Simplicity, Complexity and Price

[Ron Resnick]

"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."

This sounds clever, but I disagree that simplicity is hard to build and that complexity is easy to build. This notion doesn't make any intuitive sense to me, and I don't think it makes any theoretical sense, either.

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.

I don't think this single driver in a simple box, without more, would sound very convincing. The frequency response might be there, but I don't think this is nearly enough driver surface area to move the amount of air needed to be convincing.

 

[microstrip]

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 ?

In fact the Lamm eco system is inappropriate for debating the law of diminishing returns e.g. all current amplifiers except the ML3 have similar high prices and sound very different.

 

[PeterA]

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 ?

I directly compared in my system the top Lamm to the top Pass three box. I described the comparison somewhere.

 

[PeterA]

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

Why not? As a consumer, the market available to me is both alternatives. I listen and I choose and then I pay.

One can buy an old house or a new house. He’s buying a house to live in. I’m buying a stereo system to listen to my records on.

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

Of course it is fair. Both alternatives are available to the consumer and manufacturers have to compete with what is available on the market. I suggest they make a better product to convince the consumer to buy new.

If I have $500 to spend on a turntable, I’m going to choose a den on direct drive from the 1980s and not a new turntable. Same with a $500 cartridge.

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.

Sometimes a good point is made clearly and simply so even a child can understand it. Value increasing or diminishing is a very simple concept. It becomes interesting when something cost less and sounds better. Then it is an increasing return.

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

You should read Romy the Cat’s perspective on the Lamm preamplifiers. He addresses complexity and price.

 

[Ron Resnick]

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

The argument that the Law of Diminishing Returns does not apply to high-end audio depends upon the acceptance and integration of another wholly subjective construct built on top of the fundamental subjectiveness of high-end audio (and the intractable problem of the incomparability of interpersonal utility): the idea that an arithmetic increase in cost yields a geometric improvement in sound quality depends on the subjective value applied to the improvement in sound quality. It piles subjective on top of subjective.

It is fine and fun to talk about, but the subjectiveness of both the hobby inherently and of the second inherently subjective structure of the rate of improvement leaves us with another irreconcilable morass.

 

[hopkins]

This sounds clever, but I disagree that simplicity is hard to build and that complexity is easy to build. This notion doesn't make any intuitive sense to me, and I don't think it makes any theoretical sense, either.

My "amp" comes to mind (surprise...). It is simple as simple gets when it comes to the signal path: speakers are driven (with no feedback mechanism) by a power supply with resistors that are controlled by a digital audio signal (which is in effect not in the signal path).

I am not sure that it is more complex to build than other electronic components, but the design was certainly very challenging.

In summary, simple solutions are not so easy to come up with.

In terms of price, these are the type of components that are exceptions to the law of diminishing returns (but one would have to listen...).

 

[PeterA]

In fact the Lamm eco system is inappropriate for debating the law of diminishing returns e.g. all current amplifiers except the ML3 have similar high prices and sound very different.

Strawman. I am not discussing amplifiers. I brought up one specific example of two preamplifiers from the same manufacturer that cost very different amounts and to me their relative value supports my position on the law of diminishing returns.

 

[PeterA]

The argument that the Law of Diminishing Returns does not apply to high-end audio depends upon the acceptance and integration of another wholly subjective construct built on top of the fundamental subjectiveness of high-end audio (and the intractable problem of the incomparability of interpersonal utility): the idea that an arithmetic increase in cost yields a geometric improvement in sound quality depends on the subjective value applied to the improvement in sound quality. It piles subjective on top of subjective.

It is fine and fun to talk about, but the subjectiveness of both the hobby inherently and of the second inherently subjective structure of the rate of improvement leaves us with another irreconcilable morass.

Ron, we are talking about an individual assessment. The person passing judgment makes that assessment based on his own criteria. The problem I have with Lee’s claim is that it is general and universal. I agree with you that you can’t apply it to everyone’s opinion. But I disagree with you that it is not a valid phenomenon in our hobby.

 

[DasguteOhr]

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.

A giant killer is this little line stage when allnic aka.silvaweld was still affordable.(2k€new)
If someone asked me, when you can take 10 hifi devices with you to an island,which one? this little thing would be there immediately.

 

[Ron Resnick]

But I disagree with you that it is not a valid phenomenon in our hobby.

I don't suggest that it's not a valid phenomenon. I'm just explaining what I think is embedded in the idea.

Perfectly fine that Lee thanks diminishing returns does not apply. Perfectly fine that you and I think it does.

 

[hopkins]

A giant killer is this little line stage when allnic aka.silvaweld was still affordable.(2k€new)
If someone asked me, when you can take 10 hifi devices with you to an island,which one? this little thing would be there immediately.
View attachment 146070

Brings back memories. I had one a while back before downsizing.

 

[DasguteOhr]

Brings back memories. I had one a while back before downsizing.

I still have it with a few modifications, better CMC RCA sockets, ELNA selector switch, refreshed caps and green five star 6072 tubes (like Kondo use in M7 preamp)

 

[PeterA]

I don't suggest that it's not a valid phenomenon. I'm just explaining what I think is embedded in the idea.

Perfectly fine that Lee thanks diminishing returns does not apply. Perfectly fine that you and I think it does.

So there is no intrinsic truth to whether or not it exists. It just either does or does not in our minds. It is a feeling or a belief? Is that what you’re saying?

 

[Ron Resnick]

So there is no intrinsic truth to whether or not it exists.

Correct.

High-end audio is a subjective hobby.

Whether high-end audio components are subject to diminishing returns in terms of increasing price and increasing sound quality is subjective.

subjective + subjective = double scoop of incomparability of interpersonal utility morass

 

[Holmz]

It might be a physiological as much as subjective?

 

[microstrip]

Why not? As a consumer, the market available to me is both alternatives. I listen and I choose and then I pay.

One can buy an old house or a new house. He’s buying a house to live in. I’m buying a stereo system to listen to my records on.

Now you are trying fake pseudo-analogies to try making your point?

Of course it is fair. Both alternatives are available to the consumer and manufacturers have to compete with what is available on the market. I suggest they make a better product to convince the consumer to buy new.

Sorry. It is not what is being discussed. Surely if you inherit an amplifier it breaks any law implying price!

If I have $500 to spend on a turntable, I’m going to choose a den on direct drive from the 1980s and not a new turntable. Same with a $500 cartridge. Sometimes a good point is made clearly and simply so even a child can understand it. Value increasing or diminishing is a very simple concept. It becomes interesting when something cost less and sounds better. Then it is an increasing return.

Again, you are divagating ...

You should read Romy the Cat’s perspective on the Lamm preamplifiers. He addresses complexity and price.

And now dreaming ...

After reading Romy the Cat on the Lamm ML3 and Vladimir Lamm I decided to ignore the man forever. He wrote such nasty things that one person very interested in my pair of ML3's gave up on them. I found he managed to stain Vladimir Lamm reputation on the net when I advertised my Lamm's. His words from his site, still online:

" ML2 was fine, but the ML2.1 was completely differently sounding, very poor performing amplifier that was made juts to exploit positive publicity of ML2. By putting ML2, ML2.1 and ML3 models in the same boat Lamm marked himself or ether as lair or as ignorant person."

Followed by hundreds of venomous posts on Lamm. His "perspective" on Lamm preamplfiers is one of reasons why Lamm used prices sank in the used market.

Remember no one buys used high end today without carrying google searches.

 

[PeterA]

Now you are trying fake pseudo-analogies to try making your point?



Sorry. It is not what is being discussed. Surely if you inherit an amplifier it breaks any law implying price!



Again, you are divagating ...



And now dreaming ...

After reading Romy the Cat on the Lamm ML3 and Vladimir Lamm I decided to ignore the man forever. He wrote such nasty things that one person very interested in my pair of ML3's gave up on them. I found he managed to stain Vladimir Lamm reputation on the net when I advertised my Lamm's. His words from his site, still online:

" ML2 was fine, but the ML2.1 was completely differently sounding, very poor performing amplifier that was made juts to exploit positive publicity of ML2. By putting ML2, ML2.1 and ML3 models in the same boat Lamm marked himself or ether as lair or as ignorant person."

Followed by hundreds of venomous posts on Lamm. His "perspective" on Lamm preamplfiers is one of reasons why Lamm used prices sank in the used market.

Remember no one buys used high end today without carrying google searches.

This conversation is going nowhere. Surely we need to return to the topic of the thread.

 

[Holmz]

This conversation is going nowhere. Surely we need to return to the topic of the thread.

It seems the original topic went “on the lam”…

 

[sbnx]

This conversation is going nowhere. Surely we need to return to the topic of the thread.

Good idea.

 

[sbnx]

Returning to "complexity," there was one post early on that I agree with. There are probably more than two camps, but for now, let's say two camps of audiophiles. One group certainly wants things to be gold-plated and really "cool" looking. They want lots of complexity just to "show off," so to speak. I suppose it is hard to fault manufacturers who make products to sell to this group. If they can make money and the people buying it are happy then so be it. The other camp is focused on audio performance. I realize that performance can mean different things to different people. But each person wants "great sound."

I supppose I could sum up my original post with -- Don't confuse complexity with performance.