View Full Version : The price is right....or is it?
Firebottle
15-05-2014, 16:56
Taking a quote from Nat on another thread:
"Small private sellers do exploit the audiophile market in this way - a small ebay example: tiny bubble levels you can place on tonearms to set azimuth. About 10p each Chinese wholesale, sold on for profit as replacement camera tripod etc bubble levels = £1 (nice profit!). Sold to Audiophiles for turntables: £7 ! (7 times the profit for the same thing? why?).
Kind of like there is no true competition, no-one wants to upset the gravy (apple sauce?) cart - the prices remain high because no-one wants to decrease the potential profiteering opportunities, human beings tend towards unspoken cartels if everyone's interests are the same. Then someone like Beresford comes along and Stockholm syndrome kicks in - audiophiles still enjoy paying high prices, rather than re-assessing the value/prices of the kit they were buying."
After a lot of research into best practice for valve phono stages I came up with the design of my current phono stage.
For a little background I looked at availability of suitable valves at realistic prices, so not following the crowd of using ECC8x paid dividends.
Taking an unusual approach to to the power supply, whilst still providing a regulated supply, has also led to a low cost solution.
Sourcing components from world wide suppliers, particularly critical capacitor types for the EQ and signal path works wonders in reducing costs also.
I've recently had the good fortune to evaluate the Firebottle phono stage in a system totalling £17K, with rather good results.
So the real question is what is the real worth of a high performance valve MC/MM phono stage?
Is there too much hype surrounding valve equipment? Admittedly the quality of design/components/styling has big influences on perceived value, but what do you consider is good value per pound(other currencies also apply)?
:scratch: Alan
Gordon Steadman
15-05-2014, 17:18
I think the main problem nowadays is twofold.
Firstly, the specialist market has shrunk and there are fewer punters to be chased. The second is the cost of running a traditional business. The cost of living in general and the cost of premises in particular means that prices have almost nothing to do with costs any more but with how much can we screw out of this business to survive.
In theory, those working from home should have the advantage.
Not everybody charges as much as they could of course:)
PS I don't believe there is too much hype around valves. They are as good as any other way of making noises as far as I can see. I'm quite sure you could design a brilliant SS phono amp too but it wouldn't glow so nicely.
I'm not surprised private sellers price audio ephemera sky high - if they see that audiophiles are prepared to pay £500+ for a short length of cable...
The vendor/consumer interface has always been this way, especially with luxury goods.
Pile it high and sell it cheap, or have a rare or bespoke product to sell, quite possibly fuelled by illogical desires. Fashion is a good example of that model where a designer label handbag costing many thousands is still only a handbag, the same FUNCTIONAL item you could buy in a pound shop. I was watching a recording of some pawn business last night that specialises in loans for luxury goods like cars, boats, jewellery and works of art. Man paid close on £200,000 for a Ferrari and the pawn business was prepared to advance him a loan of up to £100,000 or thereabouts. That Ferrari wouldn't entice me to buy it even if I won the lotty and all it's claimed performance figures mean SFA when it's at a standstill behind me in a traffic jam. Now if some wings extended and it flew . . . . . . . :eyebrows:
Anything is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it at the end of the day. Some ebay sellers with their ambitious pricing could learn something from that sage advice :lol:
OMG ! A thread started by quoting one of my cynical ramblings! I've never been so faux-horrified in my life. :eek:
It depends what we're talking of here .
Things made from materials from other industries and then sold to audiophools touted as being an amazing new material (some vibration supports spring to mind - can't remember their name - and Torlite too! ) are a definate con VFM wise, they may well make sonic differences of course.
Things which are definately made for other industries but then sold to audiophools with a pumped up price - like those bubble levels, digital scales - are a con VFM wise.
Then we have the catagory of things which are very cheap to make but the construction is a secret or sealed away somehow can be the biggest cons VFM wise - like some cables or plug-in mains filters (which are just a cheap circuits costing pence to make in bulk but sold at high price to appear special). I've always wanted to know what is inside Black Ravioli isolation for example - I bet it is some regular material from another industry which has been packaged an hidden from view to create a mystical aura around it.
All you need to do when selling the above is to create such an uncertainty in the consumer that the cheap version isn't EXACTLY the same as the audiophool version that they'll give in and just pay the money to be sure! All that requires is to keep shtum and refuse to discuss construction - always a bad signal for a product IMHO ..
It is simply monetizing ignorance..
But, pretty much the hifi industry is a luxury industry which sometimes requires high pricing to give it's performance credibility! That's the fault of the consumer..
To create that brand (even for a single product) you need to create hype and make it appear desirable and you will need a good PR machine or distribution to get it sold all around the world and so show the world that you invented something sonically great. For that sonically beneficial product to get to market, people on the selling side of the industry will need to be financially incentivised by good mark-ups in order to go through that process of making it desirable. You kind of pay the dealer just to bring it to your attention, to make you want it - and if it really is a good cable or whatever then perhaps you just put it down to the way of life, but your system sounds better now.
Then again, in many spheres of life we have a more open-source environment growing with people passing on all sorts of designs and information - it's the internet age phenomenon.
So there ends up a larger and larger disparity and disconnect between the VFM of things people pay through the nose for and the VFM of those which you can make yourself or get someone else to make for you with some cash thrown in to reward for effort of the design, the art of it.
Paying pound per sound is a dead model because of the internet. The internet and availability of information - to those clued up enough to look for it anyway - makes the pound per sound model look more and more like you're being shafted! IMHO obviously..
They are my thoughts anyway..
Wakefield Turntables
15-05-2014, 20:12
I'm not surprised private sellers price audio ephemera sky high - if they see that audiophiles are prepared to pay £500+ for a short length of cable...
Mark, your straight to the point comments always make me laugh. :)
But, pretty much the hifi industry is a luxury industry which sometimes requires high pricing to give it's performance credibility! That's the fault of the consumer..
To create that brand (even for a single product) you need to create hype and make it appear desirable and you will need a good PR machine or distribution to get it sold all around the world and so show the world that you invented something sonically great. For that sonically beneficial product to get to market, people on the selling side of the industry will need to be financially incentivised by good mark-ups in order to go through that process of making it desirable. You kind of pay the dealer just to bring it to your attention, to make you want it - and if it really is a good cable or whatever then perhaps you just put it down to the way of life, but your system sounds better now.
Then again, in many spheres of life we have a more open-source environment growing with people passing on all sorts of designs and information - it's the internet age phenomenon.
So there ends up a larger and larger disparity and disconnect between the VFM of things people pay through the nose for and the VFM of those which you can make yourself or get someone else to make for you with some cash thrown in to reward for effort of the design, the art of it.
Paying pound per sound is a dead model because of the internet. The internet and availability of information - to those clued up enough to look for it anyway - makes the pound per sound model look more and more like you're being shafted! IMHO obviously..
They are my thoughts anyway..
I have been in and out of the industry a few times over the years and have seen changes in the way it operates that people like yourself probably have no experience of.
As you say, it is a luxury market and needs to be treated accordingly. It's market penetration is diminishing for sure and because of that prices have to rise in line with demand. The big supermarkets use the "pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap" model because they have predictable traffic flows through their doors, but the average hi-fi dealer these days is probably looking at an empty shop most of the time, with a goodly percentage that do come through the door have no real intention of buying anything and those that do, want a home dem delivered and installed usually by the dealer. That stock gets even a small scratch and that's their profit down the drain.
I disagree that high pricing will generate any credibility, nor is hype and desirability essential for any hi-fi product. You can hype away until the cows come home, but the internet effectively sees to it that any product that does not live up to the hype soon becomes highly undesirable when the smoke and mirrors is blown away. Before the advent of the internet good or bad news could not travel quickly enough because there was only the magazines as a central focus point of contact. It could take months or even years for that bubble to burst and a lot of people lost a lot of money because of it.
It's all well and good having an "open source" of information, BUT, that is an entirely selfish viewpoint and I would ask you to turn the tables to imagine that it was YOU that spent many years and every spare penny you had creating a new innovative product, only to chuck it out on the internet FOR FREE and let the vultures descend on it? I think not somehow.
Techno Commander
15-05-2014, 22:14
Hence why I look to the pro audio industry for inspiration and equipment.
Mr Kipling
15-05-2014, 22:54
I've always wanted to know what is inside Black Ravioli isolation for example - I bet it is some regular material from another industry…
My guess Nat would be a sirloin of steak. Or possibly chicken.
Nothing against Mark as I use one of his top notch tone arms and he is a gent, but 5 nylon washers for £7 or 100 for £2.60 off eBay. Take your choice. I've got 98 left over.
http://www.originlive.com/tonearm-options-extras/spare-parts-for-ol-arms/cartridge-upgrade-using-5-nylon-washers.html
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/M3-M4-M5-M6-M8-M10-M12-WHITE-NYLON-FLAT-FORM-A-WASHERS-PLASTIC-WASHER-/231172710368?pt=UK_DIY_Material_Nails_Fixing_MJ&var=&hash=item35d2f79fe0
And another one - my little lad has sorbothane insoles for his trainers, under £10 a pair, might get some, cut them up and stick them under my Turntable.
I have only recently bought equipment after quite a long period out of the box and cable swapping milarky.
To re educate myself I set about buying magazines, researching the internet and joined forums. I nearly chocked when I saw the prices being asked for items and could not believe the prices being asked for speakers, turntables and cables, after all in the period I had stopped buying, white goods had hardly moved in price!
So I started thinking why had the hifi industry become what seemed to me a rich mans toy. Had it now become a luxury item like some watches, sunglasses and cars or were there so few people buying that in order to make a profit on the few units they were selling that had to crank the price up to eye watering levels!!
I think the answer may lie somewhere in between.. However unfortunately for many of us audiophiles many mAny of these products are priced way beyond our capabilities so we have to scratch around on the second hand market or look to the Beresfords and Crofts of this world to get out fix at relatively affordable prices.
What I have learnt on my journey back to audio nirvana is that it makes you much more creative and imaginative when putting together a system and quite often the price of a fantastic sounding piece of kit does not require you to remortgage the house.
Some bemoan the fact that there is no middle ground anymore, you can either buy budget gear or eye-wateringly expensive gear and nothing in between. personally I think this is a good thing as it provides some focus. If you go to Richer sounds you can buy an amp and some small 2 way speakers and have change from £400. Or you could go to Hi-Fi Serious and drop £4K on an amp and small 2 way speakers (lets leave the source out of it for the moment) but the £400 system is going to give you 90%, maybe even 95% of what the £4K system does. So why drop the £4K unless you have money to burn?
I think a lot of manufacturers cottoned on to this a long time ago, consequently instead of chasing volume sales they produce a new product which they could sell retail at £2K and make money on, ensure that they get a few good reviews in the mags and internet and stick a £10K price tag on it. That way they only need to sell a few a year to make a good income and it's a big planet with a lot of wealthy people so that is pretty much guaranteed. Add to that the 'it's cheap so it can't be any good' brigade who still thrive despite the increasingly obvious idiocy of their position and it all makes sense.
Ali Tait
16-05-2014, 07:55
It works both ways though, I think a lot of manufacturers deliberately de-tune their cheaper gear in an effort to get people to spend more.
jandl100
16-05-2014, 08:12
Some bemoan the fact that there is no middle ground anymore, you can either buy budget gear or eye-wateringly expensive gear and nothing in between.
I'm baffled why people keep saying this - you can buy any type of gear at pretty much any price. :scratch:
... the £400 system is going to give you 90%, maybe even 95% of what the £4K system does.
