|
||||||||
Is HIFI quality getting worse now than before the 80s And 90s? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: TheEssexSunshineCoast Clacton
Posts: 15,212
|
Is HIFI quality getting worse now than before the 80s And 90s?
I ask this because now most stuff seems to come from China.
Is anything made in China now as good as what HIFI was like in the 80s and 90s? From what I have read HIFI sales are not popular any more and most people wand Ipod docks. And then MP3s copied from sites like youtube so quality really sucks. Will the quality keep getting worse as systems are cheaper? Do you or would like to have a high end system? What is a high end system now days? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lancs
Posts: 7,928
|
You could try something like this
http://denon.co.uk/uk/Product/Pages/...&ProductId=CX1 and if you read the description http://denon.co.uk/DocumentMaster/UK/CX1.pdf there is a photograph at the end where it clearly shows "Made in Japan". I'm still using 70s and 80s equipment myself but it isn't getting any younger and if it developed a fault and was "beyond economic repair" I would look at something like this. The sound quality on YouTube does vary but this seems fine to me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXcGz...eature=related. This does a very good job of connecting my computer to the old equipment - even though that uses the old 5pin DIN connectors. http://cpc.farnell.com/phonic/digitr...?Ntt=digitrack (it is chinese made) |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,450
|
Crap gear was crap back then and is still crap today.... there's just more of it to choose from.
![]() Decent gear is as good or better than it was. A Creek CAS4040 amp would have cost around £200 back in the early-mid 80's. The modern equivalent is a Creek EVO II for around £700. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: South West
Posts: 10,218
|
China is also providing some very good products. They are especially renowned for their high quality valve based kit. Some audiophiles claim valves especially warmth and smoothness across the entire frequency range is something to aspire to.
Yep, I wish the constraints of my budget allowed me upgrade my equipment, but there's always a limit so I know that having more money would simply leaving me a dilemma that only even more money could resolve! Hi-Fi is getting better every year, but the price always goes up to match it. I could easily spend £20,000 and still want another £10,000 to fix the problems "only" spending 20k would create. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 1,355
|
Quote:
I ask this because now most stuff seems to come from China.
Is anything made in China now as good as what HIFI was like in the 80s and 90s? From what I have read HIFI sales are not popular any more and most people wand Ipod docks. And then MP3s copied from sites like youtube so quality really sucks. Will the quality keep getting worse as systems are cheaper? Do you or would like to have a high end system? What is a high end system now days? I have quite a vast music collection (approaching 7000 songs) and I try ensure that nowadays everything I download or rip from CDs is in MP3 and 320kbps in quality (I'm not enough of an audiophile to use FLAC - and also it's sometimes played through my iPod which obviously doesn't support it). Some of my songs are from the good old days of Limewire, or were ripped from CD before I understood about bit rates (and iTunes defaults to 128kbps AAC!), so I'm replacing them gradually with higher quality copies. In terms of a high end system, I don't possess one - just some Logitech speakers that cost me about £150. But if ever I did get one (worth £500+ or plus), my music collection would be ready for it
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lancs
Posts: 7,928
|
Quote:
That really bugs me when people use YouTube to MP3 converters that leave them with a file probably sub-128kbps, and then they blast it out of headphones or an iPod dock and it sounds hideous.
I have quite a vast music collection (approaching 7000 songs) and I try ensure that nowadays everything I download or rip from CDs is in MP3 and 320kbps in quality (I'm not enough of an audiophile to use FLAC - and also it's sometimes played through my iPod which obviously doesn't support it). Some of my songs are from the good old days of Limewire, or were ripped from CD before I understood about bit rates (and iTunes defaults to 128kbps AAC!), so I'm replacing them gradually with higher quality copies. In terms of a high end system, I don't possess one - just some Logitech speakers that cost me about £150. But if ever I did get one (worth £500+ or plus), my music collection would be ready for it ![]() This sounds a bit like the old argument about open reel tape speeds all over again. I remember shops selling expensive tape recorders (Revox, Sony Ferrograph etc), there were all kind of arguments about 1-7/8 ips - intended for speech although later fine for music on cassettes. 3-3/4 ips - fine for "pop music", probably decided by people who never listened to it 7- 1/2ips - classical music 15 ips - used by the BBC and professional studios. 30 ips - I have a couple of LPs claiming to be cut from tapes recorded at this speed - can't say they are anything special. Surely any improvement would have been lost in the pressing process and the surface noise on LPs? There were also arguments about some brands of tape (3M-Scotch, BASF, Agfa, Sony, Ampex etc) being the best ones for different machines. Honestly, was there a difference or was it all marketing hype? There probably are some prople still using open reel out there. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 4,391
|
Quote:
This sounds a bit like the old argument about open reel tape speeds all over again. I remember shops selling expensive tape recorders (Revox, Sony Ferrograph etc), there were all kind of arguments about
1-7/8 ips - intended for speech although later fine for music on cassettes. 3-3/4 ips - fine for "pop music", probably decided by people who never listened to it 7- 1/2ips - classical music 15 ips - used by the BBC and professional studios. 30 ips - I have a couple of LPs claiming to be cut from tapes recorded at this speed - can't say they are anything special. Surely any improvement would have been lost in the pressing process and the surface noise on LPs? But heads and tapes improved, such that compact cassette (at 1-7/8ips!!!) managed a better frequency response (in the 1980s) than 7-1/2 ips reel to reel did in the early 1960s. The reason home use of higher speeds was so rare was because tape was expensive, faster speeds = shorter running times, and few people had the equipment or ears or source to appreciate the difference. Whereas bits are rather cheap these days(!) - the only reason to use lossy mp3 is compatibility, or small capacity on portable players, or because you don't care. Though high bitrate mp3 is audibly transparent for the vast majority of signals. Cheers, David. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 4,391
|
Quote:
Hi-Fi is getting better every year, but the price always goes up to match it. I could easily spend £20,000 and still want another £10,000 to fix the problems "only" spending 20k would create.
Some very expensive speakers colour the sound dreadfully. I want to hear the music, not the speaker! Cheers, David. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lytham-St.Annes Lancs.
Posts: 319
|
Quote:
Anything below 15ips audibly loses the top end, and higher speed start to lose the bottom end.
But heads and tapes improved, such that compact cassette (at 1-7/8ips!!!) managed a better frequency response (in the 1980s) than 7-1/2 ips reel to reel did in the early 1960s. The reason home use of higher speeds was so rare was because tape was expensive, faster speeds = shorter running times, and few people had the equipment or ears or source to appreciate the difference. Whereas bits are rather cheap these days(!) - the only reason to use lossy mp3 is compatibility, or small capacity on portable players, or because you don't care. Though high bitrate mp3 is audibly transparent for the vast majority of signals. Cheers, David. Mike. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Aberfeldy
Posts: 7,035
|
I believe you need to take your iphone / ipod to the shop to hear the docking stations
some cheap tat sounds far superior than so called brand names |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,849
|
Quote:
I believe you need to take your iphone / ipod to the shop to hear the docking stations
some cheap tat sounds far superior than so called brand names |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lancs
Posts: 7,928
|
Quote:
Anything below 15ips audibly loses the top end, and higher speed start to lose the bottom end.
