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"
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
| Post removed |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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.] |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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'. |
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 |
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. |
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... |
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: 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 > |
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. |
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 > |
I also check in for musical accuracy! That's the Holy Grail, and what I strive for. Sean is correct in that many systems are either too analytical or too warm. In my experience, it is hard to find an amplifier that will really not fall into either category. The closest I have found, in many regards is the OTL. They have a certain light and life that reminds me of real music. There is warmth, but it doesn't go too far as many tube amps do. They don't lack the soul of many solid state amps or try to go overboard in convincing that it can be warm like a tube amplifier. They also have speed and clarity that surpasses even most of the solid state I have encountered. However, I have problems with OTL amps. Although the bass they have is extended, VERY fast, and tight, it's hard to power a big woofer with an OTL amp(unless it's 16 ohms - not too many of them around). And, a big woofer generates the kind of horsepower needed to do bass correctly. My OTL amp cannot grab hold of the woofer's voice coil and blow me back like a solid state or transformer coupled tube amp can. Using an autoformer helps somewhat, but then the OTL warmth and magic goes away. |
Sean thanks a lot,If you say Musical Accuracy Iam in it. I did learn a lot on your explanation,Its more simple and easy to understand.I think if you will do your post like this, a lot of Agoners like me, who does not have engineering background,or electronic background, we will learn a lot from you.Of course its your choice. My only humble request, with your permission only. |
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 > |
Ultraviolet thats a good point, musicality and involving system is the one Iam looking for, not accuracy, not good measurement,I have read too many post here at Agon, when they describe equipment sonic,and performance, they will look for even little things, that doesnt matter, I remember my friend got elated, hearing the guy coughing on the cd jazz at the pawnshop,I know this guy is not into jazz,I dont get it.Sometimes I wonder,If audiophile likes to listen to the music at all, or just the equipment, Lastly I dont believe the gear are getting worse. |
Sean as you know i respected your post, although my brain spin when I read them, you remind me of Trent at Van L, too high tech.I own the AH 4000 with upsampler, with the audience power cord, I have not heard any cdplayer as good as this player near the price,I thought the jolida jd100 was better, with tsunami pc, but when I found out about the audience the AH is much way better than Jolida. IMS |
Right on Bomarc. I think it's high time that the vast majority of audiophiles stand up and admit that they are not pursuing accuracy...rather they are pursuing their own "personal sound". There is nothing wrong with this and I am surely doing this as well. There are many components that produce, what I find to be, a "pleasing" sound. These are not accurate. I find horns a little too harsh when played live. Therefore I've built a system that is very warm and, usually more pleasing to me. So I've spent tens of thousands of dollars more than the average person and have produced a less accurate system. It sounds bigger and fuller, has a much wider soundstage and certainly plays much louder. And it sure does look good. Sure, there are many nuances that can be heard that aren't heard in a mass-market stereo. But the opposite also applies. I just started using an ipod and the cheap earbuds reveal sounds in almost every single song that my stereo does not! So, as someone who has played music for 22 years out of the 26 that I've walked this green earth let me be the first to stand up and say that I am not pursuing accuracy. |
What I had in mind when posting the link was that some response is better than no response at all. No, the post does not address all the problems. Yes, I definitely agree that the amps should be thoroughly checked before delivery, and as I said, at these prices, there should be no room for excuses. Anyway, apparently it's not the first time when a Pass amp's factory settings are out of whack. (see David Smith's review here). But no matter how hard anyone tries, mishaps will happen. So I say - let's give them the benefit of the doubt... for now. Let's see how - and how eficiently - they will address the QC problems. |
Sorry not to have read the thread,but to get back to the openning comment.I am seeing that the best quality is coming from specialty independant manfs. or modifiers. I have always held that getting best performance for the $$ is by getting units that can be modded from stock forms. The few designers I have spoken to argee. These Cos. that are buying up Cos. are really taking things and increasing the bse price while taking quality parts out and subing them for inferior parts or taking the beef out of what was considerd hefy builds. Harmon has laid waste to a number of good products. Revel,Lexicon and ML are suffering from inferior parts and quality issues from what I have been reading from the opinions of others. Klipsch bought Aragon is taking good amps and downsizing the PS while saying they are increasing the quality. On the uoside Digital amps might well be a good thing for audio. It might brig SOTA performance into the home without the need for outragous prices. That might take time,but I have heard good things from Panasonics new amps. I am not an admirer of Intergrateds or Recievers or the Japanese all in one market,but if what I am reading is true then it just might be a new revolution in Recievers that is coming,if they can oversome the trait of interference that has always plagued recievers. I have not read the Pass review yet,but I did read N.Pass's response to it at DIY.com. Seems the unit was taken home then not rechecked by their lab before being sent out. He has taken steps to correct the mishap from happening again and will honor any unit to be checked out to verify it being OK. I would not like to spend that type of $$ for a prodt. that moght not be good. Just a few observations. |
Onhwy61: That's basically what I've been saying all along regarding the amp itself (read my above posts). My 'complaint' (if you want to call it that - it's not like I would have been buying a pair of these tomorrow anyway, no matter what ;^) has mostly to do with what seems like a somewhat unrealistic and incomplete product *description*, given the amp's not-unexpected limitations in areas we both acknowledge as reasonable for its apparent design brief. I have no trouble, based on what I know so far and the company's history, in believing Fremer's conclusion that it's nonetheless a very fine-sounding product (and could maybe perform even better given optimally-matched speakers). In other words, the amp seems to me like a niche product (within the larger niche of products in its more exclusive price range), despite the image we commonly hold of large, heavy, costly solid-state monoblocks being that they should all drive 2-ohm pigs to arena volumes at 20Hz. I am defending the diverse approach as being fundamentally not silly or worthy of ridicule. I suspect the amp represents an honest engineering effort with good reasons behind it, and let the marketplace decide. |
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 > |
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread...... This link will lead to Pass's explanation reguarding the amps in the Stereophile review. I cut and pasted Pass's response below. KF So here's the final poop on the subject. To sum up: Stereophile reviewed a pair of XA160 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 does something like this happen? Tracing it back, the "sales department" took the amplifiers home for subjective listening and because they were happy, the amps fell through the cracks with regard to bench testing. Does this alter the "tone" of the review with regard to the sound? I think only to the extent that they possibly sound a bit better. Then again, maybe not. Do owners have a reason for concern? Not particularly. First, there could only be a few such units out there at most. Second, such a maladjustment does not have an effect on reliability and only a slight effect on the sound. A U.S. customer concerned that his XA160's might not meet spec can arrange to have the units examined at the factory and readjusted if necessary without cost, and Pass Labs will pay the freight both ways. This offer will extend indefinitely to XA160's from the first units made to those shipped in September 2003. Just call Peter at (530) 367 3690 for arrangements. Customers outside of the U.S. would want to contact their local dealer/distributor, but wait a week or so to allow us time to get them the proper information. We apologize for the mishap. Like any other human endeavor, mistakes happen, but we feel the measure of a company is in its response to the customer, and as always, we do our best to make our customers happy. |
Zaikesman, I think you have to cut Pass Labs a little bit of a break on the current capabilities of the amp. Mr. Pass & company have clearly demonstrated that they are capable of producing amps with plenty of current grunt, if they so desire. I suspect with the XA line that they were pursuing something slightly different. Seemingly they've traded some current output for simplicity in design and presumably greater purity in sound. Such a product won't appeal to everyone. |
