Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Critic's Corner ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

RE: Well, here is a start...

Posted by Charles Hansen (M) on November 5, 2017 at 00:34:58

In Reply to: Well, here is a start... posted by jamesgarvin on November 4, 2017 at 19:44:18:

> > I am missing the fact here. I've read Fremer during the course of his tenure at Stereophile, and I've not seen any evidence of his idolizing Payor. If Mr. Hansen has some inside information, then it would be helpful if he provided that information. < <

No inside information. All from observation. Andy Payor original approach has been different from most high-end companies in that he considered it best to explain all of his designs in great detail, and holding nothing back. There were no "secrets" to Rockport products, as he clearly explained in detail why he did what he did. This approach worked for him, a literal one-man company that only makes products so expensive that literally perhaps a few thousand people in the world can afford (whom also care about quality audio reproduction).

(However please also note that Payor has changed his approach in recent years. Specifically, he used to use off-the-shelf drivers that anybody could buy. Now he uses drivers with custom-made diaphragms that are built only for his use - proprietary and secret. Claimed to be superior but without the measurements or detailed explanations that would allow others to copy him exactly.)

I believe there is a lot of merit in Payor's original approach. Ayre began the same way - the schematic for the amplifier was silk-screened on the inside of every unit, the idea being that in the future a skilled technician could repair it even if they didn't have a service manual. At that time 1993, my thinking was the same as Payor's was - that if someone wants to copy it, it won't sound as good unless they copy it exactly, down to the brand of resistors and PCB material. And an exact copy would not cost any less than the original, so why not just buy the original?

But when trade relations with China were "normalized", this was no longer true. For many, many reasons the Chinese can can make copies far, far cheaper than the original. Usually because they are NOT exact copies, but copies "close enough" to fool most people. (This is true for almost any industry, not just high-end audio. Ever seen a fake Rolex? If so, where do you think it was made?)

Overall though, I believe Payor's original approach is probably still the best and Ayre has not been as forthcoming in telling the story of our products and designs as we could have been (also known as "marketing", where "marketing" is defined as anything that makes the process of "selling" something - the actual transaction of goods for money - easier).

After all, it is pretty difficult to keep something completely secret. Many high-end audio manufacturers grind the markings off of parts or pot them in epoxy modules, or do any number of things attempt to protect their IP.

Audio Research also used to publish their schematics in their owner's manuals. This made it relatively easy for the competition and DIY'ers to copy Bill Johnson's designs, although with power amps there is always the sticky issue of output transformers, which are invariably custom-made for every high-end tube manufacturer. That is a huge barrier for anybody trying to copy as no North American manufacturer would ever share the details of a customer's proprietary products with another customer.

(The exact opposite is true in most Chinese companies. I know of one famous German high-end manufacturer that had chassis parts made in China. Anything with a minor cosmetic defect would be sold out the back door to a company that made fake Chinese copies of the famous German brand - presumably only sold in China to either rich Chinese suckers at full price, or at lower prices to wealthy Chinese customers who wanted a "deal". It's possible that they even sold them at low prices, openly acknowledging they were exact copies, but since they were made using the exact same parts and circuits, that they were just as good as the originals. Just one of many reasons why I don't like to do business with Chinese companies - please call it a "culture clash" and not "racism".)

Over time Audio Research became less open. When they made their first solid-state products in the '80s (eg, SP-4 preamp), the schematics only showed a "black box" and if I recall correctly the circuits themselves were potted in epoxy. Almost all of their later products were hybrids, and the solid-state parts always had a proprietary part number, presumably with the manufacturer's part number removed in some manner.

(About the only company large enough to have proprietary part *markings* was the old Hewlett-Packard, before they "branched out" into personal computers. You can still go out on the internet to find cross-references between the HP part number and what the part actually was - 99.9% of the time, it was just an off-the-shelf part, rarely selected for some parameter such as temperature coefficient, and far, far more rarely a part custom-made for HP. HP knew - just as Ayre does - that the performance of each product can only be guaranteed by using the exact same part from the exact same manufacturer. Any deviations at all could compromise performance and/or reliability.)

With the death of Bill Johnson and subsequent acquisition by Fine Sounds (now The McIntosh Group), I'm sure all of the policies have changed, especially over time as the original employees retire or leave.

But most high-end manufacturers typically leave out specific details (as do many good patents!) that better explain how or why their product is different or better. (It goes without saying that it *has* to be different to be better.) Especially today, with China's complete disregard for IP, more and more companies (in all industries) are trying to figure out how to protect their competitive IP advantage.

China has made almost all industry like the music industry has become - easily prone to copying and "intellectual theft".

Given that background, once MF adopted the Rockport as his reference it is not difficult to see in his writings that everything I posted previously is true. If you can't recognize that pattern I am sorry. I don't have the time to go through every single one of his reviews to point out the obvious patterns. I will give one concrete example - when Ayre imported the DPS turntable, JA assigned it to AD, who praised it highly. In later private e-mail exchanges with MF, he was unambiguous in expressing his opinion that no turntable with an acrylic (Plexiglas) platter would not be horribly colored. He has been inculcated by his "gurus" to believe certain things, and often his observations correlate with his beliefs, which further fortifies his belief system. But without a true scientific inquiry (and MF is not a scientist), he confuses correlation with causation. It's very easy to do, and just recently I found a case where I may be guilty of the very same deed. We changed two variables at once, mistakenly assuming that one of the variable was of little-to-no consequence. and arrived at a conclusion that may or may not be mistaken. (I've not yet had the time to properly test my hypothesis.)

> > Makes sense to me. < <

Thank you. I generally try to make sense out of things. To find patterns in what appears to be chaos. To attempt to understand why tubes and transistor sound different. (Early attempts such as Hamm's - http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=1980 - are laughable at best, and even later ones such as Chinese-heritage, US based Li's - http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16062 - is a gross oversimplifications at best.) Far more work exists on this topic that is unpublished - such as mine - as almost all solid-state designers realize that tubes inherently sound better than transistors. As far as I know, I am the only one yet to understand why. Otherwise there would be many multiples of companies making product that reviewers and other manufacturers have declared to sound as good or better than tubes.

> > What does the source of the wealth have to do with the sonic integrity, or lack therefore, of any component? < <

You tell me - it's all just opinions. There are many companies in high-end audio that are owned by independently-wealthy persons who don't care if their business runs at a profit or not - as long as it doesn't lose *too* much money. How much is too much? I suppose that depends on the wealth of the owner. Do you think that manufacturers that don't need to make a profit have any advantages over manufacturers that do have to make a profit to stay in business?

Or take the Rupert family or any of "big tobacco" companies. Does it matter how they make their money, as long as they make money? Tobacco companies made their money by selling highly profitable products (originally largely profitable because slave labor was used to produce them, later for other just as nefarious reasons) that literally killed people. The cigarette companies knew this from their own internal studies done in the early '50s. Yet they were stuck between a rock and a hard place. One law says it is illegal to sell products harmful to human life. Other laws say that publicly-held companies must maximize monetary profits above all else. Which law should they obey? Clearly they chose to follow the law that made them the most money - to the point where their corporate officers would lie under sworn testimony before the US Congress. (The people lying knew if they told the truth, they would immediately be replaced by someone else willing to lie for money - just as all of the current mega-corporate-owned MSM news "reporters" knowingly lie to the US citizens for money.)

So you tell me if it makes any difference where the money comes from. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer here. Does it matter to you if the things you purchase are made by slaves? Does it matter to you if the things you purchase are made by child labor - instead of playing or schooling, they have to work for literal survival? Does anything matter? If so, why?

> > How does Mr. Hansen know what products Greenhill has heard? < <

Really? You don't know that LG lists all of the components in his system in "Associated Components"? You didn't read the review where he describes what specific products he compared them to? Or am I supposed to read LG's mind and know that he has visited dozens of friends and dealers, and borrowed dozens of competing amplifiers, and is familiar with all of the currently highly considered products on the market, but somehow forgot to mention that in his review? GMAB.

> > So, now we are talking about Stuart's wife's wealth. See a pattern? < <

Exactly my point. BS ran his business into the ground and had to be bailed out by his wife's family. He continued to lose money and was forced to find outside investment. The only one willing to do so was convinced that Meridian could be sold as a "luxury" brand, like Cartier and Dunhill and the other "luxury" brands they owned. See a pattern?

The problem was that the owner was unsuccessful in making money by selling Meridian as a "luxury" brand. Now BS is deeply in debt, not only to his wife's family trust, but also the "luxury" brand owners. He appears to be making a last-ditch attempt to make some money to pay off his debts. And just like the tobacco executives lying under oath before Congress, it appears that BS will lie about MQA in an attempt to make money.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Schiit Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---