State of the industry - Roy Gregory Editorial

[wil]

Far East and parts of Asia have been the main markets for Western brands for some time now.

Good brands don't necessarily make products. agree on the marketing skills

According to Mr. Gregory the same practices continue today I can't confirms since I stopped reading reviews since late 90's even if they were of my own products. Is there a print version of this article?

How so? High end was extremely healthy when digital was introduced and it was 20 years before digital even became listenable!

I agree with you that streaming is the future but not for high end. Digital is mass access and success opposite of what analog high end is about and not just in audio.

david

No offense, but it appears your opinions of digital and streaming were formed years ago and encased in amber never to see oxygen again. How do you reconcile your conclusions with Mike L's. experience with digital streaming?

 

[bonzo75]

No offense, but it appears your opinions of digital and streaming were formed years ago and encased in amber never to see oxygen again. How do you reconcile your conclusions with Mike L's. experience with digital streaming?

Why can't oxygen get through amber?

 

[ddk]

No offense, but it appears your opinions of digital and streaming were formed years ago and encased in amber never to see oxygen again. How do you reconcile your conclusions with Mike L's. experience with digital streaming?

None taken but you don't know anything about my experience with streaming, your statement is inaccurate.

You might have the need to reconcile with and take direction from others wil I'm quite capable of judging things for myself!

david

 

[wil]

None taken but you don't know anything about my experience with streaming, your statement is inaccurate.

You might have the need to reconcile with and take direction from others wil I'm quite capable of judging things for myself!

david

My response is to your statement, to paraphrase, "streaming is not for the high end." My personal experience (independent of other's experience) is that the sq from streaming can be very fine (or "high end"). As your experience is apparently the opposite of mine, I can't help but wonder if your experience/opinion re streaming is limited -- or rooted in the past (when I agree streaming sounded relatively awful).

 

[ddk]

My response is to your statement, to paraphrase, "streaming is not for the high end." My personal experience (independent of other's experience) is that the sq from streaming can be very fine (or "high end"). As your experience is apparently the opposite of mine, I can't help but wonder if your experience/opinion re streaming is limited -- or rooted in the past (when I agree streaming sounded relatively awful).

You think a format that keeps changing operating software three times a day with no set standards and bogged down users with even with the most basic infrastructure ie usb cables, network cards and routers is high end and worth tens of thousand of dollars how shall I consider your opinion?

david

Edit- By "You" I didn't mean only you specifically but the entire streaming camp.

 

[Lee]

You think a format that keeps changing operating software three times a day with no set standards and bogged down users with even with the most basic infrastructure ie usb cables, network cards and routers is high end and worth tens of thousand of dollars how shall I consider your opinion?

david

Edit- By "You" I didn't mean only you specifically but the entire streaming camp.

Hmm, streaming can be argued to be overly complex but to say that high end sound quality from streaming is not possible is off the mark.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

You think a format that keeps changing operating software three times a day with no set standards and bogged down users with even with the most basic infrastructure ie usb cables, network cards and routers is high end and worth tens of thousand of dollars how shall I consider your opinion?

david

Edit- By "You" I didn't mean only you specifically but the entire streaming camp.

David is a smart man. but he does tout a 5 figure cartridge which cannot be reliably purchased unless he personally inspects it, as the manufacturer cannot control quality. and mostly has it sent back to be fixed. like cartridge roulette.

i've owned 10 of those cartridges.

as if that makes more sense than streaming. every format has challenges and parts that get deep. once you take the trouble to figure it out, reports are that it's really fine. like streaming.

 

[MarcelNL]

it's weird how money spent on analog seems to come cheaper than for digital, is it that the spend is already forgotten when a nice digital setup it's an upcoming spend?
I've heard some seriously good analog, and some seriously good digital gear.....both have their own merits IMHO.

 

[stehno]

I don’t understand and perhaps never will why folks like Stehno have such stubborn views about an innovation like MQA. If you don’t like the sound then that is one thing and everyone is entitled to an opinion on it. But to slander good people like Robert Harley and John Atkinson is another. These are good people forming an opinion based on what their own ears heard with MQA. There were no commercial considerations. There is no MQA electronics brand and MQA as an entity barely advertises with our magazines. The apodizing filters were a genuine innovation as was the folding process.

The bottom line is that Robert Harley, Andy Quint, and myself have talked up MQA because we hear the sound quality improvement.

One of the big accusations was that MQA would implement DRM but after ten years of religious debate there is not a single instance of DRM.

Bob Stuart is a well-regarded scientist and audio engineer who created a good solution to bandwidth limitations.

I'm quite certain Bob Stuart is well regarded for something.

Stubborn? Have you considered the possibility that words like knowledgeable and/or insightful might play a role here? ? By early January, 2015 I was already warning others of the MQA hoax and even explained how it was impossible for such absurd performance claims could be even remotely accurate and at best were nothing but a figment of one's imagination. I even went so far as to repeatedly stated that if Stuart was serious about fulfilling his silly childhood dream, he was barking up the wrong technology tree as it ought to be impossible for MQA or any format for that matter to have such an impact. And to this day I've yet to listen to a single MQA recording.

So you say MQA was superior and more musical and I said it was nothing but a hoax. Who’s right? Well, 8 years later and after many dove into its entrails, all’s one should have to do is ask themselves, where is MQA today? Maybe I’m just psychic?

For better or worse, this is still a performance-oriented industry and if MQA was even a quarter the performer of those out-of-this-world claims, I suspect we'd all be listening (forcibly) to MQA recordings right now and some of retraining our ears to enjoy them.

I'm particularly fond of MQA's claim that regardless of the playback system, we would all be hearing exactly what the engineers heard in the recording studio. Provided of course the little blue MQA light was illuminated. Surely you and they jest.

BTW, it's actually libel, not slander - but only if I'm wrong. The funny thing regarding MQA is, I've yet to mention anybody related to MQA in this thread by name, yet you immediately went to Harley.

However, if I were to "slander" Harley, it wouldn't be for MQA as that bad cat's already out of the bag and old news. I'd instead probably opt for Harley's absurd claim from TAS Mar/Apr? 2009 issue where he said, "I believe that something catastrophic occurs at the recording mic's diaphragm such that much of the music never makes it to the recording." Paraphrased. Especially since Harley is TAS' editor-in-chief and a former sound engineer and to the best of my knowledge he has yet to recant that nonsensical claim. Especially when it's so easy for some / few to disprove.

 

[ddk]

David is a smart man. but he does tout a 5 figure cartridge which cannot be reliably purchased unless he personally inspects it, as the manufacturer cannot control quality. and mostly has it sent back to be fixed. like cartridge roulette.

i've owned 7 of those cartridges.

as if that makes more sense than streaming. every format has challenges and parts that get deep. once you take the trouble to figure it out, reports are that it's really fine. like streaming.

It took you 7 samples of the same cartridge to figure out that you don't know what you're doing? That must be some drilling down seeing you tout then change gear faster than babies mess their diapers but hey we digress, what do your mistakes have to do with establishing a digital format that's in a constant state of hardware and software flux as a solid high end standard? Are you actually streaming these days or you're still calling your NAS feed streaming because they're not technically the same?

david

 

[ddk]

Hmm, streaming can be argued to be overly complex but to say that high end sound quality from streaming is not possible is off the mark.

Why is that Lee?
david

 

[microstrip]

I agree with you that streaming is the future but not for high end. Digital is mass access and success opposite of what analog high end is about and not just in audio.

david

Question of time David. As soon as the dogmatic views on analog versus digital vanish all we have is a technological and perceptual question.

Analog high-end is becoming a collector and tweak/ritualistic activity. Digital is improving everyday.

 

[ddk]

Question of time David. As soon as the dogmatic views on analog versus digital vanish all we have is a technological and perceptual question.

Analog high-end is becoming a collector and tweak/ritualistic activity. Digital is improving everyday.

I agree that analog has a collector aspect but please define tweak and ritualistic and what aspect of it is a requirement for analog audio or video playback? Is streaming digital files on a high priced streamer really sonically superior to redbook CDs played back on a high quality 20 year old player? It's 40 years since CD standards were introduced and much longer since the advent of digital sound should we at least have the so called high end format settled by now if it was there at all? Why is the reference standard that streaming strives to achieve is still analog? Be it reproduced or natural sound because nature is analog.

david

 

[Mike Lavigne]

It took you 7 samples of the same cartridge to figure out that you don't know what you're doing?

it was actually 10, when i add my 3 from a 2016'-18'. the earlier 7 were from 2001--2010. tried various models of each period. not one cantilever out of 10 was aligned with the body or the same length.

