2. amps-preamps
  3. 1283429880

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
bigaitch's avatar
bigaitch OP
39 posts
 

Hi there nighthawk.

Re Rowland, looking back on my original comment I should have been less ambiguous. At that point I was thinking pretty much of the UK press and the UK audiophile public. I’m sorry about that. I’d momentarily forgotten the global reach of Audiogon.

In the UK, Rowland, or perhaps more relevant the UK importer have a very low profile. Maybe this is accidental. Possibly deliberate. They might well have concluded that a UK audiophile press who might well – if given the opportunity – claim that a lawnmower with the brand name NAIM on it was a musical portal into nirvana is unlikely to give a Rowland a totally unbiased review. The point being that on every occasion I’ve heard a Rowland I have been deeply impressed with what it has been able to do with speakers that I’ve previously found very disappointing.

Here’s an example. I was called in by a user (not my customer) to figure out why his Wilson Audio Watts/Puppies Series 7 driven by a pair of Levinson 33H power amps and ML32 preamp sounded not very good. It’s a long story, but it sets a reference point. This hapless individual was using the very top of the line Levinson transport and DAC. Now, let’s switch to scene #2

This next guy had Wilson Series #6 driven by a Rowland power amp and a Spectral DMC-12 (which I subsequently bought) with signal from from an Accuphase 85V. The sound was as joyful and magnificent as I’ve ever heard in the UK, period. Moreover new-for-new it was a fraction of the price of the other system.

Now of course there was a serious sonic mismatch between those Levinsons and the Wilsons in that room on that day. It was at first sight hard to identify the ‘culprit’. I did get there in the end and it took just $417 to put the smile back on his fave. Meanwhile 2 UK retailers had taken serious money off this guy and … both of them must have known of the incompatibility – or been stone deaf.

The other man had discovered what I’ve coined as “accidental magic”. It’s both rare and wonderful is accidental magic. That specific Rowland into those Wilsons using the Spectral and Accuphase 85v truly was – by accident rather than design – outstanding. All of the gear in this great system was previously owned. All the gear in the expensive system was brand new.

For that reason alone (but there are others) I feel sure that Rowland, without fuss and hype may indeed be up there with a tiny handful of the very best of the global amplifier designers and makers.

Meanwhile in the background here tonight I’m playing John Mayall’s “Blues Alone”. My old Musical Fidelity (British Fidelity for our USA cousins) P-270 is sounding magnificent at these low volumes as indeed it does at high volumes and anything in between.

In conclusion might I humbly suggest that whenever any of you are auditioning power amps, one very useful and curiously forgotten additional test is to check for tonal variation as the system volume is increased. And then again as it’s reduced. Few power amps, in my direct personal experience, are tonally consistent throughout the volume range. The 'flat0earth' purveyors of PRaT know this and that's why they try to divert requests away from this simple but effective auditioning test.

Regards

Howard Popeck / Stereonow Ltd http://not-boring-honestly.blogspot.com/
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,841 posts
 
If you are looking to compare older gear with new stuff, I recommend making sure the power supplies and the like are up to snuff with good filter capacitors.

PRat, FWIW, is something you can design for but has its own price that it exacts of the design. At some point I contend that we will have to throw away our current system of measurements and adopt one that relates only to human perceptual rules rather than simply trying to look good on paper.
phd
1,320 posts
 
An older but good design should be viable for years to come less the eventual parts replacement that will bring it back up to specs. Good sounding gear has not just recently been invented for the exception of the technolgy that has brought us digital swithing amps. I think this thread echos the frustrations shared by many audiophiles, is this years model better than last years and if so, is it worth the price difference. It is well known that many audiophiles will pay a substantial difference for a marginal improvement, I'm not one of them because I am putting music before the gear and as a homeowner I have other demanding things that require my attention.
cwlondon
1,210 posts
 

Further to "pace, rythmm, and timing" or PRAT, I believe the UK hi fi industry invented the term?

So further to this thread and another recent one about Linn bamboozling its customers with Jedi mind tricks, American and International readers should know the other meaning of "prat":

English term, primarily used in United Kingdom.

The literal meaning is "bottom" or "rump"; aka backside, buttocks, sacrum, tail end.

This lends itself to the slang meaning of "ass," or "clueless person of arrogant stupidity."
I can't believe what an overbearing idiot he is.
What a prat!

A self-aggrandizing, pompous f***. Someone who is full of themselves and, almost invariably, stupid as well. With a hint of 'deluded.' "I'm getting really tired of listening to Vince brag about his conquests. What a PRAT."

Having lived in the UK for nearly 10 years, it would not surpise me if "pace rhythm and timing" aka PRAT was coined while viewing LP 12 customers with contempt and laughing all the way to the bank.

Cheers,
More to discover