Features: 6
Performance: 9
Value: 7
Overall: 8.5
+ 2 x 150/300 watts (8/4 ohms, both channels driven)
+ 4 line-level inputs (2 RCA single-ended or XLR balanced, 2 RCA single-ended-only)
+ 2 preamp outputs (1 RCA single-ended and 1 XLR balanced)
+ LED display with Bright, Dim, and Off settings
+ Full-function remote control
+ Gold-plated speaker outputs
19 x 7 x 19 in; 60 lb
$7,150, passlabs.com
Few audio companies are as closely associated with a single individual as Pass Laboratories is with its founder Nelson Pass, a man who has always blazed his own path when it comes to designing audio gear. Pass founded Threshold Electronics back in the early 1970s, but when he wanted to explore new, simpler circuit topologies in the early 1990s, he created Pass Labs as a way to market his latest creations.
The two integrated amps in the Pass Labs line, the INT-150 and INT-30A, are a good example of his less-than-conventional approach, seeing as both appear to be identical except for the critical question of output power. Physically the two amps are indistinguishable, with exactly the same functions, weight, dimensions, and even price tag. It’s only when you take a peek at the spec sheet that the differences become apparent, with the INT-150 delivering a healthy 150 watts per-channel, while the INT-30A tops out at just one-fifth that amount.
So what gives? Why would anyone buy an inline four when they’re offering you the V-12 for the same money?
The answer lies in how those watts are generated. For the INT-30A, Pass uses the type of single-ended, pure class-A circuit that has been Pass Labs’ bread and butter since the company started, while the INT-150 uses a more efficient push-pull class-AB circuit. I suppose the key question is whether the INT-150 still retains the performance Pass built his reputation on despite using this more conventional circuit design.
Audiophiles tend to deride integrated amps as a compromise solution for those who can’t quite swing the price of a separate preamp and power amp, but that characterization would be unfair in the case of the INT-150. For all practical purposes, this amp is simply a Pass Labs X150.5 power amp with multiple inputs and a volume control. A buffer is added to ensure that you won’t run into any weird impedance matching problems, but that’s basically it.
Pass Labs amplifiers have always had a strong and purposeful look about them, and the INT-150 is no exception. While the styling isn’t likely to gain the amp a spot at the Museum Of Modern Art, it gets the job done without unnecessary indulgences. The build quality is of the “brick outhouse” variety — the amp looks like it could survive World War III with barely a scratch.
The front panel controls are limited to power, input selection, mute, and volume, with a blue fluorescent display showing the selected input and volume level. The volume knob is connected to an encoder rather than a physical potentiometer, so it rotates continuously in either direction as the volume increases or decreases. A chunky brushed stainless steel remote duplicates these functions and adds a couple more, specifically a balance control and one to dim or switch off the blue fluorescent display.
Four line inputs are provided using single-ended RCA jacks, while two of these inputs have additional balanced XLR connections you can use in place of the single-ended ones. You also get balanced and single-ended line level outputs after the preamp stage, which should prove useful if your system includes a powered subwoofer or if you want to add an additional power amp for bi-amping.
Single pairs of speaker cable binding posts are provided for each channel, and for some reason Pass has chosen terminals that only work easily with spade-type cable terminations. They don’t open up wide enough for most bare wire connections and a banana plug hole isn’t provided, which makes it a real pain if you intend to bi-wire your speakers. The posts won’t even open up enough to insert two chunky spade lugs, so if you want to bi-wire, plan on getting a bi-wire ready set of cables terminated at the amp end with a single pair of spades. I expect these posts are used to satisfy some obscure European safety directive, but other amp manufacturers have found solutions to this problem that work much better.
Making comments implying that separates have some magical power to sound better than an integrated amplifier is an anachronism, if it was ever true. In my opinion, such comparisons are a journalistic conceit. It has always been more properly thought of as an engineering task to shield low level circuits in an integrated amplifier from possible interference from high voltage or power supply radiation. In fact, power amplifiers already have low level circuitry at their input not much different from the output stage of preamplifiers. Further, there is no good that can come from having to link two components together using plug-in RCA connectors on both ends of a cable, cable that most audiophiles seem to agree color the sound one way or the other.
The copncept of "it is what it is" applies here, meaning one or the other is better only based upon audio engineering, not mysterious forces.
Time to get rid of the false comparison, in my opinion.
The fact that this product is being reviewed by Sound & Vision is a symptom of the sad decline of the magazine since Mike Mettler became editor-in-chief. It is increasingly becoming just another audio fashion magazine like all of the others, rather than a trustworthy consumer guide founded on intellectually credible engineering principles.
