Jeff's Getting a New Stereo System

BruceD · Jul 2, 2017

spiritofmusic said:
I was speaking to Sean Casey of Zu, and he very much is insistent his company is a "blue collar" one
A case in point is their new flagship to be released soon

Well I hope it is better than their last attempt that score---I thought the Domantrix(?) I heard was frankly not up to snuff.

I like Zu folks though--nice bunch:b

BruceD

Ron Resnick · Jul 3, 2017

spiritofmusic said:
Ha!
I knew there was a(nother) good reason not to have kids.

+1

spiritofmusic · Jul 3, 2017

Bruce, those Zus were a kind of prototype, no pairs have ever been sold
They do v good business with their main lines, spanning $1k to $15k
My point was a wider one, that Sean is aware of the practices infecting a lot of the high end and won't partake himself
And his new line will be using tech and materials right up there with SOTA competitors
But at pricing that won't exclude the aspiring owner

spiritofmusic · Jul 3, 2017

Btw, does Jeff have to sell his gear to send his kids to college?
I mean, he loves his Soulutions/Magicos
Since he's already bought them, why sell them?
Unless he's truly saying he can get a good price for them, get a great sound for less money, and laugh all the way to the bank

bonzo75 · Jul 3, 2017

microstrip said:
Well, we have been waiting for this precious information for a long time. IMHO there are no miracles in this industry. It is now fashionable to write against high price gear, lots of people do it. Surely there are a few overpriced items, that do not represent decent value, have poor reliability and are not worth their cost. Exposing them and explaining why we should avoid them would be a good service to the high-end.

IMHO this hobby is mainly the art of matching - equipment, room and owner preference. It is in this optimization we can get real gains in high-end. But in my experience, wisely used with expertise, more expensive gear gives overall better sound.

Some people will tell us that the more efficient gain is this hobby would be changing the user preference - perhaps they are correct, but it is not my current perspective! Perhaps some day I will also find another use for my hobby budgets, but I do not hope that my system will improve with such decision.

It is not fashionable, it is sensible. Problem with pricing is everyone is clueless what elements constitute the price of any product. If you look up the price of any liquid market, say Equities, you will be able to break it down to many attributes that go into the pricing for some guidance – from number of buyers and sellers to various ratios and figures. Never so in hifi.

Is it the cost of the components (better quality components), demand supply (cannot be as hifi market is not efficient), the fact that it is located in an expensive real estate country like Switzerland, Sweden, or the UK with nothing to add to pricing of components, or whether the costs go up because of an attempt to fix an inherently flawed design. Finally any manufacturer has to make his company sustainable, and whether it is due to his flawed design, flawed research, marketing wastage, expensive location, we will never know what the percentage of each of attributes are, the attributes which contributes to the sonics and which do not. We will also not know his desired sought after profit margin above and beyond his cost. In which case price is best discussed by those who have paid up to have a flawed system, since in most cases they will have no clue as to what has gone in to the retail or the street price.

If you spent the same time optimizing lower priced gear, same or superior results might be achieved. In fact, that is more often the case. But then hey, the lower priced gear might have better quality components and more talented labor.

853guy · Jul 3, 2017

Once upon a time, in order to most fully appreciate pre-recorded music in the home, consumers brought products based on brand cache.

Then, they shifted to buy based on specs and technical parameters.

During the boom of the 80s, 90s and early 2000s, they brought because of reviews.

Then, in the mid-to-late 2000s, they brought due to price.

Now, in 2017, people buy based on a confluence of the above, none of which have anything to do with inherent sound quality vis-à-vis the ability of a component to play back an art form consisting of pitch and amplitude relative to time.

If the consumer continues abdicating responsibility for the ultimate level of performance one can achieve in one’s home, preferring to assemble systems based on the above variables without taking into account the subject’s ability to comprehend the inherent nature of one of the most universally and culturally significant art forms ever to shape human history, I personally envisage a future in which the confluent variables of brand fetishism, specious objective technical measurements, reviewer rhetoric and price extremism will only accumulate greater levels of asymmetrical proportionate influence in purchasing decisions, with almost no effect on the consumer's understanding of what one should be listening for, nor why.

FWIW.

