Who said holy. lol... Maybe complex though escapes some. Or... maybe it is a dude just cannot be in a serious conversation. NP
The State of High End Audio
- Thread starter FrantzM
- Start date
Who said holy. lol... Maybe complex though escapes some. Or... maybe it is a dude just cannot be in a serious conversation. NP
Stand in front of the mirror, focus deeply on what you see, and shout that out 5 times.
Thanks for that response, Tim. As is usually the case with your posts, I learned something.
In about a month or so, I will be directly comparing an analog source which purports to be HIGH END and a digital source which purports to be HI (perhaps highest) FIDELITY. Prices and format seem to correspond with the distinctions you are making. They are both part of a system I know and which I consider to be very transparent, high performing and near SOTA. It promises to be a very interesting day and I think it will demonstrate to me something about the current state of the industry. I will try to approach the listening with open eyes, ears, and mind. I will share my sonic impressions of the comparison with the forum. Will a better measuring high fidelity component sound more convincing to me than a highly coveted hi end component?
Last edited:
Obviously you're going to support the products you sell. Not one time have I ever gone into a BMW dealership, and had them tell me to go across the street to the Mercedes dealership, no matter who has the superior product that would best meet my needs. I've never sat down at an Italian restaurant to have the waiter come over and say "hey, just a tip, the pasta at the joint down the road, is not only tastier, it's half the price"
So of course, nobody should expect you to support your competitors ideas or products. So, rather than get emotional and angry about doing what you do, focus on where you can add value to areas direct sales guys can't. And if you have confidence in your business model, there should be absolutely no reason to get upset.
Last edited:
Blizz, no one will judge you unfavorably for not posting a reply to every single thing. There's a lot of threads where I'm trying to circumnavigate you going back and forth with people about who-cares. Relax.
This thread is getting weird. Bob Dylan? Hopefully he gets turned into glue before he tries to sing in public again. I'd trade the one song/album (maybe) I like by him, to have the rest of it erased. But of coarse I have no idea what he has to do with audiophilia.
A question/Inquiry. Yes amplifiers are fancy with their enclosures. Not all, but many. But if every one is doing it how are you suppose to not do it? Lamm appears to be the only hold out for very high end gear that doesn't do it. Should gear be ugly and boring? From the business side if your product is already expensive enough that it's niche or niche, does it not make sense to make a nice enclosure in order to get a little more markup so you can actually make some money on the low orders? Plus many of the fancy enclosures do incorporate some reasoning behind them for performance. (Obviously not including Redgum and the crack they smoke)
I tend to think of equipment as being an investment, so to me it makes sense to have a nice, good, enclosure. Now if the enclosures were taking a hit to performance or overall structural integrity for their "art" I'd be bothered.
This thread is getting weird. Bob Dylan? Hopefully he gets turned into glue before he tries to sing in public again. I'd trade the one song/album (maybe) I like by him, to have the rest of it erased. But of coarse I have no idea what he has to do with audiophilia.
A question/Inquiry. Yes amplifiers are fancy with their enclosures. Not all, but many. But if every one is doing it how are you suppose to not do it? Lamm appears to be the only hold out for very high end gear that doesn't do it. Should gear be ugly and boring? From the business side if your product is already expensive enough that it's niche or niche, does it not make sense to make a nice enclosure in order to get a little more markup so you can actually make some money on the low orders? Plus many of the fancy enclosures do incorporate some reasoning behind them for performance. (Obviously not including Redgum and the crack they smoke)
I tend to think of equipment as being an investment, so to me it makes sense to have a nice, good, enclosure. Now if the enclosures were taking a hit to performance or overall structural integrity for their "art" I'd be bothered.
For many products these days, the enclosure is by far the highest cost in the BOM. So when you consider MSRP is roughly 6X BOM on products sold through a dealer network, that can be a lot of coin you are dropping down mainly just for appearance. But if that's what it takes to make the sale, than that's what you need to do.
A dealer friend of mine who's been in the industry for 30 years told me if something is sexy, he will sell it 5 to 1 vs something that sounds better, is cheaper, but isn't sexy. Most of the guys dropping down the biggest coin, aren't even critical listeners anyways. They judge the book by the cover.
SO I guess I see nothing wrong with designing nice enclosures, since people want them. I won't buy speakers based on looks, despite sound. But I think it's a stretch to say people are not critical listeners. You can critically listen on a $1k system. The people that aren't critical listeners tend to buy McIntosh gear.
Somehow I imagine choosing the sexy over plain at a dealership is more in the lower end stuff they carry.
