And yet you certainly didn’t seem to take issue with his Stereophile review of the Aegir, which is really what this thread is all about.
Could Herb have got it wrong?
Could Herb have got it wrong?
Stereophile's 2021 products of the year
And wow! Schiit Audio 20w Class-A Aegir stereo poweramp made it into the A rating.
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/stereophile-s-2012-products-of-the-year
Cheers George
127 responses Add your response
Like I said they go hand in hand, the measurements/tests keep the reviewers honest, not the other way around. Oh and I like the Aegir, if you search I recommend it quite a lot, especially in bi-amped systems with the Vidar and Sys (to equalize the gains) on the bass And if you want to believe elsewise that’s up to you. |
We agree on something, they go hand in hand, and reviewers who really know how to INTERPRET them - ie what really affects the sound and what does to a lesser degree are the ones, like Herb, whom I really respect. When designing his amp he knew which parameters needed to be spot on and which could be relaxed a bit. That’s called experience. |
Stereophile is a much better read than this thread. That's why people pay (not much) money for Stereophile. But their recommended products is a bore and a waste of their valuable editorial space. They only include current gear and say nothing of the SQ relationship between say a Class A amp 10 years ago and one in this year's mag. An objective discussion of that relationship would benefit us all. |
I concur. My fully regulated JLH69 still sounds absolutely wonderful 51 years post design. I would loved to have had a good example of this classic compared with the aegir on SQ grounds so I could use it as a yardstick. If the aegir were to prove significantly better, I would obviously be very interested. Comparing it with other amplifiers I know would give me similar insight. |
Why buy anything when there is so much out there that is just as good if not better at 1/3 the price? Seems that's how most reviews in these publications go - "this is so great I bought it myself"; I'd like to see these people's listening rooms, because they sure buy a lot of stuff for themselves... |
This thread is funny. I'm quite sure for 90% of the contrary responders of one thing. Had one of the components in their system been named to Stereophile's product of the year list, they most certainly would not have come onto a similar thread and denounced Stereophile and the practices and rooms of the reviewers. They either would have posted how they've had the component for 2 years already, or they would have said nothing. Sometimes human nature is so funny. |
I own two components on the Stereophile A list. However, I still have a problem with its commercially driven content and the insidious manner in which it influences consumer spending and dealer‘s decision making. There are some things that got on there, like the Exposure 2010S, which beggar belief. I know I had one, and the old Farlowe XV super stomped it in terms of music making. Personally, I would have given it a borderline B, with the caveat that it isn‘t the most musically engaging of amplifiers out there. |
@mesch Speaker sensitivity AND impedance/phase angle are to be considered jointly as to the ability of an amplifier to power the speakers unlike the @millercarbon statement. I own speakers with a 98db sensitivity that have a low impedance of 3.2 ohms and sharp phase angles there which allow 30 watt tube amps to play it beautifully and 200 watt solid state amps which cannot. Apparently, the impedance/phase angle has more impact on amps and my speakers than sensitivity. Also, I personally know of reviewers who publish high end equipment reviews so that they can have equipment to resell. As to the VAC 170IQ review, I was also shocked at how poorly it measured which reminded me of the recent Cary amp review of similar disrepute. In the Cary amp instance, the reviewer found that it sounded very good. There is a dictum which states that if something sounds good but measures poorly, someone is measuring the wrong thing. However, there could be a defective product (EAR Classic had such a review, later corrected-it is a very good sounding CD player) which caused the poor measurements. I want to hear from users and the manufacturer as to why the VAC 170IQ measurements stunk. |
I have no opinion as I have not read the review, however it may be sample variation, as you have surmised, because Stereo Magazine found that it measured well https://stereo-magazine.com/archive/articles?tx_archive_pi1%5Baction%5D=download&tx_archive_pi1%5Barticle%5D=69341&tx_archive_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=Archive&cHash=b63605b6cab9c40ddc6dbc5e2d1dd3ed ‘Low distortion, low noise, high bandwidth and an enormous attenuation factor for a tube amplifier.’ Hope this helps. Did they measure-the same one they reviewed? |
It is interesting that the stereo-magazine.com article does not indicate the distortion level at 64/65 watt continuous output as well as other problems Atkinson found. https://www.stereophile.com/content/vac-sigma-170i-iq-integrated-amplifier-measurements However, on-line I just read multiple explanations that point to a need to carefully select a partnering speaker, preferably above 90db efficiency and easier impedance phase angles. This is rated as an 85 watt amp but reaches 3% THD on a slow rise at 51 watts, 2nd harmonic distortion type which may not be hearable versus a similar solid state amplifier with the same distortion but with a quick rise. Herb Reichert, Jim Austin and John Atkinson further explain the measurements. They were answering @George who stated from the review
"Using our definition of clipping, which is when the output's THD+noise percentage reaches 1%, the amplifier with both channels driven with a 1kHz signal clipped at 11.8Wpc into 8 ohms." I can't say George doesn't have a good argument that the amp section is very particular of it's speaker mate with a low damping factor and high impedance resulting is potentially great frequency response variations. |
I think Jim Austin gave a pretty good account of the design intent: ie deliberately eschewing feedback in the interests of improved SQ into tube friendly speakers - rather than designing a panacea for all speakers. It‘s also interesting to note that Jim confirms that an amp that measures worse (ie without feedback) can actually sound better. He also made the interesting point that some speakers like to see high output impedances. From memory, I think these these mainly fall into the single driver category. Speaker matching is always important to a certain degree. |
Stereophile is awesome. Not perfect, but a very good mag. As for their "best of" issues, of which there are more than one per year, I am indifferent. The reason they do so many of them is because it sells magazines. There are many budding audiophiles who need resources for buying and upgrading gear. Stereophile and other magazines provide this resource. And, yes, publishing IS a business. And it's a very difficult business to make money at, especially in the internet age. I hate to think of Stereophile and TAS going out of business. The quality of the writing and the personalities of both magazines are very interesting for me. Compare these two to some of the British mags sometime. The integrity of the U.S. mags is much higher IMO. |
There is definite value in the stereophile reviews but you have to be careful with matching components for compatability and synergy. this is why they list the associsted components which i like. the other thing is that there is an unwritten rule with the class system that people fail to understand- the term "within its competitive price range" the KEF example affirms this, the LS50s are class A products within their price range because they overperform at their price vs the competition. The Reference products do not in my opinion and therefore the class B rating. I believe you can look at this within every cagetory. Why they do not make it official rather than "between the lines" is probably a can of worms they do not want to open... |
There is definite value in the stereophile reviews but you have to be careful with matching components for compatability and synergy. this is why they list the associsted components which i like.Another good point, as then the reader, if able and can take in the mesurments. Can then also look up the measurements on those associated components to see if they were compatible, and if what the reviewer is saying could be attributed to it. Cheers George |
Interesting thread. I too wonder about the relationship between Stereophile ad sales and content. However, I have read it for enough years that I can discern a great review from a merely good or ok one. I also think that generally there is lots of good gear made these days especially at popular prices and so differentiation is often along lines other than just sound. I find the measurements interesting but as a non-engineer I too could benefit from understanding more of what to look for. (I would be in much better shape if they focused on their financials, marketing strategy or legal situation but noone would care about those.) I still though want to hear my music reproduced in a more favorable form and every so often I want to upgrade gear to do it. I also live someplace without any significant retail audio presence especially one which can lend me gear I might buy and am also 1000s of miles from other states (HI) so I rely on expertise to make me aware of gear, hopefully credible expertise from the industry as well as forums like this one. I know I am not alone in this case especially as the years have passed and more audiophiles are "older", there are fewer BM stores, etc. I take everything with a grain or two of salt including here on AG and in the pubs and on other sites. BUT, it still helps and provides both entertainment and insight. |
And the influence of the mags is exactly why you shouldnt take them seriously. If a mature hobbyist doesnt outgrow the various pubs within a few years then they are doing something wrong. How boring it is to have to read between the lines to get the true meaning of a review. The whole model stinks and is harmful to the hobby. |