No, it won't. If you've spent your money sensibly the £4k system will grind the £400 one into the dust. And a well thought out £40k system will do the same to the £4k system.;)
Some bemoan the fact that there is no middle ground anymore, you can either buy budget gear or eye-wateringly expensive gear and nothing in between. personally I think this is a good thing as it provides some focus. If you go to Richer sounds you can buy an amp and some small 2 way speakers and have change from £400. Or you could go to Hi-Fi Serious and drop £4K on an amp and small 2 way speakers (lets leave the source out of it for the moment) but the £400 system is going to give you 90%, maybe even 95% of what the £4K system does. So why drop the £4K unless you have money to burn?
I think a lot of manufacturers cottoned on to this a long time ago, consequently instead of chasing volume sales they produce a new product which they could sell retail at £2K and make money on, ensure that they get a few good reviews in the mags and internet and stick a £10K price tag on it. That way they only need to sell a few a year to make a good income and it's a big planet with a lot of wealthy people so that is pretty much guaranteed. Add to that the 'it's cheap so it can't be any good' brigade who still thrive despite the increasingly obvious idiocy of their position and it all makes sense.
I think you have a point here Martin. I have spoken to some dealers and they have said they only need to sell a couple of x, y or z items in order to make enough profit for the year. Maybe it's easier to sell a couple of very expensive items rather than have to sell lots of boxes in order to make a buck?
I'm baffled why people keep saying this - you can buy any type of gear at pretty much any price. :scratch:
No, it won't. If you've spent your money sensibly the £4k system will grind the £400 one into the dust. And a well thought out £40k system will do the same to the £4k system.;)
You'll note I was careful to specify that the loudspeakers in both cases were small 2 ways...and given that I think my point still stands. Sure if you have 40K and no other constraints like space or WAF or pain in the arse neighbours you can get some mega-speakers in which case you will hear the difference.
jandl100
16-05-2014, 08:29
You'll note I was careful to specify that the loudspeakers in both cases were small 2 ways...and given that I think my point still stands. Sure if you have 40K and no other constraints like space or WAF or pain in the arse neighbours you can get some mega-speakers in which case you will hear the difference.
Ah, well, I didn't notice the "small 2 way" clause. :lol:
I guess I do agree with you after all - personally, I certainly have lavished the Big Dosh on my speakers and I am happy to use source and amps costing vastly less, especially at used prices.
No, it won't. If you've spent your money sensibly the £4k system will grind the £400 one into the dust. And a well thought out £40k system will do the same to the £4k system.;)
I have to agree with that (although I know where Martin is coming from).
The key, however, is in the highlighted text, as the results obtained will largely be governed by how judiciously the owners of said systems have chosen and assembled their respective systems, in order to achieve maximum SPPV, including how much attention has been paid to set-up (system 'infrastructure', such as how optimally it receives power from the mains supply, its use of equipment supports, cables, etc).
Therefore, I'd put it this way instead:
A judiciously chosen, assembled and optimally set-up £400 system could indeed outperform a badly chosen, assembled and sub-optimally set-up £4k system, as indeed could a judiciously chosen, assembled and optimally set-up £4k system do the same to its badly chosen, etc, £40k counterpart....
The 'optimal' £400 system could also do the same, if the £40k system in question was really bad (as can often be the case when the owner buys equipment solely on brand reputation or snob value, and pays little attention to anything else), which is why many ludicrously expensive and ridiculously over-complicated 'ultra high-end' systems at shows are often bereft of musical merit.
However, a judiciously chosen, assembled and optimally set-up £40k system should, as Jerry says, 'grind into the dust' any £400 or £4k system, judiciously chosen, etc, or otherwise.
Therefore, essentially is all about the skill of the system owner to obtain maximum SPPV from his or her choice of components and ancillaries, by successfully attending to every aspect of system performance, not the total cost of the system itself. Price alone will NEVER guarantee top sonic performance!
Marco.
My guess Nat would be a sirloin of steak. Or possibly chicken.
With a covering of PVA glue to make it last a little longer..
It's all well and good having an "open source" of information, BUT, that is an entirely selfish viewpoint and I would ask you to turn the tables to imagine that it was YOU that spent many years and every spare penny you had creating a new innovative product, only to chuck it out on the internet FOR FREE and let the vultures descend on it? I think not somehow.
I am of course coming from a different place as you say (didn't fancy a full quote in the post) - I've come entirely from the secondhand market , buying old magazines to try to work out what's out there and what was supposedly good and bad. In that context you can get so much for relatively cheap that there almost doesn't need to be an industry any more (from my way of doing things) only a servicing and upgrade industry.. Then again I'm fairly non- (sometimes even anti-) consumerist and everything electronic I use, computers, phones etc seems to be secondhand or restored or upgraded old stuff. OK, I got a 6 month old phone recently and I did buy a Blackberry Playbook cos they were discontinuing them for very cheap... otherwise..
Still, I don't see that it's anyone's particular right to earn a living in any field - you make it work or you don't! If people don't want to pay for new expensive gear because they can have a boutique manufacturer make something just as good from vintage valves etc, then that's the market and that's the competition. No subsidies for a flailing industry unless there is some kind of cultural heritage involved.
I noticed that a dealer's ebay account had clocked up £120k in sales in last month alone! Selling some DIY stuff, cables, vinyl care products.. some sub £500 good gear too, but not the mainstay of their sales. (Use www.goofbay.com ebay tools to check on seller's turnover for the last 30 days..)
The service market, upgrade market! £120k per month! OK, might be a peak time of year but still.. they've got the right idea. That could subsidise getting a good product to market, even as a deliberate tax loss. I remember a small youtube video by eBay from a seller called Good-Hifi (no longer trading) had a £1m or so annual turnover with old Leak tuners, vintage stuff.. said he could do more but didn't want to get bogged down in hiring other employees..
In other words, there's plenty of money about in the hobby but big ticket items are not looking as good value for money these days. People can ask what they want for stuff, their right, but they've no reason to expect people to go along with it. The market will speak (as free market fans will say).
Some good points there, Nat. I am not one of these 'the hobby is dying' moaners. That was the cry over twenty years ago if it were true there would be nothing left by now. And if the number of enthusiasts is dwindling then I would like to know who these f*ckers are who are always bidding against me on eBay :) There may be less brick and mortar dealers than there used to be but that was probably because that sector became over-subscribed by the end of the 'Seventies and is still being shaken out. Much like Public Houses, a lot have closed down but it is still not difficult to find one within striking distance if you need to.
Added to that the story is different in the middle and far east where they are really just getting started. Different cultures to the West but if anything they place more value on music, not less. it only takes hi-fi to become aspirational in India or China, or even Brazil and that market will dwarf by several orders of magnitude what we saw in Europe/North America 40 years ago in the 'golden age'.
Well a lot of us also fuel our addictions on recycling or reusing secondhand components, but that also has a finite lifespan. If NOBODY buys anything new then the source will dry up, simply because of availability and because the rarity factor will also push prices up dramatically - as we are already starting to see, with ludicrous prices being asked for items that went for less than a tenner or remained unsold only a few short years ago.
I think that people's ability to spend very much depends upon their ultimate disposable income and we have of course seen a serious erosion of that in the past few years, which may or may not ever return to their former levels. When people do have that spare cash in their pockets then they are less inclined to fret about the price tag.
Well a lot of us also fuel our addictions on recycling or reusing secondhand components, but that also has a finite lifespan. If NOBODY buys anything new then the source will dry up, simply because of availability and because the rarity factor will also push prices up dramatically - .
That's never going to happen. It makes no financial sense to buy a brand new car but that doesn't stop people, in fact new car sales are increasing.
My guess Nat would be a sirloin of steak. Or possibly chicken.
Quality Avatar Mr K
What is it exactly?
Marco.
I think that people's ability to spend very much depends upon their ultimate disposable income and we have of course seen a serious erosion of that in the past few years, which may or may not ever return to their former levels. When people do have that spare cash in their pockets then they are less inclined to fret about the price tag.
Having a reasonable disposable income, I buy whatever I consider is best within the price range I'm willing to pay - but regardless of how much disposable income I have, I'll always seek to obtain the highest VFM, or when it comes to hi-fi, SPPV. Even if I was a multi-millionaire, I'd still be haggling for the best cash deal I could get on any major purchase, because that's just me. It's in my DNA, so would simply go against the grain to do otherwise.
Also, whether something is new or old doesn't concern me in the slightest; what matters is how well it fulfils my requirements (i.e. it acting in a specific context as my version of 'best').
Unfortunately, when it comes to hi-fi, most vintage gear, at its best, outperforms much of what's made today, and when comparing it with today's 'high-end' equipment, often at a fraction of the price. This is especially true when upgrading the best vintage equipment with the highest quality modern electrical components, which often results in one obtaining the best of both worlds, and a system that can compete, sonically and musically, with virtually anything that's available new.
For the last 10 years or so, that's been my approach to audio - and it's proved to be very successful!
Marco.
julesd68
16-05-2014, 11:42
So the real question is what is the real worth of a high performance valve MC/MM phono stage?
Hi Alan, the real worth is going to be different for most people so I will try to answer your question purely from a personal perspective. I'm one of those people who needs to sell something to buy something, so am restricted by the worth of my current gear. My valve phono-stages have been two Croft prototypes, a Puresound P10 and finally a Conrad Jonhson EV1. The EV1 used to retail for £1800 but I was lucky enough to buy it mint for a fraction of that - I could never have dreamt of buying one new. I like the discreet styling of it but more importantly I like the sound which was a significant step up from the excellent P10. As yet have not thought about changing it. It is MM/MC for carts above 0.5mv. I would only consider selling it for a stage that offered increased performance for less money, so I would only consider buying your stage on that basis. Am not sure what you sell it for. I'd be interested to know what valves you are using as mine has 2 x 12AX7, 1 x 12AU7 and 1 x 5751.
Is there too much hype surrounding valve equipment?
Not on this forum at least!
Ali Tait
16-05-2014, 13:45
Alan, I would say your one box MM/MC stage would retail at 1-1.5k if put in a bling box and sold by a major manufacturer. Certainly the SQ on offer would justify such a price tag IMHO.
You could probably add another £500 to 1k for the two box version, depending on components used in the build and whether it was a balanced version or not.
Firebottle
16-05-2014, 14:49
I'd be interested to know what valves you are using as mine has 2 x 12AX7, 1 x 12AU7 and 1 x 5751.
Hi Julian,
Thanks for that reply, as I said my choice of valves is unusual, 2 x PCF80 plus PCC189, with 2 JFETs for the MC input.
The unit is all hard wired apart from the JFET stage and I'm making them for the introductory price of £290.
:cool: Alan
Mr Kipling
16-05-2014, 18:28
What is it exactly?
Marco.
I'll let Geoff (walpurgis) enlighten you. I always liked it for its simplicity and form, especially when mounted on its stand.
I mentioned this on the infamous cable thread. Some say it all comes down to personal choice. If someone wants to blow £500 on interconnects, well, that's their choice. I still find it hard to see it that way, but that's just me.
It's hardly anything new though, as has already been said. Perhaps hi-fi dave can tell us what the cost price to Linn for the Ittok was, and compare that to the retail price they sold it for.
I'll let Geoff (walpurgis) enlighten you. I always liked it for its simplicity and form, especially when mounted on its stand.
I mentioned this on the infamous cable thread. Some say it all comes down to personal choice. If someone wants to blow £500 on interconnects, well, that's their choice. I still find it hard to see it that way, but that's just me.
