Toward a Better WBF…

[Al M.]

Has anyone lost any friends here?

Yeah, that post seemed a bit melodramatic...

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron

Do you have any idea what you are talking about or are you just listening to the Wilson schrill Lee?

Have a look at the Maxx3 and have a look at the Alexx V. They are essentially the same speaker updated over 15 years inflated by 300%.

It's not me that is dishonest, it is you actually writing this crap directly at me.

Poor form indeed Ron.

I call it like I see it. Two different models are not the same model. You can pretend they are the same model, but they are not the same model.

Even you concede "it's a stretch."

You knowingly connected the old price of a cheaper model to the current higher price of the higher-end new model to make your argument look better than it is. I call that intellectually dishonest.

 

[microstrip]

and yet, many prefer the sound of other speakers. Why are the cabinet materials better or the cabinet design better? There might be less resonance, but does that necessarily lead to better, or more accurately preferred, sound?

"Better" in this hobby means "statistically preferred". In fact we find that modern creations incorporating the features you refer seem to be preferred by current audiophiles. But remember that today's audiophiles do not buy speakers to listen to vintage recordings of acoustic instrumental music ...

Manufactures can build excellent speakers with a broad range of materials, exotic materials are not mandatory - my Sonus Faber Aida's were built of plywood in double thickness constriction layer damped configuration. The trick was how the materials were used. Surely, it did not sound like a Wilson ...

 

[PeterA]

"Better" in this hobby means "statistically preferred". In fact we find that modern creations incorporating the features you refer seem to be preferred by current audiophiles. But remember that today's audiophiles do not buy speakers to listen to vintage recordings of acoustic instrumental music ...

Manufactures can build excellent speakers with a broad range of materials, exotic materials are not mandatory - my Sonus Faber Aida's were built of plywood in double thickness constriction layer damped configuration. The trick was how the materials were used. Surely, it did not sound like a Wilson ...

What do today's audiophiles buy speakers to listen to?

I thought that the argument is about high prices because of new technological advances. The implication seems to be that the products also sound better. I question whether or not that is true. As I asked before, are there current cartridges that sound better than the vintage Neumann? How many current turntables sound better than the vintage EMT 927? How many current speakers sound better than the old Western Electric horns or a speaker like the Seimen's Bionor or Tim's JBL M9500s, or the Mitsubishi Diatone? Surely, Wilson and Magico sound different. Their technology and materials assure it. Do they sound better though? It might be challenging to get data that show "statistically preferred". I would welcome a few comments from those who have heard both examples. Those, and my own experience are enough for me to answer the question of which I prefer and think sounds better. Same with the format wars.

 

[dcathro]

likely the most significant aspect of volume and the Wilson pricing is that the cost of building their most expensive speaker, and the every other speaker in the top part of their line-up is not nearly as different as the retail price. so if they are selling lots of top of the line, that's quite lucrative. not saying that more drivers and chassis don't cost more to build, but not what the price differences are.

so maybe the entry level is a low margin, but it's adding move up customers to the upgrade train. and they might 'profit center' separately the different tiers and have separate targets for return. to keep the company healthy and focused on each part of the business.

to the point of more spendy speakers costing more to build since their labor costs are high, those higher costs do not track with the price differences. if the price differences were 20-25% instead of 80-100% that would be different.

and i see nothing wrong for Wilson Audio or Wilson customers with that situation. Wilson will be there for them long term for customers that align with their approach.

I am sure you are right that the margins on the top of the line are much greater than the entry level. I always understood (20 to 30 years ago) the industry standard to be a mark up of 6x the parts cost. High end mark up today on very low unit sales seem to be between 10x and 20x.

 

[PeterA]

Define better. Better at what? If it’s not sonic improvement then it not improved technology.

I agree Brad. Better to me means it sound more like the real thing. Does new technology do that? Perhaps or perhaps not. If not, it is not improved. Some search for "statistically preferred".

 

[Lee]

and yet, many prefer the sound of other speakers. Why are the cabinet materials better or the cabinet design better? There might be less resonance, but does that necessarily lead to better, or more accurately preferred, sound?

If you are not hearing the cabinet, how can that be a bad thing?

 

[Lee]

I am sure you are right that the margins on the top of the line are much greater than the entry level. I always understood (20 to 30 years ago) the industry standard to be a mark up of 6x the parts cost. High end mark up today on very low unit sales seem to be between 10x and 20x.

Based on my conversations with Alon, he would likely dispute the 10x and 20x.

 

[Lee]

One thing that has happened is that manufacturers often have to carry a year’s inventory of parts since some parts are scarce to come by. That initial cash outlay and extra inventory carrying costs are real. I know of two loudspeaker makers who have had to eat some of the parts increases to keep pricing reasonable. That means lower product margins for the company.

 

[Bill Hart]

I hate to wade into this type of thread, particularly since I'm not a regular poster here, but I have a few observations that may help:
First, you guys (any ladies here) are pretty much at the top of the heap, and the goal is to push the envelope given whatever technologies exist, often without the constraints that some folks suffer.
No I'm not going there - I have lived a good life.
I think of this as a serious pursuit that some of you might do professionally, but some of you who don't are still knowledgeable- like those amateur scientific societies in Europe--where people who weren't part of the industry itself were exploring, discussing, debating, and in many cases, what was fringe became accepted.
I don't see some new mainstream format change in the near future, so we live with what we have.
I do think we became siloed, partly because of the nature of modern life, the advantage of being able to communicate with people all over the world with ease, and because in my experience, some people have entrenched views, whether it is tube v solid state, analog v digital, etc, ad naseum.
The challenge to me is to share meaningful knowledge. I'm reading about Oppenheimer right now, and while he was a pretty weird dude in some ways, he was quick with ideas and the ability to take the discussion further.
None of this should be personal; it should be about advancing the art (and I do consider home playback to be an "art" rather than simply science). To do that without rancor is, to me, a sign of recognizing there is a lot we don't know. If I don't learn something, and it is simply sparring, I move on.

 

[bonzo75]

I must have missed that one

there will be reruns

 

[Amir]

My impression is that WBF used to be more weighted towards hobbyists who came here to share information and to learn. Today, my impression is that WBF is much more like the main stream audio magazines like TAS that basically support and promote the industry perspective and interests. WBF is now a business that is supported by advertising and eyeballs. This means current products and current advertisers. If you see a fashionable trend, perhaps it’s a reaction to how things have changed.

+1

 

[morricab]

Many relative to the few who listen to poorly distributed or niche products.
Many relative to other models of brands of similar price.
Many, considering the number of WBF active members.
Many, considering the dCS forum members.
Many considering the happy dCS users with Taiko servers I know about.
Many, considering the people who wait between three to six month for being delivered of a dCS unit, after APEX sales have increased.
Many considering the audiophiles of the far east, surpassing in number the the US and Europe.

Simply many ...

BTW, morricab, I know the word I intended to use and you are trolling, as usual. Odd days Wilson, even days dCS, I hope you rest on weekends ...

Again, some. Not challenging the product DCS, just your characterization of its user base.

 

[morricab]

"Better" in this hobby means "statistically preferred". In fact we find that modern creations incorporating the features you refer seem to be preferred by current audiophiles. But remember that today's audiophiles do not buy speakers to listen to vintage recordings of acoustic instrumental music ...

Manufactures can build excellent speakers with a broad range of materials, exotic materials are not mandatory - my Sonus Faber Aida's were built of plywood in double thickness constriction layer damped configuration. The trick was how the materials were used. Surely, it did not sound like a Wilson ...

If it’s majority rule on “what’s best” then surely the Bose Acoustimass takes the prize!

Statistics only tell you who owns the most of something…not why. Let’s compare the amount of ownership to the marketing budgets, number of reviews/year, number of reviewers using the product purchased way below what consumers pay etc.

Better or best therefore is not strongly correlated to statistical preference…it might have a small correlation to sound but it is likely the other factors mentioned have much stronger correlation.

 

[morricab]

If you are not hearing the cabinet, how can that be a bad thing?

Are you only removing non-signal resonance or are you also damping signal? I can envision both scenarios.

 

[Argonaut]

What do today's audiophiles buy speakers to listen to?

I thought that the argument is about high prices because of new technological advances. The implication seems to be that the products also sound better. I question whether or not that is true. As I asked before, are there current cartridges that sound better than the vintage Neumann? How many current turntables sound better than the vintage EMT 927? How many current speakers sound better than the old Western Electric horns or a speaker like the Seimen's Bionor or Tim's JBL M9500s, or the Mitsubishi Diatone? Surely, Wilson and Magico sound different. Their technology and materials assure it. Do they sound better though? .

Why are you repeating yourself ? We received the *message* the first time ! Or are you merely advertising on behalf of

Vintage Audio Specialties.INC.​

 

[Gregm]

What good are different technologies if the end result doesn’t sound better than the best from the past? This forum is called what’s best. That doesn’t necessarily mean the current best. What cartridge sounds better than a Neumann DST? How many current turntables sound better than an EMT 927? How many reports have we read about people saying the old western electric horns or something like the Seimens Bionor is the best speaker they’ve ever heard?

I think I understand the point you are making -- but all I asked was what thoughts inspired the statement that Lee ignores history (or skipped class that day) as it were.
As to whether new products outperform od ones -- that is another matter.
My first experiences with "hi-end sound" were with tubes driving Electrovoice loudspeakers, so I am still partial to that kind of sound whenever I hear. (I just don't consider that sound to be the ultimate in sound reproduction...). And yes, I would love to have an EMT!

 

[Al M.]

My impression is that WBF used to be more weighted towards hobbyists who came here to share information and to learn. Today, my impression is that WBF is much more like the main stream audio magazines like TAS that basically support and promote the industry perspective and interests. WBF is now a business that is supported by advertising and eyeballs. This means current products and current advertisers. If you see a fashionable trend, perhaps it’s a reaction to how things have changed.

On the contrary, WBF has never been as vintage-y as it is now. Has there been around 2015, for example, so much talk about old horn systems, SETs, the sonic merits of vintage vs modern designs as there is today? Not by a long shot, it seems to me.

 

[bonzo75]

On the contrary, WBF has never been as vintage-y as it is now. Has there been around 2015, for example, so much talk about old horn systems, SETs, the sonic merits of vintage vs modern designs as there is today? Not by a long shot, it seems to me.

still a long way to go to correct the market imbalance. I guess as WBF grew as a forum, there was better information due to more people joining and some people realised that just the modern expensive inefficient low impedance designs to play bad audiophile recordings were *add euphemism *

 

[andromedaaudio]

On the contrary, WBF has never been as vintage-y as it is now. Has there been around 2015, for example, so much talk about old horn systems, SETs, the sonic merits of vintage vs modern designs as there is today? Not by a long shot, it seems to me.

Its embedded in the universe Al , everything degrades over time.