Toward a Better WBF…

[morricab]

I think WBF has a lot of things going for it…lots of serious audiophiles, loads of true experts, considerate forum ownership, and much thoughtful discussion. However, I think there is more than enough disagreeable and downright rude posts on some threads.

May I humbly suggest we try as a forum to do three things…? And I am guilty myself on these so there is much work to be done in my own posting as well.

1. Let’s respect different and unpopular opinions on sound quality. Don’t like MQA? That’s fine. It’s not doing great but on sonic attributes many of us hear improved quality. Let’s respect that. Don’t like a particular approach like SET/horns or drivers/solid state then let’s respect and learn from our different approaches.

2. Let’s think more about presenting a compelling argument. I think when we can reference experts or AES research, we learn more. I‘m smart enough to know I certainly don’t have all the answers. Far from it. It seems to me that audio is actually a very complex and fast-changing subject.

3. Let’s think more about the impact of system setup. I think this subject is covered pretty well here but my thinking is that understanding the listener’s space and setup may account for some of the sonic differences that people report here. I don’t mean to dismiss anything that’s not a fancy listening room as many have constraints due to expensive city apartments, wife acceptance factor, etc. I heard some fancy rooms with poor setup and lousy sound.

Is this a reasonable request, or am I off base?

1) I do respect different opinions...what I don't respect is people trying to spin something when the FACTS say otherwise...ours was not a debate about opinions...it was about the facts around time coherence/alignment/coincidence whatever you want to call it. I never even said that all non-time coherent speakers are bad...just that I don't agree with advertising claim something they aren't.

2)Your point 2 is deeply ironic. I presented you with a compelling argument about why something was marketing claims and not science and all you did was say that such and such expert (they aren't experts at all...just other audio journalists) says its true and not marketing claims. That is called appeal to authority and it is a fallacious argument. You didn't want to argue based on the facts of the data or even what that so called expert had said in the past to contradict the present.

3) What makes you think serious audiophiles here don't take this into account? Why is this even a point here for you to make?

Please stop trying to censor topics/people you find uncomfortable. We all know you own Wilson speakers and because you are not technically very savvy, you take their marketing claims at face value. You didn't like being called out for it and put under pressure by my facts and now you want to censor because I might upset all those Wilson fans out there...I didn't even say I dislike the speakers (I actually thought the original X1 was good).

Audio is only complex and fast changing because you are blinded by advertising and mistake new applications of technology as technology itself. It was cutting edge technology 90 years ago. But, lo and behold, SETs and horns didn't only die out...they experienced a renaissance! Why? Because how we hear hasn't changed and those original ideas are still valid today. I am not debating the subjective aspects of audio but it is a fact that other than digital, there is not much new (even that dates from the 1970s...or even earlier). Prior to that it was the introduction of the transistor. Speaker technology is all very old...even seemingly exotic stuff like plasma tweeters and electrostatic panels are extremely old technology. It's like saying a Tesla is new car technology...LOL...the electric car came around the same time as the internal combustion engine. Other technologies, like materials science has improved to the point of making an electric car more practical but the concept is not new at all. Same with audio.

 

[Lee]

1) I do respect different opinions...what I don't respect is people trying to spin something when the FACTS say otherwise...ours was not a debate about opinions...it was about the facts around time coherence/alignment/coincidence whatever you want to call it. I never even said that all non-time coherent speakers are bad...just that I don't agree with advertising claim something they aren't.

2)Your point 2 is deeply ironic. I presented you with a compelling argument about why something was marketing claims and not science and all you did was say that such and such expert (they aren't experts at all...just other audio journalists) says its true and not marketing claims. That is called appeal to authority and it is a fallacious argument. You didn't want to argue based on the facts of the data or even what that so called expert had said in the past to contradict the present.

3) What makes you think serious audiophiles here don't take this into account? Why is this even a point here for you to make?

Please stop trying to censor topics/people you find uncomfortable. We all know you own Wilson speakers and because you are not technically very savvy, you take their marketing claims at face value. You didn't like being called out for it and put under pressure by my facts and now you want to censor because I might upset all those Wilson fans out there...I didn't even say I dislike the speakers (I actually thought the original X1 was good).

