If the repuposing of relatively new materials to replace old materials in a specific area brings technical benefit I don't see that necessarily as marketing driven. I think it can be shown rather objectively that a cabinet made of Wilson X material has lower vibration transmission than the same cabinet made of MDF or plywood. So, from a technical perspective it could be called an innovation; however, it might not be a sonically beneficial, so it is not a subjective innovation. It is very hard to get agreement on what qualifies as a sonic innovation but an objective one should be pretty easy to define. I would consider new materials that confer some kind of technical advantage an innovation.
Modern speakers vs Vintage speakers
- Thread starter thomask
- Start date
Easiest way to tell the difference between innovation and differentiation: patents. R&D publishes patents and marketing publishes advertisements.
The examples of innovations I provided all have patents attached to them.
I have patents (3 with two more pending) but I don't consider having to have a patent a definition of innovative. Virtually everything that is in the public domain for research is NOT patented (once you publish you can't patent) but there is plenty of innovation there.
First it was wall tampons.My TT is partly made of Corian countertop material, and it sits on a repurposed wood chopping block, sometimes when i am having a senior moment, i can't remember if i wanted to play a record, or make a sandwich !
Then it was kitty litter boxes.
Now it seems to be countertop materials.
I am waiting for someone to refer to my NOS basic speaker cables as zip cord. It wouldn’t bother me in the least. The stuff sounds natural.
Nelson Pass has given an interesting explanation why he doesn't apply for patents much anymore while still trying to innovate. If I can find the interview I'll add it here.
Brad, this is exactly what happened in Utah. I came with about a dozen of my LPs. That first evening David simply suggested I put on one of my records. We stayed up and listened to records for hours, quite late into the night on my East Coast time.
My mind went immediately to the jazz club, the chamber setting, and the symphony hall. I did not think about how these same records sounded on my system two days earlier. I was listening to an audio system, but I was hearing music. After seven days and four different systems, I realized I needed a complete shift in my approach.
First came the source, then the electronics, and finally the speakers. Each time I made a change I noticed the system sounded different and increasingly different from other audio systems with which I was familiar, but what I paid particular attention to was not relative sound but how these changes made my familiar LPs remind me more of what I hear from live music.
I used to compare things like extension, treble clarity, bass quality, soundstage, and scale between my system and friends systems while at the same time making references to my impressions of the way live music sounds to me. I now simply sit and enjoy the music and when I think about things consciously, as when I am setting up a cartridge, it’s about live music and not other stereo systems.
It’s not clear to me that this is about vintage versus modern, but more about the priorities of the listener and his goals for his system.
When I started with tinkring around with speakers, back in the eighties, I made a decision to go for digital as that was THE way to go AND I hate the plops hiss and noise of LP's, little did I know then....
Many years and much tinkering later I'm still 'what some might phrase as 'heavy into digital sound reproduction' with a pretty far fetched DIY music server build in progress.
Yet....recently I spent an evening at a friends place listening to a tweaked Technics direct drive turntable with a decent element and a slightly tweaked simple Bocama tube amp on large open baffle dual KL 405 speakers....as the night progressed I was drawn into the music like I never thought it to be possible using Vinyl...we ended up listening to third then second and ending with first pressings of mono recordings of great performances, tweaking the hight of the vinyl on the platter hearing the differences how the needle tracked the grooves more optimally, but in the process we were losing ourselves completely in the performances in short; we had a blast going over board
(a mono first pressing of Brubeck's take five, stunning!)
I am now actively looking out for a 16" transcription turntable, never ever thought I would....the raw power, drive, presence and musicality of vinyl is stunning. I'll definitely use digital for stuff like techno, EDM, Ambiant, and other material yet I'm sure vinyl will add a lot of joy!
Many years and much tinkering later I'm still 'what some might phrase as 'heavy into digital sound reproduction' with a pretty far fetched DIY music server build in progress.
Yet....recently I spent an evening at a friends place listening to a tweaked Technics direct drive turntable with a decent element and a slightly tweaked simple Bocama tube amp on large open baffle dual KL 405 speakers....as the night progressed I was drawn into the music like I never thought it to be possible using Vinyl...we ended up listening to third then second and ending with first pressings of mono recordings of great performances, tweaking the hight of the vinyl on the platter hearing the differences how the needle tracked the grooves more optimally, but in the process we were losing ourselves completely in the performances in short; we had a blast going over board
(a mono first pressing of Brubeck's take five, stunning!)
I am now actively looking out for a 16" transcription turntable, never ever thought I would....the raw power, drive, presence and musicality of vinyl is stunning. I'll definitely use digital for stuff like techno, EDM, Ambiant, and other material yet I'm sure vinyl will add a lot of joy!
I think it’s also a case of what sounds real to one person may not sound real to another.
We can both be present at the same live concert and agree that it sounds real (how can you dispute that?) but given that a stereo system can only reproduce a fraction of that experience it comes down to which elements are important to us. What is salient to you may be different for others.
I suspect that some aspect of David’s system and the one you have now reminds YOU of live music and that is what matters. But ultimately it fails, as all systems do, to reproduce all aspects of live music. We pick our favorite virtues and live with the negatives. The result is that when you hear my system it doesn’t sound ‘natural’ and vice versa.
I agree, but for me increasingly it is not about my system versus your system but rather for each of our systems compared to live.
Perhaps we are saying the same thing.
Last edited:
I used to think that the differences in perception are simply large, yet recently I am encountering a very simimlar type of feedback on 'my sound' from folks that are seriously into sound and those only slightly so.
I was watching some Top Gear a while ago, and the analogy to high end cars came to mind...plenty of high end-ish sporty cars are tuned for/at the Nürburgring,. Who ever drives that track (and at that , who can drive it well enough to be competitive anyway)?
A specific part of car lovers love cars for that, yet most will hate what ends up being a track car as it is a hideous drive for everyday use on public roads.
In my view much in high end audio is designed like that, for a 'track day' but not for enjoying music day after day.
I was watching some Top Gear a while ago, and the analogy to high end cars came to mind...plenty of high end-ish sporty cars are tuned for/at the Nürburgring,. Who ever drives that track (and at that , who can drive it well enough to be competitive anyway)?
A specific part of car lovers love cars for that, yet most will hate what ends up being a track car as it is a hideous drive for everyday use on public roads.
In my view much in high end audio is designed like that, for a 'track day' but not for enjoying music day after day.
This conversation reminds me of when HD flat screens began hitting the market. It didn't immediately kill off CRT as both technologies had benefits and detractions. CRT TV's didn't have the same resolution but could get so much of the color and black levels right whereas the newer TV's had resolution but refresh rate issues were horrible and the blacks were even worse. I also remember people complaining about 'seeing every pore' on faces and how much they disliked that.
I think knowing what world-class vintage is capable of is a wonderful tool that I wish I had in my belt. I've heard some legends from decades past and they didn't tickle my fancy, but I also understood how many who stick in vintage can absolutely love that sound. From a dealer point of view, I no longer even try to convert 'vintage guys' to more modern designs when they come over. It isn't that they don't think my systems are incredible, but its a different mindset completely with many of them. There is the thrill of the chase and the 'gem' they drove 20 hours for. There is that magical piece that eluded them for decades. It's just... different. Mind you, this is on a much lower level than the discussion being had here, but I think it has merit as well.
I think knowing what world-class vintage is capable of is a wonderful tool that I wish I had in my belt. I've heard some legends from decades past and they didn't tickle my fancy, but I also understood how many who stick in vintage can absolutely love that sound. From a dealer point of view, I no longer even try to convert 'vintage guys' to more modern designs when they come over. It isn't that they don't think my systems are incredible, but its a different mindset completely with many of them. There is the thrill of the chase and the 'gem' they drove 20 hours for. There is that magical piece that eluded them for decades. It's just... different. Mind you, this is on a much lower level than the discussion being had here, but I think it has merit as well.
I am waiting to see all three of those items make their way into your system, Peter... will look more like a grocery store than a stereo system
You would be surprised how many don't consider Live, unamplified music in real space a criterion for judging a hifi system. I have found that a good proxy is to A) make your own high quality acoustic recordings or B) Find the very best live recordings you can, particularly ones where you have heard the piece (preferably the orchestra and/or conductor as well) live yourself. I have a couple such recordings (it is hard unless you are producing recordings for a living to have more than a few). One is of Prokovfiev Romeo and Juliet. I am lucky that I know exactly how the recording was made (single stereo ribbon microphone, 18 feet from the stage, 4db of compression and 1db of eq on the upper end). I am also lucky that I got to hear this piece live in Tonhalle Zurich where I got to sit almost the same distance from the stage and dead center from left to right. Spooky how similar it sounds to the real experience in a really good system and amazing how disastrous it sounds in one that can't handle the dynamics and the massed instruments at close to realistic volumes. I also have solo violin, violin and piano, violin and cello and quartet recordings that I made that are good proxies and jog the aural memory well.
Ian is a musician and unfortunately I missed one of his live performances in his listening room during a party. Al was there. I suspect they both have a pretty good sense of what live music sounds like as I have attended a few acoustic concerts with both of them.
Our three respective systems sound fairly different now, yet we each reference live music. I think it’s a result of different approaches and different priorities. Nothing more or less than that. I think if each of us were asked to describe our system’s main strength and weakness, the responses would be different and quite revealing.
Perhaps a subject for an interesting discussion but little relevance beyond that as each of us seems quite satisfied.
I think it's less complicated than that.
My hypothesis is there are naturalists and synthesists. They have different bases of preference. Naturalists use live acoustic music as a reference for assessing reproduction. Synthesists use what appeals to them as their guide even when it does not resemble what they hear in the concert hall.
Folks who are into High Fidelity fit neither category.
Some folks understand recordings are not always intended to be facsimiles of a live performance and trying to make such recordings sound live requires colorations... and now it's just another form of synthesis because people can't even agree on what live sound is. A "naturalist" then is a synthesist tweaking a playback system according to taste and their own personal ideas of what "live" sounds like to them. Your distinction between the two is indistinct and nearly meaningless.
High fidelity is the pursuit of a playback system that is capable of reproducing as much information on the recording as possible. That's what this hobby is all about. If you want to make it about something else, that's different, it's not high fidelity anymore.
I understand your point Dave, but I don’t know anyone who is trying to make poor recordings sound natural or like real music through their systems.
Great systems demonstrate just how bad some recordings are because they are more revealing of recording quality. Perhaps it is important to identify first what the great recordings are. I happen to prefer original Decca recordings from the 60’s to more modern Reference Recordings or the many reissued and remastered LPs on thick vinyl.
Both sounded pretty good on my old system, but with my new system I have a strong preference for the former.
Live music is an intrinsic criterion for judging sound reproduction - it is part of our sound experience. But it is extremely subjective and depends on listener. And considering the variability of the recording processes in stereo is extremely dependent on the type of recordings we use for evaluation.
Amplified music can also be an excellent criterion for system evaluation. Many listeners listen mostly to amplified music and want their systems to be able to reproduce it like they listen in their real life. IMHO the idea that an audiophile must be a purist that mainly listens to instrumental or vocal unamplified music seems far from current reality.
That’s not my goal. In fact, the pursuit of ever more “detail” is part of what’s wrong with so much high-end gear these days. It’s easy to make an amplifier or speaker seem more detailed, more spectacular, with hyper-specific imaging, by just adding a few film bypass capacitors and using certain resistors that highlight high frequencies. The equipment may still measure the same but it will sound like it has a rising HF response, highlighting details and spatial information, and often with a lean midbass lacking warmth and richness. ARC once described an upgrade as similar to turning on spotlights in the back of the hall. Unfortunately the net result is usually a less natural tonal balance.
So is hearing more “information” always a good thing? I would say No.
Certainly I like gear that has high resolution. I like hearing subtle nuances in instrument color and interactions between performers. But I don’t want a spotlight that artificially hypes HF details and causes a lean midbass.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
