Cheap or expensive you'll find stuff that is crap for the money. "Good for the money" is terrific for ANYTHING.
EMOTIVA amplifiers
- Thread starter FrantzM
- Start date
What I think would be a better description would be value or performance that is clearly beyond the expectations vs the money paid. Or simply performance above the price point if that is what's important. Frankly it's either good or bad and the money paid tends to be a sticking point that I just don't get. I guess I am wrong side of the fence on this one. I don't think like a multimillionaire. I try to get the best bang for my buck, I think most here try to as well. The idea of spending ridiculous amounts of money, ridiculous defined as more than my car, for interconnects is not something I would brag about to my friends. Their response would be "have you lost your mind!"
Rob
Rob
I don't think there is any way to bring price into the discussion without price becoming a perceived indicator of quality. If we could actually have a conversation in which we understood that beyond a point, it's not really a matter of "diminishing returns," it is simply a matter of taste, and one well-engineered amplifier/DAC/Preamp is not objectively "better" than another unless you're judging by some kind of objective metrics, not by subjective listening.
If we could ever get to this point, the prices of high-end electronics would rapidly begin to flatten out, but it's not going to happen. As long as people can pay 2, 4, 10 X as much for gear that is only different at best, they will be compelled to believe it is better. And the industry, the press, the many aspirational hobbyists have ever reason to believe as well. And so on it goes: X is better than Y, in the face of no objective evidence. Listen to them blind, finding yourself unable to differentiate between them at all? Attack the test.
This is the state of the hobby.
Tim
If we could ever get to this point, the prices of high-end electronics would rapidly begin to flatten out, but it's not going to happen. As long as people can pay 2, 4, 10 X as much for gear that is only different at best, they will be compelled to believe it is better. And the industry, the press, the many aspirational hobbyists have ever reason to believe as well. And so on it goes: X is better than Y, in the face of no objective evidence. Listen to them blind, finding yourself unable to differentiate between them at all? Attack the test.
This is the state of the hobby.
Tim
I still think "good for the money" is one of the highest compliments one could receive. It's also one heck of a selling point. I don't see anyone at Emotiva complaining. If I were them, I'd be doing the fist pump with matching whoop. Benchmark didn't exactly suffer either. It should be worn with a badge of honor.
I think it's a bit of a double-edged sword. It can be great for business. But knowing, as the folks at Benchmark and Emotiva, know that their products are not only "good for the money" they often are equal to or better of high end products costing several times their prices and being bought and praised by hobbyists and critics who sniff at their products and say they are "good for the money."
Then again, they're probably laughing all the way to the bank. I expect Benchmark makes more money than a half-dozen esoteric DAC companies.
Tim
Exactly. Money in the bank or getting allegedly sniffed at....hmmmm.....not exactly a tough choice there. Still, I don't see anybody turning their noses up to them or Benchmark or Magnepan or any high cost to performance ratio manufacturer. Maybe I just don't have snooty friends.
Actually, no Frantz, I don't find it condescending at all. I think my english proficiency is pretty good so it can't be that.
There are expensive pieces of equipment out there that I find aren't good for the money asked for them, same as there are affordable pieces of kit that aren't good for the money asked for them either. So why should "good for the money" be bad at all?
Look over their website Frantz the business model is anchored on being good for the money and they are leveraging it to the hilt. You don't see them shunning "Hi-End" either. They acknowledge it. Their mission is to be Hi-end in performance but not in price. So, if they don't mind why should we?
If you went up to Laufman and said, you know what? You are darned good for the money. You'd likely get a Heck yeah! We worked hard to accomplish that! You know what? They did and it's apparently paying off.
You know me. I'm no fan boy. I'm only a fan of getting things done and I don't care if it costs little or less, uses sand or glass, is passive or active, looks hobbled together or looks like it would fit right in at MOMA. If it does what you want it to do at a level you want it to I'm happy. I would however expect the same respect. If I do pay more for an admittedly small but subjectively significant performance gain or God forbid great industrial design, do give me the benefit of the doubt that a) I know what I'm doing b) I'm not imagining things and c) I'm not the equivalent of a fashion hound. THAT to me would be condescending.
There are expensive pieces of equipment out there that I find aren't good for the money asked for them, same as there are affordable pieces of kit that aren't good for the money asked for them either. So why should "good for the money" be bad at all?
Look over their website Frantz the business model is anchored on being good for the money and they are leveraging it to the hilt. You don't see them shunning "Hi-End" either. They acknowledge it. Their mission is to be Hi-end in performance but not in price. So, if they don't mind why should we?
If you went up to Laufman and said, you know what? You are darned good for the money. You'd likely get a Heck yeah! We worked hard to accomplish that! You know what? They did and it's apparently paying off.
