You should get the Bugstomper 4000! Enough said.
Marco
Marco
Stereophile confirms new gear is getting worse....
It appears that "high end" audio gear is moving backwards rather than forwards. If you doubt this, take a look at the November 2003 issue and the test results of the electronics reviewed.
As a case in point, the Pass XA160 mono-block amps that were reviewed perform pretty horribly. While most folks that read these forums know that i'm not shy about being a fan of Nelson Pass' work, i don't have much good to say about these over-priced boat anchors. Most will probably remember what a hard time that i gave the PS Audio HCA-2. In effect, most of the comments that i made about that amp apply to this amp. From what i can tell, the comments that i made about the PS may not be strong enough as compared to how poorly the XA160's performed, especially at the price. Lack of current output, high distortion figures, non-linear frequency responses, the ability for the loudspeaker to modulate the output of the amp, etc... were all evident in the test results. To top it off, the input and output impedances will make this unit quite sensitive to the components ( preamp, speakers, etc...) that it is mated with.
Regardless of who's name is on this unit, how "pretty" it looks ( gorgeous ), what it weighs (200 lbs per monoblock) and the parts quality inside, quite honestly, this unit performed like a really crappy "vintage" ( read that as "low tech" ) tubed unit from the days prior to audio civilization. All this "eye candy" and a sore back for only $18K a pair !!!
As we move to the next product review, we look at the BAT VK-51SE. While this unit was more consistent than the Pass, some of the design choices made are obviously not good ones. The most obvious flaw that i see with this unit is that it changes sound / tonal balance as the volume is varied. Even when the gain control is adjusted for the flattest response, the top end starts sloping off gradually above 5 KHz. As you increase the gain, you now introduce low frequency roll-off into the equation also. If really standing on the throttle, the unit doesn't even make it down to 100 Hz within a -3 dB tolerance window !!! Obviously, this is not very good or linear and is poorer performance than one would expect out of a "reasonable" pair of speakers, NOT line level components !!!
As such, you can't expect consistent sonics from this unit unless you listen at one gain setting. If you have only one source component and all your recordings are of the same intensity, you "might" be able to find a reasonable setting. Since i highly doubt that this is the case, especially the part about consistent volume from recording to recording, you can pretty much count this out.
On top of the variations that this unit produces on its' own, one can introduce a whole new gang of variables into the equation once you start factoring in input / output impedances into the equation. I'll just say that this unit isn't going to be very versatile in terms of what components it mates up with in terms of amp selection. All this "high tech performance" for only $8500. Make that $9000 if you want the convenience of a remote.
Moving a few pages further, we run into the "giant killer" AH! Njoe Tjoeb ( pronounced "new tube" ) 4000 cd player. This is a highly modified / hot-rodded Marantz unit with tubes added, a "super clock" and the option of a "plug & play" upsampling board, fancy footers and an upgraded power cord. Depending on what you want to spend, the base unit is $700. If you go for the unit fully loaded with options, you can feel your bank account drained to the tune of about $1200.
Take one look at the frequency response of this unit and you'll see that it is far from "neutral". To top it off, distortions are higher along with a lack of suppression of AC harmonics. Jitter is pretty high for a unit with a "superclock" i.e. higher than other units i've seen with no "superclock". As such, this unit doesn't appear to be a "killer" of any type other than being able to "flatten your wallet in one swift motion".
Obviously, "high end" has come full circle. That is, it would appear that "audiophiles" are more concerned with asthaetics and reputation than actual performance and fidelity. The folks that used to laugh at Bang & Olufsen are now falling for looks at an even higher price. While the sonics may differ from Bang & Olufsen, the end result is that none of these units are "accurate" or capable of being called "high fidelity" units any more than Bang & Olufsen gear of yester-year was. The fact that B&O are now trying to jump back into "high end" with some truly innovative products just goes to show that one can't judge a company or product by its' cover any more.
Having said that, the above mentioned products can't really be called "Hi-Fi components". What they can be called are "flavoured audiophile toys". The funny thing is that J. Gordon Holt had commented on this type of situation arising within the industry and there are letters in this issue agreeing with that point of view. J. Peter Moncrieff also talked about that in IAR Hotline 76-80 quite a while back and found it rather pathetic. Count me in with that crowd too.
