The Larger Picture

[okiemax]

Just my $0.02 worth of comment: Philosophically, I don't believe any distortion to the efficient operation of the marketplace is good, whether it be by fraud, deception, ignorance of consumer or government fiat or forced allocation.

If certain products are being subsidiezed by cables that demand high price because of fraud or deceptive advertising, I don't think that's a good thing. I'm not necessarily saying that's the case, but I sensed that buried in your statement was an assumption that the cable mark-up in and of itself is not justified.

No, I didn't mean to imply the mark-up on cables is not justified. I don't have data on the mark-up for different audio and video products, but I have heard cables have a higher mark-up than the other items. I suppose if the difference was extreme, you might question the justification. But then you could question the justification for the prices of a lot of things.

[E-Stat]

Most audio products are sold on the basis of testimonials and personal experience, so that puts it into the preference category, not the performance category.

If you return to our resident ditch digger's comments to which you are responding, it is his profoundly shallow assertion that all amplifiers sound alike. My guess is that you do not share that opinion since you own a tube amplifier yourself despite the "poorer" generic specifications. That reminds me, did you ever test your theory that there are no warmup effects with amplifiers? Remember I suggested you try a simple experiment that I did with my VTLs? To wit: turn them on and check the tube bias. Check them an hour later and see if there is any difference. I get decidedly different readings. And sonics.

This is really the beef I have. People tend to push their preferences by citing performance.

The observation that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of amplifiers with more sonic truth than the chip amp in my Sony boombox is so incredibly obvious for anyone with remotely articulate hearing and musical awareness. But not, of course, for our ever perspicacious vanguard of the mediocre and trumpeter of non-experience. It is only once you get substantially beyond that basic truth that particular preferences come into play. No disagreement there. I do not assert that everyone will prefer my VTLs over say a Pass Labs amp. Each one excels in different areas.

rw

[E-Stat]

And yes, membrane speakers do offer far more detail than do cone speakers.

Although I am a planar and electrostat fan from way back, I would have to disagree with this broad generalization. Cones have come a long way especially when coupled with ribbons at the top.

rw

[Mash]

Skep
I seem to remember the Rectilinear brand, but I fail to see the overwhelming merit to your historical nugget that "It might interest you to know that about 35 years ago several respected reviewers published in their magazines that Rectilinear III a box and cone speaker was a virtual dead ringer for the sound of Quad ESL 63 an electrostatic speaker except that the Rectilinear III had better bass. "

I mean, so what? Why should I, or you, care what reviewers writing in commercial mags write about equipment?

I bought my Stereo-60 Futterman amp in 1973 for $300 after I heard a Futterman Stereo-60 driving Tympani at a Doctor's house. I bought my matched pair of Mono-100 Futterman amps in 1974 for $500. Good lord, man, at that time there had not been a review of Futterman amps ANYWHERE since about 1961! And note that in 1973 Mr. F had a 3 month order-backlog strictly from word-of-mouth sales. By 1974 Mr. F's word-of-mouth sales-backlog was 9 months. Could Rectilinear have managed success with word-of-mouth sales? Heck, no. Rectilinear bought ads.

Futtermans were neither advertised nor reviewed anywhere until after Harvey R. had bought the patents from Mr F. in 1976 after which he started NYAL. After Harvey started buying big ads for his expensive Futtermans, the reviews appeared. Pure coincidence, I am sure...... People to this day blame Mr. F for how expensive his amps were, but they should thank Harvey.

Other people's opinions and published reviews are strictly for my amusement or awareness, but not for my deciding how I spend my money. The gear I buy MUST reproduce the live recital. That is my only criteria. I have read Stereopile reviews from time to time but only for giggles. I read the blah-blah nitter-natter part, and then I read the test results and 'test summary & conclusions' after which I would try to guess (before looking) how big an ad the manufacturer had bought: full page, half-page, or what?

I also found that Stereopile's recommended-equipment classifications correlated fairly well with the equipments' retail prices: Class A equipment always seemed to cost much more than Class B equipment which cost more than Class C equipment. Equipment not advertised never seemed to be reviewed. I think the justification was along the lines that the equipment had to be "readily offered for public sale" which seemed to imply the equipment had to be advertised. Equipment had to be rereviewed perodically to continue being recommended.

So why should you or I care, then or now, that ".......several respected reviewers published in their magazines that Rectilinear III a box and cone speaker was a virtual dead ringer for the sound of Quad ESL 63...." ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??????????????????????????

[skeptic]

"I seem to remember the Rectilinear brand, but I fail to see the overwhelming merit to your historical nugget that "It might interest you to know that about 35 years ago several respected reviewers published in their magazines that Rectilinear III a box and cone speaker was a virtual dead ringer for the sound of Quad ESL 63 an electrostatic speaker except that the Rectilinear III had better bass. "

I heard this speaker on several occasions and I thought very highly of it myself. Unfortunately, I couldn't afford them at the time. I didn't have an opportunity to A/B it against Quad ESL 63. However, if what the reviewers said was true and I have no reason to believe it wasn't, it puts the lie to the notion that somehow membrane speakers are inherently different due to improved clarity, resolution or whatever else someone wishes to claim for them.

"I also found that Stereopile's recommended-equipment classifications correlated fairly well with the equipments' retail prices: Class A equipment always seemed to cost much more than Class B equipment which cost more than Class C equipment. Equipment not advertised never seemed to be reviewed."

I have always considered Stereophile Magazine a rag. I don't know what they do now but the few times I read through a few issues many years ago, they had no measurements to back up anything they said. Why should it surprise anyone that the quality ratings of equipment on their recommended list correlates to the prices of the equipment they advertise while non advertised equipment doesn't make it on to the list? The first thought that occurs to me is that they are pandering to their advertisers. (I am a skeptic after all.) Just one more reason for me to view it as a rag written by whores.

BTW, I was a great admirer of Julius Futterman's work and his designs. He solved an electrical engineering problem nobody else could. As I've written in other postings, I thought NYAL did a fantastic job modernizing it and I attended seminars and demos associated with the AES convention in NYC in 1983. It is unique among all vaccum tube amplifiers and sounds as clear as a fine solid state unit demonstrating again to my satisfaction that the major shortcoming of other vacuum tube amplfiers is the high impedence plate output and the impedence matching transformer, and that neither transistors nor tubes have an inherent sound quality of their own. The real shortcoming of the NYAL amplifier is that if you ever need to have it repaired or its bias volatges adjusted, there is only one place in the world that has the equipment and skill to do it and that at Croton on Hudson....if they still exist.

[mtrycraft]

It really is better than just reading about it.

rw

Which parts? Much of it is not. Oh, maybe the actual music? I do listen to music, not the components.

[mtrycraft]

If you return to our resident ditch digger's comments to which you are responding, it is his profoundly shallow assertion that all amplifiers sound alike.


Perhaps if you exerted yourself, just a tiny bit, you would be more forthright and not distort, or make up things as you go. But, reality is not in you.




The observation that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of amplifiers with more sonic truth than the chip amp in my Sony boombox is so incredibly obvious for anyone with remotely articulate hearing and musical awareness. But not, of course, for our ever perspicacious vanguard of the mediocre and trumpeter of non-experience.

And, your tireless distortions are up to your usual self.

[E-Stat]

Which parts? Much of it is not.

Much of life is better read about than experienced? Man, you need to get out of the house more often.

I do listen to music, not the components.

Yeah, that ol' boom box sounds identical to symphony hall.

rw

[Mash]

Skep- Ted Hammond, the former tech whiz at NYAL, updated my Futtermans to the NYAL config including the auto-bias scheme. No more periodic adjustments with a DMM. I also use a home-built soft-start box [which saved me some blown output tubes many years ago when a diode failed. Mr F fixed that little problem.].

Gotta say, tho- you hafta hear the Futterman-Tympani combo to believe it....

I think the Fournier amps may be clones.

[skeptic]

Did they upgrade you to the solid state power supply too?

[Mash]

Good question... I never looked. $400 incl new tubes only goes so far....... Still, 30 years and counting on an amp is a pretty good ROI.

I do believe you otta try a tube-driven Magnepan with its linear voice-wires-on-membranes sometime. Cone speakers have those 'voice coils' wound on bobbins that therefore have inductance ( as I remember inductance is the equiv of a 'mass' in mechanical mass-spring-damper systems). Soldering up AL voice wires is a trip when you want to mod..........