The Long Memory of Audiophiles

[mtemur]

I heard two Kharma midi Grand exquisite set ups in Munchen .
One with their own amplification which was nothing special .
The other with RKoda which was very good .

I agree. A couple of my friends have custom made Kharma speakers that sound great.

The reason i started to really comment on the XVXs/ Nagra performance was because somebody stated 3 magazines voted it best of the show .
This was so far off in my opinion i just couldn t stay silent any more .

Totally agree. I explained what I think about Nagra room in another post.

Post in thread 'Upcoming Nagra turntable'
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/upcoming-nagra-turntable.33334/post-851058

 

[andromedaaudio]

I agree. A couple of my friends have custom made Kharma speakers that sound great.


Totally agree. I explained what I think about Nagra room in another post.

Post in thread 'Upcoming Nagra turntable'
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/upcoming-nagra-turntable.33334/post-851058

How was the XVX / VTL sounding
Any good ?
For some reason i missed that section completely .
This year i will start up in Atrium so i dont miss any of the High $$$ rooms

 

[mtemur]

How was the XVX / VTL sounding
Any good ?
For some reason i missed that section completely .
This year i will start up in Atrium so i dont miss any of the High $$$ rooms

Unfortunately I do missed that one too. I went there but didn’t stay. I also missed Admire Audio room which I will not this year.

 

[Kingrex]

If i wouldn t had lost so much money in the past ( 2003 - 2010 time span ) based on magazine buying in general , i might indeed feel the urge to be more diplomatic .
May be that s where a forum like WBF fills a niche .
There are/ were members here , some which have left unfortunately who took/take a different path to musical system satisfaction.
They didnt take the spoonfed media " whats best " for granted

That's not why they left.

 

[andromedaaudio]

That's not why they left.

Im not going into why they left , i assume those were " communication " issues
Im just saying they had a lot of knowledge / expirience / great systems which contributed to the forum

 

[Ron Resnick]

I think this vintage versus contemporary debate is a proxy war for different subjective sonic values. The people who believe that generally sound quality/suspension of disbelief improves with revised products, new products, and new technologies seem to value black backgrounds, low noise floor, clearly delineated sonic images, bass slam and extended frequency extremes.

The people for whom sound quality/suspension of disbelief improves with increased realism and naturalness in the 100Hz to 1,000Hz range tend to prefer vintage components which do not seek explicitly to achieve the contemporary components group's sonic attribute values listed above.

I think I have a different approach. My approach is not to assume a new component is better than a prior component, and not to assume that a new version of a component is better than the prior version of that component and not to assume that a new technology is better than an old technology. I assume the opposite: I assume the old is better than the new unless my ears tell me otherwise.

 

[bonzo75]

I think this vintage versus contemporary debate is a proxy war for different subjective sonic values. The people who believe that generally sound quality/suspension of disbelief improves with revised products, new products, and new technologies seem to value black backgrounds, low noise floor, clearly delineated sonic images, bass slam and extended frequency extremes.

The people for whom sound quality/suspension of disbelief improves with increased realism and naturalness in the 100Hz to 1,000Hz range tend to prefer vintage components which do not seek explicitly to achieve the contemporary components group's sonic attribute values listed above.

How did you even make that up.

the issue is using one as negating the other, or saying being inclusive in one group is excluding all attributes of the other group. Which is how your post reads. 100 to 1khz can be sought after by audiophiles who like components I don’t, and those who like components I do.

 

[thedudeabides]

I have long lamented that there is no linear progression in the development of audio quality.

With all due respect, I have owned three different CJ preamps over the last two decades and can ensure you that this observation, like most generalizations, is inaccurate. I suspect others (like Lamm, Wilson and Dartzeel enthusiasts) would also disagree. Cables are an entirely different matter.

 

[PeterA]

I think this vintage versus contemporary debate is a proxy war for different subjective sonic values. The people who believe that generally sound quality/suspension of disbelief improves with revised products, new products, and new technologies seem to value black backgrounds, low noise floor, clearly delineated sonic images, bass slam and extended frequency extremes.

The people for whom sound quality/suspension of disbelief improves with increased realism and naturalness in the 100Hz to 1,000Hz range tend to prefer vintage components which do not seek explicitly to achieve the contemporary components group's sonic attribute values listed above.

I think I have a different approach. My approach is not to assume a new component is better than a prior component, and not to assume that a new version of a component is better than the prior version of that component and not to assume that a new technology is better than an old technology. I assume the opposite: I assume the old is better than the new unless my ears tell me otherwise.

Ron, this does not describe my approach in the slightest. I have a mix of old and new based on what sounds most natural to me and most like my reference of live sound. Nothing to do with vintage or modern per se. And your gear/system sonic attributes are gross generalizations, IMO.

I also think the whole 100-1000 Hz emphasis is a distraction. My attention is on the whole range produced by my system, from mid 30s to about 15K Hz. It all has to sound natural. I do think it is more challenging to get the bass to sound realistic, and once that is done, the rest kind of follows. But again, the whole range has to sound right.

 

[Lagonda]

I would also give credit to Dagostino for their new MXV circuit. My favorite room at Axpona was their Momentum version paired with Wilson’s Alexx V. This was just wonderful lifelike sound. There was definitely some synergy going on with these two.

And now that we have mentioned all our major advertisers, we go back to our regular programming ! Once you start looking for it, it all becomes so Transparent ! Ups you missed one !

 

[Al M.]

I think this vintage versus contemporary debate is a proxy war for different subjective sonic values. The people who believe that generally sound quality/suspension of disbelief improves with revised products, new products, and new technologies seem to value black backgrounds, low noise floor, clearly delineated sonic images, bass slam and extended frequency extremes.

The people for whom sound quality/suspension of disbelief improves with increased realism and naturalness in the 100Hz to 1,000Hz range tend to prefer vintage components which do not seek explicitly to achieve the contemporary components group's sonic attribute values listed above.

As Bonzo pointed out, this is a false dichotomy, Ron.

 

[Lagonda]

Sorry Lee, but I think you swallowed the blue pill

He manufactures the blue pill !

 

[Gregadd]

With all due respect, I have owned three different CJ preamps over the last two decades and can ensure you that this observation, like most generalizations, is inaccurate. I suspect others (like Lamm, Wilson and Dartzeel enthusiasts) would also disagree. Cables are an entirely different matter.

Okay.I have owned CJ and ARC. Just imagine that instead of them both charting there own path CJ could have picked up where the SP11 left off. Of course, IMO at the time CJ had no where near the expertise to make an SP-11 out of whole cloth. IIRC CJ came into fame because of ARCs' venture into solid state.
Not to mention the endless parade of box speakers. Each of whch brag of there latet invention. How many times I have heard a manufacture brag about how much they have learned. I respond really, because the great speaker designers already incorporated it in their designs.
I will be happy to be more specific if you require.

 

[microstrip]

I could be wrong but I seriously doubt that Vladimir Lamm's models and tests will ever be published. You see and hear the evidence of his work when you listen to what he created -- that is not rumor. His designs are proprietary knowledge.

I was just addressing his "model of hearing" you were referring in your post I have quoted. Nothing in this industry is proprietary knowledge unless it is patented or kept secret under locks. Just to please my own audiophile curiosity I have reversed engineered some of the Lamm designs, but I will keep it for me, respecting Lamm people wishes.

Just as you likely never will see models and tests for Wilson crossovers. That is proprietary knowledge. I've talked with many manufacturers and to a one they closely guard their trade secrets. And below the surface this guarding of trade secrets is highly competitive -- a fear of poaching is justifiable.

Now you are talking about implementations. David Wilson told us clearly about his aims in timing, even quantifying them. You can't compare the immense sharing of information of Wilson Audio with the secrecy of Lamm.

Okay. Although, better understanding of the mechanisms of stereo sound reproduction does not imply better sound.

Well, I disagree. Stereo is not french cuisine, better fundamental knowledge will allow designers to address and solve subjects that were ignored. As a trend, better knowledge about the reasons of our preferences will help designers to create products we find "better" (prefer).

The appeal to technology is strong in the current industry and many audiophiles are impressed by new or clever technology. Regardless of technology we are limited or blessed in having the bodies that we have. Certain manufacturers understand there are rules for human hearing - as humans we hear in a certain way.

I do not know of any manufacturer having shown such knowledge. Some claim it ...

Stereo, as a generic broad enterprise has changed a lot over time, I agree. Some new products emerge and fade, some have their day in the sun and then fade, some linger on, some are replaced by newer or upgraded models. Products that get closer to reality, those that offer believable sound, those more closely coincident with how we hear can and do endure. Companies built on singular genius - there are lots of them - can fade when their founder passes on unless their knowledge is passed to a capable successor. Many current accounts and audio sound descriptions of products, what are presented as values in the audio press, are further removed from reality and closer to emphasizing entertaining stereo artifacts only found in listening rooms.

"It's either fidelity or infidelity."
-- Paul Klipsch

I am not addressing the audiophile audio press. Stereo is a weak standard for sound reproduction, but it is what most of us prefer. Some people prefer the implementations and sound characteristics of the past , I respect them. But unfortunately most of them are not able to understand what they criticize.

 

[microstrip]

A few isolated voices? Just how many people do you think have had a chance to make a serious comparison. If those few voices are experienced and knowledgeable, their opinion has value.

I met Romy with ddk. Great old friends both with strong opinions. Respectfully, I suspect you do not know the story about Lamm and Romy

Yes, I only know about was written in public forums. If I quoted Romy statements about Lamm and Vlaidmir Lamm from his website in this forum I would be banned ...

Yes. Consider exposure, cost, and availability. My statement is based on my own listening and talking to Tang and reading reports from every visitor to Ddk in Utah.

Ok, a very small number. It was my only point.

