Price and the best of the best

[nightflier]

Most reviews that include comparisons typically do a poor job of it, using equipment that either does not match on features or on price, but is thrown in for the sake of sounding like a comparison and adding legitimacy to the review. Speaker reviews are notorious for this where they don't even try to compare similar models. So I have a different suggestion that I hope will shed some light on the astronomical prices of hi-fi gear:

Ask companies to send in their absolute best component, no matter what the cost, for a comparison with other similar components from other companies.

The reason this would be different, is that at the top of the lines, the prices vary considerably. How would, for example, the top-of-the-line YG Acoustics Anat Reference II at $107K, compare to say the Dynaudio Evidence Master at a more respectable $85K, a difference that could buy you a whole lot of music. Or how would they compare to the Vandersteen Model 7's at a measly $45K, a fraction of the Anats, for the truly frugal types? My point is that this is what these well regarded manufacturers are offering as their statement pieces, the best they can offer. Well, maybe a comparison is in order rather than the puff pieces that don't use a reasonable baseline for comparison.

My guess is that the most expensive component will not be the winner, not by a bit. After reading about the rebadging of the Lexicon BR player, I think it's probably time to give credit where credit is due: the best engineering, experience, hard work, and manufacturing quality, even if the price isn't of the upturned-nose variety.

[harley .guy07]

Good thinking and I really like this concept. And the fact that maybe by doing this we can shut up some of the yupies out there that buy expensive gear because it is expensive and don't even realize that there is better gear out there at lower prices if they would just take a little bit of time to do the research. If they would worry about sound quality instead of having the most expensive amp on the block they might learn a thing or two about price and performance not being directly connected.

[E-Stat]

So I have a different suggestion...
Back in 1973, there was a guy who only made comparisons to the sound of live un-amplified music regardless of cost. There was never the Julian Hirsch "if you're looking for a {fill in the blank} in the {fill in the blank budget}, then I recommend..." approach. Some recommended components were modest in price, while others were not. Unfortunately, over time and change of management that direction changed. His attitude never did as he continues to pursue the passion of what can be done.

rw

[IRG]

Or how would they compare to the Vandersteen Model 7's at a measly $45K, a fraction of the Anats, for the truly frugal types?

Sorry, but I had to laugh at a measly $45k speakers for the frugal type :biggrin5: If that's frugal, than I'm not sure what category I belong in (the truly destitute) but I believe you're being a bit facetious here, or I hope you are.

But I see the point overall, and I agree, money doesn't necessarily dictate "best". But that's true of a lot of things I suppose.

I would love to see more comparisons of truly budget gear to high end gear. Most people will concede that after a certain dollar point, the amount of improvement you hear/realize is very incremental. But those increments come at a high dollar price usually, kinda like horsepower/performance and cars. In the end, you gotta buy what you can afford, and what you enjoy, hopefully the two aren't mutually exclusive.

[JoeE SP9]

Back in 1973, there was a guy who only made comparisons to the sound of live un-amplified music regardless of cost. There was never the Julian Hirsch "if you're looking for a {fill in the blank} in the {fill in the blank budget}, then I recommend..." approach. Some recommended components were modest in price, while others were not. Unfortunately, over time and change of management that direction changed. His attitude never did as he continues to pursue the passion of what can be done.

rw
I think I know who you're referring to. For me it was JGH who introduced me to that concept. Not personally of course (I wish) but through the very early issues of his magazine. I was saddened as his active participation in his "baby" lessened. It's just not the same publication attitude wise.

[Ajani]

Most reviews that include comparisons typically do a poor job of it, using equipment that either does not match on features or on price, but is thrown in for the sake of sounding like a comparison and adding legitimacy to the review. Speaker reviews are notorious for this where they don't even try to compare similar models. So I have a different suggestion that I hope will shed some light on the astronomical prices of hi-fi gear:

Ask companies to send in their absolute best component, no matter what the cost, for a comparison with other similar components from other companies.

The reason this would be different, is that at the top of the lines, the prices vary considerably. How would, for example, the top-of-the-line YG Acoustics Anat Reference II at $107K, compare to say the Dynaudio Evidence Master at a more respectable $85K, a difference that could buy you a whole lot of music. Or how would they compare to the Vandersteen Model 7's at a measly $45K, a fraction of the Anats, for the truly frugal types? My point is that this is what these well regarded manufacturers are offering as their statement pieces, the best they can offer. Well, maybe a comparison is in order rather than the puff pieces that don't use a reasonable baseline for comparison.

My guess is that the most expensive component will not be the winner, not by a bit. After reading about the rebadging of the Lexicon BR player, I think it's probably time to give credit where credit is due: the best engineering, experience, hard work, and manufacturing quality, even if the price isn't of the upturned-nose variety.

Let's assume that such a shootout was to occur... and let's also assume that the results were consistent (as is just about never the case in shootouts - just check the UK HiFi mags where one rates an amp product of the year for 3 years and the other rates that amp as 3 out of 5 stars based on similar shootouts)..

Further let's assume that the Model 7s, at a measly $45K, win... What difference would that make to the Hi-Fi community? How does it affect persons in the market for $1K - $5K speakers?

[Feanor]

...

Ask companies to send in their absolute best component, no matter what the cost, for a comparison with other similar components from other companies.

....
Whatever the outcome, I don't see much purpose to the exercise. There a few reasons, maybe:

It wouldn't be a apples-to-apples comparison. Lots of makers aim for high value components in a limited price range -- while other will aim for a one, or a range of, "super reference" models.
The performance of the "super reference" product doesn't necessarily reflect the performance of the bulk of the maker's product range and might not even be the same technology.
"Super reference" models are often large, usually physically, more particularly in that they are models for very large listening rooms. (OTL SET models excepted. :wink5: ) Filing large spaces is irrelevant to a lot of enthusiasts.
The "super reference" product at its relatively very high price is relevant to the typical hifi enthusiast, or even typical buyers of the particular make.

[Hyfi]

I have said this before. I have heard many $100k plus systems when Soundex had the big store. In no way did they sound 5x better than some $20k setups and in no way did they sound 20x better than some 5k systems.

Cost does not equal sound or performance. I appreciate the fact that for some companies there is a lot of r&d but come on, WTF could make a pair of VR9s cost $180k? They probably cost about 5-10k to manufacture if that.

As stated in another thread, those with money will buy anything expensive to say they did whether the return is equivalent or not.

I did notice when I used to subscribe to Stereophile that the reviewer sometimes would review a $100k pair of speakers with $10k worth of front end. Didn't seem logical to me, I would expect comparable components throughout.

[RGA]

Hi-fi Choice already does this in their shootouts as does What-hi-Fi. And I suppose Stereophile with their Class ratings although you would seriously want to read between the lines with all three when the individual reviewers buy a 4 star or Class B rated product and no one on staff actually puts their own money out for class A or 5 star products.

I always use the Roksan Kandy and Sugden A21a example. The Roksan got 5 stars and won the shootout - the A21a was given 4 stars - but when you actually read the reviews of all the amps in the shootout they said the Sugden was "easily" the best sounding amp. But the Roksan was more feature rich and powerful and thus would be a "safer" unit in the sense that it would appeal to more reader's systems. It had 125 watts per channel, looked nicer, had more connections, had a remote and runs cool. The A21a had 20 watts (and 13w into 4ohms) no remote - four inputs, runs hot etc etc. Still it's odd that sound would not be the most important factor but...

With the top end gear you have opinions. AudioFederation runs their own magazine and call it like they see it - I often agree with Mike's views and he will call $30,000 speakers "crap" without mincing words at all. Indeed, I agreed with him on a lot of rooms but was a polar opposite on the Sony Speakers and Magico speakers which both sounded excellent when I auditioned them - different music at the time I don't know.

The show report is about the only place where you will get the top stuff together in one place where most of the rooms are identical and they are set up by the people who actually designed the gear. http://spintricity.com/64/6870/jan-2010/ces-2010---general-show-report---introduction

[nightflier]

Yes, I was being facetious about the $45K for the truly frugal types; I too would be "destitute" in comparison. But this process could also apply to other more down-to-earth manufacturers, too. For example, how does the sound of the Emotiva ERC-1 CD player compare to that of the Cambridge 840c? The difference in price is substantial, but how do they compare on sound? Likewise, how would a pair of Odyssey Audio Stratos Stereo Extreme Monos compare to Pass Labs XA160.5s?

My hope would be that through this process, especially over time, two paterns would emerge:

1. That some of the most expensive gear out there does not compare well to less expensive gear. Over time, I would hope that this friendly competition would generate better gear and more technological advances.

2. Smaller "mom & pop" shops would have an opportunity to compete without having to spend so much on massive marketing campaigns.

I think what makes reviews so hard to trust is the lack of an understood and verifiable baseline. This is because we trust reviewers to tell us what their personal baseline might be, and this says very little about what it will be in our own homes, or in reality for that matter. Stereophile's charts and graphs are a start, but what does a perfect chart really sound like? And their comparisons leave much to be desired.

What I am suggesting is to use the products of other vendors as the baseline and to use basic characteristics to determine what products should be compared (e.g a 2.5 way tower should probably not be compared with a 2-way bookshelf). By using each manufacturer's top-of-the-line model, there should be less room for the constant excuse we read when the review isn't satisfactory that manufacturer's mid-level product X is probably not exemplary of the higher level gear. For companies that have been at it for a few years, their top of the line is their best; this is their statement piece, so let's see what it can do.

[RGA]

Nightflier

I agree with you in virtually every instance here - the charts IMO can largely be chucked out since most reviewers buy stuff that doesn't measure all that well. So you can either chuck out the reviewer or question how valid the measurements be taken are telling us about the resulting sound. SET amplfiers measure terribly and so do most tube amps - yet most reviewers and for that matter most SS makers and manufacturs of top of the line speakers choose tube amps of one variation or other. Judging by CES this year it is clear to me that the best of the best rooms used tube amplification and the ones who were very very good using SS - cost a ridiculous sum of money.

The reviewer's baseline is probably his or her system but not necessarily. After all reviewers have different budgets just like anyone else. I am a school teacher so the system that I can put together is much like the average everyday audiophile. I can certainly comment on $300,000 systems and I think I know which ones are good and which ones are grossly overpriced. But the reality is I am less credible commenting on those systems to people who have that kind of money. Rightly or wrongly they want someone who owns stuff in that price bracket. Fred Crowder of Dagogo is our deepest pocketed reviewer who owns $200k loudspeakers $100k amplifiers etc and a company with that kind of priced product will want him to review their stuff. I mean that makes a lot more sense.

I do not really believe in comparing a 2.5 way to a 2 way or line array to a line array. I believe that a stereo system should play ALL music exceptionally well. When I listen to the AN E doing soprano operatic full scale classical it is wholly wonderous. Then when I put on the evil 9 or Rammstein and crank the volume and the sound has crushing bass lines at stupid loud levels and gets the blood racing then that to me is a do it all loudspeaker. I don't care a damn what the hell the techno-babblery is all about or how many drivers or whether there is a cabinet or not etc.

I understand the idea perhaps of comparing panels. Let's say there are 7 panel makers and you listen to all 7 of their top models and you're comparing apples to apples. I think there are reviewers who are giving you a pretty good idea - Doug Schroeder of dagogo hasd been a long time panel owner owning many panels and listening to many more over the decades. If you are in the market for a panel he's the guy to read a review from - especially since he's not tied to brands like so many folks.

I have never owned a panel - am I less credible? In the eyes of panel owners I probably am. Although in my defense I have listened to over a dozen panels and as it turns out I happen to agree with Doug the panel guy on what makes a great panel loudspeaker - or in my view just a great loudspeaker period regardless of technobabblery. I was on about Audio Note speakers well before anyone at Stereophile. People calling me a nutbar. But now that so very many review publications now have highly esteemed bigger name folks than me raving about them - and they have many more years under their belt reviewing - Art Dudly, Peter Van Wellinswaard, Wes Philips just of Stereophile raving or owning them it made me smile a little.

I think most of us truly do hear the same things. It is really a matter of experience and what it is that you come across. Not experience with age or more time - but specifically the systems you hear. Magnepan for example is a fine panel for the price - but really they're pretty much the ONLY ones at the price (at least the 1.6 and lower models). They then bank on the fact that when you move up to the $5k - $14k models that you will simply upgrade without exploring the competition - and in those prices there is serious competition in the panel world. If you're happy with the 1.6 for example then you just move up the line. And then a lack of dealers is an issue for the smaller outfits. Bigger companies have bigger dealer networks and more models and more advertising and more reviews and thus demand is also higher. You can't demand a King Audio panel when you've never heard one.

But take the Prince II - it retails for $6,000 pair and is one of the best panel loudspeakers I have ever auditioned and IMO won't be embarassed by any speaker at ANY price. It has actual bass dynamics, open and a beautiful treble band. It's a brilliant fraking loudspeaker!. The 20.1 is completely blown away and to be blunt so is the Quad 2905 - both of which will set you back $14,000. And yes the Prince II is made in China - but then so is the Quad. I can't tell you how much I like the Prince II given the fact that FINALLY there is a panel with believe bass lines and front to back visceral dynamics (not a ton of deep bass mind you - probably only 50hz or so) but it was feeling bass and lightning fast. And the average audiophile can actually afford the loudspeaker.

As for baselines in homes - a loudspeaker should work in most homes and most rooms - it's a copout to continually blame rooms other than bass issues which may require some tweaking and the actual size of the rooms. But speakers should work in most listening rooms and manufacturers should go to great length telling you how to position them and what furnishings would be desirable - if they don't then too darn bad for the manufacturer - if they don't tell you assume it will work in any room of any size with any positioning and if it sucks then the speaker can be written off as garbage. It's their job to help the consumer not the consumer's job to get an acoustics engineering degree to figure out how to get them to sound good.

[Ajani]

Nightflier

I agree with you in virtually every instance here - the charts IMO can largely be chucked out since most reviewers buy stuff that doesn't measure all that well. So you can either chuck out the reviewer or question how valid the measurements be taken are telling us about the resulting sound. SET amplfiers measure terribly and so do most tube amps - yet most reviewers and for that matter most SS makers and manufacturs of top of the line speakers choose tube amps of one variation or other. Judging by CES this year it is clear to me that the best of the best rooms used tube amplification and the ones who were very very good using SS - cost a ridiculous sum of money.

I disagree strongly on the notion of chucking out charts... I think that's a major part of what's wrong with our hobby... We need more measurements, not less...

I agree that the existing measurement are inadequate at telling us what will sound good... So what we need are persons to develop new measurements that seek to understand what a SET amp is doing that could make it sound preferable to a 'textbook measurement' solid state one.... Once we start to unravel these mysteries, then we can see even greater advancement in sound reproduction...

Just Imagine being able to purchase a 100 watt SS amp that sounds like a 3 watt SET... that opens a world of speaker options... Plus means no need to mess around with tubes....


As for baselines in homes - a loudspeaker should work in most homes and most rooms - it's a copout to continually blame rooms other than bass issues which may require some tweaking and the actual size of the rooms. But speakers should work in most listening rooms and manufacturers should go to great length telling you how to position them and what furnishings would be desirable - if they don't then too darn bad for the manufacturer - if they don't tell you assume it will work in any room of any size with any positioning and if it sucks then the speaker can be written off as garbage. It's their job to help the consumer not the consumer's job to get an acoustics engineering degree to figure out how to get them to sound good.

Yep, I do agree that it is ridiculous to produce speakers that require a PhD in Acoustics Engineering to position correctly... I've always felt that brands should focus more on creating speakers that are more 'plug and play'... Why should I have to reposition every item of furniture in my living room and place the speakers in the middle of the room (instead of near a wall) just to get decent performance out of the speakers?

[RGA]

Ajani

I do agree that measurements would be important if they followed the ear - so what I should have said was chuck out most of the measurements currently going around because they're not related to what we're hearing. When top SS manufacturers in blind conditions chose a non feedback $100 tube amp over their today;s equivelant dollars $10,000 SS amps then you can throw THD numbers around all day - they mean nothing.

There is therefore clear properties - no doubt measurable - in the non feedback design (or very low feedback designs - and pure class A etc that IMO need to be looked at - some off them are such as notch distortion. But the entire notion of feedback to me is logically bankrupt trying to send a signal through then go back through the circuits to try and fix the passage of time. Unfortunately the logic may be there but the measurements don't seem to me to have been discovered - or the big companies don't bother because it would cost more to build quality and hurt their profit margins - which let's face it has always been the most important thing.

[JoeE SP9]

As an Electrical Engineer I must speak up about feedback. I believe you may not be aware how it works on an electronic level. I'm not going to give a lesson in Electronics 101 so relax.

The use of feedback can be and is a good thing when applied properly. When it's used to stabilize unstable circuit topologies or to produce low distortion readings that is not proper use. Note, I'm not pushing any particular type or style of amplifier. I use tubes and transistors in my system. I use what I think is best for a given purpose.

Feedback is like almost anything else. A little used properly can help. Too much or used incorrectly makes things worse.

[RGA]

This is from a SET maker:

Negative feedback, quite simply, is the application of an inverted portion of an amplifier's output signal to its input terminals. This "extra" signal is subtracted from the input and serves to reduce the effective amplifier gain (as the input signal is then smaller). In addition, steady state distortion is thought to be reduced as the out-of-phase distortion components contained in the feedback signal cancels out some of the errors created by the amplifier circuitry.

This scheme presents two very obvious problems. Firstly, all amplifiers introduce some delay to passing a signal from its input, to its output and then back to its input. During this delay period, a feedback amplifier is operating at its natural (referred to as "open-loop") gain. It is not until this initial delay period is over, that the circuit begins to exhibit its intended operating ("closed loop") gain characteristics. There must be, by the very definition of a feedback system, some change in the gain factor G, during the transition from open to closed loop operation. This gain modulation would probably not be audible by itself, as the propagation delays of most good amplifiers are quite small, except that the increased gain of the amplifier during the initialization period results in a decreased maximum input capability before overload. Simply put, an amplifier which utilizes 20 dB of feedback (a relatively modest amount by modern standards) and requires an input of two volts to clip during closed loop operation, would overload with only two tenths of a volt input during the forward delay period. Once the amplifier is overdriven, it may take many times its delay period to become fully restored to normal operation. The distortion created by this condition has been commonly referred to as Transient Intermodulation Distortion (TIM), Dynamic Intermodulation Distortion (DIM), and Slew Induced Distortion (SID).

In addition to this obvious form of feedback induced distortion, there exists another more subtle effect of signal regeneration. Because all amplifiers have some forward propagation delay, the fed back portion of the output signal will always lag behind the input. There is therefore a constant introduction of "out of date" information into the amplifier. Under transient conditions (which is what music is; transients), this results in the presentation of an error correction signal intended to reduce the distortion of an input signal which has already passed through the amplifier and is either already out of the circuit or well on the way out of the circuit. The signal present at the input by the time the feedback has arrived may bear no relation to the previous signal and thus will not be properly acted upon by the regenerated information. The current input signal is then distorted once, through the subtraction of an erroneous feedback waveform, and again by the amplifier. Additionally, the error signal present in feedback is passed through the amplifier and again fed back, with all of the newly created distortions, to make yet another trip through the circuit, until it is allowed to decay through successive attenuation. Thus, a distortion signal which originally may have lasted only a few microseconds, can pass through the amplifier enough times for its effective duration to have exceeded the threshold of human audibility. The mechanism originally designed to reduce audible distortion, actually, under transient conditions, serves to regenerate, emphasize and, in fact, create distortion..../...

Real Audio triode amplifiers operate totally without signal feedback, such distortion regeneration does not take place. The circuits have been designed for maximum linearity without corrective mechanisms, and thus responds as easily to transient signals as it does to steady state waveforms. The amplifiers make no attempt to reverse the path of time in order to correct their own errors. Those distortions created by these circuits (which are almost entirely harmonic in nature) are allowed to pass only onto the loudspeaker, and not back to the input.

Despite the absence of feedback, the forward propagation delay of all our amplifiers has received much attention. All our output transformers have been designed using this criterion, obviously with a keen eye on cost. It is obvious that if this delay is not absolutely invariant, for all conditions, the DeltaT component of the input signal will not be accurately preserved. Thus, those factors which determine delay have been carefully observed and stabilized. In addition, the operation of all amplification stages at nearly constant power, independent of signal conditions, i.e. Class A operation at every stage, greatly contributes to the symmetry and linearity of our circuits.

It is, however, not enough for an amplifier to operate linearly by itself. In order to minimize audible distortions, the device must be able to operate as well into a real loudspeaker as it does into a laboratory resistive load.

In order to adequately control the cone excursions of the loudspeaker and to optimize power transfer, the effective output impedance of the amplifier should be as far below the impedance of the load as possible. The ratio of these two impedances is referred to a damping factor, usually referenced to an eight ohm speaker. Thus, a damping factor of eighty reflects an amplifier output impedance of one tenth of one ohm. The design of the output transformer is extremely critical, and taps on the output are normally provided to match the load impedance best possible.

A problem in the normal expression of damping factor is that its measurement is performed using steady state signals. This results in a factor relying quite heavily on the action of an amplifier's feedback. The damping ability of an amplifier under transient conditions, before the feedback mechanism has been able to reach, is only accurately expressed as the steady state damping factor divided by the feedback factor. Thus, an amplifier with twenty decibels of feedback and specified damping factor of one hundred, has a damping value of only ten under transient conditions. This not only reduces the amplifier's ability to control the cone movement, but allows voltages created in the speaker voice coil to mix with the output signal and enter the amplifier's feedback system. In this condition, distortions created by the speaker's motion are not only unattenuated, but are emphasized through feedback regeneration.

[poppachubby]

The use of feedback can be and is a good thing when applied properly.


You got that right, just listen to "I Feel Fine" by The Beatles. Hehe..

[nightflier]

I do agree that it is ridiculous to produce speakers that require a PhD in Acoustics Engineering to position correctly...

...their speakers are about as far from plug-n-play as they come. Don't get me wrong, set up properly, they sound heavenly, but what a hassle. It's not enough that they double as cat scratching posts and catch just about every dust spec floating around, but it's practically impossible to replace that sock yourself (I know, I've done it). But when they finally do make a speaker that has some non-velcro sides like the Quatro wood & 5a, it literally does take a PhD to set them up properly.

This is where engineering really should play a bigger role. It's not easy to make a good speaker, nobody should think differently, but those who can do it should be rewarded for doing so, regardless of the price. I have similar complaints about Magnepan, Von Schweikert, and a few others, but at least Magnepan offers a larger price range to compensate.