Vote

Let's not kid ourselves -- there have been major advances in audio during the last 30 years, especially in the area of "the weakest link," loudspeaker technology. Audible improvements in electronics, however, have not been as dramatic. It is sad that the potential of digital recording remains unfulfilled at the present time. I was personally saddened to witness the total demise of the analog open-reel tape recorder.

In all honesty, I don't have the vaguest idea. But since my favorite amps use 300B's, which came out in 1930's, I guess I'm honor bound to say that progress is over-rated!

From the analog record to SACD and DVD-A . . . Way to go!

Big improvements in speakers, small improvements in electronics. Most recording still sound bad and are over-produced and offer limited dynamics.

The introduction of 96/24kHz DVDs and especially SACD represent real progress!

Strange how things have a cyclical nature, especially in audio reproduction. A musician by profession, I might be somewhat an anomaly in today's listening establishment because I still have, and use, on a daily basis the same Marantz 9s that I purchased brand new more years ago than I care to admit. Those 9s, coupled with good vinyl and magnificently efficient Klipschorns, have sustained me over the years both as a musician and as a listener. The only piece of equipment that I have upgraded is my 'table/cartridge/arm combination (save for the occasional vacuum tube here and there). I encourage anyone in the market for audio gear to give this magical combination a listen, and to stray from the CD, SACD, five-channel, and even the new 24/96 formats. I've heard them all, and you can ask my wife about the headaches I've brought home with me. Our glory days of musical reproduction are unfortunately behind us; however, there is still some wonderful tube/analog gear being painstakingly made (at a price) that might rescue us from audio abyss. God bless music.

When listening to some recordings made 30 years ago, (OK, I'm thinking of early Beatles music as an example, which is >30 yrs but) I can't help thinking what a shame it is that some of these classic recordings sound like the mics were made from tin cans.

Everytime that I improve the quality of reproduction of music from my system, I become more aware than before that I am not hearing the real thing.

There certainly is more good equipment and the information on that equipment is much more widespread. My system consists of a Wadia 830 CD player, an Emotive Audoio Sira Pre-amp, and Manley 300B Retro Monoblocks, plus good wires and Coincident Technology Total Eclipse Speakers. A total system cost in the mid 20s. If you put that into 1970 dollars, I doubt the lovely sound I get could have been produced at that price.

Of course it depends on whether you pick 20 or 30 years. Not much happened from 1970-1980. But with the debut of of the CD, things picked up rapidly. Anything of a largely electronic nature has made progress by leaps and bounds. Only transducer design has remained relatively stagnant.

I think there has been a major leap forward, with the advent of the CD, and digital audio in general. And also in the real value of consumer audio gear. BUT, I don't think recording quality has generally improved. Fer cryin' out loud, I've got lots of recordings from the late 50's and early sixties that blow the doors of many newer ones. Mind you, it's not that recording technology hasn't improved, it's just not being implemented. Seems a lot of popular music producers and recording engineers either aren't capable of using the technology, or they just don't care. 'Cause for whatever reason, a lot of really crappy sounding CDs are being foisted on the record-buying public.

I use Audio Note loudspeaker design by Snell in the 70th. Use SET amplifier based on Schema from the 30th and using 300B. So if my system is not rediculous compare to new high tech stuff, that means the progress is only done in Marketing side ...

I have a 30-year-old amplifier that definitely sounds less clear and musical than one I purchased from the same manufacturer last year.

When you say "listeners," do you mean the odd type who keep on hunting for the best reproduction whatever the price, or the average ones who mostly purchase "noise boxes?" Yes, there has been major improvment thanks to serious researchers and manufacturers, but for low-quality audio equipment manufacturers, the aim has been cheating customers with fairy tales about tremendous power coming from little minis and portables at an "affordable price," while paying no attention to sound quality. I have to choose the average between the two, unfortunately.

My brother and I are moving bits of our extensive vinyl collections to CD, so we're listening to vinyl and CD back to back. I would give the latest 20 bit remasterings on a good CD player a very slight edge over vinyl.

The really cheap stuff has gotten better. However, the high end has cut costs to the extent that the best gear of the seventies is probably better than the best gear today -- and pre- and power amps are the worst offenders. Digital will probably take another ten years to get its act together ("perfect" CD sound is no better than the "perfect" transistor sound of the 50s). Anyone who can play with sample rates and bit width can still hear differences above 192/24.

I feel the classic gear from the golden age of American Electronics, such as Fisher tube gear, McIntosh, Scott, Sherwood, and high quality vintage Japanese gear such as Luxman and Accuphase, gives music a tangible, involving experience that only the most outrageously expensive high end gear of today can give. Only a very small number of people can afford or want to spend that kind of money on a good stereo. Therefore, I would spend my money on clean, used classic gear!

There have been some improvements, thanks to better electronic components that are available today. At the same time we have products like SETs and horns that we may look back at ten years from now as fads and a lot of hype -- and there are some truly poor examples of these. At the same time there are some excellent sounding examples, yet they are few and far between.

We're backsliding. Things were just hunky-dory until the dreaded return of four, five, and six speaker systems. It didn't work in the 70s, it won't work now. (Got any spare 8-track tapes?) Multi-channel systems for anything but movie viewing are a sonic nightmare. Why not just have one doughnut-shaped speaker that we sit in the center of? Speaker manufacturers, PLEASE ignore the previous sentence.

Improvements have mostly been in the speaker category. Digital still does not serve music as well as analog.

If it were not for the improvements made in speakers, I would have marked subtle.

I'm using "obsolete" tubed equipment, like a lot of you. Is this a sign of progress, or regression? Although today's sound reproduction can produce some nice illusions, it's still nowhere near to the real thing. Not even a six-year-old can be fooled by reproduced music. We still have a long way to go, alas.

I am a lover of home theater audio as well as stereo. In home theater the original signal is manipulated to create a virtual audio world, I love it. However, when listening to my LP's of 30 plus years ago I am pleasantly brought back to reality, which is where stereo should be. To answer the question I would like to see less manipulation in the stereo world and perhaps a focus on very good sounding stereo reproduction. There is a "gap" between low priced stereo and high priced stereo. I think there is room in the marketplace for a very good audio quality at a reasonable price.

Are you kidding this is the best music has ever sounded. So days I feel I am really there!

I have a 1970s Marantz stereo system for my amplification components. They are solid state and sound great on my new B&W towers. I think that the source has advanced quite substantially with CD -- in dynamics, clarity, and ease of use. However, it still has room for improvement in natural believability and I think SACD is the answer. Amplification technology hasn't advanced much though, I think. Speakers have made great advances with computer analysis of how soundwaves propagate and transduce an electrical signal into actual sound with minimal detractions. Low extension in bass frequencies is also much more attainable with the relatively new phenomenon of high-performance subwoofers. Therefore, I think the only really important advances in the equipment over the last 20-30 years has been in the source component and speakers.

Well, some things have gotten better, and some things have just gotten more expensive. 20+ years ago there wasn't any SACD, DVD, CD, etc., so let's consider that as an advance. To my ear, speakers have also come a very long way, but I just don't think there has been substantive improvement in amplification-

The sound quality has improved a lot, but I miss the "you are there" feeling that I used to get. Somehow technology has created music that no longer makes me cry.

If you discount the backwards step of CD (and its current lack of a credible replacement), home recording and vinyl technology have given increased pleasure to the impecunious.

When it goes wrong we can say that the Audio- Engineer did a bad job !

If you compare a 1971 system to a 2001 system there is no contest. Even blind freedy would tell the difference.