Is it "whats best forum" , or what's more expensive

[FrantzM]

Frantz,
how about comparing that Triton to Magico S1 and Wilson Sophia3 (instead of Sasha).
Your again ignoring their cheapest model and going nearly double up in price
Could compare to KEF 203 mid level model, B&W 802d,etc if looking at other accessible priced high end.

The entry point is pretty competitve IMO with quite a lot of the established high end manufacturers.

Cheers
Orb

The reply implies and reinforces the notion of "Price Range"

 

[Orb]

There is always a price range, it is in every sector of life Frantz including cars, houses, TVs, everything because it is what someone can afford or looks at
It is a way of our life, but I think you are digressing from my point.
You are saying high end is too expensive and used Sasha and S5 as your argument, which is a bit false because it should be the S1 and Sophia that are nearly half the price.
Furthermore I just pointed out for ones price range there are alternatives still deemed high end.
Earlier on the argument was about high end being too expensive with Alexandria and Q7, again ignoring the entry point of high end from various manufacturers (not directed at you but was the feeling of the thread).
Some high end manufacturers have an entry point just under $20k, others just under $10k for primary audio components.
Also is the interesting development of what I relayed regarding the Concept Blade from KEF and why it was not manufacturered as a top tier reference-statement product, while they managed to bring this into production by removing such constraints and requirements.
So "price range" is not part of the argument in the way debated IMO
Hopefully I am not digressing from you point though, apologies if so
Cheers
Orb

 

[egidius]

+1!

-- One of the most educative thread and intelligent discussion of recent memory.

I actually wonder - probably somebody's written this already! - if all the special prices are not already inbuilt, which is why the socalled retail prices go up so astronomically.
e

Buy only the best if <50%? - but 50%of what ;-)?

 

[Orb]

Just read the article JA reposted from 1994 on the Stereophile website - thanks JA very interesting.
While some components cost more, you can find a fair amount of high end equipment from established manufacturers at the very same price and possibly cheaper, that is even without adjusting prices for time-inflation.
http://www.stereophile.com/content/rip-high-end-audio
As I mentioned before one needs to differentiate between entry point of high end and the top tier high end reference-statement.
The high end entry point in terms of product quality is so good these days, and is pretty diverse between various manufacturers.
Although looking at that Table1, ah to have a great digital cable for $59 hehe (thankfully I did not pay that much for 3x1m interconnects though so balances out phew).
Cheers
Orb

 

[FrantzM]

Orb

I am not saying it is too expensive. For an endeavor that seems to a have a definition of performance. I believe the high prices and the constant increase of prices create a false notion that more expensive means more performance. The price landscape is constantly moving toward the top in high end audio.
If a given individual can afford a product whose performance is truly out of this world and redefine what we up to now, knew about Audio reproduction... more power to him/her/them ... Do you know of such a product? Or do you know products that are very good but often just a tad better than those costing much, much less often a fraction of theirs?

Performance should be taken on its own. How the product perform as compared to the criterion of performance would have been what define a product in a an ideal world. Ours is not. Yet, the concept of progress is predicated on getting close to an ideal knowing for well that it is most often unattainable. Should we stop because of that? Or should we persist in trying moving however slowly or minutely toward the goal? The game we're playing right now in High End Audio is one of upping the ante and filling up the coffers. The more critical we audiophiles and our press are (remain??? we may have never been ) , the more progress we can extract from our dear and sometimes immensely talented designers.

Or at least naively I do think

 

[MarinJim]

As an example, I know of a $15K amp that I would put against almost any under $125K amp in the world. And certainly against, "Speaking of which, MBL introduced a pair of new amplifiers into their entry-level Corona line — say hello to the C15 monoblock amplifiers ($25,000/pair). It is hard in this day and age, to ascertain real value from perceived value.

 

[Orb]

Agreed about performance separate from price
But I disagree with High End audio right now is one of upping the ante and filling up the coffers, rather than the narrative and communications from them is focused on their top tier reference-statement products rather than their lower models.
Look at the Stereophile article reposted from 1994.
That SP Class A system cost $106k.
I would say a fair amount of entry high end is comparable if not better when talking about performance/sound quality, and at a cheaper price.
Some anomalies do exist, such as the digital cable at $54, ahh bliss but then offset by the cost of the interconnects and speaker cables, again tbh it is fair to say there has been a vast improvement in build process of cables with materials that are still cheaper than those in the 1994 table (keeping subjective sound quality out of it).
A lot of debate is around the more expensive tier a manufacturer makes, rather than posters commenting about their entry models.
So we see a lot of critique about ultra expensive model but no posts saying "why go for this statement model when I can have their entry or lower models at a fraction of the cost".

