How much is too much?

[KeithR]

i haven't read everything so i may be off base, but Soulution are about to raise prices quite significantly due to the swiss franc (which has appreciated almost 33% over the dollar). they said they are running at a loss at these prices - not sure if that is true but that is what i was told - guess you have to remember that almost 50% of the price is coming from the distribution and retail end.

Too bad they aren't hedged, which all of these guys should be to an extent---it's really not hard in today's world to do so. They ultimately just screw themselves.

My friend just bought the 710 amp used for 16k. That's a 55k stereo amp with superlative TAS and Sphile reviews.

Used market continues to tell what the true market for this upper echelon gear is.

 

[KeithR]

btw, 19 pages and no one can say why the Constellation gear is SOTA or worth it's price.

That's eye-opening imo. We on this forum are Constellation's market!

 

[docvale]

I've never listened to a Constellation system, just to state that what I'm saying is just a point of view, rather than an evidence based experience.

At $140K, stating that a power amp is worth its price is a little too much. Even if it's a real SOTA. Why? Because there's excellent realizations that are SOTA and cost a fraction. Please note that I'm not saying this stuff shouldn't be purchased: of course it can, and I would never criticize who, in the financial possibility to buy something like that, decided to buy. I'm just saying that, at that price points, the concept of value for money is gone.
There's lots of gear from Mark Levinson, Spectral, Pass and many other brands which is expensive (very expensive, for my wallet): notwithstanding, I think they're value for money is very very high, so I would state that is worth to buy them.
My experience with a $175K power amp with gigantic tubes at the latest Axpona NYC convinced me one more time that outrageous prices don't warrant for SOTA at all...

 

[Lee]

Perhaps I can offer an interesting observation. A friend of mine is the U.S. importer for Continuum. This past Saturday I was invited (drafted?) to help him set up a Caliburn in his home. Now this turntable costs $150K as many here know. I had never imagined a turntable would cost that much. This things comes in four road cases, two of which required us to get a third(!) person to help move and lift. The Castellon stand itself weighs 160 lbs. outside of its case.

The engineering and build quality is well simply breathtaking, much more than even described in a short Stereophile review. The precision and fit/finish are up there with art objects. Every imaginable device is isolated with care and precision and innovation. The vacuum suction is silent and locked in before playing. The Cobra tonearm is a stiff yet light work of art. We added an Ortofon A90 cart to finish it off.

Could I ever afford such an object? No. Yet this table was actually built imho to the level of its price. Most importantly it sounds like $150K too.

Now here's the kicker. Despite several of these tables selling each year globally it is unlikely this SOTA engineering assault will pay back the millions of investment dollars. Nevertheless some of the learning is incorporated in the Constellation line which includes 2 of the 3 Continuum co-founders.

 

[docvale]

A friend of mine is the U.S. importer for Continuum. This past Saturday I was invited (drafted?) to help him set up a Caliburn in his home. Now this turntable costs $150K as many here know ... The engineering and build quality is well simply breathtaking ... Yet this table was actually built imho to the level of its price. Most importantly it sounds like $150K too.

I don't know, Lee. Clearly, it sounds like you would buy it if you could afford it (and that's totally legitimate!!!). But is it really worth its price? The NVS direct drive table costs around $25K (still very expensive) and Mike Levigne witnessed it's an epiphany. Maybe I'm just playing with the words

Now here's the kicker. Despite several of these tables selling each year globally it is unlikely this SOTA engineering assault will pay back the millions of investment dollars. Nevertheless some of the learning is incorporated in the Constellation line which includes 2 of the 3 Continuum co-founders.

Mmmmm, I doubt the company would be still in activity whether the investment was not returned.


BTW, If someone raised some concerns about the bass performance of those amps, this is too much for a $140K pair. But we all know RH (or JV) has lots of reference products. Maybe the Constellation amps are the best for mid and high frequency, while some other brands are the best for the bass. Intriguingly, these reference products appear in all the issues of TAS

 

[LL21]

Here's an interesting exerise for those of us on limited budget:

1. List your no holds barred cost-no-object SOTA system.
2. Go back thru it and strategically find earlier generations/worthy older competitors of each product...and calc how much you could buy an older version of your SOTA system.
3. Its about 30 cents on the dollar...and less if you're patient.
4. And if you then spend 'new' on certain elements (room treatments, maybe just the Pre, or a SOTA DAC, etc)...or get manufacturer upgrades...you're still at around only 35-37 cents on the dollar.

No doubt, the SOTA has continued to advance the ball...but having done this exercise for the last 25 years...i will say i have found the gap between new SOTA and older to be WIDENING. And yet, i remain unconvinced that SOTA today is that far ahead of SOTA from 5-10 years ago...vs this same delta 10 years ago or before that. Think about how many of us compare the QUad el63 midrange to (some) expensive speakers today and note that they are comparable.

In any event, i am grateful because i would not be in a position to enjoy the sound i do...if someone were not out there in the never ending pursuit of the new-new thing.

 

[docvale]

Lloyd,

as a reply to the exercise you proposed, I can tell you that one of the best sounding preamps I've ever heard (in a contemporary system) is the Classe' DR6 (the one with the golden handles). IMHO a real statement product. How much would it cost today if it where a current product? I guess around $10-15K. So, again, SOTA, very expensive, but still in a price range in which the value for money is an actual fact.
All in all, my feeling is that the most consolidated brands propose expensive but not crazy products. Insanely pricey gear seems to come mostly from new brands, and it works: this is a 20 pages thread for a brand that here nobody owns and has been auditioned by maybe 2-3 people only! If they costed $20K people wouldn't stay sleepless interrogating themselves whether they're actually good (and with $20K you can get SOTA gear...).

 

[mep]

Lloyd,

as a reply to the exercise you proposed, I can tell you that one of the best sounding preamps I've ever heard (in a contemporary system) is the Classe' DR6 (the one with the golden handles). IMHO a real statement product. How much would it cost today if it where a current product? I guess around $10-15K. So, again, SOTA, very expensive, but still in a price range in which the value for money is an actual fact.

I owned the DR-6 and it left me underwhelmed. But that was back when I expected anything that had transistors to not sound very good.

 

[Whatmore]

Used market continues to tell what the true market for this upper echelon gear is.

Yes and to some extent that answers the collection/uniqueness argument. Great works of art appreciate in value, uber-expensive audio gear plummets

 

[docvale]

I owned the DR-6 and it left me underwhelmed. But that was back when I expected anything that had transistors to not sound very good.

It's ok, mine was just an example Even if produced today, a Mark Levinson No32 (which is considered the best preamp ever by many audiophiles I know) would cost a fraction of a Balabo or a Technical Brain. My point was: would people speak about a totally brand new company is its prices weren't impressively high?

 

[fas42]

Tim, there's interesting further discussion to be had, but the on topic conversation is humming nicely now, so I will defer on adding more here. I would be interested in your list of the "worst", especially the "mostly heavily multi-tracked records from the early days of that technique": care to nominate a few examples in another thread?

Frank

 

[mep]

It's ok, mine was just an example Even if produced today, a Mark Levinson No32 (which is considered the best preamp ever by many audiophiles I know) would cost a fraction of a Balabo or a Technical Brain. My point was: would people speak about a totally brand new company is its prices weren't impressively high?

Right now I'm highly impressed with the Krell KBL preamp which is a yesteryear preamp. The matching KSA-250 just arrived tonight.

 

[naturephoto1]

Right now I'm highly impressed with the Krell KBL preamp which is a yesteryear preamp. The matching KSA-250 just arrived tonight.

Mark,

I look forward to hearing your impressions of the performance of the pairing of the Krell KSA-250 with the Krell KBL.

Rich

 

[MylesBAstor]

"Too much is just enough" as the saying goes.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I will reinterpret for Frank in the language of earthlings: Digital is not perfect, but it needs no excusing. These days, a cheap DAC with an op amp output stage, well done, is significantly cleaner than vinyl, and in your analog systems, it reveals distortion that your ears don't like it. It's not the fairy dust distortion Frank sorts out with Harry Potter's soldering iron. It is boring, common stuff: Amps struggling to drive speakers that are a bit too much for them in difficult transients in the higher frequencies, passive crossovers, too many noise-making parts in too many boxes, strung together by far too much noise-making wire. Accumulative noise pushed through a system by an unforgiving source = harsh upper mids/trebles.

But keep it very simple and very clean, hook even a cheap but modern, competent digital source up to more amplifier than it will ever need (my small monitors have 325 watts per channel). Now drive a pair of full-range drivers, or a very good pair of headphones, or a well-designed active speaker system and that upper-midrange glare, harshness, "too bright" etc, disappears. It's gone. No excuses. The problem is that "very simple and very clean" describes very few audiophile systems. Perhaps those stacks of boxes with their redundant power supplies, resistors, capacitors, internal wires and and external cables, feeding not quite enough power to huge speakers containing another nest of resistors, capacitors and wires was what's best for analog. It is dead wrong for digital.

Tim

Tim:

Rather than making sweeping generalizations and opinions with no facts, please tell us what analog front ends you compared with digital front ends. What were their plusses and minuses? And I'm not talking about a useless cursory, I heard it at my friends. As those of us in the hobby have found out, gear that sounds great at first listen, usually doesn't make the cut with extended listening and vice versa. Please tell us the products.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim:

Rather than making sweeping generalizations and opinions with no facts, please tell us what analog front ends you compared with digital front ends. What were their plusses and minuses? And I'm not talking about a useless cursory, I heard it at my friends. As those of us in the hobby have found out, gear that sounds great at first listen, usually doesn't make the cut with extended listening and vice versa. Please tell us the products.

Hi Myles, how are you this evening? I've been down this road before, so I'll just go ahead and cut to the chase, where you can go ahead and dismiss my point of view: I do have a couple of friends with very nice analog systems, and I've spent quite a bit of time listening to them. I've also heard a few good turntable set ups in shops. I have not had a turntable in my system, or listened to one on a daily basis in more than 15 years. I'm sure that, in your view, completely disqualifies me from having an opinion here, but what I said, to be precise, is that a decent digital source is cleaner than vinyl. I'm talking about the basic limitations of the media. We don't have to hear a single system to understand that.

I know you'll disagree. I won't bother to provide the numbers, as I'm sure you know them as well as I do.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

Hi Myles, how are you this evening? I've been down this road before, so I'll just go ahead and cut to the chase, where you can go ahead and dismiss my point of view: I do have a couple of friends with very nice analog systems, and I've spent quite a bit of time listening to them. I've also heard a few good turntable set ups in shops. I have not had a turntable in my system, or listened to one on a daily basis in more than 15 years. I'm sure that, in your view, completely disqualifies me from having an opinion here, but what I said, to be precise, is that a decent digital source is cleaner than vinyl. I'm talking about the basic limitations of the media. We don't have to hear a single system to understand that.

I know you'll disagree. I won't bother to provide the numbers, as I'm sure you know them as well as I do.

Tim

I'm not dismissing it Tim. Just asking for evidence.

And of course, there's one problem with you assertations. The absence of noise does not equal the presence of music.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I'm not dismissing it Tim. Just asking for evidence.

But surely you don't need evidence that a good digital source has lower noise and distortion than vinyl?

And of course, there's one problem with you assertations. The absence of noise does not equal the presence of music.

No, it only means that there is less in the way of the music that is present. For the presence of music, I use the same evidence you do: my ears.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

But surely you don't need evidence that a good digital source has lower noise and distortion than vinyl?

Lower noise doesn't make it musical or accurate to the recording or listenable. I don't know what your friends system's sound like but my analog sources are darn quiet. And to me, one of the telltale signs of "noise" is a loss of transparency, in particular the ability to see in the mind's eye instruments located in the back, in the corner of the stage or even offstage.

Not there for digital. Always feels like a blanket is there over those instruments. There's always a feeling of something between you and the musician.

In addition, digital just can not get spaciality right. It's not even there totally on the hard disc and the mastering and pressing of a CD destroys what little there is. And if you think it is, on your recordings, think again. It was likely added post-production. Hopefully the new high rez d/l will help in that matter but it's still not right (and that's what I've heard in the studio). Right after they used auto tune.

No, it only means that there is less in the way of the music that is present. For the presence of music, I use the same evidence you do: my ears.

Tim

Sorry no, the first gen of digital proved that. It was dead quiet and was about as amusical as one could get. Digital could be as quiet as a church mouse and it still loses lots of harmonic, spatial, etc. information. Besides which the ear can listen though much of the noise while it can't with digital.

 

[Lee]

I don't know, Lee. Clearly, it sounds like you would buy it if you could afford it (and that's totally legitimate!!!). But is it really worth its price? The NVS direct drive table costs around $25K (still very expensive) and Mike Levigne witnessed it's an epiphany. Maybe I'm just playing with the words

Mmmmm, I doubt the company would be still in activity whether the investment was not returned.

BTW, If someone raised some concerns about the bass performance of those amps, this is too much for a $140K pair. But we all know RH (or JV) has lots of reference products. Maybe the Constellation amps are the best for mid and high frequency, while some other brands are the best for the bass. Intriguingly, these reference products appear in all the issues of TAS

Mike seems to know gear well but I doubt that $25K table approaches the performance of a Caliburn. You have to hear it...it's that good.

The company can survive as one of the principals of Continuum is a very wealthy Australian developer.