How much is too much?

[Phelonious Ponk]

We have to go back and see what a pre-amp actually does. In practical use, a preamp is used mainly for attenuation. Even the most basic attenuators have colorations. So I don't see where the claim that there are $1,000 pre-amps that get perfect replicas of the input signal comes from, even at unity gain (which would likely burn something up downstream with a 2v input or higher).

Perfect may be the biggest two syllables in the English language, but you've never seen a $1000 preamp that measures flat enough to be audibly transparent? Really?

We do know that preamps with beefier output stages and power supplies can handle longer cable lengths with less degradation and also have the flexibility to drive different amplifiers with different input sensitivities. So let's look at these expensive preamps innards. Yup, beefy power supplies and output stages usually made up of expensive parts with tighter tolerances.

So beefy power supplies and output stages is one way to add value. Given that the amp and preamp are going to be in the rack together, and if they have flat FR, there is no reason not to buy the manufacturer's preamp that matches your amp of choice, we probably won't have good reason for the beef, therefore the value could be dubious, but it's a value. Are we up to $14K yet?

Tim

 

[Lee]

Weisfeld is a good guy if a bit strange (You can tell by my avatar I love the VPI line) but I do agree that some of the high prices are driving people away. I've been going to the Rocky Mountain show for the past five years and the prices have gone up substantially. I am a partner at a consulting firm but even my head spins at some of the wealth required to buy systems at RMAF. I have mixed feelings about this:

On one hand, as a big free markets guy I think if they can sell them and there is a niche then so be it. Mfrs are filling a market need.

On the other hand, I think the prices do act as a marketing and perception hurdle to younger buyers. Still this is balanced by many firms offering modestly priced "entry level" gear that sounds great. There are so many great products in the $500-$1,000 range now....Oppo 93/95, Music Streamers, headphone amps, Schiit amps and soon DACs, Musical Fidelity V-series, etc.

So I guess my take is the industry should make sure the entry level stays sane and think a good bit about what Harry is saying.

To keep a steady flow of younger guys and gals interested I see two big avenues:

1. Headphone-based system upgrades. Get them with modest priced headphone amps, better cans, and a focus on sources. Maybe highlight things like an Oppo 95 (or Rega RP1?)+headphone amp+Grado/Senn/AKG system for great high end sound for small package cost.

2. Leverage what they have which is a PC or Mac. Add a DAC and some headphones or some powered audioengine monitors.

Basically make the entry into high end audio very appealing.

I think AXPONA and Newport and Rocky Mountain and "CanJams" are great exhibits for learning and sharing the fun and knowledge to do audio and music right.

 

[JackD201]

Perfect may be the biggest two syllables in the English language, but you've never seen a $1000 preamp that measures flat enough to be audibly transparent? Really?



So beefy power supplies and output stages is one way to add value. Given that the amp and preamp are going to be in the rack together, and if they have flat FR, there is no reason not to buy the manufacturer's preamp that matches your amp of choice, we probably won't have good reason for the beef, therefore the value could be dubious, but it's a value. Are we up to $14K yet?

Tim

You've heard a preamp without going through speakers or cans to know it's audibly transparent? Really?

OK, for the anti-measurement crowd: A preamp that measures flat (and quiet and distortion free) within the known audible spectrum.

Of course I know that's not enough for the anti-measurement crowd. If you don't believe that even the most comprehensive set of measurements mean much of anything, and you have a bunch of reasons why it is much more telling to compare your reference and a new component with full visual knowledge of which one is playing when, you can believe whatever you want to believe. Your answer to where's the next $14k can be "I hear at least $20K, dude, this preamp is a bargain!" Enjoy. But my job here, long before I became a mod, was devil's advocate, and as such, I could bring up three or four reviews with pretty complete measurements of the Benchmark DAC1/Pre showing that it isn't doing much of anything, within the audible spectrum, but raising the level of the signal and passing it through. But that would be repetitious; I've posted those reviews before.

Back in the days when the phrase "a wire with gain" was invented, they would have looked at the specs of that pre and gone, "Damn. We're done here." We don't live in those days anymore. We live in an age when, if the facts don't tell us what we want to hear, we just hear something other than the facts.

Enjoy the music.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

OK, for the anti-measurement crowd: A preamp that measures flat (and quiet and distortion free) within the known audible spectrum.

Of course I know that's not enough for the anti-measurement crowd. If you don't believe that even the most comprehensive set of measurements mean much of anything, and you have a bunch of reasons why it is much more telling to compare your reference and a new component with full visual knowledge of which one is playing when, you can believe whatever you want to believe. Your answer to where's the next $14k can be "I hear at least $20K, dude, this preamp is a bargain!" Enjoy. But my job here, long before I became a mod, was devil's advocate, and as such, I could bring up three or four reviews with pretty complete measurements of the Benchmark DAC1/Pre showing that it isn't doing much of anything, within the audible spectrum, but raising the level of the signal and passing it through. But that would be repetitious; I've posted those reviews before.

Back in the days when the phrase "a wire with gain" was invented, they would have looked at the specs of that pre and gone, "Damn. We're done here." We don't live in those days anymore. We live in an age when, if the facts don't tell us what we want to hear, we just hear something other than the facts.

Enjoy the music.

Tim

Sorry, Jack, it appears I hit "edit instead of "reply with quote" and changed your last post into my reply. Still getting used to this mod thing...far too much power...

Tim

 

[microstrip]

It seems strange that people can analyze the function of the preamplifier ignoring the concept of system synergy - and I am not referring only to electrical compatibility.

Although the functions of the preamplifier are mainly switching inputs and attenuation, that could easily be built with the power amplifier in a single unit, the audiophile people found that better sound reproduction could be achieved using separate units. I agree that from a technical point of view it seems a nonsense, but many amplifiers sound better when used with a separate preamplifier, even if measurements do not show it.

I agree that an expensive preamplifier does not mean better sound per se. Only if it is included in an adequate system, that can take profit from its inclusion, it can show its qualities. Some preamplifiers can sound fantastic in a system and average or mediocre in others.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It seems strange that people can analyze the function of the preamplifier ignoring the concept of system synergy - and I am not referring only to electrical compatibility.

That could represent a huge turn in the road, but I'll bite; besides electrical compatibility, what are you referring to?

Tim

 

[fas42]

Just to complicate matters, I'll throw in a couple of bits worth ...

First of all, I on Tim's side in this: you can get opamps these days with ridiculously low levels of distortion. Properly applied, these should do a "perfect" job of adjusting the level of the source signal to suit the amplifier. So for a $1000 it should be dead easy to get an invisible preamp.

But then you have the big problem of the actual volume adjustment device: in my experience this is the killer, if you don't get this right, the multiples of $10K spent on the rest of the gear is basically wasted. And the conections to and from the preamp to the rest of the system: if you get rid of them you've have eliminated most of your other problems.

Which is what I've done. For the last 25 years plus I have never had something in my systems you would consider a preamp and that's one of the best things I could do for the sound.

Lastly, it's pretty easy to assess a preamp's invisibility: chain it to another preamp of known sound, inbetween that unit and the power amp with attentuation as necessary hardwired into the setup. Does the sound change, or does it still "sound" like the primary preamp? If latter is true then it's "invisible" ...

Frank

 

[mep]

If we can believe Mike Elliott’s formula (and I have no reason not to), only 7% of the MSRP is spent on the actual electronic parts that make up your piece of gear. So Tim, if you think you can buy the end all of preamps for $1000, that means the actual parts that make up the circuit cost $70. Do you really think that you can buy quality RCA/XLR jacks, a high quality PCB, a high quality volume control, a good power transformer, and high quality resistors, capacitors, and HEXFREDS all for $70.00? And we haven’t even touched on the other parts like the input selector switch, balance control (if it has one) and other lights and switches.

Naked Vishay resistors can cost over $10 each and you can check Digikey or any other supplier to verify that. Very good caps such as Dynamicap or Mundorf could easily blow the whole $70.00 budget of your $1000 preamp with one cap. High quality parts cost money.

If you have a $1000 preamp bought in today’s dollars, it obviously has to be built with very cheap parts. There is no way around it. If you’re happy with a $1000 preamp that was built with $70.00 worth of parts, it really doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks. However, don’t think for one minute that someone else isn’t hearing a higher level of fidelity when they have a preamp that was built to a much higher standard using components that not only measure good, are carefully matched, but sound really good. A cheap electrolytic cap might measure the same as an expensive film cap (a microfarad is a microfarad right?), but I doubt anyone but the deaf would think they would sound the same if used as a coupling capacitor. You do pretty much get what you pay for up to a point. I’m just not sure that $1000 retail is “the” point.

 

[microstrip]

That could represent a huge turn in the road, but I'll bite; besides electrical compatibility, what are you referring to?

Tim

I wish I could explain it objectively. From my experience some brands do not mix well together. One of my worst sounding experimental systems was using a Mark Levinson preamplifier with a Krell amplifier with the Quad ESL63. Both electronic units had excellent specifications, but the resulting sound was a disaster. It was lifeless, image was small and music seemed boring. However using the Krell amplifier with its matching preamplifier (the KRC) or the Levinson preamplifier with a Levinson amplifier was a success - sounding different but both of great quality. Sonic compatibility is not always granted by classical electrical capabilities - some sonic signatures seem to be really incompatible and some complement to perfection. BTW, a sonic signature can also manifest by suppression of some perceived information or a less pleasing sound.

Too complicated? Surely, otherwise everyone would design and manufacture perfect hi-end electronics. Those who really think they did it are accomplished happy men, but it is curious that they all claim that their perfection is more perfect than their neighbor perfection.

 

[fas42]

Personally I find it ridiculous to think that a product costing $1,000 can only include $70 worth of parts. If that is really the case the DIY crowd should absolutely annihilate all commercial audio gear ...

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If we can believe Mike Elliott’s formula (and I have no reason not to), only 7% of the MSRP is spent on the actual electronic parts that make up your piece of gear. So Tim, if you think you can buy the end all of preamps for $1000, that means the actual parts that make up the circuit cost $70. Do you really think that you can buy quality RCA/XLR jacks, a high quality PCB, a high quality volume control, a good power transformer, and high quality resistors, capacitors, and HEXFREDS all for $70.00? And we haven’t even touched on the other parts like the input selector switch, balance control (if it has one) and other lights and switches.

Naked Vishay resistors can cost over $10 each and you can check Digikey or any other supplier to verify that. Very good caps such as Dynamicap or Mundorf could easily blow the whole $70.00 budget of your $1000 preamp with one cap. High quality parts cost money.

If you have a $1000 preamp bought in today’s dollars, it obviously has to be built with very cheap parts. There is no way around it. If you’re happy with a $1000 preamp that was built with $70.00 worth of parts, it really doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks. However, don’t think for one minute that someone else isn’t hearing a higher level of fidelity when they have a preamp that was built to a much higher standard using components that not only measure good, are carefully matched, but sound really good. A cheap electrolytic cap might measure the same as an expensive film cap (a microfarad is a microfarad right?), but I doubt anyone but the deaf would think they would sound the same if used as a coupling capacitor. You do pretty much get what you pay for up to a point. I’m just not sure that $1000 retail is “the” point.

I won't bother to question the $70 worth of parts in a $1k component...let's cut straight to the chase here and turn the question on its ear. If you replaced the resistors and caps in your Yamaha with Vishays and Mudorfs, what would you expect to gain and what would lead you to that expectation?

Tim

 

[mep]

Tim-I will add more later, but if the Yamaha C2a was being produced today, it would sell for at least $3k. This preamp was built with very high quality parts back in the day. The volume pot alone that Yamaha used would sell for more than the $70 budget of today's $1K preamp. Google the Yamaha C2a and have a look at the inside of this preamp. This was the best they knew how to make at the time and I doubt they have done better since. And having said that, I suffer no delusions that there aren't far better preamps out there to be had. The fact that it is much quieter and sounds better than my Counterpoint SA-5.1 that I have over $5K invested in doesn't make me happy. Trust me.

 

[JackD201]

...and distortion of some sort, hey, even famous DACT attenuators have measured their distortion as less than 0.0001%, and thats THD.

Tom

Yup thats a good example Tom. That would be inaudible to me but fluff none the less.

 

[egidius]

return on "investment"

We live in times, when a government (for example UK) does not give grants but loans to students, telling them to pay it back...

After R&D and materials cost, does anyone know what the profit margin is on a $140k amp?

If you have a lot of R&D, which usually happens developing a "truly" breakthrough product, you will have invested quite a lot.
If you plan on selling one amp, the whole burden lies on that amp. otherwise you might try and share it out on a 1000 amps. It all depends on your calculations.

I am a musician. I am really good at what I am doing. But the thought of charging for one concert a fortune strikes me as hopeless, as plain nobody would buy..
e

 

[JackD201]

Tim wrote

Of course I know that's not enough for the anti-measurement crowd. If you don't believe that even the most comprehensive set of measurements mean much of anything, and you have a bunch of reasons why it is much more telling to compare your reference and a new component with full visual knowledge of which one is playing when, you can believe whatever you want to believe. Your answer to where's the next $14k can be "I hear at least $20K, dude, this preamp is a bargain!" Enjoy. But my job here, long before I became a mod, was devil's advocate, and as such, I could bring up three or four reviews with pretty complete measurements of the Benchmark DAC1/Pre showing that it isn't doing much of anything, within the audible spectrum, but raising the level of the signal and passing it through. But that would be repetitious; I've posted those reviews before.

Back in the days when the phrase "a wire with gain" was invented, they would have looked at the specs of that pre and gone, "Damn. We're done here." We don't live in those days anymore. We live in an age when, if the facts don't tell us what we want to hear, we just hear something other than the facts.

We'll just end up asking why two components that measure the same don't sound the same bro and we already know the answer to that one. We're measuring the wrong things or we haven't measured enough.

Ideals are great all I'm saying is that it hasn't been achieved yet. I'm all for a $1,000 preamp being better than a $15,000 preamp and I'm sure there are cases where one would be. Folks like to make fun of Frank's HTIB. Wanna wager the same would be done if Tom claimed his 70% chip pre was God's gift to music listeners?

I think it's a communication thing here. Objectivists get turned off when Subjectivists start describing what they hear using whatever linguistic devices are available to them. I get that. Sure little things may sound overblown often enough, maybe even too much, but even small things can have large relevance on the bigger picture. Imagine Marylin Monroe with her beauty spot just 2mm larger with a hair growing out of it. The same can be said of a perfectly functioning preamp and one that simply performs better. Put them in the same box, blindfold yourself or whatever. If one is really better, you'll know it. If one has a consistent problem, you'll know it. We're not even talking about price here, just two units built to do the same job, get you from point A to point B.

The Benchmark is just as much a product of marketing as anything else the day JA came out and said it was as good as his reference megabuck Levinson DAC. While it deserves its reputation as an excellent performer at ANY price. I think we're pushing it if we crown it the unit by which all should be measured. Heck look at it's brand name for goodness sakes. No attempt at subtlety there!

Synergy is one of those romantic, poetic word but really all it is is a word that means components are compatible. Your system is anchored on your onboard crossovers, amps and drivers being compatible. The only difference is, your designer did it for you. The rest of us have to find the compatibility ourselves.

 

[Whatmore]

We live in times, when a government (for example UK) does not give grants but loans to students, telling them to pay it back...



