[kingdeezie]

Not at all.  You don't have a valid argument because your reasoning begs the question.

--Jerome

Gotta love rhetoric in an attempt to cloud the issue.

We have the same argument, just on different sides of the coin. I think better design and parts, that come at a cost, makes for better sounding equipment. You think parts, design, and cost, has no effect on how the equipment sounds.

Both of these points are based on personal experience.

Yet my point is invalid, and yours is valid?   

How does that work again?

 

[jsaliga]

Gotta love rhetoric in an attempt to cloud the issue.

Not trying to cloud the issue at all.  Just fairly pointing out flaws in your reasoning.

We have the same argument, just on different sides of the coin. I think better design and parts, that come at a cost, makes for better sounding equipment. You think parts, design, and cost, has no effect on how the equipment sounds.

No, we don't have same argument and I never said that parts and design has no effect on performance.  I said that cost does not necessarily correlate closely with performance.  If it did then there is no way on earth that my $425 iPhono could sound better than the $4,500 Aesthetix Rhea I used to own.  You are making assumptions and inferrences about how certain equipment is designed, built, and will actually perform based exclusively on its price.  You're assuming that less costly equipment employs inferior designs and cheaper parts, and the inference you're making is that such products will yield inferior performance.  How am I doing so far? 

We should probably agree to disagree, so I think we're done here (at least for now )as not only are the arguments going around in circles but so is this topic.  So I'm going to take a break and go listen to some vinyl on my deeply flawed and seriously compromised system. 

--Jerome

[eclubow]

Since I posted earlier about having the same experience as Jerome when I posted two years ago in Vinyl Asylum, I thought I'd show the responses I got on that site as a comparison. Actually, many of the same points were brought up: those who agreed with me that there were very small differences in sound after a certain point, those who insisted I was not getting the best from my system, and even some who felt that the $12,000 Raven was very overrated. It was very interesting to me and I hope to some of you to read some of the responses I got to my initial posting then. Some are even funny:




http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=vinyl&n=1053601&highlight=Ecl876+Raven&r=&search_url=%2Fcgi%2Fsearch.mpl%3Fforum%3Dpi%26searchtext%3Dtweaks

[kingdeezie]

Not trying to cloud the issue at all.  Just fairly pointing out flaws in your reasoning.

No, we don't have same argument and I never said that parts and design has no effect on performance.  I said that cost does not necessarily correlate closely with performance.  If it did then there is no way on earth that my $425 iPhono could sound better than the $4,500 Aesthetix Rhea I used to own.  You are making assumptions and inferrences about how certain equipment is designed, built, and will actually perform based exclusively on its price.  You're assuming that less costly equipment employs inferior designs and cheaper parts, and the inference you're making is that such products will yield inferior performance.  How am I doing so far? 

We should probably agree to disagree, so I think we're done here (at least for now )as not only are the arguments going around in circles but so is this topic.  So I'm going to take a break and go listen to some vinyl on my deeply flawed and seriously compromised system. 

--Jerome

And, there it is. The last sentence says it all. No one said your system was "deeply flawed and seriously compromised." That is what you infer from people disagreeing with your assessment. It clouds your ability to effectively discuss this thread.

"You're assuming that less costly equipment employs inferior designs and cheaper parts, and the inference you're making is that such products will yield inferior performance."

That is not an assumption. That is fact. Everyone is in it to sell a product for profit. Less costly equipment, especially something at the level of the iphono, is priced to a point, and has to make design and parts sacrifices based on cost. This effects the end quality of the sound. 

I can't answer why you like the ifi phono better than the Rhea. I can only assume, based on how this "experiment" was conducted, that you made the same mistake and slotted the Rhea in between equipment that wasn't up to the same standards. In that event, the Rhea will only sound as good as the weakest link in the chain, and you have effectively hampered its performance. All of the improvements that are present, are masked upstream.

Its also possible, there were singular aspects of the Rhea that you didn't like, and that made it difficult to enjoy. The iphono didn't have the same sonic characteristics that you found unpleasant in the Rhea. That certainly doesn't mean the Rhea is not a better piece, and that its performance capabilities in a better matched situation are as limited as the iphono. My point being, that the Rhea has a higher performance ceiling when properly executed and properly matched.

And, just because you didn't like the Rhea, doesn't mean that there isn't a phono stage in that price range, that you would think handily beats the iphono. Failure to enjoy one piece of expensive gear, doesn't negate the entire existence of such items. That is why there are hundreds of companies making thousands of options that all sound different, and fulfill different requirements.

[adminRH]

woodsyi is on vacation from moderating the Vinyl Circle this week, so everyone please try to take it easy on the substitute moderators while he is away. Thank you!

[dmckean]

Sheesh, this thread went downhill in a hurry.

[jsaliga]

Yes, sad that but it is often the case.  I will admit to briefly losing my sense of humor and perspective, but only briefly.

I don't have a problem if someone wants to present an opposing point of view or wishes to share their personal experiences so long as they are specific and detailed.  But this thread really wasn't started to fire up an intense debate about cost/performance/benefits in home audio.  Given my experience, it was really meant to provide some encouragement to people just getting into vinyl who feel gridlocked and are afraid to wade in because they get the impression that you must spend a small fortune on this stuff to have a very satisfying music listening experience.  So instead of buying something very good that is easily within reach they are thinking of writing off vinyl as something only for the monied high-end audio set.  I really would prefer not have arguments about this spawn in this topic.

However, I will not let pass without comment dubious assertions made with fuzzy logic and circular reasoning that to me seems intended to undo the main message of this thread.  Even if it means that doing so gets this thread binned or it has to sit in quarantine for a while.  That would really be a shame, I think, so help me to prevent that from happening by keeping your comments constructive.

This is just one person's experience with a couple of, to use Wayner's term "stupid turntables" and that is all it was ever intended to be.

--Jerome

[kingdeezie]

I don't understand how debate and disagreement in a discussion leads to a thread going downhill, and getting close to quarantined. I don't think anyone has said anything personally offensive. There hasn't been any foul language, or personal attacks. 

Isn't that the point of a forum? To have a discussion, even if we all vehemently disagree?

I made it clear that I think you can get a great sounding system at any price point with careful matching, but higher price points bring you improvements, especially when we are talking about a 700 dollar mass market turntable, compared to a 5 thousand dollar turntable.

Just as it is noble to want to encourage people on a budget to get into vinyl, its equally disingenuous to lead those same people to believe that there is no merit in higher priced equipment, based on a comparison with suspect methodology.

This isn't my thread to close down though, so I'm out.

Enjoy the music. 

[jsaliga]

Just as it is noble to want to encourage people on a budget to get into vinyl, its equally disingenuous to lead those same people to believe that there is no merit in higher priced equipment, based on a comparison with suspect methodology.

What is more disingenuous, in my estimation, is to twist the meaning of someone's words to suit your own purpose.  I said, several times in fact, that cost does not always closely correlate with performance.  You construed that to mean "cost never correlates with performance," which is something I am quite certain I haven't said.

I'm far less concerned about people with money to burn.  There are no doubt countless numbers of folks available to tell them how spend the big wads of cash they have at their disposal.  Someone on a real budget with limited funds is in a completely different situation.  I figure that once they get into vinyl and experience it for themselves, they will be able to figure out the value proposition on their own and won't need much help from people like us.  But they can't get there unless they get in.

Enjoy the music.

Please do the same.

--Jerome

[Mortsnets]

I really appreciate this message.  For some reason I assume decent analog takes mega bucks even though with cd players and speakers and amps I know there are inexpensive ones that I prefer to expensive models that are lauded in reviews.

[*Scotty*]

My experience relates more to what I have heard due to technological differences between TTs rather than a large price differences.
I ran a Denon DP 1100 for over decade and saw a review of the Maplenoll Athena table in Stereophile's Oct 1988 issue and I lusted after it. my friend Stan W. had one and said it sounded very good!
 In 1995, remembering Stan's endorsement I saw a chance to buy a used Maplenoll Ariadne for $400, I put another $300 into a Gates double diaphragm vacuum/pressure pump and $150 into custom built schedule 40 PVC pressure storage/filters for the air supply. A total of $850 spent and I was ready to rock. The Denon is a conventionally designed TT with a pivoted arm and the Maplenoll Ariadne has an air bearing tonearm  and platter. The plinth is a composite construction of layers of lead and mdf with a 1/2 thick "skin" of Corian on the outside of the table.
 While there is a substantial price difference between the two tables, the Ariadne sold for £2500 in Britain in 1992, I think the dramatic differences I heard in favor of the linear tracking air-bearing Ariadne were due fundamental differences in design between the tables more so than the price differences. Perhaps when both tables share the same fundamental design characteristics there may not always be as big a performance difference as might supposed.
 In my 40 some years in the hobby I have also frequently seen a lack of consistent correlation between price and performance in products intended for the "audiophile" market.
Scotty

[Early B.]

