I can't defend or condemn what others have written in any of the rags/mags because I was not in their rooms listening through their systems with their biases, likes and dislikes.
One issue to me anyway is that there is equipment I do not like, but that doesn't make it bad. There are thousands of prejudices here alone that would not allow a certain listener to buy... whatever, be it Legacy speakers (which I would not buy at a fraction of their retail price) Hovland, or Krell, but that does not make Legacy, Hovland, or Krell bad!
It seems like many audiophiles cannot tell the difference between dislikes/personal preference and bad gear. SETs are a great example. The measurement crowd roundly condemns them for measuring poorly while other praise them as being the best sounding amps ever made. Who's right in this arguement???
I really think there is very little really bad sounding equipment available today. Although there is a lot of equipment that people don't like. Don't confuse two different issues. |
I'm compelled to jump in here. By the way this is one of the better threads I've read and I certainly will do my best to contribute to it and not degrade it. You can be sure that if there are industry heads out there trolling through agon, this is exactly the type of thread that will catch their attention.
One thing I've noticed that seems to be very consistent in the reviewing industry (TAS, Stereophile and a few small others) is that so, so often, components are evaluated and compared as if they were stand alone products. If one believes that the ultimate evaluation of ANY component is via the listening experience alone, then it becomes prudent on the part of the evaluator to ensure that the review is taken in the context of the SYSTEM in which the piece is evaluated. As we all know, it is that very undefined and poorly understood realm of component interaction added to the electronic and mechanical complexities of software and hardware that govern what ultimately comes off the speaker/headphone drivers to reach our ears. Coupled to this the very real effects of the emotional and physical states of our heads and bodies on any particular day, hour , minute and the variables take on astronomical proportions.
Point: I attended the Home Theatre Show in San Francisco last year with my wife and two other audio/music enthusiast friends and when we found the Quad room I encouraged the four of us to sit down and just listen awhile. First let me say that I don't think these shows are the place to evaluate gear appropriately for many reasons, some of these being the music played, the distractive noises of other show attendees, the size and shape of the room (an older downtown hotel, The St Francis Westin in this case), and the placement of chairs in which to "relax" and listen. The room was packed, as if the faithful and the devoted had finally found nirvana. Several people held their heads back in what appeared to be a state of rapture. We sat and listened for a good ten minutes, obviously not long enough to obtain a full experience, bit long enough, at least for me, to understand the system's strengths and weaknesses.
I couldn't get into it. Whether it was the speakers (the latest Quads, I forget the model), the cables, the electronics or sources, I couldn't tell. But there was NO bass, the midrange did not make me even feel the slightest punch in the chest (no guts but all cerebral). The recording was one I was familir with too. After ten minutes we looked at each other and left the room while the devoted were still enraptured.
My point? I had read about these speakers in a review sometime last year in either TAS or Stereophile (or both!) and I had made a point of checking this gear out while at the show. What I heard (and my wife and friends heard) in no way even came close to the kudos that those reviews engendered. It was apples and oranges. So my point is that (and it supports Nrchy's as well) is that if we can't be present in the same time and space as the reviewer of equipment, let alone the same emotional and physical state, then certainly much will be lost in the translation. In fact almost all of it will be lost. In fact no review can provide value to us besides piquing our interest enough to get off our fat butts and go listen in a context completely removed from any reviewer's experience.
At best this will mean home auditioning. At worst, purchasing based solely on specs or review. The spectrum for folly is of extremely wide bandwidth and huge dynamic range. We all forge our own path to audio disillusion and disbelief; I celebrate dissent in this area of personal pursuit simply because in music, there are no absolutes but only possibilities. The world of audio gear combinations, configurations and experiences is no different in this regard.
But it certainly is fun hanging out with you folks. |
I see a total abandonment of logic in this thread.
Sean, your contention is that new gear is getting worse. For the sake of argument, letÂ’s say that it is (and for what itÂ’s worth, I would probably be inclined to agree with this statement). Why is this?
Going back to an earlier response I made in this thread, you have 5 different systems, 4 solid state and 1 tube. Do these all sound exactly the same? Of course not. If you are pursuing accuracy (as you claim to be) why the need for 5 different systems that all have different sounds? Using logic, assuming all 5 systems don’t sound exactly the same, you have at least 4 inaccurate systems—perhaps all five. Accurate is accurate, there are no degrees. If something sounds different from the original it is, by definition, inaccurate. The farther from this original sound, the more inaccurate a system becomes. Why are you keeping these inaccurate systems around? Presumably because you enjoy the sound that they make, accurate or not. Why then are you knocking Legacy speakers? For the record, I think they sound dreadful too, but someone out there might love the sound even though it is inaccurate. Let’s try to stick to logic and avoid hypocrisy.
In addition to this fact (and going back to some of my earlier posts in this thread) is my contention that the average audiophile is not honest with himself; he is either not seeking accuracy or, most often, has no idea what accuracy is. What then is the standard for purchasing new equipment? How about greed, lust and envy of another’s possession for a start. People complain about $1000 machined aluminum face plates and silly blue LEDs, yet the high-end masses purchase them. The amount of times I’ve read the phrase “Pride of ownership” on these pages disgusts me.
So what’s wrong with knocking a $9500 Hovland that measures like an Onkyo receiver? You are entitled to say that it doesn’t perform like it should and it’s grossly overpriced, but to make such a big fuss over this particular piece in this sad day and age in high end audio seems silly when people are paying $1000/watt in so many other products. Why on earth should Hovland reduce the asking price for this amplifier (or Legacy for their speakers or ANYONE in high end audio for that matter)? That will only result in less people buying it because the sound of a component is rarely the number one criteria in purchasing equipment in high end audio. And why on earth should Hovland or Legacy take the time to perfect their product when that won’t result in increased sales either? They are running a business and the high end audiophile community allows them (I would say encourages them) to continue running it as such. I’m just happy that many people who buy this are going to experience that warm fuzzy feeling known as “pride of ownership” that they simply would be missing out on by purchasing an amplifier for half of the price that out performs theirs in everyway.
Yes, a lot of new gear sucks. But it is the audiophile community as a whole that has created this situation and we are only making it worse. If you choose to make a stand now, abide by logic, avoid hypocrisy and you may see others follow your lead. |
I don't know that 'logic' has much to do with it. Nor 'accuracy'. This is a highly subjective hobby. To some folks, 'accuracy' is everything and can be measured with an oscilliscope, a microphone and a sound-pressure meter. To others it's a far more subjective realm of judgement that is more about the experience of how a system sounds, and then there is every degree of variation in between. My ideal review format would have a group of reviewers without financial agenda (of course), who each have their own spot on that jury spectrum. In the review of any and every component, each of them would contribute their personal views which one would be able to reference against past preferences and how those preferences may relate to their own. Also, it would be nice to have components that compete against one and other rated together as a group, much like Consumer Reports does with mass-market products, but on a smaller scale. The rags do this to some degree, but more often isolate the review to only one reviewer, and most certainly there is the unavoidable conflict of interest of the financial matter of advertising paying the salaries of the reviewers. A review in this formate might have a face-off between Audio-Aero, Cary, Muse, and Wadia CD players. Each would be compared within various diverse systems by the same group of reviewers, and each would give their viewpoint of how each player stacked up against the other. As it stands now, we usually have a single reviewer, doing a review of a single component in their reference system with a variation or two, and comparing it to whatever else happens to be on hand, or may have been recently reviewed (in which case they may be compared from memory). And perhaps there may be a sidebar where another reviewer may chime in with far less detail than the overall review having auditioned the component in an entirely different room and system. Of course this will never happen. There are all kinds of reasons why not, most having to do with difficulty and impracticality and expense of conducting reviews this way I imagine. And or course then there's the pressure of the advertising-dependent journal.
I don't think I'd rather be reading reviews of constant drueling praise, singing that the glory of god has been bestowed upon each and every component under scrutiny. That we should love these beautiful children for all their flaws as well as their assets because each and every one was conceived in heaven and constructed by li'll elves with soldering skills handed down for generations. What I want to know when I read a review most every time that I can think of is just how does this component stack up against what else is out there available in the same price range. How does this component interface with different types of systems and music, and who is making such a judgement, and what do others say who may have different tastes and preferences.
As far as billet aluminum, glowing blue knobs, fins to write home about and all of that high-tech ornamentation, I see nothing at all wrong with any of that since there's obviously a market for it, and there are those who value form as much as function. Nothing wrong with that at all as long as you realize you are paying for both.
Have components started to decline in quality/price ratio? I don't know. I've been pretty impressed with what not a whole lot of money can by these days in the high end. The threshold at which investment-to-improvement is low enough so that many folks can have a very satisfying taste of what others can afford in spades, without taking out a second mortgage. I am very impressed also with the fact that, to my ears, I can get great pleasure from some vintage components that are over 50 years old sometimes in terms of their design and technology (I speak of the likes of Klipsch, Quad, Dynaco, etc......and of course the LP's/turntables which many of us adore and prefer over digital options). What other realm of consumer technology can boast such a staying-power.....perhaps classic cars might be an example, though if I was driving any distance at all I'd rather be in something more modern for the comfort and convenience, not to mention economy.
Not sure where I'm going with this, but that's what came to mind when reading the last few posts. A very enjoyable thread indeed.
Marco |
Wait a minute, there is no such thing as accuracy when it comes to sound, musical or otherwise. That is simply because in order for it to be accurate, it must have quantitative parameters that can be measured. And there is no way in heck that what is heard in a live musical situation can be accurately measured and then compared to a non-live (recorded) listening experience.
Subjectivity excludes the possibility of accuracy.
The point is moot. And I agree totally with Sean when I read about $15,000 speaker systems that can't achieve a MEASURABLE linear (+/- 3dB) frequency response below 50 Hz. The development, manufacture and release for sale of such equipment is simply, and utterly ridiculous and ANYONE paying $$$ for such garbage should have their head examined. |
This is a little OT, but perhaps of ancillary interest. . .
I was cleaning the basement and found the Feb 94 issue of Stereophile.
Apparently reviewer Lewis Lipnick gave a scathing review to a Crown MR power amp. Judging from the multiple pages of letters in this issue, the review caused an uproar from supporters of the amp, a major quarrel within a small audio club, and general mayhem. (no, I don't have the issue with the actual review, don't know anything about the amp, etc.).
I don't know if this is the time a (supposed)scathing review appeared in Stereophile, but given the proar, I can imagine that JA still has nightmares about it.
I am new to this forum, but have really enjoyed reading this flame-free thread. I, too, have listened to multi-buck systems and walked away with my ears hurting . . . |
Rightly or wrongly, a bad review in Stereophile can destroy the viability of a company. I actually applaud the fact that Stereophile uses its power sparingly. |
That Crown review was quite a big deal as I remember it. Especially because another magazine (was it TAS?) loved the amp. |
Sean-
Regarding the Stereophile confirmation that new gear is getting worse.....Please remember and concider this from a magazine that is also "getting worse." A lot of us who have been in Audio for a while can probably agree that back in the mid 80's and early 90's Stereophile was hot on the list of mags that covered the Audio scene very well, with Names and articals written that were great. In the last several years, such is not the same and seems the quality of the mag has deteriorated to the point of "ho-hum". Now Im not sure its all about the lack of good hi-fi components to review and get excited about, or the lack luster effort they put forth today compared to the earlier days...Just something to concider... FWIW..I let my subscription expire last year and dont miss it one bit! |
will catch up on this hot thread later.Wanted to post this concerning what Jax2 mentioned earlier,that Stereophile has not done negative review.Anyone remember few years back the review on Velodynes stand mounted mini-monitor review that lost Stereophile the ad account to Velodyne?Stereophiles response was classy to say the least. |
Ultraviolet: Each one of the systems that i have is very different yet quite similar to each other. I'll suffice it to say that these systems were all built to their listening environment. That is, i'm not trying to cram 10 lbs of material into a 2 lb bag. For that matter, i'm not expecting one gallon of paint to cover the entire house either.
In English, i've got small speakers and electronics in smaller rooms and bigger speakers and electronics in bigger rooms. Most, if not all of the gear, has been modified to some extent. This was done in an attempt to make it both more "accurate" and more "musical". To be quite honest though, not all of these systems are built to the same standards or use the same quality of components. I simply can't afford to do that.
On top of that, the speakers are all quite different in design and implimentation. Obviously, each design brings with them their own strengths and weaknesses. I've tried to work with those strengths by utilizing them in specific installations and minimize the weaknesses by avoiding situations that they aren't well suited for. Given that i'm not expecting the same level of output from each of these systems, they have been optimized for the range of operation that they are most used for. I think that if more people took this approach i.e. built a system around the room / speaker interphase and the acoustics / listening preferences that they have, they would be a lot happier in the long run.
As a side note and being a bit of a "collector", i've got tons of other gear that i'm currently not even using. This is not to mention that some of the gear that i was running not that long ago is now gone i.e. "out the door". Some of this is due to profitable offers from others that wanted it more than i did and some of it is due to the fact that it did not perform as i expect it to, even after modifications. With that in mind, i'm not above "trashing" or pointing out the flaws in a product, even if i currently own it or have owned it in the past. The fact that i like Pass designed gear, and have stated this publicly many, many times, yet took them to task for the poor performance and quality control of one of their "latest and greatest" products further reinforces that i'm not about playing "favourites" or promoting a specific agenda. I try to call it as i see it, even if it means ocassionally stepping on the toes of my own personal preferences.
What i am about is quality, consistency and design integrity, regardless of price. Given that prices are going up and quality, consistency and design integrity seem to be going backwards in a lot of high end products, i would hope that you can understand where i'm coming from and why i started this thread. After all, when a manufacturer jumps on a plane, flies across the ocean to hand deliver a product to a reviewer, and that product is dead within 24 hours, what does that say about the state of "high end" and the products that are getting raved about? To me, it says that a random sample off the production line is probably going to be even worse and less consistent. Sean
> |
Just a point of defining our baselines for discussion (to which rebuttals are welcome): I noticed some responses above seeming to imply that maybe companies like those taken to task here for making products which don't measure the way some people think they ought to for the money, did not devote sufficient engineering time and resources before releasing half-baked gear. Although this might happen from time to time (and although many products do get 'upgraded' after their introductions), I'm much more inclined to give companies like Hovland, Pass, or Legacy the benefit of the doubt (for good or for ill), inasmuch as I tend to assume that their products' performance, both audible and measured, is entirely the intentional result of deliberate design choices made by competent and careful professionals, whose reputations and future livelihoods are understood to be on the line with every product introduction.
Ultimately, you can't go very far for long selling only the equivalent of fancy faceplates and colored lights in any business, and I don't think a quick buck is why most designers get into audio (possibly excepting some in the cable field), whatever one might conclude about their performance priorities or degrees of native talent. There's probably room to argue about assessments of the prevailing level of basic design competence and/or the depth of the talent pool relative to past eras, but to me it's overly cynical to suspect a widespread, shoddy disregard for anything besides short-term profits in such a risky, tough, and fanatical business as audiophiledom. In short, I'm willing to grant from the start that most designers believe wholeheartedly in their products, and strive to make what in their opinions are the very best they can for any given design brief and price point. To sometimes disagree with the results is one thing, but it's another to suggest that those responsible either don't know enough, or even worse, really know better. Ours is a marketplace that encourages diversity, and that includes appearances, prices, and meausured performance as well as sonics ; if that seems to be in conflict with 'objective' notions of accuracy and value, then it was probably ever thus. |
Zaikesman: Pass knows better and i think that they had a MAJOR problem with quality control. This doesn't speak too highly of them though. What would have happened with the amps that were already out in circulation if nobody had measured / caught these problems? Would the owners have been "good enough listeners" to tell that there was a problem and send them back in OR would they have simply sold them thinking that "Pass ain't all that it's cracked up to be", putting more "junk" ( albeit "expensive junk" ) out on the used market??? Even though Pass stepped up to the plate to correct the problem and admits the flaw, this kind of situation leaves a bad taste in my mouth. After all, it's not like they are building a thousand units a day. QC for a small manufacturer that supposedly builds top flight / mega-dollar gear should be "job 1".
Hovland "may" know better but i'm not sure. The fact that they made changes to the product shows that they are eager to please, but at the same time, didn't do their homework to begin with. Getting an education at the customers expense i.e. "learning as you go" can become pretty expensive for consumers, especially trying to keep up with all of the "Mk II" and "Mk III" revisions. Then again, we are all learning, otherwise products would never evolve and technology would remain the same. Kind of a double-sided coin. One would hope that a company actually tested their products before marketing them though. Some don't because they are afraid that others will "beat them to the punch" and that "every second counts". Too bad the consumer is left holding the bag in that type of situation, especially when that bag used to be full of their own money.
On the other hand, Legacy can tell you everything that you want to know about speaker design if you read their brochures. They obviously have a very astute grasp of marketing their product and telling you what you want to hear. At the same time though, the measurements seem to produce consistent test results that are quite deficient in the same areas. Given the fact that more than one product demonstrates this type of behaviour, i don't think it is a matter of QC, but more-so a "company voice" or "sonic signature" that the designers / engineers think "sounds good". All i know is the measurements that i see for these products demonstrate very noticeable bass bloat ( +5 to +7 dB's at 80 - 120 Hz ). Needless to say, with all of the "know-how" and "technology" invested in these speakers that they keep telling us about, you would think that they could achieve slightly greater linearity out of their multi-thousand dollar products. Sean
> |
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. |
Well I have not read this whole thread but a fair part of it.
In a way it reinforces a feeling I have had for some time. That is, separates are not all that great. Truth is, circuits cannot be hooked up to all loads and operate maximally no matter what you spend. Why bother? There are compromises that must be made. The output impedance of one circuit or input capacitance of the next is what it is. Generally speaking, it is not going to mate with every other load in the same way no matter how much money you spend. It does not work that way.
I used to ride a lot of bicycle. Choosing circuits (amp and speaker for example) is a little like choosing chain-ring and freewheel ratios. You need to know the terrain and the quality of the rider's legs and heart to make the best choice if you want real performance. If you do not know the ride(is it with the wind in the flats or up the rockies)or the riders' abilities (is he a powerhouse or a fly weight climber) you are going to compromise to cover all possibilities. This can be done, but when the terrain and rider turn out to be one or the other, you will not get anything near maximum performance.
To me this represents the state of about 95% of audio today.
Figure out what final load (speakers)you are going to use.
Then get a power supply and amp tailored to do it. Don't even think about an amp that should do it all.
Folks these days get amps that are compromised to "work into any load", they then combine it with speakers that run the entire spectrum re loads and connect them with wire that does the same re capacitance. Is there any wonder why results are all over the place? The analysis seldom goes further than some lame statement about "synergy." They happily pay bookoo bucks for a wire that does not send the entire hap-hazardly arranged package into a death spin.
Give me the days when the folks who made these things knew what the next circuit down the line would be. I've got nice magnavox console for sale if anyone is interested!
Sincerely
I remain,
|
The post below was taken from another thread. Rather than respond in that thread and throw it completely off course, i took the liberty of tranfering it here. After all, the main idea being discussed / commented on was basically derived from the thoughts i presented here and in other similar threads. ------------------------------------------------------------ 03-09-04: Stehno Barry, Now you did it. You went and made Sean angree. Do you know what Sean did to the last mfg'er that made him angree? Just ask the folks around here or at Legacy. It was not pretty. {I shudder just thinking about it}. Well, Barry, it's, um, been nice, um, chatting with you but I really, uh, must go now. -IMO Stehno Here's my response: Stehno: What should a person do when they are aware of fraud, corruption and lies taking place? Obviously, these actions are done in order to scam less knowledgable individuals out of their hard earned money and have been taking place on a continual basis for years. Should a person with a conscience just mind their own business and continue to let others less knowledgable fall for the scam? Should this person speak up and try to help those potentially at risk at the expense of possibly being ostracized for being a "goody two shoes", "know-it-all", "internet bully"? Obviously, there are two different paths to take here, each with different repurcussions. Which one would you take? Here's something else to consider before making that decision. Besides angering those doing the scamming, the person exposing the situation runs the risk of being labeled an "asshole" by those that have already been scammed and don't know it and / or are too vain to admit it. As such, no matter what they do i.e. try to help spare others what they know to be a costly mistake based on verifiable facts OR expose the scam artists for what they are, it is a no-win situation for that person. Please tell me which path you think is loaded with roses i.e. being a passive observer and watching others get robbed or taking a stand for what you know is right at your own personal risk and reputation. I'm sure that your answer will provide great insight. Sean > PS... I'm serious and would like a response. You can do it via email if you like, but i would prefer it be done here. After all, if i am going to pass judgment on industry professionals and their products and you are going to pass judgment on me for doing so, i'd like to have as big and varied of a jury as possible to weigh both sides of the story. |
Hi Sean,
Would you please clarify your post above. Which company do you believe had been perpetrating fraud, corruption and lies?
Best Regards,
Barry
|
Barry: The company that you are involved with isn't one of those i was discussing. On top of that, i'm not going to single out ANYBODY with those specific statements as i'm not THAT dumb in terms of legalities. I'll just present a scenario and let you answer it for yourself. What would you call a company whose products don't meet their own published specifications, yet continues to produce, advertise and sell them as is? As far as i know, they would be guilty of both fraud and conspiracy. Obviously, anyone that makes a living by mis-representing their products via "lying to the public" is nothing less than "corrupt"*. Unfortunately, the FTC doesn't get involved in this type of stuff like they should. When reviewers "overlook" these self-flattering yet unsubstantiated claims made by these manufacturers and report on what wonderful products these flawed pieces of junk are, they too are just as corrupt. The fact that they are willing to lie to their readers, sometimes even with evidence that completely contradicts them found in the same "review", makes them just as much of a fraud and part of the conspiracy. I really have to wonder just how much "truth in reporting" actually takes place now-a-days? It's no wonder that people don't like being told the truth. When you try to do that, all you end up doing is "confusing them with the facts". That's probably because they've been spoon-fed so many lies on a regular basis that they can no longer think for themselves or know what the truth looks like any more. Sean > PS... Do yourself a favour and respond to Stehno's comments / questions in the thread that directed you here. * They left out one very important and highly descriptive word when defining "fraud". That word would be "politician" : ) |
Hello? Is anybody there? I have taken the liberty of moving this topic back to the thread in which I was in simply because I know how to do this. threadous _postous_interruptous-IMO |
While I admit that I more admire, concerning this one narrow issue of specsmanship, companies inclined to understate measured performance rather than overstate it, there is gear which I am happy with in my own system from companies that I believe do indulge in a little 'optimism' in this area. Is this 'fraud'? If it is, I can't say I care very much as long as a component nevertheless gives all the sonic enjoyment I could ask of it.
I feel it is fairly routine, for instance, for electronic gear tested in Stereophile to show S/N figures that are worse than claimed, or I/O impedance figures bearing only a passing resemblance to spec. On the other hand, amp power figures into various loads and at differing distortion levels often seem to be as frequently understated as overstated, and *both* directions of disparity could be, perhaps ironically, attributed as much to marketing considerations as anything else. When it comes to speakers and frequency response, tolerances criticized above must be taken into account with the knowledge that the way in which test results are obtained has a major impact on reported figures, and that JA's test regimen is quite limited in certain crucial respects that could cause it to diverge significantly from methods which a speaker manufacturer might deem most representative for modeling real-world performance.
Anyway, I still say none of this actually establishes that new gear is 'getting worse', or is in general more at odds with its claimed specs than was older gear. |
Now manufacturer specs fall in line with loudspeaker effiency specs.If the makers go to far,it will take them years to recover the losses.It is cheaper to keep customers then to procure new ones.In the big picture audio is becoming better,cheaper,with expanded choice.IMO |
Maybe they should stop publish specs and just call it a "black box with spice"?
Without the testing euqipment, we'll never know if anything you bought is within the spec.
Do you trust the spec over your ears? I don't. |
I don't even think it's a matter of which do you trust, your ears or the specs, because often the two have remarkably little relation to each other. I don't think this is because measurable performance has no bearing at all on perceived performance in theory, but because A) the ways in which gear usually gets measured often have little resemblance to how it's actually used for listening to music within a system context using human ears, and B) there aren't necessarily measurements which can be made to directly quantify many observable sonic characteristics, but only by inference and extension, which are no substitute for actual auditioning. I suppose this means that in order to demonstrate that "new gear is getting worse", one would have to show that it actually *sounds* 'worse' - and this of course is not objectively possible to prove (and I'm not even sure anybody is contending that this is the case). |