853guy

P.S. I know just as many who've assembled systems because they got it "at a great price", as those who've assembled systems because they believed paying more would automatically confer better performance. Apparently, it's just as easy to assemble a system that's sonically and/or musically deficient by paying less money, as it is by paying more.

microstrip · Jul 3, 2017

bonzo75 said:
(...) If you spent the same time optimizing lower priced gear, same or superior results might be achieved. In fact, that is more often the case. But then hey, the lower priced gear might have better quality components and more talented labor.

This typical misleading argument shows every time. People who buy lower priced gear have more expertise than those who get more expensive ones, so they get better sound.

Why not :

People who get expensive equipment are too busy getting money to pay for it, they can't optimize it?

Again, we all know some gear is overpriced. Some people buy expensive systems with components that do not match. It explains some disappointment in this hobby. IMHO forums should educate the buyers and give them information, not give them the wrong idea of the hobby.

microstrip · Jul 3, 2017

853guy said:
(...) P.S. I know just as many who've assembled systems because they got it "at a great price", as those who've assembled systems because they believed paying more would automatically confer better performance. Apparently, it's just as easy to assemble a system that's sonically and/or musically deficient by paying less money, as it is by paying more.

An interesting argument. I usually try getting one or two key pieces at great prices, but then I know that in order to get a complete system I have to buy the remaining at regular prices. It is the price to pay to choose and optimize a system. Some people are victims (I also did this mistake once in the past) of getting only gear that is "at great prices". But the needed finishing elements never showed "at great prices" ...

bonzo75 · Jul 3, 2017

microstrip said:
This typical misleading argument shows every time. People who buy lower priced gear have more expertise than those who get more expensive ones, so they get better sound.

Why not :

People who get expensive equipment are too busy getting money to pay for it, they can't optimize it?

Again, we all know some gear is overpriced. Some people buy expensive systems with components that do not match. It explains some disappointment in this hobby. IMHO forums should educate the buyers and give them information, not give them the wrong idea of the hobby.

Actually, maybe my point was misnterpreted - My point was that lower priced gear might actually have the two attributes that people think go into making a higher priced component better, viz. higher priced components and more talented labour.

You did inadvertently suggest that those buying higher priced components have lesser experience in listening and set up (because they have other priorities).

That actually is somewhat true, hifi as such is a hobby for older people with kids, and the time taken for research by actual listening is much lower. People who discuss restaurants and movies actually have been to those restaurants and seen that movie, that is a much easier part to fit into a lifestyle than go listening to gear and concerts. SO I respect people like Tango who openly admit look, I don’t have the time, my agent will go listen to it and I will just buy, I am not going to go anal about discovery.

The right idea about the hobby is, buy expensive if you want, but then don't debate it's the best if you haven’t spent time researching, otherwise there are sufficient components which will get you where you are and beyond at lower cost (a large part being no one knows what constitutes price)

bonzo75 · Jul 3, 2017

853guy said:
Apparently, it's just as easy to assemble a system that's sonically and/or musically deficient by paying less money, as it is by paying more.

This is spot on. In fact, I just chatted a similar thing to Bill and Christoph yesterday. What most people are doing is enjoying the hobby by swapping in and out of gear based on their budget (which could be more or less).

853guy · Jul 3, 2017

microstrip said:
An interesting argument. I usually try getting one or two key pieces at great prices, but then I know that in order to get a complete system I have to buy the remaining at regular prices. It is the price to pay to choose and optimize a system. Some people are victims (I also did this mistake once in the past) of getting only gear that is "at great prices". But the needed finishing elements never showed "at great prices" ...

Hi Micro,

I’m stating the obvious, I think, so perhaps my post is redundant, and this one with it.

Nevertheless, a specific example. The speaker we’ve identified as the one we’ll build our system around retails for €75,000. However, irrespective of whether I pay €75,000, or €7,500, or indeed, €750,000, the price itself will change absolutely nothing about that speaker’s inherent abilities to convert electrical energy into sound energy in a way that interprets and conveys whatever sound energy was originally captured and turned into electricity, and the intention of the musicians who created it.

Likewise, no amount of loquacious word-smithing on behalf of a reviewer, nor any amount of online trolling on behalf of a bigoted forum dweller, nor any measurements on behalf of an Audio Precision/Earthworks-owning zealot posing as a “scientist”, nor the shipping case in which it arrives, nor the limitations/linearities of the room’s acoustics, nor the quality of the wine at the dealer evening, nor the aesthetics of the font used in the marketing will change anything about the speaker itself. That these things do occasionally have sway in purchasing decisions is a given, and I accept that.

But none of the above will change the sensibilities of the subject, unless of course, the subject him/herself is willing to allow their sensibilities to change.

In other words, most people in my experience assemble systems relative to their perception*, with a number of justifications offered only one of which is the ability to play music relative to the subject’s sensibilities, with all others being completely unrelated.

Best,

853guy

*That is, I've never met someone who assembled a great system without using their perception, though I've met many who've discarded lesser systems for superior ones as their perception has evolved, and in some cases, have spent less, discovering price has nothing to do with the ability of a system to play music in a meaningful way.

Al M. · Jul 3, 2017

bonzo75 said:
Is it the cost of the components (better quality components), demand supply (cannot be as hifi market is not efficient), the fact that it is located in an expensive real estate country like Switzerland, Sweden, or the UK with nothing to add to pricing of components, or whether the costs go up because of an attempt to fix an inherently flawed design. Finally any manufacturer has to make his company sustainable, and whether it is due to his flawed design, flawed research, marketing wastage, expensive location, we will never know what the percentage of each of attributes are, the attributes which contributes to the sonics and which do not. We will also not know his desired sought after profit margin above and beyond his cost. In which case price is best discussed by those who have paid up to have a flawed system, since in most cases they will have no clue as to what has gone in to the retail or the street price.

If you spent the same time optimizing lower priced gear, same or superior results might be achieved. In fact, that is more often the case. But then hey, the lower priced gear might have better quality components and more talented labor.

Here is Mike Moffat's take, with the Schiit Yggdrasil (Yggy) DAC as an example:

So the step 1 is to sell direct. That makes us twice as efficient. If I sell through dealers, the Yggy all of a sudden becomes a $4600 DAC. Everytime you double your price you quarter your sales. When you quarter your sales, your parts quantities drop. So now your $2300 DAC is more like $6000. On and on.

The only burden here is there is no dealer to demo the now $6000 DAC to the customer so the user can now figure out if he wants it. So we send it out for a eval with a 5% restock fee against the $2300 DAC.If we get it back, we have to sell it as “B” stock after the fact. Why do we charge restocking fees? It is not just because we lose money on returns - believe it or not, there are users who would try every product we have only to return it. (Far more than one would think. - No kidding) It is tough to keep prices down as a lending library. If you want to compete you keep prices down.

From:
https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...-dac-available/?do=findComment&comment=526136

bonzo75 · Jul 3, 2017

That direct part also has been my take.
As has been the cost of production based on country of location. It is easy to see why UK, Swiss, etc are expensive even before you start adding a capacitor
Then is the design. For an OTL guy is top amp is tenor 75, for an SS guy cost goes on forever. The top planar is much cheaper than the top cone, and that has to do with the design itself. So if someone is discussing is the top planar better than a top cone, it is no more a price discussion…it is a preference of design discussion. So RRP to me is the most shallow indicator of how one looks at hifi and makes sense for those who do not want to spend time on research, to order the ones that are the most expensive for their budget. It also assumes the person knows the constituents of the RRP (cost and margins) of various competitors.

spiritofmusic · Jul 3, 2017

Of course, the joke is that when companies like eg Schiit and Zu and Linear Tube Audio and Atmasphere etc etc double the cost of a component, or introduce a component twice price of next one down, they probably lose commensurate sales, but when a company like eg Kharma or Tripoint or any number of Swiss amp brands do the same, they probably pick up sales
I actually on principle wouldn't pick up a component from the effete end of audio, even if I could get it at an affordable price
But I'm sure I'm an exception

Al M. · Jul 3, 2017

853guy said:
If the consumer continues abdicating responsibility for the ultimate level of performance one can achieve in one’s home, preferring to assemble systems based on the above variables without taking into account the subject’s ability to comprehend the inherent nature of one of the most universally and culturally significant art forms ever to shape human history, I personally envisage a future in which the confluent variables of brand fetishism, specious objective technical measurements, reviewer rhetoric and price extremism will only accumulate greater levels of asymmetrical proportionate influence in purchasing decisions, with almost no effect on the consumer's understanding of what one should be listening for, nor why.

FWIW.

853guy

The bolded part specifically caught my eye. Whenever I read on forums this DAC is better than that DAC, I now get bored out of my skull. It is absolutely meaningless when people don't specify what they listen for, and why they think "this DAC is better than that DAC" *). I now have discussions with friends about two DACs in comparison, but whatever we may legitimately disagree, at least we clearly specify what we hear, which is the only way to make the discussion meaningful. If and when we post our divergent impressions on WBF, it will be interesting.

