A question of value in today's hi-end.

[Gregadd]

If you have a $30k Rolex you can hire someone to keep your appointments.

I recall whent the real fight was for a dealer to get the best buy product.

 

[JackD201]

Very interest perspective and not boring at all Jack! I think one reason there are so many manufacturers is that a) it is relatively easy to get into this business and b) so many wealthy individuals confuse a hobby with a business and decide to go and manufacture such gear.

On (a), the availability of computer modeling and ready outfits in far east and elsewhere to build anything under your brand, has really changed the dynamics here. What used to require gray hair, lots of skill in manufacturing, and familiarity with a soldering iron, has yielded way to quickly packaging things up from ready parts and getting them to market. Nowhere this is more true of speakers where it is more about woodworking skills than any other trade . So we have a hundred different companies making high-end speakers.

It extends to electronics as well. Availability of components be they custom or off the shelf from ever willing OEM suppliers, machining for chassis/cabinetry, even off patent designs all contribute. Here in the far east one would be surprised at just how many parts are shared by the big television manufacturers. In the days of CRT displays practically only the casing and picture tubes were proprietary. The rest of the parts from large companies whose names aren't even associated with them by the regular consumer or even supplied under contract by their own competition. On loudspeakers, cabinetry is THE single most expensive component I agree. Whether you own your own CNC or rent time, there's no way around it. No surprise then that Maggies can come in at that price point and Logans just a bit more. Less cabinetry equals lower price.

On (b), I am guilty of that to some extent myself having started my own A/V business . You get frustrated as a customer and decide that you can do better by having products produced to your spec. And that since you are convinced you know more than other audiophiles , you will be wildly successful. Alas, I heard a great line in woodworking magazine about getting into furniture making: "the worst thing you can do to ruin a great hobby is to turn it into a terrible business." It is fun to be an audio hobbyist but running a manufacturing line? Not so. And skill set in one business doesn't necessarily translate into another.

So I am not sure there is sound economics behind so many brands. A lot of money is lost on behalf of the wealthy investors in this business.

I pretty much agree with all of this and am guilty of the same! Hahahaha. I am quite happy with the results of having factory modded versions done to my specs borne of the relationships with the willing suppliers albeit there was no guarantee of THAT when I had them done. My VR-9s for example use teflon caps I specified and different internal wiring from say MikeL's former pair. That actually didn't cost much more since they replaced premium parts as well. I also did not have to pay for the original parts because the pair was built from scratch. What cost significantly more was the custom paint job. So I see Mark Seaton's point very clearly and from experience. The one off color (Individualization at work) definitely does nothing for the sound and neither does the CEO/CTO's signature at the back same way my car's color does nothing for performance or the little plaque with the engine builder's signature between the cylinder banks.

Looks may not count performance wise, but looks do factor in in total satisfaction for I dare say the greater majority of people. It can be taken too far though I agree. A product has GOT to AT LEAST sound as good as it looks. I'm lucky that my speakers sound better than they look and my car is faster than I dare drive it. Below that, I wouldn't even call it jewelry.....just Bling.

 

[KeithR]

Jack- Looks by certainly mean a lot at the super high end.

but I've never been a proponent of the "if it sounds great, i don't care what it looks like" theory. i still have to look at the dang piece while listening!

 

[JackD201]

Me too Keith.

 

[NorthStar]

Just... (and sorry for all the typos and more...)

Alright I just finished reading this thread; deja vu!

High-End, Utra High-End; those describe people, and not products (up to a certain extent)!
I'll explain.

Very expensive products are made by people with certain affinities to attract certain classes of buyers.
Then it is their prerogative to acquire the material necessary from the best or not possible sources.
The design look counts for as much if not more than the internal parts.
Designers of cosmetics and professional artists in their domain are hired to help in the 'magic touch'.
{Karen, Transparents; please, please, please...}

Like anything else in life, even in the high earners there are people that truly search and others that simply don't bother! It is the balance of smart assessment based on true reality, true performance, true cost of exclusivity, true power of supply and demand, true equitability of the classes from our society, and all the other ingredients that form that special Jazz band...
And it is those people that don't bother to research but simply ask for the 'Best', meaning the most expensive, that mainly the High-End, or more specifally the Ultra High-End was designed for!
...For Ultra High-End people that don't bother researching, and by people smart to know that they exist! I

Lol, give me an Emotiva Stereo amp like the Emo XPA-2 with a pair of loudspeakers from Paradigm like the Reference Signature S6, and a Stereo preamp from Quad or Bryston, or other great sounding one that you can get for $600-800 at Audiogon, and a good turntable ($2,000 or so) or a CD player like the Oppo BDP-95 (plays SACDs too, plus Blu-rays...); with a roughly combined total of less than $10,000 versus a system that cost ten times the price ($100,000), and I'd bet you get 88% of the sound quality!
Now that is what I call a BALANCE sense of equation! A smart search into common sense plus the knowlege of business implementation, plus the people behind, at both ends; the manufacturers/sellers and the buyers, those that are the Ultra-High end, not the products, but the people!

