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
BS and chutzpah has and always will be out there.Its for individual's to decide whats better for them.We seem to fall apart when we enter an audio salon.we are intimidated by a strong arm sales approach and we take printed reviews at face value.Then we come to these forums and ask others which is better or what do they think.People,would you ask others what they think of your wife or husband or which of two people you should marry.Its what you think that counts. How many times have you purchased a component because others said it was better only to find that the piece you sold to buy this new component was greatly missed.How many times have you made revisions on a component because the dealer or manufacturer said its a must only to find that you liked Rev 1 better and why do we think that vintage gear is better then todays components or the reverse.As Mapman stated do the work,you will be rewarded.
In the case of preamps and integrated amplifiers, lack of a remote control will disqualify vintage units for many audiophiles.

Computer based music banks add convenience and arguably better performance over CD systems. Vintage has no alternative there.

Modern implementation of old technology sometimes noticeably exceeds the capabilities of the original. My horns and compression drivers are better than any vintage alternative available to me, if not any at all.

So, I would submit that the vintage option is not always preferable. My take has always been to work the valleys while everyone else was scrambling from peak to peak. Now the peak salesman at the major mags appear to be losing their ability to steer the consumer and said consumer has started to discover viable alternatives in the bone pile of history. This too will run into trouble as it overruns its practicality.

It's fun to watch the show though.
Coming from someone who has bought some equipment new but most of it used - in a way the buyers of used equipment actually perform (indirectly) a service for the dealers. Some people will always want the latest and greatest. Does it really matter to the rest of us whether it's neurotic or macho or whatever? These are the people who eventually feed the used market when they go after the "next big thing." The service we provide to the dealers is taking this equipment off of the hands of their potential customers. It has to go somewhere and putting perfectly working equipment into a landfill doesn't seem like a good option.

Anyway, I like my vintage/slightly older equipment and because I have "champagne taste on a beer budget" it's good that older equipment is still competitive and available.
I think that there's been real advances in sound reproduction technology over the last decade, but it's primarily been in DSP (specifically room correction) software. IMHO, it works and the improvement is quite audible. However, this community often embraces a purist, "simplest signal path" approach and rejects this kind of signal manipulation. For analog sources, I kinda get it, but for digital sources, I find this curious.

My take: There's little rational thinking in this hobby. People pay for gratification, and better performance does not gurantee increased gratification. If an exotic cabinet appeals to enough buyers with sufficient disposable income, it will get manufactured and it will get sold, regardless of its contribution (or lack thereof) to performance.

As to the hobbyist magazines: They are basically porn, selling photos that make the reader experience desire. There's no disconnect, they're just serving their market, too.