I've been in premium audio my entire career. There are many in the industry who fight the good fight.
The issue is that most of the snake-oil comes from some truth. Here we are at the how much profit is fair debate. Contextualize for your own industry and/or product and you'll find it tricky to justify a 'fair' value for anything. Whatever the market will bear, right?
Audio hardware is one of the oldest electronic tech segments.
'good enough' for even the most persnickety audiophiles happened late in the 1960's.
Since then it's been about repackaging and doodads.
There are a few technologies that haven't found fit yet for market or manufacturing reasons. Some of those will enable big leaps, but require scale and cooperation from content producers.
> Since then it's been about repackaging and doodads.
I strongly disagree. Since 1960's we were getting better component base, better schematics, better measurements. Even analog amplifiers were evolving not only in audio quality, but also in efficiency. But I still hate the PWM (class D) amps. )
Sure. I see your perspective. Let me unpack a bit.
As I mentioned, IMO 'good enough' occurred late 1960's; Audio quality is the context surrounding that statement.
I have multiple systems. Generally speaking I have them matched by generation.
I have a pair of Dynaco A25s being run by a Quad 33 & 303. All of them made in 1969.
To your point, I have upgraded the passive in the A25s with more modern components. They now sound better. But before the upgrade, to an average person, they were already way good enough.
This old system gets the most unprompted compliments of any of the systems in my home.
Can I make a GaN based integrated amplifier with a state-of-the-art DAC and wireless inputs? The size of a deck of cards!? Sure! Smaller? We do that! But the real-world in-room 'normal' user/use case will have about the same experience as the system from 1969.
An end-to-end analog system when done 'properly' will generally sound better. You sacrifice cost, space, and energy consumption for that privilege. You can get 95%+ of the performance for 10% of the sacrifice if you choose components carefully.
We're currently way past the point where the devices or efficiencies are having a big impact on the intended experience. Unless you're in the 0.001% of people who have a dedicated listening room, the hum from the compressor in your refrigerator in the next room is louder than any distortion on a properly implemented system.
Yes, room treatments are very important, but with all the cheap signal processing tools - a lot of which was indirectly funded by the voice assistant boom - we have gotten very good at compensating for that as well.
Now we have neural network ICs that are insane at environmental noise cancellation and can run years on a small battery.
But you still want to listen to your stereo music, probably from a streaming service, or maybe your surround sound movie.
The content side is the bottleneck on any big innovation in the space. As long as the focus remains on the sonic nuances of Hotel California, we will be repackaging as opposed to innovating on a sonic experience.
The issue is that most of the snake-oil comes from some truth. Here we are at the how much profit is fair debate. Contextualize for your own industry and/or product and you'll find it tricky to justify a 'fair' value for anything. Whatever the market will bear, right?
Audio hardware is one of the oldest electronic tech segments.
'good enough' for even the most persnickety audiophiles happened late in the 1960's.
Since then it's been about repackaging and doodads.
There are a few technologies that haven't found fit yet for market or manufacturing reasons. Some of those will enable big leaps, but require scale and cooperation from content producers.