Simplicity, Complexity and Price

[sbnx]

Hello everyone,

A few days ago I was contemplating audio and in particular the complexity of some products. I really don't like working with complex products. There is a lot that can go wrong or break. It is hard to get them to sound great. In theory they should be better but in practive is is difficult to extract the performance promise. Here is a quote that I think sums things up nicely.

"Simplicity is hard to build, easy to use and hard to charge for; Complexity is easy to build, hard to use and easy to charge for."

I see a lot of very complex audio components. In most of those cases it looks to me like they are a solution looking for a problem. It gives the designer or sales person lots of talking points to woo a potential client. It is like, "Look at me and all of the stuff I have thought of in this design." Of course with increasing complexity, we are conditioned to expect that it will cost more. So it is easier for that product to command a higher price even thought the absolute sonic performance may not be equivilent ot a much simpler product.

Take speaker for example. Let's say we could bend the laws of physics. The perfect speaker would be a single driver that could play a range of 15Hz to 30kHz (flat) and have an efficiency of 110 dB. This driver would be mounted in a simple manner. It would have perfect phase coherence. The whole thing would not look very impressive but it would sound unlike anything we have ever experienced. I am curious how many would buy this. It is not impressive to look at and there isn't much to impress your friends with visually. It is only when someone sits and listens that the jaw hits the floor.

Curious anyone's thoughts on this matter.

 

[andromedaaudio]

The perfect speaker would be a single driver that could play a range of 15Hz to 30kHz (flat) and have an efficiency of 110 dB. This driver would be mounted in a simple manner.

Problem with single drivers is that they are a compromise as well .
A tweeter membrane needs to be light , a bass membrane relatively large and stiff ...... the 2 extremes simply don t mix for a Full range one driver speaker , its a dilemma.

MTM with 2 large bass drivers seems to be the most optimal cone design imo

 

[sbnx]

Problem with single drivers is that they are a compromise as well .
A tweeter membrane needs to be light , a bass membrane relatively large and stiff ...... the 2 extremes simply don t mix for a Full range one driver speaker , its a dilemma.

MTM with 2 large bass drivers seems the be the most optimal cone design imo

I think you missed the point. I said we would bend the laws of physics and that this single driver is "perfect". The question is even though it is perfect how many would buy it becasue it is just "too simple".

 

[andromedaaudio]

I think you missed the point. I said we would bend the laws of physics and that this single driver is "perfect". The question is even though it is perfect how many would buy it becasue it is just "too simple".

Ah ok .

If the audio press praises it and they look nice , audiophiles will buy anything

 

[Chop]

I think you missed the point. I said we would bend the laws of physics and that this single driver is "perfect". The question is even though it is perfect how many would buy it becasue it is just "too simple".

I think you are right. However much we audiophools like to think sound quality is absolutely everything, perceived value is an important driver for many many people. A single perfect driver in a box - or even, maybe not in a box - wouldn't look like much.
Better buy something shiny with exotic metals or woods, ideally polished only on the thigh of a Tibetan virgin at midnight on a mountain plateau.

Its hard to sell the thinking time that has driven a simple & elegant solution to a problem.

 

[zerostargeneral]

BD 8 in a Soundgate is pretty close IMHO.

Kindest regards, G.

 

[Lee]

Observation: sometimes complexity brings benefits.

1. Mono DACs can have a lower noise floor.
2. Two box preamps generally have better performance due to a separate power supply.
3. Adding noise filters and grounding devices add complexity but lower noise.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...I think it's human nature to refine, to improve...to approach perfection. That said, I think it is also possible to over-sharpen a knife. It doesn't get infinitely sharper.

 

[caesar]

Hello everyone,

A few days ago I was contemplating audio and in particular the complexity of some products. I really don't like working with complex products. There is a lot that can go wrong or break. It is hard to get them to sound great. In theory they should be better but in practive is is difficult to extract the performance promise. Here is a quote that I think sums things up nicely.

"Simplicity is hard to build, easy to use and hard to charge for; Complexity is easy to build, hard to use and easy to charge for."

I see a lot of very complex audio components. In most of those cases it looks to me like they are a solution looking for a problem. It gives the designer or sales person lots of talking points to woo a potential client. It is like, "Look at me and all of the stuff I have thought of in this design." Of course with increasing complexity, we are conditioned to expect that it will cost more. So it is easier for that product to command a higher price even thought the absolute sonic performance may not be equivilent ot a much simpler product.

Take speaker for example. Let's say we could bend the laws of physics. The perfect speaker would be a single driver that could play a range of 15Hz to 30kHz (flat) and have an efficiency of 110 dB. This driver would be mounted in a simple manner. It would have perfect phase coherence. The whole thing would not look very impressive but it would sound unlike anything we have ever experienced. I am curious how many would buy this. It is not impressive to look at and there isn't much to impress your friends with visually. It is only when someone sits and listens that the jaw hits the floor.

Curious anyone's thoughts on this matter.

Hi SBNX,

Very good observation. Yet, isn't the value of something in this hobby determined subjectively?

If someone perceives a benefit, they can try to convince others of the same (and "experts"/ reviewers seem to have a bit more clout, but big internet bandwagons work great also) ...

and then the product could take off the market regardless of how silly something may be designed...

 

[Robh3606]

Hello

Complexity on it's own doesn't bother me. You build a 4 way speaker and out of necessity it will have a more complex crossover than a 2 way. If you are into a multichannel system with bass management supporting the latest encoding ATMOS as an example will be complex compared to a 2 channel integrated.

What bothers me is unnecessarily complexity that adds nothing and no value. MQA comes to mind.

Rob

 

[AudioHR]

Hello everyone,

A few days ago I was contemplating audio and in particular the complexity of some products. I really don't like working with complex products. There is a lot that can go wrong or break. It is hard to get them to sound great. In theory they should be better but in practive is is difficult to extract the performance promise. Here is a quote that I think sums things up nicely.

"Simplicity is hard to build, easy to use and hard to charge for; Complexity is easy to build, hard to use and easy to charge for."

I see a lot of very complex audio components. In most of those cases it looks to me like they are a solution looking for a problem. It gives the designer or sales person lots of talking points to woo a potential client. It is like, "Look at me and all of the stuff I have thought of in this design." Of course with increasing complexity, we are conditioned to expect that it will cost more. So it is easier for that product to command a higher price even thought the absolute sonic performance may not be equivilent ot a much simpler product.

Take speaker for example. Let's say we could bend the laws of physics. The perfect speaker would be a single driver that could play a range of 15Hz to 30kHz (flat) and have an efficiency of 110 dB. This driver would be mounted in a simple manner. It would have perfect phase coherence. The whole thing would not look very impressive but it would sound unlike anything we have ever experienced. I am curious how many would buy this. It is not impressive to look at and there isn't much to impress your friends with visually. It is only when someone sits and listens that the jaw hits the floor.

Curious anyone's thoughts on this matter.

I tend to ascribe to the KISS ( keep it simple, stupid) principle in many areas so I get what you are saying.

The quote that you used does not completely work for me although I agree that technical complexity is easier to make into a marketing ploy that asks you to pay more for the product. Still there are lots of tube components that one might identify as fairly simple, tried and true, no bells and whistles designs that command a high price.

I do agree with you that many complex products are not necessarily better. They are as you say a solution looking for a problem. Although then if the problem is how to market the new best thing it explains the need to at least imply the product is complex.

Personally I don't find many of today's overly complex speakers very visually attractive. More importantly I don't find many of the latest hi end speakers very musically engaging. Perhaps because I have had to listen to them in unfamiliar surroundings driven by equally complex electronics. There are exceptions though because sometimes complex stuff comes together to create great sound. Most often at a price I choose not to afford though, lol.

I don't need to buy things that impress others but looks are important to me. So to try and answer your last question. If the "perfect" speaker, complex or simple, turned out to be something I found unattractive I wouldn't buy it. The simple one driver approach would be fine if it was, in my opinion , nicely done.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Take speaker for example. Let's say we could bend the laws of physics. The perfect speaker would be a single driver that could play a range of 15Hz to 30kHz (flat) and have an efficiency of 110 dB. This driver would be mounted in a simple manner. It would have perfect phase coherence. The whole thing would not look very impressive but it would sound unlike anything we have ever experienced. I am curious how many would buy this. It is not impressive to look at and there isn't much to impress your friends with visually. It is only when someone sits and listens that the jaw hits the floor.

Curious anyone's thoughts on this matter.

IMO you have to add - and assuming the recording engineers created recordings that sound perfect for you. You could bend the laws of physics, but you unless could also bend the laws of psychoacoustics there is no perfect speaker. Sound reproduction is not creating a physical facsimile, it involves creating individual musical experiences.

 

[Al M.]

Hello everyone,

A few days ago I was contemplating audio and in particular the complexity of some products. I really don't like working with complex products. There is a lot that can go wrong or break. It is hard to get them to sound great. In theory they should be better but in practive is is difficult to extract the performance promise. Here is a quote that I think sums things up nicely.

"Simplicity is hard to build, easy to use and hard to charge for; Complexity is easy to build, hard to use and easy to charge for."

I see a lot of very complex audio components. In most of those cases it looks to me like they are a solution looking for a problem. It gives the designer or sales person lots of talking points to woo a potential client. It is like, "Look at me and all of the stuff I have thought of in this design." Of course with increasing complexity, we are conditioned to expect that it will cost more. So it is easier for that product to command a higher price even thought the absolute sonic performance may not be equivilent ot a much simpler product.

Take speaker for example. Let's say we could bend the laws of physics. The perfect speaker would be a single driver that could play a range of 15Hz to 30kHz (flat) and have an efficiency of 110 dB. This driver would be mounted in a simple manner. It would have perfect phase coherence. The whole thing would not look very impressive but it would sound unlike anything we have ever experienced. I am curious how many would buy this. It is not impressive to look at and there isn't much to impress your friends with visually. It is only when someone sits and listens that the jaw hits the floor.

Curious anyone's thoughts on this matter.

I just don't see the issue here.

Let's take for example my source. I still spin CDs.

Obviously, a single-box CD player is much simpler than my current set-up:
CD transport > reclocker > DAC
(involves two digital cables as well)

It will become even more complex in a few days:
CD transport > reclocker (< externally clocked by 10 MHz clock) > DAC
(involves a total of 3 digital cables)

Can you incorporate extensive reclocking in a CD player before the signal reaches the internal DAC? Sure, but such players are rare and pricey.

Can you have a reclocking system within a single-box CD player that is of such quality as the system Mutec REF 10 SE120 10 MHz clock > Mutec 3+ USB reclocker? That's doubtful.

So why go for simplicity if complexity works better, possibly even at a lower total price?

Also, in the above case the lesser simplicity has an extra advantage: in this system of parts I can upgrade the DAC much more easily than the internal DAC in a single-box CD player.
_____________________________

(BTW, the above system is still far simpler than many streaming solutions.)

 

[PeterA]

IMO you have to add - and assuming the recording engineers created recordings that sound perfect for you. You could bend the laws of physics, but you unless could also bend the laws of psychoacoustics there is no perfect speaker. Sound reproduction is not creating a physical facsimile, it involves creating individual musical experiences.

I had an experience a couple of weeks ago at a listening bar in New York City that makes me question your interesting claim that “Sound reproduction is not creating a physical facsimile, it involves creating individual musical experiences.”

I don’t know if the hour I spent with my family listening to that vintage JBL horn system was an individual musical experience or a shared group experience. We all listened to the same system from basically the same location and to the same music in the same setting. Are the people sitting to your left and right in a concert hall listening to a Beethoven Symphony having the same musical experience as you are?

Perhaps this is a bit off-topic for the thread, but your post makes a very interesting claim. That vintage JBL horn system was fairly simple and not very expensive. And yet the experience promises to be good enough for people to seek out this listening room and spend time in front of that system in silence, listening to beautiful music. And I am sure people will return because for some of them, it may be the best musical reproduction they have heard anywhere.

I don’t know if there is a perfect speaker, but there are some speakers that are coveted overtime and remain in demand. If I were a speaker designer, I would try to understand what it is that those coveted designs have in common. Is it simplicity or complexity? I don’t think it is price, because many of these speakers are not that expensive.

 

[microstrip]

I had an experience a couple of weeks ago at a listening bar in New York City that makes me question your interesting claim that “Sound reproduction is not creating a physical facsimile, it involves creating individual musical experiences.”

I don’t know if the hour I spent with my family listening to that vintage JBL horn system was an individual musical experience or a shared group experience. We all listened to the same system from basically the same location and to the same music in the same setting. Are the people sitting to your left and right in a concert hall listening to a Beethoven Symphony having the same musical experience as you are?

Perhaps this is a bit off-topic for the thread, but your post makes a very interesting claim. That vintage JBL horn system was fairly simple and not very expensive. And yet the experience promises to be good enough for people to seek out this listening room and spend time in front of that system in silence, listening to beautiful music. And I am sure people will return because for some of them, it may be the best musical reproduction they have heard anywhere.

I don’t know if there is a perfect speaker, but there are some speakers that are coveted overtime and remain in demand. If I were a speaker designer, I would try to understand what it is that those coveted designs have in common. Is it simplicity or complexity? I don’t think it is price, because many of these speakers are not that expensive.

Challenging question Peter. In fact you partially answered when you say
" And I am sure people will return because for some of them, it may be the best musical reproduction they have heard anywhere. " Some, not all or even most.

Individual experience in my text means that the experience is not universal, but also essentially non predictable - it depends on listener experience, that is too diverse and complex to analyse with success.

Debating your interesting text will carry us very fast to Floyd Toole research - the search for the speaker that is statistically enjoyable and predictable for the masses. Essentially. the opposite of the high-end, that lives on educated listener preference.

 

[Alsatian]

Not sure if this is what you were thinking of when you said, would you purchase a speaker that was essentially perfect, but there was no bling, nothing to fiddle with, nothing to impress your friends, nothing to read about, etc. I think there are two very different sides to the hobby. One is listening to music and learning more about music, exploring new artists, etc. The other is the technology, reading about new products, comparing and testing different gear, learning about acoustics, etc., etc.. Some people enjoy one exclusively, I think most audio files enjoy both. But they are different activities.

 

[Lee]

...I think it's human nature to refine, to improve...to approach perfection. That said, I think it is also possible to over-sharpen a knife. It doesn't get infinitely sharper.

Given that the Law of Diminishing Returns has yet to kick in in hifi, this knife argument doesn’t cut the mustard.

 

[PYP]

As a lover of simplicity, I like the expression: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” When there are performance gains to be had with simplifying, that is attractive. The Grimm MU2 streamer/DAC in one box is an example. Eliminating the external connection, which is a bottleneck, yields SQ improvements. The one chassis instead of two saves costs.

One driver would do it for me, however I would want a wood enclosure for reasons of aesthetics. If it came in cherry wood, the WAF would be very high.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

Law of Diminishing Returns has yet to kick in in hif

...I dunno Sherrif Lee, I think the Law of Diminishing Returns was litigated in Audio Court and found to be supported in some states, for some litigants. I found no condiment-specific contingencies noted in the literature. YMMV.

 

[microstrip]

...I think it's human nature to refine, to improve...to approach perfection. That said, I think it is also possible to over-sharpen a knife. It doesn't get infinitely sharper.

Being a subjective activity associated to an imperfect process, the objective is not becoming sharper or perfect. The only mathematical concept I can associate is the idea of transfinite - it is always possible to create a better system.

The game only stops when the player gets tired or ruined ...