The Best Stereo System I've Ever Heard
The Best Stereo System I’ve Ever Heard
Robert Harley
I’ve heard quite a number of very ambitious playback systems over the years, but none as good as the system I experienced last week in Rockport, Maine. I was visiting the factory (actually, it’s more like a craft shop) of loudspeaker manufacturer Rockport Technologies and spent about two hours with their top-of-the-line Arrakis loudspeaker. Rockport founder Andy Payor also took me through the other speakers in the line, and explained to me the design and construction techniques behind his loudspeakers.
The $165,000 Arrakis is a four-way system employing two side-firing 15" woofers, two 8" upper-bass drivers, two 5.25" midrange drivers, and a dome tweeter. All the drivers except the tweeter use Rockport’s proprietary cone technology which feature proprietary, variable-section thickness cones formed from skins of carbon fiber that sandwich a Rohacell core.
.jpg "Rockport founder Andy Payor with the carbon-fiber diaphragm from the Arrakis")
The enclosure is unique in high-end audio; it is made from inner and outer molded composite shells with the center filled with a custom epoxy. The enclosure is as much as 6" thick at certain points. The baffle is made the same way, but with a structural carbon-fiber outer structure. By laminating and casting composite materials this way the enclosure can have any shape, including compound curvatures that are impossible to achieve any other way. Moreover, the enclosure is made from only two pieces; the baffle and the main cabinet comprising the enclosure’s five other sides. The result is a solid, inert platform for the drivers that doesn’t introduce diffraction. Internal wiring is from Transparent Audio.
This particular system was tri-amped with six channels of Gryphon amplification (a pair of Coliseum Solo monoblocks and two Antillion stereo units) and an outboard crossover. This active portion of the system eliminates from the amplifier/driver interface the capacitors and inductors of passive crossovers (the system used a passive crossover between the midrange and tweeter). The source was either Rockport’s legendary Sirius III turntable with a Dynavector XV-1s cartridge going into a Gryphon Legato phonostage, or the Blue Smoke music server playing high-res and standard-res files through an MSB Platinum DAC. The preamp was a Gryphon Sonata Allegro. Interconnects and loudspeaker cables were Transparent Audio Reference MM2. Some credit for the system’s performance goes to the large, purpose-built listening room.
The Arrakis was stunning in every way—tonally, spatially, dynamically, and in resolution. What struck me is that the design is so beautifully balanced, with no shortcomings in any area. Every sonic-performance criterion that contributes to the musical experience was fully realized.
The main point of departure from other great loudspeakers is that the Arrakis had absolutely no discernable personality of its own. Many loudspeakers disappear into the soundstage, but the Arrakis took the concept of “disappearing” to another level by seemingly removing itself tonally as well as spatially from the playback system. The Arrakis simply didn’t sound like drivers reproducing music, but rather sounded like music itself. The tonal colorations were so low as to be imperceptible. Similarly, the Arrakis reproduced low-level detail with stunning realism; it was hard to believe that dynamic drivers were capable of such electrostatic-like delicacy. There’s a passage midway in Rachmaninoff’s Symphonic Dance No. 3 in which the string players, unaccompanied, make a barely audible scraping sound with their bows across the strings. The sound, which isn’t a musical pitch at first, gradually emerges from total silence and slowly becomes recognizable. The Arrakis resolved the extremely low-level dynamics of this passage right down into the silence. Many loudspeakers have a “step-function” in this passage; the lowest-level sounds are absent and then suddenly appear rather than ramping up in volume. Moreover, the Arrakis beautifully revealed the mechanism by which the sound was created, a testament to the speaker’s resolution of very low-level signals.
The Arrakis is a very “big”-sounding speaker, spatially and dynamically. The soundstage not only had tremendous depth, but also stunning resolution of the spatial relationships between instruments, and between instruments and the surrounding acoustic. Dynamically, the Arrakis had an amazingly wide envelope, reproducing super-fine detail to massive crescendos along an unbroken continuum. This speaker was completely and totally unruffled by any combination of musical complexity and high playback level. It possessed the same sense of ease and composure during the most demanding fortissimos as during the quietest passages. The Arrakis was a paradox, possessing a gentle and finely filigreed manner at one end of the dynamic scale, coupled with a sense of power, slam, and massive impact at the other end.
The bass deserves special mention; it had a weight and authority without sounding thick, bloated, or smeared. Despite the sense of heft, the bass had a wonderful agility, pitch definition, and tunefulness that infused music with a lively and upbeat flow. Listening to the Reference Recordings high-res HRx files (176.4kHz/24-bit) of Dick Hyman playing solo piano, it struck me that I’d never heard the lower registers of piano reproduced with such realistic weight, timbre, dynamics, and authority. In fact, I’ve never heard a piano reproduced with such realism, period.
The result was the closest I’ve ever come to the playback system seemingly vanishing, leaving only the musical expression. The Arrakis is without question a landmark achievement.
Postscript: Many of the technologies in the Arrakis are found in Rockport’s less expensive products. In fact, the $94.5k Altair can be thought of as half an Arrakis, with one set of drivers rather than the Arrakis’ mirror-imaged pairs of drivers per enclosure. Both use identical drivers, crossover parts, cabinet construction (although the Altair’s baffle is glass fiber composite rather then carbon fiber). In a brief listen, the Altair sounded superb, as did the $27.5k Ankaa.
Comments
Very impressive, the Arrakis is a great engineering accomplishment.
Robert,
So you are syaing that this is better than the Wilson Alexandria X-2 with all the Spectral and MIT you had in your home? You are also saying that this is better than the Systems you raved about at CES?
The best is becoming a very meaningless word without clarification
I dont like to read comments from people who are in the hifi buisness. They always seem to have their own particular barrow to push. This may or may not be true in the case of Elliot Goldman but I always take their comments with a grain of salt.
ur a dumbass
To: Elliot Goldman cc: Robert Harley
Elliot,
It's clear that you have put your foot in it and are incapable of accepting the irrefutable truth that there are high-end (or other-end) audio systems out there that your tin-ears haven't heard. I wouldn't trust you to take my dog for a walk, let alone accept your recommendation on anything costing more than a buck-fifty.
Robert,
Don't stop pursuing 'the best'. In a world filled with mediocrity peddled by shameless charlatans it's refreshing to find an individual prepared to announce his convictions. Bravo!
Elliott--why the accusatory tone? He's saying it's the best he's heard, period, and made some allowance for the design of the room. What's mysterious about that? Best is always going to be a moving target, anyway. That's why new audio equipment keeps getting written about. And sold.
Robert- Or is it just the best system in that unusually large and apparent state of the art listening room ( in which you have heard no other previously reviewed or competing systems or speakers including the Alexandria's ) along with a host of other gear that I suspect you have not heard in a familiar room or system ?
Seems to me that given that the room itself can arguably be 25-75% of the sound you hear - just how meaningful is this post. Even though you acknowledge "some credit" to the room ( but you can't possibly assess how much credit is due) - Does it not do a disservice to your review process and diminish your own reviews of competing products-which is an inherently more controlled process at least as to environment and to a lesser extent as to the associated equipment. Just compare and contrast JV's rather negative comments on the BIG MBL system when he first heard it at a show versus his rave review when heard at home. Is it only a positive experience , and not a negative one ala JV, in an unknown environment with unknown ancillaries that allows one to reach a significant and firm conclusion as to the overall performance of one part of many?
I realize that you are commenting on the sound you heard in Maine- but I am not sure that these comments arising from forays and adventures to manufacturers controlled environs don't ultimately undermine your own reviews , your review process, and negatively effect the credibilty of your published reviews.
I would have less issue if you merely reported on the overall sound - although - I don't favor these manufacturers trips without an actual product review BEFORE such hobnobbing occurs- but you concluded " The Arrakis is without question a landmark achievement." So is the Arrakis review completed OR
Will you be reviewing the Arrakis at your home so we can have a meaningful comparison to the X-2 and other products from Magico?
On another note - perhaps this is a better way- if all the manufacturers just set up systems all you reviewers could go for a listen and then we could have multiple opinions from different reviewers on the same equipment and systems- all in the same room- something that TAS seems unable or wont to do.
The interaction of the room and it's effect on sound quality is one of the most critical aspects of sound reproduction. When I moved my system from a brick built house to a timber frame (similar to US houses) the sound changed beyond recogntion. For example the bass from my Horning Agathons which was originally very powerful was considerably lessened in the new environment.
While reviews of equipment still have validity they can never be interpretted as the sound you will get in your own set of circumstances. I guess though that speakers that have a very high sensitivity to a low sound floor will also exhibit the same anywhere. But highly subjective opinions which are also very environment sensitive such as the "best speakers ever" should be taken with a pinch of salt.
The greatest difficult all audiophiles face is getting to audition equipment in their own rooms. Most of this stuff is sold hundreds if not thousands of miles away so a quick blast with no sale guaranteed is rarely if at all possible. What to do!
...just setting up a standard system for all reviewers to listen to is also not the answer. Often times a reviewer needs plenty of time to accertain the sound as well as giving more than one amp or source component a chance so that the best system synergy can be found. In the end all reviewers are listening to the end product of a system, not just one component. If the sound is not optimized to show the full potential of the component and also pass on any other useful systemic information to the public, then the reviewer is not doing his job. That was one of the great contributions of Roy Gregory to the reviewing profession. Shame he has now moved on.
Be it a cup, a pinch or a grain of salt which is taken, subjective commentaries on audio systems which maintain such a remote percentile of the audio industry at large, is little more than fantastic or educational. Nothing more. Perhaps time well wasted in keeping up one’s dreamscape. The ‘best’ accolade will always argue for itself its own inherent value with those entries more closely associated with them. Be they real or other, worldly, in price and or concept, doesn’t matter. It’s neither the setting, gear, or information being rendered that is arguable, it’s the accolade itself. In this instance a proclamation of, “the best I’ve heard” says it all and remains self supportive. On that day, in that room, at that time… With those ears some judgment was delivered. A singular personal account of such an experience, even from one whose professional efforts are to recount levels of performance, are unimpeachable. Opinions always are. A truer, factual comparative study would reveal most assuredly, however the impact of a single one off experience carries merely its own value. Consequently, in some other environment, outfitted similarly and with likewise equipment, yet another unrelated but still viable assessment will be obtained. Best, perhaps will remain the most ambiguous integer in the whole of our life experiences... Best, also is as noteworthy and eye-catching a term as can be had with economy. I think such forays into the upper percentile of fine audio and video accounts should simply be made into form letters and sent out to Fortune 500 members alone… for few more than they will have the means to snare such finery in any case. Fewer still will have the desire. My point here being, “So what?” by all practical means who will ever emulate to any exactitude, this same presentation in their own home. It’s merely texture and fluff… candy and gloss, and aside from the personal attitude presented in the commentary a remarkably unique outing. I’ll never doubt the word ‘best’ when I hear it said just its practicality and possible impact on me… never the one issuing it. For when the final verdict is levied it will be our own eyes, ears, and financial fortitude which defines just what is indeed ‘best’, and not our friends, relatives, sales people or journalists.. A better querry might well have been, “Best? By how much?”
"What to do?", you ask. I've approached it this way... I obtained a pair of (room-decoupled) reference headphones and took my time to get to adjust to it's colour - initially it appeared too warm. Over time I've realised how much I had been listening to coloured music previously! My room system now has to match that! I used The Golden Number to position myself in my listening room so my head is positioned where the room resonances are minimal; that position is used by my Audessy Multi EQ which further tightened driver time-signatures and frequency response issues. The result, a smooth, extended sound that clearly differentiates between poor, good and excellent sources. The in-room sound (with excellent recordings)? Sublime! But the headphones? They still beat every room system I've heard - including mine - hands-down! Enjoy. Cheers, skris88 (System: FLAC digital music files with digital output onto the DAC in the Denon AVR-2809 receiver playing on Sennheiser HD-600s headphones or to a pair of Magneplanar MMGs crossed over at 50Hz with a JBL LS120P powered sub-woofer.)
Dear Jacob,
THe absolute sound has had more bests in the last two years than T.O. has had press conferences.
Please tell me which of the bests are we to understand. The best in Show, the best at RMAF, CES, blah blah balh
I mean no disrespect to Mr. Payor's company since I have no heard his achievement just that the review process has become incredibly flawed with "absolutely" no rhyme, reason, or in fact meaning the way the publication is going about it.
The number of bests has grown to include just about every expensive speaker to come down the road with no comparisons or even critical comments. This process has now become meaningless since on the cover of every magazine for the last two years there is another best speaker. IMHO TAS is doing a miserable job. If you say you enjoyed something that is one thing then take it home review it under controlled conditions and compare it to what you praised so highly less than 6 months ago.
I see this as a music lover/ audiophile enthusiasm over a great system that gave much enjoyment in that specific room and nothing else. I see no harm in this really.
It is not a formal review and everybody can (if they will) understand that this is a visit to a manufacturer. I am sure that Robert and the other reviewers will visit other manufacturers as well when they get invitied. This time it was Rockport, the next time someone else. And one can hardly blame anybody for having a great listening room that does justice to the products on display (their own!).
This said; There have been too many "Worlds best" speakers over the last few months in TAS. We read about a new worlds best in almost every issue and maybe you (TAS) should be a little bit more careful. This is mainly an issue with speakers, we do not get a worlds best CD player or amp in every issue and thank God for that. What is "The worlds best" anyway???
JP
I dont either then just say you enjoyed instead of making a "BEST" of statement.
This policy of RH, JV and others is in my opinion just plain foolish.
Make a list of all the best speakers the last two years we are over 10 and no comparisons. Everything is great, everyone gets a participation trophy and no one looses. Let me go puke!
Dear Elliot,
Thanks for responding. I have a better sense of your objection, which seems to be that TAS, in particular among stereo magazines, has been indiscriminate and promiscuous in attaching the term "best" to various systems and pieces of equipment, thereby creating a miasma of fog around what truly constitutes superiority.
I guess I'm not quite as stringent in applying the term as you may be because of the somewhat amorphous nature of grading, or judging, audio systems since it's an inherently subjective act. Yes, yes, I know that you can argue that it can, and should, be measured against an absolute, but I guess my own take is that if, at this particular moment, the Rockport is the best that Robert has heard--and I don't doubt that it is--then I think it's too his credit rather than the reverse that he would say so publicly. Would you rather have him suppress his findings, adhering dogmatically to the position that what he himself has at home is the ne plus ultra of audio systems, and that's the long and short of it? I'd rather have an editor with an open, quizzical, and flexible approach, coupled with a good dose of genuine excitement and enthusiasm for new audio products, which, I believe, Robert has. Who among us, Elliot, isn't searching for that something that will take us one step closer to the real thing?
Elliott, what the ..... is it with you............you seem to be sitting at your store just waitng to pounce on TAS whenever these guys make their reports....and what is worst your tirades destroys the forums ability to spend time on the product itself.....over and over again.....you just expressed your enthusiastic ranting about some dcs setup at your store.it blew you away.i think those were your words......listen man this technology field is not motionless.its constantly in motion...and especially in speaker building the next best is always around the corner.......so yes.do ask foir a formal review...............but god dammit man...stop taking these threads to the wrong F.......... dimension everytime they come out man..........i'm getting tired of your shit...............enjoy and learn....can't you just do that sometimes.
as for RH..i understand your enthusiasm man..cause when i heard this speaker in Boston.if i had the cash on hand i would have bought it..that's how good that shit sounded and that's after listening to M5, etc
I dont doubt Robert Harley or question his integrity at all. However, I have lost count of the number of 'best sounds ever heard' coming from TAS over the last several years. It wasn't all that long ago that Jonathan Valin thought the Rockport Hyperion the best speaker he had heard. I think it displaced the Kharma Exquisite and was soon itself displaced by some other mega buck loudspeaker. No big deal to me but some times I wonder just how real these comments are.
I suppose in most instances it is a matter of taste. When Robert Harley boldly declared the Cambridge Audio (840?) CD player the best CD player under $5K (I think) I dont think too many people who had a listen would agree. I for one would not rate it as highly as,say, the Meridian G08 by a long shot. Over all, though, I think its all good to get TAS's view but sometimes I laugh when I read another 'best sound I have ever heard'!
Wow, all this animosity! JFC, the poor guy hears a kickass system, diligently credits ALL the pieces that made it so, and has to take a bunch of
whining? Open up a Car and Driver, lots of top ten and "best" proclamations. Guess what?-products improve and what was best last month ain't
the best this month. Move on, quit whining like little kids, and enjoy the opportunity to sample some exotic stuff vicariously.
And one big final point to all those who claim TAS is somehow beholden to manufacturers, I didn't see any Rockport or Gryphon ads lately.
Kudos to RH for a fun read!
My comments are an observation only and and not meant as a whing. I say again,''its all good"!
I think the word "Best" rubs people the wrong way, specially those who are in search of the Greatest/Best product in existance or those who want to purchase things that are the best in the world. Technology like computers, TV's and also audio systems grow at tremendous speeds with new products getting shot into the market faster than we can keep track. I think its a good thing! If RH and others could use some other word to describe the top teir products it would be taken better by many but that wouldn't really show the enthusiasm of how good the product is, specially relative to the other top products out there. I totally agree that scientifically the tests that the reviewrs do are not in controlled environments specially this one above. And for those who are too strict on that can wait or choose a system that have been compared by a reviewer in their controlled room/system. Better yet go audition it yourself if you are such a keen buyer. I think What TAS does is let you know of 5 or 10 top products in each catagory and then you the consumer based on price range, size, look, and sound that suits YOU can decide for your self what is best for you. I havent liked quite a few things that many reviewers have raved about but I have also saved lots of time in searching and looking and wasting my time in thousands of products out there. RH, JV and others filter many of the products and guide us to the select few. And thats the fun of this hobby, go audtion, try to match systems to your liking and enjoy the music. Then in the future upgrade your system like anything else. Those who have money to buy a 100K speaker now, will most likely have enough to upgrade later to a better system. Also those interested in buying $100K speakers should most definately audtion them, travelling shouldn'd be a problem and if you are such a hot shot who can buy things like that I am pretty sure lots of arrangements can be made for you to audition this stuff with different components/conditions. Money gets you your way with lots of things! lol. you cannot think that this is the last BMW or Mcintosh Computer or Sony Plasma TV I am gonna buy ever and that the worlds technology would stop here so I have the best. The best always gets better and better and in every class of product there is competition. Choosing between 4-5 competitors in a price/product sector makes it very easy. thanks to TAS! Go Test Drive/Audition from your top choices and buy one and enjoy it. The best will always be left behind in a short time but you got to live now, and not always in the future.
I have also been in Andy's room over the past year and I can without a doubt say that RH is correct. There is no other speaker available that can rival the Arrakis. It is simple as that. And.. for him to say that it is better than his X-2's, which are a direct competitor, that takes balls. Wilson will not be happy to read about this at all, especially considering a pair of their flagships sit in his listening room.
The bottom line is this, people are getting tired of reading positive review after positive review. A rave review doesn't mean as much when it appears that every review is positive. It allows these negative people to question a publications credibility. Is that fair, yes and no. So, when a comment like "the best" gets thrown around a little too much. Its kinda like calling "wolf". When it is the best, when is anyone really gonna know?
<<The number of bests has grown to include just about every expensive speaker to come down the road with no comparisons or even critical comments.>>
From my MBL 101-X-Treme review: "[The 101 X-Tremes] aren’t quite as transparent as MartinLogan CLXes. They aren’t quite as lifelike in timbre as Magico Mini IIs. They aren’t quite as fast in transient response as Quad ESL-2905s. They aren’t as colorless in the midband and treble as Symposium Acoustics Panoramas or as microscopically finely detailed (at least at low-to-moderate volume levels). They are ungodly expensive. They are huge. They require extensive setup and fine-tuning, and in spite of the fact that they are 6dB more sensitive than 101 Es they still do best biamped with four of MBL’s own nearly $100k/pair 9011 monoblocks and fed by MBL’s own superb 6010 D preamp (although the ARC Reference 3 preamp is, IMO, every bit as good as the MBL 6010 D with MBL’s powerhouses, and a pair or two of ARC’s 610Ts represent much-less-expensive and equally impressive alternative amplification). They need the best sources and cabling that money can buy. They are handmade to order and take at least 90 days to build. In short, a system built around them represents an insanely complex and expensive investment of time, space, and upwards of half-a-million dollars, which, in this economy, is a stretch even for the ultra-rich. Although they did exceedingly well in my smaller room...they will probably do better in medium-sized-to-large rooms, although I would be wary of rooms that are too large (since Radialstrahlers need to see walls at some distance to function the way they are designed to function)...
"There may be other speakers—in fact, there are other speakers (some of which I’ve mentioned)—that marginally outdo the 101 X-Tremes in this area or that, and there are some on the horizon (two in particular from Magico and Kharma) that will doubtlessly prove competitive. That’s OK. There’s room for more than one great transducer, even at this level of excellence."
From my CLX review (which you yourself, Elliot, said precisely described the way you heard these speakers--or do you want me to quote your e-mail?) :"As it stands, the CLXes go down more or less flat to about 55–60Hz or so...Now 55 or so cycles isn’t very deep bass, and because the CLXes’ mid-to-upper bass is so flat and neutral, it doesn’t sound as deep, full, or powerful as, say, the bass of the Quad ESL-2905, which is deliberately elevated through the mid-to-upper bass, from about 60Hz–200Hz. I could live uncomplainingly with the greater timbral honesty of the CLXes in the bass if they didn’t seem to progressively lose dynamic range and scale as well as frequency extension as they descend in pitch. Oh, they’re quite marvelous down to, say, the low C of the cello (about 65Hz), but below that they seem to peter out a bit. This means—once again, as things now stand—that power instruments like, oh, bass drums or bottom-octave piano, though clear as the proverbial, are also a bit short-changed in impact and pitch. Turning the volume up helps a little, but not enough, in my opinion...
"At mezzoforte to ffff levels, the CLX is as good [at dynamic scale] as electrostats get. Which is to say, pretty good. Once again, lacking the full weight and body of cones or Radialstrahlers, ’stats are “softer” and less hard-hitting, less three-dimensional, less knock-you-on-your-butt powerful than dynamic speakers (or than music is in life) at loud to very loud levels...The CLXes will still thrill you with the sweep of a full orchestra in full cry; they just won’t thrill you as much as something like the incomparable MBL 101 X-Tremes do....."
I could go on and on, because I have never written a review of a loudspeaker (or anything else) I thought was "great" in which I haven't talked about its weaknesses as well as its strengths or tried to put it context with the other "great" loudspeakers I've heard. I will do the same with the great Magico M5. I've also always explained what kind of music and listener I think the speaker best suits, reminded readers that my opinions entail specific listening biases that I am careful to explain, and strongly urged them, whenever possible and no matter what I wrote, to listen for themselves with their own music.
I'm surprised at the level of vitriol directed at me simply because I heard a great hi-fi system (and it was the best sounding system I've heard) and shared that experience with Forum readers. Would the critics prefer that I artificially temper my enthusiasm, or that I not report on this experience at all?
Keep in mind that I never said that the Arrakis is the best loudspeaker in the world. Rather, I said that this combination of loudspeaker, electronics, and room resulted in the best sound I've heard.
I have an outstanding listening room, but it's not at the same level as the room housing the Arrakis. It was one of those cases where everything just aligned perfectly, and the result was transcendental.
As someone who has spent the past 20 years listening to, and critiquing, audio systems on a full-time basis, it's thrilling to discover a system that pushes the envelope just a little further.
Robert,
I hope you dont consider my comments to be vitriolic. They were not meant to be. I love reading about the new and best hi-end gear and hope to read much more in the future.
Good answer.
Robert, I think (at least) you did very well to share that experience with us, and you should allways do that with loads of information and photos, the lefts overs are music...Regards to Jon
Robert,
please don't change a thing! For me, knowing your audio background & experience makes your enthusiasm all that much more relevant. I doubt I'll ever be able to afford the Arrakis or anything close to it, but the constant growth of technology means that maybe tomorrow it'll be one step closer to my territory!
I'm sure you aren't really surprised to be reminded of the flawed nature of many that share our "hobby"/passion. Let me just say, as a long-time reader, and music lover, I appreciated and enjoyed this post very much Robert. As I'm only 2 hours from Mr. Payor's, might have to see if I can pay him a visit. And if I can't, thanks for sharing the experience!
Robert,
It's seems a shame that you, meaning you personally, can't sit down and listen to a system then make a totally honest comment about what you just heard without all the audiospeak, measurements, comparisons...all the anal stuff. Everybody on this board does it so why not Robert Harley? Well unfortunately you are not "everybody on this board". Unfortunately you happen to be the Alan Greenspan of audio; when Alan breaks wind, the market reacts...when Robert Harley speaks, people rush out and buy things....forgive the exaggeration but you get my point. Even with that ball-and-chain, I'm reasonably sure that it doesn't suck to be you. :-)
Interesting post about Rockport...and I certainly understand all the "up roar" about the word "BEST"...I think those terms have been over used. Actually for me I get more concerned when folks use the term "revolutionary"...break through on an ongoing basis. As an owner of Rockport speakers for the past few years I truly appreciate what they do very well. Without having bought a pair of Wilson Sophia 2s I am not sure I would have been prepared to understand some of the key elements of what Andy Payor does when he designs a speaker...and begins with the enclosure...which was a prime reason why I kept my Snell AIIIi speakers for so long. Cabinet noise is amazingly low in Rockport speakers...at least those models that use his speaker molding technique...which is now restricted to the very top end speakers such as Robert heard. The noise levels from these cabinets are amazing...which permits Andy's drivers and thus complete systems to work very well. To me engineering low noise/low resonsance/inert cabinets are key to the best speakers (assuming there is a box...Quad and Magnpan...and I am sure others... do great things without a box)... While RH may have heard Andy's system as the "Best"...that is fine...its his opinion and I suspect I would agree....I suspect that the Arrakis evolved from the Hyperion...and as a result the speaker provides improved transparency, reduced distortion, improved linearity...and I suspect his next "statement speaker"...whenever it appears will move further down the road.
This is sound engineering...using his experience from past efforts. This is the same evolution that I am sure Dave Wilson goes through and other skilled designers. It bugs me when reviewers describe everything is some sort of break through. William Z. Johnson of ARC is evolving his pre amp design from the Ref 3 to 5, Charles Hansen of Ayre does the same...all based upon engineering skills AND listening. A lot of this thread I think revolves around readers getting tired of "this month's break through"...I get tired of it.
I am glad that RH wrote what he felt and heard...best sound...and not just the speakers...the room, the setup, etc. While I no longer use Spectral I was pleased that someone with his skill sets and platform was able to get Spectral to provide their gear and wrote about his experiences with the gear.
While I am in the mood of complimenting TAS...I did enjoy and learned from HP's discussion about "absolute sound"...given the quality of the best equipment today...in good listening environments...are we evaluating the equipment or the under lying recording....I felt that was an excellent in sight...well worth pondering.
Well enough of my thoughts....its a nice day out
Robert,
I live in Camden, ME, and understand your enthusiasm for the Rockport experience. It's easy for someone who hasn't experienced a listening room/system to come to conclusions. I forget who said "if you haven't heard it, you don't have an opinion", but that is what came to mind when reading the reactions to your report. You heard it and, therefore, have an opinion. I'll trust your opinion versus the speculation of others.
RH - hopefully to bring this forum back to the Rockports. Can you tell us the size of the listening room. One note from the pictures is just how far forward the speakers are sitting. that sort of positioning would rule them out in my listening room for sure (even though i have a large room, these speakers look to be more than 10 feet forward)...i am sure this is the optimal spot for this listening room but did Andy speak to the necessity of having them that far forward?
http://www.rockporttechnologies.com/
click on facility at Rockport
click on the third window and see the room and how it was built specifically for the Arrakis.
Robert,
You have nothing to apologize for. Enthusiasm for music and its lifelike reproduction is what high-end audio is all about. Without it we might as well be debating shoe sizes.
I can still remember hearing and reviewing the Rockport Hyperions, almost a decade ago. The Hyperions were the best "big" speakers I'd heard up to that point (driven by two pairs of Tenor 75Wps and an ARC Ref 2 preamp and a Krell transport and Goldmund DAC and hooked up with Transparent cable). I vividly recall the way they made Frank, Dean, and Bing spring to life in my listening room on "Style" (a cut from Robin and the 7 Hoods that I still use and still bring to shows), and the astonishingly realistic power they showed on a spectacularly good Valentina Lisitsa CD of solo piano. (Liszt, I think.)The Hyperions had an ease, naturalness, and authority that were extraordinarily lifelike--the antithesis of clinically detailed "hi-fi." I'd never before heard a speaker of that size sound that octave-to-octave coherent--and that much like the absolute. The thing was they were just as good on small-scale music as they were (and one expected them to be) on large.
Andy's had ten years to improve eveything from drivers to crossovers to enclosures, so I'm quite sure what you heard, in that terrific room you heard it in, was extraordinary. Not saying so, IMO, would be turning your back on the passion that got all of us hooked on this farchachdat hobby in the first place.
Jon
You said that the speakers were actively run. Can you please tell us which active XO was used?
It was an outboard crossover from Marchand Electronics.
Dear Robert and Jon,
First my comments are not a personal attack but rather you "wordsmiths" have to find another way of expressing enjoyment besides saying this is "the best." The term by definition is singular. Your enthusiam is great and I am sure that what you heard was exciting and wonderful but if it "the best" then maybe tell us how it better the previous bests. You have Wilson's, you have extolled the system at CES as the best, you have praised the Panorama's as the best etc etc. I have battled with Jon before on this and he has said that he should have chosen a different word.
It's time to differntiate all of these excellent contenders I know that I and many people I speak to both as consumers and lot's of industry people are frustrated with the crowning of product after product as the new king. PLease explain the process and perhaps we can stop argueing over the word.
You Jon are the best :)
Robert your the best :)
Zead I don't want to forget you your the F---ing best brother!
Guy's,
I don't always agree with what Elliot says mainly becuase how he says it but I do fully agree that the word "Best" is overused. Using the word "Best" often makes consumers confused on what is the "Best" buy. With reviewing products for the last 20 years you now have a responsibility to your readers and I feel that The Absolute Sound is loosing some of its credibility by over using the word. I am not just a distributor but I am also a consumer and avid reader of The Absolute Sound so I do not say this lightly or in malice but in hopes that it will be constructive criticism and next time you will be a little more carefull using the word "Best".
Best Regards,
Cole
Thanks wd3 - i did check the website, there are no dimensions listed for room 3 but a general idea can be grasped. i am stil curious about the speaker placement, the depth of those speakers are 3 feet, they are huge speakers, which makes me think that they are maybe more than 10 feet from the wall, still curious to hear RH opinion on why they were placed so far forward (am sure that is the best placement) and what would be lost if they were placed farther back (the Wilsons are sitting almost in the corner of his room).
It's impossible to know without trying it how the Arrakis would sound with a more conventional placement. I'm sure that was a factor in the sound that I heard.
Even though the room was purpose built, perhaps they choose to listen in the nearfield(relatively) to take ANY potential reflective or second arrival energy out of play. ARC moved their Wilsons way out into their listening room also.
Andy chooses to place his speakers, as a general rule when placement is not dictated by other factors, a third of the way out into the room. This also helps to minimize the existence of low frequency room modes that are in every room. So.. if you say the speakers are 10 ft from the front wall, then the room is 30 ft long. That may not be an exact measurement, but you get the idea. Also, his sitting location is 5 or 6 ft from the back wall. The room is massively constructed. The walls total 20" thick, with 10" of that being reinforced concrete walls. Then 2x8's are attached to that concrete wall only to have several layers of drywall screwed to the wood. In between the different sheets of drywall is a coat of some sort of dampening adhesive that makes the drywall stiffer because the different layers become one, plus they do not resonate or transfer vibration, I guess. Kinda like his speakers, the room is incredibly well conceived and built. Another reason the speaker is place a third of the way into the room, you cannot imagine the soundstage depth these speakers are capable of. With this speaker positioned the way that it is, it is free to breath naturally and not have a room detract from its performance, the Arrakis can provide an experience that is so unique that it would cause a seasoned veteren like RH to call it the best he has heard. It is a shame that we are talking about something other than the quality of the sound and the reasons behind its glory. Perhaps reviewer bashing could take place somewhere else?
Interesting read. Seems the Arrakis, regardless of everything else, is quite impressive.
Problem is, the Arrakis, while undoutably good, is way beyond my means. While I am sure that this was the most impressive demo RH has heard to date (and I have no doubt he will hear even better in the future) it is unlikely that I will ever be able to own a pair or have a room as good as the one at Rockport.
To that end, I would like to know more about the electronics, as a speaker is only part (though a significant one) of the equation. It the sound was THAT GOOD, I must assume that the front-end also played a significant part in the quality of the sound (after all garbage-in, garbage-out). RH, what can you tell us about the front-end electronics driving the system. You mentioned playing HRx files, which can be tricky to get good playback from. I heard very different (generally not too pleasing) renditions of these files as CES. What made these sound so good?
The electronics were all from Gryphon, a line that has not been imported into the US for a number of years. The Blue Smoke server fed an MSB Platinum DAC. I have not heard the MSB DAC in other contexts. I would like to have heard the system with the Berkeley Alpha DAC.
The other front end was a Rockport Sirius III turntable with a Dynavector XV-1s cartridge.
Thanks Robert.
Looked into the Blue Smoke server and the MSB DAC - look like nice pieces in a very affordable range. It is nice to see that, at least in the digital electronics area, quality can be had without having to resort to spending a year's salary or more (or maybe that is just me). Do you have any feedback on the server? I have heard the MSB DAC before and it was quite nice. The Berkeley is a steal of a unit, but not the pinnacle of perfection IMHO.
Thanks
I have no reports from the field regarding the Blue Smoke. It is essentially a PC packaged in a consumer-electronics chassis with an output board.
Have you heard the Berkeley Alpha DAC? It's the best outboard DAC I've heard.
While I don't want to take this thread off-track, someone asked about the Black Box and I thought I could provide a brief overview. The Black Box is neither a consumer-oriented music server, nor a DIY PC comprised of off-the-shelf hardware and software. We refer to it as a "custom audiophile hybrid PC": We leverage the open-architecture of the PC with its inherent flexibility and expandability, and couple it with our own proprietary software and hardware. This isn't really the time/place to go into details, but a few of the features are worth mentioning. Our proprietary sound card provides an extremely clean, ultra-low jitter processing environment producing bit-perfect playback at all native bitrates up to 24bit/192kHz. In addition, our unique system provides audiophile-quality, in-system hardware up-sampling (an industry first). The Black Box ships with a custom digital cable which supports the unique MSB Technologies proprietary network as well as AES/EBU for most high-end DACs. S/PDIF (via BNC) and Toslink are are supported for after-market cables.
In short, it may look and feel in many ways like a PC. But, from its machined aluminum enclosure, to its low noise power supply, to its fanless construction, solid-state drive, proprietary hardware/software, and bit-perfect output, everything has been designed to ensure its place as a top-shelf audiophile component.
There is nothing wrong in pointing out the “provocative” nature of RH headers. It gets old and a “seasoned veteran like RH” should try a bit harder to describe what he is hearing instead of summing his impressions in such a simplistic term. We all heard Rockport speakers in many different shows and/occasions. Lovely for sure but “best”, I do not think so. Of course, as RH pointed out, he did not say that. But the nature tone of his write-up suggests that, that is what he is saying. I am sure it made Dave Wilson very happy. After all being “Best” for 6 months is better than not being best at all (Or being best for only 5 months).
Hey Cole and Roland,
It is nice to see that other people find it simplisitic and not very informative to just catagorize everything as the best.
For many of us that have been playing with large speaker systems for decades the room and the positioning of the speakers is first and foremost in getting excellent sound. The room shown is an excellent example of how to place a speaker. The rule of thirds is an excellent starting point and then continue to fine tune the system. I would love to hear what Mr. Payor has done for it looks from the pictures that his system is really well done and set up. I have not heard those products and I know from experience that shows can only give you the tip of the iceberg since no hotel has a room like that.
I only wanted to know in what areas it was superior to RH's reference system that we got in issue 186 around 6 months ago "the X-2 achieves this illusive ideal better than any loudspeaker I know of." X-2 is hands-down the best loudspeaker I've had in my listening room in nearly 20 years of full time reviewing."
I don't think the question was unfair,
E
A few have pointed out that the Arrakis is too expensive for many of us to purchase but after hearing the new Aquila I feel you are able to get 80% of the Arrakis performance for much less. $44500 for the Aquila compaired to $165000 for the Arrakis.
Dear ROLAND,
did you listen to yourself......"Best" "Idon't think so" the same thing you are accusing RH of you're practicing it in your post................what is it you didn't get. RH is entitled to his opinion. His opinion: THE BEST I'VE HEARD". do yourself a favor and visit GOODWINS near Boston........then come back and tell us what you heard.......then you'll have a real valid opinion. I did. I live in NY been to Sound By Singer, been to Delaware, tried my best to hear the high rollers from Wilsond, Magico (M5, M6) .........i still haven't heard anything that beat the Arrakis......so cut RH some slack on this one..........Andy Paynor's statement under the right optimised conditions ....is in a different league. IT's THAT SIMPLE!
Dear Zead,
I have been to Goodwin’s twice and heard the Rockport the Wilson the big Verity and the Magico (It is the M6, get your …. facts right will you). These speakers are all different and have their strengths and weakness. I personally, preferred the M6. I was also under the impression that the guys at Goodwin’s prefer it as well (They will probably deny any preferences). Is it the best loudspeaker out there? I would never claim that. But I will say, that there is nothing in the Rockport overall technical description that will suggest it being “the best” at anything. If you think it is, good for you, but please save us the ….. missionary BS.
I believe that the Rockport loudspeaker demonstrated at Goodwins is the $94.5k Altair, not the Arrakis.
Robert,
Please don't be offended by the negative comments about your use of the word,"best".
The universe of this hobby is big , expansive, and diverse enough to encompass many "best(s)" of every component! It does urk me however when pundits want you to "narrow" your focus to "one" best of any component. How different are we as human beings? One of God's greatest gifts to mankind is that we're different . So let's revel in the fact that there's more than one "best" to hear and chose as one's personal taste dictates.
Thank God for Rockport, Martin Logan, MBL, Magico, Focal, Vandersteen, Paradigm, Audio Research, Spectral, Marantz, JVC, Panasonic, and all the countless audio companies who offer the buying public their "bests" .
At the Goodwin's shop, you probably heard the Altair, which costs around 90k while the M6 costs 165k. So, if you felt the comparison was close, then kudos to the much less expensive Altair. Go and hear the Arrakis and then get back to us with your preference.....
Dear Redell,
The are are not multiple bests that is a distortion of the language. There are mutiple goods, bads, ok's, greats, excellents etc. The best by definition is singular. We only have language by which to exchange ideas if that language is meaningless then how do convey our thoughts.
Mr Harley declared this system as the "best", the readers did not. Get your facts straight .. He could have used many words to describe what he heard just as Mr. Valin could have when he heard the system at CES however they declared them the "best" not the readers. THe readers only ask for clarification and explanation. They are the writers it is their job it is thier vocation they should know better than all of s the meaning of such verbiage.
God has nothing to do with this. OY VEY. Is Sarah Palin going to do a review now?
Maybe one can learn something from setting their standards are little higher. All audio is not created equal. They are not all the best nor can they ever be. If you are looking for value then find it but do not define it as the best!
"Is Sarah Palin going to do a review now?"
Wow, and I thought you were a knucklehead before this post!
"THe readers only ask for clarification and explanation."
I'm missing something about how you are so confused and seemingly overwhelmed by a clear and concise phrase-
"the best stereo system I've ever heard"
Sounds like you should go to a top tier dealer like Goodwins and check out Valin's and Harley's current faves.....
Everyone,
I am sure we have gone over the "Best" issue enough now. Robert knows how we feel as readers and it is up to him to make changes to The Absolute Sounds writing style. I am very interested in the Rockport speakers and would like to know from Robert if you felt they had enough bass responce? I was lucky enough to listen to a pair at Ultimate Audio & Video and felt although the midrange was great the bass responce was not that deep. I do believe it was the room and not the speakers so that is why I am asking. In that room the speakers lacked the punch I would expect from 15" Audio Technology drivers.
Thanks!
Nawrocka ,
I had the same feeling listening to the smaller ones at Goodwin’s. In comparison to the M6, the low bass did not exist. It sounded to me like a 3 way with a sub. Not much slam and a problematic integration to the sub. Midrange was smooth and lush. Mundane highs.
Like I said, not the “best” at anything…
Hi Elliot,
I have been a reader and observer of Robert's reviews and writing style for quite some years. And while I've not always agreed with his reviews( I still bought TDL Reference Standards), I've never questioned his "integrity". And when he states/writes that something is the "best", it is.
The fact still remains that we are different and have differing likes, dislikes, and tastes when it comes to what floats our audio boats. I love music and nothing pleases me more than hearing it on great gear, that someone thought was the "best". Are you an audio dealer ? If so then you have the great privilege of demonstrating this hobby to the public on gear that you "can sell" based upon your personal discernments of the "best(s)". And I'm sure you don't sell just "one" system.
I appreciate the contribution of the reviewing community. How else do we even know what's out there? It's up to us to seek out what's the "best" given our differenciations. The high end audio dealer-teacher is a vanishing breed. I hope that you are still one.
I'm also quite frustrated by the casual use of "the best" from a professional reviewer. On the question "Would the critics prefer that I artificially temper my enthusiasm, or that I not report on this experience at all?", I would think it's better to temper the enthusiam, especially when it came after a mere two hours worth of listening during a visit to a manufacturer's site with, what I would guess, an un-familiar sound environment, including the room, electronics and, perhaps, the softwares too. But it's OK to report the experience in a more credible language.
Casual? Was he wearing jeans and a t-shirt?
Let's say I review for Rolling Stone, and have been to hundreds of concerts over many years. I go see Led Zeppelin and then write that it was the best concert I've ever attended. Would it lack credibility because:
It was an unfamiliar venue?
It was only 2 hours? (and btw, I believe RH was at Rockport for 2 days)
They played unfamiliar material?
Uh, no, no, and no.
RH gave several clear and distinct reasons the system was the best he had heard, It sure seems a lot of dweebs are unhappy with the result, and I would venture a guess it has more to do with pricing than anything else. It sucks that the fastest car cost $1m, the best wines cost more than 2 Buck Chuck, and Jack gets to sit up front and not me. What makes me "quite frustrated" is not reviewers calling a spade a spade, but the continued kvetching about it.
mikeyg, I think if you ask some younger people of today, you might be surprised to find that they consider "jeans and t-shirt" too formal. If you like RH's style and substance of audio review and commentary, I really have nothing against it. I just expect that when a reviewer and editor-in-chief of a legendary audiophile magazine proclaimed something to be the best, he should have more to substantiate the claim, not just a quick debriefing of factory tour. And by the way, it’s indeed two hours – “I was visiting the factory (actually, it’s more like a craft shop) of loudspeaker manufacturer Rockport Technologies and spent about two hours with their top-of-the-line Arrakis loudspeaker.”
My system is the best I have ever heard in my house.
How dare you!!!!!!
Is that a Marchand active XO on the wooden box next to the speakers? A $400 DIY, mid-fi at best, unit is running this mega set up? Please tell me I am wrong…
I was also surprised to see the Marchand crossover. It might have been modified.
Why?
Isn't the Marchand crossover good enough?
I think the concern that MagiNUT is raising--whether justified or not--is that the Marchand electronic XO makes extensive use of ICs (integrated circuits).
Thank you Jonathan.
Pardon my ignorance - I'm trying to learn as much as I can on the subject - but why exactly should we avoid IC? I heard the shorter the signal path, the better. Isn't an IC a chip with very - very short signal path? I am a bit confused.
IC = BAD; discrete components = GOOD
Nawrocka ,
I had the same feeling listening to the Rockport at Goodwin’s. In comparison to the M6, the low bass did not exist. It sounded to me like a 3 way with a sub. Not much slam and problematic integration to the sub. Midrange was smooth and lush. Mundane highs. Like I said, not the “best” at anything…
While I'm not a huge fan of TAS short, shallow reviews (for the most part), and believe there are far too many "good" reviews out there, I am comfortable with RH, JV, or anyone else out there using the term "best." I see the term "best" as being applicable only in reference to the event and moment in time in which it's used. We will all undoubtedly hear better sound in the coming years, yet this doesn't negate the fact that we previously heard what we considered to be the "best" sound at that time. Technology and design capabilities have simply marched forward and produced a better product, which is fine to acknowledge. It seems a bit anal and closed minded to me to associate the word "best" with perpetuity.
Robert,
Have you had a chance to listen to the Mira when you were there? How does it sound?
Robert,
Have you had a chance to review the Mira when you were there? How does it sound?
Robert,
Have you had a chance to review the Mira when you were there? How does it sound?
Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to hear the Mira.
FYI,
When I was at CES I was able to listen for a good amount of time to the Rockports (at the time we where distributing the Ypsilon amplifiers they where using) and it was one of my most enjoyable listening experiances I have ever had. The Rockports provide a midrange that is just to die for. We where listening to classical of course, not my pick, but it was just so right. You know that perfect time when you hear something that just sounds so right; that was this moment. I think that if you really wanted to get the right setup from the Rockports I would put a solidstate amp with high current like our Sovereign Eternity to the low end and then put a top line tube amp for the highs like a Audio Research Reference 210. This would make the Rockports have the bottem end "punch" but still maintian the silky smooth highs. The Rockports are fully capable of being with the "greats". It would be nice if Andy was around for more questions?
How would you drive the mids?
I think I would still use the Sovereign for the mid too. It's quite a good amplifier and would not have a problem driving them.
Thank you.
Sovereign sounds expensive... I agree that such a good amplifier could drive two midrange drivers properly. It's hard to say from the photograph, but these look like 6 inches?
Bimbo,
The Sovereign amplifiers range from $10K to $145K with a pre at around $15K (depending on options). Not that bad compaired to alot of other brands but I think the performance more than backs it up. If we are to talk about the Sovereign products we should just put it on a new thread and not take over the Rockport group. Rockport deserves the respect~
The Rockport uses two 5.25" mid and two 8" midwoofers. The Rockports are not a hard load to drive from what I believe.
Admin- Can we move this and the other Sovereign information over to a new thread as to not take over the Rockport??
Concerning the room dimensions, according to Randall Smith from the webzine UltraAudio, the room is around 24 ft. wide and 30 to 35 ft. deep, with a 10 ft. high ceiling.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16111185#post16111185
By the way, great article, Robert. Please don't stop expressing what you really think of a hifi component, that would be similar to censorship.
Best regards
Nice craftsmanship, but side firing woofers?
Have they ever been tested in an anechoic chamber?
At those prices, I would want to see some very very very very good numbers.
If only Robert could elaborate on the difference he heard between the systems with the Magico Ultimate speakers and the one at the Rockport factory I'd die a happy man.
I have recently visited the Rockport factory and also had a chance to hear the same set up (Arrakis, Blue smoke, etc.) in Andy's room, and can only come to the same conclusion that Robert Harley arrived at - it is the most life-like, coherent reproduction of recorded music I have ever heard. As great as the Rockport Hyperions sound in my room, the sound of the Arrakis in Andy's room is on a whole different level.
The Rockport designs are based on tested engineering methods, built wih fanatical care and attention to detail, and are executed with results that are beautiful to the eye, ear, and soul.
Claiming something is "the best" is tricky, as one cannot quantify such a claim, because it is so subjective. However, if we all keep in mind that our goal in high end hi-fi is to get as close to the recorded event as possible (and that's why we change gear, tweak things to death, and are always on the hunt for the next great thing), then I submit to you that Andy's Arrakis system is uniquely capable of doing just that. Now, where's my checkbook? 8~)))
Can anyone tell me, what is the best Emily Dickinson poem? Or the best James Michener novel? Who is the best conductor working today? Was the winner of the Cliburn last week, the competition's best pianist? Enough said.
BTW, I really like Elliot's comments, both the style and substance. My only concern is that he probably would be spending less time on these blogs if business traffic in his store was better, and for that, I am saddened.
From his website:
Whether you are looking for Home Automation, Lighting Controls, High End Audio, Multi-room Audio, or Video distribution, Front Row Center is dedicated to providing the best solution and quality components to meet your needs
"Best"? "Best"? No, please tell me he doesn't do the exact same thing on his site he's whining about here. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
It's just so casual, overwhelming, and confusing!
Seriously Marty, not quite a fair comparison. Lawrence of Arabia is my FAVORITE film, the Stones 1981 is the BEST concert I've seen. I doubt you wouldn't respond quickly and easily if I candidly asked about the best la.., uh, romance with a woman you've had :).
Thank you for that wonderful note and the pix. I've been reading a lot lately in TAS reviewers saying forthrightly that equipment is often getting better. That's easy enough for me. After all, manufacturers keep working and finding improvements. I think it stands to say that what one found to be the best a year ago may not be the best now. Isn't that the point of technological improvement? I don't understand the point here.
And just because Robert says this was the best he's heard doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to change his mind later. This is a hobby. Robert, I've been critical of your writing style in the past, but recently I've come to understand that you've got a background in science and engineering and I think your writing reflects that. That's not my background and it's taken me a while to appreciate the way you review things. Now I appreciate it.
JV and Robert, I appreciate you guys honestly saying it when you think you have heard the best sounding system (either at a show or in your home). This tells me you guys are alive! I also appreciate that you guys tell folks ALL THE TIME IN EVERY REVIEW ALMOST that potential buyers need to hear the system or a component themselves before buying. And Robert has not said this is the best system for everyone or that every listener will be as impressed as he was. He never says that.
Bottom line: if I got to a show or go to a manufacturer's factory or to a friend’s house, and a I hear an audio system that knocks me out, that indeed sounds better than any audio system I've heard before, you can, as the great James Brown used to say, bet your bottom dollar that I will leave said room and head to the nearest mountain top. Once there, I will announce my feelings/reactions and impressions from on high to anyone who dares to listen. I will tell my buddies, colleagues, my dog. I will probably write a blog on it.
By the way, a few weeks back, I also enjoyed Jacob's visit in California where he got to listen a system with Rockports, a system with Wilson Alexandria's X-2 and the Magico Ultimate system.
Keep exploring you guys, and keep expessing!. That's what this blog is for, to capture off the cuff comments.
Robert, I believe you when you say this is the best audio system (and room) you've ever heard. Now, if only I can get to Maine and convince Andy Payor I make more money than I really do. ...
Keep rolling guys: I understand "stuff" keeps getting better and keeps getting better faster!
Phillymanhere
Thank you for that wonderful note and the pix. I've been reading a lot lately in TAS reviewers saying forthrightly that equipment is often getting better. That's easy enough for me. After all, manufacturers keep working and finding improvements.
And just because Robert says this was the best he's heard doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to change his mind later. This is a hobby. Robert, I've been critical of your writing style in the past, but recently I've come to understand that you've got a background in science and engineering and I think your writing reflects that. That's not my background and it's taken me a while to appreciate the way you review things. Now I appreciate it.
JV and Robert, I appreciate you guys honestly saying it when you think you have heard the best sounding system (either at a show or in your home). This tells me you guys are alive! I also appreciate that you guys tell folks ALL THE TIME IN EVERY REVIEW ALMOST that potential buyers need to hear the system or a component themselves before buying. And Robert has not said this is the best system for everyone or that every listener will be as impressed as he was. He never says that.
Bottom line: if I got to a show or go to a manufacturer's factory or to a friend’s house, and a I hear an audio system that knocks me out, that indeed sounds better than any audio system I've heard before, you can, as the great James Brown used to say, bet your bottom dollar that I leave said premises and head to the nearest mountain top. Once there, I will announce my feelings/reactions and impressions to the world. I will tell my buddies, colleagues, my dog. I will probably write a blog on it.
By the way, a few weeks back, I also enjoyed Jacob's visit in California where he got to listen a system with Rockports, a system with Wilson Alexandria's X-2 and the Magico Ultimate system.
Keep exploring you guys, and keep expessing!. That's what this blog is for, to capture off the cuff comments.
Robert, I believe you when you say this is the best audio system (and room) you've ever heard. Now, if only I can get to Maine and convince Andy Payor I make more money than I really do ...
Phillymanhere
I am also surprised and dismayed by the vitriol of some on this blog thread towards Robert. I think it's one of the "best" audio blog posts I have read and truly hope that you, JV, and others on the TAS staff keep the blogs coming. It gives me something to read "between issues."
I suspect the use of the word "best" gets people all too fired up. Want to get in a heated debate with someone? Just ask them whom they think the best quarterback to ever play the game has been (That's easy---it's Joe Montana) or the best pianist, conductor, artist, etc. The good news is that high-end manufacturers are continuing to push the performance envelope so we're seeing (hearing) new "bests."
Thanks, Robert, for the blog and the great photos. I'm already fantasizing about winning the lottery, and owning either the Rockports, Magicos, Symposiums, Wilsons, SoundLabs, MartinLogans, etc. The best part is that this fantasy hasn't cost me a dime, nor has it caused my wife to become jealous. While they are totally beyond my means, I'm already looking forward to hearing the Rockports as soon as I can.
Thanks for the post, Wolfgang.
Stuff the 'naysayers.
:P
It was a well written and informative piece.
Will the Arrakis be formally reviewed in TAS ?
I think it's all really been said before, and more eloquently and directly than I'm about to.
Aside from Elliot's continued need to take TAS to task over their reviewing practices (and the hypocrisy of lambasting TAS over its use of "best" when Front Row Centre apparently has no problem using it when applied to its own marketing rhetoric - my god, he even says "best" (TWICE) in his direct-to-camera video on the home page), there really is only one issue here.
We live in a post-modern time (more or less). The whole point of post-modernism (at least from where I sit) is to stand as a point of critique for the tenets and practices of modernism. This paradigm shift has pros and cons. But it would seem to me point of living in a highly-evolved liberal democracy is the ability to question claims to authority, power and allow the development of new forms of cultural practice.
We can see this, of course, in the development of language. Given time, and the inversion and subversion of language via the amelioration of language, words that once meant "this", can now mean "that". Yes, in some ways that can lead to what we have here - endless arguments over definitions and meaning.
But in a world of multi-cultural globalization and the spread of the internet (forums, anyone?!), it seems to me that in order to become more effective at communicating as a species we need to accept that continued critique of what we've done before is the only way to develop and understand one another's point of view, rather than continually attempting to force everyone to adopt a singular point of view. Given the inflammation of situations where cultural context has been missing (say, the Muhammad cartoons), it seems more critical than ever.
The thing is, this requires a population who are committed to becoming more sophisticated. A modern society, by definition, is a sophisticated one. One readily adaptable to the demands put upon it by the changing needs of itself and the Other. This thread is testament to the fact that there are many in our society for whom this challenge will be too great, and will seek refuge in the literalization of language rather than accept that a degree of responsibility lies with the hearer of the message to understand what is being said, rather than just the speaker of it. I would argue that this applies to the lexicon of the high-end as much as it does to international relations.
Niner,
It may have been said before but more eloquently than you? Hmmm... nope!
Reading you is like watching a David Lynch movie. I may not always understand everything but It sure is fun to watch (or read in your case).
To me, you are the epitome of eloquence indeed! Some may even say/think you're the best (not Elliot though!).
Bravo!
Wow!! so much testasterone...... can't we all just get along?
This is supposed to be fun and informative, and instead it is turning into the dark side of the moon........
Robert did a great job reviewing and reporting an AMAZING stereo system, period.
Instead of bickering around, I think we owe him a great deal of gratitude, and should flood him with technical questions......
And Robert, will you or anyone else at TAS be reviewing any of the Gryphon gear?
Unfortuanately, Gryphon isn' t imported into the US. The brand has an excellent reputation in Europe. If Gryphon is available in the US, we'll review it. By the way, the electronics I heard are quite expensive; $65k for the monoblocks (the vertical amplifiers in the photo).
I'm not sure about an Arrakis review, but I wouldn't mind getting my hands on the Altair (better fit for my room).
As the national sales manager for MSB Technology I am thrilled to have a place in such a prestigious system. MSB's DACIII features technology that is completely created in-house. The input receiver, digital filter and DACs are proprietary MSB technology evolved over many years. The DACs are ladder-passive technology manufactured in-house. The DAC modules themselves are good out to beyond 5 mega hertz ! The DAC IIIs modular design allows MSB engineers to create digital filters and upsampling audio technology that is virtually unlimited in concept and design. We can accomplish degrees of resolution that are just not possible with chipset digital filters and chipset DACs used by virtually all other digital manufacturers. While it is well known that an excellent jitter spec in the industry is 150-200 pico seconds, the input receiver in the MSB Power DAC and the DACIII reduces jitter to less than 7 picoseconds. When combined with a bit perfect source and our latest 32 X filter and 384khz upsampling technology, we have achieved a result that we are extremely proud of. I believe that in the past few years digital technology and speaker technology have made great strides, each technology making it better able to hear the improvements of the other, culminating in a greater improvement of both. The development of Andy Payor's Rockport speakers have evolved into state-of-the-art transducers that reveal the ever closing gap on the true life of the music. Again, we appreciate being in the signal path of this wonderful system and deeply thank Robert Harley for his comments. In the end, it's all about connecting with the music we love in the best possible way.
Vince Galbo
National Sales Manager
MSB Technology
i gotta say, all the best of's get to me too. it's noticeable. it seems overplayed. i'm not feeling the usage is the same in the other pubs.
i question whether valin suffers from "new for the sake of the new" syndrome. if he went back to hear something from 3 years ago he thought was best, if he heard it again, with a different box, shape, name, would he believe it's better than the latest thing he said was best?
to make these statements based on listens at an audio show too seems nutty and loses credibility.
OH my gosh : RH expressed an opinion, "the best HE'D EVER HEARD".
Now get this > I buy TAS because I want Robert (and Jon etc) to EXPRESS AN OPINION.
The more the better. I want to get inside his head. Few are better prepared or able to than RH (I look forward to his writing). I know there are 'big picture' issues like the accusation of always positive reviews, or lack of relativity between products (read JV's epistle on the MBL X-TREMEs then), but the flip side of this 'issue' would be the best every say 20 yrs, or 10yrs. Would that make us all happy?
"The Best Stereo System I've Ever Heard'. Isn't it simple (and straight forward)? I've got the best wife I've ever had. An accurate statement - I didn't say she's the best wife in the world (lack of opportunity !), but it doesn't alter the fact she's the best I've ever heard, I mean had.
RH -- how does it compare to the cusom-made horn-loaded monster that Alon Wolf built a few years ago, and that was the best stereo you'd heard to that point? (Of course, that system was never even nominally a production system, what with its custom electronics, but...)
Let me make a general statement related to attitudes that are partially illustrated in above comments and that will be not about sound perception but about religion. You may ask what religion has to do with sound perception. Well, the short answer is: a lot. One of the definition of religion is "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience". That is exactly what audiophiles do. A fundamental problem with it, however, is that, as in a case of religion, an audiophile formulates his/her own conscience in relation to their own standard of the absolute because that illusive “live sound as heard from center of the fifth seat row” is mostly not available. That, logically, means there is no common point of reference and, consequently, any strong argument without a well defined and agreed singular reference becomes logically irrational by default.
I remember that many years ago, when I was just becoming fascinated by a sound reproduction, I realized that my my $150 power amplifier sounds better to me than another $1500, I tested, and that, much later on, somebody even compared my $150 amp to a $10,000 audiophile-class unit.
Unfortunately, as in many religions, an audiophile can evolve quite easily into a sonic terrorist. Friends, let's pray for logic. That is all we can do, don't we?
Nice but we need to get back to the real world who has $165,000 to spend on speakers
Would it be cheaper to hire a symphony orchestra? I'm just sayin'.
Seriously, I like hearing Bob's opinion. Granted, it's a moving target, and the best he's ever heard will be superseded by another best he's ever heard sometime soon. But what's the problem with him giving his opinion now? I like meaningful opinions from educated people. Makes good reading.
I think some people have missed the bigger picture here. When making a statement about best sound, all factors have to be considered. The speakers by themselves if driven by lesser electronics may yield a completely different perception. The same can be said for great electronics on speakers of a lesser pedigree. And let's certainly not forget the role room acoustics play in any "Best" sound system. I believe all these things need to be taken as a whole, almost like the expression "the stars were all aligned". This is not only an expensive hobby at times but is always a very subjective one as well. Kudos to Mr. Harley and people like him for their passion and enthusiasm for without it, this would not be the same hobby that so many of us have come to love. Let the debates begin but let us never begrudge anyone of their opinion.
Peace!
I'd like to share an auditioning experience *I* had recently. Steve Guttenberg named a Klipsch speaker as one of the "best" audiophile speakers on his Audiophiliac blog, and I hadn't heard a Klipsch speaker in eons (I think RR was president then), and it made me curious, so I looked on their website for a dealer. The website listed *Best Buy* as a dealer, so I thought, well, what the heck, it's close by and it's on the way to other places I have to go, so....
Anyway, I got into the Best Buy, and they don't have a sound room at all, and I can't find any Klipsch speakers anywhere. So I ask the salesman, and he says, "Oh, yeah, we have those set up at the front of the store." He points, and I set off. So I get up to the front and sure enough, there's a home theater setup with a big flatscreen and five Klipsch speakers. And of course a movie on infinite repeat. So then there's this salesgirl (okay, let's not be sexist, sales-very-very-young-woman) passing by, so I say, "Um, is there any way I could hear some music on these speakers?" And she says,
"MUSIC?!?"
...In exactly the same tone of voice she might have used if I had said, "Excuse me, would you please chew up these live earthworms for me and feed them to me mouth-to-mouth?"
She then turns around and asks another sales-very-young woman, who also says, "Music?!? JUST music?" (At least she appeared to know what it was, although she seemed equally incredulous at the odd request.)
Bottom line, there was no way I could listen to "just music" through the Klipsch speakers. There "must be" a way to do it, they agreed, but it was, evidently, beyond the knowledge of this knowledgable staff. "There's music in the movie soundtrack--couldn't you just listen to that?" I made a mental note to check a mirror for large spiny plates growing down my back on the way out, and perhaps a spiked tail. Small brain, I had that part down.
So I politely sat there, on a small couch, at the edge of a small carpet, in the middle of an open 60,000-square-foot store, in plain sight of at least 150 oversized television screens all tuned to the same supersaturated program material, surrounded by approximately as much ambient noise as if I were sitting on a fairly busy airport runway, watching pastuerized, processed CGI movie-product and "listening" to music, underneath dialogue, on five Klipsch speakers.
It was *NOT* the best system I've ever heard.
--Blue Mikey
i just wanted to give Blue Mikey (mj37) his due for the most hillarious post on this thread regarding his auditioning experience at Best Buy of the Klipsch speakers. i could not stop laughing. in any case, pissing contest aside about RH's use of the word "best," I for one have heard Mr. Payor's Mira, Ankaa, and Aquila offerings both at Goodwins and at his facility, and I think there ought to be much more coverage of his offerings in the audiophile community (although his Arrakis speaker was also recently featured on UltraAudio's TWBAS feature - The World's Best Audio System - oh no, there is that word "Best" again). His speakers are phenomenal, with enveloping dynamics, deep subterranean bass, a pure midrange, and non-fatigueing highs. They do not overly accentuate audiophile traits (whether imaging or hyper resolution or whatever other trait floats your boat) to score initial bonus points with the uninitiated, rather they are "a music lover's" speakers because they are emotionally engaging and pay their dividends over the long haul without any listening fatigue. Furthermore, the Rockport house sound is preserved across Mr. Payor's entire line of speakers, all cut from the same sonic cloth, so that going up the speaker line (along with $ you have to shell out) gets you more of that sound, which is more than I can say for some other speaker manufacturers. I know this thread has been going on forever, so I will stop now, but RH, JV, and the entire TAS staff, keep on doing what you are doing. As already voiced many times above, there are many of us who continue to appreciate your efforts and your coverage in all its forms, from blogs to official reviews. Enough said.
Great pictures, nice article.
Thanks.
The best system ever heard is, and should be, a subjective determination experienced in the ears of the beholder.
To disallow Mr. Harley the inalienable right to determine the "Best System" he has ever heard is just mean spirited and begs a few fundamental questions about high end audio.
1.) Why are there so many disagreeable people in high end audio?
2.) What is it that makes these people this way?
3.) What does a responsible person do when confronted with this behavior?
We all know that there are disagreeable people everywhere in the world at large, that is not the issue. It is that after many years in this hobby I believe we have all experienced the concentration of sour dispositions from many participants in this industry.
Shouldn't this be fun?
The best system ever heard is, and should be, a subjective determination experienced in the ears of the beholder.
To disallow Mr. Harley the inalienable right to determine the "Best System" he has ever heard is just mean spirited and begs a few fundamental questions about high end audio.
1.) Why are there so many disagreeable people in high end audio?
2.) What is it that makes these people this way?
3.) What does a responsible person do when confronted with this behavior?
We all know that there are disagreeable people everywhere in the world at large, that is not the issue.
I believe we have all experienced first hand the concentration of sour dispositions from many participants in this industry.
Shouldn't this be fun?
Another 'the more expensive the system, the better the sound'. A flawed paradigm - there must be another way......
And it is a great question - how does *this* system compare to the big Magico's RH heard a few years ago.
I can accept terms like "among the best", "amongst the top 10", "better than klipshomatic 2000s" etc.....
"BEST" is absolutely unacceptable. As with Car reviews, sound systems should only be compared to others in their class, and pick the best one of the five tested speakers for example.....
Give me a pair of Newform Research 645's, a Bryston amp and a decent source. You can then fill a 2000-5000 sq. ft. room with awesome sound. When friends visit they will regularly say "This is the best stereo I have ever heard." You can then take the left over $155+K and donate it to a worth charity or buy yourself a new 911 Turbo. 99.999% percent of all people will think you made the right decision. You can take being a geekophile too far.
Twenty years ago, I spent a night with a particular woman and I came back and told a friend of mine, this was the best night with a woman I had spent in my life. My friend smiled and we laughed and then probably started talking about sports. I couldnt' put the experience into precise words--and here Robert does a whole lot better than I did with my friend. Robert has a lot of good examples and analysis of what made the Rockport system special.
My buddy sitting across from me in the sports bar understood what I meant. He understood the provisional nature of my statement and he understood how subjective my conclusion was. Now, I could have come back and said to my friend, this was AMONG the best nights I'd ever spent with a woman. And yes, I certainly could have said, "well, I need to be careful because there were a lot of variables involved, so I really shouldn't express my joy too strongly." ... I could have introduced all the qualifiers and conditions ... I was well rested before that night and and that played a role. My allergies weren't in season and so my breathing was good, and that played a role. I hadn't been touched in a long time and that played a role. My woman friend had a painting in her room that probably relaxed me and that played a role. We had a pleasant dinner before hand and that played a role. Oh, I was working in a job I really liked and that played a role."
I could have issued all the qualifiers and I would have RUINED the human experience of it all. I'm glad Robert didn't ruin the experience.
Among the best? Someone suggests that Robert should have said it that way. Are you kidding me? That would absolutely RUIN the post. Robert clearly had an overwhelming experience listening to the Rockport system and he put that experience into words as best he could.
For Robert to say this was "among the best" would have been dishonest--he did NOT think this was AMONG the best. He thought it was the best he had heard. Was he supposed to lie about this? Was he supposed to not allow himself to feel that thought? That's a level of emotional repression that even our great friend, Dr. Spock, would reject.
If and when Robert writes a review of the Rockport Arrakis, I'll expect him to do a systematic comparison to the Wilson Alexandria X-2's. But even so, this can never be determinate, because the amps that bring out the best in the Wilsons won't necessarily be the amps that bring about the best in the Rockports and so on ... His room size might fit the Wilsons and not be ideal for the Rockports and on and on ... And guess what?: it's likely that if Harry Pearson showed up, he wouldn't hear things as Robert hears them and neither would JV. That's fine. That's life.
I am perfectly able to accept that there is no final scientifically precise answer to the question of the best. Robert wasn't using the term that way.
"The best party" I ever attended (better than college parties and high school parties) was one I attended in sixth grade when I somehow ended up hanging out with a group of older and much cooler kids in my neighborhood. My mother and I joke about this party (she and my father were out looking for me for hours) to this day. The slow and fast dancing that night was the best I have ever experienced. Of course, this is subjective! I can recall several song a great dance song from that night, "Me and Baby Brother" by War.
My theory is that audio has as much (if not more) in common with great sex or a great party or concert than it does with scientific research.
You are injecting the concept of value into the discussion. Although value is a worthy topic, it's important for TAS to report on the cutting edge of the art without regard to price. If we don't do it, who will? Should TAS limit our reportage to systems you consider to be of high value?
How would you respond to someone who says "I'll take a table radio over your Newform Research/Bryston system and spend the rest on a flat-panel television." One can use reductio ad absurdum to discredit nearly any position.
Everyone has different priorities and sense of value. Frankly, if given the choice between a 911 Turbo and the Newform/Bryston system on one hand, or the system I heard and reported on and a Toyota Corolla on the other, I'd choose the latter (and I'm a car enthusiast—I drive an Infiniti G37 Sport coupe six-speed).
Finally, does the 99.999% of the population get to listen to their favorite music through the Rockports before concluding that you made the right decision?
The Absolute Sound has from its humble beginnings always taken the readers on a journey, searching for the holly grail of musical reproduction in the home. THis journey has had its good times and its bad times , its ups and its down however it has always aspired to take us on this quest to find music and to have it sound like the real thing in our homes. It is not about the price, the size , the color, the religion of the designer, its not about god, or food or cars, its has been about the music. I learned a lot about music form HP and I learned to listen from him as well, at least how to do it critically and to attempt to express my feelings about it through his language. However recently we seem to have lost the path, we have the "best " system in my home, the "best system at a show, the "best system I have ever heard and coming soon the most significant product in the history of the compact disc.
If these absolutes are to be understood they need explanation guys! What do these things actually mean? How do we put them in some context as to understand what is happeneing and what to make of this?
Please tell me why its better than the X-2 that was on the cover and dominated the magaine a few months ago with the room, and set up story? Why is it better than the system raved about at CES called probably the best ever.
THere is no issue with passion and enthusiasm its just I expect more from professionals than a one line qualifier and no use of the past to explain the present. How did we make that desicion and perhaps why? I will be the first to defend the right to say it just explain it. I personally read this stuff to get information since I do not have the opportunity to hear and see all of these items. If I get to get a glimpse at ashow and most of the time these systems are far from great in those venues. I have never heard the system in question but I have listened to some of the other products discussed at length and in various locals so asking for some information is not out of line.
"Gentleman, I have broken in the pair I have in the store, and just got back from installing a pair in South America for a client, and in my opinion this is the best speaker I have ever had the priviledge [sic] to listen to and work with." --Elliot Goldman on the Focal Grande Utopia EM, posted 12/04/08 (see www.avguide.com/forums/focal-grande-utopia-em-pics)
Ricky Roma to Williamson:
"whoever told you you could work with men?"
Elliot, are you a masochist or what?
Elliot,
Robert gave the following reasons:
"The main point of departure from other great loudspeakers is that the Arrakis had absolutely no discernable personality of its own."
"Many loudspeakers disappear into the soundstage, but the Arrakis took the concept of “disappearing” to another level by seemingly removing itself tonally as well as spatially from the playback system."
"Many loudspeakers have a “step-function” in this passage; the lowest-level sounds are absent and then suddenly appear rather than ramping up in volume."
"it struck me that I’d never heard the lower registers of piano reproduced with such realistic weight, timbre, dynamics, and authority. In fact, I’ve never heard a piano reproduced with such realism, period."
"The result was the closest I’ve ever come to the playback system seemingly vanishing, leaving only the musical expression.""
Reviews have more details than blogs, as that is their business model (ie, they SELL magazines).
Also, if Robert had given reasons the Arrakis was superior to an X-2, I'm betting you would be the first to complain for not having them in the same room and same equipment (ie doing a proper review).
Did you even read his post before you started yapping?
To clarify my point about this system being the "best," I'll define it in a different way. Of all the stereo systems I've heard, if I had to choose one to live with for the rest of my life it would be the system described in this blog.
hey, the altair is "one of the best i've heard" so i can only imagine one inverted on top of the other for the right size room has to be stellar.
i almost bought a pair from andy of the smaller one (40k a pair) but andy was an awesome guy and honest that because of my needs to put the speaker only 2-3 feet from the rear wall, the rear porting would have been problematic. when i can fix my room, i'll be reconsidering for sure.
i'm trying to revize my thinking here. i guess if someone says "best i ever heard" and doesnt' say it once a month, it's not so bad.
Ha!
This is some good stuff I've been reading here! I would think that anyone who could afford a speaker system costing over $100k would indeed feel they had the "best", but that "best" in technological terms is indeed a moving target. Like computers, audio equipment evolves at a fast pace. The old stuff that was "the best" still endures and will remain desirable. I don't see how Robert can keep up with all the ear candy, but he has had the pleasure of listening to and reviewing the "best of the best". Can I afford the Arrakis? No, but in my progression in the search of better sound, I would definitely like to hear them for myself! Is this a great hobby or what?
Issue 193 Golden Ear Awards:
" The Alexandria X-2 series 2 is one of those products that continues to astound , even after a year of daily listening."
"there's nothing like the whole body visceral thrill pf unlimited dynamics, center of the earth bass solidity and power, and complete sense of composure on even the most demanding passages. THe X-2 combines these "macro" qualities with extraordinary "micro" qualities.
"This loudspeaker also has a top to bottom dynamic coherence-over a very wide bandwith- that puts it in a class by itself."
Issue 186 reviewed:
"The Wilson Audio Alexandria X-2 Series 2 is hands-down the best loudspeaker I've had in my listening room in nearlyu 20 years of fulltime reviewing"
"this is a lodspeaker that disappears in the sense of its presentation"
"the X-2 achieves this illusive ideal better than any loudspeaker I know of."
Issue 182 Golden ear awards
"once in a great while, a product comes along that changes the rules of the game. Such a product not only sets new performance benchmarks in certain sonic criteria, it serves as a touchstone for the an entire industry. By pushing beyond traditional thinking and design concepts, the product has the power to inspire designers in other catagories to aim even higher.
The V3 loudspeaker from Magico is such a product."
Issue 182 Golden Ear awards
Symposium Acoustics Panorama "I've now heard it in my home for long enough to confirm the ecstatic reaction Robert Harley and I had to it's sound at last years RMAF. THis is a truely great transducer-a large, four-way. four-enclosure,ribbon/planar/magnetic/cone hybrid that somehow manages not to sound like ribbons, planar-magnetic drivers, or cones. Everyone who auditions it has the same reaction: "it simply doesn't sound like a loudspeaker>'
Issue 178
Revel Salon 2
"The loudspeaker sets a new standard in low coloration, lack of signature, seamless coherence, and truthfulness to the source, in my experience>"
Issue 185 editors Choice
Wilson Maxx
" A stunning achievement in loudspeaker design, the Maxx 2 redifines what's possible in music reproduction in the areas of nuance,finesse, and bottom end resolution impact and extension. Every aspect of this speaker's performance is exemplary, particularly midrange transpearency,soundstaging, and the remarkable ability to sound small on intimate music and huge on large-scale works."
MBL 101 X-tremes issue 185
" In most ways the most lifelike transducers tha JV has heard."
Magico Mini's
" Though limited to about 40 hz in the bass, the tow way Mini's are everywhere elese models of limitlessness-of what is possible when price is no object- with satndard-setting coherence, rresolution, nuetrality, and soundstaging."
Rockport Hyperion- issue 185
"if you have the space and the moolah, they will take you about as close as you can come to the absolute sound."
Issue 190
Martin Logan CLX
"If you can live with this kind of honesty, then, IMO, you cannot find a better speaker for any amount of money"
AV guide Blogs Magico M5
" This is quite simply a new standard in transduction, not just the best loudspeaker at this years CES show, but the best loudspeaker I've ever heard at a trade show and quite possibly ( the Magico M6 maybe except) the best loudspeaker any amount of money can buy>'
" best loudspeaker of any kind I have heard."
"the most amazing wrap around soundstage I have ever heard."
I could go on.....just wait to the next best thing.
I don't understand your point, Elliot. Are you criticizing us for reporting enthusiastically on some of high-end audio's greatest products?
<<Martin Logan CLX
"If you can live with this kind of honesty, then, IMO, you cannot find a better speaker for any amount of money"
AV guide Blogs >>
Hi Jon,
I received the new magazine this morning and I wanted to give you a compliment.
I think you did an incredible job describing the CLX and in my opinion it may be your finest review of any product that I have read..." --Elliot Goldman on JV's review of the CLX that he is now trashing, e-mail to JV sent 12/30/08
<<" This is quite simply a new standard in transduction, not just the best loudspeaker at this years CES show, but the best loudspeaker I've ever heard at a trade show and quite possibly ( the Magico M6 maybe except) the best loudspeaker any amount of money can buy" >>
.
"I also had the pleasure of listening to the M5 , and in fact went back three times to hear this new gem. I am not a reviewer however this is truely a wonderful speaker and something I look foward to spending more time with outside a show where one can really hear the total capabilities of such a labor of excellence...my congratulations to the Magico crew for they did a truely great job of producing wonderful sound." --Elliot Goldman in a response to the very thread he is now trashing ("The Best Sound JV Has Ever Heard at a Trade Show" at http://www.avguide.com/blog/the-best-sound-jv-has-ever-heard-trade-show), posted 01/13/09
Robert,
No I am not however I do think that there needs to be some way of putting them into some perspective.
I have no issue with calling something _______ ( fill in the adjective) . Jon quoted what i said above and I still feel that way but to restate these words over and over with no way to understand why you say it and how these things differ is IMO useless.
You wrote a lot about your reference system and it covered two issues of the publication and then WHAM this is the best you have ever heard! Perhaps clarifying why and where it is better might make more sense.
If you read all those quotes they all can not be the same thing explain how they differ. If you are going to review all these wonderful products between you then many of us would like to know how they relate to each other rather than just saying its great.
Thanks for your reply,
E
Jon,
I thought you wrote an excellent review and said so. I liked what I heard at the CES show.
I am not trashing anything I am only questioning and I guess you don't like anyone questioning you. There are a lot of new standard setting going on over the last year I guess I missed the memo.
Let me get this straight its ok to praise you but not to question you?
It;s OK to praise me and it's OK to criticize me, Elliot. What isn't OK is to talk out of both sides of your mouth.
I guess what seems to be at issue here is the lack of a definition. The use of the words "The Best" has only colloquial value here on the threads. When we read an assessment from a reviewer, though, we hope to hold that phrase up to a higher standard ... but that standard is missing.
When Robert, Jonathan, HP, etc. use the phrase "The Best" it carries more weight with readers than if readers happen to say this to each other. There's something of a public trust here that assumes reviewers have agreed upon a standard or set of standards that are clear and universally meaningful, so that when Robert or Jonathan or Harry say "The Best" it's an unequivocal assessment, not a relativity ("The best I've heard while eating tacos in an airport after a 5 hour red-eye" hardly carries the same weight as "The Best I've ever heard in my life regardless of circumstance").
What standard does The Best refer to?
If the editorial staff can give readers a definition of terms and standards, what they write will be much more meaningful than it seems now. It's fun to read enthusiastic praise, but standards and definitions lend much deeper meaning to that praise.
Just my two centavos ...
Chris
The Signal Collection, LLC
North American Distributors
of Connoisseur-Grade Hi-Fi
The Signal Coll... -- Fri, 06/19/2009 - 15:58
I guess what seems to be at issue here is the lack of a definition. The use of the words "The Best" has only colloquial value here on the threads. When we read an assessment from a reviewer, though, we hope to hold that phrase up to a higher standard ... but that standard is missing.
When Robert, Jonathan, HP, etc. use the phrase "The Best" it carries more weight with readers than if readers happen to say this to each other. There's something of a public trust here that assumes reviewers have agreed upon a standard or set of standards that are clear and universally meaningful, so that when Robert or Jonathan or Harry say "The Best" it's an unequivocal assessment, not a relativity ("The best I've heard while eating tacos in an airport after a 5 hour red-eye" hardly carries the same weight as "The Best I've ever heard in my life regardless of circumstance").
What standard does The Best refer to?
Isn't the standard Robert's? And when Jon uses it, isn't the standard his? And if so, then doesn't this require us, the reader, to take some responsibility for figuring out, based on prior reviews and their expressed preferences and qualifiers, what "best" relates to apropos the revewier's aforementioned standards?
If the editorial staff can give readers a definition of terms and standards, what they write will be much more meaningful than it seems now. It's fun to read enthusiastic praise, but standards and definitions lend much deeper meaning to that praise.
But if the standards are a direct result of the reviewers own preferences (as stated explicitly in their reviews time and time again), then its likely the standards will change, evolve, and be re-defined over time, just as ours do, as manufacturers continue to refine and develop their products and the reviewers expectations are refined and developed. It's shifting goalposts. That's the nature of competition.
Elliot is right in that TAS has attempted to take us on a journey. But though a journey always usually has a destination, once that destination is "reached" inevitably one then looks to the horizon for a new one. And it seems to be an immutable law of the universe that the closer one comes to reaching said destination, the further away one realizes it truly is. That the readership of TAS somehow think the dumbing down of language will result in a more enjoyable journey, or indeed, reveal anymore truth apropos the destination, is a sad indictment on the expectations perpetuated by the consumerist mentality that continues to pervade the high end.
Hi Niner,
My point was simply that "The Best" - as a meaningful phrase - needs defining. While we are dealing somewhat with art (that is, aesthetics), which must allow for preference, we are also dealing with a founding standard ("The Absolute Sound") whereby the sound of unamplified live music was the universal standard against which Hi Fi was compared. The assumption was simply that - if you were familiar enough with the sound of unamplified live music - the basic character of "live" was laterally applicable regardless of system (or, indeed, preference).
The ostensible public-trust that was originally implied at the founding of the magazine, it's very raison d'être, was to establish that universal, single standard against which to judge the success of components under test. If Robert's standard is very different from Jonathan's, and both of their are very different from HP's ... then we must also assume that the sound of live, unamplified music is fairly (or vastly) different in the ears of each of these reviewers - and therefore the original premise of using that "absolute" sound as a standard is not only unreasonable ... it's impossible.
IF that is the case, then we must assume our pursuit is entirely aesthetic and based upon predilections, predispositions, and prejudices. As well, it may also mean that any review we might read from any expert has little objective meaning. So while you may believe that, "readership of TAS somehow think the dumbing down of language will result in a more enjoyable journey, or indeed, reveal anymore truth apropos the destination, is a sad indictment on the expectations perpetuated by the consumerist mentality that continues to pervade the high end," - the original, founding idea of this very magazine - and the ideal that gives it its world-famous name - is that there is an immutable standard against which equipment can be judged and, if that standard is understood and used properly, there ideally should be no disagreement between experts on what "The Best" should mean.
Robert, Jonathan, HP ... I don't mean to be stirring the pot or stepping on toes, but I do think it's a concept worth returning to - at least worthy of discussion, perhaps debate. If the standard ideal of "The Absolute Sound" (unamplified music) is unreasonable, untenable, otherwise undesirable as a standard any longer - I'd be interested to read your opinions as to why. Or, perhaps, as to why the standard of unamplified music may not actually be laterally applicable between reviewers and/or system. Perhaps so much of today's music is "virtual" (i.e. studio and computer-created), that the sound of "live" is no longer a realistic or desirable goal.
Your thoughts?
Chris
The Signal Collection, LLC
North American Distributors
of Connoisseur-Grade Hi-Fi
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your extremely considered response. I can't answer for RH, JV or HP - though I think your question is an interesting one, and would welcome their thoughts as you suggest.
I think though that the reason "why the standard of unamplified music may not be laterally applicable between reviewers/systems" is that the nature of unamplified live music is inherently variable itself and comes with its own set of factors that need to be considered. I fully accept that there exists a theoretical "... assumption... that - if you were familiar enough with the sound of unamplified live music - the basic character of "live" (would be) laterally applicable regardless of system (or, indeed, preference)...".
My issue with this is that it then becomes the problem of defining "the sound of unamplified live music" - its "basic character" - because that sound is always the result of a number of constituent parts. No two halls sound the same. For everyone who prefers Carnegie Hall there will be those who argue for Teatro alla Scala (not to mention those who think it sounded better before the carpets were removed). No two instruments do. A Steinway is not a Bluthner, nor a Bechstein, nor a Fazioli. No two players, even when given the same instrument, sound alike. Conductors, choirs, orchestras, pianos, acoustic guitars - they're all as individual as you or I and our respective choices of hi-fi gear, which, lest we forget, is not playing back "live unamplified music", but recordings made with an equally variable collection of mics, mic pres, cables - oh, and an engineer who will inevitably have his or her own collection of preferences and prejudices in regard to mic placement and the mix between direct and reverberant sound. Therefore I have no problem accepting "the absolute sound" when applied vertically - within the context of the reviewer and their preferences - rather than laterally, across all reviewers, which would surely only serve to stifle the mechanism by which a reviewer reviews.
Personally, I think this is a good thing. I don't want to be forced to accept a "definitive" version of Beethoven's 9th, because I don't believe there is one. I like that Fricsay did it differently from Furtwangler. I like that Pollini plays the Etudes in a way that Perahia doesn't. I like that they were recorded in different halls, with different choirs/orchestras/recording chains. I like that they're distinct and individualized expressions of artistry, and I enjoy them not in spite of the fact that they're different, but because of it. Which is why I think preference must be an acknowledged part of this process for the reviewer as much as it is the manufacturer, the distributor and the consumer.
I can't answer whether the editors of TAS consider there to be an immutable standard against which equipment can be judged, but I would hate for the editors of TAS to sit down on Monday morning and agree that, say, Michael Tilson Thomas conducting the San Francisco Symphony orchestra in the Louise M. Davies Symphony Hall represent the literalization of "the absolute sound". If they did, all they would be agreeing on is another set of variables equally as problematic as the ones causing the debate in this thread.
You wrote "If that is the case, then we must assume our pursuit is entirely aesthetic and based upon predilections, predispositions, and prejudices. As well, it may also mean that any review we might read from any expert has little objective meaning."
To your first point, I think anyone who gets into this pursuit starts off with nothing more than that - "predilections, predispositions and prejudices". Some, of course, stick resolutely to those their entire lives, no matter the evidence presented to the contrary, but that's democracy for you. Others however, allow their opinion to be shaped by their cumulative experience, whereby "opinion" becomes a self-reflexive device for critique and counter-critique. These people tend to avoid gross generalizations, refrain from criticizing other people's choices, and allow themselves to enjoy the freedom associated with changing their mind when the facts do. To your second point, I wonder if the type of people mentioned latterly in my first point are more at ease with the fact that any review ever written may contain little objective meaning. Because to them, "objective meaning" is of far lesser value than "subjectively communicated experience". That is, they're sophisticated enough to allow the english language, in all its imperfection, to be endlessly manipulated for the purpose of conveying "truth" from the stand point of someone for whom "truth" is a continual process of discovery rather than a stationary soap box to shout edicts from. And in any case, they tend to go and create and learn from their own experiences rather than rely solely on the ones they read about in magazines and interweb blogs.
Thanks again for the informed and articulate discussion.
Hi Niner,
Well written and well considered - thank you for an erudite response. It seems we can adopt the idea that "the absolute sound" itself - the sound of unamplified live music - isn't necessarily the universal arbiter we have relied upon it to be in the past, if I understand you correctly. Due to the endless individual circumstances surrounding the recordings, performers, instruments, halls, etc. the sound of live music isn't constant enough to be an absolute standard. So readers must therefore release the assumption that a product can never be judged - as an objective, immutability - "The Best" ... the accolade must always come with the caveat of relativity stemming from the reviewer's experience and opinion at that moment. We might hope for a broader vetting process (as has been suggested before), getting various experts to weigh in on the same product in order to arrive at a less personal assessment, but it is impractical for a lot of components that fall on the big and heavy side.
By the way - as a matter of disclaimer - I have on several occasions heard Rockport loudspeakers and Rockport/Gryphon combinations, and each time I have been extremely impressed by what I've heard. While I'd love the chance to visit Andy and hear the Arrakis system as he has it set up, so far the two speakers that have had me 'over the moon' from Rockport have been the Altair and the Hyperion. I heard the Hyperion at a friend's home with the Gryphon Coliseum amplifiers (some of the most beautiful amplifiers I've ever laid eyes on), and I heard the Altair at a reviewer's home being driven by a Pass amplifier. On both occasions I was instantly aware that what i was hearing was truly special and far above the fray and usual gallery of punters. I haven't yet heard the Mira or Mira Grand (on the lower end of the scale) but hope to hear them in NY when I visit this summer.
Chris
The Signal Collection, LLC
North American Distributors
of Connoisseur-Grade Hi-Fi
<< Of all the stereo systems I've heard, if I had to choose one to live with for the rest of my life it would be the system described in this blog.>>
And if I had to choose one speaker to live with it would be the Magico M5s, but that's what makes horse racing.
Look, I too think the word "best" is overused. I think I myself have overused it (although I've generally tried to qualify it by putting it in a context like "the best I've yet heard in my home" or "the best I've heard at a trade show.") The trouble is there is no other single word (in the sense of “coming closest to the absolute sound”) that better expresses the enthusiasm we feel for certain exceptional products. The Magico M5s are, indeed, the best speakers, overall, that I've heard in my home in this specific sense. And though it may appall some folks, I'm gonna say that very thing in my review of the M5s in Issue 196. This doesn't mean that the M5s are "the best" at everything with every kind of music (as I will point out in detail). Nor does it mean that there may not be other speakers out there (including other Magico speakers) that may be better still. All it means is that, if such speakers exist, I haven't heard them—at a show, in a dealer showroom, in someone else’s home, or in my own home.
I've lived with the M5s for better than six months now and listened to them with huge chunks of my own music—music I know by heart—on a variety of ancillary equipment that I (and many others) consider reference-caliber—and that I also know by heart My point here is that I’ve listened to the M5s long and hard, with known musical references and known ancillaries—and since I am coming off reviewing several loudspeakers that are, by anyone’s measure, extraordinary, the fact that the M5s stand out as much as they do even in this exalted company means something special.
I'm saying this at this point, on this blog, not to pick a fight with Andy or his fans (and I'm a fan—I consider Alon and Andy the two most gifted designers of dynamic loudspeakers in the high end at the present time, and I voiced this opinion long before Robert wrote his blog). God knows I'm not disputing what my best friend in this industry, Robert Harley, heard in Andy’s room and said about the Rockport Arrakis. But I won’t allow my friend’s enthusiasm for the Arrakis or the tenor of some of the posts on this blog dampen my enthusiasm for, yes, the best speaker I’ve heard in my system—and heard at length in the same listening room in which I’ve auditioned many other truly great loudspeakers. That wouldn’t be fair to Alon Wolf, to TAS readers, or to myself.
<<It's fun to read enthusiastic praise, but standards and definitions lend much deeper meaning to that praise.
Just my two centavos .>>
Chris
As usual your two centavos are worth four centavos. I hope this note helps explain what I mean when I call something "the best," which is "the closest I've yet heard to the absolute sound in my home, with known musical and ancillary references." But the "best" is a moving target--sometimes, especially nowadays, a rapidly moving target.
Jon
Hi Jon,
As always - thanks for your kind words. As well, for your defining what you mean when you say "the best."
Cheers,
Chris
The Signal Collection, LLC
North American Distributors
of Connoisseur-Grade Hi-Fi
I don't have a clue as to what are really the "best" speakers, but I've been smiling widely as I've been reading this blog. It's been a fun and informative read (even if it deteriorates to a minor pissing contest at times).
So dare I say, I nominate this as the "best" blog on the AV Guide! (Actually, I think Mikeyg got it right- it's my "favorite", not the "best").
However, it is definitely NOT the blog I'd take with me to a desert island. I'd rather shoot myself than read it twice!
For someone so concerned about exacting language, Elliot can't spell worth sh*t.
"... just as i was out, they pulled me back in....""
it seems that elliot &co. are still missing their morning meds... or took too many of them....
what is the problem? rh traveled to rockport, heard a PHENOMENAL sound system, (as i have), made an enthusisatic report about it, called it the "best", and you guys pick a fight over some semantics? what am i missing ?
what gets me here, is the small minds who just can't enjoy a reveiwer's review, in which he articulates his own findings, and let it be.
If RH had said it was the best sound he'd heard, rather than the best system, would that have assuaged anyone's concerns?
It is difficult to argue with Robert Harley's or anyone's statement that a system is "best I have heard". I suggest we all have had that experience. I don't doubt Robert's belief in that statement. Moreover, I would bet the sound was stunning- the room alone looks like one in which all of the other state of the art loudspeaker contenders would sound better than ever heard before- unless one believes that The Venetian or Denver Marriot have somehow stumbled into acoustic nirvana.
But what disturbs me is when Robert wrote: "The Arrakis is without question a landmark achievement."
Landmark- important new development: an event, idea, or item that represents a significant or historic development.
Can one really make that unequivocal statement ( "without question")in the context of every other variable being an unknown- the room, amplifiers , tri-amp with external crossovers, cables , source etc?
Why are the Gryphon amplifiers not a landmark- the use of the marchand crossover not landmark as well- the room itself a landmark ? With TAS issues filled with revews of parts of systems - cables, amplifiers, power conditioners , digital and analog sources, etc - oft described as transformative of the reviewers previously clad system - and hence by definition indicating the system is something much less than it otherwise would be without that reviewed component- it is difficult to accept the attribution of so much performance to just one "landmark" particularly when the "landmark" was host. Reviewer Stockholm syndrome ?
Are JV's Magico 5's or big MBL's , or RH's Wilson's, or HP's big Scaena rig that HP wrote of in Issue 193 as "just maybe the best thing of their kind on the market" not " Landmark" achievements?
If they are- that's a lot of landmark's.
Is it possible to say the others are not landmarks without hearing all of them under the same conditions?
Quite a few sprinters on a different track could beat Usain Bolt 's time on another track by varying one or more of shoes, wind ,altitude,track composition etc. World class swimmers times are affected by varying the fabric content of their singlets or suits among other variables- "fast pool".
Did you see Bethpage Black and the impact of variables these past few days. Was the US Open record two day performance of Rickey Barnes under superb scoring conditions a "landmark" performance?
If Robert can determine landmark status about a loudspeaker under such conditions in one day- it seems to make the whole reviewing process of listening to equipment in the reviewers own sysyem with other relatively known components over weeks and months - significantly overblown in importance and renews the discussion as to why you reviewers just don't go listen to each others systems and give your opinions on parts thereof that you don't have so we readers get other opinions on equipment. One of you should now easliy be able to travel to Cincinnati and opine on whether JV's Magico 5 is a landmark or go to Sea Cliff and report on whether the big Scaena's hp has is a landmark. And apparently you can do that in one day.
So perhaps what many of us are really saying is that in a world of reviews without much real comparison among reviewers of all the real claimants to the throne- perhaps the rhetoric might be tempered with a little less hyperbole.
I can live with "best system RH has heard so far" - but picking out one product in a completely foreign system and pronouncing it as a "landmark" product diminishes Robert's value to me as a reviewer as well as diminishing other excellent products and when added to a perceived overuse of 'best"- which to me are the real complaints -perhaps explain why RH is confusing well intended criticism with vitriol.
Well I guess the "meds" have been handed out and the result was mind expansion.
I want to congratulate Mr. Valin for choosing finally one "best" or at least the best this month, or this week, or perhaps this Friday before Fathers day, but at least one best. I only asked Mr, Harley to relate his statements to the review he had written saying many of the same things less than 6 months ago with his reference, . Robert I am sorry you did not understand what I said and perhaps I could have made the point clearer.
Allis did you take your meds today?
Chris you?
Oz I have the pipe loaded up want to join in?
elliot,
thanks, but no pipedream (speaker or otherwise) for me.... but don't let me stop you.... it sure seem to be working well for you.....by now it is obvious that you confuse sincerity with hypocrisy...... it is ok for you to claim "best'', but others' best must be tainted......
<< I want to congratulate Mr. Valin for choosing finally one "best" or at least the best this month>>
Well, Elliot, it's actually the same speaker that I called "the best sound I'd heard at a trade show" in January--and that you called "a gem," "wonderful," and "great."
What claims have I made? I am not a reviewer. I don't write about products in magazines. You don't know me at all as I don't you. If i have ever stated my opinion as something as being the best it is as Mr. Valin copied above. One time one product and I have not changed my opinion with anything I have heard since so if that offends you so be it.
It seems you are quite good at calling people names and making accusations, at that I admit you are not the best either, at least not here , but please keep up the good work there is hope for you yet.
elliot,
you have not offended me at all by calling a certain product the best, or claiminig on your site as providing the "best....".. thats your right.
but you seem to be stuck in a permament state of loathing to this particular blog, despite several attempts by other readers to encourage you to move on... but you keep harping on the same point, pointlessly.
this must be such a great outlet for you......
<<What claims have I made? I am not a reviewer. I don't write about products in magazine.>>
This is EXACTLY the point that you--and some others (but particularly you)--refuse to acknowledge. You are a retailer with a more-or-less fixed line of products, in which you have a vested interest. Robert and I are reviewers who have NO vested interests and who receive new state-of-the-art products for review EVERY SINGLE MONTH! How often do you add a state-of-the-art product, Elliot? You can pick "one" best (and let's face it, it's a "best" you're selling) because YOU ONLY HAVE ONE BEST! We get fabulous stuff every thirty days. Not all of it is equally amazing or we would be switching favorites on a monthly basis. Which we don't. For the record, I've used the Audio Research electronics (Ref 3 linestage, Ref 610T monoblocks, and PH7 phonostage) as my references for almost four-and-a-half years; I've had the Walker record player in my system for a decade. I don't "switch" easily, in spite of the dozens of tremendous 'tables, preamps, and amps I've reviewed. Just lately I've heard a spate of wonderful speakers, including the MartinLogan CLX, the MBL 101 X-Treme, and the Magico M5. All of them are great, joining the small select group of speakers I consider pantheon-worthy, but each of them is great in a slightly different way; each has its own set of strengths and weaknesses. Some of these strengths overlap; but rhe weakness tend to be sui generis. Overall the M5 has the fewest weaknesses and the most strengths of any speaker I've heard, and at this point I would confidently put it up against any speaker I haven't heard, including the Rockport Arrakis. I believe it would be competitive. Of course, that doesn't mean six months or a year from now, another better speaker won't come down the pike. That's the way this business works for reviewers, BUT that will not make the M5 any less of a great speaker, nor will it invalidate my judgment that it is the best (which is to say, that it comes closest to the absolute sound with known references and ancillaries) I've yet heard in my home.
Well,
I would like to congratulate Mr.Robert Harley for his opinions and his courage to point out the best system he has ever heard until now. The best is always the best until the day he will hear something even better and closer to the absolute.
This claim in not easy for a famous reviewer to share it publicly in a blog, especially conserning two brands with very few advertisements in the US magazins and in case of the Gryphon with no US distributorship at all!!
Bravo Robert!
I know very well Gryphon electronics and I strongly believe that Robert Harley is absolutely right in what he believes about this particular system!!
George Theofilakos
General director
MUSIC LOVER
High End Distributions
Athens
Greece
(Distributors in Greece of Gryphon, Kharma, Edge, Emm Labs, Von Schweikert, Aesthetix, Manley labs, Acoustic Zen etc)
The bottom line is those Arrakis must have sounded amazingly good. And I trust Robert when he says HE heard things (or didn't hear things) in the music/speakers/system that he hadn't heard before.
Robert, you lucky dog! Keep groovin'.
It does seem that RH uses the word "landmark" too much. The Avalon Eidolon was a landmark, the Vandersteen Model 5 was a landmark (in the bass), etc. This will bring criticism after a while, esp. with the definition of landmark being so important. Another, more toned-down word may be better.
JV also uses words that confuse, as I noted in my "Loudspeaker Sonic Descriptions" post.
I've been enjoying the lively debate. Thank you Robert, Elliot and Jon and others for taking the time to express your opinions (you didn't have to---it's only a blog; and frankly not to be given the same importance as published reviews---blogging is cheap).
Now I'd like to throw in my 2 cents. This discussion of "best" has been eating at me for some time and now I've been motivated to express my opinion. Please don't take it the wrong way---
I appreciate that loudspeaker designers have different approaches to creating instruments to reproduce recorded sound. However I'm not in favor of anyone person saying so-and-so is the best, even given expressed and unexpressed caveats. For one person its x, for another it's y, and so on....What we wind up with is an approach which leads to good advertising revenues but no consensus of what is "best". Not to pick on TAS but perhaps it should be renamed The Absolute Sounds.
How to better work our way to a better ranking of speakers (read other equipment as you wish) would be to use a consensus approach (some of the Brits, doing reviews longer than us, use this approach). This would lead to clearer understanding of terminology by reviewers and greater transparency for us readers. HP might say the M5 could never be SOTA because of its bass response not being up to that of the loudspeakers he prefers. JV might say that what HP values (bass, in this instance) isn't as of the same importance as what he likes.
The problem to doing consensus reviewing are several fold: lack of same location of reviewers, listening rooms, etc. Magaizines in the past (including TAS) had a second reviewer opine (sometimes in the same issue as the initial review). But can you imagine JV, HP, and RH all sitting on one couch listening to a pair of speakers-----I would love to hear the exchange! First it would flush out instances where a person might have a different definition than everyone else. We need commonly shared definitions. Second, it would point out individual reviewer's biases. What may be flat bass response to one may be weak bass to another. Solve that largely by measurement. Let's get more uniformity! Let's resolve what's bright highs /weak bass by measurement and consensus agreement.
Lastly, I'll close by saying that I'm tired of hearing a reviewer say that they want their system to reproduce recordings like the live performance may have sounded. IMO a system is of highest fidelity when it reproduces accurately what is on the recording medium (I have a feeling RH would agree with me here).
In good listening (what ever that means to you),
Peter
this may be another way of how he promote their business by bashing someone famous. it'd be great if he could remove their own website from his signature.
Ted,
Since you say "promote their business" I believe you are including myself in your comment so I guess I will give you a reply:
All though I recognize that the Rockport report was probably not the best place to suggest changes to The Absolute Sound's reviewing policy's, I do not think in any way was I disrespectful or "bashing" on anyone "famous". Like I said
"I don't always agree with what Elliot says mainly becuase how he says it but I do fully agree that the word "Best" is overused. Using the word "Best" often makes consumers confused on what is the "Best" buy. With reviewing products for the last 20 years you now have a responsibility to your readers and I feel that The Absolute Sound is loosing some of its credibility by over using the word. I am not just a distributor but I am also a consumer and avid reader of The Absolute Sound so I do not say this lightly or in malice but in hopes that it will be constructive criticism and next time you will be a little more carefull using the word "Best"."
As far as the website signature goes, I could understand where you are coming from. I like the idea of letting people know you are part of the audio profession so they understand where your point of view is coming from and know what products we have a vested interest in but I understand a link to your home website is a little bit of advertising.
Cole
Nawrocka Distribution
Peter,
I don't think the consensus approach works. For one, I notice that JV and RH and HP sometimes live with systems for 6 months, a year or even more and their perspective on those systems and that equipment changes over time. And this is something good for high end reviewers and listeners to understand. You can learn about equipment as you listen to it over time and tweak it and experiment with various pieces of associated equipment. And there's a difference between a three-hour afternoon session and listening over a period of a year. So unless you can get HP, JV and RH in the same room for a year to listen to the equipment, then I don't see how this would work.
By the way, I surely understand that over time, a listener's understanding of the limits and achievements of a particular piece of equipment can and will change. How could it not change? They will play various kinds of music, in varying formats, with varyng associated equipment and in VARYING MOODS! ... The music and the equipment will speak to them one way for a certain period of time and may speak to them a different way 6 months later.
The desire to get a consensus is wrong because the whole point of high end audio is ot understand that there is no consensus. Also, 3 months after these guys have reached consensus, then Dave Wilson or Andy Payor or whomever will have tweaked his speakers again and so the old consensus no longer fits.
This is an on-going process of listening and thinking and reacting. We in the high end (and I'm a beginner, Lord knows--so understand this is not said in any arrogance)--we are not like consumers of cell phones or compact cars. I do not read TAS or other audio publications the same way I read Consumer Reports. Not even close. It's not that kind of magazine. Listening to music is not the same as trying to buy a quick camera for a trip. We should not take it literally (as we would a consumer reports article identifying the best camera under X price) when Harley says this is the best he's heard. We need to first ask: What is Harley's music and audio aesthetic? What kinds of products/sounds does he tend to like? And then we ask the same of ourselves. JV hasn't said what Harley has said. HP hasn't said what Harley has said. It's only Harley, and that's fine!
The fact that RH says this Rockport system was the best he's ever heard is interesting as hell to me--and yet, IT MEANS NOTHING ABOUT WHAT I WOULD FIND TO BE THE BEST! ... He could no more make that statement than he could state that I will find a particular woman to be the woman of my dreams.
These are not federal court cases and RH and JV and HP are not judges sworn to some stance of impartiality. TAS is not consumer reports and anybody who uses their reviews to rush out and buy equipment (especially equipment at the price of the Arrakis) is utterly foolish. Their reviews are a starting point. They say this over and over again.
By the way, I RARELY IF EVER, see Rockport ads in TAS or Stereophile. I can't remember one. If there has been one in the last 6 or so years I've been reading TAS, it still stands that Rockport does not advertise nearly as much as other companies and yet Robert said what he said.
Phillyman
ARC doesn't advertise in our magazine (or any magazine), and yet I've consistently praised its products (save for its discontinued Class T amp). Nobody'd even heard of Magico when Robert wrote his rave-up of the Ultimates and I did the original Mini review. When I rave-reviewed the Rockport Hyperion in TAS, nobody gave me a hard time about that, either. I gave a (well-deserved) Golden Ear to a prototype loudspeaker from Symposium Acoustics (and faced some heat for it at the time, although now it is no longer a prototype), MartinLogan doesn't advertise in our mag on a regular basis, and yet I lovedt the CLXes. If this (and a score of other examples I could cite) doesn't go some distance toward proving that we call them as we hear them (rather than as advertisers might prefer), then I don't know what would.
I give you props on that one, JV. If you guys were appeasing advertisers, I'd expect to be hearing that you're running a Cambridge Audio front end with Definitive Tech speakers hooked up with Audioquest cables!
One of the several things TAS does well: Find up-and-comers doing something remarkable and shine some light on them. Magico, Da Vinci, TW Acoustic, to name just a few.
The Signal Collection, LLC
North American Distributors
of Connoisseur-Grade Hi-Fi
You, sir, are a funny man.
Thanks for the props.
RH said it's the best system he has ever heard. period, what's the fuss about?
Phillyman makes a good point that what one individual values in a music system might not be exactly what another listener values. He also states something I've said repeatedly, including in my books, that a review is nothing more than one person's opinion. Yes, it's informed opinion, but still just one person't point of view.
Incidentally, the last time Rockport advertised in TAS was more than 12 years ago.
Robert,
If it was your money would you purchase the Rockport Arrakis or the Wilson Alexandria X-2?
That's impossible to say given the very different rooms in which I've heard the two loudspeakers, not to mention the radically different electronics (including tri-amping of the Arrakis).
it seems there is a lot of money to be made from ambiguity. no standard listening rooms; no standard reviewer's checklists, philosophies, techniques; no acceptable "objective" measurements; no standard environment for recording (recent discussions of microphone feeds notwithstanding). it all adds up to a tremendous juggling act of perceptions and buyers' motivations. no way to verify anything. i think the idea that almost everything is wonderful is hyperbolic.
i have been reading TAS on and off since issue 2. sometime in that era, i remember a review of a vinyl LP cleaning device that didn't work very well. the details are not clear in my memory, except for HP chiming in with a footnote something like: "clearly a piece of shit!"
that phrase gave me and my friends a connection with TAS that has, unfortunately, deteriorated over the years. right now, i would say the connection is just about at zero level. the reasons are several, but many of them are wrapped in the discussions resulting from RH's blog. the specific objections raised are less important to me than the context: ambiguity. no one can be wrong or right about anything. we have opinion enshrined as the truth about an invisible subject.
i have thought very highly of many TAS reviewers. HP would be my favorite with AHC, RH, & JV as his main sidekicks. but my appreciation of them as audio experts does not allow me to accept what they do for many audiophiles as adequate. TAS in the context of the audio industry today does not help me make any significant buying decisions, or to plan future purchases.
we have no clear direction for building our systems toward any potential technology winners in any component, including recordings. the result is every hot shot designer with development bucks is free to implement whatever brain fart he/she thinks will grab the reviewers and wow the buyers. isn't this the main reason we pay for equipment by the carat? are we a nation/world of Romanoff's supporting a herd of Faberge's?
without standardization of technology we can never expect economies of scale. how many speaker technologies do we need? i am a Magnepan fan myself, but it seems to me there are more inherent limitations in that technology than there may be in dynamic/cone designs (e.g., the Rockport). should there be a push for super optimizations of dynamic systems so that planars, horns, stats, etc., are irrelevant?
why do buyers have to plan to spend $1k/ft or more for AC wire!!??? does this mean box makers can't be bothered to install the best AC cord in their products, or that the aftermarket cords are BS?
[would the world have been better off with steam, diesel, gasoline, and electric cars in the last century, or with the mass production made possible by the modelT and its descendants. now that they are obsolescent we can pick the best replacement. but we rolled a long way in the last century because standard technology.
what about a set of building plans for entertainment spaces in private homes that are acoustically, and electrically optimized using standard materials and methods. how many reviewers have pointed out that the listening space is the most important component. by the way, has anyone considered offering a DC power transformer instead of AC transformers, and pick up the cost of the front end transformer in the price of the components which could be produced with simplified power supplies. and without using huge numbers of environmentally unfriendly batteries.
interconnects are another travesty which has become "normal". wireline communications networks have gone from conditioned copper to fiber optics for broadband communications. the trend started in the late 1970's. do we have any parallel efforts in audio?
what i am suggesting is that, for me at least, TAS could become a lot more relevant and useful if some of these technical and environmental goals could be established and supported. TAS would then become an advocate as well as a source of information.
PS you could have all been spared the above if i had not been grossly annoyed by the latest subscription "reminder" from reed stevens. i don't think reed has worked much with men either, or he would have known that his tone was self-nominating for childish status.
Come on; you are sounding like a politician, yes I smoked the drugs but I did not inhale. It is a simple question, let me word it a little simplier; if you where not going to leave a room alive unless you picked one or the other what would you pick?
I've heard the Arrakis only in a large room that was custom-built for the speaker, driven by unfamiliar electronics and sources. It is impossible to choose on that basis. I guess I won't leave the room, which is fine by me so long as it has a great hi-fi system and lots of music.
What was the title of this blog again? The "best I have "ever" heard but not good enough for me to say that its better than the other "best" "landmark", "reference"
First you put your right hand up, extend it over your head and pull it back then your left hand back , extend it up over your head and pull it back and repeat... that's how one does the backstoke. I am not sure that even Michael Phelps can do it faster.
Is this a Roseann Roseannadanna OPPS never mind moment?
To all of you who praised Mr. Harley for his emotion and passion put that last RH politically correct quote quote in your holier than thou pipe and smoke it!
Does not happen often- but I gotta agree with Elliot on this one.
Earlier and above in this blog I took Robert to task for pronouncing the Rockport loudspeaker a "landmark" when he spent one day listening to it in a completely unfamiliar system in a completely unfamiliar and specially constructed room as described by Rockport - ( " Listening room # 3 was designed as an appropriate environment for auditioning our most ambitious products. Nearly all serious music lovers would agree that the "ultimate " audio component is a well behaved, dedicated, listening room. This room's dimensions were all calculated to minimize standing wave propogation, while the walls and ceiling construction are a full 20" thick, finished with a triple layer constrained mode dampening sheathing system. A combination of RPG absorptive and BAD panels and custom bass traps provide the correct reverberant field without coherent specular reflections. This ultimate soundroom . . . . ." )
Seems to me that the room alone- without even factoring in all the other variables- makes Robert's pronouncement on the "landmark" nature of the speaker,and nothing else in the system- suspect.
Compare JV's replies from above in this post
"BUT that will not make the M5 any less of a great speaker, nor will it invalidate my judgment that it is the best (which is to say, that it comes closest to the absolute sound with known references and ancillaries) I've yet heard in my home. "
AND
" I've lived with the M5s for better than six months now and listened to them with huge chunks of my own music—music I know by heart—on a variety of ancillary equipment that I (and many others) consider reference-caliber—and that I also know by heart . My point here is that I’ve listened to the M5s long and hard, with known musical references and known ancillaries—and since I am coming off reviewing several loudspeakers that are, by anyone’s measure, extraordinary, the fact that the M5s stand out as much as they do even in this exalted company means something special."
Jonathan's attempts to support his best friend Robert seem to me to actually indict Robert's pronouncement of the "landmark" nature of only the Rockport speaker in an environment and system completely foreign to Robert and hence impossible to measure in their impact. This is not to be confused with Robert's overall description of the sound of the system in that room , with which I cannot possibly argue- that is his opinion and one that I cannot gainsay.
Coupled with his apparent retreat when pressed on the Wilson product it now seems either disingenuous or an unintended admission that the original pronouncement about the Rockport speaker was premature.
Does Robert have such a room in his home to evaluate the Wilson? 20" thick walls and ceilings , etc . I doubt his treated room measures up.
I have seen pictures of JV's room at his home in Cincy and it bears no resemblance to such a spectacular and " ultimate audio component" as described by Rockport.
Would JV's rave review of the big MBL system or Magico 5 have been even more effusive if in a room like that ?
Would HP's rave of the Scaena system have been even more over the top if heard in that room rather than in an old Victorian home in Sea Cliff ?
Who knows.
However, the potential benefits on bass performance alone in a room that size are profound , yet Robert was only able to say " Some credit for the system’s performance goes to the large, purpose-built listening room."
Some credit- how much 10%, 20% , 30% ? - Is that Rockport speaker performing at 20-30% less in my room or Robert's room still a "landmark" product ?
I submit Robert cannot say-which is why he cannot say he would buy it over the Wilson -either that or there was a choir of protest coming from Utah and not from the Mormon Tabernacle.
<<Jonathan's attempts to support his best friend Robert seem to me to actually indict Robert's pronouncement of the "landmark" nature of only the Rockport speaker in an environment and system completely foreign to Robert and hence impossible to measure in their impact.>>
Allis,
You need to cut Robert some slack here. He called this blog "the best stereo system I've ever heard." I believe he chose that title precisely because he could not confidently assess how much of a contribution each component part was making to the presentation (including the heroically purpose-built room). It was the entire system that floored him.
Now you are asking him to compare a part of that system--the speaker--to a part of his own reference system. How is he supposed to do that fairly, without hearing the Arrakis side by side with the Alexandria II in his own room with his own gear and his own music? Would you just have him make the assumption that because Andy's entire system sounded (one supposes) better than Robert's entire home system (or any other system Robert has heard) that the speaker itself must be the "better" than the Wilson Alexandria II? That would be a little like saying that because CAR A does the salom faster than CAR B, CAR A's engine is better than Car B's. Which ain't necessarily so.
I'd like to say something else. Because I think the Magico M5 is the best speaker I've heard in my room doesn't make it THE best speaker. It only makes it the best speaker I've heard in my room. That means something, of course, if your taste in gear and music are similar to mine. But not everybody's is. I've said it before and I'll say it again now: There is room for more than one "best" in any component category.
Jon
Old medical axiom "when you hear hoofbeats look for a horse, not a zebra" the majority of this forum has been about zebras not horses. RH simply said it is the best stereo system he has heard, which of course means the best sound he has ever heard from a stereo system, this is an absolute statement which cannot be disputed.
JV-Robert chose to call the Rockport a "landmark" loudspeaker. Not great, not terrific- "landmark" .
The word "landmark" ought to be chosen very infrequently and more carefully, even more carefully than "best" which is by nature more transitory.
Rather than argue about that statement- (primarily because I suspect you agree with it ) let's just agree to disagree on whether that assignation was appropriate under the one day listen in an unknown room in an unknown system. You and Robert think so- I do not. Nothing personal and I don't argue with Robert on the best sound he heard-but the landmark moniker here involved so many unknown individual parts that singling out one piece as a "landmark" product seems untenable to me.
Certainly not a high crime or misdemeanor- but a mistake nevertheless.
It seems like we get into these messes occasionally on the forums because of how language - especially superlatives - are employed. Perhaps where we get disconnected from one another when considering the use of these superlatives is with our expectations.
On the one side you have readers (among which are mostly consumers, and then other professionals within the industry like myself). We assume that when a rare superlative is used such as "best" or "landmark" or "sea change" or even "order of magnitude," that there is a unique authenticity to its use in relation to the product being thus labeled. We expect that the writer is demanding our attention n a way he/she might not otherwise be so bold to demand. This is a very special and rare circumstance, and worthy of our rapt attention.
On the other side we have writers, who have at hand several challenges to face. The first is to find a way to parse through all the amazing HiFi that they get to encounter. Writers are still enthusiasts, they are still kith and kin to readers in that way - they've just managed to get a killer gig that allows them access to products they might not ordinarily have access to. The amount of HiFi extant outnumbers the rare superlatives in the english language by an extraordinary amount, I would suspect.
Another challenge they face is the need to provide interesting and compelling content to the readers in order to keep the readers interested in the magazine. Here I do not mean to suggest (and so expect not to be misquoted or quoted out of context) that writers employ superlatives, rare or otherwise, for the mere purpose of titillating readers. As I said before - there are more great HiFi components in the world than there are words to exalt them. Rather, when something excellent and clearly above the fray is discovered - the playbook of superlatives comes out as usual, and (as well) has become no larger than it was the last time it was opened.
Perhaps this is why we tend to read these words more often than might otherwise be indicated, given the vast field of excellent products from which to choose. It's not a right-or-wrong issue, in my mind, but rather a paucity of available language. The danger, of course, is that - in overuse - these rare superlatives will dull our receptors and lose their effect. "The Best" has been on trial in these forums several times, and "landmark" is being indicted as we speak.
How can we use language differently so that its power isn't diluted by familiarity?
Chris
The Signal Collection, LLC
North American Distributors
of Connoisseur-Grade Hi-Fi
Study semantics, I would argue the word "landmark" clearly had a connotative meaning as the very notion of a "landmark speaker" is mind boggling. It is up to the reader to use intelligence to ascribe what the writer is trying to convey from the context of the article. Or maybe some people just like go to a dictionary in order to nit pick (sound intelligent)?
I would imagine the Wilson people were probably very upset with RH's blog post. He can backtrack all he wants, his article speaks for itself. Those of you that want him to admit the obvious, just stop. Its like trying to get a baseball player to admit he has used performance enhancing drugs. And JV, we understand you want to keep the Magico speaker fresh in the mind of everyone reading this blog, but please stop. Its shameful. The M5 isn't in the same league as the Arrakis.
I have an off topic question so please forgive. Is there a way to go directly to one of my posts or do you have to somehow remember what page it's on an simply scroll to find it? This seems terribly cumbersome. thx.
<<And JV, we understand you want to keep the Magico speaker fresh in the mind of everyone reading this blog, but please stop. Its shameful. The M5 isn't in the same league as the Arrakis.>>
Mark Twain once said that the only person who had the right to refer to himself as "we" was the King of England or a guy with a tapeworm. I guess we can add a poster who owns Rockports and calls himself "Kong" to the short list.
Jonathan,
I understand that picking on you for your enjoyment of the Magico's is not very nice but calling a guy a "jerk" starts to move past a good blog and joking around and moves into personal insults. Everyone can try and keep it a clean arguement here whether we agree on things or not.
You are the professional here and whether you like what they say or not they are your readers.
Happy Friday everyone,
Cole
Dear Jon,
I don't understand why Mr. Harley can't defend his own statement. He back peddled, he put his editorial foot in his mouth so why are you trying to change the subject. The M5 or any other product really is not part of this discussion since it was not you that made the statement on the top of this page.
BTW I second Cole's position that resorting to name calling is really unprofessional. The "jerk" in question is a customer of yours, just like the one's that agree with you.
Hey jek- I defer to you as the linguistics expert with an apparent speciality in the subfield of semantics.
In this case , was JV calling kong123 a jerk , an example of the connotative, denotative, or boorish ?
Oh, well. I thought the post was funny (and still do), but if some of you were offended by the work "jerk" I hereby take it back and will amend the post. OTOH, Elliot, you of all people handing out lessons on Internet manners is a bit galling. I quote from one of your milder retorts on this very thread: "Allis did you take your meds today? Chris you? Oz I have the pipe loaded up want to join in?" And, just for the record, this is a free and open forum to which folks, like Kong, can post more or less anonymously. I. OTOH, reply under my own name and with a long history of published opinion trailing behind me (for better or worse). No one here is a "customer" of mine, although some may be fans or detractors or neutral parties.
Wow Jon, of all the people that read this you did not get my sense of humor? Go back and read the comment from the poster that attacked me. I have been called all kinds of names here. I would hope that someone as clever as you would get it without me having to explain it, but I guess not. I am extremely disappointed :(
I don't resort to name calling Jon, nor other tactics to defend my position. BTW the people that wrote to me after you called the person that disagreed with you a jerk all had name a for you.
I do have to say that your last post was "the most sigificant post in the history of blogs and is a landmark that will establish new guidelines , break new ground, stretch the borders of what's possible and bring tears to the eyes of all who experience it."
If they subscribe too or purchase the magazine/ magazines, or Golden Ears Club etc. then they are in fact customers of the person or company that pays you! I t is nice to know however that you feel that they are not important and you have no responsibilty to them.I thought you were the executive editor is that a title without responsibilty to your bosses?
I for one am a subscriber and an advertiser
Oy.
Of course, I work for a magazine, and the magazine does have "customers" who are "buying" news, features, and viewpoints. But on this Web site, I'm not "selling" my work to anyone, and I don't consider other posters to this site my "customers." In fact, I consider most of them colleagues. Like the rest of you guys I'm voicing opinions--and doing so a bit more freely and openly than might be politic on a magazine page. That is what I meant (as if you didn't know).
JV
Boys boys boys - Can't we go back to something fun like picking on Robert again.
Heh-heh!
Allis, nice one! Connotative. Being English I don't really know what its generally accepted meaning is, I would think it is a humourous mild insult used jokingly amongst friends, judging by the contextof JV's post. Any worse would of course be unacceptably boorish. Funny old blog don't you think, molehills and mountains come to mind!
Yes, let's go back to picking on me for sharing my impressions of an outstanding stereo system.
Incidentally, I get the impression that if I said to Elliot that "A digital watch has no moving parts" he would reply "You are WRONG, sir! WRONG on several accounts! The electrons inside the chips move. The LCD crystals move. The buttons to set the time move. Get your facts straight before you report them, Sir!"
Robert- I will take extra care to make sure that this does not appear that I am picking on you. Many of us are long term readers of TAS- myself since Issue 1 when I was in college. We have perhaps an irrational allegiance to the principles upon which the magazine was founded and with it came a modicum of verbal restraint that is now long gone. In a virtually unknown system you said of the Rockport " it is without question a landmark achievement". On the cover of the new TAS Issue containing your review of these two products it reads "Meridian's Revolutionary Digital Speaker and CD Player ". Also in that issue Alan Taffel has as his lead in the title before the review begins - "Two Revolutionary DAC'S" -then he reviews the Bryston DAC and ARC DAC and states " This makes these DAC's not only the most informative I have ever heard , but also the easiest and most relaxing to listen to. This is no mean feat. Indeed , it is revolutionary."
Dick Olsher reviews the Weiss DAC/ Transport and says of the transport " the Jason is head of the class" and "Coupled with the Medea DAC , this is a digital front end that will recalibrate your expectations of CD sound quality" . Finally, in the same issue you call the Meridian CD player " the most significant product in the history of the compact disc".
There is more progress, revolution, recalibration of perception and greatness (albeit ultimately meaningless) in this one issue then I think I have seen in all the time since I bought my first Linn Sondek TT back in 1973- when that really was a revolutionary product compared to all the rest that was out there back then.
Perhaps those of us protesting what we deem to be excessive hyperbole should just accept that the mag has somewhat transformed from an audio journal in serious pursuit of identifying and pushing forward the state of the art and hence the sound absolute and morphed more into an entertainment magazine seemingly aimed to assist in the pushing of boxes - but it is a bitter pill to swallow for us old timers and we seek some return to a more meaningful servitude from TAS.
I have heard the Meridian in a known system and it is indeed excellent. However, the far more expensive dCS Scarlatti that I purchased and that I have listened to side by side with the Meridian in two well known systems still outperforms the Meridian in just those areas where the Meridian does excel and in those areas where you so accurately describe the superb performance of the Meridian on page 94 of the new issue - rendering of acoustic spaces, relationship of instruments to each other, three dimensionality, etc. In fact, I was shocked at the level of performance from the Meridian particularly at that price point - having heard many more expensive units with less to offer . But even if I am wrong about the Scarlatti ( which with all it's greatness is not revolutionary but evolutionary) vs the Meridian - I just think all these dramatic superlatives are unnecessary to describe how much further along on a continuum of improvement a particular product raises the bar. Is it not sufficient to say that it does raise the bar at least with respect to what one has previously heard in one's own system ? Moreover, I think these overly dramatic descriptions actually build in disappointment for some readers when they listen to or purchase the reviewed equipment and find it ultimately is not that much better than what they have heard or owned- when they were expecting instead a revolution or transformation . Having heard and owned many great amplifiers, source components and loudspeakers - I can't say that very many were "revolutionary" or "the most significant product in the history of . . . .." - although many were better, sometimes much better, and many had different strengths than some others particularly when factoring in that some of the later arrivals also benefitted from other better performers in the chain from which the earlier components did not benefit when they were measued . After the arrival of the most significant product in the history of CD into your system how can you possibly fairly compare a new product against an older one you had earlier reviewed without benefit of the Meridian?
Wow Robert ,
I had no idea that you were that sensitive. I don't believe I have ever challenged anything you said before this blog that I can remember and I asked a question to start this discussion which you conveniently ignored. In fact I don't believe you bothered to really address anything asked of you here but rather just politically side stepped any real answer.
This is IMHO a cop out. If you want to be a crittic I think that other opinions come with the territory. Jon seems to be able to deal with this without a hug and a box of tissues.
Allis,
Great letter Sir! I think that you eloquently expressed many of the issues that bother a lot of us old times that read TAS and the guide. I want to thank you for so clearly outlining the issues.
I think you would make a great reviewer!
Just found the time to catch up with this blog entry...
Outstanding!! I haven't heard the Arrakis (nor the Altair), but have heard virtually all the rest of Rockport's speakers... and have always found them to be among the best, this just confirms and reinforces my view.
Thanks for posting your honest view RH (the relatively low Signal to Noise Ratio among the Comments notwithstanding ;)
It is not just old timers that this issue bothers, :-)
Allis,
I think you're completely missing the boat. TAS is a magazine. All magazines (except for the most boring academic journals) try to write headlines and construct cover pages that will draw readers to the magazine. Cover pages (and even headlines to some extent) are the equivalent of those retail store ads saying, SALE, UP TO 50 PERCENT OFF ON SELECTED ITEMS. Which means of course that there is one pair of gloves that is reduced by 48 percent.
The bottom line is: readers should NOT read cover headlines so literally. The job of headline writers (and reporters/writers often don't write those) is to get people to open the magazine/newspaper and read it. The second goal is to do this without saying anything that is a flat-out lie. Surely we all know this by now. You hear a radio announcer read the headline of some study saying coffee increases colon cancer, and then you go to the article and find all the qualifiers, that the study only focused on 20 people, that the people studies were all over 65 and living in Sweden, that the increased rate of colon cancer among these coffee drinkers was .002 percent, and on and on.I thought this was generally understood.
Also, just read the magazine: there are strong and conflicting opinions on all kinds of matters. The latest issue has the review by Roy Gregory of their sister publication, Hi Fi Plus. Gregory loves the new Grande Utopia EM. It would be a mistake to assume that Harley shares his views or JV shares his views of HP shares Gregory's views of those $180,000 behemoths.
Heck, there is an article in the latest issue by Paul Seydor (a review of some Harberth speakers, I believe) in which Seydor criticizes what he sees as a misguided focus among reviewers on how well speakers create a soundstage. Seydor says something to the effect of, great soundstaging does not mimic live performances. Well, JV, who is my favorite writer, loves to discuss soundstaging in his views. I took Seydor's article as indicating that he has a different view of soundstaging than JV.
My point is that given that these writers all have sharply indiosyncratic and particular ideas of what makes for "accurate" sound and for "good sound," there is no way that one article speaks to the views of the entire magazine. Hell, I don't even read HP's reviews as speaking for the magazine and he was the founder and long-time head editor of the publication.
I remember Robert Harley writing a few years ago that he had never particularly appreciated the sound of horn speakers until he stumbled upon a presentation (at CES if memory serves) of some Avantarde speakers. He said he finally "got it" when it comes to why some people really liked horns. Yet, JV had already been on record saying how much he liked some of the Avantgarde speakers.
I don't see why it's so hard to figure this out: there is almost never a consensus about a particular product at TAS, at least not a consensus in the way that critics of Robert's blog on the Rockport system seem to think exists. And this is, I think, as it should be.
Phillymanhere,
My point- my boat- it was you that missed it. You might disagree -so be it. Lack of reviewer consensus notwithstanding, some may accept the constant and mind numbing use of superlatives, both on covers and in the reviews , proclaiming revolutionary and genre redefining products that ultimately reduce reviews to meaninglessness- but not me or many others.
Interesting post about Rockport...and I certainly understand all the "up roar" about the word "BEST"...I think those terms have been over used. Actually for me I get more concerned when folks use the term "revolutionary"...break through on an ongoing basis. As an owner of Rockport speakers for the past few years I truly appreciate what they do very well. Without having bought a pair of Wilson Sophia 2s I am not sure I would have been prepared to understand some of the key elements of what Andy Payor does when he designs a speaker...and begins with the enclosure...which was a prime reason why I kept my Snell AIIIi speakers for so long. Cabinet noise is amazingly low in Rockport speakers...at least those models that use his speaker molding technique...which is now restricted to the very top end speakers such as Robert heard. The noise levels from these cabinets are amazing...which permits Andy's drivers and thus complete systems to work very well. To me engineering low noise/low resonsance/inert cabinets are key to the best speakers (assuming there is a box...Quad and Magnpan...and I am sure others... do great things without a box)... While RH may have heard Andy's system as the "Best"...that is fine...its his opinion and I suspect I would agree....I suspect that the Arrakis evolved from the Hyperion...and as a result the speaker provides improved transparency, reduced distortion, improved linearity...and I suspect his next "statement speaker"...whenever it appears will move further down the road.
This is sound engineering...using his experience from past efforts. This is the same evolution that I am sure Dave Wilson goes through and other skilled designers. It bugs me when reviewers describe everything is some sort of break through. William Z. Johnson of ARC is evolving his pre amp design from the Ref 3 to 5, Charles Hansen of Ayre does the same...all based upon engineering skills AND listening. A lot of this thread I think revolves around readers getting tired of "this month's break through"...I get tired of it.
I am glad that RH wrote what he felt and heard...best sound...and not just the speakers...the room, the setup, etc. While I no longer use Spectral I was pleased that someone with his skill sets and platform was able to get Spectral to provide their gear and wrote about his experiences with the gear.
While I am in the mood of complimenting TAS...I did enjoy and learned from HP's discussion about "absolute sound"...given the quality of the best equipment today...in good listening environments...are we evaluating the equipment or the under lying recording....I felt that was an excellent in sight...well worth pondering.
Well enough of my thoughts....its a nice day out
Is it time for a new high-end review magazine? I just looked at Hi Fi + this afternoon and what do you think is in it? A Pass electronics review by AHC! Plus, I thought Roy Gregory was editor of that mag and that isn't the case. HP, are you reading this?
The new high-end review magazine is called Tone Audio. They seem to leave out the hyper BS.
Tone has waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much fluff and not enough substance.
I've read Tone ... pretty pictures. It's like Playboy for audio. For my $ I'm still a fan of MGD's Bound for Sound. They don't take ads, and Marty has a day job.
Tone does do ads but they are pretty nice looking and makes audio equipment look more like luxury than just audio toys.
I also like that they got back to the basics: MUSIC . All the other magazines have continued only on equipment
Yeah - reading about Music is a nice part of Tone, but I've got a half-a-million music review magazines to read out there. Nothing super special about Tone's ability to review music over everything else available to us. The thing I like about Tone is the audio-porn photography. The thing I like about Bound for Sound is the sheer, unadulterated opinion and lack of advertisement. Most of the smaller magazines (Tone included) don't have a publisher, per se - their ad department is also their editorial department. Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but it is just another reason to suspect funny business sometimes.
Do you really think just becuase a larger magazine has seperate departments that they are not in it for the ad money. Please. I do like Bound of Sound's "unadulterated" opinion but if they had a little money it would improve there looks alot. I would love to see something audio with a form like "Modern Luxury" does. It has a great interactive online magazine and a print version. They charge alot for the magazine but look at the end result. I love getting that magazine each month. That is the problem I feel with high end audio now days, they charge six figures for speakers but they advertise like it was cheap crap. Think of it this way; would you advertise a Rolex in a cheap magazine so why do they advertise the MBL 101E in a poorly looking magazine like Stereophile or The Absolute Sound?
Just so you know, Modern Luxury costs close to $50,000 for a 1 page ad for one month! That would make the price of products push through the ceiling in order to pay for your pretty ad.
There's something to be said for pretty pictures. I like looking at them, too.
BFS is a source of information that I like. It's not the only one. I'm not choosing sides. I like TAS and Stereophile, too. I like Tone, too. I think they all serve a role. BFS: unsullied opinion. TAS/Stereophile: mainstream (mostly) and luxury stuff that's interesting, and decent music reviews. Tone: gorgeous photography, decent music reviews. Enjoy The Music: Interesting stuff that's on the edge of the market. Soundstage (multiple sites) - mainstream (mostly), a different angle from TAS/Stereophile. Positive Feedback: depends on the reviewer (so many), but mostly very cogent writing and interesting perspectives. 6moons: nice long reviews, lots of musical information in them, pretty nice photography.
All of these together make up my reading habits, more or less.
Then you ask: "Think of it this way; would you advertise a Rolex in a cheap magazine so why do they advertise the MBL 101E in a poorly looking magazine like Stereophile or The Absolute Sound?"
Because I imagine they think they are reaching the people who might want to buy these. Seeing as how Stereophile and TAS together probably reach the majority of the potential market for that stuff. Why would you advertise something that looked like an MBL 101E in a luxury magazine? Who among those kinds of people would want something looking like that in their home?
" Some credit for the systems performance goes to the large, purpose built listening room "
this quote votes for the biggest understatement in highend audio of all time.
Robert, John,
I've been following this blog for some time with amusement and trepidation. The amusing part is how seriously people take these reviews which are really opinions columns. It makes me wonder if these same people take the opinions columns in their dailies just as seriously. Over the years I've found that the reviewers that have stayed relevant have been able at least to a limited degree to express what they find as sonic priorities or basically what floats their boats.
The trepidation is that there really are reviewer fan boys out there that put their favorite reviewers on equal footing as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I've personally seen folks go through the agony of buying last month's best only to have them weep because the ol' idolized reviewer has found something better. I genuinely feel sorry for these folks. Since they'd rather take your word than trust their own instincts. I know it is in no way your fault. I think you must be reminded however that these people exist and that they are not small in number. In my perspective this is the problem. The likelihood of getting a personal audition of these statement loudspeakers like the 101s, Model 6s, X-2 Series 2s, VR-11s , Pipedreams, Muons, Arrakis, Poseidons etc. etc. with a properly synergized system (in which case the room must always and ever be considered as part of the system) is about as big as the Taco Bell Chihuahua winning a dog race against Greyhounds. That makes you ultra-hi end reviewers important to them and thus a bit more meat on the bones of comparisons I think would show even greater responsibility. These people are important to us less wealthy too because we rely on the trickle down tech from these statement pieces.
In prior posts in correspondence with JV it was clear that we have different sonic priorities despite an uncanny similarity in musical tastes. No hair off my back. I ended up with speakers that he panned (not by much) in a show report over one I he praised at the same price level and I can't be happier with my choice.
So, while all your articles are choc-full of qualifying statements and clearly you have established credibility over your combined decades of experience and service, which if you include HP, WG, DO and RG would amount to probably over a century. I must say that as a longtime subscriber, all this "best" talk really is getting tiresome. This isn't because I dispute what you hear but because unlike in the past the descriptions have become way too abstract and esoteric.
While I don't expect you to take responsibility for your fanatic followers actions and that in many a past article you've all contributed to the hobby by writing articles on how to build systems according to one's personal objectives and at various cost brackets to boot. I would just like to remind you that the industry statures you have earned are at a point where perhaps, as a humble suggestion, could be better cared for with even better communication. I won't tell you how to write as you write better than I do as it is. I fully agree that in today's cutting edge the existing lexicon really is becoming severely limited. Perhaps it's time that developing a new lexicon for the new paradigm be added in in equal or greater measure to your list of challenges and not just the pursuit of what might be, again to beat a dead horse, the best out there. Keep in mind that even as 2 of the most respected and recognizable high end reviewers, even your chances of winning that dog race is not that much better than us your readers. That being the case, I'm sure you can find ways to practice some restraint on the language without having to curb your enthusiasms.
I write this in all sincerity. Like many here, we don't just want to see TAS succeed but the whole industry as well. I hope my observations and suggestions are taken positively.
And yes, the Arrakis does look impressive. I even like the name having read many times since childhood the Dune Saga by Frank Herbert.
M.D.
M.D.,
You make a good point. Actually, several. Let me quote from my (soon-to-be-published) review of the M5s on those controversial words "the best":
The words “the best” have been bandied about quite a bit in this magazine and on our Web site (avguide.com)—and there is legitimate concern that they are being overused. Unfortunately, no other words will do to describe how I feel about the Magico M5. Not only has it redefined an entire genre of speakers for me, it has carried me substantially closer to the absolute sound....
[But] remember that when I say “the best,” I mean “the sound, overall, that comes closest to the real thing to my ears”—with the kind of music I listen to most often, at the levels I typically choose, and in the room where I listen. What I don’t mean, which may be as important as what I do mean, is “best in every way” or “best for every listener.” As good as it is, the M5 has sonic competition in several areas, is very expensive, and may not suit some musical tastes or some rooms or some ancillaries as well as it does mine...
There may be other speakers on the market or on the horizon that outperform the M5s overall—the absolute sound is, after all, a rapidly moving target. If there are such speakers, I simply haven’t heard them yet. If you have, I have no argument with you. For all the observations and evidence I’ve presented in support of my opinion, there is, finally, no arguing taste. I freely concede that there is room out there for more than one nominee as “the best loudspeaker.”
Hope this helps.
JV
Oh, and let me add, I do try to explain why I've come to this conclusion. The feature is more than 8000 words long, for those of you who think all we do is reach for "The Best" label-gun and smack it on a box.
This looks good to me Jonathan. I only wish I was able to attend CES this year as I did last year. Since I haven't heard the M5 and over the years I think I have a handle on what you look for in exemplary products, I'll be waiting for my issue to arrive on my doorstep for the rest of what looks to be another fine review.
As for the other Greyhounds, it's just too bad that most of them are too few in number and too high in cost to be shipped around and set up for reviews. It seems only the very big companies have the financial wherewithal to do this. This brings us back to Robert and the Arrakis. Robert's report on the Magico Ultimates is a case in point, I have absolutely no qualms about reviewers leaving their caves and listening to products in places where they have been optimized by somebody else.
Here's why I think so. The reviewer is limited to his own listening space, his own equipment or other equipment he has access to for very long periods of time. While this enables a reviewer to single out the qualities of a particular piece of gear in a stable environment and context, the trade of is that that piece of gear's potential might not be adequately realized. This is something that can be gleaned from the excerpts of your upcoming M5 review when you very clearly state what you "don't mean".
Out of cave experiences are the opposite. As journalists you can report on the potentials of a piece of equipment, something very interesting and relevant to readers, but conversely the trade off is that we might not be able to get a report on the equipment's singular attributes or singular contributions to the experience. I really don't see why there can't be room for both types of reports and I hope you at TAS will continue to do both despite criticisms by folks from either camp. It means we the readers just get more "Greyhounds" albeit running on different tracks.
I believe the general readership is smart enough to make the distinctions anyhow. Maybe it's time your publishers pony up some more dough for you to go around and see the sights and hear what's out there. I read Architectural Digest and even those magazines that specialize in featuring spectacularly executed home theaters. Hey. There's an idea! No other audio magazine does this as a regular feature. It might bring you closer to the readership. Just don't visit my listening room. It's messy as all heck!
I have been "getting out of the cave" pretty much lately. Last year I visited Germany, Turkey, the Netherlands, and Great Britain--and heard "greyhounds" at every stop. This year I went to Japan in the spring and in the fall with be going to Switzerland--and have heard and will hear more top contenders. (This, of course, in addition to the usual round of trade shows.)
It is broadening and uplifting to hear great music on great stereos in relatively unfamiliar places with relatively unfamiliar gear. You learn things that you can't learn in any other way--and you hear things that, if you're lucky, you may get to bring home and hear at greater length. More importantly, you see that the high end is alive everywhere--not just in the good ol' U.S. of A. That, as small a group as we audiophiles may be in the grand scheme of things, there are still people in every country of every land who are passionately devoted to bringing us closer to the absolute sound. That realization has been the best part of my travels.
Too bad your allotted spaces combined with the all too few issues a year don't allow you guys and gal to share those "out of cave" adventures. Then again there's always the Blogs.
robert i was wondering if you got a chance to hear the altairs? what your impressions were? how they compared to their bigger brother? if the dif in price was worth it? also how do they compare to the magico m5 or the m6's? the "BEST" is a subjective word and most be taken in the contect that is used. rarely do to people agree on what is good let alone "the best". i mean my wife loves cold play and i want to vomit when they come on, who's right? well in this case obviously me! i think andy builds a great speaker and that your insights are a great starting point. i don't always agree with them but dif opinions is what it is all about. thanks for any insight you can give me here. p.kogan
for what it's worth
I realized this thread flat lined months ago but upon revisiting it today, I reread RH's opening salvo as if for the first time: "The Best Stereo System......I’ve Ever Heard". The best stereo SYSTEM...HE has ever heard. RH did not say it was the THE BEST STEREO SYSTEM out there....he said it was the best HE had ever heard. That's point #1. Point #2 is that RH said it was the best sounding SYSTEM...not the best sounding speaker. Man, give the guy a break here. "System" encompasses the electronics, the cabling, the speakers and the room. It mAy very well have been the best Robert has ever heard; who are we to say it wasn't? I don't see where he was making any sort of exaggerated claim but rather stating that it was the best sound experience he had had. I don't see why any "audiophile" should be hung up on his statement. Sheesh.
Post new comment