Do You Always Get What You Pay For?

[Phelonious Ponk]

That we could even discuss, with straight faces, the lack of bragging rights inherent in a $4,000 preamp is telling. The bragging rights begin again, though, way down there were the upper tier of midfi reaches precociously into the audible "high-end," where a $2,000 integrated amp can, by any objective measure, nearly meet a $20,000 pre/amp stack designed for neutrality, can exceed a $100,000 pre/amp stack designed as a gilded tone control by an artisan, standing confused at the line between production and reproduction.

Look to the right active studio monitors/subs, and even the neutrality gap is closed, the "high-end" altitude exceeded.

Of course the key words above are "by any objective measure." All bets are off where subjective evaluations are concerned, and we will hear every dollar we've spent. And then some.

P

 

[Gregadd]

Perhaps this thread should be renamed what should you pay for? If I want a gold plated faceplate or a carbon outlet cover that certainly is my decision to make. I suppose even "snake oil" has some valid purpose. Have you ever touched a snake's skin? I just purchased some red valve covers for the air valves on my car tires. Notwithstanding the fact that I full y expect them to be stolen, they don't hold the air in my tires any better than the plain ones- maybe not even as well.
It does kind of irritate me that people continually state the obvious. We subjectivist swalk around in a constant state of ignorant bliss in desperate need of enlightenment from objectivist. That so called subjectivists either don't understand or ignore measurements.The design of audio equipment is a demanding mix of art and science. I humbly submit that with the exception of professionals, objectivists are equally ignorant and not nearly as blissful.
I am reminded of my bicycle hobby where there is a never ending bastlle to shave every gram of weight from every component. Some times to the point of comprimising the structual integrity of the bike. My friend remarked that I would be a much better rider if I shaved 20 kilograms off my butt rather than 10 grams off my bike. I shook my my head and said, You just don't get it.

 

[garylkoh]

Perhaps this thread should be renamed what should you pay for? If I want a gold plated faceplate or a carbon outlet cover that certainly is my decision to make.

Exactly! The question Do You Get What You Pay For? is always subjective. What Should You Pay For? is personal.

My friend remarked that I would be a much better rider if I shaved 20 kilograms off my butt rather than 10 grams off my bike. I shook my my head and said, You just don't get it.

That is hilarious! Just as many, many years ago, a female friend told me that if I don't like my system, may be I ought to change the record. That prompted my spiral down hunting for first pressings and promos.......

 

[Gregadd]

That is hilarious! Just as many, many years ago, a female friend told me that if I don't like my system, may be I ought to change the record. That prompted my spiral down hunting for first pressings and promos.......


New source material is the ultimate tweak. Do it often.

 

[Ethan Winer]

It seems to me this entire discussion can be boiled down to two sentences:

Really cheap stuff is generally not very good and should probably be avoided.

Really expensive stuff is rarely worth the price, and in the case of high-end audio it's often sub-standard compared to products sold by the major players.

--Ethan

 

[microstrip]

Although some people believe that hifi designers are artists, most are engineers and economists. The costs of development are very high and hifi manufacturers who wants to stay in business for a long time will develop its products to a target price. The market rules will determine what are the prices people are prepared to pay at a given time. I am not prepared to tell why, but during the last years the market share for ultra expensive hifi increased and many manufacturers developed products for these prices. Unhappily we found that most of these excellently designed and manufactured products, if used in a appropriate system, sounded better than the cheaper ones.

However ultra high end, being a luxury, is not only engineering. We are humans, and our perception of what to buy is affected by our subjective taste and also by human relations and opportunities. I spend my own cash much easily with friendly distributors who are competent and reliable dealers, but also send invitations to have lunch and greetings postcards. After I get the equipment I will do my best to get the maximum pleasure from it and, surely, to persuade myself, friends and forum members it was an excellent acquisition.

I would like to add a short anecdote. A friend of mine who loves expensive watches recently bought in HK a perfect copy of a well know watch costing around usd 15000 for about 1000 – an expensive forgery, I would say. To check for the quality, he entered the workshop of our country distributor, known his policy of seizing any counterfeited products and calling the police authorities every time he detects a fake, and asked them to change the battery. Five minutes later he moved out with his watch with a new battery in place – they did not detect it was a forgery. Curious that no one manages to develop a preamplifier sounding exactly the same as my Anniversary REF40 for one tenth the price …

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I humbly submit that with the exception of professionals, objectivists are equally ignorant and not nearly as blissful.

I think perhaps neither of us "get" the other, Greg. The "objectivists" I know don't sit around reading graphs and charts, they sit around listening to music. They have simply found that, when they trust their ears, they prefer boring neutrality to excitement or warmth. As a side benefit, they've also found that it makes it easier, and often more cost-effective, to put a system together. I hear warmth and excitement often. I understand their appeal. I do not want to take them home.

P

 

[Gregadd]

...they prefer boring neutrality to excitement or warmth...


Odd. Clearly we have different philosophys regarding our approoach to audio. Yet we share very similar mussical taste. I assume to the extent possible we have both heard it live and recorded. I fnd very little of it" boring or neutral."

 

[Robh3606]

I fnd very little of it" boring or neutral."

I am with P on this. I want a neutral system not a lot of flash and boom. My system should be as exciting as the music played through it. As a matter of fact I know its right when it sounds a bit different from CD to CD or track to track.

I am a cheapskate which is why I build my own speakers. So I generally get what I pay for. The article at the beginning of the thread to me is common sense and certainly not unique to our hobby. I must say I do like the way it was written.

Rob

 

[Gregadd]

I am with P on this. I want a neutral system not a lot of flash and boom. My system should be as exciting as the music played through it. As a matter of fact I know its right when it sounds a bit different from CD to CD or track to track.


I am a cheapskate which is why I build my own speakers. So I generally get what I pay for. The article at the beginning of the thread to me is common sense and certainly not unique to our hobby. I must say I do like the way it was written.

Rob

I strive for neutrality in my system. Others make assumptions about my preferences for which I do not know the basis. Do you really find real music neutral and boring?

This is Jeffs'system:

The components that make up my reference system are expensive: Rockport Technologies Arrakis loudspeakers ($165,000/pair), Boulder Amplifiers 2060 power amplifier ($44,000) and 1010 preamplifier ($14,000), and Weiss DAC202 D/A converter ($6670). I’ve done due diligence and determined to my satisfaction that these products, though expensive, are expertly engineered and manufactured, and perform better than the like-priced components I’ve compared them with. They’ve passed my listening tests with flying colors. Can they be bettered for less money? Perhaps, but I’m not sure.



While I'm sure it has excellent value, it ain't cheap and it ain't homemade!

 

[Robh3606]

Do you really find real music neutral and boring?

Well yeah some of it. Of course what I like isn't, to me that is, but that's a personal preference thing. Obviously if one found all music boring what's the point in listening to it.

This is Jeffs'system:

Impressive, would love to hear it. About the only similarties to mine are the way the funds are allocated. I have the most $$$ in my speakers even though they are DIY. Good drivers are not cheap.

Rob

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I strive for neutrality in my system. Others make assumptions about my preferences for which I do not know the basis. Do you really find real music neutral and boring?

I would have thought my reference to putting a system together would have made it obvious to you that I was referring to playback equipment, not music, as "boring and neutral:"

They have simply found that, when they trust their ears, they prefer boring neutrality to excitement or warmth. As a side benefit, they've also found that it makes it easier, and often more cost-effective, to put a system together.

How, exactly, do you strive for neutrality?

P

 

[Gregadd]

Deja Vu. I think we have done this before. See the thread on What is the Term Musicality?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Deja Vu. I think we have done this before. See the thread on What is the Term Musicality?

