tbng
tbng's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 13 2006 - 10:00am
Insanely priced components
Monty
Monty's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 16 2005 - 6:55pm

There are certainly many people who believe as you. Usually, they tend to be the electronic engineers. Somewhere along the way they read a book that drew conclusions based on known electrical characteristics dealing with things other than audio signals. You know the type I'm talking about.

The other group of people, like me, for example, don't know much about elecrical engineering and simply listen to the effects various components have on our enjoyment of music. If we like the way something sounds in our system, we make a value judgement on the worth of the component. Eventually, after substantial practical experience, we might stumble upon a combination that thrills us down to our toenails.

The other guys, more often than not, simply read their books on electrical theory and are satisfied that they have the best sound that can be obtained based on their education of electrical theory and engineering.

There are certainly advantages that the engineering types have over the listener types. For one thing, shopping for components need not be any more difficult than browsing specs and prices and placing an order. We listeners have to go to a lot of trouble auditioning gear and becoming intimately familiar with how they effect the presentation of the music.

It's a bitch, but since I have no interest in going back to school to study electrical engineering, I guess I'll just keep listening and waiting for the engineers to catch up.

cyclebrain
cyclebrain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jun 16 2006 - 11:40pm

That's why the best audio electronics are designed by people without any electronics training at all. And they don't take any measurements either because they are just a bunch of useless numbers for nerds to compare.
If it wasn't for these electrical engineers that you so despise, you wouldn't have all of this great equipment available for you to demonstrate your superior listening ability.
People with this kind of attitude should be given a handful of components to build their own equipment using their gifted hearing as their schematic.

ohfourohnine
ohfourohnine's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 7:41pm

Come on, Monty, you know better than that. It isn't either or. If, as you imply, electrical engineers and their acoustical brothers cared not at all for the quality of the listening experience, all the equipment they design and build for us would sound the same - designed only to meet an ideal set of numbers. Likewise, some of the reviewers we respect, who aren't without academic credentials, wouldn't bother to listen at all.

What we all search for, except possibly Bill Gates and his ilk, are those components which sound as good as others which cost five or ten times more. There are some out there. On that basis, some components are, indeed, outrageously priced. So what? Some will want to buy them for the status value and will easily be able to affort to. Should they not be reviewed? Should the reviewer be obliged to "protect" those of us who might be seduced into stretching our bank accounts to buy them? Of course not. Stupid rich or not, no one buys a component anywhere near the "outrageous" price level without thorough auditioning to support the purchase. If he then pays more than "one should" (whatever that means), he has no one to blame but himself - no manufacturer and no reviewer either.

The whole notion that reviewers of high priced components have some special obligation is simply nonsense.

Monty
Monty's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 16 2005 - 6:55pm

Of course I know better than that. Anybody that has ever heard differences in components knows better than that...which is most of us. However, this whole debate that continues to pop up rests solely on perceptions of value, which by their very nature are unresolvable.

People either believe that there are audible differences in components or they don't. If they don't believe there are differences, then there is no common ground from which to converse other than to say they need to improve their listening skills or they have a hearing issue. If they believe there are differences in the way component's sound, then the value of those differences will be between the listener and their checkbooks, as well it should be in a free enterprise economy.

I think lots of things are priced way in excess of their value to me and so I don't buy them. But, I would never suggest that someone else not have the option to buy them. And I sure as Hell wouldn't attempt to tell someone how much they should charge for their products when the market will quickly tell them in a brutally honest way. All this sort of stuff works itself out a lot better when willing sellers offer products to willing buyers.

I'm just feeding the troll.

tbng
tbng's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 13 2006 - 10:00am

". . .since I have no interest in going back to school to study electrical engineering, I guess I'll just keep listening and waiting for the engineers to catch up."

So, if you

ohfourohnine
ohfourohnine's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 7:41pm

Though I took exception to Monty's approach to refuting your initial post, I agreed with his implication that your complaint about Michael Fremer's was nonsense on its face. That was evident even to those of us who had not read the review in question. That's right, I hadn't even read Mike's review prior to reading your Mammy Yokum "I has spoke" response to Monty.

While I usually read Mike's reviews, particularly of analog gear, I passed over the MBL Monoblock assessment because a pair of high output monoblocks don't fit any system I'd contemplate even if I could afford them, and I can't. So you achieved something with your postings, you got me to read the review.

Having done so, my question to you is, "What the devil are you complaining about?" Poetic Language? No direct comparisons? Didn't you read the direct comparisons with the big Musical Fidelity and Halcro amps? Didn't you think the language was clear enough when Mike recommended pairing with richer, sweeter pre-amp gear? Did you think the description of the sonic signature of the amps was in any way vague? Was there something less than useful in JA's measurements? Did you think Mike was copping a plea when he suggested that if this sort of amplification is your dish of tea you should put the MBL "on your list" rather the suggesting you write a check now?

If you want more than what this review provided, good luck. I can't imagine where you'll find it.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 years 5 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am

I like Mike.

He's a great reviewer.

I like the ultra expensive equipment reviews, too.

The best thing about them is that the reviewers can then place the performance of gear I'd like to buy in a context relative to the mega-buck gear.

I'm great with the idea of Mikey tossing an "real world" priced amplifier into his reference system for a review.

Then he can relate just what a component can and cannot do relative to the top of the heap.

It makes for fun reading and helps the manufacturers who work to my price point have a chance to "over-achieve!"

Hey, if a new 2 kilo-dollar turntable "provided 99% of the performance of my reference Continuum table," then halle-louie!

Nothing wrong with a benchmark reference. Just like comparing a new mass market car's performance to a mega-buck exotic.

Same as comparing a 6 dollar wine to a first growth Bordeaux.

Expensive benchmarks make for alot of fun.

If'n I were Bill Gates, I'd own that stuff. The Continuum? Hell, I'd buy the company and sell them for 2K and listen to people kvetch that "those audio nuts spend too much money on Hi Fi."

Don't forget, to civilians, we're just as nuts as the guys who spend for the exotic gear!

Cheers.

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 years 4 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am


Quote:
Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 years 5 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am


Quote:

Quote:
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm


Quote:
What this reader wants to know is, will the big bucks buy me a better amp than
tbng
tbng's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 13 2006 - 10:00am

Where do I start? Is it with that pejorative

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm

Hey, take a deep breath, DB. There were no "attacks" inferred in my post. Maybe there were a few tweaks in there, but you started all this so you should expect something other than, "Gee, DB, I never thought of that; you're a swell guy for pointing that out, DB. What magazine do you write for, DB?"

I assume you've dropped your subscription to The Absolute Satan ...er, I mean Sound. But I can't understand why you're still reading Stereophile. Was this just a fluke of needing something to take into the restroom at the airport, or what? What are you expecting to get from a subjective review magazine? As far as I'm concerned you have the right to want to read whatever you please within certain limitations of decency. But if I pick up the The New Republic or The Wall Street Journal I don't expect to get The Nation or The New York Times from the editorial board or columnists. Is Fremer's review the first in all this time that has disappointed you? Then, I'd say, you've got your money's worth.


Quote:
A disclaimer does not change the fact that the subjective testing methods that Stereophile uses for amplification devices are more a test of the reviewer
CECE
CECE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 3 months ago
Joined: Sep 17 2005 - 8:16am

Legacy WHISPERS...!!!! He wins the debate!!!!!

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm

What debate?

tbng
tbng's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 13 2006 - 10:00am

No attacks?

What do you call "Woody?" No, you didn't say it. John Atkinson did, and Buddha agreed. I wasn't just replying to you. You just happened to be the last post online. And no,

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm

Well, where do I begin? How about chastising you, DB, for both imprecision in your writing and incongruities in your logic. So "woodie" offends you; does it? Reading the column in which the word originates, I see there is a wide range of characters who could be described as a "woodie". Some people would probably take the appellation as a compliment. From the article,

Quote:
Woodies can be lovely, reasonable people, and many of the ones I've met over the years have impressed me with their deep, genuine love of good music. But the bad ones are really bad: pugnacious, tyrannical, and narrow-minded in a manner that goes well beyond the comparatively benign character flaws of even the most dilapidated fuzzy.

Mr. Dudley later states,

Quote:
But one man's idea of fun is another man's tedious waste of time.

Now, DB, you have chosen to see yourself not as one of the "lovely, reasonable people" Mr. Dudley insists he finds in any group of woodies. Rather you have chosen to align yourself with those who fall on the evil outskirts of reasonability. How are we to blame for how you see yourself? You assume an attack has been made only to either suit your own purposes or because you actually see yourself as belonging to the latter group. That is your responsibility, DB, not ours. So, please, don't blame us for your poor childhood or rotten love life.

Logic? Where art thou, Logic?

Do you really believe I have to assume that glasss could be foggy? Doesn't experience tell you, as it does me, there is a very good likelyhood glass can and will be foggy or dirty? There is no need for any assumption in this case.

Quote:
I have seen no evidence that it is inherent ...

As I've said to others, DB, I cannot be responsible for what you cannot hear or see. I can only take responsibility for what my senses tell me. You are on your own. That you cannot hear something hardly proves it doesn't exist. Something about proving a negative, I think is the issue here.


Quote:
I have never claimed that there is no possibility of inexplicable audible differences occurring between amplification devices, but I have expressed the wish that testers who purport to
ohfourohnine
ohfourohnine's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 7:41pm

Good show, Jan. However, despite the thoroughgoing job you've done and done and done again addressing DB's complaints, you know you won't make any headway. The interesting possibility revealed through this exchange is that listening to Legacy Whispers over time tends to make people belligerant. Though our current sample is small, we do have a 100% correlation. Now if we only had a reliable method to measure that effect....

Monty
Monty's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 16 2005 - 6:55pm

I wonder if the 15K Whispers sound 15K better than a pair of Grado 60s.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm

LOL

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm

I thought that the issue was it may sound better? or different?, but that if it does not matter to you then don't worry about it. To someone else if it DOES matter and they are willing to lay down the green to own it, that is fine as well.

None of this makes either party any more or less of a person. I think all to often self-worth is guaged by what one owns, and that is too bad in so many ways. Unfortunately that is the way our society works on so many levels. It is up to each person not to let any of this bother them to any extent.

There is enough to worry about than whether some has a bigger woofer than you do. LOL As Don Henley sang in Hell Freezes over, "Get Over It!".

gkc
gkc's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 24 2006 - 11:51am

Hi, Jim. I wasn't going to say anything, being so late to the thread, but since my two buds, Monty and Jim, have weighed in, here goes. Please, Jan, no more than a novella on this one, okay? I never worry about price. It is a huge marketplace, and consenting adults ought to be free to agree on the price of anything that's not too ugly in public. I just try to get the most for my dollars as possible, and I follow my ears. DB, I doubt if you are going to do much better than the Bryston at any cost. It is musical, economical (watts-per-dollar) in high-end terms, and backed by the best warranty in the business. If I could get dramatically closer to (sorry, Jan) my ideal reference by spending $100,000 for a magic plug, I'd do it. So far, I've been able to do quite well for considerably less than that. I really think a Petreus tastes better than a 5th growth Medoc, so I will occasionally pop for the $300-$500 difference, but not every night. You gotta keep your sense of contrast, right?

tbng
tbng's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 13 2006 - 10:00am

At last a reasonable response. Two, actually, counting Jim Tavegia

Monty
Monty's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 16 2005 - 6:55pm

Yes, Jim, that is the point. I simply mentioned the Grados in comparison to the Whispers to illustrate that while Mr. Brandt decries the price vs performance of gear that he finds to be offensively expensive, it is no less relative to the guy who would find the price vs performance of a pair of $70 dollar headphones to that of a 15K pair of speakers to be equally absurd.

In retrospect, I probably should have bowed out of the discussion as it was very well hashed out in Art's observations, with little to add that wasn't already discussed.

I'll move my fuzzy ass along now.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm

Since we're heavy into assumption here, why don't we assume the opposite of what DB wants done. Two amplifiers are auditioned by the reviewer and there are perceptible differences claimed by the reviewer. (Why must you always assume a negative,DB?) One of the amplifiers is considerably more expensive than the other. The higher priced product is the perferred product in the final analysis. How then does the reviewer go about "proving" to us those differences exist? We didn't hear the amplifiers, only he or she had that opportunity. Don't you suppose some malcontent would still be screaming of bias? No back tracking to assume the less expensive amplifier is preferred. It doesn't matter which amplifier "wins". The point is; how does the reviewer convince us of what was heard? You seem to continually harp on there being no difference between what you own and some more expensive product (yes, yes, I read where it's not about Bryston, you just happened to pick that amp because it popped into your head). It would seem the only way you would be happy is when the reviewer stated there was no difference between something someone might consider insanely priced and what you already own.

Jeff Wong
Jeff Wong's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 years 2 days ago
Joined: Sep 6 2005 - 3:28am

There's a reason why there are those little boxes that list the components used by the reviewer -- to provide a reference. Quite often, you'll see more than one amplifier or source listed. I would think because of space considerations, it's more important to use the word count on the new product under review than to mention the new amp was compared to the old amp. If a reviewer has been covering amps lately, you know he has compared some amps recently, if not to the usual reference amp he has listed.

I agree with Jan -- what exactly would serve as acceptable proof of a reviewer's conclusions?

tbng
tbng's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 13 2006 - 10:00am

Transducers are a completely different situation than amplification devices. I have repeatedly state that I was only talking about the latter.

tbng
tbng's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 13 2006 - 10:00am

I have never assumed a negative except for the fact that Stereophile never uses double-ended comparative, tightly controlled testing. The first thing a reviewer should discover after installing a new DUT is IF it sounds different compared to a standard when A) the levels are balanced as close to 0db as possible, and B) the reviewer is unaware of which amplifier is playing. That removes any possible prejudice, a principle inherent in good testing procedure. Not knowing the prices of the comparative differential would be a plus but probably not practical unless someone else hides the amplifiers and he's forgotten what he paid for the "standard" amp.

Bottom line: If you cannot hear a difference, there are no differences. The amp under test is not better than the comparative standard. That's not necessarily bad, but it is a relevant factor in a decision to buy. If you can hear a difference, those mellifluous adjectives now may be applicable. If an amp is "liquid" or "transparent," if it "reveals the harmonic structure" better, you now have credibility to make those statements.

CECE
CECE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 3 months ago
Joined: Sep 17 2005 - 8:16am

They are more now than $15K TAX and premium finish..closer to $18K. eeesssshhhh...BUT THEY ARE GREAT!!!! anyone with ears would know that. Oh, that's reserved for wire listeners, sorry. There is actually a piece of wire availabe that costs more than WHISPERS!!! And it's not even high tech long lasting specialty wire, it's for AUDIO....come on already. What do you think the wires up on poles and underground cost, that stuff lasts forever almost, handles either lotsa data, high energy, hV stress, high current, under adverse enviorments, rodents gnawing on it, heat, cold,UV, physical stresses...now that's wire that costs money based on need. NOT AUDIO speaker wire for home use. Bellegerant WHISPER owners? Are you making up a STEREOtype? I think I just created a new publication. STEREOtype.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm

Credibility with who? The job of the subjective reviewer is not to award points to two or more competitors based upon how each amplifier compares to one another. You still are asking for something Stereophile doesn't do. Stereophile was created not to score products against anything other than what a reviewer hears and how that sound quality compares to live music. You readily admit differences might exist yet claim them to be so small as to be unimportant to you. (But that really seems unlikely or else you wouldn't have wanted to know how your amp compares.) Your method of testing still only gets us back to what you or a reviewer cannot hear. You complain of a reviewer's bias but you haven't found a way to eliminate the bias. In my estimation, your testing procedure only amplifies the bias of any one person by removing the music from the test.

You do not want a comparison of how an amplfier recreates music. You want a scoring of two amplifiers compared against one another. There is nothing I see in Sterophile's present testing procedure which provides any more or less useful information than the method you describe. If Fremer had never heard live music and never heard another amplifier, your test procedure might be valid. As is, since we can safely assume all Stereophile reviewers keep their reference to live music sharpened and that they hear many pieces of equipment each year, what Fremer wrote is sufficient information to suggest the overall quality of the "insanely priced component" under review. There is no need to test the reviewer's perception beyond what he admits to hearing.

Go back and try to understand the example of transparency I gave earlier. I know you do understand what I'm saying there, so, please, don't distort the meaning in order to prolong this circuitous discussion. Each reviewer has their personal bias. If the amplifiers under test have qualities which fall outside of the preferences for any one reviewer, your method provides no more information than stating height, width and length. I'm not interested in what the reviewer cannot hear (a negative) and would rather learn what the reviewer did hear (a positive). If, when I hear the component, I then disagree with some or all of the reviewer's perception, I know more about that reviewer from what has been written, not about the equipment. It is up to me to hear what the component will do for me, no one else need apply. What is so difficult to understand about that concept?

The job of the reader of any subjective review is to hear the product for themself, if they are interested. The review is nothing more than a guide post toward what the listener might find. If you are truly interested in whether your Bryston can be bettered, you need to listen to competing amplifiers. Period! A review in Stereophile which suggests an amplifier has undesirable characteristics for your tastes serves only to narrow the field somewhat. It is your responsibility to listen and evaluate each product on your own. It is not up to Stereophile to make any decisions or recommendations for you. Since you claim to be a charter subscriber to Stereophile, when did you loose sight of this, DB? If you never agreed with their methods, we're back to the question; why did you pick up the magazine? A quick glance should have shown you all you needed to know about how Stereophile goes about their business.

