View Full Version : Audio Note outline the harsh reality of the state of audio today...
Lol - indeed, and it also cost more than £300!
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.
Yes, but why should the system you're proposing merely be targeted at teenagers?
If you're saying that a file-based audio system is where it's at now to get the best 'bang for your buck', then "awld gits" like us (speak for yourself, lol!) need to be able to use it too, daftee, without having to take a course on computer electronics before we can play an album!! :D
Marco.
OK, keeping it Old Skool:
TEAC CDP 1260 £99.95
CAMBRIDGE AUDIO TOPAZ AM1 £99.95
WHARFEDALE DIAMOND 9.0 £39.95
PROJECT ESSENTIAL T/T £139.95
All from Richer Sounds. I expect they'd throw in some free cables if asked nicely.
You guys keep making with those negative waves :(
I thought we were talking about trying to encourage the younger members of society to value quality audio reproduction.....at some point.
The problem is, as I see it, you dont want to let them decide what quality means to them or even how they achieve that quality given they agree to your standards.
i always speak for myself Marco ;)
Anyway Marco, I thought you had "your people" to sort out these little problems. Ffs mate, thats wot yer money is for but you keep spunking it on funny glass tubes and bits of copper.
I thought we were talking about trying to encourage the younger members of society to value quality audio reproduction.....at some point.
Yes, but there are other ways of doing it than turning them into slaves of technology and continually desiring the latest 'must have' gadgets!
I'd like to do it by exposing them to the sonic joys of 'simple, does the job without fuss' quality traditional hi-fi, and especially getting them into vinyl. Clearly, based on what I've seen from youngsters, they would be most receptive towards that approach.
Marco.
especially getting them into vinyl. Clearly, based on what I've seen from youngsters, they would be most receptive towards that approach.
O8WhP49UCfc
Lodgesound
14-02-2012, 21:23
There is the makings of an event there Marco - like Scalford but with the aim you are outlining.........
How about "High End for the Young Mind" as a show title.....
Sadly a fair few friends who come round love having a listen to a half decent vinyl system.
They think it sounds great but have no intention of getting a better set up for themselves.
They would rather spend the money on a nice car.
Funny as i couldn't give a toss about a car as long as it works.
Audioman
14-02-2012, 21:39
Sadly a fair few friends who come round love having a listen to a half decent vinyl system.
They think it sounds great but have no intention of getting a better set up for themselves.
They would rather spend the money on a nice car.
Funny as i couldn't give a toss about a car as long as it works.
They are just not motivated full stop. A nice (newish) car costs a lot more than a decent hi-fi set up these days unless you want a rep car thats heading for 100K miles. You don't have to invest the amounts Marco does to get great sound and it would not be advisable as a first system. People who listened to my gear in the 70's were exactly the same and they were happy to stick with a groove grinder and run a banger. I bet the same friends don't blink at spending 1k on a huge flat screen telly. Lets put it this way the difference between an Audi and similar VW new buys a bloody good set up. Now I am getting back to badge snobbery again !
There is the makings of an event there Marco - like Scalford but with the aim you are outlining.........
How about "High End for the Young Mind" as a show title.....
I like it, Stewart - noted!! ;)
I just don't see why youngsters need to have their faces stuck in front of bloody computers all the time in order to enjoy music, so anything which reduces their interaction with them, in my book, is a good thing.
Marco.
Lodgesound
14-02-2012, 21:47
Let's look into making it happen.................I honestly think we could get sponsorship from an exhibition organiser on this one rather than shoulder the cost ourselves...
I'm always open to good suggestions, mate :)
Marco.
As you are fully aware despite some of my comments Marco I am actually all for quality audio; in fact I'm all for quality lots of stuff and have as much of a problem digesting the "I live on my crap electronics" generation as you do.
However, articles like that in OP aren't going to help the cause and the silly numbers (cant even call them prices) not just AN but a lot Hi End Hi Fi,want for kit which often doesn't perform as well as kit a fraction of the price just isn't helping.
From my point of view a great many more people would be attracted to quality audio if we didn't have all this, you've got to have this, or that and spend a small fortune on it.
Sure, there is a difference between some of the best, be it custom or shop bought, but for a modest outlay, particularly if you are prepared to learn a bit about digital audio, I have been very surprised at just how small the differences are between some of the considered best and some very reasonably priced stuff.
I'm the first to admit, I haven't heard a great deal of the kit people rave about on AoS, mainly because I'm just not interested any more in what other people have if it isn't something that is obviously radically different from the norm. I did all that stuff years ago and nothing I've read or even listened to has convinced me that with many components one isn't very much like another in a surprisingly large range, in a properly set up system.
I'm afraid I'm still very much the source and speakers are what cuts it and what goes on in between is just varying amounts of distortion. I've proven this to myself over and over again. It isn't that there are no differences between one amp and another, or one dac and another; its that the differences are very small once you've taken out the measurable variables.
So, I can hardly be expected to go ape shite over any amplifier that still uses valves or transistors and of course, not the overpriced crap AN try to palm people off with.
If audio is going to take a leap forward in better sound quality it wont be from some custom valve or solid state design, its going to be something digital and despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding the state of audio, i won't be string myself up because there are still companies who are trying to excel in quality and innovation but it isn't in the field the traditional audiophile is comfortable with or the manufacturers who make traditional kit.
People like their vintage kit and I don't have any problem with that. What i do have a problem with is these people saying the vintage kit is necessarily better than more modern technology because it is evidently not true; there is good and bad of both but somehow the issue gets polarised and that isn't good for audio either.
Can i go back to pissing about now please? :)
Lodgesound
14-02-2012, 22:09
I agree with all that you say John - makes complete sense however the aim here would be to ignite the spark of passion and thus interest that would follow from that passion.....
I believe that it is just a question in the first instance of actually raising awareness of how good sound can be and then working forward from there...
anthonyTD
14-02-2012, 22:18
'...there are no absolute truths in science.' - Dr Brian Cox, Dec'11 ...and no doubt stated by many eminent scientists and physicists before hand.
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.
Good post neil.:)
Anthonmy,TD...
I agree with all that you say John - makes complete sense however the aim here would be to ignite the spark of passion and thus interest that would follow from that passion.....
I believe that it is just a question in the first instance of actually raising awareness of how good sound can be and then working forward from there...
If anything is going to ignite peoples passion for audio equipment its going to be music, not these endless debates about which source, or amp, or speakers are better.
The problem is there is no consensus, so how can you possibly make an informed choice apart from listening to stuff.
Unfortunately many people don't bother and read forums like these instead.
Of course, go to another forum and there is a whole different set of values, a whole different set of contributors, with a whole different set of motives for promoting one thing over another.
They can't all be deaf. So, if you accept that then it would seem that if differing groups prefer different components then there is a lot more going on than the quality of the sound.
Here on AoS its primarily valves, vinyl and vintage. On another forum its something else.
Common sense would lead one to the conclusion that its just a matter of what you prefer and there is no one way is best.
Here on AoS its primarily valves, vinyl and vintage. On another forum its something else.
It's not intentional, I can assure you, but simply the by-product of what many of us find sounds the best. People are hardly going to enthuse about what sounds shit, are they? :eyebrows:
Also, there are whole sections of this forum, with thousands of threads, that have nothing to do with the above. Much of your observation is simply to do with perception, and the impression you get from the tastes/priorities of the main contributors.
Personally, I don't give a flying fuck whether the kit I use is vintage or modern. I'm not on a nostalgia trip. What is of paramount importance is that the kit I use must sound better than anything else I have heard within the budget I'm willing to spend.
If that's vintage, then so be it.
I'd love to use more up-to-date traditional 2-channel gear (I'm not interested much in computer audio, right now), and support the current hi-fi industry more, but every time I compare, say, a modern high-end CDP to my modded Sony, it loses - and royally, which is partly why I'm moaning here about the poor sonic standards of a lot of modern kit, at the level my system is at! :rolleyes:
So what's a chap to do - downgrade, just to be 'current' and down with the kids? ;)
Marco.
I wasn't complaining about the forum at all Marco. :)
I used to read the forums years ago and gave it all up in disgust eventually.
I initially went to Computer Audiophile, naturally given my new interest in file base playback but got well pissed off quite quickly......they didn't like my sense of humour and wouldn't let me piss about like you do, and in general, while some there really knew their stuff, they weren't people i felt any connection with.
I happened across AoS, read a bit, laughed a lot and signed up.
I know I whinge like feck but I like the atmosphere here in general and dont really care what kit people use.
I'm into my file based audio and if any of the crap I write helps someone out that good enough for me mate.
It's time we all hear what we've been missing. http://www.bose.com/controller?url=/shop_online/home_theater/home_theater_speakers/acoustimass_6/index.jsp
And it has a wave guide...
Brings life like sound to your stereo or home theater .
Marco, I'll gladly take your complete stereo as a trade in,that will knock 10% off the price.
Your family will be amazed at how great it sounds.:wanker:
Oooh, Bose - gimme, gimme!! :partytime:
Marco.
This might be a good point to remind you of what I said here (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?p=295203#post295203).
We could take the latter day £300 system and make it sound a whole lot better now through what we have learned in the intervening years. In my opinion, some of the midrange Japanese amps from the likes of Pioneer and Sony were excellent, source components less so and speakers the weakest compared with modern day equivalents.
Since money would be at a premium, I would construct my own interconnect, speaker and mains cables (even Mark Grant's excellent products would be too expensive for this setup). I could fashion a cheap support system based on spikes, shelves and inner tubes. I could replace my sockets with MK unswitched doubles and use some snap-on chokes to get rid of the worst interference.
Would it sould pretty good to our ears now? I believe so.
Hi Martin,
We could take the latter day £300 system and make it sound a whole lot better now through what we have learned in the intervening years.
I think that's a brilliant idea, and something we'll look at doing, along with Stewart's suggestion :)
In my opinion, some of the midrange Japanese amps from the likes of Pioneer and Sony were excellent, source components less so and speakers the weakest compared with modern day equivalents.
I agree about Jap amps, but I'm not so sure about speakers. Your Ushers are a shining example of what modern loudspeaker technology can do at its best, as they sound stunning, and there are other similar examples. However, there are more than a few very good vintage speakers around, and not just Tannoys and such like, but budget designs, too!
I'd certainly put my Celestion 15XRs into that category (and there are a few others), which when connected up with modern high-quality speaker cable and supported on modern stands, I'd imagine would sound WAY better like that on the end of a selected vintage system, than they did when they were first partnered with the equipment from their own era.
But I love the idea of demonstrating how good (quality) vintage gear can sound, when optimised by the use of modern ancillary items. All sorts of things could be used, such as mains filters and/or regenerators, and all manner of cables and stands, which weren't around in 'the old days', to show people just how much latent potential there was in the best vintage designs, which was never realised in their day!
I like that idea - a lot :exactly:
Marco.
I'd certainly put my Celestion 15XRs into that category (and there are a few others), which when connected up with modern high-quality speaker cable and supported on modern stands, I'd imagine would sound WAY better like that on the end of a selected vintage system, than they did when they were first partnered with the equipment from their own era.
In retrospect, you're right of course. In my mind I had the awful Rank Domus, Wharfedale Linton type things in mind, but you're right about Celestion, Tannoy and even possibly selected KEFs.
StanleyB
15-02-2012, 12:36
In my opinion, some of the midrange Japanese amps from the likes of Pioneer and Sony were excellent, source components less so and speakers the weakest compared with modern day equivalents.
I would agree with you on the speakers. Especially the Yamaha NS1000. If you got a pair I am quite willing to aid you in disposing of that piece of midrange priced junk completely free of charge:).
No chance, Stan :)
If I had a pair, they would become 'bookshelf' speakers for my PC.
Ghastly things, NS1000's, except for the bass..... :eyebrows:
The original Wharfedale Denton's I have sound incredibly good and FAR better than they have any right to. Cast chassis 8" bass unit with moderate magnet but large rubber roll surround, simple crossover and a trendy (these days) cone/dome tweeter which is far more refined than it has any right to be, bolted into a veneered on one side chipboard box that surprisingly doesn't rattle or even vibrate at normal music levels. The box is sized at an estimated 12 - 15L, so not too small and the sonics are hugely involving and not really coloured, if not the last word in resolution or bass extension. The later verions were really nasty in comparison and sounded it I remember.
If memory serves, most Japanese amps from the mid 70's were over-feedbacked to the music-killing max, in a misguided attempt to reduce THD, which was what amps at a given price were chosen for (lowest harmonic distortion). Apart from some of the simplest baby ones in the range, and the large power-houses at the top, I thought the sound of these main-market models prety dire in all honesty. Loads of global feedback, crossover distortion and pretty dire phono stages built in - no thanks fellas :) Compare a typical mid range Technics amp from this era with a Sony V-FET (if you can find one still working) and you'll easily hear what I'm going on about.
In all fairness and respect to Naim, their 12 preamp with 120 power amp absolutely blew most of these things into the weeds with a HUGE breath of fresh air - and NO harshness at all on these back then.. A reality check indeed and justifyably rare and sought after on the used market IMO.
Audioman
15-02-2012, 14:36
Got to agree about Jap midmarket amplification as I owned a few examples. The Sansui AU101 was the exception but that was at the bottom of the range then. One I regreted selling and not beaten or equaled until the NAD3020. Amps only improved with the minimalist UK designs of the 80's. I will take Dave's word on early Naim but most of their stuff I've heard did nothing for me after reading all the hype.
As for speakers this is a realy subjective area. I had some large Wharfedales with the plastic cones that realy needed more space. These were replaced by a RAM bookshelf model which sounded pretty good. Later 80's I had Arcam 2+ on Heybrook stands which I rated highly. Can't remember Celestion 15's sounding that great at the time but they are different to modern bookshelf designs and should have impressive bass by comparison. Thought the later 80's Celestion bookshelf designs were better. I remember auditioning JR149's and thought they were utter crap. Only time I heard the NS1000's they were being powered by Naim to which they are certainly not suited.
I know I go on about this, but "bolt-up Naim" is VERY different and far gentler in sonic character to the CB range which replaced it. I'm not sure why, since getting the output devices right on the main board and supposedly improving the signal path around it should make for improvements.. Maybe the true signature of the circuit was reproduced in all it's gory glory with the drastic CB evolution..... It took Naim many years to bring things to the current way, where the bass and midband is really good, the whole thing merely limited by the treble quality and, on the lower models certainly, the harsh clipping performance. As always, just my views..
Wish I had the money spare, as despite the above, I feel a ZAP 250 coming on, only with the "caps" the "correct" way round :eyebrows: and with an external Zobel network possibly.......
Interesting the way the thread has developed - the £300 system idea is not a million miles away from the CAC challenge, and £300 gives a bit more room for decent sound quality.
By complete coincidence (and this is the God's honest...) my 3 year old Avatar dropped my £300 iPod Touch down the toilet today (yes, after a number 2...) - truly demonstrating what the younger generation think of crap sound quality! :lol:
Smart cookie. She's definitely heading for great things, Alex! ;)
Marco.
Hehe... I'm confused Marco :scratch: As someone who's set up a forum and appears to spend a lot of time enjoying the forum on your computer are you saying you like dog's Jobbies or that you really hate this forum?
haha - I've made that deliberately unanswerable it seems. :lol:
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
Marco.
On second reading maybe your get-out clause is the 'near your hi-fi' part.. Bum! Thwarted!
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 that notion, and look at things laterally and more logically, to address what really is happening!
<Discuss>
Marco.
Ok, I am now on the same page *sigh* (took almost 3 hours with some breaks).
Unfortunately your points about the state of the hifi world I don't think are those being expressed by PQ. As I read it, he's not talking about the state of new products in audiophile circles at all.
As I read it, he is talking about the world of mass production (could be 'consumer' prodcuts) v small, specialised, boutique manufacturers.
As I read it, he could be implying that he is also talking about competitors in the small audiophile world but that expression is not immediately clear and to definately read that in between the lines would kind of be projection from the reader.
As to your statements after the PQ writings:
What are the "newest and greatest things"?
In my opinion, the "newest and greatest things" by definition (considering that ideas of "newest and greatest" are always views held by the masses, majority) are those things that are marketed extensively, are hyped up, are popularised not least of all by repetition and what the Jones' have.. i.e. the idea of "Newest and Greatest" is created by marketing BS.
Without the marketing BS things wouldn't be considered "Newest and Greatest", full stop.. see what I'm saying? Nothing is the greatest, nothing at all.. and things can only be the newest for less time than it can take to become popular. Look at many popular Apple products, latest and greatest gear - based on two year old technology by the time it's been released (they spend the time I guess on design and getting it to work so well) yet people still think it is state of the art - they take in the BS. As a dig at Apple, the only time they are state of the art is when they pay/bribe Intel to purposely hold back access to new tech to other competitors like Thunderbolt connections.
Anyway, this is nothing to do people lowering their standards in the audiophile market and so consumers having to rely on vintage modified or whatever.
I think PQ's point is aimed at iPods, convenient CD/file servers at low prices for the masses. Not things you find audiophiles seriously entertaining.
In fact I can readily believe with an open mind (I don't have the pockets to find out for myself nor a time machine to go back) that just as many high-end products are produced today that do push sonic boundaries as were pushing boundaries at any period once you factor in the size of the industry as it has fluctuated over the years, the amount of contemporarily manufactured technology actually used (consider that valve amps for example created in 50's/60's were using components that were state of the art and therefore easy to mass produce better designs of valve/transformer whereas modern valve amps have to rely on boutique manufactured items that end up being less well made so that new designs or experimentation isn't viable unless at great expense) and the size of the audiophile market v mass market at each period in time.
As an aside, surely sonic improvements move along with technical innovation - use of technology that is currently being widely manufactured. So the large sections of audiophiles that do enthuse about vintage hifi and old technology and the companies that cater to that thinking (I'd include Audio Note in that) are actually holding back progress by rejecting the use of modern technology in products (that wasn't aimed at you Marco, just speaking generally). Sure, people can make progress by tweaking old designs or using modern components with old designs - using patent expired designs perhaps more to the point! - but where's the real R&D with real technological advances like those that have accelerated the quality of audio back in the day? What we need is a new set of audiophiles to embrace what can be done with solid state and digital etc etc and forget the "I'm alright jack" comfort of obsolete gear that cannot be passed the next generation. Err... you first though, I'm alright mate (I'm not giving up my vintage gear thanks.. hehe).
I'm sure that when the consumer mass market for hifi was big in the 80s a LOT of dross was manufactured on a ratio basis compaired to the high-end audiophile market.
In the 90's into 2000s, the mass market for hifi seems to have dwindled a little and so perhaps the ratio of dross to good high-end became closer to parity (not neccesarily anywhere near parity, just closer).
Now, since the availability of music and the ability to store so much/share so much music has exploded AND carry it around with you everywhere etc etc the interest in music in general has increased again and so the ratio of dross to good stuff has been widening more and more to appeal to the mass market.
It's as if booms in mass market audio happen as convenience of access to music improves - CDs in the 80s and MP3s from 2000s. Booms in mass market audio will give the impression that the audio world is going down hill. Just ignore it and stick to finding products that do sound great instead. Don't panic! As Jerry said - think I already said this before - nothing to see here, move on.. (bit too late now!) same as it ever was .
To many many many people, the "newest and greatest" ARE just that because they provide access and convenience AS NEVER BEFORE and sound ok to most folk. Different criteria to mine although I do enjoy my phone and iPod for enjoying just the music without having to have amazing sound quality all the time - sometimes the intention of the music is all I need.
With regard to:
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”. [/b] “We can make the same cheaper” is the unspoken slogan, [i]which has resulted in products that superficially maintain the same standards of their predecessors but which in reality are substantially and demonstrably inferior,
What he's talking about here is marketing BS and marketing BS has been with us since the dawn of money and trade.. Marketing BS increases when there is more money to be made from the masses who readily swallow marketing BS and actually enjoy the taste, repeating it to friends gladly. Again, this is not about informed audiophiles and the audiophile market. There are of course many 'audiophiles' who are really just the masses in disguise - willy wavers etc - and some companies do market at these people too with a different flavour of marketing BS. There will always be people who pray on those with big pockets with scaled up BS - again been around since the dawn of money and trade.
What does this bit mean? :
“We can make the same cheaper” is the unspoken slogan, [i][COLOR="Blue"]which has resulted in products that superficially maintain the same standards of their predecessors but which in reality are substantially and demonstrably inferior
Substantially and demonstrably inferior in what way? PQ doesn't specify.. we have to read between the lines.
Cheaper is by itself a positive to many/most. "Same standards of their predecessors" - standards of convenience, standards of human interface/ease of use, standards of compatability with other electronics/aesthetics in a home environment etc etc - all ENTIRELY VALID to the right people. Whether it sounds better or even the same is secondary.
So... IMHO, on another level, this expression of a quite bland and obvious view point from PQ (assuming one doesn't project their own bugbears on to it) is itself a bit of marketing BS by creating a whole 'image' of philosophy and "I'm just like you"-ism to subconciously get people to feel some affinity with a brand and so feel like you're choosing a gang or team when spending your money. Tries to create a defensive mind-set, 'us against the world' mind-set amongst people rather than an open mindset that appreciates other people's priorities that in the music world is all about enjoying MUSIC not always sound quality. In general that's what people have always wanted and people like us have always been a very small, select group in a minority. I don't appreciate that kind of defensive mind-set encouragement as it ultimately is destructive in a social sense and can actually hinder enjoyment of music - for example if someone wants to share a musical discovery with you but on their "shitty" hifi that some people would insist they "couldn't listen to" and so would just hear the sound of the hifi and not really hear the music or anything that that friend was enthusing about.. Nerdism and cliqueness to the point of isolation!
I don't remember ever reading anything like that from Glen Croft or many other "quietly just get on with it" audiophile manufacturers. (err.. quickly goes off to check that he hasn't posted anything similar on the Croft website :lol:).
(that seemed long..)
It was, but very interesting, and so thanks for sharing your thoughts. There's much I agree with, although I still stand by all I have written on this subject :)
Marco.
Audioman
16-02-2012, 17:06
Nat.
I totaly agree with your rather long assesment. I think I was saying the same earlier but in a few lines. In the end PQ is self promoting the speciality and quality of his own product and is not being specific about real hi-fi as opposed to convenience Audio. Marco is being rather selective in what he reads into this I think.
I really do wish I had the ability to write concisely... lol
It was, but very interesting, and so thanks for sharing your thoughts. There's much I agree with, although I still stand by all I have written on this subject :)
Marco.
The thread has been interesting - much of what you've said since the OP has been in response to other people and not specifically about the PQ writings and yes I have been agreeing with a lot of it too. I reckon most people on a basic level probably do hold the same opinions but once a discussion gets going people don't realise they're saying the same things.
I did particularly like the link Frank linked to on ComputerAudiophile - ignoring the between the lines implication of valve people v solid state, the psycho-acoustics part (epiphony on the authors part) when viewed from the outside (taking a step back and seeing the whole) really throws things open and makes you ignore other people's opinions and just go and try out anything and everything: valve, solid state, boutique, mass manufactured, foo.. of course with a great amount of fiscal logic. I think that's when you can begin to really sort out your system to a higher level and obviously that brings about possibilities of old and new and modified and completely DIY all in one system.
I mean, I've just bought a studio surround sound level matching device to use as a preamp in a stereo setup (full of ICs and SMD caps) and eyeing up some 90s valve monoblocks to run with my 70s tuner and DIY dac when I get it done. For me the glory is in finding a way that sounds amazing that many people stuck different hifi dogma will say will never work..
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.
Hi Martin,
On point 1, I disagree entirely. The problem comes when you try to correlate the ability to detect things using measurements with any notion of 'goodness'.
You cannot measure audible goodness since it is entirely subjective.
You can however measure everything that is audible and therefore verify its existence. If you disagree perhaps you could offer up an example?
On the second point, absolutely right - the emotional response occurs inside the head and will differ between listeners. However the emotions are built from raw data taken in via your senses. Those can be measured and manipulated.
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.
Again I cannot agree with any of that because it once again confuses the considerations that exist around technical design with artistry and emotional response.
Of course music isn't a rigid science but to be fair I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise.
However, aspects governing how any audio system performs is just about as rigid as it gets. As i said in response to Marco last week, the building blocks are all well understood as are the methods used to manipulate the end result. The manipulation is where you might rightly claim some degree of artistry, especially where a non-trasparent outcome is desired.
There is nothing 'so called' about transparency. Either a box of electronics does nothing other than (optionally) alter gain or it doesn't.
The acid test?
Compare to a known reference using several listeners in a controlled listening test and see if the box under test is detectable.
If memory serves, most Japanese amps from the mid 70's were over-feedbacked to the music-killing max, in a misguided attempt to reduce THD, which was what amps at a given price were chosen for (lowest harmonic distortion)
That's a bit unfair. Go back and look at say Leak, Radford and Quad in the valve days and you'll see that they used as much NFB as they could apply before the circuit went unstable. In other words, they were (quite rightly IMO) chasing the goal lot low distortion. With regard to the later SS Japanese designs, the circuit will only withstand so much NFB before instability.
Rob.
You can however measure everything that is audible and therefore verify its existence.
Perhaps we're arguing semantics, but I don't believe that we can, any more than we can make a 'goodness' meter. We simply cannot measure the audible change that, say, a change of cable, change of valve or change of support makes, despite being able to hear the difference. I have perused the hi-fi press and white papers for years and no-one to my knowledge has been able to measure these things.
It could just be possible that nobody has been able to measure these things because they're not there to measure and are solely a matter of an individuals perception.
This doesn't mean they are any less real to the individual.
Perhaps we're arguing semantics, but I don't believe that we can, any more than we can make a 'goodness' meter. We simply cannot measure the audible change that, say, a change of cable, change of valve or change of support makes, despite being able to hear the difference. I have perused the hi-fi press and white papers for years and no-one to my knowledge has been able to measure these things.
I can't think of anything truly audible that cannot be measured.
I say 'truly' since I'd argue (and happily demonstrate) that at least two of the things you mention aren't making any audible difference at all in the vast majority of instances. Where they do make a difference, it can be measured.
WRT valves, any audible change introduced by a valve can be measured.
It just has to be a real audible change.
It could just be possible that nobody has been able to measure these things because they're not there to measure and are solely a matter of an individuals perception.
This doesn't mean they are any less real to the individual.
Quite right.
... and seeming real to the individual is perfectly fine and harmless until it becomes accepted as fact, and/or goes on to influence the actions of others.
Which is ultimately why the argument marches on and will never go away.
Rob.
There is nothing 'so called' about transparency. Either a box of electronics does nothing other than (optionally) alter gain or it doesn't.
Word games, only true for a single value of "nothing", a value that doesn't actually exist in the real world, which is the one I find myself existing in.
