Simplicity, Complexity and Price

[KeithR]

I recently declined a separate power supply for my Nagra preamp. Just so tired of boxes lol.

All kidding aside, I generally favor simple speakers/crossovers, simple class A circuits, etc. It frees the music. You won't be seeing me with a 4-way Wilson, dCS 5 box stack, etc.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...better or just different-better? But sure, the rate-limiting variable is usually the player and their bank account rather than their choice of cutlery.

 

[Billgates307]

I like complicated and complex, until I don't understand it anymore. Each individual's understanding of complexity is at a different level.

I built a musicserver myself. I went from a 1 box design to a 2 box design with great results. Even though it became complex. I've been assembling computers for much of my life. for me it was a simple step. For someone who has no experience with computers, assembly and networking, this would never be possible.

 

[PeterA]

Simplicity, Complexity, and Price and then the law of Diminishing Returns. I own the one box Lamm L1 preamp and the four box Lamm LL1 preamp. I have listened extensively to both in my system over the last year or so. The former is simple and inexpensive if you can find one. The latter is more complex being a dual mono design with separate power supplies in a four box attempt at the SOTA. It is also much more expensive.

Both preamps sound great and I would not know what I was missing if I did not directly compare them to each other in the same system. But, if the system is resolving enough, one can hear the differences and perhaps appreciate the improvements brought by the more complex and expensive LL1. The noise floor is much lower and one hears more of the information on the recording. The LL1 is just a degree or two more natural sounding because more information is resolved and presented to the listener. Live music has an incredible amount of information and the more that can be captured during the recording process and then played back through a system in a listening room with minimal corruption, the closer the presentation is to what one hears live.

It is the same with the Micro Seiki SX8000II, the American Sound AS1000, the AS2000, and the Absolute Nothing turntables. They all have the same DNA and sound different as a group from other turntables I have heard, but each step is a bit more natural sounding. The returns do diminish, but they can certainly be appreciated. We listen to the options available, and we make our choices.

 

[PYP]

Given that the Law of Diminishing Returns has yet to kick in in hifi,

@Lee , could you please explain this to my wife? Thank you!

 

[Lee]

@Lee , could you please explain this to my wife? Thank you!

I would be happy to.

 

[PYP]

I would be happy to.

Thank you! I've already tried the following with her: Honey, do you know why people have two kidneys but only need one?

 

[microstrip]

Simplicity, Complexity, and Price and then the law of Diminishing Returns. I own the one box Lamm L1 preamp and the four box Lamm LL1 preamp. I have listened extensively to both in my system over the last year or so. The former is simple and inexpensive if you can find one. The latter is more complex being a dual mono design with separate power supplies in a four box attempt at the SOTA. It is also much more expensive.

Both preamps sound great and I would not know what I was missing if I did not directly compare them to each other in the same system. But, if the system is resolving enough, one can hear the differences and perhaps appreciate the improvements brought by the more complex and expensive LL1. The noise floor is much lower and one hears more of the information on the recording. The LL1 is just a degree or two more natural sounding because more information is resolved and presented to the listener. Live music has an incredible amount of information and the more that can be captured during the recording process and then played back through a system in a listening room with minimal corruption, the closer the presentation is to what one hears live.

It is the same with the Micro Seiki SX8000II, the American Sound AS1000, the AS2000, and the Absolute Nothing turntables. They all have the same DNA and sound different as a group from other turntables I have heard, but each step is a bit more natural sounding. The returns do diminish, but they can certainly be appreciated. We listen to the options available, and we make our choices.

I owned the Lamm L2ref - a very improved dual box version of the L1 -- and the Lamm LL1. IMO your modest evaluation is unfair to the LL1.

Even in a cheap system I could listen to the presence of the LL1 - a night and day difference. The LL1 was orders of magnitude better than the L2. Dynamics, soundstage, bass, clarity, transients, black background - all the classic high-end attributes were much, much better. Much more musical and enjoyable.

Surely the LL1 had a clear signature - like many other top preamplfiers.
But IMO a clear example that the law of diminish returns does not apply in this hobby. BTW, the LL1 is a complex preamplifier with some nice tricks.

 

[hopkins]

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.

Aside for speakers, do you have other examples?

 

[sbnx]

Hello,

My thoughts on complexity aren't really aimed at things like adding an outboard clock or power supply to a system. Rather, complexity for the sake of complexity in the design of something. I am sure the designer can talk to each of the things he/she added to the component and why they are there. However, there are often unintended effects that the designer didn't consider. So the widget fixes one problem and causes another (which may be bigger). And if the designer has a good ear to recognize the secondary issue he may fix that. and so on and so forth until in the end is this hugely complex thing where any number of things can go wrong during the manufacturing process or at the user end. Then the performance is not what was promised and the owner would never really know.

Then there are products where it appears as if complexity was added simply to justify another product at 2X the price.

Aside from speakers -- Turntables come to mind.

 

[PYP]

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

or hears the heavenly harps...

 

[PeterA]

I owned the Lamm L2ref - a very improved dual box version of the L1 -- and the Lamm LL1. IMO your modest evaluation is unfair to the LL1.

Even in a cheap system I could listen to the presence of the LL1 - a night and day difference. The LL1 was orders of magnitude better than the L2. Dynamics, soundstage, bass, clarity, transients, black background - all the classic high-end attributes were much, much better. Much more musical and enjoyable.

Surely the LL1 had a clear signature - like many other top preamplfiers.
But IMO a clear example that the law of diminish returns does not apply in this hobby. BTW, the LL1 is a complex preamplifier with some nice tricks.

This is how hyperbole leads to myths. You and Lee seem to agree that the law of diminishing returns does not apply to this hobby. We surely all opine. "Trick" is a curious word here.

 

[microstrip]

This is how hyperbole leads to myths. You and Lee seem to agree that the law of diminishing returns does not apply to this hobby. We surely all opine. "Trick" is a curious word here.

Yes, I reversed engineered it ... Just for curiosity. It has unique aspects of design, that I had never seen elsewhere.

I do not say that the law of diminishing returns applies or does not apply in general - I have not carried proper statistics. Just referred to a case where it does not apply. When I sold the ML3, I got a ML2.1 in part exchange from a local friend and I could compare both. Another data point that escapes it.

Most audiophiles (consumers and dealers) are not fools. If most of the expensive equipment did not have superlative performance the hobby would have sunk since long.

 

[PeterA]

Yes, I reversed engineered it ... Just for curiosity. It has unique aspects of design, that I had never seen elsewhere.

I do not say that the law of diminishing returns applies or does not apply in general - I have not carried proper statistics. Just referred to a case where it does not apply. When I sold the ML3, I got a ML2.1 in part exchange from a local friend and I could compare both. Another data point that escapes it.

Most audiophiles (consumers and dealers) are not fools. If most of the expensive equipment did not have superlative performance the hobby would have sunk since long.

The LL1 is the best preamp I have ever heard. I’m just saying the L1 is a giant killer considering its very low price. In my opinion, this is a good example of diminishing returns. The L1 works very well with the original ML2.

Of course, my criteria is not the audiophile glossary of terms and sonic attributes defined by some reviewers. My criteria is very subjective and personal. It is about connection to the music and the system presentation reminding me of the experience I have when attending live performances. For this criteria, the L1 and LL1 are both very satisfying. I would like to also compare the L2.

 

[microstrip]

The LL1 is the best preamp I have ever heard. I’m just saying the L1 is a giant killer considering its very low price. In my opinion, this is a good example of diminishing returns. The L1 works very well with the original ML2.

Sorry, Peter, the Lamm L1 was never "very low price" - $6300 almost 30 years ago ... At that time the equivalent top of the range Audio Research LS5mk3 had a cost of $5500.

It seems to me you fail to understand what is the law of diminishing returns and its consequences. If - in your opinion, not mine - the very expensive LL1 is the best preamplfier you have heard with such assurance, it just means the difference to others is very large, not minimal. You did not buy it just for show off, didn't you?

 

[PeterA]

Sorry, Peter, the Lamm L1 was never "very low price" - $6300 almost 30 years ago ... At that time the equivalent top of the range Audio Research LS5mk3 had a cost of $5500.

It seems to me you fail to understand what is the law of diminishing returns and its consequences. If - in your opinion, not mine - the very expensive LL1 is the best preamplfier you have heard with such assurance, it just means the difference to others is very large, not minimal. You did not buy it just for show off, didn't you?

I paid less than $3000 for the L1. I don’t know a single amplifier that is better for the price. Of course it is vintage and no longer made.

The subject of diminishing returns is only amplified when you compare the best of the past with what is currently available and consider today’s pricing.

I paid about eight times more for the LL1 than I did for the L1, about a year apart. Because it is not eight times better in terms of my criteria, the return diminishes to me. However, because it is so good and I enjoy it so much, I have no regrets, listen to it every day, and recommend it to others. We choose to pay for things we covet. And in my case, it is for my own enjoyment, and shared only occasionally with very few people.

No need to be sorry. We surely disagree, and what matters when passing judgment is one’s criteria. And we seem to have very different criteria.

 

[Argonaut]

The LL1 is the best preamp I have ever heard.

Might you enlighten us as to the other manufacturers pre amplifiers that you have compared to the LL1 ?

 

[PeterA]

Might you enlighten us as to the other manufacturers pre amplifiers that you have compared to the LL1 ?

Read the Lamm thread or my system threads. Off topic here. Subject is simplicity, complexity, price, and recently diminishing returns.

 

[Argonaut]

Read the Lamm thread or my system threads. Off topic here. Subject is simplicity, complexity, price, and recently diminishing returns.

You do not compare any other manufacturers pre amplifiers to your Lamm electronics within that thread .. and that is fine , as you undoubtedly have zero recent experience with anything outside of your Lamm collective eco system ?

 

[microstrip]

I paid less than $3000 for the L1. I don’t know a single amplifier that is better for the price. Of course it is vintage and no longer made.

Again you can't carry comparisons with 30 years old products bought used a few years ago.

The subject of diminishing returns is only amplified when you compare the best of the past with what is currently available and consider today’s pricing.

No, a fair debate compares current equipment or equipment of the same period.

I paid about eight times more for the LL1 than I did for the L1, about a year apart. Because it is not eight times better in terms of my criteria, the return diminishes to me. However, because it is so good and I enjoy it so much, I have no regrets, listen to it every day, and recommend it to others. We choose to pay for things we covet. And in my case, it is for my own enjoyment, and shared only occasionally with very few people.

IMO this the children version of the law of diminishing returns. I see your point, but IMO eight times better in stereo sound reproduction is meaningless.

No need to be sorry. We surely disagree, and what matters when passing judgment is one’s criteria. And we seem to have very different criteria.

Surely. I mainly focused on factual aspects such as the perspective you had on prices, something that completely subverts the main debate.