Hi-Fi Hype !!

[Covenanter]

The problem for me with this post and many like it is that they are always started by members who do not own and live with, and who have never owned and lived with, high end Hifi. Although I agree that one does not always get what one pays for in this hobby (as with any product centric hobby populated by obsessives trying to achieve their nirvana) it does not necessarily follow that anything expensive is a rip off/snake oil.

There seems to be little/no appreciation of the fact that what an item is "worth" is intrinsically linked to a buyer's wealth. The OP's £600-ish system would be as eye wateringly unattainable to some as a £10k system would be to the OP. To the OP the £600 outlay was "worth" spending to achieve his goal in the same way that £10k would be "worth" spending by those with pockets which go a little a little deeper.

Just because one is financially constrained and cannot personally afford to go beyond a certain level it does not follow that the bar is set by that level. Sorry if this doesn't sit well with any members' social ideals but such is life.

But the real question is- (hypothetically) If all audio equipment cost the same would better off people still buy the same brands?

A bit of a silly question because if everything cost the same then the "best" would prevail and there would only be one or two brands. However, for the sake of it if a Ferrari 488 GTB cost the same as a Ford Focus which do you think most people would buy?

If they had any sense a Ford Focus! It's a much more practical car. And of course if the Ferrari cost the same as the Ford it would lose its "status symbol" attractions.

Chris

 

[Gazzip]

In engineering, it is a mistake to confuse quality and performance with cost. This is particularly the case with software where all the cost is development, it costs nothing to 'produce'.

For the electronic and (increasingly) software dependent systems sold in the HiFi world, the main driver of price is volume. If a system costs £100,000 to develop and you sell 100, then you have to charge at least £1000 just to cover the development costs. Sell 10,000 and you only have to charge £10 - same product, same quality, just driven by the volume.

The vast majority of the 'innards' of high end electronics are the same as much cheaper products. By paying up, you might get a fancy aluminium case to make your amp look better, but the components are the same ones, made in the same factory in Shenzhen, as used in an amp costing 5% of the price.

The above is not true to the same extent for mechanical systems, where the ratio between the cost of the components and the cost of development is more balanced. Paying more allows the designer to use better cabinetry, higher spec drivers in speakers, more precise and lower noise bearings in turntables and so on.

It is my guess that the high end HiFi market will become restricted to analogue amps, fancy speakers and turntables as manufacturers find it increasingly difficult to absorb development costs with the high software content in modern electronics.

The new Sonos play 5 has multiple drivers, multiple amps, multiple DACs, sophisticated DSP allowing room correction along with WiFi and ethernet capability for £430. As a guess, it cost less than £100 in parts and many hundreds of £000s to develop. There is no way a low volume, high end firm could produce a product like this, the development costs would make the price prohibitive.

I completely agree with your comments about loudspeakers and turntables. However although I agree with some of what you say about electronics you fail to identify the fact that not every component inside high end Hifi was made in that factory in China. Sonus and similar are mass producing which precludes the use of any exotic and/or bespoke electronic components in their products. All of their components have to be mass produced as you suggest, but this is not usually the case in the reputable high end market.

I am not trying to suggest that Sonus and mass market Hifi products are rubbish because they are not. They are in my experience pretty good. There is however another level of performance out there at the higher price point.

 

[Gazzip]

The problem for me with this post and many like it is that they are always started by members who do not own and live with, and who have never owned and lived with, high end Hifi. Although I agree that one does not always get what one pays for in this hobby (as with any product centric hobby populated by obsessives trying to achieve their nirvana) it does not necessarily follow that anything expensive is a rip off/snake oil.

There seems to be little/no appreciation of the fact that what an item is "worth" is intrinsically linked to a buyer's wealth. The OP's £600-ish system would be as eye wateringly unattainable to some as a £10k system would be to the OP. To the OP the £600 outlay was "worth" spending to achieve his goal in the same way that £10k would be "worth" spending by those with pockets which go a little a little deeper.

Just because one is financially constrained and cannot personally afford to go beyond a certain level it does not follow that the bar is set by that level. Sorry if this doesn't sit well with any members' social ideals but such is life.

But the real question is- (hypothetically) If all audio equipment cost the same would better off people still buy the same brands?

