Do you listen to gear below your budget when you go equipment shopping?

[Ajani]

Do you listen to gear below your budget when you go equipment shopping?

The reason this question comes to mind is because of the number of professional reviews I’ve read where the reviewer is totally blown away by the quality of a ‘budget’ component. I wonder how often reviewers or even consumers with ultra-expensive setups listen to entry level gear. Is it possible that these reviewers are just so out of touch with the quality that is available at modest prices, that they swoon over the first good piece of budget gear they hear???

I’ve often heard the argument (especially in relation to discussions like ‘Diminishing Returns’ in audio) that people who buy budget components need to hear a ‘real’ (real expensive anyway) system before talking about whether it is a waste of money etc… I agree that it is silly to comment on the audio quality of a $200K pair of speakers if you’ve never heard anything remotely in that price/quality range. On the other hand, I find it funny that many audiophiles will dismiss entry level gear (because of their low prices) without even listening to it first. It’s like a Toyota Camry owner complaining that Mercedes is overpriced and a waste of money, while a Mercedes owner says all Toyota are inferior crap, but the Toyota owner has never driven a Mercedes and the Mercedes owner has never driven a Toyota.

Saying that 20 years ago, when you started your journey as an audiophile, you used a NAD Integrated, so based on that you know what budget gear sounds like, really doesn’t count :) you need to have listened to some current gear.

So my question for the poll is whether you listen to gear below your budget when you go shopping and I mean far below your budget, not 1% less than what you plan to spend or some joke like that… so for example: If you plan to buy a $5K pair of speakers, do you also audition a pair of $1.5K ones or if you want to buy a $2K amp, do you also check out what $400 will get you? If you go to audition that $12K DAC/Transport Combo, do you also check out the $900 Marantz CD Player in the front of the store?

[Luvin Da Blues]

Excellent Question Ajani,

I would have to answer no actually. When the upgrade bug hits, I do research online within or above my budget, then go auditioning.

Having said that, I try to buy equipment that over performs in it's price class. My psb speakers, AT440MLa cartridge,OPPO 981 and Marsh pre/amp for example.

[E-Stat]

Do you listen to gear below your budget when you go equipment shopping?
First of all, investment per se isn't always a reliable indicator of performance. Having said that, I have always been very fortunate (more like spoiled) over the past thirty years in having access to hearing a wide range of components in the systems of a couple of audio reviewers. I think it would be very enlightening for everyone to be able to hear what is possible, regardless of budget. I find it interesting, for example, to hear three different $30k amplifiers for which I have no preconceived notion of performance or value and determine which one I prefer. Mind you, I will likely never buy such a product but it does provide a point of reference.

All systems are compromises, but understanding what is available allows you to choose which one(s) are most important to you.

rw

[nightflier]

So if a piece of gear is a better value, I'll consider it. I actually think it's informative to see what 1/2 to 1/3 the money will buy you. And if you can't hear a difference, especially when you audition at home, then you're just buying it for the brand name.

[Ajani]

I think it would be very enlightening for everyone to be able to hear what is possible, regardless of budget.

I agree.... Though I'd add that I'd like everyone to hear not only the best that audio has to offer, but the other end - the best that entry level has to offer. I think it would be really interesting to see at what price point and with what components people would be able to find their ideal setups... would everyone be most impressed with $50K amps or would some find that say a mere $700 amp offers them enough performance for the price? Would some of the audiophiles who think that High-End is just about pretty looking pieces with outrageous price tags and little sonic improvement, change their opinions?

And I also believe that price is a bad judge of value, but in this hobby it's so hard not to think in terms of price, given how expensive the best products tends to be.

[Ajani]

So if a piece of gear is a better value, I'll consider it. I actually think it's informative to see what 1/2 to 1/3 the money will buy you. And if you can't hear a difference, especially when you audition at home, then you're just buying it for the brand name.

Yep, that's the advantage of listening to gear below your budget, you'll know when you're being ripped off and be able to avoid it.

[O'Shag]

Excellent Question Ajani,

I would have to answer no actually. When the upgrade bug hits, I do research online within or above my budget, then go auditioning.