That must be some drilling down seeing you tout then change gear faster than babies mess their diapers but hey we digress, what do your mistakes have to do with establishing a digital format that's in a constant state of hardware and software flux as a solid high end standard? Are you actually streaming these days or you're still calling your NAS feed streaming because they're not technically the same?

david

about 80% streaming, awesome sounding. unlimited music access. 20% files. also awesome sounding.

over 9 years owned one digital player, spent 2 years trying a few, then another 5 years owning one. owned a home brew server until 16', then the early Taiko, and then the Extreme. honestly did not do much (under $500 total...only what Emile recommended)) with my network until these last 2 months with the Wadax. even now, it's just one switch, and one linear power supply.

many have chased network optimization for years, that's not me.

only started seriously streaming 4-5 years ago when Quboz came along with higher rez. at this point any rez streaming or files digital is pretty fine sounding.

YMMV.

 

[PeterA]

Question of time David. As soon as the dogmatic views on analog versus digital vanish all we have is a technological and perceptual question.

Analog high-end is becoming a collector and tweak/ritualistic activity. Digital is improving everyday.

Francisco, I don’t know what you mean by “analog high-end“. Could you define it? How is it changing in terms of tweaking and ritualistic behavior? He seems pretty consistent over time to me. I have what I consider high-performing gear, but Ido not collect it. You seem more of a collector with your many gears. I do collect vinyl records because it’s fun, they are getting rare, and they sound really good. I don’t do any tweaking. That was done when I completed the set up and fine-tuning of the system.

It seems to me that there’s a lot of tweaking with the latest digital as everyone buys different cables and footers to optimize the digital boxes. It is a good thing that digital is improving every day. I don’t really know of people collecting digital players and it seems kind of odd to collect
digital files or streaming bits. You can just have friends give you terabytes of data and you have an instant collection.

 

[matakana]

David is a smart man. but he does tout a 5 figure cartridge which cannot be reliably purchased unless he personally inspects it, as the manufacturer cannot control quality. and mostly has it sent back to be fixed. like cartridge roulette.

i've owned 10 of those cartridges.

as if that makes more sense than streaming. every format has challenges and parts that get deep. once you take the trouble to figure it out, reports are that it's really fine. like streaming.

David is a smart man. but he does tout a 5 figure cartridge which cannot be reliably purchased unless he personally inspects it, as the manufacturer cannot control quality. and mostly has it sent back to be fixed. like cartridge roulette.

Eh, whats this all about then if you don't mind me asking ?

 

[marty]

High end was extremely healthy when digital was introduced and it was 20 years before digital even became listenable!

Really? I though it was only last year!

 

[ddk]

it was actually 10, when i add my 3 from a 2016'-18'. the earlier 7 were from 2001--2010. tried various models of each period. not one cantilever out of 10 was aligned with the body or the same length.

about 80% streaming, awesome sounding. unlimited music access. 20% files. also awesome sounding.

over 9 years owned one digital player, spent 2 years trying a few, then another 5 years owning one. owned a home brew server until 16', then the early Taiko, and then the Extreme. honestly did not do much (under $500 total...only what Emile recommended)) with my network until these last 2 months with the Wadax. even now, it's just one switch, and one linear power supply.

many have chased network optimization for years, that's not me.

only started seriously streaming 4-5 years ago when Quboz came along with higher rez. at this point any rez streaming or files digital is pretty fine sounding.

YMMV.

You deserve a prize!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

David is a smart man. but he does tout a 5 figure cartridge which cannot be reliably purchased unless he personally inspects it, as the manufacturer cannot control quality. and mostly has it sent back to be fixed. like cartridge roulette.

Eh, whats this all about then if you don't mind me asking ?

not sure what you are referring to?

if it's "what product David touts?"..........that is the van den Hul Colibri cartridges.

if it's "why i made that point?", it's David's condemnation of streaming digital and his claim of chaos and confusion with streaming and networks. and i was pointing out he deals with that same thing with his favored cartridges.

 

[Lee]

Why is that Lee?
david

Because I get to hear all manner of streaming systems, I have a good idea of what streaming can sound like and it’s definitely at reference level these days. Recently I’ve heard my Rossini playing Qobuz and Tidal Masters on my Alexia 2s as well as Tidal and Qobuz on Hugh’s Select 2 with his Apex/Commander/Kodo system.

I find R2R sounds the best of all but to deny how far digital playback has come is not fair imho.