out the CD/DVD and use the space to squeeze in better electronics.

[austi15]

I am 16 years old and consider myself to be an audiophile. My system is comprised of B&W floorstanders, denon cd player, turntable, HK amp and pre. I must point several mistakes in your comment. several hi-end audio companies have made ipod docks, mirage, B&W, and I believe krell introduced a dock at the 2008 CES. also, smaller bookshelf speakers are being manufactured by quality companies like axiom, paradigm, and even Best Buys label, Insignia. If you mean Bose speakers as in the horrible little cubes, (of which I owned a pair), then you are correct, no quality company would make something with such limitations at any price point. however bose has several decent speakers from the 301 series 5 and up that offer good sound, albeit at a higher price than the same quality would cost from any other manufacturer.

[James7777777]

Audiophiles exist, they are just hated by the music industry. iPods are the cool thing, but they deliver horrible sound even after you replace those terrible ear buds. iTunes is the biggest distributor of digital music, but their tracks are encoded at a ridiculously low bitrate in a format that loses the subtleties. This is what's pushed on the consumer and they are told to accept it as it sounds good enough.

On the other hand there was oink. A place where audiophiles could go digital. All files were perfectly ripped in a high or often lossless format. Member who liked the music would insist on buying the CD to make sure they are receiving the best sound possible. On the forums there was constant discussion of which headphones/players/stereos would deliver the best sound. Of course oink was shut down, music companies don't want audiophiles as they buy a song once and take care of it and continue to listen to it for years. They don't want audiophiles as they will insist on great recording of excellent music. No the music industry wants people to buy their one hit pop star garbage with a crappy recording compressed and sent to a crappy audio player with the $5 ear buds, then when it gets old (which it will cause it's not good), they will move on to paying for the next piece of crap.

[morton101]

this is the truth

[busyrat]

Yes indeed. Very well put. I wish this blog allowed readers to rate comments. This one should be at the top.

P.S. - have a look at http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug07/5429 if you aren't yet familiar with the "loudness war" (more evidence that the music industry hates audiophiles).

[Wes#1]

I think the issue here can be seen in the letter from jacobk397 -- an aspiring audiophile who desperately wants to buy into higher gear, but can't find it. I'd wager that he ventured into a big-box retailer (i.e. Circuit City, Best Buy, etc.) and found they only market "systems" from low-to-mid-fi brands. Finding the "best" among their crowded aisles is as challenging as trying to conduct a decent audition of any two or three items that you want to compare. Most people just walk out with "good enough," never knowing that far better gear exists elsewhere for perhaps a few dollars more. And here's the problem: The small, independent "hi-fi salons" that were in abundance some 30 years ago have mostly disappeared today. These would have offered Jacob a wide variety of separates (including a WALL of various speakers) at all price levels that he could have auditioned under controlled & sane listening conditions. You can buy great gear over the internet, but who wants to spend serious $$ for something they can't audition? If only these big-box retailers would open a section of mid-to-high-end separates, they might find there are many more aspiring audiophiles among the masses than they ever imagined.

[cruiseliner]

Amusing taking someone that doesn't really know the current state of things, and writes only about the icing on the cake instead of the cake itself.

Let's call this ignored phenomena the modern and budget audiophile.
Sometimes portability isn't a curse. Seeking out quality headphones with the right range can be difficult but a task many wanting a good audio experience seek out. You'll see people talking about this model Sony or Grado phones.
Then yes the MP3. This is where the reviewer shows no knowledge as there are other formats and I'm not talking windows media.
FLAC is the choice for the modern digital audiophile, quality rips and those seeking many hundreds for their Japan harvest copy or other golden grails can now be easily had in digital format.
Even when talking equipment, a simple inexpensive amplifier such as T-Amp can provide enough quality to push my Klipsch omnisats (purchased online a few years back at only $35 each) that an old school audiophile was more than impressed and held back some of his own disappointment defending his sweet spots as it shouldn't be omni directional. To each his own, but quality audio DOES exist and people DO want it.

