|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
188.183.58.134
I see audio journalists changing their "most loved" components fairly often, but it's pretty much piece-meal - one piece of equipment at a time. I have never seen a story about the long-term journey that explains why they have been where they have.
I think a column like that would make for interesting reading and resonate with a lot of the rest of us who look back and try to explain our own journeys to ourselves.
"You don't need to be a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Follow Ups:
This is a great idea. I'll take you up on it and do a video about my journey. I have great stories to tell from meeting HP in the 80s to starting the Phila Audio Society, SET pioneering work, cost no object systems, vintage reviewing, ... etc. I'll start with the first system (and hanging the turntable from ceiling) and take you up through the YGs you see on the cover of the current TAS.
PB.
If not in print, how about online ?
Best,
Ross
I'll redo it in video, complete with live listening sessions. I think it may be the most anticipated (and delayed) HiFi article ever written.
A direct link to the article/video .. if there is one :) - would be nice.
the savor of everything - Bob Neill
I think this is a brilliant idea Peter. We're in the video age and using it is superior IMO to that of the picture comment show reports.
I believe in the system approach. Not necessarily a one company system approach but rather - audition complete systems - compare those - have an idea what the best sound is and then take note of what was in said system and then buy it. If you have to do it one at a time so be it but at least you have the end goal in mind.
The throw money at an amp that was well reviewed by some reviewer who has an entirely different system is a big fat waste of time and a waste of a lot of money.
First step: Know what the company you are listening believes is the best sound reproduction.
The only way to do that is to hear their "system" or at least what they recommend for speakers (if they make source and amps).
I am currently writing a system review that will cover some of the thoughts here but "know the sonic Aesthetic of the company first"
For example - someone will read a review of a Meridian CD player and rush out and buy it - but wait - have you heard a complete Meridian System - maybe you're after neutral or open and lively while when you hear a complete system from them it is warm and polite.
Second: Once you have the baseline knowledge of what they're about (and everyone says their about neutrality and accuracy blah blah blah) the way to know what they believe is to audition! So if it's bright and you're system needs a bit of bright then maybe you opt for that over the other system and components that sounded decidedly warm and overly thick.
And you can't really trust the review either because while they may say AMP A is warm - well that's relative to what they own. Maybe they own an amp that you have found to be shockingly shrill in which case everything will be deemed a degree of overly warm when in reality his amp is just shrill and the supposed warm amps are neutral.
Reviewers are just audiophiles who can write a little bit. Before people became reviewers they were reading the magazines of others. It dawned on me, however, that when I auditioned stuff that was clearly LEAGUES better than what the magazines were raving about that it was time to pause.
For me it started really with the Sugden A21 which I very much liked but I ended up buying an Arcam integrated amp because it was getting all the rave press. The amp was poorly built and sounded "ok" - better than a receiver - better than most of what I heard from the likes of NAD and Bryston. So I understood the positive press. But I passed up on that 1995ish version of the Sugden and hearing it a second time it was very clear to me that I didn't need the audio magazines to influence me in any way - I had ears - and since then well it always wins the blind level matched sessions it's been in at Hi-fi Choice. Come to think of it my current stuff also won their blind sessions as well.
Except I knew that after about 4 minutes of listening to the Moonlight Sonata - it is so strikingly blatantly obvious that is so vastly better that I could no longer stomach reading reviews telling me about some massive overpriced SS amp or some 5 way stone henge impersonating loudspeaker sounding great when it almost invariably sounds like someone ran over the family cat with a lawnmower.
Jack Roberts of Dagogo actually does do this in a series of articles over the years. Beatnik's journey
"The amp was poorly built and sounded "ok" - better than a receiver"
All receivers are bad? Worse than any integrated or separate?
Is that your professional opinion?
Rick
The integrated I had was poorly built not the receiver - The amp was the Arcam Delta 290 integrated - the buttons on the front were lose and a couple of the speaker connectors fell off - and that was only 7 years old.
There are better quality receivers but I was mainly referring to the garden variety models found in the big box chains - but of course there are hefty receivers from the likes Anthem, NAD, Rotel and many others that are quite well built.
Receivers are however compromised and dollar for dollar going separates or integrated will generally be better. The Arcam was about half the price of my flagship Pioneer Elite and the Elite stunk in comparison. And the Arcam sounded much better than double the price receivers from Rotel, Denon, Marantz, and Yamaha and better than their own much more receiver. A lot of the money is focused on features and fancy remote controls and paying for the rights to use THX labels - all money that doesn't go into a quality power supply and caps. I don't know of a Receiver that is pure class A and zero feedback - if there is one it might change my view.
OK.
Guess I was thinking of receivers more of my vintage. In them thar days they were just integrated amps with tuners and of course their sound quality varied but many were quite good, even some cheap ones.
But I can relate to what you are saying. On a lark I bought a Sony "home theater" style receiver for $20 at a garage sale as I was walking back home from the C-store a few years ago thinking I might use it for sound if I was working on my system. They said it worked and it does but I've only listened to it enough to verify that so I really don't know how it "sounds". But it certainly doesn't LOOK promising. So I'm biased too even though my experience is that looks are not very predictive of performance.
I don't know what "pure class A" means, what's an example of "impure class A"?
Regards, Rick
Class AB. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Class AB. :-)"
AB < > A
Methinks in the grand and marginally useful calculus of amplifiers that A's degrade to C's without passing B if you drive them too hard since B's have a different topology.
I just don't understand what "pure" means in this context. If anything...
Rick
Unfortunately they are not what they used to be. Now some of them talk in marketing terms.
...but it's hard to do until you finish the odyssey, like I did 10 years ago, and can look back.
If you follow particular reviewers, though, you can read their reviews and usually know when they buy what they're working with and why - and you can see what they swapped it out for.
Usually it's because that one piece just sounds better to them, given their personal biases. By sounds better, I mean it provides a more emotional connection to the music, since that's usually what it's all about.
Their odyssey is really no different than yours or anyone else's - they just get to listen to a lot more equipment and usually do it one component at a time.
We are all after something, but that usually depends on what we have learned about what we like, as much as it does -- or more -- on the gear.
"You don't need to be a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
What's really interesting is what you double back to check yourself out. Some gear you liked or didn't like 5 years or more ago can sound different to you now because your sense of what's right or what you like has evolved. The evolution likely took place pretty slowly, so you're not even aware of it until you hear that amp that used to freeze you out...and now, for some reason, it sounds really good. Sometimes a really honest odyssey may have some loops in it!
Edits: 02/13/12
...a big part of the process is self-discovery - learning what our own listening biases are.
But thinking about your post, it occurred to me that our piecemeal approach to building a system over time allows us, as reviewers, is to hear a lot of equipment in our systems and identify those components which have synergy with the system as the ones to upgrade with.
That same approach a good dealer can provide the non-reviewer.
Many of the rest of us do not have these opportunities. Chance plays a role: the more gear one listens to, up to a point, the more likely one is to get a fortunate "hit".
"You don't need to be a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: