I don't even think it's a matter of which do you trust, your ears or the specs, because often the two have remarkably little relation to each other. I don't think this is because measurable performance has no bearing at all on perceived performance in theory, but because A) the ways in which gear usually gets measured often have little resemblance to how it's actually used for listening to music within a system context using human ears, and B) there aren't necessarily measurements which can be made to directly quantify many observable sonic characteristics, but only by inference and extension, which are no substitute for actual auditioning. I suppose this means that in order to demonstrate that "new gear is getting worse", one would have to show that it actually *sounds* 'worse' - and this of course is not objectively possible to prove (and I'm not even sure anybody is contending that this is the case).
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
While I admit that I more admire, concerning this one narrow issue of specsmanship, companies inclined to understate measured performance rather than overstate it, there is gear which I am happy with in my own system from companies that I believe do indulge in a little 'optimism' in this area. Is this 'fraud'? If it is, I can't say I care very much as long as a component nevertheless gives all the sonic enjoyment I could ask of it. I feel it is fairly routine, for instance, for electronic gear tested in Stereophile to show S/N figures that are worse than claimed, or I/O impedance figures bearing only a passing resemblance to spec. On the other hand, amp power figures into various loads and at differing distortion levels often seem to be as frequently understated as overstated, and *both* directions of disparity could be, perhaps ironically, attributed as much to marketing considerations as anything else. When it comes to speakers and frequency response, tolerances criticized above must be taken into account with the knowledge that the way in which test results are obtained has a major impact on reported figures, and that JA's test regimen is quite limited in certain crucial respects that could cause it to diverge significantly from methods which a speaker manufacturer might deem most representative for modeling real-world performance. Anyway, I still say none of this actually establishes that new gear is 'getting worse', or is in general more at odds with its claimed specs than was older gear. |
Hello? Is anybody there? I have taken the liberty of moving this topic back to the thread in which I was in simply because I know how to do this. threadous _postous_interruptous -IMO |
Barry: The company that you are involved with isn't one of those i was discussing. On top of that, i'm not going to single out ANYBODY with those specific statements as i'm not THAT dumb in terms of legalities. I'll just present a scenario and let you answer it for yourself. What would you call a company whose products don't meet their own published specifications, yet continues to produce, advertise and sell them as is? As far as i know, they would be guilty of both fraud and conspiracy. Obviously, anyone that makes a living by mis-representing their products via "lying to the public" is nothing less than "corrupt"*. Unfortunately, the FTC doesn't get involved in this type of stuff like they should. When reviewers "overlook" these self-flattering yet unsubstantiated claims made by these manufacturers and report on what wonderful products these flawed pieces of junk are, they too are just as corrupt. The fact that they are willing to lie to their readers, sometimes even with evidence that completely contradicts them found in the same "review", makes them just as much of a fraud and part of the conspiracy. I really have to wonder just how much "truth in reporting" actually takes place now-a-days? It's no wonder that people don't like being told the truth. When you try to do that, all you end up doing is "confusing them with the facts". That's probably because they've been spoon-fed so many lies on a regular basis that they can no longer think for themselves or know what the truth looks like any more. Sean > PS... Do yourself a favour and respond to Stehno's comments / questions in the thread that directed you here. * They left out one very important and highly descriptive word when defining "fraud". That word would be "politician" : ) |
The post below was taken from another thread. Rather than respond in that thread and throw it completely off course, i took the liberty of tranfering it here. After all, the main idea being discussed / commented on was basically derived from the thoughts i presented here and in other similar threads. ------------------------------------------------------------ 03-09-04: Stehno Barry, Now you did it. You went and made Sean angree. Do you know what Sean did to the last mfg'er that made him angree? Just ask the folks around here or at Legacy. It was not pretty. {I shudder just thinking about it}. Well, Barry, it's, um, been nice, um, chatting with you but I really, uh, must go now. -IMO Stehno Here's my response: Stehno: What should a person do when they are aware of fraud, corruption and lies taking place? Obviously, these actions are done in order to scam less knowledgable individuals out of their hard earned money and have been taking place on a continual basis for years. Should a person with a conscience just mind their own business and continue to let others less knowledgable fall for the scam? Should this person speak up and try to help those potentially at risk at the expense of possibly being ostracized for being a "goody two shoes", "know-it-all", "internet bully"? Obviously, there are two different paths to take here, each with different repurcussions. Which one would you take? Here's something else to consider before making that decision. Besides angering those doing the scamming, the person exposing the situation runs the risk of being labeled an "asshole" by those that have already been scammed and don't know it and / or are too vain to admit it. As such, no matter what they do i.e. try to help spare others what they know to be a costly mistake based on verifiable facts OR expose the scam artists for what they are, it is a no-win situation for that person. Please tell me which path you think is loaded with roses i.e. being a passive observer and watching others get robbed or taking a stand for what you know is right at your own personal risk and reputation. I'm sure that your answer will provide great insight. Sean > PS... I'm serious and would like a response. You can do it via email if you like, but i would prefer it be done here. After all, if i am going to pass judgment on industry professionals and their products and you are going to pass judgment on me for doing so, i'd like to have as big and varied of a jury as possible to weigh both sides of the story. |
Well I have not read this whole thread but a fair part of it. In a way it reinforces a feeling I have had for some time. That is, separates are not all that great. Truth is, circuits cannot be hooked up to all loads and operate maximally no matter what you spend. Why bother? There are compromises that must be made. The output impedance of one circuit or input capacitance of the next is what it is. Generally speaking, it is not going to mate with every other load in the same way no matter how much money you spend. It does not work that way. I used to ride a lot of bicycle. Choosing circuits (amp and speaker for example) is a little like choosing chain-ring and freewheel ratios. You need to know the terrain and the quality of the rider's legs and heart to make the best choice if you want real performance. If you do not know the ride(is it with the wind in the flats or up the rockies)or the riders' abilities (is he a powerhouse or a fly weight climber) you are going to compromise to cover all possibilities. This can be done, but when the terrain and rider turn out to be one or the other, you will not get anything near maximum performance. To me this represents the state of about 95% of audio today. Figure out what final load (speakers)you are going to use. Then get a power supply and amp tailored to do it. Don't even think about an amp that should do it all. Folks these days get amps that are compromised to "work into any load", they then combine it with speakers that run the entire spectrum re loads and connect them with wire that does the same re capacitance. Is there any wonder why results are all over the place? The analysis seldom goes further than some lame statement about "synergy." They happily pay bookoo bucks for a wire that does not send the entire hap-hazardly arranged package into a death spin. Give me the days when the folks who made these things knew what the next circuit down the line would be. I've got nice magnavox console for sale if anyone is interested! Sincerely I remain, |
While I have gone off on a negative tangent in this thread, I should offer a perspective of a company doing things in what I consider the "right way". Sean is correct in the point of us bringing up these products is not to be argumentative, but to say, "Hey, we are buying this stuff. Do you really want to pay $10K for something that is not to the level is should be?" My example of a company to admire is Rogue. They seem to do everything right. Rogue began making tube amplification components because they believed in them. Their products, while ambitious(tube) for the time, was priced very reasonably. Rogue did not enter the market with proclamations that they knew more than all of the other manufacturers or that their products were the best. Rather, they offered value, with the good engineering for the money. Time proved the market was there to support such a company. As things progressed, they felt the consumers would embrace improvements they wanted to offer, and the Magnum line was introduced. The company was profitable, and its survivability and viability had attained some level of certainty. While Rogue felt that the Magnum series was about 95% of the amplifier they could build(and, at a real world price), people were wondering about the other 5%. From this, the Zeus, their statement product, was developed and introduced. As it is, it retails for "only" $6K, which is far less than the non - statement products of many other companies. And, rather than continuing to drive their prices up from the Zeus, they pushed the technology back down into their Magnum line - the new 150. While the prices have increased from where they were, so has parts quality and performance. In the time that Rogue has existed, I have heard nothing but good things about dealing with the company. Customer support has gone further than what most expect. I would like to mention that I do not own any Rogue equipment, and never have. But, presuming they built a product whose sound pleased me when I was in the market, I would love to give my business to a company such as this. I feel they serve as a model for the rest of the industry. |
Zaikesman: Pass knows better and i think that they had a MAJOR problem with quality control. This doesn't speak too highly of them though. What would have happened with the amps that were already out in circulation if nobody had measured / caught these problems? Would the owners have been "good enough listeners" to tell that there was a problem and send them back in OR would they have simply sold them thinking that "Pass ain't all that it's cracked up to be", putting more "junk" ( albeit "expensive junk" ) out on the used market??? Even though Pass stepped up to the plate to correct the problem and admits the flaw, this kind of situation leaves a bad taste in my mouth. After all, it's not like they are building a thousand units a day. QC for a small manufacturer that supposedly builds top flight / mega-dollar gear should be "job 1". Hovland "may" know better but i'm not sure. The fact that they made changes to the product shows that they are eager to please, but at the same time, didn't do their homework to begin with. Getting an education at the customers expense i.e. "learning as you go" can become pretty expensive for consumers, especially trying to keep up with all of the "Mk II" and "Mk III" revisions. Then again, we are all learning, otherwise products would never evolve and technology would remain the same. Kind of a double-sided coin. One would hope that a company actually tested their products before marketing them though. Some don't because they are afraid that others will "beat them to the punch" and that "every second counts". Too bad the consumer is left holding the bag in that type of situation, especially when that bag used to be full of their own money. On the other hand, Legacy can tell you everything that you want to know about speaker design if you read their brochures. They obviously have a very astute grasp of marketing their product and telling you what you want to hear. At the same time though, the measurements seem to produce consistent test results that are quite deficient in the same areas. Given the fact that more than one product demonstrates this type of behaviour, i don't think it is a matter of QC, but more-so a "company voice" or "sonic signature" that the designers / engineers think "sounds good". All i know is the measurements that i see for these products demonstrate very noticeable bass bloat ( +5 to +7 dB's at 80 - 120 Hz ). Needless to say, with all of the "know-how" and "technology" invested in these speakers that they keep telling us about, you would think that they could achieve slightly greater linearity out of their multi-thousand dollar products. Sean > |
Just a point of defining our baselines for discussion (to which rebuttals are welcome): I noticed some responses above seeming to imply that maybe companies like those taken to task here for making products which don't measure the way some people think they ought to for the money, did not devote sufficient engineering time and resources before releasing half-baked gear. Although this might happen from time to time (and although many products do get 'upgraded' after their introductions), I'm much more inclined to give companies like Hovland, Pass, or Legacy the benefit of the doubt (for good or for ill), inasmuch as I tend to assume that their products' performance, both audible and measured, is entirely the intentional result of deliberate design choices made by competent and careful professionals, whose reputations and future livelihoods are understood to be on the line with every product introduction. Ultimately, you can't go very far for long selling only the equivalent of fancy faceplates and colored lights in any business, and I don't think a quick buck is why most designers get into audio (possibly excepting some in the cable field), whatever one might conclude about their performance priorities or degrees of native talent. There's probably room to argue about assessments of the prevailing level of basic design competence and/or the depth of the talent pool relative to past eras, but to me it's overly cynical to suspect a widespread, shoddy disregard for anything besides short-term profits in such a risky, tough, and fanatical business as audiophiledom. In short, I'm willing to grant from the start that most designers believe wholeheartedly in their products, and strive to make what in their opinions are the very best they can for any given design brief and price point. To sometimes disagree with the results is one thing, but it's another to suggest that those responsible either don't know enough, or even worse, really know better. Ours is a marketplace that encourages diversity, and that includes appearances, prices, and meausured performance as well as sonics ; if that seems to be in conflict with 'objective' notions of accuracy and value, then it was probably ever thus. |
Ultraviolet: Each one of the systems that i have is very different yet quite similar to each other. I'll suffice it to say that these systems were all built to their listening environment. That is, i'm not trying to cram 10 lbs of material into a 2 lb bag. For that matter, i'm not expecting one gallon of paint to cover the entire house either. In English, i've got small speakers and electronics in smaller rooms and bigger speakers and electronics in bigger rooms. Most, if not all of the gear, has been modified to some extent. This was done in an attempt to make it both more "accurate" and more "musical". To be quite honest though, not all of these systems are built to the same standards or use the same quality of components. I simply can't afford to do that. On top of that, the speakers are all quite different in design and implimentation. Obviously, each design brings with them their own strengths and weaknesses. I've tried to work with those strengths by utilizing them in specific installations and minimize the weaknesses by avoiding situations that they aren't well suited for. Given that i'm not expecting the same level of output from each of these systems, they have been optimized for the range of operation that they are most used for. I think that if more people took this approach i.e. built a system around the room / speaker interphase and the acoustics / listening preferences that they have, they would be a lot happier in the long run. As a side note and being a bit of a "collector", i've got tons of other gear that i'm currently not even using. This is not to mention that some of the gear that i was running not that long ago is now gone i.e. "out the door". Some of this is due to profitable offers from others that wanted it more than i did and some of it is due to the fact that it did not perform as i expect it to, even after modifications. With that in mind, i'm not above "trashing" or pointing out the flaws in a product, even if i currently own it or have owned it in the past. The fact that i like Pass designed gear, and have stated this publicly many, many times, yet took them to task for the poor performance and quality control of one of their "latest and greatest" products further reinforces that i'm not about playing "favourites" or promoting a specific agenda. I try to call it as i see it, even if it means ocassionally stepping on the toes of my own personal preferences. What i am about is quality, consistency and design integrity, regardless of price. Given that prices are going up and quality, consistency and design integrity seem to be going backwards in a lot of high end products, i would hope that you can understand where i'm coming from and why i started this thread. After all, when a manufacturer jumps on a plane, flies across the ocean to hand deliver a product to a reviewer, and that product is dead within 24 hours, what does that say about the state of "high end" and the products that are getting raved about? To me, it says that a random sample off the production line is probably going to be even worse and less consistent. Sean > |
will catch up on this hot thread later.Wanted to post this concerning what Jax2 mentioned earlier,that Stereophile has not done negative review.Anyone remember few years back the review on Velodynes stand mounted mini-monitor review that lost Stereophile the ad account to Velodyne?Stereophiles response was classy to say the least. |
Sean- Regarding the Stereophile confirmation that new gear is getting worse.....Please remember and concider this from a magazine that is also "getting worse." A lot of us who have been in Audio for a while can probably agree that back in the mid 80's and early 90's Stereophile was hot on the list of mags that covered the Audio scene very well, with Names and articals written that were great. In the last several years, such is not the same and seems the quality of the mag has deteriorated to the point of "ho-hum". Now Im not sure its all about the lack of good hi-fi components to review and get excited about, or the lack luster effort they put forth today compared to the earlier days...Just something to concider... FWIW..I let my subscription expire last year and dont miss it one bit! |
This is a little OT, but perhaps of ancillary interest. . . I was cleaning the basement and found the Feb 94 issue of Stereophile. Apparently reviewer Lewis Lipnick gave a scathing review to a Crown MR power amp. Judging from the multiple pages of letters in this issue, the review caused an uproar from supporters of the amp, a major quarrel within a small audio club, and general mayhem. (no, I don't have the issue with the actual review, don't know anything about the amp, etc.). I don't know if this is the time a (supposed)scathing review appeared in Stereophile, but given the proar, I can imagine that JA still has nightmares about it. I am new to this forum, but have really enjoyed reading this flame-free thread. I, too, have listened to multi-buck systems and walked away with my ears hurting . . . |
Wait a minute, there is no such thing as accuracy when it comes to sound, musical or otherwise. That is simply because in order for it to be accurate, it must have quantitative parameters that can be measured. And there is no way in heck that what is heard in a live musical situation can be accurately measured and then compared to a non-live (recorded) listening experience. Subjectivity excludes the possibility of accuracy. The point is moot. And I agree totally with Sean when I read about $15,000 speaker systems that can't achieve a MEASURABLE linear (+/- 3dB) frequency response below 50 Hz. The development, manufacture and release for sale of such equipment is simply, and utterly ridiculous and ANYONE paying $$$ for such garbage should have their head examined. |
I don't know that 'logic' has much to do with it. Nor 'accuracy'. This is a highly subjective hobby. To some folks, 'accuracy' is everything and can be measured with an oscilliscope, a microphone and a sound-pressure meter. To others it's a far more subjective realm of judgement that is more about the experience of how a system sounds, and then there is every degree of variation in between. My ideal review format would have a group of reviewers without financial agenda (of course), who each have their own spot on that jury spectrum. In the review of any and every component, each of them would contribute their personal views which one would be able to reference against past preferences and how those preferences may relate to their own. Also, it would be nice to have components that compete against one and other rated together as a group, much like Consumer Reports does with mass-market products, but on a smaller scale. The rags do this to some degree, but more often isolate the review to only one reviewer, and most certainly there is the unavoidable conflict of interest of the financial matter of advertising paying the salaries of the reviewers. A review in this formate might have a face-off between Audio-Aero, Cary, Muse, and Wadia CD players. Each would be compared within various diverse systems by the same group of reviewers, and each would give their viewpoint of how each player stacked up against the other. As it stands now, we usually have a single reviewer, doing a review of a single component in their reference system with a variation or two, and comparing it to whatever else happens to be on hand, or may have been recently reviewed (in which case they may be compared from memory). And perhaps there may be a sidebar where another reviewer may chime in with far less detail than the overall review having auditioned the component in an entirely different room and system. Of course this will never happen. There are all kinds of reasons why not, most having to do with difficulty and impracticality and expense of conducting reviews this way I imagine. And or course then there's the pressure of the advertising-dependent journal. I don't think I'd rather be reading reviews of constant drueling praise, singing that the glory of god has been bestowed upon each and every component under scrutiny. That we should love these beautiful children for all their flaws as well as their assets because each and every one was conceived in heaven and constructed by li'll elves with soldering skills handed down for generations. What I want to know when I read a review most every time that I can think of is just how does this component stack up against what else is out there available in the same price range. How does this component interface with different types of systems and music, and who is making such a judgement, and what do others say who may have different tastes and preferences. As far as billet aluminum, glowing blue knobs, fins to write home about and all of that high-tech ornamentation, I see nothing at all wrong with any of that since there's obviously a market for it, and there are those who value form as much as function. Nothing wrong with that at all as long as you realize you are paying for both. Have components started to decline in quality/price ratio? I don't know. I've been pretty impressed with what not a whole lot of money can by these days in the high end. The threshold at which investment-to-improvement is low enough so that many folks can have a very satisfying taste of what others can afford in spades, without taking out a second mortgage. I am very impressed also with the fact that, to my ears, I can get great pleasure from some vintage components that are over 50 years old sometimes in terms of their design and technology (I speak of the likes of Klipsch, Quad, Dynaco, etc......and of course the LP's/turntables which many of us adore and prefer over digital options). What other realm of consumer technology can boast such a staying-power.....perhaps classic cars might be an example, though if I was driving any distance at all I'd rather be in something more modern for the comfort and convenience, not to mention economy. Not sure where I'm going with this, but that's what came to mind when reading the last few posts. A very enjoyable thread indeed. Marco |
I see a total abandonment of logic in this thread. Sean, your contention is that new gear is getting worse. For the sake of argument, let’s say that it is (and for what it’s worth, I would probably be inclined to agree with this statement). Why is this? Going back to an earlier response I made in this thread, you have 5 different systems, 4 solid state and 1 tube. Do these all sound exactly the same? Of course not. If you are pursuing accuracy (as you claim to be) why the need for 5 different systems that all have different sounds? Using logic, assuming all 5 systems don’t sound exactly the same, you have at least 4 inaccurate systems—perhaps all five. Accurate is accurate, there are no degrees. If something sounds different from the original it is, by definition, inaccurate. The farther from this original sound, the more inaccurate a system becomes. Why are you keeping these inaccurate systems around? Presumably because you enjoy the sound that they make, accurate or not. Why then are you knocking Legacy speakers? For the record, I think they sound dreadful too, but someone out there might love the sound even though it is inaccurate. Let’s try to stick to logic and avoid hypocrisy. In addition to this fact (and going back to some of my earlier posts in this thread) is my contention that the average audiophile is not honest with himself; he is either not seeking accuracy or, most often, has no idea what accuracy is. What then is the standard for purchasing new equipment? How about greed, lust and envy of another’s possession for a start. People complain about $1000 machined aluminum face plates and silly blue LEDs, yet the high-end masses purchase them. The amount of times I’ve read the phrase “Pride of ownership” on these pages disgusts me. So what’s wrong with knocking a $9500 Hovland that measures like an Onkyo receiver? You are entitled to say that it doesn’t perform like it should and it’s grossly overpriced, but to make such a big fuss over this particular piece in this sad day and age in high end audio seems silly when people are paying $1000/watt in so many other products. Why on earth should Hovland reduce the asking price for this amplifier (or Legacy for their speakers or ANYONE in high end audio for that matter)? That will only result in less people buying it because the sound of a component is rarely the number one criteria in purchasing equipment in high end audio. And why on earth should Hovland or Legacy take the time to perfect their product when that won’t result in increased sales either? They are running a business and the high end audiophile community allows them (I would say encourages them) to continue running it as such. I’m just happy that many people who buy this are going to experience that warm fuzzy feeling known as “pride of ownership” that they simply would be missing out on by purchasing an amplifier for half of the price that out performs theirs in everyway. Yes, a lot of new gear sucks. But it is the audiophile community as a whole that has created this situation and we are only making it worse. If you choose to make a stand now, abide by logic, avoid hypocrisy and you may see others follow your lead. |
I'm compelled to jump in here. By the way this is one of the better threads I've read and I certainly will do my best to contribute to it and not degrade it. You can be sure that if there are industry heads out there trolling through agon, this is exactly the type of thread that will catch their attention. One thing I've noticed that seems to be very consistent in the reviewing industry (TAS, Stereophile and a few small others) is that so, so often, components are evaluated and compared as if they were stand alone products. If one believes that the ultimate evaluation of ANY component is via the listening experience alone, then it becomes prudent on the part of the evaluator to ensure that the review is taken in the context of the SYSTEM in which the piece is evaluated. As we all know, it is that very undefined and poorly understood realm of component interaction added to the electronic and mechanical complexities of software and hardware that govern what ultimately comes off the speaker/headphone drivers to reach our ears. Coupled to this the very real effects of the emotional and physical states of our heads and bodies on any particular day, hour , minute and the variables take on astronomical proportions. Point: I attended the Home Theatre Show in San Francisco last year with my wife and two other audio/music enthusiast friends and when we found the Quad room I encouraged the four of us to sit down and just listen awhile. First let me say that I don't think these shows are the place to evaluate gear appropriately for many reasons, some of these being the music played, the distractive noises of other show attendees, the size and shape of the room (an older downtown hotel, The St Francis Westin in this case), and the placement of chairs in which to "relax" and listen. The room was packed, as if the faithful and the devoted had finally found nirvana. Several people held their heads back in what appeared to be a state of rapture. We sat and listened for a good ten minutes, obviously not long enough to obtain a full experience, bit long enough, at least for me, to understand the system's strengths and weaknesses. I couldn't get into it. Whether it was the speakers (the latest Quads, I forget the model), the cables, the electronics or sources, I couldn't tell. But there was NO bass, the midrange did not make me even feel the slightest punch in the chest (no guts but all cerebral). The recording was one I was familir with too. After ten minutes we looked at each other and left the room while the devoted were still enraptured. My point? I had read about these speakers in a review sometime last year in either TAS or Stereophile (or both!) and I had made a point of checking this gear out while at the show. What I heard (and my wife and friends heard) in no way even came close to the kudos that those reviews engendered. It was apples and oranges. So my point is that (and it supports Nrchy's as well) is that if we can't be present in the same time and space as the reviewer of equipment, let alone the same emotional and physical state, then certainly much will be lost in the translation. In fact almost all of it will be lost. In fact no review can provide value to us besides piquing our interest enough to get off our fat butts and go listen in a context completely removed from any reviewer's experience. At best this will mean home auditioning. At worst, purchasing based solely on specs or review. The spectrum for folly is of extremely wide bandwidth and huge dynamic range. We all forge our own path to audio disillusion and disbelief; I celebrate dissent in this area of personal pursuit simply because in music, there are no absolutes but only possibilities. The world of audio gear combinations, configurations and experiences is no different in this regard. But it certainly is fun hanging out with you folks. |
