-
Does "state of the art" matter?
A lot of review mags obssess over state of the art products and A lot of audiophiles attend shows to hear state of the art gear. But does state of the art (SOTA) have any relevance to the average audiophile?
NOTE: by 'average' I mean someone who can't/won't ever own any SOTA equipment.
I know some members here listen to SOTA gear to hear what the best available is and see how close their setup comes... Others claim we should all attend HiFi shows to pick a technology based on hearing the best examples of each category (e.g. best high powered solid state, best SET, best Vinyl, best CD, etc)...
Suppose I have a budget of $2K for a 2 channel setup... I go to CES and the 2 best sounding systems are a pair of massive horns driven by a 5 watt SET and a pair of garage door sized electrostats driven by a high powered tube amp... Does that mean that I should look to purchase a SET/horn or stat/tube combo for $2K? If I find that the best sounding gear within my budget is a 50 watt solid state amp and a pair of traditional cone speakers, then what's the relevance of SOTA to my purchasing decision?
When I have to choose between buying a Honda Civic and a Mazda 3, why should I care what Ferrari or Bentley are doing? Even assuming their SOTA tech will trickle down to my price range, it won't be anytime soon...
Just my 2, 3 and 4 cents, but I think the only thing that really matters is what is the best sounding gear, to me, in my price range....
-
You can't get much for $2,000. You can get near SOTA sound for $15,000-$20,000. My current system cost about $15,000 and can compete with ANYTHING I have heard either at shows or at audio stores. System: Fulton J speakers, Mystere CA 21 preamp, Fosgate phono unit (NOS tubes), VPI Scoutmaster, Ruby 3 cartridge, AR D 70 Amp.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tube fan
You can't get much for $2,000. You can get near SOTA sound for $15,000-$20,000. My current system cost about $15,000 and can compete with ANYTHING I have heard either at shows or at audio stores. System: Fulton J speakers, Mystere CA 21 preamp, Fosgate phono unit (NOS tubes), VPI Scoutmaster, Ruby 3 cartridge, AR D 70 Amp.
Even with a budget of $15K, you won't get SOTA... So what benefit is there in listening to a SOTA system? Why not just look for the best you can get for $15K?
-
I do agree that while it is fun to listen to systems that are way out of a persons realistic price range and it can give a sense of what that kind of money will get a person it is much more useful to listen to products that you know are in your price range and that you could consider if they are of you liking. Most of the higher end companies out there have their "Reference or Statement" products that are designed using the best components and designs that each of these companies can get and while these products are state of the art as far as they way they are built or the components used in them that is no guarantee that every person is going to like the sound of these components or would spend that much for them anyway. I have heard many people say that they went to shows and heard systems that are well above any average persons affordability and they really were not impressed by what they heard and on the flip side of that I have heard people hear more affordable high end systems that blew their mind. But like I said while I do enjoy hearing the occasional super system I usually would much rather hear components that I could possibly afford with some time and saving.
-
How do you define SOTA? Is it technological sophistication? Or is it ideal (subjective) sound?
It's hard to believe that it's a combination of for tech and subjective sound when pundits insist that the best sound is from the likes of SET and single-driver systems, technologies that have been around for generations.
OTOH, If SOTA is technology, then the real advances have been made in the likes of multi-channel high resolution like Dolby TrueHD delivered on Blu-ray, digital equalization, e.g. Audyssey, and in the improvements in light, cheap, efficient class D amplification.
Personally I don't know what to make of SET/HE because I haven't heard a lot of it. What I have heard, though, mostly lower end, hasn't impressed me all that much because I'm not convinced that it's really accurate sound. What bemuses me is that you can spend 100's of thousands on this stuff. I think there is a lot of "art" or maybe even "jewelery" involved; there is no science to demonstrate that silver wired transformers should out perform copper, but there are those willing to make them and those willing to buy them.
In the end I don't see the relevance of $10k+ SET/HE to me. But I do see a lots of trickle-down of the technology advances to the lower end equipment I might afford
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
How do you define SOTA? Is it technological sophistication? Or is it ideal (subjective) sound?
I don't. I leave it open to either interpretation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
It's hard to believe that it's a combination of for tech and subjective sound when pundits insist that the best sound is from the likes of SET and single-driver systems, technologies that have been around for generations.
OTOH, If SOTA is technology, then the real advances have been made in the likes of multi-channel high resolution like Dolby TrueHD delivered on Blu-ray, digital equalization, e.g. Audyssey, and in the improvements in light, cheap, efficient class D amplification.
IMO, the most interesting technological trend is keeping a signal in digital form from source to amp (e.g. NAD M2). I wonder how long before we see that tech in NAD's more affordable products...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Personally I don't know what to make of SET/HE because I haven't heard a lot of it. What I have heard, though, mostly lower end, hasn't impressed me all that much because I'm not convinced that it's really accurate sound. What bemuses me is that you can spend 100's of thousands on this stuff. I think there is a lot of "art" or maybe even "jewelery" involved; there is no science to demonstrate that silver wired transformers should out perform copper, but there are those willing to make them and those willing to buy them.
In the end I don't see the relevance of $10k+ SET/HE to me. But I do see a lots of trickle-down of the technology advances to the lower end equipment I might afford
The way praise is heaped on such setups by fans you would believe that they have zero sonic flaws... With a little research (and a few lucky PMs) I discovered that a lot of audiophiles really hate the sound of such systems... In fact, they clearly detest SET/HE as much as the SET crowd detest SS/LE....
A major challenge in accessing truly expensive gear is figuring how much of the material contributes to sound quality. For example; a more affordable 25 watt class A amp will not be much (if any) bigger than a typical class A/B integrated, yet an expensive 25 watt class A will be the size of a small fridge.... Why is the massive heatsink necessary in the expensive amp but not in the more affordable one?
As with any other luxury good, the cost differences are not all about performance. Very few (if any) persons would spend $5K on an amp with a cheap gray plastic face plate (like an entry level NAD). So even if the 1/2 inch thick aluminum face plate adds nothing to the sonics, it is expected at that price range...
-
In my mind a state of the art audio product is one designed with the best components and plenty of R&D time to design and tweak the product. A product designed without any price compromises. Once a SOTA product is created I may one day benefit from trickle down technolgy. Lessons learned in creating groundbreaking products have many times appeared in less expensive products later.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnMichael
In my mind a state of the art audio product is one designed with the best components and plenty of R&D time to design and tweak the product. A product designed without any price compromises. Once a SOTA product is created I may one day benefit from trickle down technolgy. Lessons learned in creating groundbreaking products have many times appeared in less expensive products later.
That sounds like a good definition: essentially a no holds barred approach to creating a product... no expense spared in either R&D or Materials... just the best thing a company can design...
I also would expect tech from SOTA to trickle down to gear I can afford eventually... Still, I see no need (other than to entertain myself) to audition SOTA gear, if they are not within my budget...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
That sounds like a good definition: essentially a no holds barred approach to creating a product... no expense spared in either R&D or Materials... just the best thing a company can design...
I also would expect tech from SOTA to trickle down to gear I can afford eventually... Still, I see no need (other than to entertain myself) to audition SOTA gear, if they are not within my budget...
This sounds very reasonable, at least on the face of it. But I know too that while some of the "no holds barred approach" contributes to performance, much of it is just BLING.
And I will argue that this is true not only for silver transformers but also a lot of supposed innovations. E.g. have you checked out analog preamps lately? They are remarkably simple devices, whether tube or s/s: one must ask how much better can a $25,000 device sound than the $500 device? Of course one might prefer the fine materials and appearance of the $25k unit -- so much so the one might ascribe to it more sonic improvement than it actually has.
So case in point, the highly praised MBL 6010D preamp is ~$25k, (see 'Phile review HERE). But the design is based on opamps, (widely reviled devices), and if based on opamps, how much better does it sound than the $500 Chinese knock-off, say from DIYGene, (see HERE). 50x better? 5x better? 1.05x better? Who knows? In any case one can't deny that much of the SOTA technology has already tricked down.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
This sounds very reasonable, at least on the face of it. But I know too that while some of the "no holds barred approach" contributes to performance, much of it is just BLING.
