Mark Levinson on today’s audio industry

this doesnt get into the demise of the original company but you can see the time line.

Kingrex said:

Good point Wil. Maybe your right. So adding reverb helps the body. I never knew my Fender Delux Reverb amp was a medical device. But I did feel good when I played it.

This does circle back to what I was saying about the interviews by audiophile junkie. Where are the questions about how the test was performed. How many times was the test performed. How many subjects was it performed on. What was the media use to perform the test. His whole interview with mark was softball. It really told us nothing. It's almost like he was irrationally angry when I initially broached the subject on his chat group, Then he became starstruck when he got in front of Mark.

That or audiophile junkie being somewhat a part of the system now realizes any real questioning of a manufacturer would probably lead to being blackballed and never getting an audience with one again. The concept somewhat trips up to what Bonzo has been saying. In my words, do we really get any information from media? Or do we only get marketing hype packaged as unbiased.

Click to expand...

I believe Jason said he has upcoming videos in one of which he’s asking Mark the tough questions about the medical claims, etc.

Ron Resnick said:

If Mark Levinson would like to elaborate on or refine his points I would be happy to interview him.

Click to expand...

A great idea Ron and your the right person to interview him. Ill bet he jumps at it
big you tube numbers will follow
ask

Carlos269 said:

Rex, when you are dealing with components that are software or firmware driven then you don’t really know what is in the code. This is where laboratory type measurements, like the ones performed by John Atkinson at Stereophile come in. A simple sine wave reconstruction test will tell you all you need to know, if the component is neutral or if there is major signal processing and sound “voicing” going on. Why do you think it is that WADAX has not provided any units for laboratory testing? What are they hiding?

Click to expand...

so how many great testing dacs sound like crap ?
pick another brand already lol
Think dcs or msb pick some other letters hahaha

Alrainbow said:

so how many great testing dacs sound like crap ?
pick another brand already lol
Think dcs or msb pick some other letters hahaha

Click to expand...

Al, you missed the point. I don’t want WADAX to submit samples for laboratory testing to find out if they test well or not. I want WADAX to submit samples for laboratory testing to confirm that it is manipulating the incoming material to produce the softer more “analog” sound though Digital Signal Processing (DSP). The reason that this is important is because they have not disclosed this and are leading the users and others to believe that they are buying a neutral dac. Weiss has a DSP feature on some of their dacs called “analog emulation” that is aimed at emulating the sound of records. I think that is honestly stated. But others are embedding DSP code in their dacs and are not being forthcoming and honest with their “sound effects”. Remember that many AV receivers offer sound emulations and sound effect profiles. If a dac is being advertised as a straight forward converter and is manipulating the data without disclosing it then that is a deceitful practice. It just seems interesting to me that while their competitors submit their dacs for laboratory testing WADAX has not. So what are they hiding? If they are doing digital signal processing in their unit beyond that of standard conversion then they should disclose it to their users. Many of their users are ironically adamantly against any kind of digital signal manipulation, which makes this quite interesting.

Alrainbow said:

A great idea Ron and your the right person to interview him. Ill bet he jumps at it
big you tube numbers will follow
ask

Click to expand...

Thank you, but I bet he won't.

Alrainbow said:

A great idea Ron and your the right person to interview him. Ill bet he jumps at it
big you tube numbers will follow
ask

Click to expand...

Ron Resnick said:

Thank you, but I bet he won't.

Click to expand...

Thats up to you Ron. Audiophile J has how many subscribers? How about you. Its numbers.

And how come you never asked to interview me. Power is about the most important part of the chain. Yet no one seems to care. Is it really about sound, Image or add revenue.

Ron Resnick said:

Thank you, but I bet he won't.

Click to expand...

I think he will--I interviewed him in the late 70's for a long defunct mag The Audio Review--he was obliging talkative and knowledgeable re music of course-and he played the Double Bass.
You TV persona would appeal to him --Over to you-

BruceD

bonzo75 said:

My main issue is with the audiophiles who buy it. I have nothing against them (dealers) making money from those who cannot discern a good audio product from a bad one

Click to expand...

Absent previous exposure and experience with hi end audio gear, many who buy from dealers do not have a clue what a "good" audio product should sound like. Hopefully, the dealer will take the time to educate / guide those folks in the decision process.

Those that do have the exposure and experience will have a vastly different approach resulting in a much more informed purchasing decision.

Carlos269 said:

It just seems interesting to me that while their competitors submit their dacs for laboratory testing WADAX has not. So what are they hiding? If they are doing digital signal processing in their unit beyond that of standard conversion then they should disclose it to their users.

Click to expand...

I like transparency too and think that is the best choice for businesses, but aren't most folks buying based upon how it sounds to them? Perhaps WADAX has both reduced various forms of distortion and also used DSP to provide a pleasing flavor. Don't all manufacturers voice their equipment? Not trying to be antagonistic, just pragmatic...

thedudeabides said:

. Hopefully, the dealer will take the time to educate / guide those folks in the decision process.

Click to expand...

Are you naïeve or what?
Dealers guide the consumers to their portfolio.
This portfolio is based on offered margins ,opportunity , dealer taste , magazine ratings
Product relaibility etc

PYP said:

I like transparency too and think that is the best choice for businesses, but aren't most folks buying based upon how it sounds to them? Perhaps WADAX has both reduced various forms of distortion and also used DSP to provide a pleasing flavor. Don't all manufacturers voice their equipment? Not trying to be antagonistic, just pragmatic...

Click to expand...

What you stated seems like a logical way of thinking about it. But consider this, first MikeL claim that WADAX was a “bit perfect” DAC, later he retracted that after I pointed out that it upsamples. How do you think that MikeL and AudioCrack and other owners would feel if they were to find out that they are listing to and enjoying DSP and a non disclosed “sound affect” feature? These guys are adamantly against DSP and signal manipulation, specially digital sound effects.

There is nothing wrong with DSP and I’m all for that the issue here is preventing that there isn’t any and not disclosing it, when there appears to be.

And, no in digital most manufacturers play it straight and simply convert the data.Sure some give you filter options but only Weiss clearly states that some of their dacs offer analog vinyl record emulation.

When a manufacturer submits a component to Stereophile for review, one of the accesments was/is the laboratory testing and analyses by John Akinsons. MSB, dCS, and others have gone through this, why hasn’t WADAX submitted a review sample to Stereophile? This is a fair question to ask.

Carlos269 said:

What you stated seems like a logical way of thinking about it. But consider this, first MikeL claim that WADAX was a “bit perfect” DAC, later he retracted that after I pointed out that it upsamples.

Click to expand...

Almost every DAC upsamples before converting to analogue. Bit perfect and upsampling are two different things and not in conflict with each other.

adyc said:

Almost every DAC upsamples before converting to analogue. Bit perfect and upsampling are two different things and not in conflict with each other.

Click to expand...

That is not correct. Oversampling and upsampling are not the same thing. Oversampling is done by almost every off-the-shelf IC dac but upsampling is a feature found in a subset of these dacs. Upsampling IS very much in conflict with “bit perfect” dac declaration.

andromedaaudio said:

Are you naïeve or what?
Dealers guide the consumers to their portfolio.
This portfolio is based on offered margins ,opportunity , dealer taste , magazine ratings
Product relaibility etc

Click to expand...

Talk to Bob at Rhapsody about his approach. Should be an industry model. Naieve? No, I am not naive (with trema in french) assuming that is what you meant. That is why I used the word "hopefully" in my post. And please stop your self serving, disparaging, confrontational BS.

wil said:

I believe Jason said he has upcoming videos in one of which he’s asking Mark the tough questions about the medical claims, etc.

Click to expand...

I don't think he will. It's not going to be tough in depth questions. I gather he absolutely loves Mark now. Probably because the new Daniel H equipment has DSP built in and Mark has designed it to sound good when using it to watch Youtube TV. Anothet passion of Jasons. And again, nothing wrong with that. A good AV amp and speaker combo that plays music well is a great combo. I at time wish I could play concerts on TV.

It might not be a pure, seeking perfect reconstruction of the original signal equipment. But it probably does a fantastic job of making music you forget to analize and just enjoy.

thedudeabides said:

Talk to Bob at Rhapsody about his approach. Should be an industry model. Naieve? No, I am not naive. That is why I used the word "hopefully" in my post. And please stop your self serving, disparaging, confrontational BS.

Click to expand...

Agree that generalizations about dealers isn't useful. I've worked with two dealers who work from their homes and are invested in their customers. They ask about the customer's priorities and then try to meet you at your budget level. This is distinctly different from my experience with stores who simply move merchandise.

Carlos269 said:

What you stated seems like a logical way of thinking about it. But consider this, first MikeL claim that WADAX was a “bit perfect” DAC, later he retracted that after I pointed out that it upsamples. How do you think that MikeL and AudioCrack and other owners would feel if they were to find out that they are listing to and enjoying DSP and a non disclosed “sound affect” feature? These guys are adamantly against DSP and signal manipulation, specially digital sound effects.

There is nothing wrong with DSP and I’m all for that the issue here is preventing that there isn’t any and not disclosing it, when there appears to be.

And, no in digital most manufacturers play it straight and simply convert the data.Sure some give you filter options but only Weiss clearly states that some of their dacs offer analog vinyl record emulation.

When a manufacturer submits a component to Stereophile for review, one of the accesments was/is the laboratory testing and analyses by John Akinsons. MSB, dCS, and others have gone through this, why hasn’t WADAX submitted a review sample to Stereophile? This is a fair question to ask.

Click to expand...

I don't think Stereophile is the arbiter of all things digital, but I understand your point about transparency. This is an example of the kind of information from a manufacturer that I consider to be the gold standard: https://www.grimmaudio.com/publications/the-pure-nyquist-filters-of-the-mu1/ That said, it was the sound that convinced me to buy the Grimm MU1(now replaced by the MU2 that includes both the streamer/oversampler with a DAC of their own design).

andromedaaudio said:

ML 32 .....still wanna buy one .
Everytime an add shows up i check the price .

Deaf uneducated audiophiles like me are unable to hear progress it seems (unfortunately).

Click to expand...

In the past 10 years I’ve owned a No32, No52, and No523. The No32 was my favorite out of the bunch because it definitely was very forgiving but left a lot on the table on great recordings compared to most newer high end preamps. The No52 was more detailed but was definitely on the cooler side of town and just couldn’t get lost in the music with it. The No523 was my least favorite of the bunch. Own the VAC Statement now and there is no comparison. Before buying the VAC owned the BAT Rex 2, demo’d the Ref 10 and both of those were much better than the ML listed here.

My 2c .. if you want a No32 for nostalgia it looks wonderful (heck I still a California Audio Labs Tempest sitting on a shelf just for fun) but if you’re looking for the best sounding preamp today there any many better options … just my 2c and not worth a penny more!

George

This is just marketing. That is all he is doing. I don't particularly like the "poo poo on his head over there" style but I have no doubt it works. And I am not opposed to marketing - just know if it is silly then some will see it.

Mark is known for using certain parts, and has been emulated by others for comments on quality things he likes. There is nothing wrong with using off the shelf parts so long as they are what you need them to be. There is nothing short changing about not winding all your own transformers. So I have no idea what his point on bespoke is, given that the only thing in the industry that tends to be otherwise is classD modules without any custom front end, and some white paper DACs dressed up.

The battle of who is more passionate is getting old. Frankly no one in this industry is really in it because they are uninterested in making music enjoyable. Legit ask yourself who looked at the hobby and decided it was a golden goose - literally no one selling electronics. The only example I can think of is a cable company, but they still offer products people enjoy and the business is self sustaining even through representing poor value and IMO horrible sound. There are some serious snake oil type things out there but in most cases I think the proprietor is just nutty themselves and not nefariously using people's psychology against them.

As someone who has gone from DIY and to commercial, the learning about the business end is interesting. You have to accept people have things to say and you may do things to please some but displease others. I have some respect for all those that have figured out how to maintain the business operationally and still offering nice products. Sometimes that looks like a high price tag. It really is no business's fault that people are ignorant to the fact that you are paying for more than just raw materials, but they will be judged on it indefinitely. To be fair though it is clear that some have exorbitant up-charges and the right to do so - don't like it, don't buy it.

That leads me to a point with ML that is silly. The premise here that companies are taking advantage of people in a mafioso way is absurd. None of these companies are forcing purchases. This is taken straight out of an objectionist-moron's playbook where they are trying to "save people" from buying things they do not value at the price being sold at. As far as I am concerned those saviors that would prefer to take away your right to purchase what you want at no ill towards anyone else, instead of just being informational, should be locked away in Tartarus and kicked in the nuts till the end of eternity. So this word may have served to be a great stir stick in the community, but it makes me think the lowest I have ever through about ML.

Furthermore the postmodern outlook on dealers and structures that help get products to people is getting old. Yes it is annoying that magazines etc have to talk about products that make them enough money to exist. Yes no one "wants" to pay a dealer or have them having any say so in products etc. We all know that. But for some reason we are all questioning the most obvious stuff as if they would exist without functions no one directly likes. The ones that truly function poorly in such a way everyone can see the discrepancy go out of business. Yet even though it is obvious to most how a dealer functions, the philosophy side has to dig in pondering the obvious all day long. Why? Audiophilia is years behind culturally on this aspect. It is an entire generation and approaching a second behind on cultural movement. Postmodernism is not current, and the followup is looking at the morphology of the next function right now.

I cannot say I laughed out loud, but in the right settings I am sure I would have at this "selling them same thing recycled" comment. No shit. Yes we are buying amplifiers, preamps, DACs, etc, over and over. I am sorry but we have not had a physics revolution where we all went into a quantum realm and started doing things other than listening to enjoy music in ways never considered before. We have not superseded the basic physics of how electrons act. So damn what if amplifiers still use tubes or transistors? That does not mean there is no refinement or change. Also things can wear out or not look contemporary - there are lots of reasons to buy new or used. This is just a nothing burger with no point. It is like saying there is no reason to buy a different styled package of a car because you could buy the same one with the same engine 5 years ago. Or maybe even better yet complaining that cars use the same tech of internal combustion or electric motors. Boring, why don't we have anything new; and for that matter what's up with them all doing the same thing of having seats for humans and storage for stuff with the intention of taking it all from one place to another - I am not buying this antiquated tech.

P.S. I am not implying objectionist are morons, only commenting on the bad side of authoritarian lunatics that think everyone else has to do what they think, because only they posses enough logic for humanity to do right.