It's hardly anything new though, as has already been said. Perhaps hi-fi dave can tell us what the cost price to Linn for the Ittok was, and compare that to the retail price they sold it for.
Don't know about the Ittok, but I believe Linn bought the Grace 707 arms in for £30 a piece and sold them on for ~£150.
julesd68
17-05-2014, 10:32
Hi Julian,
Thanks for that reply, as I said my choice of valves is unusual, 2 x PCF80 plus PCC189, with 2 JFETs for the MC input.
The unit is all hard wired apart from the JFET stage and I'm making them for the introductory price of £290.
Interesting - never even heard of those tubes!
Couple of questions - are you able to offer 'bespoke' cases if people want something a bit different to the stock case? And in terms of testing or feedback you have got, what kind of 'level' of phono stage have you been comparing yours to?
Ali Tait
17-05-2014, 10:43
They are the same valves as ECF80 and ECC189, except the heaters are wired in series rather than parallel.
Firebottle
17-05-2014, 11:21
Julian I will happily build into a different case if you wish.
I have recently compared the Firebottle Phono with a Croft 25R. There was a small tonal difference which I think is due to Glen Croft using a non RIAA equalisation curve.
I have also had an albeit too brief comparison with a Graaf GM70 phono, during which I couldn't tell a difference. The gain for both is very similar.
Ali - the P series of valve have a fixed current rating of 300mA for the heater, so some might require 7.6V and others 9.6V, or in between.
:cool: Alan
I have recently compared the Firebottle Phono with a Croft 25R. There was a small tonal difference which I think is due to Glen Croft using a non RIAA equalisation curve.
Hi Alan,
Interesting... Could you please expand on the small tonal difference you heard, by describing it, and also in what way Glenn's phono stages use a non RIAA equalisation curve, i.e. what is the recognised standard and how does the curve Glenn uses differ?
As a long-term owner of a Croft Charisma-X preamp, with its superb built-in phono stage, I've been aware that it's always sounded different/more 'musical', to my ears, than any other phono stages I've heard or used, so some rationale for what I've experienced would be good! :)
Marco.
Firebottle
17-05-2014, 14:17
Hi Marco,
Yes it is interesting and I am keen to learn what it is that gives the Croft preamps their 'voicing'.
I'm rather making assumptions (why I said I think..) about the non-RIAA eq as I haven't got the circuits to hand at the moment, but will be following this up.
From what I have read Glen is a huge fan of Decca carts and has tailored the eq to match.
The tonal difference was slight, a more 'full bodied' sound from the Firebottle phono, as if the lower mid range was a little stronger in comparison.
I know that Croft kit incorporates feedback equalisation whereas I opt for passive.
I'm on the case to find out more :scratch:
Alan
Nice one... Yup, Glenn is defo a big fan of Deccas, although if his phono stages have been voiced to match them, I've not noticed any incompatibility, as a result, sonically or electrically, with other cartridges. However, most of the time my MM stage is being used in conjunction with an MC head amp or step-up transformer.
Do bear in mind, too, that my preamp is the old type, which uses the octal-style 6SL7 valves, as opposed to the current varieties inside the 25R, and which do sound rather different :)
Marco.
I think the Lampizator example (which I guess is based on Audio Note et al) of upgrades along the line is a good one to follow for boutique products.
More features or better parts for different levels of performance. It gets the mouth watering, imagining what the next level up sounds like.
Firebottle
17-05-2014, 19:55
I certainly have no objection to anyone taking that approach but I have initially taken the approach of maximum sound for minimum buck :eyebrows:
:cool: Alan
At the moment.. but you might play around and find improvements later on.
And anyway, some people will just pay to see brand name components inside their gear or pay to have something different to other people's (they perceive to be superior).
....but I have initially taken the approach of maximum sound for minimum buck :eyebrows:
Good man - it's the mantra of AoS! :thumbsup:
Marco.
Mr Kipling
18-05-2014, 08:41
Perhaps the Croft uses the Teldec (Telefunken/Decca) response curve. This replaces the 75us time constant with a 50us one.
The Barbarian
18-05-2014, 08:46
I certainly have no objection to anyone taking that approach but I have initially taken the approach of maximum sound for minimum buck :eyebrows:
Yep i personally frown upon people that spend redicularse amounts of dosh on equipment, especially when i know damn well better can be had for cheaper..However we all know that badges & price tags are the most important thing in choice for some people..
istari_knight
18-05-2014, 08:53
When all is said & done who is the greater music lover ? The man with 10 albums and a £5K hifi or the man with thousands of albums and a £100 hifi ?
... Neither of course ! Its the guy with thousands of albums and a £5K hifi for he not only loves the music but desires to hear it exactly as the artist intended :ner:
I'd put it another way:
Who is the greatest music lover - the man with 500 albums, from his favourite artists, and a £1k system, who plays every one of those albums regularly, and knows them inside out, or the man with 10,000 albums, and a £10k system, who only listens to a small fraction of those albums regularly, and because he's got so many, forgets most of them exist?
;)
The value of the system is irrelevant (as to an extent is the ABSOLUTE SIZE of the music collection); it's how often the latter gets listened to that matters most!
Marco.
The Barbarian
18-05-2014, 09:09
I know quite a few proper music lovers all have very large collections all have simple cheap systems.
On a totally different note ever see that programme through the key ole looking around all those famous peoples houses through the years never once did i see a flashy Hi-Fi system.
The Barbarian
18-05-2014, 09:12
Marco:
That spooky because i decided a while back that LP's i don't play on a regular basis are not staying & also i will not let my record collection reach more than 100 LP's.. I absolutly do not see the point in hoarding records for large collections sake..
Collecting records for the sake of it is a separate hobby in itself. You can be not bothered about the sound and not even listen to that much music but still be a record collector. I've never collected anything as an end in itself but I can understand the mentality. I'm not sure 100 records would be enough for me though, I could probably cut down to maybe 300 but no less otherwise there is not enough to have a regular rotation without getting bored.
