I used to say you can spend any amount you want on high-performance music playback. When I did, I was implying you’d be hard-pressed to find an upper limit!
However, when I say it today, the reverse is true. High-performance and high-fidelity are available at lower cost, both in time and money, than I ever thought would be possible. Setting up what I consider to be a reference-grade network audio system that will not be significantly bested by high-end solutions regardless of cost can be done in minutes for only a few hundred dollars.
Why high-performance streaming is available at lower costs than ever before:
Modern DACs are virtually immune to clock jitter, noise, and distortion
Computer networks transmit audio data with zero errors and insignificant latency
Ethernet and Wi-Fi networks provide galvanic isolation “for free” thanks to magnetic coupling of ethernet ports and wireless transmission
Where noise (RFI, EMF, or mechanical) is a concern, networks enable us to put distance between sources of noise and anything or anyone affected by it
As I type this, I’m listening to music streamed from an inexpensive server running Roon OS. That server is tucked away in the closet under the stairs next to my router. A $35 Raspberry Pi 4 board receives streams from Roon, copying the audio samples to a USB-attached Topping E50 DAC. The sound I’m hearing from my old Sennheiser HD600 headphones, driven by a Topping L50 amp, is about the best I’ve heard anywhere.
I don’t mean to disparage folks who have elected to spend many thousands (or tens or hundreds of thousands) of dollars on their systems. There’s nothing wrong with buying nice things if you can afford them. But I am, at this moment, convinced that high-performance sound reproduction has been democratized. You truly can spend any amount you want (including very little) to achieve high-fidelity playback here in 2024, thanks in no small part to advancements in network audio.
I’m curious to know what your experience has been.
I agree when it comes to the digital side of hi-fi components, high quality streaming services as well as the majority of amplifiers. If you know what you want and have some experience, you can for very little money buy components and make a subscription giving you fantastic results.
Roon is not even the most inexpensive solution as a standard smartphone and any hi-fi device equipped with Tidal connect would do the job for most of music lovers.
But I see one major problem: Rooms in which people live and listen to music in via loudspeakers became increasingly difficult from acoustic point of view since minimalistic interior design and reflective surfaces are in fashion. Loudspeakers which can handle such environment and give more than average sound quality are very rare and surprisingly expensive and in most of cases surprisingly big (which stands in a certain contradiction to what non-hi-fi members of the household are expecting). The majority of hi-fi and high end manufacturers seemingly is still stuck in optimizing their products for optimized reference rooms, studios or damped hi-fi studios. Many reviewers are fueling this as they have optimized conditions and tell people a lot which they cannot verify in their homes.
On the other hand people are pretty confused with this matter as too many manufacturers are either ignoring it, claiming that tiny expensive speakers will do the job or promising to heal things with EQs or room correction algorithms which simply do not work in a difficult environment.
With headphones things might be less expensive but the market has become pretty confusing. You have to invest a lot of time, educate yourself, try a lot and find an expert to consult with.
So I really would not agree to the claim that things are easier just because digital hardware has become cheaper, more reliable and surprisingly close to perfection in many cases.
You do not have a problem with lack of storage capacity? I always feel like I do, and SSD of bigger capacity are still expensive. 60TB or more in NAS-grade SSD is close to $10k and I have the permanent desire to upgrade.
Yes. Last mile (last two to four yards, in this case) problems are often the hardest to diagnose and solve.
In the case of room acoustics, the obstacle is usually conflicting priorities rather than cost and availability of treatment options. Truly full-range loudspeakers with low distortion and high output and linearity are unavoidably large and (usually) costly. But options open up considerably if you are willing to give up reproduction of the first octave and don’t require peak output levels above 96 dB at the listening position. I’ve found the listening experience to be engaging and delightful for most music, even under these conditions.
I’ve been buying CDs and digital downloads fairly regularly since the late 80’s. Like most folks here, I have everything I own ripped to FLAC and in my Roon library. It all fits comfortably, with space to spare, on a 2TB USB drive. Decades worth of music!
I don’t understand how folks can own tens of terabytes of music. The retail value would be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Head scratching, but more power to them.
Lossless streaming has changed how I collect music. These days, I only buy CDs or SACDs if the master is somehow special and unlikely to appear on a streaming service. That, or if the purchase is directly from an artist I wish to support.
All of that said, having a music collection that’s worth more than the high-fidelity playback system(s) used to enjoy it is something to aspire to. Network audio makes achieving this goal easier than ever.
Over the past couple of months I’ve been toying with some of these low cost modern audio components, to great success and personal satisfaction. With a little research it now possible to put together a very nice sounding audio system at fairly low cost.
Network streamers with built in DACs, class D power amps, a pair of speakers (and maybe even a subwoofer), some well made low cost cables and a subscription to Tidal or Qobuz is all that is needed to enjoy virtually unlimited music with great sound.
The funny thing is that instead of looking down their noses at these types of audio systems, the high end audio industry should be celebrating these systems since these modest audio systems can often serve as a gateway drug into realm of more costly audio systems.
For what it’s worth, the headphone, aka personal audio, side of audio is also experiencing this low cost revolution. Inexpensive desktop and mobile players coupled with one of the many great sounding inexpensive headphones or IEM (inner ear monitors) offer truly impressive sound for a very low cost.
Start buying DSD downloads and ripping blu-rays as well as SACDs, implementing RAID10. You will understand quickly how many Terabytes might be reasonable.
