2. tech-talk
  3. 1067066163

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 : )
sean
stevecham
3,340 posts
 
Sean, no need to put the armour on (A Brit are ya?), no flames from me on this topic and I reflect most of your sentiments. And I like it when someone has the courage to put a stake in the ground and stand by it. Kudos to you.

Buyer Beware is front and center for any major outlay of resources. In my opinion there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for releasing-for-sale products of poor measured performance in ANY component in this day and age, unless of course it's done strictly for reasons of greed (flames here). I don't really care how damn good the thing is supposed to BE esoterically or how "sweet" it sounds under certain EXCEPTIONAL and unrealistic situations e.g. with certain music styles only or with interconnects/speaker cables that prevent the damn thing from going into runaway oscillation, or with extremely sensitive speakers (90+dB) at 10 OHms and above, it's got to measure well. Also, input and output impedances should be realistically designed to meet the needs of the real world in terms of electrical compatibility, unless that manufacturer is also prepared to provide all the components necessary for an "exceptional configuration."

I uphold the school that states that measured performance does indeed correlate to system performance, intercomponent compatibility and long term listening pleasure.

Why anyone would want anything other than pure neutrality in a music playback system, and let the flavoring occur via the music selected for listening alone, is beyond me (flames here). But then that's my view.

If such manufacturers want to make gear that would have intercomponent measurement anomalies, then they should make all-in-one credenzas like the stereos of the 60s that they have all the source components, pres, amps and speaker configurations in one unit. This way we can't see the wierd stuff going on between the electronics and all the user has to "worry" about is how it sounds and what he she puts in/on the CD/LP/Tuner etc and where the 117 VAC in the wall is.

Kind of like Bose Wave system.

Otherwise if it HAS inputs and outputs, make it measure, interact well with, and "play ball with the rest of the kids in the playground."

In the end we must ask how long manufacturers of gear with poor measured performance actually last in the modern high end industry.

Can I borrow your flame repellent armour and O2 tank, I think I'm gonna need it. (Perhaps a review of such speacialized gear is in order too under a separate thread.) ;-0
rh
12 posts
 
Sean, your only beginning to scratch the surface.......... no need to worry about your armour, the truth is your greatest weapon.
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
Sean: Although I think you know that I would not buy a piece of gear based on specs, and I am sure you wouldn't either, I do want to join you in commending Stereophile for being just about last man standing when it comes to publishing original test results. In fact, I think they should expand the practice: Test the gear written up in the columns, not just the reviews; Add more speaker tests to help quantify dynamic and frequency response vs. distortion + noise; And like JA finally got around to doing this month - but seemingly only because it involved his beloved LP12 - start including measurements when it comes to analog gear. Measurements are a useful check on both gear quality and reviewer accuity.

Having said that though, I haven't got any problems with the specs of any of the pieces mentioned. My only problem with the Pass amp, for instance, is if the true measurements deviate greatly from the manufacturer's claimed measurements - which it seems as though they might - but not with the unit's measured capabilities per se. Yes, it does seem faintly ridiculous to me that an amp the XA160's size, weight, type, and price shouldn't offer more output grunt and linearity, but I don't think you can extrapolate from that into some kind of accelerating trend toward a 'personalized fidelity' paradigm within the industry. And complaining about output impedance in an amp with no global feedback seems a little disingenuous to me. Maybe something was sub-optimal with the test sample anyway, and I'll withold judgement (on this narrow issue) until Pass responds in the magazine.

As for the BAT preamp, it would have been nice had JA included a measurement of its response somewhere in between unity gain and max output. Absent that, I have to infer from his comments that the measured behavior really did not bother him, and that he really did think this piece was well-engineered for use within normal operating parameters. That there might be some slight change in the location of the upper -.5dB point (into average loads) dependent on volume setting does not, to me, seem to be all that unusual, or to disqualify a piece from consideration as a high fidelity instrument. In fact, it seems quite possible to me that such a volume control might well be engineered to deliver superior transparency through the heart of the volume range - no doubt what BAT would contend. And again, I'm not sure what you're driving at with remarks about I/O impedances - the BAT's input impedance was unmeasurably high, and the output impedance seems reasonable for an all-tube design that eschews cathode-followers, and will work fine with plenty of amps.

With the AH! CD player, you're probably right, it certainly does appear as if the response has been slightly tailored to yield a small dip through the 'brightness' range. But hey, customers interested in a heavily modded, tubed version of a mass-market player might find this attractive. And though the rest of the results may not have been stellar, they were all OK, and they're probably of no audible consequence or any great sin at this price.

More to the point, neither you nor I have heard these pieces - the reviewers did. And again, I can see no real basis, just from this anecdotal evidence, to back up your assertion that 'new gear is getting worse' in general.
clamps200045c1
63 posts
 
So what gear should we buy?
More to discover