State of the industry - Roy Gregory Editorial

[Lee]

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.

If it makes you happy, then I am cool with it.

There are many different ways to achieve nirvana.

Maybe the dentist knows something about filling the cavities of an LP.

 

[Phillyb]

So much under goes on, reviewers must make a huge amount of money if they can have in their home turntables at 100K, speakers to match and these reviewers always drop the amount of money their gear is, I make really good money but 100K or 50K turntables are not in my cards that is for sure, or the 50K speakers to go with the 50K amps and preamps. But some key reviewers have the ability to have them in their systems long-term and some turn and sell them for 100% profit. Old days in reviewers are gone, now sales tools for the manufacture and when boomers go this hobby goes with it, and that is a fact which is why so much is market now at outranges prices, make the money while you can I guess.

 

[microstrip]

(...) 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.

Some people debate if man has landed on the moon. Is it enough to not be able to guarantee that he really has done it? The fact is that a few people, using selected audio formats and selected recordings prefer vintage because it matches the way they listen to life music. Great for them.

(...)

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?

Many - as far as I know, most audiophiles like to change. They know that it is hard to find buyers for small or unknown brands. When you pay an higher price for a manufacturer that does a proper job creating a credible distribution, service and advertisement you are getting some kind of insurance. There are no free lunches in the high-end, even those paid by friendly dealers.

Products can have temporary success based on advertising and promotion, but in the long term a product must have quality to be successful.

Bias is a strong part of the high-end. If we managed to suppress all our biases we would probably be looking for another hobby. People often praise the importance of friendship in this hobby. IMHO it is one the best sources of positive bias.

 

[microstrip]

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)

In fact, KISS can make decent designs. But the great sounding designs are usually complex. And curiously, making old simple designs with modern components - the so called modern replicas - can make them sound unbalanced and uninteresting. I have friends who did it and I did not appreciate the result. Long ago I "upgraded" a Leak tube amplifier with new expensive resistors and capacitors and the outcome was not brilliant. More detail, but less envelopment.

 

[Al M.]

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.

I agree with you, Lee, but without specifics by the detractors this discussion goes nowhere.

Sure, some will say that horn speakers are better than cone speakers, period, and the turn of the industry away from horn to cone speakers was unfortunate. Well, fine.

But what about cone speakers? Has there not been significant progress in design over the years and decades? Sure there has been. Earlier in the thread I have given concrete examples of speakers that I have owned, where progress over the years, with better performance per price, was undeniable.

Yet then some will say old 16 Ohm Mitsubishi speakers or some old Tannoys are still better than the best modern cone speakers. Well, but that's were specifics have to come in. A vintage speaker guy can't simply say, "but I like the sound of the old cone speakers better". Then I would say, please define what is "better" or "more realistic". If either of these, then in which way precisely? Or do you not mean objectively better, but simply "more to your taste"? Again, if detractors cannot come up with specifics, then no discussion can be had, and it's all just empty talk.

We could do the same exercise with, for example, digital, but maybe we can start with speakers.

 

[PeterA]

I agree with you, Lee, but without specifics by the detractors this discussion goes nowhere.

Some consider me a deplorable, and I guess now I’m a detractor. I can list and describe specifics.

Yet then some will say old 16 Ohm Mitsubishi speakers or some old Tannoys are still better than the best modern cone speakers. Well, but that's were specifics have to come in. A vintage speaker guy can't simply say, "but I like the sound of the old cone speakers better". Then I would say, please define what is "better" or "more realistic". If either of these, then in which way precisely? Or do you not mean objectively better, but simply "more to your taste"? Again, if detractors cannot come up with specifics, then no discussion can be had, and it's all just empty talk.

It is pretty difficult to define “better“ in such a subjective hobby. And describing something as sounding natural seems confusing to many. Does “more realistic“ suffice? Why don’t I just describe what I hear and the reader can decide.

1. SME 3012R and SME V-12: The former presents bass that is full, hollow, with overtones and nuance. The latter has tight, fast, solid, punchy bass that lacks nuance. There is a sameness to the notes. The modern arm is highly damped, resulting in a lack of resolution and overall grayness. It sounds dull and lacks life relative to the vintage arm.

2. Micro Seiki SX 8000 II and SME Model 30/12:
The former is more dynamic and resolving with A better sense of flow. He seems to have a lower noise for despite the lack of suspension. Base is more extended and more defined. As with the arm example above, I hear a greater range of presentation from my record collection with the vintage turntable. It seems more transparent to the recording by overlaying less of its own sound and character to the presentation.

3. Mitsubishi Diatone and Magico Q3: The former is much more efficient, more dynamic and open sounding. Can be driven by SET amplifier. Less restricted sound. Much more lively and resolving. Lower bass extension.

I have written extensively about modern cables and power cords and outlets. I have owned two power conditioners. Suffice it to say that I prefer basic industrial solutions for lack of enhancement and a more realistic and believable sound.

Finally, when I listen to digital which is rare, I prefer CD to streaming.

I suppose you could criticize all of this as a subjective opinion that is unverifiable. You can’t say the detractors don’t share specific examples. This is hardly empty talk. We all have our opinions and experience. We’ve all heard what we have heard. I don’t think it’s a matter of people trying to convince each other about what they prefer. It is about challenging blanket statements such as technology is inevitably marching forward resulting in superior sound. All you have to do is look around at the many different approaches to the hobby to understand that not everyone agrees with that.

 

[tima]

I'd like to point out to Tim his recent broad stroke across tech advancements and large leaps in digital should register the immensity of impact cell phones/tablets continue to have. Phone DAC are not a topic that get much attention here and their near cousins may begin to shortly. As will software concerns that prick the senses less than eco-system such as Roon. I'll be watching closely to discover whether intrinsic knowledge of what he's been hinting at continues leaking out.

Pardon me Rando but I'm not clear about what you are saying, or I don't understand your point. We may be on different wavelengths.

My point about 'great leaps in digital' observed that change has largely been a function of changing file formats. Different ways to present and organize ones and zeroes. Compared to going from analog to digital, which is certainly a great leap (maybe or maybe not forward), the reading of data from a disc versus reading data transmitted from a server may be a change, but is it a great leap? Yes it is a change in delivery and mechanism, but does it offer radically improved sonics? I do not consider such a profound change that makes us re-think. ymmv

I was thinking more on the notion of what is a 'great leap' and what counts as one. I suppose that is a relative assessment. Without thinking about it much, I will say a great leap may be found with a paradigm shift, such as the Copernican Revolution - where present day theories cannot explain what needs explaining, so a wholly new theory is proposed. (Cf. Thomas Kune's 'The Structure of Scientifc Revolution'.)

As Ralph Karsten has observed, technological upheavel is often signaled by the replacement of one thing with another. The older goes away. Transportation by car versus by horse and buggy; In the case of analog and digital that has not happened.

WRT cell phones I see their impact largely as social.

edit: grammar

 

[tima]

I am suspicious that many vintage audio enthusiasts are after a sound (or sound characteristics) that is in many ways different from what "non-vintage audio" hobbyists or enthusiasts prefer, even if both think they are pursuing the same goal. We all hear differently (objectively) and have different audio processing (subjective).

I do not think it is about vintage (20-45 year old components) or modern (0-10?) years old. Imo, there is no such thing as 'vintage sound' or 'modern sound'. We perpetually have a debate about whether one has a reference or not for their sonic goals and how to achieve them.

While we may not hear identically, I believe we largely hear the same with a highly similar hearing mechanism, but we do have difficulty with the language we use to describe what we hear. And we may have individual preferences.

 

[Ron Resnick]

when you by a cone box speaker, you are mainly buying air inside, not technology

This point seems specious to me. I am sure there are some old-school English loudspeakers with nothing more than a woofer and a tweeter connected with point-to-point wiring in an MDF box and filled with packing fuzz, but I would not consider them to be high technology speakers in the first place.

You statement does not accurately describe "cone box speaker" products I am familiar with personally from Gryphon, Rockport, Magico, YG, Zellaton, Stenheim, Von Schweikert and Wilson, among others.

 

[Ron Resnick]

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

Lee never suggested that a new, super-expensive digital playback system would have industry-wide impact. This new dCS system, whatever it is, obviously is only another exotic, price-no-object, kind of product. So comparing it to the widespread use of cloud networks for music inventories -- a completely different topic -- seems inapposite.

 

[morricab]

And as a scientist you should know that "similar areas of the brain lighting up during listening" is way too rudimentary a parameter.

Sure, it’s only an indication of similar brain activity, which is why listening panels are used as well to ascertain preference.

 

[morricab]

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.

