2. analog
  3. 1075929650

"Trickle up" theory

I notice that while all my cheap 'tables time well, many expensive ones do not. I'm tired of this "trickle-down" crap the audio press feed us, thus implying that all the more expensive equipment is intrinsically superior to the budget equipment, and in the process training us to want all that expensive equipment which is so "superior." The fact of the matter is, that most budget equipment gets the music right, if with various distortions (for instance my sister's cheap Sony ghetto-blaster always makes me want to dance), and that what is actually needed is "trickle up", a preservation of the essential timing of music which budget components so often get right. I am not saying that all high-end equipment is crap - some, like Conrad-Johnson, excel at this musical magic - but the fact is a large number of high-end manufacturers need to examine what makes the budget equipment so musical (that magic which came from the first quality budget components which got us hooked on this hobby in the first place), and apply it to their cost-no-object creations! We need that musical magic to go along with all that tonal correctness and detail. Raise your hands all those who bought expensive equipment only to end up missing their cheaper components. My only purpose in writing these things is to advance the sate of the art, by encouraging a re-examination of the way we think about things. Looking at things from different angles is how to gain the fresh outlook needed for new ideas, and an improvement of the art. And also ensure that the next peice I buy will have the magic first, and all the audiophile goodies after.
johnnantais
twl
3,251 posts
 
Well, John, I have alot of similar feelings with respect to the audio environment, and the confusion that is rampant in the industry. I am hoping that this will settle out, and things will get back to solid thinking that used to be the norm in audio of the past.

Regarding the idler wheel issue again, it is entirely possible that a good implementation of idler wheel technology could yield an enjoyable turntable at a budget. Many times, it is the implementation that makes the difference between designs. Ultimately, the proof is in the listening, and I also prefer musicality(among other things) in my system over an analytical and dry presentation. As long as my listening needs are met, I am not picky about which technology is used to meet them. However, I am technically savvy, and I know which technologies are more likely to be able to meet my listening needs, so I have some certain prejudices, as most of us would. But, an open mind is always an asset, and we should be open to new ideas and concepts that may benefit us.

Keep up the good work.
ozfly
887 posts
 
My amps have very large power supplies and my speakers are also very large with complex crossovers. Maybe I could have achieved a great result with less, but my listening room is large and I enjoy the stereo even while standing 40 feet away in the kitchen. Moreover, my audiophile and, especially, my non-audiophile friends love to listen to the music. Even people who don't like to listen to music enjoy the music. Most importantly, my wife and I love the music. It really does sound like the singer is right there. Oh, and the sweet spot -- glorious!

My point: It's all in the design and in your personal tastes. Maybe my system shouldn't sound good, but it does. Someone must have compensated well. Go figure!

Johnnantais, thanks for the post. It's always good to question the status quo. It's always good to remind people to focus on the guts of the music and how it hits you in the guts.
unsound
7,335 posts
 
Johnnantais, I'm curious about your feelings about time. Other than the Quads I know of no time coherent British loudspeakers. Aside from the new digital stuff (which I haven't enough experience with to comment on), the "fastest" electronics I've heard are the Spectral products. Interesting that both the digital and Spectral stuff seems to be lighter and smaller. You mention the C-J gear as an example (BTW that's what I'm currently using)of your position, yet I don't think many would say that their appeal is about "time-ing" or speed. Is your issue of time about speed and/or tempo. Speed may be good in that things may start and stop as they are intended or bad for not. Pace or tempo can be related to the above and/or be a byproduct of proper or even improper (unnatural, over emphasis) dynamics both micro and macro. Your implication that the use of mass may be unimaginative, is intersting. While there are no free rides and mass unto itself may bring extra materials, cost, shipping, storage both of the product itself and of unwanted energy, it still may be the best solution at present for the problem at hand. I don't think too much information is the problem with all gear all the time. I think having misinformation is the problem more often that not. I can't help but feel that you have been to narrow in your critisim of the current state of High Fidelity. The issues are much broader.
twl
3,251 posts
 
Ozfly, no disrespect intended for equipment such as yours.

Quite often, it is important to satisfy many requirements such as the ones you mention, and the choices I made do not qualify in many other applications and environments. In fact, my choices would be very poor where maximum SPL and deep bass response were the most important factors.

So please accept my humble apologies if there was any offense taken. It was just my awkward way of trying to make a point about simple sometimes being better.
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,260 posts
 
To a large extent it's all a matter of design trade-offs and personal preferences. Few if any individual audio products or systems truly excel at all areas of audio reproduction and we as listeners are attracted to those products that match our personal tastes. Some value coherence, others harmonic integrity or PRaT, dynamic capabilities, etc. I don't know of any system of thought that places any of these factors as primary to another. It all comes down to personal preferences.

As an example, in many ways the Quad 63/988 is a "perfect" speaker, yet it's not the universal choice of audiophiles. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to desire greater dynamic capabilities or deeper bass from their systems.

Can simple designs outperform relatively complex designs. Of course! But at the same time there are numerous complex designs that can outperform their relatively simple design counterparts. Somewhat surprisingly many of the simplest designs (i.e., Audio Note or Lamm) are quite expensive products. High performance, simple designs seem to require very high quality, high cost parts. Forgive me for not even knowing whom I'm misquoting, but things should be kept as simple as possible, but not simpler than necessary.
More to discover