Perhaps your private correspondence was more interesting than his public writings.
IMHO, his explanations are not clear or detailed - just a superficial and coarse oversimplification of audio design.
To be fair, he does effectively state that his explanations are limited and that interested readers should refer to his white papers.
I recommend you have a read of them - they are written in such a way that I can understand them. However, I have very limited knowledge of things technical , so I'd be interested in whether you think they are still oversimplifying things?
To be fair, he does effectively state that his explanations are limited and that interested readers should refer to his white papers.
I recommend you have a read of them - they are written in such a way that I can understand them. However, I have very limited knowledge of things technical , so I'd be interested in whether you think they are still oversimplifying things?
oWe've certainly heard it before. Roger win best in show with vinyl. He did not win with digital. IIRC
I certainly would like to see some engineering "measurements" for his speakers.
oWe've certainly heard it before. Roger win best in show with vinyl. He did not win with digital. IIRC
I certainly would like to see some engineering "measurements" for his speakers.
Vinyl is a very flawed recording medium. I have produced many vinyl LPs for customers back when that was all that was available. I refuse to compromise performance so have no use for vinyl today. All the recordings I make now are stored on digital media because it can produce a perfect copy of my recordings while no analog system can.
Audiophiles constantly make false assumptions because they fail to do valid testing that will reveal the true cause of what they hear. They commonly believe that digital recordings sound badly due to the digital media upon which the recordings are stored. But the true cause of the poor sound they hear is due to the recording itself -- not the digital media, which is essentially perfect.
In other words, garbage in gets you garbage out. Many digital recordings sound truly awful, despite the fact that the digital media is superb. But the bad sound is not caused by the digital media -- it is caused by the poor recording stored on it.
Many vinyl recordings were made long ago before modern processing (compressors, equalizers, artificial reverb) was available. They were recorded in quality acoustical environments and recorded in true stereo (rather than in mono using only one microphone) so they sounded very natural and realistic. Some older recordings on LPs are really wonderful. These recordings sound great despite the flaws and limitations of the LP storage medium.
It appears then audiophiles were correct. Vinyl was better than CD. The notion that audiophiles had some obligation to discover the latest excuse ( and there has been many) for the inferiority of digital recordings is ridiculous. That is the sole responsibility of its creators.
It has been a dog fight just to get digital advocates to admit any "garbage" was coming out of digital recording
To be fair, he does effectively state that his explanations are limited and that interested readers should refer to his white papers.
I recommend you have a read of them - they are written in such a way that I can understand them. However, I have very limited knowledge of things technical , so I'd be interested in whether you think they are still oversimplifying things?
Yes, very long and tiresome texts of what I would call "techno-marketing", technically correct done, but without any well founded correlation to sound quality ranking.
Just try to summarize for yourself what you have learned from these white papers you could understand - and then take your conclusions.
BTW, 99.99% of the manufacturers who write "white papers" do the same - this is not a criticism to Sander's products, just to the interview and white papers.
From the interview it seems that Sanders is of the old school and thinks that measurements of steady state signals, like a 1 kHz sinewave, will accurately reflect the behavior of the audio component with complex music signals that are full of transients. This appears to be flawed thinking not just from listening results that obviously contradict this idea. It appears also to be a flaw of the measurement science itself: it portrays a far too simplistic picture of what actually should be measured. Other engineers have convincingly shown that measurements of the dynamic behavior of signals over time as they are processed through audio components reveal essential features that do not show up in steady-state measurements, thus exposing the old school of audio engineering as fundamentally flawed also on the scientific level. One such example is shown in the following video by Caelin Gabriel from Shunyata Research, which also blows to pieces the 'objectivist' engineering mantra of "cables can impossibly make a difference":
Thus, the old mantra of "you can't measure it [which usually means steady state measurement], thus there cannot be objective audible differences" is exposed as having to be taken with a truck load of salt.
Anybody can make a peaking circuit that would do the same thing as that demo. Nor do we know how long the speaker cables, and of course if the change in risetime (for a 10 kHz squarewave) even matters (is audible).
Whatever, I have noticed any time a paper is published or interview is posted, people on both sides crawl all over it looking for gems or flaws. At least it makes for interesting discussions.
I've posted my comments on the MLO website but will summarize.
First off, I certainly respect his efforts and offering products that far exceed the cost / performance ratio.
However, Mr. Sanders seems to be of a similar ilk regarding the egocentric attitude that other hi end manufacturers often (unfortunately) espouse.
One example. He calls his speaker SOTA based on his use of electrostatic design parameters.
I personally don't think a speaker that offers a 6" to 12" "sweet spot" is SOTA. Assuming he desires to produce products that attempt to emulate the sound of live / unamplified music, anyone who has listened to "live" music knows his speaker falls far short of this goal.
I like that he shoots straight and does not bend to the whims of any current audiophile vogue. He is maybe too outspoken on certain topics and might limit his potential customer base. However, his products are very, very good.
The Sanders ESL amp is an incredibly well performing piece of kit that totally transformed the sound of my Monoliths. If you have electrostatic speakers, you owe it to yourself to test-drive that ESL amp.
I see no need to attack Rogers products. They A
are what they are. Most audiophiles listen alone.when you leave the narrow sweet spot you fall off a cliff. That is hardly SOTA for electrostatic speakers.
All said when Roger speas audiophiles should listen.Likewise when he introduces a new product.
For some reason he adopted the entire objectivist party line all in one interview.IMO that was public relations faux pas.
I've posted my comments on the MLO website but will summarize.
First off, I certainly respect his efforts and offering products that far exceed the cost / performance ratio.
However, Mr. Sanders seems to be of a similar ilk regarding the egocentric attitude that other hi end manufacturers often (unfortunately) espouse.
One example. He calls his speaker SOTA based on his use of electrostatic design parameters.
I personally don't think a speaker that offers a 6" to 12" "sweet spot" is SOTA. Assuming he desires to produce products that attempt to emulate the sound of live / unamplified music, anyone who has listened to "live" music knows his speaker falls far short of this goal.
I fail to see any true objectivist content in his site. It is as subjective as that of most high-end manufacturers, including the ultra hyperbolic style so much hated by a few of our members.
