What audio brands are you not attracted to?

[emesbee]

I wouldn't buy Bose. from what I've seen of their systems, they just seem to be seriously overpriced for what you get. I'm not a fan of the subwoofer/satelite speaker style of system in any case, so perhaps that biases me.

I'm also not keen on Bang and Olufsen, for similar reasons. I don't know how they rate sonically, but from what I've seen they just appear to be expensive exercises in design aesthetics.

[kexodusc]

Not many brands I have a hate on for, or that I don't think offer something...problem is I hear different than a lot of people so some brands just aren't my cup of tea.

I can say that I despise most amps and speakers that would be categorized as "warm". To me this is just distortion-induced fakery that doesn't sound anything like live music, no matter how pleasant it might be. There are a few exceptions and being on the slight warm side of neutral is tolerable for me, but I find warm gear mostly dull and not real.

There are few brands I can think of off that "can do no wrong" in my eyes. Arcam might be one, but they try to stay in a certain performance and price range and don't have any "if you won the Powerball lottery, what gear would you buy" stuff. Limited range of products, but I always find them impressive, if not the absolute best in a price range.

Paradigm, Axiom, PSB, etc...I like their speakers below $1000. Above that and I find there's only a few worthwhile models, and they are never on my short list of recommendations. These guys are better entry level options IMO.

I've never heard a Bryston I didn't like either (and I know a lot of people hate Bryston - but not me).

Parasound is one brand I've never been impressed with. Dunno why...just not for me I guess. B&W is hard for me to categorize, some models I like, some I absolutely hate. They're hit or miss.

Meh, I find the older I get, the less brand loyal I am. I could care less. There's dozens of brands I'd be happy to own.

[Feanor]

[quote=Ajani] ...
Left up to many 'audiophiles', CDs would never have survived since the original CDs sounded really bad compared to vinyl... But I believe that acceptance by the mass market of CDs is what forced many audiophile brands to take the medium seriously and advance it to the point where it is today... Class D amps have been around for decades, but the desire for smaller, more efficient, lifestyle systems by the mass market has led to new interest by audiophile brands in Class D tech...

I believe Music Servers were a mass market invention based on MP3s and iPods, but now so many major audiophile brands are taking serious interest in pushing the limits of that technology... Brands like Linn are now producing more music server products than CD players
... quote]

Perhaps you're right, Ajani, but it's a sad commentary just the same.

I was an audiophile when CDs hit the scene, and I bought a CDP when the prices came down to $500 -- a lot more then than now. The sound of my first CDP, a Yamaha CD2 as I recall was a little sharp but, hey, no clicks & pops and I escaped the pain-in-the-butt rituals of handling LPs. In a real sense laziness is a big driver for me, I'll admit: I hate handling CDs, never mind LPs. The great virtue of servers or computer-source music is convenience, but in this case the sound is as good or better than a CDP.

As for Class D, (switching), amps they're here and many are great. Believe that it isn't the non-audiophiles that are buying Spectral, Bel Canto, NuForces, PS Audio, etc..

For me it is really sad that audiophiles still adhere to vinyl. Now that we have indubitably superior media such as SACD, not only better sound but multi-channel to boot, there is no technical -- or rational -- reason for vinyl. Yet the mindless stubborness of vinylphiles might be consigning that medium to the trash bin.

[audio amateur]

Didn't know Feanor was a Vinyl hater
I think TT's are cool

[Ajani]

As we post our biases I think it's important to keep in mind that many of the brands listed have been through many transitions and we can't say they were always good nor can we count them out when they are struggling. A few mentioned would be Pioneer, NAD & Marantz. I had a negative view of NAD because my first encounter was during the period where some of their gear had a thin and not so appealing sound. As I stated recent auditions have changed my mind. For a lot of years, the 80's and 90's Pioneer were entry level at best in my eyes. They built up a rep in the 70's and from what I hear are now trying to put out some respectable gear. Although they may have gone too long as a Wal-mart, Best Buy cheap brand to bounce back, only time will tell. Marantz, my have they traveled, starting out as true high end in which some pieces as old as they are now bringing several time their original price, true legendary pieces; then at one point hitting bottom and nearly lost, to now where they have progressively been making a come back, the parent company sold and the story still moves on. I was careful when putting ARC on my list to say "recent" because I've heard some of their gear that I have liked, same with Classe'.

All of this to say, I guess, we must keep an open mind, don't stereotype a brand based on it's name, and generally a line will have some pieces to stand out amongst the rest of it's family. With that being said, even that is a generalization, there will always be some brands I suppose that will stay on the bottom feeding but time goes on and we are watching.

One other thing, some one asked for it, so throughout this thread it is, we all have a different taste, hence not many here have the same gear, except for those pesky Emotiva fanboys And even they mix it with different gear. So no sense in anyone getting their feathers ruffled.

Very good points... Too often we forget that having heard a brand 10 years ago is not a proper way to judge their current offerings... Even brands that have products with extra long life-cycles, often make changes to the products that improve/change the sound from the initial production models....

Also, nothing in audio works in isolation... so even though hearing Brand X Speakers with with brand C amp & CD might have been a totally disappointing experience, you might be blown away if you heard the same Speakers with brand G amp & CD...

Finally, at the end of the day it's really all just opinion anyway... I can rave all I want about the Monitor Audio Gold Series but that won't convince Mr. Peabody to ditch the Dynaudios (nor should it)... Buy what you like and enjoy it...

Hell, if you love the sound of Bose Cubes, then don't let some audiophile convince you that they are rubbish... Instead, do a comparison with several more respected brands and then decide for yourself.

[elapsed]

For me it is really sad that audiophiles still adhere to vinyl. Now that we have indubitably superior media such as SACD, not only better sound but multi-channel to boot, there is no technical -- or rational -- reason for vinyl. Yet the mindless stubborness of vinylphiles might be consigning that medium to the trash bin.

Wow that's quite the post, Feanor..

I purchased my first turntable last year, and I enjoy her just as much as my CD player for reasons you may not relate to. 1) huge selection of used vinyl that I can't find on CD and also at a very reasonable price, 2) I enjoy entire album's instead of frequently flipping through CD or MP3 tracks, 3) there's a certain amount of love that goes into spinning vinyl that can't be replicated with any other medium, 4) as a hobbiest/audiophile, turntables offer a really fun and easy way to tweak my system, and last but not least, 5) my turntable is outstanding; well mastered albums still offers more music and soul than my Naim CD player which is bloody amazing in its own right

Notice nowhere did I mention multi-channel audio, detail or resolution. When I go to a live concert, these are not elements I'm listening for. It's not about technical superiority, it's about a love of music

cheers,
elapsed

[E-Stat]

...there is no technical -- or rational -- reason for vinyl. Yet the mindless stubborness of vinylphiles might be consigning that medium to the trash bin.

No *rational* reason? So, who will fund the replacement of my 600 odd albums with the CD or SACD equivalents? I am loathe to spend another $8k to replace all of them largely for convenience. Nor am I really motivated to spend hundreds of hours of effort to rip, separate, and process all the tracks digitally (although I have done so in small amounts).

I seriously doubt that vinyl-o-philes are responsible for the relative lackluster support of the hi-rez mediums. I think a far more likely cause is due to the availability of inexpensive "singles" usually packaged in the opposite fidelity medium - low bit rate MP3s found on iTunes, etc.

Contact me and I'll provide the address for mailing the $8,000 check. Then I'll buy that EMM Labs CD-SA immediately.

rw

[s dog]

Or brands that you consider to be over-rated? Here I'll start.. B&W, McIntosh, NAD, Klipsch

cheers,
elapsed

Anything i can't pay for in cash.

[elapsed]

Anything i can't pay for in cash.

So I take it you won't be auditioning Sonus Faber Stradivari Homage loudspeakers anytime soon (incidentally these would be my first purchase upon winning the lottery)

But your post isn't clear as you could very well have $40,000 in cash hiding in a matress. So for all I know you may still consider these beauties

cheers,
elapsed

[Rich-n-Texas]

...For me it is really sad that audiophiles still adhere to vinyl. Now that we have indubitably superior media such as SACD, not only better sound but multi-channel to boot, there is no technical -- or rational -- reason for vinyl. Yet the mindless stubborness of vinylphiles might be consigning that medium to the trash bin.

SACD is dead! Dead dead dead!

The problem I have with SACD is the extremely limited amount of the kind of music I enjoy (it's mostly classical and Orchestral with some pop thrown in), however (that said - having said that ), the few SACD titles I do have are miles above regular old CD's from an SQ perspective.

The problem I have with vinyl is that my old Pioneer TT would be expensive to replace, so that along with the care and maintenance needed to keep the records clean steers me away.

All this IMO.

[Ajani]

I seriously doubt that vinyl-o-philes are responsible for the relative lackluster support of the hi-rez mediums. I think a far more likely cause is due to the availability of inexpensive "singles" usually packaged in the opposite fidelity medium - low bit rate MP3s found on iTunes, etc.

If all the Vinyl lovers were to suddenly switch their support to SACD, then that medium would still be a niche market product...

Non-Audiophiles determine what sells well, as Audiophiles are only a small fraction of the market for music...

Neither SACD nor DVD-A offered non-audiophiles anything that they really cared about... Those formats offered no new convenience or durability... they had higher quality but were also more expensive, which was not appealing since CDs were already overpriced....

MP3s and AAC took over the market because they offered non-audiophiles what they wanted: convenience (iTunes playlists etc..), portability (iPods & other MP3 players), lower prices (able to buy tracks individually for a $1 OR steal them for $0 if you so desired).

The goods new for Audiophiles is that MP3 was just the start of it all... and is low quality due to space limitations and internet speeds... but now that we see more audiophile brands taking an interest in music servers & downloads, we are also seeing high resolution download sites popping up to cater to that Audiophile market...

Give it time and you'll be able to download Stereo or MC recordings in higher resolution than SACD...

[E-Stat]

I confess that I'm not a big McIntosh fan for their over the top "look at me" cosmetics. Like a triple white Cadillac with the gold package and chrome wheels. I find the use of big blue meters on preamps and turntables to be gratuitous and gimmicky. Does everyone know it takes six separate screening processes for every faceplate? Actually, business carried me to Binghamton, NY last week and I was graciously given a very nice tour of their facility. The gear's quality is beyond reproach and their customer service is second to none. How many audio companies are still operating after sixty years? It is their appearance that turns me off.

I prefer the no-nonsense look of truly professional quality instruments. The kind I've seen used in Air Force missile control consoles. Enroute air traffic control centers. Used with exotic electron microscopy gear. It is for that reason I have gravitated towards Audio Research and VTL stuff. They have a "right stuff" sort of appearance and have always focused on performance. Ed Harris vs. Fabio.

To each his own.

rw

[Feanor]

Wow that's quite the post, Feanor..

I purchased my first turntable last year, and I enjoy her just as much as my CD player for reasons you may not relate to. 1) huge selection of used vinyl that I can't find on CD and also at a very reasonable price, 2) I enjoy entire album's instead of frequently flipping through CD or MP3 tracks, 3) there's a certain amount of love that goes into spinning vinyl that can't be replicated with any other medium, 4) as a hobbiest/audiophile, turntables offer a really fun and easy way to tweak my system, and last but not least, 5) my turntable is outstanding; well mastered albums still offers more music and soul than my Naim CD player which is bloody amazing in its own right

Notice nowhere did I mention multi-channel audio, detail or resolution. When I go to a live concert, these are not elements I'm listening for. It's not about technical superiority, it's about a love of music

cheers,
elapsed

Your first paragraph is an excellent summary of the reasons people mention for liking vinyl. I wasn't persuaded of them 25 years ago and I'm not today. I still have vinyl play back capability, (albeit not great quality), but I basically never use it.

As for multi-channel, I mention it for the very reason that it can, and on great recordings does, produce something close to the live experience than is possible with stereo. Don't believe this? Perhaps because you haven't just haven't heard good recordings on a properly set up system: you should seek that experience.

[E-Stat]

MP3s and AAC took over the market because ...

I agree completely with your summary.

Give it time and you'll be able to download Stereo or MC recordings in higher resolution than SACD...

My understanding is that virtually all recordings today are captured at higher resolutions than Redbook CD, either SACD or 24/192 PCM. My brother just got fiber delivered to his house in Dallas. He gets 40 MB / sec download speed capability! Such bandwidth would make getting your favorite hi-rez album a quick task.

rw

[Feanor]

No *rational* reason? So, who will fund the replacement of my 600 odd albums with the CD or SACD equivalents? I am loathe to spend another $8k to replace all of them largely for convenience. Nor am I really motivated to spend hundreds of hours of effort to rip, separate, and process all the tracks digitally (although I have done so in small amounts). ...

'Stat, having a sizable vinyl collection is the best possible -- indeed the only good -- reason for maintaining a vinyl set up. (That's why I still have mine, though some day I'd like to get around to ripping them all to computer files.) Let me clarify that I meant "rational" in context of a basis for insisting on the continued superiority of vinyl as a medium.

..
I seriously doubt that vinyl-o-philes are responsible for the relative lackluster support of the hi-rez mediums. I think a far more likely cause is due to the availability of inexpensive "singles" usually packaged in the opposite fidelity medium - low bit rate MP3s found on iTunes, etc.
...

But this is exactly what I do belief. To reiterate, that continued adherence to vinyl by audiophiles has hindered and perhaps killed acceptance of SACD. On the contrary, I consider MP3 downloads to be irrelevant to the SACD situation.

[E-Stat]

Let me clarify that I meant "rational" in context of a basis for insisting on the continued superiority of vinyl as a medium.

I kinda gathered what you meant. Sorry for picking on you. I'm just not a vinyl elitist. Speaking of which, have you seen video as posted today on AA? How about two million records?

