Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 162
  1. #26
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442
    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.
    ...regards...tr

  2. #27
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    Depends upon which Ferrari as compared with which BMW. A Z8 would handily outperform a Dino.

    rw

  3. #28
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442
    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.
    ...regards...tr

  4. #29
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    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.

  5. #30
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    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...

  6. #31
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    355
    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.

  7. #32
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    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.

  8. #33
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    ....
    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?

  9. #34
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    ^ 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.

  10. #35
    Forum Regular filecat13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    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.
    I like sulung tang.

  11. #36
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by filecat13
    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...

  12. #37
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    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.

  13. #38
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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?

  14. #39
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    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...

  15. #40
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    SOTA is a stupid word for audio anyway.
    It is neither a "word" nor is the term limited to audio.

    rw

  16. #41
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    355
    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!

  17. #42
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by 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!
    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...
    Last edited by Ajani; 05-07-2011 at 09:44 PM.

  18. #43
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by 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!
    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.
    Last edited by Feanor; 05-08-2011 at 03:52 AM.

  19. #44
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    355
    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!

  20. #45
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    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...

  21. #46
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by 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!
    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...
    Last edited by Ajani; 05-08-2011 at 08:16 AM.

  22. #47
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    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.

  23. #48
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    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.

  24. #49
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    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...

  25. #50
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442
    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!
    ...regards...tr

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •