|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.68.76.189
Build quality is one of those phrases bandied about by people who may or may not actually have any idea what build quality IS or is NOT.
Heavy can be 'good', if applied in the right place. A steel chassis? how about MORE heat sink?
Or maybe a real thick, machined (CNC) Aluminum face plate?
Circuit boards? I've worked on plenty of non-audio equipment. I've had to replaced traces burned to charcoal and other assorted goodies. One thing that always told me 'quality' was a sort of green epoxy circuit board. It was translucent to light and you could see an internal pattern to it. Very strong and fixable. Some cheap stuff used boards, which could be nearly any color, but when replacing a trace, were found to be similar to compressed cardboard. Burned traces were found to be CHARCOAL and would still conduct. You had to SCRAPE it all out as part of the fix.
Parts and parts selection. It has been noted PLENTY on a number of threads that resistors, for example, can be noisy and some prefer the various film types. What about caps, the 'other' most used part? Or GENERIC Opamps, to replace say the well known OPA2134 or the like?
I suspect that even IF (not gonna happen!) a company like Emotiva built from the SAME schematic as say, Bryston or Classe or Pass, that the amp would not only NOT be as good but would last a fraction of the time.
Any thoughts on 'build quality' and how YOU evaluate it?
You may feel free to toss in any cynical comments about 'worth 3x its asking price' or 'hits well above its weight' or even 'XXX is overpriced mid-fi'.
Too much is never enough
Follow Ups:
All great points guys! Excellent pics as well.
To me, build quality is never compromised, part selection is never compromised. Corner(s) are never cut for the sake of a profit.
If the OP didn't learn the meaning of the word "quality" in elementary school, that is sad.
So, for folks who, as adults, still don't know:
"Degree of excellence; relative goodness; grade"
From the Brittanica Dictionary.
Apply to "build".
I think I have a pretty good grip on quality. And for sure, quality has a dictionary definition. So good of you to point that out. The devil, of course, is in the details.
Having been a manufacturing engineer with a background in SPC, and plenty of actual practice with various quality improvement activities over 3 decades I was curious as to other persons perceptions of what quality and more importantly for the hifi type sees as build quality.
Quality is generally a MEASURABLE. MTBF, manufacturing reject rates, consumer warranty claims and much more.
But I'm not worried about that as much as some of the intangibles. Nobody touched on stuff like the tactile aspects of equipment. Well weighted controls with good feedback are part of a good build, IMO. People sometimes judge simply by picking up a piece of gear. The robust power supply weighs a lot, which adds credence to that rule of thumb.
People also get pretty much what they will put up with. I will never buy a modern HT receiver, for example, since they last only a few years and have many proprietary parts which will be difficult to find after only a few years. Disposible stuff never impressed me.
And speaking of disposible, '51, I think your cynicism is disposible, too. Please ADD something rather than simply do put downs. If the question is beneath you or too simple, just ignore it.
Too much is never enough
Pictureguy, relax. We're largely on the same page. However, when people start getting into specific aspects of a product or the minutia of a term, it becomes ridiculous.
"Even genius has its criticism." (Who said that?)
I ain't no genius, but I do like a conversation which is above the obvious and the mundane.
:)
Good on 'ya.
I was going to send off a similar post this morning.
I did some ACCIDENTAL archive diving when I loaded a BUNCH of email to my iPod Touch and the FIRST Mail I came across was from YOU dealing with the Parasound stuff.
Get your A21 yet? I'm still Berry Happy with my PAIR of '23s. I'm leaving most everything OFF today since we have a BIG storm blowing thru for the next 24 or so and I don't want to ZAP anything. This computer is going off, too.
Music today? Thru a portable radio or off the 'pod.
And don't worry about build quality, Most stuff these days is at least BUILT fairly well, except for what appears to be those Rats Nest near-DIY pictures others have posted to this thread. THAT stuff gives me nightmares.
Too much is never enough
So many things to reply to!
I'll just say that, regarding the A21, et al, John is a great guy, despite what some people say, and "smarter than the average bear". :) No, I haven't got the A21 yet. College tuition, back taxes. And, I have to get the woofs built. Woofs, then amps.
:)
The important thing is that you continue to take care of business. Get the young 'un off to school where he can REALLY drive you nuts with calls asking for $$$ and with his GFs.
Just be sure to write when the '21 lands. And if that's too much, and you can BIAMP, I'm certain you'll be MORE than satisfied with my pair of '23s approach with the proposed LL crossover. That will actually net about +3db against a single A21.
