I thought armchair audiophile were bad. Now its instant expert, military jet design, just add internet.
How do you think the US won the cold war? KGB is sh*t scared of these defence experts
I thought armchair audiophile were bad. Now its instant expert, military jet design, just add internet.
certainly not an expert and not claiming to be. The point is 50's technology vs 2000's technology. Which is better? Everyone should turn in their cell phones and turn off the internet and go back to black and white TV (all 3 channels). 50's technology was awesome!
certainly not an expert and not claiming to be. The point is 50's technology vs 2000's technology. Which is better? Everyone should turn in their cell phones and turn off the internet and go back to black and white TV (all 3 channels). 50's technology was awesome!
Take your time don't hurt yourselfHmmm, let me think for just a second....
yes it is a Magico thread. Thank you for two specific examples. They are new and different and advanced but I’m not convinced it makes for improvement in sound quality. Sometimes a dead cabinet sounds dead. I enjoyed that sound for a long time and many others do as well however there are many people who do not like the sound of Magico speakers despite the claims of advancement.
In the end I am still not convinced the technological advancement has improved the sound of audio equipment at the top end. Even a vintage JBL or Klipsch May sound better for half the price of any Magico entry speaker.
Sure there are new measuring techniques but do these get us to a better sounding speaker then from the days when designers simply used their ears to design wooden cabinets?
Precisely. Any $100 cell phone has vastly more computing power than the Apollo 11 onboard computer, developed in 1968, which was a technological breakthrough at the time.
Saying that basic speaker technology hasn't changed makes as much sense as claiming basic computer technology hasn't changed just because the Apollo 11 computer used integrated circuits (ICs) as well. Now would I choose the Apollo 11 onboard computer over my cheap cell phone on which I typed this post? Hmmm, let me think for just a second....
I think y'all are making this complicated and unnecessarily combative.
1) Speaker cabinet materials have advanced since the 1950s. Does anyone truly wish to argue that Wilson's exotic cabinet materials and Rockport's epoxy resin processes are not more advanced than basic MDF construction?
2) Vintage or advanced technology implementation is a question completely separate from the question of which design one subjectively likes the sound of better. Whether someone prefers the sound of speakers whose cabinets are made of MDF (or vintage hardwood) or whose cabinets are made of more recent advanced resin materials is totally subjective.
Are there any other open issues on the table?
PS: I personally think that generic analogies to other industries are not helpful and do not advance this discussion.
Jeff, I think, made a fantastic point earlier about the hobby having been one for the middle classes is now considered extremely expensive. It’s a pretty rare hobby now and out of reach for a lot of people for all the reasons previously stated. But in the end, it may not matter. Most people seem to have other interests now anyway.
First, we’re talking about audio technology not black and white TVs and dial-up telephones from the 1950s. Cell phones and Internet are great modern technologies but second, the subject here I thought was whether technological advances and current research and development in high end Audio has led to appreciably better sound.
Perhaps it has and some people will point to stiffer speaker cabinets and stiffer drivers and more complex crossovers. Different materials with different properties. Better testing techniques. What interests me is whether or not all of that expense and advancement has actually lead to better sound.
There’s no question that speakers are smaller and fit into our smaller rooms better and perhaps have higher wife approval factors. Fit and finish is unbelievable for Magico and Wilson. You get big sound with a small footprint. In some sense all of that is progress. Does it sound better? Perhaps in a few cases but I’m no longer convinced.
I think some electronics have gotten better but I don’t have a lot of experience over the decades. I am not at all convinced that turntables have gotten any better.
Sure preferences are subjective. And some people prefer the sound of older gear with older technology for whatever reason. What’s interesting to me is that new technology with audio does not universally lead to consensus about better sound. Why is that? Why do better measurements and stiffer materials and other technological advances not automatically lead to better sound?
That is the interesting question which is worthy of contemplation and discussion in my opinion.
And yet, you can have fantastic sound quality for a relatively moderate price, in a system with a digital front end as source. I doubt that, adjusted for inflation, you could have had such sound from a system at a similar price three decades ago. The hobby doesn't have to be extremely expensive.
Al, could you give two or three examples of “fantastic sound quality“ systems available knew for a relatively moderate price? And what parts of these two or three examples has what we would consider technological advances?
What is your standard for fantastic sound quality and what do you consider a moderate price?
It would help to know how you define your standard here.
Fantastic not by my current own esoteric audiophile standards, but fantastic by, for example, the standards of non-audiophile visitors who would hear my system and be blown away.
Example 1:
Reference 3A MM DeCapo BE monitors.
At $ 3,000 they were at least as good or, mostly, better than my Ensemble Reference monitors that, with inflation adjusted price, would have cost about 11 grand at the time I bought the Reference 3A monitors. The Ensemble speakers were very well regarded when I bought them beginning of the 90s, so much so that they were then considered of having set a new standard in their class.
Substantially better at a MUCH cheaper price? I call that progress. Better speaker drivers, better cabinet construction.
Example 2:
Schiit Vidar amplifier, $ 700, which I bought in case I have an amp failure (less urgent with my Octave amp than with my previous tube amps). For this price the amp is embarrassingly good, and would probably smoke any of the cheaper amps from the beginning of the 90s that I have heard.
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |