hagtech wrote:

Then there was the Stereophile writer we had dinner with who thought Wilson was the top of the heap

….and I would agree. With all Wilsons limitations I sincerely feel that the big Wilson are the most interesting direct radiators loudspeakers. Also, Wilsons have the most industry supportive marketing strategy. Why a Stereophile writer would not support them if the writer’s industry was build around the glorification of the loudspeakers like Wilsons?

hagtech wrote:

The other revelation was listening to the Dynavector XV-1.  Holy crap that is one fine cartridge.  I could not believe what it did with old vinyl.  That is, regular LPs from the 50 years ago.  That cart just ripped an unbelievable amount of information out of the grooves.  And from non-audiophile stuff!  It's best feature was the ability to keep everything in the mix separate.  Each instrument or voice remained completely separate from the others during playback.  Simply stunning.  Best cart I have ever heard.

It was the one with 8 coils? Yes, I heard a LOT of VERY good feedback from many people about this cartridge. Their arms is pure, their transformers suck but it looks like their top of their line cartridge are excellent.

BTW, what did you drive your speakers with?

Well, it might be some kind of misunderstanding… The XV-1 was their flagship product in end of the 90s and it cost I believe $1.6K-$1.8K retail.  The reasons why I know it certainly because I had a few quite credible people at that time who strongly advocated that cartridge. In 2001 I was running Shelter 901 and was contemplating to get another “expensive” cartridge while I was visiting Japan and I was thinking about Dynavector XV-1. Then after contemplating that I have already a good all-around high performing, high-tech cartridge I decided to get “other type of sound” and went for the Koetsu Platinum Onyx (almost 4 times less expensive in Japan). So, I kind of bypassed the XV-1, perhaps unfortunately, but I never had dissatisfaction with Shelter and therefore I did not have motivations to change anything. (In fact the same Shelter 901 is still running in my “best arm”….

So if I remember correctly the XV-1, at $1.6K-$1.8K US retail was around $1.1K retail in Japan + 30% that was possible to get in Japan “on street”. I remember XV-1 was dropping pries muck less then other cartridges when I negotiated with the locals but I do not remember the details already. I think a next read after my bypassing of the XV-1 they had a newer version of this cartridge, with some kind of extra letters, and then in another could years they introduced XV-2 or something like this. This last cartridge was around $3.5K-$4K or something like this. I never monitored them correctly but I did paid attention to the Dynavectors topmost cartridges as I felt that they good performers, although I never has my own Dynavector needles.

I pretty much lost my interest, perhaps unjustifiably, sometime in the end of 2002. At that time I was running their Dynavector 507 tonearm as one of my arms. This arm was one of the greatest despoilments that that I had in audio, in the order of magnitude similar to Lamm LP2 phono-stage or to the P’B DAC. The arm was so horrible that it was not even funny. There was many-many thing that might be done to this arm that made it to sound much better but it was literally removing what Dynavector did with it arm and put in use some custom solution around this tonearm. I contacted Dynavector people quite a few times. They were very polite and very supportive but unfortunately no one person which whom I spoke in Dynavector understood a notion of poor sound or just ruined sound. Even when I proposed them the undeniable evidences that some things that they did in their 507 tonearm were objectively wrong they just did not understood what I was taking about. After all I got rid of the arm and degraded Dynavector in my mind as “gone” company.

Still, their cartridges even now might be OK, as cartridges might be done by different people then those who make tonearms. I do not know…

Your spiel on the Dynavector arm ties back to another of your recent posts and it reminds me that few manufacturers of any genre really wind up caring about performance, per se, perhaps because there are so many other things to think about when introducing a product to the marketplace and then trying to keep it there at a level of profit that justifies operations.

 The Dynavector arm thread also ties back, I think, to my own observation that many bad ideas are borne of good research, or, in this case, many bad products are borne of good ideas.

 If I recall the Dynavector arm, it was double-articulated, predicated on the good idea that its horizontal mass would exceed its vertical mass.  In fact, any cartridge I heard in that arm sounded like a cartridge in that arm, “superior” design notwithstanding.

 Likewise the Souther arm, which was (of course) snapped up by Clearaudio.  In so far as I can tell, the only good thing about that arm was the idea, as the arm itself was fussy and flawed almost beyond comprehension, at least to the extent that it was expected to serve as a vehicle for a phono cartridge.

 We have spent a good deal of time bitching about tweeters, but I want to be sure we do not overlook the tonearms that make the several nice cartridges out there into noisemakers.

 OTOH, take away the noise and most audiophiles will find the presentation “lifeless”, which just about puts my kvetching into perspective, I think.

 Which leads us back, full circle, to your thought that the inherent, applicable worth of a product not only says little about its chances for success in the marketplace, but excellence, per se, may well prove a prime factor in sinking a given product at its launch.