[pfletcher]

ripping a CD no matter how you do it is not hifi - the CD isn't hifi in the first place - as Ivor Tiefenbrun (Linn Audio) used to say Rubbish In = Rubbish Out

[mackenzie2881]

I have a high quality Sony amp with decent speakers. I also ripped all my CDs using Apple Lossless. I sold my CD player and hooked up the ipod to the system. It is so simple. So what I don't understand is why stores such as itunes can't sell tracks in lossless format. Hard drives are huge these days and bandwidth is, for many, no longer a problem. Plus, film seems to be going the other way, with ever bigger screens and blu-ray.

[john55440]

I don't claim to be an audiophile, but do have high-end floor speakers. Those who only listen to iTunes lo-fi, don't even know what real music sounds like.

[MaxieP]

If I may be so bold, only those who go to concerts and hear live music know "what real music sounds like" because that's what real music is. It's not your "high-end floor speakers." A really good hi-fi should make you want to go out and hear "real music."

[punterjoe]

Perhaps it's cyclical. I never expected the resurgence of the Vinyl disc - can't call it the LP since many of these niche titles are at the "higher fidelity" 45rpm speed. Hi Fi equipment may need to drop off the radar before it can come back as the pricey specialty market for a future generation to rediscover. As for HiFi as a mass market, I contend that (like "HD" today) many people embraced the label without having a clue what it really was, or being able to tell the difference.

[k2dave]

I think a few factors have come together to kill high end equipment, 1 - digitized music can only get so good, no matter how much you break it up it does end up as one's and zero's, with nothing inbetween to try to 'tweak out'. 2 - mp3 like compression reinforces the first one. 3 - better compact systems, not perfect, but you can get some pretty good sound from a small system now. 4 - download & streaming model leans towards lower quality sounds, but more quantity, and much easier to access and change songs. 5 unitity, the same device (ipod) has all your music in exactly the order you put it. You can take it to work, then bring it home and the song selection is exactly the same.

[dinkeldorf]

Audiophiles (well funded or not) will only ever be x% of music lovers. I doubt highly that x has changed but the modality of musc listening has. It's less about critical listening now and more about ambient / portable / vehicular. And that's resulted in the equipment sales skew.

Much like wine - eerily similar WRT to pretention - , the more people that drink wine (the good and the bad) the better, moreso once folks listen to good sound (regardless of price) there's no going back.

[ivorycruncher]

To jacobk397: sounds to me like you went down to your local Best Buy or, heaven forbid, Walmart to look for a stereo. I will say that actual "stereos", meaning two-speaker systems, are sold just about everywhere. Whether they actually offer decent sound quality is up to the individual's ears to decide. As for surround sound systems, yes, they are becoming difficult to find. I recently went looking for a replacement for my old Sony shelf-unit stereo, which was driving my supposed home theater experience. Hey, it had pretty darn good sound, but it wasn't surround, and it didn't have a dedicated sub, which hurt it for movies and such. Like you, I went looking for something decent but affordable, and I almost couldn't find a decent speaker system that didn't include a built-in DVD player in order to be a "home theater" system. I already had the 40" LCD TV and an upconvert DVD player. I just wanted a receiver and speakers. Plus, I HATE IT when they integrate components like that. The more you converge devices, the more chance there is for something to go wrong, and the more costly it is to repair or replace. Anyway, looking at Best Buy, it was beginning to look like I'd have to drop $500 or more on a receiver and who knows how much on speakers, because I couldn't find any complete sets that weren't of the HTIB orientation. I FINALLY found a Sony 5.1 surround sound speaker system on sale at Best Buy for $150, but it wasn't even available at my local Best Buy. I had to go to the one near my parents when I went to visit them to get it, because only a few of the stores had it in stock, and I didn't feel like paying for shipping. I'm probably not an audiophile by this article's definition, but I do appreciate good sound. For $180 (after adding tax and a fiber optic audio cable), I've got pretty darn good sound in my living room for TV and movies and whatnot. Even music doesn't sound all that terrible on it. Looks like there are still some good and affordable systems out there, but you have to hunt a while for them. Ultimately, companies are going to make what sells the most, and right now the HTIB genre is huge, because everybody wants a home theater and wants it as simple to setup as possible.

