Realistic sound = tubes and analogue

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I just read the Stereophile review of the Bryston 28b, and they caution to use it with 6 or 8 ohm speakers. That lets me out! Trust me, I have a completely open mind. Remember, my favorite system at the CAS was the Evolution Acoustics when playing copies of master tapes and driven by ss units. The Audio Note system was in my top 3 rooms, and they only used CDs. Looking back on the show, I am still shocked how realistic the Audio Note system sounded. How much was due to the Jinro integrated amp, and how much to the Audio Note speakers, could not be determined. I am going to
audition the Audio note speakers with analogue front end on Friday. It might get expensive!

Ummm Tube fan, either you cannot read very well, or you are purposefully trying to be misleading. Here is the quote from the article on what you said

Bryston publishes only the 28B-SST's maximum power output into 8 ohms; no ratings are offered for loads of 4 or 2 ohms. However, run into 4 ohm loads, with the rear-panel circuit breaker bypassed, the amplifier won't clip until it's continuously delivering 1800W. The resulting current flow will trip the 15-amp breakers in most homes after 10–20 seconds of continuous power. Chris Russell explained that, because regulatory agencies test an amplifier at its rated power under home conditions, for the 28B-SST Bryston chose a power rating into 8 ohms that would not trip the average home's circuit breaker.

Here is your caution, which is not a caution at all:

While it definitely works better with speakers having impedances of 4 ohms or greater, Bryston's 28B-SST joins that select group of very-high-powered amplifiers that have sufficiently low noise and distortion to reproduce high-resolution digital recordings without compromise.

While it definitely works better, does not mean it cannot work at all. And what he means by work better is outlined in the above statement. It works better with speaker loads greater than 4 ohms because it does not trip the breakers in most folks home. For those like me who use 20 amp and 40 amp circuits, this is not a problem.

[RGA]

No I really DO want to know what it all costs, since it's been about 10 years since I bought my first repair kit from Magnepan. ($46.50)

While you at it please give me the markup costs that your dealer told you. I hope you know that divulging proprietary info like that can cost your dealer more than his Magnepan dealership. I'm sure a lot of other manufacturers will want to know that he's giving out their confidential info to punters like yourself.

Actually they can't because we're talking about the cost of the materials not overall costs. Cost of materials is far eaiser to find. Simply rip it apart. The "general" information provided was not specific to any model. Since other dealers have said the same thing - it is not like this is confidential knowledge. Several manufacturers have admitted it on AudioAsylum as well. The owner of Merlin speakers and PQ among some others.

Just saying when you say a product uses cheap parts you should look at the level of parts that are in the speakers in your stable.

And you need to put your magnepan fanboy views aside when moderating. You are sending e-mails to them, you are attacking an audio manufacturer that you have never once auditioned, threatened and implied law-suit against an audio dealer? And calling forum poster's names. And basically because someone doesn't like the speakers you own and only brings them up because you attack a speaker you've never heard.

[Geoffcin]

Actually they can't because we're talking about the cost of the materials not overall costs. Cost of materials is far eaiser to find. Simply rip it apart. The "general" information provided was not specific to any model.

Just as I thought, never did know the markup did ya? Next time you CLAIM to have info be prepared to get called out again.

[mlsstl]

...I said that someone who builds it himself has a bias - I am not hunting down the quotes and articles to satisfy you. If you can't see the basic psychological logic of it then I can't help you.

The only catch is that, in my experience, people who buy things are just as emotionally invested as those who build their own. One only has to spend a few moments with a BMW owner to realize their pride of ownership would lead you to think they supervised the pour of the engine block casting themselves.

In fact, over the years I can think of several DIYers I knew who were considerably more modest about their gear than those whose sole contribution was taking their purchase out of the box. The latter are quite proud of their superior taste. Not everyone is capable of making such a refined and subtle choice! ;-)

[Geoffcin]

While it definitely works better, does not mean it cannot work at all. And what he means by work better is outlined in the above statement. It works better with speaker loads greater than 4 ohms because it does not trip the breakers in most folks home. For those like me who use 20 amp and 40 amp circuits, this is not a problem.

It seems strange to me too that one of the most powerful amps in the world would not be rated for 4 ohms? Turns out it can drive a dead short to 1800 watts.

[Geoffcin]

One only has to spend a few moments with a BMW owner to realize their pride of ownership would lead you to think they supervised the pour of the engine block casting themselves.

HA!!! They got nuthing on Porche owners!

[RGA]

Just as I thought, never did know the markup did ya? Next time you CLAIM to have info be prepared to get called out again.

Well what i know and what I will tell someone who will attempt to use it against me is another matter.

[RGA]

The only catch is that, in my experience, people who buy things are just as emotionally invested as those who build their own. One only has to spend a few moments with a BMW owner to realize their pride of ownership would lead you to think they supervised the pour of the engine block casting themselves.

In fact, over the years I can think of several DIYers I knew who were considerably more modest about their gear than those whose sole contribution was taking their purchase out of the box. The latter are quite proud of their superior taste. Not everyone is capable of making such a refined and subtle choice! ;-)

I think everyone is biased to some degree or another when they buy or build something. I have bought many items over the years. And I have no problems admitting that I am a FAN of Audio Note gear. Not because I own it though I am glad that I do. I owned a LOT of audio products before Audio Note and still own other products. I am not necessarily a "fan" of those. For me it has to make me a fan. I have never owned a car for example from the same manufacturer. I have had one Ford, one Pontiac, one Honda, one Toyota, one Kia and it's not like I am tied to any one of them - although I certainly disliked some of them and probably would not buy from some of them again.

There are audio products I like from some makers that overall I have not liked products from, and there are products from Audio Note that I don't like - like the AX One speakers and some I am not excited about - they're not bad but not great like the SORO, OTO PP, and some that I think are good but I think would make more sense to buy separates at the price like the Meishu which is pricey and doesn't exactly save space. It's a fine amp but at the price one can buy separates that offer more. My dealer is pretty honest about all the gear he sells and would skip the M1 or M2 preamp. People have a right to express their opinions but it would be nice if people actually auditioned the gear they opine about.

[RGA]

Material costs of speakers runs at 10:1 - a $2000 pair of loudspeakers from most manufacturers has a material cost of less than $200 per pair or less than $100 per speaker. That ratio is often higher with bigger manufacturers because they are covering other costs and reduced with companies that do not have as much tertiary costs such as marketing catalogs, advertising etc. That applies to most manufacturers. If they would like to prove differently they can post on a forum and tell us the ratio is lower and how and why it is lower. The more expensive models usually have even higher difference between cost to retail. That is no secret and it applies to most of the speakers mentioned in this thread.

Scaled further down A $500 pair has less than $50 a pair or less than $25 in material costs per speaker. A $5k speaker has $500 worth of materials and so on. Some manufacturers have posted they do considerably better at 3-5 times the material cost.

Some makers have more labour intensive practices which drive costs further up - some have less cost with mass production and Chinese or other cheap labour practices, fair wages, benefits, or where they don't have any environmental levies to worry about which will cut costs further.

PS: This is common knowledge across most industries not just audio.

[Geoffcin]

Material costs of speakers runs at 10:1 - a $2000 pair of loudspeakers from most manufacturers has a material cost of less than $200 per pair or less than $100 per speaker.

PS: This is common knowledge across most industries not just audio.

This is one of the most absurd statements you've ever posted, and that's saying something! Where exactly are you getting your figures? Or did you just rip off a page from the AN playbook and extrapolate it to the entire industry?

[tube fan]

I was just directly quoting JA'S warning. Silly me. Actually, $17,000 for an amp is over my price point. I want to hear ss units that better my AR SP-8, AR D-70, Counterpoint SA-2, for $15,000 or less. My tube units are not available, but you can probably get better sound from the tube AR VSi60 integrated amp and the tube Fosgate phono amp (total: $6,500).

I'm going to hear Audio Note speakers today playing some of my vinyl records. I'll let you know how they compare to other systems I heard my vinyl through at the show.

I've still received no reply to my request for an audio store in the SF bay area, where I can hear this wonderful new digital sound. ALL the digital set ups I have heard so far, with the exception of the Audio Note one, have sounded hard, thin, and flat. Perhaps it was the tubes in the Audio Note CD players (and, of course, the Jinro $22,000 integrated amp) that produced that wonderful sound from the Audio Note digital system.

[E-Stat]

I want to hear ss units that better my AR SP-8, AR D-70, Counterpoint SA-2, for $15,000 or less.

Have you heard the ARC Reference 110? I think you'll find it is not nearly as "sweet" as your mid 80s D70s if that is the sound you seek. Those older mylar coupling caps tended to soften transients. I had a later VT100 MKII for a while which was further along the pathway towards neutrality. As for SS, have you heard a pair of Pass Labs XA60.5s? The single chassis half-power flavor was compared quite favorably with the reviewer's tube amps here.

rw

[RGA]

This is one of the most absurd statements you've ever posted, and that's saying something! Where exactly are you getting your figures? Or did you just rip off a page from the AN playbook and extrapolate it to the entire industry?

If you meet me in person without a wire I shall tell you. But I have concerns about you.

My figures are accurate whether you wish to believe them or not is up to you. and we shall leave it at that. Without giving you information to use against me later I will say that there are loudspeakers that Parts Express sells for $300 that also sell from manufacturers that retail for $2,000 - $3,000. That is $300 retail kit though so they are still making money on that kit. Meanwhile a retailer is selling the same speakers for up to 10 times the price. They said it at the show in Vegas and I have to say looking at the Cabinet it was very very nice for $300 and indeed would not look out of place at $3,000 if you put a nice logo on the front most people would not blink.

My B&W 302 was pulled apart and was found to have less than $30 in parts. It retailed for $300 and could be had after negotiating for about $225. That is nearly 10 times the price and on a lower priced model - the ratio is often higher on higher priced models.

This does not include labour.

These figures are obvious and I can't believe you would even question this which illustrates how little you know of manufacturing. You have a manufacturer who has to make a profit and a dealer who has to cover all his operating costs, employees, and ALSO has to make a profit. The dealer mark-up is in the range of 25-100% on audio. If something retails for $2000 the dealer alone is making $500 to a $1000 on it. They have to because the salemsan gets his cut and so does the store owner. The manufacturer has to pay for shipping, crates/boxes, marketing, shows, his employees, and has to make money on it as well. Add in repair services, and R&D and that $2000 retail product that the dealer has made $500 on and that is ultra "low" leaves $1500 and the manufacturer has no more than $500 in it (and that is very high). That $500 covers everything including the labour which is generally more costs than the parts. Even if you say the labour is 50% (which is low) then that means the $2000 speaker could not possibly have more than $250 of actual parts in it - it would be lower because this still has no manufacturer profit calculate in.

Back before I was a reviewer I knew the big Canadian dealer of a major Canadian amp maker - we'll call the maker "B". I knew the purchasing agent for the dealer carrying this amp. Their mark-up was 40% because he told me that he got amp "B" at their cost. $2000 retail means that dealer made $800 on every unit. And this is in Canada without a lot of shipping. $1200 is what the dealer paid. What you think "B" only makes a $100 on it?. If the dealer is making $800 you know the manufacturer is making at least the same amount since they are the ones who have even higher costs to cover and actually have to have some R&D - they have all the manufacturing costs, advertising, the long warranty, shipping, employees, governmantal taxes, pension plans, etc. They make at LEAST $800-$1000 on it to cover their costs and to make a profit to be able to buy the fancy new workshops and let the owner live the good life. That leaves $200 - $400 worth of actual parts that are inside the amplifier (and I am betting closer to $200 since the parts don't seem the least bit exotic in the amps made by "B"). This is no knock on "B" - the purchasing rep said the mark-up was actually quite low which means most of the other stuff sold there was considerably higher.

And don't even get started on Cables. The manager at A&B Sound who could import virtually anything you wanted told me a lot of stuff - That is no industry secret since he turned the computer screen around and showed me the margin. He made more money on a $60 cable than he made on a $600 TV. Interestingly, TV margins are not as high as you might think since they take up space and they factor in delivery to the home etc.

Every store seems to say they lose $10-$20 on the PS3 selling at $299 - not sure I believe that but it could be so given they make the real money on the games. Same with those $49 printers where the ink can cost $80. Give the person the cow for free but charge $50 for a glass of its milk.

None of this is any secret by the way. It's the same in every other manufacturing industry. Watch the movie the Corporation. Alpine car decks that cost $ 0.61 to make and sell for $300 and probably $400 back when the movie was made. So company "B" look spretty damn good now doesn't it. And Alpine is considered to be one of the better sounding and built car cd players.

Think about it - the car cd player has far more stress on it than a home unit has. So start looking at the costs of things. Burr Brown used to have a web-site up that listed the price of their DACs. They ranged in price from something like .40 each to $1.80. None were over $2. You see advertisements - "this special deluxe CD player uses Burr Brown Chips" as if this was some sort of great selling feature and rather than spend $500 for the cd player it will cost you $2000. If that is what it costs to buy a Burr Brown what does it costs to buy the really cheap stuff. .2? Still holy Mark-Up Batman.

Pull your speaker apart and get back to me.

Look at those USB flash drives. A 2gig one sells for something like $8.99 while a 16gig will sell for $59 or some stupid price. It doesn't cost more to make - it's the same technology same size. And that 16gig one in 3 years will be selling for $8.99 because the 2 gig one three years ago was selling for $59. They're making money at $8.99 - they just make a lot more at $59.

[Geoffcin]

We CAN agree that the markups on SOME kit is ridiculous. Cables, power cords, interconnects, 1000% markup or MORE is usual. However that doesn't apply to ALL of audio And yes, retail markups are in the order or 20%-50% depending on brand.

There are exceptions though; I can tell you from my own experience that if I wanted to build a sub woofer of the quality of the Axiom EP500 it would have cost me the same or MORE. Just the plate amp alone would be worth $400-$500.

In any case, this thread has drifted so far off line that I think it's best to end this discussion.

[RGA]

Geoofcin I think where you are coming from is for YOU to be able to match what the manufacturer is doing - we agree. We can't in your sub example because the maker can buy at reduced prices while we're stuck buying at retail.

[tube fan]

Have you heard the ARC Reference 110? I think you'll find it is not nearly as "sweet" as your mid 80s D70s if that is the sound you seek. Those older mylar coupling caps tended to soften transients. I had a later VT100 MKII for a while which was further along the pathway towards neutrality. As for SS, have you heard a pair of Pass Labs XA60.5s? The single chassis half-power flavor was compared quite favorably with the reviewer's tube amps here.

rw

My AR D-70 is certainly NOT "sweet" like 98% of other tube amps. It is very ss in its tonal balance, i.e., neutral. When the recording calls for it, the D-70 can produce hard edged sound (powering either my Fulton J or Dunlavy SC-IV speakers, both of which have extended high ends). I do have new caps, but, even with the original ones, it sounded very ss in balance (nothing like the CJ or SE tube units). The Pass ss amps sound just OK (failing again in three-dimensional sound). My objection to most tube amps is that they make all records sound mellow. ALL ss amps I have heard make anything other than master tapes sound bright, thin, and hard. AR amps have always tended toward a neutral sound.

[E-Stat]

My AR D-70 is certainly NOT "sweet" like 98% of other tube amps.

Have you heard their current higher end models as a point of comparison like a REF110? I assure you they sound different than their '83 flavors.

The Pass ss amps...

That was not exactly my question. Have you heard one of the XA.5 series?

AR amps have always tended toward a neutral sound.

Yet their sound has evolved considerably over the past thirty five years. Their current line stages do not sound like an SP-8, either.

As for me, I've found that the better models from tube and SS alike have converged over the years. Historically, tubes ruled the midrange, but suffered at the extremes. SS excelled at the extremes, but not in the middle. Today, if you were to compare a 610T or Siegfrieds vs. the best SS, I think you'll find more similarities than differences. I bought VTL monoblocks almost ten years ago because they provided for me the most compelling midrange and thus realism of any $10k amps (better than the VT100MKII) along with good bass response. Arguably, it is a touch rolled off at the top but such is a sin of omission and could be due to the reactive character of my speakers.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

As for me, I've found that the better models from tube and SS alike have converged over the years. Historically, tubes ruled the midrange, but suffered at the extremes. SS excelled at the extremes, but not in the middle. Today, if you were to compare a 610T or Siegfrieds vs. the best SS, I think you'll find more similarities than differences. I bought VTL monoblocks almost ten years ago because they provided for me the most compelling midrange and thus realism of any $10k amps (better than the VT100MKII) along with good bass response. Arguably, it is a touch rolled off at the top but such is a sin of omission and could be due to the reactive character of my speakers.

rw

I have to agree with this whole paragraph, I do think the better models of both tube and SS have converged over the years.

