View Full Version : Audio Note outline the harsh reality of the state of audio today...
Guys,
Whilst browsing the Audio Note website today, as a friend is possibly interested in buying a preamp, I discovered this article, which touches at the very heart of where we unfortunately are now with high-end audio. Have a read yourself and tell me if you're nodding your head vehemently in agreement (like I was) or shaking your head, equally as vehemently, and thinking "bollocks".
Read the bit after the title of "A short general comment on how we “build a better sonic level”!", here: http://www.audionote.co.uk/products/preamp/_home_preamp_01.shtml
This bit, for me, nails it on the head, and directly reflects my own experience, which is why I modify high-quality vintage equipment, the way I do:
Cost pressures prevail everywhere and elsewhere in the specialist audio industry, as in most other branches of consumer products, the relentless pursuit of ever-cheaper products to provide higher profits through lower and lower production costs continues unabated. This has lead to a technological development where measurement technologies have been “redesigned”, distorted and figures misrepresented in order to create the necessary “proof” that the reduction in cost did not result in a corresponding loss in “quality”. “We can make the same cheaper” is the unspoken slogan, which has resulted in products that superficially maintain the same standards of their predecessors but which in reality are substantially and demonstrably inferior, this is what callously passes as progress in most companies’ minds, but progress to where?
Answer: to the ever-lowering of standards, and the increasing prioritising of profit over quality, and trading of quality for convenience, until we are left with nothing but dross - *that* is where!! :rolleyes:
The bits in bold ably demonstrate why the newest and 'greatest' thing is rarely (if ever) these days, the best. And if we are to make REAL progress with our systems, in terms of how genuinely satisfying and musically realistic they sound, then we must wake up, rid ourselves of the former notion, and look at things laterally and more logically, to address what really is happening!
<Discuss>
Marco.
What is written there could have been written about the world of videography, or photography.
In photography, for example, most consumers look as the pixel count, not realising that more pixels more often than not equates to lower picture quality...
I personally would prefer an old classic to a modern classic. The modern amps I've heard, the one that a popular consumer magazine rates as 'best buys', I find are often cold and emotionless. Surely hi-fi is about emotion?
Referring to the quote above, I think there is certainly evidence to support that but mostly down at the super-budget end of the market.
The high end audiophile market suffers from an altogether bigger problem IMO, that of equipment deliberately designed to be technically inferior to good mid priced kit in order to generate a sonic differentiator that otherwise wouldn't exist.
How can we make this sound different?
I know, we'll worsen the specification by using more expensive but technically poorer components in order to make it sound 'different', then we can perhaps make a case for selling it.
A good example of the above, particularly as the article above is from Audio Note, would be hugely expensive PIO capacitors with performance clearly inferior to a good cheap film cap.
In essence, i'm saying that many up at the high end have abandoned transparency and are effectively selling flavouring.
Well you did say discuss :)
Rob
What is written there could have been written about the world of videography, or photography.
Lenny; how true. One could levy this criticism at many things today. Unfortunately, the situation is endemic of our technology-obsessed, convenience over quality, disposable society.
What I'm interested in, is whether people are aware of what is outlined in the above article, and acknowledge it, and so do something about it, or agree but simply stick their heads in the sand, in the hope that things will get better (they won't unless we take action and make them better), or disagree and think that the article is simply the marketing strategy of a manufacturer who sells bespoke audio equipment and components?
Marco.
P.S Rob, just noticed your reply. I shall reply later, after dinner :)
Just before I much into my home-made pasta, chew on this pearl of wisdom (and undisputable fact), from the above article:
Time favours performance quality rather than fashion, which is devalued quickly after the first admiring glance, which is why the best old audio products still command premium prices.
Indeed! Back later ;)
Marco.
seoirse2002
10-02-2012, 19:20
Lenny; how true. One could levy this criticism at many things today. Unfortunately, the situation is endemic of our gadget-obsessed, convenience over quality, disposable society.
What I'm interested in, is whether people are aware of what is outlined in the above article, and acknowledge it and do something about it, or agree but simply stick their heads in the sand, in the hope that things will get better (they won't unless we take action and make them better), or disagree and think that the article is simply the marketing strategy of a manufacturer who sells bespoke audio equipment and components?
Marco.
P.S Rob, just noticed your reply. I shall reply later, after dinner :)
I will be showing this to a few friends of mine who constantly berate my vintage gear...Im very fond of my inca tech claymore,ion obelisk,and Morgan devo,same with the speakers and TTs I insist on holding on to....I believe that they were made with care and attention,and just looking at my amps alone( none of the companies are still in business) Im inclined to believe if they had been more market driven instead of concentrating on making a good,well built product that has stood the test of time,they would be still around today,and I also totally agree with the comments about photography...too many people think more is better,which it not always is.
GT(chilled with a glass of wine listening to david wilcox on an old 70s Dual(yes Dual) amp and AR TT+original concords(with the metal grill)
snuffbox
10-02-2012, 19:29
The last time I went to a hi fi show must have been about 15 years ago.
I found that I was being bored rigid by what I was experiencing and that was after an aural sample of some very highend and exotic gear.as I was about to go I heard "music" coming from the doorway of one room so thought I 'd investigate,at last something that was worth looking at.
Inside I found a selection of amps speakers and turntables from the 70's old Quads,Leaks etc that had been rebuilt,they sounded bloody gorgeous.
That done it for me,so now I'm very sceptical about the hi fi industry.
Theres only one real test about how good a system is and thats your ears.
I'm mostly happy with what I have and am quite satisfied with it.
In my opinion it doesn't matter how good a system is it will never replicate the scale of an orchestra in the Albert Hall,a string quartet in St Martins in the Field
or jazz jam in the Quecumbar.
Marco, Peter has been complaining about this for a long time,he doesn't do big marketing,
but at the price of his products he could seriously afford to.
Even his chip board vinyl clad speakers are over $2,500 give me a break.
He dose build some of the best stuff in the world (level 5) but his lower tear stuff needs to be priced closer to his competitors before I would buy it.
His DAC last I looked didn't even have an Tolsink input.
So his DAC Zero was instantly not an option.
The sad thing is I like most of his gear but I can buy something as good or close to it for a lot less money even if the other company spends boat loads of money on advertising.
From what I have seen even a seemingly small price increase in parts is good cause for some to raise there prices through the roof.
I wish Peter luck, but advertising is just part of doing business, and it's pointless to ignore what 99% of business has found so important that they feel need to assign a budget for it as part of their quarterly expenses.
would be hugely expensive PIO capacitors with performance clearly inferior to a good cheap film cap.
Ok, I have to bite. Just what is it with a AN PIO that is inferior to another cap? Cost doesn't count, as you refer to their performance.
It seems to me that "transparency" is like Marxism, or a unregulated free market, sounds like a good idea in theory, but in practice fails to live up to its potential.
Ali Tait
10-02-2012, 19:48
Have to agree, AN coppers are one of my favourite caps.
comments regarding photography probably hold up with regard to the domestic market (of which I know little), but I'm not sure the quality of gear has changed much further up the chain. Digital lenses for large format is a case in point, the Rodenstock digital lenses are phenomenal.
But I think its fair to say the digital revolution definitely lowered people's expectations on what was deemed acceptable in image quality.
Hi Nick,
Ok, I have to bite. Just what is it with a AN PIO that is inferior to another cap? Cost doesn't count, as you refer to their performance.
Remember that Rob's 'proof of the pudding' is always what current science says is 'true'! ;)
Marco.
I've read better grammar and spelling from 15 year olds and grammar and spelling aren't my strong points. :lol:
Shocking for a bit of company advertising. I wonder if this reflects the care they take in getting their products right. :eyebrows:
It's a complete load of emotive, unsubstantiated nonsense and given I'm marking some pre advanced level physics papers as I type this, I'm going to give the article the same treatment. ;)
Well, it mostly refects my own experience, and is generally what I hear whenever comparing my system (and those like it) to one comprising solely of modern components ;)
Marco.
P.S Agreed on the grammar and spelling!
pure sound
10-02-2012, 20:16
PQ always has written alot of 'stream of consciousness' material and often doesn't bother with the finer points of grammar & punctuation as he writes it. It should also be remembered that English isn't his first language although he does have a far better grasp of spoken English than most English people do!
Hi Rob,
Referring to the quote above, I think there is certainly evidence to support that but mostly down at the super-budget end of the market.
In my experience, it applies all over audio today, at every level, from the unmitigated shite at the super-budget end of the market, to the mediocre pap I hear in the middle, and much of the underperforming 'audio jewellery' at the high-end!
It's not all bad, of course, but the notion that we've made much REAL progress where it matters most, sonically, in the last 30-odd years, compared with the best of what was made in that era and before is, quite frankly, a joke.
The high end audiophile market suffers from an altogether bigger problem IMO, that of equipment deliberately designed to be technically inferior to good mid priced kit in order to generate a sonic differentiator that otherwise wouldn't exist.
I agree that this sometimes happens. Could you cite some specific examples that you have personally experienced?
How can we make this sound different?
I know, we'll worsen the specification by using more expensive but technically poorer components in order to make it sound 'different', then we can perhaps make a case for selling it.
Could you define exactly what you mean by "technically poorer"?
A good example of the above, particularly as the article above is from Audio Note, would be hugely expensive PIO capacitors with performance clearly inferior to a good cheap film cap.
Clearly inferior to whom? Clearly, there are others who would disagree, based on extensive experience of building equipment using the capacitors in question.
In essence, i'm saying that many up at the high end have abandoned transparency and are effectively selling flavouring.
In some cases I agree, however not in the discerning DIY or quality commercial equipment modifying arena (count me in!) where components are ONLY chosen by users based on their superior sonic performance.
Well you did say discuss :)
Indeed - and that's exactly what we're doing. Over now to you! :cool:
Marco.
I've read better grammar and spelling from 15 year olds and grammar and spelling aren't my strong points. :lol:
Shocking for a bit of company advertising. I wonder if this reflects the care they take in getting their products right. :eyebrows:
It's a complete load of emotive, unsubstantiated nonsense and given I'm marking some pre advanced level physics papers as I type this, I'm going to give the article the same treatment. ;)
John, My spelling stinks and is not likely to improve much,the fact you can read what I post is largely helped by a spelling plug in Marco recommended. I seem to recall it being IE spell or something like that. So if something slips by please excuse it.
Getting to your point, I think I get what you don't like,the artical seems shrill and pissy to me, If you don't want to spend money to promote your product that's ok. But blasting others who offer lesser prices in most cases on great products for spending a few bucks for printing brochures on glossy paper seems petty. If Peter prints a Level 5 brochure it would most likely be embossed over copper or silver foil,rolled into a scroll and tied with a 24k gold thread by imported 6 fingered sloth /human hi breeds from the Amazon.
Peter is entitled to his opinion but he should think about how it makes him sound. Who doesn't advertise ? Really?
It dose in the end I suppose come out of the cost of the over all product price point but seems to be a necessary evil similar to R&D.
You can build the best in the world but if you don't get people excited about your product most will go else where,I wonder how many sales where lost do to lack of advertising.It's a shame to because most of his stuff is fantastic quality although I felt the chip board speakers cheapened the brand and was beneath the name and reputation he has worked so hard to build on.
When people think Audio Note Japan or U.K. they think "No compromise Audio"
or at least I do, The stuff is always very musical and if I had unlimited funds there would be some AN gear in my home but few people here in the U.S. even know of the brand because they remain obscure to the main stream who believe Bo*e is the last word in high end because they read it in an ad.
Hi Jeff,
I'm not against advertising for the right reasons, and so agree with most of your points. However, that really wasn't the thrust of the argument I was putting forward. If you return briefly to my opening post, and observe the bits I've highlighted, therein lies the message; and in that respect, I agree with everything PQ has written.
The stuff is always very musical...
You may wish to let that bit fully digest and analyse its significance! ;)
Marco.
Got to be brief Jeff coz I'm sposed to be working. ;)
I couldn't give a toss about peoples spelling and grammar in general and definitely not on a forum where everyone writes a load of bollocks anyway. :)
However, this guy is not only representing his company, he is trying to convince us that there is some credence in his submission that hand built custom products necessarily outperform more modern and less costly alternatives.
Be good start if he just ran the document through a spell check at least and if he's going to talk about technical or other matters he should back up his assertions with data.
Unfortunately, possibly having a talent for electronics building doesn't automatically make one an expert in the other areas he trod in his zeal.
However, this guy is not only representing his company, he is trying to convince us that there is some credence in his submission that hand built custom products necessarily outperform more modern and less costly alternatives.
And in many cases, based solely on our own personal experiences, some of us don't need much convincing! ;)
Marco.
Hi Jeff,
I'm not against advertising for the right reasons, and so agree with most of your points. However, that really wasn't the thrust of the argument I was putting forward. If you return briefly to my opening post, and observe the bits I've highlighted, therein lies the message; and in that respect, I agree with everything PQ has written.
You may wish to let that bit fully digest and analyse its significance! ;)
Marco.
Ok, fair enough, I read that or a similar artical by him a year or more ago and it struck me as being whiny, but he did make some outstanding points,I see where you high lighted them. I do think the high end was largely influenced by Peter more than anyone in the last 30 years.So when he writes something I read it. But I think affordable mid to hi fi is better for the money than ever,
I'm even sure some of Peters discovery and advancements have trickled down to us hifi less fortunets. I will always hold AN in very high regard and like I said Marco I value the musical quality he has labored to create with in his gear.
And in consumer based black plastic crap he is dead on but the mid fi market offers componates closer and closer to the high end at lower prices than ever for example Music Hall, Shandling ,Little Dot and on and on.
Share holders and bean counters kill any company that let's them dictate the final quality of the product,sort of killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
Darwanisum of business I suppose.So in the end it is good for Peter if he continues offering the best possible quality . He may be one of the few left standing if people learn about his stuff on a wider scale.
And in consumer based black plastic crap he is dead on but the mid fi market offers componates closer and closer to the high end at lower prices than ever for example Music Hall, Shandling ,Little Dot and on and on.
Yes, that's a good point, Jeff, and I agree.
What irks me, and what I also believe will prove to be the death knell for high-end audio (and here I'm not talking about the latest contents of the Absolute Sounds product portfolio, but anything decent that is away from the dreadful pap, posing as audio equipment, which the general public buy), if we don't do something about it soon, is the notion that whatever audio equipment is produced now, by a specific manufacturer, is automatically superior to that which preceded it.
Such a notion is naïve, misguided, and in many cases, completely untrue! I refer again to what Peter wrote:
Cost pressures prevail everywhere and elsewhere in the specialist audio industry, as in most other branches of consumer products, the relentless pursuit of ever-cheaper products to provide higher profits through lower and lower production costs continues unabated.
It is *that* these days which more often than not fuels the creation of supposedly 'superior' equipment by some manufacturers, when often the older stuff that they made, which wasn't subject to such stringent cost-cutting, was in fact SONICALLY superior!
And so people believe the bullshit that they're told, and 'upgrade', but because often what they're actually doing is downgrading, sonically, they end up chasing their tail and embarking on a never-ending spiral of fruitless box-swapping, chasing some ideal notion of a 'perfect sound' that they'll likely never find.... :doh:
Of course, this is great business for the manufacturers concerned - until their customers wake up and smell the coffee!!
Think about it.
Marco.
Got to be brief Jeff coz I'm sposed to be working. ;)
I couldn't give a toss about peoples spelling and grammar in general and definitely not on a forum where everyone writes a load of bollocks anyway. :)
However, this guy is not only representing his company, he is trying to convince us that there is some credence in his submission that hand built custom products necessarily outperform more modern and less costly alternatives.
Be good start if he just ran the document through a spell check at least and if he's going to talk about technical or other matters he should back up his assertions with data.
Unfortunately, possibly having a talent for electronics building doesn't automatically make one an expert in the other areas he trod in his zeal.
He dose build some great sounding stuff and like I have said it dose bring music to life John but I lost him at saying the cost of printing some pamphlets
will cause the devaluation in quality of the gear you produce.
It's not like he doesn't charge enough to buy some advertising with out gutting quality.Most people expect it to be buried into the price of a $80,000+ preamp or $50,000 DAC.
Or am i missing something ?
Yes, that's a good point, Jeff, and I agree.
What irks me, and what I also believe will prove to be the death knell for high-end audio (and here I'm not talking about the latest contents of the Absolute Sounds product portfolio, but anything decent that is away from the dreadful pap, posing as audio equipment, which the general public buy), if we don't do something about it soon, is the notion that whatever audio equipment is produced now, by a specific manufacturer, is automatically superior to that which preceded it.
Such a notion is naïve, misguided, and in many cases, completely untrue! I refer again to what Peter wrote:
Is it *that* these days which more often than not fuels the creation of supposedly 'superior' equipment by some manufacturers, when often the older stuff that they made, which wasn't subject to such stringent cost-cutting, was in fact SONICALLY superior!
Think about it.
Marco.
I don't have to think about it,both you and he are dead right.
A nice clean circuit using the best possible parts is timeless for example people still long for Marantz 8's.
kininigin
10-02-2012, 21:52
I don't really have any knowledge of vintage gear compared to todays,so don't really know if the quality has gone backwards or not.
The only comparison i can make is with the Shure SC35C cartridge.The 'vintage' and the 'modern' are worlds apart and if the same is generally true of other kit,like amps,speakers ect,then something has gone very amiss.
Is it due to manufacturers,wanting to improve their profit margin and/or consumers wanting cheaper products? I don't know,but i do think it's part of a much larger problem in todays 'society'.
Hi Darren,
The Shure cartridge you mention is a perfect example of a product which, through the years, has suffered the effects of cost cutting. And yet if you asked Shure if their current SC35C cartridges were as good as the ones that they produced 30 years ago, what do you think they'd say? ;)
And there are many more examples one could cite of similar lowering standards of quality with today's audio equipment. No, we have to stop being so gullible, and swallowing the notion perpetrated by manufacturers, and the industry in general, that the 'latest and greatest' new thing is unquestionably the best.
We must disable our in-built belief system which programs us to believe that so-called technological advancement in audio automatically equates to genuine progress, certainly if by "progress" one means the sonic capability of the equipment concerned, as opposed to it simply becoming smaller, 'sexier' looking, or superficially measuring better due to, as Peter says:
measurement technologies being “redesigned”, distorted and figures misrepresented in order to create the necessary “proof” that the reduction in cost did not result in a corresponding loss in “quality”.
Only if we wake up and smell the coffee, be more discerning, and refuse to accept sonically inferior products, touted as the opposite, will standards begin to improve, both in the quality of sonic reproduction we enjoy from our systems at home, and with what is mostly produced by manufacturers today.
Marco.
jandl100
11-02-2012, 11:02
Hmm. :hmm:
I have to confess that this strikes me as one of those "when I was a boy" :wheniwasaboy: threads that AOS loves to indulge itself in now and then. ;)
Yes, they made some good kit when I was a boy. But they made some dross, too - actually, they made quite a lot of dross when I come to think about it.
It's the same now as then, imo.
Nothing new here. Move along.
:D
I'd like to see a list of the current inferior stuff compared to the older superior product by various manufacturers - and I don't mean the Chinese bought companies (and Naim) who are recycling product ideas from the 1970's and 80's either and who don't seem to have really moved forward aprt from the clothes they were externally..
Re the SC35.. The changes made to make the current body "inferior" must be measurable since all we're talking about is a moulded former with the coils embedded in it. maybe they changed the windings in an attempt to "liven" the thing up? No doubt the styli may be worse as is rumoured on the inconststancy of the M97XE model, but Jico make some interesting? alternatives IIRC.
Hi Jerry,
Yes, they made some good kit when I was a boy. But they made some dross, too - actually, they made quite a lot of dross when I come to think about it.
Indeed, however, most of the vintage gear I'm referring to was made LONG before I was a boy!! ;)
It would be a different matter if I'd grown up with that gear and felt emotionally attached to it, like is the case with some older people. Jeez, I only discovered valves four years ago! Therefore, my sentiments are not founded on rose-tinted nostalgia, but simply the cold hard proof of listening and comparing the best of new and old equipment in the 'here and now' - and I stand by everything I've said.
Anyway, no-one is saying that some good gear doesn't get made now, of course it does, but rather to embrace the following concept:
We must disable our in-built belief system which programs us to believe that so-called technological advancement in audio automatically equates to genuine progress, certainly if by "progress" one means the sonic capability of the equipment concerned, as opposed to it simply becoming smaller, 'sexier' looking, or superficially measuring better.
If effect, stop automatically believing that the latest kit is the best, when patently that is not always the case.
Marco.
jandl100
11-02-2012, 11:36
Fair enuff, Marco - it's just me playing devil's advocate. :)
... but I'm sure a high % of dross has ALWAYS flooded the market.
... but I'm sure a high % of dross has ALWAYS flooded the market.
+1
And some of this dross sells for huge money on fleabay because it's "vintage"
bobbasrah
11-02-2012, 11:47
Therefore, my sentiments are not founded on rose-tinted nostalgia, but simply the cold hard proof of listening and comparing the best of new and old equipment in the 'here and now' - and I stand by everything I've said.
If effect, stop automatically believing that the latest kit is the best, when patently that is not always the case
That is a dramatic over-simplification Marco. There are still mass manufacturers turning out some gems in their product range, just as was the case 30 years ago. They may not cater the same for the top end of the market as they did, but that is not where the profits lie, and that is where alternative manufacturers can fill the gap. ;)
To extrapolate that to modern standards depreciating for the latest gizmos, would be no less true back then than it is today. CD took forever to live up to it's technical capabilities, and the rise of mp3 and portability probably did more damage to quality standards than any hifi kit ever did in the general market.:eyebrows:
The Technics DD was regarded as a technically superior but sonically poor alternative to the prevailing high end of the market at the time of launch. Lights, strobes, fancy controls, NO SPRINGS... :eek:
Whatever happened to that then????:scratch:
Hi Bob,
That is a dramatic over-simplification Marco.
