You just don't get it! Tweaks such as tube rolling and such are there for the people that want to extract the most out of their system but do not want or have the funds to spend on more expensive solutions, based on substance. In the case of your system, a system with a retail value in the $200K range, tube rolling is out off context! Yes, at the level and the amount of money that you have spent in your system you have systematic solutions based on knowledge and science and you do not need to do the trial and error dance, unless of course you find enjoyment out of it and don't mind blowing your money.
It has become quiet clear and obvious to me that some people bring nothing more to this quest than a big wallet, to those like you and others which do not possess the in-depth knowledge of mastering techniques, physics, acoustics, psychoacoustics and electronics may I suggest that you just hire a professional to get you the rest of the way there instead of keeping spending outrageous amounts of money while spinning around and getting nowhere.
This is just my honest and scientifically backed opinion. |
The Einstein incorporates a number of novel design approaches. They do not have a selector switch because they believe that it is exactly at this point, prior to amplification, that the signal is weakest and most easily damaged. Instead, each input has a complete set of input tubes; however the heater voltage to the input tubes is only turned on when you are listening to that input so there is no tube wear. This means that you can customize the tubes on each source and that the expensive tubes only run when that input is chosen. The downside is that when you change inputs, there is a slight time lag as the existing input stops amplifying and then the new input as the heater comes on begins to amplify, so no immediate switching. Please feel free to contact by email and I can provide a phone number if you have additional questions about the Einstein. I previously owned a CTC Blowtorch. |
Fcrowder,
Does the Einstein use separate input tubes for each input instead of just switching inputs and running everything through the same amplification path? If so, that would allow someone to customize tube choice for each source component, but it would be a costly design choice for the consumer, particularly if all those tubes are switched on all of the time. |
"A couple thoughts":
Fred, I don't want to come across like I'm picking on you so please don't take it personal but even at $100 per tube it still sounds to me like you and other tube rollers are trying to play an expensive game of trial-and-error "tone control" with these different "Flavor" tubes! It has nothing to do with "Whether the improvement was worth the money is a personal decision that will be different for different listeners", BUT the "approach" that is used to advance ones system to the next level.
The tube rolling is exactly the same kind of silliness as buying or experimenting with the $2,400.00 Acrolink Mexcel 7N copper power cord that you and Rhyno recommend.
Hey this is a free society and everyone is allowed to use their money as they see fit BUT to me it seems foolish to spend these insane amounts of money on trial-and-error "tone control" through tube rolling and power cord selection when there are electronic devices out there which will give you predictable, repeatable, defeatable and scalable tone-control and beyond, per their original design!
My idea of a perfect system always starts with the ability of the system to be neutral and as true/faithful to the "Master Tapes" as possible; from that point on you as an individual are free to tailor the sound of your system according to your personal preferences.
Which is where I'm at, I now have a system that can be adjusted on the fly to cater to "your" idea of the perfect sound or the "Absolute Sound" and which can dynamically/on-the-fly be readjusted to the person next to you idea of perfection.
I believe that a gentleman in my deleted thread said it best:
To some, sound reproduction is a hobby where tube rolling, cable swapping, isolation devices testing and such are fun and exciting but to me it is not only an art BUT a science, which I strive to advance in the level of realism everyday through the use of my knowledge of mastering/recording techniques, physics, acoustics, psychoacoustics and electronics.
I'm still hard at work on my book, "The Great Audiophile Swindle!" which will expand further on these thoughts and others. |
Just a clarification with respect to my earlier comment. The Einstein has 5 inputs, 2 single ended and 3 balanced. Assuming 2-7308's per input (1 for each channel), that would equal 10-7308's for the $1000 that I quoted or approximately $100/tube, not $500 per tube. I should probably also mention that the same dealer had some very good NOS East German tubes for $19 each. These were significantly better than the stock Electro Harmonix tubes but not the equal of the Siemens 7308's. Whether the improvement was worth the money is a personal decision that will be different for different listeners. |
I've test driven many preamps and so far I like the CAT Ultimate 2 the best. |
Nice thread. As usual some good technical advice admixed wth some verbal assaults on people's character. Always amusing! My comments will relate to the tennis analogies made earlier. In my youth I was amongst the top 10 tennis players in the world (under 18 years of age), and have played against Andre Agassi, Boris Becker, and Stephan Edberg, and some others that I can't remember. I have seen many of the best play as the heroes of my youth were Borg and McEnroe. It is difficult to compare generations because the equipment is so different today. You cannot be sure that if someone is the best player in the world with a wooden racquet, that he would even be in the top 50 in the world with the modern racquets. The game is that different today. I remember watching a replay of a Borg McEnroe wimbledon final 15 years after it was played, and I couldn't believe how slowly they were hitting the ball! That said my opinion is this. The greatest tennis achievement is by Rod Laver. He won the grand Slam twice, seperated by approximately 9 years. The first time he won it was as an amateur. Then he turned professional and was not eligible to play in those tournaments again (the grand slams were amateur tournaments until the "open era" began in the 70's). As soon as he could play in them again, he won the grand slam again! Who knows how many times he would have won the grand slam had he been eligible all those years. After that you have to give the nod to Federer. If you have seen them all, he does everything as well or better than anyone preceeding him. The caveat, there will always be some questions about his legacy if he never wins the French. He has a more suitable game to do this than most others that have won wimbledon. In my opinion, if you put any previous player gainst him, and give them whatever racquet they want, Federe will beat them all. I will give an honorable mention to Agassi, who played a more difficult style of tennis that Sampras, although Sampras' record is arguably better. Sampras' major count is padded by his dominance on grass.
Thanks for endulging the thoughts of a (relatively) old hacker:-)
I have a Boulder 1012. Has anyone compared the 1010/1012 series to the 2000 series Boulder equipment and have an opinion on the difference? |
Fcrowder states: "The point of this short story is that even the best tubed preamp is probably limping along unless its tube compliment is optimized and a lesser unit with better tubes may sound better. This certainly complicates comparisons, at least, of tubed units."
Well said, Fred, and I agree. By the way, the best 6922 variant that I've tried in my preamp is a 1960 Siemens CCa, grey plate. It bettered by a small, but significant margin, the Siemens 7308( E188CC). |
Fred,
When you start recommending $1000 pairs of 6922 tubes and $2,400.00 power cords like you have been doing on this site you really need a reality check; swing by my house and I'll show you what $9 6922 tubes and $5 stock power cords can do when you know a thing or two about sound reproduction, physics, acoustics and electronics. It's time for you to learn a thing or two about the art of sound reproduction. Some of us use more than our wallets to make decisions of what to purchase. The time has come to learn a lesson in stereophonics. |
Last weekend, a local tube maven brought a small sample of his wares (2 huge tupperware tubs) to a friend's home. The friend also owns an Einstein preamp. Neither of us has had anything but praise for the Einstein in the last year, but wondered if it could be improved even further by changing out the first stage input tubes and the single 12AU7 with something other than the Electro Harmonic tubes provided. The short answer is dramatically so in each case. Almost every NOS tube substitued made an audible improvement. In some cases, a dramatic improvement. Unfortunately the best 6922 variant proved to be a Siemens 7308 from the mid 1960's and the best 12AU7 was a CBS variant from the same period. Each was very expensive, particularly in the case of the input tubes in which 2 are required for each input, so basically over $1000 worth of tubes. The point of this short story is that even the best tubed preamp is probably limping along unless its tube compliment is optimized and a lesser unit with better tubes may sound better. This certainly complicates comparisons, at least, of tubed units. |
Radio shack Reference standard- it was only made for a short time then discontinued - NOT, there are a handfull that excell in various departments to tough to call champ.
for under 10k the new Dodd Dc powered pre especially since the new power supply runs on all 4 batterys very natural with solid Bottom end, for up to 20 hours ,I just sold my modded Modwright to buy one. 10audio review is out of touch and that was a
early unit that only used 20 available amps now it is 40. |
There is also the idea that in pursuit of the 'best' (IOW the state-of-the-art) that the designer must sort out what it is that allows for foot-tapping *and* good specs!
But then at the same time there is the issue of taste. I found out about 25 years ago a disturbing discovery: If God made a preamp and sold it to humans who did not know the preamp was in fact perfect, some would say it was bright, others would call it dull, bloated, bass shy/boomy etc. IOW some would buy it and others would disdain it.
What is left seems to fall in the realm of 'looking good' and 'not looking bad' in the eyes of our fellow audiophiles, after the equipment has passed muster to our own ears.
IOW all the above is meaningless- in such a world, as a designer or as an audiophile you simply have to play the game all out and do the best you can. |
Jmaldonado, it is a free world (at least part of it), subjective evaluations will always drive buying decisions, and it isn't anarchy, it is capitalism. If you make a better mouse trap, the world will beat a path to your door. I do agree with your opinion that the notion of the "best" preamp will only get personal testimonials, but that is really why Audiogon forums exist. |
As long as audiophiles keep following advice of all these gurus whose disdain for technical performance only brings confusion, the only advancement we'll see is that of ignorance. The ability to drive a long line is only one of many requirements a good preamp should pass. A noise floor below the source's is another. Unlimited slew rate yet another, etc. But the guru says, "This (pre)amp is not musical and has no pace, my foot isn't even tapping...". What is this term? How do you define 'musical'? Is a Sony Walkman unmusical? Audio is already infested by this kind of arbitrary and subjective terms. Problem is, audio is NOT like cooking, or painting, or composing sonatas. Audio is a science (a physics application actually), and therefore is dominated by technical factors.
Cooking, painting and composing have also undeniable technical factors. You will not find a chef ignoring the proportions of ingredients, or a painter not knowing the virtues of brushes and canvases, or a composer ignoring the musical scale or the soloist's physical limits. But technical and objective factors must be subordinated to art, or the outcome will be artificial. Conversely, artistic and subjective factors must not command the design of an audio product, or the result will be... colored and artificial! Even speakers and phono cartridges, which seem to be closer to the art vs. science boundary than purely electronic products, depend heavily on objective parameters, much more than artistic ones.
In conclusion, any thread of this type is interesting, but will never produce a definite answer, simply because everybody has a subjective opinion involving his experience, taste, prejudices and mood. I would not be surprised to find a thousand music lovers claiming their iPOD is the very best audio player in the world, "cost is no object". And they would be right, as far as they are concerned.
Yes, it's a free world, but it's also beginning to sound like anarchy.
Regards, |
asking a question about what is the best, when the answer is subjective, is really a rhetorical question.
what is the value of a specific answer ? |
The problem here is that the audio industry in general has been lying for a very long time- decades. If a manufacturer, dealer or distributor's lips are moving, he's lying. Seems like everyone says they have the 'best' and the English language being what it is there can only be one 'best'.
The result is everybody is so used to this that they have to take the stuff home and actually see if it works for them. The problem then is that you can't listen to everything, and quite often two people who have radically different experiences and equipment use exactly the same language to describe some pretty different phenomena.
In this context there can be no best- only bedlam.
If you narrow the field, it becomes possible to make some distinctions. For example, I am safe even though I say it myself, in saying that the MP-1 is the best tube preamp at driving long interconnects. There are solid state preamps that can do the same thing, but in the long interconnect department in the tube world there are very few players.
So if might be that if this thread is to go anywhere and be useful, that we create the distinctions that are important, like the long cable example- like, who is the best at working with low output moving coil without step-up devices? I would make a distinction between tube and transistor so that there will be two answers, since we likely will not solve the tube /transistor debate in this thread... |
i feel that this question in itself is actually unanswerable.
having read all the above posts/arguaments further emphasises this point.
until the state of the art reaches sonic realism we are all clutching at straws.
compare any audio system to live music and all flaws become apparent.
synergy also plays a major part in many of these arguments.
we may as well just ask what is the best audio system and be done with it!
the preamp is a piece of a system and cannot single handedly make or break a system.
i am afraid that the perfect pre just does not exist yet.
the search goes on for us all.
enjoy what you have and if an upgrade works and offers good value then buy it.
just dont think that you have the best because it will be beaten one day! |
Foghost, Bloulder 2010 is best?? I would not have it in my system. I agree about the Connoisser being quite good, however. This August I am hoping to have my H-Cat in the same room as a Connoisser for both to settle down and do a comparison. I think I know which will please me more. |
Connoisseur Definitions 3.0 best ever
on today-market Boulder 2010! |
Best is a relative term dependent on your values and the remainder of your system. There is also is sometimes a synergy in using an amp and preamp from the same manufacturer. Cases in point: the Einstein preamp is quite good, especially with a bit of tube rolling, regardless of amp. Likewise their 60 watt OTL's are very good within their power limitations; however, the combination is clearly superior to either piece used with someone else's product. The same is true of the Audio Note M10 (which is clearly a candidate for best tube preamp as is the Einstein) and the Audio Note Kegon amps. The combination is magical within its power limits. In either case, the AudioNote/Einstein pairs will not sound good with the wrong loudspeaker or for that matter the wrong cabling. Rather than focusing on one piece of the system, it makes more sense to try to put together components that work well together. Many years ago I owned a Goldmund Reference TT with a T3F arm. At the time, it was perceived as the best that money could buy. All sorts of people wanted to speculate about other TT's that were "better than the Reference"; however, not a single one of them owned a Reference or had done actual real time comparisons of the Reference vs other contenders in the same system. Until you have done that, best is mere speculation. Albert Porter once told me that when he reviewed a new product that he literally spent months optimizing it in his system before making any judgments. About ten years ago, I had the opportunity to compare my Golmund to a Rockport in my home system. I bought the Rockport. Is it the "best" TT? Who knows? I can say that over the years, I have preferred it to other TT's that I have listened to in my home system; however, I have not heard many of the current top contenders in my own system. |
Tube - one of these:
Tube Research Labs Platinum Golden Triode Reference Preamplifier
Jadis JP-800
Conrad Johnson Anniversary Reference Triode Series 3 Linestage
Audio Research Reference Three Vacum Tube Stereo Line Preamplifier
Vacum Tube Logic TL-7.5 Mk.II Reference Linestage Preamplifier
Aesthetix Callisto Signature Tubed Preamplifier w/Remote Control & 2 x Power Supplies
Balanced Audio Technologies REX Balanced Preamplifier
Zanden Audio Model 3000 Tubed Linestage Preamplifier
The Messanger Preamplifier w/External Power Supply
Kondo M1000 Mk.II
First Sound Audio Paramount Mk.II Special Edition Statement
Expressive Technologies Model 1 Preamplifier
Audion Premier Quattro 4-Chassis Model
Audio Tekne Model TEA-9501PCS Stereo Pre Amplifier
Loth-X Silbatone C-102
Essence The Japser Reference
Shindo Labs Petrus III Dual Mono Preamplifier
Electron Images Amati Preamplifier
LAMM Industries L2 Reference Preamplifier
Wavac Audio PR-T1 Line Preamplifier
Glass Master LC-1 Preamplifier
Solid State - one of these:
Scan Tech Lyra Connoisseur 5-0L SE
Boulder Amplifiers 2010 Isolated Balanced Preamplifier
FM Acoustics Resolution Series 268
Dynaudio Arbiter Monaural Preamplifiers
Goldmund Mimesis 22 Signature Analogue Preamplifier
Krell Evolution Two Monophonic Linestage Preamplifier
Burmester Reference Line Preamplifier 808 Mk.V
MBL 6010D Reference Line Preamplifier
Mark Levinson No.32 Reference Preamplifier
Halcro dm10
Spectral Audio DMC-30SL Reference Preamplifier
Jeff Rowland Design Group Coherence II
CTC Builders Blowtorch Preamplifier
dartZeel NHB-18NS Preamplifier
Bride Audio Laboratory BAlabo BC-1 Mk.II Control Amplifier
Cello Audio Suite w/Phono Modules
Pass Labs X0.2
McIntosh C1000C Configurable Tube/Solid State Conroller and Preamplifier
Edge Electronics NL Signature 1.1 Preamplifier
Linn Klimax Control Linestage Preamplifier |
www.h-cat.com is the web site.
TGB (norm) is making some bold claims here, and I'm about to find out what this line stage is capable of (hopefully in the next few days.)
I think Norm's enthusiasm and insistance on H-cat being tops is that it is utterly novel in the way it processes signals. From my limited understanding, it seems almost all analog preamps, tube or solid stage, do a very similar thing- and in fact attempt to have as little character as possible.
The H-cat, on the other hand is saying- hey- your input signal is completely flawled and I must utterly alter it to recreate the original waveform.
I recently told a recording engineer I was getting 2 new "voodoo" products - the H-cat and Acoustic Resonators, figuring he'd kind of chuckle at my "non-science" audiophile products. He retorted that losts of pro gear falls into the voodoo catagory.
I'll be comparing the the H-cat to no preamp at all - I have a GCPH phono stage I run balanced directly into MA1's and eventually can try the H-cat going into my modified integrated GCC amp- with also has no line stage, so I think I can really get a handle on what this unit is doing rather than just comparing it to another line stage.
Hopefully next week I"ll be able to either deify Norm to prophet status, or demand he resign his Audiogon account!!
(I'm kidding Norm) |
TbG: has H-Cat got a home-page ? |
Well, I own it and I'm sure someone will accuse me of hyping it, but in my experience so far i'd suggest the Essential 3150 that Raul and Jose make. |
Paulficarella, IMHO the H-Cat P-12R kills the ARC Ref 3 at a lower price. YMMV. |
Audio Research Reference 3 hands down but that's my feelings I think it would be foolish to spend any more and I dont think you could get that much better at twice the price. |
|
I would say there is no such thing as 'best' in this category. You'd have to audition the usual suspects. |
Did a lot of comparison in the meantime: to my ears the two best solid state pre-ams are FM Acoustics 268 Mk II and Boulder 2010. The best tube pre I´ve encountered so far is Ayon Audio Spheris - magic !! |
VIOLA CADENZA stop the search.. |
I dont know what is the best preamp but here is what I currenly have: Cary SPl05, ConradJohnson CT5, Audio Research Reference 3. My favorite is Reference 3 with other factors being held constant. If you're in the Twin Cities area, give me a call for a listen and draw your own conclusions. |
|
Huh? I don't understand this. |
>>assessing talent in tennis is as subjective as assessing the merits of components and stereo systems<<
Really? I KNOW that Anna Kournikova is not as good a tennis player as Martina Navratilova because I KNOW that Anna has won no grand slam titles and I KNOW that Martina has won 59 (singles, doubles, mixed doubles) grand slam titles. That is not subjective.
The same can be said for audio components if you KNOW enough about them.