Why not post the links here? I am not going to spend hours trying to find them on AudioCiricle. I am open to being wrong but need to read the studies to see what you are talking about. From what you have written so far, it isn’t obvious I am wrong given I am saying that a correlation can be made that would help design better products. You are (I think) arguing about what population would be served by this.

 

[jespera]

You statement does not accurately describe "cone box speaker" products I am familiar with personally from Gryphon, Rockport, Magico, YG, Zellaton, Stenheim, Von Schweikert and Wilson, among others.

Thats one sh!te list of speakers you got there. Personally, I wouldnt consider any of them suitable for music reproduction.

 

[awsmone]

Lee never suggested that a new, super-expensive digital playback system would have industry-wide impact. This new dCS system, whatever it is, obviously is only another exotic, price-no-object, kind of product. So comparing it to the widespread use of cloud networks for music inventories -- a completely different topic -- seems pretty inapposite.

Ron we are talking about the industry not some super niche product of great expense
there is no trickle down technology, because they don’t licence to anyone else
magico and yg use aluminium which they were using in cars and planes more than 50 years ago, not new technology
carbon fibre is quite old technology also , not new , your living in the distant past if you think that’s new ?

advances have to come from more than a niche Ron, thats my point , these are all boutique , the vast majority of the industry is not using any of these things, cloud based music is industry wide, and serves the whole body of consumers, not just the very rich

 

[morricab]

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.

Your thread on new speakers. amps, whatever, was how many pages long?? It probably compensated nicely as a counterweight to what you seem to hate...

 

[morricab]

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.

The fact that there is no doubt in your mind is the first clue you may not be on the right track...

Advances in materials in which sense? Aesthetically, structurally, SONICALLY? You want to tell me that advanced materials always lead to better speaker drivers? Why then does Wilson (and many others) still use the good old paper coned moving coil midrange and the good old soft dome tweeter? Are these designs better than ones from 50 years ago? Maybe, maybe not.

My point is this: The very fact that there can be a debate about vintage (speakers in particular) sounding better means that the concept of progress in audio is dubious at best. As I said in a post above (but not to you) virtually no one debates that a modern Sony OLED 8K has a far superior picture to a 1980s Sony tube TV.

Given you use tube amps, you could be accused of using anachronistic technology yourself. Tubes are of course by nature vintage although they are regularly used in "modern" designs (most push/pull tube amps are some kind of Williamson circuit derivative and therefore a 1940s design). Your speakers use anachronistic driver materials (paper and treated silk).

Are SET amps made with new parts and "new" circuit designs vintage or modern in your view? Other than a wider bandwidth, are they really bettter? I haven't heard original amps from the original era so I can't honestly say...time probably hasn't been too kind to them.

Even "advanced" materials like Beryllium were used first in the 1970s by Yamaha in the NSM 1000 monitors. You could make arguments for ceramic and/or diamond but do they really lead to better sounding speakers?? Clearly Wilson doesn't think so.

If you agree with me that tubes are by definition vintage then half of the high end is engaged in "vintage" audio. If you don't agree with this then what is your take on why tubes have survived to this day in rather robust health?

2. You backpedaled is what you did. Please provide a resale profile for "top tier" brands vs. lesser known brands. A breakdown on the original price class would also be interesting as it is likely the fall is larger when the starting price is higher and has less to do with the brand recognition. If you run that analysis you might find that your argument about top tier resale vs. 2nd tier resale is not correct and based on your and your colleagues personal bias towards the big name brands...which coincidentally are the biggest advertisers. Success in marketing is almost always a bigger determination in sales success than success in engineering...and the media cheerleaders for the brand.

Let's discuss how a brand gets successful and into that top tier. They usually need a big boost from the big magazines. Several positive reviews and then the reviewers get their equipment either on long term loan or accommodation pricing. This encourages the pumping in of a lot of advertising dollars and viola a star is born. Are they really better than their less successful (business wise) competitors? Probably not.

 

[morricab]

Some people debate if man has landed on the moon. Is it enough to not be able to guarantee that he really has done it? The fact is that a few people, using selected audio formats and selected recordings prefer vintage because it matches the way they listen to life music. Great for them.



Many - as far as I know, most audiophiles like to change. They know that it is hard to find buyers for small or unknown brands. When you pay an higher price for a manufacturer that does a proper job creating a credible distribution, service and advertisement you are getting some kind of insurance. There are no free lunches in the high-end, even those paid by friendly dealers.

