 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
151.203.204.143
In Reply to: Try this experiment and get back with us posted by E-Stat on August 23, 2006 at 17:25:57:
Soundmind points out something that obvious that you just can't seem to accept. Think about all that negative feedback, and "cheap wire" in the recording chain. Think about all the digital EQ, mixdown & mastering decisions to final pressing.
You poor suffering thing, you have audiophile delusions.
Take two Thorazine and call me in the morning.
LMAO
d.b.
Follow Ups:
rw
Take your window, and lots of noise, even order distortion, rolled off frequency response, and you get your typical high end tube based system.
BORING
d.b.
...is the part where they look you straignt in the eye and tell you that the eight dollars worth of potentiomenter, switches, jacks, and the box they put it in that they normally charge $1800 for will only cost you $1500 if you buy it today due to a special promotional sale...and because you seem like such a nice guy.
The parts cost for Dan's former $2700 preamp couldn't have cost him more than eight, well call it eleven bucks. I'm sure he will corroborate your claim.rw
The parts cost was about 1/3 the selling price. 40% of that cost was connected to the front panel. Six deck Grayhill sealed rotary switches are not cheap, neither are the Bourns panel mount pots or the Kilo knobs that go on them.
Semi precision analog does cost serious money.
All a moot point now.
d.b.
P.S. Don't forget the RG174 with the copper clad steel center conductor.
Ask SM is he was being facetious as was I.FWIW, I spent about $8 each for the gold plated Cardas connectors, $55 for the Par-Metals anodized chassis, and around $120 each for the DACT stepped attenuators in my attenuator box. I get it.
rw
Soundmind has every reason to say what he said, because there is so much of the business that is a rip, and it goes right on by most of the critics and magazines.
Clever little clocks? designer cables? Tube amps? (obsolete before it was manufactured) Two inch thick face plates? Not to mention those highly/praised reviewed pieces of junk that have come across my bench from time to time.
d.b.
After all, why spend $3,995 on a pair of 80 watt amps when you can get a Big Lots Dynaco amp that sounds every bit as good in his eyes, er ears for $300? Sounds reasonable to me. (this time did you get the sarcasm?)Two inch thick face plates?
I'm curious as to which audio product you are referring. Never seen one of those!
rw
BBC interviewed a guy in china a couple of years ago who claims he is the largest manufacturer of pins, buttons, and badges in the world. He makes a lot of campaign buttons as well as badges for police and fire departments including in the US. I think he manufactures badges for the NYC police dept. too. He was talking about a campaign button he made for some political candidate in California to be sold at a political rally in a stadium in San Diego. His cost to manufature, 2 cents each. His selling price 6 cents each. Cost to the end customer in California 2 dollars each, one hundred times original cost. This is a lot more typical than you'd think. In volume, most electronics parts are very cheap. The more you buy, the lower the cost goes, especially when you start bidding it out. You want something custom made in small quantities to very high quality standards, you'll pay through the nose. But audiophiles are suckers. They'll pay a 250% markup on a fancy front panel which adds nothing to the value of their product. When you have more money than brains, packaging means a lot. As for the $3995 amps, they're a lot closer to the similarly powered $300 pair than you'd think. An awful lot closer. Take them apart and look inside at what you get. There's a lot less than meets the eye. And the manufacturer's justification? He calls his hit and miss tinkering "research." What an insult to real scientists and engineers who actually do.
As for the $3995 amps, they're a lot closer to the similarly powered $300 pair than you'd think. An awful lot closer. Take them apart and look inside at what you get. There's a lot less than meets the eye. And the manufacturer's justification? He calls his hit and miss tinkering "research." What an insult to real scientists and engineers who actually do.Damn straight, SM! Dan is simply a charlatan with his overpriced amps using "hit and miss tinkering 'research'". What an insult indeed! Well you can now take comfort since he decided to cease production.
rw
For mass market electronics, the suggested retail price is often between 5 and 10 times the actual cost to manufacture. If high end manufacturer's products markups differ widely from this, it is because they are extremely ineffecient at minimizing cost and their markups are lower or they price their products because they feel they can achieve a market niche and their markups are higher. One area which is a joke to consumers are fancy panels and enclosures. They are very expensive to buy OEM or make in small quantities. High end speaker manufacturers produce cabinets built to very high fit and finish standards unnecessarily and they invariably get marred, scratched, gouged in use anyway so that's a complete waste of money from the customer's point of view. Most manufacturers of loudspeakers use off the shelf drivers or custom manufactured variants. You can practically identify them going through a Madisound and Parts Express catalogue. I'll bet Audax pulled its Aerogel line off the retail market because of complaints from OEM customers seeing hobbyists buy them to reverse engineer high end designs. Take the retail price of the drivers and knock down at least 40% to 60% off them to get an idea of what manufacturers pay when they buy them OEM in quantity. That $100,000 pair of VS or Wilson speakers probably has less than $5000 worth of drivers in it, perhaps a lot less. If you are clever enough, you can identify the drivers and build the systems yourself. The single most expensive item in an amplifier is the power transformer. You can buy one hell of a transformer for an amplifier for about $200 or less at full retail. OEM made in China they are probaby about a tenth of that or less. Transformer prices are almost all directly related to their volt-amp ratings. Torroidals cost more than other types. The next most expensive components are the enclosure and filter capacitors. The rest is gingerbread. Here's another example of actual retail markup. In a virtual war over a $26,000 UPS I had with Square D about 20 years ago after it failed one month out of warranty, they agreed to supply replacement batteries not at the $200 each normal price but at $37, their actual cost. Even industrial equipment gets marked up heavily.
