If Bill Gates threw all of his money to audio...

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

David Matz

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
928
Reaction score
0
Location
Wilmette, IL
Looking for some thoughts and opinions on how much better things would get if someone invested serious money in 2 channel audio. Some of the things that come to mind are to fix digital once and for all via a new, information rich format. I wonder how good the speakers and other electronics would get. What kind of materials would be used in new speakers, etc. How would electrostatics do vs. dynamic speakers. How much better could analog equipment get or would most of the advances be in digital and speakers?

Please post any thoughts. Thanks!
 
I don't know so much about speakers, but I know sources (digital particularly) coud get a lot better - right now!

Unfortunately it's just not in the interests of the major companies like Sony / Phillips / Toshiba et al. to provide us with anything more than what is needed. Planned obsolesence for a start. Don't believe we don't have the power to process much more data but for some reason someone's drawn the line at 24/192. Unfortunately our boutique audio companies can only work with what is dished out by the majors.
 
Like with everything else in technology, one might argue that the biggest problem faced by digital audio is battery life. When you talk about new formats, whether you're dealing with something like Apple Lossless, or something more compressed but with more data, you're making it harder to playback on portable devices; and the iPod phenomenon has shown just how much people love their music. The former format requires the processing of additional bits of music, and the latter would require additional algorithms to decode.

With that said, I'll admit that there is no shortage of bad equipment for digital audio out there, but I'm not sure I see a huge problem in digital that needs to be "fixed once and for all." Personally, the things I'd soonest want advanced would be issues of practicality... The ones that pesky laws of physics are making difficult. I want speakers the size of earbuds that deliver sound like CLXs.
 
As for ‘fixing’ digital, we already have formats and transports than can deliver with zero error a 192Khz sampled / 24 bit data stream (or a DSD stream) losslesly, with no jitter.

It’s called DenonLink 3 and / or DolbyTru-HD or DTS-MA HD.

Any of those can deliver bit-perfect replicas of the bit streams on the ProTools HD master tracks.

If fed to an advanced PreAmp like the denon AVP-A1HD, then all decoding and fully balanced D/A happens inside the preamp. Very clean, not much to improve there.

Could any of the above be better, possibly, but there are much richer targets to address.

Amplification is an area where more sensors, feedback and basic intelligence could be engineered into the units. But it seems a waste to do it separate from the speakers.

My thoughts are that the best designs are those where the speaker designer picks the active crossovers, EQ and amps and creates an ‘ideal’ system. This is what Meridian does with its DSP speakers.

But the real area where investment could indeed make a difference is in the speakers themselves and the room interfaces.

Getting a transducer to meet all the conflicting criteria we have for them is a tall order, and we’ve only seen a small sub-set of possibilities .
So I’d expect material advances, active crossover / active correction devices to dominate speaker engineering for a while.

The interface to the room is the most important factor, and often the least discussed and engineered for, as it’s highly variable and causes the most impact.
<RantOn> Audiophiles who obsess over the ‘sound’ of Power cords are missing the point when their rooms are causing +20dB peaks and valleys in their response, screwing with imaging (reflections), etc.</RantOff>

So if I were throwing money at a problem, it would be on how to generate sound in variable dimensioned/shaped rooms while minimizing room induced side-effects.
Some technologies are making good progress on that front, such as Audyssey room correction.
But that’s barely a beginning, there is sooo much more to do there.

For example, think of a 6’ tall cylinder covered in a matrix-array of small speakers (think Yamaha Soundbar tech) or better yet, a matrix addressable single membrane covering the cylinder. Five of these in a room would be set up by a process that measured their performance in YOUR room, and used the multidirectional / steerable soundfield generation capability to not just EQ/time align, but to do active reverberant field and room induced anomaly corrections.
Better yet might be entire walls made of this matrix addressable sound generating membrane.

I could go on, but then, I’ve run out of coffee.

Anyone need an R&D Lab director for this project?
 
Hm - maybe the answer is neuro-chemistry. Precisely what chemical changes occur in the brain that cause a CLX to sound better than a $/£5 transistor radio?

When discovered, it may be that a cheap $5 pill can do the job... that gives about 4000 listening sessions BEFORE you have bought a pair of CLXs anyway:D

Just having a bit of fun... I am gonna go MAKE a coffee now.
 
I wouldn't disagree with the suggestions that have already been made, but an area that I would like to see more money/training, is in the recording studio. I believe some of the current formats are capable of giving us truly great sound reproduction, but with the loudness war it has ruined many potentially excellent music recordings. Sometimes I'll put on a record or cd and am just amazed at how the music just seems to be so real and lively that I'm blown away. But then I'll put something else on and the life is just sucked out and leaves me unimpressed. I guess my point is even if we spend millions of dollars on reinventing the speaker and making sources that can record and store every detail without any degredation we'll still be left with music that is many times compromised and restrained. Our systems seem to be capable of unbelievable reproduction even now, but we still have to suffer the poorly recorded compressed music that plagues us today. If the full potential of our current formats were utilized then our investment in better speakers and sources would be more recognized and appreciated. That's my .2 cents worth.

