Mar 10, 2010
Whatever happened to the audiophile?
UPDATE: 8 SEP 2011 – The Register follows up on the loudness wars – “It is a standard sound engineer complaint, as well as of serious listeners. And, those that have simply listened and (easily) heard the difference. It was propelled by increased CD listening in cars (to further standout over more background noise). Louder and faster records on radio and jukeboxes are earlier variants. Louder ads on radio and TV is another.”
This video, which I think I saw at the time I wrote my original article highlights the difference between the sound engineering of today and yesteryear:
Manufacturers propagated the upward spiral for both camps marketing ever more elaborate systems and even selling green pens to colour the edge of a CD to prevent laser leakage. Personally, I grew up with a “stereogram” and a personal radio-cassette and was quite happy with it, whiling away countless hours listening to prog rock, Jean Michel Jarre, Talking Heads, and the occasional Perry Como album.
But, was it all for nothing? Within another generation the notion of digital audio had been compressed using the audio equivalent of the lossy image format jpeg and music fans were listening on pocket devices or watching Youtube clips with embedded music on poor-quality computer speakers and really not caring either way, whether the sound was great or not.
Jerald Hughes of University of Texas Pan American in Edinburg writing in the International Journal Services and Standards has a nice table showing the technical specification of the human ear and comparing it to the various analogue formats:
| Audio system | Frequency range/Hz | Decibel range/dB |
| Human ear | 20-22,000 | 110+ |
| Vinyl LP | 30-15,000 | 50-60 |
| 8-track tape | 45-8000 | 45 |
| Cassette tape | 50-12,000 | 45-50 |
| Chrome cassette | 50-16,000 | 60 |
| Reel to reel | 30-20,000+ | 66+ |
So, the only system that ever came close to the full range of human hearing was reel-to-reel and I don’t recall seeing many of those around even among the most extravagant separates hi-fi aficionados of my parents’ acquaintance.
So, how does the CD fit into this picture?
| Audio system | Frequency range/Hz | Decibel range/dB |
| Human ear | 20-22,000 | 110+ |
| Compact disc | 20-22,000 | 90+ |
| DVD audio | 10-95,000 | 144 |
Not bad? It really was a golden era, then, apart from that lack of “warmth” and “colour” that the analogue stalwarts claimed. And, with DVD audio quality (and SACD, superaudio CD) far outstripping even CD. These latter formats are well-known to devoted adherents of jazz and classical where dynamic range and complex frequency content tends to be more common than in rock and pop, although there are serious mastering problems with many modern recordings in all genres.
Today, there are almost as many audio “formats” as there are audio files. One can choose a download or rip at almost any rate, a lossy or lossless compression algorithm, and countless other options and codecs to playback a music file on myriad devices. But, consumers in general, have gravitated towards a quality that is much lower than the human ear is capable of discerning and much lower than top-end equipment is capable of reproducing. It’s as if the hi-fi nuts never existed…
Perhaps that’s the point though, my generation was perfectly content to listen to vinyl albums duplicated on cassette tapes (remember: home taping is skill in music killing music, it never did) and today, the kids are quite happy to listen to downloaded 128kbps mp3 files through the cheap earbuds that come with portable music players.
Human senses and sensibilities have limits. It’s not that the human ear cannot receive the finest of musical details, it most certainly can, it’s just that most people perceive satisfaction in listening to a good-quality mp3 and are not worried about the top notes or the quiet moments that might be lost in the compression process that squeezes their collection of thousands of songs on to a sliver of silicon embedded in a case no bigger than a thumbnail.
Audio cassettes were popular because they were convenient – mix tapes, copying albumbs, recording off the radio all infinitely simpler with cassettes than with a reel-to-reel machine. In the post-digital era of music on chips rather than disks consumers are trading-off audio quality for convenience just the same as they ever did. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.
Jerald Hughes (2009). Emergent quality standards for digital entertainment experience goods: the case of consumer audio Int. J. Services and Standards, 5 (4), 333-353
I spoke to Hughes who confessed that he too is a prog-rock fan, and admitted that the first album he ever bought with his own money was the YesSongs triple live album. He also told me he is still listening to his Technics direct-drive turntable with hyperelliptical stylus through Bose 501 speakers and said, “it really IS ‘warmer’…”


I agree with the guys above, we (The Audiophiles) are alive and thriving. Spurred on by the mass of ‘clearout’ sales on ebay, from people wanting to ‘downsize’, we gather all manner of old school music reproduction equipment in an effort to best present our thousands of vinyl rarities. From my own point of view I collect 60′s speakers, equalisers and tube amps … anything to hear Ben Webster play in that lovely soft, breathy fashion.
Cheers and all the best
Col :-)
Rush are to remix their 2002 album Vapor Trails. Vapor Trails suffers from serious and nasty clipping in the really loud patches because of audio compression and the band was slated by audiophiles at the time for pushing the CD format too far. A remix should remedy the situation and bring out the best in some classic songs.
http://www.rushisaband.com/display.php?id=2460
I have always wondered why someone hasn’t come up with a “phono” filter for well recorded (a key pre-requisate) CD or other digitally encoded music. You could make it sound just like a vinyl record. You could add in the “warmth” and also the distortion in frequency response from the needle as it gets to the inner low radius area of an LP, and also put the same needle inertia distortion effects at high frequencies LP’s have. It’s interesting to read how the old producers used to mess around with sound when creating LP’s. Things just as nasty as the amplitude compression that goes on now.
Vinyl is highly collectable. See this item in the Calgary Herald, with a nice Rush/Geddy Lee reference. Hat tip to Clayton Walls for the alert.
On earphones, I have to note that it makes a huge difference for listening experiences of any kind. I bought some studio recording reference standard phones with totally flat frequency response (Beyerdynamic DT 48) a few years back. They’re big, metal-framed, full ear-enclosure, heavy magnet drivers–and they don’t fatigue my ears *at all*. You can listen for hours without strain, because of the strict frequency balance across the entire sound spectrum–most consumer headphones are quite bass-heavy and usually higher-treble heavy as well. I actually carried them on quite a few plane trips (also needed a 1/4″ to 1/8″ adapter plug), despite the ‘schlep’ factor, because the isolation and quality was so good. So even if you’re listening to heavy metal the whole way, the quality earphones will pay off in quality experience.