Too much is never enough
This is an aspect of "build quality" that is too often overlooked. Why bother with "Built like a tank" or "Built to last 100 years" if upgrade, playback, and repair options limit the useful lifespan of a component to a mere decade or two?
Vinnie Rossi has the right idea, IMO...
Some NAD equipment has space for modules which can add functions. Not as comprehensive as the LIO system, it may have been a step in the right direction.
Also, in a 'retro' look, most HT receivers are built from a common architecture with functions added with jumpers, external switching and maybe add-on boards. And don't forget the software!
Too much is never enough
Incredible to see that this thread is deviating into a let's bash Bryston one.
Edits: 11/30/14
Not really.
Wait to they get started on the Chinese!!!!
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Bryston Harsh sounding Integrateds need bashing
I would say that premium grade components used to construct a well engineered device carefully assembled by skilled craftsmen would be build "quality".
For example, (although its not audio) I have a Hamilton model 940, size 18 pocket watch manufactured in 1904. Inside the case are 3 notations by jewelers when it was cleaned/oiled. The watch's 21 ruby and sapphire jewels are in gold jewel settings, the full plate is polished silver, and the case is 18K gold filled.
It is 110 years old, has only been cleaned and oiled 3 times and keeps very good time. The porcelain dial has no cracks or discolorations. The stem is tight and the crystal is in fine shape. It is free of corrosion. The gold inlaid lettering on the works is crisp and sharp without flaking.
VERY FEW, if any, items made in this day and time will still be functioning properly in 2124 AD. This fine watch will likely be passed along to my grandson.
To see the world's unexcelled examples of superior craftsmanship and premium materials coming together into a finished product do a yahoo or google search for Purdey Shotguns images.
It is possible that one reason your watch is keeping accurate time is that is was cleaned and oiled only 3 times over 110 years. I've learned from a master watchmaker that the "trade secret" watchmakers don't want people to know is that fine mechanical watches without complications perform best without oil from the factory but since they are fully oiled from their onset they need to be cleaned and oiled on a regular basis such as the traditional "every 3 to 5 years". It seems counterintuitive but it has been born out in my experience with Omega watches over many decades that keep very accurate time.
Edits: 11/30/14
I have a 1864 15 jewel American pocket watch. Not as fancy as your Hamilton, but it is still in fine shape.
I also have a 1946 Rolex Bubbleback stainless steel chronometer,(bought by my father just after the European war in Switzerland) which keeps fantastic time, and a 1942 Hamilton model 22 marine chronometer.
I wonder if any modern "quartz" watches will be around even 50 years from now.
I bet even the Soviet "sub clock" my ex bought me in the 90's will still be ticking a long time from now.
Serving up content-free posts on the Internet since 1984.
One would think that the better the build quality, the better the warranty could/should be. As such, Bryston should be high on that list with a 20 year warranty.
I'll take a Pass Labs amp with it's 3 year warranty and gladly pay more for it than a Bryston with a 20 year warranty. When I buy audio gear it has to sound great. If it doesn't, I'll never take advantage of that 20 year warranty because the piece will be sold and out of my system in a short few months. ;-)
I would take Pass Labs over Bryston as well, but that doesn't mean the build quality of the Bryston is poor. Sound quality and build quality aren't necessarily the same thing, are they?
Sound quality and build quality aren't necessarily the same thing, are they?
True. Bryston is just one data point to prove that great build quality does not equate to great sound.
Warranty is factored into the price.
For instance Amp A may use better parts than Amp B. Amp A gives a 5 year warranty and charges $1,000. The amp is likely to last 25 years.
Amp B using worse parts but a thicker external case charges $2,000 and gives you a 20 year warraty. The amp is likely to last 25 years.
And 20 years of listening hell isn't much of a win over 5 years of bliss and a few hundred dollars in a repair bill.
What about 'worst case scenario' of 2 amps using the SAME schematic for build. The first amp uses high MTBF semiconductors, ample heat sinking and does a 100 hour factory burn-in at from 20% to 80% power THAN readjusts bias and PS offset. They also use REAL glass Expoxy boards, all 1% or better film resistors and 5% caps, where available.
AMP #2 just buys 'whatever', uses pressed cardboard circuit boards and has a 15% in-line rejection rate on finished goods.
Who are you going to buy? If I like the amp, I'll spend whatever it takes to GET it and skip the stuff which may SOUND alike, but for how long?
Too much is never enough
This is hypothetical land. If the parts used are superior in longevity then the product will generally last longer. In which case why would you need a 20 year warranty? No matter who it is or how well built it is stuff breaks down. And providing the warranty means you have to factor the cost into the price of the gear.
As has bee noted - the longest lasting part may not be the best sounding. Audio Note used to use Rubber surrounds on their AN K woofers - rubber lasts longer but it was always a compromise to sound quality and they finally switched to what they wanted to use - foam - which in humid countries will last about 1/4 as long as rubber which means owners will have to re-foam them every 7 years or so.
I have known Bryston dealers and dealer repair techs who deal with Bryston. First class company to deal with BUT they failed as just as often as other brands in the store with 1-5 year warranties.
You'll also notice they didn't give 20 year warranties on their CD players. They know that amps will last 20-50 years with cap/resister type failures which are peanuts to fix.
CD players have a lifespan of 7 years on average according to consumer reports - they weren't even confident enough the players would meet the average. And yes 5 years is still good for a CD player but it also cost 1/3 more money than a Sim Audio player that used the exact same transport mechanism.
Still - buying warranties is usually a scam and companies with long ones are usually forcing you to buy the warranty without you seeing it itemized.
I have no problem with this - there is security in the warranty and when positioning yourself in the market perhaps a warranty can help you sell your products when sound alone does not.
The only way to know of course is if companies or dealers reproduced actual hard facts on percentage of repairs needed per 100 units sold. What the problem was when it failed etc - like the auto industry.
build a product and keep improving parts that fail.
I feel that besides sound quality the build quality on my Esoteric SACD player is superb.
I also can comment on Supratek. They may not be the best built component but the Chenin I owned was a delight and I would put it up against almost any preamp on the planet on a sound for the dollar type of comparison.
Esoteric is indeed build quality and they could write a book on the subject. With the entire chassis built around and anchored at the transport, the 1/4" thick steel base plate, the 1/4" thick aluminum top plate, its beauty, etc. No doubt there is a pride of ownership with most any Esoteric model.All the way up until earlier this year when I purchased an OPPO 105D to replace my UX-3SE because the OPPO was easily a superior performer.
Since the Esoteric is indeed built like a tank and at 60 lbs. to boot and since build construction and heft mean everything to me from a vibration controlling perspective, so I was rather surprised by the OPPO's performance.
Everything about the OPPO, including the video section, is superior performance-wise to the Esoteric and with my iPad I'm using it as a music server. The OPPO truly is a Swiss army knife with its many capabilities and does most/all of them exceedingly well. In fact, the only thing missing is the bling, bling. But at retail price of $1300 vs the Esoteric's $9000 price, who cares?
So in the end, build quality, e.g. structural integrity, heft, superior transports, etc. still mean much, but in and of themselves doesn't necessarily translate to superior performance.
Edits: 11/29/14
I have heard Oppo more than once as a friend has one. Not sure of the number. I am very happy with my Esoteric and have no plans to replace it. Glad your happy with your Oppo. Your Happy, I'm Happy. Happy Holidays
It's all about happy...
Sorry, I wasn't trying to rag on your Esoteric. I really like much about Esoteric products and the company itself. Moreover, components can generate different levels of performance in different system configs and I do some pretty unconventional things in my system that I'm sure had extra influence on the OPPO.
My previous post was more out of bewilderment. I mean Esoteric wreaks of build quality and they make arguably the best transport in the biz. In another post further down in this same thread I mentioned what I look for in build quality and I was thinking of the Esoteric when I wrote that. However, my point being that it just goes to show that build quality alone does not guarantee top notch performance.
At the time I was researching, even the reviews of the OPPO were probably just better than mediocre and as usual I had to read between the lines of the reviews.
No offense taken. Mean that sincerely. I get that the price of the Esoterics sure make them targets. I bought used and then held my breath as I had never heard one until it arrived. I had a Sony 777 and enjoyed it and only sold as I kept having to send it in to get fixed every couple of years. Read the "sterile" comments and being a tube lover was worried about a thin sounding digital player that was built well. Well I consider the Esoteric to be anything but thin. It is joy to own to use and I enjoy the hell out of it.
I get that smaller increases in sound quality costs coin. The biggest difference in digital I ever heard was going from a Nakamichi cd2 to a Sony 333. The Nak sounded like a cracker jack plastic whistle compared to the Sony (and I am a long time confirmed Nak lover). The 777 was a better player than the 333 and the Esoteric bests them all in my house.
I could still live with the 333 easily if I had to as I spin vinyl most of the time anyways BUT I am very HAPPY that I own the Esoteric.
Yeah, I know what you mean aboug the Sony's. Years ago I owned the Sony SCD-1 which performance-wise was a joke.
Replaced the SCD-1 with a custom APL unit which was significantly more musical. Then came the Esoteric UX-3SE which was even far more musical than the custom APL CDP.
I don't get it with Sony's SCD-1. Sony was pushing SACD big time and their flagship model SCD-1 weighing 62 lbs. barely sounded any better than their DVP-9000es retailing for $1200. And I mean barely.
Boy, I was glad to get rid of that one.
Performance wise the Oppo is very inferior to a far cheaper Sony BDP player both sound & video via HDMI
Although components can deliver different performance levels based on different system configs, if Sony's history is any influence, I seriously doubt the validity of your statement.
I have made the comparison at Home Sony v Oppo have you ? the Oppo 103 via HDMI gives a hard bright picture on my Samsung Smart TV the BD sound especially HF is very poor compared to the pristine sound from the Sony BDP1000ES.which has a far more natural easier to view picture As for reliability my Sony AVR STR-DA5400ES/XA5400ES player combo has performed flawlessly for the past 5 years but I doubt if it will last 25 years like my Marantz CD94.
Edits: 11/30/14
this is their vintage tube scope.
Serviceable, reliable, high quality parts, detail manual and parts number list. Tech support, all first rated.
HA! You got me.
I was sort of poo-pooing this whole thread but those scopes really were exceptional. I had a friend whose uncle worked there so managed to get some of the ceramic terminal strips for my ham projects. Sooo much nicer electrically and physically than the phenolic ones. They even used to make their own knobs. There were chunks of Tek all over Portland...
Rick
I have owned several Emotiva products. And I find their build quality and parts used are as good as most in the industry. And the fact that they offer a 5 year warranty tells me that they expect their stuff to last for the next 5 years, at least.
Additionally, Emo is now moving a significant portion of their manufacturing to their home HQ in Franklin, TN. Good on 'em for doing that!
-RW-
I don't think build quality has all that much to do with botique parts.
A well built piece of gear will last a very, very long time, and when it needs servicing, it will be built in such a way that performing the service isn't super difficult.
As far as actual parts selection goes, something that's well built will run its resistors well below their power ratings, use capacitor more than adequately rated for current and voltage, as well as heat sinks able to keep and solid state components cool enough not to burn anything near buy (or the board they are mounted to).
Regarding "rats nest" wiring and haphazard layout, this tends to eventually cause safety issues and/or general failures, which negates the long lasting aspect of well built in the first place.
...is no guarantee of great sound quality. Many beautiful builds have proven to be a crap listen over the years.
Interesting fact about Accuphase, it is the best selling high end brand in Germany. When polled, Accuphase owners there cite build quality as the primary buying motivator. Germans seem to appreciate quality and are willing to pay for it.
Build quality is a matter of opinion, often distorted
I bought this off of eBay, was in horror when I opened it.
I was nearly afraid of touching or cleaning it, much less
playing through my system...
I got sick, (allergically ill) cleaning with alcohol
and citrus based cleaner, was worried.
The wiring was wretched, in spite of praise for
build quality and condition of unit.
one of 5 different builds...
"proof of concept" amp.
Edits: 11/30/14
Careful layout consideration,
inclusion of HEX-FREDs (critical)Squeeze it all into chassis. After all this
amp is working well, but deserves to be
made better in its evolution.Conclusion: the shared Power Supply
cripples this big amplifier's design.It has got to be dual mono. (fact)
Edits: 11/29/14
Finished, running and testing.
It is a beast, tight, compact
and it looks stock.
Nice Work Mike
"Quality" work. For sure
Looks great wish I could hear it
Cheers
... selection of materials, both inside and out, uses best practices in assembly, and a fit and finish that's impeccable.
Ideally you can open the box, and see the interior is wired up and routed as if it is going to be on display.
============================
As audiophiles, we take what's obsolete, make it beautiful, and keep it forever.
Hey! I have a blog now: http://mancave-stereo.blogspot.com or "like" us at https://www.facebook.com/mancave.stereo
I think the build quality of the Conrad Johnson MF 2300A amp is reasonable given it is a moderately priced consumer amp and has been in service for over 15 years
who build high quality equipment. Charles Hanson and Victor Khomenko come
immediately to mind. Might also be nice to hear from Sam Tellig, John
Marks, and other reputable reviewers who regularly post here. These guys
see a lot of equipment.
Could be interesting...
Ralph from Atma-Sphere too.
nt
Many DIYers have little background in electronics or manufacturing. Look to the computer audio asylum as an extreme example. In that case, most so called DIYers are simply 'assemblers' of off the shelf PC parts with no electronics background at all.