Paul S wrote:

OTOH, take away the noise and most audiophiles will find the presentation “lifeless”, which just about puts my kvetching into perspective, I think. Paul S

Gregm wrote:

I used an inexpensive dsp ....I had excellent response from the auditorium.

For vendors, and presumably you were the one the only meaningful definition of “show’s success” is the amount of the revenue that the show created. The shows are costly, require a lot of work and if a person/company had no business compensation form the show then the show’s affords were wasted. A vendors could pick at show some dealers or distributors, could create opportunities for the idiots-reviewers ™ to mention the rooms/company, could use the show’s publicity to introduce new products, but mostly vendors, show after show, reassure their customer in their existence. Most of the high-end manufactures work for a small hitch of own customers and the trade shows are a good tool for manufactures to cheer up their customers: “Hew, look, I still can afford to rent a room and pay those stupid exuberant fees, therefore my company presumably is not dead yet”. So, this way manufactures do the shows mostly in order do not be mentioned as “somebody who did not show up”.

However, the import thing in here is that the actual quality of sound is very much irrelevant entity. Any person who know how “real sound” might be accomplished understand that the framework under which the show get formed is not the peace where the “real sound” might be born. A single element of playback that a vendor doe - would it be a speaker, an amplifier or a cable elevator - do not responsible for Sound. The “real sound” is the results of much more evolved efforts then juts dumping a bunch of the audio elements in a one pile. Yesterday I spoke with one manufacturer from the last show, the one that was the most warmly acclaimed by cretins who went to RMAF06, and he said that despite everyone were completely thrilled with the result in his room but he feel it was not really interesting. Knowing the vendor product (and his it being used - that is more important) and knowing those people who “loved the sound” I am very confident that if I were in that room I would find the sound very-very medical, closed for being “poor”. It is not necessary because the product of the vendor is faulty but because the vendor itself perhaps havs no knowledge if his product is good or bad. In order to facilitate a framework within witch the given product would act at it’s “best operation level” it require a LOT of other affords in the very different regions – the areas where the vendor never unfortunately went. Ironically, if this vendor operate at the level where it’s product were “nakedly exposed” then he might to learn a LOT about own products, including making own product MUCH better. This pattern is very typical for most of the manufactures that do the shows; however what would happen if a manufacture did hit a G-spot and get some flash?

First of all nothing happens explicitly. A few years ago a dealer spent zillion dollars showing in the biggest room in the Vegas show the largest vintage loudspeakers. Sonically, I feel, the result was very unfortunate but the Morons out there were drooling and publicity for the room was wonderful. Still, the vendor generated zero revenue from that splash – who the hell need such a business?

So, what we have? We have vendors who are not being reimbursed to spend more efforts for “better” sound. We have generally idiotic public who runs like a wounded in ass animals from room to room in order to “discover” something for themselves. We have the idiots-reviewer ™ who understand that the audio shows are made for them and that they own the game. What we do not have is a situation on the shows where the most demanding “sound hunters”, the ultimate arrogant snobs of Audio, like me for instance, might go and to learn. This is absolutely ridicules. In any field of human activities,  for any high-end manufacture  to please the “ultimate snobs” is the very noble task for any vendor. If you make high-end cars, cook high-end food or if you “high-enddly” conduct music then for you, to get a satisfaction of a cold-shoulder aficionado-connoisseur is the very ultimate goal - any high-end makers live and die for this task. In so called “inverted” high-end audio everything in different. Instead of breeding highest demands and evolutioning listening requirements the stupid audio industry dumbs down the consumers until it brings them to the level of the primitivism that manufactures are capable to address. The audio show are the ultimate culmination of that dumbinization were the visitors and the vendors are juts the hostages of the very same unfortunate process.

Yes, there are exceptions and from time to time some interesting things do happen at the shows, mostly accidentally. What the worth of those accidents? It is hard to say but I do not value accidents very high.

Anyhow, within an absents of any more or less civilized framework for the audio shows I do not see why a simple DSP EQ-ing of use of any other barbarian methods would not be suitable for the shows. In Vegas I have seen 25% of the systems run with inverted channels and the vendors “see no differents”. In Vegas I have seen a TT manufacture who sell his TT for $80K and he can not hear that his TT runs at wrong speed. If I were a vendor at the audio show I would run some TBM jazz 33rpm records at 45 rpm and I am sure that some kind of idiot like Michelle Framer or Jonathan Valin would drool then that “they were the best high frequencies I ever heard”…

Pathetic? Nope. Unfortunately too realistic…

In Vegas I have seen 25% of the systems run with inverted channels.

I do not value accidents very high.

clarkjohnsen wrote:

Romy writes: In Vegas I have seen 25% of the systems run with inverted channels.  More like 50%, Romy.

...mostly vendors, show after show, reassure their customer in their existence. Most of the high-end manufactures work for a small hitch of own customers and the trade shows are a good tool for manufactures to cheer up their customers: “Hew, look, I still can afford to rent a room and pay those stupid exuberant fees, therefore my company presumably is not dead yet”. So, this way manufactures do the shows mostly in order do not be mentioned as “somebody who did not show up”.

smith wrote:

What a ridiculous waste of money!

Hagtech,

No one would argue that you are correct, but only from a perspective of a person who sells audio. However let for a second pretend that a product of audio is not a psychological help to the people who need it and not the amount of UPS shipments that a manufacture made but rather just Better Sound. In all your SALES-101 I did not see any allocated space to facilitating this Better Sound. I think that despite everything Better Sound still is the major motivation force that sells (in case a buyer was not an idiot - hardly ever happen in audio, from my point of view)

Yes, it is possible to sell by constant instigating market: nothing wrong with you guys should pay mortgages… But still what I have seen that by doing “distinctively superior performing audio elements” or delivering Superior Sound the manufactures also can become sale-successful. In begin of 90s Bidat DAC was not only introduced bypassing all typical marketing structures but it was hardly ever sold even by dealers. However, the performance that it yielded was so high that even today people pay triple or quadruple prices for those units. In mid of 90s Expressive Technologies made their transformers and they distributed them “differently” – no accommodations, no discounts, no shows, no advertising, no SALES-101… So what? Try to find their transformers today… Interesting that you would not find it not because the companies are gone, but because the Quality of Sound from their products was so high that their products were hunted, hunted then and now.  Also, interesting the neither Musatex nor Expressive “went to dark” not because their luck of sale but because different, sales not related reasons.  Talking about the alive people. The posted above distributor Jim Smith who took German Avantgarde in the end the 90s went to CES sometimes around 2000 and demonstrated radically different sound from anything on the show. I am sure that he capitalized on THAT sound and sold zillions of those speakers. I was one of those people who bought there, trying to haggle down Jim for better “show deal”. However, what is important to note, was that behind of the Avantgarde’s “Better Sound” there were not necessary better products and THAT brings a very worth attention view. Avantgardes were not better speakers, were not driven by better electronics, were not set in a better room or anything like this. However, the setup organization and the way in witch it was presented did deliver “Better Sound” and it is THE product of sale in audio (or at least it should be).

We all know how “better sound” is a result of punctilious and conscientious efforts were numerous mistakes are made and time is necessary to learn and intrepid the results. So, you Jim for instance went to the show to sell your phonocorrector. What framework for success (remind you the definition of success: accomplishing “Better Sound”) you have beside the SALES-101? You were dumped into a bogus random room, paired with bogus random loudspeakers, bogus random electronics and so on… Is it really possible in those conditions your products to be exposed to their best operation mode (when they are weakest element of the chain) … if the only motivation why you picked the associated elements was the fact that other vendors agreed to share the room’s cost.

In think in order to understand my view on the subject it would be necessary to remove any financial motivations form the subject. What would be left is juts a pure pursuit of Better Sound and evolved music reproduction techniques. Since all monetary components are fallen out, along with all of those SALES-101 and “business oriented approach” then what would be left?

Romy the Cat wrote:

clarkjohnsen wrote: Romy writes: In Vegas I have seen 25% of the systems run with inverted channels.  More like 50%, Romy. I do not think that it might be MORE then 50%.

However, what I founded is the more remarkable was the reaction of the the some vendors when I asked them to reverse the channels. Some of them were very surprised and asked me: “How do you know that the channels are confused?” I really did not know if to cry or to chuckle. In one room I rember, with a very self-assured vendor ,after he asked me “Why do you think I need to switch the right and left channels?” I was not able to talk anymore and I began meowing, very loud meowing, almost screamingly loud….

Fact is, most show up and play dj for unqualified consumers who see the show exhibitors as their form of Vegas daylight hours entertainment.

Unfortunately, as manufacturers, we not only supply audio equipment, but we are also expected to fill these emotional needs.  Those making the most money in this industry have focused on that fact and exploit it for gain.

How about the guy who just wants to hang out because he has no real friends?

smith wrote:

CES yields a very poor ROI

cat wrote:

I think that despite everything Better Sound still is the major motivation force that sells

Bass is what bass is and no mater how greedy audio people become with their implementations bass does not appear to obey people’s greed and lives according to own rules. I always said “if you can not do bass properly then do not do it at all”. It is nothing wrong listening speakers that do not go low. I have no problem with it and practically if a given speaker’s low frequency region is properly sounding. However, most audio people do not stop where bass was “still OK” and use different barbarian methods to push one or two more octaves, and by doing it, they screw the sound of the entire speakers.

Sure, I am not familiar with Azzolina speaker but…. did anyone ever seen hear the LaScala -type bas solution to sound little more then just a howling wind? Adding a port to LaScala? It would be similar of taking Altec 7 and drive it with 1kVa from an equalizer that that set +30dB at 20Hz. I am sure the birds will be falling from sky within  one mile from your listening room but does it has anything to do with Sound?