But heads and tapes improved, such that compact cassette (at 1-7/8ips!!!) managed a better frequency response (in the 1980s) than 7-1/2 ips reel to reel did in the early 1960s. The reason home use of higher speeds was so rare was because tape was expensive, faster speeds = shorter running times, and few people had the equipment or ears or source to appreciate the difference. Whereas bits are rather cheap these days(!) - the only reason to use lossy mp3 is compatibility, or small capacity on portable players, or because you don't care. Though high bitrate mp3 is audibly transparent for the vast majority of signals. Cheers, David. I usually listen to music from my PC connected through the "Phonic" converter to my old equipment. I have tried connecting my 160GB ipod to the amplifier directly, it's not as good, but again it's not that bad. I have heard ipod docks, some sound better than others, I suppose this would class as upmarket http://store.apple.com/us/product/TS...co=MTkxODA0MTM My only objection is that I don't see how speakers mounted so close together can produce a convincing stereo image, or have Bose found a way round that issue? But going back to the old days, most people did not have hi-fi equipment anyway. In the 50s and 60s many people had radiograms, my grandfather had one made by "Murphy Radio - Welwyn Garden City". He didn't buy it from new, it was upmarket though, with "VHF 87 - 100Mc/s" (ie FM - mono only) and a very unusual turntable where you had to allow the record to drop on the auto-changer even for just one record. It wasn't a Garrard or BSR (or at least one I've ever seen). Maybe Murphy made their own. Later on, radiograms were considered too bulky and were replaced by "music centres", again some better than others, one model by Sanyo was very popular, there were better ones from Dynatron and Hacker. And there was junk at the very bottom of the market, Amstrad is one name that comes to mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: S.West England.
Posts: 18,032
|
I had til recent times a nice NAD 320 amp, with B&W 601 speakers, CD player, FM/DAB tuner, with QED bi speaker cabling. Very nice, but here's the thing....
over time the quality of much cheaper equipment has got so much better. Those of us who were around in the 1980's will remember very sub standard Midi systems from people like Alba. The quality (and power, how does 2.5W total output grab you!) fell a long way short of proper hifi. In the 90's, Midi's did start to improve as long as you bought from Sony, Panasonic and the like but still a significant gap. Since 2000, quality has really taken of in this area. In circa 2003, i saw a Sony Mini HIFI (quite an expensive model) runnning and was quite suprised at how close it was to the NAD system I had......which is why a couple or three years ago I went down the same route, and got half the room back in the process. .....If I were to go back to some thing like I had before, I wouldnt go for full size equipment at all, I understand Denon make, or made a compact hifi system, and thats the sort of thing I would go for. I have to say though, bottom line, aside from the amp and speakers issue, plain old CD sounds clearer than mp3, even on a half decent mini hifi. |
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lancs
Posts: 7,928
|
Quote:
I had til recent times a nice NAD 320 amp, with B&W 601 speakers, CD player, FM/DAB tuner, with QED bi speaker cabling. Very nice, but here's the thing....
over time the quality of much cheaper equipment has got so much better. Those of us who were around in the 1980's will remember very sub standard Midi systems from people like Alba. The quality (and power, how does 2.5W total output grab you!) fell a long way short of proper hifi. In the 90's, Midi's did start to improve as long as you bought from Sony, Panasonic and the like but still a significant gap. Since 2000, quality has really taken of in this area. In circa 2003, i saw a Sony Mini HIFI (quite an expensive model) runnning and was quite suprised at how close it was to the NAD system I had......which is why a couple or three years ago I went down the same route, and got half the room back in the process. .....If I were to go back to some thing like I had before, I wouldnt go for full size equipment at all, I understand Denon make, or made a compact hifi system, and thats the sort of thing I would go for. I have to say though, bottom line, aside from the amp and speakers issue, plain old CD sounds clearer than mp3, even on a half decent mini hifi. This is the 1970s tuner amplifier I still use although it's 35 years old http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/600/600page1.html it still works and is very compact for the power output. Another relic is a large and heavy CD player (Philips CD-104), rarely used now as all the CDs have been transferred to my computer. I also remember an awful lot of snobbery around hi-fi 20 or 30 years ago. If you don't believe me, look out for a book "Hi-Fi in the Home" (Gordon J King 1973), well written but it concentrates on classical music reproduction with hardly any mention of any other music. Don't forget the first stereo FM network was Radio 3, stereo didn't break out from the south east until 1973, Radio 1 only had very limited FM time until 1988. Around 1980, I remember one hi-fi magazine calling for the old Decca pressing plant to be retained (this was after Polygram had taken over the company), the reason being that high quality pressings were essential for classical music, but not for anything else. Polygram transferred production to the plant they used for Philips & Polydor, I have plenty of records from there and they are fine. The book got one prediction right, it predicted "a system where listeners can access libraries of high quality music using the telephone system , which is essentially what we have now. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Whitchurch, Hampshire, England
Posts: 4,323
|
Well I use a Yamaha T-85 FM/AM tuner as my main tuner in my hi-fi system and it's the best tuner for audio quality that I've yet used. It's also extremely sensitive and has good selectivity. This model was around from 1986-88.
I'd imagine a new one with the same performance would probably have a RRP of £800+. So yes there was some super hi-fi separates around in the 80s at least. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: TheEssexSunshineCoast Clacton
Posts: 15,212
|
I do remember back in the 90s having a Yamaha YST-C11 which seemed to be really loud back then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lytham-St.Annes Lancs.
Posts: 319
|
The hifi snobbery referred to above truly was prevalent at that time but is understandable -- many of the contemporary music offerings had hardly any dynamic range, being recorded for maximum volume on under-powered cheap record players. Classical music recordings were generally better engineered, so lent themselves to hifi reproduction. For instance, my copy of "With the Beatles" sounds like a village hall production yet I have had classical stuff of similar age that's still impressive.
Mike. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lancs
Posts: 7,928
|
Quote:
Well I use a Yamaha T-85 FM/AM tuner as my main tuner in my hi-fi system and it's the best tuner for audio quality that I've yet used. It's also extremely sensitive and has good selectivity. This model was around from 1986-88.
I'd imagine a new one with the same performance would probably have a RRP of £800+. So yes there was some super hi-fi separates around in the 80s at least. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,606
|
Quote:
I had til recent times a nice NAD 320 amp, with B&W 601 speakers, CD player, FM/DAB tuner, with QED bi speaker cabling. Very nice, but here's the thing....
over time the quality of much cheaper equipment has got so much better. Those of us who were around in the 1980's will remember very sub standard Midi systems from people like Alba. The quality (and power, how does 2.5W total output grab you!) fell a long way short of proper hifi. In the 90's, Midi's did start to improve as long as you bought from Sony, Panasonic and the like but still a significant gap. Since 2000, quality has really taken of in this area. In circa 2003, i saw a Sony Mini HIFI (quite an expensive model) runnning and was quite suprised at how close it was to the NAD system I had......which is why a couple or three years ago I went down the same route, and got half the room back in the process. .....If I were to go back to some thing like I had before, I wouldnt go for full size equipment at all, I understand Denon make, or made a compact hifi system, and thats the sort of thing I would go for. I have to say though, bottom line, aside from the amp and speakers issue, plain old CD sounds clearer than mp3, even on a half decent mini hifi. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lancs
Posts: 7,928
|
Quote:
They do http://denon.co.uk/UK/Product/Pages/...ubId=MiniMicro I have the bottom one and it's not that bad at all
http://denon.co.uk/UK/Product/Pages/...ductId=DM38DAB "UK sound-tuned serious hi-fi quality". We listen to the same music as many other countries - don't we? |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,606
|
Quote:
What does this mean?
http://denon.co.uk/UK/Product/Pages/...ductId=DM38DAB "UK sound-tuned serious hi-fi quality". We listen to the same music as many other countries - don't we? |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,534
|
There used to be a lot of talk about systems being designed to sound best in traditional UK brick built and furnished homes or to sound best in in the typical Japanese home. Put one in the other and it sounds dreadful. It took a lot of time before the major Japanese manufacturers figured out why their high-end kit was losing out to the Brit audiophile equipment in the UK market and to do something about it.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:04.



