Are Hifi Reviews Flawed?

Quote:

---

My own take is that the difference between Naim and Meridian is easily measurable and in fact the "different" distortion performance of CB and current Naim is there for anyone interested to see (not in terms of quantity, but where the harmonics lie).

---

I completely agree, but that's a different thing from designing amps from the ground up believing that once they measure well, it's a case of 'job done'. The fact is, measurements only tell part of the story. For the other part, one has to listen.

Quote:

---

One range of once hideously expensive amps (but now almost affordable) I'd love to hear again is the late 90's Krell FPB series, which were so unlike their harsh early 90's forebears and had effortless power and control, even into fairly sensitive speakers and at low volume levels. One range that was worth reviewing IMO..

---

Again, I completely agree. Have you also heard vintage Krell amps from the 1970s?

They're almost valve-like in their sonic presentation (!) - and by that I mean valves done well. It's a totally different ball-game to the stark sounding and soulless crap that Krell make today, designed to give a stiffy to dimwits who judge amps mainly by how my watts they produce!! :rolleyes:

One wonders again, if when the vintage Krell amps were designed, that there was as much listening done by designers as measuring.........

It's the same with CB Naim, in terms of how 'valve-like' it sounds compared to the amps that Naim produce now.

Can you detect a trend here? ;)

Marco.

CB Naims NEVER sounded valve like :lol: - Oh hang on a minute, you had 135's didn't you and these, and the little nait, clipped a lot more gently than the CB160, 250 and the horrid 110 and early 140 - I had countless samples through my hands, some for a couple of months at a time powered 24/7, so I think I can speak reliably here :eek:

Please also bear in mind that the UK greats from the 50's - Arthur Radford and Peter Walker ONLY listened for faults apparently - i.e. through the amp, not to it , not to fine-tune their designs with fancy caps or somesuch. Didn't do them any harm, did it :) I suppose this "instinct" for a good all round design is something special though, as many others have tried and failed.

Actually, I'd love Anthony to chip in here if he's able, as he works with modern-conceived valve designs, seems to confirm my non-engineer comments to an extent.

Re early krells? Oh yes indeedy, I've heard most Krells from the KSA50 and 100 (including a lovely pair of KMA100's I should have bought at the price offered over twenty years ago - another error :(). Jimmy had three KSA50's driving his early active 'briks, and rather wonderful they sounded too :) I also favoured the KSA80, which was the last of that era to be classed as a good all-rounder. Krell went huge and harsh for a while before the variable-bias ones brought the sonics back to earth - IMO of course. The 300 integrated was a bit bright, but lightning quick in a cleaned-up CB Naim sense and I rather admired the 400 integrated, finding it rather better than a typical "Olive" Naim pre-power-supply at around £3K, or a 112/180 which I think cost much the same from memory. Didn't stop us selling Naims though, as the Krell was a bottom model integrated, and distrusted accordingly ;)



P.S. Totally off-topic and I unreservedly apologise, but my posts do seem to come over as mini-lectures, possibly with a very rigid and fixed point of view. In reality, I do try to be as open minded as possible, but the way I have with personal experiences influencing my outlook may tend to make me come across as patronising and/or blinkered - I'm thinking of the whole vinyl/CD/master recording thing which I keep going back to at times and which I've no intention of doing here-now... My experiences with Krell are mine, in the dealerships I've worked in and in client's/friends homes too, so hopefully are fair and honest, with little personal bias..

Actually, the P.S. above may link back to the OP, in that when reading certain influential reviewer's prose, you get to know their style of writing. Martin Colloms obviously knew/knows how important he was and possibly still is as reviewer and consultant for so many products, but if he didn't like a product much, you always got to know "in between the lines." As for Ken Kessler, he reminds me of the late LJK Setright, a reviewer of cars so skilled at saying little over several pages.. KK plays to his appreciative audience and seems to love the Ab Sounds portfolio ;) I wonder why Levinson's gear (or Path Premier in general?) was rarely reviewed in HFN???????

Enough from me. Apologies all once again :dummy:

Dave, there really is no need for you to apologize for the manner of your posts, you draw on your vast experience and expertise to illustrate your points of view. I'm sure I speak for us all when I say that your posts are meaningful and incisive. I for one respect your insightful musings. :respect:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DSJR

I wonder why Levinson's gear (or Path Premier in general?) was rarely reviewed in HFN???????

