I've written about this here and in my blog in the past.  Whenever I read a reviewer saying "these speakers sent me back to my music collection and I was hearing things i have never heard before" I'm always suspicious this is the case.

A ragged frequency response can differentiate a product.  If you attach a high price tag to it they will then claim the difference is worth the $$$.

A lot of it is people thinking some things matter when they don't. The industry encourages this, of course.

As jnovak has noted, I believe bigtwin has hit the nail on the head on this one! It would be great to get a bona fide neuroscientist's take on this. To one degree or another, I believe all serious audio and/or stereophiles are junkies, especially those who are constantly "upgrading" or otherwise tweaking their systems. After a while, we kind of become accustomed to and comfortable with the systems we put together and constantly wonder what would sound better and provide a bigger thrill.

I also believe onhwy61 makes a very valid point here, too. Although I don't have access to data that would validate a statement like "the majority of audiophiles put together a system and run it until it breaks or some major life change intervenes", this certainly rings true for me, personally, and almost all of my audiophile friends. For example, I've only owned 2 turntables in my audiophile life (i.e.  a Phillips 212 Electronic that I purchased in 1972, which was still working until I replaced it around 5 years ago). Additionally, I've only owned 3 amplifiers since 1972, still have all of them and all still work fine, although the Sansui 2000x really needs to be recapped. The only two audiophile level components I've ever owned that failed after many, many years of faithful and flawless service were an old Denon cassette deck and a Sony CD player. Generally speaking, good, solidly built components tend to last and perform well for a long time.

Man if audiophiles think they have it hard, try being serious about cycling where every few years there's a new trend or technology push and suddenly your functionally and fully capable custom bicycle is obsolete in some way. Of course there will always be people in both hobbyist realms that get caught up chasing the dragon. In cycling, there was a trend towards road bikes being as light as possible with every component fabricated out of Titanium or carbon. A custom built bike might cost upwards of $10K or more. Now the trend is do-everything gravel bikes that can race for hours or carry gear for long bike-camping trips. Much the same way audiophiles buy themselves new cables or some accessory and they get the immediate wow factor and then become accustomed to that sound and it's not as fresh and exciting as it was the day they plugged the new accessory or component in.

I'm selective about what I buy and buy the best that I can afford without taking out a second mortgage. So my bikes that I build up myself are intended to last me years and years of enjoyment. The same with my audio equipment. I upgrade when it makes technological sense to me. I don't begrudge someone who cycles through components looking for that "insert multiple adjectives here"______________ sound. I enjoy window shopping but honestly, I have a young family to raise so I can't justify thousands of dollars on a hobby that, if you let it, has no end point. The pleasure of the hobby is taken over by the active pursuit of some immeasurable perfection that does not exist.

I do cost benefit comparisons on my hobby purchases because once I buy a piece of equipment - bike stuff or stereo stuff I don't want to have buyer's remorse and I intend to keep it for a long time. Warranty, rate of repair, quality of build, ease of self-service (if applicable) all inform my purchases and when I'm slapping my hard earned credit card down on the digital countertop I want to be sure it's what I want/need and that I will get the most out of it. 

@onhwy61 + 1 at 100%
And IMO a great system of the past will still trump most really good systems of today, certainly a financially rewarding option.

@bipod72

I hear you on the bike stuff. I suppose skiing and golfing are two other hobbies where new "innovations" are promoted almost annually.

Once folks were riding carbon, road bikes seemed mostly consistent for a while but the past few years have seen a lot of changes. My latest is all-road/gravel, through axle, disc brakes, 2 sets of wider carbon wheels, tubeless 28mm tires for road and 38mm for gravel. The hardest part is trying to find parts for older styles. I couldn’t even find a decent set of carbon wheels for my SuperSix Evo last year because of the rim brakes.

More $$ doesn’t equal great sound. It can, but if you don’t understand how much each component and artery in your system matters, it will not reach its potential. I’ve owned tons of great gear…all types, most of the big names and some boutique. The revelation that allowed me to truly enjoy my music was getting a pair of JBL 4429’s…just awesome sound, so alive and totally musical. Then Cornwall IV’s…revelational! My music sounds so alive and dynamic with exceptional clarity and harmonic complexity. After that, my experience with gear and cables guided me to the components I needed to make them rise above. It still befuddles me how damn great they can sound in my room…the beautiful cherry veneer is icing on my cake.

