Correct bass? Real live bass is loud and forceful, not tight and tuneful. Orchestral bass sections sound big and fat in real life! Trelja, you might even have a good thing and you do not even know it.
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 : )
123 responses Add your response
Sean, I'm not trying to intentionally ruffle feathers here, but that being said... You claim to be pursuing accuracy and dislike either etched or sugar coated sounds then proclaim your love of a certain type of tube amp (although I don't believe you're currently using this). In my humble opinion, while tube amps can sound wonderful, and I am, in fact, in the midst of setting up a second tube only system, they are, to my ears, very inaccurate. But you say that if you had to choose between etched and sugar coated you would choose the latter (as would I) so perhaps that is where your love of tubes comes into play. That being said, as a musician, I have a great deal of experience both playing and listening to live music. Live music is almost always etched and bright while, at the same time as Kkursula pointed out, there can be some fat bass in there as well. Yet, for some reason, I do not seek out these attributes in my system. I am currently running Vienna Acoustics. I think these speakers really sound quite beautiful. Consider photography for a moment. Many photographers will place a filter over the lens of the camera--this results in many beautiful pictures. Are these an accurate reproduction of the original? Clearly not, but they are very pleasing. Presumably, the photographer thought this was MORE pleasing than the original. Whether on purpose, or by accident, my speakers place a beautiful filter over the music. I thoroughly enjoy it, but I do not for a second pretend that it is accurate. This next comment is not in the slightest way directed at you because I really don't know anything about you...it's more directed at the slice of the audiophile community that I know personally. The average audiophile (in my experience) does not attend many live events. Their love of music, mysteriously, does not seem to extend beyond the confines of their listeing room. As such, when I see so many people touting accuracy as their end-all goal, I have to ask myself, "who are they to know what accuracy is?" I find this to be a fascinating hobby and there is room for all whether one's involvement stems from the pursuit of accuracy (and this IS the pursuit of some people), the pursuit of a pleasing sound, the pursuit of great looking equipment, or perhaps, simply the pursuit of pissing off one's wife. I just wish we were all more honest. I think we could all make more informed decisions if we knew the motivating forces behind a particular endorsement. I apologize if I have offended, this is simply an opinion like the thousands of others on here. |
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 > |
I agree with you Sean. I'm also worked with a pro sound company for about 5 years and and can assure you that every live concert is different. In fact, I remember a Styx concert last year, I was right next to the Sound Engineer. Audience off and on would say comment like," tell the soundman that there is no bass on that side" or," I can't hear the vocals" or even," Its to LOUD!" I have been a victim of these comment and you know what I tell them, nothing. A sound engineer that has been in a band for a long time will know when a mix sounds good and not. If the the sound you perceive makes you completely happy, why change it. The point I am trying to make is every person is trying to perceive the same goal( enjoy music at its fullest), but from different prospective. |
Kkursula, it seems you got what I was trying to say. It's quite difficult for an audio system to recreate the sound of a drum being pounded. As I previously talked about the inadequacies of OTL amps in getting the job done in comparison to transformer coupled tube and solid state amps, I also find my experience reflects that in terms of loudspeakers. Most vented box woofers do fine at creating the volume of the event(provided they have been properly designed, have enough horsepower, cone area, etc.), it's just that the impact is very often blunted. Sealed boxes can produce the snap, but are often down in volume. The answer may be in a TRUE(true being the operative word here) transmission line alignment. I am not yet convinced, as I have not yet received my new speakers, but am holding out hope based on some past experiences. However, TL's are large, complicated, heavy, and expensive. Do their benefits outweigh their drawbacks? We'll see... |
hi all! The worst component of an audio system is the loudspeaker. It has the largest amount of nonlinear distortion, nearing 10% sometimes, at least 10 times the distortion of any electronics! Yet we condemn, the nonaccuracy of an amplifier? It is not the sonic signature of the electronics that determines our desires or wants? Whether an amp has 3% or .00003% distortion is mostly "in the noise" compared to those nonlinearities inherent in the loudspeaker drivers. To me the accuracy of the loudspeaker is more important. I have said many times before, it is the aesthetical values that we place not only on the components but our existential view of music that determines our systems. |
