Does "state of the art" matter?

[Ajani]

A lot of review mags obssess over state of the art products and A lot of audiophiles attend shows to hear state of the art gear. But does state of the art (SOTA) have any relevance to the average audiophile?

NOTE: by 'average' I mean someone who can't/won't ever own any SOTA equipment.

I know some members here listen to SOTA gear to hear what the best available is and see how close their setup comes... Others claim we should all attend HiFi shows to pick a technology based on hearing the best examples of each category (e.g. best high powered solid state, best SET, best Vinyl, best CD, etc)...

Suppose I have a budget of $2K for a 2 channel setup... I go to CES and the 2 best sounding systems are a pair of massive horns driven by a 5 watt SET and a pair of garage door sized electrostats driven by a high powered tube amp... Does that mean that I should look to purchase a SET/horn or stat/tube combo for $2K? If I find that the best sounding gear within my budget is a 50 watt solid state amp and a pair of traditional cone speakers, then what's the relevance of SOTA to my purchasing decision?

When I have to choose between buying a Honda Civic and a Mazda 3, why should I care what Ferrari or Bentley are doing? Even assuming their SOTA tech will trickle down to my price range, it won't be anytime soon...

Just my 2, 3 and 4 cents, but I think the only thing that really matters is what is the best sounding gear, to me, in my price range....

[tube fan]

You can't get much for $2,000. You can get near SOTA sound for $15,000-$20,000. My current system cost about $15,000 and can compete with ANYTHING I have heard either at shows or at audio stores. System: Fulton J speakers, Mystere CA 21 preamp, Fosgate phono unit (NOS tubes), VPI Scoutmaster, Ruby 3 cartridge, AR D 70 Amp.

[Ajani]

You can't get much for $2,000. You can get near SOTA sound for $15,000-$20,000. My current system cost about $15,000 and can compete with ANYTHING I have heard either at shows or at audio stores. System: Fulton J speakers, Mystere CA 21 preamp, Fosgate phono unit (NOS tubes), VPI Scoutmaster, Ruby 3 cartridge, AR D 70 Amp.

Even with a budget of $15K, you won't get SOTA... So what benefit is there in listening to a SOTA system? Why not just look for the best you can get for $15K?

[harley .guy07]

I do agree that while it is fun to listen to systems that are way out of a persons realistic price range and it can give a sense of what that kind of money will get a person it is much more useful to listen to products that you know are in your price range and that you could consider if they are of you liking. Most of the higher end companies out there have their "Reference or Statement" products that are designed using the best components and designs that each of these companies can get and while these products are state of the art as far as they way they are built or the components used in them that is no guarantee that every person is going to like the sound of these components or would spend that much for them anyway. I have heard many people say that they went to shows and heard systems that are well above any average persons affordability and they really were not impressed by what they heard and on the flip side of that I have heard people hear more affordable high end systems that blew their mind. But like I said while I do enjoy hearing the occasional super system I usually would much rather hear components that I could possibly afford with some time and saving.

[Feanor]

How do you define SOTA? Is it technological sophistication? Or is it ideal (subjective) sound?

It's hard to believe that it's a combination of for tech and subjective sound when pundits insist that the best sound is from the likes of SET and single-driver systems, technologies that have been around for generations.

OTOH, If SOTA is technology, then the real advances have been made in the likes of multi-channel high resolution like Dolby TrueHD delivered on Blu-ray, digital equalization, e.g. Audyssey, and in the improvements in light, cheap, efficient class D amplification.

Personally I don't know what to make of SET/HE because I haven't heard a lot of it. What I have heard, though, mostly lower end, hasn't impressed me all that much because I'm not convinced that it's really accurate sound. What bemuses me is that you can spend 100's of thousands on this stuff. I think there is a lot of "art" or maybe even "jewelery" involved; there is no science to demonstrate that silver wired transformers should out perform copper, but there are those willing to make them and those willing to buy them.

In the end I don't see the relevance of $10k+ SET/HE to me. But I do see a lots of trickle-down of the technology advances to the lower end equipment I might afford

[Ajani]

How do you define SOTA? Is it technological sophistication? Or is it ideal (subjective) sound?

I don't. I leave it open to either interpretation.


It's hard to believe that it's a combination of for tech and subjective sound when pundits insist that the best sound is from the likes of SET and single-driver systems, technologies that have been around for generations.

OTOH, If SOTA is technology, then the real advances have been made in the likes of multi-channel high resolution like Dolby TrueHD delivered on Blu-ray, digital equalization, e.g. Audyssey, and in the improvements in light, cheap, efficient class D amplification.

IMO, the most interesting technological trend is keeping a signal in digital form from source to amp (e.g. NAD M2). I wonder how long before we see that tech in NAD's more affordable products...


Personally I don't know what to make of SET/HE because I haven't heard a lot of it. What I have heard, though, mostly lower end, hasn't impressed me all that much because I'm not convinced that it's really accurate sound. What bemuses me is that you can spend 100's of thousands on this stuff. I think there is a lot of "art" or maybe even "jewelery" involved; there is no science to demonstrate that silver wired transformers should out perform copper, but there are those willing to make them and those willing to buy them.

In the end I don't see the relevance of $10k+ SET/HE to me. But I do see a lots of trickle-down of the technology advances to the lower end equipment I might afford

The way praise is heaped on such setups by fans you would believe that they have zero sonic flaws... With a little research (and a few lucky PMs) I discovered that a lot of audiophiles really hate the sound of such systems... In fact, they clearly detest SET/HE as much as the SET crowd detest SS/LE....

A major challenge in accessing truly expensive gear is figuring how much of the material contributes to sound quality. For example; a more affordable 25 watt class A amp will not be much (if any) bigger than a typical class A/B integrated, yet an expensive 25 watt class A will be the size of a small fridge.... Why is the massive heatsink necessary in the expensive amp but not in the more affordable one?

As with any other luxury good, the cost differences are not all about performance. Very few (if any) persons would spend $5K on an amp with a cheap gray plastic face plate (like an entry level NAD). So even if the 1/2 inch thick aluminum face plate adds nothing to the sonics, it is expected at that price range...

[JohnMichael]

In my mind a state of the art audio product is one designed with the best components and plenty of R&D time to design and tweak the product. A product designed without any price compromises. Once a SOTA product is created I may one day benefit from trickle down technolgy. Lessons learned in creating groundbreaking products have many times appeared in less expensive products later.

[Ajani]

In my mind a state of the art audio product is one designed with the best components and plenty of R&D time to design and tweak the product. A product designed without any price compromises. Once a SOTA product is created I may one day benefit from trickle down technolgy. Lessons learned in creating groundbreaking products have many times appeared in less expensive products later.

That sounds like a good definition: essentially a no holds barred approach to creating a product... no expense spared in either R&D or Materials... just the best thing a company can design...

I also would expect tech from SOTA to trickle down to gear I can afford eventually... Still, I see no need (other than to entertain myself) to audition SOTA gear, if they are not within my budget...

[Feanor]

That sounds like a good definition: essentially a no holds barred approach to creating a product... no expense spared in either R&D or Materials... just the best thing a company can design...

I also would expect tech from SOTA to trickle down to gear I can afford eventually... Still, I see no need (other than to entertain myself) to audition SOTA gear, if they are not within my budget...
This sounds very reasonable, at least on the face of it. But I know too that while some of the "no holds barred approach" contributes to performance, much of it is just BLING.

And I will argue that this is true not only for silver transformers but also a lot of supposed innovations. E.g. have you checked out analog preamps lately? They are remarkably simple devices, whether tube or s/s: one must ask how much better can a $25,000 device sound than the $500 device? Of course one might prefer the fine materials and appearance of the $25k unit -- so much so the one might ascribe to it more sonic improvement than it actually has.

So case in point, the highly praised MBL 6010D preamp is ~$25k, (see 'Phile review HERE (http://www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/1008mbl/index.html)). But the design is based on opamps, (widely reviled devices), and if based on opamps, how much better does it sound than the $500 Chinese knock-off, say from DIYGene, (see HERE (http://www.diygene.com/store/Complete%20Pre-Amp%20Kit/Complete%20Balanced%20pre%20amplifier%20Kit%20ref% 206010D%20A-11C)). 50x better? 5x better? 1.05x better? Who knows? In any case one can't deny that much of the SOTA technology has already tricked down.

[Ajani]

This sounds very reasonable, at least on the face of it. But I know too that while some of the "no holds barred approach" contributes to performance, much of it is just BLING.

And I will argue that this is true not only for silver transformers but also a lot of supposed innovations. E.g. have you checked out analog preamps lately? They are remarkably simple devices, whether tube or s/s: one must ask how much better can a $25,000 device sound than the $500 device? Of course one might prefer the fine materials and appearance of the $25k unit -- so much so the one might ascribe to it more sonic improvement than it actually has.

So case in point, the highly praised MBL 6010D preamp is ~$25k, (see 'Phile review HERE (http://www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/1008mbl/index.html)). But the design is based on opamps, (widely reviled devices), and if based on opamps, how much better does it sound than the $500 Chinese knock-off, say from DIYGene, (see HERE (http://www.diygene.com/store/Complete%20Pre-Amp%20Kit/Complete%20Balanced%20pre%20amplifier%20Kit%20ref% 206010D%20A-11C)). 50x better? 5x better? 1.05x better? Who knows? In any case one can't deny that much of the SOTA technology has already tricked down.

For some companies, 'no holds barred' just means using the most expensive materials possible to create a product, based on an existing design... Rather than attempting to create a new design from scratch... In such cases, there really is nothing to trickle down, since the design is pretty standard...

Also, chances are high that the most expensive materials contribute more to bling than to sound quality...

[RGA]

Point 2 - budget - well no listening to a $500,000 system doesn't help you in the remotest with a budget of $2k

But audiophiles don't have system budgets of $2k. Just as no serious photographer buys $98 digital cameras, or car enthusiasts buy Honda Civics.

"The average" person isn't interested in audiophile sound quality. Audiophiles are people who tend to care about sound quality and put it ahead of other things spending more of their money on it than everything else. I gave up a car for 10 years to buy my system.

At whatever budget you choose you need to compare what is available at that budget - but you can STILL compare HE/SET to other designs. But let's be realistic - the options are not many. Klipsch is probably still the mainstream HE speaker - and it is pretty much what most people will have the chance to hear - but it's not really great. And even then in 99% of cases in Canada anyway - Klipsch is connected to some receiver at Best Buy or London Drugs. Hardly a great combination. And even then the Klipsch Reference line is not too bad at all for the money - more interesting to listen to than most in this price range - problems? Sure but so what most everything has problems regardless of price.

And finding a SET under 2 grand that is "truly" competent is next to impossible. There are some nice little tube amps out there but they have issues - at least all the ones I've heard so far. Tube amps can be good - Jolida's 302b but while I like it it does have a character about it. For the same money with the same tubes you could get a very different sounding ASL AQ1003DT - sounds punchier and leaner and more "accurate" in the SS like presentation of the term accurate (The Jolida sounds better if you want to listen to more than a few hours). The AN Kit one and Sugden A21a would top my list for budget integrated SET amplifiers to audition and one could make a reasonable judgment on the technology on the affordable spectrum. But to me both are the entry level of that spectrum - price of entry is higher because there are few makers of this stuff. There may be others of course but I have not heard them so I can't say.

But the A21a has been selling for over 40 years. http://www.audioconsult.dk/anmeldelser/sugden/A21rev.htm


Kit One - which has been selling for 20 years+ so it's no slouch. http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/Audio_Note_Kit_One%20review_Listener.pdf

I once again make the same logic base case by looking at one company line-up. Company A makes an amp for $4k, $6k, $10K $15k $22k $50K $90k $250K. The improvements in sound is not subtle. Therefore for each step up or league up or level up you get a very significant improvement in sound. No I am not justifying the insane prices but then to someone with many millions $250k is peanuts. Wayne Gretzsky's rookie card just sold for $94,000. And it doesn't do anything but sit in a piece of glass.

The only relevant thing is making the comparison and hearing the improvements - If the $10k amp is using much more costly parts over the $4k amp - is more labour intensive and doesn't have an economies of scale (since far less $10k amps will likely sell compared to $4k amps) then while the cost of the parts may only double the retail price went up 2.5 times. But regardless of all of that if the latter amp is better sounding and as good or better than competition at similar prices then it is better. Some people will pay triple for subtle better.

I personally would rather compare systems. I personally start with an Audio Note level 2 system and compare every other system to this system and attempt to determine value and quality from that (including other more expensive Audio Note). Which is why personally - I would not spend the money on more expensive amplifiers like the Soro or Meishu. The Meishu is better but the price performance isn't where I like it. And I like the OTO more than the Soro - even though the Soro is more expensive - it's a different "sounding" amplifier and costs more to make which is why the price is higher. But I prefer the sound of the OTO - even if it does have a little more character. So long as I know what the character is and where it errs when it errs then it's a choice since everything errs no matter what they tell you.

You have to have some sort of "baseline" in order to judge. A "reference system" and reference doesn't have to mean best but it has to be "good." I prefer to compare systems because I am less interested in individual technology - I am interested in results. But it is nice to hear the best available systems so you know where your system needs to improve. My system I am comfortable putting up against pretty much anything I've heard at 2-3 or in a lot of cases many more times the price. OTOH I have heard a few systems then come home and kind of wished I stayed in my more lucrative career field than going into teaching because my system lacked in every possible parameter. So be it. Part of the fun of the hobby.

[tube fan]

I repeat: IMO, my $15,000 system is as good as any I heard at the 2010 CAS. The only two rooms that really impressed me were the Audio Note and Teresonic ones. The Audio Note salesman admitted that the $4000 ANJ would have sounded better in the smallish room.

[Ajani]

Point 2 - budget - well no listening to a $500,000 system doesn't help you in the remotest with a budget of $2k

But audiophiles don't have system budgets of $2k. Just as no serious photographer buys $98 digital cameras, or car enthusiasts buy Honda Civics.

Car Enthusiasts don't buy Honda Civics? What world do you live in? I can't begin to count how many suped up Honda Civics are on the road.... Car enthusiasts buy them and trick them out to squeeze every last drop of performance out of them... If they could afford better they would, but they can't... That doesn't mean they're not an enthusiast...

$2K may not be a final system budget for many audiophiles, but it is at least a starting one for many... and even if the budget was $10K, you still won't get SOTA, so the point is the same...

I don't even remotely accept your logic that a certain amount of money has to be spent to be an audiophile or enthusiast... That's just the typical audio-snobbery that keeps many persons out of our hobby...

[02audionoob]

A few days ago, I was waiting for my lunch and picked up a car magazine. The feature article was about Bentley automobiles and I was truly bored with it. Last time I was in that shop, the current issue had a feature on a BMW. I was indeed more interested, since it was in a realm I could identify with.

I feel the same way about audio gear. When I was first getting into the idea of an upgrade from my 1970's gear, I heard a great system at a local boutique audio shop that was legitimately within my reach, cost-wise. It motivated me to assemble a fairly similar system. At a show last year, poppachubby and I heard some speakers that cost more than my car and looked like a dollop of soft-serve ice cream. We yawned and went to the next room.

[E-Stat]

But does state of the art (SOTA) have any relevance to the average audiophile?
Only if that individual can appreciate and enjoy that moment of hearing what a truly spectacular system can do. Hearing details with your favorite music that you've never heard before. Just like enjoying the rich experience of a live, unamplified concert. Which is most often not realized in a show environment. And not something you will be able to do the first, second or even tenth time you hear something for thirty minutes most often with unfamiliar content. Such really requires lots of exposure and ideally, with some training by an experienced ear.

I feel very privileged to have had that opportunity with two reviewer/mentors who I've known for over thirty years. I now realize that when I was in my teens and twenties, I could not fully appreciate what I was hearing. It took many, many hours of exposure to well matched very high end systems before I really got it. Do I enjoy hearing the various megabuck Sea Cliff systems? Hell yes! My sense of what an audio system can do has been recalibrated on several occasions over the years. If anyone tells you that you can achieve the same level of phenomenal transparency and dimensionality of a well matched half a million dollar system for $30,000, just smile since they don't have the long term exposure to the very best systems to really understand.

Back to your question, does such knowledge help in choosing a $2,000 system? Not really, since there will be so many compromises involved. The joy will continue to be in enjoying listening to your favorite music, regardless of system investment. While I enjoy my main system immensely, I spend more time listening to the decidedly more modest vintage system in the garage. :)

rw

[pixelthis]

NOTHING made with tubes is "state of the art", hasn't been since BELL LABS
created the first transistor in the 1940's.
RIDING horses is fun, but no equestrian has the nerve to refer to a horse as "SOTA".
Unlike tube owners who have bought into the propaganda.
DOESN'T matter, the last time tube gear was "SOTA" was sometime during the sixties.:1:

[Feanor]

Only if that individual can appreciate and enjoy that moment of hearing what a truly spectacular system can do. Hearing details with your favorite music that you've never heard before. Just like enjoying the rich experience of a live, unamplified concert.
....
I feel very privileged to have had that opportunity with two reviewer/mentors who I've known for over thirty years. I now realize that when I was in my teens and twenties, I could not fully appreciate what I was hearing. ... My sense of what an audio system can do has been recalibrated on several occasions over the years. If anyone tells you that you can achieve the same level of phenomenal transparency and dimensionality of a well matched half a million dollar system for $30,000, just smile since they don't have the long term exposure to the very best systems to really understand.
...
I never get to hear truly spectacular systems around here. And since I will never afford a $30k system much less a $500k system, perhaps my ignorance is bliss.


But "recalibaration" has happened for me a few times. E.g. when I replace my Phase Linear 400 amp, and my B&W DM7 speakers with Magneplanars.


...
Back to your question, does such knowledge help in choosing a $2,000 system? Not really, since there will be so many compromises involved. The joy will continue to be in enjoying listening to your favorite music, regardless of system investment. While I enjoy my main system immensely, I spend more time listening to the decidedly more modest vintage system in the garage.

rw
Now this is acknowledgement that (a) SOTA isn't very helpful when building a quite modest system, (b) that you can enjoy music with much less that SOTA. I agree with both.

[E-Stat]

And since I will never afford a $30k system much less a $500k system, perhaps my ignorance is bliss.
Nah. We'll never be able to afford buying a symphony hall complete with orchestra either. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy hearing and appreciating them from time to time. :)

rw

[Ajani]

Only if that individual can appreciate and enjoy that moment of hearing what a truly spectacular system can do. Hearing details with your favorite music that you've never heard before. Just like enjoying the rich experience of a live, unamplified concert. Which is most often not realized in a show environment. And not something you will be able to do the first, second or even tenth time you hear something for thirty minutes most often with unfamiliar content. Such really requires lots of exposure and ideally, with some training by an experienced ear.

I feel very privileged to have had that opportunity with two reviewer/mentors who I've known for over thirty years. I now realize that when I was in my teens and twenties, I could not fully appreciate what I was hearing. It took many, many hours of exposure to well matched very high end systems before I really got it. Do I enjoy hearing the various megabuck Sea Cliff systems? Hell yes! My sense of what an audio system can do has been recalibrated on several occasions over the years. If anyone tells you that you can achieve the same level of phenomenal transparency and dimensionality of a well matched half a million dollar system for $30,000, just smile since they don't have the long term exposure to the very best systems to really understand.

Back to your question, does such knowledge help in choosing a $2,000 system? Not really, since there will be so many compromises involved. The joy will continue to be in enjoying listening to your favorite music, regardless of system investment. While I enjoy my main system immensely, I spend more time listening to the decidedly more modest vintage system in the garage. :)

rw

Well said...

I can certainly understand the notion of enjoying a SOTA system just for what it is...

I may not have the experience of some lucky audiophiles, but I have found that differences are usually far more subtle than many claim... So I would expect that if differences do exist between a $50K and $500K setup, they would likely be only noticeable to a very experienced listener...

Also, the idea of drawing a serious conclusion about the quality of gear at an audio show is preposterous... I've been to dealers, forgotten to take my CDs with me and been unable to form an opinion on the gear, simply because I was totally unfamiliar with the type of music being played... Even when I carry my own CDs I normally need to have at least 2 or 3 sessions to come to a solid opinion on whether the gear moves me enough to consider a purchase...

[RGA]

Car Enthusiasts don't buy Honda Civics? What world do you live in? I can't begin to count how many suped up Honda Civics are on the road.... Car enthusiasts buy them and trick them out to squeeze every last drop of performance out of them... If they could afford better they would, but they can't... That doesn't mean they're not an enthusiast...

$2K may not be a final system budget for many audiophiles, but it is at least a starting one for many... and even if the budget was $10K, you still won't get SOTA, so the point is the same...

I don't even remotely accept your logic that a certain amount of money has to be spent to be an audiophile or enthusiast... That's just the typical audio-snobbery that keeps many persons out of our hobby...

I was thinking sports car enthusiasts who buy $500 beat up Camaro and turn them into something amazing. But yes there are people who rebuild Chevy Sprints in the same way. But if you didn't get the meaning I think you were looking not to.

You say $2k is not the final system budget but a starting point which implies that at some point they are going to want "more" from their audio - so why dictate what you think is what other people should be doing. And this is what you are doing whether you admit to yourself or not. The FACT is that a $2,000 stereo system that is a VERY good system will beat the crap out of any $500 boom box system that is out there. This person was an "audio snob" that spent a whopping $2,000 where most people would think is an obscene amount of money on a stereo. If you then tell someone that you think you have to spend $2k to get something quite good then you just insulted everyone who spent $500 on their boom box system that they think is real good.

I never said what you have to spend - there is a big difference on spending and accepting certain truths. I accept the truth that a Bentley and a Ferrari is a better car than my car or any car I am likely to afford. I don't need to spend that to know it. There are plenty of stereos that I will never afford - that I'd like to afford - but I don't try to insinuate at every turn that those people are deluding themselves and that it really is no better than whatever I think is the "pinnacle" of audio reproduction (which happens to coincide with what I spent). I have met a lot of people on forums that own $2k speakers and then blather on endlessly that spending more is just audio jewelry etc. Usually people who have heard next to nothing so they say this stuff to make themselves feel superior that they were smart to only buy $2k speakers.

There is no audio snobbery - You ask me what I think the best is and I'll tell you - the best 20 stereos I have heard - none of which are mine. Probably more than 20 - I'd have to go through my notes. But I don't say - I spent X and therefore that is the best there is. If I could go back in time I could probably spend the same or less and put together a better system (so could we all) but options come up at different times at certain prices that make us make the selections we make which may have been a second choice. So be it.

I think there is a minimum expenditure to get a sound that I feel separates itself from the pack - that doesn't mean I can't put together a really nice system for a friend regardless of budget (with reason). I actually enjoy the challenge of finding and putting together a system for relatively cheap and watching the jaws drop. Terry at Soundhounds practically makes it his mission to mix and match stuff and impress someone and when they see the system price they're shocked. And gee from a sales perspective - the more you can do that the more sales you get because the guy wants it more and it's affordable.

UHF used to do that - wish they still did. A system for $1200 which would have an integrated, cd player and speakers that would crush whatever Best Buy is selling for $4,000. To me that's more enjoyable than putting together a $30k system - at $30k it bloody well should sound good - probably does if they're reputable names. Putting together a $2k system that hangs in pretty good - is something the industry needs a LOT more of and may get more people in.

I like that some of the bigger high quality high end companies try to make gear at the lower end price spectrum to get people in - and I like companies like Grant Fidelity that try to keep the prices as low as possible, offer excellent sound, and ridiculous build quality which results in huge pride of ownership. What they need to do though it keep products in the stable longer - there is too much turnaround of gear IMO. But if you can live with knowing the product won't exist in 3-4 years you're good to go. The prices offset that concern in my view.

[tube fan]

I know someone who owns a Ferrari, and several other cars. I have driven his BMWs and his Ferrari, and the Ferrari just sucks. It's WAY to noisy! Handling? The BMWs are better, BY FAR! Status? The Ferrari by a mile. Similar comparisons hold in audio equipment.

[Ajani]

You say $2k is not the final system budgetbut a starting point which implies that at some point they are going to want "more" from their audio - so why dictate what you think is what other people should be doing. And this is what you are doing whether you admit to yourself or not.

No, I did not say that. I said:

"$2K may not be a final system budget for many audiophiles"... So I am not doing anything close to what you are claiming... Nice attempt to spin the snobbish comment around on me... Try to use things I've actually said next time...


I never said what you have to spend - there is a big difference on spending and accepting certain truths.

No you did not say what someone needs to spend (nor did I claim that you did) but you did say that:

"audiophiles don't have system budgets of $2k. Just as no serious photographer buys $98 digital cameras, or car enthusiasts buy Honda Civics."

So you didn't define how much must be spent to be an audiophile, but you made it clear that if your budget is only $2K then you are NOT an audiophile... Which is snobbery...

[filecat13]

In my mind a state of the art audio product is one designed with the best components and plenty of R&D time to design and tweak the product. A product designed without any price compromises. Once a SOTA product is created I may one day benefit from trickle down technolgy. Lessons learned in creating groundbreaking products have many times appeared in less expensive products later.

I think this is a correct and useful view. Notice I did not write "the" I wrote "a."

As a case in point, the speaker that most impressed me at the CAS 2010 was the JBL Everest II, at least from the midrange up. The LF was a bit of a mess in the overly large and awkward room, but that is in fact JBL's SOTA speaker, and I heard it later in the listening room at Harman/JBL's Northridge, CA facility and it was stunning beyond belief. Of course the SOTA Mark Levinson digital amps used there helped a bit, too. ;)

Back at the CAS, to me and my companion the most impressive speaker overall was the Revel Utima2 Salon in that same miserable room, until...

...after the show closed for the first day a few of us begged the vendor to hook up the second-tier JBL K2 S9900 pair that was there but totally ignored against the wall. Reluctantly they did so, and I was so smitten with the K2s, even in that awful room, that now that same pair is sitting in front of me in my house as I write this.

They are not everything the Everest II is, but it's clear that they have been very much influenced by that flagship product, just as they are the clear successor of the old K2 S9800SE SOTA model. Without these SOTA products, the K2 S9900s sitting in my room would not be here.

You can also see the trickle-down in the excellent 1400 Array line as well, and in the Synthesis® One Array system down in my HT.

So from one great engineering effort comes many benefits, even though I'm not likely to ever have the $60,000 Everest IIs. New driver technology, new networks, new cabinetry design, new horn design (never thought I'd buy a horn), all brought improvements down the line in more and more affordable products.

Had I not heard how excellent the top half of the Everest was in that impossible room, I wouldn't have anticipated how wonderful the similar K2 would be. Also, I never would have imagined I could get the Everest sound in my home at a price I could actually (though painfully) afford. :)

[Ajani]

I think this is a correct and useful view. Notice I did not write "the" I wrote "a."

As a case in point, the speaker that most impressed me at the CAS 2010 was the JBL Everest II, at least from the midrange up. The LF was a bit of a mess in the overly large and awkward room, but that is in fact JBL's SOTA speaker, and I heard it later in the listening room at Harman/JBL's Northridge, CA facility and it was stunning beyond belief. Of course the SOTA Mark Levinson digital amps used there helped a bit, too. ;)

Back at the CAS, to me and my companion the most impressive speaker overall was the Revel Utima2 Salon in that same miserable room, until...

...after the show closed for the first day a few of us begged the vendor to hook up the second-tier JBL K2 S9900 pair that was there but totally ignored against the wall. Reluctantly they did so, and I was so smitten with the K2s, even in that awful room, that now that same pair is sitting in front of me in my house as I write this.

They are not everything the Everest II is, but it's clear that they have been very much influenced by that flagship product, just as they are the clear successor of the old K2 S9800SE SOTA model. Without these SOTA products, the K2 S9900s sitting in my room would not be here.

You can also see the trickle-down in the excellent 1400 Array line as well, and in the Synthesis® One Array system down in my HT.

So from one great engineering effort comes many benefits, even though I'm not likely to ever have the $60,000 Everest IIs. New driver technology, new networks, new cabinetry design, new horn design (never thought I'd buy a horn), all brought improvements down the line in more and more affordable products.

Had I not heard how excellent the top half of the Everest was in that impossible room, I wouldn't have anticipated how wonderful the similar K2 would be. Also, I never would have imagined I could get the Everest sound in my home at a price I could actually (though painfully) afford. :)

So if you had just gone to do a dealer and heard the K2, you wouldn't have been impressed enough to buy it? You had to hear the Everest to realize that the K2 is a good speaker?

[JoeE SP9]

I know someone who owns a Ferrari, and several other cars. I have driven his BMWs and his Ferrari, and the Ferrari just sucks. It's WAY to noisy! Handling? The BMWs are better, BY FAR! Status? The Ferrari by a mile. Similar comparisons hold in audio equipment.

Aren't Ferrari's supposed to be noisy? All those mechanical and exhaust sounds are supposed to be very audible. The sounds a Ferrari makes is part of the reason you buy one. The sound of a V-12 at high rev's is music to my ears.

[hifitommy]

i also think that the sheer spine shattering acceleration and face on the dashboard braking capabilities of the Ferrari would handily out distance anything that the beemer is able to produce.

yes, a walker proscenium tt is plug ugly (visually) but i would take it (sonically) any day over a prettier oracle.

[E-Stat]

i also think that the sheer spine shattering acceleration and face on the dashboard braking capabilities of the Ferrari would handily out distance anything that the beemer is able to produce.
Depends upon which Ferrari as compared with which BMW. A Z8 would handily outperform a Dino.

rw

[hifitommy]

i look forward to the day i can make that comparison. a dino however is too small interiorly for me. DAMN! i always loved the looks of a dino.

[RGA]

No, I did not say that. I said:

"$2K may not be a final system budget for many audiophiles"... So I am not doing anything close to what you are claiming... Nice attempt to spin the snobbish comment around on me... Try to use things I've actually said next time...



No you did not say what someone needs to spend (nor did I claim that you did) but you did say that:

"audiophiles don't have system budgets of $2k. Just as no serious photographer buys $98 digital cameras, or car enthusiasts buy Honda Civics."

So you didn't define how much must be spent to be an audiophile, but you made it clear that if your budget is only $2K then you are NOT an audiophile... Which is snobbery...


There is a clear difference between someone who wants a good stereo and someone who is an audiophile (audio lover) which is not the same as music lover. If one is passionate about the "sound quality" of audio gear they will not have a budget of $2k total system prices of new equipment unless they are starting out or simply don't have the cash to do better. An audiophile music lover will who REALLY puts their money where their mouth is and TRULY loves music and sound reproduction will make significant sacrifices to attain a great system (a great system doesn't happen at $2k IME). What kind of sacrifices does one make - Talking to Peter Qvortrup he feels like at the very least your stereo should cost more than your car. I went one better - I sacrificed owning a car for 10 years to buy a stereo and took public transit in a city that public transit isn't great. I didn't buy a TV until last year - that's sacrificing for the stereo.

Again it has nothing to do with what you actually own. You may have 4 kids and can't spend more than $1k on stereo but you still may be an audiophile. To me it's about recognizing the great stereos. Snobbery is something you're assuming but no matter what one person spends someone else is going to spend more. It is not snobbery to say that a $2k system is not a serious audiophile system - because it is simply a fact - it isn't. It doesn't mean it can't sound nice or be great value for the money - but it is not likely going to satisfy an "audiophile" - it may be all the audiophile can afford but a real audiophile doesn't bury his head in the sand and conclude that there is nothing significantly better on the market. Just as I don't bury my head in the sand that there isn't considerably better than what I spent.

You could own no system and be an audiophile - someone who appreciates top quality sound reproduction and recognizes that there are some outstanding systems and some pretty poor ones. A lot of people don't care - not audiophiles. Some people who don't care have deep pockets and throw lots of money at it merely to show off their wealth or it fits their home decor.

[Ajani]

There is a clear difference between someone who wants a good stereo and someone who is an audiophile (audio lover) which is not the same as music lover. If one is passionate about the "sound quality" of audio gear they will not have a budget of $2k total system prices of new equipment unless they are starting out or simply don't have the cash to do better. An audiophile music lover will who REALLY puts their money where their mouth is and TRULY loves music and sound reproduction will make significant sacrifices to attain a great system (a great system doesn't happen at $2k IME). What kind of sacrifices does one make - Talking to Peter Qvortrup he feels like at the very least your stereo should cost more than your car. I went one better - I sacrificed owning a car for 10 years to buy a stereo and took public transit in a city that public transit isn't great. I didn't buy a TV until last year - that's sacrificing for the stereo.

Again it has nothing to do with what you actually own. You may have 4 kids and can't spend more than $1k on stereo but you still may be an audiophile. To me it's about recognizing the great stereos. Snobbery is something you're assuming but no matter what one person spends someone else is going to spend more. It is not snobbery to say that a $2k system is not a serious audiophile system - because it is simply a fact - it isn't. It doesn't mean it can't sound nice or be great value for the money - but it is not likely going to satisfy an "audiophile" - it may be all the audiophile can afford but a real audiophile doesn't bury his head in the sand and conclude that there is nothing significantly better on the market. Just as I don't bury my head in the sand that there isn't considerably better than what I spent.

You could own no system and be an audiophile - someone who appreciates top quality sound reproduction and recognizes that there are some outstanding systems and some pretty poor ones. A lot of people don't care - not audiophiles. Some people who don't care have deep pockets and throw lots of money at it merely to show off their wealth or it fits their home decor.

So the point of that verbosity is to say that audiophiles CAN have system budgets of $2K... But in your experience a $2K setup is not enough for you... great, but so what? determining how much to spend and whether the next level is worth the money is a personal decision...

Also, the logic that someone has to spend more than their car is stupid... Some persons may choose to do so, others won't... It doesn't make one person an audiophile and the other not... In fact, there is a point at which hobby turns into obsession... At that stage you're probably better off seeing a psychiatrist than investing anymore money in a stereo...

[tube fan]

Ajani, I agree that trying to keep up with whatever is considered the current SOTA is an unhealthy obsession. IMO, each new piece of equipment is NOT really an advance in quality. It's, of course, in the interest of reviewers and of magazines and of manufactures to keep hyping new equipment.

[RGA]

SOTA is a stupid word for audio anyway.

I know a reviewer who would take a speaker that is state of the art sounding in ONE aspect of sound even if it was relatively dreadful in 4 other aspects of sound. I would prefer a non state of the art speaker in any one aspect and take a balanced 8.5 out of 10 speaker in all aspects of sound reproduction. The latter to me will be far easier to live with long term and be an end of the road kind of speaker - while the other will be changed out because the 4 sub par aspects will eventually bug me.

Tube fan - I don't get involved with the new is better mantra. Too often it isn't and they're flavors of the month. Most of the stuff I like have proven track records. I found it amusing that a 1992 Sugden A21a in a blind level matched session against ~ 2005 amplifiers beat them all "easily" amongst all of the listeners in the review session and that JM basically said it was the best amp for the money he had heard - again a 10+ year old amplifier. So much for new is better. Sometimes it genuinely is better but there is far too much hype in this industry.

Let's face it - if there was no hype then what would review publications do? The Rotel preamp that replace mine is identical except for cosmetic changes. But it's "new" and so they can get another review and keep the advertising going. A review in a sense is stronger advertising than an advertisement and it really only costs the company shipping. It's cheaper than taking out one page in one issue of Stereophile. Reviews are all over the net and take up several pages in the issue.

And back when I bought - I wound up buying the gear in the store that had next to no advertising, didn't look all that good, and the dealer simply said - "try this" based on my budget. Usually if a dealer is carrying some almost unknown (and they were for the most part unknown then in the west) and virtually no reviews then they're probably carrying it because the dealer likes it - not because he's going to make much money on it. Kind of like Sugden really - they carry them but they barely ever sell any - people say "Sugden who" - same thing happened to me when I started out - I made the fatal mistake of trusting the review press. I walked in knowing all about this company called Arcam. I read all these glowing reviews of the Arcam Delta 290 integrated and it got 5 stars - most purchased amp in the UK, the highest rated amplifier under $2,000 in Stereophile Class B - and several other mags - super test shootout winner in What-hi-fi and on and on it went.

Walked into the Vancouver dealer there is the Arcam 290 with huge posters on the wall, all the magazines opened to the rave reviews of this amplifier - I was maybe 23 years old and owned a Pioneer Elite Receiver and ready to trade it in after several auditions - the Arcam was better for sure than the receiver. But the dealer there told me to give this Sugden A21a a try - this was before the internet took off in the early 1990s so online reviews were not available.

Who the hell is Sugden - it's butt fugly ugly - no remote and an old fashioned yellow on button - but it sounded a lot better - a LOT freaking better. But I had all those professional reviews flowing around my head - they must be right after all - they're getting paid. Maybe I was being tricked somehow. Bought the Arcam. Heard the A21a a few times later and I knew I blew it but so be it. Then about 4 years later (what a surprise) the Delta 290 is replaced by a worse sounding sexier looking amplifier). The Sugden meanwhile continues to sell 16 years after that first audition. How many integrateds have past since the Delta 290? Probably 3-4 at least. And it's highly doubtful any of the new Arcam's sound better than the 290 integrated let alone the Sugden.

[Feanor]

....
Again it has nothing to do with what you actually own. You may have 4 kids and can't spend more than $1k on stereo but you still may be an audiophile. To me it's about recognizing the great stereos. Snobbery is something you're assuming but no matter what one person spends someone else is going to spend more. It is not snobbery to say that a $2k system is not a serious audiophile system - because it is simply a fact - it isn't. It doesn't mean it can't sound nice or be great value for the money - but it is not likely going to satisfy an "audiophile" - it may be all the audiophile can afford but a real audiophile doesn't bury his head in the sand and conclude that there is nothing significantly better on the market. Just as I don't bury my head in the sand that there isn't considerably better than what I spent.
....
^ A lot of self-contradictory double-talk.

An audiophile is a person who wants to get the best sound he (or she) can get. If he strives for goal it really doesn't matter what budget he defines for himself. The system he ends up with is an audiophile system. The audiophile system is defined by the person's relative satisfaction, not by the equipment.

If you asked people around AR what the very least cost would be of a system that could provides them with sonic satisfaction, the consensus might be, say, $2-3k. If you asked the question over at AA, the number would be more like $10k or perhaps more. What does it prove?

[RGA]

^ A lot of self-contradictory double-talk.

An audiophile is a person who wants to get the best sound he (or she) can get. If he strives for goal it really doesn't matter what budget he defines for himself. The system he ends up with is an audiophile system. The audiophile system is defined by the person's relative satisfaction, not by the equipment.

If you asked people around AR what the very least cost would be of a system that could provides them with sonic satisfaction, the consensus might be, say, $2-3k. If you asked the question over at AA, the number would be more like $10k or perhaps more. What does it prove?

Correct - and to some it would be a minimum of $10k per component.

It has to do with experience - I get the sense that people draw conclusions based on experience - as me in 1992 I would have concluded very differently than I conclude today as to what represents a "high end" "audiophile" system.

Of course I like the terms musically satisfying more than some of the systems out there that are perhaps more technically savvy but don't sound nearly as satisfying. YG Aocustics is probably close to what they claim about themselves in terms of "audiophile" sound but I have not really enjoyed listening to them. So they may be what that other reviewer likes - SOTA in a sense of what they do well - but they're not really enjoyable to listen to in the sense that an old Celestion is enjoyable to listen to but probably not nearly SOTA in any way.

[filecat13]

So if you had just gone to do a dealer and heard the K2, you wouldn't have been impressed enough to buy it? You had to hear the Everest to realize that the K2 is a good speaker?

I don't know why smart-alec comments like this are necessary. If you had asked a useful question or made an intelligent comment, it would be easy to answer. Instead, you've demonstrated what you believe to be your "clever wit" technique of obtuse, mocking questioning, but added nothing to your own discussion.

These questions are irrelevant and speculative. That's not what happened; I wrote what happened. These kinds of hypothetical ripostes are weak, pointless attempts at creating a faux logical framework for something that did not happen, is not happening, and will not happen. Well, I won't give them the credibility you'd hoped for. Nice try, though.

[Ajani]

I don't know why smart-alec comments like this are necessary. If you had asked a useful question or made an intelligent comment, it would be easy to answer. Instead, you've demonstrated what you believe to be your "clever wit" technique of obtuse, mocking questioning, but added nothing to your own discussion.

These questions are irrelevant and speculative. That's not what happened; I wrote what happened. These kinds of hypothetical ripostes are weak, pointless attempts at creating a faux logical framework for something that did not happen, is not happening, and will not happen. Well, I won't give them the credibility you'd hoped for. Nice try, though.

You can have as much disdain as you want for my questions, but they were legitimate questions.

My thread is about whether SOTA has any relevance to the average audiophile... You gave some long story about listening to a SOTA JBL and how that "helped" you purchase another model in the line...

My questions are meant to determine whether hearing the SOTA system really helped you... I doubt even you believe that you needed to hear the SOTA to like the speakers you have now... So whether you hate my sarcasm, my point is that hearing SOTA is irrelevant to buying decisions (unless you are actually aiming to buy a SOTA system)...

Also, you don't have to give them any "credibility", as my questions are already credible. Your story on the other hand, while entertaining, added nothing to this discussion...

[RGA]

Why can't we shift the word to best instead of SOTA. If you hear a $100,000K system that blows your mind, makes you cry like a little school girl, and all the other emotional fodder of the best stereos and you come home and yours isn't nearly as satisfying then hearing that "best" system is the new "goal" because if the point is to get the ultimate goosebump experience (and I think that it is) then what is the point.

The best systems give me that - they tend to cost a fair chunk of cash.

[Ajani]

Why can't we shift the word to best instead of SOTA. If you hear a $100,000K system that blows your mind, makes you cry like a little school girl, and all the other emotional fodder of the best stereos and you come home and yours isn't nearly as satisfying then hearing that "best" system is the new "goal" because if the point is to get the ultimate goosebump experience (and I think that it is) then what is the point.

The best systems give me that - they tend to cost a fair chunk of cash.

Sure, why not? SOTA, best, ultra-expensive, whatever you want to call it...

Still makes no difference to the original question...

If the best system I've heard costs $500K, how does that help me shop for a system at $15K?

[Ajani]

SOTA is a stupid word for audio anyway.

Especially when talking about products that use a 40 year old design, combined with the most exotic and expensive materials possible... Sure it might sound good, but to describe the tech as State of the art does seem preposterous...


I know a reviewer who would take a speaker that is state of the art sounding in ONE aspect of sound even if it was relatively dreadful in 4 other aspects of sound. I would prefer a non state of the art speaker in any one aspect and take a balanced 8.5 out of 10 speaker in all aspects of sound reproduction. The latter to me will be far easier to live with long term and be an end of the road kind of speaker - while the other will be changed out because the 4 sub par aspects will eventually bug me.

Ironically a number of brands you hate aim for that goal - balanced sound rather than mind blowing in any one category...


Tube fan - I don't get involved with the new is better mantra. Too often it isn't and they're flavors of the month. Most of the stuff I like have proven track records. I found it amusing that a 1992 Sugden A21a in a blind level matched session against ~ 2005 amplifiers beat them all "easily" amongst all of the listeners in the review session and that JM basically said it was the best amp for the money he had heard - again a 10+ year old amplifier. So much for new is better. Sometimes it genuinely is better but there is far too much hype in this industry.

Let's face it - if there was no hype then what would review publications do? The Rotel preamp that replace mine is identical except for cosmetic changes. But it's "new" and so they can get another review and keep the advertising going. A review in a sense is stronger advertising than an advertisement and it really only costs the company shipping. It's cheaper than taking out one page in one issue of Stereophile. Reviews are all over the net and take up several pages in the issue.

The Rotel gear is probably around 20 years old too... my 1080 amp was around for about 12 years before they replaced it with the 15 series model (likely the same amp with a prettier chassis and some mild modifications)... All that happens is that some brands prefer longevity in the name, while others like to hype up every mild refresh/update with a new model number and cosmetics... Doesn't mean one brand will sound better than the other...


And back when I bought - I wound up buying the gear in the store that had next to no advertising, didn't look all that good, and the dealer simply said - "try this" based on my budget. Usually if a dealer is carrying some almost unknown (and they were for the most part unknown then in the west) and virtually no reviews then they're probably carrying it because the dealer likes it - not because he's going to make much money on it. Kind of like Sugden really - they carry them but they barely ever sell any - people say "Sugden who" - same thing happened to me when I started out - I made the fatal mistake of trusting the review press. I walked in knowing all about this company called Arcam. I read all these glowing reviews of the Arcam Delta 290 integrated and it got 5 stars - most purchased amp in the UK, the highest rated amplifier under $2,000 in Stereophile Class B - and several other mags - super test shootout winner in What-hi-fi and on and on it went.

Walked into the Vancouver dealer there is the Arcam 290 with huge posters on the wall, all the magazines opened to the rave reviews of this amplifier - I was maybe 23 years old and owned a Pioneer Elite Receiver and ready to trade it in after several auditions - the Arcam was better for sure than the receiver. But the dealer there told me to give this Sugden A21a a try - this was before the internet took off in the early 1990s so online reviews were not available.

Who the hell is Sugden - it's butt fugly ugly - no remote and an old fashioned yellow on button - but it sounded a lot better - a LOT freaking better. But I had all those professional reviews flowing around my head - they must be right after all - they're getting paid. Maybe I was being tricked somehow. Bought the Arcam. Heard the A21a a few times later and I knew I blew it but so be it. Then about 4 years later (what a surprise) the Delta 290 is replaced by a worse sounding sexier looking amplifier). The Sugden meanwhile continues to sell 16 years after that first audition. How many integrateds have past since the Delta 290? Probably 3-4 at least. And it's highly doubtful any of the new Arcam's sound better than the 290 integrated let alone the Sugden.

The Bose 901 is fugly and has been around since 1968, but that doesn't mean it's some kind of amazing audiophile dream speaker...

[E-Stat]

SOTA is a stupid word for audio anyway.
It is neither a "word" nor is the term limited to audio.

rw

[tube fan]

There is a HUGE difference between audio systems costing $2,000 and those costing $15,000-$20,000. There is VERY LITTLE IF ANY difference between audio systems costing $15,000 and those costing upwards of $150,000. VERY LITTLE!

[Ajani]

There is a HUGE difference between audio systems costing $2,000 and those costing $15,000-$20,000. There is VERY LITTLE IF ANY difference between audio systems costing $15,000 and those costing upwards of $150,000. VERY LITTLE!

Whether the differences are Huge or Very Little is up to the individual... And I truly believe that, as E-Stat has mentioned and shown with distortion tests (other threads), much of that ability to discern differences has to do with years of training... So when someone who owns/is used to hearing a $15K system says it sounds the same or almost the same as a $150K system, the question becomes "how much time has that person actually spent listening to $150K systems?"... Does that person have enough listening experience at those levels to appreciate the differences?

On a more modest budget: My headphone rig costs $2K... To me the differences between it and my little brother's Sansa Fuse Media player with stock headphones are HUGE... On his first listen, he didn't think so... He just noticed my setup had a lot more bass... Once I started showing him what to look for, the differences became clearer to him (though still nowhere near as obvious as to me)...

When I used to own a $3K speaker setup, I would regularly audition systems in the $5K to $10K range and think "meh, what's the big deal?". Sure they sounded better in some areas, but I never noticed any HUGE differences.... I suspect if I had actually owned and spent enough time with those more expensive systems, then the differences would have been more apparent to me... And as I said at the top of this response, I believe the same thing likely applies at the $15K versus $150K level...

[Feanor]

There is a HUGE difference between audio systems costing $2,000 and those costing $15,000-$20,000. There is VERY LITTLE IF ANY difference between audio systems costing $15,000 and those costing upwards of $150,000. VERY LITTLE!
The law of diminishing returns no doubt works in case of hi-fi systems.

I've noticed that many very expensive (e.g.) speakers mainly provide the capability to play loud in large spaces -- thus the rich (or whoever) who have such large spaces to fill are penalized without necessarily getting more exquisite sound.

As person of limited means the whole duration of my audiophile hobby as been focused on finding value rather than ultimate performance. Yes, unfortunate, though I have achieved excellent sound for the buck, IMO. The worst part is that I can feel self-victimized when I discover that a less expensive component is as good or better than a more expensive one. E.g. my $500 Class D Audio SDS-258 amp sounds better (in most respects) than my $2300 Monarchy SM-70 Pros. Or my $50 ALPS 'Blue Velvet' pot-base attenuator sounds as good as (though different from) my MSRP $3000 Sonic Frontiers Line 1 preamp.

[tube fan]

I go to audio shows and to audio stores to hear what is considered the current SOTA. Using and rating the SOTA systems by my own records allows me to compare my system to the current best. The only two rooms that impressed me at the 2010 CAS were the Audio Note and Teresonic. Most of the equipment used in those rooms was based on decades old design!

[Ajani]

The law of diminishing returns no doubt works in case of hi-fi systems.

I've noticed that many very expensive (e.g.) speakers mainly provide the capability to play loud in large spaces -- thus the rich (or whoever) who have such large spaces to fill are penalized without necessarily getting more exquisite sound.

I don't see that much difference with entry vs mid priced systems. The main difference between a $300 pair of entry level speakers like Paradigm Atoms and a $3,000 pair like Studio 100s is the ability to fill a much larger room with sound.


As person of limited means the whole duration of my audiophile hobby as been focused on finding value rather than ultimate performance. Yes, unfortunate, though I have achieved excellent sound for the buck, IMO. The worst part is that I can feel self-victimized when I discover that a less expensive component is as good or better than a more expensive one. E.g. my $500 Class D Audio SDS-258 amp sounds better (in most respects) than my $2300 Monarchy SM-70 Pros. Or my $50 ALPS 'Blue Velvet' pot-base attenuator sounds as good as (though different from) my MSRP $3000 Sonic Frontiers Line 1 preamp.

Some audiophiles look for bang for the buck others just want the absolute best they can afford... IMO, most differences (other than scale) are relatively subtle, so it's possible to put together a system that sounds great, at just about any price level...

[Ajani]

I go to audio shows and to audio stores to hear what is considered the current SOTA. Using and rating the SOTA systems by my own records allows me to compare my system to the current best. The only two rooms that impressed me at the 2010 CAS were the Audio Note and Teresonic. Most of the equipment used in those rooms was based on decades old design!

I doubt you would have been allowed to use your own music and have much time to audition most of the SOTA systems at CAS.... So I'd expect (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that many of your impressions were based on hearing music (you didn't choose and were possibly unfamiliar with) in a setting you had no control over. I doubt you (or anyone else for that matter) were allowed to sit in the sweet spot for an hour or so, select tracks and adjust the volume for most (if any) of the SOTA systems.

There's a reason no sane reviewer attempts to write a review of a product, based on listening to it at an audio show or from an audition at a dealer... The most you can expect from such experiences is to identify products of interest, that you should look into further... But no serious conclusions can be drawn from such an experience...

[RGA]

Sure, why not? SOTA, best, ultra-expensive, whatever you want to call it...

Still makes no difference to the original question...

If the best system I've heard costs $500K, how does that help me shop for a system at $15K?

Well it will help because you know where the goal post is. You then try and get as close to that as you can with your budget. And a $10-$15k can often get you there. A $5k system can get you in the ballpark if you're smart about it. And for the individual maybe you can do it with $2k - I have not been able to but you might for you. You have to make a lot more compromises. And many companies eventually trickle down their upper scale technologies. Looking at my car for instance - 20 years ago you might have had to spend $50 grand to get a car with many of the functions this car has as standard for half that price. And it is likely safer than any car back then. In audio similar things can happen. With the AN E - Art felt the newer model of the speaker was better than the older model which cost a fair bit more. Fortunately the company has an upgrade path to change out the woofer and the matching is kept on file so it can be changed out perfectly.

[RGA]

Especially when talking about products that use a 40 year old design, combined with the most exotic and expensive materials possible... Sure it might sound good, but to describe the tech as State of the art does seem preposterous...



Ironically a number of brands you hate aim for that goal - balanced sound rather than mind blowing in any one category...



The Rotel gear is probably around 20 years old too... my 1080 amp was around for about 12 years before they replaced it with the 15 series model (likely the same amp with a prettier chassis and some mild modifications)... All that happens is that some brands prefer longevity in the name, while others like to hype up every mild refresh/update with a new model number and cosmetics... Doesn't mean one brand will sound better than the other...



The Bose 901 is fugly and has been around since 1968, but that doesn't mean it's some kind of amazing audiophile dream speaker...

Yes the motor car goes back 100 years and they still use combustion engines. That doesn't mean you can't base your design on something from 100 years ago and make it better. With loudspeakers - the physics doesn't change. Technology of parts quality does but a great sounding 2 channel system today should still be great in 20 years if over that time it is improved and improved. Get the platform correct and most of the battle has been won.

I would say that parts quality coupled with a superior platform is tough to beat. Stat of the art parts quality and matching processes that are industry leading by a wide margin - has SOTA tech involved. I don't like the word SOTA because it is often mistaken for "new" and for some reason people associate "new" with superior - like MP3 is new so it is SOTA and better than CD played on the best machine. MP3 sounds like dreck but it is state of the art or was when it came out. Kind of like CD when it came out - it was SOTA and the audiophiles laughed at how bad it was. The average Joe non audiophile who didn't care about sound reproduction liked the features and the cool factor. Majority vote rules - even if the majority is wrong.

[Ajani]

Well it will help because you know where the goal post is. You then try and get as close to that as you can with your budget.

IMO, the goal post should be one of the following:

1) To sound like live, un-amplified music

OR

2) To sound like what the engineer heard in the recording studio

OR

3) To sound the best to me, regardless of whether that is accurate or neon coloured.

Why would I want the goal for my system to be 'sounding like another system'?

That goal sounds like what the Chinese knock brands attempt to do: create a product aimed at sounding like a classic audio component for much less money...

[hifitommy]

state of the art products arent necessarily meant for the average consumer. these companies go about making a statement product that sometimes establishes the very best performance and can be referred to as state of the art.

many times its not the maaker that calls them SOTA, it is reviewers that do so. to be valid, the reviewer must have exceedingly vast experience and espertise and have earned the respect of industry experts.

the benefits of these assaults on SOTA is when the design advances trickle down to us and come to us in affordable subsequent products. now and again, someone with ludicrous amounts of disposable income will buy systems in that caliber and BULLY for them. some people can afford to drive lamborghini countachs and some a nissan sentra or ford focus.

when you get one of the products in your hands for a song as i did with my audio research sp3a1, you suddenly get the picture. all of my purchases have been carefully studied and selected. is it SOTA? nope, but sometimes close in performance. will i ever have a rockport sirius tt or a meitner sacd playback system, or MBL 101s? thats doubtful but IF i suddenly hit the lottery, and i buy a house and the equipment i want, it will include some of those items.

in the meantime, my system is NOT BAD. happy upgrading!

[RGA]

When I used to own a $3K speaker setup, I would regularly audition systems in the $5K to $10K range and think "meh, what's the big deal?". Sure they sounded better in some areas, but I never noticed any HUGE differences.... I suspect if I had actually owned and spent enough time with those more expensive systems, then the differences would have been more apparent to me... And as I said at the top of this response, I believe the same thing likely applies at the $15K versus $150K level...

Funny but when I say it is about experience level - you imply that I'm a snob. Now you are saying that people with experience will notice the difference more - like your brother didn't notice the improvement until he got more experience listening. Isn't that the entire point? An audiophile is a person who "deeply" cares about the "quality" of audio reproduction and is going to want to hear the best systems - regardless of affordability. It's not even about money - it can be but it isn't necessarily. The old saying "big speakers create big problems" is true - they have to overcome self created problems - the more drivers the more crossovers the physical size etc - are all issues they need to overcome. Small speakers don't have the same problems - they have a whole other set of problems.

And PS - it should not take many many hours of listening to figure out what is going on with a loudspeaker or whether you heard it at a show - sure you can't do a full review - but you most certainly can tell what systems are doing it right and which ones are not. It takes one track to do that. The rooms at CES were typical sized living rooms of reasonable quality and allow for proper set-up. Other than the odd gigantic system in a too small room - 90% of the rooms were "fair" Granted it might take some more time to set-it up bang on - but even then I take issue - the manufacturers are provided blue prints of the room well in advance and know what the walls are made out of. They know what room treatments they will need and how to set up the room a month in advance at least. Most houses are made out of wood with plaster walls - so is the hotel. There really should not be too much excuse - again unless they changed the room last minute or the maker could not get a room that fit his speakers (like the Soundlab guys who got stuck with a room they didn't order and was too small). And all the makers are in the same boat getting the same kind of rooms. Apples to apples largely across the board.

[Ajani]

state of the art products arent necessarily meant for the average consumer. these companies go about making a statement product that sometimes establishes the very best performance and can be referred to as state of the art.

many times its not the maaker that calls them SOTA, it is reviewers that do so. to be valid, the reviewer must have exceedingly vast experience and espertise and have earned the respect of industry experts.

the benefits of these assaults on SOTA is when the design advances trickle down to us and come to us in affordable subsequent products. now and again, someone with ludicrous amounts of disposable income will buy systems in that caliber and BULLY for them. some

I agree with all of that, though I would say that SOTA is almost never meant for the average consumer... Some products are not even meant to be sold at all (KEF had a a concept speaker - Blade I believe, that was not for sale)....

However, the eventual trickle down doesn't affect my current buying decisions, nor does it mean I need to audition anything currently SOTA...

[hifitommy]

xxxxx

[RGA]

I don't see that much difference with entry vs mid priced systems. The main difference between a $300 pair of entry level speakers like Paradigm Atoms and a $3,000 pair like Studio 100s is the ability to fill a much larger room with sound.



Some audiophiles look for bang for the buck others just want the absolute best they can afford... IMO, most differences (other than scale) are relatively subtle, so it's possible to put together a system that sounds great, at just about any price level...

Seriously that is the only difference you hear between the Atom and the Studio 100 is that the 100 fills a larger room. If so - I get where you're coming from and I can't help you. the 100 will fill a larger room but it also has several more octaves and a better treble band. The 100V2. And frankly why not try better examples than mid-fi brands.

Yes it has nothing to do with experience or sound quality it is all about price level - which I guess is why I can buy $30 headphones and run it through my laptop and it's obviously just as good as your headphone rig - you just wasted all that extra money because it's all about price level. Oh wait - when you spend $2k it's about quality and much better sound but if someone spends more than you it's because they want to show off how much they spent?

Also regarding the Bose 901 - there is a lot of good tech in the original design - it could have really been something had they continued to make it better - they opted to make it cheaper using worse parts and spent all their money on marketing. It has sold to non audiophiles as a gimmick product just as most everything else sells as a gimmick product kind of like B&O. The thread is about audiophiles the vast majority of whom are talking about quality audio gear. It's a silly strawman argument like saying that the Big Mac has sold for 40+ years so it belongs in a discussion about fine dining restaurants.

[Ajani]

Funny but when I say it is about experience level - you imply that I'm a snob. Now you are saying that people with experience will notice the difference more - like your brother didn't notice the improvement until he got more experience listening. Isn't that the entire point? An audiophile is a person who "deeply" cares about the "quality" of audio reproduction and is going to want to hear the best systems - regardless of affordability. It's not even about money - it can be but it isn't necessarily. The old saying "big speakers create big problems" is true - they have to overcome self created problems - the more drivers the more crossovers the physical size etc - are all issues they need to overcome. Small speakers don't have the same problems - they have a whole other set of problems.

Nope, as I've made clear several times: I said you were a snob for claiming audiophiles don't have $2K budgets... Not because you talked about experience...


And PS - it should not take many many hours of listening to figure out what is going on with a loudspeaker or whether you heard it at a show - sure you can't do a full review - but you most certainly can tell what systems are doing it right and which ones are not. It takes one track to do that. The rooms at CES were typical sized living rooms of reasonable quality and allow for proper set-up. Other than the odd gigantic system in a too small room - 90% of the rooms were "fair" Granted it might take some more time to set-it up bang on - but even then I take issue - the manufacturers are provided blue prints of the room well in advance and know what the walls are made out of. They know what room treatments they will need and how to set up the room a month in advance at least. Most houses are made out of wood with plaster walls - so is the hotel. There really should not be too much excuse - again unless they changed the room last minute or the maker could not get a room that fit his speakers (like the Soundlab guys who got stuck with a room they didn't order and was too small). And all the makers are in the same boat getting the same kind of rooms. Apples to apples largely across the board.

So why did you condemn the sound of the Maggie 1.7 when you heard it at CES and later have to eat your own words and recommend it as one of your top picks under $2K? Because you drew a wrong conclusion based on listening to it at a show...

[E-Stat]

MP3 sounds like dreck but it is state of the art or was when it came out.
State of the art in efficient transmission of voice for Telcos perhaps, but has never been from an audio performance standpoint. Let's leave straw men out of the conversation.


Kind of like CD when it came out - it was SOTA
Neither was that true. Dr. Stockham's digital recordings used by Telarc preceeded the Redbook standard and were sampled at 50k vs. 44.1k. That represented a big difference when it came to the nature of the brickwall filter required.

rw

[RGA]

Nope, as I've made clear several times: I said you were a snob for claiming audiophiles don't have $2K budgets... Not because you talked about experience...



So why did you condemn the sound of the Maggie 1.7 when you heard it at CES and later have to eat your own words and recommend it as one of your top picks under $2K? Because you drew a wrong conclusion based on listening to it at a show...

Yes because you continuously invent arguments - the 1.7 sounds just as god damn awful at soundhounds when bryston is hooked up with it just as it was lousy at CES. The dealer here carries Magnepan and Bryston and they say the same thing - brutal match. They actually rarely need to say these things. They connect it to a Soro - which costs them tubes and more electricity but they can actually stomach the combination. The room at CES was in fact "better" than the particular room at Soundhounds so that doesn't fly. It sounded far better in a worse room with quality equipment as opposed to a better room with amplifiers nearly 10 times the price.

PS. And while you may say I was being unfair to Magnepan in that I judged its sound based on it being connected to SS gear - you would be somewhat correct except for the fact that that is the choice the manufacturer made. Fortunately, they run 35 watt amps on their Magnepan - says it right on their website. So the hogwash about needing 300 watt amps that guys on forums create is a laugh. And an 18 watt AN usually sounds extremely powerful anyway - which is why the Jinro made mince meat out of the Sanders room with his 1000 watt amp. It's laughable

[Ajani]

Yes because you continuously invent arguments - the 1.7 sounds just as god damn awful at soundhounds when bryston is hooked up with it just as it was lousy at CES. The dealer here carries Magnepan and Bryston and they say the same thing - brutal match. They actually rarely need to say these things. They connect it to a Soro - which costs them tubes and more electricity but they can actually stomach the combination. The room at CES was in fact "better" than the particular room at Soundhounds so that doesn't fly. It sounded far better in a worse room with quality equipment as opposed to a better room with amplifiers nearly 10 times the price.

PS. And while you may say I was being unfair to Magnepan in that I judged its sound based on it being connected to SS gear - you would be somewhat correct except for the fact that that is the choice the manufacturer made. Fortunately, they run 35 watt amps on their Magnepan - says it right on their website. So the hogwash about needing 300 watt amps that guys on forums create is a laugh. And an 18 watt AN usually sounds extremely powerful anyway - which is why the Jinro made mince meat out of the Sanders room with his 1000 watt amp. It's laughable

I don't invent arguments, they take 2 persons... I merely create threads about things that interest me... Persons are free to post or not post as they like... But if they post, there is a real chance that I may respond.

Now the point remains that based on your experience with the 1.7 at the show, you drew the wrong conclusion... So it's possible that many of the other brands you dismiss as only sounding good in a test lab, could actually sound good to you with different gear and a proper audition... But you have already written them all off because you heard them with specific components at some show or the other...

I doubt even you would attempt to write a review of a product based only on hearing it at a show or a dealer... So the point remains that no serious conclusions can be drawn from listening at a show...

[Ajani]

Seriously that is the only difference you hear between the Atom and the Studio 100 is that the 100 fills a larger room. If so - I get where you're coming from and I can't help you. the 100 will fill a larger room but it also has several more octaves and a better treble band. The 100V2. And frankly why not try better examples than mid-fi brands.

Yes it has nothing to do with experience or sound quality it is all about price level - which I guess is why I can buy $30 headphones and run it through my laptop and it's obviously just as good as your headphone rig - you just wasted all that extra money because it's all about price level. Oh wait - when you spend $2k it's about quality and much better sound but if someone spends more than you it's because they want to show off how much they spent?

Also regarding the Bose 901 - there is a lot of good tech in the original design - it could have really been something had they continued to make it better - they opted to make it cheaper using worse parts and spent all their money on marketing. It has sold to non audiophiles as a gimmick product just as most everything else sells as a gimmick product kind of like B&O. The thread is about audiophiles the vast majority of whom are talking about quality audio gear. It's a silly strawman argument like saying that the Big Mac has sold for 40+ years so it belongs in a discussion about fine dining restaurants.

1) I never said the ONLY difference between the Atom and Studio 100 was scale. I said it was the main difference... That point should be easy enough to understand...

2) No idea what you are babbling on about with the whole buying to show off thing... I've never claimed anything like that... perhaps you want to have an argument with Pix...

3) The Bose 901 is not a straw-man argument - it is valid based on the silly point you keep bringing up about how AN, etc are using FUGLY ancient designs, therefore it's somehow evidence they are better than the newer stuff... There are several brands continuing to produce FUGLY old gear (Klipsch's heritage line for example), but that doesn't mean they are better than all the new gear out there... Some persons and reviewers love the Klipschorn, others think it sounds like a PA system... Same applies to Sugden... Contrary to the way you carry on, not everyone loves Sudgen...

[Ajani]

An audiophile is a person who "deeply" cares about the "quality" of audio reproduction and is going to want to hear the best systems - regardless of affordability. It's not even about money - it can be but it isn't necessarily.

Just in case it's not crystal clear, here are my views:

1) Someone can be an audiophile without being concerned with what the best available is... An audiophile maybe someone who merely wants the best he can get within his budget (see note below)... However, the idea of needing to spend more on my stereo than my car and/or take a mortgage to pay for it, is beyond audiophilia and is just obsession IMO (that sounds like someone who really has his priorities wrong)... It reminds me of a former troll (Melvin Walker, for those who remember him) who used to claim that an audiophile is never happy, he's always looking to upgrade...

2) I think listening experience is a big part of this hobby. But I disagree with your views on what constitutes as listening experience... I don't regard listening at a show or a half hour demo at a dealer as serious listening experience... Sure, it's a lot better than not having heard the product at all, but it's not enough to become any kind of expert....

Note: By budget I'm referring to what he can comfortably afford to spend. So if it's only $500 - fine... If he makes money like Bill Gates and want to spend it on a $500K Stereo - fine too...

[RGA]

I don't invent arguments, they take 2 persons... I merely create threads about things that interest me... Persons are free to post or not post as they like... But if they post, there is a real chance that I may respond.

Now the point remains that based on your experience with the 1.7 at the show, you drew the wrong conclusion... So it's possible that many of the other brands you dismiss as only sounding good in a test lab, could actually sound good to you with different gear and a proper audition... But you have already written them all off because you heard them with specific components at some show or the other...

I doubt even you would attempt to write a review of a product based only on hearing it at a show or a dealer... So the point remains that no serious conclusions can be drawn from listening at a show...

Unlike most I demand more from manufacturers and dealers. And I state that - and it usually bugs people. But I can most certainly judge a room. I was not wrong about my audition - it sounded poor. The manufacturer is "responsible" to audition gear and find a good match for their speakers or amplifiers or sources. Not mine. The conclusion is correct.

The fact that Soundhounds got better results using an Audio Note SORO is all very nice but the odds are, with all the poor information on forums, that most people will never audition such a combination. Get people on this forum alone to listen to gear with writing piles of posts on how bad it will sound without hearing the gear is pretty telling. Further, despite the good sound I got - in a larger more appropriate sized room at higher levels the Soro is going to go into more serious second order distortion and will likely lose control of those speakers. Maybe not - it is fairly 4 ohm stable and the amp has 4 ohm taps. Further the issue then becomes system cost. People buying $1800 loudspeakers may not be ready to spend what the Soro and CD player are going for.

No I would not write a review based on what I heard at a show but I can certainly comment on the result at a show - I love how everyone assumes that at home the sound will be "better" when at a show they typically run far higher end gear with the speakers or amps than most reviewers - and the manufacturer themselves are setting it up supposedly the way they are supposed to be set-up. They are usually going to find the best matches and the best positioning. I never did understand the illogical argument that a home trial is going to trump the manufacturer set-up. It's BS. And an excuse for poor sound. The only difference is that at home there is nothing much else to compare it to - so it sounds better than nothing.

What I try to consider is the relative quality of sound versus the price of the overall system. I like the AN CD2.1x/Soro/maggie 1.7 but the cost of the overall system is too much for the sound it puts out and the limitations one is going to have to accept. The 1.7 sounded good with this gear - but bad with the Bryston gear. It follows for me the previous .6 line which didn't thrill me with Classe, MF, Rotel, BAT. So tubes are not necessarily the answer.

The Wyatech SET amp sounded wonderful with the B&W N801 but I can't exactly say that changes my view of the N801 - The amp really can't drive the speaker to acceptable levels but the sound was glorious. But really spending $20k plus and not being able to play reasonably loud is not recommendable, despite the fact that I have never heard the N801 sound so good.

[RGA]

Some persons and reviewers love the Klipschorn, others think it sounds like a PA system... Same applies to Sugden... Contrary to the way you carry on, not everyone loves Sudgen...

Please link the reviewers who think the Sugden amps sound like PA systems - or the KHorn for that matter?

[Ajani]

Please link the reviewers who think the Sugden amps sound like PA systems - or the KHorn for that matter?

I like how you chose to interpret my comment... Rather than the obvious interpretation that not everyone likes the KHorn (which I've seen described by users as sounding like a PA system - don't think it was a reviewer though and frankly I don't intend to go scouring Google to look for that exact description of it either) or the Sugden, you intrepret it to be that reviewers described both the KHorn and Sugden as sounding like PA systems... :sosp:

[Ajani]

Unlike most I demand more from manufacturers and dealers. And I state that - and it usually bugs people. But I can most certainly judge a room. I was not wrong about my audition - it sounded poor. The manufacturer is "responsible" to audition gear and find a good match for their speakers or amplifiers or sources. Not mine. The conclusion is correct.


And as a result, you shouldn't be surprised when persons regard your opinion as useless, since you are willing to draw a quick conclusion based on hearing something a dealer or manufacturer put together. Then, if you hear it sound great elsewhere you can lay all the blame for the hate you heaped on it earlier, at the feet of whoever set it up the 1st time you heard it...

Also I suspect it "bugs people" because they're used to reviewers putting in actual effort to find good matches for products. It is shocking to find one who will readily bash a product based on one audition at a show.

[RGA]

I like how you chose to interpret my comment... Rather than the obvious interpretation that not everyone likes the KHorn (which I've seen described by users as sounding like a PA system - don't think it was a reviewer though and frankly I don't intend to go scouring Google to look for that exact description of it either) or the Sugden, you intrepret it to be that reviewers described both the KHorn and Sugden as sounding like PA systems... :sosp:

Yes and people love Big Macs but I don't necessarily trust their opinions on fine dining. I would trust Gordon Ramsey more than I would trust a guy who eats fast food 7 times a week. Just as I would trust someone who has good ears over some guy who says something on a forum. I have never read a negative Sugden A21a review. Granted some like it better than the newer Sugden A21SE but I have not heard the latter so I can't say if the older version is better.

As for the Khorn - lots of people blather opinions of all Klipsch and all horns based on one audition of one lower end Klipsch with some belief they all sound the same because they use horns. Regurgitating what they read on another forum by another poster.

I do not weight all opinions as equal - I weight stronger the opinions of those who have more experience and who to me have proven to possess good ears. Or in the case of food who have proven to have good taste buds. So when Ramsey can be blindfolded and eats a bunch of different things and can tell you what they are versus most of the trainees who can't then he has illustrated that he has superior taste buds. Having said that I get why people would not like the K-Horn.

The A21a in it's price range is pretty untouchable. There are other good amps one might like the flavour of, and the Phono stage of the A21a isn't very good - but if one buys an external phono or doesn't need it - can't see anyone complaining. For SS sound and not needing a lot of power - it's an end of the road product for an attractive price point.

[Ajani]

I do not weight all opinions as equal - I weight stronger the opinions of those who have more experience and who to me have proven to possess good ears.

Experience I can understand (even though we clearly disagree on what constitutes experience), but how pray tell is someone "proven to possess good ears"?

Does that mean they share your views on what sounds good?

Since I notice you consistently mention specific Stereophile reviewers (who share your opinions on AN and/or Sudgen) but straight out disregard just as/more experienced Stereophile reviewers (who don't share your opinions).

[RGA]

And as a result, you shouldn't be surprised when persons regard your opinion as useless, since you are willing to draw a quick conclusion based on hearing something a dealer or manufacturer put together. Then, if you hear it sound great elsewhere you can lay all the blame for the hate you heaped on it earlier, at the feet of whoever set it up the 1st time you heard it...

Also I suspect it "bugs people" because they're used to reviewers putting in actual effort to find good matches for products. It is shocking to find one who will readily bash a product based on one audition at a show.

What a joke. Most reviewers have one or at best a couple of system pieces to try - Dealers are FIFTY times more likely to be able to make a better system match than ANY review on the planet. Even the wealthy reviewers. Dealers, good dealers like soundhounds, carry probably 40 amplifiers alone, 30 CD players, 30 loudspeaker pairs and a dozen turntables, and who knows how many cables. They are in a FAR FAR better position to be able to find a great sonic match than a reviewer who may own two amplifiers 2 sources and maybe 2-3 pairs of speakers.

Most of the staff of Stereophile don't even own a turntable or a true reference system of any sort.

The manufacturer is the one totally responsible for doing the work. It is their job to test various amplifier designs on their loudspeakers and IMO if they are a speaker only company - they should put out information as to amplifiers they recommend. Not just say - 30 watts to 300 watts. That's garbage. You test all sorts of amplifiers and then you decide what amp is the best match for your speakers and then you take your speakers to an audio show and you bring those amps with you - as Magnepan and others do.

So when you go to a show you are hearing the sound of the Speakers as the manufacturer intended. You are after all giving your money to these speaker makers and part of that is giving money to someone you think is competent. When they make a dreadful match - they show me they are not competent and they have crappy ears. Why on earth would I give money to someone who illustrates that they can't hear very well? That is just illogical.

Thanks to a dealer who obviously listens more to a variety of gear than the manufacturer - they found a match that basically saved the day.

How do you think reviewers decide what to review in the first place - use a brain for a change. We go to audio shows and decide what gear sounds good - it is the manufacturers JOB to ensure it sounds good. From that we decide what we would like to hear more of and arrange for a review. Based on what I heard at CES I would not waste my time with those speakers or amplifiers.

Good manufacturers - listen to all sorts of designs on their speakers or amps - then when they go to a show they know what to bring to demonstrate how good their gear can sound.

Take your Benchmark - you have all these unheard shortlisted products - but for several years in a row they brought Studio Electric - quite excellent sound. But you have mainstream stuff listed as possible amps to buy based on no auditions. If you had any sort of clue you might look into what the designers at Benchmark brought - sounded way the hell better than similarly priced Revel. But you know more than Benchmark - without any auditions. :rolleyes5:

[RGA]

Experience I can understand (even though we clearly disagree on what constitutes experience), but how pray tell is someone "proven to possess good ears"?

Does that mean they share your views on what sounds good?

Since I notice you consistently mention specific Stereophile reviewers (who share your opinions on AN and/or Sudgen) but straight out disregard just as/more experienced Stereophile reviewers (who don't share your opinions).

Art Dudley is the most experienced listener at Stereophile. He was the editor/owner of Listener magazine.

It is not about the experience listeners who disagree with me. JA for instance prefers the lean presentation of speakers like JM Labs, Focal, Paradigm. But he also isn't a music guy in the sense that he is interested in sound more than music - this is easily seen in the fact that he doesn't have a vinyl rig. If it was about the music first and foremost he would have vinyl since so much music is on vinyl and not CD and a great many albums sound better on vinyl than CD. This is not to dump on CD but there are simply superior recordings on the vinyl format that were transferred to CD badly. CD is needed for the same reasons - lots of great music on CD not on vinyl - so again not dumping on CD but you should have both if it is about music.

And once again I don't have a problem with JA or MF having their opinion - it is based on hearing both technologies. It's also possible to like both technologies. I do as well but I am pickier on how to allocate on each and for what purpose.

Further, when something polarizes some reviewers I look beyond one magazine - maybe try that. You seem to put all your stock into one magazine. I don't. Especially when there is a known history.

I look at Soundstage, 6Moons, dagogo, enjoythemusic.com, Hi-Fi CHoice, What Hi-fi, Hi-fi News, Audiophile, TNT, audiofederation, Stereophile, Hi-fi Critic, UHF magazine, and a couple of others. There is pretty clear correlation of both subjective and blind level matched auditions on the stuff that I like. And that means it is very likely that most people are going to hear it the same way I do. And yes that doesn't mean everyone but a lot more reviewers from those magazines above are actually doling out their own cash for what I think is superior while a lot of the other stuff is getting a good review and no one buys - even though they're often much larger companies who are dedicated to certain products.

[Ajani]

What a joke. Most reviewers have one or at best a couple of system pieces to try - Dealers are FIFTY times more likely to be able to make a better system match than ANY review on the planet. Even the wealthy reviewers. Dealers, good dealers like soundhounds, carry probably 40 amplifiers alone, 30 CD players, 30 loudspeaker pairs and a dozen turntables, and who knows how many cables. They are in a FAR FAR better position to be able to find a great sonic match than a reviewer who may own two amplifiers 2 sources and maybe 2-3 pairs of speakers.

Most of the staff of Stereophile don't even own a turntable or a true reference system of any sort.

The manufacturer is the one totally responsible for doing the work. It is their job to test various amplifier designs on their loudspeakers and IMO if they are a speaker only company - they should put out information as to amplifiers they recommend. Not just say - 30 watts to 300 watts. That's garbage. You test all sorts of amplifiers and then you decide what amp is the best match for your speakers and then you take your speakers to an audio show and you bring those amps with you - as Magnepan and others do.

So when you go to a show you are hearing the sound of the Speakers as the manufacturer intended. You are after all giving your money to these speaker makers and part of that is giving money to someone you think is competent. When they make a dreadful match - they show me they are not competent and they have crappy ears. Why on earth would I give money to someone who illustrates that they can't hear very well? That is just illogical.

Thanks to a dealer who obviously listens more to a variety of gear than the manufacturer - they found a match that basically saved the day.

How do you think reviewers decide what to review in the first place - use a brain for a change. We go to audio shows and decide what gear sounds good - it is the manufacturers JOB to ensure it sounds good. From that we decide what we would like to hear more of and arrange for a review. Based on what I heard at CES I would not waste my time with those speakers or amplifiers.

Good manufacturers - listen to all sorts of designs on their speakers or amps - then when they go to a show they know what to bring to demonstrate how good their gear can sound.

Take your Benchmark - you have all these unheard shortlisted products - but for several years in a row they brought Studio Electric - quite excellent sound. But you have mainstream stuff. If you had any sort of clue you might look into what the designers at Benchmark brought - sounded way the hell better than similarly priced Revel. But you know more than Benchmark - without any auditions. :rolleyes5:

Perhaps it's time you take your own advice. Of course reviewers decide what to review based on hearing something that impressed them at a show... I've already said that shows are good for determining products that need further investigation...

However, only a very silly person would form a final opinion of a product based on a show... Other than you, I don't hear reviewers running around talking about how dreadful this and that product sounds (based on just an audition at a show)...

As for the Benchmark, they chose to use some expensive Studio Electric gear... OK, hence what? I've never claimed Revel sounds better than Studio Electric (as I've never heard SE)... You really need to stop rambling...

[Ajani]

Art Dudley is the most experienced listener at Stereophile. He was the editor/owner of Listener magazine.

It is not about the experience listeners who disagree with me. JA for instance prefers the lean presentation of speakers like JM Labs, Focal, Paradigm. But he also isn't a music guy in the sense that he is interested in sound more than music - this is easily seen in the fact that he doesn't have a vinyl rig. If it was about the music first and foremost he would have vinyl since so much music is on vinyl and not CD and a great many albums sound better on vinyl than CD. This is not to dump on CD but there are simply superior recordings on the vinyl format that were transferred to CD badly. CD is needed for the same reasons - lots of great music on CD not on vinyl - so again not dumping on CD but you should have both if it is about music.

And once again I don't have a problem with JA or MF having their opinion - it is based on hearing both technologies. It's also possible to like both technologies. I do as well but I am pickier on how to allocate on each and for what purpose.

So because you think Vinyl sounds better than CD, therefore JA isn't a music guy? Is it not possible that the music he prefers listening to is on CD and not vinyl? Or that he actually prefers the sound of CD?

Also interesting that your last paragraph is what I've been trying to get through your very thick skull for so long - all your endless preaching about what sounds great versus what only sounds good in a lab, blah blah blah is just OPINION. And clearly experienced audiophiles don't all share your opinion on what sounds best... What is the difficulty in accepting that fact?

My opinion on audiophilia is that we all need to stop listening to persons preach all manner of crap about what sounds best and just listen for ourselves and decide what we like... I don't hold any reviewer's opinion as Gold. The only opinion that matters is my own, since I have to live with the purchase... So I'm not going to buy a turntable and SET/HE rig because some arrogant reviewer preaches about how great it sounds... I'll buy it IF when I audition such a system it A) Sounds better than the other options I listen to & B) Meets my needs...

[RGA]

Perhaps it's time you take your own advice. Of course reviewers decide what to review based on hearing something that impressed them at a show... I've already said that shows are good for determining products that need further investigation...

However, only a very silly person would form a final opinion of a product based on a show... Other than you, I don't hear reviewers running around talking about how dreadful this and that product sounds (based on just an audition at a show)...

As for the Benchmark, they chose to use some expensive Studio Electric gear... OK, hence what? I've never claimed Revel sounds better than Studio Electric (as I've never heard SE)... You really need to stop rambling...

Again - of course reviewers definitely do so JUDGE based on what they heard at a show which is how they base what to investigate further - the stuff they felt sounded like dreck they don't bother to call. You can't be this naive. It does not take weeks and months to figure out if something sounds good. It take 1 track and it does not need to be in my house or a dedicated sound room. It takes a decent set up in a normal average listening space - hence at a show in a normal sized room professionally set up by the manufacturer - you ARE hearing the product for the most part as intended - maybe 85-95% of what you would get at home.

I in fact don't base it on just a show - I base it on at least two auditions with different gear in different locations. Unless it is excellent since if it is excellent it likely always will be excellent. If it is poor sounding in every location then at some point the conclusion has to stick.

Studio Electric is not expensive - they make a $2500 loudspeaker - Benchmark brings them - they could bring Revel and they don't. But for heaven sake - why not read about the T3 so you can get what sound Benchmark prefers - could not be anymore bloody different sounding than a Revel. You trusted Bechmark engineer's ears once why not again? Look at the 6moons review and the reviewer is talking about those evil words like holistic design - not the ultimate in detail etc etc. See again - you think I hear it so different than you - but UMM I picked the Benchmark room as one of my top 5 rooms at CES. So UMM we can't hear it all that different. I certainly get why Benchmark chose Studio Electric speakers and not the dreadful likes of a bleeding Revel.

Do yourself a favour and audition what Benchmark listens to. And for all the folks who think I hate SS so much - it was one of my top five rooms - with an incredibly digital Benchmark and Studio Electric SS 250 watt amps. It was one of the "exceptions" I always talk about - perhaps I really should specify more. http://www.sixmoons.com/audioreviews/studioelectric/t3.html

Now granted the Studio Electric amps are hybrids - but there is still SS in there. On the budget side I would recommend the Shengya PM 150s - build is just as good - nearly the power and far less money.

And while I did not hear the little speakers - from all accounts it's a winner. http://www.studio-electric.com/loudspeakers2.html

[RGA]

So because you think Vinyl sounds better than CD, therefore JA isn't a music guy? Is it not possible that the music he prefers listening to is on CD and not vinyl? Or that he actually prefers the sound of CD?

Once again I did not say that. I never said vinyl sounded better than CD. But there is a FACT that some vinyls of the same album sounds superior on vinyl. This has nothing to do with the vinyl - it has to do with the way the vinyl was recorded. Just as there are CD recordings that sound better than the recording done on vinyl. If it is about music then you need both. And no it is not about the type of recordings since there is a huge amount of classical, jazz, blues, rock, pop etc available on record that is NOT available on CD. You say Rock and Pop RGA? Yes I do - tons and tons of singles and alternate extended cuts on 12 inch vinyl not available on CD. Even some new artists like Jewel have albums on vinyl where there are 2-4 extra songs not available on the CD version.



Also interesting that your last paragraph is what I've been trying to get through your very thick skull for so long - all your endless preaching about what sounds great versus what only sounds good in a lab, blah blah blah is just OPINION. And clearly experienced audiophiles don't all share your opinion on what sounds best... What is the difficulty in accepting that fact?

Stereophile - "I used a selection of master tapes as the source. When the results of the blind test were analyzed, the tubed Radford had come in first, despite showing the poorest measured performance." http://www.stereophile.com/reference/70/

Not just an opinion. Sugden A21a - always wins in the blind test shootouts - and it always measures the worst.



My opinion on audiophilia is that we all need to stop listening to persons preach all manner of crap about what sounds best and just listen for ourselves and decide what we like... I don't hold any reviewer's opinion as Gold. The only opinion that matters is my own, since I have to live with the purchase... So I'm not going to buy a turntable and SET/HE rig because some arrogant reviewer preaches about how great it sounds... I'll buy it IF when I audition such a system it A) Sounds better than the other options I listen to & B) Meets my needs...

Fair enough - that's exactly what you should do. I am betting on A when you do hear a good SET/HE/Vinyl rig.

[Ajani]

Studio Electric is not expensive - they make a $2500 loudspeaker - Benchmark brings them - they could bring Revel and they don't. But for heaven sake - why not read about the T3 so you can get what sound Benchmark prefers - could not be anymore bloody different sounding than a Revel. You trusted Bechmark engineer's ears once why not again? Look at the 6moons review and the reviewer is talking about those evil words like holistic design - not the ultimate in detail etc etc. See again - you think I hear it so different than you - but UMM I picked the Benchmark room as one of my top 5 rooms at CES. So UMM we can't hear it all that different. I certainly get why Benchmark chose Studio Electric speakers and not the dreadful likes of a bleeding Revel.

Do yourself a favour and audition what Benchmark listens to. And for all the folks who think I hate SS so much - it was one of my top five rooms - with an incredibly digital Benchmark and Studio Electric SS 250 watt amps. It was one of the "exceptions" I always talk about - perhaps I really should specify more. http://www.sixmoons.com/audioreviews/studioelectric/t3.html

Now granted the Studio Electric amps are hybrids - but there is still SS in there. On the budget side I would recommend the Shengya PM 150s - build is just as good - nearly the power and far less money.

And while I did not hear the little speakers - from all accounts it's a winner. http://www.studio-electric.com/loudspeakers2.html

The problems with Studio Electric are 1) Nowhere for me to audition - so I'd have to buy a $2,500 speaker (plus wicked shipping and duties). 2) The matching Studio Electric amp they used at the shows costs $7,350... So even if I was to buy the speakers, I still have no guarantee of getting a sound all that similar to what you heard at the show, as I'd have to substitute my own (MUCH cheaper amp)...

Benchmark has also been selling combos on their website of the DAC1 and Dynaudio BM5A active monitors for years...

So I have always considered using active monitors with the Benchmark (I even had some very nice results with some much cheaper M-Audio actives and the Benchmark)...

And just because Benchmark doesn't bring Revel to the show doesn't mean they don't like such a combo (or that they've even tried it)...

Here's the thing: I like the sound of Revel and would expect it to be a very good match to the Benchmark... In fact a number of consumers and reviewers have such combos and their descriptions of the sound is inline with what I'd expect...

[tube fan]

So because you think Vinyl sounds better than CD, therefore JA isn't a music guy? Is it not possible that the music he prefers listening to is on CD and not vinyl? Or that he actually prefers the sound of CD?

Also interesting that your last paragraph is what I've been trying to get through your very thick skull for so long - all your endless preaching about what sounds great versus what only sounds good in a lab, blah blah blah is just OPINION. And clearly experienced audiophiles don't all share your opinion on what sounds best... What is the difficulty in accepting that fact?

My opinion on audiophilia is that we all need to stop listening to persons preach all manner of crap about what sounds best and just listen for ourselves and decide what we like... I don't hold any reviewer's opinion as Gold. The only opinion that matters is my own, since I have to live with the purchase... So I'm not going to buy a turntable and SET/HE rig because some arrogant reviewer preaches about how great it sounds... I'll buy it IF when I audition such a system it A) Sounds better than the other options I listen to & B) Meets my needs...

50% of Stereophile's "reviewers" use NO digital in their "reviews"! This despite the popularity of analogue in audio rooms and in Stereophile's own readers! If you think the best digital is close to the best analogue, you need to get your hearing checked! 100% of the salesmen at the 2010 CAS admitted that analogue was superior to digital, even those who had no analogue (e.g., the Audio Note salesman).

[Ajani]

50% of Stereophile's "reviewers" use NO digital in their "reviews"! This despite the popularity of analogue in audio rooms and in Stereophile's own readers!

Did you meant to say "50% of Stereophile's "reviewers" use NO ANALOGUE in their "reviews"? Since that would flow better with the next line... Also, what's your point?


If you think the best digital is close to the best analogue, you need to get your hearing checked!

You need to learn the difference between FACT and OPINION... Sounds better is totally subjective... So it's pointless to say that if someone doesn't like what you like then they must have hearing problems... Such a shame audiophiles will never learn that we don't all like the same thing and end the silly preaching about which technology sounds best...


100% of the salesmen at the 2010 CAS admitted that analogue was superior to digital, even those who had no analogue (e.g., the Audio Note salesman).

Hence?

I have no opinion on whether Analogue sounds better than Digital, since most of my music is only available in Digital. So it's utterly irrelevant how analogue sounds on albums I don't listen to...

[RGA]

Well when it comes to digital and analog people are biased. For instance people will trot out some recording engineer or a whole bunch of them that prefer Digital. And that's fine. It doesn't really mean they have good hearing since so many people complain so much about the sound of recordings - it may be that those recording engineers are tone deaf so who really cares what they have to say.

So you could take the manufacturers word for it - but if the manufacturer only males digital you can throw them out the window too because they have a bias.

So you then have to go to the manufacturers on the replay end of the chain who make BOTH CD/digital and a turntable. Then out of all those makers you ask them what they think sounds better. And my bet is that in every case they choose the turntable.

It really does come down to the recording and the players in question and the phono stage.


Tube Fan.

Audio Note is somewhat biased. Peter Qvortrup owns 100,000+ records mostly expensive rare and a lot of one of a kind prints. I remember an interview when he said he only bothered with CD for two reasons - 1) a lot of good music is only on CD and 2) everyone else's players sucked so he had to start from scratch.

Bottom line though is you can't convince any of these people because very few of them actually listen - not even the review press I'm sorry to say. I have records from the 60s that are so hauntingly real that it is unbelievable. Then I play some Chesky records or Reference Recordings disc and it is just so bad in comparison and these two are considered the world's best recording outfits - and they're better than other CD's so they're good against today's competition. Something went wrong somewhere - "loudness wars maybe?" I don't know. But I have albums from the 70s like Jackson Brown on vinyl that sound miles better than the CD versions and the CD version at least has some dynamic headroom compared to a lot of 1990 on digital.

This is an interview with reviewer Malcolm Steward and he compares digital to vinyl http://www.malcolmsteward.co.uk/?page_id=1631

Besides all that - Check out Audio Note's web designer (I think) working in PQ's office. Wall to wall vinyl in the background. And this is what you do with an Audio Note rig LOL - Use the 90k amp and AN E speakers as a guitar amp - that's the way it ought be. Any kind of music anytime. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7WZ_db2zVg

[Ajani]

Well when it comes to digital and analog people are biased. For instance people will trot out some recording engineer or a whole bunch of them that prefer Digital. And that's fine. It doesn't really mean they have good hearing since so many people complain so much about the sound of recordings - it may be that those recording engineers are tone deaf so who really cares what they have to say.

OR it could just be that they actually prefer the sound and nothing is wrong with their hearing...

Anyway, this really is boring... You gents like tubes and vinyl... great, we get it...

[Feanor]

50% of Stereophile's "reviewers" use NO digital in their "reviews"! This despite the popularity of analogue in audio rooms and in Stereophile's own readers! If you think the best digital is close to the best analogue, you need to get your hearing checked! 100% of the salesmen at the 2010 CAS admitted that analogue was superior to digital, even those who had no analogue (e.g., the Audio Note salesman).
Gads! Another dogmatic statement from Tube Fan. At least RGA tries (lamely) to rationalize his preferences.

Lots of people like vinyl / SET / HE versus modern alternatives ... can't argue with personal preference. But since these technologies are demonstrably inferior by any objective measure, we can surmise that they act as filters to accurate sound, and filtered sound is what their proponents prefer.

I gotta laugh. Salesmen at conferences telling customers what they want to hear: unbelievable! :smilewinkgrin:

[harley .guy07]

I have heard great analog and great digital and I do not have a favorite but I choose mostly digital for the fact that for one you can't scratch and ruin a digital file. I can play my digital file on my laptop with headphones, on my car stereo, on my home system with a CD or through my pc and my DAC. and all of my music is backed up on a external hard drive in case the file on my computer gets corrupted or the computer crashes so I have multiple copies. With vinyl you cant do that and if you scratch it or drop it its ruined and needs replaced which in today's world of vinyl is not cheap for a good vinyl recording. I have a turntable but hardly use it for these reasons and that is just my preference. I will say that the newer digital audio coming out especially the 24 96 or higher stuff is really good and does good by the music not like earlier CD's from the 80's did. Like I said though for me it is a preference and not something worth arguing about.