Products can have temporary success based on advertising and promotion, but in the long term a product must have quality to be successful.

Bias is a strong part of the high-end. If we managed to suppress all our biases we would probably be looking for another hobby. People often praise the importance of friendship in this hobby. IMHO it is one the best sources of positive bias.

It is not a miniscule fringe we are talking about Micro...tube amps, for example, are everywhere in high end audio and are most definitely a vintage technology even if the parts used today are mostly modern. The debate is real and serious about the sound quality. Horns are also making a resurgence after decades of being a Japanese curiosity (same with SET amps funny enough...damn those guys have taste!). Modern advances in horn design thanks to computer modelling could be considered a new innovation, IMO. Does it lead to better sound from horn speakers? IMO, yes but with caveats...all things are not equal and the work needed to get horns to play well together is probably a bigger limiting factor than the horn itself.


I would also argue that compression drivers, although clearly a vintage design (WE555 anyone?) can still be SOTA in terms of HF or even midrange reproduction. There are some advances here though as well such as co-axial designs and this new one from Celestion that covers a very wide range with a funky annular diaphragm. However, are these really better sounding than old WE, RCA, Altec or JBL compression drivers using Alnico magnets and aluminum or bakelite (or whatever they used before advanced polymers) diaphragms? Not everyone agrees on this and after hearing how some of those old drivers in old horns sound, I am not sure either...they can sound very realistic in a non-vintage, non-nostalgic way.

AGain, we see you struggle to sell your ML3s (I still think you should just get a speaker that they like and be happy) and Lamm I would say is probably at least a 2nd tier brand if not top tier (in Lee's way of defining...not really sound quality) and I can get Pass, Audio Research , DCS etc. etc. for all VERY good prices if I want... their resale is not really better I think... It might be easier to shift them to someone who only knows about names though, this I can concede.

Self-delusion is a powerful force not to be underestimated...as long as a product has a stamp of approval from the establishment it can do just fine without sounding very good.

I agree with the last part, I have a number of very good friends as a result of this hobby (and other hobbies)...it is often how middle aged men establish a social network around common interest. Not sure what your bias has to do with this discussion though.

 

[morricab]

Thats one sh!te list of speakers you got there. Personally, I wouldnt consider any of them suitable for music reproduction.

To be fair, the Zellatons had something interesting around the coherence and liveliness of the sound...

 

[spiritofmusic]

Interesting that after hearing a stack of gear in the last three decades, the only stuff that has left an indelible impression on my heart include...
CDP from over three decades ago, the Marantz CD12/SA12.
TT from even further back, Thorens 124 idler.
Cart from mid 2000s, Lyra Parnassus.
Spkrs utilising old tech as opposed to brand new and shiny sparkling, like Tannoys from the heyday of Floyd and Zeppelin, Apogees from the heyday of Talk Talk and Madonna, and horns from the heyday of, um, when Ked first learnt to argue.
Yes, modern techniques and materials to modify these designs to outperform...Panzerholz plinth on 124, bulletproof steel frames on Apogees, sexy modern cabinets on Tannoys, up to date iteration on horns.
But the fact remains, no SME/AF etc, SAT, Extreme, Wilson, Magico etc I've heard has ever left me in love and prepared to do anything to acquire them.

 

[MarcelNL]

In fact, KISS can make decent designs. But the great sounding designs are usually complex. And curiously, making old simple designs with modern components - the so called modern replicas - can make them sound unbalanced and uninteresting. I have friends who did it and I did not appreciate the result. Long ago I "upgraded" a Leak tube amplifier with new expensive resistors and capacitors and the outcome was not brilliant. More detail, but less envelopment.

The challenge is to unravel the WHY the design came about as it is and change it ever so slightly to accomodate newer components where needed AND audition the effects and being prepared to revert to the original, simply replacing old parts for modern parts is THE best way to kill a design that sings in it's original form.

I'm using a simple Klangfilm KL-V204-a Amp in it's original state, it was designed as SPARE amp for a cinema (well I am bypassing the first tube stage since the signal level is much higher than what came out of the Movie audio tracks), I have no desire to tinker with it other than adding a tiny bypass here or there. Listening to a DIY variation of the Klangfilm Bionor.... Sound quality? I think it is up there with anything modern amps and speakers can throw at it.
We'll see if I change my mind after auditioning some (of the newest) kit at High End Munich