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). 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). 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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.