What's the cut-off pricepoint to go from GREAT to SOTA, and it is worth it?

[FrantzM]

Frantz,

I think there are 2 main points in play. One is based on psychology and the other one is based on economics.

First, on the psychological front, we are dealing with subjective experiences. Because audio is partly subjective , there are as many audio brands as there are religions in the world. (And if you think it's all objective, what the heck are you doing spending precious hours of your life posting on this site?!?!!) No one - and I mean no one has been able to figure out what goes on inside someone else's head in the way they experience things. So the subjective stuff is not quantifiable. Just a fact of reality that we can't measure everything. As a result, it is impossible to compare 2 persons' levels of joy derived from listening to music on more and less expensive systems.

Now the economics: If you accept, that audio has a subjective element , and people perceive differences in their analog gear, such as more bass, more detail, quieter background, or more fireworks, many are willing to pay for that extra performance. For someone the quieter background is worth $2K, based on their personal situation. While for another individual with the financial means, the extra fireworks are worth $100K.

Caeasar

Your tone of post is rather surprising. Please refrain from such in the future, we try to be polite in this forum and I don’t take it nicely when I am subject to ad hominem attacks. Discussion requires mutual respect I am extending mine toward you do try the same. Rather than asking in an impolite fashion (“What the heck…”) address to the best of your abilities my post and/or logic.
You take opinions and pronounce them as definite truths. They aren’t. For example your point that subjective “stuff” can’t be measured is wrong. Our degree of satisfaction (or not) to a stimulus can be measured and is regularly measured. It can also be inferred with satisfactory results. Subjective can be measured. There is no doubt that there is a hierarchy of performance in the High End and all subjectivity aside the clues of what we like are coming out from the works of companies as diverse as Harman or Bang Olufsen (yes) and researchers. There are things that we audiophile almost universally value, among these smoothness of frequency response.. Once we introduce our biases however our responses tend to become less reliable …
That we perceive differently is a truism but we perceive the same things in ways that allows us to recognize them with consistency. When we hear a trumpet we all know what it is. We may individually like the sound of trumpet or not but most humans and that include audiophiles hear a trumpet not a flute .. Same with a piano, we, after some training will recognize a Bosendorfer from a Steinway and an upright from a grand concert. Call it training, call it education (your own terms by the way) ... If a system is accurate it reproduces the differences in way we can interpret and appreciate, our response to such accuracy may be varied and if someone like his gear to make a Bosendorfer sound like a Steinway, i am not sure that person should call it High End Audio and that person may not need 100K to do that, a simple EQ available online will do it nicely for him/her. But that wasn't your point was it? You meant that our response to gear is subjective, true but there is an objective reality in Audio, the goal of Audio after all is to reproduce as it was captured or constructed and there again we educate ourselves to somewhat abide to it ... we have made sure to remove tone control on most High End Audio stuff unless you call cables tone control, they are a poor (sorry poor but expensive) substitute... And that objective reality is measurable; that we haven't completely measured it doesn't change much about the fact that anything that exists is measurable. The subjective stuff is quantifiable... You don't change your subjective views every second and even if you did it would be possible to measure the frequency of your liking or disliking physical reality = measurability ... So let’s not postulate let’s try to prove our points with facts…
Now for the economics, I have no qualms with someone spending is money any way he/she judges fit.. Their prerogative, their money. A question is however asked on an Internet Discussion board as to the level that implies SOTA to a money amount term and I objected to the formulation which in my opinion equated SOTA to price paid… Can you disprove my point of view? With solid facts and correct argumentation? If yes I am all ears and eyes... If this post was your attempt, I am not sure it does acquit itself of the purpose…

 

[caesar]