If high end manufacturer's products markups differ widely from this, it is because they are extremely ineffecient at minimizing cost...Or, choice "B", limited quantity hand-built components do not enjoy benefits of large scale production.
rw
"Or, choice "B", limited quantity hand-built components do not enjoy benefits of large scale production."Among other things which drive up cost for the little guy. BTW, for many, even most products made this way even by large manufacturers no two are exactly identical. Of approximately 1000 JBL Paragon D44000 loudspeaker systems made in a span of about 15 years, no two had cabinets with interchangeable parts. And for small manufacturers with garage type operations, quality control often stinks. This is due not only to cost cutting but to lack of manufacturing technical knowledge and resources. They couldn't possibly get ISO 9000 certification. Not only in terms of uniformity but in consistant quality of build, mass market products made largely by machine in large modern factories are infinitely superior.
Soundmind, you should really stick to violins. Perhaps you can get a large manufacturer to mass produce them, and get really good results. As you know, your simple attitude toward hi fi equipment, won't work with qualitiy musical instruments, not that people have not tried.
I purchased my first classical guitar in 1960. I already had a very good electric guitar, but when I went to the music store to get strings for it, I casually picked up a classical guitar that was displayed on the wall. I fell in love, and though I couldn't afford it, I purchased it anyway. This guitar was made in Sweden and was called an 'Espania' I loved playing this guitar and took it everywhere. Unfortunately, someone stole it out of my car in 1962, and I was at a great loss. I tried to buy another 'Espania' guitar, but it didn't sound the same. I then tried to buy a Goya (made in Sweden also) but I turned it back in to the music store, because I could not live with it. I then bought the best guitar that I could find in Guadalajara, Mexico in 1963, but I ultimately traded it for a voltmeter.
So where does this lead? Well, every guitar that I had purchased at that time was hand made and cost real money, and each had a different personalty. Being fussy at the time, and finding a 12 string Mexican guitar that I came to love, I stopped looking for my classical guitar replacement for several years.
Now to my point:
However, in 1970, I found a bargain classical guitar in a music store that cost retail for about $50. It looked perfect, played in tune, and in every way that I could see, and even first hear, it was acceptable. I bought it, hoping that it would sound even better after a few months or years of playing. Well it was not to be! It just sounded barely OK, and stayed that way. I finally just gave it away in disappointment. How did the Japanese do it? How did they make a beautiful guitar, yet a mediocre one? Was it the wood, the varnish, the glue, the bracing? I couldn't SEE any difference. Still, it was there! I had bought a MIDFI guitar and I came to dislike it.
It is the same between midfi and hi end.
It is very difficult to make the best stuff possible.
It is like making a race car, rather than a family sedan. If you want to compete with the others, you have to use the BEST connectors, wire, parts, topologies.
Where a mid fi manufacturer will use connectors that look good, they are just gold flashed potmetal. That's how we can tell the difference sometimes. We just use a magnet. Visually, they can be perfect, and even better looking than the 'good' connectors. How embarrassing! This is true with wire, circuit boards, parts, everything!
What about something in-between like the equivalent of an expensive Honda, BMW, Mercedes? Well they are limited production, just like Parasound, where I usually design products. Are there sonic compromises for having to use limited mass production, instead of hand crafting? Of course, and I know them well. Yet, the retail price can be 1/3 what an equivalent amp might cost that is truly hand made. This is NOT the fault of the craftspeople who make the custom amps, but the cost of 'keeping the lights on' when you can make only a few components a week or month and the REAL COST of quality passive and active parts. This is hi end, folks!
There are a small minority of craftsmen in many businesses who go to extraordinary lengths to produce the highest quality products possible but even there, one place or another, many of them fall short somewhere along the line. But for the overwhelming majority of small manufacturers with garage style operations, their products are inconsistant in quality at best.I'm reminded of something which happened over 20 years ago. Another engineer dumped a project on me he didn't want to do. The security manager of the large software development site I worked at had purchased a replacement computer room card entry access system from a company in Central NJ which had just been spun off from a world famous British military electronics hardware company. Shortly after I was to see why with my own eyes. The salesmen who sold this system took me to the factory and gave it a big buildup. After the high level meeting with the plant manager and other top level management, I got a tour of the plant...a garage with a few people sitting at tables hand assembling equipment, a fenced parts crib, and a computer for testing. When 14 card readers arrived at my office, I spread them out on a table. Many of them had different parts from each other, some had obvious short circuits, two even had the same serial number, and workmanship uniformly stank. I sent them all back with a message that they were unacceptable and would all have to be completly reworked or replaced. The manufacturer was furious. It came back a few weeks later marginally better but eventually the entire system was scrapped for one built by a major manufacturer. This is typical of my experience with garage style operators. Even if the founder was "passionate" about his work, those who inherit the business usually aren't and are only interested in cutting every possible corner including quality. I have no issue with hand made equipment...if it is well made. BTW, even the AR2as I recently renovated, built to very high consumer standards would not have passed inspection for soldering to military specifications standards. How lucky I was to have a father who was the Quality Control Manager of a famous electronics company for 14 years which built only military gear.
Craftsmen who are dedicated to building the best musical instruments and have learned their craft over a lifetime by being apprenticed and starting out by sweeping the floor as children are not in this category. They are in a special trade. Don't compare them to the garage manufacturers of high end audio equipment. Especially the ones who farm out their work to prison sweatshops in China.
Soundmind, you are very prejudiced against people who make custom audio electronics for a living. I happen to be one of those people, and I have worked with many audio manufacturers who make similar audio products. Many, if not most of these people, have years of academic training and manufacturing experience. Look at Roger West for example. What is wrong with you?
This is how it is, folks!
It is difficult to make anything perfectly and consistently. First you can personally make a prototype or two and get it going. Then you might make a limited run of 25 or so. Well, soldering every board yourself, gets really old, and so you usually hire a solderer or two to help you. I have ALWAYS hired good solderers. One was Swiss trained, another worked at cable making at Lawrence Berkeley Labs, a third was NASA trained, etc, etc. They also get tired of soldering and sometimes make mistakes. Then, I have to find their mistakes, (never the same one) to get the unit to work. You can imagine how much fun that is.
Now, what about limited production, like Parasound? Well, here comes the compromises, which are minor, but real. Automated production with pick and place machines also involves wave soldering, that looks good to the eye. However, polystyrene caps are mostly out, because the final cleaning will probably destroy them, if not the soldering process itself. Also, the quality of the solder will be different, because I just can't tell some manufacturer in Taiwan to use SN62 solder, in their production line. They also have to make products for Carver, etc, etc, who demands no such solder quality. A pick and place machine always seems to leave excess leads on the components that will tarnish with time, and probably change the sound. Oh well, that's the price of cost savings. Now, what do the mid-fi guys do? They turn everything that they possibly can into an integrated circuit. Good pots? Goodbye! Good IC's? Too expensive! Use the cheap ones that cost a few 10's of cents each. Sony does this, and so does just about everyone else.
I have the greatest respect for Dan Banquer's selection of components. He was trying to do a good job, that should have been acceptable to most anyone. Bourns pots are good!
Bourns pots are not cheap! Audible Illusions uses Bourns pots, as well, and I have independently measured and listened to them. However, TKD is even better and even more expensive, That's what we used in the CTC preamp, and WE had to pay a minimum of $320/stereo pot set OEM for each preamp. It is now almost impossible to get them, because they are not being imported anymore, due to a price doubling at the wholesale level. NOW what are they going to cost?
It is just like buying quality aged wood from a certain tree to make a guitar or violin. It costs money to do it right. The Yamaha guitar that I bought for $50/ 36 years ago, must have taken a shortcut in the wood department when they made the instrument. I can't blame them, but then I didn't like the results, as the funky 12 string of Mexican origin with a large cigarette burn on the front of it, ran rings around it sonically.
Now, please Soundmind, I am not writing this just for you to pick apart, it is for the silent majority who read this stuff and who are interested in why good audio often costs so much, and also to offset then negative propaganda about audio that you insist on submitting.
"Soundmind, you are very prejudiced against people who make custom audio electronics for a living"NO! I am prejudiced against people who set their own arbitrary subjective standards which cannot be verified independently and who are pretentious about them to the point of declaring them to be beyond what others who have set objective standards which can be verified can achieve. Golden eared wizards, the ultimate determiners of what is good and bad who as it turns out have questionable hearing accuity for a variety of reasons not the least of which is a long history of self abuse. As for the so called objectivist manufacturers, their claims are documented and their products are held in the highest esteem by professionals where cost is a secondary factor to performance and reliability, not hobbyists who can and are sold the moon on the strength of their ignorance every day. Having built many A/V projects as a project manager working with A/V consultants and contractors and having worked for one myself for a short boring stint, I know when Bryston has to compete against Crown to bid a job, all the bullcrap they shovel at consumers goes out the window, prices become very competitive, and there's no room for games. You don't sell a three year no fault warranty to pros on inferior parts, weak design, or poor manufacturing standards.
"It is just like buying quality aged wood from a certain tree to make a guitar or violin"
It's one thing to buy selected wood and age it for 20 years to make a violin. It's another to say you can only make an accurate speaker by building an enclosure using Russian birchwood or using 100 pounds of silver in the crossover network capacitors and that's why they have to cost $125,000 a pair. Not everyone out their is both stupid and inexperienced.
If you were a true engineer/scientist in function as well as in training, you would find out WHY one of your designs sounds better to you than another and use that knowledge to produce consistantly better product, you wouldn't be flailing around with wild theories such as which components of harmonic distortion are irritating and which aren't when the whole of it taken together is less that 0.1% of the signal.
"It is difficult to make anything perfectly and consistently."
Tell it the ISO standards organization, that's what they are all about, production units remaining within specified deviation of the prototype and the manufacturer's documentation subject to audit to prove it. ANSI is similar, so are military specifications and contracts. That's how big money electronics is made and sold today.
"Also, the quality of the solder will be different, because I just can't tell some manufacturer in Taiwan to use SN62 solder, in their production line."
If you can't write contracts to produce to your own exacting specifications and enforce them because you don't have the resources of strong purchasing and legal departments that hardly comes as a surprise. That's typical of garage operations.
"Well, soldering every board yourself, gets really old, and so you usually hire a solderer or two to help you"
"One was Swiss trained, another worked at cable making at Lawrence Berkeley Labs, a third was NASA trained, etc, etc. They also get tired of soldering and sometimes make mistakes. Then, I have to find their mistakes, (never the same one) to get the unit to work. You can imagine how much fun that is."
More garage type operations. Professional solderers and wirers are carefully trained and tested to verify their skills. Their work is 100% inspected. This is the function of a manufacturing engineering department. This is what I am talking about when I refer to small time operators. I've seen countless examples of their crap...and I don't authorize installation or payment for it until they repair it and get it right. This is testimony that I will never buy one of your products no matter what is claimed for it. By your own admission, I would not be satisfied with it."Automated production with pick and place machines also involves wave soldering, that looks good to the eye. However, polystyrene caps are mostly out, because the final cleaning will probably destroy them, if not the soldering process itself"
Do you think IBM and other large elecronics manufacturers have the same problems? How do you suppose they handle them?
The resources of large companies which buy, make, or sell billions of dollars of electronic hardware every year gives them the resources to make whatever they need to make to whatever standards they choose to make them. Compared to that kind of power, the little guy has two and a half strikes against him before he even starts. If these big guys aren't competing against you, it's only because they don't see enough profit in it. Count yourself lucky, they'd eat your lunch if they did.
Oh boloney!
Not the point he wants to make, but does make one nevertheless.I know when Bryston has to compete against Crown to bid a job, all the bullcrap they shovel at consumers goes out the window, prices become very competitive, and there's no room for games.
This is standard audiophile bashing rant #304 which he has used before. He is absolutely correct. Prices dominate the equation and pros couldn't care less about the ultimate sound quality. They are far more concerned about watts per dollar, ability to drive a dozen speaker bins without blowing up and getting thrown around by roadies.
I responded to this rant once before. You'll note he didn't counter my comparison. :)
rw
I can't disagree. Chevy vs Ford, Crown vs Bryston, even low cost Parasound vs Advent or many other similar products. The problem is that I prefer to drive a Porsche, because I enjoy driving it, and I prefer not to own a Chevy or a Ford. Why? Refinement.
Can I own the newest, fastest, or coolest Porsche? No! My car is 22 years old, BUT it still drives well, even though I could only get a few thousand dollars for it in the marketplace. It's the same with audio. Most of my audio is used equipment or products that I have designed. Hi end audio doesn't have to be ourageously expensive, but you have to want what it gives you, over mid-fi. Refinement.
"Chevy vs Ford, Crown vs Bryston, even low cost Parasound vs Advent"
What do you expect in an amplifier for only $4000. For that kind of money you're lucky if it works at all."Can I own the newest, fastest, or coolest Porsche?"
Yes! If I wanted one. My next door neighbor owned a 911 Targa. He washed it every day. He stroked that car more than he stroked his girlfriends. One day it almost became his coffin. What a piece of shit...in an accident. Me, I drive a 96 Mark VIII LSC. It's plenty fast....I've got the speeding tickets to prove it. I was in an accident in a Mark VII LSC which was totaled. It was sent spinning on an interstate on wet pavement by a guy who fell asleep at the wheel of his Dodge Daytona. My car was completely out of control hydroplaning, unable to recover from the skid and unable to slow down even with antilock brakes. It hit the concrete center divider head on at 50 miles per hour. I walked away. In a Porche, I'd have been killed for sure. Drive your Porche...if your back can stand being scrunched up in it.
Soundmind, the more I interact with you, the more I find you to be a clueless mean-spirited guy. AR-2's? They sucked then, and they suck now! Does this help you? I doubt it, but then you may have fallen in with Big B's (you know the guy you love in acoustics) law which states: " If you have chosen a speaker and have even modified it, then it is the speaker that you will like most." I would rather have a Wilson, thank you.
Your choice is cars is OK for YOU, but you would never see me driving one. What a dog to drive! Parking? Gas mileage? Real response to local situations? Please give us a break!
However, I bet it is really nice on the freeway at normal speeds, and that it has a great back seat for your other passengers.
Do you know what his "reference" performance car is? Hint: think AARP.Yeah baby!
rw
Cables aside, the gear I use is built by larger scale (in the relative sense) manufacturers who have been around for at least twenty five years. I have visited the Audio Research facility north of Minneapolis. Here's an online link to the factory tour. This is not a garage operation, yet hand assembly of all components is not cheap.Likewise, VTL, and its offshoot, Manley Labs, have been around for a long time as well. I have met Luke Manley before and have spoken with Bea Lamm. They are passionate music lovers who have translated that love to the business of audio. In Luke's case, he grew up in the audio environment with his father's engineering background and work with the professional industry (where he remains today). Despite your mantra of audiophiles blindly buying based upon advertising (VTL and Audio Research do precious little), it was only after auditioning their products that I later came to purchase those products.
Recently, I had the good fortune of meeting Dr. West of Sound Labs in April for a meeting of the Chicago Audio Society. I was invited to join dinner with him and his wife the night before and assisted setting up the system the next day. He is a soft spoken engineer with a passion for music and his products dating back nearly thirty years.
Sidenote: he's not a midget - the Majestics are nine feet tall.
They do zero advertising, BTW. One of the challenges Dr. West mentioned is that because of his relative small demand, getting custom made adhesives and high voltage coatings from the vendors is a challenge. Unlike conventional speakers that use readily available drivers, he has to perform his own materials research and production. Creating the Pro-Stat family of products intended for the pro market has helped focus on durability and reliability across the line. No problems here with incompatible cabinets (or in the case of my U-1s, 100 pound steel frames). You'll no doubt enjoy the fact that they use a Crown Macro Reference to burn in all their speakers initially for an hour at 800 watts. He finds the amp utterly reliable and well suited for such duty. They use the John Curl designed Parasound JC-1 amps for sonic evaluations.
You tend to focus far too often on the minority of companies who do not do the industry justice.rw
"You'll no doubt enjoy the fact that they use a Crown Macro Reference to burn in all their speakers initially for an hour at 800 watts. He finds the amp utterly reliable and well suited for such duty. They use the John Curl designed Parasound JC-1 amps for sonic evaluations."I'd have done it the other way around. :> )
"You tend to focus far too often on the minority of companies who do not do the industry justice."
I've been in far more factories in far more industries than I can count. After a while you can get a sense almost as soon as you walk through the door what kind of operation they are running and what quality of product they probably turn out. Besides committment, it takes enormous resourses both technical and financial to build and run a first rate plant. It's just beyond the possiblities of most very small manufacturers to acquire this. When it's a family business run like a pizzeria where the owner gets into everything and works 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, you know he is out of his depth and probably in real trouble one way or another. Many if not most small businesses sooner or later fail. Mismanagement and lack of adequate financial resources are the reason in a large majority of cases.
"I'd have done it the other way around. :> )"That is because you are more impressed with the fact that it can run all day at 800watts than its sound quality. Honestly, if I need a beastly amp to run a shaker table at 30hz all day long then its fine but this has no bearing on its sound quality. Clearly, Dr. West sees the Crown as nothing more than the audio equivalent of workhorse and he sees the JC-1 as thoroughbred. I am sure they listened to both before assigning their respective roles, don't you think?
It was a joke.....sheesh. I know you think JC1 is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Well, to each his own. I've never even heard one, what do you know about that. Or if I did, I didn't know it.
It is a good amp but I wouldn't trade my current one for it. However; I would take it over a crown macro reference in a heartbeat.I don't think it was a joke. Given the choice I am sure you would take the Crown, no?
more than talking about the Crown amp with the 20,000 DF. A quick search found eleven posts. Forget the fact, of course, that even Dan will tell you that anything beyond 100 or so is wasted. Not only that, such a figure (specified only below 400 hz) suggests the massive use of NF. It does, however, sport a dust filter!There is a reason why that amp, like the Edsel, was unique. While SM thinks that Crown discovered some wonderful new approach, the reality is that no other designers are that stupid. Now discontinued, may it rest in peace.
rw
It wasn't a joke, it was an insult against me.
NO! That was my other postings.
You are just being dumb, Soundmind. They chose the JC-1's because they drive the speakers properly. If you don't know, you should not venture an opinion. AR-2a's, are these your reference standard?
"You are just being dumb, Soundmind. They chose the JC-1's because they drive the speakers properly."And nobody else's can? How deaf must the rest of the world be not to see that? BTW, I know another guy who would argue vehemently with you about your amplifiers. He'd claim a Japanese manufactured pair of SETs for a mere $250,000 are far superior sounding and run rings around yours.
"AR-2a's, are these your reference standard?"
NO of course not. But in some ways, their manufacture was outstanding, in others it was awful. As a relative economy model 40 years ago, they still produce remarkable bass and their woofer surrounds are still in tact operating perfectly. And they were built like a tank using steel plate frames instead of the cheaper stamped frames used later on in AR2ax. They were sealed with what may have been the best putty on earth, still soft, complant, and stickier than many glues after all these years. Getting them apart without damaging them was tough. But it was worth it. With some creative tinkering, I have turned them into remarkably fine speakers, surprising even to me. BTW, I may be about to acquire another pair of AR9s, a far better choice and performer after some tinkering than anything I saw at the VTV show in May.
Thirty years ago, I was in a listening test with some AR-2 loudspeakers. I thought they were the worst loudspeakers I had heard for a years, that were pretending to be hi fi.
Don't get me wrong, I owned an AR-1 loudspeaker for many years as a student. It didn't have any high's, so I kept trying different add on tweeters. The AR- X series tweeters made of what looked like ping pong balls for tweeters burnt my ears.
Like all speakers of that era. AR2a had a pathetic design for high frequency reproduction. Around 17 years ago, I began tinkering with the problem myself. I copied what other people were doing to see what worked and what didn't. It took me several years to understand the problem. I have come to the conclusion that the issue is definitely not one of cost, it is the very concept used to reproduce high frequency sound fields. The way most speaker designers go about it, there is no single tweeter design possible which can satisfactorily be incorporated to convincingly reproduce the sound of most musical instruments. Given what they do, it's small wonder to me that most of them sound thin and shrill. Unless and until the high frequency problems is solved, a loudspeaker system simply cannot be made to sound like most music, it's that critical. Get it wrong and nothing else can salvage the sound of a speaker system. I have been modifying and revoicing every speaker I own to incorporate my discovery. I'm considering reactivating my AES membership and offering a paper for presentation...if I become sufficiently motivated. BTW, revoicing one usually takes me about 2 to 3 years to get it the way it sounds right to me. So far, original Bose 901 was the hardest because of the direct reflecting principle... 3 years running so far and still struggling with it but results are encouraging. AR2a was relatively easy. I've got a bunch of others people have long ago given up on to rework as well.
Dick Schram was discussing the Parasound philosophy and proud of the fact that they do not engage in frequent updates and incremental releases. Along with the JC-1s (out of sight), you will no doubt recognize the Blowtorch and the newest members of the family, the JC-2 preamp (I think it should have a slightly different name myself) and the unnamed-at-the-time CDP prototypes driving the Majestics.
While the hotel room was far from ideal and really had no treatments, one could get a notion of the performance potential of this setup.
rw
and why should I be. I know what my parts cost is/was, and I know that most audiophiles hear with their eyes. This is nothing new.
d.b.
So, what's the two inch thick front panel audio component?rw
About 20 odd years ago after a trade show on LI, I bought the demo pair of McIntosh ML-1C speakers they had used for a couple of hundred bucks. I think they actually retailed for about $400 each. In discussing them with a McIntosh rep some years later, he told me that manufacturing the special wood millwork and special extruded plastic piece which constitutes the front grill would have cost more at that time than the whole speaker system retailed for originally. Looking at it, I can believe it. Functionally, it is no better than the 50 cent masonite and linen grillcloth I just removed from an AR2a. Nice to look at but from a user's point of view, needlessly expensive useless gingerbread. A lot of high end audio equipment has that in common. I was amazed at the VTV show how much of that there was, especially those fancy front panels with just two or three knobs on it.As for tinerers (being one at times in audio myself), I am not saying that they cannot come up with superior products, even better than those which are carefully engineered. But that result is usually the product of hit and miss trial and error efforts and because the underlying principles which make them superior are usually not understood even by the tinkerer himself, he cannot generally exptrapolate his success and refine its essence. Each successful model is a "one off" event. OTOH, while lucky unexpected accidents do happen, science and engineering are systematic processes of investigation, determination of concrete facts, and tested results. It is also notable that the products of tinkering are often inferior to mass market products but because of the enthusiasm of the tinkerer himself and his close friends and relatives, they are initially hyped far beyond their actual worth. And of course, hobbyist publications in which they are advertised or those just looking for new products to review and use to maintain interest among their subscribers are not unwilling to show unwarranted enthusiasm for ho hum products as well. Why else would every new monthly issue review equipment which "kills everything else" on the market up to that time.
"science and engineering are systematic processes of investigation, determination of concrete facts, and tested results."WHat about intuition and innovation? These do often do not result from systematic investigation. In fact, many times the most interesting things are learned when an expected result does NOT occur.
I remember once talking to Bill Duddleston, the designer and chief of Legacy Audio, about his (then pretty new) Whisper speaker. In case you don't know, it uses 6 x 15 inch woofers in a compound open baffle dipole configuration. One the back in a damped chamber is one 12 inch woofer. I asked him if this driver was wired out of phase with the main woofers to cancel some of the back wave to minimize cancellation of the front wave. He replied that this is what they had originally intended but had found it didn't work so well until one day suddenly it was working much better. They eventually discovered that the technicians had forgotten to hook them up and they were simply acting as passive radiators and were passively absorbing the back waves off the wall. So in this case an accident resulted in the discovery of a better way to execute the design.
This happens a lot in research labs all over the world but of course its not in any text book. How do you teach someone to be innovative and intuitive? It comes from having a deeply rooted understanding in the fundamentals of your science and then making the proper brain connections when opportunity arises. Unfortunately this simply takes brains, full stop. Some have it and some don't. But it cannot come from raw intelligence with no training (there are notable exceptions of course). The scientific method is a toolbox to allow the innovations to be tested for validity but the innovations rarely come directly from the scientific method.
"WHat about intuition and innovation? These do often do not result from systematic investigation. In fact, many times the most interesting things are learned when an expected result does NOT occur."Science and engineering don't preclude that, in fact they harness it and exploit it to its fullest. Don't you know that science starts with a hypothesis and then sets out to prove or disprove it through carefully conceived and executed experiments and observations? This has nothing to do with blind trial and error. And when someone thinks they've found something new, it gets tested over and over not only by the original inventor but by collegues who are also skilled and can find the merit or flaw in a new idea. Ever heard of cold fusion? It was the joke of the scientific world in the 1990s. Hailed as a revolution in energy, it was refuted by physicists as a mistake made by some chemists. So was the South Korean geneticist who is now in jail for his fraud regarding cloning. By the standards of the high end consumer audio industry, proponents of these invalid concepts and false claims would still be touting their discredited theories as fact to this very day. The difference between science and engineering on the one hand and what golden eared audio equipment tinkerers do on the other is that real technological breakthroughs are built on proven facts, not wishes, dreams, and delusions.
"This has nothing to do with blind trial and error. "Of course it does sometimes! The theory doesn't tell you what you need to know about how to conduct the actual experiment. This is why in science courses they have the classroom studies and the laboratory studies. What you learn in the lab course is NOTHING like what you are learning in the classroom course. Once you get to the Ph.D. level, they take that your classroom background has put you in the top 20% or so of University chemistry graduates. Now it is all lab work and this, quite frankly, is often about trial and error and a feeling for equipment, chemicals and such.
Many very successful students in terms of classwork fail miserably in the laboratory because in many ways it is so unstructured compared to the classroom. Understanding chemistry, physics, or engineering takes discipline and focused study. Actually using it in the laboratory to test interesting hypotheses requires creativity and you find very quickly which of your colleagues have it and which do not.
Since you have never gone through this process of self-discovery and I have, I suggest you have no idea what is involved in the creative process of science. You should stick with quality control. It is good to have people like you who can sweat the details for those who are actually inventing the stuff. How many different light bulbs do you think Edison actually had to make before he hit on the right formulation of wire coating? You think each one was guided by theory? I am sure there was much trial and error. You seem to think things spring forth fully developed, typical of an industrial engineer who has never been on the inventive end of science or engineering.
"Once you get to the Ph.D. level, they take that your classroom background has put you in the top 20% or so of University chemistry graduates. Now it is all lab work and this, quite frankly, is often about trial and error and a feeling for equipment, chemicals and such"I hope I'm not standing anywhere near you....when you reach for that vial of sulfuric acid.
"I suggest you have no idea what is involved in the creative process of science."
You don't have a clue. Besides my own education, in case you missed it in one of my other postings, for twelve years I worked for the largest scientific research consorteum in the world. And that's just one place I've rubbed elbows with scientists daily over my lifetime. I've been in more labs than I can remember...and designed and built many of them around the experiments they were designed to conduct too.
Stick to your chemicals...preferably water. It's not completely safe but it's less dangerous than most of what you probably have access to.
"I hope I'm not standing anywhere near you....when you reach for that vial of sulfuric acid."You have no clue, period! We are not talking about the mundane aspects of lab work. Proper handling of materials is one of the first things taught in any laboratory (at the high school chemistry level no less). If you had a clue you would know this.
"worked for the largest scientific research consorteum in the world"
yeah doing what?"And that's just one place I've rubbed elbows with scientists daily over my lifetime." "I've been in more labs than I can remember"
Rubbing elbows doesn't make their intelligence and insight rub off on you, soundmind. Do you think walking into laboratories makes you a scientist? If so then the cleaning ladies that come into MY laboratories (I have two that I am responsible for) would also qualify, as I am sure they have been in more labs than you even if it is to mop the floor. I have rubbed elbows, performed experiments with, written peer reviewed papers with, and given presentations in front of hundreds of other scientists for the last 15 years, so you will forgive me if I think I know more about what is involved than you.
Please, soundmind, give me a break, you are no scientist and rubbing elbows with them doesn't make you one even if it helps you to parrot their way of speaking. Please point me to one publication where you contributed sufficiently to have your name on it. You claim a patent, show me.
"stick to your chemicals...preferably water. It's not completely safe but it's less dangerous than most of what you probably have access to."
It frightens me to think of anything large in mechanical or electrical that you *might* have had a hand in designing. That is if any such thing exists. FWIW, I have never had a serious chemical burn, poisoning nor have I ever destroyed expensive lab equipment (but I have singlehandedly repaired half-million dollar high energy laser systems). On the other hand, I have designed and built my own analytical instrumentation. I have posted the link to the commercial manufacturer before.
Sorry the Whisper uses 4 x 15 inch woofers per speaker just to get my facts straight.
Nice to look at but from a user's point of view, needlessly expensive useless gingerbread. A lot of high end audio equipment has that in common.Needlessly expensive? That is a relative statement. The front panel on my Audio Research preamp, for example, runs about $120 and the knobs about $15 each. It is both engraved and painted. I replaced the original silver flavor with black for cosmetic reasons. Sold the silver ones on Agon. While the cabinet doesn't affect sound quality or longevity, their mil spec construction does. One can effectively maintain it forever. Like my Omega Flightmaster watch, I like precision built gear. Not expendable made in Taiwan stuff like my Toshiba DVD players or Kenwood receiver.
Other pics found here
rw
$15 each for a $2 knob? Aren't you going to swap them out for those wooden ones for a mere $500 each? Think of the sonic improvement you'd get for only another $2000. As for your front panel, are you intending to rack mount that preamp? The handles will come in handy if you do when you have to insert or remove it from the rack each time. BTW, that circuit board doesn't look like glass epoxy to me. Is it? Looks like there are only two tubes in it. One relatively modest sized torroidal transformer, and a bunch of resistors, capacitors and jacks. How many thousands did you say that set you back? If what John Curl said in his posting is right, how do you suppose they got all of those polypro caps on those PCBs without damaging them. This was not a hand soldered board.
$15 each for a $2 knob?Tell me where you can buy a black anodized aluminum knob with engraved indents for two bucks.
Aren't you going to swap them out for those wooden ones for a mere $500 each?
You confuse me with someone else.
As for your front panel, are you intending to rack mount that preamp?
Nope. Came that way. Handles do make moving it around a bit easier. Especially the 80 lb amps.
BTW, that circuit board doesn't look like glass epoxy to me.
Look again.
Looks like there are only two tubes in it.
Yes. The nine is a hybrid. The phono and line stages each use a dual triode and an FET.
How many thousands did you say that set you back?
Bought it used for $900.
If what John Curl said in his posting is right, how do you suppose they got all of those polypro caps on those PCBs without damaging them. This was not a hand soldered board.
One of the things I like about you is that you love to stick your foot firmly in your mouth. Take a minute and follow the factory tour link I provided. Yes Virginia, all Audio Research circuit boards are hand stuffed and soldered after extensive cleaning.
rw
E-stat, the preamp contains both rel and Wonder caps, probably polypropylene. IF the yellow ones say RT on them, then they are polystyrene (they are the same brand that I use. The resistors appear to be 1 or 2W Resista resistors (my favorate).
Since Audio Research and I compete with each other, it should not be any surprise that we use many of the same parts, just like auto racers might use the same brand of tire.
Any technical reasons for your choice?
d.b.
Since I poached the picture from the Audio Research Database (independently operated website), I took the cover off my unit to take a closer look.You are correct about the REL PPMFs and the Wonder caps. Both are metallized polypropylene. The numerous white Multi-Caps used more prominently in the signal path of both sections, however, are polystyrene.
Being the audio gourmand that he is with his Dynaco and aged H-K components, SM wouldn't know a polystyrene cap if it bit him. He's quite happy with electrolytic coupling caps in the signal. :)
rw
E-stat, apparently Soundmind believes ONLY in ABX testing, rather than just listening for yourself. Trust me, Audio Research picked those caps precisely because of how they worked in that circuit. Part changing at this level would be a real problem. I am familiar with each and every type cap that is used here. I am lucky in that my DC coupled designs do NOT require ANY coupling caps, from MC input to power amp output to the speaker. However, Audio Research is not so fortunate, so they had to evaluate and assign each and every cap in their preamp at its assigned place. I am sure that they assigned the best caps possible, for each location.
If you're so smart, why don't you answer Dan's question about the technical justification for selecting poly capacitors. Do you want to claim you could hear the differences between them in a DBT?
Testing various capacitorsDon't forget to follow link to see the dreadful performance of the electrolytics.
rw
Typically, all gain stages add distortion components to the signal. Do you know of any perfect ones? I find it logical to use additional gain and/or buffer stages only when they are needed. It seems the reviewer from Widescreen published on your website of the SCPA 1 agrees with my first point. And likewise disagrees with your commentary regarding tube equipment finding an Audio Research preamp musically superior to your stuff."As you might expect, the $10,000 vacuum tube ARC preamp sounds harmonically richer and more detailed while presenting a more three-dimensional image".
Indeed, he does give your (former) product a nod for "it seemed to add virtually no objectionable colorations" and does well in the bang-for-the-buck quotient. Well done.
I would quickly acknowledge, however, that if indeed your pre to power amp run were 50 to 100 feet as you indicate was your design criteria, then I would agree that you will need a preamp. In that case, I'm sure my Audio Research unit would have worked out better than the attenuators in my system.
rw
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
