I was reading one commercial audio site where it was said:  “….each MAS product is totally assembled and tested by one of our trained technicians who sign his name on the finished product. “ I wonder - why it is not a normal practice in high-end audio?

What we buy a high-end audio we do not buy a set technical specifications but we but a hope for certain sound. OK, most audio folks do not buy the “hope for certain sound” but rather they fulfill their ceaseless need for audio-neuroticisms but let leave them aside. So, if we perchance the “promise for certain sound” then we all need to clearly realize that sound might be moderated by manufacturing efforts.

We are kind of under impression in Hi-Fi that a brand and a model of hi-fi devise are some kind of assurance or identifier of a certain level of audio quality. However, in reality it might be very much far from truth. Gould recorded his second Goldberg Variations in 1981 on regular mass-production Yamaha but in reality that mass-production Yamaha was one of thousands Yamahas and had very different sound that might be expected from this brand.    

We, know that most of the high-end audio companies are small manufactures and they do recursive productions runs. Many of the production runs sources components from different vendors, different people assemble and calibrate units, manufactures frequently even change the products core functionally without even notifying public. I did not see it myself but I was told by a relatively reliable source that one very famous UK company in past manufactured one amplifier model that was initially introduced as SET and then “clandestinely” turned to be PP. I personally spoke with a famous manufacture of very expense audio cables and asked him why so many of his identical cables sound slightly different. He admitted that he knows about it and he felt that it is because different employees of his company have different soldering habits. I spoke once with a manufacturer of good phonostage and was wondering why one of my friends bought one and it was sounded like shit. The manufacturer explained to me that the production run the phonostage was from was made just before the company was closed down to a month–long vacation and the people did not really care what they do the last few days.  I know one famous manufacturer of good amplifiers who wanted to kiss ass of an audio reviewer and who made for the reviewer one of the unit of his production run “slightly different”. I heard that “different amp” and it was light years away from the rest of amps in regular production run. I can bring many other examples and illustrations from my personal experience and all of them would be indicative to the fact that brand and model in many cases dose not described what the audio product does. So, welcome to the world of vintaging and conditioning of audio brands/models.

When we by a car we might care if this particular model was assembled in Tennessee of in Tokyo. We do care about the vintage of wine and about the vintage of boats. We know what boats manufacture have what kind period and we know what year better to do not touch and which is well worthy. We do the same with pianos and other musical instruments; we know for instance what years of Steinways need to be avoided.  We do the same with machinery tools. We use the very same approach with tubes and musicians and we know that BSO vintage 1949 is not the BSO of vintage 1999 and that Heifetz in 1927 was not the same as he was in 1950s. Why we do not do the same with hi-fi audio gear if there are all conditions indicating that it would serve a lot of sense. After all some of hi-fi components we use cost more than wine, Steinways or boats… and in many instances have much more complicated functional duty.

So, I think that serious high-end audio components must have a day and month when they were made and the applicable conditions under which they were made under. I know for some it might sound residuals but I very much be would be welcomed to this habit/tradition.

Romy the Cat wrote:

***I was reading one commercial audio site where it was said:  “….each MAS product is totally assembled and tested by one of our trained technicians who sign his name on the finished product. “ I wonder - why it is not a normal practice in high-end audio?

Any company with nothing to hide and truly do manufacture high end audio these statements would go a very long way.
Why is it not normal in high-end audio? It could very well be most do not give any thought to doing this or they don't care

***So, I think that serious high-end audio components must have a day and month when they were made and the applicable conditions under which they were made under. I know for some it might sound residuals but I very much be would be welcomed to this habit/tradition.

Applicable conditions, If it were a pair of mono amplifiers and it took a solid week to assemble one, that first mono amp was completed when the employee or the designer himself were in good spirits and cared very much everything he did. But while he was building the second one some personal problems came up that took his mind away from his work, or any number of things. A friday before a long weekend, Monday and hung over ect.
Any manufacturing company with a 3 to 4% rejection rate is doing well.

Mark

jessie.dazzle wrote:

I could not agree more.   Above a certain price point, another thing that should be standard procedure is what Lamm has been doing since day one; and that is to establish a file for each component made, recording whenever possible, its history of ownership, geographical location(s), and any servicing the component may have undergone. From what I understand, these files are updated whenever Lamm obtains more information about the component.    Another thing I like about what Lamm does : He builds several clearly labeled test points into the circuit boards, from which measurements are taken and recorded both before and after burn in. These records are kept, and can be consulted and comparred to measurements taken any time in the component's life, allowing quick verification and diagnosis, as well as instructing the selection of replacement parts.   Just as with a classic Ferrari, this exemplary practice helps maintain the value of the object over the passage of time.    Romy wrote : "...When we by a car we might [not] care if this particular model was assembled in Tennessee of in Tokyo..."    Well, that depends; every single Aston Martin motor used to be, and maybe still is, hand-assembled in its entirety by a single individual, who would then finish the work by stamping or engraving his signature into the engine block. Presumably, if the owner later needed a part for his motor, Aston Martin would, if possible, solicit the same employee to prepare the part. I decided to see if I could find out if they were still doing this, and discovered that yes, they are, and also that Aston Martin has started using Bang & Olufsen as a supplier of audio components in thier cars; so, can we expect B&O's "Tonemeister" (!!!) to sign the installed audio system? Well... Bang & Olufsen Marketing wrote : "...Both companies [Aston Martin and Bang & Olufsen] appreciate the value of individuality, and at Bang & Olufsen there is a very real human element to every stage of the design and manufacturing processes, from the integral role played by the classically trained tonmeister, to the hand finishing of the products. Aston Martin takes the same approach, as each engine bears the signature of the engineer who signed off on it..." Source : http://www.worldcarfans.com/10712112897/aston-martin-teams-with-bang--olufsen In the case of older Aston Martins; not only was the motor hand assembled, but every single body was beat from sheets of aluminum using various hammers, tree stumps, and leather bags full of lead shot... Why did they not use the "English wheel" you ask? Because this miracle was entrusted to the hands of some very skilled Italians, in Milan Italy... Who insidentally signed the finished bodies with their badge: http://metacool.typepad.com/unabashed_gearhead_gnarly/images/2008/08/31/cimg3213.jpg http://image.automobilemag.com/f/multimedia/photo_gallery/6682535/0604_aston_martin_db5_02_1280.jpg Btw, one audio manufacturer that does sign and date his work is Gordon Rankin, of Wavelength Audio.   jd*

High End Audio is dead in its tracks. This is fact. That is why all of us people on this particular site, built our own dream systems, whatever that is to you/me/whoever.

NOW, what do you think BUSINESS is about?

When you let me know on this word and principle, what BUSINESS is, I will share with your readership, that loves to dream their unforgettable dreams, I will share my secret with you.

Human Element lives in all manufacturing endeavors, and really this is way beside the business point.

OLD World DESIGNs, with old World Techniques, may appeal to the rich few, I am not one of them, and by the looks of this site, not many are. SO WHAT DO YOU SAY?

What do manufacturers care about you, REALLY?

Romy is the romantic socialistic cat after all, but this world, reeks of profit, return on investment, etccc...... Good luck my dreamer cats.

lET mE kNOW, pLEASE. socialistic society's have been failed experiments so far, so where do we go from here,

also, I may have some experience with this here, with credibility perhaps.

regards, j.