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
Some very interesting responses. Thank you. Again, as with other postings here, I agree with you. Regarding the categories of customers you identify so well, you might be surprised to know that when I spot them I do from time to time deliberately engineer the demonstration to give a poor outcome or an ambiguous one. The consequence is that they go to one of my competitors – which is entirely my intention.

I’m uncomfortable dealing with the paranoid, the over-anxious, the obviously obsessed and the other strange (to me at least) types. I neither have the patience, the know-how nor the mental horsepower necessary to do this. It’s nothing to do with the money either. Truth be told, the paranoid among you can be very profitable for me were I to choose to exploit your anxiety. I leave that to some of my competitors.

Does this mean I loose revenue? Yup, it certainly does. Do I care? No, not one iota. The reason for me is uncomplicated in that no amount of profit will compensate me for the need to act as a counselor for the disturbed. And this industry has a higher incidence of disturbed enthusiasts than any other that I’ve had direct personal experience of. Anyway . . .

The problem {now solved incidentally) for this high-end retailer is uncomplicated. The stress involved in dealing with the small amount of people who continually want to upgrade is for me in no way compensated for by the profit. Strange, but true. Such people leave an indelible stain on my memory of the working week which is so out of proportion to the trauma as to be absurd. But . . . that’s how I feel it. Moreover the 9 or more truly satisfying sales curiously and frustratingly doesn’t seem with me to compensate for the one miserable (albeit highly profitable) one.
On the average, in my opinion, newer equipment is sometimes better. Capacitors, output devices, etc. are better quality. Signal path technology, biasing, etc. better. However, That does not automatically mean that a new amp, pre-amp, etc. would sound better than an older piece of equipment. However, one must compare apples to apples. comparing a $10,000 new amp with an amp that was priced at $3,000 fifteen years ago, may not be a fair comparison. everything is subjective.

As I have pointed out many times in the past, magazines will not review older products especially ones out-of-production. Therefore, equipment manufactures will consistantly "create" the latest and greatest new equipment that may not really be better than their older equipment, but since the older equipment will not be reviewed by the mags anymore, they have to come up with something new to get their names circulated. not all do this, but most. So,reading the mags may be interesting, but it may not be fair because they really don't compare with the older high-end stuff. Sometimes they do, but the comparisons are biased, typically.

Take for example the Mark Levinson 23.5 or 20.6 and compare with the newer Mark Levinson amps that were priced comparably. That would be interesting. I have done this to a point and let me tell you, the newer stuff isn't "better". Different, maybe, but better? oh boy!

How about the VTL 300 deluxe compared to the comparable VTL's now? it would be interesting. Especially, if you retube the older equipment first.

I stand by my premise that magazines are not interested in reviewing older stuff and to get readers, they must review new stuff and therefore, manufactures, must come up with "newer and better" to get their name in the mags. But, it does not necessarily mean that the newer stuff is actually better.

enjoy.
Hi Sirspeedy, "What we've got here is a failure to communicate". I think we're trying to say the same thing: that it's not technology per se, but its application that determines its worthiness. I'm confident that if engineers are tasked to use all the technologies available to a product's best advantage, something new and wonderful will likely come to market. On the other hand, if the challenge is to lower build cost, we wind up with plastic gears. Unfortunately, like you, I believe it's the second motivation that most often drives development.
Want something to compare? Stereophile archives of tests are online. Sometimes, but not often there is a 'revisit'. They did so with my CD player, an original FD1000 sold here as a Magnevox. Kind of fun reading impressions and listening tests from 25+ years ago.

Stereo mags / equipment manufacturers VS end users is the same as
Car mags / Builders VS drivers.

How many autos OR hifi components are given terrific reviews than......vanish?

Cars seem to have improved, but costs are wacky. How many people are equipped to properly drive half a million $ worth of Ferrari? And afford the upkeep.
Nope, I'll stay in the relatively shallow end of the pool and stay away from brand-new/ latest greatest.
Excellent version of "Echoes," BTW... though it's hard to find a bad one. (Also, check out "Any Colour You Like" from the Boston 1975 ROIO-- you'll just feel like you're stoned.