Caeasar

Your tone of post is rather surprising. Please refrain from such in the future, we try to be polite in this forum and I don’t take it nicely when I am subject to ad hominem attacks. Discussion requires mutual respect I am extending mine toward you do try the same. Rather than asking in an impolite fashion (“What the heck…”) address to the best of your abilities my post and/or logic.
You take opinions and pronounce them as definite truths. They aren’t. For example your point that subjective “stuff” can’t be measured is wrong. Our degree of satisfaction (or not) to a stimulus can be measured and is regularly measured. It can also be inferred with satisfactory results. Subjective can be measured. There is no doubt that there is a hierarchy of performance in the High End and all subjectivity aside the clues of what we like are coming out from the works of companies as diverse as Harman or Bang Olufsen (yes) and researchers. There are things that we audiophile almost universally value, among these smoothness of frequency response.. Once we introduce our biases however our responses tend to become less reliable …
That we perceive differently is a truism but we perceive the same things in ways that allows us to recognize them with consistency. When we hear a trumpet we all know what it is. We may individually like the sound of trumpet or not but most humans and that include audiophiles hear a trumpet not a flute .. Same with a piano, we, after some training will recognize a Bosendorfer from a Steinway and an upright from a grand concert. Call it training, call it education (your own terms by the way) ... If a system is accurate it reproduces the differences in way we can interpret and appreciate, our response to such accuracy may be varied and if someone like his gear to make a Bosendorfer sound like a Steinway, i am not sure that person should call it High End Audio and that person may not need 100K to do that, a simple EQ available online will do it nicely for him/her. But that wasn't your point was it? You meant that our response to gear is subjective, true but there is an objective reality in Audio, the goal of Audio after all is to reproduce as it was captured or constructed and there again we educate ourselves to somewhat abide to it ... we have made sure to remove tone control on most High End Audio stuff unless you call cables tone control, they are a poor (sorry poor but expensive) substitute... And that objective reality is measurable; that we haven't completely measured it doesn't change much about the fact that anything that exists is measurable. The subjective stuff is quantifiable... You don't change your subjective views every second and even if you did it would be possible to measure the frequency of your liking or disliking physical reality = measurability ... So let’s not postulate let’s try to prove our points with facts…
Now for the economics, I have no qualms with someone spending is money any way he/she judges fit.. Their prerogative, their money. A question is however asked on an Internet Discussion board as to the level that implies SOTA to a money amount term and I objected to the formulation which in my opinion equated SOTA to price paid… Can you disprove my point of view? With solid facts and correct argumentation? If yes I am all ears and eyes... If this post was your attempt, I am not sure it does acquit itself of the purpose…

Frantz, no adhominem attack meant. I am a busy guy and don't always have time for flowery language. If you think audiophiles are gullible idiots, I don't have a problem with your opinion.
If you know how to measure what someone subjectively experiences, you are the first. If you know what some individual is thinking or feeling when he listens to a system, you should win some prize. Please show me the research and share it with the world. Otherwise, please re-read my post. I stand by it 100%.

 

[FrantzM]

Caesar

Where in the world do I have ever posted that audiophiles are gullible idiots/ Please point me once ... You can't .. End of my exchange with you.

 

[caesar]

Caesar

Where in the world do I have ever posted that audiophiles are gullible idiots/ Please point me once ... You can't .. End of my exchange with you.

Frantz, one way to read your comments about expensive does not equal best is that analog consumers who are shopping for expensive gear are not able to make decisions in their self interest. Your post implies that these people can be fooled by the choices they are presented, may have limited self control to satisfy their egos, and may rely on inefficient rules of thumb. As a result, they make bad and dumb choices. So to save them, they should be sent to analog (re)education camps to help steer their choices. Sure, it’s a possibility that there may be a handful of cases like this, but I would bet that someone buying a state of the art analog rig is experienced and knows what benefits he will attain from such an important decision that impacts the quality of music in his life. Thus, he is able to figure out on his own how much to pay for those benefits.

I am glad that we agree that analog consumers should have the freedom to make their own financial decisions, as they don’t hurt others. And I agree on stopping this exchange.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

as a person who has put as much effort as anyone into the quest for ultimate vinyl performance my opinion is that this is a subject that is too volitile to have a reasonable online discussion in this forum. looking just at my own pathway over the last 10-15 years i can see how my firmly held and strongly felt opinions changed dramatically as i was exposed to different types of gear, and even RTR tape.

i see things posted about certain types of gear which i've experienced too and understand why a person might say what they are saying, but i no longer see it in the same way.

trying to tell one person that maybe they are not so State Of The Art as they might have thought is not a sensible thing to do. and when it comes to vinyl, perspectives are many times quite passionate and the truth subjective.

this is a subject that requires hearing to accept opinions. and there are so many moving parts to a vinyl playback rig and so many combinations of gear and variations of set-up it boggles the mind. and then there is the whole pressings issues as well as cleaning records.

if someone visits and asks me that question i could show them what i mean; however telling them is a fools task. so many times when i suggest that someone visit and listen to what i hear to make my case, they think it's unreasonable. maybe. but it's really the only way.

and i'm not saying i'm currently not subject to the same human issues i'm talking about.

 

[jazdoc]

as a person who has put as much effort as anyone into the quest for ultimate vinyl performance my opinion is that this is a subject that is too volitile to have a reasonable online discussion in this forum. looking just at my own pathway over the last 10-15 years i can see how my firmly held and strongly felt opinions changed dramatically as i was exposed to different types of gear, and even RTR tape.

i see things posted about certain types of gear which i've experienced too and understand why a person might say what they are saying, but i no longer see it in the same way.

trying to tell one person that maybe they are not so State Of The Art as they might have thought is not a sensible thing to do. and when it comes to vinyl, perspectives are many times quite passionate and the truth subjective.

this is a subject that requires hearing to accept opinions. and there are so many moving parts to a vinyl playback rig and so many combinations of gear and variations of set-up it boggles the mind. and then there is the whole pressings issues as well as cleaning records.

if someone visits and asks me that question i could show them what i mean; however telling them is a fools task. so many times when i suggest that someone visit and listen to what i hear to make my case, they think it's unreasonable. maybe. but it's really the only way.

and i'm not saying i'm currently not subject to the same human issues i'm talking about.

Perfect

 

[Gregadd]

When I ponder this question I can't help but think of the Movie The Fly. Having achieved such a great accomplishment only to have it corrupted by the a fly.
Certaiinly the curve plotted by the law of dimishing returns is exponential. The task we endeavor is to capture esentialy randomly directed vibrations. Convert them to eltrical signals. Store them in tiny little spaces. Retreive them from that space. Convert them back to eltricitcal signals. Propel them at the ear with a device that has no relatiolnship to the orignal instrument. These signal strike the ear and are converted back an eletrical signal. Then they are forwarded toa CPU capable of the wildest imagination. It's a wonder it works at all. Yet we complain of the complexity and the cost.

Mechnical vibration is problaby the most prevalent corruptor of all.

I heard the Walker truntable with the AIr tTght Supreme cartridge This review is with the Magic Diamond cartridge. It is a chroincle of Lioyd Walkers quest for perfection in pursuit of the perfect vinyl transducer. I hope I'll find some worthy pictures of the syltus grove interface.
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/walker4/sota.html

 

[Bill Hart]

When I ponder this question I can't help but think of the Movie The Fly. Having achieved such a great accomplishment only to have it corrupted by the a fly.
Certaiinly the curve plotted by the law of dimishing returns is exponential. The task we endeavor is to capture esentialy randomly directed vibrations. Convert them to eltrical signals. Store them in tiny little spaces. Retreive them from that space. Convert them back to eltricitcal signals. Propel them at the ear with a device that has no relatiolnship to the orignal instrument. These signal strike the ear and are converted back an eletrical signal. Then they are forwarded toa CPU capable of the wildest imagination. It's a wonder it works at all. Yet we complain of the complexity and the cost.

Mechnical vibration is problaby the most prevalent corruptor of all.

I heard the Walker truntable with the AIr tTght Supreme cartridge This review is with the Magic Diamond cartridge. It is a chroincle of Lioyd Walkers quest for perfection in pursuit of the perfect vinyl transducer. I hope I'll find some worthy pictures of the syltus grove interface.
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/walker4/sota.html

Good analogy. Creepy movie (the one with jeff goldblum not the one with vincent price). walker has continued in his quest, the TT and associated components have continued to evolve. Noise and vibration are the devils of good audio reproduction.

 

[cjfrbw]

Who says everybody is paying extra for sonic benefits. Sometimes, just "bigger, shinier, newer, more expensive, more showy, more exclusive, higher status, more intimidating, more exotic, more mysterious." is more than enough to justify the expense.

Being the latest fashion slut at Beverly Hills High certainly has its rewards and allures.

Why even dissemble the pretense of "substance"?

I'll settle for "less dusty".

Vinyl chaos theory: Guess what, it's CHAOS (not the "Get Smart" kind), there is no "ultimate".

 

[mep]

I think that Mike brings up some great points and we all reserve the right to become smarter as we gain more experience. It’s one of the reasons why I like to listen to different gear and form my own conclusions. Back so not long ago when I was a dyed in the wool tubeaholic, I used to wonder why Mike didn’t have an all tube system knowing he could have basically whatever he wanted. At the time I had over 50 tubes in my system. Now I’m down to my pair of Ampex 350s as the only tubes in my system.

Even with tubes, it’s fairly easy to have a relatively low noise floor with line level inputs. When it comes to vinyl playback, tubes will never come close to SS in terms of noise and hum issues. It is a fact that tubes have more noise than SS devices. You can try to wish it away or ignore it, but it’s still there. Even if you use SUTs in your phono stage for gain but they still load into a tube phono section, your noise levels will be higher than an all SS phono section. And once you add that noise in the phono section, the line stage and amplifier can’t ignore it, they just amplify it. And that is with the best phono tubes that you can get your hands on (in terms of noise and microphonics). There is a reason why ARC and others use FETs as the input in their phono stages in order to give tubes a fighting chance in terms of having relatively low noise.

To my ears, less noise equals more music and more dynamic range. I love the fact that I have over 70 dB of gain at my disposal as well as lots of resistive settings in my phono section which I also feel sounds pretty damn good. I simply can’t duplicate that amount of gain and low noise with tubes.

 

[Bill Hart]

I think that Mike brings up some great points and we all reserve the right to become smarter as we gain more experience. It’s one of the reasons why I like to listen to different gear and form my own conclusions. Back so not long ago when I was a dyed in the wool tubeaholic, I used to wonder why Mike didn’t have an all tube system knowing he could have basically whatever he wanted. At the time I had over 50 tubes in my system. Now I’m down to my pair of Ampex 350s as the only tubes in my system.

Even with tubes, it’s fairly easy to have a relatively low noise floor with line level inputs. When it comes to vinyl playback, tubes will never come close to SS in terms of noise and hum issues. It is a fact that tubes have more noise than SS devices. You can try to wish it away or ignore it, but it’s still there. Even if you use SUTs in your phono stage for gain but they still load into a tube phono section, your noise levels will be higher than an all SS phono section. And once you add that noise in the phono section, the line stage and amplifier can’t ignore it, they just amplify it. And that is with the best phono tubes that you can get your hands on (in terms of noise and microphonics). There is a reason why ARC and others use FETs as the input in their phono stages in order to give tubes a fighting chance in terms of having relatively low noise.

To my ears, less noise equals more music and more dynamic range. I love the fact that I have over 70 dB of gain at my disposal as well as lots of resistive settings in my phono section which I also feel sounds pretty damn good. I simply can’t duplicate that amount of gain and low noise with tubes.

Mep, I agree but want to add a clarification:
when you say noise, I don't think you mean tube 'rush' or any obvious signs of tube sound, but the ability to resolve the smallest details at a very low level, without being obscured by murk. I'm not sure that ability is solely the province of solid state phono stages, but that's another issue.

 

[Mosin]

Let's deconstruct the title of this thread.

First, define great.
Second, define State of the Art.
Third, define the product(s) we are speaking about, so that we can ascertain a pricepoint baseline.

To address the first we must simultaneously decide on the third. So, to simplify let's use turntables as an example just because I know more about them than other aspects of analog. What are great turntables? I submit that we must reference that question to known quantities of the past because what is great now would have been State of the Art at some point in history. Now, you have an endless subject of argument that is dependent on both historical and mechanical knowledge combined with listening experience and hearing ability specifically geared to turntables. If one is to accept that the EMT 950, the Fairchild 750 and the Micro Seiki 8000 qualified as State of the Art turntables in their day, we must also accept that any turntable made now that qualifies as being great has to be their equal by default in all parameters. That would most likely place the pricepoint somewhere around $10,000-15,000 for a currently made great turntable. The old ones average that (or more) on the used market. I cannot think of one under that price that is the equal to any of those State of the Art turntables from days gone by that approaches them in sonic performance and build level. That narrows the field significantly, and I didn't even mention the Rockport in my control group!

What then is State of the Art? In my opinion, State of the Art has to bring forth something brand new that will cement it in history as being particularly significant. Also, whatever it brings has to readily improve performance over turntables that came before it. By default, those would be mandatory requirements. The bar is necessarily high. Suddenly, the field of contenders is extremely rarefied.

Hype doesn't count when setting the cut-off priceline for TRUE State of the Art, so what is such a product worth? We can safely assume that it would be more than a great turntable would cost, but how much more? I believe that depends on at least three things; how hard was it to manufacture, how many exist and how badly do you want it? To one guy, the answer may result in taking a pass on it, and settling for a great, or even good, turntable. To another, it may warrant a $25,000 purchase, but to yet another, that amount might skyrocket to several hundred thousand dollars, even more. Regardless, the market always determines the ultimate answer. It's the old Supply and Demand rule.

The more we look for a legitimate answer that is separated from advertising schemes, the more confusing it becomes. Luckily, we can always fall back on the "Upgrade Path" to console ourselves.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I think that Mike brings up some great points and we all reserve the right to become smarter as we gain more experience. It’s one of the reasons why I like to listen to different gear and form my own conclusions. Back so not long ago when I was a dyed in the wool tubeaholic, I used to wonder why Mike didn’t have an all tube system knowing he could have basically whatever he wanted. At the time I had over 50 tubes in my system. Now I’m down to my pair of Ampex 350s as the only tubes in my system.

Even with tubes, it’s fairly easy to have a relatively low noise floor with line level inputs. When it comes to vinyl playback, tubes will never come close to SS in terms of noise and hum issues. It is a fact that tubes have more noise than SS devices. You can try to wish it away or ignore it, but it’s still there. Even if you use SUTs in your phono stage for gain but they still load into a tube phono section, your noise levels will be higher than an all SS phono section. And once you add that noise in the phono section, the line stage and amplifier can’t ignore it, they just amplify it. And that is with the best phono tubes that you can get your hands on (in terms of noise and microphonics). There is a reason why ARC and others use FETs as the input in their phono stages in order to give tubes a fighting chance in terms of having relatively low noise.

To my ears, less noise equals more music and more dynamic range. I love the fact that I have over 70 dB of gain at my disposal as well as lots of resistive settings in my phono section which I also feel sounds pretty damn good. I simply can’t duplicate that amount of gain and low noise with tubes.

Mark:

I'm curious about the "hum" problem. I have lots of phono stages around among them cj, Allnic, Doshi, Valvet (tube or hybrid) and the Avid (ss) and none of them has a hum problem, even with cartridges down to 0.3 mV.

Now as far as noise, that's also a complex issue that also depends on the say the input sensitivity of your amp. Others that might choose a slightly higher output MC, MI or MM might never experience any noise issues. My Atlas has 0.55 mV output that most tube phonos can handle; others like the Clearaudios have even higher output voltages ranging from 0.7 to 0.9 mV. They also should have no issues with a tube phono stage. The real problem comes in when we listen to those 0.1 to 0.3 mV

 

[WntrMute2]

I know I'm showing my ignorance here (as always) but what does SOTA stand for? A search returns a blizzard of threads using the term but no definition.

 

[Bill Hart]

I know I'm showing my ignorance here (as always) but what does SOTA stand for. A search returns a blizzard of threads using the term but no definition.

State of the Art.

 

[Bill Hart]

Mark:

I'm curious about the "hum" problem. I have lots of phono stages around among them cj, Allnic, Doshi, Valvet (tube or hybrid) and the Avid (ss) and none of them has a hum problem, even with cartridges down to 0.3 mV.

Now as far as noise, that's also a complex issue that also depends on the say the input sensitivity of your amp. Others that might choose a slightly higher output MC, MI or MM might never experience any noise issues. My Atlas has 0.55 mV output that most tube phonos can handle; others like the Clearaudios have even higher output voltages ranging from 0.7 to 0.9 mV. They also should have no issues with a tube phono stage. The real problem comes in when we listen to those 0.1 to 0.3 mV

Good catch on the hum point, i glossed over that. I find that it's usually grounding issues among/between components. Having 104db efficient speakers forces me to address these issues and my system, phono only and tubes, is very quiet- i have to turn the gain up to beyond the level I'd listen at, and put my ear in front of one of the horns, to hear white noise. From the listening position, dead quiet.

 

[WntrMute2]

State of the Art.

Thanks, now I'm a little less clueless.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Let's deconstruct the title of this thread.

First, define great.
Second, define State of the Art.
Third, define the product(s) we are speaking about, so that we can ascertain a pricepoint baseline.

Enthusiastic agreement. Without these definitions, this discussion has no place to go.

To address the first we must simultaneously decide on the third.

Not sure I follow. How can you get to a baseline pricepoint for SOTA, without first defining what approaches, much less attains SOTA?

So, to simplify let's use turntables as an example just because I know more about them than other aspects of analog. What are great turntables? I submit that we must reference that question to known quantities of the past because what is great now would have been State of the Art at some point in history.

OK...not sure how subjectively agreeing on what was SOTA in the past gets us to defining SOTA in the present, but it can't hurt.

Now, you have an endless subject of argument that is dependent on both historical and mechanical knowledge combined with listening experience and hearing ability specifically geared to turntables.

No metrics agreed upon?

If one is to accept that the EMT 950, the Fairchild 750 and the Micro Seiki 8000 qualified as State of the Art turntables in their day, we must also accept that any turntable made now that qualifies as being great has to be their equal by default in all parameters.

On what basis have we concluded these tables were once SOTA?

That would most likely place the pricepoint somewhere around $10,000-15,000 for a currently made great turntable.

"That" would, if "that" had any meaning.

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm not even trying to get analog guys to use measurable metrics. But really, if you can't agree, very clearly and specifically, on what "historical and mechanical" attributes you're referencing, and you have no clearly defined and broadly-accepted definition of what it is your "listening experience and hearing ability specifically geared to turntables" concludes, you're never going to get to a definition of good, much less SOTA. I would go so far as to say that such a lack of standards precludes you from even using terms like SOTA, which has a very specific qualitative meaning that you cannot qualify.

Until you agree on standards and an objective, consistent way to measure them, you don't get SOTA, you get SGTM (Sounds Good To Me). And you can, of course, pay anything for that you like.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

I could definitely get behind the Fairchild and EMT. They were widely considered the finest transcription tables in their day. We see TTs of all shapes and sizes now but no transcription tables.

Lots of metrics for TTs. We see it in the spec sheets of even entry level tables. State of the Art today shows these specs brought to the extreme. The most obvious in todays breed is in the improvements primarily in the motors today's technology provide. We also see borrowed technology for speed control. Then there's self noise and vibration control. All these regardless of the chosen drive system be they direct, belt or idler. Self noise covers both motor and bearing/thrust assemblies. Vibration control includes steps taken to minimize floor and airborne vibration. Think of the differences between a Schwinn hub and a road racing hub from the likes of Campagnolo.

Now speed is typically measured in average but the SOTA takes that average in smaller slices of time (wow and flutter figures) aside from the minute but audible effects of things like stylus drag. SOTA rigs would display very good speed figures, low resonance, and a high level of immunity from external vibrations. Things often seen are CLD construction some even including gels, precision machining, advanced speed control in the form of regeneration for asynchronous AC motors and microprocessor control for DC motors including optical, High precision bearings, leveling features, pneumatic or magnetic levitation. That kind of stuff to do the supposedly easy job of spinning an LP at 33 1/3 and 45 in a quiet consistent way.

These things add up in cost. If the price is high there is a reason it is. None of this stuff is easy or cheap if you are chasing extreme performance figures.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Lots of metrics for TTs.

Excellent. Then why not use them? For TT and anything else you want to place in the foodchain from barely hifi to state of the art? There is no doubt at all there will be dissention, that folks will prefer examples that are not the ultimate performers by the standards. Preference is preference. There's no arguing with it. But it you're trying to determine what is SOTA, in any endeavor, you need standards to judge by or you have nothing but preference. I could dig my old Thorens out of the bin and call it SOTA. Once you get to metrics for SOTA, then we can use them to build the hierarchy up to SOTA. That should be fun.

Tim