Aboldor: Your linked post from NP sounds like a good answer for customers, but only in part. He still fails to address the questions I listed above, namely the realistic current-capability and speaker-matching issues. Maybe his "Manufacturer's Response" in the mag will be more expansive. It can inferred however from his words that the company was apparently completely satisfied with the sound of the review samples as-submitted. Drubin: The Rushmore is an active speaker, with its own built-in amplification. Sean: Then there's always the XA-200... |
I completely agree with Sean's OP. At these price levels, there should be NO excuse for ANY shortfalls in ANY area (specs, sound, finish, you name it.) If a manufacturer decides to mass produce a beta version or a merely adequate DIY project, they should label it (an price it) as such. Or, if that's indeed the best they can come up with, they should not label themselves as manufacturers of Hi-Fi gear, but rather (as noted above) as creators of musical instruments or "electronic art". That being said, I am a Pass fan/owner; they make good amps and they DO care about their reputation/customers. You can read their (unofficial?) response regarding the issue here |
Y'know Sean, I actually had not yet thoroughly read Chip Stern's review of the AH! player when I responded above. But upon reading it carefully, not just skimming, it seems that quite a few of his comments on this unit's sound are not the kind of impressions I had implied I would have expected based on the measured results. To me, this supports one of my main contentions, which is that there's not necessarily a lot that can be directly inferred about the sound of electronic gear from the way it measures, within limits anyway. Also, rereading the Pass review and tests, I have come to realize that really the only things about this amp that should raise eyebrows, outside of aesthetic and economic factors, are these: 1) the current capability shortfall vs. the claimed spec, and 2) the fact that apparently no caution against pairing it with a low-impedance, low-efficiency speaker - particularly in large rooms or for high volume levels - seems to have been mentioned by Pass. The shortfall in rated output (claimed 160W vs. measured 118W at 1% THD, I believe) is trivial in practical terms (at least for the specified 8 ohm load). And I was wrong above to suggest that the amp might show any linearity problems when operated within its margins. So it's only the 'grunt' question and matters of system-matching that are open to question in my mind (again, size and price notwithstanding, since these are issues that are matters of personal taste and wherewithal, unrelated to sound or engineering quality). Looked at that way, it doesn't sound crazy to me, for the right applications, that an amp featuring only two gain stages, no global feedback, just one pair of output devices, and pure class-A operation should yield only modest power for its size and weight (along with a high-than-normal output impedance). Given an appropriate load (impedance that is relatively high, flat, and non-reactive, coupled with above-average efficiency), such an amp might well sound better in some ways than more conventional designs. (Too bad JA no longer seems to be including the data graphs he once made using the Paul Miller system which showed THD vs. output power at varying loads driven by a more 'music-like' test signal. I wonder where this amp would really begin to hard-clip into 8 ohms - possibly much higher than the 1% point, considering Fremer's audition results which indicated no audible strain). None of the foregoing is meant to excuse Pass' overrating of the peak current capability (a claimed 12A vs. a measured 3.8A), or his coyness about power delivery into 4 ohm loads (not spec'ed, but which he seems to imply - incorrectly - is the same as with 8 ohms), but tubed amps with similar 'limitations' (I'm thinking especially of OTL designs) and similar (or higher) pricing are successfully matched with appropriate speakers. Maybe Pass himself will bring to market a speaker ideally mated to his new amp... |
Yep, indeed. I was surprised by the XA160 too. I read the measurements first, being the EE that I am, and felt disappointed in the new big Pass. Perhaps designers aren't going for good measured performance anymore which I see as a fault. I guess I won't be getting an XA160 next week afterall...LOL! Arthur |
Used to own BAT30SE preamp. A/B with ARC preamp before. What I hear actually agrees with Sean's comment, althouth it is 51SE. BAT seem have more mid when play louder, while at low volume bass and high are still there but middle frequency seem fade little bit. ARC did the opposite, they actually have more middle, less bass, when volume is lower. Maybe either is ideally flat on the spectrum. We do hear the spec sometimes. And who confirms BEST BUY level receivers have better spec than high end?! Since Stereophile does not test them on the real load, so I won't say that those low priced receivers have better spec. When using simple artificial matched loading, you can easily come up with good numbers. But a real world speaker?! .......... They make high end priced too high and sometimes unnecessary heavy these days, I totally agree. They still can't find lighter heat sink today? at 10K priced tag? you are kidding me! No no no excuses! |
