2. tech-talk
  3. 1067066163

Stereophile confirms new gear is getting worse....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let the buyer beware.... Sean
>

PS... I've got my flame repellent armour on along with an oxygen tank and a full battery of weapons. After this post and the responses that i think i'll get, i know that i'll need all of that and maybe more : )
sean
trelja
3,223 posts
 
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.
nrchy's avatar
nrchy
2,124 posts
 
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.
stevecham
3,340 posts
 
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.
ultraviolet
105 posts
 
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.
jax2
3,031 posts
 
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
More to discover