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
Bound for Sound magazine has been looking into vintage gear lately and doing some comparisons to modern stuff.

http://www.boundforsound.com/currIssue.htm
In general terms I agree with the original post. I like the term he uses -- musically credible. There is absolutely no doubt that better materials are available in electronics and loudspeakers and they result in better sound. The question is whether the advances in sound quality are musically credible or relevant or just audiophile minutiae? As an example, when did soundstage info become the end all and be all of audiophile sound?

Ultimately it's about listening to music. For me there's a minimum in sound quality that detracts from the music if not met. But once that minimum is met there's not a direct correlation between my enjoyment of music and increased sound quality. It's perfectly plausible that older equipment can exceed my minimum standards.
GOD BLESS YOU!

After 40 years in the "hobby",it was the current industry that pushed me out....I had a superb,very costly system,but built up over the years.

In any event,the diminishing quality of reliable service,update costs,re-packaging of unreliable components that took an entire afternoon to break down (like a turntable,arm,cartridge)....and the subsequent shock and disappointment of still having problems(after return) just wore me out!

Today's magazines are there to aid mfgrs,not hobbyists...sorry for that!

Now,when I get a bit homesick for my old set-up and LP collection(which I do),I just pick up a new Magazine and look at the asking prices of "average" equipment,cost wise...I then put it down in disbelief.

I mean,you can enjoy a magnificent hand crafted musical instrument,with a lifetime warrantee,and they get better with age..Not to mention their value increases with age as well,for less money than a high quality MC cartridge.My advice to current hobbyists is..."be happy with what you have built up over your time in the hobby.Most likely,if you have good instincts,it will "always" be competitive with what is coming down the pipe....and alot less costly".

I say this having heard scores of private set-ups,as well as many reviewrs' systems,in their homes.No need for an experienced hobbyist to "think" he is giving up anything to what is "newer".

Sheesh!
"In general, technology gets better all the time and not worse."

Mapman's statement is unarguable. But that isn't to say that the application of technology always results in a better product. While technology is advancing the state of the art, it simultaneously offers a builder cost cutting opportunities. The development of plastics was an advancement in technology. Applying it to gears and dowels is a misuse IMO.
Silversurfer.
While the BS amp can be purchased quite commonly the Chutzpah is something that only comes to one following one's own path, it is not something one can buy