All that is wrong with "HiFi"

[Al M.]

I am curious to know how many are still interested in new gear. More and more of my friends have found their final systems and no longer really pay attention to what is new. They enjoy what they have and seem pretty much finished changing gear.

I am one of those. I am improving the details of acoustics and setup, while I don't think much of exchanging components. I did test today an old HRS platform that Ian gave me to try instead of my current stand for the power amp, and I want to have it -- better midbass control. But that's exchanging the stand, not the amp which I couldn't be happier with.

I do eventually want to acquire an external 10 MHz clock for my reclocker that feeds the DAC, but that's addition, not substitution. I could try the new Yggdrasil MIB (More is Better) DAC instead of my current Yggdrasil LIM (Less is More) DAC, but to be honest, that's currently far from my mind. I consider the 10 MHz clock more important at this point.

 

[jeromelang]

what is wrong with hifi?

- memory retention in digital
- too much metal cluttered together near the creation/passing of analogue audio signals
- users building/tuning system towards non fatiguing sound with every single piece of music being played

 

[Rensselaer]

Doesn’t detail enhance the playback as well?

Extra resolution means capturing more of a violin’s tone. It means better bass. It adds to micro and macro dynamics.

I don’t believe resolution is the bad guy here. I think it’s part of better playback. I view detail and musicality as parallel paths.

See entry 163. I believe the OP was speaking about the move at all price points to extract detail often (not always) resulted in a less musical result. Think about the last hi fi show you attended.

 

[Rensselaer]

I am curious to know how many are still interested in new gear. More and more of my friends have found their final systems and no longer really pay attention to what is new. They enjoy what they have and seem pretty much finished changing gear.

Some of my gear is of recent manufacture as I can’t find something from the past as good or that I am able to improve.

Much however, is vintage stuff that I was able to improve by correcting known flaws and thus made them competitive with the very best for a fraction of the price an equivalent system of entirely new.

 

[Audiohertz2]

Eventually all good men will run out of ambition , Stasis intact ...!

 

[tima]

No, it's a metaphor, which is not about literal meaning and not about "proper usage". Without metaphors our language would be poor, and they should be appreciated as such.

Okay, here was the post: "Everybody should have choices. One of my favorite venues, the Musical Instrument Museum Theater, capacity 300 in Phoenix Arizona needs amps. Molly Tuttle and Golden Highway literally blew the audience away three nights in a row. They couldn’t do that unamplified."

Since you injected yourself into this silly discussion wagging your grammar finger with "it's a metphor", tell us to what do you refer. There is no metaphor in the above.

This is not a judgement about the value of metaphors.

Bob Dylan once said "Chaos is a friend of mine." -- that's a metaphor.
From Procol Harum's Keith Reid lyrics to In Held 'twas I: "the Dalai Lama smiled and said, 'Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?' -- that's a simile

 

[tima]

I revamped my system every 7-10 years although this last cycle was 15 years. Mostly, I was too busy with kids and work to do anything but buy replacement phono cartridges. I've had 5 pairs of speakers since 1980, 5 ARC preamps since 1988- two of those in the last 3 years. Two pair of speakers remained in my system for 15 years each. The upgrade cycles took me about 2 years to complete, except for the most recent.

Both ARC and Wilson are upgrade cycle masters.

 

[Rensselaer]

That’s fine, we disagree.

I am defending the proper use of language and words to convey meaning accurately. One of the problems when talking about this hobby is the challenge of conveying meaning through words.

The author clearly does not mean that the listeners were “literally blown away”. So what does he mean? I would prefer a written description of what the listener actually heard.

This excessive hyperbole is one of the problems with the “hi-fi” industry, or those who write about it, in my opinion, and that is the topic of this particular thread.

Instead of arguing whether “literally” has but one meaning, ask yourself if “blown away” does (in such a way as to “literally” make sense).

Blown away = wind carried it off
Blown away = shot and killed
Blown away = surprised, astonished, disbelief suspended

 

[morricab]

Agreed and same experience here with my Alexia Vs. I’ve done loads of violin recordings. Digital playback of violin tone was greatly advanced by hirez digital. Capturing the sweetness of a Guarnerir or Strad is very hard to do on 16/44. Probably impossible. So that’s why I used the violin example. Same for guitar as well.

I have heard both a Strad, Guarneri del Gesu and Amati live in my own living room numerous times because my ex had all three at home at the same time for awhile. It is possible to capture much of what is heard live...it is harder to play it back correctly. My R2R tape recordings and my 16/48 DAT recordings sounded pretty similar.

I can tell you though emphatically that if you want to hear what a violin recording really sounds like then you need something other than Wilson speakers...sorry, I have too much experience with violin to state otherwise. Full range electrostats or ribbons probably do the best to capture the correct tone and detail and a few horns will capture much of that with the dynamics intact (where the planars will fall slightly short).

 

[ssfas]

I have an amazing turntable that is incredibly musically engaging but some nights I do just want to bring the iPad and fire up the Mosaic app and stream Qobuz on the Rossini Apex. It sounds great too.

As for the prices in the industry, I have a few observations as someone who has worked in the industry…

1. Parts inflation has been significant and real. Many manufacturers have to pass along these costs. Many parts are 4-5X what they were four years ago.
2. Like any luxury good, there has been the emergence of an ultra luxury customer segment. Catering to those folks is just good business. And knowledge from building these products genuinely finds its way down to more affordable gear.
3. Prices on some products are eye watering. But so what? Nobody is holding a gun to our heads to buy them. If the value isn’t there for you or me, we should not buy it.
4. Magazines as commonly used here is very misleading. TAS and Stereophile are digital media firms that also put out a magazine. Advertising releationships are almost always digital and print.
5. A lot of YouTube reviewers lack genuine experience. But they can be very entertaining. It’s like anything else, some are worth trusting, some are fun to watch, and some are talking their book and/or compromised.

I was looking at the MSB website last night - a brand I've never looked at. I have no idea what they sound like and I don't care as I don't have $100,00 for a DAC. The verbal diarrhoea that counts as product description was nauseating. They sort of suggest they've reinvented something, or everything, but it turns out it's just a 3-box ladder DAC. It's basically a company making bespoke products with a degree of inefficiency and high cost that is commendable in its absurdity. The fact that they have all this CNC gear and two staff running it, and one product requires 3 machined boxes, multiple side panels and containers and then hand-finishing - even at the prices they charge it probably doesn't leave much for the cost of the electronics themselves.

The cost-no-object approach to high performance takes the product into a miscrospically small elite market. At the other end, you have companies who look to ways of providing the same technology as cheaply as possible - for example the EverSolo A10 is a streamer-DAC with two high class OXCO clocks (an MSB selling point) and sells for about $4,000.

In a way my digital system is a comparable 4-box set up along the lines of MSB:
- The heavy lifting processing (Roon Server and and HQ Player) done by a computer on the network, feeding DSD256 to the audio system over a fibre-optic VLAN.
- An ultra low-noise digital transport (Innuos Pulsar)
- A 2-box ladder DAC with vanishingly low noise and jitter, the lowest Stereophile had ever measured (Holo May)
The whole lot cost me about $10,000, it retails now for about $15,000. So 15% of the MSB cost and probably sounds much the same.

I suspect it's good for HiFi that I can have a great sounding digital system for $10-$15,000, that is just as enjoyable as a far more expensive analogue system, and people who want to pay $150,000 (adding a suitable streamer) if it makes them feel better can happily do so. As long as the two appreciate that they have nothing in common and, if they do meet, respect each other's choices. I'm not even sure sound quality comes in to it.

Magazine reviews are almost pure advertising and most video reviews are for people with poor time management made by people who can't get a proper job.

Most of the time I listen through a ceiling audio system, for many hours at a time. They cost about £450 each. The same designer has just launched a £400,000 loudspeaker. Both are hifi products. All that really matters is that people buy the product and enjoy using them to listen to music.

 

[TonyW]

So you’ve heard the MSB DAC?

What I mean is- a lot of people are critical of a $10k DAC. They would argue it’s not necessary for a DAC to cost that much. You and I both know differently. I’ve never heard the MSB DAC so I can’t/won’t say it is worth it. My DAC provides me supreme satisfaction and so I have no desire to spend more.

 

[TonyW]

I have heard both a Strad, Guarneri del Gesu and Amati live in my own living room numerous times because my ex had all three at home at the same time for awhile. It is possible to capture much of what is heard live...it is harder to play it back correctly. My R2R tape recordings and my 16/48 DAT recordings sounded pretty similar.

I can tell you though emphatically that if you want to hear what a violin recording really sounds like then you need something other than Wilson speakers...sorry, I have too much experience with violin to state otherwise. Full range electrostats or ribbons probably do the best to capture the correct tone and detail and a few horns will capture much of that with the dynamics intact (where the planars will fall slightly short).

I disagree, somewhat. The Wilsons can come very close. I used to play the violin. Hearing a violin from the player’s perspective is different from the listener’s perspective. Many recordings sound like they are from the player’s perspective. In that case they sound good through my Wilsons. When the recordings sounds more from the listener’s perspective then it is not quite there- 90% maybe. I think tone and timber are right but it has less detail and being a player in the past, I’m used to the up close level of detail.

On the other hand, the Cello sounds very good to me through the Wilsons. I have a live, unamplified reference for the Cello. It took some work with cables, isolation and room adjustments but the Cello sounds right.

 

[Rensselaer]

I was looking at the MSB website last night - a brand I've never looked at. I have no idea what they sound like and I don't care as I don't have $100,00 for a DAC. The verbal diarrhoea that counts as product description was nauseating. They sort of suggest they've reinvented something, or everything, but it turns out it's just a 3-box ladder DAC. It's basically a company making bespoke products with a degree of inefficiency and high cost that is commendable in its absurdity. The fact that they have all this CNC gear and two staff running it, and one product requires 3 machined boxes, multiple side panels and containers and then hand-finishing - even at the prices they charge it probably doesn't leave much for the cost of the electronics themselves.

The cost-no-object approach to high performance takes the product into a miscrospically small elite market. At the other end, you have companies who look to ways of providing the same technology as cheaply as possible - for example the EverSolo A10 is a streamer-DAC with two high class OXCO clocks (an MSB selling point) and sells for about $4,000.

In a way my digital system is a comparable 4-box set up along the lines of MSB:
- The heavy lifting processing (Roon Server and and HQ Player) done by a computer on the network, feeding DSD256 to the audio system over a fibre-optic VLAN.
- An ultra low-noise digital transport (Innuos Pulsar)
- A 2-box ladder DAC with vanishingly low noise and jitter, the lowest Stereophile had ever measured (Holo May)
The whole lot cost me about $10,000, it retails now for about $15,000. So 15% of the MSB cost and probably sounds much the same.

I suspect it's good for HiFi that I can have a great sounding digital system for $10-$15,000, that is just as enjoyable as a far more expensive analogue system, and people who want to pay $150,000 (adding a suitable streamer) if it makes them feel better can happily do so. As long as the two appreciate that they have nothing in common and, if they do meet, respect each other's choices. I'm not even sure sound quality comes in to it.

Magazine reviews are almost pure advertising and most video reviews are for people with poor time management made by people who can't get a proper job.

Most of the time I listen through a ceiling audio system, for many hours at a time. They cost about £450 each. The same designer has just launched a £400,000 loudspeaker. Both are hifi products. All that really matters is that people buy the product and enjoy using them to listen to music.

Though I am not sure if the digital platform you recommend really is just as enjoyable to listen to as any far more expensive analogue system, it may be to you and that is fine.

What I very much appreciate is that you are sharing the results of your experience and expense to help others (and make a point). You give an affordable streamer-DAC (EverSolo A10 for about $4,000) as a device that shuns the foo-foo polished chassis (that makes up perhaps 50% of the cost of making high end audio candy) for a simpler box containing what you believe to be the proper performance bits (two OSCO clocks).

My hat is off to you. Well done, and I hope others will follow your example for the benefit of those less well off (in both experience and funds).

