Tom,
The more and better should be better! Thanks for such an useful advice ...
What are the specifications you consider relevant? Just the famous four?
Is it "whats best forum" , or what's more expensive
- Thread starter MarinJim
- Start date
Tom,
The more and better should be better! Thanks for such an useful advice ...
What are the specifications you consider relevant? Just the famous four?
The discussion is smoothly but steadily moving toward measurements. I , for one, don't think the "Famous four" as aptly microstrip calls them tell us much. THD is one notoriously unreliable metric for sound quality as we easily accept more than 50% THD under certain coniditions, according to Dr Geddes. I know we get our ration of high THD out of most woofers and subwofer system where 10% is the norm. So let's leave measurements aside for the moment. We can always open up or re-open threads on the matter...
Back to the point:Is it the best or the more expensive? I have in another thread asked a question of what makes a gear SOTA. We skirted around the issue but let me take an example. A $5,000 turntable and a shiny, glitzy $200,000 contraption , both without arm; which one do you believe will get the epithet "SOTA"? In a review the $5,000 may even get the unflattering good for its price... the $200,000 TT will get the nod toward SOTA without one sound coming out of it. Their is already a disposition toward it being the best for most audiophiles. Of that I am certain, if the gear is said to have bearing made of adamantium and an atomic clock-controlled oscillator for the motor... Instantly , more SOTA creeds... It will only be compared only to those in its "price Range" ...
We deny the that the price equates in our mind SOTA. We write around it but I suspect we all know it is more the norm than the exception regardless of our means and systems total costs.
We should separate waters - one thing is what our minds equate, the other is what is really happening. You are correct you say that when we see a high price we expect high performance - I think it is what you mean by SOTA. But IMHO the point is not our expectation - it is if our expectation describes the reality or not. My opinion is that most of the time an higher price product can lead to a better sound reproduction in an appropriate system. I accept that at some point, as a consequence of the law of diminishing returns, the gains can easily be overcome or hidden by other factors.
The use of the word SOTA in this debate is dangerous and can introduce confusion in a debate that relies on comparisons. How do we call a product that is better than a SOTA one?
Frantz, you have summarized the problem with using measurements to guide high end audio purchases: with the exception of price, there seems to be no consensus about which measurements are important, even amongst the proponents of using them.
As to using price as a guidepost of quality, I would submit that all shoppers work within price parameters for the majority of their purchases. While a higher price may provide a patina of quality, it simultaneously creates a higher expectation for performance. A poor dining experience at your local "Chili's" restaurant is far less disappointing and simultaneously more readily forgotten and forgiven than a bad meal at your more expensive, four star establishment.
respectfully; there are dozens of 'measurment threads' already on WBF, all of which i generally have avoided. i'll exit this one now i guess if we are going down that rat-hole.
How much money did the US taxpayer give Tesla?Yeah , thats it, something innovative , no one has failed when they did , it worked well for Tesla ..
Tomelex measurements tell only part of the whole story , secondly audio is there to enjoy , not sit with a list in front of your stereo and sign off all the achieved good sound requirements .
Since there is no proper measurement to cover the whole audio reproduction and put a mark to it , its hardly of any use to prove your point that you upgrade only by better measurment numbers of your next piece of gear.
In " high end" audio anybody can claim anything and get away with it , simply because no one can bring forth proper evidence to prove he is wrong / right, its a useless debate in my opinion
I suggest buy what you like most
In " high end" audio anybody can claim anything and get away with it , simply because no one can bring forth proper evidence to prove he is wrong / right, its a useless debate in my opinion
I suggest buy what you like most
Last edited:
a different view
I commented on the tone of the posts I've seen in such threads. How people feel is not determined by your logic about the validity of high prices (or mine). I believe that the "hijacked" idea may be behind some of the rather passionate posts I see.
> The high-end high prices were created by the economics, better knowledge of the audio science ...
I don't see much “audio science” R&D from high-end companies with the exception of Harmon and perhaps one or two others. Not many audiophiles seem interested in the science behind the products either. Here are some assertions about high-end audio that I find plausible:
- Distribution is inefficient (expensive) compared to consumer electronics or pro-audio markets.
- Equipment is produced in too low numbers by companies that are too small to afford much investment.
- No innovation in terms of functionality or price/performance. So the market is stagnant or declining.
- The middle of the audio market shriveled during the recession. High-end audio companies moved further up market rather than down market.
- Dealers have been telling manufacturers that higher prices make equipment seem more valuable and salable.
- Some audiophiles have big money to spend on audio gear and they want to spend it. Over and over. They are the core customer base now.
Proof by assertion (yours or mine) is not proof at all.
> They created state of the art very expensive equipment and now internet marketing techniques excessively expose these products,
Gotta keep the conspicuous consumption discreetly hidden from the unwashed masses.:b Hard to pass up such an opportunity for humor.
> hiding that behind them the traditional market of value for money has better offers than ever.
Few of those better values are from the high-end companies that are discussed here. I'll be buying from the companies that offer real advances in function and price/performance.
> Is the creation of a forum called WhatsBestForum a signal that the hobby has been hijacked?
I think the hobby was hijacked some time ago. This forum reflects the way the high-end audio industry has gone and the way its customer base has narrowed.
I am disappointed in this forum. Steve stated his intention to bring in experts to lead discussions about real knowledge. There is very little of that left. What interests me is talking about real knowledge about audio, reasoning from that knowledge, reading about experiments and measurements from them. In a recent post tomelex said
“So, we have no lists, no specifics, we just enjoy audio. What the hell are we going to talk about? What is there to learn.”
I agree.
Bill
I commented on the tone of the posts I've seen in such threads. How people feel is not determined by your logic about the validity of high prices (or mine). I believe that the "hijacked" idea may be behind some of the rather passionate posts I see.
> The high-end high prices were created by the economics, better knowledge of the audio science ...
I don't see much “audio science” R&D from high-end companies with the exception of Harmon and perhaps one or two others. Not many audiophiles seem interested in the science behind the products either. Here are some assertions about high-end audio that I find plausible:
- Distribution is inefficient (expensive) compared to consumer electronics or pro-audio markets.
- Equipment is produced in too low numbers by companies that are too small to afford much investment.
- No innovation in terms of functionality or price/performance. So the market is stagnant or declining.
- The middle of the audio market shriveled during the recession. High-end audio companies moved further up market rather than down market.
- Dealers have been telling manufacturers that higher prices make equipment seem more valuable and salable.
- Some audiophiles have big money to spend on audio gear and they want to spend it. Over and over. They are the core customer base now.
Proof by assertion (yours or mine) is not proof at all.
> They created state of the art very expensive equipment and now internet marketing techniques excessively expose these products,
Gotta keep the conspicuous consumption discreetly hidden from the unwashed masses.:b Hard to pass up such an opportunity for humor.
> hiding that behind them the traditional market of value for money has better offers than ever.
Few of those better values are from the high-end companies that are discussed here. I'll be buying from the companies that offer real advances in function and price/performance.
> Is the creation of a forum called WhatsBestForum a signal that the hobby has been hijacked?
I think the hobby was hijacked some time ago. This forum reflects the way the high-end audio industry has gone and the way its customer base has narrowed.
I am disappointed in this forum. Steve stated his intention to bring in experts to lead discussions about real knowledge. There is very little of that left. What interests me is talking about real knowledge about audio, reasoning from that knowledge, reading about experiments and measurements from them. In a recent post tomelex said
“So, we have no lists, no specifics, we just enjoy audio. What the hell are we going to talk about? What is there to learn.”
I agree.
Bill
I made such a list last year in my blog
http://carsmusicandnature.blogspot.com/2012/04/audio-gear-ive-owned.html
The list isn't quite complete. I didn't list phono cartridges and I forgot a reel-to-reel tape deck I owned early on. I've re-implemented the MusicPC last fall.
I started over 45 years ago. After a couple of steps upward early on, I have kept using audio gear until it breaks or gets stolen.
I think the people who swap gear frequently have more to say about "hearing differences" than those who keep gear a long time. Of course, if you are a reviewer, you get to hear more gear without cost.
Bill
Hi Dave,
I agree, but in reality I do believe that sonic value & price has, over-time, changed.
As an example, my amplifiers were around $5K ($10K mono) new in the mid 90's. They were considered "very expensive", $10k is a lot of bread for amplification even today, although unlike yesteryear, today $10K amps are more prevalent.
Do current amps sound better, well that's a matter of perspective, however I incorporated a few expensive amps before the DR3s, and although they would have sufficed quite nicely, they didn't quite have the synergy, grip, control, dynamic power, flow, and perhaps the biggest difference which surprised me, the frequency extension (esp up top).
The same can be said for my Alphason HR100s, a titanium built tonearm with tight carbide bearings and a smart decoupled counterweight, which built today would cost considerably more (hell it cost me more to buy used than it did brand new). It replaced an arm (G2.0) at well over 3 times that value.
We all understand why cost has always been a guide to potential performance, but I think the exuberant prices of audio these days is not nearly as indicative of quality. I say that based on experience, and because I've witnessed far too many mega buck systems fail to get even the basic aspects of musical reproduction correct, never mind justifying their ludicrous overall cost.
Although I believe value has diminished over time, and continues to do so ... the positive is that it's been offset by availability ... just consider how much quality gear is on the market these days at much better value.
tb1
The issue is we now have a bunch of one-off shops who are trying to sell to Asia, who apparently will buy gear at these disgusting prices. In the past few weeks we have heard about 35k tonearms, 50k RACKS, etc. We now have 100k+ digital--which is extinct in 3-4 years. Speakers are gravitating to 250k in the next year or two and I feel 500k isn't far behind. All one needs to look is to the used market to see how poorly the resale is on these items. We are talking 60%+ off on much of this stuff. That means manufacturers are pricing things too high for a few suckers.
I was going to start a thread soon that I am going to buy a BMW M3 over a pair of D'Agostinos. Stew on that before people try and sell me $7,000 bloody power cords like in the most recent TAS.
I was going to start a thread soon that I am going to buy a BMW M3 over a pair of D'Agostinos. Stew on that before people try and sell me $7,000 bloody power cords like in the most recent TAS.
oh and how could I forget the latest expensive craze---$50,000 phono stages! today's SOTA vinyl setup runs a cool $300k. For a source component!
Funny you mention this. I once did a search for amplifiers on eBay and sorted price high to low. Up came a bunch of $100K+ amps, directly marketed to Chinese (and I believe Arabic) audience by a guy in NYC. It literally said to be taken seriously as a "noveau riche" you have to own one of these - we ship to China fully insured. I believe it was Boulder stuff. Not sure if it had the black anodized finish option....
I don't have any objections to audio jewelry. I bought my tone arm, expensive, just because I loved the way it looked and I wanted to look at it whenever I played a record.
The newly minted raft of Asian millionaires are obviously chasing expensive dreams that make the affluent American audiophiles pale in comparison.
Some of the Accuphase products I have opened up are absolutely gorgeous, they seem to be an impossible implementation of precision audio construction. They also sound good, I can see how having them on the rack would inspire confidence in one's audio choices, and with the art of both design and construction, the prices seem justifiable.
However, I think most audiophiles who have been in the hobby for a while will necessarily develop a PHILOSOPHY of sound. If they haven't, and they just like the gadgets, then they will churn gadgets and there is nothing necessarily wrong with that, either. I don't usually think I would follow their path or recommendations, though, it strikes me as a case of nerves more than hobby. I listen more often when guys espouse their developed philosophies, rather than equipment lusting.
I also see the expensive setups that look like Intel clean rooms with massive, expensive monoliths of audio architecture. I also don't see anything wrong with that, if you can afford it and it gives you musical peace and fulfillment, or even just a sense of status and prestige. It's hard for me to imagine a lot of actual listening getting done when the tweako stuff and dust mops become so time consuming, though. It looks like high maintenance and low listening time. Listening becomes like an occasional tea ceremony, with some prized recording eventually consumed on the audio alter, rather than an integrated part of life. Music designed for dirty, crowded, smokey rooms played in Intel clean rooms is a bit too contrarian for me.
My own prejudice is that the best sound in America is probably in some guy's basement in a backwash of Ohio. He has a soldering station, access the a woodworking and machine shop, and his family thinks he is crazy. He probably listens to tubes. Maybe he and a friend or two ever hear his system.
The newly minted raft of Asian millionaires are obviously chasing expensive dreams that make the affluent American audiophiles pale in comparison.
Some of the Accuphase products I have opened up are absolutely gorgeous, they seem to be an impossible implementation of precision audio construction. They also sound good, I can see how having them on the rack would inspire confidence in one's audio choices, and with the art of both design and construction, the prices seem justifiable.
However, I think most audiophiles who have been in the hobby for a while will necessarily develop a PHILOSOPHY of sound. If they haven't, and they just like the gadgets, then they will churn gadgets and there is nothing necessarily wrong with that, either. I don't usually think I would follow their path or recommendations, though, it strikes me as a case of nerves more than hobby. I listen more often when guys espouse their developed philosophies, rather than equipment lusting.
I also see the expensive setups that look like Intel clean rooms with massive, expensive monoliths of audio architecture. I also don't see anything wrong with that, if you can afford it and it gives you musical peace and fulfillment, or even just a sense of status and prestige. It's hard for me to imagine a lot of actual listening getting done when the tweako stuff and dust mops become so time consuming, though. It looks like high maintenance and low listening time. Listening becomes like an occasional tea ceremony, with some prized recording eventually consumed on the audio alter, rather than an integrated part of life. Music designed for dirty, crowded, smokey rooms played in Intel clean rooms is a bit too contrarian for me.
My own prejudice is that the best sound in America is probably in some guy's basement in a backwash of Ohio. He has a soldering station, access the a woodworking and machine shop, and his family thinks he is crazy. He probably listens to tubes. Maybe he and a friend or two ever hear his system.
Yep its the what cost more forum, but then again, some people feel if it cost more, it's got to be the best. But it's a hobby and who cares what one spends on their hobby. I got some awful expense Nikon photo equipment and lens, that cost a lot more than any of my "audio hobby, hell my fishing boats cost more than my audio hobby. I say enjoy the music regardless how you get there.
Similar threads
