High end SOTA components converging to a single 'truth'

[AudioExplorations]

The opening paragraph of a recent stereophile review of the DartZeel NHB-458 by Michael Fremer caught my attention:

"A recent (unpublished) letter to the editor argued that the reference for audio perfection is the sound of real instruments in a real space. The writer claimed that, since the art and/or science of audio is advancing, and because it is a "scientific truth" that the closer you get to perfection, the less divergence there is components, that therefore there should be less difference in sound among the components listed in Class A of Stereophile's "Recommended Components" than among those in Class B, much less Class C. This should be true of loudspeakers, he said, but even more true of top-rated amplifiers, since "they inherently have less divergence."

Over the last few years I've reviewed a number of truly fine amplifiers, including the Musical Fidelity kW and Titan, the VTL MB-450 Series III Signature, the Soulution 710, the MBL Reference 9011, and now the darTZeel NHB-458. I can assure you that, while each is a Class A performer, all sound very different from one another. We are a long way from approaching the sonic uniformity predicted by the letter writer, and that's something to celebrate."​

This goes against my own personal experiences where I have always found higher end well designed gear to approach to what I consider an increasingly more neutral and accurate sound. Of course I have not heard nearly as many components as Michael. What are your experiences and do you agree this is something to celebrate???

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The opening paragraph of a recent stereophile review of the DartZeel NHB-458 by Michael Fremer caught my attention:

"A recent (unpublished) letter to the editor argued that the reference for audio perfection is the sound of real instruments in a real space. The writer claimed that, since the art and/or science of audio is advancing, and because it is a "scientific truth" that the closer you get to perfection, the less divergence there is components, that therefore there should be less difference in sound among the components listed in Class A of Stereophile's "Recommended Components" than among those in Class B, much less Class C. This should be true of loudspeakers, he said, but even more true of top-rated amplifiers, since "they inherently have less divergence."

Over the last few years I've reviewed a number of truly fine amplifiers, including the Musical Fidelity kW and Titan, the VTL MB-450 Series III Signature, the Soulution 710, the MBL Reference 9011, and now the darTZeel NHB-458. I can assure you that, while each is a Class A performer, all sound very different from one another. We are a long way from approaching the sonic uniformity predicted by the letter writer, and that's something to celebrate."​

This goes against my own personal experiences where I have always found higher end well designed gear to approach to what I consider an increasingly more neutral and accurate sound. Of course I have not heard nearly as many components as Michael. What are your experiences and do you agree this is something to celebrate???

You have the right answer and both Fremer and the unpublished letter are wrong, from my POV. First, the letter: What is the benchmark for "real instruments in real space" that these manufacturers are using to come closer together in their quest for exactly what state of perfection? The sound of "real instruments in real space" is completely subjective. And Fremer wants to celebrate the inconsistency of the top tier of audio reproduction? He needs to review the definition of reproduction. This, to me, is evidence of what fellows like Fremer are about: the tone of the equipment, not the faithful reproduction of the recordings, or even the music.

Repeated, for emphasis: pres, amps, cables, speakers -- none are sentient. None have any ability to hear beyond the signal being fed to them and reproduce the sound of "real instruments in real space." They only have that signal. The recording is their only reality. They either reproduce it faithfully, or they fail, to varying degrees.

Tim

 

[Mike Lavigne]

The opening paragraph of a recent stereophile review of the DartZeel NHB-458 by Michael Fremer caught my attention:

"A recent (unpublished) letter to the editor argued that the reference for audio perfection is the sound of real instruments in a real space. The writer claimed that, since the art and/or science of audio is advancing, and because it is a "scientific truth" that the closer you get to perfection, the less divergence there is components, that therefore there should be less difference in sound among the components listed in Class A of Stereophile's "Recommended Components" than among those in Class B, much less Class C. This should be true of loudspeakers, he said, but even more true of top-rated amplifiers, since "they inherently have less divergence."

Over the last few years I've reviewed a number of truly fine amplifiers, including the Musical Fidelity kW and Titan, the VTL MB-450 Series III Signature, the Soulution 710, the MBL Reference 9011, and now the darTZeel NHB-458. I can assure you that, while each is a Class A performer, all sound very different from one another. We are a long way from approaching the sonic uniformity predicted by the letter writer, and that's something to celebrate."​

This goes against my own personal experiences where I have always found higher end well designed gear to approach to what I consider an increasingly more neutral and accurate sound. Of course I have not heard nearly as many components as Michael. What are your experiences and do you agree this is something to celebrate???

as a long-time darTZeel amp and preamp owner and purchaser of the NHB-458, i do agree with you that all gear should strive to place as little of their own sonic signature on the signal.....and be as neutral and accurate (as i understand those terms to mean) as possible. the way i've put that idea in the past is that the gear and the room should ideally 'get out of the way' of the music and allow the original recorded performance to come thru. the source media is also part of this equation and which source and media might get the most 'out of the way'.

i will also add that to accomplish this that these ideal components would also be as complete as possible as well as add the least possible. and it's the correct balance of all 4 issues (neutral, accurate, complete, not additive) which results in something being correct. i include those 4 things most important for formats and media too.

the trick being neutral and accurate, but also complete. to me this aspect of designing gear gets to the heart of the challenge, how to make the music complete, without adding the distraction of those sonic signatures. i see darTZeel as accomplishing this.

as far as knocking Fremer for celebrating the divergence; i respect he has to temper extreme opinions that might invalidate other products. it's ok to like something as a favorite, but tread lightly. this divergence comment gives him cover.

i do view the darTZeel as the ultimate of products in doing this in my experience. not that i don't enjoy many different products. there are likely other products that accomplish this which i may not be familiar enough to know about.

 

[Steve Williams]

Mike

Can you help me understand "your" meaning of "getting out of the way". I'm especially confused when you said it also depends in the media getting out of the way of the music. That comment has me puzzled.

What tells you that the speakers and media are out of the way.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike

Can you help me understand "your" meaning of "getting out of the way". I'm especially confused when you said it also depends in the media getting out of the way of the music. That comment has me puzzled.

What tells you that the speakers and media are out of the way.

any time i hear gear imprint any sort of common sonic signature on the sound, a smoothness, a softness, blunted transients, darkness, and cloudyness, and brittleness, coldness, bleached, mechanical, hardness, etc. etc. etc. to my ears i am hearing something coming between my ears and the music. i'm hearing thru and around this to the music. or if the music is missing body, harmonic richness, snap, depth, vividness, spaciality. some of this is gear, some is media.

and from my perspective you can't be perfect on all 4 things, neutral, accurate, complete, nothing additive. it's the most ideal balance that does the best job of getting out of the way.

the whole concept of completness verses accuracy is why i'm such an analog lover, and why i prefer dsd/sacd to PCM. it's why i view darZTeel as like music, not like tubes or like solid state.

this is only my view of things; i'm not saying anyone else agrees with me. but it is the approach i've taken for every room, gear and media decision i've ever made.

 

[valkyrie]

Closer to the "Master Tape"? Sounds good from an advertising and marketing perspective but unfortunately such has NO POSSIBLE MEANING. The "master tape" does NOT MAKE ANY SOUND. It is - unbelievably - merely a piece of acetate with some iron oxide coating - and if it is the "master file" it is again some iron oxide spread on some kind of substrate. In any case the medium cannot make any sound. Since the ONLY WAY we can make some sound from the recording source is to play it back through amps and speakers we are automatically editorializing the sound of the original medium.

So how in the world can anybody know what the "master" sound actually sounded like?

Simple - such is IMPOSSIBLE.

So when anybody claims that their "whatever" is more resolute or closer to the sound of the original signal as it was recorded - they are merely expressing an opinion without any substance - they are expressing what they "want" to believe, what they wish were true, what they hope is true (especially after spending many tens of thousands of dollars) for if such is NOT true then they - the purchasers of this absurdly expensive "more resolute", "more accurate" gear are merely buying a sense of internal satisfaction - that has NO COROLLARY in any measurable reality.

I'm not knocking the purchase of gear that deeply satisfies the purchaser for any reason at all - but please, please, please - don't insult my intelligence and deeply lower my estimation of yours by claiming that what you have is in some way closer to the "master tape" or "master file" - for unless you were in the control room when the piece was recorded you are not saying anything - you are merely freely hallucinating - which is cool in its own way I guess (though I do highly recommend not driving or operating machinery in this state).

 

[FrantzM]

Hi


To me such convergence is upon us. The better gears sound more like each other than ever before.. ARC gear sound less and less like the tubes of yore and so do the VAC, VTL I have heard.. All of these do sound like the best SS , listen tot he latest ARC and you will hear what I mean, extended and pure.. Same with VTL ...

It will go on, reviewers need to show they hear differences to stay in business, so they crank up the hyperbole factory. If indeed things are getting better it is logical that they must converge.. The ultimate cannot be too many things...

 

[Bill Hart]

I'm shocked that we don't have a consensus on this.
1. Ideally, all well designed equipment should be 'accurate' and in theory should sound the same, I suppose.
2. If such equipment doesn't sound the same, then it's either not accurate* or the 'it sound's different' camp is imagining things.
3. In my experience, different 'high end' products sound different. Assume, for the moment, I am not imagining things.
4. That means, despite claiming to be accurate music producers,* this equipment is far from perfect even at the top level and each has some sonic signature, to a greater or lesser degree. (I think that's what Mike L. means by 'getting out of the way,' i.e. imposing the least sonic signature on the reproduction process).
5. Tim- What's the end result of an accurate piece of equipment? Hopefully, with good source material, it will sound more like the real thing, a cymbal sounds like a cymbal, not a bad reproduction of a cymbal which is immediately and obviously evident as sounding artificial or 'reproduced.'
6. The source material is often the biggest variable here, and the one over which we have the least control.
Maybe we aren't as far apart as we'd like to be?


_____________________________________________
*This maybe where we get into trouble: some equipment might be 'voiced' to create what the manufacturer believes is a better illusion for the sake of music. That, to Tim, would not be 'accurate' and I'd probably agree.

 

[microstrip]

Hi


To me such convergence is upon us. The better gears sound more like each other than ever before.. ARC gear sound less and less like the tubes of yore and so do the VAC, VTL I have heard.. All of these do sound like the best SS , listen tot he latest ARC and you will hear what I mean, extended and pure.. Same with VTL ...

FrantZ,

Unlike you I can not say that today's gear sounds more like each other. There is a general improvement in neutrality, but the increase in resolution allows you to see more fundamental differences in the sound of amplifiers, and each gets better in specific zones. I was recently listening to some of the best , happily using a set of my chosen digital recordings, and the their capabilities are quite different. One point that makes it difficult is that you never listen to an amplifier - in order to do it justice you have to listen with a matching preamplifier, cables and source.

Dartzeel, Krell, D'Agostino, Audio Research and cj all sound very, very different. Unhappily I can not add Burmester to the list!

 

[Whatmore]

<snip>

Dartzeel, Krell, D'Agostino, Audio Research and cj all sound very, very different. Unhappily I can not add Burmester to the list!

I'm struggling to understand what that sentence means??

 

[docvale]

I'm struggling to understand what that sentence means??

I guess he meant to be sorry not to have ever listened to a Burmester system.

 

[Whatmore]

I guess he meant to be sorry not to have ever listened to a Burmester system.

Oh I see. I thought he meant that Burmester *doesn't* sound different. My bad

 

[microstrip]

I guess he meant to be sorry not to have ever listened to a Burmester system.

Valerio,

Bingo! The few times I listened to them was in unfair show conditions and as could be expected I was not impressed.

 

[Gregadd]

I've said this before.

We liive in a capitalistic society. That means we have to make a product or provide a service to make a living. There are competing forces for our dollar. Each product or service has to convince customres that there product is "better." They are under continous pressure to replace not only there competitors product but there own. You may be famaliar with planned obsolescence or delayed introduction.
I must have soemthing different or better than not only my competitor but also my own products. That's why you will never see true convergence.
Witness the new Ferrari F-12. For what practical purpose does that car exist? Someone has money to spend and Ferrai wants It.

 

[docvale]

I've said this before.

We liive in a capitalistic society. That means we have to make a product or provide a service to make a living. There are competing forces for our dollar. Each product or service has to convince customres that there product is "better." They are under continous pressure to replace not only there competitors product but there own. You may be famaliar with planned obsolescence or delayed introduction.
I must have soemthing different or better than not only my competitor but also my own products. That's why you will never see true convergence.
Witness the new Ferrari F-12. For what practical purpose does that car exist? Someone has money to spend and Ferrai wants It.

There might be also a more benign interpretation.
Very very frequently, people can read that, through today's technology, you can reach higher peaks in performance than in the past. This applies to everything in audio, from sources to speakers. Theoretically, as the final target is the extreme fidelity to the real live event, all the SOTA systems should sound the same. But SOTA, in this perspective, means what best is offered by the current technology: a SOTA CD player from 1987 would probably considered not even decent nowadays, notwithstanding it was SOTA in 1987!

I might add another level of complexity: are we sure that what is printed on our discs/files is really so loyal to the live event?? If not, how can be a product judged in this perspective?
As a music lover, I do really enjoy to listen to the music I like. Honestly, I don't get excited if a system makes things that are not mastered at a SOTA level to sound like crap, because those things might include albums that I like.
My interpretation of this hobby would be to build a system that matches my-fi with orthodox performance. Might sound as swearing , I know, but it is what it is. If there's people that say that they cannot listen to horns, while they're in love with electrostatics (that's just an example...) it means that there's a layer of personal taste which is biasing the personal definition of SOTA (so, the use of the term, per se, is inappropriate). This is what makes me like the technological aspect of this hobby. In a way or another, the only objective way to profile a given piece of gear is measuring it. Notwithstanding, what everyone should care most is the personal pleasure in listening sessions: so, my-fi, here we come!

With regards to the Ferrari example, I don't agree. That kind of production is not just focused on the performance per se: a wealthy passionate might want to own all of them! Performance, is that case, integrates with design and pleasure of ownership.

 

[mep]

Mike

Can you help me understand "your" meaning of "getting out of the way". I'm especially confused when you said it also depends in the media getting out of the way of the music. That comment has me puzzled.

What tells you that the speakers and media are out of the way.

I thought what Mike said was pretty self-explanatory. To me, gear that “gets out of the way” means that you feel like you are listening through the gear and not listening to the gear stamping its sonic thumbprint on top of the music as lesser gear does.

As far as the media getting out of the way, I get that too. The lower the resolution of the media, the more your brain has to work to fill in the missing pieces of information. As someone who owns a Studer tape deck and tape to play on it, I would have thought you would understand the point Mike was trying to make.

 

[Steve Williams]

Oh Mark, please

I was asking only to understand if what he means is totally neutral because most, if not all of these components do have some sonic signature. And BTW Mark, having a Studer adds nothing to understanding.

 

[caesar]

The opening paragraph of a recent stereophile review of the DartZeel NHB-458 by Michael Fremer caught my attention:

"A recent (unpublished) letter to the editor argued that the reference for audio perfection is the sound of real instruments in a real space. The writer claimed that, since the art and/or science of audio is advancing, and because it is a "scientific truth" that the closer you get to perfection, the less divergence there is components, that therefore there should be less difference in sound among the components listed in Class A of Stereophile's "Recommended Components" than among those in Class B, much less Class C. This should be true of loudspeakers, he said, but even more true of top-rated amplifiers, since "they inherently have less divergence."

Over the last few years I've reviewed a number of truly fine amplifiers, including the Musical Fidelity kW and Titan, the VTL MB-450 Series III Signature, the Soulution 710, the MBL Reference 9011, and now the darTZeel NHB-458. I can assure you that, while each is a Class A performer, all sound very different from one another. We are a long way from approaching the sonic uniformity predicted by the letter writer, and that's something to celebrate."​

This goes against my own personal experiences where I have always found higher end well designed gear to approach to what I consider an increasingly more neutral and accurate sound. Of course I have not heard nearly as many components as Michael. What are your experiences and do you agree this is something to celebrate???

I think we will have world peace before audio gear converges to one sound!

 

[caesar]

I've said this before.

We liive in a capitalistic society. That means we have to make a product or provide a service to make a living. There are competing forces for our dollar. Each product or service has to convince customres that there product is "better." They are under continous pressure to replace not only there competitors product but there own. You may be famaliar with planned obsolescence or delayed introduction.
I must have soemthing different or better than not only my competitor but also my own products. That's why you will never see true convergence.
Witness the new Ferrari F-12. For what practical purpose does that car exist? Someone has money to spend and Ferrai wants It.

Gregadd, I think you are right on the money!

My only point of difference is that people will buy something not just because there is an alternative, but because they find value in the alternative. The $80K dCS stack is good, but compared to Playback Designs SACD, it sounds thick and unengaging but has more detail and information. Compared to emm labs, the dCS sounds clinical, and again has more "detailed information". In the case of the Ferrari, they can get Veyron- like performace at a 1/3 the price.

People have different levels of engagement and assign different values to things. If they find enough value, and have enough in their pocketbook, they shell out the cash. If not, the products go away and companies go bankrupt. There is no free lunch.

 

[Gregadd]

I think we all make good points.

Let's then look at stereo reviewers. Are not they offering a service? They have more expererience generally speaking than their readers. They have greater access to equipment than most of us. So they sell us thier advice. They have to convince us that they have better and better advice to give us. Iif they want us to continue to buy thier magazine. This is a hobby. There job is to provide products to sustain our lust for stereo. No different form any other hobby magazine.

Maybe Ferarri was not such a good example. I think they have a drive to make the best street legal race car in the world. For eight years I owned the Mazda R1 RX-7 with twin turbo. I was never able to exceed it's capabilities. I am sure that the model that preceded the F-12 would make you wet your pants in a top speed corner. How many times do you need to wet your pants?