Does "state of the art" matter?

[Ajani]

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

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

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

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

[RGA]

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

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

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

[Ajani]

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

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

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

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

[RGA]

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



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

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

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

[Ajani]

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

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

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

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

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

[RGA]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ajani]

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

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

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

[Ajani]

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

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

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

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

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