Have you abandoned the scientific mindset that has been the rule of law for stereophile? How does this amp rate 7 for value? I am not saying that it doesn't, but I am wondering how is it that a 150wpc amp that costs 7000 dollars get a 7. Does it sound that good? is it built that well? does it have that much snob value?
what are the criteria here?
The garbage that I read in the other magazines has always reminded me of the fable, The Emperor's New Clothes, which basically deals with the intersection of human susceptibility to suggestion and the human tendency to embrace delightful delusions.
I have looked at Stereo Review and then at S&V to separate the fact from the crap. which leaves me surprised that you would make a statement such as rating a 7000 dollar amp a 7 in value without explaining how it merits that.
It may. I want to be shown how. Julian Hirsch wouldn't have left me asking this question, and I am sure nor would have Brent Butterworth.
"I have looked at Stereo Review and then at S&V to separate the fact from the crap. which leaves me surprised that you would make a statement such as rating a 7000 dollar amp a 7 in value without explaining how it merits that.
It may."
It won't.
My two cents, as Web editor here (and by the way, if you poke around the site a bit you'll see that we haven't abandoned testing by a long shot; we actually test most of what comes in the door, but it's impossible, logistically)
As for this unit (which is certainly expensive, rating of 7 aside)
I'm not going to put words in our writer's hand, obviously, but my impression of the last paragraph is that the "value" proposition of this amp — which Michael admits is awfully costly — has to be understood in context. It's certainly not a good value next to, say, an Onkyo AVR.
It might, however, for those who are inclined to spend a large amount of money on gear in the first place (which, I think everyone commenting would have to admit, is a universe of enthusiasts that does understand value in a different way than those inclined toward AVRs from large manufacturing concerns), actually represent a significant savings over even more expensive separates which are in at a similar level of performance and perceived value. And the idea doesn't seem to be that separates are going to be magically better sounding by virtue of being separated by a cable, simply that you can pick and choose amp and preamp for best performance; Michael's argument in this piece is that this integrated unit does as good a job of reproduction as you're going to find had you taken the time to pick and choose.
Anyway, thanks for keeping us honest, and do peruse the rest of the site.
"you can pick and choose amp and preamp for best performance"
No, you can't. There will be no audible difference, unless you buy gear that is poorly engineered.
"thanks for keeping us honest"
The problem isn't that you are dishonest, the problem is that you are incorrect, that what you say contradicts the facts. You don't understand audio, by which I mean audio engineering as a discipline, not a fashion magazine fetish or cult with little or no contact with reality. If you want to live in your delusional 'high end' dream world, fine, but by pretending to an expertise that you do not possess in print, you mislead consumers who trust you to advise them on purchases. If it is not criminal fraud, it is at least morally suspect. The fact that many people( 'journalists', manufacturers and dealers alike ) do it and get away with is not an excuse.
@xjr15
Criminal fraud? Morally suspect? I think that's a little strong.
You might want to reread the third graf of my comment, above, which you'll note, places this unit as something that's likely to be of interest to a particular group of enthusiasts interested in expensive high-end stuff in the first place (and I think Michael's article says about as much in its conclusion). Such gear, by definition, couldn't possibly score above "1" on the value scale if considered next to, say, a HK 990 (just to name an integrated amp of lower cost and similar specifications), or, in fact, considered against the overwhelming majority of the stuff we do review.
But the question is, given that, should we simply never look at any piece of "high-end" gear in context? I'm curious to know what you think.
To continue...
As I said in my previous post, you might want to take a look at the rest of the site; I'm not sure how you can characterize what we do as maintaining some sort of "delusional 'high end' dream world." Occasionally we're interested in listening to things from the high end, of course — aren't you? Or are you completely uninterested in us paying any attention at all to this sort of gear?
Our writer liked this piece based on his own listening — we didn't do any measurement here, so obviously we cannot speak to its objective characteristics. nor are we claiming to have made a comparison with other units of similar spec. Maybe it'd be fun to do an ABX of this against a Harman integrated, along the lines of Matrix Hi-Fi's Behringer/Classé takedown (I have a feeling you'd enjoy it: http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_ppec.htm). Just a question of time and resources, really.
Perhaps I should have considered my word choice a bit better WRT "pick and choose". Maybe I should have said "mix of features and performance YOU WANT." Different people — especially audiophiles — like/need/feel they need all sorts of different things from their gear, maybe somebody wants a pre with a low-output impedance headphone amp; somebody else thinks Class A power stages are better than Class AB; somebody else is fixated on slew rate. Does it "matter"? I don't know, but people do make such decisions.
Since my name was mentioned, I feel obliged to comment.
I'm one of the most measurement-oriented audio journalists in the U.S. I own two speaker measurement systems (#3 on the way) and a headphone measurement system, and have an Audio Precision audio electronics measurement system on long-term loan. I think it's safe to say that most people in the audio industry consider me quite knowledgeable about the technical aspects of the field. Yet I have strongly encouraged the Sound + Vision editors to expand coverage of high-end audio.
Sound + Vision’s job is to cover what's going on in consumer audio and video. Much of the excitement in audio is in the more high-end and esoteric gear. Hi-fi shows focusing on this equipment are popping up all over the U.S., and they're packed with enthusiastic hobbyists. I have visited the homes of countless enthusiasts who have spent 10s to 100s of thousands of dollars on audio gear. The idea that this pursuit is somehow fraudulent or morally suspect is offensive to me, as is the implication that these people are all fools or suckers.
Those who buy high-end audio gear are not seeking the most watts per $. They’re looking for a product that’s special -- something that has impeccable engineering and build quality, features seldom available on mainstream gear, distinctive industrial design, etc. Some high-end gear offers genuine performance advantages. Some doesn’t. Some is actually worse than mainstream gear.
(more after the break….)
To me, the idea that Sound + Vision should not cover high-end audio gear is like saying that Car and Driver should not cover a Mercedes because you can buy a Toyota that does basically the same thing for half the price. We can't pretend that a huge chunk of the audio industry doesn't exist, and we can't dismiss its proponents as fools or charlatans simply because their ethos doesn't jibe with the tastes of some of our readers.
In his review, Mike Trei didn’t state or imply that “separates have some magical power to sound better than an integrated amplifier.” On the contrary, he stated that "Audiophiles tend to deride integrated amps as a compromise solution for those who can’t quite swing the price of a separate preamp and power amp," which is a true statement. The review does not accept that premise, it challenges it.
IMHO, that's been true of Sound + Vision since Mike Mettler took over. We don't blithely accept or reject the preconceptions and suppositions of the high-end audio world. We consider them fairly and carefully. The hi-fi shows are full of people who'd consider $7K a very fair price to pay for an integrated amp designed by Nelson Pass. If you don’t, no problem -- Sound + Vision reviews plenty of gear that’s more to your taste and budget.
Looks like I touched a nerve. I will have more to say.
For now I will say only that if you consider LPs to be worthy of any attention from anybody, either you are guilty of pandering or ignorance or both, no matter how many test instruments you own or how many tests you run or how many magazines have published you. Science is not an exhibit you bring out to impress people, it is a dedication to the truth that you apply consistently. The truth isn't optional or negotiable. If you talk and behave as though it is, you don't understand science or engineering, and you don't understand audio. More later.
Butterworth's screed warrants a point-by-point reply and I intend to post one soon.
To MBerk, you might profitably read, ponder, and digest the following( available online at The Audi Critic webzine ):
Rich, David A. and Aczel, Peter," Consumer and Designer Prejudices in High-End Audio: A New Way to Examine Them", pp.16-24 in The Audio Critic, Issue 24, Spring 1997
As for Butterworth, I doubt whether anything will help him, but, for the benefit of others who may care, stay tuned for my answer to his posts.
Ah, the Audio Critic! Quite the publishing success story!
@xjr15 — I've read the Rich and Aczel piece you mention in the past (for those unfamiliar with the Audio Critic, you can find that here: http://www.biline.ca/audio_critic/critic4.htm), and while I think they do make a lot of valid points about amplifier design parameters, the conclusion of that piece assumes an idealized world in which designers and engineers play clearly defined roles, insulated from the pressures of the market by valiant marketing staffers who have only to trumpet the virtues of the best-designed product in order to capture market share. And we all know that they've been selling spark plugs and gasoline that "make your car go faster" since long before any of us were born.
"while I think they do make a lot of valid points about amplifier design parameters, the conclusion of that piece assumes an idealized world in which designers and engineers play clearly defined roles, insulated from the pressures of the market by valiant marketing staffers who have only to trumpet the virtues of the best-designed product in order to capture market share. And we all know that they've been selling spark plugs and gasoline that "make your car go faster" since long before any of us were born."
They are not trying to make "valid points". They are simply telling the truth about audio and the reality of what works and what makes a good product, and comparing that with the claims, biases, and products of 'high end' audio, and they find a big 'disconnect'. You seem to have missed the point entirely. It is a very good article, very careful, and their argument, if you follow it, is indisputable and devastating to the pretences and claims the 'high end' manufacturers, dealers, and 'journalists' make to rationalize their behavior and beliefs and the high prices they charge. There is no valid engineering or scientific justification for the existence of such an 'industry' and the bogus products it produces and sells to the ignorant and gullible.