I have to repeat myself because you have repeated yourself so many times, DB. I know you are dismissive of my comments since they disagree with your basic premise, but here they are again. First, repeating a flawed logic does not make it more logical. No matter how many times you suggest that two amplifiers should sound alike or similar, it does not follow that will be the case. If you want to believe it will, fine, but stop reading Stereophile and complaining they do not agree with your assumption. Stereophile's tesing procedures suit those of us who would rather use the magazine as a guide rather than as a scoring device.

So far, I can only see you wanting Stereophile to tell you whether the more expensive amplifier might sound better than your Bryston. And, only your Bryston. Would you have been happy had Fremer compared the amplifier under test to something other than your amplifier? If not, why not? If so, why? How many degrees of separation from your amplifier will you allow before you find the review useful? As Jeff notes, you can look at the asssociated components notes to see what other amplifiers Fremer used for comparison sake. If your Bryston is not in that list, you cannot blame Stereophile. That you might not know the sound of those other amplifiers doesn't seem to be of any real concern to you. You want a comparison against your amplifier. If Fremer had made that comparison, the review would be have been worthless to anyone who didn't already possess your equipment and Fremer's preferences. In other words, to all but one possible reader, you.

Stereophile's job is to give you a sense of what the product under review does when held up against live music and the biases of the individual reviewer. That is, from what I can read, exactly what Fremer did in this case. That it didn't satisfy you is not the responsibility of Stereophile. There is a sizable group of people who are quite satisfied with the reviewing process Stereophile employs. I can only repeat myself one more time. If you do not find Stereophile usefull, stop reading the magazine. If you do not find a scoring method in Stereophile which does all the work for you, keep the components you own and don't worry about whether you should change the amplifier at al.

Which brings up the issue of why you are complaining in the first place. If you didn't think your amplifier could be bettered, why are you so concerend with finding out which amplifier would stomp it into the ground? You want no diminishing returns for your dollar, you obviously want clear cut maceration of your previous equipment.

In your reply, DB, there is no need to repeat your misguided premise of similarity between all amplifiers. It will only keep this merry go 'round circling until someone finally states that Stereophile doesn't do what you suggest. And until you accept that statement as fact. Beyond that fact, DB, what exactly are you arguing for? It is coming off as someone who merely wants to think what they own is as good as it gets rather than recognizing there might be something better for more money.

Possibly you might want to restate your belief rather than merely repeat what isn't logical or ask for what isn't going to happen. If you believe all modern amplifiers sound approximately the same, that is one thing. If you believe the only way to prove that assumption is to utilize your testing method, Sterophile does not agree with either of your beliefs. I see that not as a failure of Sterophile but as a reason for you not to read Stereophile. Why do you see it differently?

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 years 5 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am

Well this settles it...

I asked my wife. She says a thousand dollars for a two channel amp is "insanely expensive."

Now, we're all in agreement, we're just talking matters of degree - which becomes a personal issue.

With regard to DBT, please refer me to one where they could hear the difference between anything!!

I've honestly never seen one.

You'd think if someone were claiming to be "objective," they'd have done both a positive and negative control, right?

Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 14 hours ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:34am


Quote:
Well this settles it...

I asked my wife. She says a thousand dollars for a two channel amp is "insanely expensive."

Hah. When we were dating, I told my (not yet) wife that the phono cartridge Iwas using cost >$1000; she told me I was crazy and that she'd never touch it. (I bought her a B&O for her own use.) Some years into our marriage, I told her I was considering buying some speakers for $10K and she said she thought that was reasonable! I think just living with an audiophile has changed her substantially.

Kal

Monty
Monty's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 16 2005 - 6:55pm

I've employed that tactic with my better half. First, you start off with something really expensive that you are (well, you aren't really) considering purchasing. Then, when the sticker shock fully develops on her face, you say, "hey, here's a nice amp that only costs half as much" (which is the amp you wanted in the first place).

In some cases, you might want to do that a third time. That almost always works.

I'll briefly dip my toe into the primary topic only to take issue with the half truth employed by Brandt in using Gordon Holt's comment about "never passing the damn, things." This leaves the impression that Holt lends credibility to Brandt's arguement when in fact the issue Holt has with DBT is essentially no different from John Atkinson's writings on the methodology flaws that often make the tests useless.

Gordon Holt started Stereophile for the very reason that it remains devoted to the fuzziness observations. Clearly, many of us, JA included, would like to be able to understand better the reasons components sound different and hopefully be able to come to some predictable results based on the engineering and measurements. However, audiophilia still remains an art and the secrets in the science have yet to completely reveal themselves.

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm

Dennis, I think you are on the right track, but if two amps sound the same one can still be better based on features, ie 2 tape inputs/outputs if that is your thing, tone controls with bypass or no tone controls at all, main pre out, the presence of a decent built in phono stage, motorized volume control using fixed resistor steps rather than a 50K or 100K pot.

These are the things that sometimes make choosing one component over another more difficult. I am sure the 20 year transferable warranty offered by Bryston is important to owners and future buyers. Pride of ownership may not sound better, but owning a Mac does carry more weight than a Sony STR-DE197.

And after all that it is still that the music matters the most and I would think that enjoying a $200 bottle of champagne with someone you love would be better than drinking alone. At least for me it would.

gkc
gkc's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 24 2006 - 11:51am

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned a rather obvious fact. The sound of an amplifier without a speaker is the sound of one hand clapping. I suspect that DB's Bryston, teamed up with the "right" (electronically and audibly) speaker, would sound better than the $50,000 Halcro would when played through a mismatch. Of course, now we are in the subjective area. Double blind tests simply don't allow for any absolute judgments -- you are merely hearing speakers that are being well or badly driven. DB suggests this when he notes the difference between testing transducers and electronics, but isn't quite clear about the point. Without speakers, nothing gets heard. Period. One can speculate endlessly about the difference between amp "A" and amp "B," but it is the interaction with the speaker that produces the music. Measurements? I have never heard an oscilloscope that can play a note. Some measurements can, of course, predict how an amp will sound with some speakers, and some designs are obviously more universal than others, but the final test is always system dependent. Let's not even begin to talk about the complexities added by source components, cables, and room treatments. This thread would run to eternity. I suspect that one of the "features" one ponies up the big money for is a certain universality -- the Halcro may well sound better with more speakers than the Bryston, and if the prospective owner plans to change speakers often, the more expensive amp might be the better bargain IF it will work with a wider variety of speaker designs. Cheers, all.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm

I doubt anyone thought it should be mentioned, Clifton. Anyone familiar with the repeated propsals for blind testing knows the test will/must be carried out using completely benign speakers which are absloutely neutral and transparent and extend from the lowest octave (1-2Hz?) to the highest octave (?) without discontinuities, colorations and vagaries additive and subtractive in nature which are presented by the drivers, cabinets, crossovers or the input transformer on an electrostatic panel. And the test would be done within an acoustically perfect room. In short, speakers (and good 12 A.W.G. cable running from the amp to the speaker since that's all that's required for "good" sound) which emulate what every person would own and what every amplifier would face no matter what other equipment they chose. In short a system exemplified by the nature of the speakers, totally bland and to which we would all agree to its "accuracy". Where we are supposed to get these magical speakers and associated components is never addressed. I suppose DB would have preferred the test be done with his speakers as I'm almost certain he feels them to be the perfect speaker and this would allow him to make use of the review in a totally satisfactory manner. He would know whether he should upgrade his amplifier or whether it is good enough or even as good as it can get. He would naturally discount the room and Fremer's personal tatses which DB doesn't agree with anyway. Since most of us feel the same about the speakers we own, the test would be perfect since the set up was perfect and we would just do a work around regarding Fremer's misguided preferences. Thiel, Quad, mbl's and Wilsons are all perfectly benign and offer no personality of their owm. Therefore, our perfect system and speakers would be the same as any system and speakers we might choose.

Yeah, right.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm

What I am very surprised about is that "someone" hasn't told DB that AVA gear is all he heeds to drive the Whispers. And, that considering the AVA is perfect for the speakers, it is his Bryston that is insanely overpriced.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm

Anyone thinking what I'm thinking?

Bryston envy?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm


Quote:
... I would think that enjoying a $200 bottle of champagne with someone you love would be better than drinking alone.

If that someone wanted that $200 for bottle of champagne to go toward the rent, you might find yourself drinking alone. I once sold a system to a very expensive lawyer who happened to be on his second trophy wife. They were buying a house in the part of town where she thought she needed to live. (Same part of town where the Cheney's and the G.W. Bush's lived when they were residents of Dallas, if anyone is wondering.) After spending $1.5 million to buy a well preserved, lovingly cared for older home, they were going to tear it down to build something she preferred. He bought his sytem based on the guidleines she had given him, i.e., nothing but the KEF 101's on the library bookshelf could be seen. Everything else had to be out of sight (and I don't mean "out of sight" in a Rowan and Martin's manner). This was back in the late 1980's when a million and a half meant some serious money was being dropped. It also meant a B&O system with remote control. Somehow she found a receipt for the system and when I saw the red Porche 944 pull up in front of the store, I knew there was trouble. He had decided upon the top of the line, $200 B&O cartridge for his turntable. She stomped into the store, receipt in hand and insisted he did not need a cartridge this expensive. She wanted me to make a substitution and immediately forward her the cash difference. Of course, she didn't get her wish but everyone in the store wondered how many other vendors had that technique tried on them. Possibly, she might have approved of a $200 bottle of Champagne. For lunch, maybe.

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm

I feel for anyone who has or has had a "high Maintenance" spouse. I have been most foruntate in my 36 years of marriage to have married the nicest person I ever met. She is exceedingly "Low Maintenance".

CECE
CECE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 3 months ago
Joined: Sep 17 2005 - 8:16am

You're LEARNING.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm

Yes, DUP, I'm waiting for you to teach me something.

ohfourohnine
ohfourohnine's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 7:41pm

Don't knock what you don't know, Jim. At least one of those high maintenance gals is absolutely wonderful - and those insanely priced Manolo Blonik shoes are pretty as can be on the right set of feet.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 years 5 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am


Quote:
Don't knock what you don't know, Jim. At least one of those high maintenance gals is absolutely wonderful - and those insanely priced Manolo Blonik shoes are pretty as can be on the right set of feet.

OK, fetish time!

CECE
CECE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 3 months ago
Joined: Sep 17 2005 - 8:16am

After 36 years, maintainance ain't gonna matter. Like an old stereo or car....it's worn out!!!HA! No maintainance is ever gonna make it like new. After 20 years ya can get ANTIQUE plates for the car and....spouses?

CECE
CECE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 3 months ago
Joined: Sep 17 2005 - 8:16am

Look OUT!!!! I see O.J, now lookey here, he looks scared, real scared...and a BaBa Booyey to ya all....and is he wearing those shoes?

CECE
CECE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 3 months ago
Joined: Sep 17 2005 - 8:16am

Name the subject....I'm a wealth of ideas and knowledge. Did you know that the Australian Wambat......

mrlowry
mrlowry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 1 day ago
Joined: May 30 2006 - 1:37pm

He probably made all of the money, she probably had a custom made $500 silk lined Brazilian Rosewood case where she kept his balls.

commsysman
commsysman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
Joined: Apr 4 2006 - 11:33am

"the best audio electronics are designed by people without any electronics training at all"??????...

After making that absurd statement, anything else you may say is difficult for any reasonable person to take seriously.

I challenge you to name ONE piece of quality audio electronics on the market that was designed by someone with NO electronics training at all; it doesn't happen, and it hasn't happened (and by the way; do not confuse not possessing a university degree in in engineering with "no training"...there are many less formal ways of studying and training).

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 years 5 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am

How about that blind Japanese guy who can handle a piece of wood or stone and tell that it will make for a good cartridge body?

Koetsu-san?

Probaly lots wire and "passive device" designers qualify.

That would be more of a training in marketing thing.

For active electronics, considering how they meet spec, I'd venture to guess that Chord amps may qualify.

I'm sure DUP would agree!

CECE
CECE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 3 months ago
Joined: Sep 17 2005 - 8:16am

Only in Audio, the best cars are designed by people with no car experience? The best airplanes? How bout'...the BEST marketing plan....no way, especially in AUDIO, those guys have lotsa training, buy some stone phono cartridges made by a blind Japanese dude....yeah. Take a drive in the car designed by one with no training, especially the brakes, dude.....some of the finast brake designs are done by ametuers!!! Best high rise buildings been designed and put together by former grocery baggers!!! Best doctors have no training? I bet the most gullible in anything are the ones with no training...in any field.

Pages

Log in or register to post comments
-->
  • X