Why Buy Real HiFi...?

[Bernd]

Just a thought about budget this grey Sunday morning.

Why Buy Real Hi-Fi?

Like everything in life you get what you pay for. If you buy a cheap hifi or home cinema product and plug it in it will work (well most of the time) but you won't actually enjoy it.


It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that, you will have enough to pay for something better.

Peace

Bernd::6:

[Feanor]

....
Like everything in life you get what you pay for. If you buy a cheap hifi or home cinema product and plug it in it will work (well most of the time) but you won't actually enjoy it.

It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do.
..
Peace

Bernd::6:

My mother always told me the same thing, (and still does, at age 87). "Buy what you really want; don't settle for for something else you'll regret wasting your money on."

Nevertheless there is a lot of relativity. I might really want Soundlabs, (sorry, not Arts), but I would pine away for the rest of my life. Fortunately, the Magneplanar MG 1.6QR's were any easy choice, (the 3.6's just a little too far over the horizon).

Take care though, Bernd, that you don't start to sound like the high-end snob, Florian.:)

[Bernd]

My mother always told me the same thing, (and still does, at age 87). "Buy what you really want; don't settle for for something else you'll regret wasting your money on."

Nevertheless there is a lot of relativity. I might really want Soundlabs, (sorry, not Arts), but I would pine away for the rest of my life. Fortunately, the Magneplanar MG 1.6QR's were any easy choice, (the 3.6's just a little too far over the horizon).

Take care though, Bernd, that you don't start to sound like the high-end snob, Florian.:)

Hi Feanor,

I hope I didn't come over snobish. It's the last thing that I am. In a sentence what I meant was this. The cheapest or best buy product does not always make the most economical, musical (or even emotional) sense.It is often better to wait some time and buy the next or a revised model up in the range or as you displayed, opt for something that gets you as close to your want as you can get.
I hope that clears that up as it was meant only as advice, to not let the money burn a hole in your pocket and regret it later.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[patpong]

It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. :

In this HiFi world, it's very important, FIRST, to know what you want.... If you think about it, that's not so easy to really know what you want and need, even before discovering what type of equipments or brand name to go with... I jumped from brands to brands, from solid-state to tubes, from cones to ribbon. Took me a couple of years and lots of money to finally settle with my current set up, that make me so happy. ..... So, not only the more you pay, the better you get. You could pay more but then, the less actually could make you more satisfy. That's the trick.

[Bernd]

In this HiFi world, it's very important, FIRST, to know what you want.... If you think about it, that's not so easy to really know what you want and need, even before discovering what type of equipments or brand name to go with... I jumped from brands to brands, from solid-state to tubes, from cones to ribbon. Took me a couple of years and lots of money to finally settle with my current set up, that make me so happy. ..... So, not only the more you pay, the better you get. You could pay more but then, the less actually could make you more satisfy. That's the trick.

Hi patpong and welcome,
You're right what you said. That's exactly why I started this thread. I also danced around a bit until I found what satisfies me. I does pay to make informed choices and don't go for the first available option, but once you know what you like try and get the best you can.
I like your set up. Very smart.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Worf101]

But it's all relative however. What made us "happy" at 16 is far different from what makes us happy at 46. Our desires and tastes change with time, life and the vagaries of technology. I remember buying my first CD's and thinking "man it don't get no better than this". A small, portable format that has none of the flaws of vinyl. I was in heaven. Now I listen to those "first generation" CD's and realize I must've been deaf. They sound like ass and most, if not all of them have been "remastered" to put in what was left out the first time. All this being said to point out, as PatPong said, you first have to know what you want and then figure out how to get it. Sad part is to find out 15 years later that what you wanted then is worthless now.

Da Worfster

[kexodusc]

Like everything in life you get what you pay for. If you buy a cheap hifi or home cinema product and plug it in it will work (well most of the time) but you won't actually enjoy it.

There are some terrible entry level stereo setups out there that prey on the unsuspecting newbie that really are a waste of money, on that point, I agree. But I think cases like this or an extreme, not the rule.

The notion of "you get what you pay for" has long been known to be far from absolute. If there has ever been a product sold that was not only cheaper, but also better than its competitor's offering, we can agree the "get what you pay for" concept is not universally true. At the very best, the most we can say is "you get what you pay for sometimes". Other times, there's a better deal to be had. Sometimes signifcantly so.


The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done.
I disagree here. I'm currently renovating my dedicated music studio/stereo room and my home theater room. About 2 months ago, I bought a few samples of fabric wrapped acoustic wall panels from a company in the USA. Curiosity got the better of me after reading up on some home studio forums, and I decided to dissect the acoustic treatment. There's not much to them really. A small, wooden frame enclosing some rigid fiberglass material of a specific density and thickness, and non-acoustic fabric. I decided I could easily make these myself, for not only cheaper, but better construction in the size, shape, and colors I wanted.
So I spent a few weeks searching for some rigid fiberglass material with sound absorbing properties that met my needs. I found this material is not readily available to retail consumers like myelf, especially in Atlantic Canada, so I placed a few calls to some local air conditioning/heater contractors. I finally found some Owens Corning OC 703 and 705 material in the thicknesses I needed. The best price I could get was about $1.69 USD per square foot shipped to me from Maine, USA.
I almost placed an order when a member at another forum I frequent sent me one last phone number to a place in Canada that distributes a competitors brand of rigid fiberglass (Ottawa Fibre Inc). I made a few inquiries into the comparability of the two products, and found the OFI stuff actually outperforms the OC stuff (albeit in amounts that likely won't produce audible results)and is the preferred material of several acoustic treatment companies. . Best part was, the price of the OFI was a mere $0.77 Cdn. Same stuff, less than 1/2 the price. I'm told the raw materials are in excess in Canada and that OFI has a much more modern production facility, two cost advantages (which are neutralized somewhat when the insulation is exported back to the USA).
Long story short I ended up buying twice as much material as I had planned. Definitely a case where I paid a little to get a lot more.

At the very least, if you can't pay a little for a lot, we could say there is a high probability of paying a lot for a little. I see this every day in my profession. I spend a great deal of time travelling North America visiting with companies of all sorts and sizes in hopes of finding solid investment opportunites for my investment management firm. One thing I've observed is that profit margins are almost always inversely proportional with company size. That is, huge international companies don't have mark-ups on their products as much as smaller-cap companies. Not always, but I'm working on a small research project now and the statistics we've collected greatly support this blanket statement.

I think this holds true when it comes to audio equipment as well. Few people will argue the rule of diminishing returns on audio equipment. Profit margins and cost structures are the two biggest reasons why.

I think today, consumers are a bit wiser than before. We don't just want to know the costs, we want to know why a product costs what it does. Often it is the answers to these questions that reveal the true merits and qualities of a product. Higher price is less and less an indication of product superiority.


If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that, you will have enough to pay for something better.
Good advice. I would follow up by suggesting you ask "why" a company is able to bid so low. If the answer is cutting corners (and it often is) than a risk premium is definitely in order. Or at least buy some insurance. However, if the answer is technological, geographic, or other inherent business advantages, then we have a different case on our hands. It is entirely possible that the lowest bidder is able to squeeze out its competitors and still meet your needs. Competition can be a good thing sometimes.

I've really indulged myself in the speaker building hobby over the last 2 years. One trend that is becoming more and more apparent to all DIY-ers is the emergence of Asian driver manufacturers (and a widespread shift in production facilities to Asian markets). A few years ago, Chinese and Indian facilities were producing low cost drivers and carbon copy knock-offs of more reputable European drivers. Today their making their own, and with the help of foreign (read American/Japanese) Quality Control initiatives, have really started making some high quality drivers for very competitive prices, even a few premium quality, hand-made models. Unfortunately, there's still plenty of stinkers out there so one has to do more than just shop for Asian made drivers :D

The emergence of Asian competition is being felt worldwide throughout the industry. Large speaker manufacturers are shifting production. Energy, and B&W are the first two that come to mind.

Tymphony, formerly DST, formerly Vifa-Speak - producers of Vifa, Peerless, Scan-Speak (and a few less common, more esoteric brands) are one of the largest producers of audio drivers in the world for. Today, the bulk of their business is supplying non-mainstream speaker companies with "proprietary drivers" (which are usually slight mods on existing models, often purely cosmetic.
We've probably ALL owned at least one speaker with a Vifa/Peerless/Scan-Speak driver in it at one point...common entry-level brands like JBL, Infinity, Polk, Paradigm, PSB etc all used drivers made by these guys. Higher end speakers have used their drivers as well. This year they announced the end of arguably the most recognized brand name in driver history - Vifa. A lot of production facilities are being moved to Asia because of various production advantages offered.

I think this is just the beginning. Hopefully it unfolds in a way that delivers cost savings to the consumer without sacrificing product selection, quality, and availability.

I believe there are two ways to buy an audio system. The first is knowing exactly what you want, then saving your money and buying it.
The second, and arguably the more common approach, is to determine how much you are willing to allocate to an audio system -anywhere from $500 to $50,000 - and then proceed in looking for the "best you can afford".

I've used both methods myself. I've had more success with the latter however. One of the great things about being on the road so much is that I get to visit a lot of hi-end audio shops (and unforunately some really low-end ones as well).
I probably listen to more variety of speakers in a year than many (I really don't get as excited demoing amps and pre-amps for some reason), and I still haven't found one that really made me think I absolutely HAD to own it at all costs.
If I had to pick, my absolute favorite speaker to date is the Focus Audio FS-888. It's not the most expensive one I've heard, retailing for a only $8200 or so, but to my ears it is the point where spending double or triple on some other brands yields next to no audible improvement. I think I'd give a close second to the Maggie MG20's and the VR-11's (for cool factor if nothing else), but the Focus Audio's reign supreme here (not to mention cost 1/16 of the VR-11's).
I realize speakers appreciation is quite subjective, but I don't believe anyone would tell me the FS-888's are un-listenable when placed beside the VR-11's, or that the VR-11's are 10 times better.
I think this radical example represents what a lot of audio enthusiasts try to acheive when buying a system - maximizing performance given their resources. And I don't believe that someone means their systems are necessarily inferior or that they are less an "audiophile" for doing so.

Just my opinion though.. great thread - thanks!

[Bernd]

Phew, Thanks Kex great response and some valid points raised, which is after all what this is about.
The Far East example is interesting as a similar thing happened in the 70's and almost killed the European Audio Industry. Hopefuly we have learned and can survive side by side.

As for mark up, you are most likely correct with that. But with low mark up comes big volume of sales. And I rather buy from a company with the motto "If you want to keep control you got to keep it small". Example: I just came of the phone from chatting to Derek Dunlop (Co-owner of ART). We talked about all sorts of things audio in an unhurried fashion. Try that with a big company. You wouldn't get past "Tracy" at the switchboard. I was direct through to my man.

As I have said many times before you need to know what you are looking for and then have a budget and put some effort into the selection process.
Your example with the acoustic stuff was good and if you can get the same or better at a cheaper price, you'd be a fool not to take it.

But what really gets up my back is the preaching of how wonderful the sound is from bargain basement stuff. Yes it's all very relative, and as you said diminishing returns is certainly something to think about. I believe however it also works the other way. There comes a point when you will leave Best Buy Budget Land sound and take steps at a more performance orientated level. And if you stand on that threshold I am sure it pays to wait and safe some more green to take that step.
A very basic example are Arcams CDP. Very good machines, but the lower priced ones are very much similar to one another. So if you owned a model 73 and you want to upgrade it would make sense to wait and get the FMJ top of the line machine, rather then the new '73. Very different sounding.

But in the end it's down to you, me and all the other audio buyers to what we place value on. Have not heard a perfect anything yet. Now that would be boring.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Bernd]

But it's all relative however. What made us "happy" at 16 is far different from what makes us happy at 46. Our desires and tastes change with time, life and the vagaries of technology. I remember buying my first CD's and thinking "man it don't get no better than this". A small, portable format that has none of the flaws of vinyl. I was in heaven. Now I listen to those "first generation" CD's and realize I must've been deaf. They sound like ass and most, if not all of them have been "remastered" to put in what was left out the first time. All this being said to point out, as PatPong said, you first have to know what you want and then figure out how to get it. Sad part is to find out 15 years later that what you wanted then is worthless now.

Da Worfster

Totaly agree with you here. Our tastes do, and should, change with time. Music, tolerance, women, food, etc.
My 17 year old step son thinks the i-pod is the holy grail. It reminds me so of Bose. But I leave him to it.
I had a Technics CDP in the 80s. Oh yeah man "perfect sound forever" more like finger nails on the blackboard. Sold most of my vinyl that time. What was I smoking then.

Peace

Bernd:6:

[Feanor]

....

I think this holds true when it comes to audio equipment as well. Few people will argue the rule of diminishing returns on audio equipment. Profit margins and cost structures are the two biggest reasons why.

I think today, consumers are a bit wiser than before. We don't just want to know the costs, we want to know why a product costs what it does. Often it is the answers to these questions that reveal the true merits and qualities of a product. Higher price is less and less an indication of product superiority.

...
Just my opinion though.. great thread - thanks!

High-end audio is all about high prices and high margins. It is all about persuading the consumer that the law of diminishing returns somehow does not apply to audio to the usual extent.

High-end audio consumers are, of course and for better or worse, a niche market. Niche marketing supports high prices; high prices support high margins. High margins in turn support ridiculously inefficient manufacturing methods, viz. cottage industry.

Judged by rationale criterion, high-end products are, (with a very few, scarce exception), are atrocious value. By extension, high-end buyers are, in general, suckers. :(

Of course, there are plenty of individual exceptions: people seek audio value, whether because they are atypically rational and/or poor yet still yearn for excellant sound.

[kexodusc]

The Far East example is interesting as a similar thing happened in the 70's and almost killed the European Audio Industry. Hopefuly we have learned and can survive side by side.
I think it's a bit different this time around. My limited understanding of the 70's scenario was that the Japanese led the charge making quality items at reasonable prices, but they tended to stick to the safe products that with larger demands. And they did this at a time when the rest of the world was offering less than inspiring products at higher prices.

Today I look at 2 companies like Tang-Band and Hi-Vi who have roots in Asia but are now global operations, with shareholders from around the world, engineers from Europe and America, and production facilities in Asia. Sure they make budget stuff, but their also making some top of the line stuff too. This is a concentrated global effort that's just taking advantage of China's inexpensive production advantages (just like every other industry these days).


As for mark up, you are most likely correct with that. But with low mark up comes big volume of sales. And I rather buy from a company with the motto "If you want to keep control you got to keep it small".
I subcribe to the motto "if you can't have your cake and eat it too, you aren't trying hard enough". Toyota and Yamaha (not talking their puny audio division, but the whole conglomerate) are two very large, mass market companies that subscribe to the traditional Japanese business philosophy of quality first, and everything else will take care of itself. Often, even companies with good inentions don't try hard enough to keep their costs low without sacrificing quality. Both of these companies have modest profit margins, not the lowest, but nowhere near the highest, have phenomenally low overhead compared to their competitors, and don't try to be everything to everyone. Both of these companies aren't trying to be market share leaders, just run effective operations true to their business philosophies. They've carved niches (at large, mass-market proportions) and have happily remained inside their boxes. I think that's been the secret of their success.
In Toyota's case, if it wasn't for predatory protectionist tariffs governments stuck on imports on the taxpayers dime for decades, I suspect they'd have already surpassed Ford worldwide for market share. But that's a different story.
All this to say quality and value are not mutually exclusive as we have been conditioned to believe.


Example: I just came of the phone from chatting to Derek Dunlop (Co-owner of ART). We talked about all sorts of things audio in an unhurried fashion. Try that with a big company. You wouldn't get past "Tracy" at the switchboard. I was direct through to my man.
That's true, and a very valid point. Some people are willing to pay extra for this luxury, some people could care less and don't perceive it as value added at all. I find myself on both sides of this fence depending on what the product is.


But what really gets up my back is the preaching of how wonderful the sound is from bargain basement stuff. Yes it's all very relative, and as you said diminishing returns is certainly something to think about. I believe however it also works the other way. There comes a point when you will leave Best Buy Budget Land sound and take steps at a more performance orientated level. And if you stand on that threshold I am sure it pays to wait and safe some more green to take that step.
There's no denying the obvious limitations of Best Buy systems. That said, for many people they provide all the satisfaction ever needed for a reasonable price. I think we lose sight of what Best Buy customer goals often are - reasonable performance on a strict budget.
However, I'm not sure the "value approach" ever disappears at any performance threshold. Everyone wants to get the most for their dollar. It could be my business training preaching, but I always pursue my purchases in audio from the perspectives of "utility" (satisfaction per dollar spent) and "effective allocation of resources" (most improvement per dollar spent).
For me, there are very real limits on "utility". I have too many other hobbies in my life that occupy my free time, and only so much free time, so I doubt I'll ever be at a point where I will buy or build a $500,000 audio system. There are just too many high performance cars, snowmobiles, motorcylces, boats, fishing rods, and other material objects on my luxury items list that would give me more satisfaction than owning the "best system on earth". In fact, I can say with full confidence that there is a limit where spending more money on audio won't provide me with any more satisfaction (unless I place an intangible premium on owning such gear - I don't). At that point I stop hearing "better" sound and only hear "different" sound. I suspect some people are similarly content to stay in Best Buy land. Good for them. If they can extract more pleasure out of JBL speakers than I can, I won't belittle their gear or their hearing ability.

The second aspect, "effective allocation of resources" is where I think most people make mistakes in building systems. Especially when upgrading. It's easy to throw money at a system, I just hope when people do, they do so in a manner that makes the biggest improvement per dollar spent. I tested a pair of RGA's beloved Audio Note AN E's with a cheap Denon stereo receiver, and a pair of $1000 Paradigms with a very expensive MacIntosh amp/pre-amp. The two systems were comparable in price, but the better speakers made all the difference despite the entry-level electronics behind them. So I cringe a bit when I see hi-end DAC's, cables, and amps being substituted in systems with no room treatments and mid-fi speakers...


But in the end it's down to you, me and all the other audio buyers to what we place value on. Have not heard a perfect anything yet. Now that would be boring.

Ain't that the truth? :D
Some people are "married" to their audio gear. I think this emotional attachment blinds them to rational suggestions for ways to improve.
Of course, in the end, at some point you just have to decide between spending more, or staying status-quo.

[Bernd]

Good to read your post.
As far as I remember the 70s "invasion" we had very limited choice and lots of Flat earth BS. The Japanese industry machine saw a gap and came in and yes, there where some great products but also many stinkers. The quality part of the great products has always impressed me. I think I mentioned before the best CDT and DAC I have ever heard is the Zanden. And if anything new will come into my home it will be this baby.:) I am satisfied with what I own without going into debt.

For me Toyota all day long. Would never go near a Ford.

I would never belittle someone elses system, it's simply just not my style and I do not feel any envy for what somebody else owns.Good luck to them. It's just when an owner of a budget system who is happy with that, thinks it gives him/her now all knowledge of musical reproduction, and advises people that they don't need to spent some money to enjoy great reproduction, that i question the motive. Music can be enjoyed anywhere by me but to appreciate a performance a Best Buy system will not do.
It took me 30 years to be where I am. And I could have done things different and saved some money. To eager when you're young and having some money burning a hole into your pocket.

You're right of course about funds allocating to other interests. I also have some other pastimes(Stalking,my dogs,Photography,Flyfishing), but the main one is enjoying my system playing the music I like how I like it.
I think if the first steps on the ladder are taken with care the resulting satisfaction will be much more then if you're going and buy blind the latest Magazine 5* Super test winner.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Florian]

It's just when an owner of a budget system who is happy with that, thinks it gives him/her now all knowledge of musical reproduction, and advises people that they don't need to spent some money to enjoy great reproduction, that i question the motive.
Intersting that you bring this up. I think i heard this before from myself. I have been preeching this for months on this forum and only got spat in my face. Well, lets say its my writing style.

This diminishing returns is all good for fun and games but how about the people whos goal is the absolut sound and who disregard prices. If i dont have to money to buy what i want, i work and save my money until i can actually buy it. But most people dont want to wait and look for the "deal of the week" and then look for the mass of followers to justify their purchase.

I started with 4 Alarmclock Radios all tunes to the same station!

I have been working for years and got lucky on many purchases and have a goal and i know what i want and will do what it takes. I do not understand nor do i accept it when people with a great budget system go around telling youngsters that you dont have to spend good money to get a good product because of diminishing returns. This is crap! At what price does this kick in? This depends entirely on your range and your budget. In my opinion it kicks in at around 15K *new price for a amp or CD-Player.

How can i say such an outrages thing? Because i heard directly in my home or my friends home equipment from Jadis, Goldmund, Krell, ARC, Apogee, Infinity IRS-BETA, Acoustats, Silvaweld etc.... and these form "Price wise" the end of the realm. And i can asure you that the Goldmund CD36 CD Turntable with the DAC beats the living hell out of my Wadia! The Goldmund Turntable for 26K beats the living heck out of the 6K Thorens i heard.

Is the difference worth 20K? Well that depends on you, but for me it is. I will work and save until i can buy one. And i find it highly wrong to cut down those who invest MUCH more time, money and effort into their audio system than any typical Best Buy or Internet people who follow some cheesy Dolby Guidelines (this is no attack to Woochiefer, he is helpfull with that) or the ones putting a few Paradigms, Axioms, Infinitys or whatever speakers in a circle.

It takes a lot of work and dedication to reach your goals and if you dont have them thats fine but dont tread on those who do.

-Florian

[kexodusc]

I would never belittle someone elses system. It's just when an owner of a budget system who is happy with that, thinks it gives him/her now all knowledge of musical reproduction, and advises people that they don't need to spent some money to enjoy great reproduction, that i question the motive. Music can be enjoyed anywhere by me but to appreciate a performance a Best Buy system will not do.
The more experienced audiophiles on this site echo this statement quite a bit. I can only recall 1 person here at ar.com who's ever boldly stated that more expensive amps, cables, DAC's, etc won't present at least some audible improvement. I haven't seen him post here in over 2 years.

I think a lot of statements are made in context here that are easily misinterpreted by others simply because this is a web-forum relying on written communication. I get caught in this trap occassionally, and find myself having to choose between posting a legal document or something more streamlined.
From what I've seen, most posters here appreciate good gear. They just don't like being told they don't know good from bad simply because they don't own a system of some arbitrary level of performance. Then there are others who are out of touch with some of the lower-cost offerings of today and how good they can sound. If you're on a tight enough budget and desperate enough, you can squeeze a lot of performance out of anything. Just ask those kids with the Honda Civics who buy performance air filters and mufflers to get that last 5 HP. Sooner or later a big-block V-8 is in order, but in the meantime, do what you can...

In my case, I quite frequently visit hi-fi shops and have friends/relatives with systems far superior to mine. I like to think I know what's out there (though I stumble across references to new equipment almost daily now).
There are a few people here that really adore the gear they have and constantly recommend it to inquiring individuals like a vacuum salesman pushing Hoovers.

I try to take it all with a grain of salt. There are a few popular speakers and some equipment that I really cannot bring myself to like no matter how much praise they receive. I pretty much feel this way about every Polk Audio speaker available. And my all time least favorite is Dynaudio...(I'm sure I've just pissed off 43 ar.com members). It's not so much that they sound bad, but rather they sound worse than other models I can recall that are far cheaper. Yet they continue to amaze me with a strong following. I know nobody in the DIY market's given them a second thought since they pulled out. Sadly, I see Scan-speak following suit, existing only as a branch of some hi-end commercial speaker brand where the competition is less intense and they still represent some value. (with apologies to the Revelator tweeters which can take an ungodly amount of punishment and still play clean).


You're right of course about funds allocating to other interests. I also have some other pastimes(Stalking,my dogs,Photography,Flyfishing), but the main one is enjoying my system playing the music I like how I like it.
Uhh...stalking? How does one get started in that pastime?


I think if the first steps on the ladder are taken with care the resulting satisfaction will be much more then if you're going and buy blind the latest Magazine 5* Super test winner.
That's true. I think perhaps making mistakes is the only way to learn in audio. One can't rely too much on websites and reviews, either. I own a pair of $300 speakers I bought for my dining room that were compared quite favorably by several magazines, and the cult-like following on their web-forum, to another pair of speakers I have that have a price tag 4X higher. They aren't even close. Which is a shame, because the speaker does quite well for a measly $300, and doesn't need to make such claims.
Seems every new speaker company presents itself as the latest "giant killer" in audio. Especially the ones that advertise on this site and are only "factory direct". It can be a bit tiresome.

[Florian]

Hey Kex, maybe you are not too different to me afterall. Maybe its my writing style, but i have to agree with you. I always asumed that Wooch, You etc.. do not understand and cannot hear the difference between the budget of the week gear or per say a Infinity IRS-BETA etc...

[Bernd]

Uhh...stalking? How does one get started in that pastime?Quote.

Get a Rifle, a deer stalking certificate level I and II, find some land, get permission to stalk Red Deer, in Scotland preferably, sink a dram or two of good Scotch and bag that gold medal stag.
Easy peasy. NOT.:(

Peace

Bernd:6:

[E-Stat]

High-end audio is all about high prices and high margins. It is all about persuading the consumer that the law of diminishing returns somehow does not apply to audio to the usual extent.
That response kinda saddens me. My guess is that you have never known or spoken with the principles of any high end company. MOST of them (in my experience of course) do not drive an S Class Mercedes as a result of "high margins". Jud Barber of Joule Electra runs his company from an office behind his house. All of their products are hand made. Sound Labs is another small company where you can directly speak or converse with Dr. West. JPS Labs is Joe P. Skubinski. VTL is run by Luke Manley and his wife, Bea. What all of these folks have in common is a passion for music. And the need to make a living. High end is not a "get rich quick" market.

rw

[Florian]

That response kinda saddens me. My guess is that you have never known or spoken with the principles of any high end company. MOST of them do not drive an S Class Mercedes as a result of "high margins". Jud Barber of Joule Electra runs his company from an office behind his house. All of their products are hand made. Sound Labs is another small company where you can directly speak or converse with Dr. West. JPS Labs is Joe P. Skubinski. VTL is run by Luke Manley and his wife, Bea. What all of these folks have in common is a passion for music. And the need to make a living. High end is not a "get rich quick" market.

rw

I agree with that, same as Sphinx, Etallon, Apogee (was) and many more. It takes a LOT of time to design a product. B&W and others do not have this problem.

[Feanor]

That response kinda saddens me. My guess is that you have never known or spoken with the principles of any high end company. ...
rw

E-Stat,

The personal motive of the principals of high-end companies is beside the point. Likely most of the are really nice guys. But I'm talking about market dynamics.

Most audiophiles aren't stupid either, nevertheless many are more or less willing victims of the diminishing returns exemption attitude.

[Florian]

E-Stat,

The personal motive of the principals of high-end companies is beside the point. Likely most of the are really nice guys. But I'm talking about market dynamics.

Most audiophiles aren't stupid either, nevertheless many are more or less willing victims of the diminishing returns exemption attitude.
Can you maybe name a example? I personally would feel much more betrayed when spending 10 K on a big B&W who we know for sure are not small and have no financial worries then spending 10K on a handbuild and designed Silvaweld or Goldmund amp. The poor returns are much greater with a B&W and Rotel then with some High End gear out there. But people dont complain about that. In my opinion.

[kexodusc]

I agree with that, same as Sphinx, Etallon, Apogee (was) and many more. It takes a LOT of time to design a product. B&W and others do not have this problem.
This is consistent with my experiences the last few years. The best speakers I've heard are not common brand names most would be familiar with. Instead it's been smaller, regional/local speaker designers, often former engineers of larger companies, setting up one-man operations in their homes doing it all by hand.

This is where the industry is going, I believe. There will always be some demand for the large, brand name speaker companies. And definitely for driver manufacturers to supply everyone. The only advantage a giant like B&W or Paradigm has is the production means (and R&D to an extent, though if the R&D is any good, it's copied fast)

A small company in the USA called North Creek Music Systems offers a few budget speakers below $500 that I'd take over my old $1100 Studio 40's in a heartbeat. They offer them in kit form for $150 -$250, but with the cabinets they can approach $500-$600 pretty fast. A company like B&W can pump out decent speaker cabinets on the cheap in huge quantities. It's not so much that the little guys are ripping people off, but hand crafted cabinets and wood finishes take time...I'd say 95% of my projects actual construction is in the cabinet/finish, even though it's the least expensive part of the design, material-wise.
And these guys don't work for free, nor should they be expected to.
These guys make speakers and run their businesses full-time. They aren't also huge corporate marketing/distribution machines at the same time, so they don't get the wide exposure of B&W, Energy, etc.

[GMichael]

Can you maybe name a example? I personally would feel much more betrayed when spending 10 K on a big B&W who we know for sure are not small and have no financial worries then spending 10K on a handbuild and designed Silvaweld or Goldmund amp. The poor returns are much greater with a B&W and Rotel then with some High End gear out there. But people dont complain about that. In my opinion.

Forgive me for putting in my 2 cents. But I think what he is referring to is only the business dynamics. A mass market company can churn out hundreds or thousands of speakers a year/month. In doing so, they can sell at 20 or 30 points of profit. But someone who is only building a few speakers a year must make more, say 50 or 60 points, on the few they do put out to make a living. It doesn't mean that the smaller company is not making as good or better of a product. They most likely have a lower overhead and advertise less if at all. So that lowers their costs and therefore increases their profit margin.

But I could just be wrong.

[Florian]

Forgive me for putting in my 2 cents. But I think what he is referring to is only the business dynamics. A mass market company can churn out hundreds or thousands of speakers a year/month. In doing so, they can sell at 20 or 30 points of profit. But someone who is only building a few speakers a year must make more, say 50 or 60 points, on the few they do put out to make a living. It doesn't mean that the smaller company is not making as good or better of a product. They most likely have a lower overhead and advertise less if at all. So that lowers their costs and therefore increases their profit margin.

But I could just be wrong.

Well that makes sense, but i do not understand what it has to do with this thread. Care to explain that to me? Should i therefore buy only from the big companys so we can kill off the small ones?

[kexodusc]

Forgive me for putting in my 2 cents. But I think what he is referring to is only the business dynamics. A mass market company can churn out hundreds or thousands of speakers a year/month. In doing so, they can sell at 20 or 30 points of profit. But someone who is only building a few speakers a year must make more, say 50 or 60 points, on the few they do put out to make a living. It doesn't mean that the smaller company is not making as good or better of a product. They most likely have a lower overhead and advertise less if at all. So that lowers their costs and therefore increases their profit margin.

But I could just be wrong.

I think you nailed it...As I hinted at earlier, as a general rule of thumb, within an industry you can bet that smaller companies will have higher profit margins. This may not always hold true because of fierce competition and existing cost structures already optimized, but a smaller company almost always has a higher required internal return rate. Unless they like working for free.
The exception would be larger companies having higher profit margins. Not many of those - the only one I can think of traditionally is Microsoft - maybe Visa/Mastercard/Amex, too.

FYI, advertising shouldn't be considered an expense truly passed on to the consumer if it's done properly. You only make the decision to spend $1 on advertising if you believe it will result in more than $1 + your required internal rate of return. If you knew you'd only get $.95 back for every $1 you spent, you wouldn't bother. If your costs are elastic (most are in manufacturing industries) the consumer should benefit in the long run from increased sales. Consumers often blame advertising, brochures, etc as overhead cost passed on to the consumer, when it can be argued it's actually to the consumer's benefit.

[GMichael]

Well that makes sense, but i do not understand what it has to do with this thread. Care to explain that to me? Should i therefore buy only from the big companys so we can kill off the small ones?

Oh no! Not at all. Larger margins do not make for a bad speaker or speaker company.
I didn't mean to speak out of turn. I just thought that this was what Feanor was saying when he said higher margins. Feanor, was I close?
Higher margins are not always bad. Sometimes it's needed for a smaller (or better) manufacturer to stay in business. It may just mean that they are not spending 20% of their profit on advertising.

[E-Stat]

The personal motive of the principals of high-end companies is beside the point... But I'm talking about market dynamics.
Perhaps you may expound on what constitutes "high margins" to you.

rw

[Feanor]

Oh no! Not at all. Larger margins do not make for a bad speaker or speaker company.
I didn't mean to speak out of turn. I just thought that this was what Feanor was saying when he said higher margins. Feanor, was I close?
Higher margins are not always bad. Sometimes it's needed for a smaller (or better) manufacturer to stay in business. It may just mean that they are not spending 20% of their profit on advertising.

Any specialized manufacturer catering to a small market segment is going to need higher margins -- it's not a matter of greed but of economic necessity.

Since it's their strategy to grab a portion of the mass, as well as high-end market and because they are larger and vertically integrated, the likes of B&W or Paradigm will have somewhat lower, per unit margins. But they are no less -- possibly much, much more -- cynically pandering to the illusions of audiophiles. All makers serving the high-end market require high prices; small firms, in addition, require high markup.

In the end the issue isn't with the makers. The phenomenon is that audiophiles are willing to pay hugh sums believing that high price and/or esoteric design represent value. The audiophiles have suspended the law of diminishing returns, makers are only exploiting the fact.

[Feanor]

Perhaps you may expound on what constitutes "high margins" to you.

rw

It means a high selling price relative to the per unit direct input cost of the product.

Like I said, this is typical of manufacturers producing specialized goods for a small market. It is an economic necessity. It is not the same a profit, and it has nothing to do with greed.

If high-end manufactures are guilty of anything, is is fostering perception of a need for specialized products, not the fact that their markups are high.

[Feanor]

I think you nailed it...As I hinted at earlier, as a general rule of thumb, within an industry you can bet that smaller companies will have higher profit margins. ....

Not higher profits necessarily, but higher margins (a.k.a. markups). See my response to E-Stat: margin/unit = price/unit - variable costs/unit. Profit = (margin/unit x units sold) - fixed costs.

You can have high margins and be loosing your shirt. You can have high margins and not be a greedy bastard.

[Florian]

I think i understand you now. You feel that many High End makers have to have high prices in order to be taken seriously by the High End Honbbyists. In some ways i agree. My friend paid aprox. 8500$ for a used Goldmund CD Trasnport and commented on the Gold etc.. I told him that the unit sounds wonderfull but all the Metal, Gold and Acrylic didnt have much to do with it. You are correct that it has become a nesecity to have high prices to be taken seriously, but this does not mean that the devices are not worth it and that a company which doesnt follow that apreach is equal or better. This is very difficult to disect!

[GMichael]

I think i understand you now. You feel that many High End makers have to have high prices in order to be taken seriously by the High End Honbbyists. In some ways i agree. My friend paid aprox. 8500$ for a used Goldmund CD Trasnport and commented on the Gold etc.. I told him that the unit sounds wonderfull but all the Metal, Gold and Acrylic didnt have much to do with it. You are correct that it has become a nesecity to have high prices to be taken seriously, but this does not mean that the devices are not worth it and that a company which doesnt follow that apreach is equal or better. This is very difficult to disect!

We have a saying in the Harley world. Chrome don't get ya home. But man it feels good between your legs.

[E-Stat]

It means a high selling price relative to the per unit direct input cost of the product.
And that is where I don't find substantiation with your blanket claim. My recent speakers are serial # 50. Not 500, nor 5000. The unit cost of these hand built units is quite high.


If high-end manufactures are guilty of anything, is is fostering perception of a need for specialized products, not the fact that their markups are high.
I guess I just don't share your cynical view. Fostering a need? Do you believe that we have achieved the ability to convey the experience of a live, unamplified event?

I sure don't.

rw

[Florian]

Hello E-Stat, mine are 56 ;-)

I wonder what my second will be, i hope its 57 or something along those lines. Mine was born on September 17 at 10:05 AM from GC in 1987 :)

[Feanor]

E-Stat,

Yes, I come across that way. While high-end does thrive on high prices, I didn't mean to denigrate the majority high-end maker who are of integrity and sincerity. They are merely willing to cater to the demand that exists and many do that well.

And no, we're along way from being able to recreate a live performance. But to state the obvious, the $100,000 doesn't get 20 times closer to that goal than the $5000 system.

[E-Stat]

But to state the obvious, the $100,000 doesn't get 20 times closer to that goal than the $5000 system.
I'm sorry, I just don't use that "x multiplier better" concept with everything.

Is a steak from Outback 20 times more nutritious than a McDonald's cheeseburger?
Is a Pentel gel pen 20 times better than a Bic Stick?
Is a pair of Fiskars 20 times better than a dollar store pair of scissors?
Is a Lacoste 20 times better than a Walmart polo shirt?
Is a Mercedes S Class 20 times better than a Hyundai Elantra?

There will always be better in our society. I think the motivation for companies of all sorts to constantly improve is a good thing. Where we decide to jump on the merry-go-round is our choice.

As for your system analogy, I find one nearly capable of fooling the senses - the other not. While I don't (ever) plan to have a $100k system, I sure enjoy listening to well matched ones. :)

rw

[kexodusc]

Not higher profits necessarily, but higher margins (a.k.a. markups). See my response to E-Stat: margin/unit = price/unit - variable costs/unit. Profit = (margin/unit x units sold) - fixed costs.

You can have high margins and be loosing your shirt. You can have high margins and not be a greedy bastard.
OOOPS! My bad... Of course I meant "margins", not "profit margins"...profitability is a whole 'nuther discussion.
I suspect many smaller audio companies aren't terribly profitable in absolute profit margin terms. But I'm sure we can all agree there's an intangible value many of these guys would place on working for themselves doing something they enjoy...that's hard to measure in a profit margin calculation.

[kexodusc]

High-end audio is all about high prices and high margins. It is all about persuading the consumer that the law of diminishing returns somehow does not apply to audio to the usual extent.

Respectfully, I must disagree with this statement. I don't believe anyone gets into high-end audio with the intent to fool or persuade the consumers. Rather, they recognize a small, but significant market demand, and try to meet that demand, whether we recognize that demand as rational or irrational. Now I'm aware there is some "salesmanship" involved, but that's a constant at any pricepoint, high-end is no different.

This is basic economics. If you look at the demand curve, there's always someone willing to buy a product at almost any price. The only catch is the low magnitude of demand. This low demand doesn't help the suppliers any, economies of scale are practically non-existant, especially if there isn't a thriving business at other pricepoints to help support high-priced efforts.

I would submit that the high prices for super high-end audio equipment are a necessary evil for producers of these products. If they could lower costs and sustain profitability, they'd do that, it'd be in their best interest. It's just not always possible. The demand is likely inelastic after some point, and it just becomes a matter of giving the customer what he wants, regardless of pricing/value concerns.


High-end audio consumers are, of course and for better or worse, a niche market. Niche marketing supports high prices; high prices support high margins. High margins in turn support ridiculously inefficient manufacturing methods, viz. cottage industry.
No doubt manufacturing methods of many high-end audio producers are inefficient. I'm sure B&W can produce speaker cabinets and distribute their products at a far lower per unit cost than some smaller high-end companies. If anything, the onus should be on B&W and other large corporations to build better products for less money, even at top levels of performance. Of course, if everyone else is selling flagship speakers for $100,000, B&W will as well. Can't fault them there. But there comes a point for some people where the inefficient production costs are gladly accepted if the desired result can be obtained.


Judged by rationale criterion, high-end products are, (with a very few, scarce exception), are atrocious value. By extension, high-end buyers are, in general, suckers. :(

Feanor, I agree with what you're getting at here. To my ears, a $100,000 system sounds better than a $10,000 system, but not "much better" in my mind. It's approaching the limit where improvements are becoming harder to identify and I just get lost in the music, and don't really notice the improvements. That said, rationale criterion cannot be used to judge value the same for every consumer.

To this day, I only buy Heinz ketchup. My mom use to buy cheapo no-name ketchup and put it in a Heinz bottle to try and fool me (things were hard for mom and dad on a 1st Lieutenant's salary), but I wouln't have it. Rationally, ketchup is ketchup I suppose, but dammit, I can't stand other ketchups. I place a value premium on Heinz. It's not always rational, but it is very real. To me, the cheaper ketchup, while performing the same basic function (and I will eat it in absence of real ketchup), represents less of a value. I'm paying a bit less but getting far less satisfaction. I suspect to many audiophiles, similar thought-process exists.

[Florian]

ROFL!


To this day, I only buy Heinz ketchup. My mom use to buy cheapo no-name ketchup and put it in a Heinz bottle to try and fool me (things were hard for mom and dad on a 1st Lieutenant's salary), but I wouln't have it. Rationally, ketchup is ketchup I suppose, but dammit, I can't stand other ketchups. I place a value premium on Heinz. It's not always rational, but it is very real. To me, the cheaper ketchup, while performing the same basic function (and I will eat it in absence of real ketchup), represents less of a value. I'm paying a bit less but getting far less satisfaction. I suspect to many audiophiles, similar thought-process exists.

I told my mom yesterday that this cheap ketchup just doesnt cut it! It has to be Heinz, and nothing else. I look at Audio the same way and the differences are not huge after the first 20K but the differences are there and for me personally they huge but in a "global" view they are small.

[kexodusc]

ROFL!



I told my mom yesterday that this cheap ketchup just doesnt cut it! It has to be Heinz, and nothing else. I look at the Audio the same way the difference is not huge after the first 20K but the difference its their and for me personally the differences are huge but in a "global" view they are small.


Ketchup actually can be a good analogy to audio. My brother actually uses a different tomato sauce thing, (also made by Heinz). I can't stand it. He loves it - chili sauce...yuck. The othe sauce is more expensive. Which one is better? Neither really, just different tastes appreciated differently by different people. Speakers and audio equipment can be the same way.

I have to be respectful of his taste preferences, especially when he visits...I try to buy that stupid tangy stuff. He does the same for me when I visit him...if he remembers.

[Feanor]

...
This is basic economics. If you look at the demand curve, there's always someone willing to buy a product at almost any price. The only catch is the low magnitude of demand. This low demand doesn't help the suppliers any, economies of scale are practically non-existant, especially if there isn't a thriving business at other pricepoints to help support high-priced efforts.

I would submit that the high prices for super high-end audio equipment are a necessary evil for producers of these products. If they could lower costs and sustain profitability, they'd do that, it'd be in their best interest. It's just not always possible. The demand is likely inelastic after some point, and it just becomes a matter of giving the customer what he wants, regardless of pricing/value concerns.
....

For starters, you're right the high-end makers are not, in general, frauds or crooks. They are simply exploiting the demand that exists. On the other hand, these makers like are like firms in most industries: they target the well-heeled, up-market consumer.

Why skim the market? I think you know, and comes back to my original point. The price elasticity for the rich consumer is much greater. They are much less constrained by a strict concept of value. And sometimes the contrary applies: things that are rare, unique, or just expensive become sought reason of exclusivity rather than performance. All this means that the maker can charge high prices giving himself a cushion against inefficiency and/or less than hoped for demand.

The problem with audio equipment today for the audio-loving but constrained consumer (like me), is that too much of it is aimed at the top market segment. This means value components are more difficult, (I didn't say impossible), to find.

Some of us are concerned that there is a decline in interest in hi-fi among younger people, (of whom I'm not). What to do? More makers need to create value components instead of just trying to skim the old, rich, foolish audiophiles.
:idea:

[Bernd]

Some of us are concerned that there is a decline in interest in hi-fi among younger people, (of whom I'm not). What to do? More makers need to create value components instead of just trying to skim the old, rich, foolish audiophiles.
:idea:

Good point and I am one of the concerned. Not one of our youngsters shows any interest in quality reproduction. It drives me nuts. They have been exposed for years, but no cigar.

Value is all relevant really.

A point I discovered recently, when I took a young friend of mine to help select his first system. Most of the budget equipment we auditioned was dire.There are however some gems out there. And there are manufacturers who make value pieces. Rega, Cambridge and Wharfedale spring to mind.

Peace

Bernd:6:

[Florian]

I cant speak much about youngsters at 22 :lol::lol:

I got my buddy (25) into Maggies with an old pair of MGI's for 200 bucks that sounds pretty cool.

[kexodusc]

The problem with audio equipment today for the audio-loving but constrained consumer (like me), is that too much of it is aimed at the top market segment. This means value components are more difficult, (I didn't say impossible), to find.

Some of us are concerned that there is a decline in interest in hi-fi among younger people, (of whom I'm not). What to do? More makers need to create value components instead of just trying to skim the old, rich, foolish audiophiles.
:idea:

I dunno about that. I dont' think it's any worse than before. In fact, I think audio in general has been helped quite a bit by the home theater explosion of the last decade.

Hard core audiophiles weren't affected by HT at all, and presumably, a certain amount of the population would develop into hard core audiophiles anyway.
But now with everyone having home theater, and it being "vogue" to own a good one, people are listening to music on better systems than they would otherwise (hey, most sub/sat combos with a/v receives sound far better to me than boomboxes and mini-systems). The increased demand for speakers has prompted more competition and more efficient and higher quality production techniques at the lower level.

The demand for inexpensive speakers has skyrocketed. And modern CAD software has made speaker designing faster, easier, and cheaper. I honestly believe the entry-level has improved greatly in the 10-12 years since I bought my first Hi-Fi system. What's available today is better than what was available to me then. Look at all the start-up "factory-direct" companies that are selling glorified DIY speaker designs at entry-level price points using drivers that were found in yesterday's mid-fi (or better) gear.

I think it's the middle-of-the-pack that's become more stagnant. It hasn't gotten worse, just hasn't kept pace....

[Feanor]

I'm sorry, I just don't use that "x multiplier better" concept with everything.
.... Where we decide to jump on the merry-go-round is our choice.
...
rw

I suppose the simple 'X multiplier' is simplistic, but perhaps we can agree that there is diminishing incremental value.
We are all guided by some sense of value but we have a different sense depending on our personal circumstances.
We each decide how we will spend our own money.

[Feanor]

I dunno about that. I dont' think it's any worse than before. In fact, I think audio in general has been helped quite a bit by the home theater explosion of the last decade.....

HT has definitely drawn away from hi-fi. I think its the video/multi-media aspect.

I got into hi-fi in the early '70. Think of it! There was television but no recorded video entertainment. There was no VHS much less DVD. On the other hand there were plenty of great music recordings, (on LP mostly :smile5: ). So for distraction, we wanted to better enjoy what was available.

Yes, you're right that inexpensive speakers are better than ever. Then again, you need six or eight of them instead of only two :yikes:

[kexodusc]

Yes, you're right that inexpensive speakers are better than ever. Then again, you need six or eight of them instead of only two :yikes:

Well, I grew up in the late 80's and 90's...VHS was around but it took a few years after DVD for the mainstream to buy into Home Theater.
But it happened.

You're definitely right about needing 6 speakers instead of 2. There's a mismatch that way. I do believe, however that most people use their HT's for video and music. Some of those people will then discover 2-channel stereo and hi-fi (or multi-channel hi-fi) and get "the bug", and start upgrading to better equipment. It's this exposure that HT can offer to people who may otherwise never have been introduced to the possibilities that I feel is the benefit.

Then there's the rest who will be content to watch Gladiator on their little cube HT systems...and maybe play the latest mp3 on their computer speakers. Can't win 'em all.

[GMichael]

Then there's the rest who will be content to watch Gladiator on their little cube HT systems...and maybe play the latest mp3 on their computer speakers. Can't win 'em all.

How could you ever win over people who already have the best?
How can you teach someone who already knows everything?

[Florian]

Well it depends on what you consider the best :-)

I personally invite people over which so far changed the audio life by 100%. I dont think the problem is the interest, i think the problem is money and dedication and goals and the problem is that young people dont even know what a violin sounds like.!

[GMichael]

Well it depends on what you consider the best :-)

I personally invite people over which so far changed the audio life by 100%. I dont think the problem is the interest, i think the problem is money and dedication and goals and the problem is that young people dont even know what a violin sounds like.!

I was referring to Bose. I call it sarcasm.

I know, I'm a baaaaaaaaaaad poster.

[Florian]

I was referring to Bose. I call it sarcasm.

I know, I'm a baaaaaaaaaaad poster.

I should have gotten that when i read the "cubes" :idea:

Oh well...funny anyways :)

[GMichael]

I should have gotten that when i read the "cubes" :idea:

Oh well...funny anyways :)

Glad you liked it.

Anyways. I think Estat said what I agree with the most here. Everyone gets of the ride when they want to for their own reasons. For some (ok, most) it's the money. Others are happy with what they have. Still others don't care as much.

[E-Stat]

Glad you liked it.
I got your humor! :D


How could you ever win over people who already have the best?
As Florian indicated, I think it is largely a question of exposure. I think ultra high end systems, either music or HT, can give folks a notion of what is possible. Then plug in your level of interest and budget.

HP's super Maggie system with 20.1s in the front 3.6s in the rear, (2) MGCC centers and (4) Nola Thunderbolt subs driven by an Edge multichannel amp can change that perspective. Last time I was in Seacliff he played a part of the bimbo surfer movie "Blue Crush". The weight and impact of the waves was incredible. It wasn't rattling the rafters so much as begin felt. Zero strain. Very realistic. And yes the 8" Barco projector did a nice job, too!.

rw

[GMichael]

I got your humor! :D


As Florian indicated, I think it is largely a question of exposure. I think ultra high end systems, either music or HT, can give folks a notion of what is possible. Then plug in your level of interest and budget.

HP's super Maggie system with 20.1s in the front 3.6s in the rear, (2) MGCC centers and (4) Nola Thunderbolt subs driven by an Edge multichannel amp can change that perspective. Last time I was in Seacliff he played a part of the bimbo surfer movie "Blue Crush". The weight and impact of the waves was incredible. It wasn't rattling the rafters so much as begin felt. Zero strain. Very realistic. And yes the 8" Barco projector did a nice job, too!.

rw


The 20.1's and even the 3.6's are a little out of my budget. Well, I guess what I'm planning is too or it would be reality instead of a plan. But eventually, unless my tastes change, I plan on 1.6 mains and MGCC center, then MMGW's for surrounds and rears. And I'll have real amps by then. I like the Parasounds so far.

It's good to dream.

[Florian]

Florian's dreams:


Apartment with one 60m2 room by the end of this year. Slanted ceeiling, no corners, white carpet.
Fully Magnan Flatline cabled
Foil only midrange ribbon
Goldmund T3-F
All powerlines dedicated with the PS Audio Powerplant The Apartment and the foil only midrange is not difficult. The rest takes a bit :)

[E-Stat]

The 20.1's and even the 3.6's are a little out of my budget. Well, I guess what I'm planning is too or it would be reality instead of a plan. But eventually, unless my tastes change, I plan on 1.6 mains and MGCC center, then MMGW's for surrounds and rears. And I'll have real amps by then. I like the Parasounds so far.
Sounds like a great system.

I'm content with my modest HT system. NAD receiver, Polk mains/center Radio Shack rears and a pair of powered subs with a Behringer EQ.

rw

[GMichael]

Florian's dreams:


Apartment with one 60m2 room by the end of this year. Slanted ceeiling, no corners, white carpet.
Fully Magnan Flatline cabled
Foil only midrange ribbon
Goldmund T3-F
All powerlines dedicated with the PS Audio Powerplant The Apartment and the foil only midrange is not difficult. The rest takes a bit :)

Sounds like a great dream. But why not change the apartment into a house? Either that or you'll have a few unhappy people banging on your door.

[GMichael]

Sounds like a great system.

I'm content with my modest HT system. NAD receiver, Polk mains/center Radio Shack rears and a pair of powered subs with a Behringer EQ.

rw

Thanks, it will have to do double duty as my music source as well.

[Florian]

Sounds like a great dream. But why not change the apartment into a house? Either that or you'll have a few unhappy people banging on your door.

Well at 22 and beeing a teacher the cash wont stretch for a house yet :-) But an old building and a old apartment with tall ceelings will work just fine. The room acoustics will take care of the rest :)

[r m]

I would like to turn away from the financial cost of the components themselves and consider the time spent on this hobby, as this is a cost of sorts.

The least expensive element in our music systems is the recorded music.

Rather than spending my time researching the equipment would I be better off if I spend my time researching the music and listening to it?

Just a thought. Interesting thread thanks for the input. Now I shall get back to researching... only another two or three weeks before I can buy my system. Grrrr.

[GMichael]

I would like to turn away from the financial cost of the components themselves and consider the time spent on this hobby, as this is a cost of sorts.

The least expensive element in our music systems is the recorded music.

Rather than spending my time researching the equipment would I be better off if I spend my time researching the music and listening to it?

Just a thought. Interesting thread thanks for the input. Now I shall get back to researching... only another two or three weeks before I can buy my system. Grrrr.

Huh? Just play some music while you reseach. That way it won't feel like it's an expense.

[Bernd]

I would like to turn away from the financial cost of the components themselves and consider the time spent on this hobby, as this is a cost of sorts.

The least expensive element in our music systems is the recorded music.

Rather than spending my time researching the equipment would I be better off if I spend my time researching the music and listening to it?

Just a thought. Interesting thread thanks for the input. Now I shall get back to researching... only another two or three weeks before I can buy my system. Grrrr.

I somehow think that a love of music is a given before you embark on improving your system. If you "only" want to listen to music I am sure an i-pod or Mini system will do fine, but a good system will open your ears to more of what's on the disc and will encourage you to search out more music.
Time spent listening to music is certainly no expense for me but pure pleassure. So I am not quiet sure what your point is.

What components are you buying?

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Resident Loser]

...your post is a bit confusing...

Do you find researching gear a cost?

I tend to look at time spent investigating things as an education and I've been involved in one way or another for 40yrs. Are you familiar with the jargon of the hobby? Do you know the meanings of, and how to interpret specs? Do you have an idea as to what you expect from any gear you might ultimately purchase? What do you require insofar as bells and whistles?

The research you do now will pay off in the long run...it will provide an understanding of the basics upon which you will be able to build...it will make you a more savvy consumer...caveat emptor! There is an awful lot of stuff out there that is snake oil, pure and simple...and sales people who can and do take advantage of unwary or uninformed customers.

I'm quite content with hearing a favorite piece on a portable mono radio...after all, it really is the music that matters...A step up would be my portable GPX CDP($7 after rebate) and my really old Sennheiser HD-414 'phones. With them, I get to choose the program material, but I'm tethered. Obviously as we travel up the chain there are improvements and/or flexibilities that are offered that will further enhance your listening experience. A quality $400-600 mini-system will provide around 90% or so of the performance level of a ne plus ultra, no-holds-barred, exotic one...however the cost will be appreciably more...ten to one hundred times more (in some cases) in order to achieve minimally incremental levels of improved performance

Perhaps you may find yourself looking for obscure Edison cylinders or SOTA players that will wring every available nuance out of them...vinyl?...particular composers?...conductors?...a specific genre?...native American flute music?...Want to collect vintage, classic Marantz or Mac gear?...or Caruso's single-sided 78s?...This pastime is pretty wide-ranging and diverse...you can be a gearhead or a music collector or enjoy any degree of combination of the two... it's really up to you to make the decision on your level of involvement...that's really the beauty of it all.

So as GM suggested, play some tunes and read on...

jimHJJ(...information and the ability to understand it is the real power...)

[Woochifer]

The problem with audio equipment today for the audio-loving but constrained consumer (like me), is that too much of it is aimed at the top market segment. This means value components are more difficult, (I didn't say impossible), to find.

Some of us are concerned that there is a decline in interest in hi-fi among younger people, (of whom I'm not). What to do? More makers need to create value components instead of just trying to skim the old, rich, foolish audiophiles.
:idea:

As Kex mentioned elsewhere, it seems that the top end of the market and the entry level end have gotten the most attention in recent years, leaving a huge gap in the middle. I think part of this is that the advent of home theater has greatly reduced the middle tier in the audio-only market.

More consumers looking to piece together a system in that middle price range (from about $1,500 and up), nowadays will not dedicate that entire budget to a two-channel system. They are looking to build a multichannel system that will also function as their audio system. The evidence of this is very clear by looking at which independent audio stores have gone under and which have survived in the last 10 years. In the markets I'm familiar with, the stores that have gone out of business have generally been the ones that stuck with selling strictly two-channel components. The ones that survived and expanded were the ones that added home theater components and installation services to their product mix.

Audio stores have also survived by embracing the ever escalating price points for high end components, especially with the accessories and tweaking components. Richard Hardesty, who publishes the Audio Perfectionist journal has said that one of the worst trends in audio over the past 15 or so years has been the rise of what he refers to as the "silly segment" of the market -- basically components that function more as overpriced audio jewelry than products focused on solid engineering and sound quality. He's very much an adherent of two-channel analog high end audio, but feels that common sense and simple goals have gotten distorted by marketing practices and price points that keep going up but fail to improve upon the actual sound quality. He also makes the point that the attention and focus on this end of the market (as well as the attention that home theater gets) has driven a lot of people out of the audio hobby in recent years.

With young people, I'll repeat a point that I've made many times on this board -- young people are not going to sit at home and tether themselves down to an audio system. They want mobility, but that's nothing new. Today, they want their MP3 players, just as 25 years ago, they wanted their Walkmans and cassette tapes. And comparing a prerecorded cassette with a 128k MP3, the young people of today are generally getting far better sound quality than their counterparts did 25 years ago.

Component-based audio is a relatively small market, and always has been. Even back in the analog heyday, most people were listening to their music through standalone record changers or those all-in-one systems with the horrible BSR record changers dropped into the top of the unit. I don't think anyone who's ever heard them would argue that listening to an LP through one of those systems would sound better than a CD played through one of today's mini systems.

I think there is value out there in audio, and Kex correctly points out that the biggest change over the past 20 years has been in the entry level tier. If you inflation adjust the price points, I think you'd see huge improvements across the board. The Marantz 2275 receiver that I grew up with cost $600 in 1976, which is the equivalent of about $2,000 today. Think about how much two-channel amplification you can buy for that price nowadays. The sound quality that you now normally get with speakers in the $200 range would have been rare 20 years ago (especially if you deflate the price to what that $200 would have been worth back then).

If there is any decline in interest for hi-fi among young people, it might stem from the fact that you no longer have entry level equipment that sounds as bad as it did 20 or 30 years ago. A higher level of sound quality than before is just the norm, and doesn't require a special investment like it did back then. Then again, I'm not so sure that hi-fi has ever been all that large a market to begin with, and young people's interest in the hobby has always been marginal from what I've seen and experienced. Also, I think that the traditional market boundaries that defined the audio market simply don't mean as much because how people listen (at home, all over the house, in the car, on the go) and what they listen to (CDs, multichannel music, DVDs, MP3s, streaming media, other downloads) has evolved. It would only make sense that the hardware market follows how people actually intend to use it.

[E-Stat]

leaving a huge gap in the middle.
Guys,

Call me too much of an optimist, but I just don't agree. I find a vast increase in the availability of good stuff at virtually any price point.

I started this game in 1972 with a pair of Advents and an AR Integrated amp. Setting aside the source (for which CDs have clearly provided an incredible value improvement), I spent $210 for the speakers and $225 (discounted) for the 60 watt/channel amp. In today's dollars, that would be $945 for the speakers (before I purchased a second pair) and $1010 for the amp. That situation today would provide me literally dozens of choices for either providing darn good performance today. Every speaker uses film caps. Every amp with toroids, usually MOSFETs and miles away from the gross negative feedback debacle of that day. The AR amp sounded miserable at low levels. Heck, there are probably half a dozen different Canadian choices that were completely absent in 1972. Today, I would probably buy a DAC with gain controls and a far more powerful power amp for the same overall budget. Is this the "gap in the middle"?

Another system, circa 1976: Magneplanar MG-II speakers, Jensen FET-5 preamp (modified Dynaco PAT-5), Audire 100 watt/channel amp ($625 + $400 + $500) or inflation adjusted to ($2800 + $1800 + $2250). At the expense of stating the obvious, you could do quite well for $6850! Say Maggie 3.6Rs with a nice 400 watt amp?

I don't see that adjusting those numbers for multi-channel really cripples the choices or the quality. I might have to settle for 1.6s without the ribbon tweeter. Heck, I use a pair of Radio Shack Minimus 7s with "exotic" dome tweeters as rears in my HT! You can buy them on ebay for $40. Or splurge for an additional $16 and buy a crossover upgrade with air coil inductors and film caps.

rw

[Woochifer]

Guys,

Call me too much of an optimist, but I just don't agree. I find a vast increase in the availability of good stuff at virtually any price point.

I started this game in 1972 with a pair of Advents and an AR Integrated amp. Setting aside the source (for which CDs have clearly provided an incredible value improvement), I spent $210 for the speakers and $225 (discounted) for the 60 watt/channel amp. In today's dollars, that would be $945 for the speakers (before I purchased a second pair) and $1010 for the amp. That situation today would provide me literally dozens of choices for either providing darn good performance today. Every speaker uses film caps. Every amp with toroids, usually MOSFETs and miles away from the gross negative feedback debacle of that day. The AR amp sounded miserable at low levels. Heck, there are probably half a dozen different Canadian choices that were completely absent in 1972. Today, I would probably buy a DAC with gain controls and a far more powerful power amp for the same overall budget. Is this the "gap in the middle"?

Another system, circa 1976: Magneplanar MG-II speakers, Jensen FET-5 preamp (modified Dynaco PAT-5), Audire 100 watt/channel amp ($625 + $400 + $500) or inflation adjusted to ($2800 + $1800 + $2250). At the expense of stating the obvious, you could do quite well for $6850! Say Maggie 3.6Rs with a nice 400 watt amp?

I don't see that adjusting those numbers for multi-channel really cripples the choices or the quality. I might have to settle for 1.6s without the ribbon tweeter. Heck, I use a pair of Radio Shack Minimus 7s with "exotic" dome tweeters as rears in my HT! You can buy them on ebay for $40. Or splurge for an additional $16 and buy a crossover upgrade with air coil inductors and film caps.

rw

I see your point in that you do have plenty of choices at these price points. However, I still feel that the choices that you get with two-channel components above the entry level price points have diminished in recent years, compared to what I was seeing 25 years ago. For one thing, mass market retailers have largely abandoned the two-channel market, and most of the mass market brands invest their product development above the entry level lines towards home theater. 25 years ago, mass market companies like Kenwood, Marantz, and Yamaha still had full lineups of midlevel two-channel components, such as two-channel separates, and these products were easy to find even at chain stores.

Nowadays, you have to find an independent audio store if you're looking for middle market two-channel audio components. The chain stores now focus on entry level components on the audio side, and anything above that price point will likely incorporate home theater functions. And even a lot of the independent stores will have a substantial portion of their floor space devoted to home theater components, and won't have nearly as much focus on two-channel components as before. A perfect example of this is the difficulty I encountered just trying to replacement cartridge for my turntable. I was looking to spend about $200, and my choices were more limited at that price point than they were at the under $100 and $400+ price points at the stores I visited (that is, if they even carried cartridges in the first place).

You're right in that the middle market choices are still out there, but they're just a lot more difficult to track down than before and don't command nearly as large a share of the market. The saving grace for your optimism indeed is that you can typically attain a much greater level of quality for the price than before, especially if you inflation adjust the price points.

[E-Stat]

Nowadays, you have to find an independent audio store if you're looking for middle market two-channel audio components... A perfect example of this is the difficulty I encountered just trying to replacement cartridge for my turntable. I was looking to spend about $200, and my choices were more limited at that price point than they were at the under $100 and $400+ price points at the stores I visited (that is, if they even carried cartridges in the first place).
Two words: The Internet

While the Audio Technica OC-9 is a bit above that budget, the venerable Denon DL-103 fits right there. I had one many a moon ago. You may have to order it from the UK. So? That's where I found a pristine SME 3009 Series II (Improved) arm for my old Ariston.

rw

[Woochifer]

Two words: The Internet

While the Audio Technica OC-9 is a bit above that budget, the venerable Denon DL-103 fits right there. I had one many a moon ago. You may have to order it from the UK. So? That's where I found a pristine SME 3009 Series II (Improved) arm for my old Ariston.

rw

Yup, that's exactly what I wound up doing! But, it just illustrates how things have changed at the retail level and how the needs at the bottom and at the higher end seem better served than those more in the middle market. I used to always buy my replacement cartridges and belts from local stores, and that just doesn't seem feasible anymore. Most unfortunate because I want to support the remaining stores in my area. Since cartridges/stylii are items that wear out and require replacement, I could've been a regular customer. It's not like cables or headphones wear out and need regular replacement

[E-Stat]

Yup, that's exactly what I wound up doing! But, it just illustrates how things have changed at the retail level and how the needs at the bottom and at the higher end seem better served than those more in the middle market.
I don't disagree, but simply find that simply to be part of the changing paradigm of buying really anything today. While there is greater overall diversity, the impact of the local brick and mortar shop has diminished really for all but the top end. You can easily outshop the big boxes online for low end stuff as well. Or buy a car that way.

As for me, I don't find that to be a problem. I want something. I order online. It shows up at my door a couple of days later. Kewl.

My day job is a sales engineer for a developer of distribution software. I regularly give presentations to our user base and prospects alike discussing the significant changes that have occurred in the supply chain in only the past few years. At the expense of boring you, here are a few findings of a survey by a prominent consulting firm:

In 2003, only 25% of distributors under $50M had an eStorefront presence. By 2008, nearly 85% will join the larger firms with that capability. Do or die. Fully 30% of all business will be done over the internet. Considering the limited volume of the high end, this should come as no surprise.

rw

[bubslewis]

For starters, you're right the high-end makers are not, in general, frauds or crooks. They are simply exploiting the demand that exists. On the other hand, these makers like are like firms in most industries: they target the well-heeled, up-market consumer.

Why skim the market? I think you know, and comes back to my original point. The price elasticity for the rich consumer is much greater. They are much less constrained by a strict concept of value. And sometimes the contrary applies: things that are rare, unique, or just expensive become sought reason of exclusivity rather than performance. All this means that the maker can charge high prices giving himself a cushion against inefficiency and/or less than hoped for demand.

The problem with audio equipment today for the audio-loving but constrained consumer (like me), is that too much of it is aimed at the top market segment. This means value components are more difficult, (I didn't say impossible), to find.

Some of us are concerned that there is a decline in interest in hi-fi among younger people, (of whom I'm not). What to do? More makers need to create value components instead of just trying to skim the old, rich, foolish audiophiles.
:idea:[/FONT][/I]

OK, I'm on the board of directors at WALMART. I'm thinking to myself " What if we come out with a good speaker system that's affordable to all our millions of customers? We can hire a couple of experts for design and then add a building to the side of our widget factory in Chunking and mass produce these puppies. We could call it the WALplanar or maybe the WALribbon, or perhaps the WALmag".

" We've already got the shipping and distribution mega-network. We could have 360 pallets of these boys ready in 2 months. We put up a nice little room right next to our electronics section in all our stores. People just stroll in and are amazed how good the sound is. And the speakers only cost $499 a pair! Hell, we could throw in a decent WALamp and sell the package for $699."

Would this be a good thing or a bad thing? I'm sure we've all heard someone say how they'd really like some good speakers, etc. etc., but just didn't have the $. Now WALMART has made good (not great), affordable sound available to millions of audio-loving but constrained consumers. I'm sure that would be viewed as a good thing.

Of course, 6 months from now Magnapan would go out of business becuase the bottom dropped out of their sales for 1.2's and 1.6's and their other mid level stuff. Other small makers would find that their $1,500 speakers and $1,000 amplifiers suffering the same fate. I'm sure that would be viewed as not a good thing.

Unfortunately, making value components affordable is most easily achieved by mass production. WALMART can do but the little guys can't. Just like everything else.

[Feanor]

We put up a nice little room right next to our electronics section in all our stores. People just stroll in and are amazed how good the sound is. And the speakers only cost $499 a pair! Hell, we could throw in a decent WALamp and sell the package for $699."[/i]

Would this be a good thing or a bad thing? .... I'm sure that would be viewed as a good thing.

Of course, 6 months from now Magnapan would go out of business becuase the bottom dropped out of their sales for 1.2's and 1.6's and their other mid level stuff. Other small makers would find that their $1,500 speakers and $1,000 amplifiers suffering the same fate. I'm sure that would be viewed as not a good thing.

....

I would be a good thing. :thumbsup: Of course, I'm assuming that there really is a market for low priced/high quality hi-fi equipment, viz. that up-market hi-fi's appeal isn't just its snobbish exclusivity.

Tough crap for the small manufacturers. It's survival of the fittest. Let's face it, Walmart has driven tens of thousands small retailers out of business; why worry about a few dozen audio equipment makers? :devil: And, I mean, you'd do all your manufacturing in China, but the most current makers are headed over there anyway.

[kexodusc]

I would be a good thing. :thumbsup: Of course, I'm assuming that there really is a market for low priced/high quality hi-fi equipment, viz. that up-market hi-fi's appeal isn't just its snobbish exclusivity.

Tough crap for the small manufacturers. It's survival of the fittest. Let's face it, Walmart has driven tens of thousands small retailers out of business; why worry about a few dozen audio equipment makers? :devil: And, I mean, you'd do all your manufacturing in China, but the most current makers are headed over there anyway.

I'm all for small businesses and buying domestic, but I'm not going to buy a product solely for that reason. If another country can build something as good or better, and sell it for cheaper, I'm going to buy.
I feel bad for the small businesses, but that's life, there's no guarantees or entitlements.

My greatest hope is that competition really picks up in the next few years. Along with the "home theater revolution" of the past few years came more speaker companies than ever. I suspect that many 1st time HT buyers who bought Home Theater-In-A-Box systems will be looking to upgrade soon enough, and a good chunk of them will want something more. Probably a decent entry level system. Likewise, some of the people who previously bought entry levelish HT's out there from Paradigm, Polk, Energy, B&W etc might be looking to upgrade to something more "mid-fi" (man, I hate that term) or whatever as well.

Time will tell.

[emack27]

"All you need is a good pair of speakers. You'll get more miles from a new pair of sneakers!"

[emack27]

"All you need is a good pair of speakers. You'll get more miles from a new pair of sneakers!"
Words I wish I could live by. :cornut: