-
Do you get a special price on gear from Grant Fidelity? Their web site says $2,000 in US dollars. $500 is not chicken feed for those of us who have to work within a budget.
-
I don't understand the criticism of HP and JV. HP sounded the praise for tubes when almost everyone else (including JGH) was praising early ss (pure CRAP). JV continually supports both tubes and analogue, and I agree.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tube fan
HP sounded the praise for tubes when almost everyone else (including JGH) was praising early ss (pure CRAP).
It is he to whom I referred as really liking the Bryston 28B. Read his review.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tube fan
JV continually supports both tubes and analogue, and I agree.
Along with solid state designs from Soulution, BAlabo, and Technical Brain.
rw
-
Oh kids, let's stop this petty bickering...clearly the answer is just to buy the CTH-8550 and be done with it.
OTOH, has anyone tried the 3.7 with any of the Van Alstine hybrid gears? That would seem to be a reasonably priced option...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
OTOH, has anyone tried the 3.7 with any of the Van Alstine hybrid gears? That would seem to be a reasonably priced option...
I run the 1.6's with a Van Alstine hybrid preamp, hybrid DAC, and a SS amp. I really like the combo. My system has a very tube like sound but the punchy bass of SS.
I did get to do an in home audition with his hybrid 500wpc FET Valve amp and enjoyed the sound. I would have bought the amp but I got such a good deal the Parasound.
Check out the Van Alstine forum on audiocircles, there are plenty of Maggie owners using his hybrid and tube gear.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
It is he to whom I referred as really liking the Bryston 28B. Read his review.
Along with solid state designs from Soulution, BAlabo, and Technical Brain.
rw
Yes, JV ALSO likes some horribly expensive ss gear. JV vastly prefers analogue to digital, and I agree. HP was one of the few critics who defended tubes when 90% of other "critics" thought early ss was superior to tubes.
BTW, RGA, I think it would be more interesting if you mentioned several instances where HP or JV got it wrong in your opinion. No one is perfect, and HP and JV are two of the best IMO.
Also, Stereophile seems to be extremely tardy in reviewing some highly regarded gear, e.g., Magnepans and VPI Classic tt.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
Oh kids, let's stop this petty bickering...clearly the answer is just to buy the CTH-8550 and be done with it.
...
Yeah, right. But it's not tubes, 'Stick, so Tube Fan won't like regardless.
Or try a ClassDAudio SDS-258, ($600 completed). Same power as the DarTZeel; not tubes either but does sounds great with my tube preamp.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tube fan
Yes, JV ALSO likes some horribly expensive ss gear. JV vastly prefers analogue to digital, and I agree. HP was one of the few critics who defended tubes when 90% of other "critics" thought early ss was superior to tubes.
BTW, RGA, I think it would be more interesting if you mentioned several instances where HP or JV got it wrong in your opinion. No one is perfect, and HP and JV are two of the best IMO.
Also, Stereophile seems to be extremely tardy in reviewing some highly regarded gear, e.g., Magnepans and VPI Classic tt.
Well John Valin has some issues for me with honesty and integrity and as such I don't trust what he has to say. The fact that he may like tubes over SS and that stance is agreeable doesn't mean much since most of the high end chooses tubes over SS including almost all of the high end speaker manufacturers that partner their speakers with tube gear. Wilson, Sonus Faber, all the panel makers except Magnepan, Dynaudio - in other words all of the best sounding rooms at CES all ran tube amps so it's hard not for anyone including Valin to get this right. And even then he still got it kind of wrong in that he went with Magico and Technical Brain as his best sound of show. I liked the room too but TB has horrendous failure rates and the Magico is grossly overpriced for the sound it puts out. And Soulution sounds really rather lousy and edgy and costs a bomb. Even the biggest SoundLab dealer in the U.S. doesn't like Soulution so I don't know what Valin is saying.
HP I mixed up with REG so sorry to HP.
PS - Ayre - which is pretty good SS and very good digital TAS doesn't like - finally there is some decent SS and TAS doesn't like it. They can't seem to get it right. There is a certain lack of professionalism at TAS that I don't want to get into on a public forum but the info I have - well Stereophile to me is about a million times the magazine that TAS is and I'll leave it at that.
-
Okay, okay...tubes then, how's about the Vincent TubeLine SV-236MK integrated amplifier...both TAS and Sterophile seem to approve (never heard it myself). Lota rave reviews for $2k.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
Okay, okay...tubes then, how's about the Vincent TubeLine SV-236MK integrated amplifier...both TAS and Sterophile seem to approve (never heard it myself). Lota rave reviews for $2k.
Vincent amps are made by the same company that makes some of Grant Fidelity's amps - the difference is Grant Fidelity admits it while Vincent seems shy to. Not a big deal but the Vincent monoblocks are very likely made by Shengya which I reviewed. So if this is the case and I believe it is then Vincent will be very very good value. The PM 150 monoblocks sound a lot better than the GF Rita which is already one of the best deals out there for a very powerful tube integrated.
Tube Fan - I think my problem with Valin is kind of alluded to by audiofederation in that he doesn't seem to have a clear idea of what he likes and therefore likes too much stuff IMO. The problem with being a reviewer is that we usually have to choose stuff we like and the more we like the more we get to review and the more we review the more polific we are and the bigger name we get for ourselves. When you hate most stuff and like very little then you can't be prolific and therefore you don't get a "big name" or seen all over the web. And I'm sorry but there just isn't that much stuff that is very good that is out there.
Audiofederation kind of reviews John Valin here http://audiofederation.com/blog/archives/778 and like them I do agree with Valin some of the time but for me anyway on the really important sounding rooms IMO he's off base from my take on it.
PS Tube fan - they may have finally made a CD player that will trump "most" turntables - Mike has a good ear - I met him at CES and mostly we agreed across the board. AN digital was already the best out there IME by a significant margin and if this raises the bar exponentially over their other cd players then I hope to hear it once it is broken in and set-up properly - it wasn't at last CES but should be for next show - although a CD player for $185,000.00 is not exactly cheap. http://audiofederation.com/blog/cate...io/audio-note/
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Vincent amps are made by the same company that makes some of Grant Fidelity's amps - the difference is Grant Fidelity admits it while Vincent seems shy to. Not a big deal but the Vincent monoblocks are very likely made by Shengya which I reviewed. So if this is the case and I believe it is then Vincent will be very very good value. The PM 150 monoblocks sound a lot better than the GF Rita which is already one of the best deals out there for a very powerful tube integrated.
Tube Fan - I think my problem with Valin is kind of alluded to by audiofederation in that he doesn't seem to have a clear idea of what he likes and therefore likes too much stuff IMO. The problem with being a reviewer is that we usually have to choose stuff we like and the more we like the more we get to review and the more we review the more polific we are and the bigger name we get for ourselves. When you hate most stuff and like very little then you can't be prolific and therefore you don't get a "big name" or seen all over the web. And I'm sorry but there just isn't that much stuff that is very good that is out there.
Audiofederation kind of reviews John Valin here http://audiofederation.com/blog/archives/778 and like them I do agree with Valin some of the time but for me anyway on the really important sounding rooms IMO he's off base from my take on it.
PS Tube fan - they may have finally made a CD player that will trump "most" turntables - Mike has a good ear - I met him at CES and mostly we agreed across the board. AN digital was already the best out there IME by a significant margin and if this raises the bar exponentially over their other cd players then I hope to hear it once it is broken in and set-up properly - it wasn't at last CES but should be for next show - although a CD player for $185,000.00 is not exactly cheap. http://audiofederation.com/blog/cate...io/audio-note/
I agree that most of REG's reviews are questionable. He loves digital, ss, and even prefers mm to mc cartridges. HP is solid IMO, AND he takes a stand! I haven't heard much of the ss gear that JV likes, so I cannot comment on those opinions. I have heard the Magico V2 and V3, and would not trade my Fultons for either. The Q5s are a stretch for me as far as cost goes (have not heard them).
As far as digital goes, I loved the sound in the Audio Note room at the CAS. That was digital unlike any other I have heard: smooth, detailed, got timbre correct, and had great micro and macro dynamics. I may have even underrated the sound, as I have a strong preference for analogue (no blind listening here). They played a big band jazz cd at realistic volume, and the sound was very close to what I heard at Pearls jazz club on many Mon nites.
BTW I just played Miles' "Someday my prince will come" with John Coltrane on Sax over my Fulton Js at full realistic volume. Both Miles and Coltrane sounded like they were in my living/listening room!!!
-
My local HiFi store carries several models of the Magnapan line ( small panels to very large ) and I spent a couple of hours listening to all of them recently. As much as I tried to like them they just don't float my boat like the Zu's.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poultrygeist
My local HiFi store carries several models of the Magnapan line ( small panels to very large ) and I spent a couple of hours listening to all of them recently. As much as I tried to like them they just don't float my boat like the Zu's.
Was your dealer running a tube amp? Just wondering because several people listening to the Magneapn Bryston set-up looked at each other and basically said it was "shi%" and sound thin brittle and bright and 2 dimensional. This happened to me way back with the 1.6 where even the dealer noted that with Magnepan he has to control both the kind of music and the volume. Needless to say none of the people selling them like them a whole lot.
With the 1.7 however and with a tube amp things changed - not bright or edgy and not the usual ribbon colouration with emphasis on the leading edge and zilch on the decay (SS amps are terrible at capturing the entire note) so it seems so fantastically clear but without decay you don't get the whole note. So you get a washed out hard presentation albeit with a low noise floor. Without bass and without decay - it seems fast and clean - but to me it throws out 1/2 or more of what is on the recording for a fake sense of clarity. My dealer at Soundhounds actually explained what it is about the combination that doesn't work better than I am explaining it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tube fan
I agree that most of REG's reviews are questionable. He loves digital, ss, and even prefers mm to mc cartridges. HP is solid IMO, AND he takes a stand! I haven't heard much of the ss gear that JV likes, so I cannot comment on those opinions. I have heard the Magico V2 and V3, and would not trade my Fultons for either. The Q5s are a stretch for me as far as cost goes (have not heard them).
The problem with all shows is that at any given point the sound may not be as good as it could be so sometimes it's not completely fair to judge. I auditioned a lot of rooms (in retrospect I covered too many). Still at some point money has to factor in. The Magico Technical Brain sounded good on Cello when I went in but here's the thing - it sounded no better than Audio Note's cheap room which still wasn't cheap but it comprised of Art Dudley's AN E/SPE HE speakers ($7600), the Jinro which Art Dudley just reviewed ($20,000+) integrated amp and a one box CD player 3.1 or 4.1 can't remember). So maybe ~$30k room. The Magico speakers were something like $60,000 and the TB gear over $70,000 and the source was a computer high digitial bit rate (top bit rate available if memory serves).
So many things are going on here - can you pare one room down and still retain most of the quality in sound. The Magico room didn't allow me to play my music. So was it playing only to its strengths. Lots of systems can be made to do "some" thing very well. Terry at Soundhounds says it all the time - this one is good for this music so they play a set of music on it and rotate but throw on something else and it sounds rather dreadful.
Some of the expensive SS amps make little sense to me - they still come across as brute force sound and not very subtle (the audiofederation did an interesting series comparing most of the top high power amplifiers). Oddly relatively low powered inexpensive ones seem to get the subtlety better - the Sugden A21a and even the Creek Audio integrateds and Heed amps all under $3,000 do some things better than big powerful and expensive amps. Less feedback maybe.
-
I listened to the big white Maggies driven by a SS and tube preamp ( Rogue? ) and they sounded like they were almost out of phase. But I checked and they weren't.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
The problem with all shows is that at any given point the sound may not be as good as it could be so sometimes it's not completely fair to judge. I auditioned a lot of rooms (in retrospect I covered too many). Still at some point money has to factor in. The Magico Technical Brain sounded good on Cello when I went in but here's the thing - it sounded no better than Audio Note's cheap room which still wasn't cheap but it comprised of Art Dudley's AN E/SPE HE speakers ($7600), the Jinro which Art Dudley just reviewed ($20,000+) integrated amp and a one box CD player 3.1 or 4.1 can't remember). So maybe ~$30k room. The Magico speakers were something like $60,000 and the TB gear over $70,000 and the source was a computer high digitial bit rate (top bit rate available if memory serves).
So many things are going on here - can you pare one room down and still retain most of the quality in sound. The Magico room didn't allow me to play my music. So was it playing only to its strengths. Lots of systems can be made to do "some" thing very well. Terry at Soundhounds says it all the time - this one is good for this music so they play a set of music on it and rotate but throw on something else and it sounds rather dreadful.
Some of the expensive SS amps make little sense to me - they still come across as brute force sound and not very subtle (the audiofederation did an interesting series comparing most of the top high power amplifiers). Oddly relatively low powered inexpensive ones seem to get the subtlety better - the Sugden A21a and even the Creek Audio integrateds and Heed amps all under $3,000 do some things better than big powerful and expensive amps. Less feedback maybe.
One of the salesmen in the Audio Note room claimed that the J would have sounded better in that small (under 300 square feet?) room than the E. My office is small at under 150 square feet, and the J looks promising.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tube fan
One of the salesmen in the Audio Note room claimed that the J would have sounded better in that small (under 300 square feet?) room than the E. My office is small at under 150 square feet, and the J looks promising.
The J is basically the same speakers with less cabinet volume - exact same drivers and cabinet proportions albeit smaller) so there is less cabinet. To some the AN J is less coloured than the E. I don't actually agree with that - I think the E just has significant bass and bass is sometimes viewed as a colouration since people are so used to most speakers not having any!!!!!!
The cabinets were designed by Leo Beranek back in the 1940s and are viewed as the "perfect" box to simulate acoustic instruments. It's no small reason that Beranek is referenced in every book on speaker design and is arguably one of the world leaders on opera house design. If you want a home loudspeaker to sound like an actual instrument the AN E and J are a good start. Basically they go back 70 years. Snell came out with the wave launch and the pair matching which are both astounding. AN dumped the rear firing tweeters changed the ports use better cabinets and parts to corner load them.
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/store...955240&aznode=
Leo was also involved on the team that invented the internet so we can have this conversation. Pretty cool guy and is 93 years young. http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...pe=2&tid=11418
-
WOW! $185,000 for a CD player! I liked the the two CD players Audio note used at the CAS (one $5,500 and one $9,500). They were the ONLY CD players I have liked.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tube fan
WOW! $185,000 for a CD player! I liked the the two CD players Audio note used at the CAS (one $5,500 and one $9,500). They were the ONLY CD players I have liked.
That's the problem when you only make one at a time - there is nothing to spread the R&D over many units. It is a three box player. Transport/DAC/Power Supply. So that makes it a mere $61,666.67 per unit. I know it doesn't really help :)
Still this factory tour done recently by Deco Audio - shows how the new CD player is designed - strikingly similar to their suspended turntables. http://www.decoaudio.com/deco_audio_...visit2010.html
You can also see part of Peter's LP collection which is clearly where his focus is.
-
Tube fan
To go along with issues I have with some review sites and magazines here is what an EX TAS reviewer - John Marks has to say about things going on at TAS.
"I am not making this up. A professional audio magazine I subscribe to had as a feature a "BEST OF AES SHOW" section, with little "award"-type logos near each product.
Problem is, one product they loved loved loved was a prototype, and the unit was not yet in production, and had had a few changes by the time it got into production.
I am still waiting for my review sample... .
Now, in fairness, they never said they spent any time listening to it, and they never actually said that you could order one today and get it tomorrow. But when you create an awards section of a magazine and base it on a walk-through and give awards to whatever catches your eye, it does tend to erode your credibility.
One of the reasons I voluntarily left TAS was that a loudspeaker manufacturer phoned me, both pleased and perplexed. The upcoming issue was to run a review by me, and it was also the Editor's Choice issue, and so I gave the loudspeaker an Editor's Choice Award. (Or Golden Ear, it was a long time ago.)
So the loudspeaker guy told me that he had gotten a phone call from "someone at TAS" who told him "Your loudspeaker is getting an award in the next issue--how large an ad do you want to buy?" (He was quite taken aback.)
Golly, is THAT why there are so many awards?
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Were I to institute an award, it would be a combination of Stereophile's "$$$" and "star" RCL notations: Great affordable products that deliver long-term value for money that have been in production a long time.
Examples being Sugden's A21 Class A integrated amp and Grace's HPA/DAC.
Better yet, how about instituting an award that CANNOT BE GIVEN until three years after the review has run. That would be the award for "Products I Still Miss." Or, "The Big One That Got Away."
As I have said before, audio journalism is always at risk of domination by "The Tyranny of the New."
Let's hope that doesn't morph into "The Tyranny of the Not Yet Here."
JM http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/cr...s/5/57022.html
I am fully in that camp. There is not a lot of new is better products out there unless you are in the more bitrate better sound camp of digital music - and for that more bits may make for better sound but for most loudspeakers and amplifiers it's not really the case. That is why with the Sugden A21a - John Marks makes a note there - that Stereophile was reviewing and recommending inferior amps for over a decade. When they finally got around to the A21a and JM noted to me that he felt it was the "best amp for the money" well it would have been nice for the magazine to audition it back in 1992 rather than in around 2004 - basically recommending amps that were worse for 12 years. Ok you can't review everything but the longest running SS integrated amp in history is an amp you can't really "miss" if you are going to have a recommended components listing of best amplifiers in a given price range or A,B,C range.