But this is exactly what I do believe

I guess we'll agree to disagree here. Kids are waaay too impatient to wait fifty times longer to download a hi-rez SACD cut at ~150 MB vs. 3 MB for a 128 kb MP3. All kidding aside, do you realize the impact this would have on the IT infrastructures of universities across both our countries? They already have to deal with students doing streaming audio and video feeds and all the music downloading that goes on in the low-rez world. The bandwidth for online distribution is just not here yet. Give it a few years, maybe ten for universally available wicked-fast bandwidth.

rw

[elapsed]

As for multi-channel, I mention it for the very reason that it can, and on great recordings does, produce something close to the live experience than is possible with stereo. Don't believe this? Perhaps because you haven't just haven't heard good recordings on a properly set up system: you should seek that experience.

I've got no motivation to listen to a multi-channel system, my own system at home was designed as 2-channel and I'm fully content with what I have, regardless of advances in technology. Originally when I was designing the system I was leaning towards a surround home theater, however for the money I had saved towards investing in a full 5.1 system with pre-pro and poweramp I was able to build a far more capable 2.0 system, not to mention I couldn't be bothered to wire my entire living room for surround.

My system is used 90% for music, 10% for home theater. The vast majority of music that I listen to has been released only on vinyl and CD. But to each their own, I'm sure you enjoy your system equally as much

cheers,
elapsed

[Feanor]

....
I guess we'll agree to disagree here. Kids are waaay too impatient to wait fifty times longer to download a hi-rez SACD cut at ~150 MB vs. 3 MB for a 128 kb MP3. All kidding aside, do you realize the impact this would have on the IT infrastructures of universities across both our countries? They already have to deal with students doing streaming audio and video feeds and all the music downloading that goes on in the low-rez world. The bandwidth for online distribution is just not here yet. Give it a few years, maybe ten for universally available wicked-fast bandwidth.

rw

I agree with what you're saying about kids & downloads, in fact it's indisputable. I'm talking about those old, grey-haired audiophiles who continue to buy LPs instead of buying SACDs -- I'm talking about the silver discs.

As for me, I'd be fine with hi-rez downloads, say PCM 24/96. Yes, downloads would take a while, but I'm patient and there are download managers that can handle interruption, etc.

[Mr Peabody]

I don't think price was a factor with SACD, somebody is buying these $40.00 on average high quality vinyl pressings. Enough that more and more keep coming out. Vinyl has made such a bounce that certain new releases are coming out on vinyl. I know the Guns & Roses album has and I know the new Metallica album is available on 180g but I'm not sure if it came out with a cheaper version.

[E-Stat]

I'm talking about those old, grey-haired audiophiles who continue to buy LPs instead of buying SACDs -- I'm talking about the silver discs.

Switching every one of *us* over would hardly put a dent in the overall market.

rw

[Feanor]

Switching every one of *us* over would hardly put a dent in the overall market.

rw

'Stat, don't play dumb. You know perfectly well I'm not talking about the overall market.

I'm talking about audiophile niche markets. I'm saying the SACD audiophile niche market competes with the LP audiophile niche market. I'm saying I wish the latter would go away in favor of the former.

[Ajani]

'Stat, don't play dumb. You know perfectly well I'm not talking about the overall market.

I'm talking about audiophile niche markets. I'm saying the SACD audiophile niche market competes with the LP audiophile niche market. I'm saying I wish the latter would go away in favor of the former.

Oh Crap... I really am dumb, because all this time I couldn't understand why you kept thinking LP had some significant effect on the sale of SACDs...

You're talking about Niche market, not overall sales

That makes sense now... LP lovers are the niche market that SACD would want to take over...

[E-Stat]

'Stat, don't play dumb...I'm talking about audiophile niche markets. I'm saying the SACD audiophile niche market competes with the LP audiophile niche market.

Dumb? I consider myself pragmatic. Competes in what way? I think we're talking across each other. The overall failure of the hi-rez market and large scale commitment by Sony are governed by the overall market.

' I'm saying I wish the latter would go away in favor of the former.

And if that were to happen (which I believe is highly unlikely given the inertia), what do expect would change or occur?

rw

[Ajani]

And if that were to happen (which I believe is highly unlikely given the inertia), what do expect would change or occur?

That is a good question...

My guess is that the SACD Niche Market would be a larger niche market... resulting in... well...ummm...urrrr... nothing really... You might be able to pick up a few more titles on SACD than you do now, but the effect would likely be very small...

[Auricauricle]

I kinda thought that Fean Bean was referring to overall sales, too, AJ...!

As my thoughts and sentiments go, I keep a TT on hand for many of the reasons mentioned by 'Sticky: Many LP's won't make it to CD and the nostalgic rub is well-nigh irresistable. Furthermore, many of these older recordings are truly classic. The joy of having one of these in your hands, as well as the smell, feel....Nearly brings a tear to yer eyes....Y'know? I mean....(blurble)....(sniff)....WELL??