serious question as i know next to nothing about this, but is APD a technological advancement over utilizing time-aligned drivers, or is this innovation just another way to accomplish the same thing, or is it something else entirely?
Audiophile Fundamentalism
- Thread starter dallasjustice
- Start date
serious question as i know next to nothing about this, but is APD a technological advancement over utilizing time-aligned drivers, or is this innovation just another way to accomplish the same thing, or is it something else entirely?
This still happens nowadays. Wilson Audio is well known company, with a solid distribution and wide marketing - it is much easier and cheaper creating a conflict with Wilsom Audio (or its fans) to get attention than creating their own structures. Just look at the quality of the WA website - these thinks do not come for free.
Same thing goes for their iPhone/iPad app.
Here's a happy WA owner:
All I can say is there is a awful lot of fundamentalism in high end audio. Everybody professes to be in pursuit of or having achieved the "core"....whatever that is.
Well crossover design who ever it is...is suppose the time align the drivers. No different with Wilson. It is the adjustability that is innovative. There is a table based on how far apart the speakers are, how far you sit back and your ear height for maximum coherence of the drivers hence sound at your ears. Each midrange module and tweeter module can be moved forward/backwards and tilted up or down as per the table chart so that no matter where you sit, ect the speakers can be dialed in. That cannot be said of those that rely only on cross over design. Wilson can sound good in most any room size, config...
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
It's Jacob Heilbrunn in his new room ???.
He has vinyl.
A Continuum IIRC as well as one other
Yes, this is a photo of his Continuum.
We can find links to some of his very interesting online articles here: http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/?authors=21
Attachments
The Fulton J Modular preceeded Wilson's first modular speaker by a number of years. It was a mid-70's attempt at SOTA which was probably a little ahead of its time. In any case, the midrange and tweeter modules were physically adjustable to provide time-alignment (height and distance) at the listening position. There's nothing wrong with pushing existing technologies to their limits, as Wilson works on doing, but it's not innovative.
Interesting. Do you have any information on the time alignment characteristics of the Fulton J? Although I have read several times that the Fulton design influenced the WAMM - both were modular and used the famous KEF B139 bass and electrostatic elements it is the first time I read about the Fulton J Modular variable time alignment.
Unfortunately the site about the Fulton Musical industries is still almost empty http://www.fultonmusicalindustries.com/index.html
The J Modular cabinet was essentially a big bass enclosure on the bottom and an open framework on top; one added the various mid/tweet/supertweet modules and attached them with brackets, which were "movable". Similar to the first WAMM, but with framework on the outside rather than a central pole.
I should add that each speaker was custom built; there were probably no two alike.
I should add that each speaker was custom built; there were probably no two alike.
IIRC I heard the Fulton J's in 1973,it is the speaker that hooked my on high end audio. The J I believe used 2 12 inch woofers in the bottom enclosure. The midrange was the FMI 80 which was available seperately and the electrostaic tweeters were made by RTR. Bob Fulton also made the Fulton Premier which did not use the electrostatic high end. I use fulton speakers for my psychoacoustics and overall Bob's speakers were excellent. One thing about Fulton's speakers they all imaged extremely well and to my ear sound very good.
You aren't kidding there. Recently been involved in a few threads about how Ethernet data isn't audio data and even had an EE that just wouldn't accept it for what it was.
He kept insisting it was still wide bandwidth, real-time data, even though it is NRT packet data. That somehow it's different from say a PDF or other file.
Last edited:
The quote in the OP that is attributed to Phil Jackson (KEF) is actually a quote from Robert Harley. Robert weighed in on this subject just the other day.
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/from-the-editor-its-all-good/
That being said, I think Robert if full of crap on this.
The first offense is in labeling people as fundamentalist to begin with. As if this isn't inflammatory. The second problem is to claim that this "obviates the need for critical thinking". Quite the contrary. I've been part of this hobby for multiple decades. My systems were disjointed at best, always trying to find that perfect "balance" that was so easily disrupted by changing any singular piece. Many of those years was spent wandering around aimlessly by believing (at least in part) all the BS that's spouted from marketing departments. It wasn't until I BEGAN CRITICALLY THINKING about all of it that I started to find true satisfaction. By contemplating the thing that gave me enjoyment, understanding the technology behind it, applying the same process to other equipment, and so on I eventually assembled a system that I find imminently satisfying. Every single piece works in unison because they are all based on the same theoretical ideals. My system is cohesive and it's final performance is greater than the sum of it's parts precisely because I applied critical thinking into assembling it.
Systems that others enjoy now often leave me flat. Try as I might to enjoy them I can't get past the fact that they are, fundamentally, boring to me now. I'm not deciding that I CAN'T enjoy them. I don't first look at the technical aspects of a system that is new to me and decide whether or not I'll like it. I listen first. But precisely because of years of critical thinking I can now often predict the existence of certain technological and design parameters being present in a system due to what I hear.
If someone else likes it, good for them. But I'd rather listen to my system where things actually sound real.
Robert Harley ends his piece by reiterating the title. "It's all good."
How exactly can someone claim a higher degree of critical thinking only then to claim that everything is good?!
This is precisely the thing that is causing J. Gordon Holt to turn in his grave. Long past are the days where many used critical thinking in an attempt to achieve actual fidelity. Now, with "It's ALL good", we may as well just shop at Best Buy.
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/from-the-editor-its-all-good/
That being said, I think Robert if full of crap on this.
The first offense is in labeling people as fundamentalist to begin with. As if this isn't inflammatory. The second problem is to claim that this "obviates the need for critical thinking". Quite the contrary. I've been part of this hobby for multiple decades. My systems were disjointed at best, always trying to find that perfect "balance" that was so easily disrupted by changing any singular piece. Many of those years was spent wandering around aimlessly by believing (at least in part) all the BS that's spouted from marketing departments. It wasn't until I BEGAN CRITICALLY THINKING about all of it that I started to find true satisfaction. By contemplating the thing that gave me enjoyment, understanding the technology behind it, applying the same process to other equipment, and so on I eventually assembled a system that I find imminently satisfying. Every single piece works in unison because they are all based on the same theoretical ideals. My system is cohesive and it's final performance is greater than the sum of it's parts precisely because I applied critical thinking into assembling it.
Systems that others enjoy now often leave me flat. Try as I might to enjoy them I can't get past the fact that they are, fundamentally, boring to me now. I'm not deciding that I CAN'T enjoy them. I don't first look at the technical aspects of a system that is new to me and decide whether or not I'll like it. I listen first. But precisely because of years of critical thinking I can now often predict the existence of certain technological and design parameters being present in a system due to what I hear.
If someone else likes it, good for them. But I'd rather listen to my system where things actually sound real.
Robert Harley ends his piece by reiterating the title. "It's all good."
How exactly can someone claim a higher degree of critical thinking only then to claim that everything is good?!
This is precisely the thing that is causing J. Gordon Holt to turn in his grave. Long past are the days where many used critical thinking in an attempt to achieve actual fidelity. Now, with "It's ALL good", we may as well just shop at Best Buy.
Last edited:
The Fulton J's I heard on several occasions were built in 1976 and so were probably a bit different (evolved) from the ones you heard. Bob kept incorporating improvements as time went on, including better wiring (remember, Fulton was the one who essentially started the whole high-end cable idea).
Dallas, I have tried listening to Magicos about 3 dozen different times - at shows, of course, but also in very fine rooms at dealers and at people's homes, and I still can't stand them.
Kidding aside, I have to disagree with you, the (worthless to the audio fan) Robert Harley of the Analytic Sound, and David Wilson. This is a problem of psychology/ economics, not of philosophy. High end audio, to those of us who use measurements just as a check that the designer did their job instead of the end all be all, is an "experience good". This economic term means that someone has a problem evaluating a product before experiencing it; they have to hear a product first. Now sure, some guy who hasn't left their basement listening room since 1977 may not appreciate a new technology because they have not heard something; those guys may be close minded lost souls you are talking about. But that's not the guy reading this forum or subscribing to the magazine. Those guys who are active in the hobby also visit dealers, audio clubs, and shows.
These fully engaged audiophiles have experienced most new technologies. They may not have tried every flavor in their system due to availability, but they generally know what sounds like real music to them. Let's not kid ourselves. When people hear something that blows them away, they yap and kibbitz about it non-stop.
So when we re-frame the problem in terms of psychology/ economics, the answers are quite simple. I have had many thread responses on why people enjoy or dislike a certain sound:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ace-of-many%85&p=257075&viewfull=1#post257075
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ace-of-many%85&p=258456&viewfull=1#post258456
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?5297-Magico-Q7&p=81989&viewfull=1#post81989
TIME TO HEAR LIVE MUSIC!!!!
Robert, I remember reading the Stereophile article on the J's and it was funny,because Bob kept on making changes and I think they gave up on the speaker,because of that. I still wouldn't mind having a pair some day.
Many years ago, I bought my first peice of ARC gear, a SP-3A-1 from a guy who had just switch to the new SS SP-4.
He had J's, so I got to hear the SP-3A-1 on them and immediately handed him my money.
The J's were big ugly boxes, but they were wonderful sounding speakers.
He had J's, so I got to hear the SP-3A-1 on them and immediately handed him my money.
The J's were big ugly boxes, but they were wonderful sounding speakers.
Similar threads