Audio is only complex and fast changing because you are blinded by advertising and mistake new applications of technology as technology itself. It was cutting edge technology 90 years ago. But, lo and behold, SETs and horns didn't only die out...they experienced a renaissance! Why? Because how we hear hasn't changed and those original ideas are still valid today. I am not debating the subjective aspects of audio but it is a fact that other than digital, there is not much new (even that dates from the 1970s...or even earlier). Prior to that it was the introduction of the transistor. Speaker technology is all very old...even seemingly exotic stuff like plasma tweeters and electrostatic panels are extremely old technology. It's like saying a Tesla is new car technology...LOL...the electric car came around the same time as the internal combustion engine. Other technologies, like materials science has improved to the point of making an electric car more practical but the concept is not new at all. Same with audio.

It’s about different approaches here to time coherence. To gain a better understanding I reached out to John Atkinson whose life’s work has largely been correlating measurements to impact on sound. I don’t take marketing claims at face value but I know Wilson to be a serious company with an excellent engineering department. Nonetheless I phoned John because I wanted a deeper understanding of how it all works. And then I learned that second order crossovers with driver alignment also lead to time coherency.

My goal in the OP was for more civility. I would and will never censor anyone for anything as I believe good debate is the best sunlight for finding best practices.

I have discussed in depth here on WBF why I believe audio is evolving fast. It’s more about incremental changes due to better engineering and parts than revolutionary changes although things like the dCS ring DAC may be an example of that. Take for instance a current Wilson speaker. You have new cabinet materials like V material that handle resonances better, better spikes with same, more open and clear sounding capacitors, better tweeter performance with carbon tubes, better midrange with Anico drivers. Similar things happening with Magico and their driver cone construction. Gallium amplifiers and things like new Class D are new implementations. Arguably digital and analog source quality is changing even faster. Look at the materials science of using magnesium and zirconium in the Continuum Caliburn or zirconium in the Ansuz footers or zirconium baskets in the Borreson M1 monitor.

There a benefits from continual improvements of old approaches and entirely new approaches to sound reproduction.

 

[bonzo75]

High quality Alnico was being used in theatre horns in the 1950s. It went away only due to rise in costs of cobalt. Same happened to quality beryllium. You are just assuming that what you say is better technology, which is usually the newer, higher priced iteration of a standard high-magazine-advertising brand, but this has been discussed at length in other threads so no need to cover it again.

 

[Lee]

Really? Maxx2 to Maxx3 went from 44k to 68k, Alexx 109k, AlexxV 135k

All the same size function, number of drivers, designed speaker based on what Wilson have learnt manufacturing for 35 years.
We know the drivers have very little cost. Wilson has been manufacturing for a long time now, so synergies and cost reductions should be part of this equation like any other manufacturing business.

However prices are going exponentially higher.

How many speakers do Wilson manufacture now vs 20 and 10 years ago?

I know from talking to Wilson that everything has gotten much more expensive to produce from cabinet materials to machined parts to the pearl paints to capacitor. I am sure there have been some economies of scale but every loudspeaker manufacturer has seen price increases commensurate with Wilson.

Unless we have details about the bill of materials, shipping, and distribution costs that face Wilson, it’s folly to make a judgement on the fairness of pricing here. We don’t know the number of speakers Wilson makes on a historical basis so how can we reliably judge economies of scale.

 

[bonzo75]

Unless we have details about the bill of materials, shipping, and distribution costs that face Wilson, it’s folly to make a judgement on the fairness of pricing here. We don’t know the number of speakers Wilson makes on a historical basis so how can we reliably judge economies of scale.

I agree, so why do some members keep pushing price as the fair arbiter of quality?

 

[Lee]

High quality Alnico was being used in theatre horns in the 1950s. It went away only due to rise in costs of cobalt. Same happened to quality beryllium. You are just assuming that what you say is better technology, which is usually the newer, higher priced iteration of a standard high-magazine-advertising brand, but this has been discussed at length in other threads so no need to cover it again.

I know that, it’s not just the material but how it is implemented in the driver. Driver design has improved quite a bit since 1950.

 

[bonzo75]

I know that, it’s not just the material but how it is implemented in the driver. Driver design has improved quite a bit since 1950.

No it hasn’t. It worsened

 

[Lee]

I agree, so why do some members keep pushing price as the fair arbiter of quality?

Are they really? I think most of the members here regularly talk up products here that are a good value. You have Mike talking about CS Port tables, Ron talking about the Baltic 4 sounding better than dCS (he’s wrong of course but we still love him ), and the horn guys talking up some relatively affordable speakers.

 

[Lee]

No it hasn’t. It worsened

Do you have empirical evidence to support this bold statement?

 

[bonzo75]

Are they really? I think most of the members here regularly talk up products here that are a good value. You have Mike talking about CS Port tables, Ron talking about the Baltic 4 sounding better than dCS (he’s wrong of course but we still love him ), and the horn guys talking up some relatively affordable speakers.

You are mentioning members who don’t. Not the ones who do. Anyway, as long as price is not pushed as an arbiter of quality or progress, it is fine

 

[microstrip]

(...) I have discussed in depth here on WBF why I believe audio is evolving fast. It’s more about incremental changes due to better engineering and parts than revolutionary changes although things like the dCS ring DAC may be an example of that. Take for instance a current Wilson speaker. You have new cabinet materials like V material that handle resonances better, better spikes with same, more open and clear sounding capacitors, better tweeter performance with carbon tubes, better midrange with Anico drivers. Similar things happening with Magico and their driver cone construction. Gallium amplifiers and things like new Class D are new implementations. Arguably digital and analog source quality is changing even faster. Look at the materials science of using magnesium and zirconium in the Continuum Caliburn or zirconium in the Ansuz footers or zirconium baskets in the Borreson M1 monitor.

There a benefits from continual improvements of old approaches and entirely new approaches to sound reproduction.

Lee,

IMO the real reason why audio is evolving fast are the research and better knowledge of the psychoacoustics of stereo sound reproduction and - I know some people will not like it - the big advances in digital instrumentation and digital audio that pushed the whole industry.

The use of the more advanced technology has shown two faces - marketing needs and fine control of the engineering variables needed to assure current SOTA sound reproduction. I prefer to focus on the later, but I surely accept that many products use "fancy" technologies just for the appeal consumers have towards it. Some people would love to separate them with a clear line, I fear that such mission is impossible in the high-end reality - it leds to extreme objectivism.

 

[bonzo75]

Do you have empirical evidence to support this bold statement?

do you have to support yours? Ears, and people like Jack Roberts, Cheung, and JC Morrison will say best speakers are western electrics and if you can’t afford them, get Altecs, and that Altecs has the best woofers.

those who have actually researched, measured, and built, will also opine TAD 4003 is the best midrange driver. And tweeter (used in Vox Olympian and Cessaro pricey models, but made in 1970s or so).

today’s garage manufacturers just don’t have the resources of Bell Labs or Siemens

 

[microstrip]

I know from talking to Wilson that everything has gotten much more expensive to produce from cabinet materials to machined parts to the pearl paints to capacitor. (...)

My first Wilson's were made from the same material as my kitchen sink, that is manufactured in extremely large scale. New speakers are made from custom materials.

BTW, since then, even the kitchen material also raised in cost by almost 300%!

 

[Lee]

Lee,

IMO the real reason why audio is evolving fast are the research and better knowledge of the psychoacoustics of stereo sound reproduction and - I know some people will not like it - the big advances in digital instrumentation and digital audio that pushed the whole industry.

The use of the more advanced technology has shown two faces - marketing needs and fine control of the engineering variables needed to assure current SOTA sound reproduction. I prefer to focus on the later, but I surely accept that many products use "fancy" technologies just for the appeal consumers have towards it. Some people would love to separate them with a clear line, I fear that such mission is impossible in the high-end reality - it leds to extreme objectivism.

Yes, I think that’s true. There is AES research on timing difference detection, the research by James Boyk on how we hear above 20khz overtones, the apodizing filters of Bob Stuart and Peter Craven, etc.

And if you look at the newer turntables, we see strong advances in mechanical engineering. Using cactus as a cantilever in the Hyperion cartridge, the newer class of optical cartridges from DS, the tonearm construction of the Cobra and Saphir tonearms, the air bearing on the tables and now tonearm of TechDAS, the direct drive in the new esoteric, the perfectly cogless motor of the Caliburn, the use of ultrasonic cleaners for records. So many examples exist.