Having said that, I try to buy equipment that over performs in it's price class. My psb speakers, AT440MLa cartridge,OPPO 981 and Marsh pre/amp for example.

My word LDB, but your system is starting to look the business...

Ajani, in thenormal context of things your right. SOME budget components offer a lot of bang for the buck for someone wishing to 'get close' to the music, its meaning, and its structure. One can derive great enjoyment from some budget components, as long as they convey the musical meaning as it relates to our tastes. In terms of amplification - mamps and premaps oops sorry I mean amps and preamps:thumbsup: Very few budget components can deliver some magic, most in fact sound like crap. Some exceptions are the Naim Nait 5i (1,500) or LFD integrated (2,800). Not budget in some peoples book but thats reality. How about bluesman's Marsh A400s and P2000. They are not cheap by any means (actually they're bloody expensive for 'normal' people) but are considered budget according to high-end spending standards. They are excellent components that punch well above their weight class. Or how about the Monitor Audio RS6 (RS8?). A helluva lot of speaker for well under 2k. There's also a few good deals to be had from Chinese made schtuff.

I've noticed how every so often the mags will feel compelled or pressured to review budget components. I think some reviewers tend to wax lyrical about some budget products because they feel obliged to please normal people who can't afford $5k for one component.
And there's the rub; because of this, I am inclined to take their written reviews on such products with a grain of salt. I think one can expect to get a really decent sounding speaker for $400, but as far as a great sounding integrated for $500, fuggeddaboudit..
Cheers BigEars

[O'Shag]

By the way LDB,

The best bargain in a phono cartridge, by that I mean the closest you get to highest standard performance for a price, is the Dynavector Karat 17D2. It has now been replaced by the 17D3, which many feel does not sound as good. The 17D2 is unusual in that it has a very short cantiliver. It has exceptional dynamic range with tremendous detail retrieval. Takes an age to break in, but when it does, WOW. In my system, this cartridge on the Musical Fidelity M1 table through the MFA phonostage leaves CD in the dust. Listening to Vinyl like this leaves you in no doubt as to its superiority. Used, the 17D2 can be had for about $500. Now that is a bargain-by audio looney standards.

[blackraven]

I'm like LDB, I try to buy over achieving equipment as I think we all do who have limited budgets. Just look at my equipment- Magnepan 1.6's are well worth the money and out perform many speakers costing a few thousand more (IMO) and my 840c and Music Hall CDP's which were rated better than many more expensive CDP's. Even my adcom AVR which I've recently come to really appreciate after hearing some high end amps, is a bargain.

I also look at lower end components just out of curiosity to see whats out there and so I can make recommendations to my friends and my family who want to buy budget audio components. It also helped me pick out some inexpensive good sounding stereo's for my kids.

I think that audio magazines need to devote more time to reviewing and comparing budget components instead of always reviewing equipment costing tens of thousands of dollars. I think that they would gain more subscribers and maybe help generate more interest in 2 channel audio.

[Luvin Da Blues]

My word LDB, but your system is starting to look the business...

Thanks and thanks to you for da recomends. Just need to get speaks of the same or better calibre.


How about bluesman's Marsh A400s and P2000. They are not cheap by any means (actually they're bloody expensive for 'normal' people) but are considered budget according to high-end spending standards. They are excellent components that punch well above their weight class.

....Not to bad, paid $750 for the pre (list $1500) and $1200 for the amp (list $2500), both demo units (with full factory warranty)and well looked after from a higher end shop in San Rafael, Ca. Have you ever dealt with or know about Kepke Audio Video Design. Bernie is one stand up guy, wouldn't hesitate to do business with him again. Shipping was a bit more than I thought it was going to be tho, oh well, I have no regrets whats so ever.

[Luvin Da Blues]

By the way LDB,

The best bargain in a phono cartridge, by that I mean the closest you get to highest standard performance for a price, is the Dynavector Karat 17D2. It has now been replaced by the 17D3, which many feel does not sound as good. The 17D2 is unusual in that it has a very short cantiliver. It has exceptional dynamic range with tremendous detail retrieval. Takes an age to break in, but when it does, WOW. In my system, this cartridge on the Musical Fidelity M1 table through the MFA phonostage leaves CD in the dust. Listening to Vinyl like this leaves you in no doubt as to its superiority. Used, the 17D2 can be had for about $500. Now that is a bargain-by audio looney standards.