More later.
"Ah, the Audio Critic! Quite the publishing success story!"
You could learn a lot from The Audio Critic, if you wanted to understand the subject of audio. But why bother when you can pretend to be an expert without understanding what you are talking about?
Reply To Butterworth Part 1
"I'm one of the most measurement-oriented audio journalists in the U.S. I own two speaker measurement systems (#3 on the way) and a headphone measurement system, and have an Audio Precision audio electronics measurement system on long-term loan."
As I said before, science and engineering are not about owning equipment and making measurements. Instead, it's understanding what the measurements mean and when and why they are necessary. Test equipment is not an end in itself; it exists for a reason: that reason being the understanding of the phenomena being measured.
Reply to Butterworth Part 2
"I think it's safe to say that most people in the audio industry consider me quite knowledgeable about the technical aspects of the field."
Are you sure? "Most people in the audio industry" is a lot of people. I would be willing to bet that there are more than a few people in "the audio industry" who have never heard of you. If you narrow it down to people who write for consumer audio magazines in the US, many, if not most, of whom probably share your ignorance about the pertinent physics and engineering, then you may have a point. But that's precisely my point: where is the science? Do we need another fashion magazine, or do we need a reality check? I would also bet that zero to no members of AES with engineering credentials would "consider [you] quite knowlegeable about the technical aspects of the field". And you next emission shows why they wouldn't:
"I have strongly encouraged the Sound + Vision editors to expand coverage of high-end audio.
A technically knowledgeable person wouldn't "strongly [encourage] the Sound + Vision editors to expand coverage of high-end audio".
Reply to Butterworth Part 3
"Sound + Vision’s job is to cover what's going on in consumer audio and video".
What about helping audio and video consumers get what they pay for? If I spend $7000 on an audio component, I would like to know what I am actually getting for my money. Why should a consumer want to know "what is going on" in Crazy Town -- that is, what the liars and rip-off artistes are doing, unless it's presented to them for what it is: the exchange of real money for vapors: that is, for the 'designer brand' on the front of the box for which you just paid $7000. And it doesn't matter how much money the consumer has or how much of a sacrifice it is for him or her to spend $7000. A rip-off remains a rip-off, whether you can afford it or not.
"Much of the excitement in audio is in the more high-end and esoteric gear".
Excitement? Because something costs more it's more exciting? And where does this 'high end' audio equipment merit being called 'esoteric'. Because there are only a few suckers stupid enough to be conned into buying the things?
Reply to Butterworth Part 4
"Hi-fi shows focusing on this equipment are popping up all over the U.S., and they're packed with enthusiastic hobbyists. I have visited the homes of countless enthusiasts who have spent 10s to 100s of thousands of dollars on audio gear. The idea that this pursuit is somehow fraudulent or morally suspect is offensive to me, as is the implication that these people are all fools or suckers."
I've followed this hobby( consumer audio ) for over thirty years, and have I got news for you: since at least the mid-to late seventies, when Mark Levinson discovered that by marketing and selling audio equipment the same way that 'designer fashion' clothing, jewelry etc., are marketed and sold, a huge untapped market existed for the fleecing. Shows, clubs, and periodicals catering to the credulous audio ignoramus have been a fixture of consumer audio ever since Mister Mark made his mark. The truth may hurt and it may offend, but it remains the truth: these people are indeed all fools and suckers.
Reply to Butterworth Part 5
"Those who buy high-end audio gear are not seeking the most watts per $. "
Nobody in his right mind, given the low cost of excellent mass-produced audio amplifiers( receivers ) which nowadays are totally transparent devices, buys an audio component by dividing the power rating by the price. This isn't the 1950's anymore. The only people dumb enough to buy audio power amps with power ratings low enough to affect the sound of the amp are the intellectually challenged devotees of 'high end'.
"They’re looking for a product that’s special -- something that has impeccable engineering and build quality, features seldom available on mainstream gear, distinctive industrial design, etc."
I agree that they are looking for something special. My question: Are they getting something special? The answer in most cases: No, they are not. And this is almost invariably true in the case of 'high end' audio electronics.
Reply to Butterworth Part 6
Is the 'high end' consumer getting any of the following:
1. "impeccable engineering". No. Sorry, but the engineering of the mass-produced receiver is is almost always superior to the pseudo-scientific 'engineering' of the 'high end' electronics. At best they are sonically indistiguishable.So, they're not getting better engineering.
2. "impeccable build quality". You are buying a metal box with knobs, buttons and connectors sticking out of it, whether it costs $500 or $500,000. Where is the "build quality"? This is a non-issue.
