A major disconnect between the audiophile magazine


Greetings from London. There is in my view a major disconnect between the audiophile magazines and their readers. It’s an understandable one but in my view an important one – and that the focus of this thread-starter.

Although I’m a UK-based high-end retailer I am, curiously despite 34 years on and off still interested in music first and foremost and then the equipment that reproduces it. With my end-user hat on I have to say that in a lot of my vintage gear is certainly, performance-wise, up to the standard of a lot of modern equipment. It’s not all plain sailing of course and there is the tricky issue of value versus price. Let me explain.

Take the ARC SP-8 for example. Venerable, rightly revered and a bargain on the used market. Yes of course my ARC SP-10 and 11 are more musically credible. But in too many instances this is the exception rather than the rule. I’ve recently purchased a British Fidelity {Musical Fidelity outside the UK) P270 heavy-grunt power amp for $560 USD. 23 years old. Is the latest MF power amp of a similar specification noticeably AND significantly superior? Somehow, I doubt it. Different, certainly. But more musically credible? Hmm, somehow I doubt it. But I could be wrong. Very wrong in fact. So other than through substantial investment with the probability of selling one of the two units at some financial loss, how am I to know?

Now where do the magazines come into all this you might ask? Well let’s assume (naïve though it might be) that their primary reason for existence is to serve to needs of the reader. If so, then surely a side-by-side comparison of the two Musical Fidelity power amps (used purely for illustrative purposes in this post) is as valid as the mooted ARC SP8 versus SP10 comparison.

Clearly no advertiser of new equipment in an audiophile magazine would countenance this if they knew that the much touted new model really at best only sounded different to its vintage same-brand rival rather than better. Well, that goes with territory. The mags need to make a profit and to pay the staff at least a reasonable wage. But the point remains that given (a) the over-supply of new high-end gear in a diminishing market and (b) the buyers markets for high-value vintage gear that may indeed – or possibly not – sonically rival performance of new gear and (c) the justified end-user cynicism regarding the hype and hyperbole of marketing phrases re new gear, then end-users are at a significant disadvantage when seeking value rather than lowest pricing.

The paradox is that the very people most suited to addressing this are constrained by economic reality.

So, what’s to be done? Well, I’m thinking of doing a few comparative subjective reviews myself on my blog. Possibly for my own amusement and possibly to the altruistic benefit of others. My question though is – is there a demand? Perhaps those of you with an interest (rather than an axe to grind) might want to contact me via Audiogon, or perhaps continue the thread?

Meanwhile, my Musical Fidelity P270 sounds terrific into my Vandersteen 2c Signatures. As a start, I’m going to compare the P270 to something much newer of a similar spec and, as best I can judge, of a comparative price once 23 years of inflation are factored in.

I’m using a Carver 400t preamp, various SAE preamps, a Meridian 101b, a recent Arcam pre and North Star 2-box CD player. This leads me conveniently to the conclusion that modern DACs truly are an improvement t (generally speaking) over vintage ones. I say this having owned the $20k USD STAX X1-t. This isn’t the case with speakers though and having come to my senses about the Linn LP12 and accepted my frustration re the sonically magnificent but challenging Funk products. Re vintage speakers that to me easily equally or indeed surpass the performance of rivals from competitors I’d put the Magneplanar 20.R right up there with the finest. Similarly with the Infinity IRS and the Spendor BC3s. These BC3s although not quite as good as the Harbeth 40.1s can be had for a tiny fraction of the latter’s price. Dahlquist DQ10s being another case in point. And so it goes. Is the magnificent vintage Rowland power amps truly an altogether lesser beast than their new units? Incidentally am I the only one over her that feels (no, not feels … actually knows) that Rowland really is one of this industry's marginalised brands?

I now use a big old Denon Direct drive in a custom plinth comprising notinventedherium interspersed with layers of female yak-dung as a vibration absorber. The improvement using the female free-range version (1958 vintage) compared to the battery-farmed YD of recent years is nothing short of astonishing.

Finally, as I write this I’m listening to true vintage. Pink Floyd “Echoes” off the very rare “Rhapsody In Pink” live set through a mono speaker. If like me you saw the Floyd performing this live, the absence of Pace, Rhythm & Timing is an irrelevance. The musical trigger to the memory is sufficient. Anyway, those of you who wish to – you know how to find me.

Thank you

Regards

Howard Popeck / Stereonow Ltd
128x128bigaitch
Phaelon,I hope you are accurate in your assessment of newer technology.I really do!

I'm sceptical though,as many new designs are there because they cost less to mfgr,and in many instances they take up less space.

Take class D amps as an example.God,I hope they are really a better mouse trap,but they are alot less money,are WAY smaller than what came before,and do run cooler.....Better sounding?I really don't know(though I've heard some that were OK).

Same with many other supposedly more modern alternatives in equipment.Many employ smaller parts,lesser circuits,but do sound good.

I know what you speak of,and hope you "are" correct,but my experience tells me that too many mfgrs today,are getting hit hard by a poor economy,lower sales figures,and other competitive ways to retreive and listen to music.

It just seems that the High End of today is aimed at those folks who buy things like pricey cars,watches etc.

These companies,selling high end gear have so little to work with,regarding a "true" customer base,that they simply "must" get top dollar to survive.This definitely hurts follow up customer support(don't I know it)as quality repair technicians are not able to be employeed.

Also,how many times have we read about very costly,well revieweed components literally crapping out upon first audition in the home.Is this progress?

Don't get me wrong,this is a great hobby,but much of the vintage stuff is not necessarily "old"....and alot of it sounds fabulous....if voiced with correct componentry.

We,the hobbysit do pay dearly,if we want to stay in the hobby.....A great hobby,btw....I still know that!

Curiously,I was scoping out what the current cost of quality audiophile vinyl might be today,if I so desired to get back in the game(I do miss it,but have been hard at work with my musicianship....very satisfying).I used to have a magnificent LP collection,as well as CD's.Virtually "all" of the TAS Super Disc List,in original pressings....Early pressings too.

Once again,to my chagrin,it just looks like the market is being pushed to a rediculous standard of costs.I'm speaking of the usual LP internet retailers,but of course one can go the old record store route(I live near The Princeton Record Exchange) and spend an afternoon on your knees,slodging through the floor bins(actually,lots of fun,and cheap too).

Hard and costly to get back in the game.Not to mention a turn off when one considers there are no true audiophile magazines anymore....especially if you cut your teethe on the original TAS Magazine....Now "that" was for us guys,not the industry biggies,who pay for adv space.

Best to all
For the vast majority of today's home PC users, a 10-year old PC attached to an LCD monitor should do fine.

For the vast majority of drivers looking to get excellent mileage with good reliability in a modicum of comfort on their way to work, they'd be better off buying a low-miles 10-yr old Accord.

For most kids, hand-me-down clothes work fine during their growing years.

For most people who read, the public library has most of the books you will want to read.

I liked the original version of Nikita better than the American remake, Point of No Return.

Nobody is going to convince me that new Mountain Dew tastes better than old Mountain Dew but it certainly costs more.

But ask any male who got more than 20 on the 'Older Than Dirt' quiz whether they can pick up babes better now than 30 years ago...

Such is the way of things...
Some very interesting responses. Thank you. Again, as with other postings here, I agree with you. Regarding the categories of customers you identify so well, you might be surprised to know that when I spot them I do from time to time deliberately engineer the demonstration to give a poor outcome or an ambiguous one. The consequence is that they go to one of my competitors – which is entirely my intention.

I’m uncomfortable dealing with the paranoid, the over-anxious, the obviously obsessed and the other strange (to me at least) types. I neither have the patience, the know-how nor the mental horsepower necessary to do this. It’s nothing to do with the money either. Truth be told, the paranoid among you can be very profitable for me were I to choose to exploit your anxiety. I leave that to some of my competitors.

Does this mean I loose revenue? Yup, it certainly does. Do I care? No, not one iota. The reason for me is uncomplicated in that no amount of profit will compensate me for the need to act as a counselor for the disturbed. And this industry has a higher incidence of disturbed enthusiasts than any other that I’ve had direct personal experience of. Anyway . . .

The problem {now solved incidentally) for this high-end retailer is uncomplicated. The stress involved in dealing with the small amount of people who continually want to upgrade is for me in no way compensated for by the profit. Strange, but true. Such people leave an indelible stain on my memory of the working week which is so out of proportion to the trauma as to be absurd. But . . . that’s how I feel it. Moreover the 9 or more truly satisfying sales curiously and frustratingly doesn’t seem with me to compensate for the one miserable (albeit highly profitable) one.
On the average, in my opinion, newer equipment is sometimes better. Capacitors, output devices, etc. are better quality. Signal path technology, biasing, etc. better. However, That does not automatically mean that a new amp, pre-amp, etc. would sound better than an older piece of equipment. However, one must compare apples to apples. comparing a $10,000 new amp with an amp that was priced at $3,000 fifteen years ago, may not be a fair comparison. everything is subjective.

As I have pointed out many times in the past, magazines will not review older products especially ones out-of-production. Therefore, equipment manufactures will consistantly "create" the latest and greatest new equipment that may not really be better than their older equipment, but since the older equipment will not be reviewed by the mags anymore, they have to come up with something new to get their names circulated. not all do this, but most. So,reading the mags may be interesting, but it may not be fair because they really don't compare with the older high-end stuff. Sometimes they do, but the comparisons are biased, typically.

Take for example the Mark Levinson 23.5 or 20.6 and compare with the newer Mark Levinson amps that were priced comparably. That would be interesting. I have done this to a point and let me tell you, the newer stuff isn't "better". Different, maybe, but better? oh boy!

How about the VTL 300 deluxe compared to the comparable VTL's now? it would be interesting. Especially, if you retube the older equipment first.

I stand by my premise that magazines are not interested in reviewing older stuff and to get readers, they must review new stuff and therefore, manufactures, must come up with "newer and better" to get their name in the mags. But, it does not necessarily mean that the newer stuff is actually better.

enjoy.
Hi Sirspeedy, "What we've got here is a failure to communicate". I think we're trying to say the same thing: that it's not technology per se, but its application that determines its worthiness. I'm confident that if engineers are tasked to use all the technologies available to a product's best advantage, something new and wonderful will likely come to market. On the other hand, if the challenge is to lower build cost, we wind up with plastic gears. Unfortunately, like you, I believe it's the second motivation that most often drives development.