Alex is a long time member of the forum and as far as I recall, was an ordinary member long before he started his business. Please don't accuse him of bias due to his business. Such talk is not acceptable in the forum.
What you describe is a very nice approach. Sounds as if you would be comfortable saying, "this is the higher fidelity, but this other version is more convincing". I think quite often that is exactly the case. As long as you realize such everything is golden. The opposite when as so often happens we assume the more convincing presentation is also of higher fidelity that things can go awry.
Yes, I agree with you. I am becoming increasingly convinced that there are basically two ways of looking at the hobby:
1. We want our systems to sound like what we think real instruments sound like because we listen to a lot of live music
or
2. We want our systems to reproduce as accurately as is currently technically possible exactly what is on the recording because that is all we have
The latter can be verified through measurements, but the measurements are incomplete and don't tell us everything. The former is subjective and it can not be verified. Both are powerful ideas and guide us in our decisions, but often those who adhere to one often infuriate those who adhere to the other, and visa versa. There is not much overlap, as these many threads show, but I find calm in recognizing the distinction and appreciate that both are valid approaches and much can be learned by respecting what each view can teach us about the other.
Okay Sorry for the couple posts I made involving you Alex. We all have a common goal here with audio, so no need to have any argument's. If you stop posting derogatory comments about me, I will do the same.
Keith,
Prop 1 is the subjective way. Listen to live music then pick equipment that your memory tells you is what those instruments sounded like. Prop 2 is the objective way, pick components that measure well. You can add the subjective sound good to you also if you wish.
Beau
Prop 1 is the subjective way. Listen to live music then pick equipment that your memory tells you is what those instruments sounded like. Prop 2 is the objective way, pick components that measure well. You can add the subjective sound good to you also if you wish.
Beau
It is a bit creepy I must agree, more than a bit, I must say.
He does seem a bit obsessed with disagreeing in a most impolite and disagreeable fashion with everything you say.
Very interesting. I do however think that there is no disconnect between subjective and measurements. IOW there are reasons we like what we like. Many studies point toward that. The works of Toole, Olive et al point towards the fact that there is a common ground in what we like in term of music reproduction. There are however some strong but difficult to eliminate biases. An example and here I am (repeating) and speaking for myself: There are certain brands I simply don't like to this day and I don't know why. It might have been an experience , a bad incomplete one. It is the same for many. Some here on the WBF would love a ZYGBHTREW (Placeholder for your favorite) component before hearing a note from it, Fanboys? Most ofus are to a certain degree.
So accurately can coincide with what we like and it is measurable. Not claiming that we know how...yet.
I believe there is an education process. We learn to listen. Again Harman has worked on that and those were peer-proofed: One can taught to listen for imperfections. It is quite possible that some audiophiles have come to that point or near it, through an informal process. We have come to learn to listen better to things. Not always as well as we think we do, but well enough to discern some little things that the vast majority of music-loving people on the planet do not care much for. I do however believe that we are moving away from these common ground and it is almost encouraged by some in the industry. The idea of metrics is at least unsettling for many in the industry, some do see it as a threat. The gurus/designer would suddenly be replaced by hard cold set of numbers... It is better for things to remain ethereal .. We can sell more stuff that way.
i cant say i have ever sat down and thought, i dont like the way this hifi is presenting music but i value its fidelity
Not quite the same, but once I experienced some recordings done by me, I have tried them on various systems and had that thought. One system is of good fidelity, but it isn't presenting music as beautifully as another I have heard this on. I recognized it was being prettied up, but enjoyed better it all the same.
Another way to experience the difference is in bypass testing. Some components seem nicer, but when bypassed have a signature that other innocuous components don't have because they are of better fidelity.
I was talking to an engineer at a audiophile meeting a couple of months ago. We were both looking at the D'agstino line of products. We both agreed they were works of art. He told me that the cost to produce some of these enclosures could be over 6000.00. I don't know how much that equates to in retail dollars but I would assume it is a high percentage of the retail price of the units.
"The people that tend not to be critical listeners by Mcintosh"
I am not a Mcintosh supporter by any means. But if you went to a site that there are a lot of Mcintosh supporters on they would take you to task with that statement. I don't get the Impression there are a lot of Mac fan boys on this site.
I am not a Mcintosh supporter by any means. But if you went to a site that there are a lot of Mcintosh supporters on they would take you to task with that statement. I don't get the Impression there are a lot of Mac fan boys on this site.
Similar threads
- Locked
