Price, Value, Worth and COGS

[FrantzM]

OK, that's a start then. There are some designs that you feel are worth the price. Now what makes threse products as a whole worth the price eg. why a CAT preamp is worth its price say compared to say a cj GAT preamp?

There is a great amount of subjectivity in the worth one attaches to anything. The FMI person arrested in NY might have hought renting a place for $50 K a month a good value ... Let's accept that for a while .. What if the same type of house/apartment/dwelling were available in the same neighborhood for say $10,000 would that be a good value for him or any other person? I doubt it. There is such a notion as Equivalency in order to price something , even a luxury good (not all the times) .. I would like to think it applies to Audio. The Cat SL-1 signature is the best Tube preamp I have heard these past few years. It establishes what I call the baseline. Let's take the CJ GAT which by all account is superlative. What preamp you know surpass it in all aspects? And what's the price? I can understand a person not liking a gear but the same person if objective, that is removing his or her biases can still recognize its value, its performance ... Do you know of a speaker , a component every single audiophile loves and considers the best? Taking the example of the Salon, it does what ANY mega dollars speakers is able to and often more ... baseline .. CLX? Baseline MG 20.1 Baseline .. Value .. Or is it your opinion that the concept of value doesn't apply to the High End ? Oh! and before I forget,bring also the COGS for the CJ GAT, it is sure to be high yet it is not $60K So what gives ? I am sure that CJ and others will test the market. There will be a GAT Reference or Anniversary or millennium or whatever for much more say 35K more inline with the ARC Ref whatever model at $40K or some ...or the Lamm signature or the Balaboo or the Technical Brain .. How superior will they really be compared to the current GAT or SL-1? I will wait for your review of such...

 

[MylesBAstor]

There is a great amount of subjectivity in the worth one attaches to anything. The FMI person arrested in NY might have hought renting a place for $50 K a month a good value ... Let's accept that for a while .. What if the same type of house/apartment/dwelling were available in the same neighborhood for say $10,000 would that be a good value for him or any other person? I doubt it. There is such a notion as Equivalency in order to price something , even a luxury good (not all the times) .. I would like to think it applies to Audio. The Cat SL-1 signature is the best Tube preamp I have heard these past few years. It establishes what I call the baseline. Let's take the CJ GAT which by all account is superlative. What preamp you know surpass it in all aspects? And what's the price? I can understand a person not liking a gear but the same person if objective, that is removing his or her biases can still recognize its value, its performance ... Do you know of a speaker , a component every single audiophile loves and considers the best? Taking the example of the Salon, it does what ANY mega dollars speakers is able to and often more ... baseline .. CLX? Baseline MG 20.1 Baseline .. Value .. Or is it your opinion that the concept of value doesn't apply to the High End ? Oh! and before I forget,bring also the COGS for the CJ GAT, it is sure to be high yet it is not $60K So what gives ? I am sure that CJ and others will test the market. There will be a GAT Reference or Anniversary or millennium or whatever for much more say 35K more inline with the ARC Ref whatever model at $40K or some ...or the Lamm signature or the Balaboo or the Technical Brain .. How superior will they really be compared to the current GAT or SL-1? I will wait for your review of such...

But I think you're missing the point Frantz. You have listed a significant amount of high-end SOTA equipment there. So while they're a few that don't justify the price, they're but a fraction of the total and it's a little unfair to put all high-end manufacturers in the same category.

And I might also add Krell, VPI , cj and a few others to the list. VPIs classic is by all accounts, one of the bargains on the market.

 

[FrantzM]

Myles

Can you list me a few gears, SOTA in your opinion of course, that in your estimation "justify their prices"?

 

[MylesBAstor]

Myles

Can you list me a few gears, SOTA in your opinion of course, that in your estimation "justify their prices"?

Just did and agree for the most part with your selection (OK I'll add Vandersteen, Spiral Groove, Rockport). As far as the others like Soulution, Baalabo, Dartzeel, TB, etc, I really don't have any experience with them, the parts and costs are that are involved so it behooves me not to pass any judgement.

One problem that one does run into is with imported gear (as do US products overseas). There's an extra margin given to the importer before it goes to the dealer and that adds significantly to the cost. Also just ran into an issue buying a new phono section that's made in S. Korea (and not part of NAFTA) and had to pay a 6 pct. tariff on it

 

[microstrip]

(...) Taking the example of the Salon, it does what ANY mega dollars speakers is able to and often more ... (...)

I do not have the pleasure of listening to the Salon in good conditions, but I would suggest that you read the thread "Houston, the Eagle has landed! JBL Everest Speaker".

BTW, which speakers of similar price do you consider equivalent in value to the Salon's? Maybe if I am lucky and I know some of them.

 

[FrantzM]

I do not have the pleasure of listening to the Salon in good conditions, but I would suggest that you read the thread "Houston, the Eagle has landed! JBL Everest Speaker".

BTW, which speakers of similar price do you consider equivalent in value to the Salon's? Maybe if I am lucky and I know some of them.

No too many places to listen to the Everest ... A visit to the PNW maybe ? As for the second part of your question, this will reveal some of my biases:
Magnepan MG 20.1
Soundlab M-1
Martin Logan CLX

The unfortunate part of the equation is that all these speakers require stout amps.. The Bryston 28 B would drive them easily .. The CLX is not a full range though sub is mandatory.. In my case however not much of a problem .. I believe in always using multiple subs with any speaker full range or not.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim

We are often on the same page but not on this one. The Revel needs a lot to make it really sing.. that would be the knock on it from my point of view.
I am of the opinion that specs are useful but hardly sufficient to characterize the performance of some gears. With knowledge removed, A 200 watts ML amplifier will sound substantially better than any receiver on the market.

You could be right, Frantz, but the HK 990 is no AV receiver. It is a very high-current, heavily-built and capable integrated amplifier. Perhaps more importantly, it is Harman International's namesake brand's shot at SOTA. I wouldn't dismiss it. It is a giant killer. But with that said, I haven't heard an HK990 driving Salon2s, so I can't say for sure if it would handle them with ease, but 86Db sensitivity and a 6 ohm load in itself shouldn't be a challenge. We need Sean...

Tim

 

[JackD201]

It also goes to show that even if you had a really good list like Tim's individual overachievers, putting them in one system does not guarantee that you're getting the most out of them.

 

[amirm]

You could be right, Frantz, but the HK 990 is no AV receiver. It is a very high-current, heavily-built and capable integrated amplifier. Perhaps more importantly, it is Harman International's namesake brand's shot at SOTA. I wouldn't dismiss it. It is a giant killer. But with that said, I haven't heard an HK990 driving Salon2s, so I can't say for sure if it would handle them with ease, but 86Db sensitivity and a 6 ohm load in itself shouldn't be a challenge. We need Sean...

Tim

Or me . I have tested the Salon 2s with 300, 400 and 500 watt amps. Only the last one is able to overpower the Salon 2. All the others sound wonderful with it. But nothing grabs the woofers like the 53 and controls them like there is no tomorrow. If you want to have ceiling dust to fall on you, you need a large amp to drive it.

Harman makes the JBL line for folks who want efficiency.

 

[mauidan]

Or me . I have tested the Salon 2s with 300, 400 and 500 watt amps. Only the last one is able to overpower the Salon 2. All the others sound wonderful with it. But nothing grabs the woofers like the 53 and controls them like there is no tomorrow. If you want to have ceiling dust to fall on you, you need a large amp to drive it.

Harman makes the JBL line for folks who want efficiency.

Handy SPL Calculator:

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html

 

[Ron Party]

Or me . I have tested the Salon 2s with 300, 400 and 500 watt amps. Only the last one is able to overpower the Salon 2. All the others sound wonderful with it. But nothing grabs the woofers like the 53 and controls them like there is no tomorrow. If you want to have ceiling dust to fall on you, you need a large amp to drive it.

Harman makes the JBL line for folks who want efficiency.

Our local high end dealer to which Steve and Russ made reference with their Spectral/Wilson demo also is a Revel dealer and contend that one needs 1000 watts to properly make the Salons sing.

 

[amirm]

Handy SPL Calculator:

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html

What???? I can't hear you!!!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Or me . I have tested the Salon 2s with 300, 400 and 500 watt amps. Only the last one is able to overpower the Salon 2. All the others sound wonderful with it. But nothing grabs the woofers like the 53 and controls them like there is no tomorrow. If you want to have ceiling dust to fall on you, you need a large amp to drive it.

Harman makes the JBL line for folks who want efficiency.

There you go. Straight from a man who's been there. You'll get no argument against headroom from me. I drive small bookshelves with 325 watts per channel.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It also goes to show that even if you had a really good list like Tim's individual overachievers, putting them in one system does not guarantee that you're getting the most out of them.

Absolutely. Headroom is incredibly important, and always relative to the load.

But I wouldn't characterize my short list as "individual overachievers." I think it is evidence of how long the list of high-end underachievers is. I know this is not positive, but I believe that much (most?) of the high-end has gone astray, has lost touch with its basic objectives and morphed into a superficial luxury category only tentatively connected to performance. And I take no joy in that belief.

Tim

PS: By the way, I ran the SPL calculator on the HK 990 driving the Salon2s and came up with 102.8 db SPL at 10 feet. Could you use more headroom for peaks? Sure. But I don't think we're talking about anything noticeably limiting here. I could squeeze by on 102.8 db SPL.

 

[FrantzM]

<snip>
I believe the much (most?) of the high-end has gone astray, has lost touch with its basic objectives and morphed into a superficial luxury category only tentatively connected to performance. And I take no joy in that belief.

Tim

Well put Tim ...

 

[MylesBAstor]

Well put Tim ...

You're kidding right? What was the basic objective (s) of the high-end audio scene then? High-end audio was never about bang for the buck. It was about designing and producing gear that brought the listener one step closer to real music. Sound that the mass marketers like Sony, Pioneer, Sansui and the rest of that ilk at that time could only dream about back then --and for the most part, now.

So since when has sonic fidelity played second fiddle to price or anything else in the best gear? If the sound sucks, that manufacturer isn't going to be around too long. Nor are they going to be around if the gears not reliable (a major advance in the industry that no one has talked about!!!).

But then again, there are people here who believe (not you Frantz) that believe everything sounds the same.

 

[Alan Sircom]

You're kidding right? What was the basic objective (s) of the high-end audio scene then? High-end audio was never about bang for the buck. It was about designing and producing gear that brought the listener one step closer to real music. Sound that the mass marketers like Sony, Pioneer, Sansui and the rest of that ilk at that time could only dream about back then --and for the most part, now.

So since when has sonic fidelity played second fiddle to price or anything else in the best gear? If the sound sucks, that manufacturer isn't going to be around too long. Nor are they going to be around if the gears not reliable (a major advance in the industry that no one has talked about!!!).

But then again, there are people here who believe (not you Frantz) that believe everything sounds the same.

One of the problems facing the high-end is that over the last 40 or so years, equipment that gets you on that path to real music starts at a surprisingly and increasingly high level and low price point. The basal audio performance level in 2011 (iPod+Apple headphones) is astoundingly high when you compare it to its 1971 equivalent. Wow, flutter and rumble are effectively things of the past, noise is contingent more upon what's going on around you than what's happening in the signal path and no one gets fluff on the disc drive or a scratched file.

The next level of performance (iPod+decent IEMs or headphones) is probably as far as most people are prepared to take things. Some audio companies take advantage of this and provide low-budget systems that provide a similar level of performance through loudspeakers. These systems usually have increased detail and clarity over the entry-level. This grade of performance is also not too bad and costs $$$s.

You can up the ante still further, but the jump (both for headphones and loudspeaker based systems) is expensive and makes some demands on the listener's time to deliver a marked improvement on the previous equipment. This generally means more dynamic headroom, more accurate stereo presentation, a wider frequency response and the ability to play at a greater range of volume levels without distortion. Carefully chosen, such systems can deliver excellent performance and costs $$$$s.

From here, the price and demands made on the listener in selecting a good system can rise exponentially. The difficulty is, if you have already improved the sound in most of the places its possible to improve, the options for serious steps forward in performance are harder to attain. You can get systems that either tick all the aforementioned boxes, or concentrate heavily on one aspect, or you produce systems that work in increasingly large (or small) rooms. But basically, you are improving upon something most people feel doesn't need improving upon, and look at the process as an exercise in bling and bling alone. Also, because they can be idiosyncratic in approach, without careful matching (both in system and selection of products with regard to personal taste) you can end up making one step forward and two back. Such systems can deliver sublime performance, but cost is open-ended.

Are a pair of Shure SE425 IEMs better than the standard pair of Apple headphones? Yes, to most ears incontrovertibly.
Is a Stax SR207/SRM252 system better than the Shure SE425s? Most people would say 'yes', but fail to justify the cost to themselves.
Is a Stax SR009/SRM727 better than the SR207/SRM252? Yes absolutely, if you listen to the two side by side. But on paper, the differences are small

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So since when has sonic fidelity played second fiddle to price or anything else in the best gear?

In the best gear? Never. In much of the "high-end" that is broadly considered to be among the "best gear?" Since a big segment of the hobby, the press and the industry abandoned the pursuit of higher fidelity to the recording and repeatable, verifiable metrics for a self-serving subjectivism that allows them to believe that poorer performance brings them closer to "real music," or "the original event," and that research methodologies (blind testing comes to mind) that have guided the development of much more critical, difficult and expensive endeavors than listening to music don't apply to them if it tells them what they don't want to hear; since badges, boxes and price tags became more important than performance; since everyone convinced themselves that there is magic in the circuits that can't be grasped by the uninitiated including scientists and engineers, to allow themselves to believe that their subjective choices are objectively superior, even though there is absolutely no evidence of that.

If the sound sucks, that manufacturer isn't going to be around too long.

This sentence points to the problem, in my opinion, because in the audiophile endeavor, "sound" has become as relative a term as "sucks." Change the sentence to read "If the performance is inferior..." and we can find many examples of audiophile products/companies that have been doing quite well for years while bearing that burden.

Tim

 

[Jeff Fritz]

This sentence points to the problem, in my opinion, because in the audiophile endeavor, "sound" has become as relative a term as "sucks." Change the sentence to read "If the performance is inferior..." and we can find many examples of audiophile products/companies that have been doing quite well for years while bearing that burden.Tim

There was a reviewer, gosh I wish I remembered his name, that once said something to the effect: "This is a really good $6000 speaker for someone that doesn't know what a good $1500 speaker sounds like."

Unfortunately this is not a problem that is confined to reviewers.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Alan and have all these technological advances (noise, W&F, distortion) brought us any closer to the sound of real music? IMHO, all it's done if bring music to the masses.

The masses have never been at a loss for music. The masses create, distribute, absorb, appreciate, re-invent and perpetuate music whether it comes from of sheets, shellacs, discs or digital files. The notion that the masses need to be "brought music" is a conceit. If anything, they probably need to bring it to us. "Can't You Hear Me Knockin'" had my 13-year-old son shaking his hips and waving his arms in here last night, without a single thought about the lovely extension of my tweeters or the tragedy of my lack of a sub. He had not a passing thought of the delivery system; just pure, unadulterated joy in the bringing of the music.

Tim