To all of our supporters, acquaintances, friends and others in the audiophile community: Recently Stereophile reviewed a pair of XA 160 amplifiers that are rated at 160 watts per channel into 8 ohms. In spite of what we consider to be a rave review, they did not meet their full power spec. Unfortunately, we did not hear about this until after the review. Although their policy is to inform a manufacturer of such a discrepancy, this didn't happen, so it was a bit of a surprise. When we received the amplifiers back, we did indeed confirm the wattage shortfall, which was due to maladjustment. This was easily corrected, and the amps do indeed measure 160 watts. How does something like this happen? Tracking it back, this particular pair was taken home for subjective listening and they did not receive a final test. Does this alter the "tone" of the review with regard to the sound? We say only to the extent that they possibly sound a bit better, having a little more power, slightly lower distortion, and slightly higher damping factor. Do the US owners have reason for concern? NO. First, such a maladjustment does not have an effect on reliability and only a slight effect on the sound. A customer concerned that his XA 160's might not meet power spec can arrange to have the units examined at the factory and readjusted if necessary without cost, and Pass Pabs will pay the freight both ways. This offer will extend indefinitely to the XA 160's from the first units made to those shipped through September 2003. Like any other human endeavor, mistakes do happen, and we feel the measure of a company is in its response to the customer. As always, we do our best to insure customer satisfaction. Respectfully, Peter Perkins, domestic sales, Pass Labs |
Ultraviolet: I am not sure I know what you mean when you say that most live music is 'etched' and 'bright'. I have to assume you are talking about the sound of PA systems, not live acoustic music, but even so, none of the PA's I've heard sound 'etched', as in overly emphasizing the leading edges of transients, or especially in overly pinpointing images. I've heard some PA's sound 'bright', as in too hot in certain ranges, but not confined only to the 'brightness' range. But they are just as likely to sound tubby or muddy and indistinct as a dominant flaw. Live acoustic music, on the other hand - and as the only meaningful barometer of reproduction 'accuracy' - can never really be accused of sounding 'overly bright' or 'etched': it is what it is. The performance space acoustics or audience vantage point may introduce perceived response anomolies at the listening position (which generally attenuate, not accentuate, treble power), but whatever 'brightness' comes out of a horn's bell or off a violin's bow cannot be argued with. I'm also at a loss to understand your assertion that tube amplified systems, including the ones you've set up, sound 'very inaccurate' as a rule. This will come as news to most audiophiles. Although I've never owned SS amps that would contend for state-of-the-art, my tube amps have impressed as being more realistic overall in their handling of many musical attributes. I've certainly heard SS amps that sound just as good or even better in many areas than the tubed amps I currently own, but I think competent designs from either camp can undoubtedly sound pretty close to real music, and are not 'very inaccurate' or even all that different in many respects. I am a musician too, a guitarist, and one of the things that I think biases me toward tube amps - besides of course the well-known ability of tubed guitar amps to generate pleasing distortion characteristics - is that I've never played through a SS guitar amp that sounded as 'alive' as a decent tubed amp. Even the best ones I've tried all give somewhat of a 'dead' feel, in terms of the relationship between what you play and what you hear which combine to create the elusive quality of superior 'touch', when compared to the 'lively' feel of good tubes. This observation may or may not really have a direct bearing on the 'accuracy' of high-fi amplifier types - it just helps explain my personal interest with tube amplification in general. But I can tell you for sure that I never would pursue this route in my stereo system if the results sounded anything remotely resembling 'very inaccurate'. |
Unsound, I don't quite follow your logic. I guess I would agree with you, I just don't see how that differs from what I said. It is all an act of expression. That could be an expression of perceived accuracy or simply something different and pleasant. Sean, sounds like fun with all the systems. I truly am jealous. Is it new gear or old gear? And if they all sound different which one is more correct? Logically, if we are pursuing accuracy there are clearly systems that are "right" and systems that are "wrong". Taking that a step further, If you have 5 systems that all sound differently that means that, at the very least, you have 4 "wrong" systems. The fact that you are keeping them around tells me that you enjoy, at least some of the time, inaccuracy. I also have a "wrong" system. But I have a "good" system (for me) and I bet you have 5 "good" (maybe "great") sytems for you. As far as attending live music shows...good for you. Again, that statement was not directed at you personally, just audiophiles as a whole. When I talk about live music and knowing how an instrument generally sounds, I am not talking about amplified music in some large venue. That is the very epitome of inaccuracy. Worse everything than we all have at home plus distortion. If we want to compare our systems to that then nearly everyone here has far more accurate systems than what is heard at these venues. To hear accuracy you need to hear an unamplified instrument. Generally, to hear an unamplified instrument you need to be playing it. To KNOW accuracy (unless you are extraordinarily gifted) you need enormous experience playing. Finally, since I feel I'm getting off track with Sean's original post... Without knowing 1/100th of what you do in your area of expertise, based on what you say, I agree with you that those particular components seem to be trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Maybe they sound great, or maybe they sound like crap, but it doesn't seem likely that they would be pushing the limits of accuracy if, in fact, that's what they were trying to accomplish. |
Zaikesman, I really like how you phrased that, "live acoustic music can never really be accused of sounding overly bright or etched: it is what it is." I completely agree. I was not very clear in my previous statement. I meant acoustic and should have specified that. I used those terms as they seem to be defined by audiophiles. A lot of what I hear accused of being bright I find to be more accurate than something accused of being "neutral" (I do, however, prefer the "neutral" or "warm" sounding equipment). Live acoustic music, "Is what it is" I was just pointing out that, in audiophilese, it is generally bright (while the bass can sound fat). Also, I have never set up a tubed system. I am embarking on my first, but I have had the pleasure of listening to some and generally like what I hear. However, going back to my assertion that live music is "bright" and tubes are always described as "warm", clearly this is not a match. Lastly, I am talking about the sound of an instrument, you are talking about the sound that instrument makes through and amp and out a speaker. These are two completely different things. Granted, if you play electric, there isn't much of a sound without the amp and speaker. I don't play guitar much so I don't have much experience comparing tube and SS amps. But you talk about the pleasing distortion of a tube amp, then call SS dead and lifeless. Perhaps dead and lifeless is more accurate? I have no idea in this case--I simply don't have the experience. You appear to have chosen a sound that is pleasing to you and attached the label "accurate" to it. Then you dismiss SS for not sounding like it, therefore it's inaccurate. THIS IS NOT A SS vs. TUBE COMMENT!!! I'm just pointing out a flaw in the collective audiphile logic. We all speak of accuracy, but we are all talking about different things; usually we are simply (perhaps unknowingly) referring to a particular sound that we like. And I can't stop now without getting this off of my chest. Assuming one knows what accurate is, the second that individual invokes vocabulary words like: warm, bright, etched, rolled of highs, lack of lower octaves etc. you have automatically identified that component (or chain of components) as inaccurate. An accurate component "is what it is". There would be no description. |
True and False statements (amplification gear): . 'New gear is getting worse' *False* . 'Some of the new gear is getting worse, especially if we consider the Quality/Price ratio. Example: Pass Labs.' *True* . 'Most of the new gear is getting much better, either by achieving unprecedent and exceptional results (example: Pathos Acoustics); or by getting previous results, but at a much lower cost (example: NAD)'. *True* . Stereophile is one of the best 10 hi-fi magazines in the all world. *False* Kind regards |
From reading some of the above posts, it seems that certain people are under the illusion that modern recordings are a faithful transpcription of a real event. With few exception, nothing could be further from the truth. Modern recordings have more in common with Hollywood style films. Both are skillfuly crafted, totally artificial constructs intended to simulate an idealized reality. When Julia Roberts gets a close up in her latest release behind her and completely out of the visual image are 100s of technicians making sure the image is picture perfect. It's the same thing in modern recordings except instead of 100s there are only dozens of techs. |