Glen
 
Sony tried to perfect digital. It was called SACD. The public did not support the format as Sony anticipated and Sony non-gracefully bowed out.
 
Hm - maybe the answer is neuro-chemistry. Precisely what chemical changes occur in the brain that cause a CLX to sound better than a $/£5 transistor radio?

When discovered, it may be that a cheap $5 pill can do the job... that gives about 4000 listening sessions BEFORE you have bought a pair of CLXs anyway:D

Just having a bit of fun... I am gonna go MAKE a coffee now.

mmmmm, well I don't know about $/€ 5, but certainly for $AUD10 an average bottle of wine will do the trick.
 
Sony tried to perfect digital. It was called SACD. The public did not support the format as Sony anticipated and Sony non-gracefully bowed out.

Problem was, it wasn't a "perfection" of digital - it was a small step in the right direction (probably due to planned obsolesence, so that they could make a larger step at another time in the future - after everyone had bought SACD players and a whole lot of back catalogue to add to their vinyl and CD copies).

That is, it was too small of a step for people to be bothered. I guess you could say it backfired on them.

Don't get me wrong - SACD was a step in the right direction, but running at 2.8 MHz is a joke - maybe 400 / 500 MHz would be getting closer to what is needed. Compare that to 64 or 128 bit PCM sampled at 1 or 2 MHz and take what sounds best.

...but drawing the line at 24 bit/192k and telling us that this is "cutting edge" is just an insult and taking us for a bunch of sheep. Blind Freddy can see that if 16/44.1 was mainstream in 1982 then we're capable of a hell of a lot more than 24/192 today.
 
mmmmm, well I don't know about $/€ 5, but certainly for $AUD10 an average bottle of wine will do the trick.

I've tried that, and alas, my $/£ radio still sounds rubbish. My MLs, however, just sound BRILLIANT.

Let's face it - if it worked, we'd all be alcoholics with $/£ 5 radios!
 
Problem was, it wasn't a "perfection" of digital - it was a small step in the right direction (probably due to planned obsolesence, so that they could make a larger step at another time in the future - after everyone had bought SACD players and a whole lot of back catalogue to add to their vinyl and CD copies).

That is, it was too small of a step for people to be bothered. I guess you could say it backfired on them.

Don't get me wrong - SACD was a step in the right direction, but running at 2.8 MHz is a joke - maybe 400 / 500 MHz would be getting closer to what is needed. Compare that to 64 or 128 bit PCM sampled at 1 or 2 MHz and take what sounds best.

...but drawing the line at 24 bit/192k and telling us that this is "cutting edge" is just an insult and taking us for a bunch of sheep. Blind Freddy can see that if 16/44.1 was mainstream in 1982 then we're capable of a hell of a lot more than 24/192 today.

You'll like my new format then - 50 squadzillion bits resolution and 3249693249876409780320987 Ghz sampling rate:D Trouble is, each track takes up 762386 Terabyte hard drives.:)
 
You'll like my new format then - 50 squadzillion bits resolution and 3249693249876409780320987 Ghz sampling rate:D Trouble is, each track takes up 762386 Terabyte hard drives.:)

Ok - maybe a little over the top, but this is not as funny as you think. Back in 1982 (when the average hard disk was 10MB), CDs were mass produced with a 650MB capacity - 65 times the average hard disk!

Optical technology is inherently more accurate than physical (contact) disk / magnetic media technology, so I don't think it is unreasonable to apply the same simple maths. The average hard disk today is 500GB, so I see no reason why optical disks containing 32,000GB (32TB) is unreasonable.

Now work the sampling rate/bit depth that could be applieid to that. I can't be bothered - all I know is that I'm sick and tired of being held back by the mass market / major japanese companies / marketing.
 
Optical technology is inherently more accurate than physical (contact) disk / magnetic media technology, so I don't think it is unreasonable to apply the same simple maths. The average hard disk today is 500GB, so I see no reason why optical disks containing 32,000GB (32TB) is unreasonable.

Hm, optical disks (CDs, DVDs etc) are far LESS reliable than hard drives. This is purely because the media gets marked and causes mistracks...

32TB optical disks? Hard drive tech is WAY beyond optical storage capacity at present. They had to struggle to get the Blu-Ray capacity of 50GB.

I hope both die. They are BOTH a pain, with HDs being slow and noisy. Solid state is the way to go, with 128GB solid state cards on the market already...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top