Reply to Butterworth Part 7
Is the 'high end' consumer getting any of the following( continued ):
3. "features seldom available on mainstream gear". Really? The reviewed Pass Labs amp has nothing in the way of "features" that I see, aside from balanced connectors, which, in consumer audio applications, is largely an affectation with no effect on the sound. In fact, a major selling point of most 'high end' electronics is the absence of features, so as not 'sully the purity' of the audio signal. There are exceptions, such as the advanced DSP found in Trinnov and Audio Design Associates 'high end' electronics, but these units, and most units like them, are mainly sold as home theater components through pro-installers or in pro audio applications and are not market directly to consumers. Such products also generally have no 'high end' cache, because they are based on solid engineering and physics and therefore go way over the heads of the 'high end'. "It means nothing, dear, it wasn't even mentioned in the latest issue of High End Audio Up the Kazoo Monthly. Tsk tsk."
4. "distinctive industrial design" See point 2( above ). It's a metal box. Where's the 'industrial design' hiding?
Reply to Butterworth Part 8
"Some high-end gear offers genuine performance advantages. Some doesn’t. Some is actually worse than mainstream gear".
On the contrary, almost no 'high end' audio electronic gear offers any performance advantage over the mass-produced AV receiver.
Reply to Butterworth Part 9
So, here's the deal. You just bought your $7000 'high end' audio amp. You could have bought a receiver for $1000-$2000 or even $500 or less, but you didn't. So exactly what has you extra $6000 bought?
1. It's not the sound. If the $7000 'masterpiece' has a 'sound', then it's either defective or poorly designed or manufactured or both. At best it will sound the same as the receiver you passed up.
2. If it's not the sound, it can't be the engineering.
3. It's not the 'features'. The feature set of the receiver has it all over the high end unit and then some. And unless you are running very long line-level cables, you don't need balanced electronics.
4. It's probably not the 'industrial design'. Almost all audio electronics comes in metal boxes with knobs and buttons. Is one arrangement of knobs or buttons or faceplate finish worth $6000 more than another?
Reply to Butterworth Part 10
So, we finally come to the answer: what exactly has the extra $6000 bought you?
The answer is: the brand name. The nameplate on the front of the box. That's what the $6000 buys you. It may also buy you an place in the org chart of the high end cult that advised you to spend the money and buy the unit. That's all you get.
But here's the problem. Does the reviewer who convinced you to buy the unit tell you to the truth? Does he advise you to buy it because of the brand name, the name plate? Does he tell the reader that the unit sounds the same as a $500 receiver, but that you should buy it because of the name plate, that the name plate is worth the $6500? No, he tells you it SOUNDS BETTER than the $500 receiver. Because nobody, not even the technically illiterate, would pay $6500 for the name plate. So he says it "sounds better" than the receiver. And there's the rub: there is not one iota of evidence that it does sound better, and, in fact, it doesn't and it can't.
Reply to Butterworth Part 11
There is no magical mechanism, no esoteric knowledge, no undiscovered laws of physics or electronics that can explain how it could sound better, and there is no evidence that it does, unless you count the opinion of the technically challenged reviewer as 'evidence'. No technically competent audio engineer would, and neither should you. Save your money and buy the receiver.
Reply to Butterworth Part 12
"To me, the idea that Sound + Vision should not cover high-end audio gear is like saying that Car and Driver should not cover a Mercedes because you can buy a Toyota that does basically the same thing for half the price."
This is a false analogy. A car is a complex product. You can justify paying a lot for car simply by saying you like the way it looks, or you like the look or feel of the interior, or the handling or speed of the car, or its safety features, or its fuel economy or reliability. With regard to the performance of a car, there is a direct correspondence between measurements and performance that is standard and agreed upon by most everybody involved: engineers, manufacturers, journalists, and consumers alike.
In the case of audio electronics, unlike a car, you are buying a metal box that sits on a shelf or stand. The only rational reason for spending more for one such box over another is that one has features you want, like wifi or special DSP, or special decoders for lossless formats, etc., or that one sounds better than another. But since the receiver is going to sound the same as, or better than, the high end box, and the receiver, as it almost invariably does, has a better feature set, there is no reason to spend the extra money to get the more expensive box, whether you could afford to buy the more expensive box or not.
Reply to Butterworth Part 13
"We can't pretend that a huge chunk of the audio industry doesn't exist, and we can't dismiss its proponents as fools or charlatans simply because their ethos doesn't jibe with the tastes of some of our readers."
It is not a matter of taste. It is a matter of fact. If you want to report on the charlatans of the 'high end', then you should report on them as just that : charlatans. None of them have any value to offer a rational consumer.
"In his review, Mike Trei didn’t state or imply that “separates have some magical power to sound better than an integrated amplifier.” On the contrary, he stated that "Audiophiles tend to deride integrated amps as a compromise solution for those who can’t quite swing the price of a separate preamp and power amp," which is a true statement. The review does not accept that premise, it challenges it."
On the contrary, it doesn't challenge anything. His review is headlined with the statement that the reviewed amp "offers sound quality that challenges state-of-the-art separates". This assumes and implies that the best "sound quality" is usually found only in very expensive 'high end'-approved "state-of-the-art" separates; but, he says, and this is the main point of his review, that the single-box amp under review is the exception to the rule.
Reply to Butterworth Part 14
"IMHO, that's been true of Sound + Vision since Mike Mettler took over. We don't blithely accept or reject the preconceptions and suppositions of the high-end audio world. "
On the contrary, as in the above review, the "preconceptions and suppositions of the high-end audio world" seem to gain more and more acceptance and credibility in the pages of S&V with each passing year. I doubt whether Julian Hirsch, who only reviewed expensive gear when there was a credible engineering reason to do so, would approve of the lowering of the editorial standards that has taken place under the current editor-in-chief. And the corruption of engineering( intellectual ) standards continues apace. And you are exhibit A.
"We consider them fairly and carefully."
Charlatans don't deserve to be "considered fairly and carefully". They deserve only to be dismissed and ignored.
Reply to Butterworth Part 15
"The hi-fi shows are full of people who'd consider $7K a very fair price to pay for an integrated amp designed by Nelson Pass. If you don’t, no problem -- Sound + Vision reviews plenty of gear that’s more to your taste and budget."
Again it's not a matter of taste or budget. The fact that people are willing to spend more than they need to to get what they want, the fact that many people belong to audio cults that worship charlatans like Mr. Pass, is irrelevant. The truth is not subject to a majority vote, nor may it be purchased for any amount of money. Correct engineering doesn't necessarily cost more than incorrect engineering, and in the case of 'high end ' audio the opposite generally holds. If you want to lionize an audio 'designer', you should be looking to a real engineer like the late Edgar Villchur, not to fakes like Nelson Pass.
Again, it's not a matter of taste or budget. It's a matter of competence and incompetence, a matter of understanding the subject matter or not. You don't, and you probably never will. In my opinion, your "humble opinions" have much to be humble about.
Reply to Butterworth END
>>It's a matter of competence and incompetence, a matter of understanding the subject matter or not. You don't, and you probably never will.<<
Your insistence that I don't understand the subject of audio seems strange, considering that I have been employed in the industry since 1989, working for several magazines and manufacturing/technology companies, and that I have published thousands of articles on the subject. All those people who have hired me must, by your reckoning, be fools or charlatans themselves.
On the other hand, your CV, to our knowledge, consists of having read a few issues of The Audio Critic.
I never met Peter Aczel, the editor you so admire, even though I saw him at several press events. I never wanted to meet him. He used his magazine as a vehicle to build himself up by attacking others, which I thought was pathetic. Every issue was filled with invective, including entire articles devoted to attacking people he disagreed with (and whose success and influence he obviously envied). But unlike you, he at least had enough personal courage and conviction in his beliefs to sign his name to what he wrote.
I should also point out that the magazine whose practices and philosophies you recommend we adopt never attracted a substantial following, did not appear to generate substantial revenue, and despite its hysterics and bluster did not have significant influence in the industry.
The magazine I edited in the last half of the 1990s, Home Theater, achieved #1 in ad pages among A/V magazines within four years of its founding, and sold for roughly $45 million in 1999.
In comparison, The Audio Critic, measured by the standard media valuation of 10x EBITDA, probably never achieved a value of more than $2 million (I'm being generous) and "survives" now as a website that is updated once or twice a year. It would appear that very few consumers found as much to admire in the publication as you do.
And this is the model you would have Sound+Vision emulate. Sir, I question your wisdom.
To Butterworth: You haven't answered or refuted anything I said. Your only defense is that, in effect, the con is working, people are buying into it, therefore it should continue.
You posted a 15-part reply to my post. I think that most people reading this will come to the conclusion that you are an obsessive belligerent, to describe your condition in the most charitable way I can. I'm not going to waste my time refuting your points. I've made my statement. You've made (and made and made and made) yours. Now you can have the last word. Enjoy!
Something just dawned on me: "And the corruption of engineering( intellectual ) standards continues apace. And you are exhibit A." Why would I be exhibit A? Why demonize me? I almost never review audio electronics for S+V. I review speakers and headphones. You must have some sort of grudge against me.