You should try it. |
Mrtennis, I would say also that your carrying on about this subject makes no sense and proves nothing. I see no reason also to continue. |
hi frankpiet:
assessing talent in tennis is as subjective as assessing the merits of components and stereo systems. you are entitled to your opinion.
for the nth time, it is more useful to state the qualities of an amplifier that you consider laudable rather than to suugest that one will have to spend more money than the cost of an ayre to get a better amp. to my ears, i might be able to achieve what is in my opinion more favorable sound than i would get from having an ayre amp drive my mg 1.6 speakers, by spending less money than the cost of an ayre amp. |
hi tbg:
what is the point of this discussion ? i'll give it a rest if you do. you can have the last word. you certainly are entitled your opinion, but your carrying on about this subject makes no sense and proves nothing. |
I´ve just inserted an Ayre K-1xe into my system and I must say - that you´ll have to spend very crazy money to top its performance significantly (so from a respective price point this might be the best value in solid state pre-amplification). Better but much more expensive was the phantastic Ayon Spheris tube pre-amp for 20 grand which according to the dealer is the best tube pre he has ever heard (and he carries a lot of tube pre´s as Nagra, CAT, VTL, Audio Research, Einstein, Brinkmann, T+A and Kondo).
AND: coming back to tennis: McÉnroe was for sure the player with the best "touch and talent" in professional tennis and with 156 titles the most successful ;) |
Mrtennis, if you are accusing me of hyping, go to hell. You heard a very aged unit and claim to have heard a very transistor sound. I heard a unit of the same age but heard nothing like this. What would you conclude?
As I will say for the last time to you, please do not listen to the new P-12R, you might like it. |
hi tbg:
as i said in an earlier post i auditioned both the preamp and the amp in my own stereo system, which at the time included the magnepan 2.7 . yes, i heard the clarity, but i also heard a typical transistor sound.
it's not about convincing, its about hyping. a word to the wise is always sufficient.
a statement of its clarity and soundstage capability would have been sufficient, without the verbal histrionics. |
Mrtennis, all that I wish to convey to you and others is that they should go to listen to this unit which greatly impresses me and which I believe is unrivaled by anything I have ever heard.
I doubt if you could be convinced by anything I say nor am I willing to try. I have used tube line stages for many years and know that some are better than others, so I don't really know what you mean about preferring a "tube" sound. I can assure you and others that the H-Cat P-12R does not have the grain I have heard in many other solid state line stages, nor any of the smear, slowness, and boom I have heard in some tube line stages. But it is the clarity and realness of the sound stage that most impresses those who have heard the new H-Cat. Please, Mrtennis, don't try it, you might like it. |
hi tbg:
i think it would be useful to say why you like the solid state p 12 r so much. what does "wow go listen to it mean" ?
if i like tube products because they have a certain character, would i want to hear the p 12r and why ? again, less hype, ambiguity and more facts and descriptions is most useful/ |
Mrtennis and Oxia, of course I agree that no one can really say anything is the best. I must say, Oxia, that I don't regard what limited aspects we can measure as a superior method for evaluation. This is the old objectivist position.
Given the many line stages I have heard, however, none even approaches the new P-12R. As a long time tube equipment user who often dismissed solid state linestages with the exception of the TAD, I can assure everyone that the P-12R has none of the characteristics of either tubes or transistors.
As I have said, I have had six or seven different versions of this line stage as it evolved into the exceptional unit I have today. I just replaced an H-Cat of two versions ago with the P-12R. One would not want to listen to the old unit, as good as it was.
I don't think there is much purpose in verbally discussing sound other than to say, "wow, you have got to hear this." |
Agreed with Mrtennis.
The word "best" is so overused and misused, that its meaning is almost lost. To say that something is your favourite (i.e. "I like it best of all") is not the same as to claim that something is "the best" in absolute terms.
As I see it, audio equipment can be evaluated in two ways.
1. On technical grounds (i.e. objective criteria that is measurable and quantifiable)
2. On aesthetic terms (i.e. a subjective appraisal of the beauty of how something sounds).
Either approach is valid, and both approaches can be combined in order to render an opinion. However, one must accept the inherent limitation that aesthetics are subjective, thus opinions on such matters are relevant only in relation to the mind of the listener. Consequently it is improper to apply the word "best", in unqualified terms, to a subjective opinion.
Having said that, my favourite preamp is the Orpheus Two.
:) |
hi tbg:
i understand that you feel that the h cat is your favorite preamp. how can you say that it has no peer.
i think that asserting that a product is better than its competition is not helpful. you haven't auditioned every preamp that is in current production and yet you make a statement which is so subjective.
wouldn't it be more realistic to say "the h cat is my favorite preamp because........"
by the way if someone prefers a tube sound, why would he/she want to audition the h cat, which, i heard several years ago in my own system. i'm glad you like it, but it sounds like a typical solid state preamp. i heard the preamp with its companion amp. |
Good tennis analogy - mainly on the fact that technology has immproved all over this years and audience is now broader, let me elaborate.
How would Connors performance would be improved at his time with the new light materials used on raquets, better grip tennis shoes, improved trainning techniques in 20 years ahead (Marantz 7c, Mac c22) or the other side around: short point rallyes, marekting interest preassure on the player, short term winning long term strategies? etc..
Bottom line: It is not only a matter of playfields, but also sinergy and subjective evaluation that will provide us a way to express OUR very personal thinking on the best preamp (that is why I own an integrated now je je je)
Enjoy,
Fernando |
Last Tuesday I got an H-Cat P-12R line stage. I very much doubt if any line stage or preamp can be its equal.
I estimate that I have owned 45 preamps during my long sojourn in audio. I recently got the six and hopefully final version of the H-Cat P-12 line stage. From the first version that won TAS Golden Ear Award, I have been impressed with this technology, label Doppler correction. This gives more precise location of instruments and vocalists with all frequencies originating at one point. This yields no smear to the sound and great tonal accuracy.
While the P-12R is still getting better, I find myself restless to hear other records and discs to hear whether they too sound far superior to how they used to sound. Brass and transients leap at you as they do in live music if you are as near as the microphones. Drums have the impact that that I had previously only heard on compression driven horns.
As an innovative circuit, this device has evolved. Early on I thought it was excellent, but then it got better in the P-12B and better yet again in the P-12B X5. The only real word to describe the sound was realism. I thought the last version could not be improved, but I was wrong, very wrong. I know of five others who now have their P-12Rs and who are also raving. You must hear this unit. |
Hi Mrtennis:
As I said upfront, I based "my" decision on the fact that the game of tennis is played on different surfaces so my vote goes to Agassi. Others may feel it's more important to them that someone won 25 Wimbledons in a row so that's who they would vote for. I do like your point about "head to head". I think you summed things up perfectly in your last sentence with regard to the masses agreeing on any one thing. Often times it's just semantics. If I said I had the best wife in the world, many would disagree. I will say I have the best wife for me and everyone who knew us would agree.
Enjoyed your response. |
hi onemug:
if sampras were to consistently beat agassi on grass, split evenly with agassi on hard surfaces and lose consistently on clay, what would you say. you have to look at head to head competition. the grand slam theory does not work.
for example, lets say agassi won a grand slam, but lost to one player every time he played him. would agassi still be the better player ?? i think there are too many variables to determine what is best in any endeavor, from tennis, to art, to cars, etc. . there is no best in life, with respect to any subject. |
In response to the initial thread, there is no universal best due to individual taste.
Same with the tennis analogies. "My" opinion is that Agassi was the best, although Laver would make for a great discussion. I base my decision on the fact that Tennis is played on grass, clay and cement. If you are truly the best of the best, you should be able to win on all surfaces. Only Agassi has won all 4 of the Slams on different surfaces. Borg never won the US Open on cement. Connors, McInroe, Sampras never won the French on clay. Federer is something special and still has a shot at the French. Laver had no choice back then as there was only 2 surfaces, grass and clay, but he is 1 of only 2 men to ever win the Grand Slam and only "he" did it twice. Agassi/Laver, now that would be a good discussion. Someone may come around and win the French 25 times in a row but I wouldn't consider him the best IMO. |