____________________

*) and if they say something more specific, it is mostly platitudes like "this DAC has more fluidity" or "is more involving". How the heck does this relate to the question of which DAC sounds more like (unamplified) live music?

microstrip · Jul 3, 2017

Al M. said:
Here is Mike Moffat's take, with the Schiit Yggdrasil (Yggy) DAC as an example:

From:
https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...-dac-available/?do=findComment&comment=526136

It is part of the law of diminishing returns - sometimes we pay a lot for some apparently small improvement. However, in appropriate systems of adequate quality, our perception of difference is hyperbolic and can compensate for it.

PeterA · Jul 3, 2017

853guy said:
Once upon a time, in order to most fully appreciate pre-recorded music in the home, consumers brought products based on brand cache.

Then, they shifted to buy based on specs and technical parameters.

During the boom of the 80s, 90s and early 2000s, they brought because of reviews.

Then, in the mid-to-late 2000s, they brought due to price.

Now, in 2017, people buy based on a confluence of the above, none of which have anything to do with inherent sound quality vis-à-vis the ability of a component to play back an art form consisting of pitch and amplitude relative to time.

853guy, How about those of us who think we are making purchase decisions based on sound quality and/or preference realized through listening to available alternatives, design philosophy, and dealer/manufacturer support and reputation? Are those not also valid criteria in 2017?

Mike Lavigne · Jul 3, 2017

PeterA said:
853guy, How about those of us who think we are making purchase decisions based on sound quality and/or preference realized through listening to available alternatives, design philosophy, and dealer/manufacturer support and reputation? Are those not also valid criteria in 2017?

I think it's so tempting to try and generalize about how high end decisions get made, when it's anything but something you can generalize about.....unless you are a mind reader. even the decision maker many times can't articulate the why or even be honest enough with themselves to really understand it.

I do think there are large scale markets that do have measurable trends.....and reasonably known indicators. but high end audio is not broad enough, and too multi-faceted, for that.

the best you can do is observe those you know, but even then you only have part of the story.

this is just my 2 cents after 23 years seriously in the high end, working in real world retail for 45 years.

PeterA · Jul 3, 2017

microstrip said:
It is part of the law of diminishing returns - sometimes we pay a lot for some apparently small improvement. However, in appropriate systems of adequate quality, our perception of difference is hyperbolic and can compensate for it.

Yes, but.... I have been quite hyperbolic in my descriptions of my recent changes on my system page, despite the fact that I have paid very little for my recent improvements (DeoxIT, removing glass from paintings, new RCM, etc.) I could and have argued that "sweating the small stuff" can make more of a sonic difference/improvement, than spending a lot on a fancy new expensive component, though that too can be very sonically worthwhile, if it is chosen carefully and deliberately.

853guy · Jul 3, 2017

PeterA said:
853guy, How about those of us who think we are making purchase decisions based on sound quality and/or preference realized through listening to available alternatives, design philosophy, and dealer/manufacturer support and reputation? Are those not also valid criteria in 2017?

Hello Peter,

Certainly, yes, which I alluded to in my post #31 above when I wrote:

853guy said:
(…) most people in my experience assemble systems relative to their perception, with a number of justifications offered only one of which is the ability to play music relative to the subject’s sensibilities, with all others being completely unrelated.

My point, perhaps inelegantly expressed is that most of us do not make purchasing decisions (relative to budget) based exclusively on sound quality alone.

We make decisions based on our perception, which not only encompasses our aesthetic sensibilities (i.e. our appreciation for sound quality/musicality) but non-musical criteria like the ones you mention - “design philosophy*, (...) dealer/manufacturer support and reputation” - as well as the additional ones I mention above, not limited to reviews, forum posts, objective measurements, packaging, dealer incentivisation, marketing materials, et al.

We are after all, as Mike says, complex creatures exploring a complex phenomena with behaviour that is sometimes transparent, and sometimes opaque, but nearly always, a mix of both.

Be well, Peter.

853guy

*That design philosophy will contribute to ultimate sound quality is, of course, true, but is only one of many factors affecting ultimate sound quality.

Jeff's Getting a New Stereo System

VIP/Donor

Site Co-Owner, Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor

Active Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Member Sponsor

Member Sponsor

Active Member

VIP/Donor

Member Sponsor

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads