So I've been randomly reading up on pre-amps and coming across claims of "xyz competes with much higher priced gear". Is any of this true? Outside of cost not object, are there some high end makes that are better for value for money or is this just hype?
Does "competes with much more expensive" actually exist?
- Thread starter Tim F
- Start date
I would say Parasound and Benchmark Audio are good performance for the dollar.
I've been using the new Parsound JC1+ temporarily for the past month. It is a remarkably good power amplifier. I would characterize it as a bottom up amp. The bass is essentially as good as anything out there. The midbass is excellent and the midrange is wonderful. One shouldn't be surprised that at 17K a pair, it does not have the ultimate top end performance in terms of either definition, delicacy or nuance compared to my Soulution 701's , but I would own them in a heartbeat if that was my price point. What they are, quite simply, is a superbly musical amplifier that does not get in the way of the music. I'll go further and hypothesize that nobody needs a better amplifier than this to enjoy music reproduction. That is, except for audiophiles who have left their sanity at the door, present company included. Seriously, at 10% of the price of the Soulutions with 85% of the performance, one would be extremely pleased if they served as the cornerstone of any system. They really should be considered one of John Curl's crowning audio achievements in what has surely been a most formidable career.
Last edited:
I
I firmly believe this is true. Part of it has to do with economy of scale. Some super expensive hifi gear does indeed sound fantastic but part of what causes its price to be so high is that it is basically hand made in very small quantities. An example of this would be DartZeel. Another example on the other side where a product is punching high is the KEF Blade. As KEF is a relatively large speaker company that has been around practically since the dawn of hifi they can mass produce this speaker. If it were made in small batches by a very small company it would have to be 3-4X the price.
If one looks around then there are products that compete with those that are 2-3X the price point such as the afore mentioned Parasound JC1. Or to name another is the Aqua DACs. Or (Skip will be happy here) Rosso Fiorentino.
I firmly believe this is true. Part of it has to do with economy of scale. Some super expensive hifi gear does indeed sound fantastic but part of what causes its price to be so high is that it is basically hand made in very small quantities. An example of this would be DartZeel. Another example on the other side where a product is punching high is the KEF Blade. As KEF is a relatively large speaker company that has been around practically since the dawn of hifi they can mass produce this speaker. If it were made in small batches by a very small company it would have to be 3-4X the price.
If one looks around then there are products that compete with those that are 2-3X the price point such as the afore mentioned Parasound JC1. Or to name another is the Aqua DACs. Or (Skip will be happy here) Rosso Fiorentino.
I don't think it's true. But I don't think it's true because you often find things that cost less and are as good or better. The thing is better is subjective and not always consistent with all gear. Sometimes better is only with a specific stereo.
There's a lot of truth but one needs to apply a bit of logic to help interpret the claim.
For example, put identical innards into a tin box and a fancy heavily beautified case. One could rightly claim the former "competed with much more expensive".
Similarly, consider effectively identical products, one built by a mass producer (NAD, Musical Fidelity, Naim, etc) and one produced by a "boutique" builder. Again the claim is true that the former offers better value, but for a different reason. The former can offset its R&D in developing the products over sales in thousands, whereas the latter has a much higher per unit cost. .
Now look at an integrated compared with a pre and 2 mono amps. It could be that the integrated has effectively identical innards and could claim to be better value by saving on case cost, transformers, linking cables, etc.
Then there are certain brands that want to exude an image of exclusivity and deliberately over-price their offering and offer their dealers a higher than normal markup. Many do this - and they don't offer good value for money, although their buyers pride themselves on having spent so mucjh on their "fashion label" kit.
So, yes of course there's lots of equipment that competes with much more costly alternatives, but equally a lot of less costly stuff is cheap because corners were cut in its manufacture and it could be destined to a short life of reliable service, so not a good investment.
For example, put identical innards into a tin box and a fancy heavily beautified case. One could rightly claim the former "competed with much more expensive".
Similarly, consider effectively identical products, one built by a mass producer (NAD, Musical Fidelity, Naim, etc) and one produced by a "boutique" builder. Again the claim is true that the former offers better value, but for a different reason. The former can offset its R&D in developing the products over sales in thousands, whereas the latter has a much higher per unit cost. .
Now look at an integrated compared with a pre and 2 mono amps. It could be that the integrated has effectively identical innards and could claim to be better value by saving on case cost, transformers, linking cables, etc.
Then there are certain brands that want to exude an image of exclusivity and deliberately over-price their offering and offer their dealers a higher than normal markup. Many do this - and they don't offer good value for money, although their buyers pride themselves on having spent so mucjh on their "fashion label" kit.
So, yes of course there's lots of equipment that competes with much more costly alternatives, but equally a lot of less costly stuff is cheap because corners were cut in its manufacture and it could be destined to a short life of reliable service, so not a good investment.
Last edited:
This is something I've thought about as well and discussed at legth.
First off, I think it's important to differentiate between the ultimate top-end and the rest --
IME, at the top end of the manufacturing scale, the SQ is incomparable as is the build quality. Whether it's useful, commendable, or necessary to our survival and musical enjoyment is another matter
! But forget about giant killers here...For the rest, I believe the statement can hold true in exceptional cases only. Furthermore, such exceptional cases where the cheaper model outperforms the dearer one, the price differential does not necessarily point to greed; rather, it is usually the result of a compromise somewhere along the way allowing the manufacturer to lower production cost -- or a matter of synergies & large scale manufacturing (e.g Harman Group) which, as mentioned above, allow for lower manufacturing & thereby lower retail cost.
The recurring theme of the "giant killer", however, is mostly a fiction in my book. In the past I followed such enthusiastic ravings by reviewers, only to find the said giant-killer smothered by Goliath (unlike the biblical example) in no uncertain terms!
I love to see the little guy beat the big, arrogant, wealthy, entitled, etc as much as the next guy -- but deep down I hope that when my speakers grow up they will become Lumen White Lumyere, or Alexandrias, or Magico M6 or... you get the idea
That said, I am happy with what I have and grateful for the musical moments it offers me
Last edited:
of course it's true and so is the law of diminishing returns ...........
Buy used gear, solicit the advice of people like Jim Smith or David Karmeli, get one of them to set up your system and you will be happy for a very long time. It is likely you will also have spent much less than some of the megasystems around.
It also helps to know what your goals are.
It also helps to know what your goals are.
I wonder if that's still true in this age of computer-controlled production. Is the guy working with his soldering iron and hard wiring hundreds of components together likely to do a better job (in terms of eventual sound quality) than the programmed micro construction that the mass producers can (though often don't) achieve?
Is the Morgan a better car than a similarly priced BMW or Mercedes? Hand built is great in the way it makes its owner smile each time he ventures out, but it'll probably spend far more time out of service and may not even offer the same degree of performance. Because these low volume goodies (amps or cars) are made in such small numbers, their builders have to shop around for components because they don't have the capacity to manufacture them themselves.
Having said that, I really did love my unreliable, uncomfortable, noisy, drafty - but fast, exhilarating and smile-generating Morgan!
My father drove us around as children in a Morgan 2+2. What a great car and such fun to drive. It was white with green leather. Hand built English greatness.
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
Tim, IMO the quality of all the gear being made today is generally excellent. The sound quality has continued to improve over my audio lifetime.
The marketing buzz words are just that buzz words since audio is and has always been system related. I have said before that most want to use the Term High End to encompass every product and to me that is just nonsense. There are levels of sound in the HE and they are dependent on the total quality of the system. There is good, really good, excellent and a few that are extraordinary however none of these live in a void. You will not be able to distinguish the differences UNLESS the other parts , room, set up, and all the gear are also up to the task.
So there are good value products that can offer a significant experience as it all depends on the rest of the chain. Marty mentions the JC1+ amps and they are wonderful. I doubt most would ever look for better UNLESS they have a system that could differentiate and display the differences to make the additional funds worth spending.
Mine was a Plus 4 from 1955 with Triumph TR3A engine. Rare transitional model as it had the "new" cowl radiator but retained the earlier twin spare wheels. Only sold it after my first trapeze dinghy sailing in a friend's Fireball. I decided then and there to sell my car and buy a banger and a boat. My first dinghy was a Flying Dutchman - kept it to 23 years, then sold it for 3 times the £225 I paid for it. I wonder what my £200 Morgan would have fetched after those extra 23 years! Peter
No, I think just the opposite.
15+ years ago the quality of many brands was far lower. YG, Wilson, and many other top brands of multi-way cone 'n' dome speakers offered very poor sound quality vs what they offer today. Same with amps. If people think audio shows are bad today, 15+ years ago it was embarrassing and difficult to find anything that wasn't horribly flawed. Single driver speakers were more popular as a result, tons of brands selling Fostex based single drivers, Feastrex and AER got their start, same with Omega. People thought some of shouty/peaky Lowthers were better than dealing with the issues most multi-way speakers exhibited. Now, there are still some excellent single drivers but they're not as popular because multi-way speakers have erased many of their advantages. Horn speakers have become more interesting and mainstream as well. I remember hearing an Oswald Mills speaker at RMAF 15+ years ago or so that was a revelation, so much better than most systems at the show. Then TAD Reference line R1s blew away pretty much everything when they were introduced, but now I'd say many other speakers are at it's level or maybe even past it in some ways.
Of course, there have always been exceptions and some gear from every period of time has been excellent, but as a whole, high end audio has improved by leaps and bounds in the last couple of decades, so I think the value has gotten far better as a result too.
That may be true of many lesser brands but those up at the top 15 years ago stand up very well compared with their current-day counterparts.
I've had Avantgarde speakers since 2002 - 18 years ago. Unos at first and yes, they were great speakers in their day (Stereophile Speaker of the Year 2000) but the Duos were even better.
Last year I bought a pair of used 2006 Duos (pre-Omega) and thought they were great, but surely the lateat Duo XDs (3 generations later) should be a massive improvement. Well, I bought a pair of new XDs a couple of months ago. Yes, they are better but only marginally so - and several times the price.
I believe that good equipment from 15 years ago is generally speaking only marginally less good than today's equivalent, but of course, we like buying new stuff, so there's always an excure for spending a ton of money on the latest gear - and we justify the cost (at least to ourselves) in believing it's soooo much better. It just isn't - it's a little better.
How slowly hi-fi improves compared with say cars. Who would claim that a 2005 car is anywhere near as good as a 2020 one? Most have long since gone to the Great Scrapyard in the Sky and most were, let's face it, rubbish. But a good 2005 speaker or amp is still a pretty good speaker or amp. That said, every generation churns out lots of junk and that does deserve to be consigned to history.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |