PDA

View Full Version : Is High End Gear A Lot Of Smoke and Mirrors?



Hypnotoad
10-10-2009, 14:20
Here is part of an article you can find easily on the net about Bob Carver making his SS amp sound the same as a valve amp costing five times as much.

It shows the the way the audio world works and that sometimes the most expensive is not always the best, they just have the most hype.

I think that's why I like vintage gear a lot because you can buy something from the days when they built things to a standard not just a price.

So are we all being had, is that ZYX Airy cart that much better than a Benz Glider costing three times as much?

Or is that SME 10 turntable that much better than a Mitchel Gyro?

Is it just hocus pocus and trickery to make us believe these things are worth all that extra cash.

Maybe that's why my wife says she can't hear some of the differences that I can, maybe the differences are imaginary after all.

Bob Carver is one of the most brilliant audio marketers of all time. In the early 1970’s he started a company called Phase Linear, selling 700 watt amps in what was then a 70-watt world. After Phase Linear he started Carver Corporation, which produced a steady stream of new products. Most of Carver’s innovations fell in the category of genuinely useful, as opposed to gimmicky, and they were aimed at the “Mid-Fi” market, i.e. people who spent $2,500 on their audio system, as opposed to the high end $25,000 crowd.

Bob knew what all real audio engineers know: That those minute differences between amplifiers that are audible are merely the cause of very small disproportions of bass, midrange and treble, and when you equalize those, the remaining audible differences disappear entirely.

Knowing that his market was the Mid-Fi crowd, not the high-end crowd, he approached a hi-fi magazine, Stereophile. He gave them a challenge: He said that he was coming out with a new amp, and they could pick any other amp of their choice and he would make his new amp sound identical to the one they chose, within 48 hours. Didn’t matter how expensive, what brand, or anything else.

And he promised that he would make all the mods within his own hotel room near the Stereophile offices, far away from his lab and his company headquarters.

They took the bait.

Carver won. The egotistical, golden-eared editors of this magazine could not hear the difference between Carver’s new amp and the extremely expensive rival. They would throw the switch and nobody could accurately report which amp they were listening to.

So Carver started publicizing his $800 amp and telling the world how its sound was indistinguishable from something that cost five times as much. It made great ad copy, as you can see on the next couple of pages.

The story was published, then letters started pouring in from angry readers, insulted that any $800 amp could be equal to a $4000 one. The staff at Stereophile realized they’d been had. (Ironically, Carver honestly and truthfully exposed their game.) Their ears blushed crimson and they had to do major damage control. You see, high-end magazines have a fiduciary responsibility to their advertisers to maintain the illusion. If you read the buyer’s guides, you’ll notice that almost all the “A” grade components are more expensive than the “B” grade components, which are always more expensive than the “C” grade components. There’s a reason for this, you understand. This illusion had been shattered and they had to put out the fire fast....

“Out of respect, ethics (and even a little bit of awe), neither Stereophile Magazine nor Carver will divulge the name of the legendary “world class” mono vacuum tube amplifiers that were selected as the M-1.0t’s contender”

DSJR
10-10-2009, 15:24
Conrad Johnson wasn't it????


I'll get into tons of trouble, so I'll just say that, IMO, there is good expensive kit and good average kit dressed up to be expensive.

Richard Dunn's alegations of "slurp" are well founded in some audio quarters and although far-eastern made gear has helped to bring some prices down, there's still loads of "slurp" for the big boys able to order speaker batches of several hundred pairs at a time, for example. One pays up front and the goods come over a couple of months later as I recall.

In amongst the above there seem to be genuine people doing good stuff for fair prices and I'm sure I can consider the friendlier trade people on here as examples (the Caiman DAC being a prime example I think, and other purveyers of amps full of lovely glowing bottles at not silly money (compared to the imported stuff from the states ..)

Hope that's fair...

Joe
10-10-2009, 15:34
In the end, of course, all you can really do is listen for yourself and make the judgement on price vs performance based on what you can afford and how highly hifi ranks in your needs/wants. Is amp X 'worth' ten times amp Y? Who can say.

If other people are wasting their money, that's a shame, but essentially it's their problem.

Themis
10-10-2009, 15:59
Back in the late eighties, just after "the Carver Challenge" I tried to figure out how could all this relate to that time's incestuous relationship between hifi-press/AES/audio-industry.

I mean, back in 85:
-Stereophile was no more the underground hifi magazine it used to be, it needed to find (and protect) its place in a commercial world,
-the audio industry needed to blur the established image of "good sound", while trying to sell the (very expensive) CD "revolution" both to the studios and the consumers, and
-the AES... oh well, nevermind.