But John makes the point I always make - the best stuff doesn't need cyclic advertising like a Musical Fidelity or most speaker makers, that change models every 2-5 years like clockwork on the "it is new therefore it must be better" stance. No the A21a has been selling a topology since 1967 and improved a couple of things - heat handling ability mainly, and updated the style a bit - 1992 version of this amp in other words was still sounding better than most everything in its price class even into 2005 and some still argue that it sounds better than their new updated SE version. I can't make that case since I have not heard the new one.
Point is I agree with JM that if you really made a good product that it should hold up quite well 5, 10 and 20 years later. And the changes made will be subtle not completely different tweeters, woofers or cabinet shape in the case of speakers or amplfier design. Musical Fidelity changed so often that there are absolutely no products in their line-up that are viewed as anything special or are prized or remotely sought after. And customer loyalty should be zilch since whatever you bought they will tell you 2 years later is now junk compared to their new model. Thanks I'd rather not buy something that will be viewed as junk in 2 years or some new version of a speaker that fixes the obviously crummy treble of the old model that I bought. Wait so now my speaker is no good because they didn't get the treble right the first time around?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
But John makes the point I always make - the best stuff doesn't need cyclic advertising like a Musical Fidelity or most speaker makers, that change models every 2-5 years like clockwork on the "it is new therefore it must be better" stance. No the A21a has been selling a topology since 1967 and improved a couple of things - heat handling ability mainly, and updated the style a bit - 1992 version of this amp in other words was still sounding better than most everything in its price class even into 2005 and some still argue that it sounds better than their new updated SE version. I can't make that case since I have not heard the new one.
Point is I agree with JM that if you really made a good product that it should hold up quite well 5, 10 and 20 years later. And the changes made will be subtle not completely different tweeters, woofers or cabinet shape in the case of speakers or amplfier design. Musical Fidelity changed so often that there are absolutely no products in their line-up that are viewed as anything special or are prized or remotely sought after. And customer loyalty should be zilch since whatever you bought they will tell you 2 years later is now junk compared to their new model. Thanks I'd rather not buy something that will be viewed as junk in 2 years or some new version of a speaker that fixes the obviously crummy treble of the old model that I bought. Wait so now my speaker is no good because they didn't get the treble right the first time around?
Come on RGA, this is the real world we are talking about... Not every hifi manufacturer is independently wealthy like CC Poon of Monarchy Audio and so doesn't need to make any money from selling his own product... As passionate as many persons are about making HiFi, they also need to earn a living doing so...
While I agree that Musical Fidelity completely overdid the whole hyping up new products and replacing models in as little as 2 years, the fact is that the business world is filled with advertising and "new products" that are really just minor updates of a previous product...
Why does Honda introduce a new Accord every 5 years like clockwork? Some persons will swear by vintage cars, but most persons don't want a "classic" car, they want "new and improved"... Even if new and improved really just means cosmetic changes and a mild improvement in performance...
Consumers generally want "new and shiny" not "30 years and still going"... So HiFi manufacturers attempt to capitalize on that fact, the way just about any other business in any other industry does...
So it's not necessarily a case that they are fixing products that didn't perform well in the first place, as you seem to believe, but more that they throw a few tweaks and cosmetic changes on and old model and advertise the hell out of it as if it was a reinvention of the wheel... The products you like, prefer not to advertise those minor tweaks and don't change the cosmetics...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Tube fan
To go along with issues I have with some review sites and magazines here is what an EX TAS reviewer - John Marks has to say about things going on at TAS.
"I am not making this up. A professional audio magazine I subscribe to had as a feature a "BEST OF AES SHOW" section, with little "award"-type logos near each product.
Problem is, one product they loved loved loved was a prototype, and the unit was not yet in production, and had had a few changes by the time it got into production.
I am still waiting for my review sample... .
Now, in fairness, they never said they spent any time listening to it, and they never actually said that you could order one today and get it tomorrow. But when you create an awards section of a magazine and base it on a walk-through and give awards to whatever catches your eye, it does tend to erode your credibility.
One of the reasons I voluntarily left TAS was that a loudspeaker manufacturer phoned me, both pleased and perplexed. The upcoming issue was to run a review by me, and it was also the Editor's Choice issue, and so I gave the loudspeaker an Editor's Choice Award. (Or Golden Ear, it was a long time ago.)
So the loudspeaker guy told me that he had gotten a phone call from "someone at TAS" who told him "Your loudspeaker is getting an award in the next issue--how large an ad do you want to buy?" (He was quite taken aback.)
Golly, is THAT why there are so many awards?
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Were I to institute an award, it would be a combination of Stereophile's "$$$" and "star" RCL notations: Great affordable products that deliver long-term value for money that have been in production a long time.
Examples being Sugden's A21 Class A integrated amp and Grace's HPA/DAC.
Better yet, how about instituting an award that CANNOT BE GIVEN until three years after the review has run. That would be the award for "Products I Still Miss." Or, "The Big One That Got Away."
As I have said before, audio journalism is always at risk of domination by "The Tyranny of the New."
Let's hope that doesn't morph into "The Tyranny of the Not Yet Here."
JM http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/cr...s/5/57022.html
I am fully in that camp. There is not a lot of new is better products out there unless you are in the more bitrate better sound camp of digital music - and for that more bits may make for better sound but for most loudspeakers and amplifiers it's not really the case. That is why with the Sugden A21a - John Marks makes a note there - that Stereophile was reviewing and recommending inferior amps for over a decade. When they finally got around to the A21a and JM noted to me that he felt it was the "best amp for the money" well it would have been nice for the magazine to audition it back in 1992 rather than in around 2004 - basically recommending amps that were worse for 12 years. Ok you can't review everything but the longest running SS integrated amp in history is an amp you can't really "miss" if you are going to have a recommended components listing of best amplifiers in a given price range or A,B,C range.
But John makes the point I always make - the best stuff doesn't need cyclic advertising like a Musical Fidelity or most speaker makers, that change models every 2-5 years like clockwork on the "it is new therefore it must be better" stance. No the A21a has been selling a topology since 1967 and improved a couple of things - heat handling ability mainly, and updated the style a bit - 1992 version of this amp in other words was still sounding better than most everything in its price class even into 2005 and some still argue that it sounds better than their new updated SE version. I can't make that case since I have not heard the new one.
Point is I agree with JM that if you really made a good product that it should hold up quite well 5, 10 and 20 years later. And the changes made will be subtle not completely different tweeters, woofers or cabinet shape in the case of speakers or amplfier design. Musical Fidelity changed so often that there are absolutely no products in their line-up that are viewed as anything special or are prized or remotely sought after. And customer loyalty should be zilch since whatever you bought they will tell you 2 years later is now junk compared to their new model. Thanks I'd rather not buy something that will be viewed as junk in 2 years or some new version of a speaker that fixes the obviously crummy treble of the old model that I bought. Wait so now my speaker is no good because they didn't get the treble right the first time around?
Is this the same John Marks who said George Bush was an underrated president!!!???
-
That sounds more like Karl Marx. Bush was so low there wasn't much under him.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tube fan
Is this the same John Marks who said George Bush was an underrated president!!!???
Unfortunately, if anything, George W. was overrated as a President -- not by me, though.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
Come on RGA, this is the real world we are talking about... Not every hifi manufacturer is independently wealthy like CC Poon of Monarchy Audio and so doesn't need to make any money from selling his own product... As passionate as many persons are about making HiFi, they also need to earn a living doing so...
While I agree that Musical Fidelity completely overdid the whole hyping up new products and replacing models in as little as 2 years, the fact is that the business world is filled with advertising and "new products" that are really just minor updates of a previous product...
Why does Honda introduce a new Accord every 5 years like clockwork? Some persons will swear by vintage cars, but most persons don't want a "classic" car, they want "new and improved"... Even if new and improved really just means cosmetic changes and a mild improvement in performance...
Consumers generally want "new and shiny" not "30 years and still going"... So HiFi manufacturers attempt to capitalize on that fact, the way just about any other business in any other industry does...
So it's not necessarily a case that they are fixing products that didn't perform well in the first place, as you seem to believe, but more that they throw a few tweaks and cosmetic changes on and old model and advertise the hell out of it as if it was a reinvention of the wheel... The products you like, prefer not to advertise those minor tweaks and don't change the cosmetics...
Cars are a different animal. And even then not really different where it actually counts. The new modelusually adds things that are completely unrelated to the actual operation of a motor vehicle like putting in a GPS device heated seats, a device that will parallel park for you - for all the people who don't know how to drive. And sometimes there may be a legitimate new safety feature. But the engine and tranny often are slightly modified versions of what was being sold in their 1980s models..
And yes there are changes to loudspeakers when they discover something better - but sorry all of these things do not just suddenly occur like clockwork every set number of years conveniently timed when the product is in the "plateau" stage of the product life cycle. Even my Rotel Preamp - the new version came out in less than 4 years - it's the exact same preamp with a slightly different case work. But they then get to say it's new and send it out to reviewers as a new product - getting more reviews. Let's see how long this one lasts until another one comes out as a new design.
|