Why isn't the high-end industry doing more to save itself?

[Paul R]

Yep, and I would just say that your purchasing priorities have matured and become balanced. That is, i think, always more satisfying than having "the best" or "the latest" or whatever. Getting something you want, at a price you are comfortable paying, that's satisfaction.

 

I think more people can do that today than in yesteryear.

 

-Paul

 

 

Correct Paul......which just had a big restructure and divested some lines......tried to get some financials but the company is privately held. Did find the big profit year was 2002 and I get the impression it's been a steady decline since. I remember when Harmon/JBL bought up everyone for pennies on the dollar including Infinity which was pretty Hi end in the speaker industry at the time.....more indicators of what this post is suggesting.

[mav52]

They are owned by the same group that owns or at least has a large chunk of Denon, Marantz, and Boston Acoustics. D+M Holdings out of New Jersey, I think.

-Paul

 

They might be located in the US in Jersey, but their world headquarters are in Japan, D&M Holdings Inc. is listed on the second section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange under the ticker 6735.

[Kiwi2]

You're assuming that the buyer knows that the Lexicon is an Oppo 83 and claim that he would buy anyway.

 

Not at all. Lexicon's slick web page with its liberal scattering of the right buzzwords may have convinced the person to buy it. He/she may have auditioned both but the higher pricetag and more boutique brand name may have convinced him/her psychologically that it did actually sounds better. Obviously a totally unbiased or blind A/B test against an Oppo would not show a difference. So audio or video quality isn't actually the factor for anybody that brought the Lexicon. So if it isn't about the quality of audio and video performance at all... then what are the reasons people brought the Lexicon?

 

Are even audiophiles not immune to clever and subtle marketing? Or do we only purchase our high-end goods solely on our golden ear brilliance..??

 

The relevance of this to this thread, is that I believe being less well known and thus exclusive is part of a marketing strategy. The more exclusive gear you want to own - the more they can charge you for it.

[Musicophile]

Two cents from my side:

 

Generally, the high-end industry is not good at marketing beyond their core segment. They know relatively well what speaks to the already converted audiophile, but I haven't seen many smart engagements outside of the traditional segment. Some have been a bit smarter, e.g. B&W, they diversified with Zeppelin & co so other target audiences have at least heard the brand, but most simply are still engineer driven approaches. And anyhow, by consumer goods terms, their marketing budgets are loughable.

[realhifi]

Increasingly it seems, so much of our hobby operates in virtual obscurity.

 

Try telling someone you know (who is not already an avid audiophile, of course) just the names of the product you own and it's doubtful they'll have heard of most, if any.

 

I'm not talking about having purchased the product, just knowing the names.

 

I'm not going to go on and on about Itunes, mp3's, streaming audio from the internet, and Ipod docks. Other companies have a right to pursue what they believe the market wants.

 

What concerns me is that our hobby appears to be in strong decline . . . limited too much to the interests of people who remember Heathkits and Larger Advent speakers (my first pair of speakers).

 

My question is, why isn't our industry organizing more to bring its product more into the mainstream?

 

Why isn't there more of an effort to introduce younger generations to the benefits of great sound?

 

If I'm mis-reading what's going on out there, I would be happy to be corrected.

 

But what I'm seeing is an industry in decline which is seemingly unwilling or uncertain as to how it can re-organize and re-build itself.

 

Joel

 

What is high-end? I think that Wilson Audio would disagree with your assessment of decline. Who on this site purchases high-end products?

[spdif-usb]

Some have been a bit smarter, e.g. B&W

To my ears, the Cantons (with their ceramic aluminum oxide dome tweeters and Displacement Control) trounced the much more expensive B&W Diamond series. Funnily, I bought my Cantons before I had read the Stereophile review of the Canton Reference 3.2 DC.

[mayhem13]

To my ears, the Cantons (with their ceramic aluminum oxide dome tweeters and Displacement Control) trounced the much more expensive B&W Diamond series. Funnily, I bought my Cantons before I had read the Stereophile review of the Canton Reference 3.2 DC.

 

Speaker mfgrs have a very hard time of it. There's no single component in the chains that will impart more flavor than the speaker system. When a designer works through his crossover, frequency response and polar response, he's very much like a chef trying to prepare a meal. The chef who prepares a well balanced nutritious speaker won't get any rave reviews, nor will he overly disappoint anyone. Now the chef who prepares the delicate speaker with exotic ingredients and visual presentation.....his speaker will get four stars....but only from a select, often small group who love the favors while others simply can't stomach the sound. It's purely a matter of taste and hitting the mark. More often than not, a speakers performance will suffer from mis intended use. The designer can't possibly build a speaker for every space ( but new designs in directivity can get extremely close!), so he or she might 'assume' the market for his creation is a simple multipurpose space with lots of reflective surfaces or a dedicated open space......neither speaker will sound as intended in an unintentional environment.

 

What really troubles me is speaker mfgrs lack of providing measurements which would allow an educated consumer to narrow the pool and not buy a speaker that misses the mark entirely....which regardless of the profit from one single sale has absolutely no long term advantage to the mfgr.

 

IMO both Canton and B&W produce an excellent, well designed speaker, but a I've indicated above, some people prefer apples to oranges.

[DigiPete]

What is high-end? . . . . Who on this site purchases high-end products?

 

High-end today seems mostly to be over engineered and over priced ancient technology of bad technical architecture.

I would newer buy that kind of high-end, that is for sure.

 

Many high-end companies seems to forget that most people under their spell are dying off.

They need to provide much more value for money to lure in the young crowd.

Many also seem as oblivious to modern sales channels as the record companies.

 

Most will die off as modern companies with focus on costumer value takes over.

Mainstream will pave the way to great sound in the future, not high-end.

I will not be the one weeping!

[babybear]

High-end today seems mostly to be over engineered and over priced ancient technology of bad technical architecture.

I would newer buy that kind of high-end, that is for sure.

 

 

Can you give some very specific examples of specific products from companies that are "bad technical architecture" and why? To make a blanket statement like that you clearly have done some research and technical analysis so you must be able to provide very detailed answers. As an example, can you start with TAD and their CR-1 and TAD Reference One speakers and their M600 amplifier. Thanks very much. I do have plenty of other companies and their products to get your analysis of as well.

 

Arnie

[spdif-usb]

some people prefer apples to oranges

Agreed, but I prefer not having to choose between adding the taste of apples or oranges to my single malt whiskey from the Highlands. That's why I love my Cantons, they taste very much like two drops of fresh spring water.

[Boris75]

People who want something good won't buy Bose and Apple, simply because they're smart enough to understand the fact those brands revolve around marketeering and fashion rather than hi-perf and tech innovation.

As Bose buyer, I felt a bit hurt by this remark. I bought a pair of Bose QC15 noise-cancelling headphones precisely because they were said to be very good at noise cancellation. For the way I use them, in very noisy environments, this is what matters most to me. The sound quality is all right and this pair of headphones allows me to do what I want: listen to music with a reasonable degree of sound quality at a safe loudness level in very noisy environments (commuter trains, the underground, buses).

[Musicophile]

Just to clarify: I quoted B&W above because I like them or their products (which indeed I do), but as a successful example of expanding their brand beyond pure traditional Hifi, with IPod docks, and now even a collaboration with Maserati.

[Kiwi2]

Can you give some very specific examples of specific products from companies that are "bad technical architecture"

 

I can give one specific example. A $150 Sony BDP vs an $8K McIntosh BDP.

 

You would think that spending 53 times the amount over the Sony BDP would give you better performance - not worse.

 

But of course having a Sony component in your rack doesn't give you as much cred as having a McIntosh component.

[Audio_ELF]

I can give one specific example. A $150 Sony BDP vs an $8K McIntosh BDP.

 

You would think that spending 53 times the amount over the Sony BDP would give you better performance - not worse.

 

But of course having a Sony component in your rack doesn't give you as much cred as having a McIntosh component.

Interestingly some High End manufacturers have stated there is nothing they can do to improve over consumer level blu-ray players and have said this is the reason they have not entered that market.

 

Eloise

[sandyk]

Eloise

There are consumer level BluRay players, and there are consumer level BluRay players.

I own a Samsung BluRay player which actually sounds a little better on CD playback than my old Oppo 981.

However, I recently heard a friends Oppo BDP95 through my system used as a transport, and the Samsung BluRay player didn't even come remotely close to the performance of the Oppo BDP95.

Alex

[Audio_ELF]

Eloise

There are consumer level BluRay players, and there are consumer level BluRay players.

I own a Samsung BluRay player which actually sounds a little better on CD playback than my old Oppo 981.

However, I recently heard a friends Oppo BDP95 through my system used as a transport, and the Samsung BluRay player didn't even come remotely close to the performance of the Oppo BDP95.

Alex

Alex - for clarity are you talking about analogue or digital output?

 

I guess I should clarify I was talking about manufacturers - specifically Meridian and Classe - who would be recommending using the Bluray player via HDMI to multi-channel processor.

 

Eloise

[babybear]

I can give one specific example. A $150 Sony BDP vs an $8K McIntosh BDP.

 

You would think that spending 53 times the amount over the Sony BDP would give you better performance - not worse.

 

But of course having a Sony component in your rack doesn't give you as much cred as having a McIntosh component.

 

I don't think that is an example of how I interpreted Digit Pete's comment. You preferred the sound of the $150 Sony BDP in your system. That is fine. But when someone states that "most companies are producing products with bad technical architecture", I was hoping to better understand what are the specific things that are bad about the architecture itself. Not looking for your sonic listening preferences in your system

 

Arnie

[Paul R]

Some folks (a lot of folks actually) buy Bose gear and find themselves very happy with it. In other words, like everything else in hi fidelity audio, it comes down largely to a matter of taste. If you like your Bose headphones, that really is all that matters. They are actually pretty cool.

 

The normal audiophile world complaint against Bose is targeted mostly at speakers, and believe it or not, the lack of published measurements and specifications for those speakers. Bose refuses to publish those specs, and tries hard to avoid having anyone else measure and publish them. That is believed to be because specification wise - the speakers won't measure very well at all.

 

It is also very difficult to get an idea of how the speakers sound, because one can't really listen to the beasties in a Bose store or a Best Buy. Personally, the 901's sound pretty good to me, though I like our current speakers much better.

 

As for the Apple crack, well, to each their own. I could point out that a lot of folks here own and use Macs, iPads, and iPhones and would not willingly use only a Windows PC if they happen to have a choice. (grin)

 

-Paul

 

 

As Bose buyer, I felt a bit hurt by this remark. I bought a pair of Bose QC15 noise-cancelling headphones precisely because they were said to be very good at noise cancellation. For the way I use them, in very noisy environments, this is what matters most to me. The sound quality is all right and this pair of headphones allows me to do what I want: listen to music with a reasonable degree of sound quality at a safe loudness level in very noisy environments (commuter trains, the underground, buses).

[DigiPete]

Can you give some very specific examples of specific products from companies that are "bad technical architecture" and why? To make a blanket statement like that you clearly have done some research and technical analysis so you must be able to provide very detailed answers. . . . .

Arnie

 

 

Background.

 

Available technology has changed over the last decades, yet very few high-end companies have teamed up to provide the costumers of today the price/quality/costumer value level that is possible.

 

The audio industry is no different than any other industry, it's an industry.

The way to get better price/performance ratio is the same as in any other industry:

 

- Costumer value centric approach

- Standardized mass produced components

- Optimum system technical architecture

- Optimum component technical architecture

- Adaptive components and systems

- Low BOM costs through high volume

- Low manufacturing costs through high volume

- Easy user/product interaction

- Cost optimized sales

- Cost optimized distribution

 

Now, this takes:

 

- Balls

- Brains &

- Money.

 

All this is not easy to come by, but some genuine collaboration or merger between a few key players would help.

Say:

 

- Speaker manufacturer

- Amp manufacturer

- DAC manufacturer

- DSP and software

 

Together they could do great things!

 

Old school audiophiles often say they want to be able to choose the mix of components

Younger people are accustomed to systems that work out of the box and optimizes them selves.

 

I think a modular solution could accommodate both.

 

So that was the background, now for some examples:

 

 

Action points

 

Active X-overs

Passive X-overs should be a thing of the past in high-end.

Be it analogue active X-overs or digital, it should be at the signal level.

Amps will have better control of the transducer.

Both options could be a part of the system or be plug-ins.

 

Amps

One amp pr. transducer, no more, no less.

Amps and tranducers should be optimized together.

Possibly with the use of DSP, but could be without.

Both options could be a part of the system or be plug-ins.

Again, amps will have better control of the transducer.

 

DAC

DAC's and apms should be optimized together.

Possibly integrated into a power-DAC/PWM digital amp.

Both options could be a part of the system or be plug-ins.

 

DSP

DSP can have fantastic influence on produced sound quality in your listening/living room.

Room/speaker correction below 100-200hz gives great improvements with a minimum of artifacts.

A pure analogue system could even AD-DSP-DA below 200hz after active X-overs to keep signal chain pure analogue.

 

Self-optimizing in analogue

Some Old schoolers and others may resist the use of DSP but still want a system that optimizes itself to the room.

This is possible with integrated measurements and adaptive analogue filtering/X-over.

This could be through manual changes or automated.

 

Signal distribution

Digital signal distribution can be made 100% lossless if the original signal is digital.

I would even consider going digital if the origin is analogue, in that case AD should be as close to the source as possible.

Digital cables are great, but wireless options would be better.

 

Stereo/Surround

A great stereo system is even better if it can be extended into a multi channel system reusing the existing components.

This also means signal integration with computer/DVD/BD-player as well should be ready and easy.

This includes automatic time delay compensation of sound or picture to match 100%

 

Control of system

Easy control is key for the user experience.

Options from simple remote to computer or iPad should be both possible and available.

Integration with common software like JRiver, VLC and iTunes would be great.

 

 

Examples

 

I am sure you have your own picks of a few companies that we could put in the same basket.

 

Some companies have gone before us and are already delivering some of the integration and optimization:

 

- NAD (digital amp)

- DEQX (room correction/DAC)

- Devialett (digital amp/wireless)

- Lyngdorf (digital amp/room optimization/speakers)

- Steinway Lyngdorf (digital distribution/control/digital amp/multi amp/room optimization/speakers)

- Meridian (digital distribution/control/amp/multi amp/room optimization/speakers)

- M-Audio (digital distribution/control/amp/multi amp/room compensation/speakers)

- Dynaudio (digital distribution/control/amp/multi amp/speakers)

- Genelec (digital distribution/control/amp/multi amp/room optimization/speakers)

 

 

M-Audio, Dynaudio, Lyngdorf, Genelec, Meridian & Steinway Lyngdorf gets close enough to consider right now.

Order by increasing cost and fidelity.

Genelec, Meridian & Steinway Lyngdorf is high-end or get close.

M-Audio, Dynaudio, Lyngdorf & Genelec offers value for money

 

Ie., Genelec is in my sweet spot, especially the Genelec 8260 stands out.

It just sounds fantastic at a mere USD 5000 including DSP room correction, DSP, tri-amp, co-axial mid/high and even co-axial mid/high.

 

 

As an example, can you start with TAD and their CR-1 and TAD Reference One speakers and their M600 amplifier.

 

I am not familiar with the TAD's but I do like co-axial mid/high for great voice reproduction.

 

If I had my way, I would probably:

 

- Expand frequency down to 20hz by increasing cabinet height equivalent to the stands.

- Save on the cabinet finish and detail- Add digital X.-over

- Add tri-amping

- Add DSP room correction

- Add AES/EBU digital input

 

Those at least makes sense right now.

 

 

I do have plenty of other companies and their products to get your analysis of as well.

 

PM me if you want to discuss a specific project and if you you think you can afford me ;-)

[babybear]

Hi DigiPete,

 

Thanks for your detailed and well thought out answer.

 

I guess, what you really mean (versus stating that many companies produce products with bad architecture) is that you would like to see audio companies collaborate more by taking advantage of advancements in digital technology and build what I would term more "integrated audio solutions" for consumers and build them at different price points. At least that is how I would interpret your response.

 

I think another company that is building products along those lines that I am aware of is WADAX with their La Pasion 3 way powered digital loudspeaker and their PRE 1 product that is a preamp, phono preamp, DAC and streamer in a single integrated box (although I think this is a fairly expensive product set). I have heard this system at CES this past January. From a phono stage perspective, they convert the analog input from an analog front end into a 24/192 digital signal and then process it digitally from there. They also take advantage of DSP technology to correct errors in vinyl playback that can be as specific as one's turntable, arm and cartridge setup. So, a very unique feature set in one product.

 

Oh, and how much do you charge?

[Jud]

You never see specifications discussed....

 

Just my own opinion that this is a little too broad brush. Stereophile, for instance, almost always at least publishes specifications in its reviews, and does occasionally discuss them, especially if notable or relevant to some sonic characteristic of the component under review. The magazine also fairly frequently publishes its own test measurements.

[Kiwi2]

You preferred the sound of the $150 Sony BDP in your system. That is fine... ...Not looking for your sonic listening preferences in your system

 

Read the links. They are benchmark test results from both players where the video performance was analysed.

 

You would think that spending $8k over $150 would count for something other than status symbol and bragging rights. How much of the high-end is just about the brand name and snob value rather than actual performance itself?

 

I use a mid-level Yamaha AVR as my pre. I quite often have audiophiles look down their noses at me being that a Yamaha AVR doesn't have audiophile cred. They constantly point out that it was built to a budget. It isn't optimised to the task etc etc.

 

But yet if I was using a more boutique lesser known brand AVR that also cost a lot more money... then suddenly that would be cool and ok.

 

How much of that mindset is actually based on performance, rather than clever marketing with its carefully nurtured brand-name association?

[4est]

But yet if I was using a more boutique lesser known brand AVR that also cost a lot more money... then suddenly that would be cool and ok.

 

No, it would still be an AVR.

[Kiwi2]

No, it would still be an AVR.

 

Which takes us to the point DigiPete is making. Why are audiophiles so hung up on the traditional analog preamps? Why does everybody feel the need to get their digital music off their computers and straight to a DAC?

 

Why not keep it digital for as long as possible for things like active crossovers and time alignment between drivers. The advantages would be huge. Why are we so stuck in the mud with the old analog way of doing it?

[ringenesherre]

Which takes us to the point DigiPete is making. Why are audiophiles so hung up on the traditional analog preamps? Why does everybody feel the need to get their digital music off their computers and straight to a DAC?

 

Why not keep it digital for as long as possible for things like active crossovers and time alignment between drivers. The advantages would be huge. Why are we so stuck in the mud with the old analog way of doing it?

 

+1

 

Keeping the digital signal chain long, the analog short, and having an active crossover are my main requirements to any audio system. Ideally everything should be digital until after the crossover, of course. With current prices for high quality DAC chips, a DAC per amp and driver should become the norm.

 

Cheers,

Peter