Geez O'Shag, stop that, I'm not made of money ya know. LOL

I do appreciate your effort and time to point me in the best direction.

Cheers my friend,

LDB

[pixelthis]

Do you listen to gear below your budget when you go equipment shopping?

The reason this question comes to mind is because of the number of professional reviews I’ve read where the reviewer is totally blown away by the quality of a ‘budget’ component. I wonder how often reviewers or even consumers with ultra-expensive setups listen to entry level gear. Is it possible that these reviewers are just so out of touch with the quality that is available at modest prices, that they swoon over the first good piece of budget gear they hear???

I’ve often heard the argument (especially in relation to discussions like ‘Diminishing Returns’ in audio) that people who buy budget components need to hear a ‘real’ (real expensive anyway) system before talking about whether it is a waste of money etc… I agree that it is silly to comment on the audio quality of a $200K pair of speakers if you’ve never heard anything remotely in that price/quality range. On the other hand, I find it funny that many audiophiles will dismiss entry level gear (because of their low prices) without even listening to it first. It’s like a Toyota Camry owner complaining that Mercedes is overpriced and a waste of money, while a Mercedes owner says all Toyota are inferior crap, but the Toyota owner has never driven a Mercedes and the Mercedes owner has never driven a Toyota.

Saying that 20 years ago, when you started your journey as an audiophile, you used a NAD Integrated, so based on that you know what budget gear sounds like, really doesn’t count :) you need to have listened to some current gear.

So my question for the poll is whether you listen to gear below your budget when you go shopping and I mean far below your budget, not 1% less than what you plan to spend or some joke like that… so for example: If you plan to buy a $5K pair of speakers, do you also audition a pair of $1.5K ones or if you want to buy a $2K amp, do you also check out what $400 will get you? If you go to audition that $12K DAC/Transport Combo, do you also check out the $900 Marantz CD Player in the front of the store?

Any piece of really expensive gear is surely a "waste" of money.
Why? The difference in sound quality is going to be slight, mainly because of the
above mentioned law of diminishing returns.
You keep pouring money into an endevour and sooner or later you are geting less and less of an improvement.
But that small improvement is what audiophiles and videophiles keep chasing, and its
their money, and lets face it, the high line gear is really nice looking, but other than speakers you wont get that much more "bang".
But your question is really backwards, you should really be asking if people shopping for gear look at MORE expensive gear, theres a lot more of that out there.
MOST have a budget, and if they have any sense will automatically check out a
cheaper way of doing things, because if you can save a buck somewhere thats more you can spend somewhere else.
With any true audiophile its the sound, not trying to impress people, most of who think you're crazy for "wasting" so much money anyway.
Remember, this hobby got started by those who built their own gear, usually from scratch,
because there wasnt much else:1:

[OzzieAudiophile]

Hello.

I thought to throw in a little food for thought.

Well it depends on just how important listening to music/movies/home entertainment
is important to you, and what you're willing to pay to maximise the experiences.

For this time of my life, music quality, sound etc, is paramount. Well, at least on the top
3 best interests. Sometimes I feel I have to breathe music, in order to unwind from a long
day, and I have literally tens of thousands of songs to choose from to achieve that.

I am currently looking now to improve on what I got. I live in a small part of Australia, so
our choice is quite limiting.

Although 95% of the equipment that is available is unsuitable for my needs, I still take a
look at semi-mid-range quality components, why ? Just in case there is feature that isn't
available in other brands, that may interest me. It's certainly a worthwhile investment of
my time to find how practical the features may be, something that would be available
for me later in a future product ? can I do without it, do I "need" it ?

Anything below 20% of my set budget probably would be waste of time for me. Perhaps
work out what that percentage is for yourself, you may be able to save a lot of wasted
time, or find yourself with much more options that you had before.

Experience is a good teacher. The internet is a good friend.

[kexodusc]

I audition more gear above my price range than below, but I get a healthy dose of everything.
My job keeps me on the road a few months of the year so when I'm in other cities I like to visit Hi-Fi shops to pass the time.

When it comes to speakers, a lot of today's entry level has passed yesterday's mid-fi stuff IMO. Not the cheap $150 stuff mind you, but even that is far superior to the $150 stuff of even 10 years ago. There's some classic models that still hold their own but for the most part we're moving forward. There have been some amazing leaps in performance in a few price-ranges. Today's mid-fi outperforms a lot of hi end stuff from years back. We've certainly seen margins decrease as competition has stiffened. I've never seen so many speaker companies.

When it comes to amplifiers, I've got to be honest, I haven't heard much in terms of sound quality improvement but pricing seems to be getting better and you can find more power or slightly better quality design at a given price range now. Judging by the resale value the market puts on most decent amps at any price level, the audio market agrees with me about amplifer performance over the past 20 years or so.

I guess it depends how you shop for upgrades - if you want to find something a bit better than what you have now, you can probably do so for the same money you spent a few years back. If you pick a budget before hand that is higher than your last round of upgrades, you should have no problem finding better gear - I just wouldn't expect it to be an improvement proportionate to the additional cost.

[basite]

Any piece of really expensive gear is surely a "waste" of money.
Why? The difference in sound quality is going to be slight, mainly because of the
above mentioned law of diminishing returns.


upgrading from cheap advents to expensive Thiels definately wasn't a 'slight' difference.
comparing them to my dad's B&W 604's left me with the same opinion.

it was a world of difference, and it definately wasn't a waste of money.


anyways, back on topic :)

I do listen to 'cheaper' gear when I audition, but most of the times only when the 'cheaper' gear might be able to perform 'just as well' as the expensive gear, for so far that is possible.

Just the same with more expensive gear, I also listen to slightly more expensive gear (not that much more expensive...), to hear if the difference is worth it.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[Ajani]

Any piece of really expensive gear is surely a "waste" of money.
Why? The difference in sound quality is going to be slight, mainly because of the
above mentioned law of diminishing returns.
You keep pouring money into an endevour and sooner or later you are geting less and less of an improvement.
But that small improvement is what audiophiles and videophiles keep chasing, and its
their money, and lets face it, the high line gear is really nice looking, but other than speakers you wont get that much more "bang".
But your question is really backwards, you should really be asking if people shopping for gear look at MORE expensive gear, theres a lot more of that out there.
MOST have a budget, and if they have any sense will automatically check out a
cheaper way of doing things, because if you can save a buck somewhere thats more you can spend somewhere else.
With any true audiophile its the sound, not trying to impress people, most of who think you're crazy for "wasting" so much money anyway.
Remember, this hobby got started by those who built their own gear, usually from scratch,
because there wasnt much else:1:


Nope, the question is the right way around. As you said: "theres a lot more of that out there" in relation to checking out more expensive gear.... that's why I didn't ask that question.... I suspect that most audiophiles check out more expensive gear when they get they get the chance, simply because the emphasis of this hobby is on chasing better, better and usually more expensive performance. If you're looking for better, you'll tend to look up the price range not down.... Only frugal (or as you call them -people with 'any sense') will automatically check if the cheaper stuff offers them equivalent or better performance.

My belief is that in this hobby you have to look both up and down the price range to really know what's going on with audio.

[E-Stat]

Would some of the audiophiles who think that High-End is just about pretty looking pieces with outrageous price tags and little sonic improvement, change their opinions?
You mean Pix? Nah. I think open minded individuals, on the other hand, would be pleasantly surprised if they were given the chance to hear the components in their own systems using their own music for a week or so.

As for pretty faces, it seems that the stuff I've favored sound-wise never seems to fit that category. My Audio Research/VTL/Threshold/Manley gear is all pretty basic looking, if not well built.

rw

[E-Stat]

Any piece of really expensive gear is surely a "waste" of money. Why? The difference in sound quality is going to be slight, mainly because of the above mentioned law of diminishing returns.
As a point of reference, would you provide an example of something you've heard that fits that category?

rw

[GMichael]

I am a cheap SOB. If I can get away with spending less, then I will. Just as long as it doesn't cost me in quality. Part of being a cheap SOB is appreciating quality. It doesn't really save me money to buy something that I have to replace. So I listen to both. Cheap, and expensive. Then I end up with something in the middle.

[aevans]

people audition stuff before they buy it?

In the used audio world that my budget lives in auditioning is usually a luxuary. No real audio shops in the area.. I usually try to find used equipment locally that I can test out to see if it fits my taste, although just recently I purchased a pair of diy speakers that I have yet to hear(still building cabnets) for about 1600 bucks.

If they don't float my boat I'll end up selling them and hopefully making my money back.. they usually sell for 5k a pair in cabnets, so I should make out alright either way.

[nightflier]

When it comes to speakers, a lot of today's entry level has passed yesterday's mid-fi stuff IMO. Not the cheap $150 stuff mind you, but even that is far superior to the $150 stuff of even 10 years ago. There's some classic models that still hold their own but for the most part we're moving forward. There have been some amazing leaps in performance in a few price-ranges. Today's mid-fi outperforms a lot of hi end stuff from years back. We've certainly seen margins decrease as competition has stiffened. I've never seen so many speaker companies.

There are several areas that I would say have seen little engineering improvements in the last decade such as planar speakers. I would also contend that many components today are just not up to par, partly because there is the belief out there that most people listen to compressed music so sound quality matters less than convenience. Another example: many people use their DVD players to play music and wouldn't dream of spending a multiple of the price on a component that "only plays CDs." So the manufacturers cater to these sentiments - after all, they also have to make money.

This isn't necessarily the case across all price ranges, but I would buy a quality used ten-year old $5K speaker (about $1500 today) over a $1500 new speaker, if it was the right sound for me. Buying older used gear allows me to buy into price ranges that I couldn't really bring myself to pay for new. Actually the best sounding system I have been able to put together and currently still use as my reference, is all made up of used older gear (at least 5 years old when purchased). For example, my Plinius CD-LAD coupled with a very old Spectron Amp (paid less than $1600 for both), still sounds better to me than my brand-spanking new PS Audio GCC-250. And that sucker has nothing but modern, better technology in it. Now, they aren't miles apart, but the Plinius-Spectron setup sounds better to me in many different ways, no matter which speaker or source I connect.

So to get back to the topic at hand, I look at less expensive gear both when I buy new and when I buy used, because there's no telling what is out there. Synergy is important, no doubt, but there is something to be said for quality gear as well. Those engineers of 10-20 years ago (most of them probably out of work now) knew a thing or two about good sound too.

[blackraven]

I agree, my vintage 1970's 41wpc technics integrated amp that I paid $175 for back then still sounds better than most sub $600 equipment today.

[pixelthis]

I agree.... Though I'd add that I'd like everyone to hear not only the best that audio has to offer, but the other end - the best that entry level has to offer. I think it would be really interesting to see at what price point and with what components people would be able to find their ideal setups... would everyone be most impressed with $50K amps or would some find that say a mere $700 amp offers them enough performance for the price? Would some of the audiophiles who think that High-End is just about pretty looking pieces with outrageous price tags and little sonic improvement, change their opinions?

And I also believe that price is a bad judge of value, but in this hobby it's so hard not to think in terms of price, given how expensive the best products tends to be.


Sorry, but quite often looks are key.
Marketing is a major force in this business as anywhere else, and the differences between high end and cheaper stuff is slight.
And in the case of tubes and turntables, quite often the performance is quite often WORSE.
Most tube amps have at least 5% distortion, thats where that famopus "tube" sound comes from, a 300$HTB puts out better sound.
There may be a lot of reasons for buying stuff like this but objective evaluation of performance isnt one of them.
Looks and snob appeal, and marketing, however , are several reasons a lot buy this kind of stuff.
Just because somethings more expensive doesnt make it better.
Utopia Grands are made from African wood that is on the endangered list, does that improve the sound at all?:1:

[E-Stat]

Most tube amps have at least 5% distortion, thats where that famopus "tube" sound comes from, a 300$HTB puts out better sound.
I see you never got past Julian Hirsch and the irrelevancy of THD. The real answer is more linear dynamic performance and better spectral distribution of the distortion components. It's easy to get a great spec - just crank the negative feedback. Looks fine on paper. Or for whose who are undiscerning in their hearing.

Speaking of which, try out this little distortion analyzer test on your PC. 5% distortion correlates to about -26 db. I suspect you'll get about -15 db. Good luck!

Distortion Test (http://www.klippel-listeningtest.de/lt/default.html)

rw

[Ajani]

Sorry, but quite often looks are key.
Marketing is a major force in this business as anywhere else, and the differences between high end and cheaper stuff is slight.
And in the case of tubes and turntables, quite often the performance is quite often WORSE.
Most tube amps have at least 5% distortion, thats where that famopus "tube" sound comes from, a 300$HTB puts out better sound.
There may be a lot of reasons for buying stuff like this but objective evaluation of performance isnt one of them.
Looks and snob appeal, and marketing, however , are several reasons a lot buy this kind of stuff.
Just because somethings more expensive doesnt make it better.
Utopia Grands are made from African wood that is on the endangered list, does that improve the sound at all?:1:

1st off, All the $300 HTBs I've seen have the same technical specs as an equivalently priced mini-system - 10% THD - so tubes still have better figures than them. Also, I think people buy tubes because they like the sound, not because of their technical measurements.

Next, there is definitely a lot more money spent on fit and finish as you move up the price ladder. This is part of why you can't expect double the performance for double the price. As you put more expensive (quality, not pretty) components into an amp/cd player/whatever, you raise the overall price (obviously) and also raise the expectations of how the product will look (fit and finish). Most people have little problem with a $300 integrated amp having the same cheap black plastic case as a HTB Receiver, but try selling a $3K Integrated in that case and see how many (few) people will actually buy it. So this means that you're then forced to spend more money on making the product look acceptable for it's price range. So, while I strongly believe that the price of 'High-End' products is inflated because of expensive real wood veneers (or endangered african trees) and fancy 1/2 thick aluminum/steel casework, I still think that real sonic improvements can by gained by moving up the price ladder. It's not all just fancy fit and finish.

IMHO, you get the best deals at lower prices, but you get the best quality much higher up.

[pixelthis]

I see you never got past Julian Hirsch and the irrelevancy of THD. The real answer is more linear dynamic performance and better spectral distribution of the distortion components. It's easy to get a great spec - just crank the negative feedback. Looks fine on paper. Or for whose who are undiscerning in their hearing.

Speaking of which, try out this little distortion analyzer test on your PC. 5% distortion correlates to about -26 db. I suspect you'll get about -15 db. Good luck!

Distortion Test (http://www.klippel-listeningtest.de/lt/default.html)

rw


You know, its really sad when someone in the "know" smugly puts down someone
who states that an obsolete way of doing things is worse, when the facts are obvious.
The whole tube craze is absolutely insane.
I once read a review of a monoblock "amp" in stereophile magazine, the distortion was 5%
and the output a sterling FIVE WATTS.
The price for two?
TEN GRAND.
Of course the reviewer raved about this prime example of something out of a 1934 Sears catalog.
Tubes are obsolete, they dont perform as good as your basic clock radio.
You need a heater circuit to warm the emitters, basically a space heater in your gear.
Tubes wear out, discrete solid state lasts a lifetime.
And as they wear out the electrical properties change, tubes are a lot less stable than solid state, and produce a lot more heat.
In order to get even halfway decent sound you have to "warm" your gear for at least an hour, takes awhile for a tube to settle down to spec.
Its like everybody put away their cars and started using horses, proclaiming
the great fresh air while ignoring the piles of dung.
The history of this "hobby" will look back on this fad and go "tisk tisk".:1:

[E-Stat]

You know, its really sad when someone in the "know" smugly puts down someone who states that an obsolete way of doing things is worse, when the facts are obvious.
Apparently, you just don't want to benefit from the experience of others and learn any better.


...the distortion was 5%
You really need to pay attention. Those levels were only at maximum rated power. Look at any Stereophile test. The largely monotonic distortion runs very low only until the last 3 db or so of output. The distortion test I linked to demonstrates that you are incapable of even hearing 5% distortion.

rw

[Ajani]

You know, its really sad when someone in the "know" smugly puts down someone
who states that an obsolete way of doing things is worse, when the facts are obvious.
The whole tube craze is absolutely insane.
I once read a review of a monoblock "amp" in stereophile magazine, the distortion was 5%
and the output a sterling FIVE WATTS.
The price for two?
TEN GRAND.
Of course the reviewer raved about this prime example of something out of a 1934 Sears catalog.
Tubes are obsolete, they dont perform as good as your basic clock radio.
You need a heater circuit to warm the emitters, basically a space heater in your gear.
Tubes wear out, discrete solid state lasts a lifetime.
And as they wear out the electrical properties change, tubes are a lot less stable than solid state, and produce a lot more heat.
In order to get even halfway decent sound you have to "warm" your gear for at least an hour, takes awhile for a tube to settle down to spec.
Its like everybody put away their cars and started using horses, proclaiming
the great fresh air while ignoring the piles of dung.
The history of this "hobby" will look back on this fad and go "tisk tisk".:1:

I believe that $10K for just 5 watts is ridanculous and I think Vinyl, tubes and even some planars are just too outdated and impractical for me to use. However, I do realize that technical measurements are only part of the story. This is a very subjective hobby, so just having a flat frequency response and low distortion doesn't translate into sounding great to everyone. If someone else finds that a $10k 5 watt tube amp and a $15K turntable gives him sonic nirvana, then who am I to say anything?

Further, if someone prefers riding a horse to driving a car, then so what? A car maybe faster, safer, more comfortable & far more practical, but I'm sure that no car can provide the kind of satisfaction to a horse-rider that a horse will. I think Tubes, Vinyl & Planars vs Solid State, CDs & Cone speakers is pretty much the same thing as horse vs car.

I like the fact that there is so much variety in the audio world, it just gives audio-lovers more chances to find sonic nirvana.

[basite]

You know, its really sad when someone in the "know" smugly puts down someone
who states that an obsolete way of doing things is worse, when the facts are obvious.
The whole tube craze is absolutely insane.
I once read a review of a monoblock "amp" in stereophile magazine, the distortion was 5%
and the output a sterling FIVE WATTS.
The price for two?
TEN GRAND.
Of course the reviewer raved about this prime example of something out of a 1934 Sears catalog.
Tubes are obsolete, they dont perform as good as your basic clock radio.
You need a heater circuit to warm the emitters, basically a space heater in your gear.
Tubes wear out, discrete solid state lasts a lifetime.
And as they wear out the electrical properties change, tubes are a lot less stable than solid state, and produce a lot more heat.
In order to get even halfway decent sound you have to "warm" your gear for at least an hour, takes awhile for a tube to settle down to spec.
Its like everybody put away their cars and started using horses, proclaiming
the great fresh air while ignoring the piles of dung.
The history of this "hobby" will look back on this fad and go "tisk tisk".:1:

when was the last time you heard a tube amp?

I heard quite some systems with tubes in them, and they were amongst the best I've ever heard.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[Ajani]

when was the last time you heard a tube amp?

I heard quite some systems with tubes in them, and they were amongst the best I've ever heard.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

Bert, You're probably wasting your time asking that question. Pix seems to have dismissed tubes based on measured performance, not sound.

[GMichael]

I don't know a whole lot about tubes vs SS in stereo amplifiers. But I do have a tube guitar amp. I've heard SS versions of the same amp. The SS sounds cold in comparison to the warm sound from my amp. As far as the numbers go, I've never measured them. But most of the friends I have with SS amps are willing to trade me and pay me a difference even though my amp is much older.

[E-Stat]

I heard quite some systems with tubes in them, and they were amongst the best I've ever heard.
I realized that when I was your age, too.. I still remember hearing tMagneplanar T3s tri-amped with Audio Research electronics back in '74. The dealer also sold Crown and we compared a D-76a with a DC-300a. No comparison when the objective is reproducing dynamic musical content, not the test tones from which THD is measured.

rw