Simplicity, Complexity and Price

[PYP]

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

Complexity is often a good marketing justification for price for certain folks. But so is size and weight. That may or may not relate to complexity (perhaps most of the weight is a giant transformer and heavy case work). For comparison: one of my mono amps weighs 7 kg and a well-known brand's mono amp weighs 110 kg. Could anyone charge nearly $40k for a mono weighing 7 kg? But one weighing 110 kg is another story (literally).

 

[Ron Resnick]

Certainly there's a positive correlation between size/weight and cost. Wealthy audiophiles exhibit inelastic demand.

 

[PYP]

Wealthy audiophiles exhibit inelastic demand.

And does that allow some manufacturers to set prices that make the eyes of mere mortals water?

 

[bonzo75]

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

Your post looks familiar. Is micro back?

 

[Ron Resnick]

And does that allow some manufacturers to set prices that make the eyes of mere mortals water?

It means that when some manufacturers set those prices they don't lose demand.

 

[PYP]

It means that when some manufacturers set those prices they don't lose demand.

and the rest of us are left to wonder why someone would purchase a $34,000 power cord (well, its 2 meters you say! And complex to construct!). [actual example]

Query: Would such a buyer use a $34k power cord on a $40k mono amp? Or is that power cord more suitable for an Audio Note Ongaku?

 

[andromedaaudio]

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

Lol.
Audioforums in a nutshell

I hope not to many students fall asleep when micro gives a lecture

 

[andromedaaudio]

You can nail 2 sticks together like they've never been nailed together before and some fool will buy it.

George Carlin.

 

[Ron Resnick]

and the rest of us are left to wonder why someone would purchase a $34,000 power cord (well, its 2 meters you say! And complex to construct!). [actual example]

Query: Would such a buyer use a $34k power cord on a $40k mono amp? Or is that power cord more suitable for an Audio Note Ongaku?

I don't believe power cords have any reason to be that expensive. I would never buy a $34,000 power cord for a $40,000 mono amp. I wouldn't buy a $34,000 power cord for a $400,000 mono amp. I reckon it just ain't necessary.

 

[Al M.]

Lol.
Audioforums in a nutshell

I hope not to many students fall asleep when micro gives a lecture

Actually, I went back and looked. The slight change of topic -- still related to complexity and price -- arose organically. Also, I found the discussion interesting. I wouldn't fault Micro here.

 

[Argonaut]

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

I hadn’t realised that your hands on comparison of various manufacturers pre amplifiers had been quite as comprehensive and rigorous as that .

 

[bonzo75]

" 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."

I don’t see why this feedback is inappropriate, except for his choice of words which he does with everyone.

It is quite possible with some products that subsequent higher model iterations are not better than previous ones. Whether someone thinks it about Lamm or some other brand they should be able to voice it and state experience, possibly add videos to explain

 

[tima]

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.

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.

I reviewed the Lamm LL2.1 Deluxe (1 box) and had the L2.1 Reference (2 box) in my system for a year. Now I own the L1.1 (4 box, same as Peter's.)

I enjoyed the sound of each one immensly as they share a common character and one of the Lamm strengths of deep and visceral lower frequencies. As you go up the tier you will hear increasingly greater resolution and articulation. I find truth in the adage that dollars buy more complete frequency extremes. The difference between the entry level LL2.1 and the second-tier L2.1 is imo greater than the difference between the L2.1 and the L1.1.

Same holds true for his LP2.1 and LP1 phonostages. In the case of Lamm it is a matter of degree. Individual listeners each have their perception of 'how much' that degree is. As Peter observes "My criteria is very subjective and personal." I think that is what microstrip is expressing.

 

[microstrip]

I reviewed the Lamm LL2.1 Deluxe (1 box) and had the L2.1 Reference (2 box) in my system for a year. Now I own the L1.1 (4 box, same as Peter's.)

As far as I know Peter and I have (had, in my case) the LL1, not the LL1.1.

(...) The difference between the entry level LL2.1 and the second-tier L2.1 is imo greater than the difference between the L2.1 and the L1.1.

I think you are making a mistake in the L's - Lamm nomenclature can be very confusing to people who do not know the brand rules.

Don't you find an enormous difference between the L2.1 and the LL1.1? IMO returning to the L2 after listening the LL1 was like having the stage lights switched off. Not just with the ML3, the M1.2 also made an incredible jump in performance with the LL1.

I can easily adapt and still enjoy and appreciate music with less performant equipment - but I have the honesty to see what I loose when I downgrade or after listening to systems I consider better than mine.

 

[Charles S]

Certainly there's a positive correlation between size/weight and cost. Wealthy audiophiles exhibit inelastic demand.

Not sure what you mean by inelastic demand. Most say that weight is unimportant but I always look at weight as you do. Certainly there is no direct correlation but I think it does represent the manufacturer's effort to engineer quality into the gear and what the manufacturer believes to be important.

I personally don't care for DAC's that separate every part of the D/A conversion into a separate component or monster three component preamps weighing over 100 pounds. I don't maintain that a Varese is not better than a MCD12000. It absolutely is, no question, but is it worth five large boxes? And if you go this route, something like it is where you wind up. The tube outputs of the MCD12000 impart a wonderful coloration that the 276K Varese cannot impart. It's way over the top for me, even if I had the money. I'm using it as an example as I am the MCD12000. The Wadax Studio Player is on the cover of TAS. I haven't read the review yet but I am sure it is quite positive and I have no doubt, if I had a system other than McIntosh, it would be first on my list of DACs.

However, the resulting sound quality and dynamic range necessitating the complexity and weight of a Chronosonic XVX cannot duplicated by a wooden 150 pound box that is not time aligned. It's choosing the size, complexity, cost, and weight commensurate to your taste and recognizing that these parameters cannot be dismissed and one must choose carefully. Obviously, no one has the heaviest, most complex, costliest, and largest gear available.

My backup 7 year old MC1.25 KW will be returning from Nashville Amplifier Service Friday. I had the meter replaced. McIntosh furnished the 1000.00 meter at no cost but the repair still cost 515 dollars. I paid 140 dollars for priority service. If this had been my new MC2.1KW An it probably would have to return to McIntosh and the thought of removing this 3 box monster amp from my system is something I don't want to think about.

This company is truly excellent at amplifier repair. They checked out the whole amp and had recently repaired a MC462 with a blown output transistor due to a loose heat sink clip. This has made me realize that tubes may be simpler than solid state amps after all. I won't be buying the new MC2.1KW for my XVX. I must have it for my Thor, though. I'll take my MC3500's and replace the tubes at my house as needed. It's a simple animal compared to a MC2.1KW.

Charles Updated System: Wilson McIntosh Audioquest

Amps: McIntosh: MC3500MKII (2); MC1.25KW (2); MC2.1KW An
Preamp: C-12000 An
Sources: MCD12000 An; MVP881; MVP851; MR87; Marantz 510LV; Lenovo Yoga laptop
Speakers: Wilson Chronosonic XVX
Sub-Woofer: Wilson Thor’s Hammer; Wilson ActivXO Stereo Electronic Crossover
Cables Main System AQ: WEL Signature speaker cables; 24’ balanced IC; balanced 1-meter Dragon IC ; WEL Signature digital, Coffee digital coaxial cables; Diamond optical (2); Diamond USB; Dragon (5 HC, 3 source cords); Thunder & Monsoon power cords
Cables Subwoofer System AQ: Redwood speaker cable; Wolf balanced subwoofer IC; Wind balanced IC to ActivXO; Hurricane HC; Firebird HC; Firebird Source; Dragon HC, power cords
Power Conditioners: AQ Niagara 7000; Niagara 5000 (3); (4) dedicated 20-amp lines.
Isolation: Wilson Pedestals; Bassocontinuo McIntosh Ultra Feet; X-material plinth
Cabinet: Double Custom Woodwork & Design (CWD)
Acoustic Treatments: Room and Echo Tunes

 

[tima]

I think you are making a mistake in the L's - Lamm nomenclature can be very confusing to people who do not know the brand rules.

When I said 'same as Peter's' I meant 4-box, but yes the LL1 and subsequent LL1.1 are different models. Agree on confusing nomenclature.

Yes LL1.1 Signature is imo better than the L2.1 Ref. They have different topologies. The L2.1 Ref is solid state with 2 tubes in the power supply, iirc whereas the 4 box is all tube. I think the power supplies are similar but dedicated power supply per channel is, imo, superior. (Same holds for ARC Ref 10 which is two Ref 2SEs but likewise dediated power supplies.) I"m not going to argue over the appropriate adjective to describe how much difference. I could have bought the L2.1 Ref but chose the LL1.1, so my preference is clear to me. Like you I"ve been comparing components for a while now.

 

[Al M.]

Not sure what you mean by inelastic demand. Most say that weight is unimportant but I always look at weight as you do. Certainly there is no direct correlation but I think it does represent the manufacturer's effort to engineer quality into the gear and what the manufacturer believes to be important.

Depends. A very powerful class D amplifier can be surprisingly lightweight, a tube amplifier with a massive, competently designed output transformer is by its very nature heavy.

My speakers are only 100 pounds each, but due to their construction the cabinet appears to be just as rigid as that of some much heavier speakers of comparable size (cabinet and internal bracing are also made from lightweight Baltic Birch rather than metal). The cabinet clearly sounds like it, or better, doesn't sound like it, as it does not obscure detail nor adds boxy coloration.

 

[Lee]

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.

True. In other words we can’t definitively proved that the LDR exists or doesn’t exist. What we can do is point to examples where speakers or components that cost more do perform better.

Some of the points I am making about LDR are:

1. It is used as a device to stop when someone hits a certain spending limit.

2. Incremental improvements in some measurements lead to outsized returns in realism.

 

[microstrip]

Same holds for ARC Ref 10 which is two Ref 2SEs but likewise dediated power supplies.

Sorry, Tim, in fact it is not. There is nothing in common between the REF2 and the REF10 or the similar REF40. The circuit topologies are very different, different type of components. The same box, uses tubes in the regulated power supply - it is just what is common.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Roman: "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."

Roman's absurd hyperbole and ludicrous insults are disqualifying and are not credible or believable. These comments do not make sense.

I enjoyed the sound of each one immensly as they share a common character . . . As you go up the tier you will hear increasingly greater resolution and articulation. . . .

In the case of Lamm it is a matter of degree.

These comments are serious, sober, totally credible and believable. They make sense.