Does "state of the art" matter?

[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.

[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). 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.

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/anmeldels...den/A21rev.htm


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

[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...

[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.

[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...

[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.