And I will argue that this is true not only for silver transformers but also a lot of supposed innovations. E.g. have you checked out analog preamps lately? They are remarkably simple devices, whether tube or s/s: one must ask how much better can a $25,000 device sound than the $500 device? Of course one might prefer the fine materials and appearance of the $25k unit -- so much so the one might ascribe to it more sonic improvement than it actually has.
So case in point, the highly praised MBL 6010D preamp is ~$25k, (see 'Phile review HERE). But the design is based on opamps, (widely reviled devices), and if based on opamps, how much better does it sound than the $500 Chinese knock-off, say from DIYGene, (see HERE). 50x better? 5x better? 1.05x better? Who knows? In any case one can't deny that much of the SOTA technology has already tricked down.
For some companies, 'no holds barred' just means using the most expensive materials possible to create a product, based on an existing design... Rather than attempting to create a new design from scratch... In such cases, there really is nothing to trickle down, since the design is pretty standard...
Also, chances are high that the most expensive materials contribute more to bling than to sound quality...
-
Point 2 - budget - well no listening to a $500,000 system doesn't help you in the remotest with a budget of $2k
But audiophiles don't have system budgets of $2k. Just as no serious photographer buys $98 digital cameras, or car enthusiasts buy Honda Civics.
"The average" person isn't interested in audiophile sound quality. Audiophiles are people who tend to care about sound quality and put it ahead of other things spending more of their money on it than everything else. I gave up a car for 10 years to buy my system.
At whatever budget you choose you need to compare what is available at that budget - but you can STILL compare HE/SET to other designs. But let's be realistic - the options are not many. Klipsch is probably still the mainstream HE speaker - and it is pretty much what most people will have the chance to hear - but it's not really great. And even then in 99% of cases in Canada anyway - Klipsch is connected to some receiver at Best Buy or London Drugs. Hardly a great combination. And even then the Klipsch Reference line is not too bad at all for the money - more interesting to listen to than most in this price range - problems? Sure but so what most everything has problems regardless of price.
And finding a SET under 2 grand that is "truly" competent is next to impossible. There are some nice little tube amps out there but they have issues - at least all the ones I've heard so far. Tube amps can be good - Jolida's 302b but while I like it it does have a character about it. For the same money with the same tubes you could get a very different sounding ASL AQ1003DT - sounds punchier and leaner and more "accurate" in the SS like presentation of the term accurate (The Jolida sounds better if you want to listen to more than a few hours). The AN Kit one and Sugden A21a would top my list for budget integrated SET amplifiers to audition and one could make a reasonable judgment on the technology on the affordable spectrum. But to me both are the entry level of that spectrum - price of entry is higher because there are few makers of this stuff. There may be others of course but I have not heard them so I can't say.
But the A21a has been selling for over 40 years. http://www.audioconsult.dk/anmeldels...den/A21rev.htm
Kit One - which has been selling for 20 years+ so it's no slouch. http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/...w_Listener.pdf
I once again make the same logic base case by looking at one company line-up. Company A makes an amp for $4k, $6k, $10K $15k $22k $50K $90k $250K. The improvements in sound is not subtle. Therefore for each step up or league up or level up you get a very significant improvement in sound. No I am not justifying the insane prices but then to someone with many millions $250k is peanuts. Wayne Gretzsky's rookie card just sold for $94,000. And it doesn't do anything but sit in a piece of glass.
The only relevant thing is making the comparison and hearing the improvements - If the $10k amp is using much more costly parts over the $4k amp - is more labour intensive and doesn't have an economies of scale (since far less $10k amps will likely sell compared to $4k amps) then while the cost of the parts may only double the retail price went up 2.5 times. But regardless of all of that if the latter amp is better sounding and as good or better than competition at similar prices then it is better. Some people will pay triple for subtle better.
I personally would rather compare systems. I personally start with an Audio Note level 2 system and compare every other system to this system and attempt to determine value and quality from that (including other more expensive Audio Note). Which is why personally - I would not spend the money on more expensive amplifiers like the Soro or Meishu. The Meishu is better but the price performance isn't where I like it. And I like the OTO more than the Soro - even though the Soro is more expensive - it's a different "sounding" amplifier and costs more to make which is why the price is higher. But I prefer the sound of the OTO - even if it does have a little more character. So long as I know what the character is and where it errs when it errs then it's a choice since everything errs no matter what they tell you.
