Does "state of the art" matter?

[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]

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

I agree with all of that, though I would say that SOTA is almost never meant for the average consumer... Some products are not even meant to be sold at all (KEF had a a concept speaker - Blade I believe, that was not for sale)....

However, the eventual trickle down doesn't affect my current buying decisions, nor does it mean I need to audition anything currently SOTA...

[hifitommy]

xxxxx

[RGA]

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.



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...

Seriously that is the only difference you hear between the Atom and the Studio 100 is that the 100 fills a larger room. If so - I get where you're coming from and I can't help you. the 100 will fill a larger room but it also has several more octaves and a better treble band. The 100V2. And frankly why not try better examples than mid-fi brands.

Yes it has nothing to do with experience or sound quality it is all about price level - which I guess is why I can buy $30 headphones and run it through my laptop and it's obviously just as good as your headphone rig - you just wasted all that extra money because it's all about price level. Oh wait - when you spend $2k it's about quality and much better sound but if someone spends more than you it's because they want to show off how much they spent?

Also regarding the Bose 901 - there is a lot of good tech in the original design - it could have really been something had they continued to make it better - they opted to make it cheaper using worse parts and spent all their money on marketing. It has sold to non audiophiles as a gimmick product just as most everything else sells as a gimmick product kind of like B&O. The thread is about audiophiles the vast majority of whom are talking about quality audio gear. It's a silly strawman argument like saying that the Big Mac has sold for 40+ years so it belongs in a discussion about fine dining restaurants.

[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...

[E-Stat]

MP3 sounds like dreck but it is state of the art or was when it came out.

State of the art in efficient transmission of voice for Telcos perhaps, but has never been from an audio performance standpoint. Let's leave straw men out of the conversation.

Kind of like CD when it came out - it was SOTA

Neither was that true. Dr. Stockham's digital recordings used by Telarc preceeded the Redbook standard and were sampled at 50k vs. 44.1k. That represented a big difference when it came to the nature of the brickwall filter required.

rw

[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...

[Ajani]

Seriously that is the only difference you hear between the Atom and the Studio 100 is that the 100 fills a larger room. If so - I get where you're coming from and I can't help you. the 100 will fill a larger room but it also has several more octaves and a better treble band. The 100V2. And frankly why not try better examples than mid-fi brands.

Yes it has nothing to do with experience or sound quality it is all about price level - which I guess is why I can buy $30 headphones and run it through my laptop and it's obviously just as good as your headphone rig - you just wasted all that extra money because it's all about price level. Oh wait - when you spend $2k it's about quality and much better sound but if someone spends more than you it's because they want to show off how much they spent?

Also regarding the Bose 901 - there is a lot of good tech in the original design - it could have really been something had they continued to make it better - they opted to make it cheaper using worse parts and spent all their money on marketing. It has sold to non audiophiles as a gimmick product just as most everything else sells as a gimmick product kind of like B&O. The thread is about audiophiles the vast majority of whom are talking about quality audio gear. It's a silly strawman argument like saying that the Big Mac has sold for 40+ years so it belongs in a discussion about fine dining restaurants.

1) I never said the ONLY difference between the Atom and Studio 100 was scale. I said it was the main difference... That point should be easy enough to understand...

2) No idea what you are babbling on about with the whole buying to show off thing... I've never claimed anything like that... perhaps you want to have an argument with Pix...

3) The Bose 901 is not a straw-man argument - it is valid based on the silly point you keep bringing up about how AN, etc are using FUGLY ancient designs, therefore it's somehow evidence they are better than the newer stuff... There are several brands continuing to produce FUGLY old gear (Klipsch's heritage line for example), but that doesn't mean they are better than all the new gear out there... Some persons and reviewers love the Klipschorn, others think it sounds like a PA system... Same applies to Sugden... Contrary to the way you carry on, not everyone loves Sudgen...

[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...

[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.

[RGA]

Some persons and reviewers love the Klipschorn, others think it sounds like a PA system... Same applies to Sugden... Contrary to the way you carry on, not everyone loves Sudgen...

Please link the reviewers who think the Sugden amps sound like PA systems - or the KHorn for that matter?

[Ajani]

Please link the reviewers who think the Sugden amps sound like PA systems - or the KHorn for that matter?

I like how you chose to interpret my comment... Rather than the obvious interpretation that not everyone likes the KHorn (which I've seen described by users as sounding like a PA system - don't think it was a reviewer though and frankly I don't intend to go scouring Google to look for that exact description of it either) or the Sugden, you intrepret it to be that reviewers described both the KHorn and Sugden as sounding like PA systems...

[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.

[RGA]

I like how you chose to interpret my comment... Rather than the obvious interpretation that not everyone likes the KHorn (which I've seen described by users as sounding like a PA system - don't think it was a reviewer though and frankly I don't intend to go scouring Google to look for that exact description of it either) or the Sugden, you intrepret it to be that reviewers described both the KHorn and Sugden as sounding like PA systems...

Yes and people love Big Macs but I don't necessarily trust their opinions on fine dining. I would trust Gordon Ramsey more than I would trust a guy who eats fast food 7 times a week. Just as I would trust someone who has good ears over some guy who says something on a forum. I have never read a negative Sugden A21a review. Granted some like it better than the newer Sugden A21SE but I have not heard the latter so I can't say if the older version is better.

As for the Khorn - lots of people blather opinions of all Klipsch and all horns based on one audition of one lower end Klipsch with some belief they all sound the same because they use horns. Regurgitating what they read on another forum by another poster.

I do not weight all opinions as equal - I weight stronger the opinions of those who have more experience and who to me have proven to possess good ears. Or in the case of food who have proven to have good taste buds. So when Ramsey can be blindfolded and eats a bunch of different things and can tell you what they are versus most of the trainees who can't then he has illustrated that he has superior taste buds. Having said that I get why people would not like the K-Horn.

The A21a in it's price range is pretty untouchable. There are other good amps one might like the flavour of, and the Phono stage of the A21a isn't very good - but if one buys an external phono or doesn't need it - can't see anyone complaining. For SS sound and not needing a lot of power - it's an end of the road product for an attractive price point.

[Ajani]

I do not weight all opinions as equal - I weight stronger the opinions of those who have more experience and who to me have proven to possess good ears.

Experience I can understand (even though we clearly disagree on what constitutes experience), but how pray tell is someone "proven to possess good ears"?

Does that mean they share your views on what sounds good?

Since I notice you consistently mention specific Stereophile reviewers (who share your opinions on AN and/or Sudgen) but straight out disregard just as/more experienced Stereophile reviewers (who don't share your opinions).

[RGA]

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.

What a joke. Most reviewers have one or at best a couple of system pieces to try - Dealers are FIFTY times more likely to be able to make a better system match than ANY review on the planet. Even the wealthy reviewers. Dealers, good dealers like soundhounds, carry probably 40 amplifiers alone, 30 CD players, 30 loudspeaker pairs and a dozen turntables, and who knows how many cables. They are in a FAR FAR better position to be able to find a great sonic match than a reviewer who may own two amplifiers 2 sources and maybe 2-3 pairs of speakers.

Most of the staff of Stereophile don't even own a turntable or a true reference system of any sort.

The manufacturer is the one totally responsible for doing the work. It is their job to test various amplifier designs on their loudspeakers and IMO if they are a speaker only company - they should put out information as to amplifiers they recommend. Not just say - 30 watts to 300 watts. That's garbage. You test all sorts of amplifiers and then you decide what amp is the best match for your speakers and then you take your speakers to an audio show and you bring those amps with you - as Magnepan and others do.

So when you go to a show you are hearing the sound of the Speakers as the manufacturer intended. You are after all giving your money to these speaker makers and part of that is giving money to someone you think is competent. When they make a dreadful match - they show me they are not competent and they have crappy ears. Why on earth would I give money to someone who illustrates that they can't hear very well? That is just illogical.

Thanks to a dealer who obviously listens more to a variety of gear than the manufacturer - they found a match that basically saved the day.

How do you think reviewers decide what to review in the first place - use a brain for a change. We go to audio shows and decide what gear sounds good - it is the manufacturers JOB to ensure it sounds good. From that we decide what we would like to hear more of and arrange for a review. Based on what I heard at CES I would not waste my time with those speakers or amplifiers.

Good manufacturers - listen to all sorts of designs on their speakers or amps - then when they go to a show they know what to bring to demonstrate how good their gear can sound.

Take your Benchmark - you have all these unheard shortlisted products - but for several years in a row they brought Studio Electric - quite excellent sound. But you have mainstream stuff listed as possible amps to buy based on no auditions. If you had any sort of clue you might look into what the designers at Benchmark brought - sounded way the hell better than similarly priced Revel. But you know more than Benchmark - without any auditions.

[RGA]

Experience I can understand (even though we clearly disagree on what constitutes experience), but how pray tell is someone "proven to possess good ears"?

Does that mean they share your views on what sounds good?

Since I notice you consistently mention specific Stereophile reviewers (who share your opinions on AN and/or Sudgen) but straight out disregard just as/more experienced Stereophile reviewers (who don't share your opinions).

Art Dudley is the most experienced listener at Stereophile. He was the editor/owner of Listener magazine.

It is not about the experience listeners who disagree with me. JA for instance prefers the lean presentation of speakers like JM Labs, Focal, Paradigm. But he also isn't a music guy in the sense that he is interested in sound more than music - this is easily seen in the fact that he doesn't have a vinyl rig. If it was about the music first and foremost he would have vinyl since so much music is on vinyl and not CD and a great many albums sound better on vinyl than CD. This is not to dump on CD but there are simply superior recordings on the vinyl format that were transferred to CD badly. CD is needed for the same reasons - lots of great music on CD not on vinyl - so again not dumping on CD but you should have both if it is about music.

And once again I don't have a problem with JA or MF having their opinion - it is based on hearing both technologies. It's also possible to like both technologies. I do as well but I am pickier on how to allocate on each and for what purpose.

Further, when something polarizes some reviewers I look beyond one magazine - maybe try that. You seem to put all your stock into one magazine. I don't. Especially when there is a known history.

I look at Soundstage, 6Moons, dagogo, enjoythemusic.com, Hi-Fi CHoice, What Hi-fi, Hi-fi News, Audiophile, TNT, audiofederation, Stereophile, Hi-fi Critic, UHF magazine, and a couple of others. There is pretty clear correlation of both subjective and blind level matched auditions on the stuff that I like. And that means it is very likely that most people are going to hear it the same way I do. And yes that doesn't mean everyone but a lot more reviewers from those magazines above are actually doling out their own cash for what I think is superior while a lot of the other stuff is getting a good review and no one buys - even though they're often much larger companies who are dedicated to certain products.

[Ajani]

What a joke. Most reviewers have one or at best a couple of system pieces to try - Dealers are FIFTY times more likely to be able to make a better system match than ANY review on the planet. Even the wealthy reviewers. Dealers, good dealers like soundhounds, carry probably 40 amplifiers alone, 30 CD players, 30 loudspeaker pairs and a dozen turntables, and who knows how many cables. They are in a FAR FAR better position to be able to find a great sonic match than a reviewer who may own two amplifiers 2 sources and maybe 2-3 pairs of speakers.

Most of the staff of Stereophile don't even own a turntable or a true reference system of any sort.

The manufacturer is the one totally responsible for doing the work. It is their job to test various amplifier designs on their loudspeakers and IMO if they are a speaker only company - they should put out information as to amplifiers they recommend. Not just say - 30 watts to 300 watts. That's garbage. You test all sorts of amplifiers and then you decide what amp is the best match for your speakers and then you take your speakers to an audio show and you bring those amps with you - as Magnepan and others do.

So when you go to a show you are hearing the sound of the Speakers as the manufacturer intended. You are after all giving your money to these speaker makers and part of that is giving money to someone you think is competent. When they make a dreadful match - they show me they are not competent and they have crappy ears. Why on earth would I give money to someone who illustrates that they can't hear very well? That is just illogical.

Thanks to a dealer who obviously listens more to a variety of gear than the manufacturer - they found a match that basically saved the day.

How do you think reviewers decide what to review in the first place - use a brain for a change. We go to audio shows and decide what gear sounds good - it is the manufacturers JOB to ensure it sounds good. From that we decide what we would like to hear more of and arrange for a review. Based on what I heard at CES I would not waste my time with those speakers or amplifiers.

Good manufacturers - listen to all sorts of designs on their speakers or amps - then when they go to a show they know what to bring to demonstrate how good their gear can sound.

Take your Benchmark - you have all these unheard shortlisted products - but for several years in a row they brought Studio Electric - quite excellent sound. But you have mainstream stuff. If you had any sort of clue you might look into what the designers at Benchmark brought - sounded way the hell better than similarly priced Revel. But you know more than Benchmark - without any auditions.

Perhaps it's time you take your own advice. Of course reviewers decide what to review based on hearing something that impressed them at a show... I've already said that shows are good for determining products that need further investigation...

However, only a very silly person would form a final opinion of a product based on a show... Other than you, I don't hear reviewers running around talking about how dreadful this and that product sounds (based on just an audition at a show)...

As for the Benchmark, they chose to use some expensive Studio Electric gear... OK, hence what? I've never claimed Revel sounds better than Studio Electric (as I've never heard SE)... You really need to stop rambling...

[Ajani]

Art Dudley is the most experienced listener at Stereophile. He was the editor/owner of Listener magazine.

It is not about the experience listeners who disagree with me. JA for instance prefers the lean presentation of speakers like JM Labs, Focal, Paradigm. But he also isn't a music guy in the sense that he is interested in sound more than music - this is easily seen in the fact that he doesn't have a vinyl rig. If it was about the music first and foremost he would have vinyl since so much music is on vinyl and not CD and a great many albums sound better on vinyl than CD. This is not to dump on CD but there are simply superior recordings on the vinyl format that were transferred to CD badly. CD is needed for the same reasons - lots of great music on CD not on vinyl - so again not dumping on CD but you should have both if it is about music.

And once again I don't have a problem with JA or MF having their opinion - it is based on hearing both technologies. It's also possible to like both technologies. I do as well but I am pickier on how to allocate on each and for what purpose.

So because you think Vinyl sounds better than CD, therefore JA isn't a music guy? Is it not possible that the music he prefers listening to is on CD and not vinyl? Or that he actually prefers the sound of CD?

Also interesting that your last paragraph is what I've been trying to get through your very thick skull for so long - all your endless preaching about what sounds great versus what only sounds good in a lab, blah blah blah is just OPINION. And clearly experienced audiophiles don't all share your opinion on what sounds best... What is the difficulty in accepting that fact?

My opinion on audiophilia is that we all need to stop listening to persons preach all manner of crap about what sounds best and just listen for ourselves and decide what we like... I don't hold any reviewer's opinion as Gold. The only opinion that matters is my own, since I have to live with the purchase... So I'm not going to buy a turntable and SET/HE rig because some arrogant reviewer preaches about how great it sounds... I'll buy it IF when I audition such a system it A) Sounds better than the other options I listen to & B) Meets my needs...

[RGA]

Perhaps it's time you take your own advice. Of course reviewers decide what to review based on hearing something that impressed them at a show... I've already said that shows are good for determining products that need further investigation...

However, only a very silly person would form a final opinion of a product based on a show... Other than you, I don't hear reviewers running around talking about how dreadful this and that product sounds (based on just an audition at a show)...

As for the Benchmark, they chose to use some expensive Studio Electric gear... OK, hence what? I've never claimed Revel sounds better than Studio Electric (as I've never heard SE)... You really need to stop rambling...

Again - of course reviewers definitely do so JUDGE based on what they heard at a show which is how they base what to investigate further - the stuff they felt sounded like dreck they don't bother to call. You can't be this naive. It does not take weeks and months to figure out if something sounds good. It take 1 track and it does not need to be in my house or a dedicated sound room. It takes a decent set up in a normal average listening space - hence at a show in a normal sized room professionally set up by the manufacturer - you ARE hearing the product for the most part as intended - maybe 85-95% of what you would get at home.

I in fact don't base it on just a show - I base it on at least two auditions with different gear in different locations. Unless it is excellent since if it is excellent it likely always will be excellent. If it is poor sounding in every location then at some point the conclusion has to stick.

Studio Electric is not expensive - they make a $2500 loudspeaker - Benchmark brings them - they could bring Revel and they don't. But for heaven sake - why not read about the T3 so you can get what sound Benchmark prefers - could not be anymore bloody different sounding than a Revel. You trusted Bechmark engineer's ears once why not again? Look at the 6moons review and the reviewer is talking about those evil words like holistic design - not the ultimate in detail etc etc. See again - you think I hear it so different than you - but UMM I picked the Benchmark room as one of my top 5 rooms at CES. So UMM we can't hear it all that different. I certainly get why Benchmark chose Studio Electric speakers and not the dreadful likes of a bleeding Revel.

Do yourself a favour and audition what Benchmark listens to. And for all the folks who think I hate SS so much - it was one of my top five rooms - with an incredibly digital Benchmark and Studio Electric SS 250 watt amps. It was one of the "exceptions" I always talk about - perhaps I really should specify more. http://www.sixmoons.com/audioreviews...ectric/t3.html

Now granted the Studio Electric amps are hybrids - but there is still SS in there. On the budget side I would recommend the Shengya PM 150s - build is just as good - nearly the power and far less money.

And while I did not hear the little speakers - from all accounts it's a winner. http://www.studio-electric.com/loudspeakers2.html

[RGA]

So because you think Vinyl sounds better than CD, therefore JA isn't a music guy? Is it not possible that the music he prefers listening to is on CD and not vinyl? Or that he actually prefers the sound of CD?

Once again I did not say that. I never said vinyl sounded better than CD. But there is a FACT that some vinyls of the same album sounds superior on vinyl. This has nothing to do with the vinyl - it has to do with the way the vinyl was recorded. Just as there are CD recordings that sound better than the recording done on vinyl. If it is about music then you need both. And no it is not about the type of recordings since there is a huge amount of classical, jazz, blues, rock, pop etc available on record that is NOT available on CD. You say Rock and Pop RGA? Yes I do - tons and tons of singles and alternate extended cuts on 12 inch vinyl not available on CD. Even some new artists like Jewel have albums on vinyl where there are 2-4 extra songs not available on the CD version.

Also interesting that your last paragraph is what I've been trying to get through your very thick skull for so long - all your endless preaching about what sounds great versus what only sounds good in a lab, blah blah blah is just OPINION. And clearly experienced audiophiles don't all share your opinion on what sounds best... What is the difficulty in accepting that fact?

Stereophile - "I used a selection of master tapes as the source. When the results of the blind test were analyzed, the tubed Radford had come in first, despite showing the poorest measured performance." http://www.stereophile.com/reference/70/

Not just an opinion. Sugden A21a - always wins in the blind test shootouts - and it always measures the worst.

My opinion on audiophilia is that we all need to stop listening to persons preach all manner of crap about what sounds best and just listen for ourselves and decide what we like... I don't hold any reviewer's opinion as Gold. The only opinion that matters is my own, since I have to live with the purchase... So I'm not going to buy a turntable and SET/HE rig because some arrogant reviewer preaches about how great it sounds... I'll buy it IF when I audition such a system it A) Sounds better than the other options I listen to & B) Meets my needs...

Fair enough - that's exactly what you should do. I am betting on A when you do hear a good SET/HE/Vinyl rig.

[Ajani]

Studio Electric is not expensive - they make a $2500 loudspeaker - Benchmark brings them - they could bring Revel and they don't. But for heaven sake - why not read about the T3 so you can get what sound Benchmark prefers - could not be anymore bloody different sounding than a Revel. You trusted Bechmark engineer's ears once why not again? Look at the 6moons review and the reviewer is talking about those evil words like holistic design - not the ultimate in detail etc etc. See again - you think I hear it so different than you - but UMM I picked the Benchmark room as one of my top 5 rooms at CES. So UMM we can't hear it all that different. I certainly get why Benchmark chose Studio Electric speakers and not the dreadful likes of a bleeding Revel.

Do yourself a favour and audition what Benchmark listens to. And for all the folks who think I hate SS so much - it was one of my top five rooms - with an incredibly digital Benchmark and Studio Electric SS 250 watt amps. It was one of the "exceptions" I always talk about - perhaps I really should specify more. http://www.sixmoons.com/audioreviews...ectric/t3.html

Now granted the Studio Electric amps are hybrids - but there is still SS in there. On the budget side I would recommend the Shengya PM 150s - build is just as good - nearly the power and far less money.

And while I did not hear the little speakers - from all accounts it's a winner. http://www.studio-electric.com/loudspeakers2.html

The problems with Studio Electric are 1) Nowhere for me to audition - so I'd have to buy a $2,500 speaker (plus wicked shipping and duties). 2) The matching Studio Electric amp they used at the shows costs $7,350... So even if I was to buy the speakers, I still have no guarantee of getting a sound all that similar to what you heard at the show, as I'd have to substitute my own (MUCH cheaper amp)...

Benchmark has also been selling combos on their website of the DAC1 and Dynaudio BM5A active monitors for years...

So I have always considered using active monitors with the Benchmark (I even had some very nice results with some much cheaper M-Audio actives and the Benchmark)...

And just because Benchmark doesn't bring Revel to the show doesn't mean they don't like such a combo (or that they've even tried it)...

Here's the thing: I like the sound of Revel and would expect it to be a very good match to the Benchmark... In fact a number of consumers and reviewers have such combos and their descriptions of the sound is inline with what I'd expect...

[tube fan]

So because you think Vinyl sounds better than CD, therefore JA isn't a music guy? Is it not possible that the music he prefers listening to is on CD and not vinyl? Or that he actually prefers the sound of CD?

Also interesting that your last paragraph is what I've been trying to get through your very thick skull for so long - all your endless preaching about what sounds great versus what only sounds good in a lab, blah blah blah is just OPINION. And clearly experienced audiophiles don't all share your opinion on what sounds best... What is the difficulty in accepting that fact?

My opinion on audiophilia is that we all need to stop listening to persons preach all manner of crap about what sounds best and just listen for ourselves and decide what we like... I don't hold any reviewer's opinion as Gold. The only opinion that matters is my own, since I have to live with the purchase... So I'm not going to buy a turntable and SET/HE rig because some arrogant reviewer preaches about how great it sounds... I'll buy it IF when I audition such a system it A) Sounds better than the other options I listen to & B) Meets my needs...

50% of Stereophile's "reviewers" use NO digital in their "reviews"! This despite the popularity of analogue in audio rooms and in Stereophile's own readers! If you think the best digital is close to the best analogue, you need to get your hearing checked! 100% of the salesmen at the 2010 CAS admitted that analogue was superior to digital, even those who had no analogue (e.g., the Audio Note salesman).

[Ajani]

50% of Stereophile's "reviewers" use NO digital in their "reviews"! This despite the popularity of analogue in audio rooms and in Stereophile's own readers!

Did you meant to say "50% of Stereophile's "reviewers" use NO ANALOGUE in their "reviews"? Since that would flow better with the next line... Also, what's your point?

If you think the best digital is close to the best analogue, you need to get your hearing checked!

You need to learn the difference between FACT and OPINION... Sounds better is totally subjective... So it's pointless to say that if someone doesn't like what you like then they must have hearing problems... Such a shame audiophiles will never learn that we don't all like the same thing and end the silly preaching about which technology sounds best...

100% of the salesmen at the 2010 CAS admitted that analogue was superior to digital, even those who had no analogue (e.g., the Audio Note salesman).

Hence?

I have no opinion on whether Analogue sounds better than Digital, since most of my music is only available in Digital. So it's utterly irrelevant how analogue sounds on albums I don't listen to...