1. Home
  2. tech-talk
  3. 1067066163

Stereophile confirms new gear is getting worse....

It appears that "high end" audio gear is moving backwards rather than forwards. If you doubt this, take a look at the November 2003 issue and the test results of the electronics reviewed.

As a case in point, the Pass XA160 mono-block amps that were reviewed perform pretty horribly. While most folks that read these forums know that i'm not shy about being a fan of Nelson Pass' work, i don't have much good to say about these over-priced boat anchors. Most will probably remember what a hard time that i gave the PS Audio HCA-2. In effect, most of the comments that i made about that amp apply to this amp. From what i can tell, the comments that i made about the PS may not be strong enough as compared to how poorly the XA160's performed, especially at the price. Lack of current output, high distortion figures, non-linear frequency responses, the ability for the loudspeaker to modulate the output of the amp, etc... were all evident in the test results. To top it off, the input and output impedances will make this unit quite sensitive to the components ( preamp, speakers, etc...) that it is mated with.

Regardless of who's name is on this unit, how "pretty" it looks ( gorgeous ), what it weighs (200 lbs per monoblock) and the parts quality inside, quite honestly, this unit performed like a really crappy "vintage" ( read that as "low tech" ) tubed unit from the days prior to audio civilization. All this "eye candy" and a sore back for only $18K a pair !!!

As we move to the next product review, we look at the BAT VK-51SE. While this unit was more consistent than the Pass, some of the design choices made are obviously not good ones. The most obvious flaw that i see with this unit is that it changes sound / tonal balance as the volume is varied. Even when the gain control is adjusted for the flattest response, the top end starts sloping off gradually above 5 KHz. As you increase the gain, you now introduce low frequency roll-off into the equation also. If really standing on the throttle, the unit doesn't even make it down to 100 Hz within a -3 dB tolerance window !!! Obviously, this is not very good or linear and is poorer performance than one would expect out of a "reasonable" pair of speakers, NOT line level components !!!

As such, you can't expect consistent sonics from this unit unless you listen at one gain setting. If you have only one source component and all your recordings are of the same intensity, you "might" be able to find a reasonable setting. Since i highly doubt that this is the case, especially the part about consistent volume from recording to recording, you can pretty much count this out.

On top of the variations that this unit produces on its' own, one can introduce a whole new gang of variables into the equation once you start factoring in input / output impedances into the equation. I'll just say that this unit isn't going to be very versatile in terms of what components it mates up with in terms of amp selection. All this "high tech performance" for only $8500. Make that $9000 if you want the convenience of a remote.

Moving a few pages further, we run into the "giant killer" AH! Njoe Tjoeb ( pronounced "new tube" ) 4000 cd player. This is a highly modified / hot-rodded Marantz unit with tubes added, a "super clock" and the option of a "plug & play" upsampling board, fancy footers and an upgraded power cord. Depending on what you want to spend, the base unit is $700. If you go for the unit fully loaded with options, you can feel your bank account drained to the tune of about $1200.

Take one look at the frequency response of this unit and you'll see that it is far from "neutral". To top it off, distortions are higher along with a lack of suppression of AC harmonics. Jitter is pretty high for a unit with a "superclock" i.e. higher than other units i've seen with no "superclock". As such, this unit doesn't appear to be a "killer" of any type other than being able to "flatten your wallet in one swift motion".

Obviously, "high end" has come full circle. That is, it would appear that "audiophiles" are more concerned with asthaetics and reputation than actual performance and fidelity. The folks that used to laugh at Bang & Olufsen are now falling for looks at an even higher price. While the sonics may differ from Bang & Olufsen, the end result is that none of these units are "accurate" or capable of being called "high fidelity" units any more than Bang & Olufsen gear of yester-year was. The fact that B&O are now trying to jump back into "high end" with some truly innovative products just goes to show that one can't judge a company or product by its' cover any more.

Having said that, the above mentioned products can't really be called "Hi-Fi components". What they can be called are "flavoured audiophile toys". The funny thing is that J. Gordon Holt had commented on this type of situation arising within the industry and there are letters in this issue agreeing with that point of view. J. Peter Moncrieff also talked about that in IAR Hotline 76-80 quite a while back and found it rather pathetic. Count me in with that crowd too.

I do have to credit JA and the guys for having the guts to print these test results. While there is plenty of "dancing" in all of the reviews along with more than enough "gushing" ( the Pass review in specific ), it was pretty obvious that JA really DID make mention of the technical problems that each of these products displayed. As usual, Stereophile remains consistent in the fact that they continue to test, measure and display the results for all to see. For this, i offer a very hardy pat on the back, vigorous hand-clapping and whistling. THANK YOU from all of us that like reading and interpreting spec's for ourselves. Having said that, JA still tried to down-play these flaws somewhat by giving the "old soft shoe" at the end of his technical comments.

As i've said before, one has to buy and use what they like and makes them happy. With all of the various and BLATANT "flavouring" that is going on with audio gear nowadays, one really must know what they want and how well components will blend together in their system. It would appear that the days of trying to achieve "accuracy" and "musicality" with with each piece of gear are over. Now audio is kind of like Baskin-Robbins i.e. you've got to know what you like before you order what are VERY specific "flavours" for each product selected.

Let the buyer beware.... Sean
>

PS... I've got my flame repellent armour on along with an oxygen tank and a full battery of weapons. After this post and the responses that i think i'll get, i know that i'll need all of that and maybe more : )
sean
sean OP
6,229 posts
 
Z: While many of your technical comments are quite valid, the fact that these units show marked deviation in any form is testimony in itself that products aren't being designed for neutrality or accuracy. As such, they should no longer be referred to as "hi-fi components" but. They are being built to suit the tastes / colouration preferences of those most likely to buy them.

If such were not the case, the great resurgence in tube gear would not be happening. Anybody that has ever seen the test results of "most" commercially available tube gear would know that these units are far from accurate, linear or "transparent". I know that i'm stepping on a lot of toes here, but if tubes didn't have these "sonic traits", they wouldn't be so discernable from SS gear.

While there are a handful of tube manufacturers that strive to achieve high levels of accuracy and musicality, they are the exception and not the norm. The fact that SS and hybrid tube / ss gear is taking the same approach should tell you that the products we are seeing are strictly market driven. They have little to nothing to do with technological advances or the desire to reproduce recordings in a naturally transparent manner.

As far as the Pass gear goes in specific, i hate seeing something like this. Not only does the manufacturer misrepresent the product in terms of basic specs, the product tests like crap. While i'm a big fan of Nelson's work, this thing is just plain horrible in a technical sense. The fact that the faceplate on this thing cost more to manufacture than what some amps cost to build really shows where their priorities are.

As to the BAT preamp, if they can't provide reasonable linearity across the bandwidth that isn't volume dependent for $8K, maybe they should have spent another $100 in product development and better parts selection. One could logically deduce that the frequency response of the unit would shift accordingly between the response measured at full gain and minimal gain, but even that would require some form of linearity. Utterly ridiculous to say the least.

As to the Njoe Tjoeb, your comment stating "probably of no audible consequence or any great sin at this price" is pretty heavy handed and "snooty" to say the least. While i know that you don't have your nose stuck in the air, that comment would lead one to believe that $850 - $1200 should be considered a pittance and that one can't buy something at least technically decent for this price. I guess the fact that they can make self contained portable "discman" type units that also contain an amplifier and market them for $39 with the manufacturer, distributor and retailer all making a profit means nothing.

Not to beat a dead horse, but we've already covered how poorly the PS HCA-2 performed. Just to refresh our memories, that was ranked a "Class A" component. If something that performs that poorly can make it into Class A, what does that say about the rest of the competition ? The only logical deduction here is that the quality of components IS getting worse and the reviewers are lowering their standards to compensate for it. Other than that, i can only think of one other reason how such products could obtain positive reviews.

I guess we had nothing to complain about while Stereophile was "loving" all the MF gear. Hell, at least that stuff was designed relatively competently and didn't cost near as much. Sean
>

PS... Thanks to those that offered words of support. It's always nice to know that you're not alone : )



sean OP
6,229 posts
 
Infinitebaffle: You are listening to the spec's whether you think you are or not. If the spec's you're looking at don't correlate with the sound that you're hearing, the spec's were either obtained in an incorrect manner, the circuitry was poorly designed and compensated for in a manner that is less than musical or the manufacturer is lying about them. It is either one of the above or you prefer specific sonic characteristics that don't equate to what most would consider to be "good" measurements. Then again, most of the measurements that one needs to discern if a product is well designed / will sound "acceptable" aren't published by manufacturers in a usable manner. THAT is why i'm thankful that Stereophile still tests and publishes in the manner that they do. Sean
>
viridian's avatar
viridian
4,184 posts
 
If the specs don't correlate with the sound you're hearing you probably are just measuring the wrong things. Which seems to me to be the situation most of the time. Human hearing is quite subtle and to think that we can measure every nuance that the ear can discern seems technocentric at best. But ears too are non linear as hearing tests will easily show, at least where freqency response is concerned. These deviations from linearity seem to be greater than any currently measured in gear - even many speakers are more linear than the human ear. My experience bears this out. I do think that gear is getting better, it's just the prices that are deafening.
psychicanimal
1,738 posts
 
What gear to buy? Go to AudioCircle's manufacturer's circle and you'll find more than a few smaller companies that are for the music. At the top of my list are Channel Islands Audio and now Modwright is producing gear. Dusty's approach is to deliver $30k sound for an investment of $6K. That's what I'm aimimng for, too.
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
But Sean...

OK, you've got me on the price of the CD player. I should have said that its specs were nothing to get upset about at any price.

I'm not being cute when I say that. Outside of its quite mild frequency response deviations, I wouldn't be shocked if Stereophile's published specs on that unit don't actually constitute an overriding determinant which correlates well with its perceived sound quality. And that response deviation is of a subjectively not-undesirable character when looked at from the standpoint of the mastered sound of many disks, and will in any case likely be swamped by the non-linearities present in the speaker/room response.

But basically, I actually agree with you that this type of euphonic tailoring is not admirable, and that reviewers often seem to go in for components that make average recordings sound 'nice', rather than revealing what's truly there. But I can also understand why others might enjoy this kind of design - after all, music listening is about personal pleasure, and who am I to argue with the preferences of another?

The real core of my argument is not that the AH! player's specs are worthy of a spirited defense, but rather that its *sound* (whatever that may be) is worthy of being judged - as is the sound of any component - primarily against the *sound* of other players in its price range. I probably wouldn't choose this player, because like you I happen to care a bit about uneditorialized frequency response, but that doesn't mean that the unit might not excell in some other parameters at its price point. I don't know however, and neither do you, 'cause we haven't heard it.

Your position in the last sentence of your second paragraph makes it clear that you consider competently-measuring SS gear to constitute some kind of standard of 'neutrality'. But not all 'neutrality' is created equal. I'm sure you don't require a lecture from me on the differences between steady-state test measurements and far more complex music signals.

So there's the 'neutrality' of maintaining flat amplitude response into varying speaker loads by designing for low amplifier output impedance, and then there's another 'neutrality' of designing for lowest TIMD and timing errors by eliminating the global feedback that enables SS amps to appear more linear under static test conditions.

I am not one to propone that what audiophiles hear can never be measured - I do believe that for any audible effect, there exists some discoverable technical property that can be correlated with what the ear perceives. That's in theory only though. In life our measurements are imperfect in design and execution, and the real music problem too complex for current measurement practice to shed the degree of light that would be required for correlative certainty regarding all audible phenomena.

On top of which, I still think this month's issue of Stereophile in no way 'proves' your contention that the overall direction of the industry is heading toward increasingly non-linear devices. That would be a false sylogism - an unscientific supposition, in other words, for which both the evidence and the reasoning are flawed.

I'm particularly surprised that you don't give Nelson Pass, a designer you've often stated your admiration for, more of the benefit of the doubt regarding this new amp. I'm not saying I know he's 'innocent' - again, neither you nor I have heard the thing - but I would be inclined to assume that he hears something positive about the fidelity of this design approach that he couldn't attain through his previous designs, at least until conclusively demonstrated otherwise. And again: even if you or I didn't like it, why care? All that matters in the end is that whoever buys it likes it. It's a big enough market for different interpretations of reality (and that's all we've got) to flourish without doing harm to one another. IMO.
More to discover