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 > |
Maybe it's time to admit that many audiophiles do not WANT accurate, high-fidelity gear. Accuracy is boring, not to mention dirt-cheap. Anybody can put together a decent system with an accurate CD player and amp. The challenge comes in trying to put together a decent-sounding system out of components that aren't accurate. That, I suspect, is part of the appeal of tubes and vinyl--they give the audio hobbyist a lot more to do and to think about. Besides, if you're going to charge $18,000 for a pair of amps, they better sound different! And if cheaper amps are accurate, then different, of necessity, must be inaccurate. |
I, for one, am very supportive of getting the Stereophile speaker test graphs. These graphs can be very useful, for example, in determining if a speaker is truely time and phase accurate. Surely they are not a substitute for listening with your equipment in your listening room, but they can be a helpful source of information to down select from the large number to choose from. Similar thinking can apply to the choice of many components. Is high end moving backwards? I don't know. I do know that what I was satisfied with years ago doesn't satisfy me today. I'm sure I am a more discriminating listener, so that may be a factor. And you can't go back... |
since when do audiophile care what Stereophile has to say about audio equipment?...lol...at least for the past 5 years...trust your own years...i've heard systems with equipment that is never mentioned in Stereophile that sounded amazing...and i've heard Stereophile "grade A" equipment that sounded like a Bose radio...what is amazing is that they finally post some negative reviews (from what Sean is saying)... |
Onhwy61 makes what I suspect is a very valid point about evolving audiophile perceptions regarding the desirability of 'accuracy'. It is of course not a new observation, and whether it's one that is causally, or only tangetially, related to the point of Sean's original post is open to debate. But I don't want to come across, with my above statements supporting individual preference and the marketplace, as seeming to be totally cavalier about this legitimate issue. I would generally support the contention that during hi-fi's 'golden age' - despite the state of the art then not being as 'accurate' as is possible today (yeah I know, some would argue that point...) - the *goal* of achieving literal 'high fidelity' to the signal encoded on the recording medium was more enthusiastically embraced by the audio community as being the Platonic ideal the hobby ultimately aspired to. Today, it does sometimes seem that such an ideal is currently regarded, by at least a sizeable proportion of self-described audiophiles, as being distinctly subordinate - if not outright antithetical - to the goal of pursuing the 'Absolute Sound'. Although I'm all for the recreation of the 'Absolute Sound' as our overarching dream for in-home music reproduction, it is alas an essentially impossible one. As I see it, the problem in attempting to simulate such a perception through the introduction of deliberate non-linearities into the replay system is that such an approach devalues and is often in direct conflict with the necessary (and uncontrollable by the listener) imperatives represented by the signal that is recorded on the software. To me, we *should* be pretty much completely dependent on the recording and software to capture and encode that 'Absolute Sound', and call upon the replay system only to try and transmit that as best we can. But by the same token, it is hard to argue with the position that our replay systems will *always* be non-linear - and in significantly arbitrary fashion (and the same goes for recording systems) - so *why not* attempt to tailor the reproduced sound to render recordings (some, if not all) in the most subjectively pleasing light? After all, isn't this hobby all about personal enjoyment? Well, yes it is - but: I personally cannot fully enjoy music reproduction that I consider - or the evidence shows (and such evidence could be measured, OR HEARD, and maybe not able to be measured) - to strive for something other than hewing fairly closely to the ideal of 'accurate' reconstruction of the recorded signal. But I realize that's just my preference. I think it's a logical preference, one that I'm most comfortable with, but not one that's shared by all audiophiles. So I'm not going to get upset when gear manufacturers make gear for that segment of our market which has had enough of the pursuit of 'accuracy' and gets more pleasure out of trying create a convincing and pleasing illusion with their systems, even if they know that might deviate from what's strictly on the disk, and despite the problems I myself find with this type of philosophy. In an imperfect world we have to pick our poisons, and if the marketplace didn't naturally dictate that diversity was the right solution, then we wouldn't have the proliferation of firms in this business that we do. I for one can gracefully accept that fact, and still keep my opinions. |