Ultraviolet: Now it is my turn to clarify myself. My comments about tubed guitar amps were not intended to be an extension of my comments about what live acoustic instruments sound like. I was addressing two different things in one post. The point about tubed guitar amps was just included as a subjective observation on the species of tubed amps generally, but I inserted a disclaimer about this observation's applicability as far as hi-fi is concerned. Any electric guitarist will tell you that the response of their amp is an intimately felt quality, that has a great deal of bearing on how you actually play. The upshot is that I suspect that at least part of my interest in tubed hi-fi amplification has to do with this guitar-centric 'behavior reinforcement' I experience every time I plug in my instrument, and I recognize that it is not necessarily an entirely valid paradigm when transferred to the hi-fi world (although it could be). As an aside, I think that when it comes to reproducing natural instrumental timbres (assuming a recording even attempts to capture the 'absolute sound' at all - see Onhwy61's post), the way in which microphone technique is employed to capture the original event is at least as significant a determinant of whether a given reproduction will sound too 'bright' or 'etched' (or too 'warm'-ed over) as is the type of electronics used in the playback system, and often more so. [I'll also mention that I personally prefer a playback system having a 'neutral' (as in relatively flat) treble power response, which is part of why I chose Thiel speakers. So don't let the fact that I like tube amps (mine are VTL) fool you into thinking I must prefer euphonically 'warm' or rolled-off sonics. I emphatically do not - there's other qualities about tubed amps that one can gravitate towards besides tonal balance.] |
Ultraviolet now it is my turn to clarify myself. My comment was in regard to the way a tool is used. A photographs intention may be to make an exact duplicate of an item, such as a photo copy of a document. A phonographs intention may be to make an exact replication of a performance, such as the play back of a previous musical event. The attempt is one of fideltiy to the original. When a photographer uses a filter on a camera, or when a rapper uses a scratching technique on a phonograph they are transcending fidelity and are in fact creating a new original not a replication. My goal,(how sucessfull or unsucessfull I am is another issue) in putting an audio system together, is to be able to maintain the original performance, not to add to or subtract from it. |
Being that the audiophile was not there at the original performance, and even if they were, they certainly weren't where the microphone(s) were positioned, there is no way of knowing with any degree of certainty what the original performance sounded like. The best an audiophile can do is to try to reproduce what is on the CD, record or tape. If one so desires, they can take their copy to the studio where the CD was mastered, book a few hours at $200-350/hr., sit where they mastering engineer sat and listen to what the record was actually supposed to sound like. For people with better systems I'm sure it would be an interesting comparison. |
I realize that we are limited by the original recording and then again by the copying of that recording. I realize that, no matter how good one's ear is and no matter what equipment they have, music out of ANY system will be sub-par in comparison to the original performance. I also realize that our goal (for the most part) is to come as close as possible to faithfully reproducing the music on whatever media we happen to be playing within a given budget. My original point, which I still maintain, is that the average audiophile, has absolutely no idea what accurate sounds like. Zaikesman, Unsound and Sean, please realize that this statement is not directed at you as individuals. You're creditials and experience in the realm of live music may far outweigh mine. If it does though, I feel you would understand this point I am trying to make. By the way, to avoid offending anyone else, my "average" audiophile to which I keep referring, is simply the stereotype I'm applying to audiogon from the observations I've made of individuals I know personally in this hobby. On the whole, with a few exceptions, they do not attend live shows with any greater frequency than the average population and, more importantly, they do not play an instrument. Their ability to hear the subtleties and nuances of music is generally far less developed than a musician. I know this will most likely fall on deaf "golden" ears with which we so pride ourselves, but the true golden ears are not to be found among audiophiles. I am not talking about enjoyment. Some of the guys seriously into this hobby could sit and listen to music all day long; their enjoyment of it is obvious and I think this is wonderful. I guess what prompted this outburst of mine, is that I am frustrated by the advice which