I do have to credit JA and the guys for having the guts to print these test results. While there is plenty of "dancing" in all of the reviews along with more than enough "gushing" ( the Pass review in specific ), it was pretty obvious that JA really DID make mention of the technical problems that each of these products displayed. As usual, Stereophile remains consistent in the fact that they continue to test, measure and display the results for all to see. For this, i offer a very hardy pat on the back, vigorous hand-clapping and whistling. THANK YOU from all of us that like reading and interpreting spec's for ourselves. Having said that, JA still tried to down-play these flaws somewhat by giving the "old soft shoe" at the end of his technical comments.
As i've said before, one has to buy and use what they like and makes them happy. With all of the various and BLATANT "flavouring" that is going on with audio gear nowadays, one really must know what they want and how well components will blend together in their system. It would appear that the days of trying to achieve "accuracy" and "musicality" with with each piece of gear are over. Now audio is kind of like Baskin-Robbins i.e. you've got to know what you like before you order what are VERY specific "flavours" for each product selected.
Let the buyer beware.... Sean
>
PS... I've got my flame repellent armour on along with an oxygen tank and a full battery of weapons. After this post and the responses that i think i'll get, i know that i'll need all of that and maybe more : )
As a case in point, the Pass XA160 mono-block amps that were reviewed perform pretty horribly. While most folks that read these forums know that i'm not shy about being a fan of Nelson Pass' work, i don't have much good to say about these over-priced boat anchors. Most will probably remember what a hard time that i gave the PS Audio HCA-2. In effect, most of the comments that i made about that amp apply to this amp. From what i can tell, the comments that i made about the PS may not be strong enough as compared to how poorly the XA160's performed, especially at the price. Lack of current output, high distortion figures, non-linear frequency responses, the ability for the loudspeaker to modulate the output of the amp, etc... were all evident in the test results. To top it off, the input and output impedances will make this unit quite sensitive to the components ( preamp, speakers, etc...) that it is mated with.
Regardless of who's name is on this unit, how "pretty" it looks ( gorgeous ), what it weighs (200 lbs per monoblock) and the parts quality inside, quite honestly, this unit performed like a really crappy "vintage" ( read that as "low tech" ) tubed unit from the days prior to audio civilization. All this "eye candy" and a sore back for only $18K a pair !!!
As we move to the next product review, we look at the BAT VK-51SE. While this unit was more consistent than the Pass, some of the design choices made are obviously not good ones. The most obvious flaw that i see with this unit is that it changes sound / tonal balance as the volume is varied. Even when the gain control is adjusted for the flattest response, the top end starts sloping off gradually above 5 KHz. As you increase the gain, you now introduce low frequency roll-off into the equation also. If really standing on the throttle, the unit doesn't even make it down to 100 Hz within a -3 dB tolerance window !!! Obviously, this is not very good or linear and is poorer performance than one would expect out of a "reasonable" pair of speakers, NOT line level components !!!
As such, you can't expect consistent sonics from this unit unless you listen at one gain setting. If you have only one source component and all your recordings are of the same intensity, you "might" be able to find a reasonable setting. Since i highly doubt that this is the case, especially the part about consistent volume from recording to recording, you can pretty much count this out.
On top of the variations that this unit produces on its' own, one can introduce a whole new gang of variables into the equation once you start factoring in input / output impedances into the equation. I'll just say that this unit isn't going to be very versatile in terms of what components it mates up with in terms of amp selection. All this "high tech performance" for only $8500. Make that $9000 if you want the convenience of a remote.
Moving a few pages further, we run into the "giant killer" AH! Njoe Tjoeb ( pronounced "new tube" ) 4000 cd player. This is a highly modified / hot-rodded Marantz unit with tubes added, a "super clock" and the option of a "plug & play" upsampling board, fancy footers and an upgraded power cord. Depending on what you want to spend, the base unit is $700. If you go for the unit fully loaded with options, you can feel your bank account drained to the tune of about $1200.
Take one look at the frequency response of this unit and you'll see that it is far from "neutral". To top it off, distortions are higher along with a lack of suppression of AC harmonics. Jitter is pretty high for a unit with a "superclock" i.e. higher than other units i've seen with no "superclock". As such, this unit doesn't appear to be a "killer" of any type other than being able to "flatten your wallet in one swift motion".
Obviously, "high end" has come full circle. That is, it would appear that "audiophiles" are more concerned with asthaetics and reputation than actual performance and fidelity. The folks that used to laugh at Bang & Olufsen are now falling for looks at an even higher price. While the sonics may differ from Bang & Olufsen, the end result is that none of these units are "accurate" or capable of being called "high fidelity" units any more than Bang & Olufsen gear of yester-year was. The fact that B&O are now trying to jump back into "high end" with some truly innovative products just goes to show that one can't judge a company or product by its' cover any more.
Having said that, the above mentioned products can't really be called "Hi-Fi components". What they can be called are "flavoured audiophile toys". The funny thing is that J. Gordon Holt had commented on this type of situation arising within the industry and there are letters in this issue agreeing with that point of view. J. Peter Moncrieff also talked about that in IAR Hotline 76-80 quite a while back and found it rather pathetic. Count me in with that crowd too.
I do have to credit JA and the guys for having the guts to print these test results. While there is plenty of "dancing" in all of the reviews along with more than enough "gushing" ( the Pass review in specific ), it was pretty obvious that JA really DID make mention of the technical problems that each of these products displayed. As usual, Stereophile remains consistent in the fact that they continue to test, measure and display the results for all to see. For this, i offer a very hardy pat on the back, vigorous hand-clapping and whistling. THANK YOU from all of us that like reading and interpreting spec's for ourselves. Having said that, JA still tried to down-play these flaws somewhat by giving the "old soft shoe" at the end of his technical comments.
As i've said before, one has to buy and use what they like and makes them happy. With all of the various and BLATANT "flavouring" that is going on with audio gear nowadays, one really must know what they want and how well components will blend together in their system. It would appear that the days of trying to achieve "accuracy" and "musicality" with with each piece of gear are over. Now audio is kind of like Baskin-Robbins i.e. you've got to know what you like before you order what are VERY specific "flavours" for each product selected.
Let the buyer beware.... Sean
>
PS... I've got my flame repellent armour on along with an oxygen tank and a full battery of weapons. After this post and the responses that i think i'll get, i know that i'll need all of that and maybe more : )
Showing 7 responses by jax2
Interesting stuff, this dialogue, both here, and the archived one on AudioAsylum which Sean points out. Personally I've never been that fond of Stereophile nor TAS for many of the reasons Trelja cites in his later Asylum post. They've been a resource for keeping abreast of what's going on in the 'popular' high-end market, and sometimes have pointed me to some good music. But ironically, till Art Dudley came on board, I did not enjoy reading many reviews or viewpoints of the editorial staff at Stereophile. Unlike so many others who would sooner see Dudley fired, he is the reason I actually read and actually enjoy any of that magazine. His December 03 Listener colum was spot-on, and one of the best pieces I've read in that rag. I've been looking through the March 04' issue to find out what the hell he wrote that has got so many spitting mad, but could only find a review of an ASL amp....what am I missing, can someone point it out? As far as the size of the magazine getting smaller, I went back to a few of last two years issues. They seem to vary from around 138 pages to 178 pages depending on the month. The past two months have been both 138 pages. So certainly not much as changed over the past few years. I have little doubt that the fluctuation must have something to do with the economy in general and how that has been affecting all trade and industries. I can tell you for sure that the advertising industry has taken a huge hit since 9/11, and editorial rags like Stereophile survive mostly on their advertising. Subsriptions do NOT keep mainstream rags alive. Is that an excuse for alot of the valid complaints brought up by Sean and others? I don't know, it just is what it is. If you understand it, you can put the input that is offered there in perspective. I do wonder why Atkinson chose not to respond in detail. His lack of response to some very valid discussion on his publication does not make him look very good in my eyes. I don't know his history with Sean, nor with anyone else for that matter as I have not paid close attention to criticism or editorial writing by Mr. Atkinson for reasons I've already suggested. I suspect he could provide an engaging and revealing response to some of the assertions, complaints, observations and speculations made by others, and can only assume by his silence that he feels the need to keep his business and editorial practices private, or has some personal issues with the individuals involved and cannot see beyond that, or that it simply not worth his time (which is sad indeed). I for one, would like to hear a response as I'm sure a truthful response would be enlightening in some ways, and would certainly garner more respect from the likes of me (not that Atkinson does or should necessarily give a rat's hairy hiny). I ain't him, and am not a publisher of a national magazine, so have no clue what he is up against, nor how he has to budget his time and energies, nor how a person in his position might weigh the value of contributing to a dominantly hostile thread on an audio-chat site on the Internet. Regardless, I have to say, I agree, his silence does not earn any respect from me. His choice to hire Art Dudley, and keep him on amidst all the controversy he's stirred up, however, does earn my respect. I still wish Dudley was able to keep Listener magazine alive. There was an interesting thread a while back by a gentleman who was thinking of starting his own publication and he had some very interesting comments on the compromises inherent in such an endeavor. I'll see if I can find the thread and post the link here. Marco |
Here's that thread from a while back by A'gon member "Plato" which I referred to in my previous post. Marco |
Thanks Trelja - I'll have to page through that issue again as I couldn't find his collum in March 04. I think his writing is very personal, very amusing, and often reveals the steaming heap of cow turds for just what it is. I guess others feel quite differently. Life is more than music and audio systems, and what makes any writing interesting, no matter what the subject, is being able to relate on a more personal and humanistic level to the author's viewpoint (whether or not you happen to agree). Omitting that element just makes for boring reviews and analasys and editorial that does not interest me in the least. I'll look forward to reading Dudley's piece. Marco PS Adding this a few hours later - Just read the piece...Hilarious!! I know why I kept missing it: I thought it was the letters section. I should try just looking in the index once in a while! |
I'd have to say that I'd disagree that the economy of scale necessitates higher prices. I can think of many smaller manufacturers who build outstanding products and who manage to market them at a very reasonable price (Mike Sanders, George Wright, DH Labs, Homegrown Audio, etc.). It's when you start building your product to boutique standards with faceplates that cost as much to design and tool as the actual product, and when a company starts to pay big bucks in advertising (so they can also get their product reviewed in the likes of Sterophile and TAS) that the economy of scale starts to rear it's expensive head. I'm in the same camp as Trelja in my priorities being with how a product works as opposed to how it looks. The 1/2 inch tooled billet aluminum faceplates and glowing blue orbs can be spared on my account for sure. I'll take the Shallico attenuator though, but it doesn't have to have a finely machined golden knob on it . Now if we're talking those $500 wooden knobs, well then we're in the realms of massive accoustic improvements....worth every damn penny for sure! Marco |
At the expense of being lumped into the "Whiner" category, I'd have to agree with Sean's point as well. I've got a stack of Stereophile issues from the past two years, and have subscribed, on and off, over many more years. I cannot recall any reviews where a product was panned. In fact, whenever negative points are brought up, it seems they are often quickly swept under the carpet by pointing out the positive merits all in the guise of presenting a 'balanced' review. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain....hey kids, keep your eyes on the pretty colors and have s'more candy! Watch the funny sock-puppet dance and sing!.......Never mind that there no one has found any evidence of nuclear weapons production in Iraq, we got that evil bastard that was causing all the trouble....pay no mind to those bodies their shipping back, and those civillian corpses...just look at what it's done for our economy! Er, ah, I mean, we got the evil bastard who was causing all the trouble....hey, did you see my funny sockpuppet buddies?!" The popular media has always been driven by money and politics, and I don't believe Stereophile, or Car & Driver, or any other advertising-driven rag that reviews products is ever going to present an unbiased viewpoint that does not reflect a favor to those who pay their bills. Are all the products THAT good that not a one is a complete dud in comparision to what else is out there available for around the same price? Having heard a few duds, and knowing that my preferences, like anyone else, are highly subjective and have certain leanings toward particular kinds of music and the reproduction thereof, I truly doubt that a single publication reviewing all kinds of components in various price ranges cannot seem to find a dud among them. Perhaps they just choose not to review the duds, one might suggest. Well, I guess that's possible....keep your eyes on the sockpuppet. And what about that Sterophile rating system. Let's see, a rating system that chooses to put include an MP3 player among it's recommended components.....hmmm.......to me, listening to my music on an iPod is like attaching some ten-penny nails in place of the speakers on the headphones and wearing those for a few hours while the music was piped into my brain from an 8-Track in a 76' Gremlin. Kind of a Clockwork Orange scenario going on there if the music happened to be Ludwig Van. I had some hope when I read Art Dudley's review of, I think it was the Ayre CX7 CD Player........he didn't like it, and wasn't trying to hide the fact that he didn't like it, but alas, Ayre saved the day by pointing out he should have tried the balanced outputs, and of course that made all the difference. I don't doubt that it did perform as he claims. I was just looking for someone to prove my whole theory wrong (and I had every confidence that Dudley was my man by my enjoyment of his unrestrained editorials). At least it lead to a very conditional recommendation on the part of Dudley in the case of the CX7 (I think that was what it was anyway - sorry if I'm inaccurate there). That's the furthest I've seen any review go towards being construed as a remotely negative, and I must admit, I was really surprised to read even that. Marco |
I don't know that 'logic' has much to do with it. Nor 'accuracy'. This is a highly subjective hobby. To some folks, 'accuracy' is everything and can be measured with an oscilliscope, a microphone and a sound-pressure meter. To others it's a far more subjective realm of judgement that is more about the experience of how a system sounds, and then there is every degree of variation in between. My ideal review format would have a group of reviewers without financial agenda (of course), who each have their own spot on that jury spectrum. In the review of any and every component, each of them would contribute their personal views which one would be able to reference against past preferences and how those preferences may relate to their own. Also, it would be nice to have components that compete against one and other rated together as a group, much like Consumer Reports does with mass-market products, but on a smaller scale. The rags do this to some degree, but more often isolate the review to only one reviewer, and most certainly there is the unavoidable conflict of interest of the financial matter of advertising paying the salaries of the reviewers. A review in this formate might have a face-off between Audio-Aero, Cary, Muse, and Wadia CD players. Each would be compared within various diverse systems by the same group of reviewers, and each would give their viewpoint of how each player stacked up against the other. As it stands now, we usually have a single reviewer, doing a review of a single component in their reference system with a variation or two, and comparing it to whatever else happens to be on hand, or may have been recently reviewed (in which case they may be compared from memory). And perhaps there may be a sidebar where another reviewer may chime in with far less detail than the overall review having auditioned the component in an entirely different room and system. Of course this will never happen. There are all kinds of reasons why not, most having to do with difficulty and impracticality and expense of conducting reviews this way I imagine. And or course then there's the pressure of the advertising-dependent journal. I don't think I'd rather be reading reviews of constant drueling praise, singing that the glory of god has been bestowed upon each and every component under scrutiny. That we should love these beautiful children for all their flaws as well as their assets because each and every one was conceived in heaven and constructed by li'll elves with soldering skills handed down for generations. What I want to know when I read a review most every time that I can think of is just how does this component stack up against what else is out there available in the same price range. How does this component interface with different types of systems and music, and who is making such a judgement, and what do others say who may have different tastes and preferences. As far as billet aluminum, glowing blue knobs, fins to write home about and all of that high-tech ornamentation, I see nothing at all wrong with any of that since there's obviously a market for it, and there are those who value form as much as function. Nothing wrong with that at all as long as you realize you are paying for both. Have components started to decline in quality/price ratio? I don't know. I've been pretty impressed with what not a whole lot of money can by these days in the high end. The threshold at which investment-to-improvement is low enough so that many folks can have a very satisfying taste of what others can afford in spades, without taking out a second mortgage. I am very impressed also with the fact that, to my ears, I can get great pleasure from some vintage components that are over 50 years old sometimes in terms of their design and technology (I speak of the likes of Klipsch, Quad, Dynaco, etc......and of course the LP's/turntables which many of us adore and prefer over digital options). What other realm of consumer technology can boast such a staying-power.....perhaps classic cars might be an example, though if I was driving any distance at all I'd rather be in something more modern for the comfort and convenience, not to mention economy. Not sure where I'm going with this, but that's what came to mind when reading the last few posts. A very enjoyable thread indeed. Marco |