How so, when it represents honest observations, based on what others and I have heard? I repeat:
If effect, stop automatically believing that the latest kit is the best, when patently that is not always the case.
The key lies in the bit in bold, and in the word "always". I don't see how that statement can be disputed unless you're claiming that ALL new equipment is ALWAYS better than ALL older stuff?
Valid examples have already been quoted which suggest the opposite.
Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that there is lots of vintage dross out there, but that is not what I'm putting forward as a benchmark.
Marco.
P.S Dave (DSJR), I'll answer your comments shortly.
jandl100
11-02-2012, 12:08
One of the things with vintage gear is that you are able to cherry-pick the best of the best from a bygone era, and quite possibly be totally unaware of the 98% of dross that was then available.
My Parasound amp is as modern as hell, and has the blingy looks to prove it, but I'd put it up against any gear from any era that I've ever heard. The same goes for my MBL speakers.
I think its wrong, both philosophically and technically, to scorn product just because it is modern.
I think its wrong, both philosophically and technically, to scorn product just because it is modern.
Indeed, but that's not what I'm doing!!
FFS, why aren't people able to read what is written properly, instead of editing in what they want to read instead? :doh:
There's nothing that pisses me off more than folk putting words into my mouth that don't exist. I thought that I'd been very clear with the point that I was making... Evidently not! :rolleyes:
Marco.
Not quite sure how this developed into a vintage v modern debate on the strength of the ramblings of someone with an obvious interest in defending their market share against technological advances he may not be able to compete with.
Citing one hi fi publication that awarded an amp he made as proof of the excellence of his product is hardly a convincing argument. What about all the other Hi Fi mags?
Afaik Audio Note have only been in the business since the mid nineties, hardly vintage.
Perhaps by using a few NOS components in an otherwise “modern” product this guy hopes to appeal to the vintage enthusiast. He’s certainly got Marco going. ;)
Hi Dave,
I'd like to see a list of the current inferior stuff compared to the older superior product by various manufacturers...
Well, rather than cite examples of genuine vintage equipment, let's make the comparison a little more relevant in today's marketplace. Take Croft amps, for example. Both you and I know just how good they are, in comparison to most of what is produced today, commercially, virtually at any price.
However, Glenn's been using the same basic circuits in his designs for the last 30-odd years! Therefore, technically, his equipment is 'vintage', although brought up to date with the best modern components: an approach I of course emulate in my own system, and one which is extremely successful.
Therefore, when one compares Croft equipment, based on vintage circuits, to most (please note that I'm saying MOST not ALL) modern equipment, the older circuits Glenn uses more often than not sonically outperform today's equipment, based on modern circuit design.
And why is that?
Because of precisely what Peter Qvortrup wrote in his article, and manufacturers today designing components mostly on what satisfies readouts on a computer and maximising financial return, rather than on what most satisfies the human ear. Also, many designs today are often too complicated for their own good.
One of the reasons why Anthony TD's Copper amp sounds so bloody good is because the design is based on the Williamson's circuit, which is over 50 years old!
If modern technology is genuinely superior, then why are most of today's quality valve amps (and there are more now on the market than ever!) mostly based on 1950s circuit designs? Why has no-one come up with radically new circuits which totally outperform the old ones???
Re the SC35.. The changes made to make the current body "inferior" must be measurable since all we're talking about is a moulded former with the coils embedded in it.
Of course they will be measurable. No-one is saying that they're not. But I can assure you that there is simply no comparison, sonically, between an original 'Made in USA' Shure SC35C, and the modern equivalent.
Why also are people now discovering just how good the Goldring G800 is, with a modern retip? It's because the original design was bloody good to start with, held back only by an inferior stylus, by modern standards. Yup, there we go again: combining the BEST of OLD and NEW technologies in order to obtain the BEST of BOTH worlds: my system-building methodology in a nutshell! ;)
*That* is what I'm trying to get across here. Simply believing that new is always best, and that modern technology automatically equates to superior sonic performance in audio, is simply to be guilty of a sheep-like mentality, as well as gross naivety.
Marco.
Perhaps by using a few NOS components in an otherwise “modern” product this guy hopes to appeal to the vintage enthusiast. He’s certainly got Marco going
He's "got Marco going" simply because his thoughts, regarding the situation today in high-end audio largely echo my own, which are based on my direct personal experiences. He hasn't written anything I don't already know.
Like all opinions, though, his aren't flawless, but he does show an insight into audio matters which I agree with and admire. It's as simple as that. If highlighting PQ's article here makes some people stop and think, and perhaps change their approach for the better, then the exercise will have been well worthwhile! ;)
Marco.
bobbasrah
11-02-2012, 13:45
With all due respect Marco, the section you quoted contained the following:-
This has lead to a technological development where measurement technologies have been “redesigned”, distorted and figures misrepresented in order to create the necessary “proof” that the reduction in cost did not result in a corresponding loss in “quality”
Here the crux is about moving the goalposts of measurement, not the measurements themselves.
There are only so many ways to make an amplifier circuit that works and I suspect they were all designed, built and in use by 1960 although chip amps ('digital') may be an exception to that I suppose. There is very little new under the sun once you get past the marketing BS.
Ali Tait
11-02-2012, 13:57
Yes very true. There are no "new" valve circuits, despite what some manufacturers may try to tell you, just variations on themes. In fact they probably knew more then than is known now as far as valves are concerned.
Nothing has changed at all. Back in the early 1980's the HiFi press was stuffed with dross that was supposed to be the next best thing, much of it from Japan of course. In those days Jap gear was obsolete almost before it had left the design stage seemingly. Most of it was shit although there were notable exceptions. It seemed to me back then that the Jap companies majored in dross but occasionally produced a good product almost by accident. Think Pioneer A400, Technics SL1200, and many others. And before I am buried under a pile of ire, think back to these outfits product catalogues of the time. Usually 50 pages of crap with a couple of standout products in between.
There were a couple of Jap outfits that bucked the trend, Rotel being one and Sansui t'other but that was about it.
The high end market was in much the same state then as it is now, lots of HiFi jewellery and very little of substance. The midfi market was where most of the action occurred, much as it does today. Audiolab, Creek, Musical Fidelity etc etc. In fact, I'm staggered by the quality one can find in todays mid range equipment. Rega Brio anyone? Not to mention the XTZ range which is outstanding gear for the price.
There is much to be said for vintage equipment, most of my gear is either classic or vintage in origin and I really like it, but to dismiss modern gear out of hand simply because it is modern could be a dangerous strategy in the long run. If this philosophy takes hold then eventually market forces will do what they do and classic and vintage gear prices will shoot through the roof and eventually supplies will dry up and then where will we be? Without a viable hifi industry most likely.
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk
Hi Dave,
Excellent post!
...but to dismiss modern gear out of hand simply because it is modern could be a dangerous strategy in the long run.
I completely agree, but of course I hope we all realise now that that is not what I was saying! :)
I am simply asking people to question the notion that new technology in audio always automatically results in superior sonic performance, which I think we agree, is quite simply not the case.
Marco.
Indeed Marco, just thought I'd point out the risks of taking it to the extreme ;)
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk
bobbasrah
11-02-2012, 14:18
Hi Dave,
Excellent post!
I completely agree, but of course I hope we all realise now that that is not what I was saying! :)
I am simply asking people to question the notion that new technology in audio automatically results in superior sonic performance, which I think we agree, is quite simply not the case.
Marco.
Or indeed old technology ;)
StanleyB
11-02-2012, 14:25
I am simply asking people to question the notion that new technology in audio automatically results in superior sonic performance, which I think we agree, is quite simply not the case.
I have been making that exact point about async USB, but few are listening. Marketing specs can easily and quickly overpower common sense and known engineering limitation.
I have been making that exact point about async USB, but few are listening. Marketing specs can easily and quickly overpower common sense and known engineering limitation.
Hmm, I think the problem is people are listening and their ears say different to your words. ;)
bobbasrah
11-02-2012, 14:39
Hmm, I think the problem is people are listening and their ears say different to your words. ;)
I believe that was FLAC v WAV to be honest John...
StanleyB
11-02-2012, 14:42
I believe that was FLAC v WAV to be honest John...
Are you trying to be confrontational towards me by any chance sunshine? I am getting rather fed up of it by now. If you have nothing sensible to contribute then I suggest that you go and pick on someone else. Seriously.
Hmm, I think the problem is people are listening and their ears say different to your words.
Or perhaps, as I encountered here earlier, people are not reading the words properly in the first place, and/or misconstruing them to suit their own agenda - and/or ignoring the bits they don't like or don't want to believe! ;)
Marco.
A different discussion Bob. ;)
This USB business is possibly the perfect example of what I think underlies some of these new v old technology debates.
The small "custom" manufacturer just doesn't have the skills, knowledge, or equipment to compete with technological advances and in an attempt to protect their market share they rubbish the new tech and appeal in emotive language to those who would like to believe the technology they've grown up with, and possibly believe they are qualified to comment about, is in some way better.
Perhaps newer tech isn't better as such but it seems to be able to do what the old tech did at a fraction of the cost.
Perhaps newer tech isn't better as such but it seems to be able to do what the old tech did at a fraction of the cost.
Do you have a specific example in mind to illustrate that, John? Electronic goods in general are, inflation-adjusted, a lot cheaper now but that is due to cheap labour not technological advance. Real technological advances tend to be expensive.
The small "custom" manufacturer just doesn't have the skills, knowledge, or equipment to compete with technological advances and in an attempt to protect their market share they rubbish the new tech and appeal in emotive language to those who would like to believe the technology they've grown up with, and possibly believe they are qualified to comment about, is in some way better.
Sorry, John, but that's a load of blinkered tosh.
Digital equipment aside, it doesn't require any special technological advances in audio, or 'advanced skills' to design a good analogue preamp or power amp! All it takes is a suitably talented and experienced designer, and preferably one with good ears!!
Otherwise, why do Glenn's simple-circuit valve designs (and others like them), to many discerning audio enthusiasts, sonically outperform their so-called 'technologically advanced' modern counterparts?
PQ is entitled to his opinion, based on many years in the industry designing top-notch audio equipment, as are others like you who disagree, but don't try to paint him as some sort of crank, simply in an attempt to reinforce and justify your own ingrained prejudices.
Marco.
I'm not sure I can cite any particular example with great confidence Martin, mainly because I would have to take into consideration a lot of economic factors that I couldn't back up without spending a couple of years researching. ;)
You may well be right and cheaper labour, parts and production scale are mainly responsible for the price reduction. :)
Do you have a specific example in mind to illustrate that, John? Electronic goods in general are, inflation-adjusted, a lot cheaper now but that is due to cheap labour not technological advance. Real technological advances tend to be expensive.
Indeed, and that's even if you accept John's assertion in the first place, which, sonically, is rarely the case in my experience. I think we have to remember that achieving the ultimate sonic performance, with audio equipment, is supposed to be the primary objective. Nothing else should matter MORE!
Unfortunately today, for some, there are things that do.
Marco.
StanleyB
11-02-2012, 15:09
Or perhaps, as I encountered here earlier, people are not reading the words properly in the first place, and/or instead misconstruing them to suit their own agenda! ;)
Having sat at the table and held meetings with a couple of async USB chip and software manufacturers the first thing that struck me was the discussion on cost, licensing, etc. Reference was frequently made about the increasing popularity in the press. But talk about sound quality and suddenly I am left with samples to compare :scratch:.
As with every bit of technology, comparing like for like in the same equipment or situation is next to impossible in most pieces of equipment. One of the few amps that offered that option was the Pioneer M25. You could switch between Class A or Class B and make your own mind up "which is best". The word "best" is in itself an enigma however.
A similar situation arises in the likes of DACs, where you have the option to compare USB/SPDIF/TOSLINK/I2S, where more than one option is available.
But can any difference be attributed to the technology, or the implementation of that technology in that particular piece of equipment? I am of the opinion that it is the latter. Through manipulation of the technology it is not impossible to come up with a result that sounds broadly in line with what the marketing people say perfection should sound like. Naim have frequently been accused of tweaking their amps so that they sound the way they do, but they are not the only one. What I do however object to is when that tweaking and marketing talk is underpinned with a hefty price tag. The impression that this is supposed to give is that the improved breakthrough from the new technology warrants the major price hike. But has the buyer been shafted, or offered a different flavour with a bigger profit for the supplier?
Sorry, John, but that's a load of blinkered tosh.
Digital equipment aside, it doesn't require any special technological advances in audio, or 'advanced skills' to design a good analogue preamp or power amp!
Marco.
That is exactly my point Marco, the technological advances in audio are primarily in the digital domain.
Traditional solid state and valve based electronics really haven't developed much during the last thirty years!
I'm not sure I can cite any particular example with great confidence Martin, mainly because I would have to take into consideration a lot of economic factors that I couldn't back up without spending a couple of years researching. ;)
You may well be right and cheaper labour, parts and production scale are mainly responsible for the price reduction. :)
I'm disappointed by that answer, John, I was hoping you would have something concrete that would make me think on ;)
On a practical level look at how many on this site use loudspeakers older than 20 years or more (albeit a little tweaked in some cases). The dealer demos I have had in the last couple of years did not approach the quality of my old lash-up even at twice the price or more. No research needed, just look at what people are preferring to use.
That is exactly my point Marco, the technological advances in audio are primarily in the digital domain.
Well, you see, even there I would disagree with you, as I've yet to hear any modern DAC sonically outperform my (brought up to date with modern components) TDA1541-based 1987 Sony DAS-R1! ;)
You must make the trip up to North Wales sometime, bringing whatever 'technologically advanced' equipment with you that you wish, and I will demonstrate exactly what I mean.
Marco.
StanleyB
11-02-2012, 15:18
Sorry, John, but that's a load of blinkered tosh.
Digital equipment aside, it doesn't require any special technological advances in audio, or 'advanced skills' to design a good analogue preamp or power amp!
Otherwise, why do Glenn's simple-circuit valve designs (and others like them), to many discerning ears, sonically outperform their so-called 'technologically advanced' modern counterparts?
PQ is entitled to his opinion, based on many years in the industry designing top-notch audio equipment, as are others like you who disagree, but don't try to paint him as some sort of crank, simply in an attempt to reinforce and justify your own ingrained prejudices.
Nicely written Marco.
I do get fed up of people assuming that the small manufacturers are incapable of researching and producing world beating equipment in their shed, instead of a laboratory and research center the size of Milton Keynes.
Sry Martin. I'll have to try harder next time. ;)
I really dont know how the prices of modern loudspeakers compare to older models in real terms.
I spose I shouldn't be shouting too loud given my speakers are thirty something years old, albeit with modern crossover components.
Come to think of it my amps aren't exactly modern high tech :eyebrows:
I know, I'll dig myself out of this particular hole by pleading deafness. :doh:
bobbasrah
11-02-2012, 15:28
Well, you see, even there I would disagree with you, as I've yet to hear any modern DAC sonically outperform my (brought up to date with modern components) TDA1541-based 1987 Sony DAS-R1! ;)
You must make the trip up to North Wales sometime, bringing whatever 'technologically advanced' equipment with you that you wish, and I will demonstrate exactly what I mean.
Marco.
Marco, please remind how much your upgrades to that unit cost.:scratch:
Well, you see, even there I would disagree with you, as I've yet to hear any modern DAC sonically outperform my (brought up to date with modern components) TDA1541-based 1987 Sony DAS-R1! ;)
You must make the trip up to North Wales sometime, bringing whatever 'technologically advanced' equipment with you that you wish, and I will demonstrate exactly what I mean.
Marco.
A different argument I respectfully suggest Marco.
I'm not going to debate which sounds better; you just cant progress with this debate. What sounds good to you wont necessarily sound good to me.
Hi Stan,
Having sat at the table and held meetings with a couple of async USB chip and software manufacturers the first thing that struck me was the discussion on cost, licensing, etc. Reference was frequently made about the increasing popularity in the press. But talk about sound quality and suddenly I am left with samples to compare :scratch:.
And so what does that tell you about what they're interested in most? Certainly not what you or I are most interested in, that's for sure!!
PQ may have the tendency to ramble, but I admire him for his PASSION and his (seemingly) continual desire to achieve excellence. In that respect, he is my sort of person.
Where is the passion and desire to create something timeless and truly exceptional in many of today's audio companies, driven instead by greed for gold (topping up their pension plan, as in the case of AVI) and/or pandering to the desires of the sonically undiscerning, who will happily trade quality for convenience?
It's a world in which I have no desire to inhabit! :rolleyes:
But can any difference be attributed to the technology, or the implementation of that technology in that particular piece of equipment? I am of the opinion that it is the latter.
As am I. Optimal implementation of any technology, in my experience, always gives better results, sonically, than a mediocre implementation of supposedly 'more advanced' technology. It's the ability to think outside of the box that separates great audio designers from the merely competent.
Marco.
A different argument I respectfully suggest Marco.
I'm not going to debate which sounds better; you just cant progress with this debate. What sounds good to you wont necessarily sound good to me.
What if we were both listening to the same equipment in the same system and agreed that one example was clearly better? ;)
Marco.
Marco has a point, when I read anything by Peter the thing that comes to my mind is he is always pointing out the reason his stuff is better than any one else s in a not so direct way. In this example he is building tomorrows classics because he doesn't spend money on advertising he is able to put higher quality into his products while every one else is dumbing down. I was told by one of his dealers that he has no interest in anything that is not Audio Note because his stuff is so much better. Sadly there is a snob factor like I have never seen that seems to come along with the brand.Although I like the gear the people who often buy it fit the audio snob label to a T. I remind them that Snell made the same basic speakers before Audio Note,one of his turntables was made by some one else first I forget at the moment and Gold Ring makes one of his cartridges where they good before they became Audio Note ?
Peter must have like Snell E's at one time as he built his ANE from the Snell design.
He must have liked Kondos stuff he built his own amps based on the AN name so there just may be a gem out there still not made by Audio Note U.K.?
Just mabey?
I like Audio Note level 0 through 5, the gear is to die for,but I know a guy who hangs on Peters every word and it's kind of like in that circle Peter has established an Audio cult with out even knowing it or wanting too. It's an odd phanominon. I can't think of another high end manufacture that has this kind of blind following maybe on a smaller scale Bose or Monster at one point but Audio Note UK folks here in the U.S. are a little different.
So I do go into Peters statements expecting some self grandizing and self promotion and at the end of the day the guy often makes a good point. Marco brought to my attention that my own bias caused me not to look at what he was saying objectivity and Marco was right so I reread it and realized my own flawed view.
REREAD IT with an open mind.
What technological advances have there actually been in audio over the past forty years? I mean in terms of jumps forward in sound quality and not convenience? Replacing castors with spikes on loudspeaker stands doeasn't count btw ;)
Serious question, I can't think of anything off the top of my head.
Marco, please remind how much your upgrades to that unit cost.:scratch:
What's the got to do with anything? Cost doesn't come into the argument. It's about comparing like with like.
Ok then, give me a modern £2.5k DAC (the cost of my modded Sony) and I'll compare it to the Sony, and tell you what I think. In fact, let's do it publically at a show, in front of as many people as you wish, and see what happens! ;)
Marco.
What if we were both listening to the same equipment in the same system and agreed that one was clearly better? ;)
Marco.
Cor! taking a bit of a chance there Marco mate. Could you trust me to not to
"attempt to reinforce and justify your (my) own ingrained prejudices.";)
just teasing mate. :ner:
I've never held my system up as an example of excellence; its asking for a fall and my mates would start calling me names.;)
We come at audio from different angles really Marco.
I stopped worrying about having "excellence" because the material I listen too was recorded on equipment that had limitations below the replay limitations of my replay system. A point that audiophiles tend to overlook.
The point being made is most company's are not building the best quality thay can because the product is no longer the primary focus. They lost sight of there passion and marketing and maximizing profits is diminishing the end result of the product.
This dose fit with a lot of todays company's so in my mind Peters point is well founded but if you point to other company's that are passionate for example Manley Labs,Audion ect... then there will still be classics in the future along with AN UK.
The real question is whether this has always been the case to some degree or has it gotten worse and I think it has gotten worse so Peter made his case as far as I am concerned.
I am glad there is a Peter Q. David Chessal ,and Evana Manley who bring their passion and products to us it 's what keeps me interested in audio and sustains this forum.
I can't wait for the Bushmaster DAC and I'd love to hear how it fares in fair comparison with Marco's heavyweight, which would appeal even if it didn't sound top-rank.. Things have come forwards hugely I reckon, but that doesn't mean to dismiss the best of yesteryear and I'm hoping the Bushmaster could look the Sony directly in the eye, even if it doesn't quite tick all the boxes as easily :)
I've never held my system up as an example of excellence
That's not the point I'm making, though. I referred to the notion of excellence, in terms of the focus of most mainstream audio manufacturers these days. Quite simply, in most cases, such a focus sadly doesn't exist!
I stopped worrying about having "excellence" because the material I listen too was recorded on equipment that had limitations below the replay limitations of my replay system. A point that audiophiles tend to overlook.
So why not just come up then and have an informal music listening session, as two enthusiasts together?
You bring some kit up you rate, and then we'll hear what we hear with your equipment and mine, but above all enjoy ourselves and have a few larfs! :cool:
Marco.
The point being made is most company's are not building the best quality thay can because the product is no longer the primary focus. They lost sight of there passion and marketing and maximizing profits is diminishing the end result of the product.
Spot on, Jeff, and sadly, that's half of the problem! :rolleyes:
Marco.
Wow!
Go back to the start of this thread and read post by post how it has evolved to this point.
This is one passionate thread!
Yup, and exactly the type we love here on AoS!!
;)
Marco.
Marco, did my email make it to you?
Did you see those caps?
