Z: While many of your technical comments are quite valid, the fact that these units show marked deviation in any form is testimony in itself that products aren't being designed for neutrality or accuracy. As such, they should no longer be referred to as "hi-fi components" but. They are being built to suit the tastes / colouration preferences of those most likely to buy them.
If such were not the case, the great resurgence in tube gear would not be happening. Anybody that has ever seen the test results of "most" commercially available tube gear would know that these units are far from accurate, linear or "transparent". I know that i'm stepping on a lot of toes here, but if tubes didn't have these "sonic traits", they wouldn't be so discernable from SS gear.
While there are a handful of tube manufacturers that strive to achieve high levels of accuracy and musicality, they are the exception and not the norm. The fact that SS and hybrid tube / ss gear is taking the same approach should tell you that the products we are seeing are strictly market driven. They have little to nothing to do with technological advances or the desire to reproduce recordings in a naturally transparent manner.
As far as the Pass gear goes in specific, i hate seeing something like this. Not only does the manufacturer misrepresent the product in terms of basic specs, the product tests like crap. While i'm a big fan of Nelson's work, this thing is just plain horrible in a technical sense. The fact that the faceplate on this thing cost more to manufacture than what some amps cost to build really shows where their priorities are.
As to the BAT preamp, if they can't provide reasonable linearity across the bandwidth that isn't volume dependent for $8K, maybe they should have spent another $100 in product development and better parts selection. One could logically deduce that the frequency response of the unit would shift accordingly between the response measured at full gain and minimal gain, but even that would require some form of linearity. Utterly ridiculous to say the least.
As to the Njoe Tjoeb, your comment stating "probably of no audible consequence or any great sin at this price" is pretty heavy handed and "snooty" to say the least. While i know that you don't have your nose stuck in the air, that comment would lead one to believe that $850 - $1200 should be considered a pittance and that one can't buy something at least technically decent for this price. I guess the fact that they can make self contained portable "discman" type units that also contain an amplifier and market them for $39 with the manufacturer, distributor and retailer all making a profit means nothing.
Not to beat a dead horse, but we've already covered how poorly the PS HCA-2 performed. Just to refresh our memories, that was ranked a "Class A" component. If something that performs that poorly can make it into Class A, what does that say about the rest of the competition ? The only logical deduction here is that the quality of components IS getting worse and the reviewers are lowering their standards to compensate for it. Other than that, i can only think of one other reason how such products could obtain positive reviews.
I guess we had nothing to complain about while Stereophile was "loving" all the MF gear. Hell, at least that stuff was designed relatively competently and didn't cost near as much. Sean
>
PS... Thanks to those that offered words of support. It's always nice to know that you're not alone : )
|
Infinitebaffle: You are listening to the spec's whether you think you are or not. If the spec's you're looking at don't correlate with the sound that you're hearing, the spec's were either obtained in an incorrect manner, the circuitry was poorly designed and compensated for in a manner that is less than musical or the manufacturer is lying about them. It is either one of the above or you prefer specific sonic characteristics that don't equate to what most would consider to be "good" measurements. Then again, most of the measurements that one needs to discern if a product is well designed / will sound "acceptable" aren't published by manufacturers in a usable manner. THAT is why i'm thankful that Stereophile still tests and publishes in the manner that they do. Sean
> |
Bomarc: While i can appreciate and somewhat agree with your comments, it appears that you still seem to believe that all amps "load up" or respond the same into every type of conceivable impedance presented by various speakers. Such is not the case. A rudimentary investigation of the facts in this area will turn up more than ample evidence to support this point of view. I guess that i can see how you would believe that passive components are all the same ( wire is wire ) if you were of the belief that all active devices ( amps ) were the same too.
Having said that, i should have worded this post a little more carefully. I shouldn't have said that "all" audio gear is getting worse. I should have said that it appears that some highly regarded products made by reputable manufacturers are specifically deviating from neutrality on purpose. Thanks to those that pointed this out and kept things in balance. I wasn't trying to be controversial, i was just short-sighted in the words and terms that i used. Then again, some of these products appear to be under-designed from the get-go and that is what is causing deviations to manifest themselves in their performance. Sean
> |
Bomarc: Please clarify your position so that i and the rest of us may better understand where i went wrong.
Aboldor: Thanks for posting that link. My thoughts on Nelson's response are relatively mixed. While i had no doubt in my mind that they would stand behind their products if their was a problem, i still can't understand how ANY product that costs this much money could go ANYWHERE without a full bench check and QA being performed. At $18K, each unit should come with its' own individualized spec sheet. I guess that i'm expecting too much at this price level though. Sean
> |
Jayctoy: I try to speak in understandable terms, but to someone that is less technically minded, i'm sure a lot of it sounds like "Babylon" i.e. "babble-on". Then again, i do make a concerted effort to try and explain things that are more technical in nature, hence the lengths of some of my posts that "babble-on".
Trelja: Once again, i find that we are on the same page. I too like OTL's, but the majority of speakers that i prefer just don't work too well with them. On top of that, with the spl's that i like to be able to achieve, i would be eating up output tubes left and right. OTL tube amps can be great, if they match your speakers and listening preferences. Sean
> |
Jayctoy: I am looking for "musical accuracy". This means that i want a system that is truthful to the sound of instruments and voices as heard live. In order to do this, you need high levels of accuracy, both in the equipment and in the recording. Obviously, there are compromises made in both of these areas, so one has to pick and choose what they are willing to accept and how they want to cope with such a situation.
As to being "too technical", i abhor both "clinical" sounding audio systems and systems that "sugar coat" everything. If i had to choose between one or the other, i would take the "sugar coated" system. The primary reason for this is that most recordings tend to be bright, lean and hard sounding. As such, i'd rather have a less revealing system than one that was un-naturally etched sounding. A system that was "highly detailed" to the point of being strident would only highlight the flaws mentioned previously in most mass produced recordings.
Quite honestly, i would venture to say that this is directly related to the resurgence of tube gear. Tubes tend to produce a fuller sound with less transient energy at high frequencies. This type of reproduction compliments / helps to hide the horrible qualities that many digital recordings and digital playback equipment tend to bring with them. Taming these flaws via a known colouration is therefore more pleasant than having one's ears bleed in the name of "accuracy".
As far as Trent from Van L goes, i have no idea who he is or was, so i don't know how to take that comment. I've always dealt with John, the owner, who is a truly nice guy. Sean
> |
KKursula: low frequency characteristics of different instruments vary depending on how they are tuned and the manner that they are being played. I have heard large drums sound phenomenally tight and impactful with great "slam". I have also heard them sound soft and round. Much of this has to do with their tuning, age of the "skin" and how / where they were struck and what type of instrument was used to strike them.
As far as stand-up basses go, they typically tend to sound pretty vibrant and a little bit "wet" & "loose". That can vary quite a bit though depending on the mood of the song and whether or not the bass player is talented or not.
As far as electric basses go, they can REALLY vary quite a bit. Depending on the tuning of the guitar and the materials that it is made from, the type of amplification and speakers being used, round or flat wound strings ( HUGE difference in tonality here ), etc...
After all, if all low frequency instruments had the same tonal and transient characteristics, we would only need one of them that could do the job of all of them.
Ultraviolet: I have four SS based systems that are all VERY different from one another and one tube based system. That should tell you something in itself.
As far as live music goes, i've got tickets to see five shows prior to 2004 and who knows what else will come up before then. As a side note, i used to book concerts and do pro-sound reinforcement work for a living and then on the side. I still do this on rare occasion, but not nearly as often as i used to. Sean
> |
|
Joe wasn't saying that the NAD was sonically equivalent or better than any of the "fancy" brands mentioned. What he was saying was that it was a comptetently designed product that was versatile enough to work with whatever load that you threw at it and do so with reasonable results. Given the price difference between this amp and the others mentioned, let alone the $9500 Hovland, i thought that his comments were right down main street. Then again, it appears that we already agree on the core of this thread, so that shouldn't amaze anyone.
As a reminder, this thread was specifically started out of the fact that so many newer products are failing during reviews and demo periods, don't meet spec, are limited in their uses due to lack of versatility / being under-designed, etc... AND costing more money than ever. As far as sonics go between older & newer products, that is a matter of subjectivity and will never be resolved. I have stated many times before that i think that much of what we hear as being "better" has more to do with the improvements in passive parts quality available now than over-all circuit design compared to days of the past.
Having said that, paying more for a product that is less reliable, less versatile and suffering from poorer design would have to be considered "worse" by anyone that is interested in anything but "niche" products. Such an approach is anything but what "hi-end" is all about. As far as i knew, "hi-end" meant that the products rose above all expectations AND the competition. That is what set them apart from being lumped in with "mid-fi" gear i.e. better and more consistent performance in every aspect.
When a $10K amplifier can't drive a 4 ohm with authority, which is not that low of an impedance for modern day speakers, the amplifier is probably either poorly designed and / or a poor performer. In my book, that excludes it from being considered a "hi-end" product. If you think that such a product is both "hi-end" and "acceptable", i guess that we have different ideas on the subject. Sean
>
PS... This thread is not about the Hovland or any one product in specific. It is about trends within the industry. |
Uppermidfi: "Why do people only agree with Stereophile when it says something bad about some piece of stereo equipment. If they praise some piece of equipment everyone says they're wrong and that it sucks (Musical Fidelity is an example, but my comments are not limited to MF) but if they pan something everyone praises them for their courage."
Sean: Very few products get "canned" in a review, even when it is obvious that they are total pieces of junk. If you want evidence of this, look at Paul Bolin's / Stereophile's review of the Legacy Focus 20/20. If you read Bolin's comments, this is the best value in high end audio speakers available. If you actually look at the performance of the system as measured by JA, you'll know that it is little more than a bunch of high quality drivers thrown into the smallest possible yet still large glossy cabinet with little fore-thought put into the actual design. How anybody could praise a $6K speaker that has a frequency response of +8 dB's / -3 dB's and has to sit with their heads at least 45" above the floor for best results is WAY beyond me. Yet Bolin and Stereophile RAVED about this product. If that is as good as things get and it costs $6K to obtain results like that, we have sunk WAY below the level of performance that end users expected, even in the late 1970's. Sean
>
PS... Not only is this a comment on the quality of products being manufactured and foisted upon us today, but also the integrity of those writing and publishing reviews of such products. Knowing the truth yet making it possible for someone else to lie to you is nothing more than aiding the "scam" being perpetuated. JA did this very thing when he allowed this review to be published. Either that or he was trying to make clear that Paul Bolin can't differentiate between reasonably flat response and response that is highly coloured. There are no other explanations possible that i can think of for this situation. |
Ultraviolet: Each one of the systems that i have is very different yet quite similar to each other. I'll suffice it to say that these systems were all built to their listening environment. That is, i'm not trying to cram 10 lbs of material into a 2 lb bag. For that matter, i'm not expecting one gallon of paint to cover the entire house either.
In English, i've got small speakers and electronics in smaller rooms and bigger speakers and electronics in bigger rooms. Most, if not all of the gear, has been modified to some extent. This was done in an attempt to make it both more "accurate" and more "musical". To be quite honest though, not all of these systems are built to the same standards or use the same quality of components. I simply can't afford to do that.
On top of that, the speakers are all quite different in design and implimentation. Obviously, each design brings with them their own strengths and weaknesses. I've tried to work with those strengths by utilizing them in specific installations and minimize the weaknesses by avoiding situations that they aren't well suited for. Given that i'm not expecting the same level of output from each of these systems, they have been optimized for the range of operation that they are most used for. I think that if more people took this approach i.e. built a system around the room / speaker interphase and the acoustics / listening preferences that they have, they would be a lot happier in the long run.
As a side note and being a bit of a "collector", i've got tons of other gear that i'm currently not even using. This is not to mention that some of the gear that i was running not that long ago is now gone i.e. "out the door". Some of this is due to profitable offers from others that wanted it more than i did and some of it is due to the fact that it did not perform as i expect it to, even after modifications. With that in mind, i'm not above "trashing" or pointing out the flaws in a product, even if i currently own it or have owned it in the past. The fact that i like Pass designed gear, and have stated this publicly many, many times, yet took them to task for the poor performance and quality control of one of their "latest and greatest" products further reinforces that i'm not about playing "favourites" or promoting a specific agenda. I try to call it as i see it, even if it means ocassionally stepping on the toes of my own personal preferences.
What i am about is quality, consistency and design integrity, regardless of price. Given that prices are going up and quality, consistency and design integrity seem to be going backwards in a lot of high end products, i would hope that you can understand where i'm coming from and why i started this thread. After all, when a manufacturer jumps on a plane, flies across the ocean to hand deliver a product to a reviewer, and that product is dead within 24 hours, what does that say about the state of "high end" and the products that are getting raved about? To me, it says that a random sample off the production line is probably going to be even worse and less consistent. Sean
> |
Zaikesman: Pass knows better and i think that they had a MAJOR problem with quality control. This doesn't speak too highly of them though. What would have happened with the amps that were already out in circulation if nobody had measured / caught these problems? Would the owners have been "good enough listeners" to tell that there was a problem and send them back in OR would they have simply sold them thinking that "Pass ain't all that it's cracked up to be", putting more "junk" ( albeit "expensive junk" ) out on the used market??? Even though Pass stepped up to the plate to correct the problem and admits the flaw, this kind of situation leaves a bad taste in my mouth. After all, it's not like they are building a thousand units a day. QC for a small manufacturer that supposedly builds top flight / mega-dollar gear should be "job 1".
Hovland "may" know better but i'm not sure. The fact that they made changes to the product shows that they are eager to please, but at the same time, didn't do their homework to begin with. Getting an education at the customers expense i.e. "learning as you go" can become pretty expensive for consumers, especially trying to keep up with all of the "Mk II" and "Mk III" revisions. Then again, we are all learning, otherwise products would never evolve and technology would remain the same. Kind of a double-sided coin. One would hope that a company actually tested their products before marketing them though. Some don't because they are afraid that others will "beat them to the punch" and that "every second counts". Too bad the consumer is left holding the bag in that type of situation, especially when that bag used to be full of their own money.
On the other hand, Legacy can tell you everything that you want to know about speaker design if you read their brochures. They obviously have a very astute grasp of marketing their product and telling you what you want to hear. At the same time though, the measurements seem to produce consistent test results that are quite deficient in the same areas. Given the fact that more than one product demonstrates this type of behaviour, i don't think it is a matter of QC, but more-so a "company voice" or "sonic signature" that the designers / engineers think "sounds good". All i know is the measurements that i see for these products demonstrate very noticeable bass bloat ( +5 to +7 dB's at 80 - 120 Hz ). Needless to say, with all of the "know-how" and "technology" invested in these speakers that they keep telling us about, you would think that they could achieve slightly greater linearity out of their multi-thousand dollar products. Sean
> |
The post below was taken from another thread. Rather than respond in that thread and throw it completely off course, i took the liberty of tranfering it here. After all, the main idea being discussed / commented on was basically derived from the thoughts i presented here and in other similar threads. ------------------------------------------------------------ 03-09-04: Stehno Barry, Now you did it. You went and made Sean angree. Do you know what Sean did to the last mfg'er that made him angree? Just ask the folks around here or at Legacy. It was not pretty. {I shudder just thinking about it}. Well, Barry, it's, um, been nice, um, chatting with you but I really, uh, must go now. -IMO Stehno Here's my response: Stehno: What should a person do when they are aware of fraud, corruption and lies taking place? Obviously, these actions are done in order to scam less knowledgable individuals out of their hard earned money and have been taking place on a continual basis for years. Should a person with a conscience just mind their own business and continue to let others less knowledgable fall for the scam? Should this person speak up and try to help those potentially at risk at the expense of possibly being ostracized for being a "goody two shoes", "know-it-all", "internet bully"? Obviously, there are two different paths to take here, each with different repurcussions. Which one would you take? Here's something else to consider before making that decision. Besides angering those doing the scamming, the person exposing the situation runs the risk of being labeled an "asshole" by those that have already been scammed and don't know it and / or are too vain to admit it. As such, no matter what they do i.e. try to help spare others what they know to be a costly mistake based on verifiable facts OR expose the scam artists for what they are, it is a no-win situation for that person. Please tell me which path you think is loaded with roses i.e. being a passive observer and watching others get robbed or taking a stand for what you know is right at your own personal risk and reputation. I'm sure that your answer will provide great insight. Sean > PS... I'm serious and would like a response. You can do it via email if you like, but i would prefer it be done here. After all, if i am going to pass judgment on industry professionals and their products and you are going to pass judgment on me for doing so, i'd like to have as big and varied of a jury as possible to weigh both sides of the story. |
Barry: The company that you are involved with isn't one of those i was discussing. On top of that, i'm not going to single out ANYBODY with those specific statements as i'm not THAT dumb in terms of legalities. I'll just present a scenario and let you answer it for yourself. What would you call a company whose products don't meet their own published specifications, yet continues to produce, advertise and sell them as is? As far as i know, they would be guilty of both fraud and conspiracy. Obviously, anyone that makes a living by mis-representing their products via "lying to the public" is nothing less than "corrupt"*. Unfortunately, the FTC doesn't get involved in this type of stuff like they should. When reviewers "overlook" these self-flattering yet unsubstantiated claims made by these manufacturers and report on what wonderful products these flawed pieces of junk are, they too are just as corrupt. The fact that they are willing to lie to their readers, sometimes even with evidence that completely contradicts them found in the same "review", makes them just as much of a fraud and part of the conspiracy. I really have to wonder just how much "truth in reporting" actually takes place now-a-days? It's no wonder that people don't like being told the truth. When you try to do that, all you end up doing is "confusing them with the facts". That's probably because they've been spoon-fed so many lies on a regular basis that they can no longer think for themselves or know what the truth looks like any more. Sean > PS... Do yourself a favour and respond to Stehno's comments / questions in the thread that directed you here. * They left out one very important and highly descriptive word when defining "fraud". That word would be "politician" : ) |