I can't defend or condemn what others have written in any of the rags/mags because I was not in their rooms listening through their systems with their biases, likes and dislikes. One issue to me anyway is that there is equipment I do not like, but that doesn't make it bad. There are thousands of prejudices here alone that would not allow a certain listener to buy... whatever, be it Legacy speakers (which I would not buy at a fraction of their retail price) Hovland, or Krell, but that does not make Legacy, Hovland, or Krell bad! It seems like many audiophiles cannot tell the difference between dislikes/personal preference and bad gear. SETs are a great example. The measurement crowd roundly condemns them for measuring poorly while other praise them as being the best sounding amps ever made. Who's right in this arguement??? I really think there is very little really bad sounding equipment available today. Although there is a lot of equipment that people don't like. Don't confuse two different issues. |
I don't want to keep repeating myself in this thread, so will move away from what I have already laid out. But, I do see that there will probably be nothing but growth in the Chinese audio manufacturers. They are learning more and more about this technology, and consequently, their products are improving, in both sonics and quality. The North American and European producers of high end audio better take notice and get their houses in order. While some audiophiles may continue to keep producers of the kind of equipment focused on in this thread, we all can see where the general trend will be headed once the. |
Despite your long track record of solid viewpoints, Onhwy61, I feel I must have definitely touched a nerve in you. Perhaps, you are the owner of some of this overpriced, overbeautified, underperforming equipment. You are mostly correct in the assertion that gear is generally good today. I agree with that, but do believe that the relative cost of such gear is higher than it was 15 years ago. My viewpoint, which you seem to keep missing, is that the quality of both the sonics AND build should have risen in the past 15 years. And, with that, there would also be the potential for said gear to be available at more reasonable, not higher, prices. This is where we do find common ground, you can definitely find a good $1500 integrateds. While most gear is competent today, and the bleeding edge of the industry is often the realm of idiosyncratic performance(Futterman OTL amps, Apogee and Quad speakers, etc.), the components being discussed in this thread do NOT fall into that category. Rather, they represent what many feel to be the vanguard of high end audio companies, producing technology that does not push the envelope, for us, kind of equipment. How difficult should it be to have very expensive solid state power amplifiers measure well or drive 4 ohm loudspeakers??? These were the very arguments for switching to them from tube gear in the first place. All of my life I have been beaten over the head hearing that only solid state amplification measures ideally(so it is perfect) and is capable of driving real world speakers. Now, all of the sudden, I begin encountering people who disregard products that do not deliver what their class of component does well(when properly designed), and instead am asked to not point out that not only do they not deliver as they should, but they are grossly overpriced. The fact that it needs to be noted that the review of a $9500 power amp can be considered a rave(not in my book, pal - seemed like he liked it, but wouldn't buy it) proves my point. Again, if you read me correctly, a $10K component should really set itself apart. Wow, all I can say is that I would imagine the boutique high end dealer loves it when some of us audiophiles come around. |
I believe it was in the most recent Stereophile (same as the Radia review) that Michael Fremer gave the Theta Enterprise amps a conflicted but ultimately lukewarm pass. The head of that company, Neil Sinclair (whose digital gear I own and admire), then came back with what I thought was a blatantly disingenuous rebuttal in the manufacturer's response (despite the fact that the reviewer pointedly and repeatedly praised their flagship Citadel amps), attempting to paint Fremer as an unreconstructed tubophile with an agenda. Apparently Sinclair found it easy to overlook Fremer's reference being SS, as well as his bestowing recent raves upon the Halo JC-1 and MF Kw amps. (And for Sean and Joe, also overlooking JA's self-described "mixed bag" of measurements.) I can think of at least two reasons why truly negative reviews hardly ever appear. One is that there probably are hardly any products that deserve to be totally panned, but more fundamentally, I think most reviewers (correctly) take the position they cannot in good conscience come across as being completely authoritative or definitive in their criticism just because something fails to ignite in their system, to their ears. Of course, the same reasoning of moderation and qualification ought to apply to 'raves' as well as flops, but many reviewers ignore this sensible proviso (not necessarily citing Fremer here, but Bolin probably qualifies). Combine the reticence to pan with the propensity to drool, and you have the recipe for reviews in general seeming too liberal with their praise, and often just plain unbalanced. Thus (one of the reasons for) the continual suspicions of undue manufacturer influence, and for anything less than a head-over flip often being perceived by manufacturers as essentially a 'dis'. Underlying this phenomenon seems to be the unspoken assumption that most readers would rather thrill to breathless hosannas than digest thoughtful, realistic assessments. |
Is the issue that high end has poor quality or that Stereophile will not give a negative review. The first point is hardly demonstrated by what Sean presents as evidence, although it is part of the ideology of many here. The second question can be more easily assessed. I fully expect that one can find few negative reviews unless you try to read between the lines. As long as magazines accept advertising, I suspect that they cannot give a negative review to an advertiser or a positive review to a non-advertiser. Dudley tried this in Listener and you see where it got him. I must say, however, that many of his observations both in Listener and in Stereophile are wrong in my experience. |
At the expense of being lumped into the "Whiner" category, I'd have to agree with Sean's point as well. I've got a stack of Stereophile issues from the past two years, and have subscribed, on and off, over many more years. I cannot recall any reviews where a product was panned. In fact, whenever negative points are brought up, it seems they are often quickly swept under the carpet by pointing out the positive merits all in the guise of presenting a 'balanced' review. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain....hey kids, keep your eyes on the pretty colors and have s'more candy! Watch the funny sock-puppet dance and sing!.......Never mind that there no one has found any evidence of nuclear weapons production in Iraq, we got that evil bastard that was causing all the trouble....pay no mind to those bodies their shipping back, and those civillian corpses...just look at what it's done for our economy! Er, ah, I mean, we got the evil bastard who was causing all the trouble....hey, did you see my funny sockpuppet buddies?!" The popular media has always been driven by money and politics, and I don't believe Stereophile, or Car & Driver, or any other advertising-driven rag that reviews products is ever going to present an unbiased viewpoint that does not reflect a favor to those who pay their bills. Are all the products THAT good that not a one is a complete dud in comparision to what else is out there available for around the same price? Having heard a few duds, and knowing that my preferences, like anyone else, are highly subjective and have certain leanings toward particular kinds of music and the reproduction thereof, I truly doubt that a single publication reviewing all kinds of components in various price ranges cannot seem to find a dud among them. Perhaps they just choose not to review the duds, one might suggest. Well, I guess that's possible....keep your eyes on the sockpuppet. And what about that Sterophile rating system. Let's see, a rating system that chooses to put include an MP3 player among it's recommended components.....hmmm.......to me, listening to my music on an iPod is like attaching some ten-penny nails in place of the speakers on the headphones and wearing those for a few hours while the music was piped into my brain from an 8-Track in a 76' Gremlin. Kind of a Clockwork Orange scenario going on there if the music happened to be Ludwig Van. I had some hope when I read Art Dudley's review of, I think it was the Ayre CX7 CD Player........he didn't like it, and wasn't trying to hide the fact that he didn't like it, but alas, Ayre saved the day by pointing out he should have tried the balanced outputs, and of course that made all the difference. I don't doubt that it did perform as he claims. I was just looking for someone to prove my whole theory wrong (and I had every confidence that Dudley was my man by my enjoyment of his unrestrained editorials). At least it lead to a very conditional recommendation on the part of Dudley in the case of the CX7 (I think that was what it was anyway - sorry if I'm inaccurate there). That's the furthest I've seen any review go towards being construed as a remotely negative, and I must admit, I was really surprised to read even that. Marco |
You're not just a messenger, you're an advocate. You cite one or two examples or what you think is poor design and then draw an extreme conclusion. I survey the current marketplace and see an overwhelming abundance of well designed and good sounding equipment available at reasonable (at least by audiophile standards) prices. Are there also over priced turkeys? Of course, but how is that any different than 20 or 30 years ago? BTW, the Hovland review is quite positive and even could be considered a rave. The first unit was defective (grounding problems), but the second unit performed wonderfully and measured satisfactory. We've had years of great sounding tube amps with questionable measurements and now someone has produced a solid state amp with the same characteristics. In the right system it sounds like it would be a very strong performer. Is this progress? Only time will tell, but I do remember back when the original Apogee speakers came out that some people thought they were poorly engineered due to their severe impedance load. |
Uppermidfi: "Why do people only agree with Stereophile when it says something bad about some piece of stereo equipment. If they praise some piece of equipment everyone says they're wrong and that it sucks (Musical Fidelity is an example, but my comments are not limited to MF) but if they pan something everyone praises them for their courage." Sean: Very few products get "canned" in a review, even when it is obvious that they are total pieces of junk. If you want evidence of this, look at Paul Bolin's / Stereophile's review of the Legacy Focus 20/20. If you read Bolin's comments, this is the best value in high end audio speakers available. If you actually look at the performance of the system as measured by JA, you'll know that it is little more than a bunch of high quality drivers thrown into the smallest possible yet still large glossy cabinet with little fore-thought put into the actual design. How anybody could praise a $6K speaker that has a frequency response of +8 dB's / -3 dB's and has to sit with their heads at least 45" above the floor for best results is WAY beyond me. Yet Bolin and Stereophile RAVED about this product. If that is as good as things get and it costs $6K to obtain results like that, we have sunk WAY below the level of performance that end users expected, even in the late 1970's. Sean > PS... Not only is this a comment on the quality of products being manufactured and foisted upon us today, but also the integrity of those writing and publishing reviews of such products. Knowing the truth yet making it possible for someone else to lie to you is nothing more than aiding the "scam" being perpetuated. JA did this very thing when he allowed this review to be published. Either that or he was trying to make clear that Paul Bolin can't differentiate between reasonably flat response and response that is highly coloured. There are no other explanations possible that i can think of for this situation. |
I must confirm that this thread is not about the Hovland per se, it just proved convenient as it was in the current issue of Stereophile. Other recent reviews, such as the Pass Labs power amplifier, among others, bears out the point of this thread. I will not say too much more, as I have laid out my position to the degree that I hope everyone understands where I am coming from. I think Sean hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that the upgrade and upcharge in parts quality has come to represent high end audio moreso than engineering, intelligent design, and artful execution. The only other thing that I would like to say that if we have come to the point where we prefer to kill the messenger rather than ill designed, underperforming components with five figure price tags, those who support this hobby(all of us, myself included!) should rightly be viewed as fools. |
Joe wasn't saying that the NAD was sonically equivalent or better than any of the "fancy" brands mentioned. What he was saying was that it was a comptetently designed product that was versatile enough to work with whatever load that you threw at it and do so with reasonable results. Given the price difference between this amp and the others mentioned, let alone the $9500 Hovland, i thought that his comments were right down main street. Then again, it appears that we already agree on the core of this thread, so that shouldn't amaze anyone. As a reminder, this thread was specifically started out of the fact that so many newer products are failing during reviews and demo periods, don't meet spec, are limited in their uses due to lack of versatility / being under-designed, etc... AND costing more money than ever. As far as sonics go between older & newer products, that is a matter of subjectivity and will never be resolved. I have stated many times before that i think that much of what we hear as being "better" has more to do with the improvements in passive parts quality available now than over-all circuit design compared to days of the past. Having said that, paying more for a product that is less reliable, less versatile and suffering from poorer design would have to be considered "worse" by anyone that is interested in anything but "niche" products. Such an approach is anything but what "hi-end" is all about. As far as i knew, "hi-end" meant that the products rose above all expectations AND the competition. That is what set them apart from being lumped in with "mid-fi" gear i.e. better and more consistent performance in every aspect. When a $10K amplifier can't drive a 4 ohm with authority, which is not that low of an impedance for modern day speakers, the amplifier is probably either poorly designed and / or a poor performer. In my book, that excludes it from being considered a "hi-end" product. If you think that such a product is both "hi-end" and "acceptable", i guess that we have different ideas on the subject. Sean > PS... This thread is not about the Hovland or any one product in specific. It is about trends within the industry. |
It's tough to take Trelja's position seriously. I think he's just being argumentative. Even if the mid-80s NAD is superior to the Hovland in some areas of performance, it's not logical to conclude that new gear is getting worst. At most all you can state is that the Hovland is not a particularly well designed product. |
Trelja: Tubes are go, thanks for asking :-) About the amp thing: The reasons I ask about your downward trend observation are, A) Because isolated anecdotes do not a trend necessarily make, B) Because lateral movement or running in place don't = "taking a dive", C) Because being overpriced for the performance also does not = "taking a dive" in quality. I also have to agree with Onhwy61 that ability to drive 2 ohms (or to measure particularly impressively in any bench tests) is often unrelated to sound quality in many applications, and do not agree that being SS places this obligation upon a design, regardless of price. As for your desire that the implementation of a technology should improve over time, that's hard to argue with in most workaday instances, but in audio (despite the fact that just such a phenomenon has arguably occurred in many aspects of the field) I think the 'boutique' nature of the industry/market demands and rewards a continual flow of new products, whether they are significantly improved or not. To wish for the only practical alternative would be unrealistic in my view. (And the NAD...well, let's just say I started out in this nonsense with a circa '86 2200, and have my strong doubts about yours keeping pace sonically with stuff like the Hovland, Pass, or other contemporary overpriced audio jewelry, though I can't attest to it directly...) |
Why do people only agree with Stereophile when it says something bad about some piece of stereo equipment. If they praise some piece of equipment everyone says they're wrong and that it sucks (Musical Fidelity is an example, but my comments are not limited to MF) but if they pan something everyone praises them for their courage. Do audiophiles just want to see the industry torn down? I do want honesty in the reviewing process but these comments seem pretty one sided. It seems like they're only wrong when they disagree with any one of us enlightened audiophiles. Using the same logic, everyone that doesn't have the same system as me, and likes other stuff, must be stupid. BUT we know that's not true. |
You present a valid argument, Ohhwy61. However, I must dispute it due to the fact that this is a solid state amplifier with a $9500 price tag. You are oh so correct in the ability to drive a low impedance load is not the be all and end all of an amplifier, my owning a pair of AtmaSphere M60s would tell you how much I agree. But, there is no excuse for a high powered $9500 solid state amplifier not to be stable into a 2 ohm load(never mind a 1 ohm load). Paul Bolin has really never struck me as anything but a reviewer who lavishes incredible praise on ultra expensive equipment, but I admire him more after this review. His description of the Hovland described it as a lightweight, yet very clear sounding power amplifier. A decent enough amp, but one that strikes me as having its balance of cosmetics to engineering/sound/performance way, way, way off. While it improved after its instability was pointed out to the company by JA, I don't feel that one can strongly make the point that this is a well engineered product. Otherwise, why would it behave as it did, and moreso, why would they be so quick to change their design? Again, I lay out the challenge for people to justify to me what improvement this product exhibits over the big American solid state amps of the mid 80s - mid 90s. Having heard a lot of those products drive a pair of Apogees(which were sometimes nothing more than a glorified dead short) into audio heaven, I know that they can do more than pump current into a low impedance. At the end of the day, I am left strongly agreeing with Sean's point of this thread, "Stereophile confirms new gear is getting worse...." |
I'd have to say that I'd disagree that the economy of scale necessitates higher prices. I can think of many smaller manufacturers who build outstanding products and who manage to market them at a very reasonable price (Mike Sanders, George Wright, DH Labs, Homegrown Audio, etc.). It's when you start building your product to boutique standards with faceplates that cost as much to design and tool as the actual product, and when a company starts to pay big bucks in advertising (so they can also get their product reviewed in the likes of Sterophile and TAS) that the economy of scale starts to rear it's expensive head. I'm in the same camp as Trelja in my priorities being with how a product works as opposed to how it looks. The 1/2 inch tooled billet aluminum faceplates and glowing blue orbs can be spared on my account for sure. I'll take the Shallico attenuator though, but it doesn't have to have a finely machined golden knob on it . Now if we're talking those $500 wooden knobs, well then we're in the realms of massive accoustic improvements....worth every damn penny for sure! Marco |
I've got to agree with Trelja. There's simply no reason for the Hovland or any other really expensive piece of gear to be deficient in these basic areas. Granted, Hovland is a small outfit, so economies of scale are really non-existent, thereby driving up the price. However, for the prices they're charging, there's no excuse for sacrificing quality or being unable to engineer a technologically competitive component. |
How are you doing, Zaikesman? Hope the tube exploration is going well. To answer your question, simply look at the title of this thread and the arguments that Sean so lucidly lays out. First, I would like to say that in my opinion, which may or may not be off base, the implementation of a technology should improve over time. However, that does not appear to be the case. As an example, the current issue of Stereophile includes a review of the $9500 Hovland solid state amplifier. Now, if you read both the "subjective"(Bolin's review) and "objective"(JA's measurements), you will notice that because of disappointment from both vantage points, Hovland reworked the design of the product. Would they have otherwise? I doubt it. Of course, I give them credit for the improvement that was made, but it still didn't seem that they have achieved the status of producing a great power amplifier. My expectation of any piece of audio equipment costing $9500 is that it should sound great, be reliable, and be well designed. I don't think that's too much to ask. This Hovland amplifier is unable to drive loads more demanding than 4 ohms. My own NAD 2600A, circa 1987, has proven reliable in driving such demanding(lower impedance than 4 ohms) loudspeakers as Apogees, Acoustats, Thiels, Wilsons, etc., and its measurements prove it can basically handle anything without breaking a sweat. I would like to see some explanation of how this amplifier, produced in the year 2004, improves upon Aragon, Classe, Jeff Rowland, Krell, Mark Levinson, etc. gear from the late 1980s, all of which have no problems in driving much more demanding loads than the Hovland is capable of. I don't mean to bash Hovland, I am a huge fan of their tube preamp, but can we honestly say that this power amplifier justifies its pricetag? To me, I would gladly forego its cosmetics, faceplate, acrylic base, and blue LEDs for superior performance. |
Trelja: What leads you to conclude that amps in general have been "taking a dive in quality"? As for the linked AA thread, I think I'll skip it. I don't know if I would agree with any of the arguments made in it or not, but I just don't care enough about audio writing anymore to bother debating the subject. Even when it's done well, the thrill is gone for me. I consume one of the audio rags in an evening, and then hunger for something meaningful and stimulating to read. I admit it took several years, but I'm finally worn out and feel like I've read it all before. Most of all, it's boring, because audio is an intrinsically trivial and limited subject. Even if the field were written about with unimpeachable integrity always, I would still have little interest in reading about it anymore. Maybe it's just me ; I went through the same thing with rags devoted to several other specialty hobbies over the years since I was a teenager. In the end, either you do a thing or you don't, but endlessly reading about it eventually loses its diversionary appeal. I suspect that's why I glommed onto Audiogon's forum: It got me off more to write about audio for a while than to read about it, but even that's getting a bit old. In the frame of mind I'm in now, it's easy to read magazine reviews and simply focus on everything wrong I find with most of them, but that's just cheap mental masturbation. If the Stereophile subscription weren't practically being given away, I would let it lapse (as I have TAS - too expensive for what I get out of it), and next time maybe I will anyway. I do have several specific criticisms of the mag, but in reality, if they didn't put out a product of sufficiently high quality, I couldn't read it at all, and I still do... |
Thanks Trelja - I'll have to page through that issue again as I couldn't find his collum in March 04. I think his writing is very personal, very amusing, and often reveals the steaming heap of cow turds for just what it is. I guess others feel quite differently. Life is more than music and audio systems, and what makes any writing interesting, no matter what the subject, is being able to relate on a more personal and humanistic level to the author's viewpoint (whether or not you happen to agree). Omitting that element just makes for boring reviews and analasys and editorial that does not interest me in the least. I'll look forward to reading Dudley's piece. Marco PS Adding this a few hours later - Just read the piece...Hilarious!! I know why I kept missing it: I thought it was the letters section. I should try just looking in the index once in a while! |
Marco, the writing that so many complained about was Art's current "Listening" column. In it, he basically has a field day with several of the readers who have written to him. The subject matter ranges from religion to politics to the role of pets in our lives. Personally, I found it hysterical, and to be sure the funniest thing in Stereophile I can remember. Of course, the issue at hand for many who made Art's current column is whether audio and other topics should be mixed. Echoing my comments at AA, I have no problem with those feel this way. |
Here's that thread from a while back by A'gon member "Plato" which I referred to in my previous post. Marco |
Interesting stuff, this dialogue, both here, and the archived one on AudioAsylum which Sean points out. Personally I've never been that fond of Stereophile nor TAS for many of the reasons Trelja cites in his later Asylum post. They've been a resource for keeping abreast of what's going on in the 'popular' high-end market, and sometimes have pointed me to some good music. But ironically, till Art Dudley came on board, I did not enjoy reading many reviews or viewpoints of the editorial staff at Stereophile. Unlike so many others who would sooner see Dudley fired, he is the reason I actually read and actually enjoy any of that magazine. His December 03 Listener colum was spot-on, and one of the best pieces I've read in that rag. I've been looking through the March 04' issue to find out what the hell he wrote that has got so many spitting mad, but could only find a review of an ASL amp....what am I missing, can someone point it out? As far as the size of the magazine getting smaller, I went back to a few of last two years issues. They seem to vary from around 138 pages to 178 pages depending on the month. The past two months have been both 138 pages. So certainly not much as changed over the past few years. I have little doubt that the fluctuation must have something to do with the economy in general and how that has been affecting all trade and industries. I can tell you for sure that the advertising industry has taken a huge hit since 9/11, and editorial rags like Stereophile survive mostly on their advertising. Subsriptions do NOT keep mainstream rags alive. Is that an excuse for alot of the valid complaints brought up by Sean and others? I don't know, it just is what it is. If you understand it, you can put the input that is offered there in perspective. I do wonder why Atkinson chose not to respond in detail. His lack of response to some very valid discussion on his publication does not make him look very good in my eyes. I don't know his history with Sean, nor with anyone else for that matter as I have not paid close attention to criticism or editorial writing by Mr. Atkinson for reasons I've already suggested. I suspect he could provide an engaging and revealing response to some of the assertions, complaints, observations and speculations made by others, and can only assume by his silence that he feels the need to keep his business and editorial practices private, or has some personal issues with the individuals involved and cannot see beyond that, or that it simply not worth his time (which is sad indeed). I for one, would like to hear a response as I'm sure a truthful response would be enlightening in some ways, and would certainly garner more respect from the likes of me (not that Atkinson does or should necessarily give a rat's hairy hiny). I ain't him, and am not a publisher of a national magazine, so have no clue what he is up against, nor how he has to budget his time and energies, nor how a person in his position might weigh the value of contributing to a dominantly hostile thread on an audio-chat site on the Internet. Regardless, I have to say, I agree, his silence does not earn any respect from me. His choice to hire Art Dudley, and keep him on amidst all the controversy he's stirred up, however, does earn my respect. I still wish Dudley was able to keep Listener magazine alive. There was an interesting thread a while back by a gentleman who was thinking of starting his own publication and he had some very interesting comments on the compromises inherent in such an endeavor. I'll see if I can find the thread and post the link here. Marco |
Flame on Sean!As I read Joels response to "open letter"I concurred with you.Where would he(JW)draw the line,who would know where to.We are grown ups and can call it how we will.We do not have to like each others opinion,thoughts,or ideas.Pssst' I got my shovel I'll help ya' ; ) And to be clear I dig "Stereophile",I like most every part of it!!I look foward to it each month,each time I walk out to the mail I anticipate the arrival.I like the reviews the writers and the "MEASUREMENTS".Good relationships are not without imperfection,yes I want the 230+pages of "Back then" Less is better then none.The current sub price is a true solid deal.Rave on Stereophile even after I'm watching the grass grow from below. |
I love how John Atkinson blows off Sean's points, with such ease. At least he is not as arrogant and funny(in his own mind) as J10. I think the bottom line is that Sean correctly pointed out the issue that in the past few years we have seen the cost of simple power amplfiers skyrocket in price, all the while taking a dive in quality. If people think boutique faceplates and blue LEDs make up for the decline in performance, I feel unhappy that all that money is being wasted when it would be better spent on getting a good North American amp from the horsepower wars of the mid 80s - mid 90s. |
I have subscribed to Stereophile since it was eight issues a year and the smaller size, which I prefered. Not the eight issues but the smaller size. They fit into a suit pocket. For quite a while they seemed to be on an upswing, with more reviews and better info. In the last three years quality and quantity are shrinking. If they continue they way they are going it is going to be a pamphlet soon. Ads from the grocery store about the same size. There is new gear everywhere, people clammor for their favorites to be reviewed, but the magazine is pulling a disappearing act. Is it because there are not enough advertisers or is paper and postage too expensive? It used to take me a few days to get through everything in the magazine, now it takes a few hours. Come on guys, give me something to read. Teach me something! Give me a reason to stay. |
Cl: You are right on the money. Take a gander as to the conversation between myself, Trelja and John Atkinson of Stereophile that took place a short time ago. Form your own opinions based on their reactions. Sean > |
