Tacky blue gauges and a corny typeface?
In the day McIntosh was a luxury brand, there wasn’t really a “high end”, per se. They made high quality products as opposed to the high quality sound products of the high end. So it may be a matter of semantics as to who was first, but PS Audio was the first “high end” company to do an integrated, I still have an Elite, though it hasn’t worked for years.
I believe pmotz nailed it. Thanks.
No disrespect, but find it sad that some find it necessary to subtly put down other highly respected manufacturers. In the 1950’s and 60’s McIntosh and Marantz were the “high end” of readily available consumer audio electronics. If one googles “Is McIntosh Labs a ‘high end’ audio manufacturer” you’ll find many references to it as “high end”.
Pmotz, maybe you should read “The History of High End Audio” written by Steve Stone in 2011. If you would rather not, here is a short snippet;
“Enthusiasts and collectors would argue that McIntosh, Marantz, Scott, Fisher, AR, KLH, and Dyna are all the models for later high-end companies, both in what to do, and in their various demises, what not to do. Companies such as Marantz and McIntosh prove that high-end audio companies can evolve but still stay true to their core mission and customers.”
Elk, “Tacky blue gauges and a corny typeface?” Maybe it’s not your cup of tea, but I can’t imagine Jeff Rowland putting down on PS Audio for not milling their chassis’ out of solid billets of aluminum or the plastic blue power button on the front panel.
It may be just a matter of semantics, but simple words can have a powerful psychological effect.
Paul, this might be a good topic for your daily blog, “What makes an audio company High End?”
DenisD said Elk, "Tacky blue gauges and a corny typeface?" Maybe it's not your cup of tea, but I can't imagine Jeff Rowland putting down on PS Audio . . .I have no idea what Jeff Rowland thinks.
And you are free to like, or even adore, tacky blue gauges and the corny font McIntosh uses.
So where does B&O rate?
Proud to say that I have an Elite + that I use in my upstairs office system… bought a few years back from someone here in the forums. Still works and sounds great! My main system, until I get the new PSA pre and hopefully at some point the BHP power amp too, is based around DS DAC and a Hegel H160. Sonically this combination sets the bar awfully high, IMHO. But for the big rig I still prefer separates, if only for reasons of upgradeability.
Agreed that none should put down others - and my definition of a high end company is probably different than others. For example, I do not consider McIntosh high end, never have. But having said that I don’t mean it to be a slight or a put down - I think it used to be a fine company with great goals and the maker of well built products with heart and soul. They really cared about building a culture, they were proud of the equipment they produced and rightfully so. That doesn’t make them high end.
It’s a good question, what is high end. Maybe I’ll give it some thought and try and define it, though one man’s definition isn’t definitive for everyone.
DenisD, not trying to subtly put down McIntosh or any other brand. The “semantics” I refer to is the “high end” did not “exist” until the early 70’s (give or take) when it was defined by, first J. Gordon Holt then Harry Pearson. I’m also not going to contradict Steven Stone, he knows a lot more about this than I, but I also don’t think he is THE arbiter of this discussion, he just supports your opinion. And please, do not use Googling as a source for your arguement, that is not an arbiter of anything except silliness. By the way, I have owned several vintage McIntosh products; C22 and C28 preamps, MC30 and MC240 amps, and MR67 and MR71 tuners. Only the tuners were what I would call high end sound products, the others were flawed, though good for their time. I’ll also add that many folks consider new McIntosh products as very competitive in the high end, even Harry Pearson liked one of their amps.
Now, let’s get this discussion back on track …
I dunno, seems like “high end,” to me, started when Phase Linear came out with their amp. Man, I drooled over that thing, but being a college kid I couldn’t afford it.
–SSW
Paul and Pmotz, well said. I respect you opinions even if I don’t completely agree with them. I think this is a topic worth discussing in a civil manner without the snide remarks like, “And you are free to like, or even adore, tacky blue gauges and the corny font McIntosh uses.” As a disclaimer, I haven’t owned another McIntosh product since trading in the MA5100 in 1971 for separates. I was a member of the audio industry in the 1990’s and early 2000’s and exhibited with Jeff Rowland, John Dunlavy, and John Ulrich among other at CES’s, and was the interface with Dr. Robert Greene, Steven Stone, and Thomas O. Miiller when they reviewed our product. During the many days and hours I spent with these individuals I never heard them disrespect another manufacturer’s products.
My main system is PS Audio based now and I’ve spent over $30k on PS Audio components in the last two years. At the moment I feel this is pretty close to, if not, the “state of the art”. IMHO, PS Audio is a “high end” manufacturer, but “high end” is a loosely defined term and it would be nice if we could agree on a set of parameters to identify other “high end” manufacturers.
Respectfully,
Denis
Streets Still Works said I dunno, seems like "high end," to me, started when Phase Linear came out with their amp. Man, I drooled over that thing, but being a college kid I couldn't afford it.–SSW
Some OT nostalgy;
I owned the Phase Linear 400 back then.
I remember I used to brag about that the KW meter in my house peaked like a VU meter when driving my speakers, not having a clue that this was caused by the underrated capacity of its PS. Its like bragging about your calculator having two IC’s opposed to another one having only one!
I replaced it with a 50W class A amp which in fact appeared a lot more powerful.
What I liked with the PL400 was that I fried my tweeter twice on my 50W rated speaker when using a 30W amp, but when replacing it with a 400W amp and playing painsteakingly loud for long periods I had no problems. Its all about clean power as long as you don’t overdrive the element.
DenisD said . . . without the snide remarks like, "And you are free to like, or even adore, tacky blue gauges and the corny font McIntosh uses."I am sorry this offended you. I expressed an opinion which you called out, and I merely indicated you are free to opine otherwise. I am a bit bemused however as your comment speculating about Jeff Rowland and PS audio was in the same vein. The delight of irony in all its forms.
I am not easily offended and on occasion overlook that others can be highly sensitive and quick to perceive insult. If you like or impressed with McIntosh that’s great. I am not similarly impressed. As always, YMMV.
Please also note I do not, and never have, speak for PS Audio. I am a mere lackey with a title.
How to specifically define “high end” is an intriguing quandary. I enjoyed John Dunlavy, whom you mention, and continue to enjoy a pair of his speakers. They are unquestionably high end.
And also commonly used in excellent studios, such as Sony’s. Which, for many audiophiles, disqualifies them; equipment used by professionals is often looked down upon as deficient. Which again begs the question, what exactly is high end?
Elk,
Well I guess we have some common ground. I have four pair of Dunlavy speakers; I’s, III’s, IV’s, and V’s. Previous to these I had a pair of Duntech Sovereigns and PCL-5’s with IB-20 Thor subwoofers. AFAIK, John’s designs are yet unequaled in accuracy of reproduction. Their main problems arose from room interactions, but in a properly designed and damped room they can create a remarkably realistic soundfield. They are unquestionably “high end” yet many people wrote them off for not having exotic (i.e expensive) drivers and complex crossovers.
As to my comments about McIntosh, high end or not, I was only referring to the products produced in the 50’s and 60’s, not their later offerings of which I am not familiar. As for my comment about Jeff Rowland, I was merely trying to make the point that a professional wouldn’t openly criticize another manufacturer’s product for something as superficial as cosmetics. Jeff is a gentle giant and went so far as to help me develop a professional relationship with his Japan distributor, Sheen Uchida. Jeff is a true gentleman.
“Duntech Sovereigns and PCL-5’s with IB-20 Thor subwoofers”
I remember these, too! Cheez we’re all getting old!
“Jeff is a true gentleman”
I concur. Spoken with him many times over the years at various shows.
+1 Jeff is great to talk to.
I also remember the Duntech’s, excellent speakers.
John tested every pair of his speakers and would send you his test results upon request. I, of course, immediately called and asked.
I think one of the secrets to the superb sound of his speakers is the first order crossovers.
DenisD said As for my comment about Jeff Rowland, I was merely trying to make the point that a professional wouldn't openly criticize another manufacturer's product for something as superficial as cosmetics.I'm not an industry professional so for me it is fair game. It is a minor point of course, but I find the glowing blue tiresome. But I have also publicly criticized PS Audio's use of large blue buttons and the screens on the PWT, DACs and Power Plants.
Gentlemen, thank you for a good discussion. Apparently we inadvertently opened a lively discussion in Paul’s morning post. The term “high end” is so loosely defined that it means something different to everyone and finding a consensus of opinion looks to be impossible. To some it means SOTA, to others “high quality”, and to others “Elitist”. To me it means high quality equipment that in the moment gives the most accurate reproduction of the original sound signal possible. Unfortunately true accuracy of reproduction is a very elusive target with so many variables, especially the acoustic environment.
Again, thank you. I haven’t really given much thought to how others perceive our passion for sound reproduction and the systems used to create it since I moved from Denver six years ago. I haven’t run into many audiophiles in Dundee, IL. and these forums have become my surrogate.
Respectfully,
Denis
DenisD said To me it means high quality equipment that in the moment gives the most accurate reproduction of the original sound signal possible.A reasonable definition, but wouldn't this limit the high end to the present state of the art at any point in time? This is a small number of typically exceedingly expensive bits of kit.
This does create a conundrum. I probably should have said; a manufacturer whose mission is to create products which will provide, at a given cost, as close as possible, the most accurate reproduction of the original sound signal possible with the latest tools and technology available.
These companies push the boundaries and innovate by putting their resources into cutting edge research and development and refining existing technology instead of resting on their laurels and relying on older time-tested designs. This doesn’t necessarily mean cost-no-object but at given cost points to reach as close to the goal as possible. This is a constantly moving target, but a manufacturer who adapts to and implements meaningful advances in technology, in my opinion, is high end. PS Audio and (R.I.P) Dunlavy Audio Labs are two examples that I believe fit the definition.
Even this definition seem woefully inadequate.
I find this an excellent definition.
I like a definition which includes the Tivoli Audio Model One radio. Simple, inexpensive, wonderfully musical and designed to be so.
I wasn’t aware of the Tivoli radio. Googled it and it immediately reminded me of the KLH radio produced in the 60’s. Then I took a closer look and saw that it says Henry Kloss on the faceplate. One of my early audio purchases was a KLH model 11 portable stereo when I was in High School, and the first pair of commercially manufactured speakers I bought were the KLH model 12’s in '68.