Let's look at the cost of some of the key components in a top quality preamp - like my tube preamp.
- 45 step Shallco volume control $300 - $450
- Duelund/Vcap or like quality coupling caps can cost as much as $200-$500 each depending on size. Mine takes two of them! Two Duelund 3.3 uf caps cost $400!
- Large power supply caps (computer grade). You know the ones that look like coke cans or even bigger. They cost up to $30-$60 each and my preamp has 12 of them!
- Large transformers are also very expensive. They can cost $150 - $300.
- Mine came with 7 tubes. 4 of them are NOS RCA 6sn7's from the 40's and 50's. Tubes alone can cost $300 or more for all 7.
- In addition, my preamp has chokes, expensive solid core copper wire, ceramic tube sockets and other parts....
- What about the cost of a good, well made chassis with all needed hardware, knobs, footers and the particular finish. I bet such a chassis made from heavy stock, with a thick face, special finishing, nice knobs etc... can cost up to $1000. I am not sure, but speculate here.
I see a lot more than a $1000 in parts here folks.I see closer to $2800 in "parts" before all the labor needed to hardwire (point to point) this puppy.
I suppose some preamps have a higher mark-up then others, but once all the costs are considered, the mark-up on some is not even 100%. Costs also involve, R&D, labor, insurance, building, utilities and on ......
So how much should a preamp like the one above sell for? I mean sell for direct from the builder with no additional mark-up? How much? $5000 - $10,000? |
Clio09
I did factor the costs in my example on builder costs, not full retail. |
Charles1dad,
Well said and spot on based on my experience. Fact is a great active is the heart and soul and often times the difference maker or "magic" in my past systems.
Give me the "dinosaur" as it just sound sounds right! Modern sound (high end)to my ears is becoming far to threadbare sounding and lacking in body and weight. Details are fired at us often times forcing me away rather then drawing me into the music. |
Charles1dad, I have made that same point in a different thread as it seems very reasonable and reality based on my experience with systems well matched for a passive.
Let's just say several on that thread left no room for such reasoning and maintain a passive under ideal circumstances is the gold standard - period. No room to think different. My involement in that thread was not fun and I simply went home with my ball. Hope we don't see that happen again here. I like this topic and would love more open minded discussion. |
One other thing for us to consider. If we rest and stay put on known current simple and complex designs, then we will never progress and learn what is possible.
I say continue to develop on both fronts (simple and complex) to the benefit of all Aphiles. |
A preamp is often times the one component that brings a total system together and just makes it sing. Active or passive, a preamp is just one part of a stereo system intended to create music.
True to the source means true to the first link in the stereo system chain - the digital front end for instance. All front ends are flawed and what George is missing is fidelity to the particular digital source does not make one particular preamp the gold standard.
A stereo must have all of its sub-parts working together to create what sounds most like the instrument and voices it strives to recreate. An active pre in my experience can deliver this end system result with as much fidelity to the voice and instrument as a passive mated with ideal companion components.
A CD player direct to an amp in not the gold standard of fidelity to the human voice or instrument. It is however possibly the gold standard of assuring the signal gets to the amp exactly as it left the CD player.
The two have nothing to do with each other. It's all about the total system result. |
George, I like your passion and I do see things differently it seems.
A $30,000 digital source front end is also not perfect and is flawed. All gear is flawed falling short of absolute fidelity because they attempt to recreate the real and natural thing.
A passive that is true to the $30,000 source in front of it may or may not be part of a complete audio system that sounds more like the actual voice or instrument.The resulting sound of the complete system is all that we can compare to the real thing.
The combined strenghts and character of each stereo component come together to deliver the resulting sound. Since every single part or component in the system is flawed, fidelity can only be judged by the sum result of the parts. The sum result will also be flawed-always.However, some systems will deliver more fidelity to the instrument or voice compared to others.
My point is all components are flawed and have limitations. An active preamp that improves the resulting fidelity of a system is not so much coloured as it is needed. A passive may be truer to the front end source, but in the end, passes on the particular personality of that source with it's flaws and the flaws of the passive. Yes, I think passives have some flaws.
Saying an active is more coloured etc... is pointless to me when in fact all components are flawed.
It is possible for both actives and passives to be part of total systems that deliver the best fidelity possible in today's systems. My experiece suggests that goal is more easily achieved with actives, but that is only my experience.
I happen to think actives help a total system recreate the power, impact,dynamics and nuances of the real thing and don't see these things.as colourations, but as needed ingredients to the finished high fidelity soup. |
It does not correct rather it complements.Big difference and you assume the souce component is perfect and that it is not the case. |
Atmasphere. I understand the point you are making and sure understand how hard it is to put together a well matched system.
I am however, not talking about taking a bright this + a dull that + plus a soft this and an agressive that to come up with a finished system. That is an endless circle of fustration and $$$ spent.
My point is simple; All gear editorializes and has its own particular flaw(s). No exceptions to this rule is the premise we need to agree on to go any further here. If one believes a source is perfect and just needs the signal to be feed into the speakers EXACTLY the same way it left the source , without any "improvement" for filedity to the voice or instrument, then yes you ONLY want gear that is true and unwavering in fidelity to the one thing that matters to you - the front end source. If you think that, then fine - have at it! I understand many an audiophile and Aphile editor/reviewer thinks this way. At least they write this way.
I don't. As I have said, the end result of the total system matters, not fidelity to the source component. The source component is not the object or goal of fidelity, rather the goal is fidelity the natural, real sound of the voice and instrument. The source component is flawed and simply an electronic attempt to recreate the real thing - so I would not try to pledge all of my eforts to being true to it only!Heck, the CD or digital medium is also flawed - the dang CD itself (before the source component) is flawed.
So yes, putting together a system that recreates the reality of voice and instrument is hard work and often times done through trial and error. Dealers and fellow audiophiles with great experience can be a great help as they have tried many combinations. Some of us learn on our own and that is also great fun. I enjoy the process, not all do.
Actives and passives can be part of the final music making system result. I just accept all gear is flawed and system matching is critical to recreating the real thing. No source component is the real thing. The master tape is not the real thing. Every single step from the recording studio to our stereo systems is an effort to recreate the real thing. Every step is flawed in one way or another. Yes, it is the combination of a complete system that strives towards fidelity. To serve the source component as master assures you of one thing only - fidelity to the flawed ONE electronic component.
What's particularly fun is the fact that one need not spend $100,000 to arrive at fidelity to voice and instrument. More money is not the only means to this end. So the fun continues in our quest as audiophiles. |
Charles1dad,
Did not mean to imply my system was all that .... Really just pointing out my experiences and I sure wish I could have another listening room with an equally well thought out "simple" system with SET tube amps. I have a place in my heart for them. |
Atma,
Yes, I so understand your post. Yes, it seems the digital medium may in fact be a great source of lost fidelity. There are different roads to the same end and perhaps different experiences based on each of our own perceptions of what fidelity really sounds like. |
Is it not a fair question to ask what prompts a tripling in price for what essentially should be a fairly simple electronic device?"
Some preamps are not simple in design and are SOTA accomplishments that push the whole industry further. The current issue of Stereophile is a great example with the review of the Constellation Altair preamp for $65,000. Please read the review if you get a chance. They have taken some technology spoken about on many Agon threads, including this one, to the next level. Many "experts" say this is perhaps the finest sounding preamp available. It is certainly reasonable to suggest this preamp and others pushing for SOTA performance have obtained it with something other than a simple design. In fact it is also reasonable to say these units outperform some simple units when plugged into many top end systems.
Simple it not the only way to fidelity and I suppose these SOTA units can be found to recreate music better than some of the best simple units available. If you ask First Sound, Pass Labs and others which preamp they make that sounds the best, they will not tell you it is their entry level design or passive they offer. No, they will tell you it is their top of the line active that is their SOTA effort. Is it because they are liars are just want to make more money? The answer is no as they have a passion for audio and design with that passion.
What does it cost to develop a product like the Constellation Altair preamp? I do know this; many a company has gone out of business because they do not understand (fail) to account for all the real costs involved in the sale of their products. Selling a $65,000 preamp will carry with it many needed costs for sales and marketing in addition to R&D and manufacturing.
C osts such as doing all the shows, travel, sales demonstrations, advertising, developing relationships, total media campaigns, advertising agency work, the considerable R&D time and expense and on and on.... I can tell you companies spend millions developing rather simple food products in R&D alone!
I see nothing wrong or evil with all of the marketing and sales costs involved. They are a must if a company expects to bust through and sell a modest number of $65,000 units.
How many $65,000 units do you think they will sell? This is not a volume business opportunity, but rather a very small number of units will be sold and the modest number sold will need to cover the costs mentioned above. So yes the margin made on the sale is and must be very high. The business model dictates this.
There will always be some examples of products priced at SOTA levels that are really a sham that is unfortunately the reality of humans and life. So beware, but to dismiss honest examples of SOTA passion combined with the needed business model is short sighted. Some attempts at SOTA will not be simple and that is both OK and needed as we all strive towards fidelity. |
Correction - Absolute Sound has the Constellation Altair preamp review not Stereophile. |
Well it's not necessary if you're not shooting for the very, very best and trying to push SOTA.If using established means and really not pushing the limits is all one wants, then the push for that last vestage of improvement is a waste of time and money.
For others the 10 percent improvement and learning that comes from pushing to see "what if" we took this idea to the limit is a passion and worthy goal.
We all however benefit from the latter with new technology and learnings that result. These SOTA units also make it possible for each of us to decide for ourselves if that small improvement in fidelity is worth it. Without these efforts many of us would wonder "what if" or "what is possible if" and how much better could a stereo sound? We can know by going to a dealer and hearing. |
Charles1dad,
My current tube pre is a well executed, pretty simple design and the best I have yet to hear. I share the same general assumptions as you, but I have not heard enough to say simple is best. I just don't know for sure. I would love to live with a well reviewed $70,000 pre for a month or so:-)
Over the years I have assembled many good sounding systems. One that was particularly pleasing included 3.5 watt set amps, zero oversampling battery powered dac, belt drive transport, single driver horn speakers and both a passive and simple active preamp. Great sounding system that however did not match the realism of my current system. My current system is more complex if you will. Soundlab M1 speakers with an active crossover which is much more complex then my past horn speaker.
My current 600 watt/channel amp is more complex then my 3.5 watt SET amps to be sure and so on..However the end result of this system is more like the real thing.
I bet I could assemble another simple system as good as what I now think is my reference, but just have not gone in that direction as I am most content.
In the end, I am not sure one way is better then the other. I just don't know. |
Pubul57
I think you do know the answer for NAD. Small margin, but very high volume over many years. Just a different business model and marketing strategy. Bet NAD sold/sells more units then the Constellation preamp in one day part.
In addition the technology used in that one integrated was also used in many other NAD pieces of high volume. NAD sells many items in their total line so the costs of R&D are also spread out over many products - many high volume products.
Both models can work, but close managing of costs is paramount in both models. |
