Thoughts on the high end....

[Bigerik]

Just read a very interesting comment in an old issue of the listener, and, as some things do, it just stuck me immediately as being RIGHT.

Here's what was written (with some minor editing):

Do we get smarter as we get older? It seems every time I've owned a hi-fi that made me want to listen to records from morning until night, I "upgraded" to something that re-ignited my interest in.....reading.

Oh, the sound changed - sometimes even for the better - but the music always got a lot worse. I remember trading in my Rega Planar 3 for [something] that I was sure to be a big improvement. .......and Stereophile said it was the bomb. After lovingly setting it up, I dropped the needle on a favorite Thelonius Monk record, and knew immediately - I mean within 10 seconds - that I had made a big mistake. Monk sounded as if he had been given a shot of Thorazine, and all the bass, detail and soundstaging that Stereophile had promised couldn't bring the music back to life.

I know I have made that mistake. Confusing sound with music. I do believe back in the early days of audio, they were closer to the idea of using equipment to reproduce music, not just to make interesting sounds.

I welcome any thoughts....

 

[dogscanskate]

Yup like changing from Proacs Response 2.5 to Dynacos A-25 xl. Go figure These little dynas made me take a huge loss but big musical gain.

 

[Bigerik]

Yup like changing from Proacs Response 2.5 to Dynacos A-25 xl. Go figure These little dynas made me take a huge loss but big musical gain.

Yeah, I think the Celestion SL6 was pretty well the point when the speaker world changed totally. Musicality began taking a back seat to detail.

 

[dogscanskate]

There was a time when manufacturers were actually music listeners. Today, while there are some left (a few at least), they're more interested in the effect (sound stage, imaging) than the cause (beat, rhythm, flow) of music.

 

[Bigerik]

There was a time when manufacturers were actually music listeners. Today, while there are some left (a few at least), they're more interested in the effect (sound stage, imaging) than the cause (beat, rhythm, flow) of music.

Well said, and sadly true.

 

[matel]

Couln't agree with your sentiments more Eric.
The thought that simply lowering the noise floor lowering distortion thereby bringing you more details more clearly will bring you more music seems pretty solid but I'm at a loss to expain why this doesn't nessisarily translate to "music' to my ears.
Sorry for that sentence...

 

[matel]

A funny twist on this. In Octobers SP Art Dudley starts his review of the Naim CD 555 cd player by telling us that the standard issue cd system in his 2001 Subaru playing some Martin Newel brought him close to tears.
While The same piece through a 6K int. amp 3.5K cdp and 2K speakers bored the pants off of him.
System matching was the gist. There's more to this though.

 

[Arkay]

Aw, heck: just switch to big old Infinities. Drive the high end with sweet tubes. Detail AND musicality! :yes: :thmbsp: Of course, you'll everything so clearly that most of your CDs will become unlistenable, but anything that is musical to begin with, well... :thmbsp:

Actually, I agree with the author in general. Harmonics/overtones, system synergy, room acoustics, LOTS of things affect sound, too. The "downward trend" in general is unmistakable, as companies seek profits, not musicality. Digital wasn't nicer sounding that analog, but it was cheaper to produce, and salable for higher margins. Surface-mounted components and chips for the most part don't sound as nice as heavy iron behind discrete components, but it is a lot cheaper (and therefore more profitable) to produce. The cost of making things today "like they used to" would make gear too expensive for a mass market (witness gear like McIntosh, Pass, Moon, Krell...).

Most modern gear simply isn't musical: it is boom-slap stuff designed for HT use and to be driven with iPods and MP3 downloads. But if that is what is being made, and advertised in the magazines, then that is what the reviewers must help sell, or at least not bad-mouth, because it is ad revenues that ultimately pay their salaries!

So I'll let the rest of the world chase whatever the magazines say is the latest and best... and sit back and listen to my lovingly restored 30-year old gear. Maybe I'll try the new stuff in another 20 years. By then my hearing may have deteriorated enough from old age, that it will start to sound okay!

 

[Bigerik]

A funny twist on this. In Octobers SP Art Dudley starts his review of the Naim CD 555 cd player by telling us that the standard issue cd system in his 2001 Subaru playing some Martin Newel brought him close to tears.
While The same piece through a 6K int. amp 3.5K cdp and 2K speakers bored the pants off of him.
System matching was the gist. There's more to this though.

Yeah, it is the damndest thing. And one that I believe grew out of the early 80's with the real emergence of the "high-end" and the importance of sound vs music. Professional audio reviewing of course fed right into it and of course things like double blind test that are all about the sound and have nothing to do with the music.
Of course, this does not mean that all the equipment in the high end is un-musical, or that everything made before 1980 is great. Just noticeable trends.

 

[Bigerik]

Of course, you'll everything so clearly that most of your CDs will become unlistenable, but anything that is musical to begin with, well... :thmbsp:

Well, most cd's are unlistenable anyway, so whats the difference?

 

[JohnVF]

Adjust for inflation and yesterday's Pioneer and Sansui are today's more mass-oriented high end (McIntosh, etc), just like they were back then. I do think that it gets pretty rediculous after a certain price point, and that much of what passes as high end is just a marketing ploy, but if you adjust for inflation, and pay today what somebody paid for a great system in the '70s...you'd end up with something very listenable, IMHO. I mean, didn't an SX-1250 come in at something like $3000 after inflation is adjusted for? (only going off of pre-coffee memory from posts here). Most 'high end' shops I've been to, if you walk in with $3000 you will get something pretty good.

I think a lot of new gear is overpriced, but it eventually ends up on the used market and I try to keep an open mind about it and make a system that has no constraints in regards to vintage of the components. The speakers in my bedroom system are seperated by 40 years from the age of what is driving them, and it is one of the better small systems I've heard (eico integrated tube amp w/Rega speakers). I don't know if the Rega speakers in that system are 'high-end' (probably not really considered as such) but they are modern, and sound a lot better than most vintage speakers I come across. Yes, they image and throw a soundstage but they also have musicality and a timbrel accuracy (to my ears) that makes me feel like I'm listening to real instruments, which is pretty much all I can ask for.

I love vintage, and I love modern when it's done right, I've heard great high-end and terrible high-end, I've heard great vintage and terrible vintage.

If we're talking about the super-high-end, though...they $50,000 speakers, etc...while it sounds pretty good to my ears, I think at some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

But below that, the other day I heard some big Usher speakers playing through musical fidelity amps (I think? big tube mono blocks) and a Cary preamp and it sounded AMAZING (to me). I was buying my late '60s vintage Sony 2000 preamp (which this shop was a big fan of as well) and they slotted it in in place of the Cary and it sound really nice, too, but it was obvioulsy inferior to the Cary...but it didn't sound five-grand inferior. And to me, that was good enough and at my house it sounds great to my ears and gets the foot tapping. But if I had unlimited funds, I'd have bought the Cary, too, just for different reasons.

Just my early saturday morning thoughts on the subject. I used to be pretty anti-high end but have begun to change my mind as I've encounted a couple of shops that just seem to LOVE gear, no matter what vintage, and they've exposed me to great things from all eras.

-cheers,
j

 

[jn229]

I agree but with caution. Today’s Hi End systems are very musical and yes they have the special effects of imaging, which IMO only adds to the musical performance. Today’s High End systems will out perform the High End of yesterdays (this is a general statement). High End high quality vintage equipment is not as good as High End high quality modern equipment. The sad truth is, the vintage gear will expose how little our beloved hobby has progressed. When you add in the entrance fees for modern High End, vintage/used on my income is the only game in town.

Whew, hope that’s not too much attitude.

Upgrading is a slippery slope, two steps forward one step back. I believe this is because our systems with all their drivers, electronics, and cabling are a package, a single component if you will. Synergy: seems to be the new buzz word and I believe it has merit. If you upgrade a component such as a TT, like ‘Bigerik’ tried, it is your system that makes the decision as to whether or not there is an improvement. Different systems will make different decisions. You and I, with our passion, our money, are simply verifiers.

As for vinyl verses digital: (oh boy more attitude) there are good and bad sounding production in each format. That said, I am spinning vinyl, after some 14 years of CD, I feel like I have come home from an enjoyable journey. If that makes any sense.

 

[bolly]

...but it didn't sound five-grand inferior.

thus the key here to the whole shamozzle, IMO.

I'm not talkin muti-speaker/amp systems, just simple 2-channel stereo. Obviously I dont have the experience to comment on the matter, but will anyway.

There is NO way a couple pieces of wire should cost $15,000. There's NO way a new amp should cost $100,000. Yes, some speakers are works of art in their design and cabinetry, but for just a simple box, there is NO way it should cost $10,000.

These people are in it for money, its' a game, its BIG business! As long as average joe doesn't get caught up in the never-ending cycle.... and if you're a millionaire and enjoy spending your money, fill your boots!

 

[persons0]

Yup like changing from Proacs Response 2.5 to Dynacos A-25 xl. Go figure These little dynas made me take a huge loss but big musical gain.

Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying that you like Dynaco a-25's better than the Proacs?

 

[onepixel]

Do we get smarter as we get older? It seems every time I've owned a hi-fi that made me want to listen to records from morning until night, I "upgraded" to something that re-ignited my interest in.....reading.

Oh, the sound changed - sometimes even for the better - but the music always got a lot worse. I remember trading in my Rega Planar 3 for [something] that I was sure to be a big improvement. .......and Stereophile said it was the bomb. After lovingly setting it up, I dropped the needle on a favorite Thelonius Monk record, and knew immediately - I mean within 10 seconds - that I had made a big mistake. Monk sounded as if he had been given a shot of Thorazine, and all the bass, detail and soundstaging that Stereophile had promised couldn't bring the music back to life.

The last brand new hi-end gear I bought was more than 30 years ago, when I had fresh ears. It sounded pretty darn good as far as I can remember. Most of what I listen to now is hand picked, trial and error... hi-end, but from way back when and it's sounds darn great too. I've heard modern brand new hi-end and it can sound just as good or even better(?). Maybe it's just different, I haven't decided yet.

My pocket book is much bigger from those younger days, but my ears are much older and tired. Will I be able to hear or even enjoy all that new hi-end? And what about the sound? Is it the same?

I was looking at large flat panel HD LCD and Plasma TVs yesterday. Impressive. I love the sharpness and clarity. On some sets the color saturation was pumped up. It looks amazing, makes everything hyper real and eye candy. Real life is rather dull in comparison. Sound is much harder to quantify.

Where am I going with this? Not sure. I just know that my ears aren't the same and reality that is presented to me isn't always real and what I perceive to be reality... well that's another story.

In music, what I see, hear and feel and more importantly what I enjoy is all up to me.

 

[Bigerik]

This is NOT where this discussion is going to go. This will not be another eat the rich thread. Cost has nothing to do with the observations I made. Its about the sound and the music.

thus the key here to the whole shamozzle, IMO.

I'm not talkin muti-speaker/amp systems, just simple 2-channel stereo. Obviously I dont have the experience to comment on the matter, but will anyway.

There is NO way a couple pieces of wire should cost $15,000. There's NO way a new amp should cost $100,000. Yes, some speakers are works of art in their design and cabinetry, but for just a simple box, there is NO way it should cost $10,000.

These people are in it for money, its' a game, its BIG business! As long as average joe doesn't get caught up in the never-ending cycle.... and if you're a millionaire and enjoy spending your money, fill your boots!

 

[dogscanskate]

Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying that you like Dynaco a-25's better than the Proacs?

In my room? It wasn't even close, that's how good the dynas were. Proacs are designed to most listeners weak point which is bass, that it has plenty of, just way too much. I got tired of listening to music superimposed on a cloud of "fake bass". In spite of the dynaco's shortcomings, it just had a better sense of attack and flow than the Proacs could provide. Proac figured that people were suckers for bass (no matter how false the bass, it just lingers on and on and on...) and they were right, this POS has been cloned for all its flaws so many times, it isn't even funny anymore.

It's not my fault that David Hafler could smell a winner from a mile away. So it does happen that a 300$ retail loudspeaker can compete against the big boys. The Proacs are meant for a bigger room than I had so you have to factor this into the equation.

What irks me the most is that replacing the dynacos is not going to be an easy chore. They do so many things well and as you upgrade, the darn things keep getting better. They simply follow the tune better than many other speakers out there. The dynas were simply more involving musically, wish I had listened to them back in the 70's, lol.

 

[bolly]

BigErik, my post was not an eat the rich statement, and I'm sorry if you, or anyone else took it as such.

remaining of this post edited by myself

 

[jn229]

Bigerik, it is about the music. I feel there are musically driven companies. I believe that engineers such as Dennis Had of Cary, David Wilson, Jeff Roland and a host of others like them, do their best to capture the art of music with their products. I also feel there are marques like Infinity and Altec that have been prostituted and stripped of their glory. I guess what I am saying is, audio is a business whose advances are musically driven and whose successes are copied and profit driven.

As for $15000.00 speaker wires, their like government, you can only hope they can justify the cost.

 

[Bigerik]

BigErik, my post was not an eat the rich statement, and I'm sorry if you, or anyone else took it as such.

remaining of this post edited by myself

No worries.
Just trying to keep this from turning into another thread that becomes nothing more than a debate on the value, or lack there of, in high end gear. That is a TOTALLY different discussion and one that we have had about 47000 times on AK over there years.
Lets just keep this one to sound and music.
E