Depends on what you mean by "high resolution". If you talk about enormous separation of instruments, you need totally resonance-free speakers, for example, since otherwise inevitably you will get blurring. This requires money. Just recently I experienced separation of instruments, with a large "walk-in" soundstage where you could independently follow each instrument with uncanny ease, that I had never heard before. it was on Magico M Project speakers (dCS Vivaldi as a source, CAT power amps). I want to see large speakers which are as resonance-free that can do it at a fraction of the cost. I doubt it's possible.
Monitors, perhaps, because the smaller cabinets are easier to make as resonance-free. But then you probably won't get quite the hard-hitting slam in the drums that I heard at the same time, even when combined with subs.
And the DAC must be extraordinary as well in its soundstage capabilities. The dCS Vivaldi is.
Depends on what you mean by "high resolution". If you talk about enormous separation of instruments, you need totally resonance-free speakers, for example, since otherwise inevitably you will get blurring. This requires money. Just recently I experienced separation of instruments, with a large "walk-in" soundstage where you could independently follow each instrument with uncanny ease, that I had never heard before. it was on Magico M Project speakers (dCS Vivaldi as a source, CAT power amps). I want to see large speakers which are as resonance-free that can do it at a fraction of the cost. I doubt it's possible.
Monitors, perhaps, because the smaller cabinets are easier to make as resonance-free. But then you probably won't get quite the hard-hitting slam in the drums that I heard at the same time.
And the DAC must be extraordinary as well in its soundstage capabilities. The dCS Vivaldi is.
Al I must be older than you....the qualities that you describe I purchased a pair of speakers for 4K in the early 1980's. I will never believe that great sound requires 100's of thousands invested. High Resolution in my way of understanding is great clarity and a faithful reproduction of the played recording in every aspect...good or bad. Btw I use a $1500 Dac and it is all I will ever need. Implementation is 95 pct in this hobby. YMMV
Roger, I seriously doubt that you can get what I heard for that money. Yes, I also get great separation of instruments on my $ 3K monitors, with a very low noise floor on my electronics. But that simply was in another league. When you make your assertion, I doubt that we even talk about the same thing.
Roger, I seriously doubt that you can get what I heard for that money. Yes, I also get great separation of instruments on my $ 3K monitors, with a very low noise floor on my electronics. But that simply was in another league. When you make your assertion, I doubt that we even talk about the same thing.
I think high resolution is about a lot of things. Good design and implementation, regardless of price, is extremely important. System set-up, power delivery, room set up/acoustics, appropriate component matching, all also play a role toward increased resolution, and are not about spending money. Perhaps the room acoustics/set up is more about perception of resolution, than what the system is inherently capable of.
However, I have almost always heard increases in resolution as I upgrade components to more expensive designs from the same manufacturer. Designs improve, parts improve. Here are some specific examples:
1. Airtight PC-1 to AirTight Supreme
2. SME Model 10A to SME Model 30/12
3. SME 309 arm to SME V to SME V-12
4. Pass Aleph amps to XA amps, Aleph preamps to X series to XP series
5. Eggelston speakers to Magico speakers
6. Adding Vibraplanes to the system.
These improvements came about only because I decided to spend more money on my system. These changes were researched and deliberate. Of course, one can always find components that offer inferior sonics at higher prices. Avoiding them may or may not be a priority.
I think high resolution is about a lot of things. Good design and implementation, regardless of price, is extremely important. System set-up, power delivery, room set up/acoustics, appropriate component matching, all also play a role toward increased resolution, and are not about spending money. Perhaps the room acoustics/set up is more about perception of resolution, than what the system is inherently capable of.
However, I have almost always heard increases in resolution as I upgrade components to more expensive designs from the same manufacturer. Designs improve, parts improve. Here are some specific examples:
1. Airtight PC-1 to AirTight Supreme
2. SME Model 10A to SME Model 30/12
3. SME 309 arm to SME V to SME V-12
4. Pass Aleph amps to XA amps, Aleph preamps to X series to XP series
5. Eggelston speakers to Magico speakers
6. Adding Vibraplanes to the system.
These improvements came about only because I decided to spend more money on my system. These changes were researched and deliberate. Of course, one can always find components that offer inferior sonics at higher prices. Avoiding them may or may not be a priority.
Within a brand you will usually benefit as you upgrade. I don't know Airtight particularly but it is possible Ortofon a95 is higher resolution than it at lower price, or AT is higher resolution than Koetsu at lower price. More importantly resolution is just one attribute
Within a brand you will usually benefit as you upgrade. I don't know Airtight particularly but it is possible Ortofon a95 is higher resolution than it at lower price, or AT is higher resolution than Koetsu at lower price. More importantly resolution is just one attribute
Resolution has many individual qualities encompassing sound. Clarity is the only marker of high resolution that can reveal all of the musical qualities of a reproduced recording. There are many levels of clarity and there lies the fascination of high end audio and why it tends to be parts of a puzzle.
depends on what you compare them with. i've never heard a SET have better bass than a p/p amp on my former 101db Zu speakers. however, i never had a Kronzilla in house and apparently it comes closest.