I never found out an answer that managed to give me a clear image of this relationship. But I'm a patient guy. ;)

The Grand Wazoo
10-10-2009, 16:10
Hi Philip,
Spookily enough I posted this just a short while ago:
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3931

Themis
10-10-2009, 16:17
Maybe that's why my wife says she can't hear some of the differences that I can, maybe the differences are imaginary after all.
Well, I might get into trouble saying this, but "some" differences (sometimes) are not where you expect them to be...

I made a (classic) small experiment the other day, with my son:
Without telling him, I asked him to compare twice the same source, telling him that they were two different sources, while maintaining a slight (1-2dB) volume difference between the two.
He (obviously) found that they sounded "differently".

But also, he ended up stating that the second (very slightly louder) was "better", "more detailed" etc.
Of course. ;)

Hypnotoad
10-10-2009, 21:19
I just got a very nice Yamaha CR1020 receiver and set it up in our bedroom with a Technics SL1200 Mk2, Denon DL-110 and some Boston Acoustics A150's.

It sounds really nice, my wife actually loves it and believe it or not we lay in bed and listen to an album or two before we go to sleep.

This morning I just had to compare it to my Luxman L-430 so I hooked it up in my main system. I was surprised how much more mellow the Luxman sounded compared to the Yamaha. The Yamaha was detailed and sounded really good but could not compete with the Luxman, I had imagined it would be the other way around.

But if anyone had told me this was the case before hand I wouldn't have believed them.

DSJR
11-10-2009, 16:28
I was spoiled... I had a lust affair with a CR1000 which beat the lot at the time...

The Grand Wazoo
11-10-2009, 16:58
Never got on with sliders myself!
But I'm more than happy with my 1020 especially at the price I paid for it.

DSJR
11-10-2009, 17:03
That's the whole thing these days, there are some cheap treasures around if you know where to look :)

The Grand Wazoo
11-10-2009, 17:08
I'm actually listening to the Yammie now - A Rory Gallagher CD via the Beresford dac & into Tannoy Mercury's.

It sounds far better than it has any right to!

hifi_dave
11-10-2009, 19:06
That's the whole thing these days, there are some cheap treasures around if you know where to look :)

I thought you'd lost the plot but then realised it was me. I thought you said 'cheap trousers'....:doh:

Actually, with the best will in the World, a vintage Yamaha receiver is not High End. I've got a couple and they are OK and fun but not cutting edge by any standard.

As for High End, as someone who has sold an awful lot of it in the past, I believe much of it is over engineered and priced accordingly but often it sounds worse than less expensive and far simpler alternatives.

The Grand Wazoo
11-10-2009, 19:28
Actually, with the best will in the World, a vintage Yamaha receiver is not High End. I've got a couple and they are OK and fun but not cutting edge by any standard.


High end?
I don't think anyone would suggest that, would they?
But fun is right.

And I don't think I could find an equivalent sounding more modern amp & tuner for under £80 including carriage.

hifi_dave
11-10-2009, 19:38
I was just going by the title of this thread which is about 'High End' and the Yamaha receiver was mentioned. I, therefore, assumed that the poster was referring to the Yamaha as 'High End'.

I have a CR1010, amongst others, which is almost as new and cost me £67 on E-Bay. You would need to spend some serious folding to get better and you'd not get the styling.

Alex_UK
11-10-2009, 20:02
I'd love to see the unit cost to manufacture a range of components from any given manufacturer - I'd be prepared to bet that the list price differential bears little resemblance - i.e. a £1,000 amp doesn't cost 5 times a £200 amp in raw materials or labour - not sure it is smoke and mirrors, but certainly marketing flim-flam!

DSJR
11-10-2009, 20:12
RD calls it "slurp."

Others call it "business." - and I don't mean that rudely either.

Alex_UK
11-10-2009, 20:21
Indeed, it is business - and I guess they would argue that the flagship products cost more to develop/advertise, yet sell less, so the R & D and marketing costs are divided amongst many less units. And of course human nature being what it is, we believe expensive=good. Stan said in another thread that all "high end" refers to is the price - how true!

Beechwoods
11-10-2009, 20:23
In terms of 'labour' you do need to consider the cost of developing new ideas; the costs of developing ideas which don't make it into production; the cost of training etc. For companies without the scale to produce high volume to offset such fixed costs, the impact on final price is going to be considerable.

Then there's the cost of maintaining high tolerances in terms of product consistency, or the costs of matching components to create a 'balanced' final product. The wasteage or overhead in doing this will be passed on in the final price.

Just some thoughts...

