State of the industry - Roy Gregory Editorial

[microstrip]

Do we? When I go to concerts with family and friends and discuss the concert it is usually quite a similar experience had by myself and the others based on their words.

Can I suggest you get a less restricted panel? Family and friends are not independent listeners in my perspective. Sometimes I read critics opinions about the sound balance of concerts in different papers and find they disagree a lot. Much more than I could expect.

 

[MarcelNL]

Most of us list in our signature our gear. Probably it would be more significant to list our reference recordings - I have often referred mine along the years.

makes sense to me, perhaps a combination is better; both gear and reference recordings/performances (I do listen to Strauss conducting Strauss not for the recording but the performance)

edies to correct some typo's due to listening in the dark a.o. to increase hearing acuity

 

[Ron Resnick]

If you have a positive bias towards a brand it increases the probability that it will sound better to you. BTW, negative bias is even more insidious.

Francisco,

What is the evidence for this? Is this widely-accepted as marketing science fact? (It may very well be; I truly do not know anything about this subject.) Or are you projecting your personal positive bias and negative bias characteristics?

I spent my entire audio life disliking Wilson Audio speakers because of the metal dome tweeter. The switch to the soft dome tweeter resulted in speakers I personally did not love, but I at least could understand how some people could like them.

According to your assertion I should have had a negative bias towards the XVX. And now, I think, the XVX is my favorite cone speaker I've ever heard. I was expecting it to be a slightly better version of the Alexx. I certainly was not expecting it to wow me the way it has wowed me consistently. I didn't hold a negative bias based on all the years I disliked Wilson speakers.

Anecdotally, however, I suspect there is a lot of positive bias and negative bias out their among audiophiles.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I fully agree with your points. But you must consider that most great sound engineers have different views, equally valid, of what is a is a great recording. Just look at our members divergence of what are the great "natural" recordings that should be used as a reference.

It is always easy to write nice sounding statements about authenticity, original sound and intention. But as soon as we analyze individual recordings we find that in reality there is not such universal thing.

Consider, for example, the often referred tapes of the RR Arnold Overtures, Sheffield DD recordings or the John Culshaw recordings. I appreciate them a lot and consider them highly, but I realize that people that praise the "natural" do not share my enthusiasm.

Most of us list in our signature our gear. Probably it would be more significant to list our reference recordings - I have often referred mine along the years.

Francisco the variation in directions that recording engineers have is just the way that we each value differing qualities in a system and gear. Where it becomes problematic is when people don’t recognise or can’t define what the quality and nature of their preferences are. Peter A has possibly done as much here as any in clearly defining his goals. We’d all be easier to interpret if we each wrote a design philosophy for our systems. If two people have distinctly different goals then understanding what qualifies as best for each then becomes much easier to relate to. We can still read preferences into the various members but a clearly written design statement or philosophy from each of us would create much better communication all around and help us each better focus and reflect on the development of our systems.

So your goals allow you to create a best that can be radically different to Peter’s definition of best and you both can still be right within the contexts of things subjective.

Your preferences for music may also be part of that design statement and referencing recordings (or for me even more importantly reference performances which is similar but leads us to evaluating in different ways and choosing different benchmarks perhaps) can build understanding on various individual assessments. For me a lifetime spent playing some lauded audiophile recordings over and over to test my system would be the equivalent of being chained in Tartarus

 

[caesar]

I believe Roy was trying to point out that there is no barrier to entry like most Industries. You don't need a degree or a license, don't have to pass a test etc. All that is required is a checkbook and not necessarily a large one.
What are the qualifications? IMO this is what he was pointing out.

Sorry for the late reply... been super busy, fighting multiple fires .... we can discuss barriers to entry later (but many over come them by getting the "audio journalists" help out ....

But what makes an expert in high end audio? Its a subjective, experiential hobby. I’d argue an expert is some one who shares our preference, someone people want to emulate , and potentially has more experience exploring that preference, going deeper than the average schlub …:

Additionally, coming across as an expert is a big challenge for anyone - he has to rise up above the typical audiophile garbage and show that the high end world is a hospitable place for other tastes and preferences beyond the Wilson - Magico- dcs - solid state amp of the month oligarchy (while not pissing those traditional hifi guys off - as they bring eye balls), and be authentic and trusted by all parties…

If the guy is not honest about weaknesses and trade-offs - which are easy to verify, their reputation is shot . in most cases, forever, as no one trust them ever again....... (audio research weak dynamics with Wilson... "Greatest speaker in history of reviewing" Magico Q series highlighting upper midrange - lower treble, etc.)

As to having an “audio certification”, “Great” Peter Breuninger was frequently talking about it when he was a member here. But Because of the nature of subjectivity , as we see with the breadth of responses in this thread, and makes it very difficult to navigate…

Taking a step back, I think Roy's comments on the structure of the industry - and the resulting perverse incentives are spot on . (Which in turn creates this lovely audiophile culture that results in “authorities” telling others what’s best for them, while not being honest about all the trade offs of the gear they are pushing. )


A bunch of Girls have decided Taylor Swift is great, among thousands other girl musicians playing in bands and strumming guitars at Starbucks , and Taylor became a big star. (She is talented and a smart business woman - impacted policies on streaming revenues, but there are thousands like her.) In our hobby, a bunch of old, impotent men have decided that Wilson and dcs sounds like real music / makes “accurate” sound to them , damn everyone else.


Sorry.. have to leave it here... as I am being pulled into something... To be continued

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron,

You got speakers form a manufacturer that praises "pinpoint dimensional accuracy" (quoting his site) and have amplifiers praised for being able to create exceptional "black backgrounds". Why do you insist on using these words in a pejorative way, changing the meaning usually associated to them in the typical high-end language?

I have very little experience with Gryphon dynamic driver speakers. The Gryphon AB amplifiers built into the woofer towers drive only 200Hz and below.

I think your observation that I got speakers from a manufacturer which exalts these sonic artifacts is inapposite given that the topology of my speakers is so different from cones in boxes. I think planars as a class of loudspeakers all have a similar "open" sound. In terms of the conceptual sonic nature of their soundstage I think planar speakers all do a pretty similar thing. I do not hear "pinpoint imaging" from planar loudspeakers.

I am not intending to use those terms in a pejorative way. I am trying to use them in a positive way (describing what is) and not in a normative way (describing what should be). I use those terms to describe what I think are sonic artifacts. I believe that some audiophiles conscientiously aim to realize those sonic artifacts with their systems. Other audiophiles do not strive for their systems to make the type of sound described by these terms.

So I try to write with those terms in a neutral way, even if I end up concluding that I do not aim for those artifacts because I do not hear them at Walt Disney Concert Hall.

However, I understand that simply describing them as "artifacts" might suggest something added or unnatural, and that that is probably why you feel I am using them in a pejorative way.

I am not trying to change the meaning usually associated with these terms in typical high-end language. If I am using these terms incorrectly please feel free to correct me.

 

[microstrip]

Francisco the variation in directions that recording engineers have is just the way that we each value differing qualities in a system and gear. Where it becomes problematic is when people don’t recognise what the quality and nature of their preferences are. Peter A has possibly done as much as any in clearly defining his goals. We’d all be easier to interpret if we each wrote a design philosophy for our systems. If two people have distinctly different goals then understanding what qualifies as best for each becomes easier to relate to. We can read preferences into the various members but a cll I ear design statement from us would create much better communication all around.

So your goals allow you to create a best that can be radically different to Peter’s definition of best and you both can still be right within the contexts of things subjective.

Your preferences for music may also be part of that design statement and referencing recordings (or for me even more importantly reference performances which is similar but leads us to evaluating in different ways and choosing different benchmarks perhaps).

I understand your point, but my post referred mainly to the recording activity, that predates the playback and can't be fully reversed by the playback system.

In fact your words "The recording engineer can choose to aim to capture the true context and spirit of the performance" trigger my usual comment - what is meant by the true context and spirit of the performance"? Recreating the closest thing to a close up of the facsimile of just the sound experience (the closed eyes experience) or recreating the full experience of the concert, visually and socially enhanced? Should the sound engineer aim at the experienced concert goer or to the general public?

 

[cal3713]

Francisco,

What is the evidence for this? Is this widely-accepted as fact marketing science?

Or are you projecting your personal positive bias and negative bias characteristics?

I spent my entire audio life disliking Wilson Audio speakers because of the metal dome tweeter. The switch to the soft dome tweeter resulted in speakers I personally did not love, but I at least could understand how some people could like them.

According to your assertion I should have had a negative bias towards the XVX. And now, I think, the XVX is my favorite cone speaker I've ever heard. I was expecting it to be a slightly better version of the Alexx. I certainly was not expecting it to wow me the way it has wowed me consistently. I didn't hold a negative bias based on all the years I disliked Wilson speakers.

