This is mostly true, the pursuit isn't about a dated or modern sound whatever they may be but achieving a goal in sound quality,. The boxes of any age are only means to an end.
david
State of the industry - Roy Gregory Editorial
- Thread starter Elliot G.
- Start date
david
Terrific. I will reach out and work on a visit by the Fall or whenever it is convenient for you. I will be out in Provo in a few months.
Lol. You totally missed the point.
honestly all this forum talks about is horns, vintage, and videos. I mean, there are like 15 threads on YT videos that aren’t close to hifi or whatsbest.
So boring, frankly condescending as Lee stated, and why I hardly post here anymore.
unsubscribed.
That is a suspicion that I share with you. And yes, we all hear differently and process/interpret what we hear differently.
I agree on the repeats but I didn't start it, I got in due to Lee's condescending tone
I could not agree more every thread the same stuff over and over. Its a huge pissing contest and I'm not going to eat the big white mint!
Some further from defending a particular piece of rock may view the entire discussion as hinging on personal assessments of what "should be."
I do think your own interpretation is the one that should be pursued. The eagerness you have for this hobby should be infectious! Appreciate the reminder to move along when caught out by only the negatives remaining in thoughts other's expressed. The purpose of this site should largely be defining ways to further enjoyment with rare bouts of being defeated in good company interspersed. A good rethink of this thread is in order.
@Elliot G. You are right to wale on about the heart ailing. Not just among those who poured theirs into numerous positions over a lengthy career. At these depths you accurately recognized the issues presented by languages used no longer having any formal connection. Even seated directly in front of your digital front end it would fail to communicate with the customers you know it should.
Actually, as a scientist Al, you must know that this is not true to a large extent. There will be likely a gaussian (or some other) distribution of attributes but listener preference can be studied scientifically and correlated with technical aspects of reproduction. It won't be a catchall for everyone...particularly those at the tails of the distribution (of whatever attributes are defined as important for judgement of "good" sound) but for sure it is not as dire as "we all hear differently and process/interpret what we hear differently"...this is simply not true. As humans we all have very similar ear geometry and connections to the brain and with training, it has been shown by functional MRI that similar areas of the brain light up during listening, indicating at least similar processing of the incoming information. I suggest you look up and read some of the work on developing sound quality metrics with regard to distortion.
Aren't your speakers derived from 60 year old Tannoy tech? You had some "TopTier" speakers not so long ago, did you not? How'd that work out for you? Did you get a good resale value on those YGs?
I had two bones of contention with some comments Lee made:
1) That new tech was pushing sound quality ever higher, which is where the vintage guys jumped in. I don't really even have vintage speakers although they are horn and about 20 years old (is that vintage?); however, they use more or less modern parts (as modern as paper woofers and titanium domed compression drivers can be). I also don't have a vintage amp, even though SET is the oldest amp type...my amp is a thoroughly modern version of that concept. The fact that we can even have a debate about the sound quality of a speaker from the 1950s to a speaker from 2022 indicates that the relentless march of tech in audio is not a guarantee of better sound. As a counter example, does anyone compare a Sony 8K OLED TV quality to an 1980s Sony Trinitron and go, "oh yeah, I can really get into that old tube TV...the other is too clear sharp"? No, no one does that...there is no debate. Interestingly, none of the vintage speaker guys are using actual vintage amplifiers...vintage concepts, like SET, sure, but they are thoroughly modern incarnations of the concept...they are also usually not copying old designs so much either. Even the 1930s WE room at Munich uses modern Silbatone tube and tube/hybrid products. Same for phonostages and mostly TTs (although old idlers seem to survive) and cartridges (again for the most part). For speakers, it has played out a long time ago...even plasma making sound is over 100 years old...the moving coil driver is one of the NEWER designs.
2) His derisive call to avoid "2nd Tier" high end because of its perceived poor resale value...as if used Audio Research, Wilson speakers or PassLabs can't be had for darn good prices compared to MSRP of a new one. This to me was a very cynical and shocking admission from a TAS writer (editor?). It also implied an allegiance towards the brands who have "made it" as if those products were inherently better sounding because of their financial success. Once upon a time, Magico was a struggling upstart just like a myriad of other brands...they had some great early reviews, an apparently large advertising budget and probably nice accommodation prices to some top reviewers that cemented them in Lee's "top tier". As we all SHOULD know, success is often due as much to ambitious advertising, salesmanship, and yes promotion by the big magazines as that product being the "best", as it is to overall product quality. Do you see the potential for a circular relationship there?
And as a scientist you should know that "similar areas of the brain lighting up during listening" is way too rudimentary a parameter.
Pretty much all untrue; you need to do some more research into auditory processing and acuity. There is indeed a Gaussian distribution but it is very wide, and there is good reason to suspect that "audiophiles" (whatever that means) are more likely to be at the extremes (rendering the mean or median irrelevant). I posted some links at AudioCircle a few months ago, pointing to studies on hearing acuity and auditory processing relative to age, debunking many commonly held (mis)conceptions. And those studies don't even take into account the likelihood (IMO) that a higher percentage of audiophiles (and WBF members) may be at the high-functioning end of the spectrum (e.g., Asperger's, etc) compared to the general population.
Close, computer monitors would be the ideal counterpart in a discussion on audio equipment. Those truly obsessed with quality are not entirely convinced of new technology reproducing the criteria vintage monitors were designed to meet. Believe it or not one of the sticking points is repeatability despite how varied the response is from older units. This stems from how accurate they are in use by humans as opposed to in measurements.
Though this falls closer to exemplifying professional usage relevant on the production side of audio more than home reproduction. No analogy is perfect. I rather enjoy the statement rational behaviors are the domain of those who keep house to match magazine covers. Has a certain class from the horn age school of thought. Yet acts like getting by with tying shoelaces together unnoticed. There is a sense you are being distracted, but for what purpose.
I think the whole idea of audio having new technology is a bit of a conceit
the entirety of the industry is tiny, and the vast majority of brands have a very small work force and are nearly all boutique
the fact that many small manufacturers can actually produce high quality equipment suggest there is an overall simplicity of design which is easy to replicate
audio research was purchased for a pittance a few years ago
very few have high level technical backing, Devialet is one of the few who come to mind
‘’this is why some vintage is still so competetive”, the circuits are simple , and simple circuits are easy to make and generally sound pretty good to most people, preferences aside.
when you by a cone box speaker, you are mainly buying air inside, not technology
there is still argument in the industry about whether cabinet rigidity is desirable preference wise, hence the ongoing success of cottage speaker manufacturers in England, and continued use of mdf by many many manufacturers
imho the technology improvements are very much “fairy dust“ on a otherwise very technically stagnant industry, which seems to have become polluted with “ voodoo” magic products, of no true intrinsic value, which the industry and hifi magazines have a lot to answer for by their lack of objectivity , and latest is greatest policy
Cloud network of music inventories has a much greater impact, than an “apex” dcs system , which is so niche it’s not even funny as a practical industry wide improvement
in fact digital was foistered on the public, long before it had reached any form of practical technical maturity, and was based on old video tape technology , the fact they are now starting to fix it after 40 years, shows how immature the industry is in general and how long improvements take !
the entirety of the industry is tiny, and the vast majority of brands have a very small work force and are nearly all boutique
the fact that many small manufacturers can actually produce high quality equipment suggest there is an overall simplicity of design which is easy to replicate
audio research was purchased for a pittance a few years ago
very few have high level technical backing, Devialet is one of the few who come to mind
‘’this is why some vintage is still so competetive”, the circuits are simple , and simple circuits are easy to make and generally sound pretty good to most people, preferences aside.
when you by a cone box speaker, you are mainly buying air inside, not technology
there is still argument in the industry about whether cabinet rigidity is desirable preference wise, hence the ongoing success of cottage speaker manufacturers in England, and continued use of mdf by many many manufacturers
imho the technology improvements are very much “fairy dust“ on a otherwise very technically stagnant industry, which seems to have become polluted with “ voodoo” magic products, of no true intrinsic value, which the industry and hifi magazines have a lot to answer for by their lack of objectivity , and latest is greatest policy
Cloud network of music inventories has a much greater impact, than an “apex” dcs system , which is so niche it’s not even funny as a practical industry wide improvement
in fact digital was foistered on the public, long before it had reached any form of practical technical maturity, and was based on old video tape technology , the fact they are now starting to fix it after 40 years, shows how immature the industry is in general and how long improvements take !
We may mean to say the same thing, from what experiments I've done I've learned that in most cases K.I.S.S. is a great principle, the simpler (but cleverer) a design is the less things can go wrong. The amp designs from the 20-ies and 30-ies were pretty smart, build one of those with modern components and it'll amaze most people how good it'll sound. Many 'novelties' brought to us as improvement were sold as -but IMO not intended as- improvement in SQ...real reasons being anywhere between WAF (speaker enclosures) and bringing man to the moon (transistors)
A couple of points…
1. We won’t agree on point 1. There is no doubt in my mind that there have been real advances in design, parts, and manufacturing of sources, electronics, speakers, and even acoustic spaces.
2. I clarified my comment about “second tier” to be “boutique” brands. People misunderstood what I was trying to convey so I added a clarification. First, my intent there was to have audiophiles understand the extra risk they are taking on lesser know and established brands. Second, TAS covered Magico very well and indeed helped launch the brand with early reviews. We have a new video product that we built for more sophisticated manufacturers but also have from the onset created a much more affordable pricing option for new brands that have less dollars in their marketing budget. Third, all brands have fairly similar accommodation pricing for people in the industry so it’s hard for a brand to use that as a differentiator. In my conversations with writers and editors, the gear they bought was because of sound quality and that was based on hearing many different pieces of gear in their home but finding one that really stuck out. Generally speaking in my experience the most popular and financially successful brands are there due to excellence in engineering. Most of the better loudspeaker companies, for instance, developed from a strong designer who had a viewpoint on sound and how to achieve it. The business operations grew up later around the design success.
Lee, you'd be HORRIFIED by my choice of gear. A niche within a niche TT and arm designed and built by a dentist lol. A French CDP w one review and zero marketing. Serbian amps from a company that speaks less than a scintilla of English. And spkrs that are just a bit too punk for most audiophiles.
I guess you think I need a good shrink. Or a priest.
I guess you think I need a good shrink. Or a priest.
The small size of the industry does not prevent it from having technology advances in line with other areas of engineering and manufacturing.
Cone-based speakers have made tremendous advances in crossover parts, crossover design, driver parts quality (domes/ribbons/magnet/spider), driver design, driver placement and cabinet rigidity. Magico and Wilson have great bass in part due to their extremely rigid cabinets.
As for ”voodoo” products, there is great value there that is discovered with actual experience. Synergistic Research products in fact do improve the sound by using great power conditioning and grounding. And yes the UEF carbon fiber discs are weird but also work.
You should have heard the Magico M2 loudspeakers with MSB Select 2 and mono amps with the full SR treatment at Axpona. The accessories lowered the noise floor and created a clear open sound that impressed both me and Andy Quint.
The only way to achieve sublime sound in this hobby is to have an open mind and hear many different approaches and many different components including the ”voodoo” products you take issue with.
Similar threads
