2. amps-preamps
  3. 1283429880

A major disconnect between the audiophile magazine

Greetings from London. There is in my view a major disconnect between the audiophile magazines and their readers. It’s an understandable one but in my view an important one – and that the focus of this thread-starter.

Although I’m a UK-based high-end retailer I am, curiously despite 34 years on and off still interested in music first and foremost and then the equipment that reproduces it. With my end-user hat on I have to say that in a lot of my vintage gear is certainly, performance-wise, up to the standard of a lot of modern equipment. It’s not all plain sailing of course and there is the tricky issue of value versus price. Let me explain.

Take the ARC SP-8 for example. Venerable, rightly revered and a bargain on the used market. Yes of course my ARC SP-10 and 11 are more musically credible. But in too many instances this is the exception rather than the rule. I’ve recently purchased a British Fidelity {Musical Fidelity outside the UK) P270 heavy-grunt power amp for $560 USD. 23 years old. Is the latest MF power amp of a similar specification noticeably AND significantly superior? Somehow, I doubt it. Different, certainly. But more musically credible? Hmm, somehow I doubt it. But I could be wrong. Very wrong in fact. So other than through substantial investment with the probability of selling one of the two units at some financial loss, how am I to know?

Now where do the magazines come into all this you might ask? Well let’s assume (naïve though it might be) that their primary reason for existence is to serve to needs of the reader. If so, then surely a side-by-side comparison of the two Musical Fidelity power amps (used purely for illustrative purposes in this post) is as valid as the mooted ARC SP8 versus SP10 comparison.

Clearly no advertiser of new equipment in an audiophile magazine would countenance this if they knew that the much touted new model really at best only sounded different to its vintage same-brand rival rather than better. Well, that goes with territory. The mags need to make a profit and to pay the staff at least a reasonable wage. But the point remains that given (a) the over-supply of new high-end gear in a diminishing market and (b) the buyers markets for high-value vintage gear that may indeed – or possibly not – sonically rival performance of new gear and (c) the justified end-user cynicism regarding the hype and hyperbole of marketing phrases re new gear, then end-users are at a significant disadvantage when seeking value rather than lowest pricing.

The paradox is that the very people most suited to addressing this are constrained by economic reality.

So, what’s to be done? Well, I’m thinking of doing a few comparative subjective reviews myself on my blog. Possibly for my own amusement and possibly to the altruistic benefit of others. My question though is – is there a demand? Perhaps those of you with an interest (rather than an axe to grind) might want to contact me via Audiogon, or perhaps continue the thread?

Meanwhile, my Musical Fidelity P270 sounds terrific into my Vandersteen 2c Signatures. As a start, I’m going to compare the P270 to something much newer of a similar spec and, as best I can judge, of a comparative price once 23 years of inflation are factored in.

I’m using a Carver 400t preamp, various SAE preamps, a Meridian 101b, a recent Arcam pre and North Star 2-box CD player. This leads me conveniently to the conclusion that modern DACs truly are an improvement t (generally speaking) over vintage ones. I say this having owned the $20k USD STAX X1-t. This isn’t the case with speakers though and having come to my senses about the Linn LP12 and accepted my frustration re the sonically magnificent but challenging Funk products. Re vintage speakers that to me easily equally or indeed surpass the performance of rivals from competitors I’d put the Magneplanar 20.R right up there with the finest. Similarly with the Infinity IRS and the Spendor BC3s. These BC3s although not quite as good as the Harbeth 40.1s can be had for a tiny fraction of the latter’s price. Dahlquist DQ10s being another case in point. And so it goes. Is the magnificent vintage Rowland power amps truly an altogether lesser beast than their new units? Incidentally am I the only one over her that feels (no, not feels … actually knows) that Rowland really is one of this industry's marginalised brands?

I now use a big old Denon Direct drive in a custom plinth comprising notinventedherium interspersed with layers of female yak-dung as a vibration absorber. The improvement using the female free-range version (1958 vintage) compared to the battery-farmed YD of recent years is nothing short of astonishing.

Finally, as I write this I’m listening to true vintage. Pink Floyd “Echoes” off the very rare “Rhapsody In Pink” live set through a mono speaker. If like me you saw the Floyd performing this live, the absence of Pace, Rhythm & Timing is an irrelevance. The musical trigger to the memory is sufficient. Anyway, those of you who wish to – you know how to find me.

Thank you

Regards

Howard Popeck / Stereonow Ltd
128x128bigaitch

Showing 6 responses by bigaitch

bigaitch's avatar
bigaitch OP
39 posts
 
Yes, quite correct. Thank you. Entirely my fault. I spotted my error too but as far as I can tell, it isn't possible to re-edit the thread posting once it has been posted. Ho hum as some of us say in the UK. Re your observation "The very top has advances but at an extremely high cost" - I agree with you 100%.

Despite being a high-end retailer, I am in the main increasingly frustrated that despite excellent margins on new gear, the true value for money for the discerning buyer is declining year upon year. Commercial opportunism at its most blatant. Some of the techniques used by some retailers to facilitate this are very advanced. Many prospects don’t realise what’s happening to them …. even while it’s happening. And that of course is the art, if not the science – of careful deceit.

I might get around to explaining how these techniques can be applied successfully to the majority of even well-informed prospects. But that’s a story for another day I guess.

Now I do appreciate that I may well be preoccupied by the need for my customers to truly believe, through experience rather than as a consequence of underhand techniques, that they have via me achieved true and tangible value. Sometimes, given their aspirations versus their budget this can only be achieved in part or in main through the sale of vintage gear. This though is not without its own counter-intuitive challenges though.

Naturally, me being atypical in my approach (but I most certainly don’t claim exclusivity in this) does result in occasionally curious responses. It’s a sad reality that the degree of scepticism in the minds of a few is such that they truly wonder where the ‘catch’ is. Sadly and somewhat frustratingly too, this approach and openness still results in occasional incongruence. By this I mean that while they ended up with a sound they love at a price they wanted to pay, the absence of stress and fuss is so disturbing and contrary to their expectations that I know full well that total customer satisfaction is beyond my skills. Sad, but true. This too I guess goes with the territory. Meanwhile . . .

Try as I may, I truly cannot hear the degree of improvement so often claimed by makers and self-deluding importers and some UK audiophile journalists. Sometimes I do and yes, after 34 years doing this I know what to listen for, the improvement just isn’t there. There are differences, yes. However the cleverly constructed illusion foisted on the buying public that a difference is axiomatically an improvement is, no doubt about it, astonishing.

Through a process of skepticism I only now sell LFD and Manley when it comes to amps and only Benchmark for DACS. I do okay. More of a hobby now than a money-making business, but I’m content. I can’t reasonably ask for more than that now can I?
bigaitch's avatar
bigaitch OP
39 posts
 
And thank you too. I very much appreciate your comments. Sincerely, HP
bigaitch's avatar
bigaitch OP
39 posts
 

Hi there nighthawk.

Re Rowland, looking back on my original comment I should have been less ambiguous. At that point I was thinking pretty much of the UK press and the UK audiophile public. I’m sorry about that. I’d momentarily forgotten the global reach of Audiogon.

In the UK, Rowland, or perhaps more relevant the UK importer have a very low profile. Maybe this is accidental. Possibly deliberate. They might well have concluded that a UK audiophile press who might well – if given the opportunity – claim that a lawnmower with the brand name NAIM on it was a musical portal into nirvana is unlikely to give a Rowland a totally unbiased review. The point being that on every occasion I’ve heard a Rowland I have been deeply impressed with what it has been able to do with speakers that I’ve previously found very disappointing.

Here’s an example. I was called in by a user (not my customer) to figure out why his Wilson Audio Watts/Puppies Series 7 driven by a pair of Levinson 33H power amps and ML32 preamp sounded not very good. It’s a long story, but it sets a reference point. This hapless individual was using the very top of the line Levinson transport and DAC. Now, let’s switch to scene #2

This next guy had Wilson Series #6 driven by a Rowland power amp and a Spectral DMC-12 (which I subsequently bought) with signal from from an Accuphase 85V. The sound was as joyful and magnificent as I’ve ever heard in the UK, period. Moreover new-for-new it was a fraction of the price of the other system.

Now of course there was a serious sonic mismatch between those Levinsons and the Wilsons in that room on that day. It was at first sight hard to identify the ‘culprit’. I did get there in the end and it took just $417 to put the smile back on his fave. Meanwhile 2 UK retailers had taken serious money off this guy and … both of them must have known of the incompatibility – or been stone deaf.

The other man had discovered what I’ve coined as “accidental magic”. It’s both rare and wonderful is accidental magic. That specific Rowland into those Wilsons using the Spectral and Accuphase 85v truly was – by accident rather than design – outstanding. All of the gear in this great system was previously owned. All the gear in the expensive system was brand new.

For that reason alone (but there are others) I feel sure that Rowland, without fuss and hype may indeed be up there with a tiny handful of the very best of the global amplifier designers and makers.

Meanwhile in the background here tonight I’m playing John Mayall’s “Blues Alone”. My old Musical Fidelity (British Fidelity for our USA cousins) P-270 is sounding magnificent at these low volumes as indeed it does at high volumes and anything in between.

In conclusion might I humbly suggest that whenever any of you are auditioning power amps, one very useful and curiously forgotten additional test is to check for tonal variation as the system volume is increased. And then again as it’s reduced. Few power amps, in my direct personal experience, are tonally consistent throughout the volume range. The 'flat0earth' purveyors of PRaT know this and that's why they try to divert requests away from this simple but effective auditioning test.

Regards

Howard Popeck / Stereonow Ltd http://not-boring-honestly.blogspot.com/
bigaitch's avatar
bigaitch OP
39 posts
 
Hello Djohnson54

You wrote: “. . . and putting perfectly working equipment into a landfill doesn't seem like a good option”. I agree with you 100%

During candid conversations with some prominent UK makers (not my suppliers incidentally) they have occasionally voiced the view, if not the plea that yes they very much wish that some of their existing customers would indeed put “perfectly working equipment into a landfill”

Their logic is, from a strictly commercial standpoint, irrefutable. They’ve realised that by having tens of thousands of their perfectly functioning discontinued models in daily use, they have become their own most tenacious and effective competitors. Unlike their automotive colleagues they are in the main incapable of identifying even one tangible improvement over the discontinued models. And that’s usually because there isn’t one. I’m thinking here primarily of speakers and amps and FM tuners.

However, my argument is to some extent invalidated when considering transports and DACs where yes indeed, tangible and readily identifiable improvements are apparent to most who care to listen – or indeed care at all.

Thank you for your comments

Regards

HP
http://not-boring-honestly.blogspot.com/
bigaitch's avatar
bigaitch OP
39 posts
 
Some very interesting responses. Thank you. Again, as with other postings here, I agree with you. Regarding the categories of customers you identify so well, you might be surprised to know that when I spot them I do from time to time deliberately engineer the demonstration to give a poor outcome or an ambiguous one. The consequence is that they go to one of my competitors – which is entirely my intention.

I’m uncomfortable dealing with the paranoid, the over-anxious, the obviously obsessed and the other strange (to me at least) types. I neither have the patience, the know-how nor the mental horsepower necessary to do this. It’s nothing to do with the money either. Truth be told, the paranoid among you can be very profitable for me were I to choose to exploit your anxiety. I leave that to some of my competitors.

Does this mean I loose revenue? Yup, it certainly does. Do I care? No, not one iota. The reason for me is uncomplicated in that no amount of profit will compensate me for the need to act as a counselor for the disturbed. And this industry has a higher incidence of disturbed enthusiasts than any other that I’ve had direct personal experience of. Anyway . . .

The problem {now solved incidentally) for this high-end retailer is uncomplicated. The stress involved in dealing with the small amount of people who continually want to upgrade is for me in no way compensated for by the profit. Strange, but true. Such people leave an indelible stain on my memory of the working week which is so out of proportion to the trauma as to be absurd. But . . . that’s how I feel it. Moreover the 9 or more truly satisfying sales curiously and frustratingly doesn’t seem with me to compensate for the one miserable (albeit highly profitable) one.
bigaitch's avatar
bigaitch OP
39 posts
 
Hello Mt10425

Given the value of this thread, my questions begin with:

“Let's assume vintage compares favorably to current equipment. Will the comparisons simply place a significantly higher cost on vintage equipment?”

Yes, probably. None of us individually can buck market forces. One point of view, and it is one that I subscribe too is that in terms of pricing, decent vintage gear in working condition is more often than not woefully underpriced. Or in comparison, new is woefully overpriced. Or more simply, he price differential between new and used gear of similar performance is far too high.

“What of brick & mortar stores? Will they need to scour the garage & estate sales to keep a stock of vintage equipment to remain open and competitive?”

Over here in the UK it’s already happening. Both Hi-fi World and Hi-Fi News carry more display ads from specialised used audiophile retailers than they do for those frantically trying to promote over-priced and hyped-up new releases. Market forces are not swayed by nostalgia.

“I firmly believe in the performance of vintage equipment, but also believe comparisons on blogs, in magazines or online will ultimately result in a price shift upward to collector-level stupidity. “

Possibly, if I were to agree with you that all collectors are inherently stupid. In my experience some are and the majority are not.
More to discover