In reference to the bolded I agree, but not 100%. For someone like me who comes from an entry-level setup the move to better quality of sound has to involve spending more money, but were not talking 'what's best" money here. As some of you know, I have embarked on that process and the results so far have been well worth the expenditures, and I hope that more are coming in the not too distant future. However, I do believe there is a point whereby spending more significantly reduces the cost vs quality ratio, and that is the sweet point I personally would like to find. I also think that "sweet spot" is not all that far away, because I honestly and truly believe there is affordable and high quality gear out there at prices that don't offend.
"What's Best" is different for everyone, but we can all have "what's best" based on our own requirements and levels of satisfaction.
You will never be able to beat the cost versus quality of buying a ticket for a real performance in good listening conditions.
I was not addressing the cost vs performance ratio, but only the trend in general. Forget the derivative, I was thinking about much simpler things!
(...) No, component swap out is reduced if you believe in specifications, and understand the inaudibility of which way your orient a fuse and stuff like that. Audiophiles do a lot of serching. ..)
Don't you find curious that you need to use an extreme and atypical case to misrepresent the activity of many people enjoying this hobby?
IMHO if you assemble a system only by specifications you will be ignoring most of the good things of sound reproduction.
You can find threads like this on many audio forums at any time. After one thread winds down, a similar one will start on the same forum within a week or two. There seem to be a number of audiophiles disturbed by the rapid escalation in prices.
One sentiment from such threads that I find striking: "I've been an audiophile for 30 years and it feels as if the hobby has been hijacked."
If they have been audiophiles for 30 years it means that they entered the hobby with the appearance of the CD. Should we conclude that since CD has only 16 bits they can not accept any product costing more than $65535?
More seriously, why do you think they feel disturbed? The high-end high prices were created by the economics, better knowledge of the audio science and easiness of access to technological developments. Designers could use resources to improve the performance of their products without being limited by the usual engineering limitation of having the normal ceiling price. They created state of the art very expensive equipment and now internet marketing techniques excessively expose these products, hiding that behind them the traditional market of value for money has better offers than ever. Is the creation of a forum called WhatsBestForum a signal that the hobby has been hijacked?
While the uber expensive equipment gets disproportionate attention by the audiophile press and on audiophile chat rooms such as WBF, the reality is that great low priced, reliable equipment is more widely available and better than ever. Peachtree audio, NAD, etc offer great sound/value.
As far as equipment turnover, during the last 25years I've owned:
a. Two turntables: Linn Sondek and Galibier Stelvio
b. Four tonearms: Linn Ittok, Triplanar, and Durand Telos/Talea (both are currently in use)
c. Three preamps: Classe DR 6, BAT VK 50 and Experience Music Kahn (I know --churning!).
d. Two phono stages: Linn Linto and Experience Music Kahn
e. Two Amplfiers: Krell KST 100 and Einstein Light In Dark
f. Two Speakers: Wilson WATT/Puppy and Daedalus Ulysses.
g. Two CD Players: Wadia 6 and SimMoon Andromeda.
OK, I'll admit to owning 5 or 6 cartridges during the past 25 years....
While the uber expensive equipment gets disproportionate attention by the audiophile press and on audiophile chat rooms such as WBF, the reality is that great low priced, reliable equipment is more widely available and better than ever. Peachtree audio, NAD, etc offer great sound/value.
As far as equipment turnover, during the last 25years I've owned:
a. Two turntables: Linn Sondek and Galibier Stelvio
b. Four tonearms: Linn Ittok, Triplanar, and Durand Telos/Tale (both are currently in use)
c. Three preamps: Classe DR 6, BAT VK 50 and Experience Music Kahn (I know --churning!).
d. Two phono stages: Linn Linto and Experience Music Kahn
e. Two Amplfiers: Krell KST 100 and Einstein Light In Dark
f. Two Speakers: Wislon WATT/Puppy and Daedalus Ulysses.
g. Two CD Players: Wadia 6 and SimMoon Andromeda.
OK, I"ll admit two owning 5 or 6 cartridges during the past 25 years....
That may well be true. It doesn't disprve the original assertion that we tend to think in terms of more expenisve is better IOW you get what you paid for the corollary being that if you paid a lot more you do get a lot more... False.
We will hear all kind of defenses. The reality is that we tend to thnk in term of "price Range". We assume for that the SOTA equipment are those ever more expensive items. Difficult for some to to admit, true nonetheless.
While the uber expensive equipment gets disproportionate attention by the audiophile press and on audiophile chat rooms such as WBF, the reality is that great low priced, reliable equipment is more widely available and better than ever. Peachtree audio, NAD, etc offer great sound/value.
That may well be true. It doesn't disprve the original assertion that we tend to think in terms of more expenisve is better IOW you get what you paid for the corollary being that if you paid a lot you do get a lot.
We will hear all kind of defenses. The reality is that we tend to thnk in term of "price Range". We assume for that the SOTA equipment are those ever more expensive items. Difficult for some to to admit, true nonetheless.
