People Say Beatz Sound Like Crap. They Sell Like Crazy. Why?

[blue2blue]

Most modern consumer equipment sounds like crap.

 

Around the mid 90's, manufacturers figured out that once you installed a bass boost, and some sort of multicoloured led display, or must-have logo, it no longer mattered what the apparatus actually sounded like.

 

What I find depressing is that in the late 60s and early 70s, consumers could buy some really good receivers and amps without having to jump through many hoops. (Now, getting out of the stereo store with a turntable and speakers that matched the quality of the receiver... that took some doing! They'd package around the receiver, throwing in some total POS BIC turntable and house brand throwaway one-note-boom bass reflex speakers for a 'competitive' system price.)

 

I have a great sounding old Kenwood receiver from the late 70s. Lots of 'little' things wrong, hinky switches, panel backlight out for years. But it's a mechanical tuner with great reception and a has a very 'sweet' sound. (I've never benched it but it sounds good.) So when I needed another amp when I was first setting up my project studio and using the 70s Kenwood to drive my first couple sets of speakers there, I got a c. 1990 Kenwood in the same basic product tier. What a horrible piece of junk! It sounded like crap from day one. Again, I didn't bench it but my ears told me it had IC-itis, zero-crossing distortion that seemed to really nasty up the HF. 'Fortunately,' after the front panel LED's died after only about two years, it wasn't long before the whole thing went belly up.

 

My next was a Yamaha Natural Sound, and it does sound good; but it, too, succumbed to hinky switches and a burned out LED. But instead of dying after 3 or 4 years like the second Kenwood, the Yamaha keeps on amplifying (the digital tuner did always totally suck though, I have to say). The source selector switch (remote controlled physical switch!) seriously needs repair, but the amp itself sounds quite good and its interesting continuously variable passive EQ curve is just the thing for putting a nice smile curve to my NS10's for noncritical listening. (I mostly use my Event 20/20bas, but they run hot so I switch over to the Yamahas in heat spells like we're currently experiencing in So Cal.)

[gubu]

 

What I find depressing is that in the late 60s and early 70s, consumers could buy some really good receivers and amps without having to jump through many hoops. (Now, getting out of the stereo store with a turntable and speakers that matched the quality of the receiver... that took some doing! They'd package around the receiver, throwing in some total POS BIC turntable and house brand throwaway one-note-boom bass reflex speakers for a 'competitive' system price.)

 

I have a great sounding old Kenwood receiver from the late 70s. Lots of 'little' things wrong, hinky switches, panel backlight out for years. But it's a mechanical tuner with great reception and a has a very 'sweet' sound. (I've never benched it but it sounds good.) So when I needed another amp when I was first setting up my project studio and using the 70s Kenwood to drive my first couple sets of speakers there, I got a c. 1990 Kenwood in the same basic product tier. What a horrible piece of junk! It sounded like crap from day one. Again, I didn't bench it but my ears told me it had IC-itis, zero-crossing distortion that seemed to really nasty up the HF. 'Fortunately,' after the front panel LED's died after only about two years, it wasn't long before the whole thing went belly up.

 

My next was a Yamaha Natural Sound, and it does sound good; but it, too, succumbed to hinky switches and a burned out LED. But instead of dying after 3 or 4 years like the second Kenwood, the Yamaha keeps on amplifying (the digital tuner did always totally suck though, I have to say). The source selector switch (remote controlled physical switch!) seriously needs repair, but the amp itself sounds quite good and its interesting continuously variable passive EQ curve is just the thing for putting a nice smile curve to my NS10's for noncritical listening. (I mostly use my Event 20/20bas, but they run hot so I switch over to the Yamahas in heat spells like we're currently experiencing in So Cal.)

 

Well, we are definitely living in a new age now. It's not that you can't still buy great stereo hifi gear, it's that the average home entertainment system isn't designed for stereo music playback. And that's what people are buying.

 

You've either got a plastic 5.1 system in the living room, or a Bluetooth speaker in the kitchen, and with even a modest stereo amp and speakers costing ~$1k, people just aren't interested, the way they used to be.

 

Then, of course, you've got the reliability issues with 'vintage' hifi that you've mentioned. They are old units. In this convenience driven world, no-one has time to get something serviced. If it's broken, forget it. Get a cheapo replacement.

 

I'm lucky that my kitchen system only needed a couple of tweeters to get it up to full functionality, and I'm not afraid of doing that job, but it's too much of a faff for most people. And by the time you get to issues with digital front panels and whatnot, most people are thinking about landfill, not the repair shop.

 

And they are missing out on sonic quality, even from their streaming services and mp3 collections.

 

What we've gained in system integration in consumer gear in the last 30 years or so (a great advance, don't get me wrong!), we've lost in terms of sound quality, and a lot of people don't know what they're missing.

 

And none of that even addresses the fact of execrable sounding, overpriced fashion accessory headphones!

[Anderton]

From Vijay Thakur, Gibson ER's guy in Ibiza:

 

Tech blog Bolt bought a pair of Beats Headphones retailed at $199 and took them apart piece by piece to really see what the fuss is about. Their findings? That the lightweight headphones were made of mostly snappable, plastic parts that only cost $17 to manufacture before labor. And yet somehow, the backing of hip-hop mogul Dr. Dre and Interscope co-founder Jimmy Iovine turned $17 headphones into a $3 billion empire. Moral of the story: Branding is everything.

[blue2blue]

 

Well, we are definitely living in a new age now. It's not that you can't still buy great stereo hifi gear, it's that the average home entertainment system isn't designed for stereo music playback. And that's what people are buying.

 

You've either got a plastic 5.1 system in the living room, or a Bluetooth speaker in the kitchen, and with even a modest stereo amp and speakers costing ~$1k, people just aren't interested, the way they used to be.

 

Then, of course, you've got the reliability issues with 'vintage' hifi that you've mentioned. They are old units. In this convenience driven world, no-one has time to get something serviced. If it's broken, forget it. Get a cheapo replacement.

 

I'm lucky that my kitchen system only needed a couple of tweeters to get it up to full functionality, and I'm not afraid of doing that job, but it's too much of a faff for most people. And by the time you get to issues with digital front panels and whatnot, most people are thinking about landfill, not the repair shop.

 

And they are missing out on sonic quality, even from their streaming services and mp3 collections.

 

What we've gained in system integration in consumer gear in the last 30 years or so (a great advance, don't get me wrong!), we've lost in terms of sound quality, and a lot of people don't know what they're missing.

 

And none of that even addresses the fact of execrable sounding, overpriced fashion accessory headphones!

[bold added]

 

This is a very timely point. And it's no exaggeration.

 

When I switched from Rhapsody some years ago (who put out 160kbps streams at the time, IIRC) to MOG (who were putting out 320 kbps streams -- 'ironically,' since Beats, which bought and subsumed the far-superior MOG has been mostly 320 but Apple Music will only be 256), the difference was noticeable even using the mobo converter in my desktop -- but what really made it shine was moving my stream listening over to my 'pro' rig (nothing crazy, a MOTU 828mkII). I always knew there was a somewhat noticeable difference between them, but switching my everyday listening really hit it home. With 160 kbps streams, I don't even think I noticed the difference, perhaps not surprisingly.

 

At any rate, the problem with consumers and stereos is as it always has been: stereo salesmen and their radar-like zero-in on the sorts of cognitive distortions that make it so easy to manipulate average consumers. And that's one of the sad things about that earlier golden age, as I noted, those fine amps were often hobbled by crappy, thrown together speakers and tinky toy changers sold in package deals.

 

I suppose, in some ways, today's mediocre-front-to-back consumer 'hi fi's' are at least less 'wasteful'... =/

[gubu]

[bold added]

 

This is a very timely point. And it's no exaggeration.

 

When I switched from Rhapsody some years ago (who put out 160kbps streams at the time, IIRC) to MOG (who were putting out 320 kbps streams -- 'ironically,' since Beats, which bought and subsumed the far-superior MOG has been mostly 320 but Apple Music will only be 256), the difference was noticeable even using the mobo converter in my desktop -- but what really made it shine was moving my stream listening over to my 'pro' rig (nothing crazy, a MOTU 828mkII). I always knew there was a somewhat noticeable difference between them, but switching my everyday listening really hit it home. With 160 kbps streams, I don't even think I noticed the difference, perhaps not surprisingly.

 

At any rate, the problem with consumers and stereos is as it always has been: stereo salesmen and their radar-like zero-in on the sorts of cognitive distortions that make it so easy to manipulate average consumers. And that's one of the sad things about that earlier golden age, as I noted, those fine amps were often hobbled by crappy, thrown together speakers and tinky toy changers sold in package deals.

 

I suppose, in some ways, today's mediocre-front-to-back consumer 'hi fi's' are at least less 'wasteful'... =/

 

 

But, are we not wasting all of this never-before-heard streaming quality by listening through mediocre consumer systems?

[Mandolin Picker]

WARNING - LONG RANT...

 

I wonder if we have reached the 'perfect storm' of the devaluation of music. There is a lot of comparison to music of the past, and rightly so. And there is comparison to the music delivery systems of the past compared to today. But one thing we haven't talked a lot about is the importance of music in today's society.

 

If we go back in time, we see the good music composers working for the King, and the music was played with full orchestras in beautiful, lavish halls where the 'well-to-do' went to 'experience' the concert. For the common man, there was the church and the cathedral, where the music had meaning to those who played, sang and listened to it. There was the rowdy pub band at the tavern who were the center of attention while folks drank and played games. What all of these have in common is that to hear the music you had to go someplace. You had to decide that 'tonight, I'm going to to concert' or to the pub or to church on Sunday. It was a planned event. It was also a time when it was important to learn music. If you were very good, you composed. If you were good, you played an instrument. If you had no talent, you sang. But music was an important part of everyone's life and it was important to society.

 

If we move along to the mid-20th century we see the beginnings of technology's influence on music. Radio brought music (and radio plays and news) to the common man. For the first time, someone didn't have to travel to the city to hear Guy Lumbardo or Glenn Miller or Tommy Dorsey. But you still had to set aside time to listen to those radio programs. Jack Benny was on at 7pm, the Green Hornet at 8pm at Tommy Dorsey at 9pm. It was special and you set aside time to listen. Talented people played and sang. Talent shows were common across the country. Everyone had to take some type of music course in school.

 

As time moves on we see the electronics of sound improve, but you still had to make time. Television enters the arena, but you have only 3 or 4 channels. Your choices are TV, read a book, work on hobby (such as model ship building) or music. Variety shows are popular during this time, but you still have to set aside time to watch and listen. This adds a new dimension to music, as it is no longer the music that can hold the audience, but the visual element must be incorporated and 'show performance' begins its steady climb to importance within the music field.

 

As we enter the latter part of the 20th century, we begin to see where music and arts are cut from school budgets to save money. We begin to hear about how we are 'falling behind' the rest of the world in math and science. We are told our future as a country is at stake, and we must put more focus and money on STEM. Music in the education system becomes at best an elective. There is very little support (ie agreeing to tax increases) for maintaining these 'frivolous' programs. By the end of the century, a single music teacher may be teaching at 5 or 6 schools (if the school system has a music program at all) one or two days a week.

 

At we enter into the 21st century the Internet really begins to change things. TV is not something you have to be home to watch at a particular time. You can watch what you want, when you want. And you no longer have just 3-4 channels, you have hundreds. Gaming becomes an big way to past your free time. Then comes MySpace and Facebook and Twitter and all of the other things that now occupy our time. And as this change in society has occurred, we have lost things. Hobbies such as model building has fallen to the side (even though I live is a suburb of DC I have to travel about 20 miles to get to a hobby shop). Music, despite the huge leap forward in the quality and quantity of music, has continued to slide. It is no longer an important facet of society. For the majority of the public is not an activity that you set aside time for. To simply 'listen' to music in today's society is nearly considered shameful. In our multitasking society, if all you do is listen to music you are wasting time, time that could be better spent doing other things. So music is relegated to the background, something that is nice to have while I do more important stuff - like text my BFF or take the kids to soccer. For those things that are not front and center in my life, I don't need to spend a lot of money or demand high quality.

 

We put our time and money into those things we value personally, as well as a society. And as a society we have decided that music is not near as important as it use to be. For those who feel music is important (like those folks on boards such as this), society lets us have our music stores and teach our kids the value of music, just don't ask for a tax increase to force that stuff on 'my kid'. In today's society, music is just background noise, and as a society we don't spend a lot of money on noise. Until (or unless) music becomes important to people again, the downward trend in music will continue.

 

Sorry for the long rant...

[blue2blue]

 

 

But, are we not wasting all of this never-before-heard streaming quality by listening through mediocre consumer systems?

Well, sure... but consider we've been wasting full CD quality on those mediocre consumer systems for decades.

 

Now we're just wasting 320 kbps...

 

 

[256 kbps in the case of Apple Music/iTunes]

 

[Anderton]

I'll start with the obvious by stating that all we can do here is speculate since none of us are Beats customers or mind readers.

 

Actually I have a set of Beats headphones. It really lets me know what's happening in the low end.

 

That said, it's my observation that one trend often follows as a reaction to the previous trend. For instance, punk rock was a reaction to progressive rock.

 

The more I think about it, what you're saying may apply to frequency response as well. Most earbuds and over-ear headphones, which are more popular than circumaural types, are pretty deficient in the bass. So I can imagine someone strapping on Beats headphones and thinking "Wow, I'm finally getting to hear all the music!"