Are new models always better?

[mep]

Sparky’s comments about his beloved ARC SP-11 and D-250 servo made me think about the constant *evolution* of high-end products from the same manufacturer. Sparky jumped off the ARC upgrade bus long ago and feels he is sitting on the top of the mountain. This leads to the question of whether or not the next flagship product that a company puts on the market is really superior to their previous flagship.

I was trying to dig through my memory banks and see if I could recall a single review that panned a company’s latest flagship and said it was no better than the model it replaced. I couldn’t think of one which doesn’t mean a bunch of them don’t exist. I’m going to pick on ARC because of Sparky. I remember when the SP-15 came out and all the reviews to my knowledge said that it was much better than the SP-11. I think the big difference between the SP-15 over the SP-11 was the phono stage was all SS in the SP-15. And now you have the REF 1, REF 2, REF 3, REF 5, and the anniversary model. The REF 1 had no tubes in the power supply and that changed with the REF 2. Aside from the power supply changes, what else changed in these circuits that would explain how one model sounds better than another?

In summary, is everyone’s experience that new flagship models are always superior to the model it replaced? And Sparky if you’re reading this, I have been around technicians and engineers my entire life and any tech that has the nickname “Sparky” has usually done something stupid and had the **** shocked out of them. What’s your story?

 

[cjfrbw]

I thought "Sparky" was the dog with steel balls and no rear legs.

 

[mep]

I thought "Sparky" was the dog with steel balls and no rear legs.

No, that dog was named Lucky.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

No, that dog was named Lucky.

I know of no lucky dogs who are missing their rear legs, Mark, but I've known a few pieces of gear that were decades old and still held their own against the contemporary high-end. I think you actually own a couple of pieces that fit that description.

Tim

 

[RogerD]

i thought "sparky" was the dog with steel balls and no rear legs.

lmao!

 

[JackD201]

You guys are hilarious!

Personally I've seen this quite a bit. Usually it is preceded by a change in management or ownership. Exceptions like Genesis, B&W and Quad are few.

 

[mauidan]

Aside from the power supply changes, what else changed in these circuits that would explain how one model sounds better than another?

It appears that the whole circuit board layout of the unit has been improved.

In the SS camp, if you look at the Spectral website, you'll see similar improvements to their components.

 

[RogerD]

Is it really planned obsolescence? Where would these companies be without marketing and reviewers. Years ago I heard a ARC SP-3 that I thought sounded overly "tubey",actually I thought it was terrible. At that point they needed improvement. Today I think it's all about getting a higher price for a minimal improvement for companies that introduce new products constantly.

The other side of the extreme is that I have owned the same preamp for 35 years,sometimes the R&D people get it right the first time.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

My answer is not necessarily so. There are indeed improvements but I daresay that they have been from nil to subtle in electronics. Of course audiophiles and the audiophile press tend toward hyperbole and the "night and day", "outperfroms", "blow away" and other cliches will most often be used to describe the new and improved.
I have often wished that a magazine would re-visit old SOTA as compared to the new SOTAs.. For example I tend to think Krell KRS 200 amplifiers (The 250 lbs one) it will hold its own against nearly anything KRell has done since ... I am not sure we will see such comparisons . It would be hard for the industry to admit thst progress in electronics have been slow to non-existant...
THe advance in computing power and material have allowed us to produce much better speakers. What is available in the free REW software (Room Equalization Wizard) would have cost tens or even hundred of thousand of dolars 20 years ago. Now all you need is a laptop with (preferably) an external Audio card and a calibrated microphone, something that can be had for less than $150 total (mike and card). THe software is free ..

On DACs no contest : Today DACs are better and by a considerable margin and they are cheaper (well you know there will always be some $70,000 models with diamond faceplate and gallon-sized capacitors but ..

Now for cables ..

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

THe advance in computing power and material have allowed us to produce much better speakers.

Yes and no. Computer modeling can anticipate and solve a lot of problems that used to require prototyping and testing, but I'm kind of an old-school materials guy. I've heard metal tweeters that sounded good, but I've yet to hear anything I like better than a really well-done silk dome tweeter. I understand the the arguments for the more rigid materials, I've just yet to hear one that sounds, or for that matter measures significantly better than a really good silk like a Scanspeak. I really like some contemporary executions of the Heil Air Motion Transformer, too, but that's nothing new.

On DACs no contest : Today DACs are better and by a considerable margin and they are cheaper (well you know there will always be some $70,000 models with diamond faceplate and gallon-sized capacitors but ..

Depends on how you define "yesterday" I suppose. This technology has been pretty stable and mature for a few years, and improvements have mostly been in jitter reduction that began well below the practical threshold of audibility. I'm convinced that most of the audible differences between competent DACs can be found in the coloration of their analog output stages.

Tim

 

[DaveyF]

Yes and no. Computer modeling can anticipate and solve a lot of problems that used to require prototyping and testing, but I'm kind of an old-school materials guy. I've heard metal tweeters that sounded good, but I've yet to hear anything I like better than a really well-done silk dome tweeter. I understand the the arguments for the more rigid materials, I've just yet to hear one that sounds, or for that matter measures significantly better than a really good silk like a Scanspeak. I really like some contemporary executions of the Heil Air Motion Transformer, too, but that's nothing new.



Depends on how you define "yesterday" I suppose. This technology has been pretty stable and mature for a few years, and improvements have mostly been in jitter reduction that began well below the practical threshold of audibility. I'm convinced that most of the audible differences between competent DACs can be found in the coloration of their analog output stages.

Tim

Agree with you Tim, IMO, my EAD 7000 Mk3 DAC still can compete with today's DAC's. A few months ago, my friends and I did an AB of the EAD vs. several other recent DAC's, including the current Benchmark, a DCS Debussy and an Esoteric D-07.
We all came away surprised at how the EAD was not embarrassed at all, in fact besting the Benchmark and being very very close to the Esoteric. The Debussy was slightly more resolving and had a little better top end extension, BUT for a price approaching $10K

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Agree with you Tim, IMO, my EAD 7000 Mk3 DAC still can compete with today's DAC's. A few months ago, my friends and I did an AB of the EAD vs. several other recent DAC's, including the current Benchmark, a DCS Debussy and an Esoteric D-07.
We all came away surprised at how the EAD was not embarrassed at all, in fact besting the Benchmark and being very very close to the Esoteric. The Debussy was slightly more resolving and had a little better top end extension, BUT for a price approaching $10K

Of course "beating" is a relative term. Even "extension" can be, and the perception of extension often has more to do with emphasis in the upper midrange than it does with linear extension of FR.

Tim

 

[DaveyF]

Yes and no. Computer modeling can anticipate and solve a lot of problems that used to require prototyping and testing, but I'm kind of an old-school materials guy. I've heard metal tweeters that sounded good, but I've yet to hear anything I like better than a really well-done silk dome tweeter. I understand the the arguments for the more rigid materials, I've just yet to hear one that sounds, or for that matter measures significantly better than a really good silk like a Scanspeak. I really like some contemporary executions of the Heil Air Motion Transformer, too, but that's nothing new.





Depends on how you define "yesterday" I suppose. This technology has been pretty stable and mature for a few years, and improvements have mostly been in jitter reduction that began well below the practical threshold of audibility. I'm convinced that most of the audible differences between competent DACs can be found in the coloration of their analog output stages.

Tim

Of course "beating" is a relative term. Even "extension" can be, and the perception of extension often has more to do with emphasis in the upper midrange than it does with linear extension of FR.

Tim

Tim. are you always so..."literal" in real life, because if you are......

BTW, I wrote 'besting' not 'beating'.....Oh No, maybe it's contagious

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim. are you always so..."literal" in real life, because if you are......

BTW, I wrote 'besting' not 'beating'.....Oh No, maybe it's contagious

I was literal in this case for a specific reason, Davey, because while I'm sure the DACs you mention may have "bested" the Benchmark in your subjective evaluations, by any objective measure, I have serious doubts.

Tim

 

[DaveyF]

I was literal in this case for a specific reason, Davey, because while I'm sure the DACs you mention may have "bested" the Benchmark in your subjective evaluations, by any objective measure, I have serious doubts.

Tim

"Objective measure" is a relative term Tim The beloved Benchmark was indeed 'bested' by the DAC's that I mention. If you have doubts, why not get out there and see for yourself. I'm fairly sure that there are dealers that would be only too happy to let you hear the differences for yourself. Instead of pontificating about our results, why not go out and see for yourself first?

BTW, if you simply look at measurements and never listen for yourself as to the differences in gear, then you would be still listening to some of the 70's ss integrated gear...at the time, it had impeccable measurements Pity it didn't sound worth a damn

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I have a Harmon Kardon integrated I bought new in 1972 that sounded great. Still does.



Tim

 

[mep]

I have a Harmon Kardon integrated I bought new in 1972 that sounded great. Still does.



Tim

New in '72. Even if didn't sound great it rhymes great.

 

[LL21]

In my own personal experience, there is a general upward trend in performance over time (call it the "market")...but there have been individual units where you listen and say...really? this is supposedly better?...and usually you can find a few details where there is improvement but overall it is either a re-badged original with a higher price tag...or a more resolved unit but which loses the plot when it comes to musicality.

I also find that the "market" seems to have genuinely struggled over the last 5 years in trying to capture the insatiable appetite for detail with musicality. There has been a rush for detail retrieval that has been very, very powerful over the last few years...in part driven by digital and high-res digital.

And more than a few manufacturers i think have made missteps over the last 5 years in trying to bridge that resolution gap with the musicality gap. Manufacturers' new models have usually needed to focus on detail, extension and retrieval just to get conusmers to consider them...but a few of us have noticed that in doing so, they lost the musical message.

And so as a result, not all the most recent products were necessarily more musically satisfying than their older brethern. i think that is about to change in the next 12-18 months.

More specifically, I would say in the last 6-12 months, i have started to see a serious improvement in this generation of products, where more and more manufacturers seem to have "figured out" the blend...and so this current generation of products (DCS, Emm, Playback Designs, CJ, Vitus, ARC, Pass, Gryphon, Wilson, Magico, etc)...have really started to figure out the blend of the two. I have a sense that audio is going to seriously start to benefit from technological, material, software and other breakthrus in the next 12-18 months, as manufacturers who have been incorporating these technologies over the last 5 years start to get it really right in "Gen 3" of their products. Just my two cents.

 

[LL21]

One of many examples...I heard the Mark Levinson 33H monos the other day...in a system and room i know very well. No question in my mind, that pair of monos is waaaay better than a lot of newer generation amps...way more musical...keeps the beat, silent, powerful, and very smooth. But i was surprised to find that relative to today's "best of the best" there was less clarity at the extreme than what you can find today if you want to. But i would be hard pressed to take 75% of those "clearer" amps and say they were overall more musical (or to my tastes preferable).

Again, though, when you look at the 33Hs latest (and greatest) competition...then yes, i do think in this current generation of products, we can find SOTA amps that just simply are better. And i predict we will find them more common coming up in the next 12-18 months. Guys like Gryphon, Lamm, CJ, ARC, are really pushing the envelope in performance both musically and technically in a way that (to my ear) truly is both musical and live/realistic/detailed, etc...