My comment was a reflection about my journey, not yours or anyone else’s. I should have read less and listened more. No big deal. I learned along the way.

Who tells you that those who follow other paths listen less or read more? Perhaps they also read better.

 

[tima]

Ron, this does not describe my approach in the slightest. I have a mix of old and new based on what sounds most natural to me and most like my reference of live sound. Nothing to do with vintage or modern per se. And your gear/system sonic attributes are gross generalizations, IMO.

I also think the whole 100-1000 Hz emphasis is a distraction. My attention is on the whole range produced by my system, from mid 30s to about 15K Hz. It all has to sound natural. I do think it is more challenging to get the bass to sound realistic, and once that is done, the rest kind of follows. But again, the whole range has to sound right.

Excellent post. I wrote a similar reply in my head as I read R's post.

Setting up a division or dichotomy between so-called vintage and modern both for gear and sound is just more putting things in boxes and manipulating the boxes with words. Using the sound of live acoustic music as the common denominator, all can be assessed against it.

 

[Lee]

I think this vintage versus contemporary debate is a proxy war for different subjective sonic values. The people who believe that generally sound quality/suspension of disbelief improves with revised products, new products, and new technologies seem to value black backgrounds, low noise floor, clearly delineated sonic images, bass slam and extended frequency extremes.

The people for whom sound quality/suspension of disbelief improves with increased realism and naturalness in the 100Hz to 1,000Hz range tend to prefer vintage components which do not seek explicitly to achieve the contemporary components group's sonic attribute values listed above.

I think I have a different approach. My approach is not to assume a new component is better than a prior component, and not to assume that a new version of a component is better than the prior version of that component and not to assume that a new technology is better than an old technology. I assume the opposite: I assume the old is better than the new unless my ears tell me otherwise.

Interesting take, Ron.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Setting up a division or dichotomy between so-called vintage and modern both for gear and sound is just more putting things in boxes and manipulating the boxes with words.

You seem to ignore that proper analysis is a common technique and a great source of knowledge. Although there are no closed boxes in stereo, there are clear trends in vintage and modern and IMO we can discuss them.

Using the sound of live acoustic music as the common denominator, all can be assessed against it.

Yes, the best way of keeping everyone happy in the darkness, each of praising us our "natural sound" that surely in our opinion sounds close to our perception of real sound ...

Stereo is too far from real music to be compared directly with it. Unless we analyze our findings using the "audiophile language" only a very few selected people can figure what is meant by such talk. Surely some musical thought is welcome to complement and substantiate it.

 

[tima]

Stereo is too far from real music to be compared directly with it.

Do you know that by direct comparison?

 

[Amir]

One thing I have been noticing more and more among audiophiles is a long memory of gear quality and performance. This manifests itself in two forms:

1. Audiophiles judge a new product by past products a company has had.

2. Audiophiles tend to have a fondness for a much older product that served as some sort of touchstone to their formative years starting the audio journey.

I am beginning to feel that this is becoming a problem of sorts, albeit an understandable one because of human nature. I will try to address each one…

1. In some ways, judging a company by past products is a good thing. What is the company’s reputation for sound? For innovation? For reliability and service? But there is one big downside and that is an inability to move past weaknesses of older designs. One example is the brightness of older Wilson models that used the inverted dome tweeter. I still get reactions from people when I mention my Alexia Vs….”oh Lee, Wilsons are so bright to my ears and very analytical sounding.” Really? Have you been to a stereo store in twenty years? Another example is tube amps. “I don’t like the missing bass on tube amps.” Really? Have you heard modern tube amps? Audio Research Reference? CAT? Conversely, “I think tubes have better midrange than solid state. Solid state has poor midrange.” Really? Have you heard the Class Pass Labs amps lately? It’s hard to put old prejudices aside but I think we must. Gear has become much better recently and certainly over time. The Rossini Apex is WAY better than the original Rossini. The new Magicos are way better than before. High end audio is producing super high quality, very advanced, aerospace-grade tech and it’s making for eargasms.

2. As Yogi Berra once said,

“Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be.”

I go to DIY and older equipment events and, with some exception, the sound is just not good at all. There are certainly examples of things like horn-based approaches sounded good. Avantgarde comes to mind….but reconditioned Bozaks are just not that great friends.

My humble suggestion is that we approach new products with an open mind, regardless of past faults that stood out. Given that materials, parts quality, and engineering approaches are ever getting better, it is time for fresh thinking. That will ensure new products get their rightfully earned time in the spotlight. And it will mean better sound quality for the entire community.

I agree you we should listen to new products but sometimes old designs are better .

For example Romy the Cat believes the first generation of Lamm ML2 is better. He does not like the new generation of ML2.
Accuphase and some other amplifiers in old days had less negative feedback.
Some believe kondo (audio note japan) old designs are better .

Big Wilson speakers were more efficient in past (like alexandria X1 and X2) but new models are less efficient and also have lower impedance.

Some high end companies moved toward producing more impressive sound because of selling more in the market.