We will not hear all kind of defenses, because you are not accusing anyone of anything. You expose a non supported opinion, and consider it a valid one because it is difficult to admit, and true according to your words. However, either than your usual IB arguments, that IMHO do not apply, I never read anything from you showing anything than exceptional cases.
As everyone, most of the time I think in price ranges because I feel that in the long term, market rules have validated this option. However I am prepared to have a wider view when it is needed - and I often do it as optimizing audio synergies is a complex and personnel matter. A typical factor that must be incorporated in a complex way is component age.
That may well be true. It doesn't disprve the original assertion that we tend to think in terms of more expenisve is better IOW you get what you paid for the corollary being that if you paid a lot more you do get a lot more... False.
We will hear all kind of defenses. The reality is that we tend to thnk in term of "price Range". We assume for that the SOTA equipment are those ever more expensive items. Difficult for some to to admit, true nonetheless.
I have the opposite response: the higher the price, the more dubious I become (and not just with audio). Must be the "Show Me" inherent in a native Missourian!
That may well be true. It doesn't disprve the original assertion that we tend to think in terms of more expenisve is better IOW you get what you paid for the corollary being that if you paid a lot more you do get a lot more... False.
We will hear all kind of defenses. The reality is that we tend to thnk in term of "price Range". We assume for that the SOTA equipment are those ever more expensive items. Difficult for some to to admit, true nonetheless.
I believe the original assertion was that Jim's more expensive components were better but the price difference was disproportionate to the performance difference. We know that there are diminishing returns so this all isn't really news. Jim just took the opposite trajectory as the usual hobbyist and is happy with it. That's cool, very cool actually. Jim's been raving about his Wadia for years but decides he could do with less and be just as happy in exchange for a healthier wallet and hence whatever that happier wallet brings as far as options or opportunities whether audio related or not. What's not to like? He's happier that's all that counts. It doesn't matter to me if he got happier upgrading or downgrading.
For those of us with big systems, I bet if asked if we could live with smaller, less expensive systems the answer would be yes 100% of the time. That smaller, less expensive system however would still have to push the right buttons so there is a limit to how far we would down scale particularly in terms of refinement in the portrayal of musical details. After all the universal reason for going big is that big has the higher potential for ease (better SNR for the objectivist types) not to be able to play louder. A big system not falling apart on peaks like so many small and mid-sized systems do is the bonus not the goal as far as I have observed.
I have the opposite response: the higher the price, the more dubious I become (and not just with audio). Must be the "Show Me" inherent in a native Missourian!
It doesn't disprve the original assertion that we tend to think in terms of more expenisve is better IOW you get what you paid for the corollary being that if you paid a lot more you do get a lot more... False.
We will hear all kind of defenses. The reality is that we tend to thnk in term of "price Range". We assume for that the SOTA equipment are those ever more expensive items. Difficult for some to to admit, true nonetheless.
Franz~ isn't part of that just human nature, as is skepticism about whether it is true? This board seems to represent a wide range of perspectives, but I've seen very few, if any, posters, advocating that something crazy expensive is better based solely on price, specs or marketing claims- to the contrary, many of the threads- whether they are about 35k tonearms, 40k wires, or 650k turntables- seem to question not only the astronomical pricing but whether there is any genuine step forward in sonics in such uber gear. And, even assuming there is some demonstrable improvement, whether it is worth the price (that 'value' thing).
I am willing to accept that a very expensive piece of gear may perform better in some or all respects, but that doesn't mean that I support high prices, am willing to write out the check for it, or would advocate that others do so. I also don't begrudge anybody that has the wherewithal to do so, even though it may seem excessive (unless it really doesn't sound better, in which case they may have purchased nice casework or bragging rights, but that's OK too, as long as I'm not being proselytized). I can respect the premise that there are 'blue sky' projects where territory is explored without budget constraints- and that there can be 'trickle down.' This is far from a novel concept in marketing and as far as manufacturers are concerned, this is a business, not (just) a hobby. And, while there may certainly be hyperbolic marketing claims and snake oil for sale, I don't perceive anybody on this board as gullible. In fact, it's a pretty skeptical bunch in my view.
I have the opposite response: the higher the price, the more dubious I become (and not just with audio). Must be the "Show Me" inherent in a native Missourian!
As you wisely say, that you became dubious is a personal matter. The question is: concerning the high-end audio how frequently you were right in being dubious about the higher price equipment?
BTW, I am assuming reasonable products from known manufacturers with a reasonable sales history - I hope no one is addressing the $650k turntable!
I suspect the reason that 'measurements don't matter' is they're by and large meaningless to determine SQ. In other fields though, measurements do matter - for an example I bought a fridge based on its projected power use last time. So when someone does come up with a meaningful measurement that's shown to correlate well with SQ then the market will move slowly away from reviews and hearsay.
My dear man, does hi-end, ultra hi-end, have worse specifications than the commercial gear used to record all the stuff in the first place....I dont know honestly.
In the case of high-end NOS DACs, most definitely its a 'yes'. I doubt very much that studios are interested in high-end NOS DACs given the measurements they typically post. By this I primarily mean the FR has substantial droop and there's normally imaging.
..)