Positivity and negativity biases are basic features of animal learning. If you have had a positive experience with some object, it is completely rational for the brain to predict that future experiences with it and related stimuli will be positive, and visa versa for negative experiences.

But these biases are exactly that, an initial bias. Further experience with any object will allow for additional learning which can easily be inconsistent with the initial bias/prediction.

So, although you had an initial negative bias towards the XVX, you gained experience with it and learned to like it.

And although it is popular in our culture to claim a lack of bias towards novel ideas/products/stimuli, that is not how the brain works.

At zero learning, we have an initial positivity bias. This serves to motivate exploratory behavior, pulling us forward into the environment to have new experiences and find new resources. When learning about these new stimuli, however, there is a strong negativity bias. We learn negative information more quickly and if an object delivers equal amounts of positive and negative experiences, the negative will dominate. This is a safety mechanism for the organism, drawing you away from potentially dangerous stimuli. Better to be safe than sorry, as they say. See Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson (1997, 1999) if you'd like to read summaries of the basic science supporting these facts.

 

[microstrip]

I have very little experience with Gryphon dynamic driver speakers. The Gryphon AB amplifiers built into the woofer towers drive only 200Hz and below.

I am not intending to use those terms in a pejorative way. I am trying to use them in a positive way (describing what is) and not in a normative way (describing what should be). I use those terms to describe what I think are sonic artifacts. I believe that some audiophiles conscientiously aim to realize those sonic artifacts with their systems. Other audiophiles do not strive for their systems to make the type of sound described by these terms.

As soon as you consider them "artifacts" you are using them in a pejorative way. Pinpoint is an intrinsic capability of the stereo system, not an artifact.

So I try to write with those terms in a neutral way, even if I end up concluding that I do not aim for those artifacts because I do not hear them at Walt Disney Concert Hall.

However, I understand that simply describing them as "artifacts" might suggest something added or unnatural, and that that is probably why you feel I am using them in a pejorative way.

Yes.

Finally, I think your observation that I got speakers from a manufacturer which exalts these sonic artifacts is inapposite given that the topology of my speakers is so different from cones in boxes. I think planars as a class of loudspeakers all have a similar "open" sound. In terms of the conceptual sonic nature of their soundstage I think planar speakers all do a pretty similar thing. I do not hear "pinpoint imaging" from planar loudspeakers.

I just referred to the general views of your speakers manufacturer. And some planars can have excellent pinpoint imaging - try listening to Quad ESL63 or some Martin Logan's. Pinpoint is not cone magic, it is a physical and perceptual illusion.

I have not listened to your speakers, and opinions are just opinions. But I could read

"By eliminating fundamental issues of mass, inertia and internal resonance, the Gryphon Pendragon ribbon and AMT drivers are able to respond accurately and instantaneously to even the subtlest of micro-dynamic changes, conveying all the expressiveness, richness and complex textures of the greatest recordings, laid out across a vast, natural soundstage with pinpoint stereo imaging." https://www.analogueseduction.net/all-speakers/gryphon-pendragon-loudspeaker-system.html

 

[Ron Resnick]

Positivity and negativity biases are basic features of animal learning. If you have had a positive experience with some object, it is completely rational for the brain to predict that future experiences with it and related stimuli will be positive, and visa versa for negative experiences.

But these biases are exactly that, an initial bias. Further experience with any object will allow for additional learning which can easily be inconsistent with the initial bias/prediction.

So, although you had an initial negative bias towards the XVX, you gained experience with it and learned to like it.

And although it is popular in our culture to claim a lack of bias towards novel ideas/products/stimuli, that is not how the brain works.

At zero learning, we have an initial positivity bias. This serves to motivate exploratory behavior, pulling us forward into the environment to have new experiences and find new resources. When learning about these new stimuli, however, there is a strong negativity bias. We learn negative information more quickly and if an object delivers equal amounts of positive and negative experiences, the negative will dominate. This is a safety mechanism for the organism, drawing you away from potentially dangerous stimuli. Better to be safe than sorry, as they say. See Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson (1997, 1999) if you'd like to read summaries of the basic science supporting these facts.

Thank you very much for this educational reply!

 

[Lee]

Sorry for the late reply... been super busy, fighting multiple fires .... we can discuss barriers to entry later (but many over come them by getting the "audio journalists" help out ....

But what makes an expert in high end audio? Its a subjective, experiential hobby. I’d argue an expert is some one who shares our preference, someone people want to emulate , and potentially has more experience exploring that preference, going deeper than the average schlub …:

Additionally, coming across as an expert is a big challenge for anyone - he has to rise up above the typical audiophile garbage and show that the high end world is a hospitable place for other tastes and preferences beyond the Wilson - Magico- dcs - solid state amp of the month oligarchy (while not pissing those traditional hifi guys off - as they bring eye balls), and be authentic and trusted by all parties…

If the guy is not honest about weaknesses and trade-offs - which are easy to verify, their reputation is shot . in most cases, forever, as no one trust them ever again....... (audio research weak dynamics with Wilson... "Greatest speaker in history of reviewing" Magico Q series highlighting upper midrange - lower treble, etc.)

As to having an “audio certification”, “Great” Peter Breuninger was frequently talking about it when he was a member here. But Because of the nature of subjectivity , as we see with the breadth of responses in this thread, and makes it very difficult to navigate…

Taking a step back, I think Roy's comments on the structure of the industry - and the resulting perverse incentives are spot on . (Which in turn creates this lovely audiophile culture that results in “authorities” telling others what’s best for them, while not being honest about all the trade offs of the gear they are pushing. )


A bunch of Girls have decided Taylor Swift is great, among thousands other girl musicians playing in bands and strumming guitars at Starbucks , and Taylor became a big star. (She is talented and a smart business woman - impacted policies on streaming revenues, but there are thousands like her.) In our hobby, a bunch of old, impotent men have decided that Wilson and dcs sounds like real music / makes “accurate” sound to them , damn everyone else.


Sorry.. have to leave it here... as I am being pulled into something... To be continued

I have Wilson Alexia 2s with Audio Research Ref amplifiers. Dynamics are terrific!

 

[PeterA]

Just look at our members divergence of what are the great "natural" recordings that should be used as a reference.

I missed all of these discussions about great "natural" recordings that should be used as a reference. Could you name just ten for us?

 

[PeterA]

Francisco the variation in directions that recording engineers have is just the way that we each value differing qualities in a system and gear. Where it becomes problematic is when people don’t recognise or can’t define what the quality and nature of their preferences are. Peter A has possibly done as much here as any in clearly defining his goals. We’d all be easier to interpret if we each wrote a design philosophy for our systems. If two people have distinctly different goals then understanding what qualifies as best for each then becomes much easier to relate to. We can still read preferences into the various members but a clearly written design statement or philosophy from each of us would create much better communication all around and help us each better focus and reflect on the development of our systems.

I miss what used to be a fairly popular part of this website: the virtual system thread. Rockitman, MikeL, Tang, Madfloyd, Al M., Ack, Steve Williams, Marty, Mobiusman, and so many others used to discuss the evolution of their systems, their goals, their music, their thinking, their process. We got to know or understand the author though what he chose to share about his system and thinking about audio. These threads served as examples of different approaches to the hobby. I learned a lot and found them very entertaining. They were actually my favorite types of threads. Those that I used to follow have seemed to slow down or become dormant. And new system threads have not emerged. I do not understand why, and I think it is a shame.

 

[Sampajanna]

I miss what used to be a fairly popular part of this website: the virtual system thread. Rockitman, MikeL, Tang, Madfloyd, Al M., Ack, Steve Williams, Marty, Mobiusman, and so many others used to discuss the evolution of their systems, their goals, their music, their thinking, their process. We got to know or understand the author though what he chose to share about his system and thinking about audio. These threads served as examples of different approaches to the hobby. I learned a lot and found them very entertaining. They were actually my favorite types of threads. Those that I used to follow have seemed to slow down or become dormant. And new system threads have not emerged. I do not understand why, and I think it is a shame.

I too would love to see more of this. Even if it is a path I won’t follow, I love reading about the evolution of your system and thoughts, outlook and philosophy! I think the magazines should do more of this as well.

 

[awsmone]

Zellaton sound great with FM

FM Acoustics, Zellaton, Stenheim – Audio Arts – Zero Distortion

zero-distortion.org

Steinheim also sound excellent with Thrax Heros hybrid

View attachment 92483

And Dartzeel

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I miss what used to be a fairly popular part of this website: the virtual system thread. Rockitman, MikeL, Tang, Madfloyd, Al M., Ack, Steve Williams, Marty, Mobiusman, and so many others used to discuss the evolution of their systems, their goals, their music, their thinking, their process. We got to know or understand the author though what he chose to share about his system and thinking about audio. These threads served as examples of different approaches to the hobby. I learned a lot and found them very entertaining. They were actually my favorite types of threads. Those that I used to follow have seemed to slow down or become dormant. And new system threads have not emerged. I do not understand why, and I think it is a shame.

well, er, the forum has tended toward polarization recently......the last few years. videos or not, horns or not. vintage or not. cones and domes or not. uber digital or not. natural or not. one way being more righteous or not. people withdraw into themselves. life is too short to invite conflict.

these divisions have slowed down the draw to open up about things.....as the camps close ranks in most debates. we would rather debate the direction of general things, bad omens about hifi, and.......not.......the joy of individual discovery.

there are exceptions for sure. the Extreme thread, maybe the Lampi Horizon thread.....where it's more joyous and harmonious. i know when i get the urge to share an insight, it's easier to just stay quiet. i still do it some. but not as much. and i feel less connected to members than i had prior.

maybe it's a natural progression of the forum. i'm sure we can all point fingers if we think about it. blame it on COVID, or Putin.

 

[awsmone]

You did not see such a claim, because I am not making the suggestion that advanced materials (necessarily or objectively) result in better sound.* I merely was providing examples of loudspeakers made today using advanced materials which are not "mainly air inside."

*Separately, for audiophiles who like subjectively the sonic artifacts of "black backgrounds" and "pinpoint imaging" and a "fast sound" I think the use in dynamic driver loudspeaker cabinets of advanced materials to achieve heroic inertness and damping is desirable for these folks. Audiophiles who like this type of sound will view technological advancements in materials as sonic improvements. Audiophiles who do not like this type of sound will not view technological advancements in materials as sonic improvements.

I am unsure what these advanced materials are
aluminium is not new aeroplanes during Second World War used it
carbon fibre was invented in 1860, and high performance carbon fibre in 1958
high tensile strength carbon fibre in 1963
wilson benesch used carbon fibre 1994
if you consider at least 28 year old technology advanced , that describes well the state of the industry
zellatons cone technology is I think over 85 years old
kellogg and rice invented cone speakers and granted patent in 1925

 

[Tango]

well, er, the forum has tended toward polarization recently......the last few years. videos or not, horns or not. vintage or not. cones and domes or not. uber digital or not. natural or not. one way being more righteous or not. people withdraw into themselves. life is too short to invite conflict.

these divisions have slowed down the draw to open up about things.....as the camps close ranks in most debates. we would rather debate the direction of general things, bad omens about hifi, and.......not.......the joy of individual discovery.

there are exceptions for sure. the Extreme thread, maybe the Lampi Horizon thread.....where it's more joyous and harmonious. i know when i get the urge to share an insight, it's easier to just stay quiet. i still do it some. but not as much. and i feel less connected to members than i had prior.

maybe it's a natural progression of the forum. i'm sure we can all point fingers if we think about it. blame it on COVID, or Putin.

Regardless of how discussion normally head to, I think this forum has good diversity in all things about this hobby. Problem happens when one tries to convince or defend too much about something. Personally I rather show how I do things how I view things and let readers decide if it is interesting to consider or a worthy data point. Data point is what people want...and also some human touch ina good way of course.

 

[howiebrou]

Francisco,

What is the evidence for this? Is this widely-accepted as marketing science fact? (It may very well be; I truly do not know anything about this subject.) Or are you projecting your personal positive bias and negative bias characteristics?

I spent my entire audio life disliking Wilson Audio speakers because of the metal dome tweeter. The switch to the soft dome tweeter resulted in speakers I personally did not love, but I at least could understand how some people could like them.

According to your assertion I should have had a negative bias towards the XVX. And now, I think, the XVX is my favorite cone speaker I've ever heard. I was expecting it to be a slightly better version of the Alexx. I certainly was not expecting it to wow me the way it has wowed me consistently. I didn't hold a negative bias based on all the years I disliked Wilson speakers.

Anecdotally, however, I suspect there is a lot of positive bias and negative bias out their among audiophiles.

We all have biases. Even if it very minor there will inevitably a degree of residual bias. Whether we recognise our own biases or not is another matter and whether it influences significantly our perception of gear to a significant degree, confounding our experience, is again something very difficult to measure.

 

[cal3713]

Thank you very much for this educational reply!

Thanks Ron. I used to teach the topic to PhD students, glad it was useful again.