Accuphase DG-68 Digital Voicing Equalizer December 2021

Jason Victor Serinus returned to the Accuphase DG-68 in December 2021 (Vol.44 No.12):

There was nothing equivocal in my August 2021 review of the Accuphase DG-68 Digital Voicing Equalizer ($24,000). Calling it "among the most enlightening and consequential" audio products I've spent time with, I affirmed that it "enriched my experience of reproduced music far more than I could have imagined." I found it a transformational product that performed "flawlessly, to oft-astounding effect."

For better or worse, forces cosmic and otherwise left insufficient time to explore all the DG-68's many functions. When I evaluated the DG-68's "Auto Voicing" function, for example, I chose the connection path that the company seemed to favor: analog all the way. The only modification I made to my customary setup—Roon Nucleus+ music server via Ethernet–>Rossini DAC/Rossini Clock combo, XLR analog out–>D'Agostino Momentum HD preamp, XLR analog out–>D'Agostino Progression monoblocks (footnote 1)—was the insertion of the DG-68 in the analog signal path between preamp and amps. In doing so, I followed Accuphase's recommendation, on page 52 of their extensive, well-illustrated manual: "In general, we recommend configurations that place the DG-68 between your preamp and power amp."

When I subsequently questioned the company about this recommendation, Accuphase's Kohei Nishigawa replied by email, "The connection between preamp and power amp is the most traditional configuration. It has the most major effect. [Because] all signals from the preamp can go through the DG-68 processing circuit, the whole system will benefit from the DG-68. On the other hand, placing it between the DAC and preamp also has the advantage that, if the customer is really focusing on CD playback, this configuration brings out the best of the DG-68's ADC performance as the CD player's signal output level is quite stable." Since, in my system, the dCS Rossini Transport and DAC/Clock together amount to a three-piece "CD player" with SACD capability, this seemed an acceptable alternative placement strategy.

Nonetheless, Technical Editor John Atkinson pointed out that sending signal into and out of the DG-68 via analog requires two extra, unnecessary conversions inside the DG-68: from analog to digital before the DG-68's processing and from digital to analog after. Since I was working from digital sources, why not do the DG-68's DSP magic while the signal was still digital? Clearly the DG-68 was made to work that way; it has digital inputs and outputs. So wouldn't skipping those extra A/D and D/A conversions make the music sound better?

When I wrote Nishigawa-san about this, his reply was noncommittal. "We have tuned the sound better when the customer connects the DG-68 with analog in and out, than the analog connection without the DG-68, direct cable connection," he wrote. There was only one way to find out: Using the same music, compare the sound with analog in and out—the maximum number of conversions—vs the sound with digital in and out, which requires the minimum number of conversions. Logic and conventional wisdom suggested that the latter would sound best. But since when do logic and convention always rule in the audiophile kingdom?

After this comparison was complete, I intended to explore as many of the other DG-68 functions as my tight deadline allowed.

In all my tests, I matched levels using the technique long advocated by former editor (and current technical editor) John Atkinson and seconded by current editor Jim Austin (footnote 2). Each time I evaluated a different connection scheme, I set the Rossini's maximum output to 2V, set its volume to 0dB to eliminate any effect of the volume control on the sound, and relied entirely on the preamp to control the volume. Then I played the 1kHz @ –20dB test tone track from a WAV rip of the Stereophile Editor's Choice CD and adjusted the preamp's output level until voltage measured as close as possible to 2V AC at one of my Wilson Alexia 2's speaker terminals. Doing this eliminated any chance that different output levels caused by changes in connections and equipment order might fool me into favoring the sound of one connection scheme over the other simply because it was louder.

I used the same three tracks throughout most of the review: Eriks Ešenvalds's "O salutaris hostia" from the Portland State Chamber Choir's superbly recorded Translations (24/96 WAV); the first two songs of Robert Schumann's Liederkreis, Op.24, handsomely performed by the resonant Icelandic bass-baritone Andri Björn Róbertsson with pianist Ástrídur Alda Sigurdardóttir on a new Fuga Libera recording, Thorsteinson & Schumann (24/96 WAV, FUG787); and Mozart's Overture from Le Nozze di Figaro, excitingly performed by Julien Chauvin and period instrument orchestra Le Concert de la Loge on the new Alpha recording, Mozart: Violin Concerto No.3; Symphony 'Jupiter'; Le Nozze di Figaro Overture (24/96 WAV, Alpha776).