Within a brand you will usually benefit as you upgrade. I don't know Airtight particularly but it is possible Ortofon a95 is higher resolution than it at lower price, or AT is higher resolution than Koetsu at lower price. More importantly resolution is just one attribute
Agreed, but I was responding to the comment that high resolution is not about money now. When one upgrades within a brand, one usually spends more and gets increased resolution. My Magico speakers were 5X the cost of my Egglestons and have two drivers instead of five. Resolution is much higher. Adding isolation products often increases resolution, and one has to buy those which cost money. Thinking that high resolution is not about spending money is a viewpoint which needs qualification. How much money, how much resolution, and compared to what? One can argue that an iPhone is high resolution, both audio and video/photo.
I can't comment on the Ortofon A95 as I have not heard it. An owner of the A90 has told me that it has better specs than the A95. However, I have heard the A90 in a number of systems and have found it difficult to know how it contributes to the sounds. The systems in which I have heard it have never sounded complete. There was always something that could be pointed to as being missing. I think one needs to switch cartridges in the same system to know how one cartridge compares to another, especially when it comes to something like assessing resolution. Understanding two different cartridges in two different systems and rooms is pretty challenging.
Agreed, but I was responding to the comment that high resolution is not about money now. When one upgrades within a brand, one usually spends more and gets increased resolution. My Magico speakers were 5X the cost of my Egglestons and have two drivers instead of five. Resolution is much higher. Adding isolation products often increases resolution, and one has to buy those which cost money. Thinking that high resolution is not about spending money is a viewpoint which needs qualification. How much money, how much resolution, and compared to what? One can argue that an iPhone is high resolution, both audio and video/photo.
I can't comment on the Ortofon A95 as I have not heard it. An owner of the A90 has told me that it has better specs than the A95. However, I have heard the A90 in a number of systems and have found it difficult to know how it contributes to the sounds. The systems in which I have heard it have never sounded complete. There was always something that could be pointed to as being missing. I think one needs to switch cartridges in the same system to know how one cartridge compares to another, especially when it comes to something like assessing resolution. Understanding two different cartridges in two different systems and rooms is pretty challenging.
I compared a95 at Myles' to Lyra Atlas. They are similar with Lyra doing everything a bit more but one could easily be satisfied with a95 instead of paying up for Lyra.
Anyway my point was not a95, but if you compare across brands the equation changes.
Also you could compare across designs. You only considered one attribute - resolution. But let's take soundstage and openness. For example, a planar by nature is much more open sounding and provides better soundstage than a cone speaker that's more expensive (to a limit) - then you will need to go to a much more expensive cone to beat those qualities of a lower priced planar. A lower priced SET or OTL will have better tone than a SS its price, and you will have to go to an extremely expensive SS to kind of get there (combined with right speaker of course). Then of course if you like a Magico hey, you are paying not only for the sonic attributes you like, but for the retail margins, distribution costs, imagine how many outlets, shows and reviewers they ship it around to and you have to pay for all that. And they would like to be a going high profit concern. You have to pay for that too.
So it is possible that some designs and business operating models make a component much cheaper than another for the same attribute
Bonzo, I've gone back and forth on how I view resolution. I have thought about it only in terms of information retrieval, that is how much information from the software gets read and later heard by the listener. But at other times, I think that attributes like soundstage, openness, "presence", are completely dependent upon the resolution of the component or system. I'm more of the latter opinion these days. As the resolution in my own system improves, most attributes like imaging, soundstage, presence, tone, and dynamics improve as well. They all seem to be related to resolution or more precisely, clarity, as was mentioned a few posts ago. Clarity is the one word that to me most distinguishes live orchestral sound from reproduced sound and it is what I most remember when thinking about what I hear at the BSO. And clarity is what increases when distortions, noise floor, artifacts diminish allowing one to hear more of what is imbedded in the grooves or pits or bits of our media.
I don't know how resolution will relate to Jeff's new system, but there we are. It's an interesting topic, perhaps deserving of its own thread.
Then of course if you like a Magico hey, you are paying not only for the sonic attributes you like, but for the retail margins, distribution costs, imagine how many outlets, shows and reviewers they ship it around to and you have to pay for all that. And they would like to be a going high profit concern. You have to pay for that too.
Certainly. Perhaps there are designers out there who are trying to do what Magico has achieved for a lot less money. That would be great for the consumer and the designer. I remember seeing lots of efforts on the net of knock off attempts to copy the Magico Mini. I never heard anyone talking about how they actually sounded. Time and collectibility usually confirm the successful designs.
Certainly. Perhaps there are designers out there who are trying to do what Magico has achieved for a lot less money. That would be great for the consumer and the designer. I remember seeing lots of efforts on the net of knock off attempts to copy the Magico Mini. I never heard anyone talking about how they actually sounded. Time and collectibility usually confirm the successful designs.
Not talking about copying the company, just one particularly good sounding two way monitor. These were attempts by DIY guys and some companies to build a speaker which looks and sounds like the Mini speaker. Nothing to do with copying the company.
I'm sure many would applaud and reward a company that could produce a product like the Magico M Pro or M3 or S3 II (or Mini II for that matter) for a fraction of the cost. I happen to agree with Al M's point that the high resolution of a speaker like the M Pro comes with a high cost. I'm not saying that it can't be done for less, but the point is a general one. The heroic efforts to create such a low resonance and high resolution speaker costs a lot of money. If it could be done for a lot less, I would think that companies would do it, and that we would see and hear the results. I've read that the M3 comes close. I'm sure some people can name other speakers which they prefer and the reasons why they think they are better. I haven't heard them, but I would love to learn what they are, how they are made, and perhaps hear them.
Not talking about copying the company, just one particularly good sounding two way monitor. These were attempts by DIY guys and some companies to build a speaker which looks and sounds like the Mini speaker. Nothing to do with copying the company.
I'm sure many would applaud and reward a company that could produce a product like the Magico M Pro or M3 or S3 II (or Mini II for that matter) for a fraction of the cost. I happen to agree with Al M's point that the high resolution of a speaker like the M Pro comes with a high cost. I'm not saying that it can't be done for less, but the point is a general one. The heroic efforts to create such a low resonance and high resolution speaker costs a lot of money. If it could be done for a lot less, I would think that companies would do it, and that we would see and hear the results. I've read that the M3 comes close. I'm sure some people can name other speakers which they prefer and the reasons why they think they are better. I haven't heard them, but I would love to learn what they are, how they are made, and perhaps hear them.
You are focusing on the point that the heroic effort comes at a high cost. You are missing the point of what other cost attributes are compared to distribution, marketing, profit motive, which have nothing to do with sonics. There is a heroic sonic cost and there is a heroic marketing cost. Your theory has an implicit assumption that all the costs are for sonics and the mark-up is for supply and demand. Not to mention that unlike when you shop non hifi groceries, you cannot get information about competitors easily (in terms of Listening, it is easy in terms of reading)
You are focusing on the point that the heroic effort comes at a high cost. You are missing the point of what other cost attributes are compared to distribution, marketing, profit motive, which have nothing to do with sonics. There is a heroic sonic cost and there is a heroic marketing cost. Your theory has an implicit assumption that all the costs are for sonics and the mark-up is for supply and demand. Not to mention that unlike when you shop non hifi groceries, you cannot get information about competitors easily (in terms of Listening, it is easy in terms of reading)
I have not missed that point, and you make it well, Bonzo. I'm aware that the final price of a Magico, Wilson, YG etc is dependent on lots of marketing, distribution costs, profit margins and mark up costs. Their customers pay for that. That is the business model they choose to follow. Others may approach it differently. If someone were able to sell heroic speakers with high resolution and manage to avoid those costs associated with actually selling the product, or forgo his profits, that would be great for the consumer, but I don't know of many, or any, examples of that.
I guess my point is more about the design and construction cost of the speaker, before it is ever marketed and sold. What does it take to design and produce a speaker that is high resolution? The research, parts, and manufacturing costs seem that they would be higher to achieve something that is "high resolution" than for something that is lower in resolution. This seems true for Magico as well as for the DIYer. Exotic or fancy finishes might be exceptions for aesthetic reasons rather than performance reasons. Are you suggesting that high resolution can be achieved with a speaker costing little to design and build? Perhaps we also need to agree on what high resolution means and to what it is relative.
to be extremely resolving for a lot less money, price $ 12 K. Distribution: direct. Marketing: none that I have seen.
Given that my current speakers, the Reference 3A MM De Capo monitors, priced at $ 3K, perform far beyond their price point, as acknowledged by most who have heard them, I don't think my expectations for the flagship Reflector monitor are unreasonable.
Diyers don't do less research. They might build on existing great designs. Magico and stenheim, both of them are ex goldmund. Where did you think they did their research? Also it is possible that a particular desin can be inherently flawed so all the costs go into correcting that flaw which is cabinet resonance, making the cabinet heavier and increasing distribution costs where a planar won't have those issues to the same extent. Then it comes down to which design you believe in. If, like some you don't believe in cones then all that cabinet resonance reduction is a waste. Of course now we are into which design you prefer, like DD, belt, etc rather than costs alone.
to be extremely resolving for a lot less money, price $ 12 K. Distribution: direct. Marketing: none that I have seen.
Given that my current speakers, the Reference 3A MM De Capo monitors, priced at $ 3K, perform far beyond their price point, as acknowledged by most who have heard them, I don't think my expectations for the flagship Reflector monitor are unreasonable.
The best Ref 3As I have heard to date were my own Master Control MMC (the true progenitor of this new Reflector) with Be upgrade and the Royal Virtuoso with normal soft dome tweeter and corian box. Both were significantly better than a standard MM daCapo i. No doubt the Reflector soil be good but 12k good??