I can't help thinking there's a certain circularity to this debate. There are many reasons for people buying and/or modifying their kit. When push comes to shove, we choose what sounds best to us within a personal budget. With the greatest respect Marco, I couldn't justify spending the kind of money that you have lavished on your system, but then your personal circumstances are very different to my own and it is obvious you are proud of what you have achieved, and rightly so, and for that reason I am happy for you ;)
For exactly the same reasons, albeit on a far tighter budget, I am equally as delighted with what I have achieved with my kit, although if anyone wants to consider buying me a wee prezzie, there's a rather spiffing Classe DR10 for sale on the Wam :D
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk
Dave, can't argue with any of that, dude :)
Jeff, yes I got your email. All I will say is 'LOL' ;)
Marco.
Hi Rob,
In my experience, it applies all over audio today, at every level, from the unmitigated shite at the super-budget end of the market, to the mediocre pap I hear in the middle, and much of the underperforming 'audio jewellery' at the high-end!
It's not all bad, of course, but the notion that we've made much REAL progress where it matters most, sonically, in the last 30-odd years, compared with the best of what was made in that era and before is, quite frankly, a joke.
I agree that this sometimes happens. Could you cite some specific examples that you have personally experienced?
Could you define exactly what you mean by "technically poorer"?
Clearly inferior to whom? Clearly, there are others who would disagree, based on extensive experience of building equipment using the capacitors in question.
In some cases I agree, however not in the discerning DIY or quality commercial equipment modifying arena (count me in!) where components are ONLY chosen by users based on their superior sonic performance.
Indeed - and that's exactly what we're doing. Over now to you! :cool:
Marco.
With regard to the performance of specific components and 'inferiority', components are designed to perform a specific function. So in the case of the capacitor it will have a set of attributes that define its performance. Leakage current, distortion, ESR etc.
Modern film caps are simply better on all levels.
Now you can use older PIOs and in some situations the sound produced by the circuit will change depending on where you place them. You are however in most cases preferring something that isn't transparent. Never had a problem with that so long as folk realise exactly what is happening.
Examples? - Just about any SET amplifier you care to mention, but perhaps the best example of something technically 'iffy' by my criteria are the Berning amplifiers which many report as sounding wonderful but sound far from transparent IME. I also got to hear one of the AN products at length some years ago, (Otto rings a bell?) in basic and no expense spared versions. The difference was marginal and I actually thought the basic model better. I've also 'upgraded' my own World Design stuff several times and in fact the 6550 amplifier is currenty stuffed to gills with AN PIO caps. It performs (slightly) better with original poly caps. Yes, I have actually sat here and 'listened' to capacitors :)
To put that into focus, I would hold up a bottom rung Cambridge or NAD as clearly superior to any tube amp I've heard on the grounds of transparency, with the possible exception of some EAR products. The cheap SS boxes will be using standard quality components. This is not the same thing as claiming them to sound better, because better is subjective.
However, judged solely by the criterion of transparency the basic Cambridge box will win because it makes fewer changes to the signal passing through it. You might not like the result but that's an entirely different discussion. Its more accurate partly because it uses technically better components in many places, despite them being cheap in many cases.
If you offered me a £25k AN amplifier I'd refuse it. It falls very definitely into the audio jewellery category you mentioned.
I wouldn't even request an audition and you might find that odd, until I tell you that I've placed modestly priced SS circuits into circuit and heard them make no change whatsoever to the sound. So given that experience, why would I be interested is spending x30 on something that would be audible in circuit?
Again, if transparency is the criteria, the AN (and many others) is inferior.
Thing is, my experience is that few people want transparency.
They want a system to sound likeable in a way that pleases them as individuals, but this often has nothing to do with accuracy or transparency.
For example, I've lost count of the times I've heard people say they want sweet delicate treble. That's great, people like what they like, but a hard struck cymbal reproduced even reasonably accurately is about as far from what many find acceptable as you'll get!
So do you want something that sounds real or something that sounds nice?
Nice can be achieved in many ways, including the use of electronics that manipulate the signal because they aren't transparent, but you are rather stuck will that effect for everything.
To fully expand some of the points and inevitable tangents, such as the fact that despite the above I do actually like a lot of valve amplifiers, will require breaking away some of the issues but happy to add any clarification/expand.
On the general question of 'clearly inferior to whom?'
Me - I only post my own opinions unless otherwise made clear.
One last point on transparency. I take this as not altering the signal passing through the component in any audible way other than magnitude. In other words, the kit concerned can be compared with a wire bypass and be inaudible.
Digital equipment aside, it doesn't require any special technological advances in audio, or 'advanced skills' to design a good analogue preamp or power amp! All it takes is a suitably talented and experienced designer, and preferably one with good ears!!
Marco.
I agree with that entirely, though I think that even digital has hit the buffers now.
The big issue for me is that we can continue attempting to advance audio but there comes a point where the advances stop delivering audible benefit.
We are at different stages along the path on this one, but I'd argue that analogue electronics matured to the point where further development purely on sound quality grounds became moot many decades ago. Digital matured much more recently. Loudspeakers are the furthest back and require the most work. The only difference with loudspeakers is that there isn't a finish line since perfection is impossible, outside of the Star Trek type experience of the listener being transported to a virtual reality that would recreate the event. Come back in 500 years on that one :)
Rob
sq225917
11-02-2012, 16:36
It must be so much more cost effective to be partially deaf, it seems to work out really well for you Rob, you hardly ever feel the need to come on forums and hector people with your viewpoint, obviously you find your audio set-up so satisfying you seldom need to tell anyone else that they are wrong, stupid, deluded, misguided, wasting their time.
I wish I have reached such a state of audio nirvana. ;-)
Oh Rob, we have much to discuss! And discuss it we shall, but it will have wait until later.
Right now, I need to improve my typing to listening ratio, so I'm off to spin some tunes!
Laters :cool:
Marco.
The problem is Marco
a)I can't carry the kit I would like to chuck in the ring on a bike.
b)I'm not sure my co-conspirator would let me borrow his file server and associated gubbins, his Metric Halo and associated gubbins.
c) I would like to bring my speakers and I'm not certain we could get them up your stairs.
I'll think on it Marco. I would like to hear your set up. It's been a while since I heard a first class vinyl set up. Most of the guys I know are all digital these days.
bobbasrah
11-02-2012, 16:48
God what did I miss...WOW....
What I was trying to establish Marco is that your 2500 quid DAC, as are many others, no more technically advanced than they were over 20 years ago. It is everything around them that has advanced, or rather the understanding of the technology and how digital devices interact has improved, groundplanes, PSUs, components, etc.. Better components than were available are one of the few areas where technology has demanded and achieved change. The boutique parts will always have a steady demand however for those who prefer a different flavour.
With so many DACs now out in the wild as it were, these factors have now taken root with the DIY fraternity who are finding alternatives to the original support components and methods of implementation with some great successes that match or exceed the performance of some well regarded units at a fraction of the cost. This is slowly trickling down to the mass manufacturers who are making slow steps toward improvements.
Would that be a technological advance? Nope, it would be exploitation of pretty old technology really, same as valves using modern bits....
Marco is that your 2500 quid DAC, as are many others, no more technically advanced than they were over 20 years ago. It is everything around them that has advanced, or rather the understanding of the technology and how digital devices interact has improved, groundplanes, PSUs, components, etc..
Indeed, but on top of that, you have to factor in the fact that my DAC uses 'obsolete' (I do *so* love that word!) multi-bit digital technology, via a TDA1541 S1 chip; technology which I feel, when properly implemented (as is the case in the Sony), sonically outperforms equipment using today's 'more advanced' digital technology... That is certainly what my ears tell me, whenever I do the comparison.
As an aside, and here's something to think about: was VHS technically superior (visually and/or sonically) to Betamax, or was the former simply what the 'big boys' wanted and considered was going to be more commercially viable?
And can you draw any parallels between what happened then with AV technology, with the multi-bit/bitstream situation, and in general what's happening now in the audio industry? ;)
Right, must dash!
Marco.
bobbasrah
11-02-2012, 17:26
As an aside, and here's something to think about: was VHS technically superior (visually and/or sonically) to Betamax, or was the former simply what the 'big boys' wanted and considered was going to be more commercially viable?
.
Indeed I was aware of the device and have been following a thread on the next version which is quite interesting also. A bit of a rarity these days, so in keeping with your vintage collection I guess.:lol:
Yes, the Betamax debacle was another victim to corporate gamesmanship and unadulterated greed to the detriment of the customer. The origins and strangled development of CD/SACD/DVDA/BD also makes sober reading, lumbered with notions of total media control and corporate profit.:(
Perhaps that is why the media industry remain petrified by digital being the plaything of every teenager, as their monopolistic empire is under threat not only from DIY bands and online distribution, but piracy to boot. Their greed will I fear be their own undoing, irrespective of what they do.:rolleyes:
This thread hurts my brain, yet I keep coming back for a peek.
Hi Rob,
With regard to the performance of specific components and 'inferiority', components are designed to perform a specific function. So in the case of the capacitor it will have a set of attributes that define its performance. Leakage current, distortion, ESR etc.
Indeed, but because of that, they also have different sonic signatures, which good designers take into consideration when 'voicing' their respective equipment in the way in which they consider is best for optimum performance.
Modern film caps are simply better on all levels.
In your opinion, perhaps, but that's all. We're not dealing in facts here. As an aside, I happen to agree, finding most PIOs a little 'romantic sounding' for my tastes, making valve amps sound more 'valvey', in a way which to my ears departs too far from neutrality, although I've not tried the AN caps in question.
Now you can use older PIOs and in some situations the sound produced by the circuit will change depending on where you place them. You are however in most cases preferring something that isn't transparent. Never had a problem with that so long as folk realise exactly what is happening.
Whilst I don't disagree, you have a habit of thinking in absolutes. Audio is not a rigid science. There are many variables to consider, such as the interaction with the circuit capacitors are used in.
I've also 'upgraded' my own World Design stuff several times and in fact the 6550 amplifier is currenty stuffed to gills with AN PIO caps. It performs (slightly) better with original poly caps. Yes, I have actually sat here and 'listened' to capacitors :)
Sad isn't it, but I've done exactly the same! If the polys were only slightly better, then one can only conclude that the effect of PIOs is not as disastrous as you might think....
To put that into focus, I would hold up a bottom rung Cambridge or NAD as clearly superior to any tube amp I've heard on the grounds of transparency, with the possible exception of some EAR products.
Including my TD Copper amp, the sound of which you raved about in the AoS system you heard last year?
I'm afraid, regarding the NAD or Cambridge, I will have to vehemently disagree. I'm familiar with how amps from both those manufacturers sound, and whilst they are very good for budget SS amps, they sound rather crap compared to most valve amps I've heard.
But then, I've been fortunate enough to hear some truly exceptional ones, which is the case when you are exposed to as close to 'cost no object' designs as one can get. You really need to take yourself out of the commercial arena, and attend one of the better DIY audio meets, such as Owston, to hear what valve amps are really capable of, when commercial cost constraints and restrictive legislation are taken out of the equation.
There's a whole big bad thermionic world out there, Rob, away from (these days) audio jewellery-producing Mr Paravicini and others of his ilk!
The cheap SS boxes will be using standard quality components. This is not the same thing as claiming them to sound better, because better is subjective.
However, judged solely by the criterion of transparency the basic Cambridge box will win...
I'm afraid that the notion of true transparency with ANY piece of audio equipment is but a pipedream. You've been spending too much time on pfm with Serge Auckland! :D
Everything in the signal path inside audio equipment imparts its own sonic signature on the final results our ears hear, thus deviating from transparency, even if this doesn't show up on an oscilloscope, spectrum analyser, or any other measurement apparatus, whose function is restricted by only being able to measure established parameters, dictated simply by what science can currently prove.
Therefore, when it comes to audio equipment, all we can do is choose our own favoured brand of distortion/coloration - and so the NAD or Cambridge will simply have a different 'flavour' of coloration than the valve amps you've heard, but neither will be truly transparent. Building a system with ANY equipment is an exercise in compromise. There is no 'perfection'. I'm afraid that's life, mate!
Thing is, my experience is that few people want transparency.
They want a system to sound likeable in a way that pleases them as individuals, but this often has nothing to do with accuracy or transparency.
Well, as true accuracy or transparency isn't possible, I seek realism instead - my version of it. And by that I mean my system reproducing recorded music in such a way that to my ears it sounds as convincing as possible, compared to hearing the same music (un-amplified) live, based on my extensive experience of attending performances of live music.
Of course, I will never be able to recreate a facsimile of a live musical performance in my room, but I can capture the essence of it and create a snapshot which sounds believable to my ears. For me, that will always be a better way of building a system than attempting to create some notion of transparency, based on the evidence of inconclusive, and therefore flawed, technical measurements.
On the general question of 'clearly inferior to whom?'
Me - I only post my own opinions unless otherwise made clear.
Perhaps that's your intention, but with respect, it's not how you often come across. You tend to make statements that are portrayed as factual, simply because some technical measurements appear superficially to confirm your argument. That is not the way to merely express an opinion.
One last point on transparency. I take this as not altering the signal passing through the component in any audible way other than magnitude. In other words, the kit concerned can be compared with a wire bypass and be inaudible.
Yes, well that's a rather over-simplistic and typically objectivist way of looking at things, which presumes that we can currently test for all parameters that require testing in audio. That for me is clearly not the case when there are so many instances of people genuinely experiencing phenomena in audio, which as yet have not been scientifically proven.
Just because something genuinely heard can't currently be scientifically proven, doesn't automatically mean that it doesn't exist.
Problem is, Rob, you (and others like you of an objectivist mindset) like to live in a certain world, where there are no shades of grey and everything is neatly pigeonholed into little 'black & white' boxes. I'm afraid that neither life or audio are like that, or things as 'done and dusted' as you would like to believe.
The big issue for me is that we can continue attempting to advance audio but there comes a point where the advances stop delivering audible benefit.
I agree, but I don't think we're anywhere near there yet. In that respect, I'm continually on a learning curve. What amazes me is how much the little things matter (although I see them as being rather more significant) - things that don't show up on current test equipment, but which are absolutely fundamental in creating realistic, believable sounding music from a hi-fi system.
There's not much point in discussing them here, however, as it will likely take the discussion off in a tangent that will not further the best interests of this debate.
We are at different stages along the path on this one, but I'd argue that analogue electronics matured to the point where further development purely on sound quality grounds became moot many decades ago.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that we still haven't got much to learn in terms of realising their full potential and how equipment is integrated into a system which is genuinely capable of reproducing realistic sounding music, and not simply just making a nice noise!
Digital matured much more recently.
Well, that depends on what digital we're talking about. If it's CD players, my view is that they "matured" during their heyday of the mid 80s to early 90s, when the 'big boys' put all their knowledge, know-how, and considerable financial clout into building 'no compromise' players which really showed what CD was capable of. My Sony X-777ES/DAS-R1, being a prime example.
CDPs nowadays, short of the finest high-end examples, are mainly exercises in the technique of designing mediocre products for the masses and satisfying the financial constraints of company accountants, and as such are mostly born from the same universal parts bin. None I've heard sound any better than 'adequate'. Occasionally, there are exceptions, but those are few and far between. I guess that much depends on what you're used to.
If it's streaming we're talking about, then in my view, we're currently just dipping our toes in the water, and there's a very long way to go until we realise what that technology is truly capable of, which is why I'm holding back for the moment before investing significantly in this area.
Loudspeakers are the furthest back and require the most work. The only difference with loudspeakers is that there isn't a finish line since perfection is impossible, outside of the Star Trek type experience of the listener being transported to a virtual reality that would recreate the event. Come back in 500 years on that one :)
Lol! Would that include the totally unmodified 35-year old Celestion 66s in the AoS system at Scalford others and you raved about last year? ;)
Returning to the main thrust of this debate, it should be remembered that the system we put together last year contained not one genuinely modern piece of equipment - all of it was either vintage, or based on vintage designs. And yet we were getting comments from both punters and people in the industry that it was the best sound they had ever heard! Along with Jerry's system, which featured Tannoy Lancasters (again what does that tell you?), we were voted as producting one of the best sounds of the show.
I agree with you about speakers, but it's amazing how their significant sonic limitations are diluted to a state of virtual insignificance when judiciously fronted by a well thought out and set-up system. It's just a pity that this year we won't have the opportunity to demonstrate just how good current production high-end solid-state gear can sound on the end of the same speakers....
Marco.
It must be so much more cost effective to be partially deaf, it seems to work out really well for you Rob, you hardly ever feel the need to come on forums and hector people with your viewpoint, obviously you find your audio set-up so satisfying you seldom need to tell anyone else that they are wrong, stupid, deluded, misguided, wasting their time.
Kettle, pot, black.
What technological advances have there actually been in audio over the past forty years? I mean in terms of jumps forward in sound quality and not convenience? Replacing castors with spikes on loudspeaker stands doeasn't count btw ;)
Understanding the impact of mains power on sound quality. Stands, platforms and isolation. The importance of cables.
jandl100
12-02-2012, 09:29
.... if transparency is the criteria, the AN (and many others) is inferior.
Thing is, my experience is that few people want transparency.They want a system to sound likeable in a way that pleases them as individuals, but this often has nothing to do with accuracy or transparency.
Yes, I agree with you on that 100%, Rob. :)
To be honest, much of the music that gets listened to doesn't have an "Abso!ute Sound" to compare it with. What relevance does 'transparency' have in that context? - it seems to me that for most folk it all does come down to a "system to sound likeable in a way that pleases them as individuals".
I'd plead guilty as charged to that myself - although I would perhaps like to kid myself that I prefer more transparent than most people. :lol:
The graphic equaliser kid preaching about transparency - shurely he jests? :D
;)
Marco.
Hmm. :hmm:
I have to confess that this strikes me as one of those "when I was a boy" :wheniwasaboy: threads that AOS loves to indulge itself in now and then. ;)
Yes, they made some good kit when I was a boy. But they made some dross, too - actually, they made quite a lot of dross when I come to think about it.
It's the same now as then, imo.
Nothing new here. Move along.
:D
Excellent point (appart from the move along bit - all forums would be empty without these discussions as there're only so many self-reviews you can read).
A similar point was made by Mark Kermode about the state of the film industry today. Even though he was complaining about its values, he agreed with Barry Norman that there was just as much dross being made back in the day as there is now.
Perhaps it's a time thing in that once you've been in the 'game' for so long you become tainted by the number of bad sounding disappointments and that expectation becomes the norm? Expectation certainly does colour real experience.
I'd agree that components have become cheaper and emphasis is on cost effectiveness as the audio industry isn't large enough for manufacturers to bother making good sounding components - ending of production of Black Gates is a good example in that Rubycon (or whoever made them) wanted the production lines for more sellable production that will bring in more profit.
In a dwindling market, the first things to go should be the middlemen and technology is such that that is very possible now - perhaps too many people too used to the dealerships and importers to give them up just yet. They combined must at least double costs to the end user. Buy direct and pay for shipping yourself - make sure its a company with good return policy.
I've never understood the appeal of Audio Note though in terms of pricing. No matter how you dress up a CS8414 receiver chip and AD1865 DAC you can't surely make a DAC that's worth £40000.. They would have to be paying a guy £1k/hour to wind coils with silver wire. Ok, R&D costs etc... companies normally price that in to a production run and anything after that initial run is a bonus. Can only think that the massively priced items are only priced as such to cinically pull up the prices of the middling components.
I have also heard industry stallwarts tell stories of products that were shelved because they sounded too good compared to their more expensive models, some deliberately compromised to fit in with the range. No I can't say which specifically as I didn't take notes - I'm sure some will be found within the forum.
Anyway, I thought this forum was about having an open mind! Doesn't that extend to modern components?
A different discussion Bob. ;)
This USB business is possibly the perfect example of what I think underlies some of these new v old technology debates.
The small "custom" manufacturer just doesn't have the skills, knowledge, or equipment to compete with technological advances and in an attempt to protect their market share they rubbish the new tech and appeal in emotive language to those who would like to believe the technology they've grown up with, and possibly believe they are qualified to comment about, is in some way better.
Perhaps newer tech isn't better as such but it seems to be able to do what the old tech did at a fraction of the cost.
I am replying to a older post but I think this needs a reply. I think you underestimate just what is possible now. Given a cheap FPGA or SOC system (say < £150) a bit of time, the freely available USB specs and the desire to do so, creating a Async USB -> i2s (or whatever interface you want) is entirly within someone like myself of Stanley's reach, I did much the same 12 months ago. The reason I gave up was the end result was no better than isochronous USB audio, assuming competent kit at the device end. The bit that makes a difference (a real audible difference) is DAC onwards with most of the damage happening on the analog side.
BTW, using the same kit its possible (and I did just that) to measure the data loss by transferring data via USB and SP/DIFF (take a spdiff receiver, into a FPGA, into a buffer, play audio file, record the buffered data, compare the data to the original source). Having done that, I gave up worrying about that side of the equation.
jandl100
12-02-2012, 10:45
The graphic equaliser kid preaching about transparency - shurely he jests? :D
;)
Marco.
tsk tsk, I'm sure I never preach about anything. :nono: Well, not too often anyway! :eyebrows:
Ah, but Marco, you (unusually, to be fair) miss the point of my equalizer/tt system - it's intent (and it achieves it) is to make the system more transparent and so reflect the musical event more closely by correcting gross tonal aberrations introduced by some incompetent record engineering. :ner:
jandl100
12-02-2012, 10:55
Have values changed?
Is it really more about marketing & hype now than it used to be?
Personally, I don't think so. It's always been like that, imho.
Hi Nat,
Anyway, I thought this forum was about having an open mind! Doesn't that extend to modern components?
Please quote me evidence of any lack of open-mindedness shown on this thread. I suggest that you read my earlier reply to Jerry (post #35) and let it sink in! :doh:
Once again for the blind and/or hard of thinking....
I have shown no lack of open-mindedness, nor am I denigrating good modern equipment. I'm simply saying that believing new is always best, and that modern technology automatically equates to superior sonic performance in audio, is being rather naive.