Gordon Steadman
18-05-2014, 09:23
Who is the greatest music lover - the man with 500 albums, from his favourite artists, and a £1k system, who plays every one of those albums regularly, and knows them inside out, or the man with 10,000 albums, and a £10k system, who only listens to a small fraction of those albums regularly, and because he's got so many, forgets most of them exist?
Much as I enjoy vinyl, this is one of the joys of a computer based system. My entire collection is laid out with such easy access that I listen to a much greater number of my 'records' than I used to. This in spite of the main Mac not being in the main hi-fi. Listening casually at the desk keeps reminding me of forgotten music which I can then put on the big rig to fully appreciate.
I totally get where you're coming from, dude.
However, for me, it's not about the SIZE of music collection, but the QUALITY of it - and by that I mean the quality of it to the owner, i.e. that it consists 100% of stuff he or she values and enjoys listening to, and crucially, plays on a regular basis.
There's little point in having 10,000 albums, if only 5% of that regularly sees the light of day, or if 50% of it is shite you no longer like! :eyebrows:
In the case of the latter, get rid of it or sell it to someone else who will appreciate it. In that respect, thinning down one's collection makes perfect sense, as it makes you appreciate more what you've got left :)
Marco.
jandl100
18-05-2014, 09:29
it's not about the SIZE , but the QUALITY of it
that's what I keep telling my wife :lol:
Much as I enjoy vinyl, this is one of the joys of a computer based system. My entire collection is laid out with such easy access that I listen to a much greater number of my 'records' than I used to. This in spite of the main Mac not being in the main hi-fi. Listening casually at the desk keeps reminding me of forgotten music which I can then put on the big rig to fully appreciate.
I totally get that, Gordon. However, I'm different. All my records are neatly stored on shelves and categorised in genre and alphabetical order - all sharing the same room as my system, and only a few feet away from where I sit.
Therefore, depending on the mood I'm in, and what I fancy listening to, on vinyl or CD, I can access the album and play it in seconds (much quicker than waiting for some computers to boot up), and still have the joy of handling my precious album covers, and reading the sleeve notes as I listen to the music.
That 'emotional connection' I obtain from owning a physical music collection is fundamentally important to me, and with having a well-organised set up, convenience isn't compromised either :)
Marco.
that's what I keep telling my wife :lol:
At your age, the worry is more likely getting it 'up' and keeping it there!! :bonk: :D
Marco.
jandl100
18-05-2014, 09:45
there are medicines to help ... ;)
istari_knight
18-05-2014, 10:30
Surely everyone's music collection gathers some rubbish over the years that need pruning out every now & then but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... A couple of years ago I sold all my metal albums because at the time I didn't want to hear them & couldn't foresee a time I ever would again, fast forward to today & I can think of quite a few I wouldn't mind playing :doh:
Tastes evolve but they can also regress ! I would advise keeping albums you rarely listen rather than selling/disposing. Store them elsewhere, in the loft, lock up or wherever... Just don't get rid !
These days I just have to click "delete from library, keep file" - I've still got it but don't have to look at it :D
Mr Kipling
18-05-2014, 10:45
Many years ago I sold a few albums and got next to nothing for them. I promised myself I would never sell any again, and I haven't.
Surely everyone's music collection gathers some rubbish over the years that need pruning out every now & then but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... A couple of years ago I sold all my metal albums because at the time I didn't want to hear them & couldn't foresee a time I ever would again, fast forward to today & I can think of quite a few I wouldn't mind playing :doh:
Tastes evolve but they can also regress ! I would advise keeping albums you rarely listen rather than selling/disposing. Store them elsewhere, in the loft, lock up or wherever... Just don't get rid !
These days I just have to click "delete from library, keep file" - I've still got it but don't have to look at it :D
Maybe it's time for this thread to be resurrected: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?5042-Skeletons-in-the-cupboard :eyebrows:
I'd put it another way:
Who is the greatest music lover - the man with 500 albums, from his favourite artists, and a £1k system, who plays every one of those albums regularly, and knows them inside out, or the man with 10,000 albums, and a £10k system, who only listens to a small fraction of those albums regularly, and because he's got so many, forgets most of them exist?
;)
The value of the system is irrelevant (as to an extent is the ABSOLUTE SIZE of the music collection); it's how often the latter gets listened to that matters most!
Marco.
Or the person with next to no physical record collection, no hifi but spends a lot of time playing music with other people, recording in bands, is on the move a lot and listens to an ipod on the go?
Hifi is all about sound. Music can easily be seperated from the sound but often enjoyed more on a better system. Some great musicians just aren't so into that though, music to them is about human interacton and collective enjoyment of the musical moment.
Or the person with next to no physical record collection, no hifi but spends a lot of time playing music with other people, recording in bands, is on the move a lot and listens to an ipod on the go?
Sure, but we're talking about folk who own decent hi-fi systems. One of my pet hates on forums, and it doesn't really happen here, are people who clearly aren't very interested in hi-fi littering the audio section(s) with their cynicism and negativity.
They should simply steer clear of those areas and post solely in the music room, or avoid forums altogether. Trouble is, they can't resist 'poking' others of a different mindset (for some morbid form of 'entertainment') or using forums as vehicles to fulfil their bitter agendas... :rolleyes:
Marco.
Firebottle
19-05-2014, 09:25
Perhaps the Croft uses the Teldec (Telefunken/Decca) response curve. This replaces the 75us time constant with a 50us one.
After further research I now know that Glenn uses passive equalisation in the 25R but way off standard RIAA curves.
The lower turnover of usually 3180 uS is something like 5700 uS, whilst the upper turnover is way less than the normal 75 uS, or even 50 uS.
No wonder there was a tonal difference :eek:
Interesting, Alan. Do you know if that also applies to older Croft preamp/phono designs, such as the Epoch and Charisma, or simply to the current models, such as the 25R? :)
Marco.
Firebottle
19-05-2014, 10:32
I don't know about the older ones I'm afraid Marco, can you get a local techie to trace out the equalisation network?
Sure. I'll probably have that done when I get my new Khozmo stepped attenuator fitted. It's no biggie - just curious why, to my ears, the phono stages in Croft preamps always sound so good (better than most others I've heard), and perhaps the RIAA curve, chosen by Glenn, is partly responsible for that.
I've not listened to your designs, though! :)
Marco.
Older croft models from the late 80's/early 90's were extremely accurate on the RIAA from 10Hz or so out to 20kHz, when the response rose slightly (the rest well within half a db). I'm amazed if current models deviate so much more, although Stereophile supposedly found errors which had Glenn steaming apparently. Don't know what happened after..
Does this help - featuring my very own Croft preamp before being sold to me :) Circuit of PP model drawn, only the posts in mine are actually 1M log rather than 500k log.
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~apm3/diyaudio/Croft_preamps.html
Cheers for the info, Dave. You know me with measurements, though... I don't really give a toss. Ultimately, it's about what sounds best! :)
Marco.
I've just scanned throught this thread (I'm meant to be doing something else) but I thought I'd make a couple observations:
When I was in the industry many UK manufacturers worked on a 10 to 1 rule- whatever the 'material' cost of a component is will it will end up retailing at 10x that amount.
That might sound like a large profit, but it isn't, given that (at the time) the manufacturing process was very labour intensive (especially at naim), most were making large investments in equipement (Linn had just bought a flow solder machine and a surface mount machine) and there are many mouths to feed along the way- not least HMRC who probably took the biggest slice of the pie in truth.
I can't speak for today, especially as a fair few bits of kit are built offshore, but no doubt (in my mind) price has overtaken sound quality, however, I see the positive side of this too...
I will not be going out and buying the next box in the chain because there is a manufacturers path laid out for me to follow (according to whoever's 'house sound' you buy into) I am now forced (gladly) into thinking for myself, getting the best I can from many sources, and making use of the great number of second hand and often un-loved items out there. And, I will enjoy doing it- this is a hobby after all, not a race to the top of the food chain.
Re: music lovers v's hifi enthusiasts- having a good collection of well recorded discs that are loved and enjoyed by an enthusiast trumps the guy with 1000s of 'okay' discs that never get looked after nor have seen the light of day in years- what's the point in that? The latter is probably listening to MP3 now anyway.
I did note tho', that the better a guy's system got, the smaller his (listened to) material got, because poor recording/engineering doesn't get better with the equipement- it gets worse.
I did a dem with a couple of guys (one musician and the producer) who are in a well known UK (Oxford based) rock band, we played their latest album which was not yet released on a Gyrodeck and they were very dissapointed to say the least!
I had to break it to them that the Gyro was telling it the way it is, and that their recording was to blame, and I followed it up with proof when I put on a Buddy Holly track recorded in the 1950s which just blew them away. They both bought good Gyro based systems.
As an aside- when I installed the Gyro in the band member's home, there was a burnt 'Grammy' award sat in the fireplace grate- rock and roll.
hifi_dave
19-05-2014, 13:47
Cheers for the info, Dave. You know me with measurements, though... I don't really give a toss. Ultimately, it's about what sounds best! :)
Marco.
Sometimes, politics get in the way.
fiddlemaker
19-05-2014, 14:55
After further research I now know that Glenn uses passive equalisation in the 25R but way off standard RIAA curves.
The lower turnover of usually 3180 uS is something like 5700 uS, whilst the upper turnover is way less than the normal 75 uS, or even 50 uS.
No wonder there was a tonal difference :eek:
but wouldn't this difference in upper turnover give less hf rolloff, not more as stereophile claim to have measured?
Firebottle
19-05-2014, 15:43
The eq network is actually a little more complicated, I was just summarising.
I guess what stereophile claim is an accurate portrail,
:cool: Alan
Firebottle
19-05-2014, 15:49
Does this help - featuring my very own Croft preamp before being sold to me :) ......
Thanks Dave I have seen those, with accurate feedback eq, that's why I was surprised at my findings with the 25R.
Alan
Haselsh1
19-05-2014, 15:52
Hence why I look to the pro audio industry for inspiration and equipment.
+1 from me...!
Haselsh1
19-05-2014, 15:54
Cheers for the info, Dave. You know me with measurements, though... I don't really give a toss. Ultimately, it's about what sounds best! :)
Marco.
Such an excellent statement...!
Such an excellent statement...!
If it sounds good and measures good- then it's good. If it sounds good and measures bad- you're measuring the wrong thing.
Mr Kipling
19-05-2014, 18:43
After further research I now know that Glenn uses passive equalisation in the 25R but way off standard RIAA curves.
The lower turnover of usually 3180 uS is something like 5700 uS, whilst the upper turnover is way less than the normal 75 uS, or even 50 uS.
No wonder there was a tonal difference :eek:
I suppose it's one way of re-mastering vinyl.
fiddlemaker
19-05-2014, 19:57
Someone with a new croft preamp should just measure it if they're bothered.
What I can say is that in the past, when I've compared cd vs vinyl of the same recording, synchronised and level matched, I could detect no tonal anomalies whatsoever when switching between the two.
Mr Kipling
20-05-2014, 11:47
After further research I now know that Glenn uses passive equalisation in the 25R but way off standard RIAA curves.
The lower turnover of usually 3180 uS is something like 5700 uS, whilst the upper turnover is way less than the normal 75 uS, or even 50 uS.
No wonder there was a tonal difference :eek:
Have you tried using a 4-pole filter with the Neumann time constant?
Firebottle
20-05-2014, 12:49
No but then I don't need it as my eq is not the one in error.
I found the published results from Stereophile and the measured curve is quite wrong: http://www.stereophile.com/content/croft-acoustics-phono-integrated-integrated-amplifier-measurements
Marco - I found an earlier posting saying your Charisma was measured flat to 100KHz by AnthonyTD, I assume that includes the RIAA so no worries :)
:cool: Alan
Marco - I found an earlier posting saying your Charisma was measured flat to 100KHz by AnthonyTD, I assume that includes the RIAA so no worries :)
Indeed, Alan. It'd have been from the last time the amp was on Anthony's test bench.
Incidentally, don't get me wrong, I wasn't 'worried' if the RIAA curves Glenn had used were different from standard (far from it!) I was merely suggesting that, if that were the case, it might partly explain why the phono stages in Croft preamps always sound so superb, and better than many others.
Therefore, if Glenn had deliberately 'voiced' his phono stages in that way, by tweaking the RIAA curves, then as far as I was concerned, he was to be APPLAUDED (for the quality of his ears), not derided! ;)
I always admire audio designers who push the boundaries and challange 'currently accepted wisdom', not simply pander to what text books say is 'correct'...
Marco [who couldn't give a tinker's cuss about 'correct measurements', as long as it sounds good].
Firebottle
20-05-2014, 13:51
..... and challenge 'currently accepted wisdom'...
With that, like not needing any exotic components...oh hang on that's another one of Glenn's as well isn't it?
:cool: Alan
Yup, we need more Glenn Crofts in the audio industry! :)
Pity, though, he doesn't rate stepped attenuators or polypropylene caps much (both of which have been fitted inside my modified Charisma, to great sonic effect)....
To my ears, they're simply more accurate than their carbon-potted or electrolytic counterparts, and therefore one simply hears more of what the circuit can do! There are no downsides I can detect, unless one simply seeks a more coloured or 'warmer' sound.
Marco.
Firebottle
20-05-2014, 14:30
Can't understand why he doesn't rate polyprops. To my mind they are essential as are the ilk of polystyrene or similar/better for the eq components.
Both of these types are available for pin money compared to the exotica........
As far as I can tell Glenn uses polyester types, I stand to be corrected if otherwise.
All interesting stuff, I've now got ideas to improve mine even more,
:) Alan
Lol - nice one...
I guess that at the end of the day commercially produced equipment is always going to be built to a price, which is a restriction a bespoke design doesn't need to have.
What's your view on quality stepped attenuators versus pots? For me, I've yet to hear ANY pot sound as accurate as the best available stepped attenuators, but then maybe that's why Glenn likes using his dual-mono doo-dahs...? ;)
Marco.
Firebottle
20-05-2014, 15:00
For convenience and low cost a motor driven pot, but for precision definitely a stepped attenuator.
The dual mono pots is sure an 'inexpensive' way to achieve tracking plus balance, it's all down to the operator.
Now.........what other functions can be hoiked onto the consumer to save cost :eyebrows:
Alan
For convenience and low cost a motor driven pot, but for precision definitely a stepped attenuator.
The dual mono pots is sure an 'inexpensive' way to achieve tracking plus balance, it's all down to the operator.
Now.........what other functions can be hoiked onto the consumer to save cost :eyebrows:
Alan
Some kind of organic chemical power supply, probes attached to muscle cells?
Running your finger along the groove of a record and singing the tune down a tube to your now empty speakers?
On the other hand, a balance control often involves the signal going through two pots of some kind or at least a secondary shunt? (p.s. I've no idea how people implement balance controls).
I've what looks like a home-made valve pre kit from the 80s and originally it had dual mono volume controls but the owner then reconfigured it for convenience to stereo and balance - essentially just wired one pot in series with the other as per the different functions dictate. Sonically daft IMO. DNM has the same dual control philosophy - less circuitry or few components in the signal path at the expense of convenience.
On stepped v continuous controls: You can't really implement dual controls which double as a balance control with stepped attenuators without giving such a rough balance control as to be fairly useless - it simply wouldn't pass the reviewers tests without being shouted about etc etc.
So to use a stepped control and be commercially viable, they'd have to also include a balance control. Therefore sonically the stepped + continuous balance control would have to outperform a good continuous on it's own. i.e. not just a straight comparison
Mr Kipling
20-05-2014, 17:01
No but then I don't need it as my eq is not the one in error.
I found the published results from Stereophile and the measured curve is quite wrong: http://www.stereophile.com/content/croft-acoustics-phono-integrated-integrated-amplifier-measurements
Marco - I found an earlier posting saying your Charisma was measured flat to 100KHz by AnthonyTD, I assume that includes the RIAA so no worries :)
:cool: Alan
No. What I meant was have you tried a 4-pole filter just out of curiosity. But I would presume the answer is no.
As far as I can tell Glenn uses polyester types, I stand to be corrected if otherwise.
Cool - at one time he had a thing for Jensens.
My fav (coupling) caps are the SCR Teflons, sold by Hi-Fi Collective, or V-Caps!
Marco.
Firebottle
09-09-2014, 11:20
Well I've finally found time to try the Croft EQ network, with some very interesting results.
If you recall the Stereophile plot of RIAA error for the Croft Phono integrated:
http://www.stereophile.com/images/1013Croftfig01.jpg
I have used the EQ network found in the 25R but installed in my Firebottle phono circuit, using different and higher gm valves to those that Glenn uses.
I have adjusted the series resistor to allow for the differences in the first stage source impedance to level the playing field.
I get the bass lift under 100Hz, but do NOT get the treble drop off as shown above, in fact the hf performance is excellent.
Whether the difference is down to the use of ECC83s in the Croft integrated I don't know but I have a certain regard for Glenn's EQ network as it makes use of readily available capacitor values, namely 10 nF and 1 nF.
The loss through the network is a little higher than the traditional all in one passive network, but when using high gain valves that is of little consequence.
All good stuff,
Alan
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.