Audiophile Fundamentalism
- Thread starter dallasjustice
- Start date
What would you consider new techology?
It depends on what you are considering new techology? The moving coil speakers date from the early 20th century, ribbons, horn, electrostats and even the "singing flame" of plasma are all 100 years old or more in concept. Bending wave drivers are a bit newer but still the old Ohm speakers date from the 70s. Servo control? 1960s already Infinity had done it with their subwoofers.
The biggest advances have been in materials for speakers. Carbon fiber? 1990s , Be tweeters? 1970s (Yamaha NS1000), Diamond 2000s.
For electronics, it turns out that the only real innovation for amps has been Class D, which was pioneered by Infinity in the 1970s but finally realized at the begnning of the 21st century. Sadly the sound is not really so innovative.
The big "innovation" in audio is the continual refinement of proven technologies and the incremental sound quality improvement at lower prices.
Hearing an old Western Electric horn system at the Munich show this year was pretty convincing that really only a very few exhibitors there that could compete with that sound.
The genuinely "new" technologies I have tried in my system has been Class D amps (3 different ones) and room correction. One could argue that my current speakers with carbon fiber woofers and Be tweeters are relatively new technology but that is a materials advance only. I have also had full ribbon and electrostatic speakers but they have been around long enough for me not to consider them "new" technology.
You could argue that my amp is in some ways a "new" technology becuase it is a single ended hybrid and to my knowledge only Blue Circle Audio and Ypsilon have attempted something similar. The BC-2 was from the end of the 1990s and the Ypsilon is a current model. My amp is the NAT Symbiosis SE. It is at least a relatively unique combination of old technology to make something new. It is also using a latest generation industrial MOSFET for its only output device per channel (yes only one transistor per channel on the output).
It depends on what you are considering new techology? The moving coil speakers date from the early 20th century, ribbons, horn, electrostats and even the "singing flame" of plasma are all 100 years old or more in concept. Bending wave drivers are a bit newer but still the old Ohm speakers date from the 70s. Servo control? 1960s already Infinity had done it with their subwoofers.
The biggest advances have been in materials for speakers. Carbon fiber? 1990s , Be tweeters? 1970s (Yamaha NS1000), Diamond 2000s.
For electronics, it turns out that the only real innovation for amps has been Class D, which was pioneered by Infinity in the 1970s but finally realized at the begnning of the 21st century. Sadly the sound is not really so innovative.
The big "innovation" in audio is the continual refinement of proven technologies and the incremental sound quality improvement at lower prices.
Hearing an old Western Electric horn system at the Munich show this year was pretty convincing that really only a very few exhibitors there that could compete with that sound.
The genuinely "new" technologies I have tried in my system has been Class D amps (3 different ones) and room correction. One could argue that my current speakers with carbon fiber woofers and Be tweeters are relatively new technology but that is a materials advance only. I have also had full ribbon and electrostatic speakers but they have been around long enough for me not to consider them "new" technology.
You could argue that my amp is in some ways a "new" technology becuase it is a single ended hybrid and to my knowledge only Blue Circle Audio and Ypsilon have attempted something similar. The BC-2 was from the end of the 1990s and the Ypsilon is a current model. My amp is the NAT Symbiosis SE. It is at least a relatively unique combination of old technology to make something new. It is also using a latest generation industrial MOSFET for its only output device per channel (yes only one transistor per channel on the output).
Originally Posted by dallasjustice
Has anyone tried a genuinely new technology in their system? What was your experience like?
Heck, I got a couple of patents over the years. We built the first fully differential balanced preamps, which used a direct-coupled output. Is that an innovation or an evolution?
My impression of new technologies in general is that none of them will produce earth-shaking results, but if they are bringing home the bacon they will produce incremental results. I am open to the idea that something could come along and prove this statement incorrect. But so far its been baby steps. Over the years though you can look back and see that even baby steps can take you quite a ways.
my guess is, because regardless of what materials or methods are in use, we are still just sending waveforms over wire between transducers.
I had thought that Harmonic Technologies Cyberlight cables were a new technology, or newly adapted fiber optics for the high end audio industry. But I have not heard much about those cables for years now. Michael Fremer gave them a rave review, but I don't think they really caught on and there were many revisions to the design.
Frank Schroder's Linear Pivoting tone arm may not be new technology, but it is pretty unique and very interesting for those into analog.
Hello, Atmasphere. I can tell you this. As a hard core fan and consumer of this hobby, I will take every baby step that comes to achieve excellence.
Please don't take this the wrong way but here's hoping to your statement being incorrect!
Tom
Hello, Atmasphere. I can tell you this. As a hard core fan and consumer of this hobby, I will take every baby step that comes to achieve excellence.
Please don't take this the wrong way but here's hoping to your statement being incorrect!
Tom
Don't worry....every once in a while a holy $hit moment comes a long.
I was a CD early adopter. It sucked for a long time before it got better. Have a CDP and DAC graveyard to prove it.
Bought into early Class D (JRDG). It's also taken a while for it to get better.
I bought into DRC in 2006
I bought into teflon caps early.
The list goes on.
I'm no longer an early adopter. Been burned too many times. I let technology mature a bit more these days. It's a reason I got into hi-rez computer audio much later than many. It's become a choice between learning solely by my own mistakes as opposed to my own plus that of others. The latter gives quicker results with less aggravation. While I'm not an early adopter, I don't exactly wait until commoditization. That would take too much fun away. It's still a hobby after all.
In the real world, I guess it just takes time for the promise to be realized. So, I try not to get too excited when something purportedly "Ground Breaking" is announced. Typically, there are hidden demons still needing exorcism.
You're a braver man than I, jack. I not only avoid early adoption, I avoid buying from companies that are early adopters. Now, mind you, I believe companies and products can be innovative without being early adopters of basic technologies. They can take the new tech that has been tested in its early, less refined form, refine it, ready it for useful purpose and fine tune it for user interaction and release something much better more useful, more functionally innovative than the original. Apple is a perfect example of this kind of company. They didn't invent the smart phone, but they defined the category. I look for those kinds of companies in all the things for which I have any enthusiasm.
Tim
I still think the Devialet ADH technology is generally new, innovative and unique (and patented so it will remain so...). There are similarities to the all analogue current dumping idea that the late great Peter Walker's company came up with, and if I understand how it works correctly, there is also a valve amp manufacturer who's name escapes me at the moment where the "quality" is defined by the valve amp with a solid state circuit supplying the current defined as needed by the valves, so needing no transformer. It is on the tip of my tongue...
I am not sure fundamentalism is the correct term. I think the current situation in audio is extreme factionism.
We have broken this little world down into ever smaller groups, that differ in minute ways from one another, and those minute differentiations are the cause of schism and dissent. Eventually, even the groups break up into sub-groups, who fight their corner with even more zeal. This is why we have people battling over the difference between DSD on SACD and DSD stored on a hard disk, or why it's extremely difficult to have a level-headed discussion over turntable design without it descending into a six-way verbal fist-fight between the suspensioners vs. the unsuspendeds, the high and low massers, and the belters vs. the directies.
That makes it almost impossible for new ideas and innovation to flourish; not necessarily because of fundamentalism, but because each faction is so intrenched, the new idea has big hurdles to overcome. And because these factions are at loggerheads with one another, if one faction adopts something new, the others will reject it out of hand. There are elements of fundamentalism in this (those who not only dismiss but genuinely believe anything not proscribed by the tenets of their faction as 'lo-fi' are about as fundamentalist as it gets), but most of the arguments are not that skewed. Just well defended in the ways of all factions.
Here's a video on the subject (NSFW):
We have broken this little world down into ever smaller groups, that differ in minute ways from one another, and those minute differentiations are the cause of schism and dissent. Eventually, even the groups break up into sub-groups, who fight their corner with even more zeal. This is why we have people battling over the difference between DSD on SACD and DSD stored on a hard disk, or why it's extremely difficult to have a level-headed discussion over turntable design without it descending into a six-way verbal fist-fight between the suspensioners vs. the unsuspendeds, the high and low massers, and the belters vs. the directies.
That makes it almost impossible for new ideas and innovation to flourish; not necessarily because of fundamentalism, but because each faction is so intrenched, the new idea has big hurdles to overcome. And because these factions are at loggerheads with one another, if one faction adopts something new, the others will reject it out of hand. There are elements of fundamentalism in this (those who not only dismiss but genuinely believe anything not proscribed by the tenets of their faction as 'lo-fi' are about as fundamentalist as it gets), but most of the arguments are not that skewed. Just well defended in the ways of all factions.
Here's a video on the subject (NSFW):
Funny video. I tend to view the world as a collection of individuals. I know there can be group effects but I strongly believe each individual makes their own decisions.
I also think a dialectic is always healthy, if not sometimes messy.
Michael.
I also think a dialectic is always healthy, if not sometimes messy.
Michael.
I agree it's hard to find all-new things. Even Devialet is "innovative" - not "revolutionary". An "A" output blended with a "D".
But this didn't stop TAS from saying "revolutionary" several times (on their cover) since the new editor-staff took over in 2002...
The Cyberlights apparently failed - but class D can go all-digital - like the Lyngdorf Millennium or NAD M2/390DD. Even though Stereophile and TAS reviewed them - not too many beyond that.
We have plasma tweeters - but are rare and quite costly.
And crosstalk-cancellation - now on board - but no reviews...
But this didn't stop TAS from saying "revolutionary" several times (on their cover) since the new editor-staff took over in 2002...
The Cyberlights apparently failed - but class D can go all-digital - like the Lyngdorf Millennium or NAD M2/390DD. Even though Stereophile and TAS reviewed them - not too many beyond that.
We have plasma tweeters - but are rare and quite costly.
And crosstalk-cancellation - now on board - but no reviews...
Last edited:
Hello, Atmasphere. I can tell you this. As a hard core fan and consumer of this hobby, I will take every baby step that comes to achieve excellence.
Please don't take this the wrong way but here's hoping to your statement being incorrect!
Tom
I'm totally with you on that...
I guess, referencing Jack's post about being an "early adopter", there would be a big difference between the manufacturer, the dealer and the end-user.
The end-user has to look at things as to whether a new product / new technology represents a very real improvement in performance, and whether the technology is likely to improve rapidly or prices will come down.
For manufacturers, it's a bit different. One choice is keeping the product line stable, with few changes. The risk to this is that there are many other manufacturers out there that are looking to make a statement product - a product that may redefine a specific field. This is not always a "radical" departure from known technology; it is often many, many refinements in subtle things. And often, a large number of subtle refinements, is anything but subtle.
It is not just that technology is changing to something entirely new all the time. It is really a case of finding the materials, suppliers and information that in many cases has been out there for years in the aerospace industry or technical fields. A manufacturer that plans to stay on the "leading edge" may find that a fair amount of time is spent pursuing these things, and determining the validity of their application for the intended purpose.
It is a rare thing to come up with a "singular epiphany" that points out a radical new departure in any field. It is the constant experimentation to find better ways to do things that sets aside the innovators from the mere marketers.
The end-user has to look at things as to whether a new product / new technology represents a very real improvement in performance, and whether the technology is likely to improve rapidly or prices will come down.
For manufacturers, it's a bit different. One choice is keeping the product line stable, with few changes. The risk to this is that there are many other manufacturers out there that are looking to make a statement product - a product that may redefine a specific field. This is not always a "radical" departure from known technology; it is often many, many refinements in subtle things. And often, a large number of subtle refinements, is anything but subtle.
It is not just that technology is changing to something entirely new all the time. It is really a case of finding the materials, suppliers and information that in many cases has been out there for years in the aerospace industry or technical fields. A manufacturer that plans to stay on the "leading edge" may find that a fair amount of time is spent pursuing these things, and determining the validity of their application for the intended purpose.
It is a rare thing to come up with a "singular epiphany" that points out a radical new departure in any field. It is the constant experimentation to find better ways to do things that sets aside the innovators from the mere marketers.
And Crown has something equivalent with their Class I Push-Push technology and it's in the thousands of watts RMS territory.
Zero transistor crossover distortion, not nearly the heat, and all in 19 rack mount.
Similar threads
