"Long-Term Equipment Loans: A Win-Win for Everyone" by Robert Harley, The Absolute Sound

[Elliot G.]

Based on our phone calls at least, I always thought that we agreed on more things than we disagreed on.

Its really not the point but rather that the protection of free speech and the right to say what you want I will always defend. There are many opinions here for example that I think are batshit crazy but I would never censor them or the person saying them.
Censorship of any kind is a very slippery slope. Audio certainly has many viewpoints and we are all allowed to agree or disagree.

 

[Lee]

Its really not the point but rather that the protection of free speech and the right to say what you want I will always defend. There are many opinions here for example that I think are batshit crazy but I would never censor them or the person saying them.
Censorship of any kind is a very slippery slope. Audio certainly has many viewpoints and we are all allowed to agree or disagree.

Well I guess we agree here as I have been defending free speech on here and X a lot lately.

 

[Rt66indierock]

Yes that is true but only one can defend himself. I don't agree with Lee very often but I do respect his right to say what he wants. I am friends with Jay and don't agree with him all that much either but he has no voice here. I don't care for the Industry allowing all these quasi-dealers and all the grey area sales that go on either but that is the reality. Rules and laws seem to carry much less weight these days everywhere.
I think that sucks but I have a very small voice and even less clout.

Elliot, this isn’t the only high-end audio blog. Jay has plenty of places where he can defend himself. Lee gets chased around the blogs and can defend himself in most places.

An important high-end discussion can’t happen here. What’s Best Forum does not have the reach to make it worthwhile.

 

[Carlos269]

Why? Simply because I support MQA as a format? You’re a one trick pony.

To me your biggest sin was not your support of MQA, but rather your declaration, on video, that the Law of Diminishing Returns does not apply to high-end audio products. That assertion is so telling and disqualifying on so many levels that it would be hard to take anything else serious or to recover from such lack of understanding and judgment.

 

[Another Johnson]

To me your biggest sin was not your support of MQA, but rather your declaration, on video, that the Law of Diminishing Returns does not apply to high-end audio products. That assertion is so telling and disqualifying on so many levels that it would be hard to take anything else serious or to recover from such lack of understanding and judgment.

I thought that @Lee ’s observation of the law of diminishing returns was quite appropriate.

I would have agreed with C269 a few years ago when I’d been unwittingly stuck on a gently sloping plateau for a few years. But I was introduced to gear that led me up to a higher optimum. I now think that the ceiling has no clear stops.

One might argue about the cost to improved performance ratio … but this is always subjective.

 

[Elliot G.]

Elliot, this isn’t the only high-end audio blog. Jay has plenty of places where he can defend himself. Lee gets chased around the blogs and can defend himself in most places.

An important high-end discussion can’t happen here. What’s Best Forum does not have the reach to make it worthwhile.

I think Jay is capable of defending himself if he needs too and I don't like banning people period.He is not a criminal or a terrorist or any other person that is doing something evil. He is selling audio and expressing his opinion like no one else does that LOL. I think that being able to have serious discussions was the purpose of a forum? If it isn't then what is it purpose?
I really don't agree with that statement as so many people in the industry are here in some capacity and if needed certainly others could come on.
Are you saying that there is a nefarious underlying purpose that prevents such discussion? Please explain

 

[Carlos269]

I thought that @Lee ’s observation of the law of diminishing returns was quite appropriate.

I would have agreed with C269 a few years ago when I’d been unwittingly stuck on a gently sloping plateau for a few years. But I was introduced to gear that led me up to a higher optimum. I now think that the ceiling has no clear stops.

One might argue about the cost to improved performance ratio … but this is always subjective.

Oh wow! High-End Audio products are not only subject to the Law of Diminishing Returns, but as they currently stand have reached the point of diminishing returns and have entered the part of the curve of decreasing returns. The only way to get substantial growth is to switch tracks by way of a technical breakthrough. This is not subjective but rather performance based and quantifiable.

