Mark Levinson on today’s audio industry

[bonzo75]

It depends on what you mean by “improved upon”. And how you measure performance. Do you judge by what some testing device indicates about measurements or or do you judge by listening?

He judges by price which is why he mentioned those designers. Not sure why else he would. Oh wait, to show how broad minded he is

 

[PeterA]

He judges by price which is why he mentioned those designers. Not sure why else he would. Oh wait, to show how broad minded he is

I can’t say why Ron selected those designers, but they all tend to design very inert cabinets for cone driver speakers. It’s a particular aesthetic and sound.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I can’t say why Ron selected those designers, but they all tend to design very inert cabinets for cone driver speakers. It’s a particular aesthetic and sound.

i think there was a trend for chasing the lowest octaves, away from lower output tube amplification. which then spawned more drivers and more inert cabinets to harness them. so speaker cabinet size and heft 'creep' mirrored amplification power 'creep'. 'some' customers liked the bigger cabinets and more dynamic/powerful sounding speakers whether it was musical or not.....and then dealers and manufacturers joined in satisfying that direction.....chased the dollars.

i think 60's rock and baby boomers pocketbooks played a role too. the passion for that music, which itself was heard amplified, and the disposable incomes and home sizes played into it. it all fit.

cabinet and materials design and levels of build quality being relevant for sound is an interesting question. debatable.

but not all large speakers needed those huge amps similarly. some speaker designers did pursue coherence and efficiency. so not exactly one size fits all. but most did not.

25 years ago i switched from that big sound to something less big sound and more coherent. which is apart from speaker size and driver count. which is not in and of itself a problem as i see it. having the lowest octaves but still having the sound musical and coherent it a worthy thing to me.

 

[Al M.]

He judges by price which is why he mentioned those designers. Not sure why else he would. Oh wait, to show how broad minded he is

No, you misread Ron's post. Has nothing to do with price or broad-mindedness but with design means and goals of those speaker companies, regardless if you are a fan of them or not.

 

[bonzo75]

No, you misread Ron's post. Has nothing to do with price or broad-mindedness but with design means and goals of those speaker companies, regardless if you are a fan of them or not.

No I didn’t. He thought he was giving an alternative viewpoint of other designers

 

[bonzo75]

i think there was a trend for chasing the lowest octaves, away from lower output tube amplification. which then spawned more drivers and more inert cabinets to harness them. so speaker cabinet size and heft 'creep' mirrored amplification power 'creep'. 'some' customers liked the bigger cabinets and more dynamic/powerful sounding speakers whether it was musical or not.....and then dealers and manufacturers joined in satisfying that direction.....chased the dollars.

i think 60's rock and baby boomers pocketbooks played a role too. the passion for that music, which itself was heard amplified, and the disposable incomes and home sizes played into it. it all fit.

but not all large speakers needed those huge amps similarly. some speaker designers did pursue coherence and efficiency. so not exactly one size fits all. but most did not.

25 years ago i switched from that big sound to something less big sound and more coherent. which is apart from speaker size and driver count. which is not in and of itself a problem as i see it. having the lowest octaves but still having the sound musical and coherent it a worthy thing to me.

Agreed except that the speakers weren’t more dynamic or powerful, they appeared to be because of size and associated amplification

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Agreed except that the speakers weren’t more dynamic or powerful, they appeared to be because of size and associated amplification

i think they appealed to lovers of 60's rock and the sound they thought they remembered in whatever medicated state they had heard it in.

but we can debate a 'big' sound and a 'dynamic' sound and what the difference might be. one man's dynamic might not be the next man's dynamic. one note bass as opposed to agile bass and frequency balance.

 

[bonzo75]

i think they appealed to lovers of 60's rock and the sound they thought they remembered in whatever medicated state they had heard it in.

but we can debate a 'big' sound and a 'dynamic' sound and what the difference might be. one man's dynamic might not be the next man's dynamic.

No, never heard them do well in blues and rock. They are dynamically quite flat.

 

[Amir]

I spent a total of about $25,000 on my new electrical installation, $5,000 of which was a new connection to a 3-phase supply under the street and the network charge quite a bit for diggers, resurfacing, H&S etc. My speaker cables cost $140.

Could you please share some pictures of your $25,000 electrical installation?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Agreed except that the speakers weren’t more dynamic or powerful, they appeared to be because of size and associated amplification

but if they never heard that balanced more pure music reproduction done properly, they could fall in love with that big sound instead. i know i did for awhile.

 

[Al M.]

i think they appealed to lovers of 60's rock and the sound they thought they remembered in whatever medicated state they had heard it in.

but we can debate a 'big' sound and a 'dynamic' sound and what the difference might be. one man's dynamic might not be the next man's dynamic. one note bass as opposed to agile bass and frequency balance.

Which speakers are "they"?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Which speakers are "they"?

sticking only with the speakers i myself owned, i'd say Wilson Watt Puppy 2/3's, 5.1's and 6.0's i owned from 1995-2001. big sound, but spot lit and not flowing. tough load for an amp. don't get me wrong i enjoyed them immensely until i got bored with them and the Mark Levinson amplification. my musical tastes were evolving, and i wanted more than i was getting. not more of that sound, but more musicality.

i could substitute any speaker/amp combination my local hifi dealer had on hand at the time.....in 1995-2001.

when i switched to the Kharma Exquisite 1D's in 2001 (bought from ddk) it was a much more coherent and balanced presentation and an easier load that my Tenor 75 watt OTL's loved until they exploded. that sound is still my reference sound to this day. not the explosion part.

 

[Al M.]

sticking only with the speakers i myself owned, i'd say Wilson Watt Puppy 2/3's, 5.1's and 6.0's i owned from 1995-2001. big sound, but spot lit and not flowing. tough load for an amp. don't get me wrong i enjoyed them immensely until i got bored with them and the Mark Levinson amplification. my musical tastes were evolving, and i wanted more than i was getting. not more of that sound, but more musicality.

i could substitute any speaker/amp combination my dealer had on hand at the time.....in 1995-2001.

when i switched to the Kharma Exquisite 1D's in 2001 it was a much more coherent and balanced presentation and an easier load that my Tenor 75 watt OTL's loved until they exploded. that sound is still my reference sound to this day. not the explosion part.

Ok, thanks. My speakers are an easy load for my about 80 W/ch amp as well -- a resistive rather than a reactive load that would create significant back EMF (back electromotive force). Speakers with severe impedance dips and large phase angles, like Wilsons, tend to fall into the latter category.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Ok, thanks. My speakers are an easy load for my about 80 W/ch amp as well -- a resistive rather than a reactive load that would create significant back EMF (back electromotive force). Speakers with severe impedance dips and large phase angles, like Wilsons, tend to fall into the latter category.

i think the newest Wilson's i have heard are much more coherent and musical than those from 20+ years ago. in the last 5 years i've heard show systems with Wilson's sound pretty good a few times where i really liked it. other times not so good, but that is shows for you. i have a local friend's system with Wilson's that i like a lot. so that brand has come a far ways toward more coherency overall.....if not quite as efficient and lower amp output friendly as they could be.

 

[PeterA]

cabinet and materials design and levels of build quality being relevant for sound is an interesting question. debatable.

I actually do not think it is debatable. Most would agree that cabinet and materials design and levels of build quality are very much relevant for sound. To a large degree, they do determine the sound along with some other design choices. It all matters. What is debatable, IMO, is what choices sound the most realistic and whether or not realism is even the goal.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I actually do not think it is debatable. Most would agree that cabinet and materials design and levels of build quality are very much relevant for sound. To a large degree, they do determine the sound along with some other design choices. It all matters. What is debatable, IMO, is what choices sound the most realistic and whether or not realism is even the goal.

agree completely that it all matters. and that realism ought to be the goal. are speakers designed where realism in not a goal?

in my post i meant to say that using exotic materials and extreme sizes and weights are debatable.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I can’t say why Ron selected those designers, but they all tend to design very inert cabinets for cone driver speakers. It’s a particular aesthetic and sound.

I just picked off the top of my head designers who could choose to make wood cabinets like almost everybody else, but who choose for their own reasons to make cabinets out of a material other than wood. In the middle of the night I forgot to include Val Cora, so I'm going to go back and add him to my original post.

 

[Ron Resnick]

No, you misread Ron's post. Has nothing to do with price or broad-mindedness but with design means and goals of those speaker companies, regardless if you are a fan of them or not.

Precisely Al; thank you!

 

[jeff1225]

I actually do not think it is debatable. Most would agree that cabinet and materials design and levels of build quality are very much relevant for sound. To a large degree, they do determine the sound along with some other design choices. It all matters. What is debatable, IMO, is what choices sound the most realistic and whether or not realism is even the goal.

Exotic Cabinet materials are a gimmick. Some of the worst speaker systems I’ve heard use the most exotic and expensive materials.

 

[Elliot G.]

xotic Cabinet materials are a gimmick. Some of the worst speaker systems I’ve heard use the most exotic and expensive materials

I think that better materials can help make better products however because something is "better or exotic" does not mean it will be. A scientific advance does not equate directly all the time to a sonic advance for sure. I also believe that many companies use these BS things to be marketing devices. One in particular that makes IMO the same crap over and over with just a dash of newfangled goo, or 3 d printing, or other snake oil to raise the prices over and over .
There are materials that matter in designs and it is important how they are integrated but just because a material say like Carbon Fiber is used does not mean that the product is anything other than more expensive