That 2V output setting was a reference level not a listening level: It was too loud for that. But, with all three of these tracks, I could use the remote to lower the volume 14 steps on the preamp to achieve an appropriate listening level.

Reality checks
Reality Check #1: The DG-68 offers only three choices for digital in and out: coaxial (S/PDIF), TosLink, and the proprietary Accuphase HS-Link, which can only connect to other Accuphase products. Only the coax S/PDIF option was compatible with the Rossini's digital inputs and the cabling I had on hand.

This left me with but one digital connection scheme. To go S/PDIF into the DG-68, I fed USB from the Nucleus+ into a never-released Wavelength USB-to-S/PDIF converter that Gordon Rankin gave me many moons ago. From the Wavelength converter, signal went S/PDIF (digital) out–>DG-68, S/PDIF (digital) out–>Rossini DAC/Clock, XLR (analog) out–>preamp, and XLR (analog out)–>monoblocks.

Reality Check #2: Accurately comparing the DG-68's sound in analog in/ out to digital in/out required that I use the exact same components as well as matched volume levels. Hence, I always placed the Wavelength USB-to-S/PDIF converter between the Nucleus+ and whatever component followed, even when it wasn't necessary.

Reality Check #3: While the DG-68 offers both XLR (balanced) and RCA (single-ended) analog inputs and outputs, I stuck with XLR all the way in the initial review because the fully balanced D'Agostino preamp and monoblocks only allow XLR connections.

The analog signal path through the DG-68 to my monoblocks called for three pairs of Nordost Odin 2 XLR interconnects. My cable stash consisted of two pairs of XLRs plus two pairs of AES3 cables (footnote 3); I used one of the AES3 pairs in the original review. There's no technical reason why an AES3 cable can't be used for a balanced analog connection, but some companies' AES3 cables, including Nordost's, have a very different geometry than their XLRs. Upon further reflection, I wondered if this different geometry might have altered the sound.

To find out, I replaced the AES3 pair with RCAs in the only place where it was possible, between the Rossini and DG-68. This required a different equipment order than in my initial review, namely Nucleus+–>Wavelength converter–>Rossini DAC–>DG-68–>Momentum HD preamp–>M550 monoblocks.

In not so short order, it became clear that the AES3 pair was the weak link in my previous all-analog connection scheme. When I switched from AES3 to RCA, the sound was fuller, more detailed and colorful, and a bit more transparent. So, comparing best-case analog in/out to digital in/out required a change of cabling, a different component order, carefully matched volume levels, and the constant use of a Wavelength USB–>S/PDIF converter box.

If trying to visualize all this is giving you a headache, just imagine what it was like to ensure that, every time I made a switch, everything was connected optimally.

Reality Check #4: As explained in my initial review, I preferred the sound of the DG-68's "Flat" Auto-Voicing option to "Smooth," which boosts some frequencies for extra warmth. This preference continued when I switched to my new reference monoblocks, the Progression M550s, whose sound is warmer and smoother than the original Progressions. Hence, I did all my listening for this Follow-Up review in "Flat" Voicing mode.

As a first step, I created six new "Flat" Auto-Voicing compensation curves in the DG-68, one for each switch of component order and/or cabling. Only once did I forget to unmute the preamp, and only once did I risk my speakers when I forgot to turn off my monoblocks while moving cables around.

Are you surprised?
John Atkinson certainly isn't, and neither is Jim Austin. Digital in/out delivered the best sound through the DG-68. Even when I removed the Wavelength converter box, which was possible when listening in analog in/out mode, digital in/out with the requisite Wavelength converter box trumped analog in and out.

On Ešenvalds's "O salutaris hostia," digital in/out's transparency, range of colors, and depth won hands down. The clarity of voices, color contrasts between singers with different voice ranges, overall resonance of the soundstage, depth and sense of placement were top notch—the best I'd heard from my system. Although John Atkinson wasn't present when this track was recorded, he was responsible for the microphone placement and did a sensational job. He also used everything in his figurative toolkit to convey, in two-channel stereo, the emotional impact of antiphonal choirs placed throughout the recording venue. The DG-68's digital in/out connection not only delivered the all-important three-dimensionality that John strove for; it also compensated for my room's bass rolloff by bringing out all-important bass lines and fleshing out voices in ways not previously audible through my system. The sound was more substantial in the best ways possible without, to these ears, any loss in transparency, color, depth, and so on. The DG-68's digital in/out operation enhanced my listening experience in every imaginable way short of transporting me to the actual recording venue.

In case I don't have the opportunity to review bass-baritone Andri Björn Róbertsson's new recording in full, let me say how gratifying it was and is to hear the natural resonance of his beautiful voice fully fleshed out by the DG-68. With digital in/out, his voice sang out clearly over and in front of the piano, and the color contrasts between the two instruments were lip-smacking delicious.

Perhaps the biggest revelation was on the period instrument Mozart. Resolution was so acute that I could discern instrumental textures and distinguish individual instruments in the violin section as they played the same note in unison. I really could. While with analog in/out, lower lines lacked ultimate clarity, with digital in/out they sang clear and free.

Turning to a tried-and-true standby, the texture of the guitar that accompanies Rickie Lee Jones on her fabulous cover of the Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil" (Tidal, 16/44.1 FLAC), from her album The Devil You Know, and the resonance of the deep-voiced electronic instrument that appears in the intro were superb. I always thought my system could sound this good, but I never quite got there until I used the Accuphase DG-68 in digital in/out mode.

Roadblocks and revelations
Perhaps it's written somewhere in the Good Book that reviewing shall rarely go smoothly for an opera lover. But even I was unprepared for the denouement that played out just as the curtain was about to close on the last act of this follow-up review. Before I had time to grieve the death of a dear friend, a huge windstorm left the dogs barking arias on repeat as falling trees precipitated at least four power outages in our neighborhood. The outages took out the NAS that stored the hi-rez tracks I was using for this review and disrupted my internet connection for a miserable 36 hours, making file playback and streaming impossible. It was as if the gods were screaming "Vengeance is ours!" All that was missing was the arrival of a door-to-door audiophile evangelist holding up a copy of Michael Fremer's cartridge-setup DVD and urging me to repent my all-digital ways or risk being skewered by the spindle of a $400,000 turntable.

Scrambling under deadline pressure, I grabbed umpteen cables, reconnected analog in/out on the DG-68, moved equipment around to free up another shelf on my rack, and installed the long-dormant Rossini SACD/CD transport so that I could play reference SACDs instead of files. It took overnight for previously coiled up cables to begin to settle in. It was not until a few hours before this follow-up was due that I was able to restore a wired streaming connection to the reference system (footnote 4). By then, there was no time left to return to digital in/out.

In my original review, I explained that Accuphase makes a distinction between "voicing"—the term it uses to describe sound room correction—and "equalization," by which Accuphase means tailoring the sound to your particular (and sometimes changing) desires. In the initial review, I stuck with "Auto Voicing"; now I would try "Equalization" to further compensate for imperfections in the room response.

Bass response in Jason's room without (top) and with (bottom) Accuphase DG-68 digital-domain "voicing."

After examining the "flat" before/after "Auto Voicing" compensation graphs I had created for the original review in analog in/out mode, I took note of the fact that there were two room nulls below 100Hz and another dip a little higher up in frequency; these are areas that "Auto Voicing" improved but didn't completely fix. Using the DG-68's supplied stylus, I lifted the output in these three narrow bands, drawing the corrections on the DG-68's large touch-activated display. It was as easy to do as drawing on an iPad with an Apple pencil. With file playback unavailable, I put on a Channel Classics SACD of Mahler Symphony No.3 in D minor (CCS SA 38817) performed by Iván Fischer and the Budapest Festival Orchestra and began to experiment with the DG-68's "Equalization" feature. Did these corrections help?

The results were, let us say, subtle. Did I hear any difference at all? I'm not sure.

Equalization, though, is flexible. You can try different things and see how they sound. If you like it, you can keep it, but if you don't, you can easily start over, or you can turn the feature off entirely. As I thought about it, I realized I could even attempt to raise bass so high that my system would begin to emulate the sound of the massive subwoofers in the trunks of the souped-up '93 Buicks and Pontiacs that shook our house years ago when we lived in East Oakland. But I decided not to make the attempt. I'd been rattled enough in the previous few days. Plus, I doubted I could ever get my system to sound that bad, no matter how sophisticated the tools.

Roads less traveled
I also tried my hand at "Manual Voicing"—room correction but not automatic. The list of Accuphase's "Manual Voicing" possibilities rivals those on the family dinner menu of Chan's Casino, the Chinese restaurant my family frequented in Rockville Centre, New York, the town on Long Island's South Shore where I grew up many moons ago. I selected a preset curve in which the level drops off gradually starting at 2kHz, at a rate of 1dB per octave.

I got as far as displaying the results in L+R channel, got confused, pressed the wrong button, and ended up with nothing. Fearing that if I dared extend the deadline even further, the opera I was in might morph into one in which I played John the Baptist and Jim Austin's Salome demanded my head on a silver platter, I opted to spare my life and move on.

A moment from Mahler 3.

Finally, I opened the DG-68's "Analyzer" screen to display, in slowly changing spectrum, what the first movement of Mahler's Symphony No.3 looks like as it unfolds. This was one of the most fascinating exercises during my time with the DG-68. It didn't affect the sound, but it enriched my perception of it. Watching this was similar to what recording engineers see routinely. I'm not a recording engineer nor someone usually enamored of equipment with lots of flashing lights, but this was interesting.

Putting it all together
The more time I spent with the DG-68, the more I appreciated how much it can do, and how easy it is to play: to try things and listen and revise less than optimal choices or eliminate them entirely. With the caveat that, in my system, digital in/out clearly sounded better than analog in/out for transparency, clarity, depth, color saturation, detail retrieval, and more, I continue to recommend the DG-68 highly.—Jason Victor Serinus

Footnote 1: Those Progressions have since been replaced by Progression M550 monoblocks.

Footnote 2: JA and I suggested using a suitable voltmeter to set levels at the speaker outputs. The specific implementation is all Jason.—Jim Austin

Footnote 3: Pairs of AES3 digital cables? Yes, because dCS components use dual AES connections to transmit in higher resolution.

Footnote 4: I've had no time yet to deal with the NAS issue. The opera continues.

Accuphase Laboratory Inc.
US distributor: Axiss Distribution Inc.
17800 South Main St., Ste 109
Gardena CA, 90248
(310) 329-0187

Anton's picture

I would think your room has to be OK for it to be able to produce a decent room curve to begin with.

Your idea of continuing to tweak your room while you have the toy is genius.

It would be cool to have a "mother module" to use to set the room, and then a much less expensive "servant module" or chip that could talk to your DAC that you could then plug in to keep 1-3 curves while allowing the mother ship to continue her sonic journey.

Archimago's picture

Nice to see audiophilia using (at least not afraid of) EQ and finding benefit in "room correction" techniques.

So, basically, from a technical perspective is this performing 2-channel 35-band parametric EQ (settings up to 50kHz)?

Is there any time-domain correction being done when fed with room information (doesn't look like it?)?

teched58's picture

$24,000 seems a̶ ̶l̶o̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶m̶o̶n̶e̶y̶ very affordable for a 35-band parametric equalizer!

Anton's picture

Wow, what a great addition that would be.

RichT's picture

Something very unexpected here - the flat response curve is incredibly flat, I would estimate -3dB +1dB. This is a flatter response than most professional studios achieve, even the best. It’s totally flat 30Hz to 90Hz, which is absolutely remarkable. This Is very special room.

Kal Rubinson's picture

And not everyone wants flat. ;-)

MatthewT's picture

Perfect is boring.

Kal Rubinson's picture

And, under some conditions, undesirable.

MatthewT's picture

Is the sum of its flaws, and I love them all.

latinaudio's picture

are a necessity. What is certain is that the sound perceiver must be taken into account: the brain. And since no two human beings are alike, it will ALWAYS be necessary to adjust the bass, treble, midrange to each person... in order to have a pleasant experience. Tone controls ARE an unavoidable necessity, and hifi manufacturers builders would be arrogants if they don't accept it. So remember: it´s not only the room, are the persons, specially the owner of the equipment :)

Ortofan's picture

... published in the November 1973 issue of Audio magazine.

It includes a description of the then new Altec 729 Acousta-Voicette one-third octave equalizer and the Altec/HP 8050 real-time analyzer.

Presented is a rationale as to why the corrected frequency response should not be flat over the entire audible range.
The proposed optimum frequency response is flat up to 2kHz, followed by a roll-off above than point at the rate of 3dB/octave.

Kal Rubinson's picture

Good stuff at the time but acoustical science and audio componentry have moved on.........................

Ortofan's picture

... the latest developments in acoustical science (and audio componentry) suggest is ideal?

Kal Rubinson's picture

Toole's book is a good place to start.

Ortofan's picture

... those under the Harman umbrella, agree with Dr. Toole's findings and implement them in their products?

Kal Rubinson's picture

I suspect that all the current AVRs and prepros incorporate them in their EQ options.

zuman's picture

I've been listening seriously and buying good gear for over 40 years, and I firmly believe that the effects of some "tweaks" CAN be measured while we haven't yet discovered how to measure other audible tweak results. However, I also believe that many tweaks are placebos. Is the DG-68 sufficiently sensitive to identify/quantify/adapt to some of the supposed "night-and-day" effects of some of these tweaks?

Anton's picture

Of course, no matter the outcome no minds would be changed.

We are audiophiles, after all. ;-D

pbarach's picture

I wonder how this unit's results would compare to some of the other (much less expensive) room correction systems, e.g., Audyssey, ARC, Trinnov.

Kal Rubinson's picture

Hard to compare correction systems which reside in different hardware.

georgehifi's picture

Love to have this thing, but I would have liked to have heard the comparison of what Rossini Ring/Dac was like from the Accuphase's digital outputs compared to it's own ESS dac (never been a lover of the ESS converters). (was it done???)

Cheers George

AudioBang's picture

Back in the late 90s I bought a Sigtech for $7,300 which, in addition to room EQ, performed time alignment, cancellation of late arriving ceiling, floor and wall reflections out to 50mS, and had the ability to compensate for spectral build up [from room corners, etc].
I owned a pair of Dunlavy Vs at the time, later upgrading to the SC VI.
Since the Dunlavy's are all time-aligned to begin with, as expected, the impulse response did not visually change after a correction filter was applied. I too found it easy to get caught up in jumping from correction filter to correction filter and being distracted from the music. The Dunlavy recommended listening position was against the long wall so the speakers could be placed with a wide listening angle - up to 120 degrees! [per the manual] and obtain the smoothest bass response by eliminating room nulls. I liked mine at about 100 degrees as there was a level of psychoacoustic wonder at hearing a phantom center image with the speakers 12 feet apart while still presenting a reasonably proportioned soundstage. I later learned from the SigTech measurements, that with the listening position against the rear wall, the room buildup in the bass was enormous! A significant contribution in my system that the Sigtech made I felt, was ameliorating the room build up against the rear wall as well as smoothing a 12dB delta from 30hz to 90hz - I suspect from the interactions between the bass drivers positioned at the floor and the top of the cabinet. The low frequency measurements of my speakers from Dunlavy's very large anechoic chamber showed a similar 12dB peak to null although at slightly different frequencies from my room. Also, I recall, not all of that 12dB difference could be flattened as you wouldn't want to add unprecedented gain at high listening levels at the null which could blow the drivers. In a nutshell, in my room, taming the bass [overhang] was a significant factor in arriving at more transparency and I felt that manually treating the room [absorption in my case] for first sidewall reflections worked better than relying on the Sigtech's ability to cancel them out - even though these reflections were eliminated on the filtered impulse response. The measurement capability of these reflections was instrumental in confirming the before and after effects of midrange smearing that was eliminated after applying absorption from first reflections. I was not successful attempting to fix bass problems with corner traps.
The 2khz -3dB/octave rolloff was the recommended default filter. The flat filter sounded dry and sterile and was not pleasurable to listen to although I look back and wonder if part of the reason was that the recommended rolloff starting at 2khz may have masked the sub-par 90s digital in my system [Wadia 270 Transport/27ix DAC]. For what it's worth...

John Atkinson's picture
AudioBang wrote:
Back in the late 90s I bought a Sigtech for $7,300 which, in addition to room EQ, performed time alignment, cancellation of late arriving ceiling, floor and wall reflections out to 50mS, and the ability to compensate for spectral build up [from room corners, etc].

Stereophile's December 1996 review of the SigTech system will be posted to the website the week starting August 9.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

tonykaz's picture

I recall setting up our Listening Rooms at Esoteric Audio in the 1980s.

We ended up with a Semi-Anechoic type result that needed the Largest Mono Amps pushing thick MH-750 Music Hose Speaker Cabling.

Do our brains re-calibrate room accoustics for us ( to some extent ) ?

I suspect that Room Problems are exasperated by Loudspeakers with too-powerful Bass circuits and no balancing electronic circuits..

B&O make that gigantic Beolab 90 that features built-in Room Correction.

Full Range Loudspeaker Manufacturers should include some sort of Bass management system as an included component. ( Genelec )

Leaving Accoustic Engineering in the hands of purchasing Consumers seems irresponsible.

Accuphase Gear is Georgous

Tony in Venice Florida

AudioBang's picture

I concur that our brains recalibrate room acoustics for us - to some extent....
Interestingly, per MF and other Stereophile reviews on the ISO Acoustics speaker isolators, I tried three sets on my Dunlavy SC VIs [650 lbs each] and they completely altered the bass. On the one hand, I agree with one of the reviewer's comments that they were "different" and on the other, the bass overhang that I am used to [assuming] from room modes, was reduced an order of magnitude as if "where did it all go?" But the transparency, depth and expanded soundstaging these footers offered was unexpected and unprecedented. I'd take these results 10X over any EQ solution. Because the rebuilt 4-way crossovers reside outside the speaker, while I was contemplating trialing the footers, I had disconnected the bass completely out of the picture to test whether the vibrational bass coupling to the floor made any difference to the midrange/treble. I didn't hear any difference. But after installing the footers everything transformed at the magnitude that MF stated in his review. I can only assume that even with just midrange and tweeter operating, something vibrationally is happening to/within the 650lb cabinet causing blurring to occur. My brain can not connect how that happens. BTW Stereophile, thanks for your value-add here. This was one of the most profound improvements I've experienced.

tonykaz's picture

Can we hear from the Loudspeaker Manufacturer on these devices.? Why don't they include these with every speaker?

I probably consider them to be like Engine Mounts for a vibratingly harsh Car, Truck, Boat Engines.

NoiseVibrationHarshness is a science, we should be able to explain these phenomenons and bring about consistant effects/affects.

In the 1980s I sold large quantities of Audio related do-dads, Audiophiles love to tinker around with this stuff.

Tony in Venice Florida

Kal Rubinson's picture

Can we hear from the Loudspeaker Manufacturer on these devices.? Why don't they include these with every speaker?

Good questions and there are a couple of speakers with them on their way to market The general answer is that it will increase the price of the speaker and manufacturers have to compete on price in the real world.

It evokes the memory of an amp manufacturer who told me that I could not realize the full potential of his product without a particular after-market power cord. I was surprised at that and asked why he would not just include it. He replied that it was a matter of price. I bought one anyway (who would not want his new amp to sound its best) but I found it was absolutely not audibly different from the stock cord. He should not have opened his mouth.

Ortofan's picture

... is including shock-mount feet.
Speaker prices range from $1,850 to $4,250 each.

Kal Rubinson's picture

PSB, too.

tonykaz's picture

Good Better Best has been a Sales Standard in all sorts of Product types..

I'd expect better from the Full Range Transducer System manufacturers, just as we've come to expect ( and rely on ) Stereophile Reviewing and Editorial Standards.


Audiophiles are typically DIY kinds of folks.

I'm a Fan of Meridian type of Music Systems approach from Manufacturers. I can enjoy a high performance designed full System from one Company.

Still Tweaking one's music systems can be a nice little distraction from the World problems crushing our shoulders.

Big Fat Stiff Power Cords are visually impressive, you could say "those power cords alone cost Thou$$$$$$and$$$ of Dollars!! ( even toss a handful of hundred dollar bills on the floor behind the speakers ( to show off even more )

Audio stuff can still be fun! I think

Tony in Venice Florida

tonykaz's picture

I just heard that the NY Auto Show is cancelled.!!!

We're not out of this China Plague yet

Tony in Venice Florida where masks are still optional

Kal Rubinson's picture

But what about the NY Audio Show?

tonykaz's picture

It seems that we are entering a new phase of China Pandemic hysteria with this Fresh Strain that can be understood but isn't..

So, we might usefully predict that Big Shows will set the pace for all the little Shows like Audio and/or things like Tool Shows.

CDC is predicting the New Strain will take the rest of this year to run it's course ( in USA that has less than 100% Vaccinations depth ).

Global Vaccination percentages have barely scratched the surface so we are a looooooonnnnnnnngggggg way from Herd Immunity!

Will it predictably take the Standard 3 to 4 years for this blight to run it's course ???

Will the politicians and media continue to foster Health condition Panic among the innocent polis ?

I have the feeling that Streaming and DACs like the dcs Bartok will have overwhelmed HighEnd Audio by the time this Virus is tamed.

It's time to sell off my Koetsu & Vinyl collections

Tony in Venice Florida

AudioBang's picture

I think you would be a very cool neighbor to have Tony :)
I enjoy your industry stories and commentaries from your experiences.