 

[morricab]

It’s about different approaches here to time coherence. To gain a better understanding I reached out to John Atkinson whose life’s work has largely been correlating measurements to impact on sound. I don’t take marketing claims at face value but I know Wilson to be a serious company with an excellent engineering department. Nonetheless I phoned John because I wanted a deeper understanding of how it all works. And then I learned that second order crossovers with driver alignment also lead to time coherency.

My goal in the OP was for more civility. I would and will never censor anyone for anything as I believe good debate is the best sunlight for finding best practices.

I have discussed in depth here on WBF why I believe audio is evolving fast. It’s more about incremental changes due to better engineering and parts than revolutionary changes although things like the dCS ring DAC may be an example of that. Take for instance a current Wilson speaker. You have new cabinet materials like V material that handle resonances better, better spikes with same, more open and clear sounding capacitors, better tweeter performance with carbon tubes, better midrange with Anico drivers. Similar things happening with Magico and their driver cone construction. Gallium amplifiers and things like new Class D are new implementations. Arguably digital and analog source quality is changing even faster. Look at the materials science of using magnesium and zirconium in the Continuum Caliburn or zirconium in the Ansuz footers or zirconium baskets in the Borreson M1 monitor.

There a benefits from continual improvements of old approaches and entirely new approaches to sound reproduction.

Different approaches to time coherence? As I said, there are three ways: 1) Design a phase linear crossover and then align the acoustic centers of the drivers such that the distance to the listener's ear is the same and then you get a good impulse and step response. 2) Use analog delay lines to compensate for the group delay that a non-first order phase linear crossover imparts on the drivers. 3) Use DSP to digitally adjust everything to have the same impulse/step response.

What you are talking about is semantics and what people mean by time coherence. As I pointed out, JA himself used the word Time Coherence very differently in the 90s (what he is NOW calling time coincidence) and I referenced this with the 1994 review of the Dunlavy SC-IV speaker. Did you bother to ask him about this obvious discrepancy or was that too uncomfortable for you?

 

[Lee]

do you have to support yours? Ears, and people like Jack Roberts, Cheung, and JC Morrison will say best speakers are western electrics and if you can’t afford them, get Altecs, and that Altecs has the best woofers.

those who have actually researched, measured, and built, will also opine TAD 4003 is the best midrange driver. And tweeter (used in Vox Olympian and Cessaro pricey models, but made in 1970s or so).

today’s garage manufacturers just don’t have the resources of Bell Labs or Siemens

Would it not be easy to show charts that demonstrate these older drivers are better performers?

 

[morricab]

I know that, it’s not just the material but how it is implemented in the driver. Driver design has improved quite a bit since 1950.

I have some speakers now with drivers designed I think originally in the 1930s...sound every bit as open and natural as any new fancy materials and they are just thin paper cones.

 

[bonzo75]

And if you look at the newer turntables, we see strong advances in mechanical engineering. Using cactus as a cantilever in the Hyperion cartridge, the newer class of optical cartridges from DS, the tonearm construction of the Cobra and Saphir tonearms, the air bearing on the tables and now tonearm of TechDAS, the direct drive in the new esoteric, the perfectly cogless motor of the Caliburn, the use of ultrasonic cleaners for records. So many examples exist.

not denying advances in TT materials, though records have gone majorly backwards

 

[microstrip]

High quality Alnico was being used in theatre horns in the 1950s. It went away only due to rise in costs of cobalt. Same happened to quality beryllium. You are just assuming that what you say is better technology, which is usually the newer, higher priced iteration of a standard high-magazine-advertising brand, but this has been discussed at length in other threads so no need to cover it again.

The advance of the Wilson Audio medium speaker was not just the use of the Alnico, but the way the magnetic material was used. The magnetic structure was researched and simulated using advanced CAD techniques. Surely the marketing wisely focus on the Alnico - it is what people will remember easily!

People now focus on ChatGPT, but forget that we are in the century of the simulation in Engineering.

 

[bonzo75]

Would it not be easy to show charts that demonstrate these older drivers are better performers?

they are all out there. You can easily Google TAD 4003. I am sure Wilson drivers don’t have so much publicly available information