DSJR
11-10-2009, 20:44
My argument is that the audio rule-book was written decades ago, so the only real "R&D" would go into casework mock-ups and a few pre-production samples. Very little in audio is brand new and un-tested IMO, no matter how much it costs

Where much "Hi-End" is concerned, most of the dosh goes into casings I reckon. HiFi advertising budgets are only huge when you advertise in all the important, high-circulation general mags - I expect Bose, the bigger TV makers and possibly B&O spend several multiples in advertising than any top end manufacturers, who seem to use their biggest dealers and distributers to do it for them.

Hypnotoad
12-10-2009, 00:24
I never meant Yamaha or any other similar priced product was high end.

I mentioned them because IMO they along with vintage Sansui, Luxman etc are very good value.

They were made when they really made things to last. As opposed to the junk you see at a lot of consumer electronics stores.

High End to me are carts that cost thousands, turntables that cost ten's of thousand's etc.

We are are led to believe these are so much better because they cost a lot more.

And when do we start hearing things that aren't really there?

A good example is speaker cable can we reliably tell the difference in sound between one that's ten dollars a meter and one that's one hundred dollars a meter if blindfolded?

Is the mark IV that much better than the mark III, II or I?

There is a lot of hype in the audio industry and the only thing we have is our ears to judge it all in the end.

Alan Sircom
12-10-2009, 12:42
A lot of the things built to last years ago are just as well built today. If you buy a modern Luxman amplifier, for example, it's every bit as well made as those classic Luxman amps of the 1970s. That kind of build quality does entail a high degree of custom build and that influences the price, bearing in mind that £500 for an amplifier in the 1970s was a very different proposition to spending £500 today.

This last is important in turntable sources. A turntable is essentially an engineering concept that demands a minimum standard of build to release its potential. The greater the engineering thrown at the project, the better it gets at playing the record without introducing its own stamp on the proceedings. There may be a cut-off point, beyond which the improvements become very small, but I've not spent a great deal of time playing with the superdecks. I think the difference between a £500 and a £5,000 turntable system (assuming both are well-set-up) would be far larger than the difference between a £500 and £5,000 CD player. That said, some of the latest crop of CD players, sporting apodizing/minimum phase filters (Ayre/Esoteric/Meridian) do improve upon the performance of their predecessors in both subjective and measured tests.

In some respects, sonic improvements to high-end audio have stalled. A modern Audio Research preamp, for example, might offer a greater degree of functionality, flexibility and operational elegance over its predecessors, but whether it sounds intrinsically better than a SP10 from 20+ years ago is questionable. However, I'd argue that the current crop of loudspeakers at the high end are getting better with each successive year. This is in part because today's materials allow the speaker greater transparency and dynamic range, with few of the compromises that speakers of 10 years or less could call upon. Of course in many cases, the better the speaker the more demands it places on the rest of the system and so improvements to other components are often there to accommodate a better speaker design.

When it comes to cables and tables and such, the jury is still out. I've heard differences (I've even heard differences when someone puts little risers underneath speaker cables to get them off the floor), but I can't say definitively whether that's down to bias, or improvement. Such things don't lend themselves toward scientific testing, but whether that's down to being because there is nothing scientific to test, or because the very process of objectively testing such a claim invalidates it... and the test (in an audiophile retelling of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) is also unclear.

Ultimately, I think in many cases there are key products in high-end that create a significant improvement in performance, and then there are years of subtle changes between such significant products. Sometimes these intervening years see a trickle down of performance to more real-world prices, others you see a gradual refinement and improvement programme, tipping the price still further.

This is why you'll keep seeing products like the LP12 and the Well-Tempered, the Mark Levinson ML-2, the Audio Research SP-10, the original Electrocompaniet power amp and those first Wadia CD players, the LS3/5a, Sonus Faber Extremas and Quad Electrostatics discussed time and again. They were the products that shifted the goalposts. Those products don't come along every day, but sadly industry doesn't work well relying on the same design unchanged since 1987 and even the companies best known for a classic product need new products to survive.

DSJR
12-10-2009, 20:12
My experiences only, of course, but I remember my first visits to HiFi dave very clearly, when a number of my "Gods" were shown to be false when compared with substantially cheaper kit which out-performed it, allowing for the fact that the dearer stuff had better casework and "felt" better to use.....