I hear much less of a difference with preamps, power amplifiers, and phono preamps.  Cables?  Don't get me started on cables.  If someone else believes they make a big audible difference then I'm happy for them.  My experience doesn't agree and I'll leave it at that.

If you can't hear differences in cables, and less differences between preamps and amps, then I understand how you arrived at your conclusions. 

With that being said, you also gotta acknowledge that as audiophiles, we tend to seek and destroy all weak links in our system. There's a caste system in audio -- high quality must mate with high quality. For instance, a high dollar component connected with a budget cable is incompatible. That's like putting a set of $50 re-treads on a Lamborghini. Yeah, it's still a badass, super expensive vehicle that will function quite well, but its highest level of performance will be limited, and you'll never know the capabilities of the car until you put higher quality tires on it.

Many high end audio manufacturers add a caveat in their manual which basically states that you should use high quality cables with their gear. Price should be the first determinant for gauging quality. There will always be exceptions, but a $20 IC is not likely to out perform or sound just as good as a $1,000 IC. Of course, the "I can't hear any differences in cables" crowd might be OK with your conclusions, but most others not so much.

[neobop]

In my 40 some years in the hobby I have also frequently seen a lack of consistent correlation between price and performance in products intended for the "audiophile" market.
Scotty

+1

neo

[jsaliga]

This is to Wayner...just in case you were wondering it was cognac. 

--Jerome

[Wayner]

Everybody loves a happy ending!

'ner

[jsaliga]

I let this sit overnight to see if the original post I'm responding to read any better in the morning.  It didn't.

 
With that being said, you also gotta acknowledge that as audiophiles, we tend to seek and destroy all weak links in our system. There's a caste system in audio -- high quality must mate with high quality. For instance, a high dollar component connected with a budget cable is incompatible. That's like putting a set of $50 re-treads on a Lamborghini. Yeah, it's still a badass, super expensive vehicle that will function quite well, but its highest level of performance will be limited, and you'll never know the capabilities of the car until you put higher quality tires on it.

What you seem to not understand is that I am an audiophile too, for 42 years.  Just one with an electrical engineering background who doesn't accept much of the deeply flawed conventional audiophile "wisdom" that seems to pervade this hobby.

Many high end audio manufacturers add a caveat in their manual which basically states that you should use high quality cables with their gear. Price should be the first determinant for gauging quality. There will always be exceptions, but a $20 IC is not likely to out perform or sound just as good as a $1,000 IC. Of course, the "I can't hear any differences in cables" crowd might be OK with your conclusions, but most others not so much.

Really?  Which ones?  And you cannot seriously expect me to accept your statement that "price should be the first determinant for gauging quality."  I just had a similar discussion with someone else that was on the verge of getting heated.  Don't really want to have another.  Cling to your beliefs about cables and the so called audio caste system if you must, just don't have any illusions that I'll buy into them.

Cheers.

--Jerome

[GentleBender]

Great thread jsaliga!

I started out with an under $500 system and sounded great for the small investment. This hobby started after a rekindled interest in music and the purchase of Audio Technica LP-120 USB turntable for $212 a $149 cheap Speakercraft Vital amp with phono along with the purchase of some used Polk Monitor 60 speakers for $125. Not counting the cheap cables the cost was under $500. This led me further down the path, but I don't think people should be scared of starting at the lower end and moving up when there is a need/want.

Don't expect a $5000 system to sound 100X better than a well built $500 system though. Take time and do research before making purchases.

[rooze]

For many years the Linn Audio founder Ivor Tiefenbrun ranted about spending a disproportionately high amount of system funds on the source, citing the simple logic that if you lose it at the front of the system it's impossible to recover later on. Some people believed him.

