"In today's amplifiers, the distortion from a Class A amplifier is no lower than in a Class AB amplifier. So there is absolutely no reason to use Class A anymore. I therefore use Class AB -- as do all other manufacturers of quality amplifiers."
The good think about such a long list is that anyone can find something he agrees with. I loved this one:
14) Classical music or studio recorded music. What do you see as ultimate test for ultra high-end?
The most difficult test of an audio system is a full symphony orchestra. No other type of music can stress it to the same degree. So when evaluating the performance of an audio system, I always want to hear full symphony. Of course, I listen to other music as well, but if you must pick the most revealing and difficult music, a symphony orchestra recording is essential
And I deeply disagree with: (...) Finding well-recorded music is very difficult. There is very little of it. But you must search for it to get excellent sound.
I consider that most of the music I buy is well recorded and rewards me with excellent sound quality.
It appears that you misread. He said 'live microphone' -- huge difference:
""When digital recording became available, it was finally possible to make perfect recordings. Nobody can hear any difference between a live microphone feed and a recording of it."
He also says elsewhere that live performance is still superior to any audio system.
"But the results of most audiophile subjective testing is variable and uncertain. So different listeners come to different conclusions about what they hear. As a result, there is very little agreement about the quality of the performance of audio equipment.
"Why is this so? We all hear in a similar way, so what is going on with subjective listening tests that is so confusing?"
***
Here Sanders makes a fundamental mistake when he says, 'we all hear in a similar way". This is clearly not correct. My ears for example are very sensitive to reproduction of microdynamics, which to me very much decide about the liveliness of music, while another person will not be able to live without grand reproduction of scale. For me personally, microdynamics is more important than scale, and I chose my components accordingly, with the compromises that this entails and which I am well aware of (only at a very high price can you have both great microdynamics and scale). Another person will choose differently. This also extends to listening preferences for live music. While I prefer to sit in the front of a concert hall, another person will prefer a perspective from further back. The preferences regarding audio will be made accordingly.
So no, contrary to Sanders' claims, we emphatically do not all hear in a similar way: while the initial physical perception of sound waves by our ears and brains may be similar, the prioritizing of subjective listening preferences by our minds, also informed by our musical preferences, is not. Hence our different opinions about high-end gear (the fact that system and room set-up also play a role in evaluations and differing opinions that result from these is another matter).
I applaud Sanders integrity - his extensive technical research/experience with Hybrid Stats may be unequalled - when combined with total control over electronics and build these speakers may be the best of its kind at this time - applied future technologies can only improve them - the system’s attributes and flexibility correlates perfectly with my overall view for long term system requirements.
It appears that you misread. He said 'live microphone' -- huge difference:
""When digital recording became available, it was finally possible to make perfect recordings. Nobody can hear any difference between a live microphone feed and a recording of it." (...)
A commonly seen, but IMHO misleading statement - admitting that a live microphone feed in typical studio conditions is the supreme quality test signal in sound reproduction. Sound reproduction is much more than reproducing the microphone feeds.
??? You're not going to do any better than the mic feeds as far as matching the source. There are mixing and mastering operations, but as far as accuracy I think the mic feeds are where it starts for reproduction. That is not the same as the live source, of course, but that is what the reproduction system has as a starting point.
IME there's often A LOT that needs to be done to a solo mic feed to make it sound anything like the real thing. It sounds good in theory though but nah.
I don't think we're talking about everything that is done after, just accuracy to the source? I certainly agree most mic feeds do not sound "live" without post-processing, but if you perfectly match the mic feed then everything after follows. I think we're crossing wires, I'll step out.
IME there's often A LOT that needs to be done to a solo mic feed to make it sound anything like the real thing. It sounds good in theory though but nah.
Surely. And this LOT should be reproduced in a way it recreates in your system the intentions of the artist or the real thing. And this is the challenging part of sound reproduction - achieving this task with a system that has intrinsic limitations.
There's A LOT to be done with the mic before even getting a decent mic feed not just after. IMO it is a gross oversimplification that makes for a good sound bite but can be very misleading because of its narrowness.
I haven't read the interview , yet. I certainly will. I applaud Sanders and share some of his opinions, obviously not his knowledge. He reminds of another brilliant Engineer, John Dunleavy who did produce superlative products but whose ideas and frankness were not appreciated by many audiophiles who seem to prefer a more obscure and mysterious approach.
His designs seem to be the real deal, often forgotten by audiophiles in the discussions of great systems, yet for most who have heard his systems (yes he takes a system approach to things audio) they are as good as they get and that for a rather (in High End terms) modest cash outlay, which in our crooked galaxy tend to diminish the worth of a component (thus the hated by me "For its price, qualifier/diminutive"). I wish him great success and will make all possible efforts to audition his system. I regularly forget his products in my search for my next system. Such omission will/should not be repeated
I haven't read the interview , yet. I certainly will. I applaud Sanders and share some of his opinions, obviously not his knowledge. He reminds of another brilliant Engineer, John Dunleavy who did produce superlative products but whose ideas and frankness were not appreciated by many audiophiles who seem to prefer a more obscure and mysterious approach.
His designs seem to be the real deal, often forgotten by audiophiles in the discussions of great systems, yet for most who have heard his systems (yes he takes a system approach to things audio) they are as good as they get and that for a rather (in High End terms) modest cash outlay, which in our crooked galaxy tend to diminish the worth of a component (thus the hated by me "For its price, qualifier/diminutive"). I wish him great success and will make all possible efforts to audition his system. I regularly forget his products in my search for my next system. Such omission will/should not be repeated
I have never been drawn to the high-end industry. In fact, I am repelled by it. It is full of deceit and dishonest manufacturers and businessmen who are only interested in stealing money from gullible audiophiles. I very much dislike being associated with such unethical behavior.
I believe in being honest with my customers and providing truly superb products at reasonable prices -- something that is largely absent in high-end audio. Unfortunately, most of my potential customers are involved in high-end audio, therefore I am forced to be involved with it
3) Would you consider yourself as an audiophile?
No, I am not an audiophile. I am a concert musician, scientist, and engineer.
I have never been drawn to the high-end industry. In fact, I am repelled by it. It is full of deceit and dishonest manufacturers and businessmen who are only interested in stealing money from gullible audiophiles. I very much dislike being associated with such unethical behavior.
I believe in being honest with my customers and providing truly superb products at reasonable prices -- something that is largely absent in high-end audio. Unfortunately, most of my potential customers are involved in high-end audio, therefore I am forced to be involved with it
3) Would you consider yourself as an audiophile?
No, I am not an audiophile. I am a concert musician, scientist, and engineer.
That's a little disingenuous isn't it Myles?
In my dealings with Roger I have found that indeed he is "honest with (his) customers and provides truly superb products at reasonable prices ".
I'm not sure how or why you read into that that he takes advantage of gullible audiophiles. Quite the opposite in fact.
That's a little disingenuous isn't it Myles?
In my dealings with Roger I have found that indeed he is "honest with (his) customers and provides truly superb products at reasonable prices ".
I'm not sure how or why you read into that that he takes advantage of gullible audiophiles. Quite the opposite in fact.