You have to have some sort of "baseline" in order to judge. A "reference system" and reference doesn't have to mean best but it has to be "good." I prefer to compare systems because I am less interested in individual technology - I am interested in results. But it is nice to hear the best available systems so you know where your system needs to improve. My system I am comfortable putting up against pretty much anything I've heard at 2-3 or in a lot of cases many more times the price. OTOH I have heard a few systems then come home and kind of wished I stayed in my more lucrative career field than going into teaching because my system lacked in every possible parameter. So be it. Part of the fun of the hobby.
-
I repeat: IMO, my $15,000 system is as good as any I heard at the 2010 CAS. The only two rooms that really impressed me were the Audio Note and Teresonic ones. The Audio Note salesman admitted that the $4000 ANJ would have sounded better in the smallish room.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Point 2 - budget - well no listening to a $500,000 system doesn't help you in the remotest with a budget of $2k
But audiophiles don't have system budgets of $2k. Just as no serious photographer buys $98 digital cameras, or car enthusiasts buy Honda Civics.
Car Enthusiasts don't buy Honda Civics? What world do you live in? I can't begin to count how many suped up Honda Civics are on the road.... Car enthusiasts buy them and trick them out to squeeze every last drop of performance out of them... If they could afford better they would, but they can't... That doesn't mean they're not an enthusiast...
$2K may not be a final system budget for many audiophiles, but it is at least a starting one for many... and even if the budget was $10K, you still won't get SOTA, so the point is the same...
I don't even remotely accept your logic that a certain amount of money has to be spent to be an audiophile or enthusiast... That's just the typical audio-snobbery that keeps many persons out of our hobby...
-
A few days ago, I was waiting for my lunch and picked up a car magazine. The feature article was about Bentley automobiles and I was truly bored with it. Last time I was in that shop, the current issue had a feature on a BMW. I was indeed more interested, since it was in a realm I could identify with.
I feel the same way about audio gear. When I was first getting into the idea of an upgrade from my 1970's gear, I heard a great system at a local boutique audio shop that was legitimately within my reach, cost-wise. It motivated me to assemble a fairly similar system. At a show last year, poppachubby and I heard some speakers that cost more than my car and looked like a dollop of soft-serve ice cream. We yawned and went to the next room.
-
It is the experience itself that matters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
But does state of the art (SOTA) have any relevance to the average audiophile?
Only if that individual can appreciate and enjoy that moment of hearing what a truly spectacular system can do. Hearing details with your favorite music that you've never heard before. Just like enjoying the rich experience of a live, unamplified concert. Which is most often not realized in a show environment. And not something you will be able to do the first, second or even tenth time you hear something for thirty minutes most often with unfamiliar content. Such really requires lots of exposure and ideally, with some training by an experienced ear.
I feel very privileged to have had that opportunity with two reviewer/mentors who I've known for over thirty years. I now realize that when I was in my teens and twenties, I could not fully appreciate what I was hearing. It took many, many hours of exposure to well matched very high end systems before I really got it. Do I enjoy hearing the various megabuck Sea Cliff systems? Hell yes! My sense of what an audio system can do has been recalibrated on several occasions over the years. If anyone tells you that you can achieve the same level of phenomenal transparency and dimensionality of a well matched half a million dollar system for $30,000, just smile since they don't have the long term exposure to the very best systems to really understand.
Back to your question, does such knowledge help in choosing a $2,000 system? Not really, since there will be so many compromises involved. The joy will continue to be in enjoying listening to your favorite music, regardless of system investment. While I enjoy my main system immensely, I spend more time listening to the decidedly more modest vintage system in the garage. :)
rw
-
1 Attachment(s)
NOTHING made with tubes is "state of the art", hasn't been since BELL LABS
created the first transistor in the 1940's.
RIDING horses is fun, but no equestrian has the nerve to refer to a horse as "SOTA".
Unlike tube owners who have bought into the propaganda.
DOESN'T matter, the last time tube gear was "SOTA" was sometime during the sixties.:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Only if that individual can appreciate and enjoy that moment of hearing what a truly spectacular system can do. Hearing details with your favorite music that you've never heard before. Just like enjoying the rich experience of a live, unamplified concert.
....
I feel very privileged to have had that opportunity with two reviewer/mentors who I've known for over thirty years. I now realize that when I was in my teens and twenties, I could not fully appreciate what I was hearing. ... My sense of what an audio system can do has been recalibrated on several occasions over the years. If anyone tells you that you can achieve the same level of phenomenal transparency and dimensionality of a well matched half a million dollar system for $30,000, just smile since they don't have the long term exposure to the very best systems to really understand.
...
I never get to hear truly spectacular systems around here. And since I will never afford a $30k system much less a $500k system, perhaps my ignorance is bliss.
But "recalibaration" has happened for me a few times. E.g. when I replace my Phase Linear 400 amp, and my B&W DM7 speakers with Magneplanars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
...
Back to your question, does such knowledge help in choosing a $2,000 system? Not really, since there will be so many compromises involved. The joy will continue to be in enjoying listening to your favorite music, regardless of system investment. While I enjoy my main system immensely, I spend more time listening to the decidedly more modest vintage system in the garage.
rw
Now this is acknowledgement that (a) SOTA isn't very helpful when building a quite modest system, (b) that you can enjoy music with much less that SOTA. I agree with both.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
And since I will never afford a $30k system much less a $500k system, perhaps my ignorance is bliss.
Nah. We'll never be able to afford buying a symphony hall complete with orchestra either. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy hearing and appreciating them from time to time. :)
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Only if that individual can appreciate and enjoy that moment of hearing what a truly spectacular system can do. Hearing details with your favorite music that you've never heard before. Just like enjoying the rich experience of a live, unamplified concert. Which is most often not realized in a show environment. And not something you will be able to do the first, second or even tenth time you hear something for thirty minutes most often with unfamiliar content. Such really requires lots of exposure and ideally, with some training by an experienced ear.
I feel very privileged to have had that opportunity with two reviewer/mentors who I've known for over thirty years. I now realize that when I was in my teens and twenties, I could not fully appreciate what I was hearing. It took many, many hours of exposure to well matched very high end systems before I really got it. Do I enjoy hearing the various megabuck Sea Cliff systems? Hell yes! My sense of what an audio system can do has been recalibrated on several occasions over the years. If anyone tells you that you can achieve the same level of phenomenal transparency and dimensionality of a well matched half a million dollar system for $30,000, just smile since they don't have the long term exposure to the very best systems to really understand.
Back to your question, does such knowledge help in choosing a $2,000 system? Not really, since there will be so many compromises involved. The joy will continue to be in enjoying listening to your favorite music, regardless of system investment. While I enjoy my main system immensely, I spend more time listening to the decidedly more modest vintage system in the garage. :)
rw
Well said...
I can certainly understand the notion of enjoying a SOTA system just for what it is...
I may not have the experience of some lucky audiophiles, but I have found that differences are usually far more subtle than many claim... So I would expect that if differences do exist between a $50K and $500K setup, they would likely be only noticeable to a very experienced listener...
Also, the idea of drawing a serious conclusion about the quality of gear at an audio show is preposterous... I've been to dealers, forgotten to take my CDs with me and been unable to form an opinion on the gear, simply because I was totally unfamiliar with the type of music being played... Even when I carry my own CDs I normally need to have at least 2 or 3 sessions to come to a solid opinion on whether the gear moves me enough to consider a purchase...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
Car Enthusiasts don't buy Honda Civics? What world do you live in? I can't begin to count how many suped up Honda Civics are on the road.... Car enthusiasts buy them and trick them out to squeeze every last drop of performance out of them... If they could afford better they would, but they can't... That doesn't mean they're not an enthusiast...
$2K may not be a final system budget for many audiophiles, but it is at least a starting one for many... and even if the budget was $10K, you still won't get SOTA, so the point is the same...
I don't even remotely accept your logic that a certain amount of money has to be spent to be an audiophile or enthusiast... That's just the typical audio-snobbery that keeps many persons out of our hobby...
I was thinking sports car enthusiasts who buy $500 beat up Camaro and turn them into something amazing. But yes there are people who rebuild Chevy Sprints in the same way. But if you didn't get the meaning I think you were looking not to.
You say $2k is not the final system budget but a starting point which implies that at some point they are going to want "more" from their audio - so why dictate what you think is what other people should be doing. And this is what you are doing whether you admit to yourself or not. The FACT is that a $2,000 stereo system that is a VERY good system will beat the crap out of any $500 boom box system that is out there. This person was an "audio snob" that spent a whopping $2,000 where most people would think is an obscene amount of money on a stereo. If you then tell someone that you think you have to spend $2k to get something quite good then you just insulted everyone who spent $500 on their boom box system that they think is real good.
I never said what you have to spend - there is a big difference on spending and accepting certain truths. I accept the truth that a Bentley and a Ferrari is a better car than my car or any car I am likely to afford. I don't need to spend that to know it. There are plenty of stereos that I will never afford - that I'd like to afford - but I don't try to insinuate at every turn that those people are deluding themselves and that it really is no better than whatever I think is the "pinnacle" of audio reproduction (which happens to coincide with what I spent). I have met a lot of people on forums that own $2k speakers and then blather on endlessly that spending more is just audio jewelry etc. Usually people who have heard next to nothing so they say this stuff to make themselves feel superior that they were smart to only buy $2k speakers.
There is no audio snobbery - You ask me what I think the best is and I'll tell you - the best 20 stereos I have heard - none of which are mine. Probably more than 20 - I'd have to go through my notes. But I don't say - I spent X and therefore that is the best there is. If I could go back in time I could probably spend the same or less and put together a better system (so could we all) but options come up at different times at certain prices that make us make the selections we make which may have been a second choice. So be it.
I think there is a minimum expenditure to get a sound that I feel separates itself from the pack - that doesn't mean I can't put together a really nice system for a friend regardless of budget (with reason). I actually enjoy the challenge of finding and putting together a system for relatively cheap and watching the jaws drop. Terry at Soundhounds practically makes it his mission to mix and match stuff and impress someone and when they see the system price they're shocked. And gee from a sales perspective - the more you can do that the more sales you get because the guy wants it more and it's affordable.
UHF used to do that - wish they still did. A system for $1200 which would have an integrated, cd player and speakers that would crush whatever Best Buy is selling for $4,000. To me that's more enjoyable than putting together a $30k system - at $30k it bloody well should sound good - probably does if they're reputable names. Putting together a $2k system that hangs in pretty good - is something the industry needs a LOT more of and may get more people in.
I like that some of the bigger high quality high end companies try to make gear at the lower end price spectrum to get people in - and I like companies like Grant Fidelity that try to keep the prices as low as possible, offer excellent sound, and ridiculous build quality which results in huge pride of ownership. What they need to do though it keep products in the stable longer - there is too much turnaround of gear IMO. But if you can live with knowing the product won't exist in 3-4 years you're good to go. The prices offset that concern in my view.
-
I know someone who owns a Ferrari, and several other cars. I have driven his BMWs and his Ferrari, and the Ferrari just sucks. It's WAY to noisy! Handling? The BMWs are better, BY FAR! Status? The Ferrari by a mile. Similar comparisons hold in audio equipment.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
You say $2k is not the final system budgetbut a starting point which implies that at some point they are going to want "more" from their audio - so why dictate what you think is what other people should be doing. And this is what you are doing whether you admit to yourself or not.
No, I did not say that. I said:
"$2K may not be a final system budget for many audiophiles"... So I am not doing anything close to what you are claiming... Nice attempt to spin the snobbish comment around on me... Try to use things I've actually said next time...
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I never said what you have to spend - there is a big difference on spending and accepting certain truths.
No you did not say what someone needs to spend (nor did I claim that you did) but you did say that:
"audiophiles don't have system budgets of $2k. Just as no serious photographer buys $98 digital cameras, or car enthusiasts buy Honda Civics."
So you didn't define how much must be spent to be an audiophile, but you made it clear that if your budget is only $2K then you are NOT an audiophile... Which is snobbery...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnMichael
In my mind a state of the art audio product is one designed with the best components and plenty of R&D time to design and tweak the product. A product designed without any price compromises. Once a SOTA product is created I may one day benefit from trickle down technolgy. Lessons learned in creating groundbreaking products have many times appeared in less expensive products later.
I think this is a correct and useful view. Notice I did not write "the" I wrote "a."
As a case in point, the speaker that most impressed me at the CAS 2010 was the JBL Everest II, at least from the midrange up. The LF was a bit of a mess in the overly large and awkward room, but that is in fact JBL's SOTA speaker, and I heard it later in the listening room at Harman/JBL's Northridge, CA facility and it was stunning beyond belief. Of course the SOTA Mark Levinson digital amps used there helped a bit, too. ;)
Back at the CAS, to me and my companion the most impressive speaker overall was the Revel Utima2 Salon in that same miserable room, until...
...after the show closed for the first day a few of us begged the vendor to hook up the second-tier JBL K2 S9900 pair that was there but totally ignored against the wall. Reluctantly they did so, and I was so smitten with the K2s, even in that awful room, that now that same pair is sitting in front of me in my house as I write this.
They are not everything the Everest II is, but it's clear that they have been very much influenced by that flagship product, just as they are the clear successor of the old K2 S9800SE SOTA model. Without these SOTA products, the K2 S9900s sitting in my room would not be here.
You can also see the trickle-down in the excellent 1400 Array line as well, and in the Synthesis® One Array system down in my HT.
So from one great engineering effort comes many benefits, even though I'm not likely to ever have the $60,000 Everest IIs. New driver technology, new networks, new cabinetry design, new horn design (never thought I'd buy a horn), all brought improvements down the line in more and more affordable products.
Had I not heard how excellent the top half of the Everest was in that impossible room, I wouldn't have anticipated how wonderful the similar K2 would be. Also, I never would have imagined I could get the Everest sound in my home at a price I could actually (though painfully) afford. :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by filecat13
I think this is a correct and useful view. Notice I did not write "the" I wrote "a."
As a case in point, the speaker that most impressed me at the CAS 2010 was the JBL Everest II, at least from the midrange up. The LF was a bit of a mess in the overly large and awkward room, but that is in fact JBL's SOTA speaker, and I heard it later in the listening room at Harman/JBL's Northridge, CA facility and it was stunning beyond belief. Of course the SOTA Mark Levinson digital amps used there helped a bit, too. ;)
Back at the CAS, to me and my companion the most impressive speaker overall was the Revel Utima2 Salon in that same miserable room, until...
...after the show closed for the first day a few of us begged the vendor to hook up the second-tier JBL K2 S9900 pair that was there but totally ignored against the wall. Reluctantly they did so, and I was so smitten with the K2s, even in that awful room, that now that same pair is sitting in front of me in my house as I write this.
They are not everything the Everest II is, but it's clear that they have been very much influenced by that flagship product, just as they are the clear successor of the old K2 S9800SE SOTA model. Without these SOTA products, the K2 S9900s sitting in my room would not be here.
You can also see the trickle-down in the excellent 1400 Array line as well, and in the Synthesis® One Array system down in my HT.
So from one great engineering effort comes many benefits, even though I'm not likely to ever have the $60,000 Everest IIs. New driver technology, new networks, new cabinetry design, new horn design (never thought I'd buy a horn), all brought improvements down the line in more and more affordable products.
Had I not heard how excellent the top half of the Everest was in that impossible room, I wouldn't have anticipated how wonderful the similar K2 would be. Also, I never would have imagined I could get the Everest sound in my home at a price I could actually (though painfully) afford. :)
So if you had just gone to do a dealer and heard the K2, you wouldn't have been impressed enough to buy it? You had to hear the Everest to realize that the K2 is a good speaker?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tube fan
I know someone who owns a Ferrari, and several other cars. I have driven his BMWs and his Ferrari, and the Ferrari just sucks. It's WAY to noisy! Handling? The BMWs are better, BY FAR! Status? The Ferrari by a mile. Similar comparisons hold in audio equipment.
Aren't Ferrari's supposed to be noisy? All those mechanical and exhaust sounds are supposed to be very audible. The sounds a Ferrari makes is part of the reason you buy one. The sound of a V-12 at high rev's is music to my ears.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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...
-
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
|