Quantifying subjective qualities is a fool's game that reviewers and dealers are asked to play regularly because audiophiles as a breed tend to over-value quantifative information. They want to gauge how many units of superiority they are getting for X dollars.
So in the interest of neither over- nor under-rating the percentage of improvement provided by a KQ upgrade to an amplifer, I am asking all of you who have heard such an upgrade, ideally those of you who have had it done to your amp, to tell me here what percentage improvement you would assign to the upgrade. If I get a large enough sample, I will report the results on my website where I am in the process of placing a brief note on KQ upgrades. I figure several subjective estimates may help create the illusion of greater objectivity!
I would hazard the foolish guess that in the case of my BC204, it's around 30%, but we have to remember that some kinds of improvement impress some folks more than others, so this is even crazier and less objective than many other upgrade estimates. I have found that presence, immediacy, reality, life-like-ness are waaay up. Out of sight up. I love that. But other folks, who care less than I do about such matters, might say 15-20%.
So feel free to accompany your number with a note or too of explanation.
Thanks to all willing to play the game.
KQ and Quantifying the Subjective
-
BlueKnight
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 1360
- Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:27 pm
- Location: Northumberland Straight, NB.
This is one tough question Bob but I will try to add my own observations hoping that it will make some sort of sense.
Firstly, lets looks at the objective values. My BC22KQ, according to its creator, falls somewhere between the BC202 and the BC204 in terms of performance and refinement.
If I take into account the original cost of the BC22 then add the MkII LOC + POT upgrade then the recent addition of KQ box, I am still shy of the BC202's retail price by approximatly a couple of grands adjusted for 2011 dollars and quite a few more if I extrapolate the difference in cost between a 202 and a 204. If it sounds like the bargain of the century, it's because it is!
So what does all that mean in terms of [measured] subjective impressions? Well, for one thing, the 'WOW' factor has to be 100%. It hits you or it doesn't. To try to find a value in between, would be like saying "Being a little bit pregnant". The difference in sound was that dramatic even fresh out of the box.
But Bob's big question remains. If I take into consideration where the KQ took the BC22 in the line-up cost notwithstanding and the shear delight and degree of musical satisfaction attained, I have to give it a solid 40% in seat-of-the pants performance.
And considering that the seat of my pants has been glued to my chair for many hours for the past week, then I believe that my rating is about as fair as I can make it, taking into account my personal bias, new room and other recent updates.
This KQ rocks...!
Firstly, lets looks at the objective values. My BC22KQ, according to its creator, falls somewhere between the BC202 and the BC204 in terms of performance and refinement.
If I take into account the original cost of the BC22 then add the MkII LOC + POT upgrade then the recent addition of KQ box, I am still shy of the BC202's retail price by approximatly a couple of grands adjusted for 2011 dollars and quite a few more if I extrapolate the difference in cost between a 202 and a 204. If it sounds like the bargain of the century, it's because it is!
So what does all that mean in terms of [measured] subjective impressions? Well, for one thing, the 'WOW' factor has to be 100%. It hits you or it doesn't. To try to find a value in between, would be like saying "Being a little bit pregnant". The difference in sound was that dramatic even fresh out of the box.
But Bob's big question remains. If I take into consideration where the KQ took the BC22 in the line-up cost notwithstanding and the shear delight and degree of musical satisfaction attained, I have to give it a solid 40% in seat-of-the pants performance.
And considering that the seat of my pants has been glued to my chair for many hours for the past week, then I believe that my rating is about as fair as I can make it, taking into account my personal bias, new room and other recent updates.
This KQ rocks...!
Assessing a numeric value to the degree of improvement made by the KQ upgrade is a tough one for me too. I think I paid about 40% of the value of my BC204 for the KQ and feel it was well worth the extra cost. So let’s go with at least a 40% increase in performance.
The improvements provided by the KQ are also hard for me to describe in terms we normally use when discussing audio. It’s not about more bass or prat or better imaging or soundstaging. With the KQ it’s more about how it makes you feel. The music just feels more real and present. The performances seem less restrained and much more absorbing. All the while you feel more relaxed and at times euphoric or spellbound depending on what’s playing. For me the difference was similar to changing from a very good digital playback system to a really great vinyl set-up.
The improvements provided by the KQ are also hard for me to describe in terms we normally use when discussing audio. It’s not about more bass or prat or better imaging or soundstaging. With the KQ it’s more about how it makes you feel. The music just feels more real and present. The performances seem less restrained and much more absorbing. All the while you feel more relaxed and at times euphoric or spellbound depending on what’s playing. For me the difference was similar to changing from a very good digital playback system to a really great vinyl set-up.
-
Bob Neill
- Dealer
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:44 pm
- Location: Amherst, Massachusetts
- Contact:
Another Discovery on the KQ
The Concorde Supreme is the top of the line JMR speaker. I had a pair here for a month or so and was impressed with their overall authority but felt they lacked 'jump,' for lack of a better word. I decided that was simply an aspect of their slightly more distant perspective. And then the woofers blew in one of them (short in my cartridge), so I set both aside while I waited for the new driver from France.
In the meantime, the KQ upgrade for my BC204 arrived, of course, and blessed my Orféos. But this week, the new woofer installed, I put the Concordes back into the system and WHAMMO, among other wonderful things, they 'jumped' into the room. Not more forward just more present, immediate, three-dimensional, alive. Huge difference. For now, they have replaced the Orféos as my speakers of choice. They have all of the Orféos' virtues (startling imaging, natural warmth and fullness, clarity) plus their own, which has to do with their being true three-ways with a dedicated midrange driver and two woofers below the wonderful JMR ribbon tweeter that sits atop the Offrandes, Orféos, and Concordes.
In the product descriptlon of the Concordes on the JMR website, they say they are easy to drive but will "benefit" from a high current amplifer. It's time I wrote Jean Claude to tell him to put that remark in italics.
In the meantime, the KQ upgrade for my BC204 arrived, of course, and blessed my Orféos. But this week, the new woofer installed, I put the Concordes back into the system and WHAMMO, among other wonderful things, they 'jumped' into the room. Not more forward just more present, immediate, three-dimensional, alive. Huge difference. For now, they have replaced the Orféos as my speakers of choice. They have all of the Orféos' virtues (startling imaging, natural warmth and fullness, clarity) plus their own, which has to do with their being true three-ways with a dedicated midrange driver and two woofers below the wonderful JMR ribbon tweeter that sits atop the Offrandes, Orféos, and Concordes.
In the product descriptlon of the Concordes on the JMR website, they say they are easy to drive but will "benefit" from a high current amplifer. It's time I wrote Jean Claude to tell him to put that remark in italics.