Your tone and arguments are sadly familiar, too. I think I know who you are. Thanks for the gig, dude!
To Mr. Butterworth:
I don't have anything against you personally other than the fact that you showed that you are not competent to review audio equipment, but,as you noted, there are quite a few other 'journalists' in the same boat. I might have remained innocent of your credentials had you not laid them out in full view, even though I had never referred to you in my original post.
My very short original post stated simply that people who review audio equipment for a living should know what they are talking about. If anybody falsely implies that spending $7,000 on a very basic( no special DSP included ) integrated amp is a wise purchase, then they are wrong. They are misleading the innocent, and they need to be called out. You made yourself into a target with your replies, even though you were not even the reviewer of the component in question.
In my original post, I merely said what anybody with a conscience would say if they saw a robbery in progress. The fact that you chose to rush to the defense of the robber, and then set yourself up for target practice by spewing out 2 long posts full of patently false 'high end' baloney is not my fault.
If anything I posted here helps JUST ONE consumer avoid spending thousands of his or her hard-earned dollars on some overpriced 'high end' box of junk, then I will be satisfied. And who knows? Maybe even a 'high end ' hack or two might be helped to see the light.
The complete failure of the publications and journalists who share your viewpoint, and the continuing success of those whom you attempt to ridicule, suggests that your absolutist views do not resonate with the vast majority of audio enthusiasts and manufacturers.
I've been attacked a few times in my career by people promoting views similar to yours. In every case, they were, like you, insulting, belligerent, and unwilling to grant even 1 inch of ground in an argument. (Perhaps not surprisingly, all currently reside in the "Where Are They Now File.") That's why I'm not going to address your statements. You're not looking to discuss anything. You will not be pleased unless I adopt your views 100%, without question.
My views are the result of 20+ years of experience in audio, including more (and more variety of) product testing experience than anyone else I know. I'm not going to ignore my experience to please someone whose expertise is not established and who doesn't even have the courage to identify himself.
Sorry, but my "absolutist" views do, in fact, represent a larger market than the views of the tweako cultists. And the only thing 'absolutist' about 'my view' is that I absolutely refuse to give any credibility to pseudo-science masquerading as real science. I insist on the accountability and repeatability in tests of audio( or any other ) equipment. There are some things that cannot and should not be subject to compromise. Anybody who has done any rigorous or experimental or engineering work( as I have ) knows what I mean: nature is absolutely uncompromising: if you expect A, but in reality you get B instead, you have to admit your error and rethink your assumptions. There is no place to hide, and no amount of fudging or rationalization will turn the B result into an A result. And if you find the facts to be 'insulting' or 'offensive' or 'absolutist', too bad.
Stereo Review and Sound & Vision( under the editorship of Bob Ankosko ) were very successful, and they were scientifically credible and scrupulously so. I recall in one editorial that, in response to a question from a reader why very expensive, featureless 'high end' electronics were never( or seldom ) tested by S&V, the editor held that unless the expensive gear could be shown to be audibly distinguishable from mass-marketed audio gear under level-matched, double-blind testing, that the gear was not worthy of any space in S&V. This is an editor with intellectual and professional integrity.
You and your ilk, on the other hand, are committed to the religion of 'high end' audio, including the belief that you unaccountably have superior hearing ability and higher tastes than the rest of us mere mortals, and that you belong to an elite "in group" that sets you apart from the rest of us. Only one problem with that: science and engineering not only don't confirm your religious beliefs, they are absolutely inconsistent with them.
So my posted replies to you were not for your benefit. My posts were instead for your readers, especially for readers who are new to the hobby of audio. They deserve the simple, honest truth, but they don't get it from the likes of you. And that's a shame, and the shame is all yours.
Here's another example of a principled, honest, engineering-savvy consumer-audio journalist: http://www.nousaine.com/
Since xjr15 seems to be an a$$ and has an opinion on *everything* and how it should be done I thought I'd add my $0.02. He's up to about $10000000000 in preaching so far...
I've been reading stereo magazines since the late 1970s and I find them to be a useful starting point in the shopping and listening process. No more. No less. I like Julian Hirsch's assertions that 18 gauge ripcord makes great speaker cable. What he doesn't tell you is that the terminations oxidize every few months/years and they need regular 'pruning' He also doesn't tell you that some cables really do sound different because as imperfect conductors, they have resistance and capacitance so they *can* have character. The differences can be small...true.
WRT components, scientific measurements can only go so far. I've read of components with great specs that in a more 'scientific' approach should be amazing, yet they are not. At the end of the day you have to *listen* and decide if you like the sound. I play several instruments. I've listened to analog versus digital recordings and technologies. I listen to different guitar amps (sold state and tube), plugins, analog and digital media.
I've heard $100000 systems that should like crap and $10000 systems that are pure gold. I demo CDs / originals / remasters / SACDs / DVD-A / and LPs of all kinds and qualities of pressings. Differences can be negligible or huge.
At the end of the day you have to LISTEN. If you hear a difference, it is up to you to decide if it is worth paying for. If you've ever walked into a room and listened to a Leben integrated and have been blown away and immediately wanted to know - what the hell is that making that beautiful music? You know what I mean.
I have $5K speakers, being driven by a $500 old beat up JVC integrated amp that I love. I'm not a music snob by any means - but if could I'd plunk down the cash for a Leben. It's case-by-case
Stop thinking you know everything. Some of these critic sites are OCD jerks who keep repeating science like a mantra. Measurements are almost meaningless. You have to look at quality, dealer network, service, price point (do you hear enough to justify the price), features etc...
REPLY PART 1
I don't preach. All I do is tell the simple truth. And I am not surprised or bothered by infantile tantrums such as yours in the above two posts.
Unlike the high-end shamans and pontiffs, I don't claim to have any special perceptual or reasoning ability; I am willing to submit anything I say to rigorous testing and to the scrutiny of the real experts, most of whom have engineering degrees in audio and physics.
Your writing, on the other hand, is sloppy and slobbish and so is your 'thinking'. Your posts typify the loose 'thinking' of the slob snob that keeps high-end consumer audio alive. You are a prime example of the target market that is so skillfully cultivated and manipulated by the high-end audio manufacturers and their 'journalist' fellow travelers.
You "have been reading stereo magazines since the late 1970s" but have done precious little thinking in all of that time. It's a shame, and I wish I could help you.
And though you are probably too willfully ignorant to benefit from anything I could tell you, I will give it a shot anyway, and try to keep the discussion simple.
REPLY PART 2
Let's compare consumer audio to consumer video. Are there any 'golden-eyed videophiles' with perceptions and beliefs that do not square with plain old ordinary physics and engineering? Does anybody claim to see a video defect or artifact that cannot be measured or explained using basic physics? Why is that so? Why is audio seemingly (according the snake-oil salesmen of the high-end) so stubbornly resistant to scientific and engineering progress, whereas, in every other field you care to name, science and engineering works so well to explain any empirical fact or observation and to advance the subject?
The crux of the problem is that, in audio, unlike video, we have to rely on memory to compare A with B. And that stubborn and indubitable fact is why stringent controls are needed in listening tests of audio equipment. Because, as anyone with experience in a court of law will tell you, eyewitness testimony (which also relies on memory) is notoriously unreliable.
So, without proper controls, we could argue endlessly and inconclusively for eons about the sound of A vs. the sound of B.
REPLY PART 3
So, here is my advice to you (and to anyone reading this who is similarly inclined): get your hands on an ABX box and test out empirically some of your beliefs. The hard truth that you discover may initially cause you a sleepless night or two, but you may be surprised at how liberating the truth can be. Following your ABX experience, you will have a choice: you can continue with your religion and reject, or somehow rationalize, with great difficulty, the facts; or you can, with a little thinking and reflection, reconsider and reject the mountains of hogwash the high-end 'authorities' are selling you and focus instead on what is really important: the sound and that which actually affects the sound. The high-end dullards will tell you that they believe only what they hear, but they are, to paraphrase George Santayana, much better at believing than they are at hearing.
And to those who review audio equipment for a living, including Butterworth, Trei, and the others who now write for Sound & Vision or other consumer audio journals. Butterworth claims, and I have no reason to doubt him, that he makes and publishes many measurements on the audio and video equipment that he and the others review, and some of the measurements are elaborate and require expensive equipment. But there is one audio measurement that he and the others avoid like the plague, the measurement that dare not speak its name in the inner circles of audio dilettantes everywhere: the level-matched double-blind ABX listening test. Surely Sound & Vision could afford one or two of these simple devices. No other device, to my knowledge, has the power to expose error and prejudice like this one, and it is comparatively inexpensive and simple to use, to boot. In fact, the failure to do any such ABX testing amounts to an admission of incompetence of the technical staff. What are you afraid of, guys? What's the harm in buying one and trying one? If you are as perceptive and knowledgeable as you claim to be, this is your chance to demonstrate your golden ears to the world. In fact, there used to be a magazine called 'Sound & Vision' published in Canada in the 1980s and 1990s that did level-matched double-blind tests of loudspeakers, for gosh sakes, which goes way beyond the capabilities of a little ABX comparator. If they could do it, why can't you?