The Long Memory of Audiophiles

[Ron Resnick]

tin-foil-in-your- mouth sound

?

It's rich that you complained about my term "sonic center of gravity."

 

[Ron Resnick]

I agree with you Kjetil, from my perspective, Audiophile is a hobby which can be compared to having cars as a hobby.

Back in the 60's I bought for my first car, a high milage Chevy Impala that smoked badly, for $100. The reason I bought it was it had a 327 cu. in. V8 with FI (fuel-injection) heads, same as what came in the Corvette. Back then, everything was user-serviceable. A friend and I removed the carb, intake manifold and heads in the street in front of my parents house. We took the heads to our local auto parts store and had them cleaned, and a valve job done on them. I replaced the heads and rebuilt the four barrel carb, and presto, my car went from smokey stinky yank tank to a sleeper that accelerated like stink. Could have done more, intake manifold, duel four barrels, headers, all available from the local car parts store. Today, cars are so technical that (except for simple oil and filter changes) the average owner wouldn't dream of getting under the hood with a wrench.

Back in the late-80's early-90's, I belonged to the Oregon Triode Society. Our members were building their own turntables, amplifiers and speakers. I read (and re-read) every printed edition of Sound Practices many times. My current LP playback rig is built up around the self-made or home-improved ethos of those days. While I am not skilled enough to design and build a great SET (so bought a good one new), I have designed (but built by others) my turntable (one of the problems with the much coveted Garrard 301 is the flexible chassis and rumble, so I traded mine in for one rebuilt onto a CNC-machined-from-solid-brass chassis and platter, had the plinth made of vibration deadening Panzerholz and extolling the virtues of tangential tracking tonearms, used a pivoted tangential tonearm from Reed so as to keep the appearance old school and clean). In addition, I am constantly tinkering with my Altec A7 speakers; adding wooden reinforcements and wool felt to the insides, exchanging larger exponential horns (twin rows of five) for the metal single horn (divided into three chambers), and swapping out the 902-8B ferrite compression drivers with new Alnico magnet 802-8G Series II compression drivers from Great Plains Audio, to make my hi fi sound real to me. I enjoy being able to apply what little I know about the subject to the purchase or construction of my ultimate system. My Garrard turntable and Altec A7 horn speakers are, superficially, "old school", but the modifications of such bring them to a world-class level. A melding of old school and new school to develop a hybrid that combines the best of both. Sure, I have spent a lot on my equipment but nowhere near the + of 6 figures amounts that others are spending to put together world-class systems today.

I'm not sure cars are a great analogy to audio. Unless one builds a kit-car, I think the biggest difference is that audio comes in kit form* (the purchase of an amplifier requires the coordinated purchase of numerous other products in order to play recorded music out of the speakers), whereas a car is a completed product that can be used for intended purpose at the time of purchase.

A consequence of this is that I think a lot of the frustration, consternation and resulting ego sensitivity and opinionatedness among many audiophiles comes from the fact that (unless one delegates the system purchase decision to a dealer or the purchase decision is an aesthetic decision or a brand show-off decision) a lot of work and effort and thought and introspection and mistaken purchases and sound-->component path decisions and then reversals and cognitive dissonance, etc., often are part of the process of "putting a system together."

*Karen Sumner

 

[Ron Resnick]

My humble suggestion is that we approach new products with an open mind,

I believe I do this. I think that if I am not at least somewhat open-minded I would not have heard and perceived subjectively the XVX as a loudspeaker achievement, or maybe I would not even have wanted to bother to listen to it, given my life-long history of finding unlistenable over decades every Wilson Audio product with a metal dome tweeter.

I also think that part of the opening post here is guilty of what I am sometimes accused of doing: wrapping my personal subjective preference in an interesting and plausible theory. (Not that there's anything at all wrong with doing this! )

 

[Ron Resnick]

That products leave poor impressions in people's minds is experienced based and quite possibly those products were extolled by publications at one point. And those reviews are still out there to be read. We read about the new but such readings rarely point out past weaknesses as weaknesses overcome.

. . .

Reviews judge new products against past products but rarely talk about reliability and service from the company.

Many/most manufacturers need to keep their name in the press so we get continual Mark 2s and Version 3s. In an effort "to be new" sonics get changed, and while new sonics may have entertaining effects they can lead away from the sound of live acoustic music. . . .

Pity the manufacturer who gets it right the first time. Once again (no doubt to the annoyance of some) I'll draw on Vladimir Lamm. He made so few updates to his designs -- designs based on extensive testing with real people -- because human hearing has hardly changed over time.

I tend to agree with you that "materials, parts quality, and engineering approaches are ever getting better". But it does not follow from that alone that sound is getting better.

+1

 

[Kjetil]

^Change the tires on your car and it will behave differently.

The fascination for both cars and Hifi is similar in the way that you can have it readymade (Kef LS60 or your premium family car) of full tinker (my system, my neighbor’s Volvo Amazon). One interesting aspect of both is that the expensive stuff, both cars and Hifi, is not necessarily what’s best.

 

[tima]

?

It's rich that you complained about my term "sonic center of gravity."

Isn't it rich. Isn't it queer. I said it once, you since last year.

Have you ever had a piece of tin-foil in your mouth?

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...quit clowning around.

 

[bonzo75]

Isn't it rich. Isn't it queer. I said it once, you since last year.

Hear hear

 

[mtemur]

I don’t think car analogy suited best here.
It’s easier to compare old and new cars. You simply race them. On the other hand it’s almost impossible to make same kind of objective comparison of audio components cause good sound is pretty subjective. It differs according to personal preferences. I think manufacturers exploit that subjectivism pretty well.

 

[mtemur]

The Wilson, linn, and levinson is not vintage, it is modern, and then and now it would sound equally bad. Linn by itself is quite a reasonable musical convenient high street purchase

I still remember boomy bass of those Wilson Watt Puppy series and Grand Slamm. First and second series Sophia were much better in this regard as far as I remember. The dark character and slowness of Mark Levinson amps was not easy to forget. Actually I found a fix for my Mark Levinson 333 back then but don’t regret getting rid of it cause they’re famous for capacitor failure.

I didn’t have a chance to listen Linn cd12 but used to own a Bow zz8 which has identical transport, digital filter/processor and dacs. Bow is a top loader and it relatively has a good sound. Mark Levinson cd 39 is a very close design but drawer was causing malfunction.

 

[Rensselaer]

I'm not sure cars are a great analogy to audio. Unless one builds a kit-car, I think the biggest difference is that audio comes in kit form* (the purchase of an amplifier requires the coordinated purchase of numerous other products in order to play recorded music out of the speakers), whereas a car is a completed product that can be used for intended purpose at the time of purchase.

A consequence of this is that I think a lot of the frustration, consternation and resulting ego sensitivity and opinionatedness among many audiophiles comes from the fact that (unless one delegates the system purchase decision to a dealer or the purchase decision is an aesthetic decision or a brand show-off decision) a lot of work and effort and thought and introspection and mistaken purchases and sound-->component path decisions and then reversals and cognitive dissonance, etc., often are part of the process of "putting a system together."

*Karen Sumner

My point with cars were when in the 60’s one could build a super car with parts (Authorised and after market) bought from the parts store. One could set it up with parts designed to give maximum torque off the idle for drag racing, or horsepower at high revs and suspension/tire changes for road racing. Then there is parts to build an off-road racer, for Baja, or rock climber, or mudder. I see a lot of similarities with researching different components/speaker combinations to produce the type of sound that will complement your tastes in music.

 

[Al M.]

Uncalled For...

You'll get used to it. Or not.

 

[Gregm]

One thing I have been noticing more and more among audiophiles is a long memory of gear quality and performance.

I go to DIY and older equipment events and, with some exception, the sound is just not good at all. There are certainly examples of things like horn-based approaches sounded good. Avantgarde comes to mind….but reconditioned Bozaks are just not that great friends.

I don't wish to be contrarian -- but I might suggest the same open-mindedness when it comes to certain vintage products. A few examples of exceptionally good sound (my anecdotal opinion): what's wrong with a Goldmund Reference TT? Golden Mimesis 6 preamplifier, the first CAT pre, what about active Cabasse Albatross with alnico mid & woofer?
That said, of course we all carry memories of exciting sound reproduction from our formative years -- at least I do!

My humble suggestion is that we approach new products with an open mind, regardless of past faults that stood out. Given that materials, parts quality, and engineering approaches are ever getting better, it is time for fresh thinking. That will ensure new products get their rightfully earned time in the spotlight. And it will mean better sound quality for the entire community.

Speaker manufacturers nowadays have software simulation & design support and components that that didn't t exist 50 years ago; and precision measurement devices. Engineering approaches -- I'm not so sure. Electronic design -- certainly: there wasn't any digital worth mentioning until about 10 years ago (give or take, IMO, YMMV etc ad nauseam)

 

[andromedaaudio]

I have a very long memory in audio and it doesn t change much , i heard these speakers for the first time in 2003 and they left a very good impression .
After hearing a qazzilion of other transducer over the years they are still the one i would buy today , audio is indeed static for me
The speakers Looks great , have a classic look .
Amps are like ice creams , pick your flavour .
Audio hasnt changed for me ove the years , most of the so called " advancements " are marketing hype made up by manufacturers / reviewers .
Wadax has done a digital advancement , but for the rest ....



c

 

[Lee]

Isn't it rich. Isn't it queer. I said it once, you since last year.

Have you ever had a piece of tin-foil in your mouth?

I don't wish to be contrarian -- but I might suggest the same open-mindedness when it comes to certain vintage products. A few examples of exceptionally good sound (my anecdotal opinion): what's wrong with a Goldmund Reference TT? Golden Mimesis 6 preamplifier, the first CAT pre, what about active Cabasse Albatross with alnico mid & woofer?
That said, of course we all carry memories of exciting sound reproduction from our formative years -- at least I do!

Speaker manufacturers nowadays have software simulation & design support and components that that didn't t exist 50 years ago; and precision measurement devices. Engineering approaches -- I'm not so sure. Electronic design -- certainly: there wasn't any digital worth mentioning until about 10 years ago (give or take, IMO, YMMV etc ad nauseam)

Greg, one good example of modern engineering approaches is the Klippel device I saw in action at Magico. It’s only been around recently.

 

[Lee]

I have a very long memory in audio and it doesn t change much , i heard these speakers for the first time in 2003 and they left a very good impression .
After hearing a qazzilion of other transducer over the years they are still the one i would buy today , audio is indeed static for me
The speakers Looks great , have a classic look .
Amps are like ice creams , pick your flavour .
Audio hasnt changed for me ove the years , most of the so called " advancements " are marketing made up by manufacturers / reviewers .
Wadax has done a digital advancement , but for the rest ....

View attachment 108263 c

There are numerous advancements in digital as worthy as Wadax. Apex was huge for dCS. The Digital Director connected to my friend Jimmy’s MSB Reference DAC was a huge improvement. Every year in audio, dozens of new advancements occur in audio. Same on the pro side, at least with the ADCs, mics, and recording boxes I am familiar with.

 

[Lee]

I would also give credit to Dagostino for their new MXV circuit. My favorite room at Axpona was their Momentum version paired with Wilson’s Alexx V. This was just wonderful lifelike sound. There was definitely some synergy going on with these two.

 

[andromedaaudio]

There are numerous advancements in digital as worthy as Wadax. Apex was huge for dCS. The Digital Director connected to my friend Jimmy’s MSB Reference DAC was a huge improvement.

Well if i take Munchen last year Wadax was able to deliver in show conditions .
The rest is just mediocre digital not worth the high prices .
I heard the Apex set up as well off course
If i find a good quality recording on YT and stream it over my old dac , the SQ aint that much different

 

[tima]

Uncalled For...

What is uncalled for?

 

[Al M.]

That said, of course we all carry memories of exciting sound reproduction from our formative years -- at least I do!

Me too. However, if we would hear some of this stuff today, it might not nearly sound as good as we thought it did. That is because our standards have changed, mostly for the better I assume, and what may have sounded great to us then might not live up to our current experiences. Also, memory may embellish things, and as more recent science tells us, memory is malleable, not static.

For all those reasons I don't trust my long-term memory of audio sound quality too much, and so shouldn't anyone trust theirs too much either. But of course, some will disagree on this point.