I won't get into blind-listening tests, as from what I read here is another era or dimension, plus I don't have much personal experience myself on that; but nonetheless the ultimate best remains the people, and not the performance/price ratio of the products themselves.

Hey, I have nothing against a two-channel Stereo power amp that cost $80,000 or even $800,000; that's cool, there are Ultra High-End people out there that require tremendous amount of Power!

* By the way, do any of you guys here frequent such type of forums? I didn't think so either, as those people usually don't have time to check their computers. ...Please don't take this the wrong way; I'm sure few do frequent and read about those, and I know that some audio engineers and professional recording studio mixers love to experiment with speakers that cost half million dollars or more (Stereo setup)!
{I read about those, mainly from the UK, Europe, and Spain, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, etc.}
And I would love to be with them in these big spacious rooms specifically designed with Sound in mind! ...Helas, only in my dreams...

Anyway, the full point here just to give my viewpoint on the term Ultra-High End, meaning the people with available finances and without any other question than only the 'Best' there is!
And! Also the Balance in Value of 'What's Best' out there for people who are indeed in pursuit, in search, doing research, from intelligent deductions and analyses, and for who a budget means or enclaves them in the other level of the normal High-End people, YOU!
Me, I'm at the other level, the True High-end, or the Value/Performance/Smart Price ratio.
I'm lower in finances, but not necessarily lower in overall Audio satisfaction plane level!

How long will it take before we reach the higher ground, so that when the big wave comes in, we won't get washed out under it?

You guys have all interesting points that you just mentioned above, and it is because of your ideas and views that I express my own thoughts at my own level in your own terms (or turf).

Perhaps I'm not that technical right now, but this is at least a start. Many of you have already enumerated some excellent points, like Amir for example (I can totally relate to what he said before), and other members as well who brought in other valid variables as well, yes, because it has a business point of view for exactly what I just explained regarding the Ultra-High End People (Audio Transparents, Wilson, Karen, etc.; or is it?).

But this is still peanuts compared to what's really out there! And that ladies and gentlemen, is Extreme High-End! Only for those people; created for them, by the very best designers in the world! And for themselves as well, because they are perfectionists in their domain, true creators without real money consequences, as their ideas are them first! Them and them. They are representing, and someone else takes over as the medium who unite the people to their respective products. Voila! Balance of equities.
The rest is simple formality, just like Amir said it before. Them, the team! The Ultra High-End team of people and the products behind the team.

~ I like people that build their own Stereo setup. People that are creative. Because. They, are the ones that can truly appreciate the results of their efforts.

Right now, big Classical Orchestral works with massive Chorals is playing from the r.a.d.i.o., and it is simply superb! Music from Malher, and by the Philharmonic of New York, with full Chorals and a lady leader Soprano singer of exquisite vocal chords.
Nothing else truly matters!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

People walk into big box stores everyday with stars in their eyes and "Bose" on the tips of their tongues, looking to buy "the best." Does this syndrome exist at the "high end?" Are there products with which the marketing, in the form of elegant cabinetry, unashamedly high prices, pretty brochures, internet buzz, gushing reviews and elegant showrooms instead of 2-page spreads in consumer magazines, promotes basically the same message: This company's idea of what sounds good, = "the best." Where does this happen in the "high end?" It would be much easier to find where it isn't happening.

I agree with The Lord of The Rings in principle, if not in numbers. I think a hard drive full of lossless files ($100), a Mac Mini ($800) a good pro DAC ($2000) a pair of large, very good active studio monitors (let's give it some margin -- $5K) and a good sub ($2000) will get you 95% of the way to the systems that really are among the best and way past most that call themselves that. The speakers will not be pretty, though.

Tim

Tim

 

[JackD201]

Now seriously, aside from looks, "scale" comes at a high price. That 95% about large (10-12" ?) actives plus subs may be true of some aspects of reproduction but scale is not one of them. 50% vs a bonafide big rig would be more like it.

Comparing a small 3 piece active system with a system which moves a lot more air is like comparing grapes and watermelons. I like watermelons.

 

[RUR]

Not to mention that one would almost certainly need more than one subwoofer and/or some form of (not necessarily expensive) bass EQ. Room treatments will also be de rigeur, though those can be DIY to save $$$.

 

[ack]

'Value' in the hi end is, I think, a complex issue... I definite it (unlike, perhaps, others??) as the retail-price/perceived-cost-of-production ratio and multiplied by a somewhat arbitrary factor (which varies by component type). Thus, I assign different value to, say, cables than electronics. The reason for this non-scientific, arbitrary multiplier is to factor in perceived component performance and dealer cost of hosting said component. For example, it takes significant retail space to demo electronics or speakers, and not much to showcase cables - in fact, my dealer will rarely do that (for me, at least), preferring that I take cables home for audition (and so do I) so he can (presumably?) use his space for other demos.

The *perceived* cost of production/development is where I pay the most attention: parts, build quality, proven industry competence by the designer, science behind each component. Mega-priced SETs need not apply here; $5K-for-single-capacitor Tidals turn me off unless one can convince me that drivers are equally expensive and rightly so - and why should I pay over 100% mark-up for that capacitor in the first place; etc.

Then, I consider the dealer mark-up, which ranges by manufacturer but let's agree it's typically ~100% - and then I ask the question: if the mark-up is 100% for, say, a $5K retail component, how do I justify a 100% mark-up for a $30K retail one??? How important is it to me that I can use the dealer's space to audition the much more expensive component? How much is his support worth to me? What am I learning from that establishment? What can he do for me when I need him for repairs? Therefore, I do put a dollar amount on his services, keeping in mind his rent, salaries, room quality, etc. Personally, I believe manufacturers do need dealers and so do we consumers.

Finally, there is a component's performance, which is mostly subjective. When I hear - and I do - just subtle differences between cables, high priced ones have virtually no value in my book. When I audition the ML Summit X next to the Magico Q5 and I like some aspects of the X better than the Q5 - while everything else can't justify the price difference to me - then the high priced component doesn't offer much value either. When I calculate $3K in parts alone in a $10K amplifier and it performs well, then that offers very high value and the dealer isn't getting much for it.

This has worked well for me, and when the calculated value is low, I will buy used. Examples of such purchases may even surprise you: My Spectral SDR-3000 transport - used, because I couldn't justify its asking retail price when compared next to el-cheapo competition; expensive parts and build-out for little gain. Some interconnects. And finally, early DACs (Classe DAC-1 and Spectral SDR-2000) because the sound was still relatively poor compared to analog.

Despite the complexity of the issue, I am having a lot of fun assigning value to what I buy... The bottom line is that, there are some high-value components out there, but overall I find the high end to be mostly full of *&^#$, and will remain a niche market because of that.

PS: You may have noticed that resale value isn't part of my equation; that's because it is influenced by a lot of factors out of my control, such as magazine reviews, pride-of-ownership factor, etc. and I don't buy based on these factors at all.

 

[KeithR]

'

Finally, there is a component's performance, which is mostly subjective. When I hear - and I do - just subtle differences between cables, high priced ones have virtually no value in my book. When I audition the ML Summit X next to the Magico Q5 and I like some aspects of the X better than the Q5 - while everything else can't justify the price difference to me - then the high priced component doesn't offer much value either. When I calculate $3K in parts alone in a $10K amplifier and it performs well, then that offers very high value and the dealer isn't getting much for it.

It's funny you mention the Summit Xs---my audiophile buddy and i were chatting that these seem like bonified bargains in today's environment. I haven't heard a ML in 10 years, but should probably go check them out some time. At 13 and change, really not too much more expensive then when I looked at top of the line Logans back in the day. That said, they used to require more expensive amplification than other point source speakers, which narrowed the playing field.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Now seriously, aside from looks, "scale" comes at a high price. That 95% about large (10-12" ?) actives plus subs may be true of some aspects of reproduction but scale is not one of them. 50% vs a bonafide big rig would be more like it.

Comparing a small 3 piece active system with a system which moves a lot more air is like comparing grapes and watermelons. I like watermelons.

I'm really not sure I get this argument at all. Let's just use an example, and please, let's not get into subjective opinions of the particulars, there is always another example, another sound, I'm just asking about reproducing scale and trying to get to what is meant when people bring this aspect of reproduction up.

Let's start with an Adam S3X-V:

10" woofer, 4" midrange, folded ribbon tweeter. Separate amps for each driver, which is a more efficient method that typically does not require as much power to do the job, but still, totaling 250w RMS, 32 - 50khz, 114db long term output.

Adam Sub12 (Let's take 2, I'll still be way under a comparable high-end system):

12" driver, 200 watts RMS, 22 - 150 Hz, 115db.

So I now have a 4-way system with 450 watts rms, capable of delivering 115db into a room from the lower threshold of human audibility to way above it. Where do I need more scale than this? More importantly, let's forget it is a "monitor" and a "sub" for a moment. Let's imagine it is a big floor stander in a single shiny cabinet powered by a 450 watt monoblock with enough current to push through the three crossovers to the four drivers so effectively that it is as if that amp and those speakers were made for each other (a very expensive proposition). Other than the lower distortion and increased headroom resulting from the active crossovers, and the higher flexibility resulting from my ability to separately adjust and place the woofers (not to mention tweak the eq of the monitors themselves for the room), what is the difference between this system and a big, four-way, floor-standing rig? All I see are advantages, but I could be missing something.

I really don't get this argument. I see that we're talking about is form factor. I don't really see what it has to do with scale.

Tim

 

[KeithR]

interesting you bring up Adam speakers----which TAS took to the woodshed on the A5 about not being coherent across the frequency spectrum. this looks like a much higher end speaker than that one, but just because its a pro audio speaker, doesn't mean its any good.

i have owned Barefoot MM3s which are the toast of the pro audio community---i almost kept them, but they sounded better in nearfield compared to my normal listening position. 7500/pair as i recall.

 

[microstrip]

A question arises when discussing value in high-end : do you consider that there were improvements in specific areas of sound reproduction in the last 20 years?
In which areas are our systems really better than the best systems of 20 years ago?

Audiophile memories are a dangerous thing and a few times in the past I had doubts if my system was really getting better. But every time I could get an old vintage equipment back to compare with the more recent one, it was almost a deception - the new gear sounded really better!

 

[fas42]

I really don't get this argument. I see that we're talking about is form factor. I don't really see what it has to do with scale.

I don't want to throw you, Jack, but I am on Tim's side here. Physical size is only necessary for the woofer, but if you are prepared to throw lots of watts at it, even a miniscule box will do the job ...

Frank

 

[JackD201]

I'm really not sure I get this argument at all. Let's just use an example, and please, let's not get into subjective opinions of the particulars, there is always another example, another sound, I'm just asking about reproducing scale and trying to get to what is meant when people bring this aspect of reproduction up.

Let's start with an Adam S3X-V:

10" woofer, 4" midrange, folded ribbon tweeter. Separate amps for each driver, which is a more efficient method that typically does not require as much power to do the job, but still, totaling 250w RMS, 32 - 50khz, 114db long term output.

Adam Sub12 (Let's take 2, I'll still be way under a comparable high-end system):

12" driver, 200 watts RMS, 22 - 150 Hz, 115db.

So I now have a 4-way system with 450 watts rms, capable of delivering 115db into a room from the lower threshold of human audibility to way above it. Where do I need more scale than this? More importantly, let's forget it is a "monitor" and a "sub" for a moment. Let's imagine it is a big floor stander in a single shiny cabinet powered by a 450 watt monoblock with enough current to push through the three crossovers to the four drivers so effectively that it is as if that amp and those speakers were made for each other (a very expensive proposition). Other than the lower distortion and increased headroom resulting from the active crossovers, and the higher flexibility resulting from my ability to separately adjust and place the woofers (not to mention tweak the eq of the monitors themselves for the room), what is the difference between this system and a big, four-way, floor-standing rig? All I see are advantages, but I could be missing something.

I really don't get this argument. I see that we're talking about is form factor. I don't really see what it has to do with scale.

Tim

Stating what you already know, recording studio control rooms are fitted with more than one set of monitors for many reasons Tim. Yes one of the reasons is engineer familiarity and preference but also because they have different uses. The recording engineers will use the nearfields to track, and to mix, use predominantly the nearfields and switch to the large soffit mounted beasts periodically. Those big 'uns are meant for the producer/client primarily so Mr. Mix has gotta see if what he's doing satisfies. Now we draw the connection to mastering engineers and why they go with large monitors. He and the producers need to tools to evaluate from the end users perspective not the recording or mixing engineers.

I'm just saying that even the truly big no holds barred active monitors JBL, Tannoy, Genelec, ATC, PMC, Dynaudio Acoustics, that come closest to the scale of say an X-2, VR-11, Arrakis, Genesis 1 cost a lot and when you factor in how much it costs to build up around them to support their weight, feed them clean power, control their resonances you might be surprised to see the tab.

Grapes and Watermelons Tim, even within the pro and active realm.

 

[microstrip]

The recording engineers will use the nearfields to track, and to mix, use predominantly the nearfields and switch to the large soffit mounted beasts periodically.

Jack,

Happily many recording engineers will mix and master using the "beasts" in a non nearfleld configuration most of the time. Otherwise they would compromise their work.

 

[JackD201]

It would be ideal microstrip but the reasons for nearfield are health related and I won't blame any professional from limiting his exposure to high sustained SPLs.

 

[RUR]

Adam Sub12 (Let's take 2, I'll still be way under a comparable high-end system):

12" driver, 200 watts RMS, 22 - 150 Hz, 115db.

Mmmm, a ported sub with only 200W wouldn't be my choice, but no matter. There are a number of very competent subs in this price range.

 

[NorthStar]

Now seriously, aside from looks, "scale" comes at a high price. That 95% about large (10-12" ?) actives plus subs may be true of some aspects of reproduction but scale is not one of them. 50% vs a bonafide big rig would be more like it.

Comparing a small 3 piece active system with a system which moves a lot more air is like comparing grapes and watermelons. I like watermelons.

That is one very good point that I did refer to in my prior post, and the big spacious rooms designed with 'Best Sound' in mind require much more larger loudspeakers (eg.; up to eight feet tall and more...), plus very large amount of clean power. And I'm talking about TRUE Full Range loudspeakers here, designed with the best internal or external crossovers (no Subwoofer need to apply, they are already integrated with maximum performance in mind!). Plus usually all the electronics are in the back of the room, and not in front of it (not always though, but preferably for better acoustics)! So you need very long speaker cables of excellent quality and the highest gauge as well. And just those aren't cheap!
And those two-channel Stereo setups can easily bring you in the quarter to half million dollar!
We're talking rooms that are 40+ feet long by 25 feet large and 15+ feet high here, or sometimes even larger like mini concert halls. And those require much more 'sound push' that only 'High-End' equipment can provide. For the High-End rooms that High-End people have!

Then you can easily see here that money is totally relative to the space needing to be fill in consequence!
One room will fully sound great with a $10,000 Stereo setup, as another one will require a $300,000 system setup, or more...
But another supremely important point is the room acoustics! It is part of that 2-channel setup.
So the cost of the room design and acoustic treatments are right included in the overall system!

Your listening room's size will determine if you are an Hi-Fi person, or an High-End one. I think!
...That is if all the pieces are added together in that overall true BALANCE of all equations.

It is one thing to talk about Hi-Fi, High-End, and Ultra High-End; but another to determine what they truly represent in real practicality of use and in their intended purpose in the service of total auditory satisfaction.

- My main listening room is 23 feet long (with an additional 6 feet when the back door is open), by 14 feet wide, and 8 feet high. Plus it has a 3 feet wide by 7 feet high opening to the kitchen area, and extending as well to two bedrooms, plus one bathroom. And I can close the doors of those two bedrooms and bathroom, but the kitchen door is not installed and I don't intend to either.
I only have a modest Hi-Fi system, but I am still free to talk about a High-End one (aspirations), and learn some' from most of you members here at 'What's Best'.

And I do learn from these discussions like this one right here from you all. Thank you!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Stating what you already know, recording studio control rooms are fitted with more than one set of monitors for many reasons Tim. Yes one of the reasons is engineer familiarity and preference but also because they have different uses. The recording engineers will use the nearfields to track, and to mix, use predominantly the nearfields and switch to the large soffit mounted beasts periodically. Those big 'uns are meant for the producer/client primarily so Mr. Mix has gotta see if what he's doing satisfies. Now we draw the connection to mastering engineers and why they go with large monitors. He and the producers need to tools to evaluate from the end users perspective not the recording or mixing engineers.

I'm just saying that even the truly big no holds barred active monitors JBL, Tannoy, Genelec, ATC, PMC, Dynaudio Acoustics, that come closest to the scale of say an X-2, VR-11, Arrakis, Genesis 1 cost a lot and when you factor in how much it costs to build up around them to support their weight, feed them clean power, control their resonances you might be surprised to see the tab.

Grapes and Watermelons Tim, even within the pro and active realm.

It's only grapes and watermelons because you changed the subject Jack. My example was of self-powered monitors and subs that would deliver the power and "scale" of an audiophile "big rig," something you seemed to think would be a problem with the monitor/sub solution. Do you think I addressed that problem with this example? If not, what's missing?

Tim