You know me. I'm no fan boy. I'm only a fan of getting things done and I don't care if it costs little or less, uses sand or glass, is passive or active, looks hobbled together or looks like it would fit right in at MOMA. If it does what you want it to do at a level you want it to I'm happy. I would however expect the same respect. If I do pay more for an admittedly small but subjectively significant performance gain or God forbid great industrial design, do give me the benefit of the doubt that a) I know what I'm doing b) I'm not imagining things and c) I'm not the equivalent of a fashion hound. THAT to me would be condescending.
You won't have to look far. Benchmark has been dutifully sniffed at upon these pages. I guess it depends on what you call a sniff. But their DACs and DAC/Pres have definitely been deemed incapable of being the equal of their much more expensive rivals. I'm not sure the likes of Emotiva and Outlaw have been taken seriously enough to draw a sniff...
Sniff.
Actually, I think Benchmark and Emotiva are probably great benchmarks for the borderline between "good for the money" and "the price is of no consequence." I think we could go ahead and declare anything that reaches that level SOTA, and understand that at that level, differences are subjective unless you got data. But we would never hear the end of it. And frankly, I understand that. How easy can it be to accept that you paid 20 grand for a DAC, and it's not really better than a 2 grand one any any substantive way at all, that it just has a slightly different tonality, that it may actually be less accurate? Unless $18k is almost meaningless to you....
Tim
Operative word being may. It's all speculation. Besides even when numbers are presented someone is bound to do the audibility dance routine to the tune of MC Hammer's Can't Touch This.
Let's just stick to the facts. Emotiva makes good products that are affordable to more people than other manufacturers. In their own words they are more affordable because of their business model. They may make products that may be better than very expensive products. There may be products even better than Emotiva but even more affordable same way as there may be better products that are more expensive. It's a big world out there. Emotiva has never claimed to make THE best products and you can count on one hand the number of people here that declare that the products they own are the best in the world bar none.
Now we have to ask the question. Is there reverse snobbery going on here? Is cheaper always better now? The measure of how good a product is is how well it does it's specific job. A component in itself can only be judged within the context of the system and physical environment it is in. At least that's always been my take on how to really look beyond price and appreciate the intrinsic value of the piece. I sell the same amps Steve uses. I can tell you now that in my system it would be flat out BAD and the 6 figures it carries will not change that fact. I switched from a preamp to one that cost a third because the original one had a hard time driving two sets of amps when it had no problems before driving just one set. The performance gains outweighed the performance losses by a margin I found more than acceptable.
Let's just stick to the facts. Emotiva makes good products that are affordable to more people than other manufacturers. In their own words they are more affordable because of their business model. They may make products that may be better than very expensive products. There may be products even better than Emotiva but even more affordable same way as there may be better products that are more expensive. It's a big world out there. Emotiva has never claimed to make THE best products and you can count on one hand the number of people here that declare that the products they own are the best in the world bar none.
Now we have to ask the question. Is there reverse snobbery going on here? Is cheaper always better now? The measure of how good a product is is how well it does it's specific job. A component in itself can only be judged within the context of the system and physical environment it is in. At least that's always been my take on how to really look beyond price and appreciate the intrinsic value of the piece. I sell the same amps Steve uses. I can tell you now that in my system it would be flat out BAD and the 6 figures it carries will not change that fact. I switched from a preamp to one that cost a third because the original one had a hard time driving two sets of amps when it had no problems before driving just one set. The performance gains outweighed the performance losses by a margin I found more than acceptable.
Who said Emotiva makes "great" products? Personally I don't know, because I have never really heard them. I wouldn't say any component was great unless I heard it in my system or unless I heard it at a hotel room at an audio show like RMAF and was so blown away that I felt compelled to use the *great* word. Because if you can make a system sound great at an audio show in a hotel room, you are obviously onto something.
I'm not one to sniff but Benchmark is a DAC designed to the numbers - its a pro DAC after all. It would be rather odd if it ended up sounding stellar having been designed according to the numbers. They did though listen to different opamps in the output stage (preferring the sound of NE5532's distortion), so its not totally designed to the numbers but the numbers are stellar ones which is what shifts product in the pro marketplace, in general.
As is often the case, I think it's a matter of context. If you're discussing an entry-level piece that has some clearly demonstrable compromises, yet manages to do some things very well at a bargain price, "good for the money" might be high praise. If you're talking about - sorry to keep going back to the same example, but it works because it has been so thoroughly measured -- a Benchmark DAC/Pre, which, by any demonstrable measure, kicks ass at an extremely high level, "good for the money" is condescension. And I know there are people who will come in at this point and say yeah, but it doesn't sound that good (but it's good for the money). What is it that prevents them from simply admitting that is subjective? Why do they, instead, have to hang the "good for the money" left-handed compliment on?
I think the answer is pride, security, purchase justification; "I spent $18k more for a preamp than these guys charge for a preamp and a DAC? Mine is better. And it's not just my opinion, dammit."
That's the dynamic in play.
Tim
I think the answer is pride, security, purchase justification; "I spent $18k more for a preamp than these guys charge for a preamp and a DAC? Mine is better. And it's not just my opinion, dammit."
That's the dynamic in play.
Tim
To answer your question - good sound is not 'simply subjective' - there are objective reasons for good sound too. Just that we haven't come up with them yet doesn't mean they don't exist.
I'm confused. Good is now NOT good? You want everybody to call everything affordable "Great" or "Best"? Even our resident Emotiva owners don't claim that. Not even DACman who works there and you want everyone else to? I don't think you're picking on me but I think you ignored the entire last paragraph. I thought I was pretty clear. There is no best only what's best for a specific application of a specific person. For RH that may be true of the Q7 but it doesn't follow that would be true for everyone else.
Let's agree to disagree on "good for the money". If you think it is derogatory or condescening, I respect that. I never use the phrase anyway. I see it as a phrase that means overachieving. If someone ever told me any of my stuff was good for the money, I would not be insulted in the slightest. I'd be pleased. If someone told me I had the best for the money I'd think I came across somebody with the same tastes and sonic priorities, nothing more, nothing less. It's simply a case of admitting the fact of having heard better than what I have. In the cases that I've heard better from less expensive for my application, I've switched. If I haven't switched to what's better but more expensive the reason is simply that I cannot afford it, well actually I can
, but cannot quite justify the expenditure just yet. Whenever I've done so and will do so, it would've meant that I'd taken care of my family and my employees, done my fair share in community building and now could or can afford to give myself a treat. It also doesn't mean I haven't looked at alternatives that may cost less. If you look at my system page you will find that 90% or more of the gear isn't top of the line except the cartridges. They are to me though, "good for the money" but more importantly currently the best for my budget and my applications.
Bolded response: Thats all I am saying really.
Underlined response: the subject, as I saw it, was how to describe something without inferring money was the reason it was good or great or fair or sucked. The word just used now is affordable. Or is it Good for the money, whatever you want to use, its another example of trying to describe a product in finanacial terms. It just happened again Jack. I am saying its ingrained in us. And its unfair to whats best, if whats best is not whats most expensive. I know everyting is a preference and Ethan established that fact on this forum a long time ago. Everything used to be what "sounds" best. But, if we have to have a monetary qualifier (affordable as just used) then we will be stuck in this rut of arguing about price and not whats best....i guess we could argue about what is best means
I said "more affordable". Surely that isn't a bad thing. Once again you key in on just one word and ignore the sentence and even the paragraph. I'll ask you. Is it more affordable or isn't it? Shouldn't Emotiva be damned right proud that they can bring a product to market that is competitive and do it for less? You bet they should and they are. There are people on this forum that are beneficiaries of their business model. I don't see them complaining. They KNOW they've gotten good value.
I'm not misrepresenting anything Tom and if you want to read more to it than the most literal meaning that I intended, there's nothing I can do about it.
Can you really design by anything but the numbers? Of course you can listen to prototypes and tweak, by ear, to taste, but designing without numbers? How does that work? And when you tweak, by ear, to taste...subjective. Stellar? Subjective. Everything but the numbers is subjective and we'll just have to agree to disagree. To my ear, the best pro equipment sounds better than audiophile equipment tweaked to lesser numbers and someone's idea of "stellar" sound. I'll take a Benchmark over someone's idea of a DAC that "sounds analog" all day. MHO, YMMV, because that's the subjective part. The only part we can compare that's not a matter of opinion? You know the answer.
Tim
Its a false dichotomy you appear to be suggesting here. There's a whole continuum between designing by the numbers and designing purely by ear. For myself I use both but the ears take the lead.
Won't be the last time we disagree. How to choose which numbers to design by if not subjectively? How to decide how far to take the particular numbers chosen if not subjectively?
I hadn't got you down as a potential end customer of my Ozone DAC
I don't know that it is possible to talk about/describe/compare a product (in this case, specifically Emotiva) without talking about price. In another forum, I noted that I had recently purchased the newest Emotvia USB DAC and stated: "It may not compare favorably to the dCS $77,000 stack but it is an amazing piece". I compared it to a product that cost approximately 250 times as much and used the word "may" .
.Similar threads