 

[TonyW]

I was looking at the MSB website last night - a brand I've never looked at. I have no idea what they sound like and I don't care as I don't have $100,00 for a DAC. The verbal diarrhoea that counts as product description was nauseating. They sort of suggest they've reinvented something, or everything, but it turns out it's just a 3-box ladder DAC. It's basically a company making bespoke products with a degree of inefficiency and high cost that is commendable in its absurdity. The fact that they have all this CNC gear and two staff running it, and one product requires 3 machined boxes, multiple side panels and containers and then hand-finishing - even at the prices they charge it probably doesn't leave much for the cost of the electronics themselves.

The cost-no-object approach to high performance takes the product into a miscrospically small elite market. At the other end, you have companies who look to ways of providing the same technology as cheaply as possible - for example the EverSolo A10 is a streamer-DAC with two high class OXCO clocks (an MSB selling point) and sells for about $4,000.

In a way my digital system is a comparable 4-box set up along the lines of MSB:
- The heavy lifting processing (Roon Server and and HQ Player) done by a computer on the network, feeding DSD256 to the audio system over a fibre-optic VLAN.
- An ultra low-noise digital transport (Innuos Pulsar)
- A 2-box ladder DAC with vanishingly low noise and jitter, the lowest Stereophile had ever measured (Holo May)
The whole lot cost me about $10,000, it retails now for about $15,000. So 15% of the MSB cost and probably sounds much the same.

I suspect it's good for HiFi that I can have a great sounding digital system for $10-$15,000, that is just as enjoyable as a far more expensive analogue system, and people who want to pay $150,000 (adding a suitable streamer) if it makes them feel better can happily do so. As long as the two appreciate that they have nothing in common and, if they do meet, respect each other's choices. I'm not even sure sound quality comes in to it.

Magazine reviews are almost pure advertising and most video reviews are for people with poor time management made by people who can't get a proper job.

Most of the time I listen through a ceiling audio system, for many hours at a time. They cost about £450 each. The same designer has just launched a £400,000 loudspeaker. Both are hifi products. All that really matters is that people buy the product and enjoy using them to listen to music.

Have you ever heard the Kronos Quartet on the reference recording label? I bought that record in the early 90s. When I heard it on the magnapan 20.1s at Harry’s shop in Royal Oak, Michigan, the record sounded great. I was pretty disappointed when I heard it at home on my system. For years, I could not play that record because the violins and cellos just didn’t sound right nor the bass. But now finally, this past year I can play that record.

 

[TonyW]

Sorry, I meant that for morricab
Apparently, I cannot walk and post at the same time. Gotta learn my limitations.

 

[morricab]

I disagree, somewhat. The Wilsons can come very close. I used to play the violin. Hearing a violin from the player’s perspective is different from the listener’s perspective. Many recordings sound like they are from the player’s perspective. In that case they sound good through my Wilsons. When the recordings sounds more from the listener’s perspective then it is not quite there- 90% maybe. I think tone and timber are right but it has less detail and being a player in the past, I’m used to the up close level of detail.

On the other hand, the Cello sounds very good to me through the Wilsons. I have a live, unamplified reference for the Cello. It took some work with cables, isolation and room adjustments but the Cello sounds right.

Having the midrange inverted from the tweeter and woofer is audible and affects the timbre of instruments. When you have an active digital crossover like I have in one of my systems you can hear this clearly. Wilson speakers (at least the Alexia) have the midrange inverted.

I was a listener for several years up close as my ex practiced about 8 hours a day in the apartment. I also recorded her practice sessions before big concerts. So, I am basing this from the listener perspective but both up close and personal and in small and large concert venues.

 

[morricab]

Sorry, I meant that for morricab
Apparently, I cannot walk and post at the same time. Gotta learn my limitations.

I think I have heard it but I don't own it. If it is available by streaming then I will look for it and hear it again. I like the new ECM recordings of the Danish String Quartet, these are quite natural sounding and great playing.

 

[TonyW]

 

[TonyW]

I would be interested in hearing your impressions of this album.

 

[morricab]

Ok

View attachment 139564

ok, haven't heard this.