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
> |
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. |
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
> |
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. |
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,
|
