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
 
Uppermidfi: "Why do people only agree with Stereophile when it says something bad about some piece of stereo equipment. If they praise some piece of equipment everyone says they're wrong and that it sucks (Musical Fidelity is an example, but my comments are not limited to MF) but if they pan something everyone praises them for their courage."

Sean: Very few products get "canned" in a review, even when it is obvious that they are total pieces of junk. If you want evidence of this, look at Paul Bolin's / Stereophile's review of the Legacy Focus 20/20. If you read Bolin's comments, this is the best value in high end audio speakers available. If you actually look at the performance of the system as measured by JA, you'll know that it is little more than a bunch of high quality drivers thrown into the smallest possible yet still large glossy cabinet with little fore-thought put into the actual design. How anybody could praise a $6K speaker that has a frequency response of +8 dB's / -3 dB's and has to sit with their heads at least 45" above the floor for best results is WAY beyond me. Yet Bolin and Stereophile RAVED about this product. If that is as good as things get and it costs $6K to obtain results like that, we have sunk WAY below the level of performance that end users expected, even in the late 1970's. Sean
>

PS... Not only is this a comment on the quality of products being manufactured and foisted upon us today, but also the integrity of those writing and publishing reviews of such products. Knowing the truth yet making it possible for someone else to lie to you is nothing more than aiding the "scam" being perpetuated. JA did this very thing when he allowed this review to be published. Either that or he was trying to make clear that Paul Bolin can't differentiate between reasonably flat response and response that is highly coloured. There are no other explanations possible that i can think of for this situation.
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
4,163 posts
 
You're not just a messenger, you're an advocate. You cite one or two examples or what you think is poor design and then draw an extreme conclusion. I survey the current marketplace and see an overwhelming abundance of well designed and good sounding equipment available at reasonable (at least by audiophile standards) prices. Are there also over priced turkeys? Of course, but how is that any different than 20 or 30 years ago?

BTW, the Hovland review is quite positive and even could be considered a rave. The first unit was defective (grounding problems), but the second unit performed wonderfully and measured satisfactory. We've had years of great sounding tube amps with questionable measurements and now someone has produced a solid state amp with the same characteristics. In the right system it sounds like it would be a very strong performer. Is this progress? Only time will tell, but I do remember back when the original Apogee speakers came out that some people thought they were poorly engineered due to their severe impedance load.
jax2
3,031 posts
 
At the expense of being lumped into the "Whiner" category, I'd have to agree with Sean's point as well. I've got a stack of Stereophile issues from the past two years, and have subscribed, on and off, over many more years. I cannot recall any reviews where a product was panned. In fact, whenever negative points are brought up, it seems they are often quickly swept under the carpet by pointing out the positive merits all in the guise of presenting a 'balanced' review. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain....hey kids, keep your eyes on the pretty colors and have s'more candy! Watch the funny sock-puppet dance and sing!.......Never mind that there no one has found any evidence of nuclear weapons production in Iraq, we got that evil bastard that was causing all the trouble....pay no mind to those bodies their shipping back, and those civillian corpses...just look at what it's done for our economy! Er, ah, I mean, we got the evil bastard who was causing all the trouble....hey, did you see my funny sockpuppet buddies?!" The popular media has always been driven by money and politics, and I don't believe Stereophile, or Car & Driver, or any other advertising-driven rag that reviews products is ever going to present an unbiased viewpoint that does not reflect a favor to those who pay their bills. Are all the products THAT good that not a one is a complete dud in comparision to what else is out there available for around the same price? Having heard a few duds, and knowing that my preferences, like anyone else, are highly subjective and have certain leanings toward particular kinds of music and the reproduction thereof, I truly doubt that a single publication reviewing all kinds of components in various price ranges cannot seem to find a dud among them. Perhaps they just choose not to review the duds, one might suggest. Well, I guess that's possible....keep your eyes on the sockpuppet. And what about that Sterophile rating system. Let's see, a rating system that chooses to put include an MP3 player among it's recommended components.....hmmm.......to me, listening to my music on an iPod is like attaching some ten-penny nails in place of the speakers on the headphones and wearing those for a few hours while the music was piped into my brain from an 8-Track in a 76' Gremlin. Kind of a Clockwork Orange scenario going on there if the music happened to be Ludwig Van. I had some hope when I read Art Dudley's review of, I think it was the Ayre CX7 CD Player........he didn't like it, and wasn't trying to hide the fact that he didn't like it, but alas, Ayre saved the day by pointing out he should have tried the balanced outputs, and of course that made all the difference. I don't doubt that it did perform as he claims. I was just looking for someone to prove my whole theory wrong (and I had every confidence that Dudley was my man by my enjoyment of his unrestrained editorials). At least it lead to a very conditional recommendation on the part of Dudley in the case of the CX7 (I think that was what it was anyway - sorry if I'm inaccurate there). That's the furthest I've seen any review go towards being construed as a remotely negative, and I must admit, I was really surprised to read even that.

Marco
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Is the issue that high end has poor quality or that Stereophile will not give a negative review. The first point is hardly demonstrated by what Sean presents as evidence, although it is part of the ideology of many here.

The second question can be more easily assessed. I fully expect that one can find few negative reviews unless you try to read between the lines. As long as magazines accept advertising, I suspect that they cannot give a negative review to an advertiser or a positive review to a non-advertiser. Dudley tried this in Listener and you see where it got him. I must say, however, that many of his observations both in Listener and in Stereophile are wrong in my experience.
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
I believe it was in the most recent Stereophile (same as the Radia review) that Michael Fremer gave the Theta Enterprise amps a conflicted but ultimately lukewarm pass. The head of that company, Neil Sinclair (whose digital gear I own and admire), then came back with what I thought was a blatantly disingenuous rebuttal in the manufacturer's response (despite the fact that the reviewer pointedly and repeatedly praised their flagship Citadel amps), attempting to paint Fremer as an unreconstructed tubophile with an agenda. Apparently Sinclair found it easy to overlook Fremer's reference being SS, as well as his bestowing recent raves upon the Halo JC-1 and MF Kw amps. (And for Sean and Joe, also overlooking JA's self-described "mixed bag" of measurements.)

I can think of at least two reasons why truly negative reviews hardly ever appear. One is that there probably are hardly any products that deserve to be totally panned, but more fundamentally, I think most reviewers (correctly) take the position they cannot in good conscience come across as being completely authoritative or definitive in their criticism just because something fails to ignite in their system, to their ears. Of course, the same reasoning of moderation and qualification ought to apply to 'raves' as well as flops, but many reviewers ignore this sensible proviso (not necessarily citing Fremer here, but Bolin probably qualifies). Combine the reticence to pan with the propensity to drool, and you have the recipe for reviews in general seeming too liberal with their praise, and often just plain unbalanced. Thus (one of the reasons for) the continual suspicions of undue manufacturer influence, and for anything less than a head-over flip often being perceived by manufacturers as essentially a 'dis'. Underlying this phenomenon seems to be the unspoken assumption that most readers would rather thrill to breathless hosannas than digest thoughtful, realistic assessments.
More to discover