Then there's the compound mark-up issue to consider in the final cost of the component. Some of the stuff floating around with high sticker prices is actually fairly modest gear in terms of parts cost and engineering quality, particularly if it has originated in parts of Europe and has found its way to the USA via a broker/importer.
Both these examples tend to support the OP and his views, not that he's looking for support.

I tend to believe in system synergy...not some magical element with roots in the occult, but the sympathetic matching of (electrical) properties through each step of the system. This can undoubtedly result in the introduction of expensive components into modest systems which take some aspect of the final sound backwards. I've also encountered systems compiled entirely from high-end components which sounded poor to my ears.
Then there are mismatched systems which are crying out to have one or two components replaced so that the system as a whole can shine.

Take your pick...

[tmazz]

"You're assuming that less costly equipment employs inferior designs and cheaper parts, and the inference you're making is that such products will yield inferior performance."

That is not an assumption. That is fact. Everyone is in it to sell a product for profit. Less costly equipment, especially something at the level of the iphono, is priced to a point, and has to make design and parts sacrifices based on cost. This effects the end quality of the sound. 

I'm sorry, but this is not a fact. Where it is true that a lower priced component will have a lower parts  budget that does mean that that it has an inferior design and will always lead to inferior performance. While I don't disagree that more often than not this is the case, that does not mean that a good engineer couldn't come up with an outstanding design that synergistically matches less expensive parts to and results in a component that performs way better than it has a right to based on its price. We all know people that carefully  put together systems that in totality sound much better than we would expect given the units the put into, why is it not possible for a designer to do the same thing  with an individual component.

Likewise just because somebody has a big budget and can buy a bunch of better parts, it does not necessarily guarantee good results.

I don't think anybody would agree that you can get only so far with a given parts budget and that  better parts can lead to a better sounding design, but the point that I believe Jerome is trying to make is that a high price tag in and of itself does not mean that  you will get a better sounding unit.(He never said there are no $4500 phono stages that are better than the iFi, jusrt that he had experience with one particular unit that he felt was not better.)  A higher priced unit can sound better, it may do so quite often, but it is not always a slam dunk.

And beyond that"better sound" at some point may not lead to greater musical enjoyment. If you are simply a gearhead and the only thing you use music for is as a test signal to evaluate electronics you may never get to that point and if that is what makes you happy there is nothing wrong with that. But if you are in this hobby for the joy of musical pleasure there comes a point where the sound is good enough to get you involved with the music and any improvement beyond that will not enhance that musical enjoyment to any great extent.  Now that point is understandably a personal opinion and will vary from person to person. But I think one of the underlying themes of the original post is the idea of when is "good" good enough. And that seems to have gotten lost

[GentleBender]

I'm sorry, but this is not a fact. Where it is true that a lower priced component will have a lower parts  budget that does mean that that it has an inferior design and will always lead to inferior performance. While I don't disagree that more often than not this is the case, that does not mean that a good engineer couldn't come up with an outstanding design that synergistically matches less expensive parts to and results in a component that performs way better than it has a right to based on its price. We all know people that carefully  put together systems that in totality sound much better than we would expect given the units the put into, why is it not possible for a designer to do the same thing  with an individual component.

Likewise just because somebody has a big budget and can buy a bunch of better parts, it does not necessarily guarantee good results.

I don't think anybody would agree that you can get only so far with a given parts budget and that  better parts can lead to a better sounding design, but the point that I believe Jerome is trying to make is that a high price tag in and of itself does not mean that  you will get a better sounding unit.(He never said there are no $4500 phono stages that are better than the iFi, jusrt that he had experience with one particular unit that he felt was not better.)  A higher priced unit can sound better, it may do so quite often, but it is not always a slam dunk.

And beyond that"better sound" at some point may not lead to greater musical enjoyment. If you are simply a gearhead and the only thing you use music for is as a test signal to evaluate electronics you may never get to that point and if that is what makes you happy there is nothing wrong with that. But if you are in this hobby for the joy of musical pleasure there comes a point where the sound is good enough to get you involved with the music and any improvement beyond that will not enhance that musical enjoyment to any great extent.  Now that point is understandably a personal opinion and will vary from person to person. But I think one of the underlying themes of the original post is the idea of when is "good" good enough. And that seems to have gotten lost

I can wholeheartedly agree with this.