---

I know why Mark Levinson (Madrigal) products weren't reviewed in Hi-Fi News despite them being tested in every other quality magazine on the Planet..:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hifi_dave

I know why Mark Levinson (Madrigal) products weren't reviewed in Hi-Fi News despite them being tested in every other quality magazine on the Planet..:rolleyes:

---

Oh good. That helps.

Best not to air the probable reason why on a public forum though Howard :)

To Dave (Synsei), thanks for the support. It's just that when one (me) types something, it can come out as a definite FACT, i.e. factual as I see or saw it at the time. It's just that when I was told I couldn't show Marco anything (in regards to setting up a dem to show what I meant in the post concerned) it started to possibly escalate again and I've been soul-searching for a way in which to better explain what I mean. Trouble is, I can't and the bad-penny syndrome currently means I can't sit back and take a break either, so just plough on through until I have other things to do with my time, like earn some money for instance.....

Anyway, my favourite reviews were from the long defunct "HiFi Sound" magazine from the late 60's to mid 70's or so, before it became absorbed into another mag (I forget which one). There were articles written with great affection and humour for the subject at hand, plenty of technical stuff but never forgetting what a bit of audio kit was actually for. Back in those days, I remember many a transistor amp being full of crossover distortion, one of the nastiest of all the "THD" style distortions I felt and the other distortion artifacts that are taken fully for granted nowadays were only just being discovered by these mags.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DSJR

Best not to air the probable reason why on a public forum though Howard :)

---

Did Mark Levinson pull Ken Kessler's beard?

:lolsign: Joe :clapclapclap:

Another vote for your insights here, Dave. Don't stop posting!

hi All,
First of all concerning Peter walker and his design talent, well he was in my opinion a very talented designer, unfortunetly [IMHO] he will be remembered for certain products that were shall we say,,,NOT his highest Achievent.
The Quad 2 for example, if you examine the circuit you will see that it is quite an acheivment for its time, however, not [again IMHO] for the right reasons, ie; sonics, what peter managed to acheive was a fully push-pull circuit using only 2 pentodes [EF86] and two Tetrodes KT66] now, when you examine the circuit in more depth you will see one of its biggest failings by todays standard, power output capability. The KT66 in say, a GEC push-pull circuit is easily capable of producing 25 watt, in the Quad 2 you get 14/15 watt, [dependant on how good the output transformer was that day] One of the reasons for that is down to the unique driver circuit used, [the circuit is available to look at else where for anyone who wants to study it] it needed to produce a large amount of voltage gain hence pentodes, however, they also needed a large amount of voltage to drive those to get full output swing from the output stage,There are are also other issues with this circuit design that concern me, however, they have been documemted else where and lifes too short to go over it here, ultimately this design has serious compromises by today,s standards, ie; restricted bandwidth due to the demands made of the limited components in the circuit, and also its requirements from any other preamp except its own, also its power output limitations, even after peter's rather [again] unique way of using a winding in the output transformer partialy to recycle some of the energy that would normaly be lost in a more conventional bias circuit of the day.
As you can probably tell i am not the Quad 2's biggest fan, However, i admire the design for what it did acheive, and of course there are many satisfied users world wide who rate them highly, However, when you listen to another design of the day in comparison, the Stereo 20 for instance, you will wonder how come this little amp can still sound reletivily modern by todays standards, compared to the more shall we say, pipe and slippers sound of the Quad 2, To Answer that you will have to look and compare their circuit designs and thus compare the compromises of both.
Now, my own view on some of what has been written here, well, its true that mainstream manufacturers have to adere to certain criteria, when designing and producing a product, and there are of course ways of aquiring certain repeatable sonic signatures, however, you will find even in these circumstances one or two out of say every 100 units will have a sonic signature that is markedly better than the other 98. [ I know this very well from dealing with high profile guitarists who have two seemingly identical amplifiers, however, one is their number 1 amp, the other is barely used and is kept only as a back up] now, you can say that thats great for those lucky 2 out of every 100, but what about those other 98 ???
That is where bespoke comes into its own, yes, this route costs the consumer more in the short term, but this helps the designer in two main ways, 1] having more money to play with means more can be spent on bespoke layouts of circuitry and components caseworks etc. 2] because bespoke items demand a higher price tag, the designer has more time to spend on the design itself and the final testing and voicing of the units to make absolutely sure the customer gets what he wants,or has heard from a similar unit elsewhere.
Anthony,TD...