A major disconnect between the audiophile magazine


Greetings from London. There is in my view a major disconnect between the audiophile magazines and their readers. It’s an understandable one but in my view an important one – and that the focus of this thread-starter.

Although I’m a UK-based high-end retailer I am, curiously despite 34 years on and off still interested in music first and foremost and then the equipment that reproduces it. With my end-user hat on I have to say that in a lot of my vintage gear is certainly, performance-wise, up to the standard of a lot of modern equipment. It’s not all plain sailing of course and there is the tricky issue of value versus price. Let me explain.

Take the ARC SP-8 for example. Venerable, rightly revered and a bargain on the used market. Yes of course my ARC SP-10 and 11 are more musically credible. But in too many instances this is the exception rather than the rule. I’ve recently purchased a British Fidelity {Musical Fidelity outside the UK) P270 heavy-grunt power amp for $560 USD. 23 years old. Is the latest MF power amp of a similar specification noticeably AND significantly superior? Somehow, I doubt it. Different, certainly. But more musically credible? Hmm, somehow I doubt it. But I could be wrong. Very wrong in fact. So other than through substantial investment with the probability of selling one of the two units at some financial loss, how am I to know?

Now where do the magazines come into all this you might ask? Well let’s assume (naïve though it might be) that their primary reason for existence is to serve to needs of the reader. If so, then surely a side-by-side comparison of the two Musical Fidelity power amps (used purely for illustrative purposes in this post) is as valid as the mooted ARC SP8 versus SP10 comparison.

Clearly no advertiser of new equipment in an audiophile magazine would countenance this if they knew that the much touted new model really at best only sounded different to its vintage same-brand rival rather than better. Well, that goes with territory. The mags need to make a profit and to pay the staff at least a reasonable wage. But the point remains that given (a) the over-supply of new high-end gear in a diminishing market and (b) the buyers markets for high-value vintage gear that may indeed – or possibly not – sonically rival performance of new gear and (c) the justified end-user cynicism regarding the hype and hyperbole of marketing phrases re new gear, then end-users are at a significant disadvantage when seeking value rather than lowest pricing.

The paradox is that the very people most suited to addressing this are constrained by economic reality.

So, what’s to be done? Well, I’m thinking of doing a few comparative subjective reviews myself on my blog. Possibly for my own amusement and possibly to the altruistic benefit of others. My question though is – is there a demand? Perhaps those of you with an interest (rather than an axe to grind) might want to contact me via Audiogon, or perhaps continue the thread?

Meanwhile, my Musical Fidelity P270 sounds terrific into my Vandersteen 2c Signatures. As a start, I’m going to compare the P270 to something much newer of a similar spec and, as best I can judge, of a comparative price once 23 years of inflation are factored in.

I’m using a Carver 400t preamp, various SAE preamps, a Meridian 101b, a recent Arcam pre and North Star 2-box CD player. This leads me conveniently to the conclusion that modern DACs truly are an improvement t (generally speaking) over vintage ones. I say this having owned the $20k USD STAX X1-t. This isn’t the case with speakers though and having come to my senses about the Linn LP12 and accepted my frustration re the sonically magnificent but challenging Funk products. Re vintage speakers that to me easily equally or indeed surpass the performance of rivals from competitors I’d put the Magneplanar 20.R right up there with the finest. Similarly with the Infinity IRS and the Spendor BC3s. These BC3s although not quite as good as the Harbeth 40.1s can be had for a tiny fraction of the latter’s price. Dahlquist DQ10s being another case in point. And so it goes. Is the magnificent vintage Rowland power amps truly an altogether lesser beast than their new units? Incidentally am I the only one over her that feels (no, not feels … actually knows) that Rowland really is one of this industry's marginalised brands?

I now use a big old Denon Direct drive in a custom plinth comprising notinventedherium interspersed with layers of female yak-dung as a vibration absorber. The improvement using the female free-range version (1958 vintage) compared to the battery-farmed YD of recent years is nothing short of astonishing.

Finally, as I write this I’m listening to true vintage. Pink Floyd “Echoes” off the very rare “Rhapsody In Pink” live set through a mono speaker. If like me you saw the Floyd performing this live, the absence of Pace, Rhythm & Timing is an irrelevance. The musical trigger to the memory is sufficient. Anyway, those of you who wish to – you know how to find me.

Thank you

Regards

Howard Popeck / Stereonow Ltd
128x128bigaitch
Howard,

I am with you 100% and have posted similar comments in other threads.

Of course, the emperor of insanely high priced, "high end" audio does not want to be discovered wearing no clothes.

So brace yourself for backlash on any thread like this one, where current dealers and market participants will invariably trash the hopelessly antiquated, vintage equipment, or remind us that say, the Wilson Watt/Puppy Version X "blows away" the previous one which is now available for 25% of the price.

In my view, very little has improved in audio for as many as 30 years or more, other than advances in digital and/or making the mass market cheaper, lighter and/or smaller, not that those qualities are necessarily advantageous to the audiophile.

To be fair, I sometimes wonder if those of us with this view are a bit like vintage car collectors.

Are we puttering around in our unreliable old cars, romanticizing their virtues, while insisting "they don't make them like they used to"?

On reflection, no, I would say this is not the case.

Because generally cars in 2010, actually do "blow away" cars which are 10-30 years old, at least in terms of performance, and higher and higher performance has generally become more affordable and accessible.

In audio, however, performance has become more and more nebulous and debatable, only unquestionably more ridiculously expensive.

So I for one will continue to search for bargain basement vintage gear and pass on ridiculously overpriced new equipment.

If a growing number of vintage enthusiasts wakes up the industry, that would be great.

I would be delighted to see the new equipment charging ahead, and raising the playing field, at any price.

But so far, the only thing that has leaped ahead is the BS and chutzpah.

Thanks for a brave and honest thought.
If they are disconnected, they will not last long.

Thankfully, there are many sources of information, both good and bad, to draw on these days to help make better informed decisions as a buyer if you just do your homework.

Nobody ever said doing anything really well was easy.

If you do not want to do the homework, then better off buying a complete pre-integrated solution in one or more boxes from your favorite vendor. But how many of us here do that?
I think the BS and the Chutzpah are the best power amp and preamp anywhere, regardless of price!
My feeling is that new equipment can be expensive,but in technical terms/ and function better on the whole if you stick with new equipment throughout the system. Maybe TTs are different. The digital world is so much better than the old days.

I like the car analogy from CWlondon. Somehow old gear is easier to make sound ok. But if you are mad enough like many of us here, that is not enough.

I find the review world hard to get a handle on. The comparisons never seem constant. Please compare classic kit we know with the new kit to give us all a chance to understand the review.
In general, technology gets better all the time and not worse.

It may or may not cost more.

Digital sources and high power amps with the maturation of Class D technology are two areas where I think newer technology is vastly superior and also more cost effective currently to most of what went before it.

There may be better phono technology available today but that will cost a premium in a niche market.

i suspect with good companies with a track record, the engineering and manufacturing processes have progressed as well enabling higher quality than before but also perhaps at a premium due to modern costs and a smaller market.

There are some similar benefits with speaker technology thes days also but as a whole I think the differences here are lesser, assuming the older gear is still in good working order