We have done this before. Another reason why I'm pretty sure you understood I wasn't saying that prefer my music to be boring and neutral.

P

 

[terryj]

the crux of the article seemed to be the disconnect between the listening report and the measured results.

maybe, but I have not heard them, this lies at the bottom of gregads point??

Do we actually doubt the reports of the guy who auditioned them?? I have no reason to, I doubt he is making anything up.

IF we had not seen the graphs, what hook would we hang our objections on?

How do we not know that somehow, the room it was played in serendipitously complemented the measured results?

Is gregs 'view' that the ears, not measurements being the final arbiter proved by this disconnect?

Maybe the wrong things were measured. An interesting point is that the reviewer seemed initially to want to shoot it down, but was converted along the way.

Jeff, can I ask if you yourself ever heard these speakers??

I will admit a bit of shock when I saw the graphs, by any standard I use they seem rather, hmm, poor.

So how do we reconcile the listening impressions and the measurements??

 

[Gregadd]

P of course you are the ultimate arbiter of what you meant. Here is what you said:

I think perhaps neither of us "get" the other, Greg. The "objectivists" I know don't sit around reading graphs and charts, they sit around listening to music. They have simply found that, when they trust their ears, they prefer boring neutrality to excitement or warmth. As a side benefit, they've also found that it makes it easier, and often more cost-effective, to put a system together. I hear warmth and excitement often. I understand their appeal. I do not want to take them home.

I think it does pertain to our fundamental difference. I beleive that a system must be judged by what you hear compared to live music. I do not find live music to be boring or neutral. It is not likely that either of us will budge from our positions. Hopefully we can get back to the topic "value." We may not agree what it is, but I think we can concur it is a worthy goal.

 

[Gregadd]

I think we started with this basic premise: Could a high price and a name brand convince a reviewer in the face of bad measurements that it was nevertheless an exceptional transducer?
What then is the consumer to do when faced with bad measurements and a positive review?
Especially where the reviewer appears oblivious to the bad measurements and feels no need to reconcile what has been measured with what he hears.
Some would suggest the reviewer has been unduly impressed by price and brand name.
This problem is not unique to audio. Those of you with children see this problem. The child scores well own the aptitude test but does poorly in school. The other does ok on the aptitude test but excels in school.

For the sake of value should you listen and if it sounds good stop right there. Or must it measure well and sound good in order to represent a sound value(pun intended)?

 

[Jeff Fritz]

Jeff, can I ask if you yourself ever heard these speakers??

Yes I did and they were laugh-out-loud bad. No highs, no lows. Just a big, flat, and not-all-that-clear midrange. Just horrible. I walked out of the room (it was at CES) just shaking my head.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

P of course you are the ultimate arbiter of what you meant. Here is what you said:

I think perhaps neither of us "get" the other, Greg. The "objectivists" I know don't sit around reading graphs and charts, they sit around listening to music. They have simply found that, when they trust their ears, they prefer boring neutrality to excitement or warmth. As a side benefit, they've also found that it makes it easier, and often more cost-effective, to put a system together. I hear warmth and excitement often. I understand their appeal. I do not want to take them home.

I think it does pertain to our fundamental difference. I beleive that a system must be judged by what you hear compared to live music. I do not find live music to be boring or neutral. It is not likely that either of us will budge from our positions. Hopefully we can get back to the topic "value." We may not agree what it is, but I think we can concur it is a worthy goal.

Which makes your point beautifully if you emphasize around the part that identifies what I'm referring to as neutral and boring -- As a side benefit, they've also found that it makes it easier, and often more cost-effective, to put a system together. -- I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you knew exactly what I meant.

P

 

[terryj]

thanks jeff. so no doubt the graphs were no surprise then.

Ok, so why such a difference?? a lot of rooms at a show are pretty bad (I guess), so it may have put on a better show in the reviewers room...hard to believe it's basic nature would not show there too tho.

I might stop there me thinks.