Got it?
The other thing that's being completely missed here is that this thread is NOT an endorsement of Audio Note products, although I have nothing against them, but rather my endorsement of the views of their designer, based solely on what was quoted from the AN website!
If there is any lack of open-mindedness, it's on the part of those who wouldn't entertain using older or vintage equipment simply because it is 'obsolete' or because it doesn't equate to being the latest shiny new toy.
Good equipment is good equipment, regardless of its age.
Marco.
tsk tsk, I'm sure I never preach about anything. :nono: Well, not too often anyway! :eyebrows:
Ah, but Marco, you (unusually, to be fair) miss the point of my equalizer/tt system - it's intent (and it achieves it) is to make the system more transparent and so reflect the musical event more closely by correcting gross tonal aberrations introduced by some incompetent record engineering. :ner:
Lol - Jerry, I haven't missed the point at all. I understand and appreciate your motives. However the fact is, for better or worse, by using a GE, you're manipulating the sound of the original recording, and so that is the complete opposite of achieving transparency.
Transparency would be reproducing the original recording 100% accurately, warts and all, which is not what you are doing. I'm afraid, therefore, that 'transparency' and 'graphic equaliser', sharing the same sentence, is an oxymoron ;)
Marco.
Dingdong
12-02-2012, 11:20
Isn't every component in a system manipulating the sound in a particular way?
Every playback system is coloured. You just choose a colouration that suits you.
Spot-on, Mark. That's it in a nutshell :)
Quite simply, everything in the signal path adversely affects the integrity of the signal, and thus prevents the sound of equipment from achieving true transparency.
All one can do, therefore, is create the best solution possible by building a system that we believe produces a sound most resembling that of real music - or one that just simply pleases our ears, which is exactly what Jerry is doing with his graphic equaliser, whether he chooses to accept it or not! ;)
Marco.
Dingdong
12-02-2012, 11:36
I'm not even sure it's about signal integrity.
I think we've been told that adding graphic equalisers is a bad thing as it buggers up the signal. I guess tube buffers are a bad thing too.
If a component makes things sound better to the user then it is a good component.
Sure, one can't argue with that.
However, my own personal belief, based on experience, is that minimising disturbing the integrity of the signal as far as possible, such as adopting hard-wiring in areas where it is practical to do so (and thus removing breaks in the signal path), caused by unnecessary connections, usually results in a better and more realistic sound :)
Another example of this method of system building, and maintaining signal integrity, is optimising the mains feed supplying power to a hi-fi system, by reducing the supply impedance. A dedicated power line for a system, from the incoming mains supply, does this. That always pays dividends!
So many people ignore or pay scant attention to this very important area of system building, and blindly continue buying more expensive boxes, ignoring the benefits of optimal system set-up, to the detriment of them ever achieving true satisfaction from their systems... Jerry aside, that's what breeds your average discontented box swapper!
Marco.
I am replying to a older post but I think this needs a reply. I think you underestimate just what is possible now. Given a cheap FPGA or SOC system (say < £150) a bit of time, the freely available USB specs and the desire to do so, creating a Async USB -> i2s (or whatever interface you want) is entirly within someone like myself of Stanley's reach, I did much the same 12 months ago. The reason I gave up was the end result was no better than isochronous USB audio, assuming competent kit at the device end. The bit that makes a difference (a real audible difference) is DAC onwards with most of the damage happening on the analog side.
BTW, using the same kit its possible (and I did just that) to measure the data loss by transferring data via USB and SP/DIFF (take a spdiff receiver, into a FPGA, into a buffer, play audio file, record the buffered data, compare the data to the original source). Having done that, I gave up worrying about that side of the equation.
I’m not sure its worthwhile digging to far into this but....
Nick, I was thinking more on the lines of chip design and manufacture, coding rather than soldering
If you say you and Stan are capable doing this stuff I have to take your word for it.
What I would suggest is there is a waiting market for
24/192 and above Windows USB drivers.
A USB isolator chip capable of handling a much higher bandwidth than currently available.
Of course, re-sampling codes for music players with S/N ratios better than those currently available.
I’m sure there are many more examples but some of the best in the business are struggling with the above.
I’m not even sure I agree that what makes the major difference is what happens on the analogue side of digital replay. I hear this primarily from people who work with the analogue side; what I hear from the people who code is entirely different. Their opinion seems to be there probably isn’t any progress to be made here because the technology is well understood and has developed as far as its going and digital needs to be pushed further down the replay chain to avoid the shortcomings of analogue.
Nick, I was thinking more on the lines of chip design and manufacture, coding rather than soldering
So was I, I think you may have missed that given a FPGA, possibly one of the ones with a built in DSP core, just about anything is possible. The requirements of USB to i2s is entirely defined and also entirely in the digital world, just add a USB Phy to the front of a FPGA and start writing VHDL. No chip design needed (at least in the way you may believe).
24/192 and above Windows USB drivers.
If you know of a manufacturer who actually wants one of these writing, just ask him to make me a offer, its not rocket science, it may be that the makers want it too seem like it, but no, sorry, its not for any competent driver writer.
XMOS did all this some months ago with their $100 demo board, I was playing with one of those 12 months ago and decided it was a solved problem.
A USB isolator chip capable of handling a much higher bandwidth than currently available.
http://www.computex.biz/photo/images/company/2994/200910301030767113.pdf
First one I found. But what do you think the USB3 disk drives that cost £50 use as a interface?
Of course, re-sampling codes for music players with S/N ratios better than those currently available.
Hmm, not directly related to USB, but if the problem is well defined the solution should be as well.
I know its off topic, but I think its the other side of "new is always better", is that new is not always as complex as the marketing men would have you believe.
I’m not even sure I agree that what makes the major difference is what happens on the analogue side of digital replay. I hear this primarily from people who work with the analogue side; what I hear from the people who code is entirely different. Their opinion seems to be there probably isn’t any progress to be made here because the technology is well understood and has developed as far as its going and digital needs to be pushed further down the replay chain to avoid the shortcomings of analogue.
To paraphrase, the digital folk think the problem is in their domain, and the analog guy's disagree.
Some of the folk I know work on instrumentation, where analog and digital is part of the same problem, 90G/s sample rates are available with upper end scopes now, audio doesn't even get close. If the audio makers wanted solutions to these problems they just need to employ the right folk. But its a cold war arms race, as long as no one maker solves any of the problems, none of them need to.
Erm, I could do with a 24/192 USB driver my best friend Nick....unfortunately I can't pay you for it. ;)
(I knew I should have gone into computer science rather than Physics :doh:)
The guy who "helps" me along with my music server has an XMOS development board; I just wish I knew how to make proper use of it.
Oh, thanks for the link. I'll need to study it.
Ooops,forgot to mention, a call to High Resolution Technologies might prove rewarding because they seem to be having problems developing their HD HRT ;)
Hi Nick,
I know its off topic, but I think its the other side of "new is always better", is that new is not always as complex as the marketing men would have you believe.
That's very much on-topic, and also exposes another veritable 'home truth', which was precisely the purpose of this thread.
If the audio makers wanted solutions to these problems they just need to employ the right folk. But its a cold war arms race, as long as no one maker solves any of the problems, none of them need to.
Indeed, and it's yet another sobering reality check on today's audio industry!
Marco.
Erm, I could do with a 24/192 USB driver my best friend Nick....unfortunately I can't pay you for it.
I think XMOS has them now. The ones I used before were a bit buggy, but they were very beta then.
UzGUE5A2nwE
Hmm, I can just feel my wallet twitching and my brain groaning.
I think I'll have to have a go myself. :doh:
Please quote me evidence of any lack of open-mindedness shown on this thread. I suggest that you read my earlier reply to Jerry (post #35) and let it sink in! :doh:
Ooops! :lol: Sorry I hadn't and still haven't got that far...
My post was in response to Jerry's one that I quoted - shame threads can't unravel themselves as individual posts are commented apon rather than having to be so time-linear. The major problem with forums in general - unless you're glued to them constantly, any points you want to voice you find had moved on 2 days ago and so you may as well not have spent time thinking about them at all..
I have shown no lack of open-mindedness, nor am I denigrating good modern equipment. I'm simply saying that believing new is always best, and that modern technology automatically equates to superior sonic performance in audio, is being rather naive.
Got it?
True. I think that has always been true though (well, up to a point, starting from a time when good reproduction was first achieved of course :eyebrows:) - so is not something that exclusively effects today's arena.
His words do tend to fit my idea of what someone running his kind of business WOULD say though, purely for marketing purposes. Much like Ivor Tribruruvurson (whatshisname - you know..) back in the day.
That's not to necessarily say that it IS just for marketing purposes as he may be and breath the whole package and the image follows rather than precedes.
I think the nail in the coffin though for ability to fool consumers with boxes of nothing new, touted as amazing gear, is the internet - forums such as this and perhaps more specifically DIY forums.
People are very happy to take things apart and expose what's inside while experienced DIYers and designers unravel the workings of the circuits and show the world that the emperor is wearing no clothes.... or conversly tell us all how a cheap design is very good... or an old design was very good and better than modern etc etc
Still though many people are too afraid to even change a fuse so it is probably those people who are more likely to be led down the wrong path.
I am replying to a older post but I think this needs a reply. I think you underestimate just what is possible now. Given a cheap FPGA or SOC system (say < £150) a bit of time, the freely available USB specs and the desire to do so, creating a Async USB -> i2s (or whatever interface you want) is entirly within someone like myself of Stanley's reach, I did much the same 12 months ago. The reason I gave up was the end result was no better than isochronous USB audio, assuming competent kit at the device end. The bit that makes a difference (a real audible difference) is DAC onwards with most of the damage happening on the analog side.
BTW, using the same kit its possible (and I did just that) to measure the data loss by transferring data via USB and SP/DIFF (take a spdiff receiver, into a FPGA, into a buffer, play audio file, record the buffered data, compare the data to the original source). Having done that, I gave up worrying about that side of the equation.
Again, off topic ....
As many people are happy to have their £3000+ DACs sent off to be upgraded and poked about with, why don't people get their computers modified to gain more direct access to audio?
Surely within every PC, Laptop etc there's a codec chip receiving digital audio data in some format or other without needing USB etc.. Can't this be tapped? Or is this data also relying on some kind of other interface that is no better than USB anyway?
Many codec chips output s/pdif on one of their legs already.. (perhaps it's all too small?)
Hi Nat,
No problem - I totally understand. However, it's always best to read what's in front of you thoroughly and digest it properly, as misunderstandings on forums can so easily lead to arguments and all hell breaking loose!
Personally, I find it extremely frustrating taking time and great care writing something (trust me, nothing I write here is posted without considerable thought), believing that the point I'm making is crystal clear, only for someone to skim-read what's written and miss or completely misconstrue things altogether! :doh:
Anyway, we're on the same page now, so all is well! :cool:
Marco.
StanleyB
12-02-2012, 17:42
People are very happy to take things apart and expose what's inside while experienced DIYers and designers unravel the workings of the circuits and show the world that the emperor is wearing no clothes.... or conversly tell us all how a cheap design is very good... or an old design was very good and better than modern etc etc
Nobody would question that a cheap PC, TV, or digital camera is still better than an equivalent item of even only a few years ago. But when it comes to audio, some still find it hard to believe that the same is possible.
As for the unraveling of a circuit: there aren't many circuits to choose from. Audio amplifiers come in a mere handful of designs (A, A-B,B, etc), whilst DACs come in current or voltage output versions. Unraveling any of them to see which circuit design configuration was used is going to lead you to very little.
As many Far Eastern companies have shown, reverse engineering and then building a copy of something does not necessarily produce the same quality product or performance. There is a lot more to the results than just the sum of the parts. Picking expensive components to build something does not mean that the outcome will be something that is better than an item that was made at less cost and less expensive parts.
The motorbike industry is a good example of how Japan managed to build things better, faster, more reliable, and cheaper.
Assuming that a product made with cheaper parts cannot be as good or better than something made out of expensive parts is pure snobbery. It is also one reason why some parts continue to be sold at a very high price, whilst having been manufactured in places like China for not much more than a similar part of a lesser price. I have been to factories where the same component might be given two different colours, more elaborate writing on the body, and nicer looking packaging. The retail price however can be separated by a considerable amount. But few would question the apparent superior performance of the more expensive part.
bobbasrah
12-02-2012, 18:09
The motorbike industry is a good example of how Japan managed to build things better, faster, more reliable, and cheaper.
Ironic really, as this was being discussed a few minutes ago elsewhere. The Chairman of BSA opined that their customers had no desire or need for indicators or electric starters, almost one year before they went bust.
If you are talking about chips and newer is better I can give you a Audio Note level 5 DAC example the chip used is an 18 bit chip if I remember correctly by Analog Devices 1865.
It is said to sound better still than current chips. http://www.analog.com/en/audiovideo-products/audio-da-converters/ad1865/products/product.html
An old chip in a new DAC worth more than my house! http://www.audionote.co.uk/products/digital/dac_5_sig_01.shtml GO FIGURE!
I just thought we should reintroduce AN UK back into the mess Peter started with help from Marco here hahahaha!
Lol. Jeff...
Hey, Rob's gone a bit quiet since my last (lengthy) reply to him... Rob, any thoughts on my response to your last post? :)
Marco.
Audioman
13-02-2012, 00:42
Frankly Just picked up on this thread so have not read every comment. Though there is a lot of truth in PQ's statement I have to view it with some scepticism. Frankly though they make some decent lower priced products much of the Audio Note range have pretty extraordinary price tags. PQ is the pervayor of many products that retail in the £10K to £100K + price region. Prices that are justified as you go up the range by the use of boutique components or the use of silver wiring.
Increasingly his business is far from the main stream even by audiophile component standards. Most of it does not involve expensive marketing or thoughtfull aethetic design which might of partly justified the cost. I think this is largely promotion for his own designs and a way in justifying their supposed superiority over more mainstream manufacturers.
As for SQ generaly getting worse than 30 years ago I doubt it. There were plenty of poor sounding components in the 70's and 80's especialy. All this is according to personal taste. Certainly some of the brands promoted by magazines in the 80's to my ears sounded disappointing and some are still in business today. Unfortunately the demise of much loved brands like Inca Tech and Onix probably has a lot to do with oddball aethetics and lack of marketing clout and in some cases poor reliability.
There are probably more opportunities today to buy new designs that replicate a 'warmer' vintage sound than there ever has been especially with amplification. There is realy only a handfull of vintage designs that are worth restoring to provide top sounds, most of which appear to be in use by more than one forum member. The average modern product is certainly more consistent and more reliable. I also doubt sound is generaly worse rather than different. Certainly higher fidelity can be found with 'budget' components but whether they provide a better listening experience is down to personal preference.
bobbasrah
13-02-2012, 06:22
Perfectly put....
But the better valve kit is not about "a 'warmer' vintage sound", if thats all you have heard from valve kit and high efficiency speakers then you have not heard the best it can do.
bobbasrah
13-02-2012, 09:12
But the better valve kit is not about "a 'warmer' vintage sound", if thats all you have heard from valve kit and high efficiency speakers then you have not heard the best it can do.
Accepted Nick, but the better valve and speaker kit is at a price which is hardly average either. :eyebrows:
For those who have the better kit, their perspectives are by default different to those of the mainstream enthusiasts who cherry pick from the mass manufacturers. ;)
I am contentedly in the second camp, in the knowledge that it sounds good, is the best value for the price, and the cavernous gap that exists between me and achieving sonic nirvana is only as wide as my wallet.:cool:
Where I might disagree with Marco's retrospective generalisation, there remain certain models of equipment which prove disappointing compared to their predecessors, but I would suggest they are a rarity rather than a trend, just as was the case 20-30 years ago, as this is not in the manufacturer's best interest. :doh:
A recent example I came across on the non-esoteric end this forum was a (I think 5yo) Pio AV amp which is, as I found out later, well known for it's underwhelming musical performance. These are not the audio-cognoscenti making this observation but the average punter. My own experience with a much older Pio, had coloured my opinion that Pio would not turn out a duffer at that price level, and I was wrong.:ner:
Ah, perspective is wonderful once you figure out what it is...:mental:
The Black Adder
13-02-2012, 09:25
A while ago I had a very nice chin wag with Peter.
Peter was very transparent with the current state of the quality of components and materials that are available today to still meet the price point needed. One particular area was output transformers.
I told him the serial number and that actual amplifier was built in 1992. He told me that the output transformers in their were actually better than the current windings due to the purity of the copper that you simply cannot buy currently at that price point.
I thought this was very interesting indeed seeing as we are not talking mega vintage here.
Sign of the times I suppose.
StanleyB
13-02-2012, 10:06
Not so long ago someone emailed my THIS LINK (http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=BYSWBO) and asked why my equivalent product was far cheaper by a long mile. He asked if maybe I should use the same higher quality speaker connectors as the one in the link. I burst out laughing when I saw the connectors. They are in fact less than 30% of the price of the connectors that I use, and they look it.
It is a typical example of how product selling price and component costs are out of touch with each other in many cases. Or maybe some items are under-priced in order to sell more :scratch:.
Audioman
13-02-2012, 10:09
But the better valve kit is not about "a 'warmer' vintage sound", if thats all you have heard from valve kit and high efficiency speakers then you have not heard the best it can do.
I mentioned warmer sound as I perceived that the posters who think old kit is better are probably after this to some extent. I am not thinking of Quad II sound or pipe and slippers approach. Good components can be warm and detailed as opposed to harsh, cold and detailed.
Ali Tait
13-02-2012, 10:13
One man's "warm" is another man's "natural".
Precisely, Ali.
I like the best examples (I'm highlighting those words because anything else doesn't interest me) of vintage kit because it indeed sounds more 'natural' to my ears, especially when brought up to date, sonically, with the best modern internal components. For me, doing this gives the ultimate sound by combining the best of both worlds!
But when I say 'natural, that's not 'natural', as in the sound having a woolly bass or rounded off treble - quite the opposite. The 'natural' I'm referring to doesn't possess the artificial sounding, tonally thin, falsely exaggerated top-end of a lot of modern kit I hear, particularly with loudspeakers, which are so often these days voiced to sound 'impressive' during a ten minute listening session in a dealer's demo room.
As for CD players, anyone who's compared an older player (or DAC) using a TDA1541 chip, to modern equivalents, will know that there is an addictive 'analogue musicality' (and that's analogue when done well, not when euphonically coloured) and 'rightness' to the sound of those older players that is completely missing in most modern CDPs or DACs, which in comparison sound more 'brightly lit' (but not in a good way), thin-toned, and well, just false, in comparison.
As such, the sound that they produce can get on your nerves quite quickly, whereas the best vintage players encourage longer listening sessions because they sound more 'inviting', sonically 'natural' and generally more musically persuasive.
The effect is difficult to put into words. Only those who have done the comparison will be able to relate to what I'm describing. But one thing is for certain, equipment today is voiced very differently from the best vintage gear, and much of that is because most manufacturers today have become slaves to the readouts on their measurement apparatus, more than slaves to their senses, or in this case, ears! ;)
Marco.
StanleyB
13-02-2012, 12:05
The wooly bass and thin treble is not so much down to the voicing, as to the blind adherence to prescribed circuit layouts. Many designers are part of a larger company structure and have little or no say in what the final circuit should be able to achieve. This can result in a clobbered together set of design blocks, which are then finalized into a finished product. It can take months or years to fine tune a design and iron out flaws, but many companies want new product updates or replacement each year or even every couple of months. So many products never get to be improved upon, unless the DIY enthusiasts get other ideas.
You may just find that the thin and weedy tones of many modern DACs is because of inappropriate power supplies on the one hand, and quite possibly, the inappropriate use and design of the output stage on those DAC's that use them (I'm informed that many new DAC chips have the output buffer built in, but I'm not sure if some designers use these or bypass them entirely). The original AVI CD player used ELEVEN regulated supplies inside and some rather good Burr Brown (63?) chips I remember - I'd love to hear one again and do some op-amp rolling on it :)
The TDA1541A was a good chip, but the sound of many players using this could be grainy and rather crude. The early plastic Philips and Marantz players were pretty horrid all told, the Sony 555ES could take your fillings out in the wrong system and the original Arcam Alpha player was often horrible if not used with the recommended smooth Audioquest Quartz interconnect, which Arcam were distributers for back then. The amount of rf interference generated and transmitted down both the signal screens and back into the mains supply by so many of these TDA1541 based machines was frightening frankly and if you want proof, try one of the Roxburgh 6A mains filters I keep banging on about with, say, a good working Quad 66 CD player, which was a "textbook only" implementation of this venerable Philips chipset with no thought apparently given to the type and possibly value of the coupling caps around the DAC chip itself (unlike the better Marantz implentations) and with apparently simple power supplies. It can be tweaked, but with great care -
http://www.keith-snook.info/cd-players.html - down near the bottom...
http://uk.farnell.com/roxburgh/pmf6/filter-in-line-6a/dp/1101097?Ntt=RoxburghIN-LINE
Having heard to my pleasurable consternation over the weekend what a couple of "cheap but better" output coupling caps can do, I'm not sure one needs to spend a fortune on "the best at any cost."
I'm digging myself into a rather large hole with this and don't have the time or inclination to attempt to dig myself out :)
Hi Dave,
You may just find that the thin and weedy tones of many modern DACs is because of inappropriate power supplies on the one hand, and quite possibly, the inappropriate use and design of the output stage on those DAC's that use them...
Quite possibly, but I also believe that the sonic signature of some (not all, as there are some good ones now) of the modern chipsets are responsible, as are the truly dreadful (cheap) switch-mode power supplies used.
The TDA1541A was a good chip, but the sound of many players using this could be grainy and rather crude. The early plastic Philips and Marantz players were pretty horrid all told, the Sony 555ES could take your fillings out in the wrong system and the original Arcam Alpha player was often horrible if not used with the recommended smooth Audioquest Quartz interconnect, which Arcam were distributers for back then. The amount of rf interference generated and transmitted down both the signal screens and back into the mains supply by so many of these TDA1541 based machines was frightening...
Indeed - no argument there. But that's precisely why one has them modified and upgraded with the best modern components!
I'm not advocating the use of 25-year old CDPs or DACs without them being suitably modified. It's only when they've been judiciously upgraded that they become rather special :)
Marco.
The wooly bass and thin treble is not so much down to the voicing, as to the blind adherence to prescribed circuit layouts. Many designers are part of a larger company structure and have little or no say in what the final circuit should be able to achieve. This can result in a clobbered together set of design blocks, which are then finalized into a finished product. It can take months or years to fine tune a design and iron out flaws, but many companies want new product updates or replacement each year or even every couple of months. So many products never get to be improved upon, unless the DIY enthusiasts get other ideas.
Hardly a recipe for sonic excellence, is it? The voicing is simply a by-product of the shoddy designing/manufacturing process you describe. That is precisely what is wrong with how much of today's audio equipment is made, and what I've been alluding to throughout this thread... :rolleyes:
What you describe above is why equipment from small, specialist, manufacturers (such as yourself) is often able to sonically outperform equipment produced by bigger companies making products for the mass-market, under the operational restrictions you've outlined.
That is why I support bespoke products from people such as yourself, and for enthusiasts to look beyond the ends of their noses, unimaginatively selecting kit from the boring 'usual suspects', when choosing what equipment to buy, rather than applying some lateral thinking!
Marco.
StanleyB
13-02-2012, 12:32
You may just find that the thin and weedy tones of many modern DACs is because of inappropriate power supplies on the one hand, and quite possibly, the inappropriate use and design of the output stage on those DAC's that use them (I'm informed that many new DAC chips have the output buffer built in, but I'm not sure if some designers use these or bypass them entirely).
It's a combination of many things. I spent the last three years building expensive and complicated test rigs just to test out theories and assumptions, so that I had a more practical answer to many of my own questions. But such research and solutions are hardly ever shared, which is not surprising since so much money is at stake.
I agree in general regard modern loudspeakers. I found the few recent offerings I’ve listened to rather tiring to listen to compared to my lash ups.
What I find a bit strange here is the assumption that what the main protagonists consider to be a pleasant and natural sound represents an accurate rendition of the source material.
Some have mentioned that the sound from some units would take your fillings out, others have written about woolly sounding bass etc.
Now I know what my saxophone sounds like in my living room and even allowing for my lack of playing ability a few high notes blown with some vigour is unbearable. The same can be said for much of the brass based percussion, even my friends trumpet in a confined space can strip wallpaper, yet here we have people talking about a “natural” sound and pleasant to listen to in the same breath and afaik they are not listening in very large spaces.
There is something fundamentally wrong here. For many instruments, to sound natural in a confined space played at “normal” volume, they are I suggest unlistenable to. What in reality should send you running from the room clutching your ears is it seems expected to be made acceptable to hear by the stereo system.
So which is it that people value, accurate rendition of the instruments or something that sounds nice to listen to?
A lot of the live music I’ve heard, particularly in a studio environment does sound strident and I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable listening to many bands playing in my front room,or even in a studio for long periods of time.
So maybe the electronics that rip your fillings out at the higher frequencies for example are the more accurate. I’ve stood right next to bass speakers in concerts and studios and my trousers didn’t flap.
Perhaps people just like the way recorded music is presented by a particular system which doesn’t necessarily have any relevance to what it should sound like.
If this is the case (and I know someone is bound to say they’ve carefully compared their kit to the sound of a string quartet in their front room) then all these assertions regarding “the right sound” are one persons preferences and in no way relevant to accurate sound reproduction.
The simple fact is, unless you heard a particular recording at its final mix stage through the equipment the mixing engineer used (which would probably have been headphones) and can remember exactly that sound, not you nor I have the remotest idea of what it should sound like so how on earth can people write that one bit of kit is a more faithful representation of the source material than another.
It is frankly, bullshit.
IThe simple fact is, unless you heard a particular recording at its final mix stage through the equipment the mixing engineer used (which would probably have been headphones) not you nor I have the remotest idea of what it should sound like so how on earth can people write that one bit of kit is a more faithful representation of the source material than another.
It is frankly, bullshit.
I totally agree - I've been saying this for years.
Absolutely - I think we've ALL been saying that for years!!!
John,
Like I said earler:
The effect is difficult to put into words. Only those who have done the comparison will be able to relate to what I'm describing.
That's it in a nutshell.
If someone is willing to bring a modern, mass-produced, CDP or DAC (at any price) to my place, I'll gladly demonstrate the effect I'm referring to.
Any takers? :)
Marco.
bobbasrah
13-02-2012, 13:29
Absolutely - I think we've ALL been saying that for years!!!
John,
Like I said earler:
That's it in a nutshell.
If someone is willing to bring a modern, mass-produced, CDP or DAC (at any price) to my place, I'll gladly demonstrate the effect I'm referring to.
Any takers? :)
Marco.
A bit unfair Marco, yours isn't ;)
You're missing the point, Bob. The reason I included that as a condition is because modern bespoke-designed CDPs and DACs from specialist manufacturers can sound very good indeed!
My 'beef' is with the shite some of the others are producing!!
Marco.
Absolutely - I think we've ALL been saying that for years!!!
John,
Like I said earler:
That's it in a nutshell.
If someone is willing to bring a modern, mass-produced, CDP or DAC (at any price) to my place, I'll gladly demonstrate the effect I'm referring to.
Any takers? :)
Marco.
I'm working on it Marco. ;)
Proposed challenge will be from a fully tricked out Metric Halo and file sever.
If I cant borrow these then I may, if my server is boxed by then bring that and my HRT Pro.
Nice one, John. I look forward to it. I've been wanting something to beat this Sony for years, so I can get a bloody upgrade!! :lol:
Marco.
StanleyB
13-02-2012, 13:40
Dunno about taking it to your place, but I can certainly lend you a Bushmaster when it is finally on sale :). I am fairly confident that you'll me pleasantly surprised.
bobbasrah
13-02-2012, 13:48
You're missing the point, Bob. The reason I included that as a condition is because modern bespoke-designed CDPs and DACs from specialist manufacturers can sound very good indeed!
My 'beef' is with the shite some of the others are producing!!
Marco.
I understand that it only comes down to expenditure on bespoke-designed CDPs and DACs from specialist manufacturers from your perspective Marco, but if I had 2500 burning a hole in my pocket, I would get the cheap chinese DAC as Ali got, get Nick to do some breathing on it, and take a long luxurious break in Tahiti (Afghanistan is off this year apparently).:D
I realise that there is some crap out there as you say, but it is not ALL crap, and there are even some good speakers about. Somewhere. :scratch:
Indeed.
But where did I say it was "ALL crap"?? There goes that putting words into my mouth that don't exist thing again! :doh:
Please read properly what I'm writing, rather than adding bits which misconstrue the intended message. I will only say this so many times before I start handing out 'little holidays' to people who aren't paying attention. Ya gets me? ;)
Incidentally, the modern bespoke DACs I'm referring to don't necessarily have to cost a fortune. Stan's designs come into that category, as does the likes of the M-DAC from Audiolab, so your example doesn't wash!
Marco.
Dunno about taking it to your place, but I can certainly lend you a Bushmaster when it is finally on sale :). I am fairly confident that you'll me pleasantly surprised.
That would be brilliant, Stan! Just let me know when it's ready :cool:
Marco.
To be honest, if I had the money to spare I would quite happily spend it on Hi Fi, I just wouldn't be buying the stuff that seems popular here.
I don't see how you can object to people spending their money on whatever they think gives to their ears the pleasantest sound to listen to.
It's what some audiophiles buy that cracks me up, not that they are prepared to spend whatever they have on the hobby.
StanleyB
13-02-2012, 14:03
I just had my pre-production model back from a mutual Italian associate ;). He didn't really want to part with it and is now actively trying to sell his current two DACs that set him back £2K so that he can give me a deposit on a Bushmaster.
Give it a rest Stan. :doh:
bobbasrah
13-02-2012, 14:17
Indeed.
But where did I say it was ALL crap?? There goes that putting words into my mouth that don't exist thing again! :doh:
Please read properly what I'm writing, rather than adding bits which misconstrue the intended message. I will only say this so many times before I start handing out 'little holidays' to people who aren't paying attention. Ya gets me? ;)
Incidentally, the modern bespoke DACs I'm referring to don't necessarily have to cost a fortune. Stan's designs come into that category, as does the likes of the M-DAC from Audiolab, so your example doesn't wash!
Marco.
You didn't. What I attributed to you and agreed on is in bold-
"I realise that there is some crap out there as you say, but it is not ALL crap, and there are even some good speakers about. Somewhere."
Fair enough, you referred to it as shite.... but let's not split hairs....so to speak...:eyebrows:
To be honest, if I had the money to spare I would quite happily spend it on Hi Fi, I just wouldn't be buying the stuff that seems popular here.
It's what some audiophiles buy that cracks me up, not that they are prepared to spend whatever they have on the hobby.
I don't disagree with your sentiments. Thing is, you buy most of your gear from the professional audio arena, and I fully understand why.
But to most audiophiles, the stuff you use is an unknown quantity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that the places you buy your gear from offer showroom or home demos, so people are not going to buy a completely unknown quantity, simply on the basis of the criteria you believe is important.
They will buy what they can hear at their local dealer or what is being recommended in magazines or on forums such as this, until such times as the Pro kit you use is as widely known as the other stuff - should that ever happen. I'm afraid that's just the way it is.
The other thing is of course that the majority of people aren't DIY-ers, and simply want something that they can plug in and play, and enjoy music, with the minimum amount of fuss. Count me in! :)
Marco.
You didn't. What I attributed to you and agreed on is in bold-
"I realise that there is some crap out there as you say, but it is not ALL crap, and there are even some good speakers about. Somewhere."
Fair enough, you referred to it as shite.... but let's not split hairs....so to speak...:eyebrows:
Oh FFS! But I didn't say that it was ALL crap, or shite, did I? Just SOME of it is!!
Your endless arguing for the sake of arguing is becoming tiresome, so give it up, Bob, or I'll be making you give it up for you.
Marco.
StanleyB
13-02-2012, 14:28
Give it a rest Stan. :doh:
Ever considered putting away your envious cap;)?
My success was not built on smoke and mirrors, but on a cast iron guarantee that if my products don't live up to the hype, I have always had a money back guarantee in place. How many other DAC manufacturers can say the same thing of their products?
Ok guys, let's leave it there now. The next one to retaliate will have what they're written deleted, and if they persist, a week's ban will be imposed.
Marco.
I don't disagree with your sentiments. Thing is, you buy most of your gear from the professional audio arena, and I understand why.
But to most audiophiles, the stuff you use is an unknown quantity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that the places you buy your gear from offer showroom or home demos, so people are not going to buy a completely unknown quantity, simply on the basis of the criteria you believe is important.
They will buy what they can hear at their local dealer or what is being recommended in magazines or on forums such as this, until such times as the Pro kit you use is as widely known as the other stuff - should that ever happen. I'm afraid that's just the way it is.
The other thing is of course that the majority of people aren't DIY-ers, and simply want something that they can plug in and play, and enjoy music, with the minimum amount of fuss. Count me in! :)
Marco.
I can't argue with you Marco.
If I had the money I would certainly be looking at Pro audio kit in preference to a lot of the domestic Hi Fi products.
As you say, the problem is always going to be that it is almost impossible to hear pro audio kit as a system to listen to in a showroom.
There is also the fact that most pro audio kit would be hoisted out the door on looks alone by the more house proud spouses.
People like the "name" kit. Even I wouldn't deny that a well presented valve amp glowing on a rack is a lovely sight. But, we don't just look at and polish our Hi Fi do we
To bring this back to Audio Note for example, I've heard a couple of their early Dacs and amps and imo their performance didn't warrant anything like the asking price.
Somehow they seem to have cultivated the reputation, or are least trying to, of having superior sound because of the quality of the components they use.
My personal view is there is a lot more to circuit design than just using the most expensive of everything you can lay your hands on and reeling off a list of silver this and foil that.
Of course, there is always a trade off between the quality of components and performance but working out which components need to be of good quality and which can be viewed as just fit for purpose is part of the art.
Not Hi End by any means but take the HRT range of Dacs; they're about topology and careful circuit design rather than quality components.
Somewhere on these forums for example there was a post regarding the purity of copper transformer windings. Tbh I don't actually know but I have a sneaking suspicion that more often than not there was nothing like the concern regard 99.9999999% pure copper when some of the older considered classic kit was built. I certainly don't recall any of this when I started out with Hi Fi.
Regarding the DIY part; hmmm, my view is much like any hobby when you take it seriously you start to learn about what's going on under the hood. This seems to apply to most hobbies. Take cars fro example, you will always have a few who just buy what the press tell them is THE car and be content with that but the real enthusiasts will be under the bonnet and talking about the air flow through their SU carbs if its vintage and chip programming if its a modern high tech offering and learning how to tweak their own.
Sure, there will always be those who are quite content to go and buy off the shelve what they've read is the best and leave it at that.
Not for me I'm afraid. No one is going to tell me what sounds good to my ears, that much at least we do have in common Marco. ;)
kininigin
13-02-2012, 15:41
Im not really qualified to argue one way or the other,but surely it shouldn't be too hard to get a well respected piece of equipment from the 'vintage' era and it's 'modern' equivalent and compare the two?
Maybe find budget,mid-range and high-end equipment and see how big the gap is.For someone like me who doesn't have the experience or the knowledge of vast amounts of kit,this would be most interesting to hear what the outcome would be.
There seems to me to be good arguments for both sides,with good and bad examples spanning the decades.Like others have said,there will be people who will buy what the mags say and there will be those who do a little more research.
Forums like this are reaching greater numbers of people now,so people are more aware that there are other options other than the 'recommended kit' that you see most of the time.A few years ago.i had never heard of half the kit people have on here,that's both modern and vintage.For me it's a case of,you pays ya money,you makes ya choice.
kininigin
13-02-2012, 16:17
I think the whole argument can be summed up with this clip.
0AckvdGbk4w
Hi John,
To bring this back to Audio Note for example, I've heard a couple of their early Dacs and amps and imo their performance didn't warrant anything like the asking price.
The only AN Dacs I've heard were at a show, and they didn't seem to be doing anything wrong, but I've no idea how good they really are.
Remember though, that this discussion isn't about the efficacy of Audio Note equipment; it's about the (apparent) values of their designer and his thoughts on the state of the audio industry today, as outlined in the article I linked to, some of which I very much agree with.
Somehow they seem to have cultivated the reputation, or are least trying to, of having superior sound because of the quality of the components they use. My personal view is there is a lot more to circuit design than just using the most expensive of everything you can lay your hands on and reeling off a list of silver this and foil that.
I agree, and also that the judicious implementation of chosen components is always more important than the outright quality of the components themselves. I'd rather have a cleverly designed bit of kit, using modest quality components, than a piece of 'audio jewellery' full of boutique parts, which have little function other than simply justifying an exorbitant price tag!
But from what I've seen of the Audio Note approach, their designs are about rather more than just simply using 'fancy' components. I think they have more substance than that. There appears to be a complete infrastructure in place, through the company designing almost everything in-house and implementing it in the most sonically advantageous way possible, combined with years of experience of making high-end equipment, which *should* guarantee top-notch performance - at a price, of course!
I'll always admire audio manufacturers who appear to strive for excellence in all aspects of design, and where ultimate sonic performance is the number one priority, than those who simply create underperforming 'audiophile jewellery' at lunatic prices, or just churn out unspectacular, mediocre pap to cater for the undiscerning masses.
Somewhere on these forums for example there was a post regarding the purity of copper transformer windings. Tbh I don't actually know but I have a sneaking suspicion that more often than not there was nothing like the concern regard 99.9999999% pure copper when some of the older considered classic kit was built. I certainly don't recall any of this when I started out with Hi Fi.
The best of today's transformers are generally much better than what was produced years ago. The quality of copper is far superior now. The problem is, that the best of what was produced years ago, in terms of transformers and certain other components, is generally better than most of what is produced today, due to cost constraints, certainly in the mass-market arena.
Therefore, the quality of key components which goes into 'affordable' commercial equipment now, in general, isn't as good as what went into the best vintage designs. The fact is, in most cases, manufacturers today BUILD DOWN to a price, whereas they once used to BUILD UP to a standard. Sad but true...!
Regarding the DIY part; hmmm, my view is much like any hobby when you take it seriously you start to learn about what's going on under the hood. This seems to apply to most hobbies.
I agree. What I do, is learn as much as possible about what interests me that goes on 'under the hood', select the best parts I'd like to use when modifying something, and then pay someone else do the work... That's, after all, what I have 'my people' for! ;)
Ultimately, all I want are the sonic benefits without the hassle, and to just sit back and listen to music.
Marco.
Hi Darren,
Im not really qualified to argue one way or the other,but surely it shouldn't be too hard to get a well respected piece of equipment from the 'vintage' era and it's 'modern' equivalent and compare the two?
Nope, and it's something we'll be demonstrating when we do our own show next year, hopefully!
However, the comparison will be in the form of a modified vintage CDP/DAC vs. a modern high-end CDP, both equating to roughly the same cost. Otherwise, most stock vintage CDPs/DACs would lose against the best of what is made today. It's only when vintage gear is judiciously modified with modern components that things can (and do) change! :eyebrows:
Like others have said,there will be people who will buy what the mags say and there will be those who do a little more research.
Yup, but we'd like to encourage our members, if necessary, to always take the latter approach.
Forums like this are reaching greater numbers of people now,so people are more aware that there are other options other than the 'recommended kit' that you see most of the time.
Indeed. Why else do you think that I 'flag up' non-mainstream, specialist, bespoke kit all the time? I'd love more people to shun the mainstream and give their money instead to the smaller, specialist, manufacturers who deserve it, than lining the pockets of bigger companies, who often don't! ;)
A few years ago.i had never heard of half the kit people have on here,that's both modern and vintage.
Nice one. We aim to please. Hopefully what you've learned here, when applied to your system, has enriched your enjoyment of music! :cool:
Marco.
BTH K10A
13-02-2012, 19:39
To quote from the AN article.
"Add to this the fact that a pound spent on marketing and promotion seems to have proven to be much more effective at selling a product than a pound invested in better quality parts or better design. Seems is really the wrong word here, it is far more effective in persuading you to buy someone’s products.
Remember in this context that the money can only be spent once"
I think AN have taken this too far
I have been looking to purchase a 45 SET amplifier and, subject to audition, had decided on an Audio Note Paladin after jon brought it to my attention. :thumbsup:
I visited the AN room at last years Heathrow show and enquired about the amp. None of the AN staff could not give me any information on it or had no idea of the price. :confused:
I have emailed twice over the past year and spoken to someone on the phone who couldn't answer my questions but said "someone will get back to me". Nobody ever did.
Too busy sourcing unobtanium foil capacitors rolled on the oiled thighs of vestal virgins I suppose. :scratch:
It's not just AN who don't seem to be bothered about sales though. I pm'ed a member of this forum whom I understand make a 45 amp and did not even get the coutesy of a reply.
It's no wonder the masses flock to the well advertised crap and end up with a lot of little cubes..
:wheniwasaboy:
I visited the AN room at last years Heathrow show and enquired about the amp. None of the AN staff could not give me any information on it or had no idea of the price. :confused:
I have emailed twice over the past year and spoken to someone on the phone who couldn't answer my questions but said "someone will get back to me". Nobody ever did.
Too busy sourcing unobtanium foil capacitors rolled on the oiled thighs of vestal virgins I suppose. :scratch:
Well, that's a bit shit, isn't it? You're quite right to mention it here. Hopefully someone from the company will be reading this and take note!
It's not just AN who don't seem to be botherd about sales though. I pm'ed a member of this forum whom I understand make a 45 amp and did not even get the coutesy of a reply.
Oh, bad boy... Name and shame, I say!!
Marco.
kininigin
13-02-2012, 20:47
Nope, and it's something we'll be demonstrating when we do our own show next year, hopefully!
This is something i would be interested in.I have allways imagined what a high end system would sound like.I hope i wouldn't be disappointed ;)
Indeed. Why else do you think that I 'flag up' non-mainstream, specialist, bespoke kit all the time? I'd love more people to shun the mainstream and give their money instead to the smaller, specialist, manufacturers who deserve it, than lining the pockets of bigger companies, who often don't! ;)
Yep i agree and is the way i have mainly gone with my system.After hearing the benifits of said route,i will continue in this fashion,it seems the obvious choice.for me at least.
Nice one. We aim to please. Hopefully what you've learned here, when applied to your system, has enriched your enjoyment of music! :cool:
It most definitely has,i have had a rare day off today and have listened to about 8hrs of music and im still going strong :eyebrows:
I visited Donington Audio many years ago in the early days of Peter first putting forth the point of view discussed here. It was well before Audio Note UK and he demonstrated Snell E speakers, of which I believe he subsequently sold replicas , with Audio Innovations amps.
It sounded mediocre to me and I failed to see what the fuss was about. Since then Peter has gathered more supporters, and I assume does very well. He surely has the highest markup of any manufacturer?? It certainly seems so to me.
Reading this thread I would be interested in peoples opinion in the experience described in this blog
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/Rational-audioa-subjectivist-journey
It's a bit of a ramble, isn't it? I'm not quite sure the point he's trying to make, or you, for that matter? :scratch:
Marco.
I have been looking to purchase a 45 SET amplifier and, subject to audition, had decided on an Audio Note Paladin after jon brought it to my attention.
If you want a 45 amp, the little Yamamoto is very nice.
Or you could build him one, Nick? I think I'd rather have yours :)
Marco.
It's a bit of a ramble, isn't it? I'm not quite sure the point he's trying to make, or you, for that matter? :scratch:
Marco.
The point he is making, as I understand it, is the superior sound reproduction he had believed to be produced by the valve amp was not better reproduction but an addition generated within the amp that he, and others, construed as a better sound.
He had thought that the amp reproduced sound better whereas in effect it just added artefacts that some people like the sound of.
It was not accurately amplifying the signal at all.
It seems to me the whole Audio Note "religion" relies on this type of addition.
Well, Frank, that's certainly not the results of my exeperience with valves. In fact, TBH, that Computer Audiophile site is often full of blinkered objectivist bollocks, which quite frankly I have no time for.
Marco.
Or you could build him one, Nick? I think I'd rather have yours :)
Marco.
The Yamamoto is very nice though. Its similar to what I would build, pentode driver.
http://www.tnt-audio.com/jpg/a08s_front.jpg
I thought it was quite an interesting write up of one mans journey through the maze of Hi End Hi Fi.
I visit Computer Audiophile from time to time. Not much in the way of humour but far from objectivist and some extremely knowledgeable contributors on the leading edge of file based music replay.
Hi Rob,
Indeed, but because of that, they also have different sonic signatures, which good designers take into consideration when 'voicing' their respective equipment in the way in which they consider is best for optimum performance.
In your opinion, perhaps, but that's all. We're not dealing in facts here. As an aside, I happen to agree, finding most PIOs a little 'romantic sounding' for my tastes, making valve amps sound more 'valvey', in a way which to my ears departs too far from neutrality, although I've not tried the AN caps in question.
Whilst I don't disagree, you have a habit of thinking in absolutes. Audio is not a rigid science. There are many variables to consider, such as the interaction with the circuit capacitors are used in.
Sad isn't it, but I've done exactly the same! If the polys were only slightly better, then one can only conclude that the effect of PIOs is not as disastrous as you might think....
Including my TD Copper amp, the sound of which you raved about in the AoS system you heard last year?
I'm afraid, regarding the NAD or Cambridge, I will have to vehemently disagree. I'm familiar with how amps from both those manufacturers sound, and whilst they are very good for budget SS amps, they sound rather crap compared to most valve amps I've heard.
But then, I've been fortunate enough to hear some truly exceptional ones, which is the case when you are exposed to as close to 'cost no object' designs as one can get. You really need to take yourself out of the commercial arena, and attend one of the better DIY audio meets, such as Owston, to hear what valve amps are really capable of, when commercial cost constraints and restrictive legislation are taken out of the equation.
There's a whole big bad thermionic world out there, Rob, away from (these days) audio jewellery-producing Mr Paravicini and others of his ilk!
I'm afraid that the notion of true transparency with ANY piece of audio equipment is but a pipedream. You've been spending too much time on pfm with Serge Auckland! :D
Everything in the signal path inside audio equipment imparts its own sonic signature on the final results our ears hear, thus deviating from transparency, even if this doesn't show up on an oscilloscope, spectrum analyser, or any other measurement apparatus, whose function is restricted by only being able to measure established parameters, dictated simply by what science can currently prove.
Therefore, when it comes to audio equipment, all we can do is choose our own favoured brand of distortion/coloration - and so the NAD or Cambridge will simply have a different 'flavour' of coloration than the valve amps you've heard, but neither will be truly transparent. Building a system with ANY equipment is an exercise in compromise. There is no 'perfection'. I'm afraid that's life, mate!
Well, as true accuracy or transparency isn't possible, I seek realism instead - my version of it. And by that I mean my system reproducing recorded music in such a way that to my ears it sounds as convincing as possible, compared to hearing the same music (un-amplified) live, based on my extensive experience of attending performances of live music.
Of course, I will never be able to recreate a facsimile of a live musical performance in my room, but I can capture the essence of it and create a snapshot which sounds believable to my ears. For me, that will always be a better way of building a system than attempting to create some notion of transparency, based on the evidence of inconclusive, and therefore flawed, technical measurements.
Perhaps that's your intention, but with respect, it's not how you often come across. You tend to make statements that are portrayed as factual, simply because some technical measurements appear superficially to confirm your argument. That is not the way to merely express an opinion.
Yes, well that's a rather over-simplistic and typically objectivist way of looking at things, which presumes that we can currently test for all parameters that require testing in audio. That for me is clearly not the case when there are so many instances of people genuinely experiencing phenomena in audio, which as yet have not been scientifically proven.
Just because something genuinely heard can't currently be scientifically proven, doesn't automatically mean that it doesn't exist.
Problem is, Rob, you (and others like you of an objectivist mindset) like to live in a certain world, where there are no shades of grey and everything is neatly pigeonholed into little 'black & white' boxes. I'm afraid that neither life or audio are like that, or things as 'done and dusted' as you would like to believe.
I agree, but I don't think we're anywhere near there yet. In that respect, I'm continually on a learning curve. What amazes me is how much the little things matter (although I see them as being rather more significant) - things that don't show up on current test equipment, but which are absolutely fundamental in creating realistic, believable sounding music from a hi-fi system.
There's not much point in discussing them here, however, as it will likely take the discussion off in a tangent that will not further the best interests of this debate.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that we still haven't got much to learn in terms of realising their full potential and how equipment is integrated into a system which is genuinely capable of reproducing realistic sounding music, and not simply just making a nice noise!
Well, that depends on what digital we're talking about. If it's CD players, my view is that they "matured" during their heyday of the mid 80s to early 90s, when the 'big boys' put all their knowledge, know-how, and considerable financial clout into building 'no compromise' players which really showed what CD was capable of. My Sony X-777ES/DAS-R1, being a prime example.
CDPs nowadays, short of the finest high-end examples, are mainly exercises in the technique of designing mediocre products for the masses and satisfying the financial constraints of company accountants, and as such are mostly born from the same universal parts bin. None I've heard sound any better than 'adequate'. Occasionally, there are exceptions, but those are few and far between. I guess that much depends on what you're used to.
If it's streaming we're talking about, then in my view, we're currently just dipping our toes in the water, and there's a very long way to go until we realise what that technology is truly capable of, which is why I'm holding back for the moment before investing significantly in this area.
Lol! Would that include the totally unmodified 35-year old Celestion 66s in the AoS system at Scalford others and you raved about last year? ;)
Returning to the main thrust of this debate, it should be remembered that the system we put together last year contained not one genuinely modern piece of equipment - all of it was either vintage, or based on vintage designs. And yet we were getting comments from both punters and people in the industry that it was the best sound they had ever heard! Along with Jerry's system, which featured Tannoy Lancasters (again what does that tell you?), we were voted as producting one of the best sounds of the show.
I agree with you about speakers, but it's amazing how their significant sonic limitations are diluted to a state of virtual insignificance when judiciously fronted by a well thought out and set-up system. It's just a pity that this year we won't have the opportunity to demonstrate just how good current production high-end solid-state gear can sound on the end of the same speakers....
Marco.
Hi Marco,
Lots in there, much of it based on your own subjective view on what's good and bad. I have no opinion on your opinion, what you like is entirely up to you :)
But I'll pull out a few specific points which I've highlighted above in bold:
- Voicing using different capacitors is grossly overplayed as most common types are indistinguishable except under certain operating conditions. For example, if you don't properly bias a tantalum cap, you can give it a 'sound', and you can use caps with high ESR to degrade a power supply performance. But you've got to be pretty sloppy with the design to get these things wrong, or set out to build something that sounds clearly different to established references. Either way, using technically iffy caps to generate a sonic signature is departing from transparency or fidelity.
- I'm afraid that when it comes to the technical performance of capacitors, we are talking fact.
- Audio is an absolutely rigid science. It plays by the same rules as the science that built your washing machine or television set. Which bits of the science you chose to use and how you put the resulting circuits together are where the choices exist, but the basic bricks and the interactions are all established and utterly rigid.
- Never said PIOs were a disaster, just inferior to poly caps if you want something that has no sound.
- Your TDS Copper sounded excellent and I did indeed say so last year. However you must appreciate that the comment comes from someone not especially keen of valve power amplifiers. So in valve land, I'd say it is superb albeit I only had a brief listen. However I'd take a modest SS any time because again as stated previously I consider even relatively inexpensive ones to be better.
- Me getting to hear more valve amplifiers is pointless, though you underestimate the number I've heard. Again going back to my original post, I can place a modest SS amplifier in circuit, our indeed a number of other SS circuits and demonstrate that the sound through the loudspeakers hasn't changed audibly. I can demonstrate to myself and others that transparency exists, therefore exploring cost no object valve amplifiers cannot bring benefits. I could certainly find examples that do change the sound but that doesn't interest me because that's not what I see as the function of the amplifier.
Just as an aside, I currently have 17 different amplifiers sitting on a shelf, and have heard more than I care to remember. That includes valve amplifiers, with probably the most notable being a beautifully restored pair of Radford MA15s. Technically excellent amplifiers and OTT transformer build for a 15w amp. They sounded very like good SS!
- Objectivist mindset? Not here.
I'm a subjectivist. I believe people should chose audio systems based on what sounds best to them. Personally, I also often alter the sound of my own system using EQ to achieve a sound that I like. That is surely pure subjectivism.
This has nothing to do with correctly identifying differences by eliminating sources of bias, i.e. the use of blind tests, which is where the objectivism comes in, as it should.
I would never and have never suggested that a blind test or measurements should solely determine what people chose.
They are essential tools to assist in correctly identifying differences, either by quantifying them or proving their existence.
Serge doesn't entirely agree ;)
- True transparency isn't a pipe dream where electronics are concerned. We've had it for years. Different story for electro-mechanical transducers.
- I post in a factual way where there is hard science to support my argument, or clear evidence from blind listening tests that support any comment I make. If my posts sometimes appear rather direct and 'stating as fact' that's because I find much of what appears on forums to be arrant nonsense, and I'm not one for waffle or fence sitting where the issues are clear cut. Different matter entirely where issues aren't so clear cut and the science is largely absent, such as discussion around why people like different things.
- Those Celestions. I enjoyed them greatly, but yes ultimately they are seriously flawed, as are our Kensai or the Quad ESLs I use. Same goes for all loudspeakers. Loudspeakers range from adequate to utterly dire IMO.
Hopefully that answers most of the points. We won't agree on the main points, which is one of the reasons I post here yet virtually nowhere else other than pfm. The views here are usually diametrically opposed to my own, which makes it interesting and fun :cool:
Two last points that have been mentioned by a few people, firstly around concerns that some chipsets and small SMPS units give thin insubstantial sound from some dacs, and secondly some the claimed negative effects of EQ.
I completely disagree with both views.
Feed a top quality, clean, full sounding file into something like the Apple AE (£80, cheap dac, smps) and that's largely the sound that comes out. It'll be a little different to the original but nearly all of the fundamental tonality, texture, detail and clarity will be reproduced.
The biggest cause of thin, weedy sounding digital is shitty mastering and it far outweighs the differences between even mediocre dacs.
On EQ, the automatic assumption that this is bad or in some way hinders performance can be neatly disproved by anyone with a good turntable and phono stage. EQ uses filters and filters are filters - they all work in fundamentally the same way. The RIAA stage contains aggressive levels of filtration, or EQ if you prefer. Ditto loudspeaker crossovers.
Can vinyl sound stunning?
Yes of course, and therefore so can other forms of EQ.
Anyway, enough!
Rob
I thought it was quite an interesting write up of one mans journey through the maze of Hi End Hi Fi.
I visit Computer Audiophile from time to time. Not much in the way of humour but far from objectivist and some extremely knowledgeable contributors on the leading edge of file based music replay.
Fair enough, John.
I had no problem with what the guy wrote about his hi-fi journey, but my experiences of that site (and others of their ilk) are a little different from yours, perhaps because I'm more sensitive to the anti-"legacy" equipment/anti-anything that is deemed as being 'technically inferior' to computer audio mindset, that I often read on those sites, where comments like this, of Frank's, are unfortunately all too frequent:
...the superior sound reproduction he had believed to be produced by the valve amp was not better reproduction but an addition generated within the amp that he, and others, construed as a better sound.
{YAWN} The old chestnut of the 'euphonic coloration of valves preventing the sound from being 'accurate', eh? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The fact is, properly designed valve amps just don't sound like that. If they did, I couldn't live with one.
I don't particularly warm to comments like this either:
It seems to me the whole Audio Note "religion" relies on this type of addition.
...as I've read it all before, and each time I read that stuff, it doesn't get any nearer to representing what others and I have actually experienced with properly designed valve equipment.
Marco.
Hi Rob,
Plenty to chew on there (as usual). I'll get to it later - or more likely tomorrow! :)
Marco.
Audio is an absolutely rigid science. It plays by the same rules as the science that built your washing machine or television set. Which bits of the science you chose to use and how you put the resulting circuits together are where the choices exist, but the basic bricks and the interactions are all established and utterly rigid.
Sorry Rob, I simply can't agree. Two counter-arguments come immediately to mind:
1) we can't yet measure what we can hear. Despite the plethora of waterfall diagrams etc. to demonstrate how components might sound, the only way we really know at the moment is to listen to them. If there exists a goodness-meter I'm not aware of it. We are far from achieving the old Quad wire-with-gain ideal. If we were, most all components would sound the same by now.
2) Music ends inside our brains and is open to interpretation, mood and many other emotive factors. Two people listening to the same system can't necessarily agree over what they're hearing. There is no emotional-meter to take measurements with.
The Grand Wazoo
13-02-2012, 22:53
I'd add to Martin's comment that if anyone suggests that science is fully understood, then I'm afraid they just don't understand anything about science.
Science has not been 'solved'.
Reid Malenfant
13-02-2012, 23:05
I'd add to Martin's comment that if anyone suggests that science is fully understood, then I'm afraid they just don't understand anything about science.
Science has not been 'solved'.
:thumbsup: Science is about disproving theories about what the heck is going on around us...
All science can do is disprove a theory, it can't prove any as things can always be superceded, Newtons theory of gravitation & Einstiens theory of general relativity spring to mind.
Yet we know there is something beyond that as nothing has connected general relativity & quantum theory :D
So yes, It's kind of interesting :)
Sorry Rob, I simply can't agree. Two counter-arguments come immediately to mind:
1) we can't yet measure what we can hear. Despite the plethora of waterfall diagrams etc. to demonstrate how components might sound, the only way we really know at the moment is to listen to them. If there exists a goodness-meter I'm not aware of it. We are far from achieving the old Quad wire-with-gain ideal. If we were, most all components would sound the same by now.
2) Music ends inside our brains and is open to interpretation, mood and many other emotive factors. Two people listening to the same system can't necessarily agree over what they're hearing. There is no emotional-meter to take measurements with.
+1. I couldn't agree more! :clap:
And wot Chris said - yup.
However, I do enjoy Rob's contributions, and welcome them, as it provides an alternative perspective on matters which we're not used to having on AoS. And he conducts himself well, and obviously enjoys visiting here, so as far as I'm concerned, all is good :cool:
Marco.
BTH K10A
13-02-2012, 23:12
The Yamamoto is very nice though. Its similar to what I would build, pentode driver.
http://www.tnt-audio.com/jpg/a08s_front.jpg
Yes I have looked at one but spoke to a geman owner who has had quite a high failure rate on the 717a's which made me a bit wary. He said they are wired as triodes and have dc supplies to the heaters which might be causing the problem. Then again he did buy the kit version. :eyebrows:
I have a number of suitable valves so just need to buy some iron. I thought KTZ63's might be good as drivers with either an 80 or UU5 rectifier. I also have a pair of NOS Ferranti 45's, most probably rebranded RCA's.
I wanted a 45 amp after hearing a diy one playing into some Wharfedale RS/12/DD speakers in open baffles. Playing some early blues they produced such a full and rich sound, at low volume too. I was quite smitten.
I have some RS/12/DD's but I've also just bought (but yet to pick up) a pair of vintage speakers that will either turn out to be something quite special or be a pile of dog poo. I'll just have to wait untill next weekend to see.
One things sure though, Audio Note has lost a potential customer.
(Straps on his flack proof jock strap and dons hard hat)
Ahem, I think Franks contribution got dismissed a bit rudely if I'm honest.
Here after all is a guy who does have a "no expense spared, top the range, top notch bells and whistles system" and it seems he's heard a few at that price range.
Okay, he likes his solid state amps, nothing wrong in that. We all like different stuff.
There was nothing offensive in the article he linked to but not only did the article get summarily dismissed but so did the entire site.
AoS can and should do better imo.
John, I'm entitled to my honest opinion, am I not? So, bearing that in mind, I told it as I seen it. How I described the article and what Frank wrote, was how it came across to me - simples. I'm also entitled to dismiss a site being of interest to me, if that's what I think.
In that respect, I stand by every word I wrote.
Marco.
Yes of course Marco but...
I dunno, it just seemed rather dismissive and If I was Frank I think I wouldn't bother contributing any more.
There are some people with hides like Rhino's (take me for instance ;)) and as persistent as a sexually transmitted rash. Others, who may have something to contribute (and whether I agree with Frank or not, he does in my opinion have a lot to contribute if he's willing to put in the time) are easily possibly put off by a few of the more regular contributors over zealous defence of their corner,never mind from the boss.
Just a thought Marco.
Well, I've got nothing against Frank. I've helped him in the past with posting pictures of his superb system, so as far as I'm concerned, he and I are cool.
He's entitled to his opinion, just as much as I am to mine. We're all big boys here, John, so I'm sure that Frank is perfectly able to take me disagreeing with his opinion on valve amps, without being emotionally damaged.
Anyway, enough of that now, please. Let's get back on topic! :)
Marco.
StanleyB
14-02-2012, 00:21
The point he is making, as I understand it, is the superior sound reproduction he had believed to be produced by the valve amp was not better reproduction but an addition generated within the amp that he, and others, construed as a better sound.
He had thought that the amp reproduced sound better whereas in effect it just added artefacts that some people like the sound of.
It was not accurately amplifying the signal at all.
It seems to me the whole Audio Note "religion" relies on this type of addition.
Either you understood him incorrectly, or he is adding an alternative view to the process. Valve amps, just as transistor amps, come in various biasing configurations such as A, B, etc. Each configuration produces its own kind of sound, which is generally accepted to be due to the various types of harmonics or distortions present or absent in each biasing method. So in Class A there is no crossover distortion, unlike in AB, B, etc., which produces a less distorted sound and is preferred by valve amp admirers.
There are no artefacts added. It is the biasing method that determines which kind of sound is produced. On top of that, different valve designs, such as triodes, pentodes etc., each produce their own kind of sound. This sound can be adjusted to smooth out certain distortion elements through tweaking of the grids, or by adjusting the Miller capacitance effect.
Granted, there are a couple of valve amp builders that I have come across who are oblivious to the finer points of various valves designs. They have gathered experience through others means instead of textbooks. So I can quite understand why so much about valves is so badly understood. It's several times more complicated than a transistor.
Either you understood him incorrectly, or he is adding an alternative view to the process. Valve amps, just as transistor amps, come in various biasing configurations such as A, B, etc. Each configuration produces its own kind of sound, which is generally accepted to be due to the various types of harmonics or distortions present or absent in each biasing method. So in Class A there is no crossover distortion, unlike in AB, B, etc., which produces a less distorted sound and is preferred by valve amp admirers.
There are no artefacts added. It is the biasing method that determines which kind of sound is produced. On top of that, different valve designs, such as triodes, pentodes etc., each produce their own kind of sound. This sound can be adjusted to smooth out certain distortion elements through tweaking of the grids, or by adjusting the Miller capacitance effect.
Granted, there are a couple of valve amp builders that I have come across who are oblivious to the finer points of various valves designs. They have gathered experience through others means instead of textbooks. So I can quite understand why so much about valves is so badly understood. It's several times more complicated than a transistor.
Good post, Stan! :)
Marco.
Hi Nat,
No problem - I totally understand. However, it's always best to read what's in front of you thoroughly and digest it properly, as misunderstandings on forums can so easily lead to arguments and all hell breaking loose!
Personally, I find it extremely frustrating taking time and great care writing something (trust me, nothing I write here is posted without considerable thought), believing that the point I'm making is crystal clear, only for someone to skim-read what's written and miss or completely misconstrue things altogether! :doh:
Reading the whole thread throroughly and to digest it fully when I join it 11 pages in would take probably the best part of an hour and I'll be wanting to react to each post as each post sparks thoughts and questions in my mind.
I've come back to check on the thread and it's moved on so much and a further 7 pages it will now take well over an hour to be to date.
I fear you are only setting yourself up to be frustrated with those expectations. It does amaze me that people manage to find so much time for these forums to work.
Anyway, we're on the same page now, so all is well! :cool:
Marco.
Ah. I've something to tell you...
Such as? :)
I take your point, but all I'm saying is that it's so easy for arguments to start on forums when what is written is misconstrued.
Therefore, it's best to take whatever reasonable steps are possible in order to prevent any unnecessary misunderstandings.
Marco.
A He told me that the output transformers in their were actually better than the current windings due to the purity of the copper that you simply cannot buy currently at that price point.
I thought this was very interesting indeed seeing as we are not talking mega vintage here.
Sign of the times I suppose.
Less sign of the times as world economic collapse, commodity inflation due to that collapse and rise of the developing world.
Still, the price of copper isn't that much in hifi terms.. he may be talking about massive margins on his side and a refusal to reduce those massive margins and effect his income and therefore people get inferior transformers as a result... maybe.
John, I'm entitled to my honest opinion, am I not? So, bearing that in mind, I told it as I seen it. How I described the article and what Frank wrote, was how it came across to me - simples. I'm also entitled to dismiss a site being of interest to me, if that's what I think.
In that respect, I stand by every word I wrote.
Marco.
Marco Buddy,
In my 2 year olds honest opinion ,bugers (nose goblins) tast like chicken, I keep trying to stop him from eating them but he seems pretty happy doing it.
This thread is becoming a hell of a lot of work for you,just have a Beer and let this thread settle to the bottom like the Titanic man.
Your going to get carpal tunnel or a stroke maybe both,This thread just keeps sucking me in, but it's becoming a train wreck.
Spoken Under the Influence. AKA Goraman:cool:
Hi Jeff,
Lol - I'm perfectly ok, as I'm sure are John and Frank. Emotive threads like this are bound to stir passions and divide opinion. It's one of the reasons the thread was started in the first place, as I love tackling controversial subjects and making people stop and think! :eyebrows:
All opinions are welcome on the thread subject, so keep them coming, folks.... :)
Marco.
I'd add to Martin's comment that if anyone suggests that science is fully understood, then I'm afraid they just don't understand anything about science.
The trouble is, some people use the fact that 'science is not fully understood' to justify all sorts of nonsense (eg the products of Peter Belt). Science can't 'explain everything' but the basics of physical science laid down by Newton apply at everything above a sub-atomic level, so the explanations put forward in support of some products are, in scientific terms, complete nonsense. Moreover, without blind testing, all subjective claims of improvements brought about by these products are moot, because there may be no difference, let alone an improvement, so we're down to swapping anecdotes*.
*Not that there's anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld would say.
Hi Joe,
As I've said before, it is absolutism, and the insistence that everything in life is either 'black or white', that's the problem, not the validity of any one approach or methodology.
I've always been a great believer that the truth in anything lies somewhere in the middle of all arguments! Therefore, I always find it beneficial to accept and embrace the shades of grey that exist in life, and in audio.
Some people just don't seem capable of doing that: for them, there must always be an undisputable 'right' or 'wrong', 'best' or 'worst': everything must be absolute. It's a mentality that I'm afraid I will never understand.
Marco.
Moreover, without blind testing, all subjective claims of improvements brought about by these products are moot, because there may be no difference, let alone an improvement, so we're down to swapping anecdotes*.
The problem is that blind/double-blind testing has a bad rep around here. You don't listen to music that way and it's not comfortable being expected to hear changes on demand. That's not how we work. I find that small changes manifest themselves, possibly immediately but more likely over a period of time. There is no placebo effect unless you actually set out to fool yourself.
As for swapping anecdotes, I have a list in my mind of reviewers and users whose opinion I value. That gives me what I need to start with and then the rest is up to me by listening directly.
I find that small changes manifest themselves, possibly immediately but more likely over a period of time. There is no placebo effect unless you actually set out to fool yourself.
+1. That is *exactly* what my own experiences have shown. And so that crucial factor doesn't become apparent in a quick double-blind test, which is why double-blind testing, for the purposes of audio, is fatally flawed.
Marco.
The problem is that blind/double-blind testing has a bad rep around here. You don't listen to music that way and it's not comfortable being expected to hear changes on demand. That's not how we work. I find that small changes manifest themselves, possibly immediately but more likely over a period of time. There is no placebo effect unless you actually set out to fool yourself.
That's the point surely; you're not 'expected to hear changes'; indeed there might not even be any changes. Interestingly, the current issue of HiFi+ features a report on a blind test of USB cables, which are supposed to sound identical. Differences, and reasonably consistent preferences, were however identified by the panel.
As for swapping anecdotes, I have a list in my mind of reviewers and users whose opinion I value. That gives me what I need to start with and then the rest is up to me by listening directly.
Oh sure, that's how I work too. My point was that the 'science doesn't explain anything' line is often used to justify (often very expensive) gizmos that could only work by overturning rules of physics that govern how things work above the atomic level (and which have, for example, enabled us to put a man on the Moon).
'...there are no absolute truths in science.' - Dr Brian Cox, Dec'11 ...and no doubt stated by many eminent scientists and physicists before hand.
- Voicing using different capacitors is grossly overplayed as most common types are indistinguishable except under certain operating conditions. For example, if you don't properly bias a tantalum cap, you can give it a 'sound', and you can use caps with high ESR to degrade a power supply performance. But you've got to be pretty sloppy with the design to get these things wrong, or set out to build something that sounds clearly different to established references. Either way, using technically iffy caps to generate a sonic signature is departing from transparency or fidelity.
Far too simplistic and narrow. Capacitors need to be chosen to suit the application. Simply placing one you think is best (Ie low ESR) into circuit without consideration for the intended use will result in a negative effect. Place a low ESR plastic/poly cap on the end of a LM317 and it will oscillate, choose a standard 'lytic with average ESR and it will work fine.
Regarding amplifiers and sound its not surprising SS amps all sound the same. They reached so called perfection back in the late 70's with vanishingly low distortion specs. They all use similar topologies, layout and design consideration with the same components and with a lot of data sheet engineering thrown in. Poor open loop performance drives the use of high levels of global feedback to lower output impedance to unnecessary low levels which in turn swamp dynamics. No wonder they all sound the same.
A well designed valve amp should not sound soft or wooly, if it does then its a poor design or uses poor components like weak o/p transformers. A well designed valve amp will have very good open loop linearity and require little or no feed back to work correctly. It will exhibit a clear and transparent sound whilst still keeping distortion down to low levels.
Audio/Music can never be a rigid science, its an emotional experience, it evokes an emotional response...right from the artists, the people in the studio recording and mixing it down to the purchase and enjoyment of listening to it. This quest for so called 'transparency' really is chasing windmills as unless you where there at the time of the recording or mixing down with understanding of what the artist / engineers where trying to achieve at the time you have no basis to form an opinion on what is transparent or not.
That's the point surely; you're not 'expected to hear changes'; indeed there might not even be any changes. Interestingly, the current issue of HiFi+ features a report on a blind test of USB cables, which are supposed to sound identical. Differences, and reasonably consistent preferences, were however identified by the panel.
Just point is passing, it's not too relevant to the debate...as for USB cables supposed to sound identical...this might be true if they all conformed to the 90 ohm standard and were well shielded. A cable not complying to the impedance regs will suffer reflections. This is basic stuff that seems to be overlooked.
StanleyB
14-02-2012, 11:06
This quest for so called 'transparency' really is chasing windmills as unless you where there at the time of the recording or mixing down with understanding of what the artist / engineers where trying to achieve at the time you have no basis to form an opinion on what is transparent or not.
Although I have been designing audio stuff for many years, I still have absolutely no idea what people mean by audio transparency :scratch:. My own reference points are detail, depth, definition, and dynamics. I call it 4D, which is along the idea of 2D and 3D ;). IMHO opinion, you can have a piece of equipment that exhibits any of the four, and strive to own something that has an abundance of all four.
Either you understood him incorrectly, or he is adding an alternative view to the process. Valve amps, just as transistor amps, come in various biasing configurations such as A, B, etc. Each configuration produces its own kind of sound, which is generally accepted to be due to the various types of harmonics or distortions present or absent in each biasing method. So in Class A there is no crossover distortion, unlike in AB, B, etc., which produces a less distorted sound and is preferred by valve amp admirers.
There are no artefacts added. It is the biasing method that determines which kind of sound is produced. On top of that, different valve designs, such as triodes, pentodes etc., each produce their own kind of sound. This sound can be adjusted to smooth out certain distortion elements through tweaking of the grids, or by adjusting the Miller capacitance effect.
Granted, there are a couple of valve amp builders that I have come across who are oblivious to the finer points of various valves designs. They have gathered experience through others means instead of textbooks. So I can quite understand why so much about valves is so badly understood. It's several times more complicated than a transistor.
Did you read the first post of the blog Stanley? Sorry, but you certainly seem to me to have launched into an extreme extrapolation of what you think he may have been doing.
Maybe it is me who has got it wrong but let me précis what I understood.
He was not trying to examine the differences between strategies or anything in general. What he did was took an amplifier he though sounded fantastic, a VTL as it happens, load it to have a gain of 1 and put it on the input of a Spectral amplifier. In this installation he found the Spectral to now sound exactly like the VTL.
He mentions other SS amps which did not sound as good as the Spectral which nevertheless sounded almost exactly like the VTL when the VTL was put on its input.
This seems very simple to me and illustrates that pretty well all of the sonic enjoyment he had appreciated in the VTL amp were entirely created within the amp, not it being capable of "superior" reproduction.
I don't wish to, nor would it be reasonable to, extrapolate from this one test that all amps of different layout, class A, class A/B, SET etc whether valve or SS would all behave the same way.
All it illustrated is that in this one test the enjoyable VTL sound was not on the recording but generated within the amp.
That is all.
I am not aware of any test or even vague evaluation which has illustrated the converse. Maybe one could be done??
Don't get me wrong, I don't care what people like or buy.
At all.
However I have yet to hear a valve amp myself which I find satisfactory, and believe me, I've listened to lots, not least because so many friends are convinced of their superiority.
Also the statement "that old chestnut about euphonic colouration" has become an old chestnut in itself, so frequently is it used to, without explanation, reject any data which shows that this may indeed well be the case.
FWIW I am not a big fan of Computer Audiophile web site either Marco.
Frank
Regarding amplifiers and sound its not surprising SS amps all sound the same.
To quote John McEnroe, you CANNOT be serious!
+1. That is *exactly* what my own experiences have shown. And so that doesn't become apparent in a quick double-blind test.
Marco.
I quite agree with this. I always choose by listening, and as my system has (IMHO:rolleyes:) got better and better it is increasingly difficult to hear differences between good items I am auditioning, but they always become evident over a period of time, and once heard, however subtle, impossible to ignore.
Frank
Although I have been designing audio stuff for many years, I still have absolutely no idea what people mean by audio transparency :scratch:. My own reference points are detail, depth, definition, and dynamics. I call it 4D, which is along the idea of 2D and 3D ;). IMHO opinion, you can have a piece of equipment that exhibits any of the four, and strive to own something that has an abundance of all four.
Audio transparency is "easiest" to become familiar with if you do some recording.
The old monitor button was very instructive. When I make my (very) amateur recordings checking the before and after the recorder sound, initially on a reel-to-reel recorder was always very informative. I heard what overload sounded like, how descending into tape noise sounded on the low level parts of the recording, and so forth.
As well as the importance of getting the levels set right, I found what shortcomings I could put up with, and which I couldn't.
I don't use tape anymore, but a Metric Halo ADC/DAC which is FWIW as close to completely transparent as I can sense.
Frank
Oh good, everyone's happy. Back to the usual bollocks then. ;)
My vote goes to the guy with the Metric Halo.
sq225917
14-02-2012, 11:46
Just point is passing, it's not too relevant to the debate...as for USB cables supposed to sound identical...this might be true if they all conformed to the 90 ohm standard and were well shielded. A cable not complying to the impedance regs will suffer reflections. This is basic stuff that seems to be overlooked.
They all do give or take a few ohms, there's no way for them not to do so given the characteristic impedance comes from the spacing of the wires in the sockets and the twisted pair configuration.
The issue with USB is the rejection of PSU noise on the 5v line at the receiving component. There's no need for fancy shielding, the signal level is high enough not to care about RFI and the twisted pair rejects common mode anyway . Simple galvanic isolation at the receiving end is all that is required, surprisingly enough by far the majority of USb dacs still do not implement this correctly.
The Rega does, in fairness...
They all do give or take a few ohms, there's no way for them not to do so given the characteristic impedance comes from the spacing of the wires in the sockets and the twisted pair configuration.
The issue with USB is the rejection of PSU noise on the 5v line at the receiving component. There's no need for fancy shielding, the signal level is high enough not to care about RFI and the twisted pair rejects common mode anyway . Simple galvanic isolation at the receiving end is all that is required, surprisingly enough by far the majority of USb dacs still do not implement this correctly.
I've seen measurements that claim 60R to 70R impedance is not that unusual,that's well outside the tolerance of the usb spec. I don't have the kit to measure impedance so I can't back this up from direct experience. It's interesting though that my best sounding cable is from my Toshiba disk drive, it's shielded and has a ferrite ring on it.
Galv isolation was good on my previous dac but my current one needs a hispeed usb2 isolator, most are only fullspeed unfortunately. No matter, the new dac sounds really good even without galv isolation.
A well designed valve amp should not sound soft or wooly, if it does then its a poor design or uses poor components like weak o/p transformers. A well designed valve amp will have very good open loop linearity and require little or no feed back to work correctly. It will exhibit a clear and transparent sound whilst still keeping distortion down to low levels.
Audio/Music can never be a rigid science, its an emotional experience, it evokes an emotional response...right from the artists, the people in the studio recording and mixing it down to the purchase and enjoyment of listening to it.
Utterly spot-on, Neal!! :clap:
And you wonder why I miss you when you're not around? ;)
Marco.
Hi Frank,
Also the statement "that old chestnut about euphonic colouration" has become an old chestnut in itself, so frequently is it used to, without explanation, reject any data which shows that this may indeed well be the case.
FWIW I am not a big fan of Computer Audiophile web site either Marco.
Lol - so I haven't upset you, and you haven't gone off crying to mummy? :eyebrows:
Good! ;)
I completely agree. We're simply a slave to our experiences.
Therefore, if your experiences to date of valve amps have all been bad, then it stands to reason that's what you'll think is the case, so you're perfectly entitled to have that opinion, as it's an honest one, based on genuine listening experience.
Perhaps one day you'll hear one you like? :)
The problem I have is with people who judge valve amps on specs alone and what supposedly is 'proven' by measurements, thus forming immovable opinions based on little or no listening experience to the best examples of the breed. The fact is, you cannot *know* how intrinsically good ANY equipment is until you have heard the best that it can do.
I have no time for people who are closed-minded and absolutist. Their 'opinions' are next to worthless.
Marco.
Not upset at all. I stopped posting yesterday evening because I am away from home and the cottage we are staying in, and went back to, has no internet access.
Here I am listening on headphones...
Glad to hear it, Frank. You know we lurves ya! :)
Marco.
griffo104
14-02-2012, 14:19
well I don't like Audio Note products especially, and I dislike their entire philosophy.
Here is a company producinf Dacs for £61.4k and £96k and trying to say that modern stuff is essentially cheap rubbish and that the old vintage ways are best, and then talk about other companies cheapening things for profit.
Rubbish.
I've no doubt that some modern stuff is poor, made from cheap components and aimed at purely making a profit but can someone please explain to me what can be in a dac to justify £96k ? but these other modern comapnies have also been able to get music components sounding far better at reasonable cost across a far wider range of people than stupidly priced stuff such as Audio Note.
there are companies like Shindo who fully believe in vintage methodologies and NOS components who produce stuff at a tiny fraction of what companies such as Audio Note produce them at.
And this from the same guy who a few years ago wrote an article saying it's better judge the performance from an hifi using music you DON'T know. Well maybe it is for his hifi as once you do hear something familiar you realise how mush detail is missing from it.
the guy wants to be held in the same esteem as Kondo and other prioducts like and to be fair he simply isn't in the same league.
well I don't like Audio Note products especially, and I dislike their entire philosophy.
Here is a company producinf Dacs for £61.4k and £96k and trying to say that modern stuff is essentially cheap rubbish and that the old vintage ways are best, and then talk about other companies cheapening things for profit.
Rubbish.
I've no doubt that some modern stuff is poor, made from cheap components and aimed at purely making a profit but can someone please explain to me what can be in a dac to justify £96k ? but these other modern comapnies have also been able to get music components sounding far better at reasonable cost across a far wider range of people than stupidly priced stuff such as Audio Note.
there are companies like Shindo who fully believe in vintage methodologies and NOS components who produce stuff at a tiny fraction of what companies such as Audio Note produce them at.
And this from the same guy who a few years ago wrote an article saying it's better judge the performance from an hifi using music you DON'T know. Well maybe it is for his hifi as once you do hear something familiar you realise how mush detail is missing from it.
the guy wants to be held in the same esteem as Kondo and other prioducts like and to be fair he simply isn't in the same league.
Good point.
Lodgesound
14-02-2012, 14:56
A DAC for £96000????????
In best Simon Cowell voice........."Seriously seriously come on!!!"
I'm sorry but professional interfaces used in the top studios in the world cost around a tenth of this at most................for £96K you could buy 2 Studer A827 24 track machines brand new when they were current and have enough small change for a top quality mixing desk as well.
Utterly ridiculous pricing - sorry.
Canetoad
14-02-2012, 15:04
I can't believe that, based on price, it's 480 times better than a Standac or similar. :stalks:
I suppose if you have tens of millions in the bank there is no fun in buying a DAC that only cost say £5K. You just wouldn't get the same buzz. And all that money is no use unless you are spending it.
A DAC for £96000????????
In best Simon Cowell voice........."Seriously seriously come on!!!"
I'm sorry but professional interfaces used in the top studios in the world cost around a tenth of this at most................for £96K you could buy 2 Studer A827 24 track machines brand new when they were current and have enough small change for a top quality mixing desk as well.
Utterly ridiculous pricing - sorry.
Yeah but, they wouldn't have that prestigious label on them would they.
Lets face it, you don't receive quite the same "Oh look, custom built shiny things" response from the audiophile community by posting pics of some non descript box of electronics.
This is what AN prey on basically imo. It's an image, much like that that Naim spent so long cultivating.
Unfortunately what still seems to eacape some audiophiles is how something looks often bears no relation to how it sounds.
It's not going to change.
Canetoad
14-02-2012, 15:18
Yeah but, they wouldn't have that prestigious label on them would they.
Lets face it, you don't receive quite the same "Oh look, custom built shiny things" response from the audiophile community by posting pics of some non descript box of electronics.
This is what AN prey on basically imo. It's an image, much like that that Naim spent so long cultivating.
Unfortunately what still seems to eacape some audiophiles is how something looks often bears no relation to how it sounds.
It's not going to change.
Sorry, I'm quite happy with my small willie... :cool:
Hi Griffo,
I can't argue with anything you've written.
However, it's worth pointing out again that this thread isn't about championing how 'wonderful' Audio Note are, or that I'm holding them up as some sort of 'bastions' of all that is great in audio - I'm not.
I've never used their equipment and practically know nothing about the company.
I simply agreed with the sentiments expressed by PQ in the exact text from the AN website, and nothing else other than that, which was quoted in the first post on this thread. If those sentiments were genuine, then he and I share similar beliefs and values in audio.
It's got feck all to do with £96,000 DACs, which is utter lunacy.
In that respect, I suggest that some people go back and read exactly what it is I'm endorsing! ;)
Since then, the discussion has evolved and developed naturally into other avenues, as happens with all good threads here on AoS, so we'll simply be allowing things to take their natural course :)
Marco.
Audioman
14-02-2012, 15:57
I wholeheartedly agree with the comments about AN's pricing policy which I hinted at in my earlier post. They do however make more affordable products but I have never been overly impressed by the sound of their kit at shows. Frankly they don't even look that good from the bling for millionaires point of view. They are a very nich and slightly irrelevant brand in the wider hi-fi scene unlike Naim who have developed a much stronger profile but likewise have failed to impress me.
As for the valve v solid state argument there are good and bad in both camps. Since there are more manufacturers of solid state there are probably more realy good solid state designs out there than valve. I think the decision or preference for one or another is down to taste and practicality. Solid state is far more practicle and I think Marco would agree that both technologies can sound similar at a certain quality level. Also a good sounding amp does not need to be stuffed with boutique components and silver wound transformers.
One area were I would agree there is cost cutting is in quite expensive designs that are not optimised in standard form by the omission of a few higher spec components or inadequate power supplies. Why is there a need for the Musical Fidelity component upgrade service or the purchase of optional offboard power supplies in the case of Naim or Cyrus brands ?
Audioman
14-02-2012, 16:05
I simply agreed with the sentiments expressed by PQ in the exact text from the AN website, and nothing else other than that, which was quoted in the first post on this thread. If those sentiments were genuine, then he and I share similar beliefs and values in audio.
It's got feck all to do with £96,000 DACs.
In that respect, I suggest that some people go back and read exactly what it is I'm endorsing! ;)
Since then, the discussion has evolved and developed naturally into other avenues, as happens with all good threads here on AoS, so we'll simply be allowing things to take their natural course :)
Marco.
Marco. I think the problem with these comments is that on the surface it may be easy to agree with them. However if you put them in the context of PQ's product range, the design philosphy and the pricing policy of AN products it's difficult to divorce this from a marketing exercise. AN rely more heavily than any other manufacturer on grading their range by the number of boutique components rather than an apparent overall change in the basic circuit design.
Paul.
Solid state is far more practicle and I think Marco would agree that both technologies can sound similar at a certain quality level
Absolutely, Paul. That is *exactly* what Martin T and I have found, with our respective kit.
The problem is, some people feel qualified to make definitive judgements on valve amps way beyond what their experience warrants.
Marco.
griffo104
14-02-2012, 16:09
Hi Griffo,
I can't argue with anything you've written.
However, it's worth pointing out again that this thread isn't about championing how 'wonderful' Audio Note are, or that I'm holding them up as some sort of 'bastions' of all that is great in audio - I'm not.
I've never used their equipment and practically know nothing about the company.
I simply agreed with the sentiments expressed by PQ in the exact text from the AN website, and nothing else other than that, which was quoted in the first post on this thread. If those sentiments were genuine, then he and I share similar beliefs and values in audio.
It's got feck all to do with £96,000 DACs.
In that respect, I suggest that some people go back and read exactly what it is I'm endorsing! ;)
Since then, the discussion has evolved and developed naturally into other avenues, as happens with all good threads here on AoS, so in that respect, we'll simply be allowing things to take their natural course :)
Marco.
PQ has his own 'marketing' decisions for stating what he has, something his flock lap up.
In that respect then no I don't think you are like him at all and I'm not sure you do share the same beliefs.
Taking what was a Voyd design originally and creating a deck that costs £68k surely goes just as much against the grain of what you stand for ? Not only that but will support only their own or Rega cut tonearms.
when companies like Grand Prix or Brinkmann are using just as much modern thinking and materials and yet can create superbly engineered designs for less than a quarter of what this deck sells for - but not as many boxes with bits of silver wire of course.
Sorry I disagree with you, as I don't really think you are from the same belief system.
I think the cost cutting is done as that is what the public are happy with.
Hi fi is now at it's lowest point in my hifi.
Gone are the days when loads of people had quad,tannoy,rogers etc.
If you want quality now new be prepared to pay.
Most people really are not interested in hifi as there primary home leisure activety.
I would guess for most people TV-comp-surround sound are far higher up than a great sounding hifi.
In the 60s,70s and 80s things were very different.
As they say "the public get what the public want".
Marco. I think the problem with these comments is that on the surface it may be easy to agree with them. However if you put them in the context of PQ's product range, the design philosphy and the pricing policy of AN products it's difficult to divorce this from a marketing exercise. AN rely more heavily than any other manufacturer on grading their range by the number of boutique components rather than an apparent overall change in the basic circuit design.
Sure, Paul. I don't disagree.
But I still feel that what he was outlining about the industry were very real issues, which most definitely DO exist, and which I believe deserve to be exposed and tackled accordingly, and to get people thinking about something that perhaps they hadn't considered before.
*That* was the whole purpose of starting this thread! :)
Marco.
Sorry I disagree with you, as I don't really think you are from the same belief system.
In many ways, I'm sure we're not, but in terms of the particular sentiments I highlighted, and nothing else, we most definitely are! :)
In fact, PQ intrigues me now more than ever. He's someone I'd love to chat to informally over a few beers, or maybe a nice bottle of claret ;)
Marco.
I think the cost cutting is done as that is what the public are happy with.
Hi fi is now at it's lowest point in my hifi.
Gone are the days when loads of people had quad,tannoy,rogers etc.
If you want quality now new be prepared to pay.
Most people really are not interested in hifi as there primary home leisure activety.
I would guess for most people TV-comp-surround sound are far higher up than a great sounding hifi.
In the 60s,70s and 80s things were very different.
As they say "the public get what the public want".
I completely agree, Stu.
It's the bits in bold that bother me most, as we've largely (and perhaps unconsciously) become victims of our insatiable desire for new technology (technology in audio which is many ways isn't necessarily better than what went before it) and willingness to trade genuine quality for low prices and convenience.
The question is, what can we do to improve matters, and to drive audio equipment manufacturers towards producing more products which truly satisfy at the most fundamentally important level: out-and-out sonic performance. *That* needs to start being their primary motive again, as it once was with the great companies of old, instead of cost-cutting to maximise profit.
Let's see some genuine innovation and striving for excellence throughout the audio industry, rather than simply a satisfaction with mediocrity and a desire to increase the value of pension funds... Oh, and we, as consumers, need to become more discerning again, be willing to pay for quality (within reason), and give manufacturers the motivation again to strive for excellence!!
As they say, it takes two to tango.
Marco.
I completely agree, Stu.
It's the bits in bold that bother me most, as we've largely (and perhaps unconsciously) become victims of our insatiable desire for new technology (technology in audio which is many ways isn't necessarily better than what went before it) and willingness to trade genuine quality for low prices and convenience.
The question is, what can we do to improve matters, and to drive audio equipment manufacturers towards producing more products which truly satisfy at the most fundamentally important level: out-and-out sonic performance. *That* needs to start being their primary motive again, as it once was with the great companies of old, instead of cost-cutting to maximise profit.
Let's see some genuine innovation and striving for excellence throughout the audio industry, rather than simply a satisfaction with mediocrity and a desire to increase the value of pension funds... Oh, and we, as consumers, need to become more discerning again, be willing to pay for quality (within reason), and give manufacturers the motivation again to strive for excellence!!
As they say, it takes two to tango.
Marco.
I really think it's to late and that quality audio is on it's last legs marco.
If we want superb quality items we will have to pay.
They will be small companies making great stuff...but at a large cost.
For best bang for buck i agree on getting a great older product and bringing on if needed to a higher sq level.
I find it extremely sad that most youngsters will remember is going into richer sounds or the apple store.
I used to lust over the superb engineering of the products made in the late 70s early 80s but i can see the last good quality hi fi shops dying out within the next 3 -5 years.
Quality hi fi is a dying art and a minority sport.:(
What exactly are all these “genuine innovations” in the last thirty odd years of Hi Fi that don’t involve newer technologies, the very thing the article seems to be condemning?
The rhetoric sounds great but if you read it quickly enough, but the audio industry is making some superb equipment with all these crap modern components and new technologies.
The thing is, the guy who is bleating about it isn’t; he’s still using the old stuff and even worse, wants people to pay a fortune for it, even though at least some who make comparative listening tests must have come to the conclusion that the modern built to a price kit sounded better.
Frankly, the notion that the only way to achieve quality audio is too build the Audio Note way is ridiculous.
griffo104
14-02-2012, 18:10
Innovation is being able to listen to music in any room wirelessly, or being able to carry 5000 tracks in your hand.
there are companies that try to push the boundaries - look at companies such as Ortofon or Lyra continuing to try and extract the most out of the vinyl grooves and offer better performance per pound than ever. Look at Lavardin and their 'memory' in electrical signals or Densen with their demag built in to their amps or Devialet withtheir digital amps/DACS all built in to one curcuit.
You have to define sound quality and what it is you want - either a nice euphonic sound that makes everything sound nice or an accurate system showing you the warts and all as we all look for different things from our sound quality. It's not black and white as mentioned elsewhere.
Frankly, the notion that the only way to achieve quality audio is too build the Audio Note way is ridiculous.
Indeed, John, but no-one's actually saying that. I'd hold up Croft and Anthony TD's designs as shining examples of what the industry should be buidling more of, than Audio Note, and that's not just because I use it.
It's because both are in the business for the right reasons and have a passion to achieve excellence, whilst offering 'real world' prices for their equipment.
I just wish that there was more drive from consumers to value the highest standards of sonic reproduction with audio equipment, in the traditional hi-fi arena, than simply a desire to own the latest technological 'gizmo', which is sadly where most of the industry "making superb equipment" appears to be in evidence these days.
Marco.
Innovation is being able to listen to music in any room wirelessly, or being able to carry 5000 tracks in your hand.
Yes, but not everyone is interested in that if it results in substandard sonic performance, compared to what you're used to from a top-notch traditional separates system. I couldn't give a monkey's bollocks if I was able to carry a million tracks in my hand, if they all sounded pish (i.e pish by the sonic standards I'm used to from my main system).
Also, I never use public transport or have any need to listen to music on the go. When I'm out, I'm in the car, and so simply listen to CDs there, and when I'm at home, I have my main hi-fi system. I work from home, and can listen to music all day if I like. Therefore iPods, fancy mobile phones, and whatever other portable music devices there are on the market, don't interest me one iota.
I realise that other people's situations are different, but this discussion is about the declining standards of today's traditional 2-channel hi-fi equipment and how it can be improved, or indeed if such a notion is beyond reality.
Marco.
wee tee cee
14-02-2012, 18:25
Its all a bit doom and gloom, this thread....
My son is turning 18 next month and has built up a lovely sounding system from all my cast off kit. A few of his pals having heard it got systems of they're own from Richer sounds at christmas.
They are reloading their collections at lossless onto Pc/laptop/play station the first step is harder for kids just now....look at the entry level prices for the established brands, Its pretty salty..
Maybe we as a community could look to help youngsters getting onto the first step.
Then again maybe we are a dying breed like dinosaurs.
Tony.
And the likes of NAD, HRT, using two examples I've heard aren't then in the business of achieving excellence at real world prices then?
I'm sure there are plenty of others I haven't heard.
I wonder if there are actually less companies at least attempting to make high quality affordable audio products than there were back in the good old days before all this digital computer nonsense arrived.
You see, I think this is the problem, the crap stuff has got so good that the expensive stuff is feeling the pinch and isn't liking it.
All this has imo very little to do with striving for excellence as such. Many of the consumers are pushing for better quality and I would argue they're getting it by and large.
How I wonder would my old transistor radio stack up against one of today's ithingies; not very well I have a sneaking suspicion, not in manufacturing quality nor sound quality.
Maybe we as a community could look to help youngsters getting onto the first step.
That's an excellent idea, Tony.
Personally, I'd like to see more youngsters exposed to just how wonderful their favourite tunes sound on a proper, decent quality separates system, than simply them following whatever the latest gadget is.
I've got teenage relatives, who sometimes visit, and every time I play their favourite CDs on my system they're gob-smacked at how good they sound. You should see their faces light up when they listen! And they can clearly hear how crap the same music sounds on their iPods...
And as for my turntable and records, well, they think those are 'well cool'. So, youngsters are definitely discerning - they unquestionably know what good sound is. Therefore, I'd like to see more parents, who own quality audio equipment, sit down and listen to music together with their children, and nurture their interest both in music, and in how to hear it at its best.
After all, our love of music and hi-fi was often inherited from our parents or members of our family. We must keep that cycle going for as long as possible and not allow it to die.
Marco.
Its all a bit doom and gloom, this thread....
My son is turning 18 next month and has built up a lovely sounding system from all my cast off kit. A few of his pals having heard it got systems of they're own from Richer sounds at christmas.
They are reloading their collections at lossless onto Pc/laptop/play station the first step is harder for kids just now....look at the entry level prices for the established brands, Its pretty salty..
Maybe we as a community could look to help youngsters getting onto the first step.
Then again maybe we are a dying breed like dinosaurs.
Tony.
Why the f##k would we want to attempt to coerce the young into adopting all our outdated technology?
As you've pointed out, a visit to Richer Sounds with £300 will I suspect give them a better sounding system than a visit to the Hi Fi dealers that were about in my day for the same money.
All this has imo very little to do with striving for excellence as such. Many of the consumers are pushing for better quality and I would argue they're getting it by and large.
How I wonder would my old transistor radio stack up against one of today's ithingies; not very well I have a sneaking suspicion, not in manufacturing quality nor sound quality.
My own first 'hifi' (Rotel integrated, BSR turntable and no-name bookshelf speakers) was not that well made; the amp kept failing in one channel, and was in repair most of the time I owned it. I had similar reliability problems with a Nytech integrated when I'd moved a few steps up the hifi ladder.
Sound quality is hard to recall that far back, and of course my ears were much younger, but I do recall losing interest in recorded music altogether when I was using a Sony DD turntable in the late 70s/early 80s; I suspect it would be easily bettered by the Sony MP3 player I use for mobile listening.
Why the f##k would we want to attempt to coerce the young into adopting all our outdated technology?
As you've pointed out, a visit to Richer Sounds with £300 will I suspect give them a better sounding system than a visit to the Hi Fi dealers that were about in my day for the same money.
Bollocks!! ;)
A £300 separates system, when I was first getting into 'serious' hi-fi in 1982, would've gotten you a bloody good sound!!
If you're serious about your first sentence, then no wonder some youngsters today are the way that they are.
Marco.
:lol:
Care to expand on that Marco. ;)
Someone work out what £300 is in old money real terms. Yep I can still do pounds, shillings and pence if necessary.
You know *exactly* what I mean!
Marco.
I got the sentiment mate, its the accuracy that eludes me atm ;)
Audioman
14-02-2012, 19:02
I really think it's to late and that quality audio is on it's last legs marco.
If we want superb quality items we will have to pay.
They will be small companies making great stuff...but at a large cost.
For best bang for buck i agree on getting a great older product and bringing on if needed to a higher sq level.
I find it extremely sad that most youngsters will remember is going into richer sounds or the apple store.
I used to lust over the superb engineering of the products made in the late 70s early 80s but i can see the last good quality hi fi shops dying out within the next 3 -5 years.
Quality hi fi is a dying art and a minority sport.:(
A lot of those products from 70's had pretty mediocre sound. Lovely Japanese build quality though. Thats why the lightly built NAD3020 pissed all over those flashy Japanese receivers. I think some posters have rather short distorted memories. Also much UK built kit had reliability issues.
As far as all quality equipment being unafordable I don't think so. I paid around £20 in 1973 for SP25 built into plinth by shop and Sonotone cartridge. You can get a Rega RP1 for I think £220. This is probably cheaper taking into account wage inflation over nearly 40 years and better sound quality. Also you can get an entry level seperates system at Richer Sounds for the cost of an Ipad. It appears plenty young people can afford the later.
I have also noticed the return to affordable seperates from a number of Japanese brands (even if they are made in China) and there is of course Cambridge and NAD. Not anywhere near state of the art but certainly qualify as real Hi-fi. Of course if you want the best there are small specialists that provide high SQ at rather less than Audio Note pricing. Rega, Croft may in general be out of the range of teenagers but are affordable for most that get interested in audio. For those starting out there is also the used market.
There has always been poorly designed equipment sold as hi-fi. Amstrad amps and those all in one stack systems come to mind. This is the cheap but looks good stuff the general public always bought and before that there was the Dansette record player. The convenience product has now morphed from these to the MP3 player. This wider market was never fussy about sound quality.
Audioman
14-02-2012, 19:10
Bollocks!! ;)
A £300 separates system, when I was first getting into 'serious' hi-fi in 1982, would've gotten you a bloody good sound!!
If you're serious about your first sentence, then no wonder some youngsters today are the way that they are.
Marco.
Yes a 1982 £300 system would cost probably £1200 today and I'm sure better than a £300 system of today. However the £300 system of today would give a taste of real hi-fi sound thanks to far east manufacturing costs.
Furthur thoughts on a £1200 system today - you can buy much better sound than the £300 in 1982. Obviously the conclusion is that hi-fi has actualy got better in the last 30 years and more sound per pound allowing for inflation.
You have to start somewhere - if you never buy those budget seperates you will never upgrade and end up with something really special 10 or even 20 years down the line. There is still a perception amongst the uninitiated that proper hi-fi costs a fortune cf Audionote. Youngsters need it demonstrated to them that they can get a start up system for just a couple of hundred - then they suddenly take an interest. Seen it happen.
You have to start somewhere - if you never buy those budget seperates you will never upgrade and end up with something really special 10 or even 20 years down the line. There is still a perception amongst the uninitiated that proper hi-fi costs a fortune cf Audionote. Youngsters need it demonstrated to them that they can get a start up system for just a couple of hundred - then they suddenly take an interest. Seen it happen.
Yes; also bear in mind they won't want to be arsing about with special components, fancy cabling or mains re-wiring; just something cheap and cheerful that does the job.
A lot of those products from 70's had pretty mediocre sound. Lovely Japanese build quality though. Thats why the lightly built NAD3020 pissed all over those flashy Japanese receivers. I think some posters have rather short distorted memories. Also much UK built kit had reliability issues.
As far as all quality equipment being unafordable I don't think so. I paid around £20 in 1973 for SP25 built into plinth by shop and Sonotone cartridge. You can get a Rega RP1 for I think £220. This is probably cheaper taking into account wage inflation over nearly 40 years and better sound quality. Also you can get an entry level seperates system at Richer Sounds for the cost of an Ipad. It appears plenty young people can afford the later.
I have also noticed the return to affordable seperates from a number of Japanese brands (even if they are made in China) and there is of course Cambridge and NAD. Not anywhere near state of the art but certainly qualify as real Hi-fi. Of course if you want the best there are small specialists that provide high SQ at rather less than Audio Note pricing. Rega, Croft may in general be out of the range of teenagers but are affordable for most that get interested in audio. For those starting out there is also the used market.
There has always been poorly designed equipment sold as hi-fi. Amstrad amps and those all in one stack systems come to mind. This is the cheap but looks good stuff the general public always bought and before that there was the Dansette record player. The convenience product has now morphed from these to the MP3 player. This wider market was never fussy about sound quality.
Was thinking more quad rogers tannoy spendor in the late 70s.
The 3020 was my first proper amp i bought.
It went back the day after.
For the £70 it was ok but i got a A&R a60 which was far better but of course more.
A £300 system in the early 80s would have got you something like a little oak tt a nad 3020 and a pair of diamonds
Not sure where this system would fit in the lower end now.
Yes; also bear in mind they won't want to be arsing about with special components, fancy cabling or mains re-wiring; just something cheap and cheerful that does the job.
Yep - although I would have to recommend a Belkin mains bloc to plug it all into - uh oh - slippery slope alert....
Back in '86 I recall going into a dealers in Liverpool with about £170 to spend on a single source hi-fi . Their cheapest amp was a Rotel at £120. That was the end of that, I bought an Aiwa midi system from Atlantis for £150. Then I went to college and discovered Richer Sounds, sold the Aiwa to my cousin, bought a TT amp and speakers for £120.
Had I known anything at the time I would not have bought the Aiwa, but I was a know-nothing kid, there was no internet and no-one to advise me. I think we forget how oblivious to the whole wide world we are at 16 years of age.
I have to laugh at Marco's story about the kids listening to their favourite music on his system, eyes wide. Then they say 'wow Uncle Marco - how much does this cost?' :lol:
Audioman
14-02-2012, 19:55
Was thinking more quad rogers tannoy spendor in the late 70s.
The 3020 was my first proper amp i bought.
It went back the day after.
For the £70 it was ok but i got a A&R a60 which was far better but of course more.
A £300 system in the early 80s would have got you something like a little oak tt a nad 3020 and a pair of diamonds
Not sure where this system would fit in the lower end now.
The NAD was more than OK in the right system. I don't think the A60 was vastly better SQ wise but different and you did pay quite a bit more for it. The NAD's casing and knobs were el cheapo though. Ironicaly original Diamonds now look quite expensive for what they were and though budget favourite would not be the easiest load to drive. In the case of small budget speakers (made in China) SPP has increased considerably.
My SME 3009 mk2 arm was a months income, when I eventually got one.
The first turntable I bought I didn't have any idea it wouldn't come with a cartridge - had no idea they weren't part of any turntable, and certainly not aware an arm may be separate. I got a ceramic cartridge and fed it into the microphone input of my mono valve tape recorder and that was my first system. It cost me every penny I had.
I spent my money on hifi and music for 5 or 6 years before I bought a car. In the early days I made most stuff myself. I learned a lot.
Those were the days...
I’ve come up with this lot as my modern horrid new tech crap as my choice for something someone may care to put together as new from say the 1970‘s for the equivalent expenditure.
I need a pair of speakers though and I don't have a clue what’s good in commercially available speakers at this price range so suggestions welcome.
I think, providing the speakers are half decent someone is going to have to try very hard to come up with a combo that sounds as good for the equivalent money.
I reckon it will blow the majority of yer passed down mid fi to pieces.
Source; $140, say £150 with tax and shipping.
http://store.voyage.hk/KMPD2f.php?id=54
no surprises here
About £130
http://www.amazon.com/HRT-Music-Streamer-II-Resolution/dp/B0038O4UFQ
One of these
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mini-T-T-Amp-HiFi-Audio-Amplifier-5A-PSU-TA2020-UK-/180819921260?pt=UK_AudioTVElectronics_HomeAudioHiF i_Amplifiers&hash=item2a19b5096c
and say a pair of Klipsch B20‘s at around £260
So, say roughly £600 which is affordable for at least some young people given the prices I’ve seen for some mobile phones they live on.
What happens if you want a modern system, but have no computer skills, no knowledge as how to set all that up properly, or any desire to use a bloody computer in the first place, and simply want to pop a CD into a drawer and press play? ;)
Show me a current system like that for £300, that after listening to it, wouldn't send you running from the room screeming!! :wowzer:
Marco.
You do what you did with your first turntable arm and cartridge set up mate; learn! ;)
Wait, lets make up our minds here, are we after sound quality or convenience?
What happens if you hate computers, like me, and would no sooner put one near your hi-fi system than suck on a dog's jobby? :D
And how much of that stuff you listed came from Richard Sounds? It also cost more than £300. Your proposed system cost double that!
Remember what you posted earlier:
As you've pointed out, a visit to Richer Sounds with £300 will I suspect give them a better sounding system than a visit to the Hi Fi dealers that were about in my day for the same money.
???
;)
Marco.
Audioman
14-02-2012, 20:34
I’ve come up with this lot as my modern horrid new tech crap as my choice for something someone may care to put together as new from say the 1970‘s for the equivalent expenditure.
I need a pair of speakers though and I don't have a clue what’s good in commercially available speakers at this price range so suggestions welcome.
I think, providing the speakers are half decent someone is going to have to try very hard to come up with a combo that sounds as good for the equivalent money.
I reckon it will blow the majority of yer passed down mid fi to pieces.
Source; $140, say £150 with tax and shipping.
http://store.voyage.hk/KMPD2f.php?id=54
no surprises here
About £130
http://www.amazon.com/HRT-Music-Streamer-II-Resolution/dp/B0038O4UFQ
One of these
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mini-T-T-Amp-HiFi-Audio-Amplifier-5A-PSU-TA2020-UK-/180819921260?pt=UK_AudioTVElectronics_HomeAudioHiF i_Amplifiers&hash=item2a19b5096c
and say a pair of Klipsch B20‘s at around £260
So, say roughly £600 which is affordable for at least some young people given the prices I’ve seen for some mobile phones they live on.
John.
This presumes computer skills up to technician level and assumes no CD or vinyl. T amp into Klipsch speakers ? Not having heard this combination with digital audio I would expect this to be ear bleedingly bright. Perhaps you know different.
John.
This presumes computer skills up to technician level and assumes no CD or vinyl.
Indeed!!
John seems to forget those very important facts!!! :doh:
Not everyone is in love with computers like he is.
Marco.
I don't know shit mate, I'm just guessing about the speakers......I did write as much.
I haven't bought a new pair of speakers since the great winter of 63, or there abouts.:eyebrows:
In fact, I don't do much in the way of modern kit at all, let alone new shop bought stuff.
I'm just trying to demonstrate that some of this modern new fangled tech is in fact very good.
As for the computer skills bit, its only awld gits like us that struggle with that stuff. Any self respecting teenager these days will have that lot hacked into his dads computer and be downloading torrent files from some pirate site.
@Marco. Okay, you got me :lol: None of this comes from Richer Sounds. :doh::D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.