I recently dealt with two manufactures that produce music . I noted that both of them stated with good result but nowadays, years in operation, they produce despicable crap. This correlates with a famous amplifier manufacturer, very much not stupid one, who a few years ago in private conversation insisted  that in context of his target customers his is absolutely not able to make anything the from his point of view would sound “serious”.

I noted before that any know to me high-end company, as soon they embrace the full industry status has 2 years life span, after which they  begin to produce literary crap.  I know a few high-end manufactures why have popular status and good reputation and who at the same time hate want they produce and surprised t how “my customer buy this crap”. I am sure that number of those manufactures much greater they willing to admit and not anybody would share these feelings, some of them did.  I very much do not blame manufacturers in some kind of hierocracy. In fact if to know how then it is possible to “ride” sentiments feeling with great benefits to yourself. The conversation however is not about the riding methodology but with the fact that today’s high-end manufacturer is not in position to produce “interesting audio, or as I call it my Romynizm “objectionable audio” (in my word “objectionable” means full of objectives – do not tell to anybody else).

The reason I write this post is because a few days ago at one of Russian audio site I read a comment, a simplistic by nature but in my view brilliant in understanding the situation. The author said that any high-end manufactures, if not willing to die from starvation, are obligated to inherent all prejudices and blunders of their customers and to produce audio that would serve those blunders…

The concept in my view is very simplistic but very wonderful, not to mention that it absolutely affinity with what I have been pitching for years – problems in audio are not coming from bad equipment but from inferior expectations and barbaric reference point. In a way it reminds me a friend of nine - Chuck.  He is not an audio friend but a normal guy, for what it worth he has Bose system as home.  Nevertheless, A few years back he installed in his car a very expensive audio system: 4 channels, all multi-amped, dedicated CD, Eq and preamp, ton of loudspeakers.  I know him for years but never heard his car. One day Chuck drove me and with pride played his audio in car. I was incredibly horrible. I was trying to to figure out what he was listening but it was physically painful to hear.  Then I was that he had analog 18 channel EQ in his car. I asked if I can to change it. Is 3 minutes, sliding the EQ filters I converted that idiotic sound that he had in his car into not only reasonable sound but into a very good Sound.  Now the question: was it the equipment fault or the Chuck’s stupid expectations what reproduced sound shall sound like?

In my view a great majority of audio people, including very expressed, suffer from the very same illness that Chuck had. It is not a surprise that if consumer has wrong expectations and wring demands then the manufactures, the supply side have to address those demands. The people who read my site know my pathologic hate is marketing layer in audio and know that I am not necessary hard on manufactures.  I recognize manufactures very much like the consumers being hostages of marketing layer. I know that manufactures (not all but some of them) , if they have access to right clients and distribution channels for something very “objectionable” and very advance would love to push the envelope of “possible”. They, however,  have no consumes who would pay or would appreciate the result and the efforts.

Steradian wrote:

Look at the popularity of 5.1 and 7.1 "multichannel" (not DSET) sound nowadays.  Stereo audio is a dying breed.  The public is choosing 6-8 channels of MP3 quality sound.  They can't put together a satisfying 2 channel system, so they assume that by adding more equally unsatisfying channels, the sound they hear will be better.  More is better.  Newer is better.  Quantity over quality.  "Good enough" is good enough.  They never stop and think.  They don't want to learn electronics and acoustics.  They just want the thrill of a new, relatively inexpensive, purchase with that "new car smell" and the high of a virgin experience that comes with it.  This high, of course, dissipates, and 2 years later, they buy the new fad.  These are the same people who buy a new cellphone every 2 years and spend $60-120 a month for "free" minutes.  Sports stadiums fill with them every week. That being said, these people are not entirely herdable sheep.  They actually display some hard-headedness about what they like, whether it's taste in music or movies or sound. And when they have more money to spend, their habits don't change.  They want more boom and sizzle, and they go out and get it.

Steradian wrote:

One area where standards have failed is in HDTV.  I have no sympathy for the morons who decided to have 2 standards, 720p and 1080i.  It is clear they prostrated themselves to corporate bribery to allow such to be called standards.  There is absolutely no justification to have an interlaced signal be a standard when no digital display technology benefits from an interlaced input, and the CRT's which can benefit from an interlaced signal are no longer manufactured.  1080p which Blu-ray produces is clearly the standard that should have been chosen when these morons assembled in Washington or wherever to whore themselves to the highest bidders to establish their "standard".  Discussion of video is off topic here, but I mention it only in relation to the concept of establishing a standard.  Establishing a standard of what shall be correct audio is much more difficult than establishing a simple, uniform standard of video, and even that was botched by our "best and brightest".  There are many people right now watching 4:3 video material stretched to fit a 16:9 screen and don't see anything wrong with it.  I suspect a similar distortion of sound is something they have come to accept as normal as well.

Yes, the discussion of video is off topic here but it is depends what video discussion we are talking about. I think video and audio have remarkably similar fate. In audio we presume that better audio reproduction is able to open some kind of new opportunities to consume music. In video we also presume that better quality of picture give to us more opportunity to see, or to see better.

There is however a twist in all of it.  We can look at a thing but we might not necessary see what we could. Another person can see the “things” without even looking. So, how better sight, of highest contrast ratio of video reproduction would enrich our ability to understand what we are looking at? A person who understands where I am going with it would understand what kind audio I advocate and what I call high-end audio.

Let stay with video examples.  I personally give up on Video in end of 90s and I do not care about quality Video image.  Furthermore, recently buying a new large TV and researching a great number of new technologies and results I was so much disappointed with what I saw that I bought the worst TV, purely intentionally in order to demonstrate to myself the “quality of video doe not mater”. Remind you that I spend a number of years working and running a custom printing lab , the people who use to print  color in the time silver photography are not fools in visual analyses. So, with video examples we have a “better “ video, let say betters TV that doe all the greatest things. However, how much all those greatest thing are able to create more powerful visual metaphors?  I do not think that the contemporary understanding of better TV even includes this definition. The very same with audio.  Sound might be better to the different degree but those degrees just the sounds in most cases not Sound.

Unicon, insist that some kind of mandatory standards in audio reproduction shall be formed. I presume that he implies the true standards of perception not the surrogate crap that we have today. Yes, it might be very useful but there is one bump on this road.

People who read my site might get the message that I am very individualistic in my audio interests. Did you ever ask yourself the question why?  The answer is that I understand that any meaningful socializing in audio interests presume that mutual standards exist. Who in audio is in position to herd audio interests and audio standards? Right the audio marketologs: reviewers, magazine editors, sales personals. However, they are not equipped, neither from cultural nor from the audio-understanding perspective not only to sell audio standards but even to understand them.  So, I feel that until the dirt that run audio today is at power absolutely nothing in meaningful audio standards would be advanced. So, instead to fighting with windmills and to make myself a target for their idiotic accusation I pretty much send everyone to fuck them and do my own this in my very private world. BTW, this is why of the explanation why my audio real are very different from what audio people get out there

I would like to point out that I very similarly behave in video. The difference is that I withdrew myself from any “video pursue to happiness” and just do not care about video as I feel that whatever is happen in there is barbaric anyhow. I did not withdraw myself audio. Yet…

Still, the point is that Audio and Video share the very same illnesses.  OK, now I begin to sound like Ted Kaczynski  but it does not change the fact that Audio and Video underperform and there is NO proper social mechanisms to change anything. Deal with it.