Prices have not necessarily gone out of control at the very top end, just more products are widening the presence of such a category including manufacturers and their gear that should not be there tbh (jumping on the bandwagon).
We do see a broadening-growth of components from $10k+, although many of the established known high end still make cheaper entry models.
So entry points still exist into high end that are price accessible for many.
However a lot of the focus is never on this, and the fact that each manufacturer has a different entry price into high end so there is a diverse scale of price offering something for nearly everyone.
Question is; do you really need a model closer to their at any cost reference-statement rather than closer to their entry lower models (could mean being in the middle of their range such as with ARC Ref5SE or CJ ET5 from price perspective).

Cheers
Orb

 

[paskinn]

look at it from another perspective. Audio grew, as a hobby, out of the Second World War, and the host of people with electronic skills but little cash.As audio grew into a bigger hobby, it drew in the wider pool of normal working people and students.From the 80s, audio became a central enthusiasm, leading to the growth of firms such as Marantz, Quad,MacIntosh, Thorens, Air Tight and lots more. A later tranche of firms pushed the hobby into greater heights, firms such as Audio Research and Krell..The growth was closely connected with growing economies in japan and the West. But recession hit in the early 2000s, Alongside competition from a range of other hobbies such as the internet, computer games and so on.less money to spend, along with more interesting things to do, led to a decline in audio enthusiasts.The pool began to shrink. Manufacturers began to change strategies, increasingly accepting that profit margins would need to grow to compensate for smaller sales.This trend was helped by the arrival of newly wealthy people in parts of Asia. So the vast middle ground of hobbyists, which gave audio life and vibrancy , turned away while the emphasis turned to audio as a 'status' symbol.Sales targeted the wealthy who had more interest in conspicuous consumption than sound quality. Before long, prices drift away from life for the bulk of the population and becomes an empty symbol of wealth. No hobby will survive on such a narrow and unstable base.

 

[FrantzM]

Agreed about performance separate from price
But I disagree with High End audio right now is one of upping the ante and filling up the coffers, rather than the narrative and communications from them is focused on their top tier reference-statement products rather than their lower models.
Look at the Stereophile article reposted from 1994.
That SP Class A system cost $106k.
I would say a fair amount of entry high end is comparable if not better when talking about performance/sound quality, and at a cheaper price.
Some anomalies do exist, such as the digital cable at $54, ahh bliss but then offset by the cost of the interconnects and speaker cables, again tbh it is fair to say there has been a vast improvement in build process of cables with materials that are still cheaper than those in the 1994 table (keeping subjective sound quality out of it).
A lot of debate is around the more expensive tier a manufacturer makes, rather than posters commenting about their entry models.
So we see a lot of critique about ultra expensive model but no posts saying "why go for this statement model when I can have their entry or lower models at a fraction of the cost".

Prices have not necessarily gone out of control at the very top end, just more products are widening the presence of such a category including manufacturers and their gear that should not be there tbh (jumping on the bandwagon).
We do see a broadening-growth of components from $10k+, although many of the established known high end still make cheaper entry models.
So entry points still exist into high end that are price accessible for many.
However a lot of the focus is never on this, and the fact that each manufacturer has a different entry price into high end so there is a diverse scale of price offering something for nearly everyone.
Question is; do you really need a model closer to their at any cost reference-statement rather than closer to their entry lower models (could mean being in the middle of their range such as with ARC Ref5SE or CJ ET5 from price perspective).

Cheers
Orb

Orb

As a matter of fact this trend toward ever higher prices started in the 90's so the example you are quoting is quite in the middle of my point of view. as an aside, a digital Cable a $54 is already too expensive for what a digital cable should do. I transfer much more information than audio, on a cable that cost 1/10th. So this shouldn't be seen as a bargain!

Again my take is not that there aren't good products at even "entry level" prices. I could just throw the MG 1.7 which is as good as they get. If you want to gravitate toward what now is the sweet spot for high performance speakers $10K, the Sanders ESL speakers are that and a lot more ... Do they (Sanders) ever figure in the discussion as among the best speakers at any price? No .. Are they? They may well be!!! Another example which I can talk about kind of second hand: Pass Lab X-30 great preamp maybe one of the best ever but .. there is the Balaboo at $85K after all so the Pass is likely "only" good for .. its ... price. The pressure is then on the manufacturer to come up with a "new" "improved" and re-work of the circuits in the World famous X-30, the upcoming Z-45 , 4 chassis + plus the power rectifier at , of course much more money .. People that's a joke to make a point .. . The intrinsic performance of the product are not considered first ..Its price is

The current pricing of Audio gear creates a perceptive distortion. More money is thought automatically to be superior to less money .. As simple as that and that is the point I keep on making (or am trying to make) and have not been proven of the contrary ..yet.!!

 

[Orb]

Ah but do you agree that entry level high end is as good as that system from 1994.
And if so then the cost is substantially cheaper, especially when differentiating for time-inflation.
So price increase trend is not the whole picture, because entry high end IS always improving and that is accessible to many audio fans.
Again you gone back to $85k components for some reason
There are many high end components well under that, with stunning performance.

And do not forget my comment regarding KEF, it is a clear example of a company that produces budget to high end speakers, their previous statement speaker was the Muon at over $150k in 2010 but they sold much cheaper reference speakers such as the 201 and 203 range and budget speakers.
Eventually they presented the Concept Blade, and they said they just could not manufacturer it due to the costs involved, however by changing certain top tier reference-statement requirements and processes they did manage to release this as a $30k product, which is pretty well received by many.
So if a company that produces budget end speakers plus reasonable priced high end and also top tier reference-statement such as the Muon say they cannot release a Concept Blade, this says some aspects are not appreciated by audiophiles into the costs involved for some of these top tier products.

I must admit I do not see what the concern is because most of these established (this is the key point and ignore the anomalies) high end manufacturers do provide entry level products that are of excellent quality and performance.
What about the latest products from Classe?
You do agree they are high end I hope
What about the Devialet D-Premier, what about Magico S1, Cystal Cable Mini, the list is pretty big tbh.
Both the Magico and Crystal Cable use some of the best state of the art engineering so getting the price even lower will be challenging IMO, but they are not excessive and use practices and engineering tools not found in cheaper products.

Regarding cabling, the only aspect that can be debated is the process-materials, and yes that has vastly improved since 1990s with Nordost,Crystal Cable, Supra,etc.
Cable sound quality is too debatable even for digital, but sadly I have anecditally experienced differences in sound between cables including digital, but this does not mean one has to purchase the top end of Nordost and others.

I guess our perspectives are pretty much different, but then high end prices to me are only a small part of the full industry.
What I am critical of is communication and product-manufacturer narrative from most of the high end, rather than the actual products apart from the anomalies who try to jump on the bandwagon that make me shake my head in disbelief.
Cheers
Orb

 

[mep]

look at it from another perspective. Audio grew, as a hobby, out of the Second World War, and the host of people with electronic skills but little cash.As audio grew into a bigger hobby, it drew in the wider pool of normal working people and students.From the 80s, audio became a central enthusiasm, leading to the growth of firms such as Marantz, Quad,MacIntosh, Thorens, Air Tight and lots more. A later tranche of firms pushed the hobby into greater heights, firms such as Audio Research and Krell..The growth was closely connected with growing economies in japan and the West. But recession hit in the early 2000s, Alongside competition from a range of other hobbies such as the internet, computer games and so on.less money to spend, along with more interesting things to do, led to a decline in audio enthusiasts.The pool began to shrink. Manufacturers began to change strategies, increasingly accepting that profit margins would need to grow to compensate for smaller sales.This trend was helped by the arrival of newly wealthy people in parts of Asia. So the vast middle ground of hobbyists, which gave audio life and vibrancy , turned away while the emphasis turned to audio as a 'status' symbol.Sales targeted the wealthy who had more interest in conspicuous consumption than sound quality. Before long, prices drift away from life for the bulk of the population and becomes an empty symbol of wealth. No hobby will survive on such a narrow and unstable base.

If I'm reading what you wrote correctly, you have your history wrong. Marantz, Quad, McIntosh, and Thorens were strong and viable companies long before the 1980s.

 

[MarinJim]

If I'm reading what you wrote correctly, you have your history wrong. Marantz, Quad, McIntosh, and Thorens were strong and viable companies long before the 1980s.

I will add Phase Linear, SAE and Infinity (before HK) to that list.

 

[mep]

I will add Phase Linear, SAE and Infinity (before HK) to that list.

Why not Fisher, Scott, Eico, and the *real* Harmon Kardon?

 

[Robh3606]

Don't forget Klipsh, Sherwood, AR, KLH, Jensen, Altec, JBL, Dynaco not counting the Japanese companies the late 60's, Sansui, Teac, Pioneer the Brits KEF Warfdale and Quad. There are lots of them. Laffyette, Heathkit just goes on and on and on.

Rob

 

[mep]

Don't forget Klipsh, Sherwood, AR, KLH, Jensen, Altec, JBL, Dynaco not counting the Japanese companies the late 60's, Sansui, Teac, Pioneer the Brits KEF Warfdale and Quad. There are lots of them. Laffyette, Heathkit just goes on and on and on.

Rob

I agree Rob.

 

[MarinJim]

I mentioned SAE and Phase Linear because they were the pioneers in high wattage. And I loved my Infinity Quantum 4's!

 

[mep]

I mentioned SAE and Phase Linear because they were the pioneers in high wattage. And I loved my Infinity Quantum 4's!

I still have a pair of PL-400 Series 2 amps and I still think they represent a tremendous bargain in SQ if properly functioning.

 

[paskinn]

If I'm reading what you wrote correctly, you have your history wrong. Marantz, Quad, McIntosh, and Thorens were strong and viable companies long before the 1980s.

True enough, but the real point I was trying to make is not that companies started in the80s but that they greatly flourished through the 80s as the marker expanded; and of course there were many other such companies; I was illustrating a point, not writing a history of audio.

 

[JackD201]

Business follows the opportunities and there is opportunity at lower price points. Just look at how many affordable DACs are out there spurred by the head-fi and computer audio market. I dare say there are certainly more than the eye-watering variety. You have to ask why in this particular segment. The answer is surprisingly simple. There are many people that know how to build DACs around the many chip sets that can be had. The same is happening in the amplifier segment specifically in the class D segment because you can buy the likes of Hypex, Tripath and Ice modules and build around those. Most of the heavy lifting is done by the supplier. You basically provide the power supply and the case work. Look at the implications on labor and turnaround time in contrast with products that have more discrete circuits, those using pure P2P wiring at the most extreme. How much does a top flight technician just to solder get paid an hour? Then there's the loudspeaker market. For fun I like to look at kits that are available. Ever check out the European site FreQuence? There's a kit with great looking cabinetry and premium parts. Something like 16,000 Euro baby. Be careful now, don't slip and nick that cabinet or punch a hole in that woofer!

Point is, there MORE options today for EVERY budget. You just have to look in the right places. Back on topic, is this What's Best or What's Most Expensive. I say it is NOT "What's Most Expensive". If anything, given the way everybody can have their say and agree or disagree, It's "What's Most Open". That to me is What's Best.

 

[MarinJim]

Business follows the opportunities and there is opportunity at lower price points. Just look at how many affordable DACs are out there spurred by the head-fi and computer audio market. I dare say there are certainly more than the eye-watering variety. You have to ask why in this particular segment. The answer is surprisingly simple. There are many people that know how to build DACs around the many chip sets that can be had. The same is happening in the amplifier segment specifically in the class D segment because you can buy the likes of Hypex, Tripath and Ice modules and build around those. Most of the heavy lifting is done by the supplier. You basically provide the power supply and the case work. Look at the implications on labor and turnaround time in contrast with products that have more discrete circuits, those using pure P2P wiring at the most extreme. How much does a top flight technician just to solder get paid an hour? Then there's the loudspeaker market. For fun I like to look at kits that are available. Ever check out the European site FreQuence? There's a kit with great looking cabinetry and premium parts. Something like 16,000 Euro baby. Be careful now, don't slip and nick that cabinet or punch a hole in that woofer!

Point is, there MORE options today for EVERY budget. You just have to look in the right places. Back on topic, is this What's Best or What's Most Expensive. I say it is NOT "What's Most Expensive". If anything, given the way everybody can have their say and agree or disagree, It's "What's Most Open". That to me is What's Best.

I just bought an Oppo 105, However, true to myself, I had it modified by Dan Wright @ Modwright, and all for $2K. I sold my Wadia S7i to fund this project, so I hope it will turn out to my satisfaction.