Many manufacturers started as hobbyists and DIY builders but in their DIY days, a lot of their best gear probably looked like prototypes because they didn't have the funds for proper tooling, design aesthetics, and quality manufacturing processes. It's one thing to build a 'one off' and another challenge entirely to make it manufacturable with repeatable quality.
I think many of the guys who post regularly on Tube/DIY know a lot more than most of the posters in this thread, and are better able to discern what really matters regarding things like circuit design, layout, choice of parts for specific applications, overall workmanship and build technique.
It's not my normal hangout but I'll take a look at Tube/DIY.
I will contrast (mostly) my US-built tube electronics.
My 1961 Hammond A100. Everything overbuilt as only Hammond could. I guess it helps that the owner was an engineer. Very heavy and well-built as a result. Extra kudos to Hammond to doing away with the idiotic paper labels for tube placement by stamping the tube number into the chassis besides the tube.
My Marantz 10b. The complexity of the point-to-point wiring is astounding. The parts and connections are layered. I replaced the opto-electronic switches when I first bought it, it took 8 hours. The tuning capacitor is a work of art, easily the best I've ever seen. The story is that it was built by the same company that built tuning caps for military electronics. In 1964, the production of the 10/10b bankrupted Marantz, leading to it's sale to Superscope, IE, the Tushinsky brothers. The 10b was the last great product of Marantz, the gradual downfall of this once-great company was the result. BTW, the first solid state product of Marantz, the model 18, was built to the same standards as it's tube cousins. My Marantz 2270 was not built to the same standards.
My (former) old "room heater" a Tektronix 535 scope. Amoung the best workmanship and parts selection I've ever seen. Yes, it is point to point, with white ceramic posts. Just a beautifully built piece of art.
My Quad II's. Amazing parts placement and lead dressing, rivaling in many ways the Tektronix.
Also-ran.
My various MC MacIntosh's. Tag strips are functional, but not very confidence-inspiring.
Serving up content-free posts on the Internet since 1984.
So are you saying that the best built electronics should be made so good that they bankrupt the company that makes them? ;-)
Original Marantz: Gone
Original Tektronix: Gone
Collins Radio: Gone
Hallicrafters: Gone
Now, here's what I call "good build quality" That's a Collins R390A receiver. Puts just about any audio gear to shame. The result of US mil spec and a huge budget. Considered by many as the best communications receiver ever made.
What about the LAST Swan Radio? The R8? I wanted one of those. bad.
Or some of the $$$ from Japan Radio or The 80s and 90s Lowe? And than the UBER expensive ICOM series. I think the CIA use them?
I can't remember which of 'em is designed to be easily field repairable with modular replaceable boards and sort of easy access.
Kenwood even made a pair of communications receivers, The R5000 being the best / last.
My SONY, is fun, and worth as much now as when I bought it nearly 20 years ago, but not on the level of the best from above. The ICF2010 is a classic in its own right.
Your Collins looks like a WATCH made large. I can't imagine the man-hours needed to construct or REPAIR.
come to think of it, I had a HUGE military communications receiver for about 2 months, back in about '71 or '72. You could PRE TUNE the frequency and the station would be THERE when you turned it on and it warmed.
Too much is never enough
I think you're talking about the Drake R8. I had the Swan 500cx transceiver and although it's 'build quality' appeared to be good, it was easily outperformed by most Drake, Collins, and later by Kenwood, Yaesu, Icom. Those three Japanese companies pretty much wiped out all the American brands at least in the HAM Radio market.
My friend had the Kenwood TS-520 which pretty much single handedly lead the charge toward the extinction of most American HAM Radio products. Yaesu had the FT-101 series about that time. I think Tempo was a rebranded even cheaper Yaesu made radio.
Competition is now coming from S.Korea and China but I believe the Japanes Kenwood, Yaesu, and Icom are still the most popular. Ten-Tec is still around with some good equipment.
Seas, I did think of ham equipment, but I didn't add any because I don't own any. (My closest item is a Halicrafters S-40.)
Many years ago, I was given a Heathkit tube transciever, I don't recall the model. Build quality was good. I didn't keep it, I am not interested in becoming a ham.
Your Collins R390A receiver looks amazing, wish I could examine it close-up.
BTW, the REL Precedent is another amazing piece of equipment, built by a company that normally built communications gear, and uses tuned slugs for tuning. (I remember the old car radios using the same.)
Serving up content-free posts on the Internet since 1984.
I would expect it to be equipment that lasts at least 15 years in normal use.
In design, parts selection, and execution of manufacture.
Their products exude quality in every way.
Just wish I could afford Accuphase gear!
I don't know if it's the Gold Standard but the Accuphase DP-65v CDP that I own is definitely well built. I bought it used when it was already about 7 or 8 years old and I kept it over other newer CDPs that I liked and have respect for.
It came down to the newer Cary CD-306/200 and later the Cary CD-303/300. I also had the Sony XA7ES. I've kept the Accuphase DP-65v and the rest are long gone. I think the Accuphase is maybe 16 or 17 years old now. I believe they came out around 1997 / 1998 +/-.
On a side note, there's an inmate who frequents the Asylum who had the Accuphase DP-65v and sold it when he bought his Raysonic player. He was pretty excited about it claiming that it was noticeably better sounding than the Accuphase. Could be. About 4 years later that same inmate was posting questions on the Asylum about where to get his Raysonic fixed. I don't know the whole story but I think they either went belly up or had issues with their distribution or dealer network. In the end, I'm not sure if he ever got his Raysonic CDP repaired. Raysonic was a Canadian company with equipment manufactured in China.
My Accuphase DP-65v still going strong after 16+ years
The Marantz CD94 that I sold is still going strong after 25 years continuous use.
I was in retail and sold Accuphase for twelve years along with many other brands, well known and not so well known, not to mention all the used gear that came through. Nothing I ever saw exceeded Accuphase in "quality". I remember two units needing repair in all that time. I also remember a highly touted brand whose every unit we sold needed repair.
I had personally owned a DP-75v. I sold it some time ago while building a house and still miss it. Congrats on your 65v, may it continue to provide reliable service.
And what was that "highly touted brand"?
To me it is quite simply design, implementation, quality workmanship, long term reliability and performance all rolled into one. The level of quality of individual parts is important but esoteric and expensive parts while adding to performance will not overcome the above.
nt
you look at all the internals, they shouldn't be generic caps, cheap chips (if lets say a DAC or amp chip), the circuit board should be purposely built for the device, if it is a circuit board that was just pressed together for other uses you're probably going to see pathways which go to nothing, that IMHO is a sloppy design, and done to cut costs with off the shelf nonsense. Also the quality of the case or what have you I think you mentioned face plates, what is more important to me, are the operational buttons and power switches do they feel sturdy, like they will last 30 or 100 years. Nothing beats spending a lot of money on something that looks nice with a 30 cent button to turn the frigging thing on.
Also look how everything is put together, is it just a board but a huge case which has a lot of empty space? Then probably it is not designed but just slopped together. Also look where it is made. Germany, USA, Switzerland, or China?
Just some of my experience, I try to stay to USA made equipment. And the funny thing, when I do buy from China, it is a Chinese company, not another brand who makes there. I've had Dussun and Yaqin from China, and I've had other brands who repurposed their assembly to China, by far the Chinese company had a better product.
So if I buy from a English company, if it is not make in England no sale. Same goes for anywhere else. Nothing says bullshit than a high end brand not making equipment in their home country.
Ask any of the British companies who have shifted production to China about their quality now vs when they were producing in the UK. They will all acknowledge that their current quality is the highest in their history. Why, because they are now producing large quantities in a real factory. The sample to sample quality goes up, automated functions don't make mistakes (like humans do) and quality control measures are tighter. Hand made in small batches is not always a guarantee of quality, and a shit design will create a shit product no matter where it's made.
Well said! Unfortunately that eliminates a lot of component and speaker brands that I loved.
You are talking nationalism mostly.
what? people jumping out into nets at the foxconn factory? suicide organ harvesting vans, fresh organs for rich people who just need to live another day?hope the new world order treats you well.
Edits: 11/29/14
I wish I knew what the hell you are talking about.
I thought it was poor form to criticize the Chinese on this site or globalization for that matter.
Build quality is nice, but like everything in audio these days people go over the top looking for the divine.
That may well be the one of the most accurate statements I've read hear in years.
I might change "everything" to "too many things", but that's just me.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Happy thoughts it is 4:20, no really.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but performance-wise, "lean and mean" is usually best.
I've had some rat's nest tube equipment that sounded outstanding and some well-laid out tube equipment that did not, and I've had some rat's nest tube equipment that sounded lousy; had to be re-wired and soldered and then sounded outstanding, though I think the re-soldering mostly did the trick.
Another advantage of well laid-out tube equipment is that it is easier to trace the circuits, unless it is all jammed together...no matter how well-laid out it is.
I, too, appreciate the layout of a lot of vintage tube equipment for circuit tracing.
Observe, before you think. Think before you open your yap. Act on the basis of experience.
Certainly build quality can mean different things to many.There's structural integrity build quality, internal component build quality, and then there's philosophical build quality.
I try to focus on structural integrity build quality for several reasons. It's more basic so more easily understood and therefore, should be easier to accomplish (though many mfg'ers don't).
Performance-wise everything matters. But even so, I care less about internal component build quality because here we get into swallowing camels while choking on gnats. In other words, often times yesterday's DAC's, op-amps, capacitors, etc, generally will still offer 90% or more of today's SOTA-level internal components. Generally. So if I missed out on today's best DAC's it's usually not a night and day difference. On the other hand, if a mfg'er started using cryo'ed internal wiring and parts throughout and the cryo'ing method was superior, then I'd start caring a whole lot more about internals.
Philosophical build quality I try to steer clear of as few if any have developed any superior strategies in this regard. Included in this category might be tubes vs SS, AC filtering / line conditioning, or implementing certain vibration controlling methods. Many seem to think that just because somebody is an expert at amplifier designs, that automatically makes them an AC filter or vibration control expert too and in most cases this couldn't be futher from the truth. My preference is the designer leave the cheap $5 AC filter out of the unit and please don't go building sandwiched layers of isolation materials into the component, including soft footers.
Their $5 AC filter might add a a tad bit of performance for the many who do not use superior line conditioners, but that $5 AC filter will most likely seriously compromise my $1200 line conditioner's performance and their vibration controlling methodologies will most likely seriously compromise my own methods.
When it comes to build quality, all I ask is, just stick to the basics and use superior materials, boards, mounts, connectors, chassis', screws, etc. Stay away from cheap stamped sheet metal and make sure the mfg'ers use torque wrenches and screwdrivers to ensure excellent tautness and rigidity throughout and I'll take care of the rest.
Edits: 11/29/14
I, Too, would stay away from philosophical issues and TEND toward measurables.
MTBF for parts so measured, for example. Mil-spec of in some cases, Rad Hard devices may provide extra reliability or longer equipment life.
I'm less worried about 'brand-new latest DAC' but rather how well WhatEver DAC is implimented.
Too much is never enough
of how NOT to build a preamp:
Brian
So much music, so little time!
Geez, I built better stuff when I was 12 years old. Whatever it is that you pictured, the builder should be ashamed of himself...
-RW-
.
Brian, I told you not the post any photos of my work. Just kidding. I can't fathom how the assemblers knew they had everything right?
And they usually sound very good.
I was 'railing on Brian' about this topic...
I have nearly had to "defend my ideals" or
definitions of home building and optimizing
even higher expectations of $$$ production
made "audiophile gear", as per.
After years of Atma-Sphere, Jeff Rowland
Audio Research, Mark Levinson gear
ownership, I am accustomed to
looking at works of art...
not some twisted Picasso
... that the sound quality is all that really matters. Some would claim that what appears to be sloppy or haphazard internal build quality is actually part of a strategic design wherein sound quality dictates "build".
...for lazy builders or those who wouldn't know how to build a quality product. ;-)
Yup.
This $5495 preamp, reviewed by Stereophile (January 2014), was definitely NOT an example of stellar internal "build quality", according to Art Dudley. And if you look at the photos of it's internals, you'll see that it's build quality does not appear to be all that impressive.
However, the G-1A's designer (who claims to be an "ex-Naval systems engineer" and a physicist), replied in "Manufacturers Comments" of the same issue that the seemingly haphazard use and arrangement of internal parts ("rat's nest" wiring, bare wires, etc..,) is actually the result of a thoughtful and deliberate strategy to produce the best sound possible and that, in any case, the user *does not hear appearances*.
Anything's possible, I guess...
and that is just one case in point.
But that doesn't explain all the other outstanding preamps out there that sound terrific with better 'build quality'. Again, this appears to be nearly a 'one off' or very low volume manufacturer who needs to justify his construction technique.
Do the best sounding preamps in the world need to use this sort of construction technique? I highly doubt it.
All of the wire required to make an orderly layout can be damaging to sound quality.
And that device looks like a good compromise to me.
Neat layouts are good if the device needs to be fixed but offer no advantage sonically.
Some people actually like that the engine in their BMW has to be removed to change the oil pump... until they get the bill.
Are you speaking of all of those ridiculous panels the German's place atop the engines these days should be embarrassing but the owners think its "beautiful? I imagine they do take some time for removal if necessary.
The only correlation could be if a tubed component, which will eventually need replacing of the tubes, had them underneath all kinds of stuff that had to be de-soldered to get to them.
I think there are still some maintenance procedures that require complete removal of PORSCHE engines.
Smart layout and (forethought in) execution is critical...
I'm not gonna even try to defend the wiring job of that Supratek. It appears to be a Cabernet. But, I've owned two Supratek preamps (Chardonnay & Cabernet Dual). They were both high gain, but ultra silent. I owned the Cabernet for almost seven years before I sold it and never once had a single problem with it. I'd still own it today if I had not decided to downsize my system to an integrated. It was a joy to listen to, but I bet it'd be a pain to fix.
Kevin T
"religion is the opiate of the masses"
Give them a wine inspired name and the little darlings will be under your spell.
Good build quality.....
That's not a pre-amp,I think a rat built a nest in there. I was talking to the guys at SMc Audio and was told they use different solder for different parts and different iron temperatures also.
They are putting together a pair of mono blocks for me and I'm very impressed by their dedication and work ethics, they care about the job they do.
Acass.
Did it actually WORK? For how long?
Even if the builder had spent $$$$+ on parts and such, any sembelence of 'build quality' went right out the window with poor (nonexistent) layout.
Too much is never enough
That preamp cost $8000. Pretty on the outside, nice parts quality, $#!7 build quality. Heaven knows about reliability, much less being able to work on it when, not if, there are problems.
Brian
So much music, so little time!
Component quality and build quality are two separate things to me but they often go hand in hand with the better manufacturers.
Build quality also encompasses component layout, construction method, soldering and rosin cleanup, cable connections and dressing, as well as overall fit and finish.
Example - This:
Versus this:
It's also pretty clear that Pass Labs has overall better 'build quality' than Odyssey. However, that doesn't make the Odyssey a bad amp. I have photos of each in my inmates picture gallery.
Grow up Abe - your almost anal retentive review of Blue Circle gear tells much about your personality - well, so doesn't your ultra clean 'hey look at me" pictures of the box you call a listening room responding to every post you make. Question to Abe and all his glitterati - have you EVER LISTENED to Blue Circle Audio gear - of course not. Second question - Abe can you design anything audio related other than a security policy for some company? How the heck can you continue to be critical of of those who question the sound qualities of your favorite fanboy pastime (Rogue) and scold them for not hearing it and continue on your quest against Blue Circle?
Ummmmmm?
Component quality and build quality are two separate things to me but they often go hand in hand with the better manufacturers.
EXACTLY!
Some piece made with 1000$ worth of parts put together like XXX won't be worth the solder it's stuck together with.
OTOH,
something built with middle of road parts selection can often exceed the sum of parts thru good build/ layout and thoughtful execution.
Too much is never enough
It has multiple levels: Most important is ALWAYS the soldering. Then there is the circuits and the component selection. Then, there is layout and mechanical design. Some equipment is utilitarian and some is a work of art. I rather not pay too much for the work of art, though.
I've had mil-spec soldering training. So I understand that being Very Important in a point-2-point wired amp, like many tube amps.j Good 'wetting' and 'flow'.
The motto 'The Bigger the Blob, the Better the Job' does NOT apply to this operation
But? Once you set up a wave soldering machine? You can finish maybe 100 stuffed boards per hour with 99.9% repeatability. Maybe MORE.
Also, the choice of solder is very important. Some of the ROHS compliant stuff is, or appears to be brittle and subject to cold solder joints from heat cycling of a joint.
Too much is never enough
-----
-----
nt
Aside from a few flaws in the woodworking, how would you rate my build quality on this 14 tube power supply? All the wiring is silver plated with Teflon jacket, NOS Amphenol sockets, and I used parts that are rated 50-100% over specification, and 1% or tighter where possible.
Seeking honest criticism here. Yes, I know the wood is a bit grungy, that happened from moist storage.
This is the belly of the beast, the circuit board (hand drawn and etched) is for the saftey circuit, which quickly drains the HV+ should bias fail or the umbilical to the amp come unplugged.
The AC power input. Yes, the holes in the aluminum are a bit rough. I made them 15 years ago long before Front Panel Express was an option, and I had inadequate tools at my disposal. Yes, those holes kinda suck I know that already!
Close up of one of the rectifier sockets. Ever try to make twisted pairs with Teflon wire? It can be done, but it's not for the faint of heart. Just thinking about it makes me feel like I have arthritis.
Thoughs, comments? This is the power supply for my monster amp. I intend to better this build quality substantially in the amplifier, and essentially make it as close to a mil-spec piece of gear as possible.
Thanks, Mike I appreciate the praise.
I probably could have laid it out for shorter wire runs, but it is what it is at this point.
That is a great looking piece of gear!
Good job, very well done!
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: