Some tantalizing rumors about Wilson and Magico

[Randall Smith]

My response was triggered by your associate making a statement such as he did

Instead of taking us off topic with somewhat of a personal attack, please explain what you consider to be innovative.

 

[Steve Williams]

Randall, it was you who made the statement, so perhaps you could get us back on topic and if my statement was construed by you to be a personal attack, that was certainly not my intention and I apologize

 

[Randall Smith]

Randall, it was you who made the statement, so perhaps you could get us back on topic and if my statement was construed by you to be a personal attack, that was certainly not my intention and I apologize

I am not offended at all. The topic was which speaker designers are innovative. Many people mentioned speakers that they feel are not innovative, none of them were singled out. I guess they didn't mention a certain brand of speaker? I did post my thoughts on innovation earlier in the thread. I feel that some companies are moving forward in fresh and somewhat innovative ways while some companies seem to be stalled out, using the same technology and same techniques that had them at the top of the heap years ago. Fat and happy would be a term I could use to describe them.

 

[fas42]

would say MBL with their rundumstrahler with the exotic looking mids and high units definetively get the innovation price from me , although not soundwise (heard just at shows)

hj, I'm intrigued by that comment. When I heard these at a show many years I was very taken with their sound, and everyone around me was "zoning", as I have now learnt it's called. In fact, it inspired me to seriously get back into the game again!

So what exactly do you find not agreeable with their sound, if I may ask?

Frank

 

[c1ferrari]

My preferences change, my perceptions change. This is why we conduct in-room measurements for each speaker we get for review. Not only does it verify what we are hearing, but it also helps us properly set up each speaker to attain the best position for the speaker.

Thanks...I find this reassuring; albeit, evaluation by ear is the final arbiter for me

 

[MylesBAstor]

Jeff I guess that I am not singling you or anyone out but I do get dyspepsia when I see these pieces advertised on Audiogon at prices usually greater than the accommodation pricing or for one reviewer to take expensive cables and to cut them up, reterminate and sell off the pieces at a huge profit

IMO to sell these pieces at higher than the accommodation pricing makes the reviewer nothing more than a dealer. Things such as this serve no purpose other than to tarnish this hobby.

My response was triggered by your associate making a statement such as he did

Steve: There's a couple of things to consider.

1) most manufacturers nowadays (for instance ARC and Martin Logan) make reviewers sign a form requiring them to keep that piece of equipment for a given period of time, say a year, before reselling. That has it pros and cons obviously eg. if you hear something better that you might want, you're in a corner.

2) In general, a reviewer can not sell a piece of equipment for more than they paid for that gear. Nor can the reviewer trade services to buy that piece of gear. As Jeff indicated, and that was SS's policy and for every mag I ever have ever written for.

3) Addendum to item 2. Some manufacturers mandate that the piece of gear be sold for more than the accomodation since they do not want the market filled with below market value gear. Of course, in this instance, these matters are handled in concert with the manufacturer consent.

 

[audioguy]

We just need speakers that can make music! If they can, I'll call that innovative.

+1

 

[DaveyF]

You know, I'm kind of sorry to have to post this, BUT my feeling is that this 'accommodation pricing' is a crock of BS
Why should a reviewer get an 'accommodation price', IMHO that just smacks of something that is suspicious and would entice dishonesty, if nothing else.
I remember well a few years ago, I had (the proverbial term being 'had') a friend who was a well known reviewer for one of the two big mags in audio. ( His name will go unspoken). This 'reviewer' tells me one day that is going to give a 'rave' review to an amp manufacturer's piece since he is getting this piece at an 'accommodation price'. Laughingly, he then proceeds to tell me that he really thinks the piece is a POS and he will sell it asap at a nice profit.
Needless to say, after this conversation, I proceeded to remove him from my sphere asap.
I think Steve's comments are very much on point on this issue...some may not like them, but IMHO that's just too bad

 

[amirm]

Isn't part of the problem with speaker innovation that we don't all agree what is good about any speaker? In that sense, there is no universally accepted innovation!

 

[hifidelity1]

Isn't part of the problem with speaker innovation that we don't all agree what is good about any speaker? In that sense, there is no universally accepted innovation!

With that being said, I think the term would be " State of the Art" and not innovation! as it better describes the evolution of the loudspeaker, which is more up for debate.

 

[microstrip]

Isn't part of the problem with speaker innovation that we don't all agree what is good about any speaker? In that sense, there is no universally accepted innovation!

Yes, and we also do not agree on what is innovation!

I think there is plenty of innovation in loudspeaker design, but most of it does not show explicitly.

Developers must have models of what are the more important aspects in sound reproduction and how to manipulate the sound to reach some result. Most of the time the true innovation is in these models. It is from these models that later they choose the materials and technologies to manufacture their products.

We all would love to have them discussing their innovative models, but it is the last think they want to to do - usually they present the arguments that can be used for marketing, but nothing else. As we say - do not ask the old lady who wins her live selling her tasty cooking for the recipe.

As this is not only for loudspeakers - it is for all high-end equipment.

 

[Orb]

Yes, and we also do not agree on what is innovation!

I think there is plenty of innovation in loudspeaker design, but most of it does not show explicitly.

Developers must have models of what are the more important aspects in sound reproduction and how to manipulate the sound to reach some result. Most of the time the true innovation is in these models. It is from these models that later they choose the materials and technologies to manufacture their products.

We all would love to have them discussing their innovative models, but it is the last think they want to to do - usually they present the arguments that can be used for marketing, but nothing else. As we say - do not ask the old lady who wins her live selling her tasty cooking for the recipe.

As this is not only for loudspeakers - it is for all high-end equipment.

Haha I think we could spend pages debating what is innovation and what products/manufacturers qualify

Personally, I feel the simplest description is that innovation only applies for products/components/tooling-measurement-modelling that are NOT an evolution of something that already exists.
So as an example the B&W use of woven kevlar for the driver IMO is not innovation but exceptional engineering practices, however their FST might be deemed innovative as it has not been considered in the past or applies to the traditional driver concept.
In same way use of other exotic materials for tweeter would be exceptional engineering as the concept they could provide was already defined, I would not say the process used for the diamond tweeter was innovative as it was already in use by a few private firms (such as artificially growing similar shaped diamonds for missile guidance systems).

The very 1st planar/isobarik/concentric/etc were innovations.


This would mean for me the exotic cabinet materials relating to Wilson Audio would fall under exceptional engineering, and indeed so would the latest iteration of Magnepans/Magico/etc.

These days innovation is incredibly difficult within audio due to many of the theories and boundaries have already been touched upon in the past, and now most products even SOTA are evolutions of those concepts - hence exceptional engineering instead of innovation.
But there are a few modern audio products that still develop that can be called innovative, but these are rare IMO including audio electronics these days and rightly get much press when they occur (such as Devialet or lesser extent ML No 53 interleaving PWM amp alternative to Class D).

Cheers
Orb

 

[RBFC]

Great post, Orb.

Evolution is often mistaken for innovation.

Lee

 

[Steve Williams]

You know, I'm kind of sorry to have to post this, BUT my feeling is that this 'accommodation pricing' is a crock of BS
Why should a reviewer get an 'accommodation price', IMHO that just smacks of something that is suspicious and would entice dishonesty, if nothing else.
I remember well a few years ago, I had (the proverbial term being 'had') a friend who was a well known reviewer for one of the two big mags in audio. ( His name will go unspoken). This 'reviewer' tells me one day that is going to give a 'rave' review to an amp manufacturer's piece since he is getting this piece at an 'accommodation price'. Laughingly, he then proceeds to tell me that he really thinks the piece is a POS and he will sell it asap at a nice profit.
Needless to say, after this conversation, I proceeded to remove him from my sphere asap.
I think Steve's comments are very much on point on this issue...some may not like them, but IMHO that's just too bad

Davey, I agree 100% about accommodation pricing. It is stuff such as this that continues to destroy this industry and hobby. I know many reviewers who have made the same comments to me. To me a more credible review would be by someone who not only owns the piece of gear but has paid what every other John Q Citizen has paid for the gear. IOW, someone who has no vested interest such as those who receive gear for accommodation pricing. The other thing that is also bothersome is that said gear is sold on Audiogon by some (not all) reviewers who rarely if ever use their real names. They all have great ratings on the site because they have sold so many items.
BTW, one of the foundations that this site was founded was the hope and anticipation that our own members would review their own pieces of gear. Frankly I want to read something by someone who bought and paid full price and can give their own opinions. A dedicated Forum here for that very purpose already exists

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/forumdisplay.php?6-Featured-Reviews

I read most of the reviews at all the major sites as well as the zines and so many of them aren't worth the paper on which they are written. Not that all of our members here can write any better but at least I know that reading their review gives me insight into the product from someone who has no vested interest such as all of the reviewers who produce the review and then buy the equipment at prices at least 50% off.

I would like ANY of our professional reviewers who are members here tell me that when they wrote the article knowing that they were getting the equipment at such a reduction that they had no bias or motivation in writing a glowing review about the equipment. Sorry but I just don't agree with this in any way whatsoever.

 

[Steve Williams]

I would suggest that a new thread be started on the subject of accommodation pricing if anyone feels the need as by so doing it will keep this thread on topic.

 

[microstrip]

Haha I think we could spend pages debating what is innovation and what products/manufacturers qualify

Yes, but I am using common standards (wikipedia) :

"Innovation can therefore be seen as the process that renews something that exists and not, as is commonly assumed, the introduction of something new. Furthermore this makes clear innovation is not an economic term by origin, but dates back to the Middle Ages at least. Possibly even earlier."

If Wilson finds that introducing a new material that was never used for loudspeakers and it can ameliorate significantly the performance I find it innovation.

Although I know much of it is marketing, Sonus Faber claims they registered three patents while developing the TSF .

 

[Orb]

Bah Concise Oxford Dictionary makes it out to be:

Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:
innovative /??n?v?t?v/
?adjective
featuring new methods or original ideas.
? creative in thinking.

To me Wilson Audio/etc is using existing principles with exotic materials in terms of cabinet resonance reduction, but I appreciate it depends upon what featuring new methods means to each of us.



But if expanding it to include the Wilson Audio, then anything moulding the shape is innovative, using any other material is also innovative so currently there would be many innovative products out there, and would then be deemed rather common.

Cheers
Orb

 

[caesar]

So here's a definition of innovation taught at the MIT's Sloan Business School:


Innovation is the entire process by which an organization generates
creative new technological ideas (invention) and converts them into
novel, useful and viable commercial products, services, and business
practices for (potential) economic gain.


Now everyone would agree there is a big gap between the invention of the plow or Henry Ford's contribution to mass production and a company's ability to lay paint on to make their speaker look more sexy. But both examples fall within the definition.

A friend I see a lot of live shows with enjoys my big Soundlabs as much as an entry level pair of B&Ws. Of course, to us audiophiles, the differences are huge.


Maybe be the competitive advantage is getting a speaker like Magico (or choose a popular brand) to someone like Jonathan Valin who then constantly praises it, calls it revolutionary, puts it on the cover, compares everything to it, calls it best of show, and brings awareness to it any way he can.

 

[Orb]

So here's a definition of innovation taught at the MIT's Sloan Business School:


Innovation is the entire process by which an organization generates
creative new technological ideas (invention) and converts them into
novel, useful and viable commercial products, services, and business
practices for (potential) economic gain.


Now everyone would agree there is a big gap between the invention of the plow or Henry Ford's contribution to mass production and a company's ability to lay paint on to make their speaker look more sexy. But both examples fall within the definition.

A friend I see a lot of live shows with enjoys my big Soundlabs as much as an entry level pair of B&Ws. Of course, to us audiophiles, the differences are huge.


Maybe be the competitive advantage is getting a speaker like Magico (or choose a popular brand) to someone like Jonathan Valin who then constantly praises it, calls it revolutionary, puts it on the cover, compares everything to it, calls it best of show, and brings awareness to it any way he can.

Ah but the paint process; is this a copy with modifications of what is done in the automobile business or truly a new process?
I have only seen/read aspects of it and I appreciate I could be wrong, but to me its just an evolution of the process used in painting cars by manufacturers (which was innovative).
This is why I touched on the B&W diamond tweeter,because at 1st glance it is innovative, however the real innovative process came from private companies such as those who grow artificial dome diamonds to protect the guidance system of weaponry such as cruise missiles.

Cheers
Orb

 

[andromedaaudio]

Hello fas a long time has gone by and i reread the thread and saw i didnt give an answer.
Well they were show conditions so not optimal
The system sounded slow , the music stuck to the speakers and sounded "zompy " like it had no energy , it could be that they were seriously underpowered i dont know , i very much like dynamics /impact
About speakerdesign in general .
Well its essentially a very simple technique , a voicecoil /magnet/membrane system to move air with.
This technique is well executed in certain designs and moves closer and closer to neutrality , the closer you get the harder it is to improve

hj, I'm intrigued by that comment. When I heard these at a show many years I was very taken with their sound, and everyone around me was "zoning", as I have now learnt it's called. In fact, it inspired me to seriously get back into the game again!

So what exactly do you find not agreeable with their sound, if I may ask?

Frank