flies around on these pages regarding components or systems and how accurately they reproduce the music. Here's some simple logic here which I briefly addressed in a response to Sean regarding his 5 systems: If two components/system sound different from each other, then one of them is more accurate than the other. The fact that there is not a set of magical components or a magical system out there (and by this logic there could be only one) is proof of one of two scenarios: either the average audiophile is not striving to achieve accuracy (that would be me), or the average audiophile has no idea what accuracy is. Since it has been so clearly stated by hundreds of people on this page that they are searching for accuracy, we are left to conclude that, on the whole, they are unable to perceive what accuracy even is. If one doesn't feel they fit into this category they may not be "average". I am hardly offering myself up as the end-all expert in this matter; I'm simply trying to point out that the emperor is not wearing any clothes. Although, in this situation, most of us don't even have the eyes to see him in the first place. I'm just looking for a little honesty. |
| Post removed |
Bottom line in Audio is you dont always get what you pay for. Sometimes all you get is ripped off. Larger price tags do not awlays equal better performance. Its a crime, but let the buyer beware. Investigate , test and listen before plunging into any high ticket item. In Marketing they teach you sometimes people will not buy a product if its not "expensive" enough. Trust me some of these manufacturers are well aware of this. 18K for an amp ? For 18K I want the performer to come to my house and sing to me. And bring his groupies so I can have a "happy ending" |
Cl: You are right on the money. Take a gander as to the conversation between myself, Trelja and John Atkinson of Stereophile that took place a short time ago. Form your own opinions based on their reactions. Sean > |
I have subscribed to Stereophile since it was eight issues a year and the smaller size, which I prefered. Not the eight issues but the smaller size. They fit into a suit pocket. For quite a while they seemed to be on an upswing, with more reviews and better info. In the last three years quality and quantity are shrinking. If they continue they way they are going it is going to be a pamphlet soon. Ads from the grocery store about the same size. There is new gear everywhere, people clammor for their favorites to be reviewed, but the magazine is pulling a disappearing act. Is it because there are not enough advertisers or is paper and postage too expensive? It used to take me a few days to get through everything in the magazine, now it takes a few hours. Come on guys, give me something to read. Teach me something! Give me a reason to stay. |
I love how John Atkinson blows off Sean's points, with such ease. At least he is not as arrogant and funny(in his own mind) as J10. I think the bottom line is that Sean correctly pointed out the issue that in the past few years we have seen the cost of simple power amplfiers skyrocket in price, all the while taking a dive in quality. If people think boutique faceplates and blue LEDs make up for the decline in performance, I feel unhappy that all that money is being wasted when it would be better spent on getting a good North American amp from the horsepower wars of the mid 80s - mid 90s. |
Flame on Sean!As I read Joels response to "open letter"I concurred with you.Where would he(JW)draw the line,who would know where to.We are grown ups and can call it how we will.We do not have to like each others opinion,thoughts,or ideas.Pssst' I got my shovel I'll help ya' ; ) And to be clear I dig "Stereophile",I like most every part of it!!I look foward to it each month,each time I walk out to the mail I anticipate the arrival.I like the reviews the writers and the "MEASUREMENTS".Good relationships are not without imperfection,yes I want the 230+pages of "Back then" Less is better then none.The current sub price is a true solid deal.Rave on Stereophile even after I'm watching the grass grow from below. |
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 |
Marco, the writing that so many complained about was Art's current "Listening" column. In it, he basically has a field day with several of the readers who have written to him. The subject matter ranges from religion to politics to the role of pets in our lives. Personally, I found it hysterical, and to be sure the funniest thing in Stereophile I can remember. Of course, the issue at hand for many who made Art's current column is whether audio and other topics should be mixed. Echoing my comments at AA, I have no problem with those feel this way. |
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! |
Trelja: What leads you to conclude that amps in general have been "taking a dive in quality"? As for the linked AA thread, I think I'll skip it. I don't know if I would agree with any of the arguments made in it or not, but I just don't care enough about audio writing anymore to bother debating the subject. Even when it's done well, the thrill is gone for me. I consume one of the audio rags in an evening, and then hunger for something meaningful and stimulating to read. I admit it took several years, but I'm finally worn out and feel like I've read it all before. Most of all, it's boring, because audio is an intrinsically trivial and limited subject. Even if the field were written about with unimpeachable integrity always, I would still have little interest in reading about it anymore. Maybe it's just me ; I went through the same thing with rags devoted to several other specialty hobbies over the years since I was a teenager. In the end, either you do a thing or you don't, but endlessly reading about it eventually loses its diversionary appeal. I suspect that's why I glommed onto Audiogon's forum: It got me off more to write about audio for a while than to read about it, but even that's getting a bit old. In the frame of mind I'm in now, it's easy to read magazine reviews and simply focus on everything wrong I find with most of them, but that's just cheap mental masturbation. If the Stereophile subscription weren't practically being given away, I would let it lapse (as I have TAS - too expensive for what I get out of it), and next time maybe I will anyway. I do have several specific criticisms of the mag, but in reality, if they didn't put out a product of sufficiently high quality, I couldn't read it at all, and I still do... |
How are you doing, Zaikesman? Hope the tube exploration is going well. To answer your question, simply look at the title of this thread and the arguments that Sean so lucidly lays out. First, I would like to say that in my opinion, which may or may not be off base, the implementation of a technology should improve over time. However, that does not appear to be the case. As an example, the current issue of Stereophile includes a review of the $9500 Hovland solid state amplifier. Now, if you read both the "subjective"(Bolin's review) and "objective"(JA's measurements), you will notice that because of disappointment from both vantage points, Hovland reworked the design of the product. Would they have otherwise? I doubt it. Of course, I give them credit for the improvement that was made, but it still didn't seem that they have achieved the status of producing a great power amplifier. My expectation of any piece of audio equipment costing $9500 is that it should sound great, be reliable, and be well designed. I don't think that's too much to ask. This Hovland amplifier is unable to drive loads more demanding than 4 ohms. My own NAD 2600A, circa 1987, has proven reliable in driving such demanding(lower impedance than 4 ohms) loudspeakers as Apogees, Acoustats, Thiels, Wilsons, etc., and its measurements prove it can basically handle anything without breaking a sweat. I would like to see some explanation of how this amplifier, produced in the year 2004, improves upon Aragon, Classe, Jeff Rowland, Krell, Mark Levinson, etc. gear from the late 1980s, all of which have no problems in driving much more demanding loads than the Hovland is capable of. I don't mean to bash Hovland, I am a huge fan of their tube preamp, but can we honestly say that this power amplifier justifies its pricetag? To me, I would gladly forego its cosmetics, faceplate, acrylic base, and blue LEDs for superior performance. |
I've got to agree with Trelja. There's simply no reason for the Hovland or any other really expensive piece of gear to be deficient in these basic areas. Granted, Hovland is a small outfit, so economies of scale are really non-existent, thereby driving up the price. However, for the prices they're charging, there's no excuse for sacrificing quality or being unable to engineer a technologically competitive component. |
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 |
You present a valid argument, Ohhwy61. However, I must dispute it due to the fact that this is a solid state amplifier with a $9500 price tag. You are oh so correct in the ability to drive a low impedance load is not the be all and end all of an amplifier, my owning a pair of AtmaSphere M60s would tell you how much I agree. But, there is no excuse for a high powered $9500 solid state amplifier not to be stable into a 2 ohm load(never mind a 1 ohm load). Paul Bolin has really never struck me as anything but a reviewer who lavishes incredible praise on ultra expensive equipment, but I admire him more after this review. His description of the Hovland described it as a lightweight, yet very clear sounding power amplifier. A decent enough amp, but one that strikes me as having its balance of cosmetics to engineering/sound/performance way, way, way off. While it improved after its instability was pointed out to the company by JA, I don't feel that one can strongly make the point that this is a well engineered product. Otherwise, why would it behave as it did, and moreso, why would they be so quick to change their design? Again, I lay out the challenge for people to justify to me what improvement this product exhibits over the big American solid state amps of the mid 80s - mid 90s. Having heard a lot of those products drive a pair of Apogees(which were sometimes nothing more than a glorified dead short) into audio heaven, I know that they can do more than pump current into a low impedance. At the end of the day, I am left strongly agreeing with Sean's point of this thread, "Stereophile confirms new gear is getting worse...." |
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. Do audiophiles just want to see the industry torn down? I do want honesty in the reviewing process but these comments seem pretty one sided. It seems like they're only wrong when they disagree with any one of us enlightened audiophiles. Using the same logic, everyone that doesn't have the same system as me, and likes other stuff, must be stupid. BUT we know that's not true. |
Trelja: Tubes are go, thanks for asking :-) About the amp thing: The reasons I ask about your downward trend observation are, A) Because isolated anecdotes do not a trend necessarily make, B) Because lateral movement or running in place don't = "taking a dive", C) Because being overpriced for the performance also does not = "taking a dive" in quality. I also have to agree with Onhwy61 that ability to drive 2 ohms (or to measure particularly impressively in any bench tests) is often unrelated to sound quality in many applications, and do not agree that being SS places this obligation upon a design, regardless of price. As for your desire that the implementation of a technology should improve over time, that's hard to argue with in most workaday instances, but in audio (despite the fact that just such a phenomenon has arguably occurred in many aspects of the field) I think the 'boutique' nature of the industry/market demands and rewards a continual flow of new products, whether they are significantly improved or not. To wish for the only practical alternative would be unrealistic in my view. (And the NAD...well, let's just say I started out in this nonsense with a circa '86 2200, and have my strong doubts about yours keeping pace sonically with stuff like the Hovland, Pass, or other contemporary overpriced audio jewelry, though I can't attest to it directly...) |
It's tough to take Trelja's position seriously. I think he's just being argumentative. Even if the mid-80s NAD is superior to the Hovland in some areas of performance, it's not logical to conclude that new gear is getting worst. At most all you can state is that the Hovland is not a particularly well designed product. |
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. |
I must confirm that this thread is not about the Hovland per se, it just proved convenient as it was in the current issue of Stereophile. Other recent reviews, such as the Pass Labs power amplifier, among others, bears out the point of this thread. I will not say too much more, as I have laid out my position to the degree that I hope everyone understands where I am coming from. I think Sean hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that the upgrade and upcharge in parts quality has come to represent high end audio moreso than engineering, intelligent design, and artful execution. The only other thing that I would like to say that if we have come to the point where we prefer to kill the messenger rather than ill designed, underperforming components with five figure price tags, those who support this hobby(all of us, myself included!) should rightly be viewed as fools. |
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. |
You're not just a messenger, you're an advocate. You cite one or two examples or what you think is poor design and then draw an extreme conclusion. I survey the current marketplace and see an overwhelming abundance of well designed and good sounding equipment available at reasonable (at least by audiophile standards) prices. Are there also over priced turkeys? Of course, but how is that any different than 20 or 30 years ago? BTW, the Hovland review is quite positive and even could be considered a rave. The first unit was defective (grounding problems), but the second unit performed wonderfully and measured satisfactory. We've had years of great sounding tube amps with questionable measurements and now someone has produced a solid state amp with the same characteristics. In the right system it sounds like it would be a very strong performer. Is this progress? Only time will tell, but I do remember back when the original Apogee speakers came out that some people thought they were poorly engineered due to their severe impedance load. |
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 |
Is the issue that high end has poor quality or that Stereophile will not give a negative review. The first point is hardly demonstrated by what Sean presents as evidence, although it is part of the ideology of many here. The second question can be more easily assessed. I fully expect that one can find few negative reviews unless you try to read between the lines. As long as magazines accept advertising, I suspect that they cannot give a negative review to an advertiser or a positive review to a non-advertiser. Dudley tried this in Listener and you see where it got him. I must say, however, that many of his observations both in Listener and in Stereophile are wrong in my experience. |
I believe it was in the most recent Stereophile (same as the Radia review) that Michael Fremer gave the Theta Enterprise amps a conflicted but ultimately lukewarm pass. The head of that company, Neil Sinclair (whose digital gear I own and admire), then came back with what I thought was a blatantly disingenuous rebuttal in the manufacturer's response (despite the fact that the reviewer pointedly and repeatedly praised their flagship Citadel amps), attempting to paint Fremer as an unreconstructed tubophile with an agenda. Apparently Sinclair found it easy to overlook Fremer's reference being SS, as well as his bestowing recent raves upon the Halo JC-1 and MF Kw amps. (And for Sean and Joe, also overlooking JA's self-described "mixed bag" of measurements.) I can think of at least two reasons why truly negative reviews hardly ever appear. One is that there probably are hardly any products that deserve to be totally panned, but more fundamentally, I think most reviewers (correctly) take the position they cannot in good conscience come across as being completely authoritative or definitive in their criticism just because something fails to ignite in their system, to their ears. Of course, the same reasoning of moderation and qualification ought to apply to 'raves' as well as flops, but many reviewers ignore this sensible proviso (not necessarily citing Fremer here, but Bolin probably qualifies). Combine the reticence to pan with the propensity to drool, and you have the recipe for reviews in general seeming too liberal with their praise, and often just plain unbalanced. Thus (one of the reasons for) the continual suspicions of undue manufacturer influence, and for anything less than a head-over flip often being perceived by manufacturers as essentially a 'dis'. Underlying this phenomenon seems to be the unspoken assumption that most readers would rather thrill to breathless hosannas than digest thoughtful, realistic assessments. |
Despite your long track record of solid viewpoints, Onhwy61, I feel I must have definitely touched a nerve in you. Perhaps, you are the owner of some of this overpriced, overbeautified, underperforming equipment. You are mostly correct in the assertion that gear is generally good today. I agree with that, but do believe that the relative cost of such gear is higher than it was 15 years ago. My viewpoint, which you seem to keep missing, is that the quality of both the sonics AND build should have risen in the past 15 years. And, with that, there would also be the potential for said gear to be available at more reasonable, not higher, prices. This is where we do find common ground, you can definitely find a good $1500 integrateds. While most gear is competent today, and the bleeding edge of the industry is often the realm of idiosyncratic performance(Futterman OTL amps, Apogee and Quad speakers, etc.), the components being discussed in this thread do NOT fall into that category. Rather, they represent what many feel to be the vanguard of high end audio companies, producing technology that does not push the envelope, for us, kind of equipment. How difficult should it be to have very expensive solid state power amplifiers measure well or drive 4 ohm loudspeakers??? These were the very arguments for switching to them from tube gear in the first place. All of my life I have been beaten over the head hearing that only solid state amplification measures ideally(so it is perfect) and is capable of driving real world speakers. Now, all of the sudden, I begin encountering people who disregard products that do not deliver what their class of component does well(when properly designed), and instead am asked to not point out that not only do they not deliver as they should, but they are grossly overpriced. The fact that it needs to be noted that the review of a $9500 power amp can be considered a rave(not in my book, pal - seemed like he liked it, but wouldn't buy it) proves my point. Again, if you read me correctly, a $10K component should really set itself apart. Wow, all I can say is that I would imagine the boutique high end dealer loves it when some of us audiophiles come around. |
I don't want to keep repeating myself in this thread, so will move away from what I have already laid out. But, I do see that there will probably be nothing but growth in the Chinese audio manufacturers. They are learning more and more about this technology, and consequently, their products are improving, in both sonics and quality. The North American and European producers of high end audio better take notice and get their houses in order. While some audiophiles may continue to keep producers of the kind of equipment focused on in this thread, we all can see where the general trend will be headed once the. |