[tube fan]

Most of the difference in sound between my AR SP-8 and D-70 and the new AR gear vanishes when new caps and resistors are used. Both my Fulton Js and Dunlavy SC-IV have extended high ends (the Fultons go much lower), and need no high end punch.

[tube fan]

Most of the difference in sound between my AR SP-8 and D-70 and the new AR gear vanishes when new caps and resistors are used. Both my Fulton Js and Dunlavy SC-IV have extended high ends (the Fultons go much lower), and need no high end punch.

[E-Stat]

Most of the difference in sound between my AR SP-8 and D-70 and the new AR gear vanishes when new caps and resistors are used.

I'm not sure I agree entirely. The 6H30 tubes have a slightly different character from the traditional 12AX7s and 6922 / 7308 variants. Have you found a source for replacing the mylar coupling caps with the ones ARC now uses? They have also more than doubled the power supply capacity and require balanced connections.

...and need no high end punch.

Hmmm. I wouldn't characterize high frequency extension exactly as "high end punch". On the contrary, I enjoy hearing the innately soft and natural upper harmonics of bell trees, triangles, etc. Air is nice.

rw

[Geoffcin]

I'm not sure I agree entirely. The 6H30 tubes have a slightly different character from the traditional 12AX7s and 6922 / 7308 variants. Have you found a source for replacing the mylar coupling caps with the ones ARC now uses? They have also more than doubled the power supply capacity and require balanced connections.


Hmmm. I wouldn't characterize high frequency extension exactly as "high end punch". On the contrary, I enjoy hearing the innately soft and natural upper harmonics of bell trees, triangles, etc. Air is nice.

rw

Is ARC using the 6H30 tube now? I know that BAT was using that tube for their gear. I've had a chance to hear BAT amps several times. Was impressed about how NOT traditionally "tube" sounding they are.

[E-Stat]

Is ARC using the 6H30 tube now?

Yes, they've been using the "super tube" for ten years now. All of their top gear today uses them.

rw

[tube fan]

The high frequencies of my system (Fulton J or Dunlavy SC-IV, AR SP-8, AR D-70, Counterpoint CA 2, VPI Scoutmaster, Benz Ruby 3) sound as extended as any I have heard, including the $400,000 ones at the California Audio Show. More expensive does not always equal better (in sound or in wines). For example, check out RJR's review of the ARVSi60 integrated amp ($4,000) in the Sept Stereophile. He owns the AR Reference 110 ($10,000), and seemed to prefer the sound of the $4,000 unit in the bass:
"I felt that the VSi60 bettered the Audio Valve/Ref 110 combo in every aspect of bass articulation and definition." My system could use more control, both in the top and bottom frequencies, on demanding orchestral vinyl, similar to what RJR felt were the flaws in the AR VSi60 amp. Still, he considered selling the $20,000 combo for the $4,000 one! ("What stopped me from doing so was not the VSi60's sound, but an equipment reviewer's need to have a separate line stage and power amp in order to review a broad range of electronics").

Consider the sound of the first Quad (now called the "57") to the newest versions. I VASTLY prefer the sound of the 57 to all later versions. The 57 is alive, while the later versions are dead in comparison.

I check out the "latest and greatest" gear at audio stores several times a year, and I don't hear any sigificant improvement over my system. Three exceptions that I am checking out: the tape copies of master tapes, the Teresonic speakers, and the Audio Note gear.

[E-Stat]

More expensive does not always equal better (in sound or in wines). For example, check out RJR's review of the ARVSi60 integrated amp ($4,000) in the Sept Stereophile. He owns the AR Reference 110 ($10,000), and seemed to prefer the sound of the $4,000 unit in the bass:

And yet elsewhere, he commented that the ARC / Not-ARC combo retrieved more detail, low level dynamics and ambience. Regardless, it makes perfect sense that the two current product ARC products using similiar topologies, active devices (JFETs, 6H30 tubes) and passive parts would sound similar. Further, the VSi60 has a very appealing attribute that I find improves resolution in my system: a passive line level section. I'm not exactly sure, however, what this conversation has to do with comparing either current production model to that of nearly thirty years ago.

I check out the "latest and greatest" gear at audio stores several times a year, and I don't hear any sigificant improvement over my system.

I'm glad you're happy. Others, however, have found that the past three decades in electronics development have not stood still.

rw