Tag Archives: The Columns

I had the great pleasure of speaking with Carl Marchisotto of Nola recently. I have known Carl for longer than I would like to admit and was fortunate enough to represent his speakers at my store for many years. I respect him currently as one of the world’s top speaker designers and also as a very genuine individual. He, like myself, is one of what I refer to as a Second Generation Audiophile. We are the Baby Boomers that followed in the footsteps of the HiFi industry greats like Sidney Harman, James Lansing, Sol Marantz, Rudy Bozak, HH Scott, Stu Hegeman, Bert Berlant, and many others. Carl has been recognized for his many achievements and I wanted to let my readers learn more about this amazing man.

The following is an edited interview I had with him over the phone. I hope you find it as interesting and informative as I did.

Q: When did you first become interested in speaker design and audio in general?

Carl Marchisotto: When I was in high school and built my first speaker. I was about 15 or 16, many years ago. You know I still own the first amplifier I ever bought and it still works. My father helped me build the enclosures. They were 12 cubic foot bass reflex, there were two of them for stereo. It was a different time. We had more flexibility regarding acceptable speaker enclosure size.

Q: I understand you worked for Fairchild Defense in the 1970s. What did you do there?

Carl Marchisotto: It was the early 70s and I was working for the defense industry at Airborne Instruments on Long Island and ITT Avionics in New Jersey. But I wanted to get into audio, which is what I really loved. I wasn’t really interested in the military industry.

Q: I know your lovely wife Marilyn is very involved in the company. How did you get together?

Carl Marchisotto: We met in college, often the way people meet. We just hit it off and I wouldn’t give her up for anything. She’s amazing. We’ve been married for 52 years. She is Vice President and 50% owner of Nola.

Q: When did you graduate from City College?

Carl Marchisotto: I graduated from City College in 1967, then went on for my masters at NYU.

Q: I did a little digging and discovered you and Marilyn started a company back in 1971 called All Test Devices. Will you elaborate on that?

Carl Marchisotto: When I was at Fairchild Defense, I met an engineer who had a friend that owned Manny’s Music Store in New York City. The word got back to us that Gibson Guitars was looking for a device that would make a guitarist sound like Santana. So I designed a device called a Sustainer that would sustain the guitar notes and we were able to sell it to Gibson who then put their name on it. We formed All Test Devices so we could manufacture it, and left Fairchild. We also started making other sound modifying devices after that. One thing about Marilyn that is very rare is that she believed in me (I don’t know why) and the other is she was a woman that could take a risk. Many women would not want their husband to leave a good paying job and to start some little company making gadgets for another company. But she has that faith in me and is very strong, and at that time with a baby no less. Many times, I would be working late and she would be alone at home with the baby. She is an ideal mate, not too many women would put up with that.

Q: You joined Dahlquist in 1976. How did this come about?

Carl Marchisotto:  How it came about is I wasn’t totally thrilled with the music industry either. It was better than defense, but still my love was audio and making things that sound more like real music, whereas the music industry was more into sound effects. I remember going to a HiFi show in Manhattan, I forget the name of the hotel, and Jon was there with Saul before they started Dahlquist. So I talked to them and I was very impressed with the prototype they demonstrated, which became the DQ-10.

I listened to every speaker at the show and thought their speaker sounded more like the real deal. So I put that in the back of my mind. Later on, one of the products I made at All Test Devices was a phono pre-amp and Jon got wind of it. He was impressed. To make a long story short, he wanted to branch out into electronics, and then made me an offer to join Dahlquist.

Saul Marantz

Q: What was it like working for Jon Dahlquist and Saul Marantz?

Carl Marchisotto: I was with them for 15 years. It was a very interesting time. I met a lot of amazing people while working there. I had a lot of freedom to be creative in developing products.

Q: I remember visiting Jon and Saul back when they were working with Magnat of Germany. I understand you were responsible for design and engineering for the DQ-10 upgrades, the DQ-8, DQ-12, DQ-20 and DQ-20i. How were you involved with the DQ-M9?

Carl Marchisotto: I designed the DQ-M9, DQ-M9C, DQ-M7, DQ-M5. Later on, I designed a new series of enclosure systems, the M909, M907 and M905. Then eventually I designed the open baffle models: the DQ-12, the DQ-8 and then the DQ-20 and DQ-20i. They were vertical arrays instead of the horizontal array as in the DQ-10.

Dahlquist DQ-20

Q: I remember they were also experimenting with the Ionovac design.

Carl Marchisotto: I got the chance to demonstrate that at a couple of shows. However, we then discovered the pitfalls of that design, such as the amount of ozone it generated. Also, Jon decided to get rid of the horn and make it omni-directional. But then the design needed much more power because it didn’t have the horn loading any more. In some ways it sounded more open, but it generated even more ozone than the original design with the horn. With all the problems of the design, we decided to drop it. It did a lot of bad things to the environment. It did sound amazing though. Its transients were amazing — the sound of bells for instance.

Q: You received your Masters in Electrical Engineering at NYU in 1970. Is that when you were promoted to VP of Engineering at Dahlquist?

Carl Marchisotto: No, at that time I was working for ITT Avionics in New Jersey and that was before I joined Dahlquist. I joined Dahlquist in ’76.

Q: What can you tell me about the final years of Dahlquist? I assume you had already started Alon. You left Dahlquist before that.

Carl Marchisotto: What happened is that Jon was in a massive car accident. I don’t know how he survived. He wasn’t wearing his seat belt and it was a convertible with top down. He was thrown out of the car and he hit a brick wall. He was in a coma for 12 days and he never fully recovered. So his family stepped in at that time and they decided to sell Dahlquist. They sold it to some people that worked at HarmanKardon. I left after a couple of months working under the new owners — mostly some mid-fi people. Later it was sold again to a Canadian company.

Q: Talking about Alon. You headed Alon (also known as Acarian Systems Ltd.) for 14 years starting in 1991. I know it was a very successful line of speakers. What happened that made you leave?

Carl Marchisotto: Marilyn and I started Acarian Systems. We then decided to make the cabinet maker a partner in Acarian. However, partners can be very difficult to get along with. Our partner became more of a problem as time went on and we found out he was basically stealing money from the company. It got to a point that it was no longer tolerable. So that was 2004. I stuck it out for a long time. He offered a factory in order to build loudspeakers, and I had to train them to build cabinets and cross-overs and for that we gave him 50% of the company. For 50% of the company, we figured he would behave himself, but he didn’t and he was more out for himself and it just got to be unworkable. So we left Acarian in 2004 and then started Accent Speaker Technology (Nola). It is a family business and there are no outside partners. I find it is a much better atmosphere for creativity since you are not fighting with anybody because they have a different idea, or they are competing with you, or there’s something else going on. But with a family thing, if you have arguments, they are still family. Anyway, the partner in Alon ended up suing us for 10 years because we left. But eventually we won the lawsuit and we have the rights to the name and the designs.

Q: As many of my readers are aware, Nola has become one of the most renowned and respected High End speaker manufacturers over the years. Would you like to elaborate on your success with the line?

Carl Marchisotto: One of the things that is different about Nola is that I decide about the product. I design it, I listen to it, I listen to every part of it and so I can work with things here in ways that I never could in a corporate structure. One of the reasons I left Dahlquist is, when it was sold, the guy that ran the company was an accountant. He told me here is a tweeter. It costs $7 and this is what you have to use in all the models. I said that this in not going to work. First off, it wasn’t a very good tweeter and I didn’t like it. How are you going to tell an engineer that he has to use a $7 tweeter and expect you are going to have a high-end product at the same time? The new owners had the impression that if they bought the name Dahlquist, they also bought the Dahlquist distribution. This is not true. They thought they could just run it. High End is a very unique industry where you have to develop a product that is commensurate to what other people produce and what dealers expect. They didn’t figure that was important at all, which is why I didn’t get along with the new company. It’s hard to get people to understand what High End audio is all about. It would be as if Chevrolet took over Ferrari — it wouldn’t be the same product anymore! It’s not the same industry culture.

Now at Nola, I don’t have that situation. If I decide to build a ribbon tweeter, I don’t have to convince anybody. But when the project is done and I demonstrate it, my credibility has to do with what it sounds like. I have free range and that is good for creativity. It gets back to the old story, as far as product development is concerned, there remains a great deal of art in this industry. It is not just technology. If it was just technology, then the corporate people would be just fine. There is a large amount of art in developing speakers and corporations just don’t understand that. So I feel more comfortable developing product here than at any company I have ever worked for.

Q: There are many variants in crossover design. Do you have your own take that makes your speakers distinct?

Carl Marchisotto: First of all, in my view, the speaker design determines the appropriate crossover topology design. To decide this, I use a great deal of listening along with many years of experience. The goal is to produce a complete speaker, regardless of price, that achieves the sound that Nola is known for. This may require the use of a one-capacitor crossover board in one model, all the way to seven separate hand-wired crossover boards in another model. That is not to say that the entry level Boxer is equal to the 4-tower Grand Reference, but that the Boxer still reveals some of the sonic cues of “live music.” Some of my practices that are not implemented within standard corporate structures are: I listen to individual crossover components before they are installed in a production crossover to check quality. We use only hand-wired crossover construction with low loss and not inferior printed circuit boards (with their very thin conductors) for crossovers in all models. There are no fuses or other current limiting devices used in either the crossovers or loudspeakers. Crossover boards are isolated from vibration to reduce coloration. We use only lead-free silver solder for all connections in all models.

Nola Grand Reference crossover

Q: Staying with speaker design. Most of your speaker designs are open baffle. My understanding is there were open baffle designs back as far as the 50s and maybe before, but I think the Dahlquist DQ-10 was the first practical speaker design using an open baffle concept. Do you want to expand on why?

Carl Marchisotto: Open baffle woofers have large problems, and are just not as practical. So for dynamic systems the woofer is in an enclosure and the open baffle really starts with the mid-range on up. So the DQ-10 was the first practical and recognized component open baffle dynamic speaker. I am not talking about planar designs like electrostats and ribbons,

Q: And you became a big proponent of the open baffle dynamic speaker design?

Carl Marchisotto: Yes, I liked it. Jon made it for practicality reasons. Unlike me, Jon had a philosophy that he felt almost anything could work, I have a philosophy that only what I like works. So we were completely different in that sense. But I respected him and he respected me. One of the things that made the DQ-10 outstanding was that the little mid-bass driver was open baffle and that made the design, in my opinion, outstanding. And it turned out that it was the only way he could make the design work. He really wanted to put the mid-bass driver in a little box, but every time he did that it destroyed the sound. Eventually he figured it out and gave up and put it on a little baffle.

It’s kind of interesting sometimes that things work out in unexpected ways. But if you listen, have a good ear and an open mind, you won’t be fooled. So when one of his ideas didn’t work, he adapted. And to me that dipole mid-bass made all the difference, and sounded more like “live music” than a constrained system in a box.

Dahlquist DQ-10

Q: You have been getting stellar reviews of your speakers for nearly three decades now. You are probably best known for your ultra-high-end speakers like the Grand Reference, but you have also received recognition for your far more affordable speakers like the Boxer and more recently the Brio. Are you planning anymore speakers in that vein?

Carl Marchisotto: The problem that I have is when I was at Alon we made an open-baffle speaker called the Alon 1. They started out at $1,200 per pair. It was a three-way open-baffle speaker with grilles and all that goes with it. In those days you could actually make that design for a very reasonable price. Today there is no way I can touch making something like that at anywhere near that price. I would love to make a $2,000 floor standing open-baffle speaker, but it is just impossible. People don’t understand that building an open-baffle speaker is inherently more expensive than building a box speaker. A box speaker has fewer parts, which leads to lower cost production and much reduced labor costs. It is not the best way to go, but it’s much less expensive.

Alon I without grill

The Brio was my idea of coming out with an open baffle design for $3,500. With our design of a very good powered sub-woofer that we produce, we made a full range open baffle system that didn’t cost a fortune. And it is user friendly and wife friendly because the satellites are small. So it did a lot of things that at least checked some boxes. But that’s the only way I could bring a more cost effective open baffle system to market in 2020. It is a whole different world price-wise than what we ran into in 1990.

Q: I remember how good the first Boxer was. Now you are on version III of the Boxer. What have you done with that over the years?

Carl Marchisotto: The Boxer S2, a couple of years back at RMAF, won a Best Sound Award, which is an honor for a speaker that is only $3,500 a pair; just a pair of those, no sub-woofer or anything, driven by really good electronics. I prefer tubes, and that combination actually impressed me because it wasn’t even close to our best effort. Yet it was recognized as very musical and a lot of people liked it. What’s interesting to me is you can never judge what people are going to like. People formed an affinity for the Boxer from the first time we delivered them in 2009, and still to the present, to music lovers worldwide. I’m not going to change them too much; I do upgrade them but the basic design will stay the same. I’m not going to fool with success because people like them, and I like them.

Q: Carl it’s been fabulous chatting with you and I have one final question. Are you ever going to retire?

Carl Marchisotto: I’m probably going to have to at some point. I don’t want to. I don’t know, but it would be nice if I can get somebody to buy this company, where I can operate in some sort of advisory capacity or something like that. I am undecided. That’s a good question, I’ll have to think about that.

I hope you enjoyed this conversation. If you have any questions, comments or recommendations for other articles, please send me an email to [email protected]

Nola Speakers
1511 Lincoln Avenue|
Holbrook, NY 11741
Voice: (631) 738-2540
Fax: (631) 738-2542
nolaspeakers.com

Copy editor: Dan Rubin

I honestly feel that your productivity can improve with a more positive work environment. Studies have shown certain classical music creates the “Mozart Effect” that can improve memory, awareness, and the integration of learning styles, which can help creativity. This all sounds good, but let’s be honest, I kept a turntable in my office because I enjoyed listening to records. I am sure this increased my productivity, although I doubt it made me more creative. But it motivated me to stay at work longer because I enjoyed the environment, which included having a high-end stereo, albeit entry level. I would sometimes go to my office on weekends, not to work, but to fool around with my work stereo, such as maybe trying a different amplifier or switching tubes. There were times when I wanted to be as far away from work as possible; with an office stereo, I could crank it up, close my eyes, and be transported to someplace else. Fortunately, I had very tolerant co-workers; I was never told, not even once, to turn it down. I did normally listen at moderate levels.

The pandemic has changed the way a number of employees go to work. No longer do they have to take a shower, get nicely dressed and drive to an office. Many people now just roll out of bed and go to a different room while still in their pajamas. The big disadvantage to me is now there is no separation between work and home.

We spend so much time working, why not improve the work environment? Listening to streamed music through a pair of computer speakers or built-in ceiling speakers is not my cup of tea. There is an abundance of reasonably priced products out there that do not take a lot of space and can enhance the experience. We spend so much time working, making the work environment more pleasant may improve your outlook on work. I wrote this article to give you my approach and also offer reasons why this also may make working from home more enjoyable.

I originally based my office stereo around a pair of Magnepan speakers. I eventually moved to a smaller office, so I purchased a pair of inexpensive Acoustic Energy bookshelf speakers. This would be a more practical approach for most. I am not a fan of bookshelf speakers, although these sat on a shelf right above me, which I did enjoy listening to for hours at a time. Because you would now be listening relatively close to the speakers, I recommend that you stay away from more detailed-sounding speakers to avoid listener fatigue. My Acoustic Energy speakers had rolled off highs, which made listening for hours a pleasant experience. There are a number of quality bookshelf speakers out there for under $300 and they sound decent even when put on a shelf.

A turntable in your home office can enhance your listening experience as long as you don’t mind flipping records every 20 minutes. This can give you a chance to stretch your legs, although it may ruin your train of thought. I used an inexpensive Goldring turntable (Rega Planar 2 clone), which came with a Goldring Electra phono cartridge. Despite the low cost, I really enjoyed playing records while working. There are a number of turntables out there for under $500. Just stay away from the really cheap, poorly made brands that can ruin your records from a single play. I am sure you have heard of some of the more infamous brands that offer turntables built in a suitcase. My publisher probably won’t let me mention any names like Crosley.

You need a phono stage if you use a turntable. This is not a problem as there are many affordable quality phono stages out there, including the iFi ZEN that I reviewed last year. Some integrated amplifiers include a phono stage, such as the new Parasound integrated amplifier that I hope to review in the upcoming months when they become available.

The one area that I would change would be my electronics. I used a number of combinations at work, including both tubes and solid state. I also listened to CDs with my Sony ES compact disc player. Listening habits have changed. Many newer integrated amplifiers allow you to hook up your computer and stream music using their built-in DAC (digital to analog converter). There are a number of quality modern integrated amplifiers out there that can simplify your home office stereo, such as the Wyred4Sound integrated amplifier I reviewed a couple of years ago.

I used inexpensive Monster speaker cable because it was easier to run the cable in back of my desk and cabinets. It was also very easy to connect to both the speakers and amplifiers. I tried some cheap interconnects, which gave me problems with noise, so I switched to Monster interconnects, which did the job. This is supposed to be a work area so you need to be practical.

One way to start the process of building a home office stereo system is to use some of your existing components. I did this and it gave me an excuse to upgrade components for the main stereo. I ended up shuttling components between home and office. It may not have been the most efficient use of time, but I enjoyed doing it. Working from home makes this a lot easier.

I am sure my stereo improved my productivity at work; however, a more important factor was it significantly reduced stress, especially when preparing for an IRS audit or preparing for a major year-end meeting with a big client. Most careers involve some sort of stress, which is why I recommend putting a quality high-end stereo in your home office. It may make working a little less stressful and a little more enjoyable.

Copy editor: Dan Rubin

I have always been a huge fan of Roger West. owner and designer of Sound Lab electrostatic panel speakers. I make no apologies for my love of his giant Ultimate I full-range electrostatic speakers. I have listened to thousands of speakers over my 52 years in audio, from the very cheapest to systems costing over a million dollars. But for me, the most realistic sound with the very best presentation is the Sound Lab Ultimate I. (For me, it’s my Majestic 645. -Pub.)

I sold Sound Lab speakers for many years when I was in retail, so  I will admit to a bias when it comes to Roger West and his products. Roger has had a long and fruitful career that puts him on the list of the world’s best speaker designers ever. The following is an interview with Roger West. I sincerely hope you enjoy it.

Q: When did you first become interested in speaker design and audio in general?

Roger West:  My initial exposure to audio came from a young man named Ray Dolby (creator of Dolby Labs) that lived two houses up the street from me. We attended high school together and we became friends. I was impressed by his intense interest in sound reproduction, which rubbed off on me and became of great interest. Our association continued into college years and beyond. We both studied electronic engineering at San Jose State University. Ray worked for Ampex Corporation, who developed and manufactured professional audio and video tape recorders. He invited me to attend the first promotional demonstration of a stereo tape recorder designed for use in Hollywood productions, which introduced the miracle of stereo sound to movies. This only added to my addiction to audio.

Q: Can you tell our readers something about your early years growing up?

Roger West:  My father was a structural engineer and also had a contracting business in the San Francisco Bay Area. He designed and built many beautiful homes and smaller commercial buildings. I worked for him during summers as an apprentice carpenter and other construction duties. He was a great example and greatly influenced my interest in engineering.

Q: I understand you attended Santa Clara University. What was your area of study?

Roger West: During early college I worked part time for Jobbins Electronics, a small California company that manufactured electronic transformers and solenoids that used coils made of oxidized aluminum foil instead of varnished wire. After earning a bachelor of science degree in electronic engineering (BSEE) I was employed in the Bay Area aerospace industry as an electronics engineer for seven years as a member of a team developing electronics for satellite tracking systems. I worked for both Philco-Ford and Sylvania Electronic Products. Sylvania had a program that supported working part time on advanced degrees, of which I took advantage. This effort culminated in a master’s degree in electronics engineering from Santa Clara University.

Q: You received your Doctorate from Stanford University, a PhD with a specialty in Psycho-Acoustical Engineering. This seems like a leap from your studies at Santa Clara. What prompted your interest in psycho-acoustics?

Roger West: All the time I was working in the aerospace business I was nurturing my interest in high-end audio. I made friends with a physician at the Stanford Medical Center who read a report I had written for one of my engineering classes having to do with how different approaches to amplifier designs affect the perception of music. He requested my permission to let a colleague read the paper, to which I consented. His colleague, who was the department head of the audiology and psycho-acoustics department of the medical school, invited me to his office and point blank offered me a fellowship to study psycho-acoustics. I was astounded by his offer and without any hesitation accepted it. Thus, began my life at Stanford resulting in a special doctorate I refer to as psycho-acoustical engineering. I also accepted a three year post-doctoral scholarship in which I deepened my studies of psycho-acoustics as related to audio design.

Q: Utah is a beautiful state. When did you decide to move to Utah and why?

Roger West: My family roots are in Utah and I lived there until I was about 10 years old, long enough to develop roots. At that time my father worked for the government as a structural engineer. He was transferred to California, where I attended college and worked in the aerospace industry as an electronics engineer. I always nursed a desire to return to Utah.

Q: As you know, I have been a huge fan and promoter of electrostatic speakers for over 45 years and am proud to say I was one of your dealers for many years. How did you get involved with electrostatic speaker development? Who influenced you and how?​

Roger West: Though I’ve had an interest in high-end audio from a relatively young age I had no idea that I would be professionally involved in it. Here’s how it happened. When I finished my post doc stint, I was interested in finding a teaching position at a Utah university. I applied at several institutions and Utah State University offered me a position, but they were unable to fund it immediately. I was asked if I could “tread water,” so to speak, until funding came. At the time I had a friend who was a vice president of a Minnesota corporation, Electronic Industries. The corporation owned several companies, including one by the name of JansZen Electrostatic. Upon learning of my delayed career situation, my friend suggested that I temporarily come to Minnesota and develop some fresh speaker designs for them until things worked out at the University. I actually felt a surge of excitement come over me and accepted his offer.

JanZen Z412

My initial excitement grew roots and I decided to remain for a while. I was offered the position of Vice President of Engineering which, after some thought, I accepted. Teaching at the University would have been a nice career but compared to audio design it didn’t hold the romance aspect for me. I spent seven years at JansZen  designing a new series of speakers, including an advanced electrostatic panel that we still use in our hybrid models today. I also had a small personal company on the side and developed Phantom Powering, which made professional condenser microphones compatible with the industry standard three-conductor cable systems, for which I received a patent.

Q: You and Dale Ream founded Sound Lab back in 1978. How did you meet Dr. Dale Ream and what was your motivation for creating Sound Lab?  but I don’t know anything about your career history prior to that time. Would you like to elaborate on that?

Roger West: I met Dale while I was a student at Stanford. At the time he was completing his medical degree. I introduced him to high-end audio and he became “hooked” like me. We continued our friendship during the time I worked at JansZen Electrostatic. I mentioned to him one day that I thought it would be possible to develop a truly full-range electrostatic speaker. He strongly encouraged me to work on the concept. I was finally convinced of the possibility of a truly full-range electrostatic speaker and asked the hierarchy of Electronic Industries for permission to proceed in this direction. I was flatly turned down as they were only interested in small hybrid-type speakers from a marketing standpoint. Upon mentioning this to Dale he suggested that we form our own full-range electrostatic speaker company, which was the beginning of Sound Lab.

Sound Lab Ultimate 745

Q: What is the basic philosophy for Sound Lab designs?

Roger West: I could probably write a book in answer to this question, but I’ll keep it short. In contemplating what the perfect loudspeaker approach might be I initially considered the following parameters:

1. 1. A single membrane from which all frequencies would radiate. This would preserve the phase relationship of all frequencies in the music being reproduced. In technical terms this means perfect time-alignment.
   2. Eliminate as much as possible anything that creates an anomaly within the audio spectrum. This suggests among other things the elimination of the use of an enclosure and implies a dipole radiator configuration.
   3. Uniform full-spectrum radiation throughout the listening room and simultaneously reducing wall, floor and ceiling reflections. The line-source configuration using controlled full-spectrum horizontal dispersion satisfies this requirement. Anywhere within the dispersion limits of the speaker the frequency response should not vary.
   4. Bass response down to the 20Hz range with acceptable dynamics.
   5. Provision for independent adjustment of bass frequencies, mid frequencies and high frequencies to compensate for differing acoustical environments, variations of recording characteristics, audio equipment differences and personal taste. This is necessary since most available pre-amps no longer provide frequency compensation.
   6. Immunity from changes in the environment, such as line voltage variations, changes in temperature and humidity, and so forth.
   7. Good sensitivity and excellent reliability.
   8. An acceptable physical appearance.

For the sake of brevity, I found that a properly designed single-membrane, push-pull electrostatic panel that was tall enough to be considered a reasonable line source fulfilled the above requirements. If one desires to understand how I came to these conclusions I recommend reading the “White Paper” that I’ve placed on our website. [Also see Design Notes 3: Sound Lab “The Complete White Paper”]

Q: Over the years, have you discovered any issues related to electrostatic loudspeaker technology?

Roger West: Basically, I feel that the only limitations to electrostatic speaker technology rest with the designer. I submit that thunder and lightning represent the “great electrostatic speaker in the sky,” which says a lot for the possible dynamic range and ultimate potential of the technology. On a practical level, developing a high-end electrostatic speaker has presented quite a few issues, such as the ability of the materials in the speaker to withstand high voltage potentials, sea-salt atmospheres, cold and hot temperatures, a membrane resistant to air-borne particulates such as tobacco smoke, cooking oil droplets, insect spray, plant fertilizer spray, UV and anything else that might possibly occur within a home environment. After completing the design phase, which is pretty much straight forward, I encountered the most challenging aspect: reliability. Finding materials that can withstand high voltages, reasonable abuse and adverse environmental factors has taken years to accomplish. Like Thomas Edison, he knew of 10,000 things that won’t make a reliable light bulb filament, we likewise became familiar with many materials and approaches that don’t satisfy the necessary requirements of a truly high-end electrostatic speaker. The carrot we are chasing is that as the Sound Lab electrostatic speaker technology continues to advance, we are convinced it will someday be seen as the most ideal speaker technology due to the very low moving mass and the uniform driving force over the entire moving membrane.

Q: As many of our readers are aware, Sound Lab has become one of the most renown and respected High End speaker manufacturers. Would you like to elaborate on what you attribute your success to?

Roger West: Of course, there is more than one facet to the meaning of “success”. High profitability is probably the most common interpretation, but that is not our highest success priority. I consider that we have been and are very successful in terms of technical development, high quality production and customer satisfaction. Without doubt we’ve been sufficiently successful from an income standpoint to sustain our business for over 40 years. Notwithstanding, I would say that the most important element as to why Sound Lab has continued in business for such an extended period is, in one word: perseverance. I’m sure that most developers have made mistakes, and we are certainly no exception. Over the challenging times we have not lost the vision of our goal: an optimized truly full-range electrostatic speaker. Many different materials and techniques have been tried and many have not worked out. In contrast, through 40 years of persistence we have discovered materials and designs that are essential to the success of our products. I look upon our company as a research and development organization that makes an adequate profit to continue doing business.

Q: Do your speakers utilize a crossover?

Roger West: Our basic design incorporates a special audio step-up transformer for lower frequency reproduction and a toroidal audio step-up transformer for high frequency reproduction. Both of these transformers are optimized for the segment of the audio spectrum that they cover. To restrict the operation of these units to the band pass for which they are optimized, filters are required. The upper frequency that the low-frequency transformer rolls off is precisely the lower frequency limit of the toroidal transformer. This filter network could be referred to as a crossover network, since it does essentially the same job as a network that separates a dynamic woofer and tweeter. However, our panels do not employ separate drivers, and therefore I personally don’t like to use the term “crossover” since in many people’s minds it suggests the use of separate drivers.

Sound Lab Dynastat hybrid electrostat

Q: Do you have your own take that makes your speakers distinct?

Roger West: From the beginning our intent has been to eliminate as many factors as possible that cause the performance of speakers to depart from accurate reproduction, both spectrally and spatially. To achieve this ideal we employ the following techniques. The main feature is the use of a single membrane from which all frequencies radiate, providing perfect time alignment of all frequencies. Secondly, the frequency spectrum of the off-axis response of the speaker should not vary from that of the on-line spectral response so that listening off-axis provides the same sound quality as listening on-axis, thus providing an off-axis realistically skewed image. Thirdly, using a line-source format, which greatly reduces the image-damaging reflective field in the listening room, and which provides a life-size image when standing or sitting.

S.A.L.L.I.E. Sound Absorber

Q: You have been getting stellar reviews of your speakers for decades, and are probably best known for your ultra high-end speakers. You have expanded the line over the years to include hybrid speakers, custom installation speakers, the MiniStat bookshelf speaker and accessories like the S.A.L.L.I.E., Do you have any plans for more expansion with different products like that?

Roger West: As you mention, we have explored different approaches and applications of electrostatic speaker technology. From a purist standpoint we feel that the single-membrane line-source is the epitome of our efforts, but necessarily the size is large due to the large radiating area requirements of reproducing lower frequencies. Since full-range panels are large and relatively costly to manufacture we have developed a line of hybrids that employ conventional dynamic woofers, which reduces size and cost. Further, we have discovered that the clear, undistorted sound of electrostatic drivers carries the audibility of speech for greater distances than conventional speakers. The comparatively larger size of electrostatic panels increases directivity which also helps to penetrate distance. However, when wider dispersion is desired, we use acoustical lenses to create and control larger dispersion angles. As such, we have very successfully used electrostats in auditoriums and other public venues. Further, we have developed a self-bias technology that eliminates the need to distribute AC power to the speakers. This has resulted in a line of successful commercial electrostatic speakers. We now have a company that markets our products in the commercial market. Our website now includes our commercial products.

Q: I retired a few years ago and started writing for Dagogo. I did a little digging and discovered you may not have road to retirement and a successor for Sound Lab. Do you have any comment as to the future of your company?

Roger West: It is true that I have passed the usual age of retirement. Let me say that I have many things in mind that I would like to research concerning electrostatic technology. I personally feel that the day will come when electrostatic technology will dominate high-end audio. There is still much to be done to realize this, and I want to continue to be a part of it. If for some reason I choose to retire my major employees have been with me for decades and were I to leave the team, the team would definitely continue on without me.

Q: This year has been a challenge for many companies due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Have you had to adapt to deal with the changes in the industry?

Roger West:  Quite frankly, my design and development work has for decades been centered in my home laboratory. As a result, I have not personally felt the impact of the pandemic. I had expected that speaker orders might begin to reduce as a result of the lockdowns that the government has decreed, but to my astonishment we are quite busy. I attribute this to the lockdown wherein people spend more time at home. Further, I feel it’s an indication that the power of music is more important in these trying days.

Q: Before we end, is there anything you would like to add?

Roger West: In retrospect, we have always been a smaller sized company ever since we began in 1978. Our intent has been to develop the most perfect electrostatic speaker technology. We have never envisioned becoming a large dominant corporation since electrostatic speakers are a largely unknown technology. Our business model has been to find those people in the world who personally prefer full-range electrostatic speakers. Our advertising has been minimal with the exception of having a website and exhibiting our ware at audio shows, where on occasion we have been dubbed “best sound at the show” by some reviewers. Does this mean that we are the best speakers at the show? Not necessarily since that is a personal opinion. It’s more probable that the reviewer simply prefers electrostatic sound. Our major means of soliciting sales has been by the word of mouth of satisfied customers. In spite of our minimal marketing exposure, we receive inquiries from all parts of the world. Fortunately, there has been a sufficiently large population of electrostatic speaker lovers to keep us in business for over 40 years. Further, marketing by “word of mouth” has resulted in virtually zero dissatisfied customers. We invite people to listen to our products to determine if they are a potential electrostatic speaker enthusiast. If they are, addiction is usually instantaneous.

Occasionally, we are asked the baited question: “Whom do you feel manufactures the best loudspeaker?”  My answer is simply, “the one you prefer listening to the most.”We all have different tastes.

My final admonition: “Listen before buying.”

-End of Q&A

Since Roger brought it up, I want to put my vote in and say that Sound Lab are the BEST of SHOW regardless of the competition.

I want to thank Dr. West for his time and valuable information. I also look forward to spending time with him at a future California Audio Show. It has been far too long since I have had the pleasure to visit in person. I also urge any of my readers who have not had the opportunity to experience one of his speakers to reach out to his team to arrange a personal audition.

Copy editor: Dan Rubin

More suggested reading: An Hour With Dr. Roger West (A California Audio Show 2019 Experience)

It has been nearly a decade since I wrote the last, #6 Audiophile Law, “Thou Shalt Not Overemphasize Burn In.” At the time I thought it might create a firestorm of conversation and controversy. Instead, there was the distinct sound of the wind blowing; largely, no push back, no big discussion. What do I make of that, and the fact that when I link to it in threads there still is not much argument? Perhaps the article was so well argued that there is not much to debate. The other possibility is that audiophiles are so arrogant, so self-confident, that they cannot be bothered by such an inconvenience as a test showing they fantasize changes to systems that do not exist. Never underestimate the hubris of an audiophile in such matters!

The comparisons chronicled in that article moved me to fundamentally change the way I operate as an audiophile — and how I review. I summarily ceased paying attention to the nebulous phenomenon of “burn in” and no longer concern myself about warm up of equipment. I concluded that attempting to work with these actually hinders the audiophile from making progress with their system. Consequently, I make changes to systems much faster now, trusting my ears, and get to an optimized system more quickly. I stopped using insipid methods.

If the circumstances allow, I circle back to things that I have experienced in the past to see if anything significant has changed. I did my own work with sets of cables prior to when I started reviewing, and that formed the basis for my methods with an emphasis on proper assessment requiring comparison of sets of cables. Since then, I have taken the time intermittently to conduct cable reviews, always working with a full set from the manufacturer. I dabble occasionally in dynamic, panel, and hybrid speakers, and float between the genres. A few times I drifted between solid state amps and tube amps, and lately have returned to what I would consider my third round of assessment of class D amplification. Each cycle of involvement has been instructive. For instance, the amp used in the comparisons here, the Legacy Audio i.V4 Ultra (four channel version as indicated by “4”), has forced an update of my opinion of the sound quality of class D amplification to such a degree that I am making some changes to how I review. You can read about this amp in the review to appear at Dagogo.

The comparison discussed below will follow the same methodology as in the first article. I do not have an additional set of ears for this set of tests, because most of my audiophile friends are isolating due to Covid-19. But I am not willing to push this article off indefinitely.

Those interested in my previous discussion of the topic should read my original article, where I use the terms “burn in” and “break in” synonymously. Technically, there are supposed to be distinctions between them, but not experientially. Does the capacitor “burn in”? Does the speaker driver “break in”? Does a cable burn in or break in? Debating such things, apart from appreciation of the manufacturing process, is of little value in terms of actually building a superior rig. The purported result is supposed to be the same, an easily distinguished audible change over time. My bias in the matter is that, especially after the first set of comparisons, no audiophile can hear purported changes over time, and no changes were revealed in direct comparison when put to the test. Having admitted my bias, I attempted to return to the comparisons with a mental tabula rasa.

It should be evident that I do not hold such conclusions absolutely, as though there can be no alternative outcomes or advancements that could change the outcome, for I am returning to comparisons. Just as I am returning to working with class D amps, I am returning to comparisons of tweaks and will either find further support for my previous conclusions, or contradictory evidence, forcing me to rethink them. This is a possibility, as returning to class D amps has led to a rethink in regards to their quality and suitability for two channel reference listening. However, in terms of the comparisons under study here, it must be admitted that the degree of change between an amp circuit and a weight or isolation puck is large, thereby theoretically reducing the potential for a reversal of my previous conclusions.

The System

The system comprised a digital front end: Small Green Computer sonicTransporter AP i7 4T with SMG 5V Linear Power Supply; SONORE Signature Rendu SE with systemOptique optical network; Clarity Cable Supernatural USB (1m); Exogal Comet DAC with Plus Power Supply. Also: Iconoclast by Belden “Generation 2” XLR Interconnects; Legacy Audio i.V4 Ultra Amplifier; Iconoclast by Belden SPTPC (Silver Plated Tough Pitch Copper) Speaker Cables, spade terminations; Salk Sound SS 9.5 Speakers. All power cords Belden (BAV) Power Cables with 15A IEC, with the exception of a Clarity Cable Vortex PC on the Legacy amp. The music source was Tidal’s upper tier service, played through Roon’s media software; all settings of Roon’s Digital Engine were turned Off. The cables and amplifier in the “optimized” system were broken in for 200 hours.

This comparison has an emphasis less on components and more on what would be considered tweaks or methods. The eight variables under testing were: Broken in power cord, interconnects, speaker cables, and amplifier; amp stand; isolation cones under amp footers; weights atop the amp; and warmed up amplifier VS none of these tweaks or methods. Stop to consider for a moment the import of stacked conditions under comparison. All have been claimed to be important in terms of purported sonic change that supposedly is not only significant, but is often discussed with adjectives such as “huge,” and promoted as vital for system building to obtain synergy or optimal results. This article is not assessing impact of isolation on analogue sources, or warm up of tube equipment, though I did treat that topic in my previous article. An air of superiority surrounds those who use such methods, and persons who neglect them might be ridiculed as not being shrewd in methods of system advancement.

Results

As a lead in to the results, I remind the reader that in order for a change in sound to pass my Law of Efficacy, it must be immediately noticeable, repeatable and significant enough to be thought of as a large/big change.

The music selected included large and small venue recordings, chiefly vocals and acoustic instruments. Male and female voices were used, and some symphonic music.

The two systems, “optimized” vs “non-optimized”, were set up allowing for only interconnects and speaker cables needing to be changed, which were in position, ready to be changed to economize on time. Burned in cables were marked with masking tape to avoid potential confusion. I allowed the optimized system to warm up for one hour, while the new Legacy Audio i.V4 Amplifier had never been turned on previously. I had kept it aside waiting for months for this series of comparisons.

Starting with the warmed up, optimized system, I played “Straight On ‘Till Morning” from the Wendy original soundtrack, followed immediately by “Hey Eugene (Watch Your Back)” by Pink Martini. The speaker cables and interconnects were changed with the listening level on the Exogal Comet’s digital dial matched (all tracks were played back at a setting of “77”), then the tracks were played back in reverse order, ensuring the most recent acoustic memory was preserved for assessment. No difference in the presentation of the music was detected. The optimized system failed the Law of Efficacy.

For the second round I began with the system configured with the non-optimized set of equipment, then after hearing two tracks, reverted to the optimized system. I chose two different tracks, “Holy Water (Church Sessions)” by We The Kingdom, and “Everybody’s Cryin’ Mercy” by Jamison Ross. The results were consistent with the first round; no change in the sound between the two sets of equipment. The optimized system failed the Law of Efficacy.

The final round began with the optimized system and, as with the first round, moved to the non-optimized set. The music used for this set of comparisons was Acoustic Alchemy’s “Templemeads” from Live in London, and Don Williams’s “I’m Just A Country Boy.” Once again, there was no discernible difference between the sound of the optimized and non-optimized equipment. The optimized system failed the Law of Efficacy.

The results between the systems were so consistent that there were moments I preferred emotionally the sound of the new equipment, even though I could not identify any difference and the systems were identical! I could not isolate any parameter of sound quality that had changed between the two systems. I particularly listened for changes in tone, decay, definition, headroom, frequency extension, coherence of drivers, transients, and both macrodynamics and microdynamics. The results were so similar that, for illustration, I was able to hear breathing and lips parting in equal measure between the two systems. I remind the reader that I spend a tremendous amount of time —hundreds of hours every year — assessing systems for sound quality – essentially, all my time spent in listening is in analysis of sound quality. I rather enjoy critiquing the sound quality, and build systems regularly to attain higher sound quality. I constantly hear nuances, differences associated with substitution of cables and components, not to mention speakers. When two systems sound the same to my ears, when comprised of the same equipment, they are for practical purposes the same. This stands to reason, as nothing was demonstrably different in the actual treatment of the signal; the precise same equipment was used, down to the power cords, so why would there be any expectation of significant change to the sound? The outcome was precisely as one would expect of two systems comprised of the same cables, components and speakers!

Note that this was as close to real time comparison as allowed. If had a switch box I believe it would have resulted in the same outcome. It is over time, days or weeks, that audiophiles think they hear changes due to the eight variables tested, but timely comparison shows it is not happening. It would be wonderful if simple use improved one’s system audibly, but this flies in the face of both sensibility and reality. This experience, in concordance with the outcome ten years ago, reinforces it is an audiophile fantasy that changes are heard to audio systems over longer periods of time, and that equipment changes its performance audibly with use.

A conclusion not easily dismissed, except by the arrogant

Stacking these conditions or tweaks is a judgment of the lot of them. These are some of the most revered tweaks used by thousands of audiophiles, and they are promoted continuously as efficacious. Obviously, very few people, including manufacturers and reviewers, are actually conducting comparisons, for they fall prey to the same misnomers as the rest of the community. In fact, they promote the same misnomers while appealing to their authority!

Probabilistic analysis shows that as more conditions/tweaks are added to the testing, my conclusion becomes stronger. Taking the example of flipping a coin, where the probability is ½, or .5, and attempting to flip 8 heads in a row yields a .0039% chance of success. I approached the task similarly, starting with the presumption that each element of the comparison had a 50/50 chance of conferring audible change to the sound (it either does or it doesn’t). The conclusion is clear; it is far more unlikely that the components had a 50/50 chance of changing sonically than to conclude that in all eight instances there was a change that happened to not be detectable. There is a .0039%, approximately four thousandths of one percent chance for that outcome! It becomes obvious that the expectation of a change is specious, and the odds of it happening are vanishingly low. Ergo, it is a waste of time for the audiophile to pay attention to break in, tweaks involving vibration control, and warm up. These have been heralded as essential methods, absolute methods of premium system building, yet they do nothing to alter the sound.

One might argue that I weighted the odds of a change of sound quality attributed to an isolation device, or a weight atop an amp, perhaps warm up, too favorably. Someone might argue that they deserve only a 25% chance of occurrence. This argument is a slippery slope, with no chance of verification. My assumption of a 50/50 chance is predicated upon the notion that if these items do change, the change will be audible. If not, then why bother to adhere to the method or tweak at all? They either do or do not change the sound of a system audibly. Probabilistically, the results are strongly against any of them having meaning for the audiophile, especially when the previous article’s trials are taken into consideration!

Objections

What objections can be mustered in the face of such a pitiful outcome by eight purportedly important methods of system building? Dismissal of my hearing acuity has no particular force, given the body of work I have created in regard to dissecting sound quality, and the optimized environment, as quiet at a mastering studio, in which the testing proceeded. The procedure I followed more closely mirrors blind testing than the long term, infrequent comparisons that characterize subjective conclusions on the efficacy of methods and tweaks similar to the ones tested. Most hard-headed audiophiles, due to nothing more than hubris, an appeal to their hearing apart from comparisons, will dismiss the results out of hand. It is too difficult for some audiophiles to admit that much of what they want to believe is happening is not, and that their longer-term acoustic memory is poor.

Likely the most popular objection to my testing will be an appeal to a favored designer or manufacturer, or the weak argument that the 200 hours of break in was insufficient to reveal a change in sound. To the charge that I used the wrong products I reply, you prove otherwise! Please, have at it! Go obtain the Clarity Cable isolation devices and weight for the top of the amp, then compare to like products from other manufacturers. The results also speak to the testimonials of persons who have compared competing isolation products and claimed to hear a difference. There is no resolution of this difference of opinion short of a demo where the ears of conflicting parties are in attendance. Graphs and charts of diminishment of vibration are insufficient to demonstrate the change is audible, and attention should be paid to the scale used in the graphs, as the measurements may be insignificant. I encourage fanatics of cable break in to secure two identical new sets, spend the time to break in one set, then conduct a comparison. Perhaps you would like to put in the money, time and effort to speak with experience.

Regarding the claim of insufficient break in, it begs the question, presuming that adequate break in time brings an audible change. It is well known that there is no demonstrable accepted period for burn in/break in, and recommendations range from none to more than 500 hours! I suggest that there is no audiophile alive who can measure the demonstrated effect of the degradation of electronics over time compared to the putative improvement of their sound with use.

Don’t believe me? You do the testing!!

I will have many critics, naysayers, in regard to this article. Why don’t you do the testing? If you want to be so serious about your break in, warm up and tweaks, then you compare! Be prepared to see for yourself that you have been wrong, and try to come to grips with the failure of dearly loved practices that are supposed to define serious audiophilia. Many will counter with one of the most arrogant claims in audiophilia, “I don’t have to; I know I’m right!” I used to talk the same way in regard to such matters back when I was an arrogant audiophile who wouldn’t spend a dime, take a moment, or lift a finger to test it! What changed? I became a reviewer, so now I have the equipment on loan to me at no cost, and thus the motivation to conduct the testing is higher.

Who is “selling” now?

I see an irony in all of this; as a reviewer I am regularly accused directly or indirectly of “selling,” as though I have an agenda to promote questionable methods and products without regard to the audiophile’s fiscal welfare. Let it be noted that herewith, I recommend avoidance of fancy audiophile tweaks for isolation, room tuning and system setup services or sales using peripheral objects, and purchase decisions predicated upon acceptance of phenomena such as break in or warmup. I am a staunch proponent of building better systems by methods that pass my Law of Efficacy, among them:

-Comparison of full sets of cables

-Avoidance of esoteric products that will not “play nice” with most equipment

-Proper tuning of a room using panels, diffusors, and bass traps

-Ideal positioning of the speakers, but not as replacement for equipment upgrades

-Clean higher power amplification and (ideally) higher efficiency speakers

-Pursuit of significant technological changes to genres of equipment

What will I be doing going forward?

How will I apply what I have learned from these tests? They confirm my decision a decade ago to stop sitting around waiting for things to change. They confirm my decision to stop seeking significant system change through peripheral means, but to focus on what influences the power and signal paths. They affirm my resolution to be proactive, not inactive in resolving disappointment in a system’s sound.

I will be building systems, as I have for the past decade. I will change them aggressively until I make them sound pleasing to me. I will not wait for warm up, burn in, break in, or pixie dust to fall from the heavens. I will not walk away for a week and pretend I hear something different. I will trust that manufacturers can make gear that is more consistent in operation than my subjective hearing over a week or a month. In brief, I will continue to trim the nonsense from the hobby, and I invite others to follow my lead.

Copy editor: Dan Rubin