Some of us like tubes and horns, technologies which date back to the 1920’s. Most here are proponents of magnetic tape, turntables and magnetic pickups. What do $750K speakers and $1MM systems get you that is vastly superior in subjective terms? Halcro took THD levels down to 0.0001% 20 years ago. What has this industry pioneered, other than economical streaming technology, in the last five decades that warrant limitless performance potential?

 

[Another Johnson]

Oh wow! High-End Audio products are not only subject to the Law of Diminishing Returns, but as they currently stand have reached the point of diminishing returns and have entered the part of the curve of decreasing returns. The only way to get substantial growth is to switch tracks by way of a technical breakthrough. This is not subjective but rather performance based and quantifiable.

Some of us like tubes and horns, technologies which date back to the 1920’s. Most here are proponents of magnetic tape, turntables and magnetic pickups. What do $750K speakers and $1MM systems get you that is vastly superior in subjective terms? Halcro took THD levels down to 0.0001% 20 years ago. What has this industry pioneered, other than economical streaming technology, in the last five decades that warrant limitless performance potential?

Authoritative assertions are often rhetorical. You’ve made your ideas clear. Why continue to badger/defame those who don’t submit to your views? You’re entitled to your opinion. But so are others entitled to their own.

 

[Lee]

To me your biggest sin was not your support of MQA, but rather your declaration, on video, that the Law of Diminishing Returns does not apply to high-end audio products. That assertion is so telling and disqualifying on so many levels that it would be hard to take anything else serious or to recover from such lack of understanding and judgment.

I stand by that Magico M9 video and my comments therein on the bogus Law of Diminishing Returns. It’s a lot of hooey used to justify a lot of things that are not true.

 

[Lee]

I thought that @Lee ’s observation of the law of diminishing returns was quite appropriate.

I would have agreed with C269 a few years ago when I’d been unwittingly stuck on a gently sloping plateau for a few years. But I was introduced to gear that led me up to a higher optimum. I now think that the ceiling has no clear stops.

One might argue about the cost to improved performance ratio … but this is always subjective.

Well said.

 

[Lee]

Oh wow! High-End Audio products are not only subject to the Law of Diminishing Returns, but as they currently stand have reached the point of diminishing returns and have entered the part of the curve of decreasing returns. The only way to get substantial growth is to switch tracks by way of a technical breakthrough. This is not subjective but rather performance based and quantifiable.

Some of us like tubes and horns, technologies which date back to the 1920’s. Most here are proponents of magnetic tape, turntables and magnetic pickups. What do $750K speakers and $1MM systems get you that is vastly superior in subjective terms? Halcro took THD levels down to 0.0001% 20 years ago. What has this industry pioneered, other than economical streaming technology, in the last five decades that warrant limitless performance potential?

If you don’t see the improvements in drivers, capacitors, and other tech then bless your heart as we say in the South.

 

[Carlos269]

If you don’t see the improvements in drivers, capacitors, and other tech then bless your heart as we say in the South.

While you have some free time on your hands, you should write a White Paper on this theory of yours and present it at the next Audio Engineering Society (AES) convention. Let’s see what kind of reaction you get among those who peer review emerging concepts and technologies.

 

[andromedaaudio]

While you have some free time on your hands, you should write a White Paper on this theory of yours and present it at the next Audio Engineering Society (AES) convention. Let’s see what kind of reaction you get among those who peer review emerging concepts and technologies.

Fully agree with carlos .
Its old tech just refined a bit.
Thats why older speaker designs can still top perform with good amplifiers and a good source.

The AG Trio i- tron ( with bass horn ) is a nice exception though

 

[Lee]

Fully agree with carlos .
Its old tech just refined a bit.
Thats why older speaker designs can still top perform with good amplifiers and a good source.

The AG Trio i- tron ( with bass horn ) is a nice exception though

That's the point: those refinements pay huge dividends in improved sound quality. Some of the tech is completely new such as the materials on the driver cone.