[jorgebob28]

I know of a few "audiophile" snobs who have multi-thousand dollar systems for their iPod. I primarily use my iPod for situations that don't warrant my total attention on the music such as at work on a decent pair of speakers or with phones to shut out people who broadcast their lives to every rider on the bus while talking on their cells. I never owned a Walkman because you had to carry the media with you which I thought was retarded and pounced on an iPod (2nd Gen.) when I bought a G4 and upgraded to OS X. Since then, I've bought 2 more iPods and I love that I can take a good portion of my music collection with me. I always buy CDs and rip them myself. However, when I really want to just listen to music, I fire up my 20+ years-old system (B&O TX-1, Carver tuner/preamp, Carver 3.5 amp, Dahlquist DQ-9 speakers, Nakamichi cassette deck and a decent Sony CD player) and let it rip. None of the above equipment is true audiophile stuff but it sounds pretty good. There's nothing like physically feeling the music, EBM baby!
Also, for the person still feeding the line about sealed batteries in iPods, they're user-replaceable (perhaps except for the Touch, I don't know). My 2nd Gen (2002) iPod still runs for 4 hours or so per charge. It's my podcast machine for my car.

[Norseman]

Let's face it---a relatively small percentage of the population has good enough ears (or enough money) to appreciate top-end audio equipment. There is some validity to the argument that you reach a point of diminishing returns when you pay the really big bucks for 'audiophile' equipment. The sound quality you get fromj an iPod and a pair of GOOD headphones--not earbuds--is really quite amazing when compared with the Walkman of not that many years ago. And, IMHO, there's been a liberal dose of snake-oil-ness at the high end--vibration isolators, lights that make CDs sound better, WAY over-priced cables, etc. Maybe people are getting smarter, not less discriminating.

[cross platform]

Well quite simply have any of you played an MP3 through a real stereo? If you have worthwhile ears at all you can hear the difference. MP3s sound not exactly bad just less dynamic. Something's missing. This is why true audiophiles are still around. If you want to listen to music while gardening listen to your iPod. If you want to really listen to music you put it on your stereo in the living room.

[charlweed]

C) Retailers (on and offline) don't want to sell ANYTHING but low-end equipment, for lots of reasons, but chiefly the total cost of sale is too high. (ie sales training)
B) Retailers ( on and offline ) don't want to sell anything but Lossy compressed source material for lots of reasons, but chiefly the cost of sale is too high. (ie bandwidth)
A) Mid & High range companies inexplicably refuse to sell products that integrate with up-to-date technologies.

Currently, playing a high-quality lossless digital content on a Mid-High system is very expensive and very *VERY* complicated. A consumer must carefully design such a system from scratch, with ZERO assistance form retailers. Assistance form the web is almost as hard to get, because of so many snobs, jerks and know-it-alls who rant that no one who cares about audio would waste time attempting to play content from a hard drive or LAN.

The modern features for receivers should be obvious. All modern receivers should have mp3-docks, USB, bluetooth, wifi and Ethernet ports. All receivers should have top-quality mixerboards INSTEAD of 1950's style "input selectors". If I choose, I should be able to send my mixed output to my bluetooth headphones, or lan stream as well as any or all of my multi-room speakers. Remotes should be bluetooth, and I should be able to control my receiver from my PC, phone, network or whatever. THIS WOULD BE EASY AND CHEAP!! A $15 CPU, $10 RAM, embedded real-time linux, and open source software would be all that's needed. If TIVO can make a $200 DVR, then someone can make a $500 21st century receiver.

[ktmorrissey]

Audiophile speakers still exist, and their market is strong. What you are seeing is that traditional box stores or cash and carry stores do not carry high end speakers, but companies that cater to high-end clients regularly sell and install them. The national chain box stores may in fact have larger speakers on display, but they are usually a shadow of the quality and design of a true high end speaker today.
You are also seeing a net change in the way music is delivered today, hence the popularity of the Ipod. What I see is a lot of activity in distributed audio systems, which can deliver quite good audio ( albeit not audiophile quality), throughout a home using in-wall and in-ceiling speakers. These systems can accomodate an ipod as a source, but typically have a central server which stores the music in uncompressed format.
So while you no longer have a neighborhood audiophile store to walk in and pick up a set of floorstanding speakers, the audiophile-level speaker industry is alive and well, just delivering its product to the user in a slightly different manner.