Fully agree, but that was not my main point. Full-range speakers with dynamic reserves to ensure high sound quality in a studio or well-damped room are neither cheap nor compact, but they are available from an astonishing number of manufacturers.
But that would not help in a typical living room today as listening distance might be high while the room is underdamped. This combination is a nightmare for any acoustic engineer. You practically need sound-reinforcement-grade directivity index and a strategy how to position speakers plus DSP correction on top. The number of speaker manufacturers offering a solution for that is surprisingly low and prices easily get eye-watering, north of $20k minimum, while most of speakers meeting these conditions are too chunky.
Thanks for sharing your experience. Things are more challenging for speaker systems, but with headphone hi-fi systems the quality of sound we can get with affordable equipment is amazing. I use the HD600 with the Zen Stream/Zen DAC V2 combo and the sound is truly excellent (I wonder how much better it could be with your Topping E50/L50 rig). Even with a Dragonfly Red connected directly to the NUC I get very good sound. I always wonder how much better it can get but then think that I should not spend more money in equipment if I’m so happy with what I use at the moment. Cheers
Accurate (high-fidelity) sound reproduction in acoustically hostile environments like that is a tall order indeed! In such situations, I recommend near-field listening or quality headphones. However, loudspeakers with well-behaved off-axis response may produce pleasing sound for background music.
At this moment, I’m listening to a pair of 7 inch two-ways in a cavernous 17 x 18 foot room with a 20 ft ceiling. Much of the right wall is windows and glass. There’s a vague sense of soundstage at my slightly off-center listening position and virtually no imaging. But at low playback level levels (~60 dB, C-weighted, slow integration), the overall tonality is pleasing enough. I could probably achieve similar results in this space with a single SONOS Five speaker at 1/10th the cost. So, horses for courses…
I imagine that highly directive loudspeakers would produce better results, but without significant investment in room treatments to bring down reverberation times, improvements would be marginal.
I do intend to add a significant amount of acoustic damping to this space, mainly to make it more comfortable for living, having conversations, etc. But this family room/living room space will never be suitable for high-fidelity sound reproduction. I have one or two other rooms that are far more appropriate for that use, thankfully. I think it’s important to keep expectations in check for a given space and use.
All of that said, I’d love to hear a pair of Arindal loudspeakers at some point. I’ve heard nothing but good things about them. Not inexpensive, but I expect still a good value.
I agree audio equipment we can buy today is drastically better performing in every way than the system I hear when I first got into music in the 70s and 80s. You can have an enjoyable system very moderately priced.
While I believe spending more on audio equipment doesn’t have potential benefits - it may not be worthwhile to everyone.
It’s a lot like many areas of life where things have advanced (cars, TVs, phones, etc.). The cheaper options are more functional than ever and if you spend more some folks may perceive there is incremental value while others do not.
This is true of digital audio and the interface between digital and analogue. I’m not so convinced that it always holds true in the pure analogue domain.
I have an A&R Cambridge (Arcam) Alpha amplifier (like this one on ebay) that I bought in the mid 80’s which still performs faultlessly and, withinin its class, is still very good by todays standards. So good, in fact, that I have been holding onto it for 20 years despite not really having a use for it so that I can pass it on (with a pair of Wharfdale speakers that I have that date from the same period) to one of my kids when they (eventually) get their own house
Headphones work for sure, with nearfield speakers it is not as easy. I have heard many cases in which even in typical nearfield conditions one would hear some annoying tonally kinked reverb from the room. Speakers with constant directivity for nearfield listening are easier to find but they are not as common.
Sounds to me as a strong hint that indirect sound might be dominating the soundfield at the listening position. Even if tonality is subjectively more or less okay, risk is high there might be other aspects than just the localization which are heavily compromised by the reflections. Have noticed that many people get used to their system in their living room until they notice that certain recordings tend to be boomy, sound harsh, showing metallic reverb or general impression is noisy whenever it gets louder.
Cannot confirm this. If the reverb pattern of the room is not terrible (periodic echoes or alike) or the RT60 is way above reasonable level (>1s), chances are pretty good that high, constant directivity index speakers will do the job surprisingly well and no or minimal room treatment is needed.
I am not anyhow linked or affiliated to the loudspeaker manufacturer of similar name and do not know their products at all. Was referring to completely different speaker manufacturers.
You can spend as much as you want, there is no upper limit, but I agree that in today’s time, you don’t need to spend a fortune to enjoy superb sound. However, the most money in HiFi was always spent on the last 5%.
The one thing where spent bucks make the biggest difference is speakers.
Certainly true, but unfortunately the speaker market is increasingly confusing for buyers. Almost no-one would tell which speaker is the best for your room and your taste. Furthermore speakers which perform well in reviews or at dealerships might not be ideal for your room and this gap is widening constantly.
Some people who use an Apple HomePod might think things can’t get better too, but you know they can. Same goes for your system. Things can get a lot better.
Your room is terrible, a box with a lot of glass, and it’s untreated. No wonder you use headphones. I’ve built my audio room inside of a larger space to get the right dimensions along with spending thousands on room treatments.
You also are using a smallish speaker in a medium size room. You won’t get a full sound unless you get a couple (few) subs to augment the low end.
With your room, since it’s not ideal, I wouldn’t get better equipment until the room is fixed. It’s hard to treat a square room and a room that has a lot of glass. You get an ideal room, then your options increase immensely on getting better equipment that will increase sound quality.