[frenchmon]

I have heard great analog and great digital and I do not have a favorite but I choose mostly digital for the fact that for one you can't scratch and ruin a digital file. I can play my digital file on my laptop with headphones, on my car stereo, on my home system with a CD or through my pc and my DAC. and all of my music is backed up on a external hard drive in case the file on my computer gets corrupted or the computer crashes so I have multiple copies. With vinyl you cant do that and if you scratch it or drop it its ruined and needs replaced which in today's world of vinyl is not cheap for a good vinyl recording. I have a turntable but hardly use it for these reasons and that is just my preference. I will say that the newer digital audio coming out especially the 24 96 or higher stuff is really good and does good by the music not like earlier CD's from the 80's did. Like I said though for me it is a preference and not something worth arguing about.

Just wondering harley...what table and cart do you have?

Thanks...

[E-Stat]

50% of Stereophile's "reviewers" use NO digital in their "reviews"!
Analog is great and I have two turntables. On the other hand, I cannot imagine ignoring 99% of musical content released in the past twenty five years.

rw

[Ajani]

Analog is great and I have two turntables. On the other hand, I cannot imagine ignoring 99% of musical content released in the past twenty five years.

rw

That would be my main reason for lacking any interest in Vinyl...

Now compare that to this nonsense:


JA for instance prefers the lean presentation of speakers like JM Labs, Focal, Paradigm. But he also isn't a music guy in the sense that he is interested in sound more than music - this is easily seen in the fact that he doesn't have a vinyl rig. If it was about the music first and foremost he would have vinyl since so much music is on vinyl and not CD and a great many albums sound better on vinyl than CD.

I'm not sure what ancient albums RGA feels are only available on Vinyl and not CD. Not a single album I listen to is only available on Vinyl (in fact the majority aren't available on Vinyl). So one could easily be a music lover (as I am) and not own a TT...

Plus, even if the handful of my CDs that are also available on Vinyl sounds better on Vinyl, SO WHAT? Am I really suppose to split my budget between a digital player and a TT just so a handful of songs sound "better" at the expense of the majority of my collection? That doesn't sound like what a music lover would do...

The idea that a music lover must own a turntable is just ridiculous....

[Feanor]

...


....
It is not about the experience listeners who disagree with me. JA for instance prefers the lean presentation of speakers like JM Labs, Focal, Paradigm. But he also isn't a music guy in the sense that he is interested in sound more than music - this is easily seen in the fact that he doesn't have a vinyl rig. If it was about the music first and foremost he would have vinyl since so much music is on vinyl and not CD and a great many albums sound better on vinyl than CD. This is not to dump on CD but there are simply superior recordings on the vinyl format that were transferred to CD badly. CD is needed for the same reasons - lots of great music on CD not on vinyl - so again not dumping on CD but you should have both if it is about music.
...

I'm not sure what ancient albums RGA feels are only available on Vinyl and not CD. Not a single album I listen to is only available on Vinyl (in fact the majority aren't available on Vinyl). So one could easily be a music lover (as I am) and not own a TT...

Plus, even if the handful of my CDs that are also available on Vinyl sounds better on Vinyl, SO WHAT? Am I really suppose to split my budget between a digital player and a TT just so a handful of songs sound "better" at the expense of the majority of my collection? That doesn't sound like what a music lover would do...

The idea that a music lover must own a turntable is just ridiculous....
"It is not about the experience listeners who disagree with me ...", says RGA. On the contrary. The above gravely slanders John Atkinson who not only edits Stereophile but also produces recordings. It also illustrates the delusion double-think with which RGA abuses himself. He doesn't like the sound presentation that JA likes so suddenly JA doesn't care about music. This doesn't follow, in fact it's warped.

I pointed out not long ago that in case of Classical music new LPs virtually non-extent. RGA protested that, no, on the contrary, there are plenty available. He referred us to several websites selling a supposedly extensive catalog; none listed more than 250 items. A certain sort of audiophile might think that 250 records is a lot, but not many music lovers will.

[Ajani]

"It is not about the experience listeners who disagree with me ...", says RGA. On the contrary. The above gravely slanders John Atkinson who not only edits Stereophile but also produces recordings. It also illustrates the delusion double-think with which RGA abuses himself. He doesn't like the sound presentation that JA likes so suddenly JA doesn't care about music. This doesn't follow, in fact it's warped.

That is exactly the issue I've had with RGA (well, one of the issues). He can never just accept that other experienced listeners have different opinions than him, he needs to discredit them in some way. At least he's moved away from talking about some alleged personal grudge that John Atkinson has with Peter Q of Audio Note...

The problem RGA never gets, is that the way he tosses insults at any reviewers he doesn't agree with or brands he doesn't fancy, makes persons far less likely to want to try any of the brands he recommends... If I was Peter Q, I'd beg him not to mention AN on any forums...


I pointed out not long ago that in case of Classical music new LPs virtually non-extent. RGA protested that, no, on the contrary, there are plenty available. He referred us to several websites selling a supposedly extensive catalog; none listed more than 250 items. A certain sort of audiophile might think that 250 records is a lot, but not many music lovers will.

I don't buy SACD, but's its blatantly obvious why someone else would. If I was a hardcore classical fan I would have purchased the Marantz SA8001 back in the day, instead of my Benchmark... If the music I loved was only available on Vinyl, then I'd have a TT... None of this is rocket science...

[E-Stat]

That would be my main reason for lacking any interest in Vinyl...
or, conversely why others do depending upon the age and mix of their library.


I'm not sure what ancient albums RGA feels are only available on Vinyl and not CD. Not a single album I listen to is only available on Vinyl (in fact the majority aren't available on Vinyl). So one could easily be a music lover (as I am) and not own a TT...
There really are quite a few out-of-print recordings. Some folks already have large vinyl collections.


Plus, even if the handful of my CDs that are also available on Vinyl sounds better on Vinyl, SO WHAT? Am I really suppose to split my budget between a digital player and a TT just so a handful of songs sound "better" at the expense of the majority of my collection?
That is my argument against multi-channel.

rw

[Ajani]

or, conversely why others do depending upon the age and mix of their library.


There really are quite a few out-of-print recordings. Some folks already have large vinyl collections.

All of which I agree with, but that doesn't mean only persons who own a TT are music lovers ... IMO, the source(s) you own should be largely based on whether the type of music you listen to is available in that format...

[E-Stat]

... but that doesn't mean only persons who own a TT are music lovers ... IMO, the source(s) you own should be largely based on whether the type of music you listen to is available in that format...
Many true music lovers (aka conductors and musicians) have poor systems in general. :)

rw

[Ajani]

Many true music lovers (aka conductors and musicians) have poor systems in general. :)

rw

Yep, some are more interested in a real live experience than trying to create a virtual live experience in their homes...

If I had continued playing the piano as a boy, I'd probably be spending my time composing songs (or at least playing them) rather than listening to a stereo...

[RGA]

Gads! Another dogmatic statement from Tube Fan. At least RGA tries (lamely) to rationalize his preferences.

Lots of people like vinyl / SET / HE versus modern alternatives ... can't argue with personal preference. But since these technologies are demonstrably inferior by any objective measure, we can surmise that they act as filters to accurate sound, and filtered sound is what their proponents prefer.

I gotta laugh. Salesmen at conferences telling customers what they want to hear: unbelievable! :smilewinkgrin:

No they're not demonstrably inferior - they have "certain" measurements that are inferior. In demonstrations it is always the SE amplifiers that demonstrate better - even against the guys who don't make it. That is why amps like the $100 Radford beat $3000 Meridian. And no one measures better than Meridian. So when the guy who designs and builds Meridian listens blind and and says the best sound was from a Radford - that IS the demonstration and the result is clear. And when all the other designers in the room from top makers also choose the tube amp - then it's not one guy or two it was all of them.

One day you might bother to listen to something half way decent. Maybe go to CAS.

[Ajani]

No they're not demonstrably inferior - they have "certain" measurements that are inferior. In demonstrations it is always the SE amplifiers that demonstrate better - even against the guys who don't make it. That is why amps like the $100 Radford beat $3000 Meridian. And no one measures better than Meridian. So when the guy who designs and builds Meridian listens blind and and says the best sound was from a Radford - that IS the demonstration and the result is clear. And when all the other designers in the room from top makers also choose the tube amp - then it's not one guy or two it was all of them.

One day you might bother to listen to something half way decent. Maybe go to CAS.

+


Stereophile - "I used a selection of master tapes as the source. When the results of the blind test were analyzed, the tubed Radford had come in first, despite showing the poorest measured performance." http://www.stereophile.com/reference/70/

Not just an opinion. Sugden A21a - always wins in the blind test shootouts - and it always measures the worst.

1) Since you say say "always" in both instances, then clearly there are multiple tests in which the Sugden has won... So could you please let us know what tests those are... All I've heard from you is one blind test in HiFi News from 1975 and mentioned in your Stereophile link (Sudgen wasn't a part of, but the Radford was) and another blind test in HiFi Choice in which the Sudgen won... I hope you aren't basing your argument that "it is always the SE amplifiers that demonstrate better" on 2 very different tests, decades apart...

2) Your claim that "And when all the other designers in the room from top makers also choose the tube amp - then it's not one guy or two it was all of them." is not true. The article does not say they unanimously chose the Radford, it just says that the Radford won:


the tubed Radford had come in first, despite showing the poorest measured performance.

[RGA]

Well Sugden's test and the Radford are both examples of the same no feedback example. Other tests have been done - the Sugden several times over the decades. if you were truly interested you would look it up. I gave you two pretty decent examples - You can find the rest.

I find it funny - how many tests is enough? Why not provide just one test where the Sugden or the Radford lost or an SE amp lost? Even with just those 2 it is still better than zero. Something tells me nothing would be enough - so there really isn't any point. You have convinced yourself that every opinion I have on anything audio is completely wrong. That's fine.

Incidentally - Peter Q has no problem with what I have to say. He already believes his stuff is the best on the market and he gets into his own series of spiral debates on internet forums. Having other people say the same thing isn't going to trouble him. And people who get defensive and take pot shots without auditioning - well it''s not like they're going to be buying anyway. So exactly what does he lose? He can't even keep up with the demand he has. Can't even supply his dealers. And when you do hear it and you end up wanting it you are going to wait at least 6 months to get it.

For heaven sake Soundhounds is giving people a bunch of their demo gear to hold them over while they wait for their orders to come in. I know one of them who is the husband of a professor at the local University. The guy had a set of AN J's waiting for AN E's and when he finally got the AN E - the AN J went to another person to tide them over until their E came in. Another ended up buying the AN J as well. Soundhounds doesn't even advertise Audio Note on their website anymore because they can't meet the demand. It's getting silly. Even as a reviewer I can't get things from them. And with going into the recording studio later this year early next year - it ain't going to get any better.

Anyway, when you actually audition the stuff you opine about let me know. The he said she said game is all fine and good and somewhat entertaining for forum discussion. Has nothing to do with actually auditioning and forming judgements and having experiential listening to draw from.

[tube fan]

I've done dozens of blind comparisons of the same performance on analogue vs digital. I ALWAYS preferred the analogue version, as did 80+% of the other listeners. 100% of the demonstrators at the 2010 CAS (that I asked) admitted that analogue was FAR superior to digital. AD and MF (I bet they are, BY FAR, the most popular reviewers in SP) both concur. At least 90% of TAS's reviewers prefer analogue. I went to an audio event in SF where the Simaudio representative admitted that analogue was much more accurate than digital, but that digital was more convenient! Music is analogue. Digital takes the original analogue and converts it to bits, and then processes those bits in various ways, and, then, because humans only hear analogue, you have to convert those bits back into analogue! What a waste! Digital IS convenient, but that's it!

[Feanor]

I've done dozens of blind comparisons of the same performance on analogue vs digital. I ALWAYS preferred the analogue version, as did 80+% of the other listeners. 100% of the demonstrators at the 2010 CAS (that I asked) admitted that analogue was FAR superior to digital. AD and MF (I bet they are, BY FAR, the most popular reviewers in SP) both concur. At least 90% of TAS's reviewers prefer analogue.
...

There is no arguing with preference. Likely most people prefer their coffee with cream & sugar; this doesn't make it "better" than black. A high proportion of people -- especially "audiophiles" -- prefer analog. A chain like vinyl > cartridge > tube RIAA > tube line > tube amp > HE full-range will highly filter the sound: think of it as cream & sugar.


...
I went to an audio event in SF where the Simaudio representative admitted that analogue was much more accurate than digital, but that digital was more convenient! Music is analogue. Digital takes the original analogue and converts it to bits, and then processes those bits in various ways, and, then, because humans only hear analogue, you have to convert those bits back into analogue! What a waste! Digital IS convenient, but that's it!
For sure digital is "more convenient" (-- at least in every way that I can think of). But this doesn't mean that it is incapable of accrate reproduction. By virtually any objective measure 16/44.1 is as good or better than LP (for accuracy, and without regard to clicks & pops); any higher bit rate is far better. What matters is the resulting wave form: digital can reproduce the wave form of the master more accurately of vinyl.

Vinyl is a filter. People -- who prefer vinyl -- have copied LPs to CD and admit that the characteristic of vinyl is preserved. There are also people who have vinyl cutting equipment who have made LPs from CD; they say that the result has the character of vinyl.

Incidentally I like my coffee black.

[Ajani]

I've done dozens of blind comparisons of the same performance on analogue vs digital. I ALWAYS preferred the analogue version, as did 80+% of the other listeners.

Considering that you were the same person who found that in a blind test 80 +% of audiophiles preferred MP3 to high res, then you should realize that preference is not proof of accuracy...


I was at a recent blind listening test of MP3 vs high rez digital, and even I was shocked that over 80% of those attending (most very confident owners of very expensive equipment) thought the hi rez was MP3! Yes, both my wife (who helps in my own blind testing) and I correctly identified the MP3. I hate most digital, but the high rez actually sounded pretty good to me, while the MP3 was flat, and lacked detail. Not close IMO, but only a handful preferred the high rez!

[tube fan]

There is no arguing with preference. Likely most people prefer their coffee with cream & sugar; this doesn't make it "better" than black. A high proportion of people -- especially "audiophiles" -- prefer analog. A chain like vinyl > cartridge > tube RIAA > tube line > tube amp > HE full-range will highly filter the sound: think of it as cream & sugar.


For sure digital is "more convenient" (-- at least in every way that I can think of). But this doesn't mean that it is incapable of accrate reproduction. By virtually any objective measure 16/44.1 is as good or better than LP (for accuracy, and without regard to clicks & pops); any higher bit rate is far better. What matters is the resulting wave form: digital can reproduce the wave form of the master more accurately of vinyl.

Vinyl is a filter. People -- who prefer vinyl -- have copied LPs to CD and admit that the characteristic of vinyl is preserved. There are also people who have vinyl cutting equipment who have made LPs from CD; they say that the result has the character of vinyl.

Incidentally I like my coffee black.

I also like my coffee black, and hate all the over-roasted coffee beans that are so very popular with those who use cream and sugar.

As for your contention that digital is better than analogue because it measures better, I'm far from convinced. Digital has ALWAYS measured better than analogue, but almost everyone now admits that early digital was crap. Thousands of factors are involved in audio reproduction, and the usual measurements that JA and others make only address a small fraction of factors. I suspect that AD, MF, SM, RGA, and the reviewers at TAS trust their ears more than the usual set of measurements. Most people buy audio equipment to listen to, not to measure!

[Ajani]

Incidentally - Peter Q has no problem with what I have to say. He already believes his stuff is the best on the market and he gets into his own series of spiral debates on internet forums. Having other people say the same thing isn't going to trouble him. And people who get defensive and take pot shots without auditioning - well it''s not like they're going to be buying anyway. So exactly what does he lose? He can't even keep up with the demand he has. Can't even supply his dealers. And when you do hear it and you end up wanting it you are going to wait at least 6 months to get it.

For heaven sake Soundhounds is giving people a bunch of their demo gear to hold them over while they wait for their orders to come in. I know one of them who is the husband of a professor at the local University. The guy had a set of AN J's waiting for AN E's and when he finally got the AN E - the AN J went to another person to tide them over until their E came in. Another ended up buying the AN J as well. Soundhounds doesn't even advertise Audio Note on their website anymore because they can't meet the demand. It's getting silly. Even as a reviewer I can't get things from them. And with going into the recording studio later this year early next year - it ain't going to get any better.

Long lines for a very small quantity of gear means what exactly? When I used to go to clubs in Toronto, the clubs were notorious for making persons wait at least 40 minutes to get in despite the club not even being a third full... That was simply an attempt to convince passers by that the club was a hot spot. So AN always having a long wait means nothing at all...

Also, considering how long AN has been delivering the same line up of products, and the capital at the disposal of Peter Q, if he was evenly slightly interested in meeting this alleged demand he could... If lines are long, it is his intention for them to be so and nothing more....

Instead of touting the alleged superiority of his products, Peter Q should make them readily accessible for audition and purchase... It's easy to run off your mouth on forums when there is little chance that most persons will have the opportunity to test your claims... The few HE speaker companies that attempt to make themselves readily available meet with the same kind of mixed reviews as any other brand... Just check out the feedback for Klipsch and Zu...

[Feanor]

Considering that you were the same person who found that in a blind test 80 +% of audiophiles preferred MP3 to high res, then you should realize that preference is not proof of accuracy...
Quote:


I was at a recent blind listening test of MP3 vs high rez digital, and even I was shocked that over 80% of those attending (most very confident owners of very expensive equipment) thought the hi rez was MP3! Yes, both my wife (who helps in my own blind testing) and I correctly identified the MP3. I hate most digital, but the high rez actually sounded pretty good to me, while the MP3 was flat, and lacked detail. Not close IMO, but only a handful preferred the high rez!

MP3 shares one characteristic of vinyl: it is a filter. To my hearing, MP3 has a distinctly smoothing effect, (though it does indeed loose air and detail). It isn't surprising to me that many people prefer the smoothed version of the music -- whether smoothed by MP3 or vinyl.

MP3 does have various degrees of loss. 128 kbps delivers obvious degradation vs. CD (or LP), but 320 kbps or VBR Extreme can sound extremely close to source depending on the recording.

[tube fan]

The MP3 vs hi rez blind listening was very short term (say 20 to 30 seconds). Yes, to me the difference was clear, but, then, I have a lot of experience with blind listening. I'm certain that AD, MF, RGA, and the others who prefer analogue would easily have correctly identified the MP3 cuts.

ALL audio products modify input. EACH AND EVERY ONE! Nothing is a straight wire with gain. That is true of all analogue and all digital units. The real question is this: what components sound accurate to you over the long term? A HUGE % of reviewers, audio company representatives, audio demonstrators, and high end consumers prefer analogue. That was NOT true twenty years ago, but analogue gives long term satisfaction, while digital does not. I can happily listen to live music for countless hours. I can happily listen to analogue for countless hours. I can take digital for about an hour. To me, both digital and ss bleach-out the sound and render three-dimensional music two-dimensional.

If you really consistently prefer MP3 to high rez over the long term, you should not waste money moving up from MP3. If you can't tell the difference between a $2,000 ss amp and one costing upwards of $20,000, you should save the money and buy the $2,000 unit (assuming you preferred ss over tubes). Ditto for inexpensive and expensive analogue.

The exact same thing happens with wines. Many wealthy wine consumers buy famous, expensive wines, when they prefer inexpensive wines tasted blind. Blind listening and tasting removes the bias produced from brand, cost, and type.

When I go to audio shows or to audio stores, I DO, of course, listen to the latest and greatest digital and ss. With the singular exception of the Audio Note CD, nothing I have heard impresses me. Unfortunately, I don't think there is an Audio Note dealer close to where I live. I would love to hear an AN CD player over many hours.

[RGA]

Long lines for a very small quantity of gear means what exactly? When I used to go to clubs in Toronto, the clubs were notorious for making persons wait at least 40 minutes to get in despite the club not even being a third full... That was simply an attempt to convince passers by that the club was a hot spot. So AN always having a long wait means nothing at all...

Also, considering how long AN has been delivering the same line up of products, and the capital at the disposal of Peter Q, if he was evenly slightly interested in meeting this alleged demand he could... If lines are long, it is his intention for them to be so and nothing more....

Instead of touting the alleged superiority of his products, Peter Q should make them readily accessible for audition and purchase... It's easy to run off your mouth on forums when there is little chance that most persons will have the opportunity to test your claims... The few HE speaker companies that attempt to make themselves readily available meet with the same kind of mixed reviews as any other brand... Just check out the feedback for Klipsch and Zu...

Audio Note has doubled the size of their staff - there is only so fast a company can grow and do so safely. Nobody wants long lines - long lines loses sales - and dealers because dealers want the easiest buck possible. Whatever 'prestige' factor may result with a wait is more than nullified by a loss of sales. North America is a fast food nation and needs products yesterday - and that is why AN does 5% of their business in North America. You have to wait and few are willing to wait. Telling customers they have to wait for an item is not the greatest of business ideas. What it usually means is the customer will buy something else. Or at least this is the Dealer's concern. He has to stock demo gear - spend time letting people audition then when the person wants it he has to tell them - give me the money now and I will place the order - by the way it will take 10 months for the turntable - maybe longer. Now even if it was the best performing unit in the store - would you spend $5k up front on a turntable or amp to wait 10 months maybe longer? Dealer's don't want to go near that conversation or the hassle that when the 6month or 10 month wait go by that it still isn't ready. The dealer has to bare the brunt of those conversations. Soundhounds deals with it a lot and it is a huge pain in the arse. But they deal with it because they knew it going in and they're big enough to lend enough demo stuff out to keep people happy while they wait.

From the customer perspective is that often the person is willing to wait because it is "that" much better than the rest of the stuff in the store. IMO Audio Note is truly "that" much better than the rest of the stuff that Soundhounds carries at similar or higher price points. I'd like to be more diplomatic but I can't and hell why be dimplomatic - the people selling the stuff aren't. And Soundhounds carries some damn good gear.

The comparison to Klipsch and Zu, with respect to them - isn't a comparison. Consider that these are speaker first companies - one with a very long track record the other not so much. Neither has had the "critical" acclaim that Audio Note (or Snell) received. Remember the Type A was roundly viewed as one of the handful best loudspeakers ever created. The Type E and J were owned by many reviewers and were highly regarded when they came out - they did after all put Snell on the map. When he died the company hired Kevin Voecks and they too got some reviews but they were nowhere near as good and Snell eventually went bankrupt. Bought by BA and then Denon - but the original models and the second series were highly regarded.

Klipsch was basically made famous by the Heritage line. They K-Horn and certain other models are well thought of but not much else. Zu appears to be a solid budget loudspeaker with high efficiency and an advantage of single driver sound. A poor man's Teresonic.

The AN speakers (J and E and to some extent the K) are IMO the best loudspeakers in their class. (which is why I bought them in the first place). And I bought them back before they had any kind of review presence. IMO it comes down to some simple points.

1) Speakers is not the main business at Audio Note - They do a lot of things and speakers are a part of it.

2) The company is relatively tiny compared to speaker making heaveyweights such as say a Dynaudio, B&W, Revel, Paradigm, JM Labs Focal, (panels), and most other speaker makers in this price class.

3) most people will accept 1 and 2 being truths because they are after all facts.

4) Audio Note speakers despite 1 and 2 are owned by a very high number of reviewers who have heard those BIG speakers brands. To be a reviewer you would have had to have heard the majority of the BIG speaker brands.

5) with 4 in mind it is also true that not nearly as many reviewers have heard AN speakers.

6) couple 4 and 5 together and I find it remarkable that such a huge percentage of reviewers would buy AN speakers relative to the size of the company versus speaker only makers. Actually I don't find it too remarkable because I have auditioned most of the big name speaker companies for the same money.

Consider that this is not even their main thing and they a lot of reviewers all around the world on board - more-so than huge dedicated speaker manufacturers. If that isn't worth your time then I can't help you. When Zu or Klipsch do that then you can make a comparison - they have not. Not yet anyway.

[Ajani]

Audio Note has doubled the size of their staff - there is only so fast a company can grow and do so safely. Nobody wants long lines - long lines loses sales - and dealers because dealers want the easiest buck possible. Whatever 'prestige' factor may result with a wait is more than nullified by a loss of sales. North America is a fast food nation and needs products yesterday - and that is why AN does 5% of their business in North America. You have to wait and few are willing to wait. Telling customers they have to wait for an item is not the greatest of business ideas. What it usually means is the customer will buy something else. Or at least this is the Dealer's concern. He has to stock demo gear - spend time letting people audition then when the person wants it he has to tell them - give me the money now and I will place the order - by the way it will take 10 months for the turntable - maybe longer. Now even if it was the best performing unit in the store - would you spend $5k up front on a turntable or amp to wait 10 months maybe longer? Dealer's don't want to go near that conversation or the hassle that when the 6month or 10 month wait go by that it still isn't ready. The dealer has to bare the brunt of those conversations. Soundhounds deals with it a lot and it is a huge pain in the arse. But they deal with it because they knew it going in and they're big enough to lend enough demo stuff out to keep people happy while they wait.

From the customer perspective is that often the person is willing to wait because it is "that" much better than the rest of the stuff in the store. IMO Audio Note is truly "that" much better than the rest of the stuff that Soundhounds carries at similar or higher price points. I'd like to be more diplomatic but I can't and hell why be dimplomatic - the people selling the stuff aren't. And Soundhounds carries some damn good gear.

The comparison to Klipsch and Zu, with respect to them - isn't a comparison. Consider that these are speaker first companies - one with a very long track record the other not so much. Neither has had the "critical" acclaim that Audio Note (or Snell) received. Remember the Type A was roundly viewed as one of the handful best loudspeakers ever created. The Type E and J were owned by many reviewers and were highly regarded when they came out - they did after all put Snell on the map. When he died the company hired Kevin Voecks and they too got some reviews but they were nowhere near as good and Snell eventually went bankrupt. Bought by BA and then Denon - but the original models and the second series were highly regarded.

Klipsch was basically made famous by the Heritage line. They K-Horn and certain other models are well thought of but not much else. Zu appears to be a solid budget loudspeaker with high efficiency and an advantage of single driver sound. A poor man's Teresonic.

The AN speakers (J and E and to some extent the K) are IMO the best loudspeakers in their class. (which is why I bought them in the first place). And I bought them back before they had any kind of review presence. IMO it comes down to some simple points.

1) Speakers is not the main business at Audio Note - They do a lot of things and speakers are a part of it.

2) The company is relatively tiny compared to speaker making heaveyweights such as say a Dynaudio, B&W, Revel, Paradigm, JM Labs Focal, (panels), and most other speaker makers in this price class.

3) most people will accept 1 and 2 being truths because they are after all facts.

4) Audio Note speakers despite 1 and 2 are owned by a very high number of reviewers who have heard those BIG speakers brands. To be a reviewer you would have had to have heard the majority of the BIG speaker brands.

5) with 4 in mind it is also true that not nearly as many reviewers have heard AN speakers.

6) couple 4 and 5 together and I find it remarkable that such a huge percentage of reviewers would buy AN speakers relative to the size of the company versus speaker only makers. Actually I don't find it too remarkable because I have auditioned most of the big name speaker companies for the same money.

Consider that this is not even their main thing and they a lot of reviewers all around the world on board - more-so than huge dedicated speaker manufacturers. If that isn't worth your time then I can't help you. When Zu or Klipsch do that then you can make a comparison - they have not. Not yet anyway.

A few points:

1) Doubling staff doesn't mean anything either... It depends on how much staff they had and how long they took to double them... I'm sure if Peter Q was interested he could have expanded much faster and still retained quality... It's his choice to do it very slowly, for whatever reasons...

2) Perhaps my wording has misled you into thinking that the discussion is about AN as just a HE speaker company... I'm well aware of their very diverse product line...

3) The actual point I was trying to get across is that AN is not subject to the kind on intense scrutiny of mainstream brands like B&W, Klipsch, Revel, Rotel, KEF, NAD, etc... Anyone can walk into a store an audition those brands.. In fact, some can even be ordered online, with no audition... That kind of scrutiny means that ANYONE can have an opinion on those brands based on some listening experience or the other... It also means that more people will be able to express negative opinions on those brands... Until AN is widely available for demo and purchase then it's easy for yourself and Peter Q to make all manner of claims of sonic superiority...

4) No matter how good a product is, once it is readily available, it will be criticized heavily... A perfect example being the Benchmark DAC1 (a product that even persons like yourself who hate brands that are all about the measurements like - The DAC1 measures like a dream and is the product of those same "tone deaf engineers" you think so little of)... Yet, despite all the rave pro and consumer audio reviews globally and positive user feedback, there are still many persons quick to diss the DAC1 as being overhyped and not as good as X or Y DAC for the same/less money... Any day AN becomes readily available, it will suffer the same issue of criticism... Nothing is universally loved....

5) AN has a rabid cult following - but so do many other brands... Ordering anything from Odyssey Audio is an exercise in patience (because of the share number of raves of the last decade). Hell, even Emotiva has fans waiting in lines for months before a product is even released to buy it...

6) As much as many of us would love to audition AN, even if only to know whether you are a complete loon, the fact is that a Rabid fan following is not enough to make us jump through hoops to hear it... I wouldn't fly down to and audio show to hear new products from brands I love, and I'm sure not going to do it just to hear AN... Nor am I going to order a mid-priced to expensive product (without auditioning) and wait months to get it...

7) Despite the ever lasting long wait for AN gear, there's still a decent amount of it currently on Audiogon... In fact some of these pieces have been there for quite some time...

[E-Stat]

A few points:
For years I have been amazed as to how no matter what the topic is - could be about *trimming toenails* - the discussion somehow gets steered by RGA to Audio Note. I hope Peter gives him great deals. :)

rw

[Ajani]

For years I have been amazed as to how no matter what the topic is - could be about *trimming toenails* - the discussion somehow gets steered by RGA to Audio Note. I hope Peter gives him great deals. :)

rw

LOL...

[RGA]

For years I have been amazed as to how no matter what the topic is - could be about *trimming toenails* - the discussion somehow gets steered by RGA to Audio Note. I hope Peter gives him great deals. :)

rw

It's an audio forum - people usually have topics about recommending something at a certain price point - they make over 700 products from $50 to well over a half million. And IME they usually do at least a good a job at it as anyone else and IME usually a lot better. Does not have to be steered - topic is about SET - well IMO if you are going to talk about SET and you have not heard "arguably" the best SET maker then you have not heard what the technology can do. Listening to some $800 Chinese make is hardly representative. If you are going to talk about what CD players can do and you have not heard a zero times oversampling player without filters then IMO you are missing out on what CD can actually sound like. When you want to listen to HE speakers but you're not a fan of horns or single drivers then.... or suspended floaty turntables with three motors which is similar to certain other players but really not.

It is irritating and I get that - but I believe in recommending what I perceive to be best first. Someone wants a CD player after owning and trading in their 5th player in 7 years - well rather than buying the same old (and similar sounding) upconverting upsampling Burr Brown laced chipset CD player with heavy filtering and noise shaping - and still never being happy - gee why not a different approach?

Ajani does bring up some valid points - the main ones are the lack of ability to audition to thus verify what I say or Peter or other reviewers say. So it is fair to be skeptical until such time as you can audition. The other point about the bigger makes being easy targets - well I made the same argument 6 years ago on a forum defending B&W from people who were knocking it. I said - they must be good if they sell the most (in the high end) and after all it is audiophiles buying it. (I did albeit entry level I still bought and I did like the speaker). So I can't blame anyone who makes the same argument that I made then. Where i disagree is on flying down to hear one company. One doesn't do that. There are shows throughout the U.S. with lots of chances to audion lots of unknown gear not just one company.

Ajani didn't address the point about a very high relative proportion of reviewers who own AN gear to actual sales. For instance you would expect more reviewers to own say B&W loudspeakers or Dynaudio Loudspeakers across most of the major review sites since they are after all Speaker companies and Both make speakers at a variety of price points up tot he veyr expensive. Since this is their bread and butter industry and they're considered "high end" - Audio Note who has not been selling speakers as long - hasn't had nearly the number of reviewers or people who have auditioned them - have a FAR FAR higher percentage of those reviewers owning the speakers relative to respective sales.

No not everyone will like them - that's fair to say - but that's true of anything - that's not really the point though. The point is you can't really be deliberately ignorant that that is going on and it's something pretty rare when a sizable consensus is occuring. 5 years ago when I was raving - yes it could be said RGA is a loon for raving - but when people at every major magazine are buying - either I am astoundingly convincing - and seriously doubt it (indeed it would be their chance to "get me" and their smaller competing publication. So no it is more that the people who bothered to listen hear what I hear. But what is more telling to me is what they left behind.

And there are a fair amount of dealers in the major U.S. cities. After all they need a certain number of dealers to be able to be reviewed by Stereophile. They're in California, New York, The Boston area, Michigan, Colorado, Virginia, Washington, Florida, and Kansas. And there are several owners who will be happy to demo it in other regions. That's how I heard a level five system for the first time. This from a man who had Mark Levinson come to his house and set up his flagship system.

I could make other HE/SET selections but it's not like the best ones of these are anymore available. how many Trenner and Freidl dealers are in your town? And at $25k - it's way out of the realm of affordability for most. The best stuff is not sold on every street corner like McDonalds. You want Micky D's you can find it nearly everywhere - if you want Bentley, Bughati - you have to seek it out.

[JoeE SP9]

The topic is not about SET's or HE speakers. It seems that E-Stat is correct. No matter what the discussion is you (RGA) manage to shill for Audio Note. I suggest you read the title of the thread.

I suppose being a reviewer has its perks. If you're not getting a serious "accommodation" for being one of Audio Note's biggest boosters you should have a talk with "Peter". Also the price you continue to quote for the Shengya Mono-blocks is $500 less than the advertised price. Is this because you were "accommodated"? If someone started a thread about electronic crossovers I'm fairly certain you would manage to mention SET's, HE speakers and Audio Note.

Just to refresh your memory the title of this thread is, "Does "state of the art" matter?".

BTW: My answer to that is yes.

[Ajani]

topic is about SET

No, not at all... Just look at the title of the thread....

[Ajani]

the title of this thread is, "Does "state of the art" matter?".

BTW: My answer to that is yes.

To get the discussion back on track: Why does it matter?

[Feanor]

Many true music lovers (aka conductors and musicians) have poor systems in general. :)

rw
At the two classical music sites I visit most often (and recommend), the various members have a full range of systems from standard computer/MP3 players to pretty high-end systems. However the typical member has a compact or entry level system.

Many of these people extensive musical training and quite a few are performing musicians; there is even a scattering of composers. (Personally I have none of these qualifications.) Often these musically sophisticated just don't care about recreating the concert hall experience in their home -- they get enough concert hall experience in the concert hall. When they listen, they are most interested in the technical nuances of interpretation or performance, and modest systems suffice for these purposes.

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php

http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org/index.php

[mlsstl]

Does "state of the art" matter?

Sure. It is always good that people try to advance the state of music reproduction with new ideas and improved techniques.

Sometimes those efforts will result in improvements for ordinary gear and other times SOTA is little more than an exercise in ego and ostentation.

However, the bigger problem is that by itself SOTA is an ill-defined term with no broad reference. What one person calls SOTA can be meaningless to others, especially if the gear focuses on some aspects to the exclusion of others.

A good example for me are the expensive Wilson speakers. There's a whole lot of effort and expense put forth that, for me, doesn't represent an improvement. However, the company stays in business and has a devoted following. But it's a good illustration that one person's SOTA can be irrelevant for others.

The good news is that always gives another opportunity for meaningless debate on an internet forum. ;-)

[JoeE SP9]

To get the discussion back on track: Why does it matter?

IMO there are two main reasons.

1. After building and selling a few cost no object SOTA products a manufacturer can "trickle down" that technology to real world products that the rest of us can afford to buy.

2. It gives us real world buyers a target to aim at when buying.

It's kind of like asking, with referrence to automobiles, "Does racing improve the breed?". With high performance cars I believe racing does improve what consumers can buy. IMO this also applies to audio gear. If a piece of SOTA audio equipment is the equivalent of a "Corvette C6-R" then what you or I can afford is the equivalent of a ZR-1 That ZR-1 wouldn't exist if not for the C6-R. Likewise, Wilson WATT/Puppy's wouldn't have been made without the prior existence of the WAMM. I'm not a Wilson fan I'm just using them as an example. A more real world comparison might be a Magnepan MG-20.1 vs. a MG-1.7.

I think that motor heads and audiophiles are on the same page philosophically. As for me, I have both feet firmly set in both camps.

[RGA]

The topic is not about SET's or HE speakers. It seems that E-Stat is correct. No matter what the discussion is you (RGA) manage to shill for Audio Note. I suggest you read the title of the thread.

I suppose being a reviewer has its perks. If you're not getting a serious "accommodation" for being one of Audio Note's biggest boosters you should have a talk with "Peter". Also the price you continue to quote for the Shengya Mono-blocks is $500 less than the advertised price. Is this because you were "accommodated"? If someone started a thread about electronic crossovers I'm fairly certain you would manage to mention SET's, HE speakers and Audio Note.

Just to refresh your memory the title of this thread is, "Does "state of the art" matter?".

BTW: My answer to that is yes.

Grant Fidelity often has sales on their gear. The PM 150 has sold for $1600 a pair. They have a list price on their website and when you scroll down you can see what they are selling them for. The list price is $2400 for example and right now they are selling them for $2000 a pair. http://shop.grantfidelity.com/Shengya-PM-150-Hybrid-Mono-Blocks-pair.html

When I reviewed the Rita it was over $4000 now it is $2950. http://shop.grantfidelity.com/Grant-Fidelity-RITA-880-Reference-Integrated-KT88-Tube-Amplifier.html The prices changed from what I understand because they are taking themselves out of the chain a little bit by having it shipped directly to customers from China rather than shipping to GF in Canada and then on to customers. Saves two shipping prices and brokerage etc. At $4k it's a great amp and under $3k it's even better. I don't own GF amplification or the Shengya's. Nor do I own the AN E - the speaker I most often talk about, nor do I own AN digital which I like over what I do own.

It takes two to have a conversation. The question was about SOTA gear or IMO the best gear - and why it might be a good idea to know what the best gear sounds like in order to have a reference of sound quality when hearing how close lower priced gear gets.

Ajani has suggested that there is no point in hearing high priced gear and alluded to the notion that paying more doesn't get you more - note the thread about products doubling their price in the british market and still doing better. Read: expensive gear sounds no better than cheap gear or read "anyone who spends more than me is only paying for audio jewelry".

So I brought up two points:

1) within a company line-up - a maker makes a $500 speaker a $2k speaker a $5k speaker a $10K speaker and a $50k speaker. In those cases in most every case the more expensive speaker sounds a lot better - therefore when you spend more you do in fact get more. Same applies to amps, CD players, and turntables etc. A Rega P3 is better than a P2. Upper end Shure or Ortofon is better than their $30 cartridges. Paying more gets you more. This nullifies the argument.

2) I brought up a house sound argument - that it's possible to prefer the house sound of a competing company for less money. I used Vandersteen as the example. The $50k Vandersteen sounds a helluva lot better than the $2k Vandersteen. So if you like the house sound of Vandersteen the $50k is worth it. But I prefer the AN E at $7500 because I prefer the sound of this speaker - I used a personal example but you could also make the case for other speakers - you might like the Gallo 3.5 or a King Sound Prince II for $8k again because you prefer the take on sound over what Vandersteen's house sound is doing. This would be the case for amplifiers or CD players or turntables etc.

Point 1 illustrates that Ajani is dead wrong in that paying more does in fact get you more.
Point 2 illustrates that Ajani could be absolutely right in that FAR less pricey gear could to certain individuals be a lot better than far costlier equipment

And when I see a thread about what is the best sound I think SET/HE. So yes it is about SET/HE because if you don't have that - you don't have the best sound - you're not even on the track to get the best sound. This is my take it on it having heard excellent examples of it. And yes this is "My Opinion." And yes others may not share it and I know people who don't. However, I am talking to people on forums who have not heard it and bring up Klipsch and ~$800 SET amps as stuff they'd "like to hear." Ajani on another thread is talking about trying Zu and a cheap SET amp. All for what $4k? So he hasn't even heard an affordable example of the technology let alone an upscale example. So why talk about whether hearing the best and Sota when he hasn't even heard an entire technology camp that many people find to be the best.

My view is simple - Audition the best examples of the given technologies. You don't judge the planar sound because you heard a SME or MMG. You don't judge all SS amps based on a Crown power amp or because you heard a receiver at Best Buy - you don't judge Horn speakers because you heard a Klipsch.

You want to judge SS you make sure you audition Krell, Levinson, Classe, Musical Fidelity, YBA, Bryston - that alone is a pretty good list. But you try to hear some different examples with somehwat unique takes on the design when you can. Pass Labs and a Sugden for example.

With tube amps you try big power varieties, highly regarded varieties, different kinds of tubes - ones using KT 88s versus EL34s or EL84s. Hybrids etc. And Single Ended Triodes.

How do you know what is great when important camps are completely ignored?

[Ajani]

Ajani has suggested that there is no point in hearing high priced gear and alluded to the notion that paying more doesn't get you more - note the thread about products doubling their price in the british market and still doing better. Read: expensive gear sounds no better than cheap gear or read "anyone who spends more than me is only paying for audio jewelry".

Don't read any such thing... That is YOUR completely wrong interpretation of what I said... I have never claimed, nor would I ever claim, that anyone who spends more than me is only paying for audio jewelry... That's just ridiculous...

Also, you are mixing the points of 2 different threads and not getting the point of either them...

This thread has NOTHING to do with whether SOTA sounds better than more affordable gear... The question is whether hearing SOTA gear in anyway helps me in a regular buying decision...

So in other words: If I'm in the market for a B&W 683/CM8, how would hearing a B&W Nautilus or even a B&W 800 Diamond help me? I maintain that it does not help...


My view is simple - Audition the best examples of the given technologies. You don't judge the planar sound because you heard a SME or MMG. You don't judge all SS amps based on a Crown power amp or because you heard a receiver at Best Buy - you don't judge Horn speakers because you heard a Klipsch.

You want to judge SS you make sure you audition Krell, Levinson, Classe, Musical Fidelity, YBA, Bryston - that alone is a pretty good list. But you try to hear some different examples with somehwat unique takes on the design when you can. Pass Labs and a Sugden for example.

With tube amps you try big power varieties, highly regarded varieties, different kinds of tubes - ones using KT 88s versus EL34s or EL84s. Hybrids etc. And Single Ended Triodes.

How do you know what is great when important camps are completely ignored?

So If my budget is $4K, then please explain how hearing the best example of SET helps me in that buying decision? All I need to hear is the best examples of SET available in my budget... Whether a $15K SET system beats a $15K SS system is totally irrelevant to my decision...

[Ajani]

And when I see a thread about what is the best sound I think SET/HE. So yes it is about SET/HE because if you don't have that - you don't have the best sound - you're not even on the track to get the best sound. This is my take it on it having heard excellent examples of it. And yes this is "My Opinion." And yes others may not share it and I know people who don't. However, I am talking to people on forums who have not heard it and bring up Klipsch and ~$800 SET amps as stuff they'd "like to hear." Ajani on another thread is talking about trying Zu and a cheap SET amp. All for what $4k? So he hasn't even heard an affordable example of the technology let alone an upscale example. So why talk about whether hearing the best and Sota when he hasn't even heard an entire technology camp that many people find to be the best.

Why shouldn't I start this thread about SOTA? Many persons have enjoyed the discussion and I wanted an answer to my question... Other than to float your own ego, as usual, I fail to see the point of your usual cheap shot at me... OMG, RGA has heard SET and thinks it's the best in the word... Hence no one else should have any opinion on anything until we hear it... Yeah, that's gonna happen...

Also, though I doubt you'll ever get this simple point: Most of us are happy with the sound of the brands we purchase... Hence, we don't have a huge incentive to seek out rare products... You may detest most SS and LE/average efficiency speakers, but many of us are enjoying the sounds of our systems... I, shock of shocks, actually really like the sound of Revel speakers, so you hating them doesn't drive me in anyway to rush out and buy a plane ticket to hear a SET/HE brand you love... I will happily audition anything I come across, but I'm not going to make that extreme effort unless I'm really dissatisfied with what I hear in the stores...

If you dislike my threads you are free not to participate, I can assure you that your input will not be missed...

[tube fan]

I am enjoying this thread, but I also understand what RGA is saying. Ajani, have you ever heard a HE/SET combo? There are some affordable examples out there.

[Ajani]

I am enjoying this thread, but I also understand what RGA is saying. Ajani, have you ever heard a HE/SET combo? There are some affordable examples out there.

So what is RGA saying?

Also considering he dismissed the "affordable examples" I was considering listening to, then what would be the point? I'm not booking a flight to Cali for CAS to hear his favourite brand...

[tube fan]

RGA is saying that everyone should try to listen to the main types of music reproduction, and that includes SET /HE. My two favorite rooms at the 2010 CAS were both SET/HE. And, no, I don't have a SET/HE system.

[Ajani]

RGA is saying that everyone should try to listen to the main types of music reproduction, and that includes SET /HE. My two favorite rooms at the 2010 CAS were both SET/HE. And, no, I don't have a SET/HE system.

If that was all he was saying, then no one would have an issue with that (and he wouldn't be constantly accused of being a shill)... I also feel that we should all listen to everything... However:

1) That has NOTHING to do with what this thread is about...

2) I'm not going to bend over backwards to audition rare products... Any day I'm near enough to a dealer that has a SET/HE system or an audio show, then I'll check it out... I've driven out of my way to visit dealers to audition many brands, but I'm NOT going to book a plane ticket and hotel room to try out SET/HE... That's fine for reviewers or persons who are totally dissatisfied with what they hear at their dealers, but since I enjoy the sound of certain brands already, there is no great need to hunt down everything I've not heard...

[E-Stat]

It is irritating and I get that...
Do you? In this epic response, you acknowledge your unique fan boy reputation - and then take a breath and continue to talk about them four more times! :)

rw

[hifitommy]

"Most of us are happy with the sound of the brands we purchase..."

well, not forever and as time passes, we hear examples of what CAN be achieved and then look for that in what we can afford or just above that.

improvements can be made in your system this way. of course i cant afford SOTA components but hearing them on occasion guides me forward.

as nice as some of the vintage pieces look, sometimes the sound is a bit sad. once i started hearing dedicated audio separates, i couldnt go back to underpowered and underdesigned receivers and other components. i have been privy to some very distinguished pieces and when i heard affordable components make some of the same sound, i knew it was time to upgrade.

thank goodness for state of the art development.

[Ajani]

"Most of us are happy with the sound of the brands we purchase..."

well, not forever and as time passes, we hear examples of what CAN be achieved and then look for that in what we can afford or just above that.

improvements can be made in your system this way. of course i cant afford SOTA components but hearing them on occasion guides me forward.

as nice as some of the vintage pieces look, sometimes the sound is a bit sad. once i started hearing dedicated audio separates, i couldnt go back to underpowered and underdesigned receivers and other components. i have been privy to some very distinguished pieces and when i heard affordable components make some of the same sound, i knew it was time to upgrade.

thank goodness for state of the art development.

Yep... I agree (to some extent)... Over time we hear better gear we can afford and make the switch (some of that is just a lucky break - you might have a conference for work in a new city, take a lunch break to visit a dealer in that area, and come across a brand you've always wanted to try)... But unless you really hate what you hear in the stores you visit or are a reviewer, it's unlikely that you're going to trek across all of North America to seek out every brand and tech you're unfamiliar with...

I still don't believe that you need to hear SOTA to make any buying decisions (unless you are buying SOTA gear)... Hearing what can be achieved at lofty price levels is irrelevant to buying decisions at lower levels... All you need to hear are the best examples of what is available in your price range...

Some persons aim to achieve what they claim is near SOTA performance for say $15K or whatever... The problem with those claims are that they are only valid to the individual... The persons with the $150K Systems just laugh at persons for claiming their $15K setups are near SOTA... The Same way persons with $15K systems laugh at persons with $2K systems who claim spending more is just diminishing returns... There's always better available, if you have the time to research it and the money to obtain it... But so what?

As I've said earlier: My aim is not to be a Chinese Knock Off Brand, so I don't want to recreate the sound of a more expensive system... I have 1 of 3 goals:

1) Come as close to recreating the live performance as possible within my budget.
2) Come as close to recreating the sound heard in the recording studio as possible within my budget.
3) Find the best sounding system to me, regardless of whether it sounds accurate or not.

None of those audiophile goals require hearing SOTA.

[tube fan]

Yep... I agree (to some extent)... Over time we hear better gear we can afford and make the switch (some of that is just a lucky break - you might have a conference for work in a new city, take a lunch break to visit a dealer in that area, and come across a brand you've always wanted to try)... But unless you really hate what you hear in the stores you visit or are a reviewer, it's unlikely that you're going to trek across all of North America to seek out every brand and tech you're unfamiliar with...

I still don't believe that you need to hear SOTA to make any buying decisions (unless you are buying SOTA gear)... Hearing what can be achieved at lofty price levels is irrelevant to buying decisions at lower levels... All you need to hear are the best examples of what is available in your price range...

Some persons aim to achieve what they claim is near SOTA performance for say $15K or whatever... The problem with those claims are that they are only valid to the individual... The persons with the $150K Systems just laugh at persons for claiming their $15K setups are near SOTA... The Same way persons with $15K systems laugh at persons with $2K systems who claim spending more is just diminishing returns... There's always better available, if you have the time to research it and the money to obtain it... But so what?

As I've said earlier: My aim is not to be a Chinese Knock Off Brand, so I don't want to recreate the sound of a more expensive system... I have 1 of 3 goals:

1) Come as close to recreating the live performance as possible within my budget.
2) Come as close to recreating the sound heard in the recording studio as possible within my budget.
3) Find the best sounding system to me, regardless of whether it sounds accurate or not.

None of those audiophile goals require hearing SOTA.

I agree with these three points. Of course, I go to many live musical events, and love the sound of live music, and, therefore, I would like to think that the equipment I prefer is accurate as well. My problem with the usual audio measurements is that they only cover a very few of the thousands of factors involved in audio reproduction. Look at JA's review of the $80,000 Acapella speaker. His measurements of the speaker are average at best (e.g., +/- 6 or 7 db from 45 to 20,000). Yet the sound produced, yes ONLY when driven by the also average measuring ARVSi60 amp, was deemed class A. I suspect that the HE of the speaker had a lot to do with JA's rating.

For a long time, HE speakers were largely ignored (Japan being an exception). Now, fortunately, there are many HE speakers at all price points. DeVore, Zu, and Audio Note make some HE speakers that are affordable to most.

[RGA]

2) I'm not going to bend over backwards to audition rare products...

Strange that on the other thread you're willing to audition poultrygeist's suggestion of Zu and the SET - Zu has zero dealers and has to be ordered sight unseen for a home trial. Audio Note has dealers in several major U.S. states. So umm I don't get this statement. Also AN will ship you gear to try in home as well. Reviewer turned dealer Bob Neil at Amherst will likely do it on the affordable end of the scale. http://www.amherstaudio.com/#AudioNote

And incidentally Audio Note also makes a terrific floorstanding speaker that is even less expensive than the ZU audio and it reaches below 40hz and IME likely won't compress like a single driver speaker such as ZU or Teresonic. So keeping within budget a complete Zero system (the new series) will be happy against SS based systems for the same money - without the need to listen to SOTA - if this is what you were going for with the initial thread idea. Either way it seems dealers near you don't sell any HE/SET regardless and it will need to be shipped in for audition. A Zero three speaker and series front end will not be too far off the budget I shouldn't think. One reviewer preferred the sound of the Zero 3 speaker for instance over his Dynaudio Contour 1.8 MKII which is considerably more expensive. Granted part of that may be the front end gear.

The Zero series reviews over the years - the new series is better and less expensive than these as well. The new series has an integrated and one box player which reduces prices.

http://www.audioconsult.dk/anmeldelser/audionote/zero.html
http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/audionote_zero_system.htm

The new ones: http://audiofederation.com/blog/archives/566

[Ajani]

Strange that on the other thread you're willing to audition poultrygeist's suggestion of Zu and the SET - Zu has zero dealers and has to be ordered sight unseen for a home trial.

Nope, the need to do in-home-trial is one of the major reasons why I decided against Zu... As tempting as it would be to try it, I'd have to absorb both the shipping and return and costs from JAMAICA (probably more than the cost of the speakers) if I didn't like them...


XXXX has dealers in several major U.S. states. So umm I don't get this statement.

I DON'T live in the US, so I don't get this statement... I lived in Toronto for a few years and may return, but It's unlikely I'll live in the US...


Also XXXX will ship you gear to try in home as well. Reviewer turned dealer Bob Neil at Amherst will likely do it on the affordable end of the scale.

Same issue as ZU above... And even worse, given the waiting line for your brand, I'd have to order and wait about oh say a year to get an in-home-audition... As "tempting" as that sounds, I think I'll pass...


So keeping within budget a complete Zero system (the new series) will be happy against SS based systems for the same money - without the need to listen to SOTA - if this is what you were going for with the initial thread idea.

Well at least you get the basic point of the thread now... If I want to discover SET/HE, then I don't need to hear the most expensive SET/HE systems, just the best examples available in my price range...

[RGA]

Sorry Ajani - I never read where you were living. I just assumed you were in the States.

Unfortunately that makes everything a lot more difficult. Audio Note is on most continents. In South America they only have one dealer and it's in Brazil. And not every dealer carries every line anyway.

The Zero series is a bit of an exception with wait times - it is not built in Britain to my knowledge but Lithuania - so that series can be made a lot faster. The dealer list is quite a lot bigger than it was but they're not everywhere http://www.audionote.co.uk/distributor/dist_home_01.shtml

One of the big reasons BTW why I recommend this series is largely because it's not a "horn" speaker based set-up. People have issues with the horn sound so finding a HE speaker that is not a horn and still has some bigger dynamics is very difficult. The choices typically fall to single driver speakers like Teresonic, ZU, Omega loudspeakers. Or you have some options like the Audio Note's or Sonist loudspeakers (and Tannoy) which are efficient but have the "spread" of frequency response without the single driver compression when pushed a little hard with rock/dance kind of music. I am not a huge horn speaker fan myself preferring it in smaller doses - really depends but it seems that cheaper horn speakers don't usually sound as good on long sessions - a certain fatigue.

With luck some dealer there will carry some SET/HE - but in the home theater is king world we're moving to (already in really) it is a very difficult market to get into.

[tube fan]

RGA, I think you are underrating the $15,000 Teresonic speaker. I listened to it for at least three hours (over three days), and it never failed to impress. Even my double bass/organ record sounded great. Both male and female voices were reproduced with fantastic fidelity.

[RGA]

RGA, I think you are underrating the $15,000 Teresonic speaker. I listened to it for at least three hours (over three days), and it never failed to impress. Even my double bass/organ record sounded great. Both male and female voices were reproduced with fantastic fidelity.

I auditioned it a few doors away from the two AN rooms at CES. The Teresonic Ingenium made my list as a top five rooms of CES performer. I understand anyone who prefers this speaker to the AN E. It may also be that my ear is more used to hearing the AN speaker sound. And the AN room also had the advantage of a much superior turntable and CD set-up. Still the AN E has considerably more low and high frequency extension and the ability to play siginificantly louder without compression. The Ingenium still had very good bass extension on acoustic unamplified music but had trouble with the heavy trance material that the AN E didn't have trouble with. It simply compresses earlier so it sounded somewhat thin and pinched on this material. The advantages are the clarity and speed of the midrange and articulation that is about as good as I have heard. Basically for me they were one/two in what I would buy because both were fairly affordable speakers - the Ingenium can be bought in a $10k version and the AN E in a $7500 version. I'd like to hear the Ingeniums with the AN front end kit. The digital especially. Soundhounds the last I was there pretty much connected an AN digital rig to almost everything. And in doing so I have heard better sound out of a lot of equipment that didn't remotely impress me. Linn's source first mantra holds some merit.

They connected a DAC zero through McIntosh Amplifiers to Cerwin Vega XLS 215 speakers and it sounded really quite good with Sinead O'Connor - a little horn sound is recognized but for the price of the speakers and what they can do - even if the woofers look like party condoms - you have to tip your cap to what they bring to the table. http://www.hd.ca/speakers/cerwinvega/xls215.php

[tube fan]

I auditioned it a few doors away from the two AN rooms at CES. The Teresonic Ingenium made my list as a top five rooms of CES performer. I understand anyone who prefers this speaker to the AN E. It may also be that my ear is more used to hearing the AN speaker sound. And the AN room also had the advantage of a much superior turntable and CD set-up. Still the AN E has considerably more low and high frequency extension and the ability to play siginificantly louder without compression. The Ingenium still had very good bass extension on acoustic unamplified music but had trouble with the heavy trance material that the AN E didn't have trouble with. It simply compresses earlier so it sounded somewhat thin and pinched on this material. The advantages are the clarity and speed of the midrange and articulation that is about as good as I have heard. Basically for me they were one/two in what I would buy because both were fairly affordable speakers - the Ingenium can be bought in a $10k version and the AN E in a $7500 version. I'd like to hear the Ingeniums with the AN front end kit. The digital especially. Soundhounds the last I was there pretty much connected an AN digital rig to almost everything. And in doing so I have heard better sound out of a lot of equipment that didn't remotely impress me. Linn's source first mantra holds some merit.

They connected a DAC zero through McIntosh Amplifiers to Cerwin Vega XLS 215 speakers and it sounded really quite good with Sinead O'Connor - a little horn sound is recognized but for the price of the speakers and what they can do - even if the woofers look like party condoms - you have to tip your cap to what they bring to the table. http://www.hd.ca/speakers/cerwinvega/xls215.php
I agree with most of this. The Audio Note system could play everything (from house, trance, big band jazz, classical, male, and female records) to live levels. Everything sounded wonderful (and this was using digital). However, I preferred the Teresonic. I thought the Teresonic was clearer, with better high end. Vocals were fantastic. Yes, the Teresonic system sounded more like my Fulton J based system, and I have loved the Fultons for decades. However the Audio Note system was digital only. I hope AN brings a tt to the 2011 CAS. Both speakers are VERY easy to drive (the Teresonic system was using a 2 1/2 watt amp, and the AN was using the stupendous Jinro. Yes, both are SET amps.

[Florian]

"Does state of the art matter to the normal audiophile?"

In my opinion only for inspirational purposes. Its like having the picture of an Audi RS6 or something in your mind while you buy that 2.0 TDI Audi 4 with the "sports" package. Its cool to have a mega system picture somewhere and you can get ideas from it. There are some really state of the art audio rooms on Audiogon. They have incredible acoustic treatments and they inspire me to try a little bit of that in my own home and its fun, even if i don't spend that type of cash.

-Flo

[Raj J]

hey Ajani,

looks like you caused quite a stir...
well I guess for what my 2 cents says - if you can afford it go for it! if you can't stop the sour grapes and just enjoy what you have!
take it easy mate,
RJ

[Ajani]

hey Ajani,

looks like you caused quite a stir...
well I guess for what my 2 cents says - if you can afford it go for it! if you can't stop the sour grapes and just enjoy what you have!
take it easy mate,
RJ

I hope you're not under the impression that I'm calling the grapes sour...

I actually have a very similar philosophy: there's always better available if you have the time to research it and the money to afford it... but, you can find a great sounding system for virtually any budget...

What I've always found amusing in HiFi is how audiophiles will say things like my $15K setup gives me 95% of the sound of a $150K setup, and anyone who spends that kind of money has more money than brains... YET, that same person will be offended when someone with a $1.5K system claims to get 95% of the performance of a $15K setup... Both are just cases of the fox calling the grapes sour...

[tube fan]

I hope you're not under the impression that I'm calling the grapes sour...

I actually have a very similar philosophy: there's always better available if you have the time to research it and the money to afford it... but, you can find a great sounding system for virtually any budget...

What I've always found amusing in HiFi is how audiophiles will say things like my $15K setup gives me 95% of the sound of a $150K setup, and anyone who spends that kind of money has more money than brains... YET, that same person will be offended when someone with a $1.5K system claims to get 95% of the performance of a $15K setup... Both are just cases of the fox calling the grapes sour...
I'm not offended, but I still maintain that you can't get much for $2000, but can get near SOTA for $15,000. What's your $1,500 system?

[RGA]

I hope you're not under the impression that I'm calling the grapes sour...

I actually have a very similar philosophy: there's always better available if you have the time to research it and the money to afford it... but, you can find a great sounding system for virtually any budget...

What I've always found amusing in HiFi is how audiophiles will say things like my $15K setup gives me 95% of the sound of a $150K setup, and anyone who spends that kind of money has more money than brains... YET, that same person will be offended when someone with a $1.5K system claims to get 95% of the performance of a $15K setup... Both are just cases of the fox calling the grapes sour...

Personally I am tired of reading anyone who discusses audio in terms of percentages. It doesn't really mean anything - just as looking at frequency graphs don't mean much (though something). A system that is .03db up at 3khz and mostly flat everyplace else may be deemed more accurate but it may be very irritating - conversely a speaker that is more all over the place and 3db down at that same frequency may be all day listenable and not the least bit off putting - so much for percentages.

And 95% of something else is entirely arbitrary. The saying "The devil is in the details" holds true. That 5% or 1% or .01% improvement could be the difference between a good system and a "pure magic" inspires your soul kind of difference.

The only time a percent comment makes some sense is within a company line-up. The person/reviewer is trying to say that one model's bass output is X factor better or the treble is X factor smoother. That X factor - however it is described may be the difference between mediocrity and life changing audio experience so I don't discount it.

As for $2k budgets or $15k budgets or $150k budgets. The best systems I have heard approach the $150k+ budgets. Nothing at $2k or $15k or $30K that I have heard approach the "X-Factor" "Magic Factor" of those super expensive systems. That doesn't mean the odd $15k system won't beat the odd $150k system - depends on the competency of the designers but out of all the companies who make $2k, 15k, 30k $150k systems the latter always beats the smaller dollar systems. It is true with virtually every speaker maker, amp maker, source maker. The higher priced gear almost always sounds better than lower priced gear.

And perhaps your complaint is that there is no one in your area selling elite gear so you can't hear any of it. Just be patient and eventually you will and you'll know why people spend the money on it.

Granted it sucks to have the ears for the best stuff and the budget that will never be able to afford it - but denying its superiority is just wrong IMO.

[Ajani]

Personally I am tired of reading anyone who discusses audio in terms of percentages. It doesn't really mean anything - just as looking at frequency graphs don't mean much (though something). A system that is .03db up at 3khz and mostly flat everyplace else may be deemed more accurate but it may be very irritating - conversely a speaker that is more all over the place and 3db down at that same frequency may be all day listenable and not the least bit off putting - so much for percentages.

And 95% of something else is entirely arbitrary. The saying "The devil is in the details" holds true. That 5% or 1% or .01% improvement could be the difference between a good system and a "pure magic" inspires your soul kind of difference.

The only time a percent comment makes some sense is within a company line-up. The person/reviewer is trying to say that one model's bass output is X factor better or the treble is X factor smoother. That X factor - however it is described may be the difference between mediocrity and life changing audio experience so I don't discount it.

As for $2k budgets or $15k budgets or $150k budgets. The best systems I have heard approach the $150k+ budgets. Nothing at $2k or $15k or $30K that I have heard approach the "X-Factor" "Magic Factor" of those super expensive systems. That doesn't mean the odd $15k system won't beat the odd $150k system - depends on the competency of the designers but out of all the companies who make $2k, 15k, 30k $150k systems the latter always beats the smaller dollar systems. It is true with virtually every speaker maker, amp maker, source maker. The higher priced gear almost always sounds better than lower priced gear.

That would be essentially my point... whether someone claims that a $1.5K system is as good as $15K systems OR that $15K setups are as good as $150K setups are equally preposterous...

Percentages also don't mean anything to anyone other than the person buying the gear... Your 95% could seem more like 50% to me...


And perhaps your complaint is that there is no one in your area selling elite gear so you can't hear any of it. Just be patient and eventually you will and you'll know why people spend the money on it.

Granted it sucks to have the ears for the best stuff and the budget that will never be able to afford it - but denying its superiority is just wrong IMO.

HUH? I don't deny the superiority of more expensive gear... You might be confused because of my other thread about relative prices in the UK: My main point there is that much of pricing is arbitrary, and many of us aren't as good listeners as we think/claim we are... Not that all high priced stuff is a rip off... I'm sure there is always better available when you have more money at your disposal...

[Ajani]

I'm not offended, but I still maintain that you can't get much for $2000, but can get near SOTA for $15,000. What's your $1,500 system?

I don't have one... I would never claim that a $1.5K system is near SOTA... Nor that a $15K one is...

I believe an enjoyable system can be had for $1.5K and an even better one can be had with more money...

[tube fan]

I don't have one... I would never claim that a $1.5K system is near SOTA... Nor that a $15K one is...

I believe an enjoyable system can be had for $1.5K and an even better one can be had with more money...

Well, I DO think that you can get near SOTA for $15,000. My main system compared favorably with any I heard at the 2011 CAS show. Yes, of course, IMO.
System: Fulton J speakers, Mystere CA-21 preamp, AR D70 amp,
Fosgate phono, Auditorium 23 tranny, VPI Scoutmaster, Benz Ruby 3 cartridge.

[RGA]

HUH? I don't deny the superiority of more expensive gear... You might be confused because of my other thread about relative prices in the UK: My main point there is that much of pricing is arbitrary, and many of us aren't as good listeners as we think/claim we are... Not that all high priced stuff is a rip off... I'm sure there is always better available when you have more money at your disposal...

Well and the other factor is that some companies are simply more efficient. Remember just because you may be a good audio engineer doesn't necessarily make you a good businessman. In other words one company may be able to make an amp and sell it for $1k while the other company is less efficient and makes the same kind of thing for $2k. So there is lots to consider with pricing. And we have not even started on the labor costs. Building in China versus countries where they actually want to treat workers reasonably fairly. So in other words overhead costs.

And I don't think your other thread is preposterous or that $15k systems can't beat $150k systems. It really all depends on several factors:

1) The overall design of the gear.
2) what aspects of the sound are most critical
3) the size of the room and volume requirements
4) and what you noted - the personal taste aspect when 95% better to me may be 50% better to you.

I have heard several systems in the $15k range that I would take in a second over a LOT of $150k rooms with very big name gear. UHF magazine noted this many years ago and it is still on their website as a warning to not just assume money is going to get you there - or Stereophile class A ratings etc.

Gerard's note I still remember "In fact there are tremendous barriers to high fidelity. Most of the merchants claiming to sell hi-fi wouldn't recognize it if the RCA dog bit them on the ankle. They have never heard it themselves, and they don't care whether you ever do or not. They will try to sell you boxes, some of them cheap. some of them expensive, bearing famous names. Most of it will not be hi-fi equipment."

CES is about the best of the best - but IMO a lot of it is just expensive and even some of the stuff that sounded excellent was ridiculously priced to my ear (but value is somewhat dependent on your income level) - some people think $8k is crazy for speakers while others spend that on Interconnects.

[RGA]

I believe an enjoyable system can be had for $1.5K and an even better one can be had with more money...

Ultimately it depends what you can live without and the size of room. I think you can most certainly create an enjoyable system for $1.5k.

In fact I know I can create one for even less than that. Off the top of my head:

Speakers: Audio Note AX Two standmount $700 with stands - add $100.

Amplifier - Rotel RA-02, Jolida 102b ~$500

Source - Grant Fidelity Tube DAC-09 ($225) for USB from computer or to help out whatever disc spinner you happen to own.

Might be interesting to try GF's $575 tube integrated amp instead of the Jolida or Rotel since it has more features and very likely first rate build quality. http://shop.grantfidelity.com/Shuguang-I-12-Integrated-Mini-Tube-Amp-w-headphone.html

Might be a hundred or two over but I am betting it would be a very nice system if acoustic instruments are you thing.

[tube fan]

Ultimately it depends what you can live without and the size of room. I think you can most certainly create an enjoyable system for $1.5k.

In fact I know I can create one for even less than that. Off the top of my head:

Speakers: Audio Note AX Two standmount $700 with stands - add $100.

Amplifier - Rotel RA-02, Jolida 102b ~$500

Source - Grant Fidelity Tube DAC-09 ($225) for USB from computer or to help out whatever disc spinner you happen to own.

Might be interesting to try GF's $575 tube integrated amp instead of the Jolida or Rotel since it has more features and very likely first rate build quality. http://shop.grantfidelity.com/Shuguang-I-12-Integrated-Mini-Tube-Amp-w-headphone.html

Might be a hundred or two over but I am betting it would be a very nice system if acoustic instruments are you thing.

Cost of analogue units? I need something that will play at real live levels. I'm NOT interested in background music. I listen to my Ipod at the gym, but it is NOT what I consider hifi! To get a system that will sound like live music costs more than $2000. Yes, IMO.

[RGA]

Cost of analogue units? I need something that will play at real live levels. I'm NOT interested in background music. I listen to my Ipod at the gym, but it is NOT what I consider hifi! To get a system that will sound like live music costs more than $2000. Yes, IMO.

And I also agree with you. Like I said - the system I mentioned is a compromised kind of system - ie; a bedroom system that lie in bed with at midnight kind of deal. For analog we could switch out the CD player and add a Project Debut II which comes with its own phono stage. And for louder levels the AZ Two floorstander is about $1100. But it still won't play to deafening levels. The AZ Three is more robust but the speakers themselves are $1500.

Still the AZ Three (and these MUST be placed in corners or they sound all over the place) with a more robust amplifier I still believe can be done on a budget. But it will be in the $2300 price range.

And of course this all illustrates the point that you have to spend more to get more.

It's not just about getting the speakers that will fill the space - it's about keeping the quality level up while filling the larger space. And keeping the quality of the amplification and sources.

And then factor in the music you listen to. I listen to everything so it rules out some high quality budget speakers like the Magnepan 1.7. As good as they sound - for around half the price my dealer also carries the "shock horror" Cerwin Vega CLS 215 (reviewed and recommended by Soundstage incidentally http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/cerwinvega_cls215.htm )

Now this is a very high bang for buck speaker based on my relatively short audition but with music you would not expect to play on it - good female vocals but I suspect the treble would become an issue on long sessions. Still it can really rock and play loud and fill a large room on the cheap. It's enjoyable! But what will run it for cheap. I would probably go with Rotel - the dual 15 inch woofers will require some power. Rotel has power on the relative cheap and sounds better than your average SS at often considerably more money.

[Feanor]

Ultimately it depends what you can live without and the size of room. I think you can most certainly create an enjoyable system for $1.5k.

In fact I know I can create one for even less than that. Off the top of my head:

Speakers: Audio Note AX Two standmount $700 with stands - add $100.

Amplifier - Rotel RA-02, Jolida 102b ~$500

Source - Grant Fidelity Tube DAC-09 ($225) for USB from computer or to help out whatever disc spinner you happen to own.

Might be interesting to try GF's $575 tube integrated amp instead of the Jolida or Rotel since it has more features and very likely first rate build quality. http://shop.grantfidelity.com/Shuguang-I-12-Integrated-Mini-Tube-Amp-w-headphone.html

Might be a hundred or two over but I am betting it would be a very nice system if acoustic instruments are you thing.
A pretty good recommendation, RGA. Maybe not exactly what I'd choose, but I agree that an enjoyable system is possible for < $2000.


Cost of analogue units? I need something that will play at real live levels. I'm NOT interested in background music. I listen to my Ipod at the gym, but it is NOT what I consider hifi! To get a system that will sound like live music costs more than $2000. Yes, IMO.
"Real live levels" are your personal preference, TF. I've never need "live levels" (in dB terms) to enjoy music or even feel I'm listening to something resembling live performance. The 100 dB, that you mentioned, is absurd in the home, IMO, and of course, really bad for your hearing.

[tube fan]

100 dbs? I only listen to my wife's house, trance or pop at 100 dbs.

RGA's proposed analogue system looks interesting I must admit. I loved my Spica TC50s in my office, and they were cheap. With their sub, they could play at live levels. I still prefer the Spica to my current Gallo Strata office speakers.

[Ajani]

Well and the other factor is that some companies are simply more efficient. Remember just because you may be a good audio engineer doesn't necessarily make you a good businessman. In other words one company may be able to make an amp and sell it for $1k while the other company is less efficient and makes the same kind of thing for $2k. So there is lots to consider with pricing. And we have not even started on the labor costs. Building in China versus countries where they actually want to treat workers reasonably fairly. So in other words overhead costs.

And I don't think your other thread is preposterous or that $15k systems can't beat $150k systems. It really all depends on several factors:

1) The overall design of the gear.
2) what aspects of the sound are most critical
3) the size of the room and volume requirements
4) and what you noted - the personal taste aspect when 95% better to me may be 50% better to you.

I have heard several systems in the $15k range that I would take in a second over a LOT of $150k rooms with very big name gear. UHF magazine noted this many years ago and it is still on their website as a warning to not just assume money is going to get you there - or Stereophile class A ratings etc.

Gerard's note I still remember "In fact there are tremendous barriers to high fidelity. Most of the merchants claiming to sell hi-fi wouldn't recognize it if the RCA dog bit them on the ankle. They have never heard it themselves, and they don't care whether you ever do or not. They will try to sell you boxes, some of them cheap. some of them expensive, bearing famous names. Most of it will not be hi-fi equipment."

CES is about the best of the best - but IMO a lot of it is just expensive and even some of the stuff that sounded excellent was ridiculously priced to my ear (but value is somewhat dependent on your income level) - some people think $8k is crazy for speakers while others spend that on Interconnects.

Oh I have no issue with the idea that based on tastes a specific $15K setup can be preferred to a $150K one, but the idea that a $15K system is near SOTA and as good as ANY $150K, $500K, $1M, etc system is laughable.. I don't believe the person would have enough experience with such systems to make that determination in the first place...

Despite what many claim, this hobby is very much about subtlety and learning to listen... So claiming that in a quick audition at a show I didn't hear anything superior about a $300K setup and the $20K one I have at home, is a joke... Until you spend real time directly comparing the two, you really have no idea how much you may be missing...

[Ajani]

Well, I DO think that you can get near SOTA for $15,000. My main system compared favorably with any I heard at the 2011 CAS show. Yes, of course, IMO.

Well that is the point: such an observation is only valid to you... Someone who owns or has substantial experience with one of those ultra expensive systems might accuse you of being deaf or just calling the grapes sour because you can't afford it...

[tube fan]

Well that is the point: such an observation is only valid to you... Someone who owns or has substantial experience with one of those ultra expensive systems might accuse you of being deaf or just calling the grapes sour because you can't afford it...

I'm a huge fan of blind testing to remove all bias, both in wines and in audio equipment. And, no, I'm certainly not deaf! I hated early ss and digital when most were praising them. Does ANYTHING in my reference system look like someone who was deaf would love? BTW, I've been quite lucky, and CAN afford almost any audio system as any wines. My wine cellar is stocked with great wines even some that cost $100 way back in 1982. Of course, that was for Mouton-Rothschild, Margaux, Haut-Brion, and Cheval Blanc. Yes, most of my cellar is stocked with wines that cost less than $30, like the 1982 Pichon Lalande (my favorite Bordaux excepting for the 1945 Mouton). I am perfectly ready to buy expensive audio components, IF they sound markedly superior to mine.

[RGA]

I'm a huge fan of blind testing to remove all bias, both in wines and in audio equipment. And, no, I'm certainly not deaf! I hated early ss and digital when most were praising them. Does ANYTHING in my reference system look like someone who was deaf would love? BTW, I've been quite lucky, and CAN afford almost any audio system as any wines. My wine cellar is stocked with great wines even some that cost $100 way back in 1982. Of course, that was for Mouton-Rothschild, Margaux, Haut-Brion, and Cheval Blanc. Yes, most of my cellar is stocked with wines that cost less than $30, like the 1982 Pichon Lalande (my favorite Bordaux excepting for the 1945 Mouton). I am perfectly ready to buy expensive audio components, IF they sound markedly superior to mine.

I never really like the comparison of audio equipment and wine or any food item. Wine prices are dictated more on the market than expense of creating the actual wine. Indeed, I know plenty of people who prefer Guinness to any wine no matter how expensive - if you don't like the taste of wine - it really doesn't matter how much you pay - you still are not going to like wine. Yet even people who don't necessarily care about audio - can generally tell which sounds better. And it doesn't take a blind test to tell you which sounds better.

The main reason I don't put a lot of trust in a blind test to make a decision on is that I have done such a test sighted, then blind then sighted. Sighted I preferred a CD player to several others. This test was level matched through a line level headphone amplifier that could connect 8 sources and 8 headphones. You could wear the headphones connect the CD players, level match them put the same CD in each player and play them all at the same time. Someone else can flip the switch and you would not know what CD player you were listening to.

Sighted I chose A. Blind - I really had some difficulty and didn't pass to statistical significance. Although I was "trying" and not really listening the way I would normally listen (hence what is known as a test stress and this never goes away no matter how the test is done). Anyway, I didn't pass.

With that knowledge the DBT lover should expect the following: Ahh - I know that blind I can't tell a difference so all the players sound the same! So I should buy the cheapest model that has the features I need. Trouble was that as soon as I went back to my normal sighted test I still could not get passed the fact that A sounded better. So what do you do here? You buy the cheapest one because you failed a test (that isn't really testing normal listening habits and has its own test stress bias factor) or do you say ok I failed this test but unit A continues to sound better sighted (and level matched). Gotta go with the end result. In this particular case while I did think A sounded better it wasn't better enough for me to really care all that much about it. Though it was a mid priced unit and not one of the more expensive ones interestingly enough.

Frankly if the differences are so close that you feel you need a blind test to separate the differences then whatever difference it is probably isn't really worth the extra money.

I suppose I do have one advantage with the gear that I like. SET, AN speakers, and no filter zero times oversampling sources. SET amps measure so poorly they will easily be detected in blind tests, and AN digital measures so different than anything else that it too will be detected in blind sessions. And that leaves speakers - the least necessary of the lot to do such tests.

[tube fan]

RGA, I am talking about longterm blind listening tests. For example, when I compared the Fosgate phono unit to my AR SP8 phono section, I played dozens of records over a period of two weeks. In blind listening tests, I focus on the music, and rate each record (on a 100 points scale) for each of the units under consideration. No time pressure whatsoever. If one unit produces significantly higher scores, it's my winner.

[JoeE SP9]

I agree with tube fan. It's been my experience that blind testing over a long term does reveal small differences in gear. Short term testing as usually practiced in most DBT's doesn't reveal anything other than no one is able to hear any difference under the test conditions.

LTLT (Long term listening test) is the only way to hear what a component is doing or not doing.

[Raj J]

I hope you're not under the impression that I'm calling the grapes sour...

I actually have a very similar philosophy: there's always better available if you have the time to research it and the money to afford it... but, you can find a great sounding system for virtually any budget...

What I've always found amusing in HiFi is how audiophiles will say things like my $15K setup gives me 95% of the sound of a $150K setup, and anyone who spends that kind of money has more money than brains... YET, that same person will be offended when someone with a $1.5K system claims to get 95% of the performance of a $15K setup... Both are just cases of the fox calling the grapes sour...

yes! there is always second hand out there, carefully used gear that is very satisfying, and very affordable, that's how I started! The main thing that makes me happy is to see the person really enjoying his/her music no matter what kind of audio system they have. I truly don't care if they have spent a million bucks or just one dollar! As long as they are enjoying their music, that's all that matters. Why not go ahead and ask them that question? you'll be surprised...

well it's 7:35pm now, I'm clocking off at the office heading straight home. daughter has gone off to camp and the good wife is staying over at a friends place. I will be meeting Kenny Burrel, Ray Charles and Liz Wright tonight accompanied with the usual premium larger...
have a good one, cheers!

[filecat13]

My questions are meant to determine whether hearing the SOTA system really helped you... I doubt even you believe that you needed to hear the SOTA to like the speakers you have now... So whether you hate my sarcasm, my point is that hearing SOTA is irrelevant to buying decisions (unless you are actually aiming to buy a SOTA system)...

Also, you don't have to give them any "credibility", as my questions are already credible. Your story on the other hand, while entertaining, added nothing to this discussion...

I'd forgotten about this until I got spammed back to the forum by another thread I'd subscribed to. Your skepticism deserves a response, and I neglected to do so.

As simple as it gets.

I went to CAS with no intent to purchase.
I heard JBL Everest II loudspeakers while there.
I was blown away by the MF and HF produced by those horns. Best of show IMO, despite the problematic room.
I went back to that room more than once to be sure I really liked high-priced horns that much.
I knew I could not afford $66,000 speakers.
The dealer had $44,000 JBL K2 speakers with similar horns/drivers sitting unused on the same room and had no plans to hook them up. (Why bring them?)
As the show closed for the day, we prevailed on him to hook them up after most everyone had left.
Upon hearing them that one time I was compelled to get them. They were nearly as good as the SOTA K2s (and available for less than 44k).
Without hearing those unobtainable (to me) SOTA Everests I would never have desired to hear the K2s and decided to purchase them. I cannot think of a logical sequence in which I would have sought out a dealer to listen to K2s before going to the show, since I was not in the market for expensive speakers.
Hearing $66k speakers, then hearing how very close much cheaper speakers are makes a (less than) $44,000 expenditure seem "reasonable," whereas, going out to look/listen/buy $44k speakers seems "unreasonable" to me. That's why I'd never go to the trouble of seeking a hard-to-find dealer to get the speakers I ended up with.


At least my original story was entertaining. Thanks for that.

[Feanor]

I'd forgotten about this until I got spammed back to the forum by another thread I'd subscribed to. Your skepticism deserves a response, and I neglected to do so.




As simple as it gets.
I went to CAS with no intent to purchase.
I heard JBL Everest II loudspeakers while there.
I was blown away by the MF and HF produced by those horns. Best of show IMO, despite the problematic room.
I went back to that room more than once to be sure I really liked high-priced horns that much.
I knew I could not afford $66,000 speakers.
The dealer had $44,000 JBL K2 speakers with similar horns/drivers sitting unused on the same room and had no plans to hook them up. (Why bring them?)
As the show closed for the day, we prevailed on him to hook them up after most everyone had left.
Upon hearing them that one time I was compelled to get them. They were nearly as good as the SOTA K2s (and available for less than 44k).
Without hearing those unobtainable (to me) SOTA Everests I would never have desired to hear the K2s and decided to purchase them. I cannot think of a logical sequence in which I would have sought out a dealer to listen to K2s before going to the show, since I was not in the market for expensive speakers.
Hearing $66k speakers, then hearing how very close much cheaper speakers are makes a (less than) $44,000 expenditure seem "reasonable," whereas, going out to look/listen/buy $44k speakers seems "unreasonable" to me. That's why I'd never go to the trouble of seeking a hard-to-find dealer to get the speakers I ended up with.
At least my original story was entertaining. Thanks for that.
Filecat13, you luck JBLophile you, congrats. Enjoy the K2's.

For sure I wish I had you problems vis-ŕ-vis SOTA. For me spending $44k on speakers would be only slightly more absurd than spending the same amount on an automobile.

[filecat13]

Filecat13, you luck JBLophile you, congrats. Enjoy the K2's.

For sure I wish I had you problems vis-ŕ-vis SOTA. For me spending $44k on speakers would be only slightly more absurd than spending the same amount on an automobile.

Maybe that's why I drive a six-year-old Kia. :wink5:

[RGA]

Filecat

I hate cars. I have put so much money into these damn cars that I could have made huge upgrades to my stereo. Once I get a stable job - in one location I am living in walking distance and I'll rent a car on the odd weekend if I want to go someplace.

Spending $20k+ on a speaker is not crazy - if you choose right and you know you will keep them then they can last 30+ years. A car practically falls apart in year 10 these days. Once mechanic friend who is very very knowledgable about all cars - even Kia (I have a Rondo) noted to avoid virtually any car using a 6 speed automatic transmission). Too small, too hot, blow up fast, expensive to fix - get the warranty! hahaha.

Just giant money pits. The rondo I bought was 3 years old and only had 18,000Km on it. Had it a year and it's been the best vehicle I have ever owned. I get the same gas mileage out of it that I got on my Toyota Corolla. The Kia is much heavier, stronger, safer and a V6 engine. The Toyota was a big pile of overrated junk - oh and it could probably kill me with the whole - breaks don't override the gas pedal thing. I am selling it to go live overseas but if I come back to the west and do decide to buy another car - I would definitely look into Kia and Hyundai(same company now). More features, longer warranties, generally safer, good mileage and generally cheaper. They came a long way from the Pony.



:21:

[Feanor]

Filecat

I hate cars. I have put so much money into these damn cars that I could have made huge upgrades to my stereo. Once I get a stable job - in one location I am living in walking distance and I'll rent a car on the odd weekend if I want to go someplace.

Spending $20k+ on a speaker is not crazy - if you choose right and you know you will keep them then they can last 30+ years. A car practically falls apart in year 10 these days. Once mechanic friend who is very very knowledgable about all cars - even Kia (I have a Rondo) noted to avoid virtually any car using a 6 speed automatic transmission). Too small, too hot, blow up fast, expensive to fix - get the warranty! hahaha.

Just giant money pits. The rondo I bought was 3 years old and only had 18,000Km on it. Had it a year and it's been the best vehicle I have ever owned. I get the same gas mileage out of it that I got on my Toyota Corolla. The Kia is much heavier, stronger, safer and a V6 engine. The Toyota was a big pile of overrated junk - oh and it could probably kill me with the whole - breaks don't override the gas pedal thing. I am selling it to go live overseas but if I come back to the west and do decide to buy another car - I would definitely look into Kia and Hyundai(same company now). More features, longer warranties, generally safer, good mileage and generally cheaper. They came a long way from the Pony.

It's all very well for a single person to advocate spending as much on hi-fi as on one's automobile but it's probably less practical for us married persons.

The Kia Rondo is an interesting vehical -- a sort of small-but-tall station wagon or mini-minivan -- and I am considering it as a possible replacement for my aging Taurus wagon. Interestingly it doesn't seem to be sold in the USA; in any case it isn't mentioned in Consumer Reports reviews.

[RGA]

Feanor

The Rondo got a recommended tag in the prior to the current issues of Consumer Reports. And it got a whopping 4 stars out of 5 from he Lemon-Aid - Honda Accord and Civic only got 3 stars and the Toyota Corolla got 2. Elantra touring got top marks at 5 stars.

Kia is no longer selling the Rondo in the U.S. market but it is one of the better sellers in Canada. It's kind of strange - I figured it would be a better seller because it offers a huge amount of leg room headroom excellent visibility ample power and cargo space. I folded the seats down and got a full single bed in the back with the box spring and I could still close the hatch - That's pretty good for a mini-mini-van.

Everyone who's been in it has liked it. It's more of a soccer mom mobile I admit but I choose practical and reliable as first considerations and worry over looks later. While I am selling my Rondo due to working overseas possibilities - I can say when and if I ever come back to Canada I would definitely be looking at Hyundai and Kia. The Lemon aid only really gave good marks to the Rondo - none of their other cars - though I think a couple got 3 stars. It's better than the 1 star ratings most of them got when they first came out.

My car has 40,000km on it and I still have a full wrap warranty to 2017 and 180,000km - so if you know anyone on Vancouver Island/Vancouver looking for one let me know :2:

[Raj J]

hey good one!

the car is a load of bollocks! unless you were some high flying corporate exec who obviously needed good wheels to go places specially those high profile client visits. then again most exec's these days would be provided with cars from the company and all paid for.

that's good because then you can focus some decent monies into your audio system. I have not bothered to go the other way, plus fuel prices are crazy these days in Australia, more of the smaller cars are coming up in a big way. Hyundai, Kia, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Honda etc, all are extremely good on fuel/milage; I would trade in my Honda sports accord any day for one of these smaller babies.

the wifey is also pleased to run around in a smaller car, hepls with the parking; that's when I just sit back on the weekends and listen to my favorite tracks until late. afterall that's what it's all about "enjoy the music!"
cheers, RJ

p.s. now I have started saving for my daughter's education... that's more important than audio systems, plus in a span of the last 6 years I have reached the pinnacle with my system and very content with the results. Quad & c-j what more do you need.

[Ajani]

It's all very well for a single person to advocate spending as much on hi-fi as on one's automobile but it's probably less practical for us married persons.

Yep... I can't imagine explaining to my GF (much less my wife - if we get married) that I intend to spend more money on the HiFi than on a car....

I do agree with RGA and Raj J that a car is really just a status symbol for many people... (though of course, expensive HiFi can also be just a status symbol for some persons)... My feeling is to spend your money on what you like; so if you value HiFi more than cars (and are single or have a VERY understanding spouse) then get that ultra expensive HiFi rig...

[Ajani]

I'd forgotten about this until I got spammed back to the forum by another thread I'd subscribed to. Your skepticism deserves a response, and I neglected to do so.

As simple as it gets.

I went to CAS with no intent to purchase.
I heard JBL Everest II loudspeakers while there.
I was blown away by the MF and HF produced by those horns. Best of show IMO, despite the problematic room.
I went back to that room more than once to be sure I really liked high-priced horns that much.
I knew I could not afford $66,000 speakers.
The dealer had $44,000 JBL K2 speakers with similar horns/drivers sitting unused on the same room and had no plans to hook them up. (Why bring them?)
As the show closed for the day, we prevailed on him to hook them up after most everyone had left.
Upon hearing them that one time I was compelled to get them. They were nearly as good as the SOTA K2s (and available for less than 44k).
Without hearing those unobtainable (to me) SOTA Everests I would never have desired to hear the K2s and decided to purchase them. I cannot think of a logical sequence in which I would have sought out a dealer to listen to K2s before going to the show, since I was not in the market for expensive speakers.
Hearing $66k speakers, then hearing how very close much cheaper speakers are makes a (less than) $44,000 expenditure seem "reasonable," whereas, going out to look/listen/buy $44k speakers seems "unreasonable" to me. That's why I'd never go to the trouble of seeking a hard-to-find dealer to get the speakers I ended up with.


At least my original story was entertaining. Thanks for that.

The chain of events makes perfect sense... But suppose that the dealer had initially setup the K2s instead of the Everest at the show; in that case you would have heard the K2 but not the Everest. Chances are that you might have opened your chequebook in that scenario as well, as the K2 is clearly top quality speaker in its own right...

But yes I can understand that if I went to a show and heard a SOTA piece from a manufacturer and was blown away, then I'd want to audition any cheaper gear they have in my price range...

[RGA]

Ajani

Agreed. The Lemon aid guide for example rates cars on quality, reliability and safety - A Hyundai Elantra Touring (designed in Germany) is given 5 stars. All Mercedes and B&W Models get 3 stars or lower and basically called overpriced junk in some cases.

But because the sticker is $90,000 it is automatically viewed as being better.

I have heard $50,000+ amplifiers from Krell, Soullution, Edge that I would not trade my modest amplifier for - and it's not close. And I think back to that lemon-aid guide about the cars. I don't get it.

Even if I was to factor in performance on the car front - it still doesn't make sense - It is illegal to drive the cars to the point where the performance is going to matter - so basically the only way to get the performance factor advantage is to skirt the law and put lives in jeopardy.

With stereo gear - it comes down to design. A good Single Ended amplifier is a single ended amplifier and no amount of money spent on solid state high negative feedback will match it no matter how expensive the amp. Of course there is a subjective aspect to this in that you have to hold the design as the best sounding design you've heard. So IMO and IME are tags that have to be used. And more expensive SET tends to sound a lot better than less expensive SET. So a direct car analogy can't be truly made.

[tube fan]

I've only had five cars in my life. But then, I've only had two speakers, excluding my office speakers and the Dunlavy SCIVs I bought from my brother: the classic AR 3a and the Fulton Js. BTW, I have NEVER heard a system that is significantly better than my mostly decades old one (Fulton J speakers, AR SP 8 preamp or Mystere CA21, AR D70 amp, VPI Scoutmaster tt, Benz Ruby 3, Fosgate phono or Counterpoint CA 2 prepreamp). I am currently looking into a tube reel-to-reel tape deck after hearing one at the 2111 CAS. BACK TO THE FUTURE!

[Dual-500]

For me it's not about leading edge state of the art - it's about buying quality gear in the first place. About 1/2 of my system was purchased "used". All the amps were picked up used - one got a full restoration before being put into service. System controllers were purchased new and the outboard eq's. All used speaker components.

[filecat13]

BTW, I have NEVER heard a system that is significantly better than my mostly decades old one (Fulton J speakers, AR SP 8 preamp or Mystere CA21, AR D70 amp, VPI Scoutmaster tt, Benz Ruby 3, Fosgate phono or Counterpoint CA 2 prepreamp). I am currently looking into a tube reel-to-reel tape deck after hearing one at the 2111 CAS. BACK TO THE FUTURE!

What a curious statement!

[marlonrom]

State of the art seem to be more sloganism designed to entice consumers to go visit certain showrooms. For me, I'll be more careful when manufacturers touts their products being their flagship or top of their line etc. I'd learn a costly lesson in some of my Yamaha and DBX components which no longer gives me listening pleasure but keeps my office documents and magazines organized as paperweights!

[JoeE SP9]

A product that's "the top of the line" or the "flagship" is not necessarily related to being "state of the art". AFAIK DBX has never truly aspired in that direction. Although Yamaha has made some true state of the art, their "sota" products are few, far between and widely sought after. TBH, that rules out just about every receiver, expander, or equalizer and a very large percentage of of integrated amps.
If you have some Yamaha mono blocks or one of their sold only in Japan preamps I'd be interested in taking those paperweights off your hands.:biggrin5:

The price of an inexpensive paperweight would, I believe, be appropriate. :ihih: