Stereophile confirms new gear is getting worse....


It appears that "high end" audio gear is moving backwards rather than forwards. If you doubt this, take a look at the November 2003 issue and the test results of the electronics reviewed.

As a case in point, the Pass XA160 mono-block amps that were reviewed perform pretty horribly. While most folks that read these forums know that i'm not shy about being a fan of Nelson Pass' work, i don't have much good to say about these over-priced boat anchors. Most will probably remember what a hard time that i gave the PS Audio HCA-2. In effect, most of the comments that i made about that amp apply to this amp. From what i can tell, the comments that i made about the PS may not be strong enough as compared to how poorly the XA160's performed, especially at the price. Lack of current output, high distortion figures, non-linear frequency responses, the ability for the loudspeaker to modulate the output of the amp, etc... were all evident in the test results. To top it off, the input and output impedances will make this unit quite sensitive to the components ( preamp, speakers, etc...) that it is mated with.

Regardless of who's name is on this unit, how "pretty" it looks ( gorgeous ), what it weighs (200 lbs per monoblock) and the parts quality inside, quite honestly, this unit performed like a really crappy "vintage" ( read that as "low tech" ) tubed unit from the days prior to audio civilization. All this "eye candy" and a sore back for only $18K a pair !!!

As we move to the next product review, we look at the BAT VK-51SE. While this unit was more consistent than the Pass, some of the design choices made are obviously not good ones. The most obvious flaw that i see with this unit is that it changes sound / tonal balance as the volume is varied. Even when the gain control is adjusted for the flattest response, the top end starts sloping off gradually above 5 KHz. As you increase the gain, you now introduce low frequency roll-off into the equation also. If really standing on the throttle, the unit doesn't even make it down to 100 Hz within a -3 dB tolerance window !!! Obviously, this is not very good or linear and is poorer performance than one would expect out of a "reasonable" pair of speakers, NOT line level components !!!

As such, you can't expect consistent sonics from this unit unless you listen at one gain setting. If you have only one source component and all your recordings are of the same intensity, you "might" be able to find a reasonable setting. Since i highly doubt that this is the case, especially the part about consistent volume from recording to recording, you can pretty much count this out.

On top of the variations that this unit produces on its' own, one can introduce a whole new gang of variables into the equation once you start factoring in input / output impedances into the equation. I'll just say that this unit isn't going to be very versatile in terms of what components it mates up with in terms of amp selection. All this "high tech performance" for only $8500. Make that $9000 if you want the convenience of a remote.

Moving a few pages further, we run into the "giant killer" AH! Njoe Tjoeb ( pronounced "new tube" ) 4000 cd player. This is a highly modified / hot-rodded Marantz unit with tubes added, a "super clock" and the option of a "plug & play" upsampling board, fancy footers and an upgraded power cord. Depending on what you want to spend, the base unit is $700. If you go for the unit fully loaded with options, you can feel your bank account drained to the tune of about $1200.

Take one look at the frequency response of this unit and you'll see that it is far from "neutral". To top it off, distortions are higher along with a lack of suppression of AC harmonics. Jitter is pretty high for a unit with a "superclock" i.e. higher than other units i've seen with no "superclock". As such, this unit doesn't appear to be a "killer" of any type other than being able to "flatten your wallet in one swift motion".

Obviously, "high end" has come full circle. That is, it would appear that "audiophiles" are more concerned with asthaetics and reputation than actual performance and fidelity. The folks that used to laugh at Bang & Olufsen are now falling for looks at an even higher price. While the sonics may differ from Bang & Olufsen, the end result is that none of these units are "accurate" or capable of being called "high fidelity" units any more than Bang & Olufsen gear of yester-year was. The fact that B&O are now trying to jump back into "high end" with some truly innovative products just goes to show that one can't judge a company or product by its' cover any more.

Having said that, the above mentioned products can't really be called "Hi-Fi components". What they can be called are "flavoured audiophile toys". The funny thing is that J. Gordon Holt had commented on this type of situation arising within the industry and there are letters in this issue agreeing with that point of view. J. Peter Moncrieff also talked about that in IAR Hotline 76-80 quite a while back and found it rather pathetic. Count me in with that crowd too.

I do have to credit JA and the guys for having the guts to print these test results. While there is plenty of "dancing" in all of the reviews along with more than enough "gushing" ( the Pass review in specific ), it was pretty obvious that JA really DID make mention of the technical problems that each of these products displayed. As usual, Stereophile remains consistent in the fact that they continue to test, measure and display the results for all to see. For this, i offer a very hardy pat on the back, vigorous hand-clapping and whistling. THANK YOU from all of us that like reading and interpreting spec's for ourselves. Having said that, JA still tried to down-play these flaws somewhat by giving the "old soft shoe" at the end of his technical comments.

As i've said before, one has to buy and use what they like and makes them happy. With all of the various and BLATANT "flavouring" that is going on with audio gear nowadays, one really must know what they want and how well components will blend together in their system. It would appear that the days of trying to achieve "accuracy" and "musicality" with with each piece of gear are over. Now audio is kind of like Baskin-Robbins i.e. you've got to know what you like before you order what are VERY specific "flavours" for each product selected.

Let the buyer beware.... Sean
>

PS... I've got my flame repellent armour on along with an oxygen tank and a full battery of weapons. After this post and the responses that i think i'll get, i know that i'll need all of that and maybe more : )
sean
I also think it would be interesting for a manufacturer to step forward bravely and allow JA or others to test a piece of equipment, say 10 of 100 that were built, and those 10 represent the beginning, middle and end of the build run. Then plot the findings as a statistical analysis showing the standard deviation within the build run. That way we would get to see what variations can occur between units built to a particular spec. It would be a huge risk to agree to but could also be an important reward for such a participating manufacturer. So many times in Stereophile we have seen the review sample returned to the manufacturer for "problems" and a replacement sent back that was analysed and listened to that sounded and spec'd better.
I think a couple of issues about specs hasn't been properly addressed. Are the specs produced from proper testing procedure? Lets give them the benefit of the doubt even though I've always had trouble with Stereophiles quite frank admission about room anomolies, microphone placement issues and speaker measurments that consistently seemed to produce like errors. It seems as though many have taken a leap of faith that the specs and their deviation from what might be considered standard expectations were designed in. Is it possible that there might just be a bigger issue with quality control in the high end? I suspect that it might be a lot of both.
Sean, I disagree that components are getting worse, but I totally agree that many high end components are actually expensive sonically flavored toys. There has never been a greater number of well built, good sounding, reasonably priced components as there is now. Unfortunately, sonic accuracy seems to be taking a beating in higher end products. People are seemingly pursuing musicality over strictly accurate reproduction. It's not unusual on Audiogon for accuracy to be used in a perjoritive sense. While a good system should not deconstruct music down to its bare elements, neither sould the pursuit of musicality ignore the fact that components must first accurately reproduce the input signal fed into it. If you divorce audio reproduction from accuracy you end up with audiophile systems that are put together to simply make one's records sound "good". Sounding good and being accurate should be the goals of true music loving audiophiles.
Good post. It invites stimulated , diverse opinions and has stayed civil. Its why I continue to visit this site daily. Kudos for having the nerve to invite such wrath . I would like to see a special dedicated forum on a weekly basis between any given two AG vets such as Sean and Zaikesman or say albertporter and tok20000 just to name a couple that display spirited and constructive debate about a particular subject the two disagree on. Occasionally these posts become mini think tank extrapolations of often misunderstood audio principles. I personally would pay to see these " clash of the audio titans" .
Well, I guess I am late to this thread, but would still like to add my 2 cents.

I have spent a fair amount of time since the spring auditioning loudspeakers. To be truthful, I really didn't need to upgrade those in my second system, but I don't think I have to explain the disease of this hobby to anyone here - we all have it.

In brief, the results of my listening have left me stunned. The vast majority of what I listened to is beyond poor. In no words can I express the disappointment and astonishment I feel. And, I am not talking about johnny come lately brands, but what are considered in many cases to be the vanguard of audio. To be frank, I would never bring most of them into my home, let alone pay $1000 - $4000 for them.

Normally, I have freely listed equipment which I found to offer poor sound, unafraid of the consequences here. I have let the chips fall where they may, and taken whatever flames come my way. However, this time, I wonder if I should really list what I have listened to. Many here that I have a lot of respect own these products. I am now a bit torn internally as to why they would not only buy them, but recommend them.

Perhaps I am being too harsh, but my faults seem miniscule in comparison to established audiophile magazines recommending some of these loudspeakers with the enthusiasm they do. If I read that these speakers come close to the holy grail of high end audio - ACTUAL MUSIC - I am left with the impression that we are either being lied to or those recommending these products are far too easily convinced.