I can just see the marketing and engineering/r&d departments of these manufacturers working hand-in-hand with each other to accomplish what you're describing. 

Johnk I favored going to Axpona and to my audiofriends ,so I can listen to different systems , it’s an opportunity to find out what sounds your ears preference.Reading helps not much.Before one system really does impress me on the first day.I will go back to that system for the next 2 remaining days.Many times I end up not liking the system on the 3rd day.You will know on the third day if indeed that’s what your ears prefer.

Any 

I don't know of any specific product or instance where something was specifically designed for early death.  Anyone postulating such should, at a minimum, suggests candidates and some explanation as to why and how it was designed to fail.

But, it might well be that gear is designed and built without sufficient consideration of longevity and the availability of replacement parts.  Planning for future unavailability of parts means stocking up on replacement parts, which is a considerable expense that must be be built into the price of the component.  Some manufacturers do stock replacement parts for a planned future of serviceability of a certain number of years (a practice of NAIM, and Linn, for example).  Certain types of components have inherent advantages in this area, such as tube gear with circuits that do not employ anything but basic parts that can always be found.

Most manufacturers do, for marketing reasons, tout new models and designs and claim superiority of new vs. old.  That is the nature of the market for almost any consumer products--even mechanical watches based on ancient (timeless?) technology, claim ever superior refinements of newer models.  But, with amps, linestages, speakers, and turntables, there are plenty examples of very old components that can compete with ANY modern examples when it comes to satisfying certain sonic preferences (e.g., large horn-based systems built around Western Electric compression and field coil drivers).   Even modern high end DACs may be built around some very old chipsets that deliver good sound.

I agree that there are some modern designs with sound that catches the ear because of the impression of detail, speed, and impact, that may become fatiguing to SOME listeners over a long period.  This is a matter of taste, but not some sort of conspiracy to make one go back to buy something else--how would the manufacturer of such a fatiguing product get that buyer's new purchase dollars?  I too don't like a lot of modern speakers and amps--too thin and lacking in body and weight--but this is a matter of personal taste; I don't see manufacturers as promoting the wrong kind of sound; they simply respond to the market demand.  If buyers are becoming less discriminating so that they more easily for superficial pizzazz of certain kind of gear, I don't think it is the fault of manufacturers offering that kind of sound to compete.  This is all part of a longstanding change in the market for audio gear--less people who care enough about sound quality to listen long enough and to hear enough products to become a more experienced listener not seduced by superficial appeal, and fewer old time dealers that can provide the opportunity for prospective customers to attain that education.

@mitch2 Oh I hear you. I have a '05 Torelli Express w/ Campy Chorus that I can still manage to find NOS replacement parts for but it's getting harder. For brake pads I end up buying 4 sets so I have back ups. My '21 Ritchey Outback has the Campy Ekar and 2 sets of wheels (700c and 650b) and I love riding that on just about everything. A very different feel than the road racing bike so I plan to keep that set up until 13spd and disc brakes are obsolete. I have to approach upgrades carefully with the wife so it doesn't seem like I'm frivolously spending. I just sneak them in and use the "I bought _____ a while back after a part broke" excuse. 

There are, I believe, several factors that lead to listener fatigue. In chasing the ‘absolute sound’ one must address different areas that could be getting in the way of ‘musicality’. One such factor is noise; persistent subliminal noise that could be the result of polluted power for example, or the result of grounding issues. Or you might consider that many of us do not have a properly treated room, which really can confuse what we hear, ultimately causing listener fatigue. While a specific component can be at fault, it may be that a specific component is not the true cause.

Interesting discussion.

I've been through many speakers, some of which I liked a lot but I developed 'fatigue' over time; as much from the tweeter (I think) as with port chuffing.  

Age hasn't helped I think.

I now own 2 pairs of speakers that I really enjoy listening to for long sessions: 1) Triangle Comète 40th anniversary with a 'Magnesium Rose Horn' tweeter: smooth as silk and a lively speaker that throws a wide soundstage.  The second pair are DIY SEAS A26 clones.  Not the last word in detail and extension, but they 'sound' just so right and I know what went into them: the cabs are made of Birch plywood and are nice and solid; the capacitor is a  metalized poly cap from Solen;  the SEAS A26RE4 woofer and the SEAS T35 tweeter that Troel loves.  If anything ever goes wrong with the latter, I'll know exactly how to repair it!  LoL.

Speaker in the past that had that same 'I can listen to it all day' type of sound: An old pair of Mission 710; a pair of smaller Mission Leading Edge speakers.  I'll throw in Harbeth P3ESR and NHT super-ones 2.1; Mirage OM-10. 

The big cause of listener’s fatigue is the un-natural sound. All audio systems in the world sound un-natural (except Wavetouch audio which is an only natural sounding audio system).

When we hear a natural sound, our ears and brain don’t need to work hard to understand. When we hear un-natural sounds, our ears and brain must adjust and work hard to comprehend the un-natural sound. While we hear un-natural sounds, we can’t understand natural sounds such as dog barking or noise from neighbor. So, our ears and brain must quickly change to a natural sound mode. It is hard to our brain and ears switching very fast between the natural and un-natural sound modes.

The un-natural sound makes a listener dizzy and fall asleep easily because the un-natural sound is very confused sounds. It is warning from our brain to our body to take a break. Once broken (distorted) audio signals can’t be restored and most signals are broken from the source (CD Player or DAC).

The characteristics of un-natural sound is confused, grain, harsh, bright, thin, vague, very forward glare, very far sound-stage (tunnel sound), etc. They hurt/irritate our ears always. And our brain and ears are too tired to make out from very confused and vague un-natural sounds. And it causes the listener’s fatigue. Alex/Wavetouch

Laissez les bons temps rouler

@mihorn 

All audio systems in the world sound un-natural (except Wavetouch audio which is an only natural sounding audio system).

I haven’t experienced your speakers first hand in my recollection. They may or many not be exceptional, HOWEVER, your statement that your product is the only solution is most certainly FALSE. 

@ghasley 

+1
 

@mihorn 

Alex, you completely discredited your post with the categorical statement “All audio systems in the world sound un-natural… except for yours. I read no further. 

ghasley

@mihorn All audio systems in the world sound un-natural (except Wavetouch audio which is an only natural sounding audio system).

I haven’t experienced your speakers first hand in my recollection. They may or many not be exceptional, HOWEVER, your statement that your product is the only solution is most certainly FALSE.

For decades i went to audio shows and stores to hear if there is an audio system that sounds close to an original music (natural sound). I found every audio systems sound glare and un-natural. So, I built the Wavetouch audio system which sounds very natural and closest to the original sound. You can hear my WT audio sound in my systems page - Click here.

Please point out which sound system(s) sounds natural and close to the original music and prove you are right. Alex/Wavetouch

@ghdprentice + 1

@mihorn 

Certainly I didn't intend to strike a nerve about your product, only to point out that your absolute statements that your way is the only way to achieve natural sound are absolutely wrong. I THINK you are asking us to click to your system page to click on youtube videos of your system? The only thing I know for certain is that the only way to find sound less consistent and meaningless than at an audio show is on Youtube.

or reading about it…..

This forum needs an ignore button…. ALL, BEST, etc……

ghasley

@mihorn

Certainly I didn’t intend to strike a nerve about your product, only to point out that your absolute statements that your way is the only way to achieve natural sound are absolutely wrong. I THINK you are asking us to click to your system page to click on youtube videos of your system? The only thing I know for certain is that the only way to find sound less consistent and meaningless than at an audio show is on Youtube.

I don’t think you trashed my products. You have a right for your opinion and my statement is too good to be true. ** This is my last post in this thread.

It seems improbable that we, Wavetouch audio, made a revolutionary audio system that big companies and smart scientists/engineers couldn’t make last 150 years. How I do it? Lots of crazy ideas and work. I know the world is not ready but it has to start some point. Anyway, the sound of future is here now. Everything has a beginning.

People have been relying on audio reviewers with their un-natural sounding audio systems. People had no choice until now because there is no reference. People had to merry-go-round upgrade forever. Now you have WT sound and the bar has been raised very high. The hi-end audio has some future now. Microphones can’t lie and videos are enough to evaluate the sound of audio systems. Alex/Wavetouch

@mihorn so if I listen to your YouTube presentation through my cheap computer speakers the sound will be natural? 

@mihorn Ummmm, whatever you say. 

@mihorn Just visited your website. You probably will get a bit of credibility if you remove those drawings that look like something done by some bored middle school kid and actually explain scientifically how you achieved what you say you did.

I think you should also stay away from explaining about brain and ears and how sound is processed because it is some BS that you wrote there. Maybe it’s possible they may be read by real neuroscience specialists on these forums.

Many high end audiophiles are in a way addicted to the process, often the result being we loose interest in our new toys, and project this onto the equipment.  Being one who does this I can easily see the characteristic in others.  Manufacturers are most happy this happens as it results in more sales.  
Just a thought, not necessarily true.

Only your stuff does this dump it ASAP.

"Stereo" was designed for 3 speakers, not two. The entire 2 channel system most people use today is flawed which is why two channel stereo is a money pit. Very wise of the electronics industry to roll out a hopelessly broken system that requires regular cash infusions from sound starved customers hoping they will finally attain the promised result. STOP, just switch to immersive/spatial audio and keep your two channel system for nostalgia.

@kota1 sort of correct….it was initially implemented with three speakers but it was always a two channel format where some manufacturers utilized a sum of both channels as a mono center. It was a primitive “implementation”.

Its all good if you are into immersive/spatial audio. I’m sure its awesome.

@kota1 Wrote:

"Stereo" was designed for 3 speakers, not two.

Then this speaker came out in 1957 no more hole in the middle. See below:

Mike

https://www.lansingheritage.org/html/jbl/specs/home-speakers/1957-paragon.htm

I love the JBL/Lansing Paragons I see on youtube, stunning. It's said Frank Sinatra used 3 of them (L-C-R) channels in the studio.

. There are rumours that Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin acquired three Paragons each – one for each of left, center and right channels – with which they used to monitor their recordings from master tapes.^[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JBL_Paragon

Here is Frank at home and how many channels does he use? Even Frank gets it, two speakers can't get it done, sorry😢

Floyd Toole’s home system, he is also an immersive audio adopter. If you see my virtual system he uses the same setup I do:

https://www.thescreeningroomav.com/single-post/2019/03/06/The-Ultimate-Real-World-Home-Theater-and-Listening-Room

@kota1 why would you need a center channel for most music recordings? My apogee duetta 2 speakers have no problem with center imaging when the recording has it, it would ruin the imaging with a center channel with most recordings.

@kota1 thats a cool photo of Sinatra’s system at his Palm Springs home (not the really unique Twin Palms, but instead his later home built at Tamarisk CC). The preamp is a Mcintosh C22, which is stereo. The center is summed in such a setup.

Glad you like your immersive/surround sound setup. Many of us have consciously shied away from such a setup. To do it right it can get pretty pricey if using good gear and then it is still digitized/remixed from typically (there are a few exceptions) 2 channel masters.

@invalid 

The center channel makes you less dependent on one sweetspot. If you go through the virtual system area you will find most members setup their speakers in a equilateral triangle. Why? To create the "phantom" center channel ith two speakers. When you have an actual center channel you are less dependent on the triangle/sweetspot and you can get good imaging just walking around the room.

@kota1  I doubt that, even with all that processing if you could walk around the room and the center channel was still just as coherent, then it would be too much if you did sit in the sweet spot .

@ghasley

I love the COB and was lucky enough to see him at Carnegie Hall with the Nelson Riddle Orchestra in the nineties. I’ll bet that MC22 costs more now if you can find one than it did brand new back in the day. Today you have many upmixers that do a good job to use whatever speaker set up you like. I was pleasantly surprised when I found that other article and saw the Toole used the same setup I do and is also a fan of the Auro 3D upmixer. The atmos setup you often see is with the MLP closer to the back. Me and Floyd are both equidistant from both walls in the center of the room..

@invalid 

Audio engineer Bob Clearmountain:

One of the other aspects of Atmos mixing on which consensus has yet to be reached concerns the use of the centre speaker. If you want a source such as a lead vocal to appear right in front of the listener, routing it only to the centre speaker will achieve that, but the ‘phantom centre’ effect works in Atmos too, and many people advocate using only the left and right speakers. This is a point on which Clearmountain has strong opinions.

Bob Clearmountain: "One of my favourite things is the centre speaker, because the nice thing is when you anchor stuff to speakers, especially the centre, you can walk around the room and it doesn’t move."

“That’s just silly. I think. One of my favourite things is the centre speaker, because the nice thing is when you anchor stuff to speakers, especially the centre, you can walk around the room and it doesn’t move. If it’s just phantom, you walk over to the right and the phantom centre follows you to the right, just like it does in stereo — which is one of the drawbacks of stereo. I like actually walking around the room, I’ll stand over here on the side between the right side and right rear and the picture still stays the same. I mean, the balances are different, so I’ll be hearing more of whatever’s coming out of those speakers, but everything’s still in the same place, right? The vocal’s still coming from the centre, and I love that.

@kota1  yeah right, I've never heard that with Atmos, maybe with Bacch

Well let’s see.  My ARC SP9 mkll still works perfectly and it’s from 1987. My Acoustat speakers from the eighties still sound great. My Pioneer tuner from the eighties still works and sounds great.  My B&O Beogram 1900 from the seventies needs to be cleaned and lubed.  By your logic,I guess I should toss it and buy a new one. Oh I did toss my Sony professional CD player from the early nineties, but that was because it was from a small run of only a few thousand units and I couldn’t get parts!

Mihorn,

Didn’t they warn you not to take the brown acid??

It's probably the inverse, many audio products are designed to impress in the showroom, bright top end, over blown bass etc.  these soon become fatiguing in real use. The same applies to performance measurements they are stated as xyzzy but often are no where near what they claim (or seem to be claiming), the 1980's watts war being typical. Today we have the THD war, some 'audiophiles' believe that 0.000000001% THD is really good, the problem is you stopped hearing any difference 5 zeros or more ago, the measurements mean nothing whatsoever. 

It sounds more like an indication of lack of synergy between your chosen pieces of equipment, to me. 

Please excuse me if that's been said multiple times already ... I haven't read thru the entire thread yet, I'm sleepy and want to crash and was excited that there was something I could respond to, ha ha ha..

I guess when you actually have it in your system, you can appreciate how important it is for the bigger effect? Something like that.

The imaging and sound staging I get from two different pairs of completely different types of speakers, meaning one's a legacy model big44" tall electrostatic panel with an attached subwoofer and the other set is a pair of bookshelf speakers on some good stands. Albeit, they're a bookshelf that performs exceptionally well, especially given their price tag. Usher Be 718 is the model. I got them nearly brand new for twelve hundred including delivery and got damn good stands for not too much.

Both of them perform unbelievably well. This sounds so cheesy, but a lot of you guys would probably say the same thin: I'm so! in love with the sound I get out of both pairs. 

If I can do it, anyone of you can because I haven't come close to spending what a lot of these guys have. Probably considerably more than others, I dunno. 

I'm familiar with that fatiguing sound you're talking about. Good news is, it can get better. I'm not the one to tell you ... but I've listened to the seasoned regular members around here and headed their advice.

The thing that would probably make the biggest noticeable difference is a good power conditioner. I. personally, am into PS Audio's Power Regenerators. I have a PS 15 and I believe the older used PS 300 would have a very similar effect.

“Cd players used to be built to last a lifetime and the ones that were built in the 70's are still sought after for that reason. ”

hahahaha

@kenjit 

You do realize the first commercial Cd player was released in 1982?

So no, there are zero cd players from the 70’s

@kota1,

If you use JBL M-2 or JBL 4430,4435 or 4425 speakers for (L&R) channels you will not need a center channel. Because listeners can move up to 65 degrees off axis and still get the same frequency response as center. The imaging of the horns is very, very stable.😎 See article below:

Mike

https://noisegate.com.au/collarts-chooses-jbl-professional-for-high-spec-future-proof-audio-education/

The notion that manufacturers secretly deliberately design their products to degrade, but only just enough to not cross a very fine threshold of degradation to avoid becoming obvious poor quality - is simply not realistic.

Often the question of whether one’s system ‘sounds best’ comes down to what might not exist within the soundstage.

In other words, when there is nothing obvious that offends the ear, the question becomes whether the speakers or a given piece of equipment might not be transmitting some or all of the source material as completely as can be done.

The question of what might not be there is nowhere near as straightforward as a poor soundstage no matter what you do, or a hum that shouldn’t be there.

For instance, my amplifier sounds really fine, but I have come to wonder if there exists more clarity and openness in the high range, so I’ll eventually try another.

And specifically, I wonder this because I’ve run different speakers on this system and studied their sound, I’ve got my set-up correct including cables, source devices are excellent, and I’ve done a lot of reading that suggests to me that there is better sound to be had.

Logically, it could be the preamp or the amp, but the amp is older, so I’ll start there.

If people listened to acoustic music, especially vocal music (I don’t mean Diana Krall either) in demonstrations and it sounded good and natural, few things could go wrong afterwards. But no, they listens to the “impressive thunder” in Brothers in Arms.

It sounds like the OP has foreseen the inevitability of their own audio journey. Pity really….l

@larryi +1 Well said!

Mike