Well, I guess I am late to this thread, but would still like to add my 2 cents.
I have spent a fair amount of time since the spring auditioning loudspeakers. To be truthful, I really didn't need to upgrade those in my second system, but I don't think I have to explain the disease of this hobby to anyone here - we all have it.
In brief, the results of my listening have left me stunned. The vast majority of what I listened to is beyond poor. In no words can I express the disappointment and astonishment I feel. And, I am not talking about johnny come lately brands, but what are considered in many cases to be the vanguard of audio. To be frank, I would never bring most of them into my home, let alone pay $1000 - $4000 for them.
Normally, I have freely listed equipment which I found to offer poor sound, unafraid of the consequences here. I have let the chips fall where they may, and taken whatever flames come my way. However, this time, I wonder if I should really list what I have listened to. Many here that I have a lot of respect own these products. I am now a bit torn internally as to why they would not only buy them, but recommend them.
Perhaps I am being too harsh, but my faults seem miniscule in comparison to established audiophile magazines recommending some of these loudspeakers with the enthusiasm they do. If I read that these speakers come close to the holy grail of high end audio - ACTUAL MUSIC - I am left with the impression that we are either being lied to or those recommending these products are far too easily convinced.
All loudspeakers have faults. None are perfect, and perhaps none will ever be perfect. But, I do feel we have come to the point where book matched veneers on a pretty package are superceding good sound.
I am really angry with multimillion dollar companies who have been in this business for many years producing ill designed ported loudspeakers. Surely, it isn't so hard to produce low frequencies which do not chuff, woof, spit, fart, or whatever you refer to it as.
We all know that it may be difficult for us to come up with a well designed ported alignment, but a company which has generated millions upon millions of dollars of revenue can do it. It just takes a bit of R & D and critical listening. Are these companies simply taking an off the shelf cardboard or plastic tube, inserting into the cabinet, and proclaiming the speaker to be state of the art?
So many speakers have floored me with inadequacies from wooly bass to lack of image focus that I wonder what is going on.
As such, it comes as not such as big surprise that Sean is saying what he is saying. I don't go around measuring things, but if these products measure well then it would be a surprise. And if they in fact do, we need to come up with a new means of measurement. We need to begin demanding that sound win out over looks and boutique price tags! |
I also check in for musical accuracy! That's the Holy Grail, and what I strive for. Sean is correct in that many systems are either too analytical or too warm.
In my experience, it is hard to find an amplifier that will really not fall into either category. The closest I have found, in many regards is the OTL. They have a certain light and life that reminds me of real music. There is warmth, but it doesn't go too far as many tube amps do. They don't lack the soul of many solid state amps or try to go overboard in convincing that it can be warm like a tube amplifier. They also have speed and clarity that surpasses even most of the solid state I have encountered.
However, I have problems with OTL amps. Although the bass they have is extended, VERY fast, and tight, it's hard to power a big woofer with an OTL amp(unless it's 16 ohms - not too many of them around). And, a big woofer generates the kind of horsepower needed to do bass correctly. My OTL amp cannot grab hold of the woofer's voice coil and blow me back like a solid state or transformer coupled tube amp can. Using an autoformer helps somewhat, but then the OTL warmth and magic goes away. |
Kkursula, it seems you got what I was trying to say.
It's quite difficult for an audio system to recreate the sound of a drum being pounded. As I previously talked about the inadequacies of OTL amps in getting the job done in comparison to transformer coupled tube and solid state amps, I also find my experience reflects that in terms of loudspeakers.
Most vented box woofers do fine at creating the volume of the event(provided they have been properly designed, have enough horsepower, cone area, etc.), it's just that the impact is very often blunted. Sealed boxes can produce the snap, but are often down in volume. The answer may be in a TRUE(true being the operative word here) transmission line alignment. I am not yet convinced, as I have not yet received my new speakers, but am holding out hope based on some past experiences. However, TL's are large, complicated, heavy, and expensive. Do their benefits outweigh their drawbacks? We'll see... |
I love how John Atkinson blows off Sean's points, with such ease. At least he is not as arrogant and funny(in his own mind) as J10.
I think the bottom line is that Sean correctly pointed out the issue that in the past few years we have seen the cost of simple power amplfiers skyrocket in price, all the while taking a dive in quality. If people think boutique faceplates and blue LEDs make up for the decline in performance, I feel unhappy that all that money is being wasted when it would be better spent on getting a good North American amp from the horsepower wars of the mid 80s - mid 90s. |
How are you doing, Zaikesman? Hope the tube exploration is going well.
To answer your question, simply look at the title of this thread and the arguments that Sean so lucidly lays out. First, I would like to say that in my opinion, which may or may not be off base, the implementation of a technology should improve over time.
However, that does not appear to be the case. As an example, the current issue of Stereophile includes a review of the $9500 Hovland solid state amplifier. Now, if you read both the "subjective"(Bolin's review) and "objective"(JA's measurements), you will notice that because of disappointment from both vantage points, Hovland reworked the design of the product. Would they have otherwise? I doubt it.
Of course, I give them credit for the improvement that was made, but it still didn't seem that they have achieved the status of producing a great power amplifier. My expectation of any piece of audio equipment costing $9500 is that it should sound great, be reliable, and be well designed. I don't think that's too much to ask.
This Hovland amplifier is unable to drive loads more demanding than 4 ohms. My own NAD 2600A, circa 1987, has proven reliable in driving such demanding(lower impedance than 4 ohms) loudspeakers as Apogees, Acoustats, Thiels, Wilsons, etc., and its measurements prove it can basically handle anything without breaking a sweat. I would like to see some explanation of how this amplifier, produced in the year 2004, improves upon Aragon, Classe, Jeff Rowland, Krell, Mark Levinson, etc. gear from the late 1980s, all of which have no problems in driving much more demanding loads than the Hovland is capable of.
I don't mean to bash Hovland, I am a huge fan of their tube preamp, but can we honestly say that this power amplifier justifies its pricetag? To me, I would gladly forego its cosmetics, faceplate, acrylic base, and blue LEDs for superior performance. |
I must confirm that this thread is not about the Hovland per se, it just proved convenient as it was in the current issue of Stereophile.
Other recent reviews, such as the Pass Labs power amplifier, among others, bears out the point of this thread.
I will not say too much more, as I have laid out my position to the degree that I hope everyone understands where I am coming from. I think Sean hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that the upgrade and upcharge in parts quality has come to represent high end audio moreso than engineering, intelligent design, and artful execution.
The only other thing that I would like to say that if we have come to the point where we prefer to kill the messenger rather than ill designed, underperforming components with five figure price tags, those who support this hobby(all of us, myself included!) should rightly be viewed as fools. |
Despite your long track record of solid viewpoints, Onhwy61, I feel I must have definitely touched a nerve in you. Perhaps, you are the owner of some of this overpriced, overbeautified, underperforming equipment.
You are mostly correct in the assertion that gear is generally good today. I agree with that, but do believe that the relative cost of such gear is higher than it was 15 years ago. My viewpoint, which you seem to keep missing, is that the quality of both the sonics AND build should have risen in the past 15 years. And, with that, there would also be the potential for said gear to be available at more reasonable, not higher, prices. This is where we do find common ground, you can definitely find a good $1500 integrateds.
While most gear is competent today, and the bleeding edge of the industry is often the realm of idiosyncratic performance(Futterman OTL amps, Apogee and Quad speakers, etc.), the components being discussed in this thread do NOT fall into that category. Rather, they represent what many feel to be the vanguard of high end audio companies, producing technology that does not push the envelope, for us, kind of equipment.
How difficult should it be to have very expensive solid state power amplifiers measure well or drive 4 ohm loudspeakers??? These were the very arguments for switching to them from tube gear in the first place.
All of my life I have been beaten over the head hearing that only solid state amplification measures ideally(so it is perfect) and is capable of driving real world speakers. Now, all of the sudden, I begin encountering people who disregard products that do not deliver what their class of component does well(when properly designed), and instead am asked to not point out that not only do they not deliver as they should, but they are grossly overpriced. The fact that it needs to be noted that the review of a $9500 power amp can be considered a rave(not in my book, pal - seemed like he liked it, but wouldn't buy it) proves my point. Again, if you read me correctly, a $10K component should really set itself apart.
Wow, all I can say is that I would imagine the boutique high end dealer loves it when some of us audiophiles come around. |
I don't want to keep repeating myself in this thread, so will move away from what I have already laid out.
But, I do see that there will probably be nothing but growth in the Chinese audio manufacturers. They are learning more and more about this technology, and consequently, their products are improving, in both sonics and quality. The North American and European producers of high end audio better take notice and get their houses in order.
While some audiophiles may continue to keep producers of the kind of equipment focused on in this thread, we all can see where the general trend will be headed once the. |
Marco, the writing that so many complained about was Art's current "Listening" column.
In it, he basically has a field day with several of the readers who have written to him. The subject matter ranges from religion to politics to the role of pets in our lives.
Personally, I found it hysterical, and to be sure the funniest thing in Stereophile I can remember. Of course, the issue at hand for many who made Art's current column is whether audio and other topics should be mixed. Echoing my comments at AA, I have no problem with those feel this way. |
You present a valid argument, Ohhwy61.
However, I must dispute it due to the fact that this is a solid state amplifier with a $9500 price tag. You are oh so correct in the ability to drive a low impedance load is not the be all and end all of an amplifier, my owning a pair of AtmaSphere M60s would tell you how much I agree.
But, there is no excuse for a high powered $9500 solid state amplifier not to be stable into a 2 ohm load(never mind a 1 ohm load).
Paul Bolin has really never struck me as anything but a reviewer who lavishes incredible praise on ultra expensive equipment, but I admire him more after this review. His description of the Hovland described it as a lightweight, yet very clear sounding power amplifier. A decent enough amp, but one that strikes me as having its balance of cosmetics to engineering/sound/performance way, way, way off. While it improved after its instability was pointed out to the company by JA, I don't feel that one can strongly make the point that this is a well engineered product. Otherwise, why would it behave as it did, and moreso, why would they be so quick to change their design?
Again, I lay out the challenge for people to justify to me what improvement this product exhibits over the big American solid state amps of the mid 80s - mid 90s. Having heard a lot of those products drive a pair of Apogees(which were sometimes nothing more than a glorified dead short) into audio heaven, I know that they can do more than pump current into a low impedance.
At the end of the day, I am left strongly agreeing with Sean's point of this thread, "Stereophile confirms new gear is getting worse...." |
While I have gone off on a negative tangent in this thread, I should offer a perspective of a company doing things in what I consider the "right way". Sean is correct in the point of us bringing up these products is not to be argumentative, but to say, "Hey, we are buying this stuff. Do you really want to pay $10K for something that is not to the level is should be?"
My example of a company to admire is Rogue. They seem to do everything right. Rogue began making tube amplification components because they believed in them. Their products, while ambitious(tube) for the time, was priced very reasonably. Rogue did not enter the market with proclamations that they knew more than all of the other manufacturers or that their products were the best. Rather, they offered value, with the good engineering for the money.
Time proved the market was there to support such a company. As things progressed, they felt the consumers would embrace improvements they wanted to offer, and the Magnum line was introduced. The company was profitable, and its survivability and viability had attained some level of certainty.
While Rogue felt that the Magnum series was about 95% of the amplifier they could build(and, at a real world price), people were wondering about the other 5%. From this, the Zeus, their statement product, was developed and introduced. As it is, it retails for "only" $6K, which is far less than the non - statement products of many other companies.
And, rather than continuing to drive their prices up from the Zeus, they pushed the technology back down into their Magnum line - the new 150. While the prices have increased from where they were, so has parts quality and performance.
In the time that Rogue has existed, I have heard nothing but good things about dealing with the company. Customer support has gone further than what most expect.
I would like to mention that I do not own any Rogue equipment, and never have. But, presuming they built a product whose sound pleased me when I was in the market, I would love to give my business to a company such as this. I feel they serve as a model for the rest of the industry. |