A bit of a silly question because if everything cost the same then the "best" would prevail and there would only be one or two brands. However, for the sake of it if a Ferrari 488 GTB cost the same as a Ford Focus which do you think most people would buy?

If they had any sense a Ford Focus! It's a much more practical car. And of course if the Ferrari cost the same as the Ford it would lose its "status symbol" attractions.

Chris

Practical?! FFS.....

 

[matthewpiano]

It's easy to accuse those of us with limited financial means of detracting from more expensive products because we can't afford them, and just as easy to accuse people who can afford high-end products of falling victim to expectation bias and a need to justify the cost of their purchases. Get people from each side involved and the argument simply becomes circular.

If discussing subjectively, nobody can claim they are speaking facts. The whole point of subjective discussion is that it is based on opinions. Let's be honest, this is the basis of the vast majority of discussion and posts within these forums.

To prove something is actually 'better' than another thing, the discussion has to be based on quantifiable criteria. These criteria may not necessarily be those which make a piece of equipment more enjoyable to you as an individual, but measurable differences are the only ones which can show a factual distinction.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

Well I do not look at my Hifi scientifically at all I kind of no what I want and then go for a demo and if my ears like what I hear then I buy that's what Hifi should be about not looking at it scientifically yes you have some basics to look at before buying but that's it well it should be . The music is very important but The 2 go together . I have listened to a high end Hifi and there is a big difference between budget and high end Hifi that's why most of us are on the ladder to get to high end but then some people are happy with budget Hifi good for them but there are some of us who just likes something a bit better every time you have an upgrade I thought that was what Hifi was about choices ! Everyone has one and things should not be black and white that everyone buys the same amp because that would be boring world we live in if that was the case . So if someone wanted to spend £20000 on a Hifi good luck to them because that's passion there choice , there money and to get what they think is good for there ears .

 

[Gazzip]

Well I do not look at my Hifi scientifically at all I kind of no what I want and then go for a demo and if my ears like what I hear then I buy that's what Hifi should be about not looking at it scientifically yes you have some basics to look at before buying but that's it well it should be . The music is very important but The 2 go together . I have listened to a high end Hifi and there is a big difference between budget and high end Hifi that's why most of us are on the ladder to get to high end but then some people are happy with budget Hifi good for them but there are some of us who just likes something a bit better every time you have an upgrade I thought that was what Hifi was about choices ! Everyone has one and things should not be black and white that everyone buys the same amp because that would be boring world we live in if that was the case . So if someone wanted to spend £20000 on a Hifi good luck to them because that's passion there choice , there money and to get what they think is good for there ears .

Well said.

 

[Gray]

You've really hit the nail on the head mattewpiano. There must be loads of people that have experienced exactly what you've described - I've certainly been one of the upgraders. Even when we sort of know we're happy - the grass is always greener on the other side.

I set up an unused Marantz PM66KISig amp to demo it for sale. I'd upgraded it and yet when played again it sounded great and I appreciated it more than when I was using it.

(Mint condition it was and the buyer knocked me down from £160 to £125, what a bargain he got!)

If the new starters (those that come on here describing themselves as 'Newbies') could just read and believe your post, they could well save themselves a fortune over the years.

It is all about the music - when the recording was well done and you love the song, then (for a while) you forget the need to upgrade. If that feeling lasted none of us would need to upgrade would we?

 

[matthewpiano]

I totally agree - everyone is of course free to make their own choices and enjoy what they enjoy. It does still stand however, that those opinions, whilst having every bit as much validity as any subjective review, shouldn't be expressed as facts that apply to anyone beyond the person stating them. When they are shared, they are useful as points of reference for others to start exploring and making their own mind up. It also stands that subjective opinions require some experience behind them, actually hearing examples of equipment at different price levels, to be of much use.

 

[Womaz]

For me there has been a remarkable step up in my enjoyment of music since I went for the Devialet 200. This is my first really expensive bit of kit and it has led to me listening to my music much more than I used to.

in the past a new but of kit has had that initial buzz for a couple of months. The 200 is 11 months down the line and every time I put music on I get that same excited feeling. So much so that I am now considering spending a similar amount of cash on some new speakers ......possibly the SF Olympica 2

i wish I could achieve the same sounds for say 2k........but I never could

 

[pyrrhon]

There's a bit of poo pooing science and measurements, but t have you ever tried putting together a system based on science and measurements rather than the postmodern false equivalency that says everyone's opinion is as valid as anyone elses irrespective of any expertise so we should just purchase hi fi with our impulsive lizard brains and get whatever sounds most impressive to us in a relatively brief audition?

Give it a try, you might like it. After all, most of us who like to rely on science and measurements to a degree have tried the other way. I prefer how my system sounds now. You may or may not.

Why if I put measurement at bay is it that I don't take my time and analyse? I like to do very analytical thinking and long home demos. But in the end it's a shiver or foot tapping that I'll be looking for. These things are not yet measurable, like love it's subjective. But I have a feeling mathematics can shed a certain lights on rythm patterns and harmonics. The thing is now to see the limitations and ask for a better science. It's important not to reduce reality to what we can measure or reproduce with the scientific method. Science should embrace the whole phenomenon or declare it's limitations. But reductionists are everywhere 'there is nothing but matter' is a great exemple of where science can lead us.

 

[Infiniteloop]

For me there has been a remarkable step up in my enjoyment of music since I went for the Devialet 200. This is my first really expensive bit of kit and it has led to me listening to my music much more than I used to.

in the past a new but of kit has had that initial buzz for a couple of months. The 200 is 11 months down the line and every time I put music on I get that same excited feeling. So much so that I am now considering spending a similar amount of cash on some new speakers ......possibly the SF Olympica 2

i wish I could achieve the same sounds for say 2k........but I never could

+1 Had mine for a little over a year and it still surprises me how good it sounds. Those that cry 'expectation bias' can chew on the fact that the Devialet has the lowest recorded figures (in use) for distortion.*smile*

http://en.devialet.com/expert/#discover

My Devialet sounds superb with SF Cremona Auditor M's - and the SF Olympica 2's do sound similar but are a bit less 'Old School' SF. (I have auditioned these with the Dev 200), but my Focal 1008Be's sound great with the Devialet too: Very transparent and clear but in no way fatiguing or bright and with great bass. I'd audition both and I'd love to know what you think.

 

[Womaz]

I may struggle to audition the Focals up here. You obviously preferred them to the Olympica 2. I do have a lively room so I am susceptible to a touch of brightness so wifi have to hear them all in my own home eventually

 

[Infiniteloop]

I may struggle to audition the Focals up here. You obviously preferred them to the Olympica 2. I do have a lively room so I am susceptible to a touch of brightness so wifi have to hear them all in my own home eventually

I originally bought the Focals to partner my Valve Amp (which they do very well) It just so happens that they work very well with the Dev 200 too. The Focals are used in a room with solid wood floors and just a rug. No curtains - just shutters, Oh and leather sofa's. I guess it would be described as lively too, but both the SF's and Focals sound great in that room with the Dev 200.

The Olympica 2's are very pretty, but I thought they sounded a little 'thick' and less 'open' than the Focals. I auditioned them together both with my valve Amp and a Dev 200 when I was considering one. Focals seem to divide opinion. You either love them or hate them. Only your ears will tell you.

 

[Womaz]

My plan is to audition the SF Olmpica 2 at the dealers. If I like what I hear they will be given a home demo.

At home I have no choice but to have the speakers very close to the back wall and this is why a home demo essential. I have read a review that says the Olymoicas work close to a back wall as side porting or something like that . If they don't then I will probably,y chose the PMC 26s as the next logical step

 

[Infiniteloop]

My plan is to audition the SF Olmpica 2 at the dealers. If I like what I hear they will be given a home demo.

At home I have no choice but to have the speakers very close to the back wall and this is why a home demo essential. I have read a review that says the Olymoicas work close to a back wall as side porting or something like that . If they don't then I will probably,y chose the PMC 26s as the next logical step

Yes the Olympica 2's are side ported. It's partly what makes the aesthetics so appealing. I really like SF's. I've had them in the past and wouldn't now part with my current Cremona Auditor M's. (Except for maybe some Guarneri Evolutions.....).

I use my back ported Focals pretty close to a back wall and they still sound great. They also come with a pair of foam bungs which help to tame the bass if it's a bit much. - Good luck with the auditions!

 

[Native_bon]

If everything sounds good on any hifi regardless of price the system is not neutral. I can safely say that about my system. All systems that make everything sound good on them will never be neutral. This will mean every music mixed & mastered was done perfectly. Expensive systems can sound much better but does not mean it will do everything better or as good as a cheap system.

Most expensive systems are just hype & marketing. Few really do what it says on the tin, I mean very few. Presentation is key cause you could get an expensive system yet prefer the presentation of the cheaper version. There is a big probability that we expect better performance from expensive hifi systems. I can safely say it is used as a marketing tool.

I would also say more detail attention is put into setting up expensive HIFI, cause its expensive it has to sound better right?. As a result more effort is put into making the expensive hifi sound good. If I cnt enjoy my music form my system the way I want it, then it matters not if its expensive or cheap. I would expect the expensive system to give me more pleasure, & yes most systems colour the sound, & expensive ones more so.

If on the other hand your system sounds neutral then you do not need expensive to get neutral. A cheap system can do neutral also.

 

[tino]

Most expensive systems are just hype & marketing. Few really do what it says on the tin, I mean very few.

A lot of expensive systems are expensive because they are boutique manufactured, they may use more opulent materials, or components with higher ratings or tolerances. Sometimes they may have different/complicated circuit topologies, larger transducers, better mechnical construction, or multiply components to cope with higher power ratings. All this costs. Does it improve sound? Probably ... but maybe not noticeably so in the confines of your average domestic listening environment. Continuing the Ferrari / Ford Focus analogy, in the same way you cant exploit the 10/10ths performance of a Ferrari except on a race track, a statement hifi system in you average living room at low listening volumes pobably isn't going to do much better than your much cheaper system.

PS I realise that my comments above apply to "classic" separate hifi components and that digital electronics / class D amplifier topologies can level the playing field between cheaper and much more expensive systems.

 

[MrReaper182]

The most important thing I learned about hi-hf is that it has to be in the right placement. You could spend 1000's on your system but if it's in the wrong placement in your room than it's going to sound rubbish. A higher end system is always going to sound better so long as you place it right. Place it wrong and of course it is not going to sound any better than a cheaper system.

 

[tonky]

I had them facing the bay window - the sound was dreadfully muffled and incoherent - especially with the curtains closed.

I swivelled both of them 180 degrees and the difference was amazing - hifi nirvana! - now where's the whiskey bottle!

happy new year! tonky is my naim - high level input only please

 

[Ajani]

The problem for me with this post and many like it is that they are always started by members who do not own and live with, and who have never owned and lived with, high end Hifi. Although I agree that one does not always get what one pays for in this hobby (as with any product centric hobby populated by obsessives trying to achieve their nirvana) it does not necessarily follow that anything expensive is a rip off/snake oil.

There seems to be little/no appreciation of the fact that what an item is "worth" is intrinsically linked to a buyer's wealth. The OP's £600-ish system would be as eye wateringly unattainable to some as a £10k system would be to the OP. To the OP the £600 outlay was "worth" spending to achieve his goal in the same way that £10k would be "worth" spending by those with pockets which go a little a little deeper.

Just because one is financially constrained and cannot personally afford to go beyond a certain level it does not follow that the bar is set by that level. Sorry if this doesn't sit well with any members' social ideals but such is life.

This is partially true, but like just about any discussion in HiFi, it gets a bit more complex that. I know audiophiles who spend more on HiFi than their cars. So they have really expensive systems but aren't particularly wealthy. Likewise, there are rich persons who would consider anything above entry level gear a ripoff. Then there are those of us with other competing hobbies/interests. So even though they may have the wealth to afford expensive gear, they'd rather spend it in other areas.

But yes, only the person buying the product is in the position to determine its worth. Your disposable income will certainly factor heavily into whether you think the product is worth it. If you have to make a huge financial sacrifice to own a Mercedes, you may find it to not be worth the money. On the other hand if you can buy it with your day's pocket money, then just having the 3 pointed star on the hood of the car, might be worth the money over a Toyota or Honda.

 

[andyjm]

In engineering, it is a mistake to confuse quality and performance with cost. This is particularly the case with software where all the cost is development, it costs nothing to 'produce'.

For the electronic and (increasingly) software dependent systems sold in the HiFi world, the main driver of price is volume. If a system costs £100,000 to develop and you sell 100, then you have to charge at least £1000 just to cover the development costs. Sell 10,000 and you only have to charge £10 - same product, same quality, just driven by the volume.

The vast majority of the 'innards' of high end electronics are the same as much cheaper products. By paying up, you might get a fancy aluminium case to make your amp look better, but the components are the same ones, made in the same factory in Shenzhen, as used in an amp costing 5% of the price.

The above is not true to the same extent for mechanical systems, where the ratio between the cost of the components and the cost of development is more balanced. Paying more allows the designer to use better cabinetry, higher spec drivers in speakers, more precise and lower noise bearings in turntables and so on.

It is my guess that the high end HiFi market will become restricted to analogue amps, fancy speakers and turntables as manufacturers find it increasingly difficult to absorb development costs with the high software content in modern electronics.

The new Sonos play 5 has multiple drivers, multiple amps, multiple DACs, sophisticated DSP allowing room correction along with WiFi and ethernet capability for £430. As a guess, it cost less than £100 in parts and many hundreds of £000s to develop. There is no way a low volume, high end firm could produce a product like this, the development costs would make the price prohibitive.

I completely agree with your comments about loudspeakers and turntables. However although I agree with some of what you say about electronics you fail to identify the fact that not every component inside high end Hifi was made in that factory in China. Sonus and similar are mass producing which precludes the use of any exotic and/or bespoke electronic components in their products. All of their components have to be mass produced as you suggest, but this is not usually the case in the reputable high end market.

I am not trying to suggest that Sonus and mass market Hifi products are rubbish because they are not. They are in my experience pretty good. There is however another level of performance out there at the higher price point.

Some years back, I bought a Krell processor and matching multi-channel Krell amp for my home cinema room. It must be 10 years ago, but I recall that the multi-channel amp on its own cost in excess of £5000.

The only bespoke component I can identify in the amplifier is the mains transformer (which to be fair is big enough to arc weld with as the amp delivers 1,250 watts with all channels driven) and the really nice machined aluminium case. The remainder of the components are standard discrete electronic components, and a handful of logic gates in the protection circuitry. Nothing even remotely exotic or non-standard with perhaps the exception of the output transistors which are Toshiba matched pairs.

The amps themselves are pretty straightforward, with (lets say) £75 of components including the matched output transistors. So that's £75 * 5 = £375 for the amps. No idea how much the transformer or case cost, but the point is clear. The cost of the product is not in the components, it is the development cost amortised over a small number of units and (I would guess) the substantial margins made along the way by agents and importers.

 

[ID.]

In engineering, it is a mistake to confuse quality and performance with cost. This is particularly the case with software where all the cost is development, it costs nothing to 'produce'.

For the electronic and (increasingly) software dependent systems sold in the HiFi world, the main driver of price is volume. If a system costs £100,000 to develop and you sell 100, then you have to charge at least £1000 just to cover the development costs. Sell 10,000 and you only have to charge £10 - same product, same quality, just driven by the volume.

The vast majority of the 'innards' of high end electronics are the same as much cheaper products. By paying up, you might get a fancy aluminium case to make your amp look better, but the components are the same ones, made in the same factory in Shenzhen, as used in an amp costing 5% of the price.

The above is not true to the same extent for mechanical systems, where the ratio between the cost of the components and the cost of development is more balanced. Paying more allows the designer to use better cabinetry, higher spec drivers in speakers, more precise and lower noise bearings in turntables and so on.

It is my guess that the high end HiFi market will become restricted to analogue amps, fancy speakers and turntables as manufacturers find it increasingly difficult to absorb development costs with the high software content in modern electronics.

The new Sonos play 5 has multiple drivers, multiple amps, multiple DACs, sophisticated DSP allowing room correction along with WiFi and ethernet capability for £430. As a guess, it cost less than £100 in parts and many hundreds of £000s to develop. There is no way a low volume, high end firm could produce a product like this, the development costs would make the price prohibitive.

I completely agree with your comments about loudspeakers and turntables. However although I agree with some of what you say about electronics you fail to identify the fact that not every component inside high end Hifi was made in that factory in China. Sonus and similar are mass producing which precludes the use of any exotic and/or bespoke electronic components in their products. All of their components have to be mass produced as you suggest, but this is not usually the case in the reputable high end market.

I am not trying to suggest that Sonus and mass market Hifi products are rubbish because they are not. They are in my experience pretty good. There is however another level of performance out there at the higher price point.

Some years back, I bought a Krell processor and matching multi-channel Krell amp for my home cinema room. It must be 10 years ago, but I recall that the multi-channel amp on its own cost in excess of £5000.

The only bespoke component I can identify in the amplifier is the mains transformer (which to be fair is big enough to arc weld with as the amp delivers 1,250 watts with all channels driven) and the really nice machined aluminium case. The remainder of the components are standard discrete electronic components, and a handful of logic gates in the protection circuitry. Nothing even remotely exotic or non-standard with perhaps the exception of the output transistors which are Toshiba matched pairs.

The amps themselves are pretty straightforward, with (lets say) £75 of components including the matched output transistors. So that's £75 * 5 = £375 for the amps. No idea how much the transformer or case cost, but the point is clear. The cost of the product is not in the components, it is the development cost amortised over a small number of units and (I would guess) the substantial margins made along the way by agents and importers.

Wait, is this the classic argument that the component parts have a value that is a fraction of the finished product, therefore there are excessive margins being charged/the product is a ripoff? Surely the same arguments could be leveled at any commercial product.

 

[andyjm]

In engineering, it is a mistake to confuse quality and performance with cost. This is particularly the case with software where all the cost is development, it costs nothing to 'produce'.

For the electronic and (increasingly) software dependent systems sold in the HiFi world, the main driver of price is volume. If a system costs £100,000 to develop and you sell 100, then you have to charge at least £1000 just to cover the development costs. Sell 10,000 and you only have to charge £10 - same product, same quality, just driven by the volume.

The vast majority of the 'innards' of high end electronics are the same as much cheaper products. By paying up, you might get a fancy aluminium case to make your amp look better, but the components are the same ones, made in the same factory in Shenzhen, as used in an amp costing 5% of the price.

The above is not true to the same extent for mechanical systems, where the ratio between the cost of the components and the cost of development is more balanced. Paying more allows the designer to use better cabinetry, higher spec drivers in speakers, more precise and lower noise bearings in turntables and so on.

It is my guess that the high end HiFi market will become restricted to analogue amps, fancy speakers and turntables as manufacturers find it increasingly difficult to absorb development costs with the high software content in modern electronics.

The new Sonos play 5 has multiple drivers, multiple amps, multiple DACs, sophisticated DSP allowing room correction along with WiFi and ethernet capability for £430. As a guess, it cost less than £100 in parts and many hundreds of £000s to develop. There is no way a low volume, high end firm could produce a product like this, the development costs would make the price prohibitive.

I completely agree with your comments about loudspeakers and turntables. However although I agree with some of what you say about electronics you fail to identify the fact that not every component inside high end Hifi was made in that factory in China. Sonus and similar are mass producing which precludes the use of any exotic and/or bespoke electronic components in their products. All of their components have to be mass produced as you suggest, but this is not usually the case in the reputable high end market.

I am not trying to suggest that Sonus and mass market Hifi products are rubbish because they are not. They are in my experience pretty good. There is however another level of performance out there at the higher price point.

Some years back, I bought a Krell processor and matching multi-channel Krell amp for my home cinema room. It must be 10 years ago, but I recall that the multi-channel amp on its own cost in excess of £5000.

The only bespoke component I can identify in the amplifier is the mains transformer (which to be fair is big enough to arc weld with as the amp delivers 1,250 watts with all channels driven) and the really nice machined aluminium case. The remainder of the components are standard discrete electronic components, and a handful of logic gates in the protection circuitry. Nothing even remotely exotic or non-standard with perhaps the exception of the output transistors which are Toshiba matched pairs.

The amps themselves are pretty straightforward, with (lets say) £75 of components including the matched output transistors. So that's £75 * 5 = £375 for the amps. No idea how much the transformer or case cost, but the point is clear. The cost of the product is not in the components, it is the development cost amortised over a small number of units and (I would guess) the substantial margins made along the way by agents and importers.

Wait, is this the classic argument that the component parts have a value that is a fraction of the finished product, therefore there are excessive margins being charged/the product is a ripoff? Surely the same arguments could be leveled at any commercial product.

The suggestion was that high end equipment is expensive because it has high end bits in it. My point was that generally high end equipment doesn't have high end bits, and that the high cost is primarily due to the limited volumes produced, not the components.

FWIW I don't think the high prices are a rip off. It is not as if high end companies are raking in the profits - a number of high end firms are little more than cottage industries and continue to struggle financially. It just shows the power of 'economies of scale' and how as consumers we benefit from mass production.

 

[NSA_watch_my_toilet]

At the start, I will apologize for my english. It's not something we can practice and speak often in my region, so I hope I will be understood.

I can understand the point of view of the OP Thread. But there are some mistakes that was made.

I spent years in building on my hifi system. Very quickly, I realized that the reviews you will find on the internet or in magazines are, at the best, contradictory, if it's not simply wrong, tainted, or filled with flaws and that I will need to make my own experiences.

I used the blindtest method (with volume control) very often and compared a lot of things in very different topics.

Before we start with the response, please visualise that, generally, in hifi companies, the price is above 6 times the price of the components. So, when you are using wood and speakers for 1000$, you will sell this speaker for 6'000 dollars. It's a very common way of building the prices now, some companies are even going far higher than that (Hello B&W 800 seires, how are you doing).

I will use the term "I discovered", down there. But it was all things that was very well known before I tested that. I just confirmed things that was already there. You could read scientifical articles made by the BBC over some of those themes. And many others was made (EPFL, Deutsches Rundfunk, ect...).

The quality of your music depends of key component and factors :

1) your speakers

2) your room and the placement of your speakers in that

3) the recording

4) everything else

I discovered that the amplifiers are generally overhyped and that you could put a nad or an accuphase in the front of a very good and uncritical speaker, then you will not be able to hear an improvement until you see the gear functionning. The only benefit of greater amps is the ability to deal with critical current demanding speakers. In some cases, some amplifiers are "sounded", so they are modifying the sound, it could be good, it could be bad, it depend how you are imagining the way you are listening hifi.

I discovered that the quality differences in cd players reproduction are tiny. Probably in a difference range of 2 or 3%. It will be difficult to hear or feel the improvements of a good player compared to a very good player. It's a simple technology, very well made, that will not give bad results when those things was build up correctly (very important, because it's not necessary the case).

I discovered that the quality differences in turntable bring real improvements, even if I think that invest too much in vinyl is crazy too, because of the imperfections that vinyls have.

I discovered that cables will not need to be expensive. Simple cables are doing the job until they are not critically small for some uses (speakers need more cross section than interconnect).

I discovered that some builders are making, on purpose, bad engeneered products for confirming their theories about some voodoo themes. So you will have some hifi amps that will be very sensitive to the impedance and resistance of the connected cables, because someone made a complete sh_tty cinch connection that will be oversensitive to that. Some are doing cd players or dac without error correctors for letting everybody belive that it's important to have very good cd transport in those. And they are numerous other problems like that. A really disgusting business with the ignorance of the peoples.

But, the most important is, the better your speaker and your room, the most amazing the result. To build a good speaker is not a cheap thing anymore. You saw the margins I mentionned at the start. Some speakers are quickly running over a budget of 1000$ for the chassis, and then you need a good crafted box, a good setup over all that what requires expercienced engeneers (costly), good materials... it's not cheap. And you will hear this "plus" of work. It's not one of those voodoo things ; just physics paired with hard on reality. So, in this point, the OP is wrong. Although, if you want to maximize this result, your room need to be calibrated. It's not cheap either. Just putting enough basstraps, enough absorbers in the critical frequencies and a little diffraction, and it will cost you the 2'000$ you mentionned.

I'm not saying you will need to do all that for enjoying music. But every person has other expectations when listening to music, and the perfectionnists music maniacs amongst us, will probably have to go this path.

 

[Gazzip]

The suggestion was that high end equipment is expensive because it has high end bits in it. My point was that generally high end equipment doesn't have high end bits, and that the high cost is primarily due to the limited volumes produced, not the components.

FWIW I don't think the high prices are a rip off. It is not as if high end companies are raking in the profits - a number of high end firms are little more than cottage industries and continue to struggle financially. It just shows the power of 'economies of scale' and how as consumers we benefit from mass production.

I did not suggest that the bits in high end were expensive. I suggested that some of them were not standard mass produced bits. Krell are known throughout the industry for doing as you describe.

Look under the bonnet of something from Audio Research, Ayre Acoustics or Devialet with their multitude of patents then you might see things a little differently.