I say 'truly' since I'd argue (and happily demonstrate) that at least two of the things you mention aren't making any audible difference at all in the vast majority of instances. Where they do make a difference, it can be measured.
I'm going to dip out of this discussion, then. If you haven't heard the differences these things can make, then you haven't heard them. I have, but I've seen no such measurements.
I have no idea how well this works; I'm not really fussed enough to try it out.
http://libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm
Guys,
These types of age-old 'objectivist vs. subjectivist' arguments (although perfectly friendly, such as we insist on here) will achieve precisely nothing, other than giving the 'protagonists' sore typing fingers (!) The views of both 'camps' are simply too diametrically opposed for anything genuinely new to be learned.
Therefore, perhaps this discussion has run its course? I've long since made the point I intended, by making people address something that they perhaps hadn't considered before, and so the thread has achieved its purpose.
So, let's either see some fresh thoughts on the original topic, or simply let the thread die a natural death. But I most certainly don't want to read any more circular 'subjectivist vs. objectivist' drivel. In that respect, let's just politely agree to disagree and move on. Cheers! :)
Marco.
I missed this post earlier...
Hi Nat,
Hehe... I'm confused Marco :scratch: As someone who's set up a forum and appears to spend a lot of time enjoying the forum on your computer are you saying you like dog's Jobbies or that you really hate this forum?
haha - I've made that deliberately unanswerable it seems. :lol:
On second reading maybe your get-out clause is the 'near your hi-fi' part.. Bum! Thwarted!
Indeed. I dislike technology 'controlling' me, by being heavily reliant on it, therefore I minimise its influence on my life (where possible), and most certainly when I'm listening to music!
Basically, I hate computers, and only use them when I have no other option. And of course one of those occasions is when posting on AoS. It's not the computer that I like, but rather the ability to communicate with fellow audio and music enthusiasts here in real time :)
If that could be done without a computer, the computer would be in the bin!
Marco.
The computer's just a tool, Marco, primarily for communications. There's no need to have a love/hate relationship with it.
People who don't understand computers say things to me like "are you on the computer again?", to which my reply is usually "Irrelevent objective. I'm talking to people".
Lol... Absolutely, Martin. It's just that some people (work aside) seem unable to function without a computer of some description, or having a plethora of 'technological gadgetry' strapped to them 24/7 :rolleyes:
How did we manage to live before all that pish was invented??
I never want to be like that. And certainly in terms of enjoying my music, I want to stay computer-free for as long as possible!
Marco.
And certainly in terms of enjoying my music, I want to stay computer-free for as long as possible!
I only use the computer for Spotify and YouTube assessment of what I want to buy. File-based streaming is not a main source for my system.
Yup. Spotify or YouTube I just do on the laptop. Anyway, each to his or her own, I guess :)
Marco.
Ever wondered why AN (uk) has such high retail prices or why they are so few UK 'offical' dealers?
Or, so I'm told, why they (or their representatives) almost never reply to emails or answer the phone?
Answers on a postcard to 'Tony's Teasers', PO Box 1982, Silllyville, Dafteeland, Planet Zoomertroid.
Marco.
hifi_dave
19-02-2012, 11:31
I think the answer to the three questions are:
Because they can.
Because they sell direct.
Because they are too busy.
IMO of course and other opinions are equally valid.
Stratmangler
19-02-2012, 11:36
Rumour has is that Peter has a habit of picking up parking tickets and speeding fines, so the money to pay for them has to come from somewhere :eyebrows:
I think the answer to the three questions are:
Because they can.
Because they sell direct.
Because they are too busy.
None of which of course are acceptable excuses!! :nono:
Marco.
None of which of course are acceptable excuses!! :nono:
Marco.
I have exchanged emails with Peter Q. when I was considering swiping my credit card on a pair of ANJ's or ANE's speakers just before Conner was born.
My wife was smart to talk some sense into me just in time.
I can say Peter is very passionate about music and his brand and really believes in his products.
I know one of his oldest U.S. dealers and was told he gets hundreds of emails each day asking for huge discounts direct or can you send a $100,000 M10 pre amp to me in Nigera or Chicago for a audition?
So he answers mostly email from dealers or email with a dealer or store in the heading. I can't blame him I can only guess at what he has read over the years,I saw some of the email Evana Manley has gotten and was shocked what people will try to cheat them.
Peter still runs things very close to him so he can keep quality very high and runs things directly with not much help.
The reason there is so few dealers is he is very picky on who sells his brand.
1st. His dealers are not new kids on the block,he must have heard of you and you must have decades of sterling service in selling audio,if you have a bad reputation he will never let you sell Audio Note.
2nd No internet stores,you must have a proper brick and mortar store with other high end brands and NO internet sales on new gear ( only parts are kits as far as I've heard) And if you sell New AN gear he doesn't like kits being sold in the same place. As the kits are not the same as a finished product.
He doesn't want some guy in white shoes, gold trim on a Caddie and a cheap tupay selling his first class products.
Can you blame him for hand selecting a few very 1st class dealers he trusts and respects.
I first head AN gear and met the dealer here in mid 90's and have got to hear some of the best stuff on earth there and Peter has come to see the dealer there they are old friends.
I have never meet him personally, but can assure you from enough people who have met him is the impression is always the same Peter lives ,eats and breaths the Audio Note quality and personally is upset if even a single capacitor fails, he is personally involved in his product and customer satisfaction and that's hard to find today.
Wow! I have been lucky,I have exchanged emails with Peter Q. Talked with David Cheasl of Audion about my Silver night phono stage on the phone, also Roy hall and met Evana Manley and got the grand tour of Manley Labs! oh, and Dr. Roger West of Sound Lab when I ordered upgrade parts for my speakers and Jhon Grado too.
I never really thought about it.
Wow! I have been lucky,I have exchanged emails with Peter Q. Talked with David Cheasl of Audion about my Silver night phono stage on the phone, also Roy hall and met Evana Manley and got the grand tour of Manley Labs! oh, and Dr. Roger West of Sound Lab when I ordered upgrade parts for my speakers and Jhon Grado too.
You old name dropper, you ;)
You old name dropper, you ;)
not so much. but it did occur to me that l have been lucky to be able to talk to some modern legends in hifi.
i honestly never thought about it till that post.
Oh I agree. Evana Manley and John Grado would be fascinating people to chat with.
Hi,
Interesting stuff.
I've had a few dealings with Peter Qvortrup over the years.
Here are some films of a tour and interviews with Peter Qvortrup. It show the various bits of Audionote equipment and company ideas.
http://www.avshowrooms.com/Audio_Note_Co.html
Fascinating stuff, Dean, so thanks for sharing!
There are lots of observations I could make, but the things that strike me the most are the meticulous attention to detail, hand-building of equipment, virtually from scratch, and the striving for excellence and the highest quality (albeit at a cost) - all of which are qualities I approve of and admire.
Oh, and that the bulk of their gear goes to customers abroad, particularly to America and the Far East, which to some extent tells its own story. I'm afraid that this is where some of the most discerning and serious audiophiles live (along with in the likes of Germany, Italy and Greece).
There certainly appears to be a market for their products, although no doubt that the bulk of the sonic performance of some of their true exotica could be achieved at much less cost. There is undoubtedly some badge snobbery and a desire to create 'audiophile jewellery' in evidence!
Peter also came across well. I respect his passion and desire to achieve the best (his best), although he does rather love himself and his products, and the staff seem happy and self-motivated, which is always a good sign. Peter also appears to have an excellent rapport with them: the 'vibe' in the factory seems pretty good.
The set-up reminds me rather of that of Naim, and to a lesser extent, EAR. Tim de Paravicini and Peter Q definitely share a similar 'challenging arrogance', but can be charming in their own way, too ;)
Marco.
chris@panteg
21-02-2012, 18:49
I met Peter when I sold my Voyd , he collected it on behalf of a customer from the US, I got a little insight on how he does things , the guy who bought my Voyd actually had one on permanent loan from Peter until he could find one to buy , if you talk his talk and like his stuff , I think he would go out of his way to help a genuine music lover but he was quite scathing about some well respected dealers I know of and this surprised me as it seemed a bit mean .
Audioman
21-02-2012, 19:43
Very Interesting tour. Peter is obviously passionate and it is not purely a money making project. A dedication to pursuing the ultimate as PQ sees it. It appears the costly nature of the product is both as a result of expensive components and materials, the limited numbers made and obviously very inefficient methods and layout of the 'factory'. It could be a large basement or backyard garage from appearances.
You aren't going to convince me anyway that those tarted up Snells are anything near the world's best speakers. I laughed when they talked about the domestic acceptability of corner placed speakers when there were stacks of enormous amps and power supplies all over the floor. It was interesting to hear of plans to produce Black Gates and cut records. However it will be a miracle if all this comes to fruition given the lack of organisation and limited manpower.
Also in spite of PQ's claims to make everything this is a 100% assembly operation with parts made outside to their specification and from the vast stock of NOS components they rely on. The continuation of the company is both dependent on PQ and Andy Grove (ex World Audio Design) who does the real development work.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.