Mark Levinson on today’s audio industry

[PeterA]

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.

Exactly. It is a different approach that is preferred by some listeners. I wonder if in the effort to reduce cabinet resonances to extreme degrees the speakers lose some of whatever it is that makes music come alive. Is it the amp/speaker combination? I would like to see some data on how often people change these newer low distortion speakers searching/hoping for something more enjoyable compared to those who have some other speakers that may be older and designed with a different approach and how often they change their speakers. I see a lot of upgrades for Magico Wilson Rockport speaker owners, and fewer for some of the vintage gear listeners, but it may just be my biased, meaningless, anecdotal observations.

An interesting topic for discussion might be the use by designers of specific materials to create specific presentations or sounds and why they do it. Is the target realism or some sound that distinguishes the brand from others hoping to attract a few customers who share the same preferences. After decades of development, are system presentations actually converging or diverging? Perhaps the bulk of gear souds better over time, but do the best examples actually sound better now or before and how are they different?

 

[DasguteOhr]

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.

Really?Most people love coloration—it's the salt in the soup of music. If you don't want to hear any of it, buy a Funk MTX preamp and some old Neumann active speakers. Then you'll get the unadulterated sound of the recording.
Many people here like to hear with set amp and horns, but this is the exact opposite of that. I like it too.

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.

Harbeth does it for 50 years a little story about this: I thought I was clever, so I unscrewed a Harbeth and inserted a few stiffeners into the cabinet, thinking I could improve it. Then it sounded totally unbalanced and thinner.

 

[Kingrex]

I was thinking on this thread and I mused, who is Mark L to say what another speaker manufacturer cabinet construction is doing for the overall performance of the speaker. Did he take their speakers apart and examine them. Did he listen to them in a controlled environment. Why is Marks philosophy on speaker design relevant to anything? He's just a guy in the industry. For all we know, he is completely wrong. Yet everyone seemed to jump on the wagon that his message was heaven sent.

 

[JiminGa]

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

Ok this is just your regular cones vs horn reflex kicking in no matter what the topic is. Adding cabinet noise is never actually a good thing. Do you agree? Yes or no. No BS dogma please

 

[JiminGa]

CH on Lyra just doesn't work to my ears. I find it lifeless and uninvolving.

That is not the fault of the Lyra, which is a supremely musical speaker.

Totally agree. I heard CH ruin Orion

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Really?Most people love coloration—it's the salt in the soup of music. If you don't want to hear any of it, buy a Funk MTX preamp and some old Neumann active speakers. Then you'll get the unadulterated sound of the recording.
Many people here like to hear with set amp and horns, but this is the exact opposite of that. I like it too.

Harbeth does it for 50 years a little story about this: I thought I was clever, so I unscrewed a Harbeth and inserted a few stiffeners into the cabinet, thinking I could improve it. Then it sounded totally unbalanced and thinner.

25 years ago i went from the Wilson Watt Puppy 3/2, 5.1, and 6.0......all using man made engineered materials for their cabinets to the big Kharma's also using man made materials for their cabinet.

musically the Wilson's were not on the same planet as the Kharma. and my subsequent experiences with both brands stayed divergent like that for at least a decade going forward.

it may be that certain designs really rely on particular cabinet material for their sound, while others not so much. both can be true.

and i'm not getting into the whole marketing, over-building part of the conversation. you would need some broad based experience doing multiple cabinet types with otherwise similar designs to determine that or have lots of speaker building experience. could be true.

 

[Ron Resnick]

It is a different approach that is preferred by some listeners. I wonder if in the effort to reduce cabinet resonances to extreme degrees the speakers lose some of whatever it is that makes music come alive.

Exactly. This is the question I personally find so interesting. (This is the very question I raised in my Magnepan frame example.)

I assume (without knowing) that one reason I find the Devore O96 so natural sounding is the wood cabinet. If that cabinet were an extremely inert phenolic resin or something or other I bet I wouldn't like it as much. Probably the same with Tannoy Westminster Royal Gold (a giant old-school wood box), CN-191 and JBL Hartsfield.

 

[Al M.]

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.

Exactly. I don't understand why people still throw this argument around.

I do have wooden cabinets but they are made to be silent. They are made to *not* resonate with the music.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I see a lot of upgrades for Magico Wilson Rockport speaker owners, and fewer for some of the vintage gear listeners, but it may just be my biased, meaningless, anecdotal observations.

Are you sure about Rockport?

I literally have never seen Rockport Lyras advertised for sale. Anecdotally, it seems to me that when people finally land on Lyras they keep them.

 

[bonzo75]

Exactly. This is the question I personally find so interesting. (This is the very question I raised in my Magnepan frame example.)

I assume (without knowing) that one reason I find the Devore O96 so natural sounding is the wood cabinet. If that cabinet were an extremely inert phenolic resin or something or other I bet I wouldn't like it as much. Probably the same with Tannoy Westminster Royal Gold (a giant old-school wood box), CN-191 and JBL Hartsfield.

No with Devore it is the electronics that can combine with the speaker, it is an easy to drive speaker and sounds natural with good electronics not with poor ones. These electronics are not possible with the likes of Lyra

There are many tannoys, they were made over decades, almost all have wood cabinets, and the sound is across the spectrum from excellent to horrible.

 

[Al M.]

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.

How is that an argument, Peter?

1) You were posting system videos yourself when you still had Magicos.

2) Some of us who have speakers with wooden cabinets never post videos because we realize that system videos can never be representative of the sound of a high-end system as experienced in person.

 

[bonzo75]

Ok this is just your regular cones vs horn reflex kicking in no matter what the topic is. Adding cabinet noise is never actually a good thing. Do you agree? Yes or no. No BS dogma please

Not really I mentioned nothing about horns. Devore, Tannoy, Stenheim, apogees are horns only to someone who likes dCS and Dagostino and Rockport.

The debate was never about A) whether adding cabinet noise is a good thing. The point RV made was that B) going overboard to reduce that noise to improve sound only increases cost without adding sonic value. Try to gain some experience to differentiate between A and B

 

[Al M.]

Exactly. It is a different approach that is preferred by some listeners. I wonder if in the effort to reduce cabinet resonances to extreme degrees the speakers lose some of whatever it is that makes music come alive.

The cabinet of my previous Reference 3A Reflector monitors was much more inert than that of the Reference 3A MM DeCapo BE monitors that I had before. The drivers were basically the same.

The Reflector monitors sounded more alive and dynamic than the ones with the less inert cabinet.

 

[DasguteOhr]

25 years ago i went from the Wilson Watt Puppy 3/2, 5.1, and 6.0......all using man made engineered materials for their cabinets to the big Kharma's also using man made materials for their cabinet.

musically the Wilson's were not on the same planet as the Kharma. and my subsequent experiences with both brands stayed divergent like that for at least a decade going forward.

it may be that certain designs really rely on particular cabinet material for their sound, while others not so much. both can be true.

and i'm not getting into the whole marketing, over-building part of the conversation. you would need some broad based experience doing multiple cabinet types with otherwise similar designs to determine that or have lots of speaker building experience. could be true.

As far as I know, Kharma uses HPL laminate and MDF, and Wilson uses artificial stone and fiberglass enclosures. I once saw a video of the materials on the internet, but that's just speculation on my part.
A totally different pair of shoes, in my opinion.

 

[microstrip]

As far as I know, (...) Wilson uses artificial stone and fiberglass enclosures (...)

Not anymore. They used Corian damped with lead more than 30 years ago and were obliged to drop it because of RHOS regulation, and fiberglass in the very early domes of tweeters. They combine several types of custom material in each speaker - they need to use several of last letters of the alphabet to name them ...

BTW, knowing about Wilson use of Corian at that time I participated in an experience building Dynaudio kits with Corian solid boxes - it is used in kitchen tops. They rang like hell - we did not knew about the lead! Sorcerer's apprentice, as they say!

 

[Kingrex]

Not really I mentioned nothing about horns. Devore, Tannoy, Stenheim, apogees are horns only to someone who likes dCS and Dagostino and Rockport.

The debate was never about A) whether adding cabinet noise is a good thing. The point RV made was that B) going overboard to reduce that noise to improve sound only increases cost without adding sonic value. Try to gain some experience to differentiate between A and B

The thing is, no one on this thread, and I would assume Mark L really know anything about cabinet design and what more inert, vibration free designs do to the sonic signature.
I have read other places, other threads, that the shape of the cabinet is highly important to reduce standing waves inside. Its not just about the material and bracing.

 

[andromedaaudio]

What’s your preferred material cost no object and what’s your favorite material that’s more cost conscious?

My favourite material is HPL but in my cheaper models i use thinner HPL material. 13 mm .


Next is the cast aluminium / dampening compound used by andy payor .


FM acoustics makes the best transducers i think they are also a phenolic resin composite.

Casting / RP and the way kharma makes the exquisite classic Ls gives more flexibility regarding curves.
But its also very complicated / expensive.

Some people might think its too dead

 

[DasguteOhr]

Not anymore. They used Corian damped with lead more than 30 years ago and were obliged to drop it because of RHOS regulation, and fiberglass in the very early domes of tweeters. They combine several types of custom material in each speaker - they need to use several of last letters of the alphabet to name them ...

BTW, knowing about Wilson use of Corian at that time I participated in an experience building Dynaudio kits with Corian solid boxes - it is used in kitchen tops. They rang like hell - we did not knew about the lead! Sorcerer's apprentice, as they say!

Thanks for info, I can only confirm that quite a few of my housings ended up in the oven or in the scrap heap. Learning by doing.
Wilson enclosures measure up excellently; you can see that very clearly here. One resonance peak at 500-600Hz. Wilson sabrina exsample

P.S My favorite speaker from this company, but for other reasons, not the housing.

 

[wil]

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.

 

[wil]

+1