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
bigtee
803 posts
 
Amen Sean!
Marketing has gotten out of hand. If a company brings a new product update out every 6 months, I've got to question the original design. I've noticed a lot of tested specs are worse than they have been in the past. Look at some of the newer CD players performance---especially jitter.
Consumers electonics have not advanced as far as manufactures would like you to believe. A lot of it is simply rehashing of old designs, especially in tube design.
I was talking to Art Ferris of Audible Illusions the other day and he was telling me how good David Haflers old PAS-3 preamp was(especially the phono section) He made the comment how basic tube design had not changed (parts quality and precision had improved.) Also, there have been some advances in power supply thinking. He took a design in his Modulus preamps and has stuck with it for a long while. Art is a very approachable and knowledgable guy.
I have always felt tubes were coloured in an euphoric way. They kind of mask some of the sources we use and make them more tolerated.
I have always felt the CD was at the root of a lot of problems. We try to mask its inherent faults. Analogue and SACD sure offer a more communicative source.
But, as long as "Audiophiles" continue to buy the latest and greatest, industry will stay the course. It's not to advance the art, it's to make money! And it will stay that way until we demand better from them by refusing to pay absorbent prices for crap!
infinitebaffle
51 posts
 
Sean, Perhaps I did not make my point clear. There is no clear correlation between a products specs and the way it makes music in a system and therefore the specs are totally irrelevent as to the value of that product. Some of the worst measuring pieces of gear are also some of the most musical sounding and most beloved by music lovers. If you choose your gear by it's measurements, more power to you, but many people prefer to make that decision by selecting gear that puts them emotionally in touch with the music and the specs are simply not part of that decision. When I first got into audio I had an opinion similar to yours. It was only when I decided to basically completely ignore specs and just listen that I arrived at a position of having a music reproduction system that really puts me in touch with the music.
eddaytona
216 posts
 
Whatever......

First question: Did they do the tests after burn-in?
Second Question: How about actually listening instead of testing?

Case in point: Ah! CD Player. I actually tested the player side-by-side with other players IN MY OWN HOME. It was hands-down the winner against others in it's price (even those higher than it's price). It did take about 80 hours of burn-in but then there was no comparison. So, so much for test specs.

Third question: Does anyone on this site (in particular) actually give any credence to Stereophile Magazine???
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
We audiophiles regard specs as being (or should be) related to sonic characteristics. But this is not the primary purpose of specs.

A product is tested and the test results are compared with specs so as to verify that the particular unit does not have defective parts or improper assembly. In other words, "does this unit look like all the others". What it looks like is another issue. The sonic characteristics are determined by the design of the circuitry, and a design that sounds "good" may have some parameters that deviate from the ideal.

That said, there are some parameters of audio equipment which do relate to sonic characteristics, frequency response and distortion are the most obvious. If you intend to make a circuit that processes the audio signal with "Fidelity" distortion is ideally zero and frequency response is broad and flat. If you intend to make a nice sounding circuit, you may want to shape the frequency response and generate some nice harmonics. However, if you do the latter, you are designing a musical instrument, not a high fidelity amplifier.
trelja
3,226 posts
 
Well, I guess I am late to this thread, but would still like to add my 2 cents.

I have spent a fair amount of time since the spring auditioning loudspeakers. To be truthful, I really didn't need to upgrade those in my second system, but I don't think I have to explain the disease of this hobby to anyone here - we all have it.

In brief, the results of my listening have left me stunned. The vast majority of what I listened to is beyond poor. In no words can I express the disappointment and astonishment I feel. And, I am not talking about johnny come lately brands, but what are considered in many cases to be the vanguard of audio. To be frank, I would never bring most of them into my home, let alone pay $1000 - $4000 for them.

Normally, I have freely listed equipment which I found to offer poor sound, unafraid of the consequences here. I have let the chips fall where they may, and taken whatever flames come my way. However, this time, I wonder if I should really list what I have listened to. Many here that I have a lot of respect own these products. I am now a bit torn internally as to why they would not only buy them, but recommend them.

Perhaps I am being too harsh, but my faults seem miniscule in comparison to established audiophile magazines recommending some of these loudspeakers with the enthusiasm they do. If I read that these speakers come close to the holy grail of high end audio - ACTUAL MUSIC - I am left with the impression that we are either being lied to or those recommending these products are far too easily convinced.

All loudspeakers have faults. None are perfect, and perhaps none will ever be perfect. But, I do feel we have come to the point where book matched veneers on a pretty package are superceding good sound.

I am really angry with multimillion dollar companies who have been in this business for many years producing ill designed ported loudspeakers. Surely, it isn't so hard to produce low frequencies which do not chuff, woof, spit, fart, or whatever you refer to it as.

We all know that it may be difficult for us to come up with a well designed ported alignment, but a company which has generated millions upon millions of dollars of revenue can do it. It just takes a bit of R & D and critical listening. Are these companies simply taking an off the shelf cardboard or plastic tube, inserting into the cabinet, and proclaiming the speaker to be state of the art?

So many speakers have floored me with inadequacies from wooly bass to lack of image focus that I wonder what is going on.

As such, it comes as not such as big surprise that Sean is saying what he is saying. I don't go around measuring things, but if these products measure well then it would be a surprise. And if they in fact do, we need to come up with a new means of measurement. We need to begin demanding that sound win out over looks and boutique price tags!
More to discover