Themis
12-10-2009, 20:40
My experiences only, of course, but I remember my first visits to HiFi dave very clearly, when a number of my "Gods" were shown to be false when compared with substantially cheaper kit which out-performed it, allowing for the fact that the dearer stuff had better casework and "felt" better to use.....
Someone said one day: "The right length for you legs, is when your feet touch the ground..." ;)

Spectral Morn
12-10-2009, 20:48
My experiences only, of course, but I remember my first visits to HiFi dave very clearly, when a number of my "Gods" were shown to be false when compared with substantially cheaper kit which out-performed it, allowing for the fact that the dearer stuff had better casework and "felt" better to use.....

Not having ago. But your experience showed you that your audio gods (what ever they were ? Linn, Naim)were not as good as some cheaper gear you heard at that time, in that place. This is not always the case, in other places, with other kit at other times.

Also to say that all dearer (high-End) gear has over cheaper is better case work is a gross over simplification....may be true in a few/some cases but not all.

Can we have more meat as to what did what, where and when. Is this an experience you have been able to repeat elsewhere later....and with different kit. Details are helpful.


Regards D S D L

Beechwoods
12-10-2009, 20:48
... They were the products that shifted the goalposts. Those products don't come along every day, but sadly industry doesn't work well relying on the same design unchanged since 1987 and even the companies best known for a classic product need new products to survive.

I think this is very true, but also very sad. That truly classic and still excellent components cannot sustain long-term profitable business. What a fickle bunch we are (audio-heads that is).

Mind you sometimes my wallet says that we aren't fickle enough. The used market is robust to say the least for the true classics - ESL57's, the old-school Spendor, Tannoy, Harbeth monitors... The Garrard 301 and EMT turntables to name but a few... :(

Hypnotoad
12-10-2009, 21:45
I think this is very true, but also very sad. That truly classic and still excellent components cannot sustain long-term profitable business. What a fickle bunch we are (audio-heads that is).

Mind you sometimes my wallet says that we aren't fickle enough. The used market is robust to say the least for the true classics - ESL57's, the old-school Spendor, Tannoy, Harbeth monitors... The Garrard 301 and EMT turntables to name but a few... :(

One thing that is definitely on our side is the fact that some of those with big wallets upgrade often.

I have picked up some used but not abused bargains for less than half the price of new simply because someone decided to upgrade to a higher level.:)

My Pro-Ject Tube Box II was not even run in for less than half price and my Benz Micro Ace even cheaper.

jandl100
13-10-2009, 09:06
I've indulged in a little amplifier experiment recently.

To be honest, I thought it would be a joke and that I could now happily debunk the cheap amp and confirm my belief that spending more on 'proper' hifi amplification was worthwhile.

In the event, that did not turn out to be the case - and I am currently a happy user of bi-amped Behringer A500 power amplifiers. Around £150 a shot brand new, delivered, and they bow there head to no-one as far as I am concerned. You can get 'different', sure, but these do the business in my music system in a very creditable way - and I have heard a lot of other options! :)

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii114/jandl100/Behringerbi-amp.jpg

Ali Tait
13-10-2009, 18:51
Interesting Jerry.Is this the amp version of the Standac in the VFM stakes?

DSJR
13-10-2009, 19:31
Not having ago. But your experience showed you that your audio gods (what ever they were ? Linn, Naim)were not as good as some cheaper gear you heard at that time, in that place. This is not always the case, in other places, with other kit at other times.

Also to say that all dearer (high-End) gear has over cheaper is better case work is a gross over simplification....may be true in a few/some cases but not all.

Can we have more meat as to what did what, where and when. Is this an experience you have been able to repeat elsewhere later....and with different kit. Details are helpful.


Regards D S D L

Did I say that ALL top end gear is inferior or no better than cheaper gear? Levinson *used* to make some very fine stuff.

My "Gods" by 1998 were way removed from Linn and Naim, as hifi dave should confirm - ARC, Krell, the big and good Nakamichi "Stasis design" power amps to name a few amps of the era. As far as sources were concerned, The way the Spacedeck/RB300/K9 out rhythm'd and out-tuned a well set up LP12 with Ittok/K9 was very dramatic IMO and that has stayed with me, especially as thre Spacedeck is such amazing value, having increased in price around 50% in twenty years, unlike much of its competition ;).

The Croft Series 4PP I owned then (and now, with another sample) was at least as good as an ARC SP14, the Croft costing a third the cost of the ARC preamp. Glenn's Series V amp was also a good up-to-date facsimile of some good Quad II's I compared it with and it, together with both the EAR509's, Tube Technology Genesis mono's (when working) were rather more involving to listen to than Naim 135's as I recall.

Giant killing speakers? I was a huge fan of the cheapo TDL RTL2 mk1's. despite a certain crudeness and grotty finish, their hearts were always in the right place. They were forgiving of cheaper systems, yet they opened up when used with something better. The Epos ES14, when used as recommended by the designer, were wonderful IMO and, later, I was beguiled by the cheaper Sonus faber models, the Concerto in particular - FAR better than similarly priced floor standing Pro-Acs (and the Resonse 1 Sc, which I found too crisssssp).

I could go on, but there isn't the room, nor is there the time to type it all out.


If I could afford expensive gear, the first thing I'd look for is a NAS Dias with 12" arm and half decent cartridge. I suspect I'd have a hard job to replace my CD player with a well engineered replacement unless I could fork out a few grand too. I wonder what Theta are doing these days - they used to be really good as CD transports/DAC's? Amps would have to be EAR in the first instance, although the Copper amps look superb and I'd have to check them out. Speakers would be more of a problem. Active three way ATC's are too overpowering for me these days and the passive ones should be avoided. Big Tannoys may be worth a listen, although I'd have to listen to Harbeth 40.1's if the room was big enough.

As for a modern giant-killing system, a Techie with Timestep, AT OC9 in a suitable shell, Cambridge 840C, a Croft series 25 pre/power with Sowter step-up trannies (these latter come from Ipswich down the road) or (unheard by me) a Puresound amp with step-up and some Harbeth Compact 7es2's would take some beating I think...

twelvebears
14-10-2009, 13:56
This is why you'll keep seeing products like the LP12 and the Well-Tempered, the Mark Levinson ML-2, the Audio Research SP-10, the original Electrocompaniet power amp and those first Wadia CD players, the LS3/5a, Sonus Faber Extremas and Quad Electrostatics discussed time and again. They were the products that shifted the goalposts. Those products don't come along every day, but sadly industry doesn't work well relying on the same design unchanged since 1987 and even the companies best known for a classic product need new products to survive.

Ah... Sonus Faber Extremas....

Why in the name of all that's holy did I sell mine!!

Damn house-buying related cash-flow crisis! :(

Themis
14-10-2009, 14:13
Ah... Sonus Faber Extremas....

Why in the name of all that's holy did I sell mine!!

Damn house-buying related cash-flow crisis! :(
:doh:
(i promised myself getting one pair of these one day -hopefully- soon)

DSJR
14-10-2009, 15:53
I only heard the Extrema's once and thought them dull and not very involving. Could it have been that you needed mega ARC and Krell to do them any justice at all, I don't know?

I must admit to being very impressed with the Cremona floor-standers though.They entertain so well on relatively humble gear and really don't need mega amps or expensive sources to allow you to suspend disbelief..

I think the most important thing with ANY stereo, whatever the price, is that you should be able to "suspend disbelief" with the sound, the system disappearing to a large extent and letting the musical "passion" through. If that means spending loads then so be it. I have to admit to thinking that many lower priced CD players especially, seem to owe their performance standards to the huge, over-built greats of twenty years ago.

Spectral Morn
14-10-2009, 16:58
Hi Dave DSJR.

Thank you for your reply, that gives me a much clearer idea of where your experience is at and coming from.

Thank you.


Regards D S D L

Mike Reed
14-10-2009, 18:31
I only heard the Extrema's once and thought them dull and not very involving. Could it have been that you needed mega ARC and Krell to do them any justice at all, I don't know?


Indeed it may be so. The chappie who bought my 135s did so to wake up his beloved Extremas, having discovered that they do not come to life without a bit of welly.

Soundhaspriority
19-10-2009, 17:21
This is an old story and I'm familiar with it, and in my opinion, there's nothing "had" about it. I don't and most audiophiles I know don't have any problem paying $400 for an amp that sounds like $4,000 driving loudspeakers that befit that price. But there's more to the story if you dig deeper, that would help explain why Carver hasn't made a fortune of the amp, if this was all there is to it. No doubt the man is a brilliant engineer, and he faced a mighty hard challenge and came through. Doesn't mean his amps sound all that good though.

In the end, it isn't the technology that matters; whether solid state or valve, analog or digital, conventional or unconventional. It's the sound. :guitar:

Steve Toy
19-10-2009, 17:33
Good points Paul.

DSJR
19-10-2009, 17:34
Regarding smoke and mirrors in top end audio, I cannot wait to hear the new Rega CD and amp. Forever out of my league now, I'm told (and have also read elsewhere) that the CD player really is a VERY serious piece of digital hardware and even though it costs £6K, it out-performs many at twice the price or more. If this is indeed the case, then this machine is to "Top End" what the Planar 2 and 3 turntables were/are to budget vinyl playback...

As these Rega bits will almost certainly be made in small numbers and apparently the casework is superb, I suspect this latter will account for a large proportion of the cost..