All loudspeakers have faults. None are perfect, and perhaps none will ever be perfect. But, I do feel we have come to the point where book matched veneers on a pretty package are superceding good sound.

I am really angry with multimillion dollar companies who have been in this business for many years producing ill designed ported loudspeakers. Surely, it isn't so hard to produce low frequencies which do not chuff, woof, spit, fart, or whatever you refer to it as.

We all know that it may be difficult for us to come up with a well designed ported alignment, but a company which has generated millions upon millions of dollars of revenue can do it. It just takes a bit of R & D and critical listening. Are these companies simply taking an off the shelf cardboard or plastic tube, inserting into the cabinet, and proclaiming the speaker to be state of the art?

So many speakers have floored me with inadequacies from wooly bass to lack of image focus that I wonder what is going on.

As such, it comes as not such as big surprise that Sean is saying what he is saying. I don't go around measuring things, but if these products measure well then it would be a surprise. And if they in fact do, we need to come up with a new means of measurement. We need to begin demanding that sound win out over looks and boutique price tags!
We audiophiles regard specs as being (or should be) related to sonic characteristics. But this is not the primary purpose of specs.

A product is tested and the test results are compared with specs so as to verify that the particular unit does not have defective parts or improper assembly. In other words, "does this unit look like all the others". What it looks like is another issue. The sonic characteristics are determined by the design of the circuitry, and a design that sounds "good" may have some parameters that deviate from the ideal.

That said, there are some parameters of audio equipment which do relate to sonic characteristics, frequency response and distortion are the most obvious. If you intend to make a circuit that processes the audio signal with "Fidelity" distortion is ideally zero and frequency response is broad and flat. If you intend to make a nice sounding circuit, you may want to shape the frequency response and generate some nice harmonics. However, if you do the latter, you are designing a musical instrument, not a high fidelity amplifier.
Whatever......

First question: Did they do the tests after burn-in?
Second Question: How about actually listening instead of testing?

Case in point: Ah! CD Player. I actually tested the player side-by-side with other players IN MY OWN HOME. It was hands-down the winner against others in it's price (even those higher than it's price). It did take about 80 hours of burn-in but then there was no comparison. So, so much for test specs.

Third question: Does anyone on this site (in particular) actually give any credence to Stereophile Magazine???
Sean, Perhaps I did not make my point clear. There is no clear correlation between a products specs and the way it makes music in a system and therefore the specs are totally irrelevent as to the value of that product. Some of the worst measuring pieces of gear are also some of the most musical sounding and most beloved by music lovers. If you choose your gear by it's measurements, more power to you, but many people prefer to make that decision by selecting gear that puts them emotionally in touch with the music and the specs are simply not part of that decision. When I first got into audio I had an opinion similar to yours. It was only when I decided to basically completely ignore specs and just listen that I arrived at a position of having a music reproduction system that really puts me in touch with the music.
Amen Sean!
Marketing has gotten out of hand. If a company brings a new product update out every 6 months, I've got to question the original design. I've noticed a lot of tested specs are worse than they have been in the past. Look at some of the newer CD players performance---especially jitter.
Consumers electonics have not advanced as far as manufactures would like you to believe. A lot of it is simply rehashing of old designs, especially in tube design.
I was talking to Art Ferris of Audible Illusions the other day and he was telling me how good David Haflers old PAS-3 preamp was(especially the phono section) He made the comment how basic tube design had not changed (parts quality and precision had improved.) Also, there have been some advances in power supply thinking. He took a design in his Modulus preamps and has stuck with it for a long while. Art is a very approachable and knowledgable guy.
I have always felt tubes were coloured in an euphoric way. They kind of mask some of the sources we use and make them more tolerated.
I have always felt the CD was at the root of a lot of problems. We try to mask its inherent faults. Analogue and SACD sure offer a more communicative source.
But, as long as "Audiophiles" continue to buy the latest and greatest, industry will stay the course. It's not to advance the art, it's to make money! And it will stay that way until we demand better from them by refusing to pay absorbent prices for crap!
But Sean...

OK, you've got me on the price of the CD player. I should have said that its specs were nothing to get upset about at any price.

I'm not being cute when I say that. Outside of its quite mild frequency response deviations, I wouldn't be shocked if Stereophile's published specs on that unit don't actually constitute an overriding determinant which correlates well with its perceived sound quality. And that response deviation is of a subjectively not-undesirable character when looked at from the standpoint of the mastered sound of many disks, and will in any case likely be swamped by the non-linearities present in the speaker/room response.

But basically, I actually agree with you that this type of euphonic tailoring is not admirable, and that reviewers often seem to go in for components that make average recordings sound 'nice', rather than revealing what's truly there. But I can also understand why others might enjoy this kind of design - after all, music listening is about personal pleasure, and who am I to argue with the preferences of another?

The real core of my argument is not that the AH! player's specs are worthy of a spirited defense, but rather that its *sound* (whatever that may be) is worthy of being judged - as is the sound of any component - primarily against the *sound* of other players in its price range. I probably wouldn't choose this player, because like you I happen to care a bit about uneditorialized frequency response, but that doesn't mean that the unit might not excell in some other parameters at its price point. I don't know however, and neither do you, 'cause we haven't heard it.

Your position in the last sentence of your second paragraph makes it clear that you consider competently-measuring SS gear to constitute some kind of standard of 'neutrality'. But not all 'neutrality' is created equal. I'm sure you don't require a lecture from me on the differences between steady-state test measurements and far more complex music signals.

So there's the 'neutrality' of maintaining flat amplitude response into varying speaker loads by designing for low amplifier output impedance, and then there's another 'neutrality' of designing for lowest TIMD and timing errors by eliminating the global feedback that enables SS amps to appear more linear under static test conditions.

I am not one to propone that what audiophiles hear can never be measured - I do believe that for any audible effect, there exists some discoverable technical property that can be correlated with what the ear perceives. That's in theory only though. In life our measurements are imperfect in design and execution, and the real music problem too complex for current measurement practice to shed the degree of light that would be required for correlative certainty regarding all audible phenomena.

On top of which, I still think this month's issue of Stereophile in no way 'proves' your contention that the overall direction of the industry is heading toward increasingly non-linear devices. That would be a false sylogism - an unscientific supposition, in other words, for which both the evidence and the reasoning are flawed.

I'm particularly surprised that you don't give Nelson Pass, a designer you've often stated your admiration for, more of the benefit of the doubt regarding this new amp. I'm not saying I know he's 'innocent' - again, neither you nor I have heard the thing - but I would be inclined to assume that he hears something positive about the fidelity of this design approach that he couldn't attain through his previous designs, at least until conclusively demonstrated otherwise. And again: even if you or I didn't like it, why care? All that matters in the end is that whoever buys it likes it. It's a big enough market for different interpretations of reality (and that's all we've got) to flourish without doing harm to one another. IMO.
What gear to buy? Go to AudioCircle's manufacturer's circle and you'll find more than a few smaller companies that are for the music. At the top of my list are Channel Islands Audio and now Modwright is producing gear. Dusty's approach is to deliver $30k sound for an investment of $6K. That's what I'm aimimng for, too.
Post removed 
Infinitebaffle: You are listening to the spec's whether you think you are or not. If the spec's you're looking at don't correlate with the sound that you're hearing, the spec's were either obtained in an incorrect manner, the circuitry was poorly designed and compensated for in a manner that is less than musical or the manufacturer is lying about them. It is either one of the above or you prefer specific sonic characteristics that don't equate to what most would consider to be "good" measurements. Then again, most of the measurements that one needs to discern if a product is well designed / will sound "acceptable" aren't published by manufacturers in a usable manner. THAT is why i'm thankful that Stereophile still tests and publishes in the manner that they do. Sean
>
Z: While many of your technical comments are quite valid, the fact that these units show marked deviation in any form is testimony in itself that products aren't being designed for neutrality or accuracy. As such, they should no longer be referred to as "hi-fi components" but. They are being built to suit the tastes / colouration preferences of those most likely to buy them.

If such were not the case, the great resurgence in tube gear would not be happening. Anybody that has ever seen the test results of "most" commercially available tube gear would know that these units are far from accurate, linear or "transparent". I know that i'm stepping on a lot of toes here, but if tubes didn't have these "sonic traits", they wouldn't be so discernable from SS gear.

While there are a handful of tube manufacturers that strive to achieve high levels of accuracy and musicality, they are the exception and not the norm. The fact that SS and hybrid tube / ss gear is taking the same approach should tell you that the products we are seeing are strictly market driven. They have little to nothing to do with technological advances or the desire to reproduce recordings in a naturally transparent manner.

As far as the Pass gear goes in specific, i hate seeing something like this. Not only does the manufacturer misrepresent the product in terms of basic specs, the product tests like crap. While i'm a big fan of Nelson's work, this thing is just plain horrible in a technical sense. The fact that the faceplate on this thing cost more to manufacture than what some amps cost to build really shows where their priorities are.

As to the BAT preamp, if they can't provide reasonable linearity across the bandwidth that isn't volume dependent for $8K, maybe they should have spent another $100 in product development and better parts selection. One could logically deduce that the frequency response of the unit would shift accordingly between the response measured at full gain and minimal gain, but even that would require some form of linearity. Utterly ridiculous to say the least.

As to the Njoe Tjoeb, your comment stating "probably of no audible consequence or any great sin at this price" is pretty heavy handed and "snooty" to say the least. While i know that you don't have your nose stuck in the air, that comment would lead one to believe that $850 - $1200 should be considered a pittance and that one can't buy something at least technically decent for this price. I guess the fact that they can make self contained portable "discman" type units that also contain an amplifier and market them for $39 with the manufacturer, distributor and retailer all making a profit means nothing.

Not to beat a dead horse, but we've already covered how poorly the PS HCA-2 performed. Just to refresh our memories, that was ranked a "Class A" component. If something that performs that poorly can make it into Class A, what does that say about the rest of the competition ? The only logical deduction here is that the quality of components IS getting worse and the reviewers are lowering their standards to compensate for it. Other than that, i can only think of one other reason how such products could obtain positive reviews.

I guess we had nothing to complain about while Stereophile was "loving" all the MF gear. Hell, at least that stuff was designed relatively competently and didn't cost near as much. Sean
>

PS... Thanks to those that offered words of support. It's always nice to know that you're not alone : )



In the midst of all this verbiage I see nothing mentioned about what this gear sounds like. I thought the idea was to have a system that recreates music in your home. Something that might make you happy. I don't know about you but I don't actually listen to specifications. In fact it has been my experience over 35 years involved in audio that as far as amps go: THE BETTER THE SPECS THE WORSE THE SOUND! If our buying decisions were made according to specs there would be no high end or audiophiles. After all, the stuff they sell at Best Buy has great specs so I guess we should just be happy with it and not strive for better sound. Don't get me wrong, I believe that you should get value for your money spent, and there are as many things that can determine that as there are differing opinions among purchasers. For me the specs are the very least important factor involved, so far as to be irrelevent in my decision whether to buy a particular piece of gear. If it puts me in touch with the music and moves my soul, now thats something important.
What happened to listening to stuff and making your own choices. The magazines are purely for brand awarenss and entertainment. The reality of it is there is more quality hifi now in all price points than ever. And the choices for vinyl have never been greater. Sure there is overpriced crap out there but you cannot generalize about the state of the hobby. And the laws of diminishing returns still stand. Overall the stuff sounds better today and keeps getting better.
IMHO, anyone who pays $18,000 for an audio amplifier deserves what he gets. This is not rocket science.
CLAMPS: Considering wise-ass remarks on your previous answers, i would suggest you to continue buying what Stereophile tells you to!
Sean: Although I think you know that I would not buy a piece of gear based on specs, and I am sure you wouldn't either, I do want to join you in commending Stereophile for being just about last man standing when it comes to publishing original test results. In fact, I think they should expand the practice: Test the gear written up in the columns, not just the reviews; Add more speaker tests to help quantify dynamic and frequency response vs. distortion + noise; And like JA finally got around to doing this month - but seemingly only because it involved his beloved LP12 - start including measurements when it comes to analog gear. Measurements are a useful check on both gear quality and reviewer accuity.

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

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

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

More to the point, neither you nor I have heard these pieces - the reviewers did. And again, I can see no real basis, just from this anecdotal evidence, to back up your assertion that 'new gear is getting worse' in general.
Sean, your only beginning to scratch the surface.......... no need to worry about your armour, the truth is your greatest weapon.
Sean, no need to put the armour on (A Brit are ya?), no flames from me on this topic and I reflect most of your sentiments. And I like it when someone has the courage to put a stake in the ground and stand by it. Kudos to you.

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

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

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

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

Kind of like Bose Wave system.

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

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

Can I borrow your flame repellent armour and O2 tank, I think I'm gonna need it. (Perhaps a review of such speacialized gear is in order too under a separate thread.) ;-0