How does Boulder equipment avoid obsolescence?

I'm no Boulder expert by any stretch but I'm guessing it has been an established good design that has also been well executed from the start and that is what you are buying into? Why change it?

I'd have to believe that something has changed in teh design over all those years, different parts utilized, tighter QA constraints, something, even if basic design is the same.

Good designs have been around for a long time, especially in the areas of turntables, amps and speakers. Digital is a bit newer and more dynamically evolving still.

The design of my OHM speakers is about 30 years old now already, though the basic design has been refined several times since then. They are one of the long lived, bankable gold standards for good sound, IMHO.

Longevity is one of the most bankable indicators of a good product. I firmly believe that.

Companies that come out with new versions of their gear billed as a huge sonic breakthrough each year, are simply trying to make $. Most of the technology doesn't change that much from year to year, and in some cases the older parts sound better than the newer parts. DACs and computer audio are the one big exception there.

I suspect Boulder does use some different parts in a piece they build today versus the same piece built 5 years ago. They just don't choose to re-brand it and send all of their current customers scurrying for the latest changes. I bet if you called them you could verify that.

I rather like the way Boulder keeps the same designs reminds me of Nagra in that way.

I continue to be amazed at Boulder's track record in this regard. Other manufacturers change designs and update components slightly every few years to get you to upgrade; the exception being digital components where progress continues to be made. I had the chance to visit the Boulder facility a few months ago and I can tell you that everything is done in house; designs, casework, surface mount technology. I suppose they change components through the years but the design is rock solid and the results are stunning in my view. They did a demo of the 1021 CD player playing high resolution files from the network, through an 810 pre-amp, and a 2060 amp on Wilson Alexandria IIs. If you add up all the dollars that we spend upgrading through the years vs the cost of a single purchase that lasts 10-12 years, I will bet the economics of the more expensive Boulder purchase looks pretty good. The problem is having the money for the original purchase! Can you say lottery win!

For those curious of my diatribe on Boulder the why, I am considering purchasing the 1012 as a one box front end solution and can't help but wonder am i buying old technology here ???

If you're looking for a rock-solid performer thats flexible, very dynamic, dead silent and very neutral, then go for it! The 1012 will deliver with no sonic drawbacks. I owned the 1012 for two years and loved every minute, having moved to it from a Levinson N°32, N°30.6 combination.

If however, you're looking for the ultimate in analog transparency, the very last word in DAC resolution, and support for USB etc, then go separates, but be prepared to pay significant more than anything close to the 1012.

They are probally thinking why change a design that is succesfull,sells and is reliable;most likely my guess is they make small changes to improve on sound quality and perhaps change looks;then give a price change to cover the expense involved to accomplish this.

Think about which train you'd rather be on to get to your destination.

A rock solid design with years of refinement and fine tuning behind it?

The latest and greatest and yet unproven new design that tries to solve the same basic problem that has been around for about 100 years (amplified reproduction of sound) differently yet again?

I completely understand your concerns. I shared similar worries before I bought my 1012. I totally agree with the posts above and have only a little more to add.

When auditioning the 1012 against "newer" competitors, I realized I tended to automatically equate newer with better. But I learned newer usually means "different" and any given person might like that difference. But maybe not if you listen carefully.

When I checked my biases, as much as anyone really can, the 1012 outperformed the newer and similarly priced equipment to my surprise.

So I stuck to my ears and bought it. And, after the same process, a 1060 to go with it.

The 1012 is a remarkable piece.

There really isn't any magic here. Unless there is some significant engineering/electronics breakthrough, a very good design is a very good design. Typically I have found that manufactures do one of two things. They base their products on reviews from magazines and since magazines rarely if ever review older products (even if they are still in production), to get their names in the magazines, manufactures simply come out with a "new" product. It really isn't new or better, but a cosmetic change or a change in the type of capacitors, etc. The other thing that they do is come up with an outstanding design in the first place and stick with it. Yes, you can tweak a product over the years and make it better. Use different tubes, or different bias circuitry or different transistors. But a current mirror is a current mirror, a differential input is a differential input. I haven't seen really any major design improvements in years. Boulder simply makes great equipment. So does Audio Research, Pass, etc. and most importantly, these type of manufactures will maintain their older equipment and not leave you hanging. Audio Research, Boulder, Bryston, Pass and others will maintain their older equipment. That is very important to me.

To see how important that is, look at the resale value of used equipment. If the company continues to maintain their older, well designed equipment, the price is constant and stays up.

enjoy