The sectors of high-end audio manufacturers
The manager at Inland Sound and Cinema recently inspired me to discuss the different sectors of high-end audio manufactures. I find it pretty interesting, and makes a buying decision easier (at least for me it does).
In the order of popularity:
The most common would be the mainstream, mass market brands that release products that are at the top of their line. I consider most of these products "entry-level high-end". Examples would be Denon, Definitive Technologies, Pioneer, Paradigm, B&W, Sony, etc. For example, Denon has released a $3,500 DVD player, that puts most DVD players to shame, but does not quite equal (at least in sound quality) a DVD player from a more specialized hifi manufacturer such as Arcam. [these examples are not based on personal experience, but on reviews I have read from reputable sources]. There is definitely some overlap with the next sector with these types of manufacturers.
The next sector would be established high-end specialty manufacturers. These guys usually have a reputation of providing high-quality, reliable, good sounding products that are sellable, (providing good value). Examples would include, Rotel, Adcom, McIntosh, Audio Research, Vandersteen, Thiel, Bryston, etc. This stuff ranges from "entry-level high-end", to "the best". It's important to note, that these guys usually won't release a product for the sake of releasing a product update, but will do tons of research on truly advancing sound quality and bringing a product out that will likely be on the market for several years. For example, the Vandersteen model 2ce Signature, has been on the market for probably nearly a decade or more. It hasn't been there that long because Richard Vandersteen got lazy, it's because there hasn't been a way to significantly upgrade that model all this time and still have it be in the same price range.
The final sector of high-end audio manufacturers would be the really tweaky stuff sold in very small quantities to the lunatic fringe (okay, I'm kidding about that... partially...). This stuff is built for ultimate sound quality(supposedly), often with no regard to cost. These brands haven't been established, and may or may not be around tomorrow. Quality can vary from, built like a rock, to "if you breath on it, it will break". Examples include, Avantgarde, Dali, Cary, MBL, Gilmore, WBT connectors, Shan-ling, Nagra, and endless others. Some of the stuff these guys put out can be really good, some, pure nonsense. Admittedly this is the sector I am least familiar with.
Needless to say, I am a big fan of sector two, the well established, but genuine high-end brands. There's nothing wrong, per se, with the other two sectors, as the first is a good stepping stone, and often an innovator, and the third, can occasionally provide sound quality that sector two simply can't afford (on the other hand, because sector two sells in greater quantity, it can often afford to sell better equipment for less than sector three). Take these sector descriptions with a grain of salt, as there is lots of overlap. Sometimes companies will shift from one to the other too.
In the order of popularity:
The most common would be the mainstream, mass market brands that release products that are at the top of their line. I consider most of these products "entry-level high-end". Examples would be Denon, Definitive Technologies, Pioneer, Paradigm, B&W, Sony, etc. For example, Denon has released a $3,500 DVD player, that puts most DVD players to shame, but does not quite equal (at least in sound quality) a DVD player from a more specialized hifi manufacturer such as Arcam. [these examples are not based on personal experience, but on reviews I have read from reputable sources]. There is definitely some overlap with the next sector with these types of manufacturers.
The next sector would be established high-end specialty manufacturers. These guys usually have a reputation of providing high-quality, reliable, good sounding products that are sellable, (providing good value). Examples would include, Rotel, Adcom, McIntosh, Audio Research, Vandersteen, Thiel, Bryston, etc. This stuff ranges from "entry-level high-end", to "the best". It's important to note, that these guys usually won't release a product for the sake of releasing a product update, but will do tons of research on truly advancing sound quality and bringing a product out that will likely be on the market for several years. For example, the Vandersteen model 2ce Signature, has been on the market for probably nearly a decade or more. It hasn't been there that long because Richard Vandersteen got lazy, it's because there hasn't been a way to significantly upgrade that model all this time and still have it be in the same price range.
The final sector of high-end audio manufacturers would be the really tweaky stuff sold in very small quantities to the lunatic fringe (okay, I'm kidding about that... partially...). This stuff is built for ultimate sound quality(supposedly), often with no regard to cost. These brands haven't been established, and may or may not be around tomorrow. Quality can vary from, built like a rock, to "if you breath on it, it will break". Examples include, Avantgarde, Dali, Cary, MBL, Gilmore, WBT connectors, Shan-ling, Nagra, and endless others. Some of the stuff these guys put out can be really good, some, pure nonsense. Admittedly this is the sector I am least familiar with.
Needless to say, I am a big fan of sector two, the well established, but genuine high-end brands. There's nothing wrong, per se, with the other two sectors, as the first is a good stepping stone, and often an innovator, and the third, can occasionally provide sound quality that sector two simply can't afford (on the other hand, because sector two sells in greater quantity, it can often afford to sell better equipment for less than sector three). Take these sector descriptions with a grain of salt, as there is lots of overlap. Sometimes companies will shift from one to the other too.
posted by Colin at 1:43 AM
4 Comments:
The term "best value" is different for different people. To me the middle sector is not the sector with the best value. Something that plays a CD or DVD with acceptable quality and is so cheap that I don't think about the money is to me the best value. When I choose to walk away from "value" and get something that costs a few times more, but the quality begins to approach that of traditional hi-fi, then I'm entering the domain of the middle sector.
Image and sound quality can be compared to curves that show sharp improvements at first, but then quickly taper off unto a slow asymptotic assent to perfection. “Value” is getting three quarters of the way there at one tenth the cost, and I think the lowest sector achieves that. The second sector you mentioned can definitely take you into the ninety percent of perfection region. It is here that you have to actively pay attention to notice the differences in output quality between products, but it is not here that you find value. Value is paying $100 on a DVD player and not being bothered by the output quality and I think such a player exists for most people. This is why $100 DVD players will outsell $400 units all day long. People feel that the $100 player is a better value. My dad felt that passing on the B&W’s for Bose was a smart decision because to him, the sound quality of the Bose was very acceptable and they were much cheaper. Of course, my heart sank when he told me the news. I have no doubt that he never went into the store and listened to the B&W’s and compared them to the Bose. His “value”, like most peoples, is not going to get adjusted to approach your “value” level; A level where the quality of the Bose is unacceptable.
What I meant was best value for high end sound. But you are right in that "value" is relative term. Good comment.
Yeah, if people bought stereos the way they buy cars, they'ed soon learn the kind of improvements available for a few hundred more. I was humored to hear how wrecked some of the This Week in Media guys are for hi end video. I think it was the last episode where they were talking about terrible quality DVD's have in dark scenes and how it drives them crazy. If the video industry performed demostrations that reveal these problems to the masses, they might accellerate HD sales a bit. Same with the audio industry. If an improvement can be exploited and shown to the masses, maybe there would be some hope at raising the value bar for the average citizen. As much as I hate to admit it, it was a traveling Bose trailer that sold my parents on upgrading their speakers. After they did, they could hear evey pop and click from their well worn records. Perhaps the experience just caused them to pay attention to pops and clicks that were always there, but never noticed. They hadn't been enlighted yet. Such awakenings need to happen again, but this time raise the bar from Bose to something better. The "everything from one driver" fad has got to end. Even despite how good a pair of Gallo's might be.
Yeah, it's impossible for a single driver to be truly full-range (unless that driver is a panel of some kind). Even the Gallo reference speakers use multiple drivers.
Panels, whether they're electrostatic, or magnetic-planar, while they can be full-range, they have a tendency to store energy and smear details. I experienced this first hand at my cousin's home theater. He has an all Martin Logan theater (the electrostatic Logans), and I was watching the 2005 version of King Kong. Whenever there was heavy action on screen, the dialog became difficult to follow. I had seen the movie twice in theaters, and never noticed a problem there.
I am inclined to believe that single (cone) driver speakers have the same problem, although most of the so-called single driver systems I have heard have employed a subwoofer of some kind, so they aren't truly single driver, and they are not as susceptible to this problem. In fact, they tend to be very coherent, and in the case with the Gallo's, very spacious. They have problems, such as they can't go as loud as conventional two-way speakers usually can, and the high frequencies tend to be rolled off on all but the best Gallos. Also, mid bass, and really deep bass suffers, because of the limitations of the driver and subwoofer.
The Bose micro speakers exaggerate all of these problems to unacceptable levels to me. Mushy, one-note, bass that does not go deep at all, terrible imaging due to reflected sound, less than totally coherent due to the use of multiple reflecting drivers, no real high-frequencies... I could go on, but you catch my drift. I don't look down upon Bose customers, as Bose does offer an attractive, easy-to-use system that is much better than most cheap home theater in a box (HTIB) solutions. I also don't see B&W and Rotel advertising in in-flight magazines and TIME magazine, so most people just don't know what else is out there.
You nailed it on the head when you said your parents noticed new things with their new speakers; the simple fact that they had new speakers in their system had them paying more attention to what they were hearing, or perhaps their older speakers just had blown tweeters and they couldn't possibly hear those details with them. I have a tendency to believe that less experienced reviewers of audio equipment go through the same motions as they gain listening experience; to me, it makes them stick out as amaturish. Oh well, I know I would be in the same boat in their shoes!
Post a Comment
<< Home