Mark Levinson on today’s audio industry
- Thread starter bonzo75
- Start date
It looks like a Vitavox version of a Living Voice. Very nice!
(But I bet there's a reason David won't care for it over the CN-191.)
Last edited:
That's resnickulous. I can only gauge speakers after I hear them.
The fact that a cabinet makes one bad speaker slightly less bad than the other is not the cause of the sound here. That is exactly the kind of analysis Richard V is alluding to, and which is basic noob linearity. You can keep “improving” that cabinet as much as you want, it will only add to the expense. The issues are with the driver, crossover, and speaker design, and sound can be improved at much lower prices. Unfortunately the people who can do that are not the best marketers, and there are too many end customers who do not understand the sonic difference and lap up anything with price tag under their FOMO
Did you make this judgment by listening to Stevie Nicks?
Last edited:
It is not at all similar to living voice. Both are using the vitavox drivers, but the picture Gleeds posted is similar to the Vitavox Bitone major, and is 2-way. The Vox Olympian has two additional TAD drivers on top of the S2 and a different horn (not counting the subs) for the upper range and for the midbass. This unit is more similar to the Altec A5/A7 as a one woofer FLH with bass reflex, minus the multicell
Vitavox now is making 3 horn speaker models including the corner horn replica.
Made of wood... sounds pretty damn good to me!
www.technicalaudiodevices.com
TAD REFERENCE ONE - TAD-R1 — TAD LABORATORIES
TAD REFERENCE ONE - TAD-R1
www.technicalaudiodevices.com
Last edited:
Ok, we now have the "realism" of a real performance and the "realism" of stereo. A nice way to create confusing semantics.
The concert experience is extremely individual and can only be used for your particular system. It is not a reference in the general sense.
Surely. Physically and subjectively.
And many virtues in concert hall that we can't experience in our systems.
No. The friend whom I was helping on extensive in-home auditions isn't a big Stevie Nicks fan. So I forgot to play Stevie Nicks songs. Plus none of her recordings are particularly good in terms of recording quality, so I don't find her recordings terribly helpful for serious A/B comparisons.
I made this judgment for my ears and preferences by comparing Soulution 717, Burmester 159, CH M10, VAC 300 and Constellation Reference all on Rockport Lyra in the same exact system.
Also by comparing directly in the same system CH versus WestminsterLab on Clarisys Auditoriums.
And I like Stenheim loudspeakers.
That's what makes this a subjective, personal preference hobby!
I totally respect that lots of top audiophiles (Jack Duavit and Arnie in Texas and Todd Binnix come to mind) love CH.
Last edited:
I heard a speaker manufacturer was arrested recently for making heavy speakers/ ripping of audiophiles .
He was sentenced to 1 week confinement and kept awake all night with wall mounted Altec horns.
He got so terrorized by the sound that he signed a paper he would never make a heavy / dead inert speaker again and he was let off
He was sentenced to 1 week confinement and kept awake all night with wall mounted Altec horns.
He got so terrorized by the sound that he signed a paper he would never make a heavy / dead inert speaker again and he was let off
Last edited:
Made of wood... sounds pretty damn good to me!
TAD REFERENCE ONE - TAD-R1 — TAD LABORATORIES
TAD REFERENCE ONE - TAD-R1
Are cabinet colorations from speakers featuring cabinets other than wood so obvious that you can hear them over a low-resolution YouTube video?
As my 15 year old daughter would say: “cool story bro.”
Ive made Ls out of all kinds of materials .
Hard composites have a decay on for example a piano tone that can never be matched by wood ( ok , may be a very hard wood like bullet wood ).
Ill be demonstrating with this set up at the Brussels show .
Lets see how the visitors respond .
Hard composites have a decay on for example a piano tone that can never be matched by wood ( ok , may be a very hard wood like bullet wood ).
Ill be demonstrating with this set up at the Brussels show .
Lets see how the visitors respond .
Attachments
I cannot attribute differences in sound to any given feature of a speaker - I judge the end result. What I meant to point out is that wood speakers can sound very good...no need for exotic materials.
Different speakers recorded in the same round do sound different. Here is an illustration from the same channel:
By the way, I have heard LS3/5As a number of times, and the video reminds me of why I never liked them.
Last edited:
I think it would be difficult to isolate the effect of speaker cabinet material in a video of an unknown system. There are just too many variables to consider. I actually think the resolution of a system video would demonstrate it if the test conditions sufficiently isolated the cabinet material.
It is interesting, though that my friends with Magico and Rockport speakers do not post videos and we do not see many videos from those brands or from Wilson or the other brands that Ron listed of the companies going to heroic efforts to make inert cabinets. There must be some videos out there, but again, how would you ever isolate that aspect on a video or even in person frankly unless you’re in the factory, listening to the same speaker made of different materials. The designers know the differences through measurements and listening.
My earlier comment was simply that in my experience when I listen to Rockport speakers, and some of these others, they sound a bit lifeless to me. It’s hard to conclude that it is the cabinet material or what it is. It might’ve simply be in the set up at the dealer. It might be the amplification required to drive these inefficient speakers or some other reason. Who knows?
What’s your preferred material cost no object and what’s your favorite material that’s more cost conscious?
Which you did with digital, for someone who has never auditioned before with digital.
Plus, what you don’t know is that CH have to be set up properly in terms of gain/feedbavk. Not that it matters as I am not debating whether CH are better or worse than some of the other amps you mentioned, but I heard CH with Lyra and Stenheim both set up by Stirling. Lyra, like all Rockport speakers I have heard, is a competition for Wilson and Magico, and not for Stenheim (or for Devore, audionec evo, apogees, old tannoy etc in non horn speakers).
Modern materials for enclosures and driver diaphragms produce less distortion, which is easy to measure. But I don't think they sound more musical lifelike. Imagine if musical instruments were built in the same way – then probably no one would listen to music anymore. So why choose materials that not allow for emotion and little timbre? There are companies that use the resonance of speaker enclosures to create a specific sound and they have been successful for 50 years.
Last edited:
This argument has been addressed many times - the objectives of musical instruments and speakers are completely different. Instruments must have a characteristic sound. in principle a speakers should not add or subtract anything to the signal. Most people will tell us that we get maximum enjoyment and emotion in such conditions.
However I agree with you that in the high-end we are happy to accept the help of talented designers to increase our particular employment with specific distortions, at the risk of displeasing the preference of others. And yes, companies use the absorption and resonance of speaker enclosures to create a specific sound.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |