[Thebiker]

dogorman wrote

My McCormack MAP-1 preamp is a great-sounding and even more ingenious solution to the whole two-channel vs. six-channel tradeoff, but the interface is so buggy that I've nearly blown up my speakers about a half a dozen times in the three months or so that I've owned the bloody thing.

That's why I try to keep it simple, if not convenient.  The more tasks you ask of a pre-amp (or receiver) the more complex the circuitry has to be. It's why I don't do multi room/source etc.  I know how and have installed multiple systems that do that for friends and customers when I was still in the trade. 

In my home its 1 home theater and 2 stand alone 2-channel systems built around tubes.  Plus 2 rooms with solid state where it's background music while I work.  It's not much more expensive to do it my way but it is simple for anyone to operate (WAF) and to set up.

Just my 2 cents.

Walt

[dogorman]

Well, I appreciate where you're coming from about having a H/T rig and a separate two-channel rig, I really do... but it does also rather make my point for me, doesn't it? I mean, can you imagine the nerve of some high-end audio customer out there, demanding to have his television and his CD-player in the same room???

All's I'm saying is, the stuff shouldn't *be* that complicated. It should work.

Specifically, it shouldn't be this difficult to assemble equipment, plug'n'play, that works together and does what it says it will on the wrapper. If a piece of gear says it will handle two- and six-channel sources, it should be able to do so at an equal quality-point. If the industry hasn't been figured out yet how to do that, then the stuff shouldn't have been crashed to market with the casual confidence that people would buy it all anyway, because they shouldn't have.

I mean no disrespect or to sound argumentative, either one -- that's not my intention at all -- but you did rather just tell me that the way to avoid all of this frustration I'm articulating, is to buy everything twice. I guess I'm just not prepared to forgive these people to an extent of suspended disbelief that would make doing so any less frustrating.

[Marbles]

No problems...buy an Onkyo TX905 receiver if you want bulletproof very good sound.

Go boutique if you want cutting edge sound with the possibility of cutting edge problems.  Sometimes the pioneers took arrows, sometimes they found the goldmine. 

[dogorman]

Well, that's pretty well-argued, all things considered. (Bonus points for being brief -- after all, one of us has to be, huh.)

If the TX905 does, indeed, have "very good sound," then I completely missed it by being a snob about receivers. Class-D home theater? By a brand that has already proven to me that they can make stuff that doesn't break? Sounds like I missed it with that one.

I do love -- positively love -- the sound of my McCormack separates (even before the Songtowers get here), so you could be forgiven for accusing me of wanting to have my cake and eat it too. Right now the big bugaboo is getting some dedicated AC to the rig, to try to tame a stubborn little buzzing sound in the high midrange.

It's just been an awfully long way, with a lot of friends cackling at every step.

I would just like to say, in closing, if you're looking for audiophile 2-channel sound and competent handling of home theater signals, and you want the whole thing to reliably perform without embarrassing you, the ideal solution is probably NOT a pre-owned Naim AV/2.

Cheers, everybody.

[Steve]

"Go boutique if you want cutting edge sound with the possibility of cutting edge problems."

If I may ask, how do you know that the two are related? In fact, they are completely different just as the car, audio comparison is not applicable.

If there is a problem with failures, it is either because the designers lack in design expertise, or they use parts that failed.

In the latter case a good excuse would be to tell the truth and change the part manufacturer if a suitable part can be found.

Cheers.

[Marbles]

"Go boutique if you want cutting edge sound with the possibility of cutting edge problems."

If I may ask, how do you know that the two are related? In fact, they are completely different.

If there is a problem with failures, it is either because the designers lack in design expertise, or they use parts that failed.

In the latter case a good excuse would be to tell the truth and change the part manufacturer if a suitable part can be found.

Cheers.

The possibility of problems exists until the product is field proven over a period of time.  It doesn't mean problems "will" exist, only that it hasn't been proven that the product is bullet proof under many different scenarios.

As an example, when they first came out, there were a few issues with the TX905, they were fixed within a few months of the first release. 

[Steve]

"The possibility of problems exists until the product is field proven over a period of time.  It doesn't mean problems "will" exist, only that it hasn't been proven that the product is bullet proof under many different scenarios.

As an example, when they first came out, there were a few issues with the TX905, they were fixed within a few months of the first release."

>With proper knowledge and design experience, imo, the point is mum. I knew before my products ever came out that they were bullet proof. And they have been for over a decade. And they have been compared to over 40 different high end manufacturers and models, by customers and reviewers, so they are highly praised and on the cutting edge.

I think you would be surprised to learn how little knowledge and/or experience some manufacturers have, but have "good marketing technique". In fact, I can name some who had virtually no design knowledge or experience at all when they started.

Cheers.

[dogorman]

the car, audio comparison is not applicable

Sorry if this comes across as discourteous, but I don't think I can let you get away with the passive-voice here. When you say that the analogy is not applicable, you mean that you wouldn't apply it. I would  (in fact I believe I did), which automatically makes it as applicable, by a vote of one to one, thanks. 

So, listen: You've got a bunch of different brands of car out there, right? And they're all supposed to start, drive, turn left and right, stop, and shut off. Some of them are supposed to be more fun, and a lot of those are also more expensive. But very few of the ones that are more expensive are both more fun and more reliable. Indeed, most of the cars that are the most expensive and fun are some of the least reliable: it was the driving enthusiasts, after all, and not the home-audio enthusiasts, who coined the phrase, "if you wanna play you gotta pay."

Fortunately for me, there's at least one brand out there that's both more fun and more reliable -- if not also quite as much fun as the most-fun ones, so I can and do choose to drive that one. Now. Call the buyer of that car the "high-end but perform-at-all-costs" customer, okay? Surely you can't say there isn't such a customer because you're talking to one right now. At which point, the analogy IS applicable, because it begs this very simple and as-yet unanswered question:

Which brand of home audio equipment does our "high-end, perform-at-all-costs" customer buy?

In my experience at least, the most-expensive, most-fun ones are also the ones least likely to do what it says they'll do on the wrapper. The fact that there isn't an option out there (or at least doesn't seem to be) is, I think, an indictment of the SOTA. I think there's a lot of stuff out there being crashed to market because the manufacturers know that the name-cache, the headlong rush to early adoption, and the not insignificant psychological reward of having shelled out a lot of moolah for one's gear, will in the minds of many audio enthusiasts trump any incidental issues with bugs.

All I'm saying is that, just as I wish I didn't have to be the only person who refuses to have a cell phone until they can be reliably expected to deliver an uninterrupted, intelligible phone call, I also wish I didn't have to be the only person who gets pissed off when he has to disconnect his speaker wire before every single time he powers-off his $2,200 amplifier.

[Steve]

>I can appreciate your point of view.

>However I respectfully disagree. As one who has worked in both disciplines, the differences are vastly different with no correlation whatsoever.

"Indeed, most of the cars that are the most expensive and fun are some of the least reliable: it was the driving enthusiasts, after all, and not the home-audio enthusiasts, who coined the phrase, "if you wanna play you gotta pay."

>The differences between a car and audio is stark from the stanpoint that a car may be more fun if it is lighter and thinner, making the parts more vunerable to breaking or bending.

The engine may also be designed for more horsepower, using lighter weight parts for faster reving and increased top rpm. The cylinders may be filled more fully with combustible gas and oxygen, again decreasing the life of the engine.

However, audio is entirely different. Oh one can change the tonal balance, use polyprops or teflon instead of mylar caps, but neither example improves or decreases the reliability of the component. One does not have to use unreliable 'lighter rods or lighter pistons' to make an audio component sound better.

Once one fully understand electronics, and experience designing etc, you will see the vast difference between it and any car analogy. There just is not any comparison. There is alot of misinformation and it becomes a mine field as to know what to believe and what not.

As a simple example, look at the example of those who preach the artificial 100:1 rule. They preach that the amp input impedance (Z) should be 100 times that of the preamp output Z, trying to justify the use of a Buffer stage, Cathode follower, Mu stage. (By the way, all three are loaded with feedback.) Unfortunately, such preaching at the same time makes it appear that components do not use a buffer stage are inferior. Two for one trick. Let's take a look.

The RCA Radiotron designers handbook figures 5:1 is enough, I use 10:1 just to be safe. If one looks at the distortion figures, the distortion increases maybe one or two db worse by using the 10:1 rule. So if the distortion is .01% (-80db) at 100:1 ratio and 2vrms output, at 10:1, the distorton might be .011% (-79db, maybe 78db depending on the good tube used). Virtually no change yet another sonic robbing stage and parts has been added to get to 100:1, plus gobs of feedback.

Now how about frequency response changes with the 100:1 vs 10:1. Let's use 2k output Z vs 100 ohm output Z. With 250pf capacitance ICs, the response changes approx 0.3db at 100khz. With a 50pf Ic, the FR changes less than 0.1db. Again virtually no change.

And we have to mention the frequency dependent feedback from stage to stage, via the power supply itself. The phase of this feedback is much worse than conventional feedback as the phase shifting starts in the mids and increases as we reach 20hz, while conventional feedback has phase shifts well below 20hz, with little above 20hz unless it is a poor design.

Sorry about the long post, but to newbies, be careful what you read, and what you believe.

Hope this helps.

[dogorman]

Wow. That was really, really impressive.

Unfortunately, none of it is actually relevant to the question of whether the car analogy is "applicable" or not.

None of it.

Not one single word.

The expensive stuff performs reliably, or it doesn't. In the world of cars, there's an expensive brand that does. In the audio world, there isn't.

[Steve]

Wow. That was really, really impressive.

Unfortunately, none of it is actually relevant to the question of whether the car analogy is "applicable" or not.

None of it.

Not one single word.

The expensive stuff performs reliably, or it doesn't. In the world of cars, there's an expensive brand that does. In the audio world, there isn't.

Unfortunately, you do not understand electronics well enough to realize the full extent of what I said on page 7. Let me try to make it simpler. No harm intended.

Resistors have wattage ratings, Capacitors have voltage ratings. Tubes have both voltage and current ratings. Run them easy, keep them easily within those ratings and reliability is excellent. Simple as that. I do not have to lighten the pistons, reduce rod weight, to improve reliability. One does not have to use 1/16 watt resistors instead of 1/4 or 1/2 watters. Sorry, but it does not work that way Man.

Of course there is much more, which I will not disclose to the competition. As I said, there is little if any correlation between cars and audio design in my book.

Ciao. 

[Kevin Haskins]

Wow. That was really, really impressive.

Unfortunately, none of it is actually relevant to the question of whether the car analogy is "applicable" or not.

None of it.

Not one single word.

The expensive stuff performs reliably, or it doesn't. In the world of cars, there's an expensive brand that does. In the audio world, there isn't.

All you have to do is start a high-end audio company that delivers good quality stuff and the problem will be solved.   

Go to work, it looks like a perfect market opportunity for you.

[satfrat]

Wow. That was really, really impressive.

Unfortunately, none of it is actually relevant to the question of whether the car analogy is "applicable" or not.

None of it.

Not one single word.

The expensive stuff performs reliably, or it doesn't. In the world of cars, there's an expensive brand that does. In the audio world, there isn't.

All you have to do is start a high-end audio company that delivers good quality stuff and the problem will be solved.   

Go to work, it looks like a perfect market opportunity for you.

  But Kevin,,, it don't cost nothing to whine,,, 

[Steve]

Maybe it is finally time for the bad manfuacturer to take the lumps for a change instead of the customer always getting short changed.

[satfrat]

Maybe it is finally time for the bad manfuacturer to take the lumps for a change instead of the customer always getting short changed.

Well that is always the consumers option and should hopefully bring out the best from all manufacturer's. But making blank statements about high end gear in general doesn't accomplish much, now does it? But if it makes you feel better, go for it. 

I mean that in a good way btw. 


Cheers,
Robin

[Steve]

Yeah you are right. Every once in a while, customers post their impressions, good or bad. I suppose word gets around anyway. Snow job excuses have a way of haunting the manufacturer sooner or later.

[satfrat]

Yeah you are right. Every once in a while, customers post their impressions, good or bad. I suppose word gets around anyway. Snow job excuses have a way of haunting the manufacturer sooner or later.

One can only hope,,,,,

[Mike Dzurko]

The expensive stuff performs reliably, or it doesn't. In the world of cars, there's an expensive brand that does. In the audio world, there isn't.

This has been an interesting discussion. I must take issue with the above statement. How do you know that there aren't expensive, (and or high-end, not really one and the same), audio brands that do not perform reliably?  My experience has been pretty much the opposite. I've rarely had problems, and most of them have been with what I'd call mid-fi gear. Saying that all high-end brands are unreliable is just not a valid statement.

[Wayner]

If you ever saw the episode where Homer Simpson bought a DIY bar-b-Que set? It had all the right parts, but ............well Homers did too, all in the wrong places.

To be in any kind of manufacturing and keep your reputation in tact is a true accomplishment. For those that do, I say Kudos. For those that can't, perhaps it was best that they went away. It is not all science and design. There is alot of art, luck and good old ingenuity that make excellent products survive the test of time.

Wayner

[dogorman]

Mike, if there are brands out there that do, I want to know about them. My original intent in joining this discussion (before it deteriorated into defending myself against charges of being unhappy out of ignorance about how to use the stuff) was to find out which emblems might be analogous.

That being said, I'm still smarting over here at the suggestion that I've conjured an unfair analogy on the basis of not knowing what I'm talking about, so bear with me a moment while I make this counter-argument, please: My current rig is a McCormack DNA-HT5 and MAP-1. I bought them of my own free-will and they sound terrific. Before anyone else says either of those two things.

But you know, the HT5 is a very, very hot connection: an input impedance so high and an input sensitivity so low that it would really be tailor-made for passive preamplification. But it's a five-channel amp. And aside from the fact that you can't generate rear-channel ambiance with passive circuitry, the question seems not have even come up before these two products were brought to market. Unless someone knows of a McCormack-built, passive, six-channel preamp, what we've got here is the perfect-storm-negation of the argument that the customer is responsible for his own dissatisfaction because he doesn't adequately understand how the stuff works. They sound fine but they're a bad match on the basis of very technical parameters with which others have tried to bludgeon me into believing that my dissatisfaction is born of naivety about how the stuff is supposed to work. And they're marketed as a freaking set.

Very few of us would you put up with someone at Sears telling us that our refrigerator doesn't keep things adequately cool because we're not getting sufficiently clean power coming into it from the wall. I'll bet it happens from time to time (indeed, when it does, I'll bet the salesman is right), but I'll bet it doesn't happen as often as it does in high-end audio, either. By a freaking longshot.

Indeed there are high-end refrigerators that just simply and unpretentiously, well, gosh, WORK. There are high-end musical instruments that work. There are high-end laptop computers that work. There are high-end aircraft, high-end kitchen appliances, high-end boats, high-end telescopes, high-end firearms -- all of them made under specific manufacturing emblems that instantly convey the notion of, "first, above all else, work properly every time. Worry about everything else, second. First of all, work." In each of these product spaces, the "high-end, but perform at all costs" customer I alluded to before, has at least one good choice.

If there are emblems out there in high-end audio that meet this design criteria as their prime directive, I'm all ears.