Old vs. New

[midnightpulp]

Oscar Robertson's comments have once again ignited generational angst. As someone who endeavors to remain eternally objective and non-biased, I'm going to settle the old vs. new debate once and for all. Of course, human history is long, so we have to a reasonable cutoff. I'd wager the majority of posters on here range from 18-50, so I think 1980-1999 vs 2000-2016 would be a relevant comparison here (note: this will be a long post).

(Disclaimer: I'm 36, and "hip" to all the latest trends, Internet memes, websites, and the like. If I don't like something, it has nothing to do with generational penis envy. It means I think it's shit)

Sports

The entertainment value of sports will remain forever the same despite the era. End of the day, a great game is a close, competitive game filled with drama. Those elements will always trump "aesthetic value" (how the game is played). A local T-ball game can be more entertaining than a professional game if the former is competitive.

That said, the aesthetic value of sports has improved exponentially since 1980. Athletes, while not necessarily more athletic (human beings peaked athletically a long, long time ago), are better trained, conditioned, and taught. A long held, but now erroneous, idea was that a professional athlete needed to be a "natural" from birth, born with "greatness," if an athlete didn't have a certain it factor from childhood, he was deemed to have no chance. Yes, a pro athlete still needs certain inherited gifts, but with our ever improving knowledge of the plasticity of the brain and other biometric advances, we know a lot of skills taken for granted as "natural gifts" can be taught. Stephen Curry, Kawhi Leonard, etc are probably role players in the 90's because the scouts wouldn't believe they, with their relatively underwhelming athleticism compared to their peers, could turn into elite players. Hell, even people on this forum doubted Kawhi could be a great offensive player. Shane Battier was his peak.

Add analytics into the equation, and you get a sports landscape that's more complex and aesthetically pleasing than ever. And old players like Robertson don't have to be salty about it, since the biggest advancements in this regard have to do with knowledge. Older players aren't intrinsically any worse, they just existed during a time when the knowledge side of the game was still evolving. Any great player from any era would be able to evolve provided he was young enough.

Edge: Modern Era

Movies

Worse than ever. Garbage looking CGI has replaced practical effects, "stunts" are even typically CGI'ed unless you're Tony Jaa (I haven't seen one of his movies in years, so I'm sure he's sucking from the CGI tit now) or Jackie Chan, who's too fuckin old now. Car chases look like shit (also CGI'ed). And no modern director can seem to choreograph an action scene to save his life. The fight scenes in the Dark Knight were 1980s Charles Bronson B-Movie tier. And it didn't help that Bane sounds like Kermit the Frog, but Nolan, who's essentially a straight-to-video action movie director, is celebrated as this generation's Orson Welles :lol.

Compare any modern action shootout to this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bozxgVQ9m0

That's a 3 minute continuous tracking shot. No edits. Using thousands of squibs and practical effects, demanding perfect timing and choreography from the actors. You fuck up, and you have to reset and shoot the entire thing over again. But alas, CGI has even turned John Woo into a lazy hack.

Or to this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EECP9Ub-3tg

Comedies are even worse. The Apatow, Rogen, Franco, Hill collective are just not funny. And I don't irrationally hate on them. They were funny with Heavyweights [written by Apatow], Freaks and Geeks, and Undeclared, but now all their movies are essentially a derivation of Porky's.

Oh, and don't get me started on how bad remakes are today. Robocop as a PG-13 "superhero" movie? :lol Ghostbusters with women? :lol Red Dawn with fuckin' Norks? :lol

There's also no such thing as the "Indie/art house movie" anymore, either, unless you count youtube garbage. I would rate the quality of Foreign cinema about the same.

(note: I'll try to be a bit shorter from here on out)

Edge (by a huge, Koolaid_Man's asshole sized margin): The Past.

Television

The mid-80s-99 was undoubtedly the peak of television comedy (Cheers, Roseanne, Seinfeld, In Living Color, Peak Simpsons, etc). What do you have today? Bazingaaa!!!! Absolute shit.

But today's television dramas (everything from the Wire to Breaking Bad) handily shit on NYPD Blue and Hill Street Blues. And since dramas are typically more complex and challenging, I can say television is better than ever.

Edge: Modern Era

Music

Ah, the one cultural phenomenon that creates more generational tension than anything else. Music was most definitely more important as a cultural identifier during the 80's and 90's than it is now, since it was really the only form of expression other than fashion for youth. Social media has replaced a lot of music's traditional function, and the cultural importance of music and artists has declined massively. Sure, the quality of music will always be subjective, but we can kind of quantify it:


The study: In a recent study, researchers from the Medical University of Vienna in Austria studied 15 genres and 374 subgenres. They rated the genre's complexity over time — measured by researchers in purely quantitative aspects, such as timbre and acoustical variations — and compared that to the genre's sales. They found that in nearly every case, as genres increase in popularity, they also become more generic.

"This can be interpreted," the researchers write, "as music becoming increasingly formulaic in terms of instrumentation under increasing sales numbers due to a tendency to popularize music styles with low variety and musicians with similar skills."

http://mic.com/articles/107896/scientists-finally-prove-why-pop-music-all-sounds-the-same#.gYkjOe5Oy

So music is much simpler than it once was. If simplicity is your thing, fair enough, but in basketball terms: Today's music: 1960's NBA.

And as someone who listens to music on a dedicated rig and not a pair of shitty Beats, earbuds, a bluetooth speaker, laptop speakers, streamed through a smartphone, the mastering of today's music is beyond bad, shredding your ears and brain with excessive dynamic compression.


On a more modern scale, musicians have used the volume of different instruments as one of the ways to separate them in the song. The crack of a rimshot, or the sudden blast from a guitar is almost entirely missing from modern recordings. Instead, most modern recordings are a muddled mush of sound.

If everything is loud, there's no such thing as "louder." Or as one engineer put it: "When there is no quiet, there can be no loud." There's a level of emotion removed from such de-enhanced recordings. They're that much more artificial, less like musicians playing music.

http://www.cnet.com/news/compression-is-killing-your-music/

I want to enjoy today's music, but I can't since it sounds as bad as Kobe's jumpshot looks.

Edge: Past.

Videogames

As I said in another thread, for all the technical advancements games have made, game design has taken about 4 steps back. They basically make games today for casuals and retards. Really, to beat a game all you have to do is turn on your system and hold the controller. The game will do the work for you. That's not to say I don't enjoy today's games. They're fun, but very few modern games test your reflexes and mettle (unless you play competitively, and competitive gaming has been around since the 70's starting with Pong. Nothing new there). It used to be an accomplishment, a privilege, to beat a Mega Man, Ninja Gaiden, or achieve a high score in Defender or Pac-Man. Now it's basically little Jimmy's right to beat a game.

Case in point (check out the kid's comments at 9:05):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njzAyjAFCMI

Edge: Past

The Internet

The Internet isn't specifically one thing or about one thing, it's basically a microcosm of reality, so no such thing exists as "The Internet," but I do think Social Media has turned people into meme spouting idiots and attention whores. I also think the advent of smartphones has made conversations less interesting and not as well thought out since people are loathe to type or read anything more than a paragraph on their smartphones. Speaking in Emojis is even more retarded. But just like you can't judge a library on its bad books, you can't judge the Internet on Web 2.0 stupidity. The Internet, like a library, is simply an information repository, so as long as it adds an equal amount of good information in proportion to the shit, everything is fine. I can simply focus on the good and ignore the shit. So essentially the more information the better the Internet is, meaning the Internet improves by the nanosecond.

Edge: Modern

Count: 3=3

This has gone on long enough, so I'll just quickly sum it up:

Literature: The Past (Twilight is the best selling series of all-time. Enough said)

Technology: While some tech is slowly turning us into lazy morons, technology has obviously made our lives easier. Modern Era (the aesthetics of technology was far more interesting in the past, though).

Tie Breaker:

The Spurs won most of their titles in the 00-10s

Edge: Modern Fuckin Era

:toast

[ambchang]

What's your rig for music listening?

[Splits]

So wrong on video games. Skyrim vs. Zelda is all you need to compare.

[spurraider21]

So wrong on video games. Skyrim vs. Zelda is all you need to compare.
The depth, layering, graphics always get better. But I completely agree with the difficulty aspect. Games today are glorified movies which inevitably lead to a win.

[Buddy Mignon]

You are fucking crazy if you think Im reading all that nerd shit.

[spurraider21]

You are fucking crazy if you think Im reading all that nerd shit.
How would you classify naruto forum posts

[benefactor]

You are fucking crazy if you think Im reading all that nerd shit.
after reading the chapter and analyzing the akatsuki leader's objectives, i gotta say i'm impressed by his business model. He's not just going to go out there and pwn everyone. He's actually going to gather allies, form armies, make money, and gradually build himself up into a viable business. Eventually, because he's got his little united nations of little ninja countries backing him, the akatsuki will end up on near equal footing with any of the five great ninja villages. Kinda like how bill gates built up microsoft from the ground up and turned it into a near super monopoly with ridiculous profit.

Meanwhile, orochimaru's chilling in caves still trying to keep up a facade of power although all he really has left is one bargaining chip(sasuke), a non-existant village, and ummm...kabuto. He had a business plan too...only it was a horrible failure because of fraud and mismanagement and ended up profiting him and him alone while leaving everyone else involved to suffer horribly when it failed. And even then, he ended up getting burned by his own short-sighted planning. Kinda like how enron was pretending all was well, while in reality, they were losing billions and their leaders were dumping its stock like crazy while encouraging employees not to panic because nothing was wrong at all. Orochimaru's ambition has little chance of being achieved, because he's got people on his ass already, little actual means to achieving it besides taking over sasuke(hey, even enron had a last grasp of possibly surviving before ultimately being shutdown)...but then what? He's still going to have people on his ass and it's just him and kabuto...and i suppose any sound that survived the invasion of konoha.

So what's my point?

Akatsuki can realistically achieve their goal because they seem to have sound strategy and a leader with a good head on their shoulders. I'm sure they'll build themselves up to the point where the goal is feasible and they're actually in high standing.

Meanwhile, i easily see orochimaru ending up like enron's ceo kenneth lay...

...dying alone on some mountain.

Sorry, if no one understands any of this crap. I just really liked that business model the al came up with.

[InTheCrust]

The depth, layering, graphics always get better. But I completely agree with the difficulty aspect. Games today are glorified movies which inevitably lead to a win.
QFT. Games are too easy nowadays. But everyone who can should try the Souls games or Bloodborne for a good old fashioned ass-kicking

[~O~]

I agree with the music to an extent and movies to extent.

I listen to music through symphony and concerts and not electronically created. It feels more authentic. There are excellent scores for videos games compared to the 90's. Some games remade their themes (Mario, Zelda, Sonic The Hedgehog).

I loved themes from Fable, Halo, Skyrim, Various sonic games, Various Mario games, Sims 3/4, Simcity 2013, and Rollercoaster tycoon series. Music ties permanently to periods of your life or things you went through.

The Various classical themes and modern scores from Civilization; Mozart, John Adams, JOhann Sebastian Bach, Beethoven, Johannes Brahms, Christopher Tin, Antonin Dvorak, Camille Saint-Saens, Michael Praetorius, Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, Christopher Tin, etc.

Not to mention Hans Zimmer, Howard Shore, Harry Gregson, Joe Hasaishi, Cliff Martinez, Michael Andrews, Jon Brion; in films for me.


I've found that not all high quality movies are filmed and CGI..and some of them are necessary. If CGI is necessary, it better not be damn Cheap like The Hobbit Battle of the Five armies or cheap garbage 2012(movie). The hobbit Series was ruined by CGI'd orcs. Completely ruined. Whereas the orcs with memorable personalities from the LOTR series still live on.

There are various modern films I've loved and hated but the ones that are in need of appreciation are the ones the idiots don't watch. They won't score high in the box office either.

You can find great movies and great music if you try.

[midnightpulp]

What's your rig for music listening?

Marantz SR6009 receiver.
Marantz 6200 turntable.
Acoustic Research AR11 speakers.
Rythmik sub woofer
Sony Super Audio CD player.

[apalisoc_9]

Ever heard of Difficulty setting? Sure, a large part of games today are easier in normal mode than the older games but that was needed to capture the casual gamer market.

Difficulty is such a poor argument formolder games when you consider you can adjust difficulty. Play on nightmare or Hard..heck Devil may cry for example have had settings where you get hit once and you die.

[lefty]

Disagree on fight sequences

Just watch that hallway fight in Daredevil season 1

Or the opening sequence of the latest BvS trailer

[midnightpulp]

Ever heard of Difficulty setting? Sure, a large part of games today are easier in normal mode than the older games but that was needed to capture the casual gamer market.

Difficulty is such a poor argument formolder games when you consider you can adjust difficulty. Play on nightmare or Hard..heck Devil may cry for example have had settings where you get hit once and you die.

Any modern game turned up to the highest difficulty still isn't hard because of the simple fact you get unlimited lives and typically respawn at a favorable checkpoint. Older games typically had a finite amount of lives and continues, and once you run out, it's back to the beginning. There's nothing special about getting hit once and dying in Devil May Cry hardest setting, since that was the default setting in pretty much every classic game :lol

And that speaks nothing of game and level design. Simplistic as fuck, with big, glowing markers telling you where to go. Case in point:

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--2WPdtzRk--/817690850500795277.png

There's exceptions, sure, like the Souls series (and many indie developers make games in the classic gaming style), but overall, games are made for super casuals. Nothing wrong with that. I no longer have the patience and will to get my ass kicked by a classic style game, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend gaming is better than ever. They're glorified movies now.

[apalisoc_9]

Arguing game design is another stupid thing since modern gamers are either open world or semi open world.

As if dragon age was possible with older games.:lol

[baseline bum]

I can't agree with games being better in the past. Old school games are purely linear while now you have shit like GTA V that is never ending fun. If you want difficulty go play shooters online, no AI can fuck with actual human enemies.

[midnightpulp]

Arguing game design is another stupid thing since modern gamers are either open world or semi open world.

As if dragon age was possible with older games.:lol

The first Elder Scrolls games from the mid-90s are comparatively bigger games than Dragon Age. We're talking 200-300 hours. I beat DA in about 60. Dragon Age is also a more simplistic version (mechanically) than older Bioware games like Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale.

Open world games are nothing new. They've been on PCs since the 90s. Fallout 1 and 2 and dozens of other role playing and adventure games.

Open world games are also not the primary method of game design. For every Grand Theft, there's about 50 corridor first person shooters or movie type games like The Last of Us and Uncharted. There's also nothing complex about an open world game design, especially when you can set way points that basically guide you to where you need to go. It's impossible to get lost, unlike in older games that didn't even have maps.

[midnightpulp]

I can't agree with games being better in the past. Old school games are purely linear while now you have shit like GTA V that is never ending fun. If you want difficulty go play shooters online, no AI can fuck with actual human enemies.

What era are we talking about? The early arcade and home console eras were definitely linear, with gameplay based around testing reflexes, pattern recognition, and the like, but when PCs and home consoles got more powerful in the 90s, we got a wealth of open, big world adventure games (Fallout series. Elder Scrolls series. Final Fantasy Series, etc, etc).

Yes, playing competitively is the primary way now to get a challenging experience, but even the first person shooters today are easier to get kills. Compare a twitch shooter like Quake 3 to Call of Duty.

[baseline bum]

What era are we talking about? The early arcade and home console eras were definitely linear, with gameplay based around testing reflexes, pattern recognition, and the like, but when PCs and home consoles got more powerful in the 90s, we got a wealth of open, big world adventure games (Fallout series. Elder Scrolls series. Final Fantasy Series, etc, etc).

Yes, playing competitively is the primary way now to get a challenging experience, but even the first person shooters today are easier to get kills. Compare a twitch shooter like Quake 3 to Call of Duty.

You were comparing Mega Man, Ninja Gaiden, Pacman, etc, so I made the comparison with 80s games. Games stopped being difficult in the 90s with the Super Nintendo and Genesis. I love the oldschool Fallout games 1 & 2 (2 is my favorite game of the series), but calling them big open world games anything comparable to GTA V is a huge stretch. I still love arcade Shinobi or Kareteka on the Commodore 64, but I'll take 250 hours of Skyrim exploring mountains and chasing dragons over 1 or 2 hours of my favorite old school games.

[lefty]

That's the problem with open world games

Too time consuming lol

[baseline bum]

That's the problem with open world games

Too time consuming lol

I'd rather play a great game for 200 hours than 10 average games for 20 hours.

[Seventyniner]

A crossover: video game music is light years ahead of where it used to be. Sure, hardware constraints were the main culprit but many of today's games have better music than most movies.

[Splits]

but I'll take 250 hours of Skyrim exploring mountains and chasing dragons over 1 or 2 hours of my favorite old school games.

This.

I don't consider rote, repetitive, reflex skills making a game great. I don't play them to see how many remote controls I can smash on the coffee table, I want them to be entertaining, immersive, and "fun".

My favorite old-school games were the Leisure Suit Larry and Police Quest series.

[midnightpulp]

You were comparing Mega Man, Ninja Gaiden, Pacman, etc, so I made the comparison with 80s games. Games stopped being difficult in the 90s with the Super Nintendo and Genesis. I love the oldschool Fallout games 1 & 2 (2 is my favorite game of the series), but calling them big open world games anything comparable to GTA V is a huge stretch. I still love arcade Shinobi or Kareteka on the Commodore 64, but I'll take 250 hours of Skyrim exploring mountains and chasing dragons over 1 or 2 hours of my favorite old school games.

Yes, if you like exploration, modern gaming is definitely still great in that regard (although Skyrim has great graphics, I wouldn't call it a bigger game than Daggerfall, which takes a comparable amount of hours to play).

My gripe is game design. Compare even GTA3 to GTA5. In the former, there was no convenient waypoint system, quick travel taxi cabs, and the like. There was still a map, but you had to spend time in the city and learn it.

And if you've played the old school shooters like System Shock and Quake, you know FPS level design basically caters to children.

My modern gaming cutoff was probably too far back. Things didn't start to get really dumbed down until about '06-07. The PS2, Gamecube and Xbox still had "hardcore" games like the Devil May Cry series, Godhand (a real asskicker that had me breaking a controller :lol), FZERO, Ninja Gaiden, Panzer Dragoon Orta, etc.

[midnightpulp]

This.

I don't consider rote, repetitive, reflex skills making a game great. I don't play them to see how many remote controls I can smash on the coffee table, I want them to be entertaining, immersive, and "fun".

My favorite old-school games were the Leisure Suit Larry and Police Quest series.

Police Quest games are still more "hardcore" than any adventure game today. Remember how you needed to look at the physical map that came with the game to know where you're going? Now, they just a put a big shiny marker telling you where you to go.

[Splits]

Police Quest games are still more "hardcore" than any adventure game today. Remember how you needed to look at the physical map that came with the game to know where you're going? Now, they just a put a big shiny marker telling you where you to go.

Yeah, but if I'm going to "waste" a couple hours in an exploration and leveling game I'd much rather do it crafting, trading, or gearing up than randomly roaming around.

[HarlemHeat37]

I don't agree that music artists are worse nowadays, but I agree that the mastering of music is worse, though..it's one of the only aspects of entertainment where I've seen both the young and old agreeing on a subject:lol

Music played on vinyl sounds better than anything that has been produced in later years..also, today's music is mastered more for personal use, such as the iTunes and the Iphone-style earbuds, rather than for records/stereo systems/cars, etc, which sounds a lot worse..

I'm not much of a gamer, so can't comment on the subject..

TV shows are levels better today, but the 90s was definitely better for movies, overall..

[baseline bum]

My gripe is game design. Compare even GTA3 to GTA5. In the former, there was no convenient waypoint system, quick travel taxi cabs, and the like. There was still a map, but you had to spend time in the city and learn it.


You're mad that GTA V has a gps now? Or that you don't spend forever just driving between missions when you die? That was one of the things I hated about GTA IV (though I hated a lot of things about that piece of shit).



And if you've played the old school shooters like System Shock and Quake, you know FPS level design basically caters to children.


I'm more a Half Life guy when it comes to old school fps. I have no idea what you mean by fps level design catering to children.



My modern gaming cutoff was probably too far back. Things didn't start to get really dumbed down until about '06-07. The PS2, Gamecube and Xbox still had "hardcore" games like the Devil May Cry series, Godhand (a real asskicker that had me breaking a controller :lol), FZERO, Ninja Gaiden, Panzer Dragoon Orta, etc.

Dragon Age Inquisition is a very hard game in dragon battles if you haven't spent the time building your characters up and learning how to use all of them together. I remember one of the battles took me more than an hour and that game doesn't allow you to stockpile potions like say Skyrim.

[midnightpulp]

Yeah, but if I'm going to "waste" a couple hours in an exploration and leveling game I'd much rather do it crafting, trading, or gearing up than randomly roaming around.

I'm with you on the casual aspect here, I just know it was more of an accomplishment to complete a game because the designers wanted you to earn it, thus the implementation of certain constraints (no map, limited lives, etc).

I have more fun with modern games since they're a less stressful and irritating experience, but objectively, past games were designed (as a gaming experience) a lot better.

[Splits]

The "bridge" game for me was Everquest. Holy shit was that transcending of eras. It was then I started to reassess the "old vs. new" in video games. That said, don't have enough continuous blocks of hours to invest in MMORPGs these days, last one I played was WoW.

[baseline bum]

TV shows are levels better today, but the 90s was definitely better for movies, overall..

I think it's a good tradeoff. You could never have the level of storytelling in The Wire, The Sopranos, or Breaking Bad in a series of 3 or 4 two hour movies.

[baseline bum]

I have more fun with modern games since they're a less stressful and irritating experience, but objectively, past games were designed (as a gaming experience) a lot better.

I can't agree with this at all. With all the amazing things you can do in GTA V? You're telling me the Portal series isn't incredible design? What's its 1980s-1990s equivalent? I don't know what's so much better design about jumping over chasms and the like. What about Minecraft? A game where you can build your own electric circuits, your own castles, where you can make all sorts of crazy machines?

[midnightpulp]

You're mad that GTA V has a gps now? Or that you don't spend forever just driving between missions when you die? That was one of the things I hated about GTA IV (though I hated a lot of things about that piece of shit).

No, I like it because I can be lazier and have more "fun," but it does take away something from the original GTA feel (learning the city and such).


I'm more a Half Life guy when it comes to old school fps. I have no idea what you mean by fps level design catering to children.

Old FPS map designs were basically mazes. Today's FPS map designs are very linear corridors with no alternative routes and invisible boundaries that basically lead you to your destination. Not to mention the big arrows you get telling you where you need to go.


Dragon Age Inquisition is a very hard game in dragon battles if you haven't spent the time building your characters up and learning how to use all of them together. I remember one of the battles took me more than an hour and that game doesn't allow you to stockpile potions like say Skyrim.

Haven't played it yet, and like I said, there's exceptions out there that still recall older game design and difficulty, but overall, games are pretty simplistic.

[baseline bum]

Haven't played it yet, and like I said, there's exceptions out there that still recall older game design and difficulty, but overall, games are pretty simplistic.

You're telling me games are simplistic now when you were talking about Defender and Mega Man? I don't get it.

[midnightpulp]

I can't agree with this at all. With all the amazing things you can do in GTA V? You're telling me the Portal series isn't incredible design? What's its 1980s-1990s equivalent? I don't know what's so much better design about jumping over chasms and the like. What about Minecraft? A game where you can build your own electric circuits, your own castles, where you can make all sorts of crazy machines?

What's the core obstacle of any game for a player to overcome (whether it be chess, videogames, or basketball?

Punishing/Penalizing you when you lose/fail. And from that failure, you learn how to better deal with whatever challenges the game (or your opponent, as in the case of sports or competitive gaming) is presenting. When you get infinite lives and continues and always start from a convenient checkpoint, I think that undermines the idea of what a game is supposed to be. It's why modern games are more like interactive movies to me than actual games. Doesn't mean they're not fun, but good game design (to me) creates a compelling challenge that questions your certainty (i.e. Can I beat this game? Figure it out?). When I played Rise of the Tomb Raider, I already knew I was going to beat it before I ever logged into Steam.

Minecraft isn't really a game, more of a virtual Lego set. That's not to say it's not cool for what it is, but I can't really classify it as a "game." Portal is great. Like I said, there's always exceptions. Portal also comes from the cusp of when gaming started to get really dumbed down ('07), so Portal still retains that classic spirit imo.

[midnightpulp]

You're telling me games are simplistic now when you were talking about Defender and Mega Man? I don't get it.

Defender is simple to learn, but the things you need to learn to play the game for more than 3 or 4 minutes are pretty complex. A book could probably be written on Defender strategies. And no, I ain't good at it.

Mega Man takes a good deal of pattern recognition to play effectively. I don't see how Elizabeth throwing you health packs and ammo in Bioshock Infinite compares to what Mega Man forces you to deal with. To me, having an invincible companion that always bails you out is an example of simplicity, even though Bioshock Infinite is a glossy, "immersive" game.

[baseline bum]

What's the core obstacle of any game for a player to overcome (whether it be chess, videogames, or basketball?

Punishing/Penalizing you when you lose/fail. And from that failure, you learn how to better deal with whatever challenges the game (or your opponent, as in the case of sports or competitive gaming) is presenting. When you get infinite lives and continues and always start from a convenient checkpoint, I think that undermines the idea of what a game is supposed to be. It's why modern games are more like interactive movies to me than actual games. Doesn't mean they're not fun, but good game design (to me) creates a compelling challenge that questions your certainty (i.e. Can I beat this game? Figure it out?). When I played Rise of the Tomb Raider, I already knew I was going to beat it before I ever logged into Steam.

Minecraft isn't really a game, more of a virtual Lego set. That's not to say it's not cool for what it is, but I can't really classify it as a "game." Portal is great. Like I said, there's always exceptions. Portal also comes from the cusp of when gaming started to get really dumbed down ('07), so Portal still retains that classic spirit imo.

How is Minecraft not a game? Because it doesn't have a rigid objective? That game has such beautiful design. What other game can you do something as complex as make working adders, working memory, working cpus? You complain about being told what to do through the GPS in GTA V but you like it in Mega Man when you're told to go right to fight the bad guy? The overkill difficulty was a remnant of when games wanted you to spend more quarters, I strongly disagree that game difficulty nosedived in the mid 2000s. It nosedived in the 90s when the arcades died off. When I bought Final Fantasy III on the SNES I knew I was going to beat it too. Same thing with Super Mario World, F-Zero (since when was that a hard game?), Earthworm Jim 2, Chrono Trigger, Zelda A Link to the Past, Super Metroid, and so on.

[baseline bum]

Defender is simple to learn, but the things you need to learn to play the game for more than 3 or 4 minutes are pretty complex. A book could probably be written on Defender strategies. And no, I ain't good at it.

Mega Man takes a good deal of pattern recognition to play effectively. I don't see how Elizabeth throwing you health packs and ammo in Bioshock Infinite compares to what Mega Man forces you to deal with. To me, having an invincible companion that always bails you out is an example of simplicity, even though Bioshock Infinite is a glossy, "immersive" game.

I don't know, it feels more immersive when I can duck behind cover, try to flank my enemies, try to use them against each other (eg baiting a tiger at a rebel camp in Far Cry 4) as opposed to just making the jump at the exact right time to not get hit by the hail of crap flying across the screen.

[midnightpulp]

How is Minecraft not a game? Because it doesn't have a rigid objective? That game has such beautiful design. What other game can you do something as complex as make working adders, working memory, working cpus? You complain about being told what to do through the GPS in GTA V but you like it in Mega Man when you're told to go right to fight the bad guy? The overkill difficulty was a remnant of when games wanted you to spend more quarters, I strongly disagree that game difficulty nosedived in the mid 2000s. It nosedived in the 90s when the arcades died off. When I bought Final Fantasy III on the SNES I knew I was going to beat it too. Same thing with Super Mario World, F-Zero (since when was that a hard game?), Earthworm Jim 2, Chrono Trigger, Zelda A Link to the Past, Super Metroid, and so on.

Yes. A game needs to have rules that bound you in a specific way. Games, by their very nature, are linear experiences. I can't just decide to start playing baseball in the middle of a basketball game.

Minecraft is a virtual Lego, erector, chemistry set all in one, as different to Portal as Legos are to monopoly.

The difference between the linearity of mega man and gta is getting to one place in the former is a lot more challenging than getting to one place in the later.

I do agree the Super Nintendo games were easier, since Nintendo's core market was younger than Sega's or the PC gaming market. But Super Metroid was still more challenging and better designed than games like Call of Duty and a host of other modern AAA titles.

[baseline bum]

Yes. A game needs to have rules that bound you in a specific way. Games, by their very nature, are linear experiences. I can't just decide to start playing baseball in the middle of a basketball game.

Minecraft is a virtual Lego, erector, chemistry set all in one, as different to Portal as Legos are to monopoly.

The difference between the linearity of mega man and gta is getting to one place in the former is a lot more challenging than getting to one place in the later.

I do agree the Super Nintendo games were easier, since Nintendo's core market was younger than Sega's or the PC gaming market. But Super Metroid was still more challenging and better designed than games like Call of Duty and a host of other modern AAA titles.

Call of Duty is a low hurdle to scale now, that series peaked with Modern Warfare 1. I'd have a hard time calling Super Metroid better designed than Witcher 3.

[ambchang]

Marantz SR6009 receiver.
Marantz 6200 turntable.
Acoustic Research AR11 speakers.
Rythmik sub woofer
Sony Super Audio CD player.

I'm not a speaker guy and only have a few headphone rigs that said, I'm saving up for a entry level speaker system.

Probably getting the Oppo bdp105 or the latest model, Nad m3, and some psb speakers. Trying to keep most of the set Canadian.

[midnightpulp]

I'm not a speaker guy and only have a few headphone rigs that said, I'm saving up for a entry level speaker system.

Probably getting the Oppo bdp105 or the latest model, Nad m3, and some psb speakers. Trying to keep most of the set Canadian.

Nice. What's your budget?

[baseline bum]

Yes. A game needs to have rules that bound you in a specific way. Games, by their very nature, are linear experiences. I can't just decide to start playing baseball in the middle of a basketball game.


So you're one of those bastards who doesn't like Calvinball? smh

http://www.retrocrush.com/articles/fictionalsports/calvinball.jpg

[DMC]

If games were better in the past no one would have upgraded to play newer ones. Games drive technology quite a bit, and better games just means you are more entertained. Never heard of anyone saying their friend who interrupted them while playing Zelda ruined their immersion. So it's not the games that are worse. It's the fact that part of our ability to enjoy that medium has evolved so that we need more just to want to play it. You still see kids just as fascinated by Minecraft as you ever did, and plenty adults still play WoW. Some people prefer the linear approach to games, some prefer choices and then some just like puzzles.

Things are getting worse. You're getting less interested in new things.

[midnightpulp]

Call of Duty is a low hurdle to scale now, that series peaked with Modern Warfare 1. I'd have a hard time calling Super Metroid better designed than Witcher 3.

Witcher 2 is one of my all-time favorites, but you really can't compare Metroid to Witcher, since they're very different games. I'd compare the Witcher series to other CRPGs. (I haven't yet played Witcher 3). To me, the Witcher series doesn't do anything dramatically different than 90's PC role playing games.

The 2D Metroid series is probably still the apex of 2D action game design, though. And Metroid Prime was unbelievably good. Many critics consider it the best FPS ever made (as a single player experience, since Prime obviously doesn't do multiplayer).

[midnightpulp]

If games were better in the past no one would have upgraded to play newer ones. Games drive technology quite a bit, and better games just means you are more entertained. Never heard of anyone saying their friend who interrupted them while playing Zelda ruined their immersion.

It's because people love shiny graphics. I'm one. I basically play the newer games to admire the nice graphics (although we are slowing down immensely in that regard. I think you're about my age, and remember the graphical leaps we had in the 90's?) I have to justify the 2K I spent overall on my gaming rig somehow :lol

[midnightpulp]

So you're one of those bastards who doesn't like Calvinball? smh

http://www.retrocrush.com/articles/fictionalsports/calvinball.jpg

:lol

[ambchang]

Nice. What's your budget?

With that's setup it's about $5k CAD. I'm going all second hand though.

Oppo is tough to find second hand so that will be about $1500
M3 could be had for $1500
$2k will get me a decent used sychrony series or something like that.

Will be a long way though, as $5k isn't exactly chump change.

And my headphone rigs are great, doesn't have the soundstage as speakers but the precision and details are amazing.

[baseline bum]

And Metroid Prime was unbelievably good. Many critics consider it the best FPS ever made (as a single player experience, since Prime obviously doesn't do multiplayer).

I never played it, I'll have to get the ROM and run it through Dolphin.

[baseline bum]

I basically play the newer games to admire the nice graphics (although we are slowing down immensely in that regard.

It feels like that sometimes, but if I go back and play Skyrim or Witcher 2, the absolute pinnacles of 2011, they look like complete crap graphically to me after playing Witcher 3 or Dragon Age Inquisition running on my 970. Lighting effects like Nvidia HBAO+ or the tessellation effects on say pieces of armor in Dragon Age Inquisition can be really impressive, though those things might not come to consoles until the next generation of hardware.

[midnightpulp]

With that's setup it's about $5k CAD. I'm going all second hand though.

Oppo is tough to find second hand so that will be about $1500
M3 could be had for $1500
$2k will get me a decent used sychrony series or something like that.

Will be a long way though, as $5k isn't exactly chump change.

And my headphone rigs are great, doesn't have the soundstage as speakers but the precision and details are amazing.

On my phone now, but when I get home I'll rec some stuff. In any rig, you want the most of your budget to go to the speakers.

Also, how big is your listening room?

As for headphones, I take it you're running sennheiser 800 s, audeze, and the like?

[midnightpulp]

It feels like that sometimes, but if I go back and play Skyrim or Witcher 2, the absolute pinnacles of 2011, they look like complete crap graphically to me after playing Witcher 3 or Dragon Age Inquisition running on my 970. Lighting effects like Nvidia HBAO+ or the tessellation effects on say pieces of armor in Dragon Age Inquisition can be really impressive, though those things might not come to consoles until the next generation of hardware.

They're still making progress, but I'm sure you remember going from Virtua Fighter to Virtua Fighter 3 in the space of about 2 1/2 years.

[baseline bum]

They're still making progress, but I'm sure you remember going from Virtua Fighter to Virtua Fighter 3 in the space of about 2 1/2 years.

I never played Virtua Fighter 3, the first looked so awful. :lol

I wasn't a fan of that PS1 / N64 era, when the hardware wasn't ready for 3D at all. The PS2 got me really interested in games again though. Control wasn't really ready for 3D either.

[ambchang]

On my phone now, but when I get home I'll rec some stuff. In any rig, you want the most of your budget to go to the speakers.

Also, how big is your listening room?

As for headphones, I take it you're running sennheiser 800 s, audeze, and the like?

It's about 12 feet wide and 15 deep. Height is about 8 feet. Basement so only one window.

I like the audeze but I prefer the Hifiman line more. I never liked the hd800, I actually prefer the 600, then the 650 and 800 is the worst of the three to me (and I've heard them I supposedly killer rigs).

My DAC is the moon audio 300d, dynamic amp is the beta 22 (3 channel), with the Hifiman HE500. I also have a DIY magnum with that setup. For electro stats I have the KGSS with the stax SR007 MKI.

[ElNono]

As far as gaming, there's good and bad on every era, tbh... for example, it would be difficult to get the level of story depth of Fallout 1 or 2 with a modern look (Fallout 3 and 4 are pretty great, but you can see the games moving towards FPS)...

Or making games like Monkey Island or most every Lucasfilm adventure games, which were largely great, in a package you could sell now as AAA.

Open world games are definitely an evolution, but whenever I do work on game emulation, I pick up some old arcades or PS2 games and there's some really great and unique games from back then (ie: Psychonauts, Metal Slug, Parappa), and some terrible shit too...

Same with the new stuff, you have the absolute shit AAA games (most newer COD), cheap rehashes (Assasin's Creed), and also some great games (Ori and the Blind Forest, the Tomb Rider reboot, etc)...

While you have much better tools now to build something nicer, it's also true you get major projects also bombing hard, and so there's a lot of rehashing going on now, instead of cheap but more creative.

I think the advent of mobile gaming has actually taken us back a bit to the creative good old days, and it's definitely welcome.

[baseline bum]

As far as gaming, there's good and bad on every era, tbh... for example, it would be difficult to get the level of story depth of Fallout 1 or 2 with a modern look (Fallout 3 and 4 are pretty great, but you can see the games moving towards FPS)...


Bioshock Infinite was pretty amazing storywise. The whole many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and how you were like the 200th try those physicists had to assassinate your alternate universe self. Also, damn you for not mentioning Fallout New Vegas that was the spiritual successor to Fallout 2.

[midnightpulp]

It's about 12 feet wide and 15 deep. Height is about 8 feet. Basement so only one window.

I like the audeze but I prefer the Hifiman line more. I never liked the hd800, I actually prefer the 600, then the 650 and 800 is the worst of the three to me (and I've heard them I supposedly killer rigs).

My DAC is the moon audio 300d, dynamic amp is the beta 22 (3 channel), with the Hifiman HE500. I also have a DIY magnum with that setup. For electro stats I have the KGSS with the stax SR007 MKI.

Nice dimensions. And you're rolling with your headphone rigs.

I would forego spending anything more than a few hundred on a transport. As I'm sure you know, DACs are basically transparent, and it's unlikely anyone would be able to tell the difference between a CD played back through a 100.00 Blu Ray player vs. an esoteric transport in a blind test. Oppo does indeed make great stuff, but an extra grand put toward your speakers will go further sound quality wise. Nad M3 is nice.

Synchronys are a nice value at 2K. And if you're intent on going Canadian, you really can't beat them at that price. But if you're flexible, keep your eye out for some used Revel Performa F208s, Golden Ear Triton One or Two, or checkout the Internet direct offerings from Selah, Ascend, and Philharmonic Audio. Philharmonic's flagship is about impossible to beat at its price point of 3500 (3500+1500 for the NAD, and just use a PS3/4 or 50.00 used Blu Ray player as your transport).

http://philharmonicaudio.com/images/phil3_EK2_smaller.png

http://philharmonicaudio.com/phil3.html

[baseline bum]

As I'm sure you know, DACs are basically transparent, and it's unlikely anyone would be able to tell the difference between a CD played back through a 100.00 Blu Ray player vs. an esoteric transport in a blind test.


It's sad when you get old enough to really appreciate music your hearing has degraded so much. Back when I was 16 I could hear way more frequencies but just only cared about the bass. :lol

[midnightpulp]

It's sad when you get old enough to really appreciate music your hearing has degraded so much. Back when I was 16 I could hear way more frequencies but just only cared about the bass. :lol

Luckily there's not much relevant musical information above like 10Khz (certain harmonics can reach up to 18-20K though). I'm still good to up around 16Khz.

[baseline bum]

Luckily there's not much relevant musical information above like 10Khz (certain harmonics can reach up to 18-20K though). I'm still good to up around 16Khz.

I can't even tell the difference between 256 kbps mp3 and flac on nice Sennheiser headphones man. :lol

[apalisoc_9]

As far as gaming, there's good and bad on every era, tbh... for example, it would be difficult to get the level of story depth of Fallout 1 or 2 with a modern look (Fallout 3 and 4 are pretty great, but you can see the games moving towards FPS)...

Or making games like Monkey Island or most every Lucasfilm adventure games, which were largely great, in a package you could sell now as AAA.

Open world games are definitely an evolution, but whenever I do work on game emulation, I pick up some old arcades or PS2 games and there's some really great and unique games from back then (ie: Psychonauts, Metal Slug, Parappa), and some terrible shit too...

Same with the new stuff, you have the absolute shit AAA games (most newer COD), cheap rehashes (Assasin's Creed), and also some great games (Ori and the Blind Forest, the Tomb Rider reboot, etc)...

While you have much better tools now to build something nicer, it's also true you get major projects also bombing hard, and so there's a lot of rehashing going on now, instead of cheap but more creative.

I think the advent of mobile gaming has actually taken us back a bit to the creative good old days, and it's definitely welcome.

Cost is significantly higher now than it was before. It was easier to to take risk back in the days, nowadys its almost impossible unless you are a big company. Mobile gaming has served as an alternative but it isnt too far ahead yet of a platform to dominate the other platforms. Its a good start and creativity is less risky.

So many video game series has either died or have moved to cheaper platforms because of how tough it is to even make a cent with their structure. Some series have to accepet a downsize in game capacity and move to mobile instead of rotting away and losing the fanbase you earned through the years.

[ElNono]

Bioshock Infinite was pretty amazing storywise. The whole many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and how you were like the 200th try those physicists had to assassinate your alternate universe self. Also, damn you for not mentioning Fallout New Vegas that was the spiritual successor to Fallout 2.

It's pretty unfair not to mention any Fallout, tbh... they're all great games, with different levels of greatness, tbh...

[apalisoc_9]

The one thing Ill hand to older generation games ( ps1 and ps2 and the pcs of that era) is quantity. Very little games nowadys due.to developmental cost and rehash happens because creativity is a huge risk many companies arent willing to make.

[midnightpulp]

I can't even tell the difference between 256 kbps mp3 and flac on nice Sennheiser headphones man. :lol

You're not alone. Many think 256K is transparent enough on all but the best rigs. I haven't tried a comparison myself.

[ElNono]

Cost is significantly higher now than it was before. It was easier to to take risk back in the days, nowadys its almost impossible unless you are a big company. Mobile gaming has served as an alternative but it isnt too far ahead yet of a platform to dominate the other platforms. Its a good start and creativity is less risky.

So many video game series has either died or have moved to cheaper platforms because of how tough it is to even make a cent with their structure. Some series have to accepet a downsize in game capacity and move to mobile instead of rotting away and losing the fanbase you earned through the years.

yeah, gaming went "hollywood" for AAA titles a long time ago, and you have to wonder how many great, but perhaps not that marketable games were left in the backburner until mobile came around. Mobile also allowed testing of new revenue models, like ad-supported, with relatively low risk.

That said, mobile gaming is a saturated market now, tbh. We stopped doing original games a long time ago. Now you're seeing how you need to have marketing muscle to stand out (ie: those Arnold Schwarzenegger commercials), which really suck in a way, since you're back to having to put a lot of money to even have a decent shot...

[apalisoc_9]

Btw, I'm releasing a mobile game around october-november...just trying to polish my Launch strategy.

:lol

I want to post it here, but Ive said way to many crazy shit that it might just bite me in the ass...

[ElNono]

The one thing Ill hand to older generation games ( ps1 and ps2 and the pcs of that era) is quantity. Very little games nowadys due.to developmental cost and rehash happens because creativity is a huge risk many companies arent willing to make.

yeah, plus you have the nostalgia factor too, tbh, which still makes a lot of money...

[apalisoc_9]

yeah, gaming went "hollywood" for AAA titles a long time ago, and you have to wonder how many great, but perhaps not that marketable games were left in the backburner until mobile came around. Mobile also allowed testing of new revenue models, like ad-supported, with relatively low risk.

That said, mobile gaming is a saturated market now, tbh. We stopped doing original games a long time ago. Now you're seeing how you need to have marketing muscle to stand out (ie: those Arnold Schwarzenegger commercials), which really suck in a way, since you're back to having to put a lot of money to even have a decent shot...

Not good news for me..:lol

I started developing the game two years ago. But yeah I know how overly saturated it is now..

I wanted to stop developing the game june of last year but I was so far ahead of development that it didnt make sense.to stop.

[ElNono]

Btw, I'm releasing a mobile game around october-november...just trying to polish my Launch strategy.

:lol

I want to post it here, but Ive said way to many crazy shit that it might just bite me in the ass...

Good luck bro... My only recommendation is to try to push it as much as you can on social media, tbh. If you can port it to a Facebook game, all the better.

It's much more worthwhile in this day and age than spending in iAds, Google ads, etc for that market...

[apalisoc_9]

Good luck bro... My only recommendation is to try to push it as much as you can on social media, tbh. If you can port it to a Facebook game, all the better.

It's much more worthwhile in this day and age than spending in iAds, Google ads, etc for that market...

Thanks bro.

I'm convinced that aggressive social media marketing in India and Philippines is the way to go.

[ViceCity86]

Here We Go

Sports Modern:Moderate Edge
Movies Past:Moderate Edge
Television Modern:Significant Edge
Music Past:Significant Edge
Video Games Modern:Significant Edge
Board/Card games Modern:Significant Edge
Internet Modern:Moderate Edge
Literature Past:Significant Edge
Technology Modern-Significant Edge
Spurs Modern-Moderate Edge
Women-Neutral
Sex Modern:Moderate Edge
Blacks/Africans Past:Significant Edge
Culture Past:Moderate Edge

[daslicer]

Here We Go

Sports Modern:Moderate Edge
Movies Past:Moderate Edge
Television Modern:Significant Edge
Music Past:Significant Edge
Video Games Modern:Significant Edge
Board/Card games Modern:Significant Edge
Internet Modern:Moderate Edge
Literature Past:Significant Edge
Technology Modern-Significant Edge
Spurs Modern-Moderate Edge
Women-Neutral
Sex Modern:Moderate Edge
Blacks/Africans Past:Significant Edge
Culture Past:Moderate Edge

:lol

[spurraider21]

I have yet to pick up the newest gen of consoles... I hardly game anymore since finishing college. But to me, my favorite consoles as far as fun factor are the PS2 and N64. Those are consoles where I can have buddies over, plug that in, and have a great time for hours. PS3 has ridiculously fun single player content, but outside of sports games (which imo are pretty shitty nowadays and have been basically the same for 6-7 years), you can't really have fun with friends over.

[ambchang]

Nice dimensions. And you're rolling with your headphone rigs.

I would forego spending anything more than a few hundred on a transport. As I'm sure you know, DACs are basically transparent, and it's unlikely anyone would be able to tell the difference between a CD played back through a 100.00 Blu Ray player vs. an esoteric transport in a blind test. Oppo does indeed make great stuff, but an extra grand put toward your speakers will go further sound quality wise. Nad M3 is nice.

Synchronys are a nice value at 2K. And if you're intent on going Canadian, you really can't beat them at that price. But if you're flexible, keep your eye out for some used Revel Performa F208s, Golden Ear Triton One or Two, or checkout the Internet direct offerings from Selah, Ascend, and Philharmonic Audio. Philharmonic's flagship is about impossible to beat at its price point of 3500 (3500+1500 for the NAD, and just use a PS3/4 or 50.00 used Blu Ray player as your transport).

http://philharmonicaudio.com/images/phil3_EK2_smaller.png

http://philharmonicaudio.com/phil3.html

Thanks for the tips. I will keep my eyes opened.

[midnightpulp]

Thanks for the tips. I will keep my eyes opened.

No prob. I was clicking around Audiogon for the fun of it, and found an older used Oppo for pretty cheap (plays SA-CDs, which is nice):

https://www.audiogon.com/listings/cd-sacd-players-oppo-digital-bdp-93-universal-bluray-sacd-dvd-a-player-2016-02-29-digital-t3e-1l5

Seller is also in Canada.

[ambchang]

No prob. I was clicking around Audiogon for the fun of it, and found an older used Oppo for pretty cheap (plays SA-CDs, which is nice):

https://www.audiogon.com/listings/cd-sacd-players-oppo-digital-bdp-93-universal-bluray-sacd-dvd-a-player-2016-02-29-digital-t3e-1l5

Seller is also in Canada.

I am looking to get the final headphones that I really really want, but the price is just ridiculous right now. 3 years ago, it was going for about $1K USD, now, it's going for about $1800 to $2200. It's the Grado HP-1000. And I am guessing the price is just going to keep going up and up.

[Cry Havoc]

No prob. I was clicking around Audiogon for the fun of it, and found an older used Oppo for pretty cheap (plays SA-CDs, which is nice):

https://www.audiogon.com/listings/cd-sacd-players-oppo-digital-bdp-93-universal-bluray-sacd-dvd-a-player-2016-02-29-digital-t3e-1l5

Seller is also in Canada.

Was unaware there were other audiophiles on Spurs talk. :tu I'm running a pioneer elite receiver powering a couple of mirage om-12s, BIC Center (admittedly the weak point of the system).

Got a good deal on some ultrasound headphones but will be upgrading them soon... To what I'm not sure. Maybe electrostatic's.

[lefty]

Curry is better than MJ, Magic, Isiah and Hakeem combined tbh

[midnightpulp]

Was unaware there were other audiophiles on Spurs talk. :tu I'm running a pioneer elite receiver powering a couple of mirage om-12s, BIC Center (admittedly the weak point of the system).

Got a good deal on some ultrasound headphones but will be upgrading them soon... To what I'm not sure. Maybe electrostatic's.

Nice. Mirage makes really good gear. Friend of mine found an 8" sub of theirs for like 8.00 in a Pawn Shop. He gave it to me, since he found a 10" Velodyne for 11.00 in the same shop. Very tight and fast. Upgraded recently to the Rythmik L12 (a sealed sub), since the Mirage was making port noise at the levels I like to listen to, but it's a banger in a non-boomy way.

Here's my mains (not mine personally, but the same model):

http://img.usaudiomart.com/uploads/large/857351-acoustic-research-ar-11-speakers.jpg

Found them at the thrift store for 20.00. Refoamed the woofers and recapped the crossovers. They image crazy good.

Receiver is a Marantz SR-6009. Previously had a Marantz 2 channel integrated, but I want to start playing around with multichannel audio. I also love the bass management receivers give you. Much easier to blend a sub with your mains.

[Cry Havoc]

Nice. Mirage makes really good gear. Friend of mine found an 8" sub of theirs for like 8.00 in a Pawn Shop. He gave it to me, since he found a 10" Velodyne for 11.00 in the same shop. Very tight and fast. Upgraded recently to the Rythmik L12 (a sealed sub), since the Mirage was making port noise at the levels I like to listen to, but it's a banger in a non-boomy way.

Here's my mains (not mine personally, but the same model):

http://img.usaudiomart.com/uploads/large/857351-acoustic-research-ar-11-speakers.jpg

Found them at the thrift store for 20.00. Refoamed the woofers and recapped the crossovers. They image crazy good.

Receiver is a Marantz SR-6009. Previously had a Marantz 2 channel integrated, but I want to start playing around with multichannel audio. I also love the bass management receivers give you. Much easier to blend a sub with your mains.

Love the look of those old cabinets. Those in particular look like they've seen better days, hope your cones are cleaner than that. :lol

I picked up my Mirage's on craigslist. I almost felt dirty for the price he wanted for them, and now I can't even justify upgrading my speakers because these sound better (to me) than all but the very high end stuff you can find around. They're also omnipolar (well, bipolar really), so it makes for a super wide sweet spot for listening. Frequency response down to 32hz.

[313]

I have yet to pick up the newest gen of consoles... I hardly game anymore since finishing college. But to me, my favorite consoles as far as fun factor are the PS2 and N64. Those are consoles where I can have buddies over, plug that in, and have a great time for hours. PS3 has ridiculously fun single player content, but outside of sports games (which imo are pretty shitty nowadays and have been basically the same for 6-7 years), you can't really have fun with friends over.
It's even worse with the PS4 and xone. Everything is online and besides sports games, it's rare for a game to have local co op anymore.

[midnightpulp]

Love the look of those old cabinets. Those in particular look like they've seen better days, hope your cones are cleaner than that. :lol

I picked up my Mirage's on craigslist. I almost felt dirty for the price he wanted for them, and now I can't even justify upgrading my speakers because these sound better (to me) than all but the very high end stuff you can find around. They're also omnipolar (well, bipolar really), so it makes for a super wide sweet spot for listening. Frequency response down to 32hz.

Cones were in similar shape when I found them in the thrift. The old foam surrounds deteriorate after a 20-30 years. Luckily, it's a relatively easy and cheap job to glue new surrounds to the cones and woofer frame. As long as your voice coils are good, it'a all gravy. Not sure if your Mirages (I think the OM-12s are about 15-16 years old now?) used foam surrounds, but if they did, you might want to take a look, make sure they're still good (they likely used rubber, though).

Also agreed about the need to upgrade. My speakers are 40 years old, and that old box design is something of a relic, and of course with all the CAD and materials advantages we have today, modern speakers are definitely superior purely on paper, but they have had two channel audio pretty much figured out for a while now. Audiophiles definitely chase single percent improvements. In video game terms, they were at 4K resolution in the 60s and 70s and today, we're probably a "4.1K" (if that comparison makes any sense).

I definitely want to upgrade at some point, just to play around with new gear. But these 40 year old antiques have compared favorably to anything modern I've compared them to in the 1-2K price range.

[DMC]

I have yet to pick up the newest gen of consoles... I hardly game anymore since finishing college. But to me, my favorite consoles as far as fun factor are the PS2 and N64. Those are consoles where I can have buddies over, plug that in, and have a great time for hours. PS3 has ridiculously fun single player content, but outside of sports games (which imo are pretty shitty nowadays and have been basically the same for 6-7 years), you can't really have fun with friends over.
When you're not blowing each other.

[apalisoc_9]

Never understood the facination with speakers. Seems like younger generations dont care much about it either.

[midnightpulp]

Never understood the facination with speakers. Seems like younger generations dont care much about it either.

If you just want something to make noise and play music, headphones are fine, and the higher end rigs like Ambchang is running can sound extraordinary with regard to clarity and detail.

But headphones restrict the sound stage to inside your head and listening to music through them is a 2 dimensional experience. A great speaker system in a good room can give you all the clarity and detail of a great headphone rig but actually present the music 3 dimensionally, as if the performers are in the room. And a lot of top end speaker systems can make the entire room disappear. And that's nothing to say of the much superior bass extension speakers/subs give you. Once you listen to a great speaker system, headphones sound like toys. Headphones can only really do soundstage via binaurally recorded material, and even then, the dimensionality isn't all that convincing (due to everyone's individual Head-Ear listening apparatus).

"Younger people" don't care about speakers because it's hard to set up a good rig in a small bedroom or dorm, most young people also don't know what good audio is.

[apalisoc_9]

If you just want something to make noise and play music, headphones are fine, and the higher end rigs like Ambchang is running can sound extraordinary with regard to clarity and detail.

But headphones restrict the sound stage to inside your head and listening to music through them is a 2 dimensional experience. A great speaker system in a good room can give you all the clarity and detail of a great headphone rig but actually present the music 3 dimensionally, as if the performers are in the room. And a lot of top end speaker systems can make the entire room disappear. And that's nothing to say of the much superior bass extension speakers/subs give you. Once you listen to a great speaker system, headphones sound like toys. Headphones can only really do soundstage via binaurally recorded material, and even then, the dimensionally isn't all that convincing.

"Younger people" don't care about speakers because it's hard to set up a good rig in a small bedroom or dorm, most young people also don't know what good audio is.

I don't know tbh. My older brother has some expensive speakers but I just can't bring myself to care about. I just use my TV without speakers. I have 3 expensive headphones though :lol

I think younger people in general just stay away from TV nowadys. The only time I use my TV is when I game and watch basketball...speakers dont add much to these experience, Imo.

[midnightpulp]

If you just want something to make noise and play music, headphones are fine, and the higher end rigs like Ambchang is running can sound extraordinary with regard to clarity and detail.

But headphones restrict the sound stage to inside your head and listening to music through them is a 2 dimensional experience. A great speaker system in a good room can give you all the clarity and detail of a great headphone rig but actually present the music 3 dimensionally, as if the performers are in the room. And a lot of top end speaker systems can make the entire room disappear. And that's nothing to say of the much superior bass extension speakers/subs give you. Once you listen to a great speaker system, headphones sound like toys. Headphones can only really do soundstage via binaurally recorded material, and even then, the dimensionality isn't all that convincing (due to everyone's individual Head-Ear listening apparatus).

"Younger people" don't care about speakers because it's hard to set up a good rig in a small bedroom or dorm, most young people also don't know what good audio is.

And on this point, it really isn't anymore. You can buy some JBL LSR305s (a bookshelf sized powered monitor that is state-of-the-art accurate that price point) for about 350.00, set up them near field, apply DSP correction to account for room acoustics, and you have a setup that's better than pretty much every headphone rig in existence.

[midnightpulp]

I don't know tbh. My older brother has some expensive speakers but I just can't bring myself to care about. I just use my TV without speakers. I have 3 expensive headphones though :lol

I think younger people in general just stay away from TV nowadys. The only time I use my TV is when I game and watch basketball...speakers dont add much to these experience, Imo.

Headphones can't do what speakers do without an external DSP processor like the Smyth Realiser (which makes headphones sound like speakers but without the tactile interaction [bass hitting your body]).

It's cool if you prefer the intimacy and portability of headphones, but in terms of what presents 99.9% of recorded audio more realistically (aside from binaural, but speakers can playback binaural much more realistically than headphones. Unfortunately the DSP processor you need to do that is 56 thousand dollars right now), there's no comparison.

You're probably not into audio, but go to any audiophile board, and the majority of headphone users use them out of need (they live in a small apartment, wife doesn't like big speakers, etc), and would prefer a speaker rig if given a choice.

[ambchang]

Even though my headphone rig is about one of the top (unless I go Orpheus or sr009 with kgsshv, which are rigs I can't afford), I know that they are, at best, comparable to entry level speaker gears.

My problem comes from time where I'm unlikely to have the time to dedicate myself to listen to the rig enough to justify having to plunk down $5k on it.

[Cry Havoc]

Even though my headphone rig is about one of the top (unless I go Orpheus or sr009 with kgsshv, which are rigs I can't afford), I know that they are, at best, comparable to entry level speaker gears.

My problem comes from time where I'm unlikely to have the time to dedicate myself to listen to the rig enough to justify having to plunk down $5k on it.

what headphones are you rocking?

[Thread]

what headphones are you rocking?

The insides of his mother's knocked knees.

[ambchang]

what headphones are you rocking?

Beats .... :lol

Seriously, ortho rig is beta 22 amp with Hifiman he500 (tried he1000 and he560, along with ether, audeze and felt a modded he560 is the best)

Electrostatic rig is stax sr007 MKI (omega) with KGSS amp

Both fed by moon audio 300d DAC.

Also have a portable rig, but thinking of selling it as I don't travel much anymore.

[midnightpulp]

Even though my headphone rig is about one of the top (unless I go Orpheus or sr009 with kgsshv, which are rigs I can't afford), I know that they are, at best, comparable to entry level speaker gears.

My problem comes from time where I'm unlikely to have the time to dedicate myself to listen to the rig enough to justify having to plunk down $5k on it.

It's all what type of presentation you prefer. If you love intimacy and the in your head stage of headphones, no speakers are going to do that. Me, I am a soundstage whore and love for music to fill the room in real 3D space.

If you don't want to spend 5K, you can get something that will get you 98% of the 5K rig you were planning on for about a grand to 1500. Like I said, 2 channel audio is pretty mature tech, and we've had it relatively figured out for a while (room correction is pretty much the last frontier). The "leaps" between audio generations are single percent improvements, if that.

Harman Kardon, who owns Infinity, JBL, and Revel are doing amazing and groundbreaking things with R&D. They stringently double blind test Harman products against the competition, and if a Harman product fails, it's back to the drawing board for tweaks.

These 300.00 per pair Infinitys beat a pair of 4K Martin Logan electrostats in a blind test (they also beat a pair of 600.00 Polks and 1K Klipsch).

http://www.thebestbestsellers.com/product/infinity-primus-three-way-dual-6-12-inch-floorstanding-speaker-black-each/

Pick up this Marantz for 500.00 (I bought mine from the same site. All of their components are factory refurbed and have a one year warranty).

I was once a purist on amplification, thinking the less features and electronics in an amp, the "cleaner" the signal, but there's really no difference. Modern receivers from a great company like Marantz, Denon, Pioneer, Yamaha are all well engineered (and if you want cleaner, you can always add a power amp). And with modern receivers, you get bass management and room correction.

I do recommend a sub. The 500.00 models from Rythmik, HSU, and SVS can't be beat at that price point.

Place everything correctly in the room, and you're pretty much there for about 1500.00.



http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/marsr6009/marantz-sr6009-7.2-receiver-wi-fi/bt/airplay/1.html

[spurraider21]

"Younger people" don't care about speakers because it's hard to set up a good rig in a small bedroom or dorm, most young people also don't know what good audio is.
young people don't care about speakers because modern music doesn't have layering that benefits from a 3 dimensional sound system. the bass drowns out anything resembling music anyway. that's why beats are popular. anything that can amplify the bass is sufficient for modern music

[midnightpulp]

young people don't care about speakers because modern music doesn't have layering that benefits from a 3 dimensional sound system. the bass drowns out anything resembling music anyway. that's why beats are popular. anything that can amplify the bass is sufficient for modern music

That's a good point, and the frustrating thing is that there are layers to modern music (even radio pop), but the fuckin' loudness war mastering kills all the dynamics.

Holy shit, this is bad:

https://i.imgur.com/YzTdkeD.png

I also won't put this on Millennials. It was my gen that forced these practices, with our walkmans and obnoxious car stereos. Hi-Fi home stereo as a cultural trend died in the 70's (although, tech wise, we're better than ever in home audio).

[spurraider21]

That's a good point, and the frustrating thing is that there are layers to modern music (even radio pop), but the fuckin' loudness war mastering kills all the dynamics.

Holy shit, this is bad:

https://i.imgur.com/YzTdkeD.png

I also won't put this on Millennials. It was my gen that forced these practices, with our walkmans and obnoxious car stereos. Hi-Fi home stereo as a cultural trend died in the 70's (although, tech wise, we're better than ever in home audio).
:lol that meter...

but i generally disagree about layering in modern music. certainly there are exceptions, but the general trend is just uniform noise. i'm much more of a rock/metal guy than a hip hop guy, and when i go to clubs and see bands perform nowadays, you can't listen for the rhythm/lead/bass separately anymore. they all just play the same thing at the same time loudly. compare that to the 60's, 70's and even 80's and it's night and day.

the main exceptions in the rock scene are bands that are quite literally throwbacks... muse (before 2nd law album), arctic monkeys, wolfmother (only their debut album). those guys are solid but are basically mimics of older generation bands

[midnightpulp]

:lol that meter...

but i generally disagree about layering in modern music. certainly there are exceptions, but the general trend is just uniform noise. i'm much more of a rock/metal guy than a hip hop guy, and when i go to clubs and see bands perform nowadays, you can't listen for the rhythm/lead/bass separately anymore. they all just play the same thing at the same time loudly. compare that to the 60's, 70's and even 80's and it's night and day.

the main exceptions in the rock scene are bands that are quite literally throwbacks... muse (before 2nd law album), arctic monkeys, wolfmother (only their debut album). those guys are solid but are basically mimics of older generation bands

Sadly, a lot of those bands (Monkeys, Arcade Fire, and older bands like Depeche Mode, The Cure and such) have had the dynamics in their music squashed. Check out the dynamic range of their albums (also see how the vinyl version has more dynamics):

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Arctic+Monkeys&album=

I have some really badly mastered albums (Californication by the Chili Peppers and Dig Your Own Hole by the Chemical Brothers) that actually send my receiver into protection mode :lol

[ambchang]

It's all what type of presentation you prefer. If you love intimacy and the in your head stage of headphones, no speakers are going to do that. Me, I am a soundstage whore and love for music to fill the room in real 3D space.

If you don't want to spend 5K, you can get something that will get you 98% of the 5K rig you were planning on for about a grand to 1500. Like I said, 2 channel audio is pretty mature tech, and we've had it relatively figured out for a while (room correction is pretty much the last frontier). The "leaps" between audio generations are single percent improvements, if that.

Harman Kardon, who owns Infinity, JBL, and Revel are doing amazing and groundbreaking things with R&D. They stringently double blind test Harman products against the competition, and if a Harman product fails, it's back to the drawing board for tweaks.

These 300.00 per pair Infinitys beat a pair of 4K Martin Logan electrostats in a blind test (they also beat a pair of 600.00 Polks and 1K Klipsch).

http://www.thebestbestsellers.com/product/infinity-primus-three-way-dual-6-12-inch-floorstanding-speaker-black-each/

Pick up this Marantz for 500.00 (I bought mine from the same site. All of their components are factory refurbed and have a one year warranty).

I was once a purist on amplification, thinking the less features and electronics in an amp, the "cleaner" the signal, but there's really no difference. Modern receivers from a great company like Marantz, Denon, Pioneer, Yamaha are all well engineered (and if you want cleaner, you can always add a power amp). And with modern receivers, you get bass management and room correction.

I do recommend a sub. The 500.00 models from Rythmik, HSU, and SVS can't be beat at that price point.

Place everything correctly in the room, and you're pretty much there for about 1500.00.



http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/marsr6009/marantz-sr6009-7.2-receiver-wi-fi/bt/airplay/1.html

I am kind of greedy that way. I want to get a set and have it set, where I won't have any itch to upgrade later on.
I can probably get about $4K selling all my headphone stuff to invest in a speaker rig, but then I want to keep the headphone rigs because they sound so good.