The capacitor technology makes the Wilson XVX sound more open and have greater resolution.

The driver technology makes the Magico M9 seem so lifelike.

Better cabinets make my Alexia Vs sound so natural.

 

[PeterA]

That's the point: those refinements pay huge dividends in improved sound quality. Some of the tech is completely new such as the materials on the driver cone.

The capacitor technology makes the Wilson XVX sound more open and have greater resolution.

The driver technology makes the Magico M9 seem so lifelike.

Better cabinets make my Alexia Vs sound so natural.

Lee, have you heard great horns from the 50’s, the American Sound turntable from1970 or Micro Seiki SX 8000 II from 1980, or a Neumann or Ortofon cartridge from 1960? I have, and all this new technology does not mean the latest sounds so much better. It sure looks different and costs more though.

 

[Lee]

Lee, have you heard great horns from the 50’s, the American Sound turntable from1970 or Micro Seiki SX 8000 II from 1980, or a Neumann or Ortofon cartridge from 1960? I have, and all this new technology does not mean the latest sounds so much better. It sure looks different and costs more though.

I have heard the Micro Seiki and several great speakers from the 50s.

 

[tima]

From a materials science perspective there are positive advances. And there are advances in design capacity through electronic modeling technologies that allow the by-passing of multiple trial and errors.

Often changes get slip-streamed unannounced into components -- for example improved printed circuit board material. Sometimes manufacturers, for example Wilson, will collect several 'small' improvement and bundle them into a 'new improved' version which also reflect the higher cost of new capacitors, PCBs, viscoelastics, cabinet materials etc. Sometimes different technoiogies and materials are employed in new ways such as the adoption of slotless motors in turntables or sapphire and ruby bearings in Kuzma tonearms.

Much of the audio business is driven by the churn of such changes. Some manufacturers continually need 'change' as a rationale for introducing new models in order to stay in market headlines. So that stuff is out there.

The value of such changes is relative. Sure you can hear step-wise differences, nay even 'improvements' from, for example, version 5 to version 5SE, but across time there are few great leaps in sonics -- true mirabile dictu moments. What does not change is how the ear works, how people perceive sound and differentiate real from reproduced. Some manufacturers have unlocked the secrets of how we perceive sound and some asymptotically approach that in tiny increments ... and some, while producing exciting or exotic sound, never seem to be in sync with the rules of human hearing.

Being raised in the contemporary audio environment of say the last twenty to twenty-five years there can be stunning, ear-opening experiences when first encountering technologies of the past -- dare I say vintage technologies, or modern products that follow the path of vintage design. While modern speaker designers are adept, one might argue that the days of products from the likes of Klipsch, Altec Lansing, JBL, and even Advent, Kloss and Acoustic Research were the golden era of speaker making. And done so without the materials and technologies of today.

I had that 'vintage enlightment' experience. After going through Bose, Magnepan, Thiele, Audio Physics and three generations of Wilson speakers, and hearing countless other brands and models at shows and gatherings, it only took a few moments listening to the JBL M9500 for modernity to wash away. It was a 'scales fell from my ears' moment. Like sitting in my favorite chair or wearing a comfortable pair of jeans it was just right -- what I heard simply approached natural sound moreso than I've experienced previously.

I'm not saying contemporary audio is in second place to the past -- the industry continues moving. I am saying that the latest and greatest has no lock on what it takes to appeal to the human ear.

 

[Lee]

From a materials science perspective there are positive advances. And there are advances in design capacity through electronic modeling technologies that allow the by-passing of multiple trial and errors.

Often changes get slip-streamed unannounced into components -- for example improved printed circuit board material. Sometimes manufacturers, for example Wilson, will collect several 'small' improvement and bundle them into a 'new improved' version which also reflect the higher cost of new capacitors, PCBs, viscoelastics, cabinet materials etc. Sometimes different technoiogies and materials are employed in new ways such as the adoption of slotless motors in turntables or sapphire and ruby bearings in Kuzma tonearms.

Much of the audio business is driven by the churn of such changes. Some manufacturers continually need 'change' as a rationale for introducing new models in order to stay in market headlines. So that stuff is out there.

The value of such changes is relative. Sure you can hear step-wise differences, nay even 'improvements' from, for example, version 5 to version 5SE, but across time there are few great leaps in sonics -- true mirabile dictu moments. What does not change is how the ear works, how people perceive sound and differentiate real from reproduced. Some manufacturers have unlocked the secrets of how we perceive sound and some asymptotically approach that in tiny increments ... and some, while producing exciting or exotic sound, never seem to be in sync with the rules of human hearing.

Being raised in the contemporary audio environment of say the last twenty to twenty-five years there can be stunning, ear-opening experiences when first encountering technologies of the past -- dare I say vintage technologies, or modern products that follow the path of vintage design. While modern speaker designers are adept, one might argue that the days of products from the likes of Klipsch, Altec Lansing, JBL, and even Advent, Kloss and Acoustic Research were the golden era of speaker making. And done so without the materials and technologies of today.

I had that 'vintage enlightment' experience. After going through Bose, Magnepan, Thiele, Audio Physics and three generations of Wilson speakers, and hearing countless other brands and models at shows and gatherings, it only took a few moments listening to the JBL M9500 for modernity to wash away. It was a 'scales fell from my ears' moment. Like sitting in my favorite chair or wearing a comfortable pair of jeans it was just right -- what I heard simply approached natural sound moreso than I've experienced previously.

I'm not saying contemporary audio is in second place to the past -- the industry continues moving. I am saying that the latest and greatest has no lock on what it takes to appeal to the human ear.

So I looked up the JBL M9500 speakers and they appear to be circa 1994. Why not include modern technology like tighter speaker cabinets, better drivers, and better capacitors? Seems maybe that would be the best of both worlds.

I have an open mind about different approaches sounding better but we should not deny that technology marches forward and we are getting more clarity these days.

 

[Another Johnson]

So I looked up the JBL M9500 speakers and they appear to be circa 1994. Why not include modern technology like tighter speaker cabinets, better drivers, and better capacitors? Seems maybe that would be the best of both worlds.

I have an open mind about different approaches sounding better but we should not deny that technology marches forward and we are getting more clarity these days.

People do like what they like. I know a guy who is 100% in love with Bozaks from 60+ years ago. Another who can’t find anything better than his Klipsch corner horns from the 60s. (Incidentally, the plans to build your own Klipsch corner horns were widely circulated among us audiophiles in the Boston area in the 60s).

When the MC 240 and MC 275 were prince and king respectively, lots of folks preferred the 240.
On another forum there are threads promoting the wonders of those CJ Synthesis speakers that even CJ didn’t advance. The ML CLX Arts have a strong following. Everybody liked Jim Thiels speakers of 40+ years ago.

I’ve watched and listened literally for over 60 years. There have been many beautiful products that performed well enough for some to consider them as an end game.

For those of use who do not have to rediscover those things because we knew them when they were the latest and greatest, it gets old having to revisit them and the arguments about how great they are. So … we need to work on our tolerance and patience as we read posts proclaiming them as current world beaters.

In every era, dating back to Edison’s cylinders, some people have felt that no further advances were necessary, or even possible. My own ears tell me that the advances are real, and that the Golden Age of two channel audio reproduction is continuing.

If someone else can’t hear it, or if they can hear it but don’t think it’s better, who am I to suggest they’re wrong. And … who are they to suggest I’m wrong?

it is subjective. And, as was pointed out before WWII, human hearing is not standardized. There are real differences from one person to the next, even if the tendency is to forget this.

The root problem is that we are always arguing over “What’s Best.” And that’s subjective too.

 

[Another Johnson]