Forum
Correlation between spending money and upgrades...
<< Back to threads in Listening Room
| Posted By |
Message |
| dmitchell |
|
|
So a piece of gear that I very recently tried had got me thinking again about the relationship between money spent, and an increase in sound quality.
A couple of questions come to mind:
Is a "sideways" move always a sideways move? Let's define a sideways move as buying a comparable component within the same class and price range. Like going from NAD to Rotel...
Does a more expensive piece of gear always equate to better performance, and consequently, more satisfaction.
My own personal experiences have found that sometimes "sideways" moves are OK. A person may actually prefer the Rotel presentation over NAD, doesn't mean that it's better, just fulfils a person's preference better.
I've also found that money spent does not equate to satisfaction. I've had 2 McIntosh systems in my room before, which to most audio guys would represent the pinnacle of gear achievement. I found them ho-hum. My 800 dollar Jolida tube amp (to me) was more fun to listen to.
I guess this brings us to another point - money spent usually does mean quality. The Mac stuff would probably last a lifetime, the Jolida stuff, not so much. |
| JR |
|
|
IMO, a sideways move is when you get something that's different, but not better nor more enjoyable. If its more enjoyable, it's better. Maybe not for everyone or even anyone else, but if you enjoy it more, it's better. No other way to put it.
A component's price is determined by a lot of things...
The cost of labor is one. McIntosh is built in Binghamton, NY by people earning a living wage and benefits. Jolida (no offense) is to the best of my knowledge made by people in a 3rd world communist country where the priority is quantity over quality and little if any regard is given to the person assembling it.
A solid warranty and customer service costs money. Mac will fix pretty much anything they've ever made and bring it back to original spec at minimum. Their warranty is an honest warranty, not some shady people who'll either be impossible to get a hold of or who'll find any and every reason to not honor the warranty. That costs money.
A local dealer was telling me about a customer he had that he sold a Mac system to. The guy's house burned down and everything was destroyed. He asked the dealer if Mac could look at it and give him an estimate for repairs, if repairs could be made. The dealer sent it to Mac, and Mac sent it directly to the customer in about 2 weeks. They fixed the gear free of charge. Their response - they didn't need his money; he probably had more important things to pay for.
Then there's parts.
Better craftsmanship and parts can mean better sound, but not always. If a company in China reverse engineered a Mac integrated using similar yet cheaper cost parts, and didn't go all out on the faceplate and casework like Mac does, it would cost a fraction of what it took to build the Mac. They'd probably sound very close to each other. Guess which integrated will be worth more than its original price in 20 years. Better yet, guess which integrated will still be usable in 20 years. Guess which one is disposable and which one is worth fixing if something goes wrong.
Substitute a name like Bryston, Conrad Johnson, Audio Research, BAT, Manley, etc. for Mac, and the same principals apply.
Sound quality is paramount. None of this means anything if it doesn't sound good though. Who wants a Renault LeCar that'll last forever? |
| dmitchell |
|
|
Those are all good points JR. And I agree, if you find something that you like better (even if it isn't as expensive), then it's not a sideways move. |
| JanVigne |
|
|
“Is a ‘sideways’ move always a sideways move? Let's define a sideways move as buying a comparable component within the same class and price range. Like going from NAD to Rotel... “
A sideways move is always a sideways move no matter the result in your satisfaction. If you bought a Camry and after six months traded it for an Accord, you would have lost money due to the depreciation which occurred the moment the Camry’s bumper crossed the line of the dealer’s parking lot. You may be happier with the Honda but you’re certainly poorer due to your mistake.
The same logic applies to audio gear. You might break even on your trade - something I doubt since no retailer is likely to give back full purchase price when they now have to sell a used component at a price which makes them a profit while they have a dozen similar new units in stock for which they paid dealer’s cost - but what is it you have gained? If you are chasing “hifi” satisfaction - imaging, soundstage, depth, etc. - then I can guarantee you there will be another component which outdoes what you’ve just purchased. As long as you are chasing hifi qualities you are on a zero sum circular track where you’ll never get off and you’ll never outrun yourself.
If, on the other hand, you are seeking those qualities in the music which are satisfying to you - timbre, timing, communication and transparency to the source, etc. - then you are more likely, IMO, to find a system which is satisfying over the long haul no matter your budget. I seldom worked with audio salespeople who owned extremely expensive systems. They didn’t own junk but they didn’t own the newest or the highest priced equipment in most cases. After a day of hearing the most expensive systems, most of those salespeople could go home to a system which satisfied their desire for music if they had put together a system based on those same qualities of music reproduction which existed in the reference systems. A little less timing, communication or transparency from their system wasn’t the problem since their system was still capable of displaying the basic traits they considered indispensible in music. A few of them were more like me in ther musical tastes and they often played 78's and even cylinders to get their musical thrills.
Therefore, the question to a client wishing to make such a change would go to whether they had established those priorities and what within those priorities they were trying to achieve. It's a bit of a broken record each time I repeat it but lacking priorities results in largely impulse buying and ultimately buyer's regret.
Chase the hifi and you’ll always be be trying to push the boulder to the top of the hill. Seek the music and you will be able to hear into the performance with relative ease. I’ve told the stories regarding the various musicians and conductors who were clients yet owned very modest - in some cases very modest - systems. They knew what they were after in the music and their ability to hear those qualities didn’t necessarily depend upon having the most sophisticated systems or set ups.
For the vast majority of us I would say there is a lesson in there. For the devoted gearheads, not so much. But I’ve never come across a gearhead who wasn’t always loosing money just to own the next big thrill. Some could afford it and some finally realized they were getting less satisfaction from every dollar spent. Most gearheads are after the gear and the parts of the system which make for a synergistic whole aren’t on their radar. So, if you’re dissatisfied with the Camry, is it the car? Or, would different tires make the change you desire? if you’re dissatisfied with the NAD, would another change to the system other than a component make for a better choice? Or, did you simply make a mistake in the first place by ignoring priorities? |
| JanVigne |
|
|
“Does a more expensive piece of gear always equate to better performance, and consequently, more satisfaction.”
No, obviously not. Does the fourth spouse guarantee satisfaction any more than did the first three?
Should I own a small tube amplifier and modest SDFR speakers but decide to trade it for a far more expensive system composed of pro audio components and speakers, what have I gained? Pro audio is out to satisfy requirements which largely do not fall under my radar. If, on the other hand, pro audio is where you should have started, then probably you’ll be ahead.
What I see this portion of your question going to is diminishing returns. I don’t know why you didn’t care for the McIntosh gear but that’s beside the point. I would guess you bought it due to the name and reputation so you thought you’d give it a try. Well JBL and Crown still have good names in pro audio but I doubt they would have satisfied you either.
Diminishing returns are only applicable to those components and speakers which are firstly satisfying to you. If you own a 75 watt NAD, would a 150 watt NAD be more satisfying? If you own B&W 685's, would the 800 series be more satisfying? Assuming the next step up is truly a step up and not just more of the same - 75 to 150 watts, then you must realize the great amount of audio gear which is based upon the trickle down technology which has come before. Great sums of money and time were expended to create “X” product. If that technology stays in a flagship model where sales of the top price range are limited, then a manufacturer will probably never make back their investment. The idea is first, to broaden the sales base which means taking that technology and adapting it to lower priced equipment. Possibly not in its entirety but in sufficient amounts that make the technology recognizable to most observers and to increase sales of all the technology. Not only does this put the design at an advantage against the competition but it makes for a more cohesive “house sound”. The advantage to the consumer when considering a line such as B&W is the opportunity to own a decent chunk of the flagship technology. Now, if I hear a line of 32 speaker models (PBS), I have to ask myself whether all 32 can be correct or if maybe there aren’t just a few that exist solely to make sales and aren’t really true to any “house sound” the company might have established.
A company such as McIntosh which has a fairly identifiable house sound is another issue. Mac is not a company which changes models every year so there are seldom revisions to a design which would result in a superior sounding MkII version of a product. Once again I have less confidence in a company that doesn’t seem capable of getting it right the first time than I do in a company which might not be to my total satisfaction but who stands by their decisions. The stronger the house sound, the more likely the client will be to find diminishing returns. It’s safe to say many high end companies with identifiable house sounds have a reason for designing a line of products rather than just one or two products. A fifty watt amplifier might sound strikingly similar to a 500 watt amplifier when driving easy load loudspeakers with very high sensitivity at average conversational levels. (In one sense, a Klipschorn always sounded very much like a Klipschorn because no amplifier was ever stressed driving a Klipschorn.) However, it would probably be foolish to attempt a pairing of that 50 watt amplifier with a 82dB speaker load that hung around the 3 Ohm range. Even more so if you listened at high volumes in a very spacious environment. Therefore, diminishing returns wouldn’t apply here due to the fact your speaker selection dictates the elimination of the lesser amplifier from consideration.
To look at another option, let’s say you can put together a system which makes no oddball demands on any part of the system. And you fortunately have enough cash on hand to buy more or less whatever you desire. Would buying a $10K speaker to pair with a $500 source make sense. No. I think we can all agree to that, there must be some degree of balance to the system choices. So we put together a $1k, a $2.5k and a $5k system made from manufacturer’s product which all have a very identifiable house sound. The difference between the $1k and the $2.5k system should be noticeable to virtually any listener. The refinements made by doubling the cost one more time would get you into the arena of diminishing returns. With a high quality system the differences would be apparent to a good listener but might not be that important in their improvement to warrant the additional outlay of cash. Doubling the expense one more time would bring with it even a lower percentage of improvement vs a spiking cost factor. However, I have sold lines where the flagship was so obviously superior to all others in the line that the purchase was a literal no brainer for those well heeled clients. Such lines are the exception rather than the rule.
When you head to your favorite audio salon, ask to hear their reference system first. Most shops have a sound they are after and they select which components and speakers they will carry based on that idea. They will probably offer alternatives to that sound but you can almost bet they will have their favorites which appeal most to their concept of system building. After listening to the reference system, ask to hear a lower priced system and you should be hearing the diminishing returns of spending more to gain a lower percentage of improvement. If you really can't establish what musical values they are after, then I would seriously reconsider shopping at that store. |
| JanVigne |
|
|
JR’s points go to the aspect of value in what you purchase. My advice to clients was to always find the best value rather than the best deal. For example, you can find, let’s say, a top o’the line Cambridge receiver at a discount but you’ll likely pay full price for a Naim or a Linn. Chances are the Naim and the Linn will retain their value for a longer period of time than will the already discounted Cambridge. Additionally, there's a good chance Naim and Linn will stand behind their product in ten years time while Cambridge will have moved on. Certainly a $2k Yamaha would be of less value in five years time than would a $3k Pass Labs. One reason might be reliability of the various components and another the one manufacture simply advertising their current product is far superior to their older products. So in one case the buyer is likely to have less monetary return on their investment with certain lines than with others. That’s the deal aspect of the purchase both in the present and in the long run.
Yet, the purchase which is the most satisfying over the longest period of time is what I would consider the best value item no matter the difference in monetary considerations. If you buy any amplifier or speaker and you’ve decided to sell that amplifier or speaker after a year, then it doesn’t matter what you put into the purchase or what sort of deal you arranged up front IMO. By that time you’ve probably had several months where you thought what you had purchased wasn’t what you really wanted or that there was something you wanted in its place. Satisfaction quotient goes waaaaaay down at that point and you start to listen for the defects you perceive in the product.
The person who has made a decision with which they are satisfied for six days, six weeks, six months and six years into ownership has, on the other hand, found good value even if the original price was similar. Maybe they paid more than the other buyer but they are constantly satisfied with what they own. They are, IMO, the buyer who created the best “deal” in what they paid by seeking out good value in the first place.
There are the folks who are very happy to make others unhappy. They are the forum trolls who bitch and moan about how other people spend their other people’s money. Anything above a certain price range is snake oil or “ridiculous” in their eyes. Usually they can’t set a price where items fall into “snake oil” but they know it exists and they know that $15k cable (that un-named, un-identified cable which doesn’t exist other than in their deprecating imagination of all cables) is definitely snake oil. When they “bought” an “XX” amplifier for “YY” dollars, why would someone as stupid as all the rest of you buy anything that cost more?
Well, for the most part due to factors which JR sites.
Cottage industry products are hand built or mostly hand built by workers who have an interest in their output. They come from manufacturers who do pay their employees a living wage and provide insurance and other benefits which would attract the best workers rather than the most desperate workers. (Even in the mass market world of automobiles, this is largely how the Japanese manufacturers overtook the Americans in the 1970's and '80's, by concentrating on designers and managers who were in touch with their employees and took into account the employees' suggestions for how to build a better product.) Cottage industries are often those small manufacturers who drive the innovation in the mass market. They do so through a dedication to their efforts and not simply to profit.
US buyers are all too often swayed by the cheap deal, the biggest discount and the idea of instant gratification. When they post on a forum wanting a suggestion for what to buy, they don’t want a suggestion for how to fix what they already have. These are the buyers who seldom see the advantage to the cottage industry manufacturers. Why should they pay for someone else to have a living wage and benefits when they can have “XX” amplifier for less cash?
When I sold cars for a few years, it became obvious to me the “best” cars were those vehicles which had the highest resale value after, say, four years time. Those were the cars which were desirable new and used mostly due to their reputation for being a reliable car with good safety and performance rolled in. The total cost of ownership was low. Those were the cars a parent would send their kids off to college owning. And the buyers of those cars almost always broke even when they traded those cars. I would see people who had owned a Camaro, a Mustang convertible, a Jeep Wrangler and then a Mitsubishi Eclipse - all “fun’ cars with big up front discounts but hardly cars which retained their value. By the time they reached the Honda dealership they had a history of rolling into each next car the amount they were underwater in their previous car. Now I had a client who was looking to reduce payments while still having to tack on the additional $5k they still owed on all those other cars they had owned over the last five years.
On the guitar forums a common question is whether an Epiphone version of a Les Paul is as good a deal as would be the more expensive Gibson Les Paul. Gibson owns Epiphone and the two instruments have what would appear to be similar build sheets of mahogany neck, humbucker pick ups, maple laminate body, etc. The difference between the two exists not in the build sheet but in the quality of each of those parts. Factory assembled in a third world country, the Epiphone offers decent value for the dollar spent and will for many buyers be all they will ever need from a guitar - if they are just after a guitar. Gibson hand builds each instrument in a factory setting - still not the same as the very small cottage industry manufacturers who turn out a few dozen instruments per year vs Gibson’s few hundred per day - with higher quality parts, better attention to detail and a living wage to their employees. One answer to the question of which to buy is to ask how much each will be worth after five years and how important is that to the buyer. Then you can get to the points which make the finer distinctions between the various models but those are more subjective and not always equal in every person’s mind. |
| Dan |
|
|
"I guess this brings us to another point - money spent usually does mean quality. The Mac stuff would probably last a lifetime, the Jolida stuff, not so much."
But that is part of the quality equation too. If you like the sound of Mac then you can purchase it and be very comfortable with the decision. If you like Jolida's sound better, then I would buy that instead, no question. At the end of the day you have to want to listen to your system. But in buying Jolida over Mac, you are compromising what Mac brings other than sound quality. If Audio Research made an amp that you liked as much as the Jolida, then you could buy that and be as comfortable as if you had bought a Mac.
I agree with Jan that going from NAD to Cambridge (or Camry to Accord) is a sideways move. But if you much prefer one to the other, it's a worthwhile move to make. Hopefully you get it right on the first purchase, but this doesn't always happen.
For the most part, I do believe that spending more money will yield better performance. Both in automobiles and audio. The trick with audio is that you have to build a system, and you have to get all of the choices right to have it sound good. With a car, pretty much all the choices are made for you. I know if I replace a Camry with, say, an Audi A6, I'm going to get a much better car performance wise. With an audio system, if I replace one that costs $1,000 with one that costs $10,000, the performance should be better. But only if the various parts work well together and the setup is right. That's not a given, but if you take care of those considerations then I think most definitely it will outperform the cheaper system.
|
| dmitchell |
|
|
Good post Dan.
I agree, and Jan is right too about value. The Mac is clearly a better value in the long haul, but if one does not enjoy listening to it, what's the point?
|
| JR |
|
|
If you don't enjoy listening to it, there is no point. There's no value in something that sits and collects dust. No value in the sense we're discussing anyway.
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
- Oscar Wilde
IMO if something sits around and collects dust, it has no value. I'm not talking about something that's collectable and/or bought to be stored for a period of time before its sold. My father's '71 Mercedes 280SL convertible that gets driven once or twice a year at most has a ton of monetary value. Sitting in his garage between drives, it has no enjoyment value, as he doesn't stare at it like a piece of art.
If a stereo doesn't sound enjoyable, it's worthless to me (again, a stereo bought to be heard, not a stereo bought as a financial investment). I'd much rather own a $20 boombox that I listen to everyday than a $20k system that never gets turned on.
It's safe to say more money will get you better performance. It's not that easy to say more money will get you a better stereo that you'll enjoy more. I've heard a $100k-ish system that sounded far better than mine. If that system was within my financial means, I'd keep what I've currently got over it, as my system reproduces music and not just super-accurate sounds. That system was an MBL system. Great craftsmanship, some would consider it great looking too (I don't), and great hifi characteristics. What I heard was a slightly bleached, soulless recording. On the flip-side, I heard a somewhat equally priced Linn system and a Naim system. Both of those presented music exactly as I thought it should be presented. Even if I had Bill Gates type money I'm not sure I'd spend that much on a stereo, but I don't, so it's a moot point.
I've had my Bryston B60 for about 6 years now. Never once have I seriously thought about replacing it. There's no point. I found something that's going to take a ton of money to better it. Far more money than I can afford, and if I could afford what I think is the next truly worthwhile step up, I doubt I could honestly justify buying it. Same for my speakers and DAC. To my ears, my system is perfect. The only thing I'd toy around with upgrading is my turntable. In order to make that move worthwhile, my vinyl collection needs to grow and I'd need more time to listen to vinyl. I guess I could try out some new speaker cables - maybe some Kimber stuff to match my interconnects, but I'm not sold on spending that kind of money on speaker cables either.
So in a nutshell, my system's staying put for quite a while. Unless something breaks or some new format comes out and changes everything we know about recorded music, I have no need, and more importantly no desire to make any changes. I've got the highest value system I can get. Well, once I get it set up again! Hopefully within the next 2 weeks. Till then my iPod is good enough.
|
|
|
|
