Yamaha A-1 Vintage Amplifier Review

[DonH56]

I am only a writer, not management/administration, but, AFAIK, the magazine makes a great effort to cover products across the entire price spectrum of serious audio. Of course, inclusion of lower priced stuff annoys those who think only expensive equipment should be considered just as the inclusion of very expensive stuff annoys others.

Thanks for chipping in Kal. Years ago whilst doing a stint in management I decided as long as both sides were equally pissed I'd done my best.

 

[LTig]

I am only a writer, not management/administration, but, AFAIK, the magazine makes a great effort to cover products across the entire price spectrum of serious audio. [..]

I'm not sure whether this effort is so great after all. My feeling is that there are very few tests of affordable devices (say < $1000) which rather seem to serve as an alibi. I'd assume that the median price of all devices tested within the last 10 years is not in reach of an audiophile with average income.

 

[LTig]

Thanks, but that prompts the question, "what is serious audio?". There's no upper limit on price, but is there a lower one, explicit or not?

I don't think so. Seeing that a transparent DAC or single active speaker with good SQ can be had for around $100 makes it difficult to define a lower limit.

 

[AudioSceptic]

Even with all the politics and BS, gear from those days had a certain 'class' that you just don't find much anymore. My current amp runs circles around any of that era's stuff. But I'd like it even more if it looked as nice as some of the Yamaha (or Pioneer) electronics from those days.

Isn't that "class" still available if you pay enough, or do you mean that even the average stuff had class then?

 

[AudioSceptic]

I'm not sure whether this effort is so great after all. My feeling is that there are very few tests of affordable devices (say < $1000) which rather seem to serve as an alibi. I'd assume that the median price of all devices tested within the last 10 years is not in reach of an audiophile with average income.

And when they do test the "budget" stuff they might say, "We are surprised how good this is. It is close to the state of the art". They are surprised only because they so rarely review affordable gear.

 

[AudioSceptic]

I don't think so. Seeing that a transparent DAC or single active speaker with good SQ can be had for around $100 makes it difficult to define a lower limit.

I mean a lower limit for Stereophile, one that they won't go below. What's the cheapest there, apart from tweaks?

 

[Matias]

I mean a lower limit for Stereophile, one that they won't go below. What's the cheapest there, apart from tweaks?

Audioquest Dragonfly as far as I recall.

 

[LTig]

I mean a lower limit for Stereophile, one that they won't go below. What's the cheapest there, apart from tweaks?

Probably some $500 for a pair of small passive 2-way speakers.

 

[audimus]

Go on then. Setup a web site and publish the results for all the world to see. Then sit back and wonder how your efforts are criticised from all sides.

That would be like the audio manufacturers asking Amir to get set up a company to build AVRs and then sit back and wonder how it is criticized by the Amirs of the world. Fair, right?

The self-unaware hubris on this site is astonishing. Criticism of the methodology is not criticism of the practitioner.

The problem on this site is not too much criticism but rather too much cultism without a critical examination of what the measurements actually imply leading to what amounts to scientific malpractice.

When people who read this site write things like “I liked how it sounded but I realize what I was hearing was distortion” and left alone to feel that way with no science basis for it, it is scientific malpractice.

When people demand of people reporting hearing differences far more rigor than what they demand of things that confirm their own biases (just measuring something with precision isn’t rigor unless its implications are subjected to the same rigor) and obnoxious posts like

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-revel-f206-david-vs-goliath.9550/post-253155

reflect prevailing attitudes without challenge, then it becomes a cult.

When a group of crotchety old men use the measurements to confirm their biases against contemporary equipment or manufacturers to reminisce about the old times when it was better (ignoring survivor bias), to make each such thread a pinãta bashing event, it stops being anything about science.

When it results in people unnecessarily returning equipment for things they cannot here, spending huge amounts of money on something that measured well while there would be no difference with something half its price, tarnishing reputations of manufacturers without a solid basis for doing so (again measuring with precision isn’t the end), then it becomes irrelevant.

 

[Soniclife]

That sounds great, think we need a sperate thread for this discussion, to sort out the what where when and how.

New thread created for this.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/british-listening-tests.9590/

 

[Zaki Ghul]

That would be like the audio manufacturers asking Amir to get set up a company to build AVRs and then sit back and wonder how it is criticized by the Amirs of the world. Fair, right?

The self-unaware hubris on this site is astonishing. Criticism of the methodology is not criticism of the practitioner.

The problem on this site is not too much criticism but rather too much cultism without a critical examination of what the measurements actually imply leading to what amounts to scientific malpractice.

When people who read this site write things like “I liked how it sounded but I realize what I was hearing was distortion” and left alone to feel that way with no science basis for it, it is scientific malpractice.

When people demand of people reporting hearing differences far more rigor than what they demand of things that confirm their own biases (just measuring something with precision isn’t rigor unless its implications are subjected to the same rigor) and obnoxious posts like

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-revel-f206-david-vs-goliath.9550/post-253155

reflect prevailing attitudes without challenge, then it becomes a cult.

When a group of crotchety old men use the measurements to confirm their biases against contemporary equipment or manufacturers to reminisce about the old times when it was better (ignoring survivor bias), to make each such thread a pinãta bashing event, it stops being anything about science.

When it results in people unnecessarily returning equipment for things they cannot here, spending huge amounts of money on something that measured well while there would be no difference with something half its price, tarnishing reputations of manufacturers without a solid basis for doing so (again measuring with precision isn’t the end), then it becomes irrelevant.

I used to be a lurker until recently. While I can't speak for everyone here, so far this forum has helped me spend less on better engineered equipment not more. Most of the time I would not claim to have heard a significant difference as I'm not a trained listener, but on two occasions I was very audibly validated in my decision and ASR for providing the data that informed it (while saving money).
On a separate note, yes that thread you linked to got uncivil but that is hardly unique these days and from my experience of this forum it is not the norm here. As for people doing more than measuring, in this thread a group is organizing to get together to do listening tests.

 

[AudioTodd]

I mean a lower limit for Stereophile, one that they won't go below. What's the cheapest there, apart from tweaks?

The cheapest I can remember is the Schiit SYS and it used to be on the Recommended Components list! Not sure why it was removed...

 

[amirm]

reflect prevailing attitudes without challenge, then it becomes a cult.

Ah, the equivalency argument. Let's equate people who get together to discuss how to sell more dietary supplements to people the same as doctors getting together to discuss their science.

This thread was about one question: did the old gear really measure better than current gear? Or is it folklore? In many review/measurement threads this point was brought up. So a poor guy spent huge amount of money offering to pay both ways to send this massive and delicate piece of gear to me to be tested in that regard. In the process, the speaker terminals may now be damaged and he will incur that cost too to repair it.

After it is said and done, you show up and say, "oh yeah? but does it sound different?" That is called spreading FUD: fear, uncertainty and doubt about the research we have performed to answer the technical performance of the device. It would not be FUD if you had data to offer although it would still not be appropriate in this thread. But you had none. You just throw sarcasm and devaluation of the work to defend your cult.

What cult is yours? The cult of "everything in audio is the same." A lot of people have been carrying this banner around online. The measurements are threatening to them. Back in 2014 I tested the HDMI performance of a bunch of AVRs for that reason become someone claimed insistently that HDMI was actually better than S/PDIF. Well, he was wrong. Very wrong. This is the power of data.

I am not beyond being questioned at all. Just make sure your questions are constructive, to the point, and done with the right mindset that doesn't spit on what I do, and the membership who appreciates getting reliable data for the first time on the design of their products.

And be careful about your accusations: I have posted more controlled test results online of audio than anyone out there. I routinely comment on significance of measurement relevant to audibility. I have done that even in this case:

And you thought this was the thread where you could stand on a pedestal and protest about audibility?

Finally, as I mentioned to you, my issue with your post was it being repeated in so many review threads. Make a new thread and discuss it all you want. Don't keep repeating the statement to put down the data or the discussion. We don't need you for that. Your intentions become too clear then...

 

[Herbert]

"Damn! This review is going to drive hipsters to buy more vintage gear. I'll never pick up the old Kenwood receiver I had as a kid at a decent price now."

With gadgets like electronic-scooters in connection with earpods competition will not be that high any more in the future...

 

[RayDunzl]

CD was a huge jump in level to a nominal max of 2 V and headroom of even ½ of that would've been unusual then. At the time I thought the 2 V CD standard was stupid for that very reason, but of course it needed to be that high to realise the very high DR of digital. It wasn't long before amps caught up, and after that CD players started playing the louder-sounds-better game.

I see this:

From the sell sheet on page 2 of this thread, purportedly from August of 1978.

 

[RayDunzl]

Personally, I can't think of anyone dismissing Japanese electronics from that time.

Ripper:
Were you ever a prisoner of war?

Mandrake:
Ah yes I was. Matter of fact, Jack, I was.

Ripper:
Did they torture you?

Mandrake:
Ah... yes, they did. I was tortured by the Japanese, Jack, if you must know. Not a pretty story.

Ripper:
Well what happened?

Mandrake:
Oh... well... I don't know, Jack. Difficult to think of under these conditions. But, well, what happened was they got me on the old Rangoon HNRR railway. I was laying train mines for the bloody Japanese puff puffs.

Ripper:
No, I mean when they tortured you, did you talk?

Mandrake:
Ah, oh no, I ah... I don't think they wanted me to talk, really. I don't think they wanted me to say anything. It was just their way of having... a bit of fun, the swines. Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.

 

[RayDunzl]

I imagine advertising in Stereophile is expensive

 

[AudioSceptic]

I see this:

View attachment 37108

From the sell sheet on page 2 of this thread, purportedly from August of 1978.

I don't know if that was typical, e.g., Quad 33 was 0.5 V output, 405 was 0.5 input, or was that particularly low?

 

[RayDunzl]

I don't know if that was typical, e.g., Quad 33 was 0.5 V output, 405 was 0.5 input, or was that particularly low?

I have no idea, but it popped up in the specs for this pre-CD era (assumedly) specs.

 

[oldsysop]

Thank you Amir !!!
Someday I would like a measurement of my favorite brand, Sansui.