If you have a lot of R&D, which usually happens developing a "truly" breakthrough product, you will have invested quite a lot.
If you plan on selling one amp, the whole burden lies on that amp. otherwise you might try and share it out on a 1000 amps. It all depends on your calculations.

I am a musician. I am really good at what I am doing. But the thought of charging for one concert a fortune strikes me as hopeless, as plain nobody would buy..
e

I understand the argument but I'm just a bit unsure as to which bit of these $140k products is truly "breakthrough"

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You are a reasonable man, Jack. You've left the devil's advocate with no more desire to poke with his fork. Well, another day, another thread...

By the way, I use the Benchmark as an example not because I think it is the pinnacle of audio achievement, but because, if I need them, I can find a couple of sets of pretty good measurements on it, and because it is damn good, if a bit overpriced . Synergy? beyond electronic compatibility, I remain unconvinced. I can bipass the DAC in my actives with a Benchmark and the change is inaudible. In fact, I've gotten the same result with a couple of other cheap, well-spec'd DACs. I don't think that's coincidence. I think it's that transparent components that are electronically compatible render "synergy" a moot point. Beyond compatibility? I'm not at all sure what you're synergizing. Or perhaps it's just my expectation bias.

Another day, another thread...

Tim

 

[Orb]

The aspect to check Tim with regards to DACs in this regard is the filter; if these are not relying on the chips default filters then there is a reasonable chance they should sound different.
So use two different DACs defined by their filter types/noise shaping/etc, if you still cannot tell differences then it may be worth investigating why; albeit the differences will be sleight and not "night and day", and more likely effect the long-term/extensive listening preference or listening behaviour patterns.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The aspect to check Tim with regards to DACs in this regard is the filter; if these are not relying on the chips default filters then there is a reasonable chance they should sound different.
So use two different DACs defined by their filter types/noise shaping/etc, if you still cannot tell differences then it may be worth investigating why; albeit the differences will be sleight and not "night and day", and more likely effect the long-term/extensive listening preference or listening behaviour patterns.
Cheers
Orb

I researched the long-term listening idea vs. quick switching a couple of years ago. Every reference I found from scientists, doctors, audiologists, statisticians was in favor of rapid switching between sounds to hear differences between them. Lots was said about the unreliability of auditory memory and the ability our ear/brain has to adapt to new sounds/distortions over time. The only place...I repeat, the only references to the efficacy of long-term listening in revealing subtle differences in sound I found were from audiophiles and audiophile manufacturers. And on the personal experience front, I've done long-term listening to a new component, come to really enjoy it and believe it was a great improvement over the one it was meant to replace, then gone back to blind AB after a couple of weeks of listening and heard those big improvement immediately collapse into tiny little differences to absolutely unable to differentiate. And so I am pretty skeptical of differences discovered in the long term that don't reveal themselves with rapidly switched A/B comparisons.

Tim

 

[Orb]

Then we will have to disagree, nothing new in audio forums because there are those with scientific backgrounds who themselves have experienced the difference between quick AB/X and long term listening preference.

Listening preferences are not usually quick ABX related switching, the only ABX or related switching I am aware of are those relating to Arny and co and specifically to prove whether there is audible differences, and as discussed this is-can be debated at length as seen in other thread.
Could you link scientific study highlighting no differences between long term preferences and quick ABX or quick switching.
I must admit I will be surprised if there is one because logistics involved for a long term-extensive controlled session would be an absolute nightmare, look at even the length of the study of one Harman preference study test that are not long term listening with specific training and listening traits, let alone how one would approach the training of the listener, but it would be interesting if one exists and I accept I have not seen every paper.
As you know I provided quite a lot of information in the ABX obsolete thread on various testing protocols and bias studies, so this is something I am very interested in.
If unsure, look to what JA has commented about his own experiences, but I appreciate this is anecdotal and for some not usable as they will not listen to JA's experience, even with his background being originally science degree educated and then research.
Thanks
Orb