Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › Why are Little Dot amps so inexpensive ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why are Little Dot amps so inexpensive ? - Page 12

post #166 of 170
Interesting enough thread, despite the derailment.

In regards to Erik's first post, there is some truth in it. You can cut an unbelievable amount of cost off electronics components if you want to, and some of those methods can impact quality of reliability. But at the same time, there are a whole contingent of components that aren't "audiophile-grade", but are otherwise quite capable of doing their assigned job. You may only get a $300 amp instead of a $1000 amp, but a sound-reproduction issue isn't the same thing is a safety or reliability issue.

As far as my own Little Dot experience, I can at least vouch to owning the MkIV, DAC_1, and Mk VII+. All have been rock solid, and have seen sustained 18+ hr listening sessions, with absolutely no trouble at all. Cursory inspection of the internals shows good quality construction, with none of the hallmarks of really bad jobs. Looking across the model range, it's pretty obvious that they're employing a common form factor approach across quite a few of their models, with things like the enclosure, knobs, jacks, faceplates, etc. Small, but those sort of things do contribute to savings, without compromising reliability.

Long-term? Who can say. Maybe they'll spontaneously combust a year from now. Or maybe they'll still be working just fine. But LD is selling to a fickle community that relies heavily on word-of-mouth and that will flay any manufacturer alive if they smell blood in the water, and they're doing it with one of the more thorough warranty policies around - I would submit that they probably can't AFFORD to skimp on reliability. Certainly not after being around this long.
post #167 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by feifan View Post
"Circumstantial evidence," at least in court, is still evidence. It's not direct, but with corroborating evidence and with a preponderance of evidence, it could make a strong case, especially in civil proceedings. Vague generalizations hardly qualify as evidence.
The circumstantial evidence in this particular situation was that an experience DIY poster pointed out that quality components cost more then what and LD amp sells for. He speculated that cost savings might come from dubious labor practices. Some poseters found that implication unbelievable or worse. I merely pointed out that there is significant circumstantial evidence that it is plausible, not defintely must be so, and that Uncle Erik's speculation had merit enough to be taken seriously. I didnot mean that it is the only explanation. I also pointed out that no one seemed to be responding to his precise point. It is ok that you don't find the evidence through using inferential reasoning completely convincing, actually I don't either. But I also am keeping an open mind and so it would have been interesting to here some kind of response. I am not sure what exactly was vague in your mind or while you feel it is so important to be mean, but that is kinda where we are at in this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by feifan View Post
Weaseling and obfuscation are poor replacements for clear and connected thought. You're responsible for your words -- not the reader.
So unlike you I haven't made up my mind one way or another. And therefore I use words that are not black or white. I guess you can call it weaseling and use lots of nasty adjectives, or you can just call it haven't made my mind up yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by feifan View Post
Again, you misuse words. "Anecdotal evidence" and a reliable account of a personal observation or experience are not the same. The latter can be used as evidence if it can be assessed or replicated. Those of us who actually own LD equipment can present our experiences for others to evaluate or replicate. Can you?


These and other red herrings won't work. The issues are pretty clear cut.
So I am beginning to think that part of the problem here is that english is not your first language. That happens a lot on the net, and so I try to cut people a bit of slack.

Anectdotal evidence exactly means a subjective account rather than scientific data. So, for example, when you say "my first amp had problems with arching," that is anecdotal evidence. It does not mean that one can draw the conclusion that LD amps are bad. Even if 20 posters say it, it remains anecdotal evidence, although at some point, with enough anecdotal data, it becomes a compelling narative. It works the other way to.

When lots of little dot owners report their experiences that is just an example of lots of people presenting anecdotal evidence. Even if you and I have the exact same LD ownership experience (which is what I gues you mean by evidence that can be replicated) it still remains on the level of anecdotal.

So hopefully now you understand what is meant by the use of the word anecdotal. I suspect I have only opened myself to another barrage of invective hurled from your keyboard. But I remain hopeful.

Best Wishes...
post #168 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mehve View Post
Interesting enough thread, despite the derailment.

In regards to Erik's first post, there is some truth in it. You can cut an unbelievable amount of cost off electronics components if you want to, and some of those methods can impact quality of reliability. But at the same time, there are a whole contingent of components that aren't "audiophile-grade", but are otherwise quite capable of doing their assigned job. You may only get a $300 amp instead of a $1000 amp, but a sound-reproduction issue isn't the same thing is a safety or reliability issue.

As far as my own Little Dot experience, I can at least vouch to owning the MkIV, DAC_1, and Mk VII+. All have been rock solid, and have seen sustained 18+ hr listening sessions, with absolutely no trouble at all. Cursory inspection of the internals shows good quality construction, with none of the hallmarks of really bad jobs. Looking across the model range, it's pretty obvious that they're employing a common form factor approach across quite a few of their models, with things like the enclosure, knobs, jacks, faceplates, etc. Small, but those sort of things do contribute to savings, without compromising reliability.

Long-term? Who can say. Maybe they'll spontaneously combust a year from now. Or maybe they'll still be working just fine. But LD is selling to a fickle community that relies heavily on word-of-mouth and that will flay any manufacturer alive if they smell blood in the water, and they're doing it with one of the more thorough warranty policies around - I would submit that they probably can't AFFORD to skimp on reliability. Certainly not after being around this long.
A very thoughtful post, Mehve. It resonates with me. Thanks for advancing the discussion.
post #169 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by shabta View Post
So hopefully now you understand what is meant by the use of the word anecdotal. I suspect I have only opened myself to another barrage of invective hurled from your keyboard. But I remain hopeful.
Thank you shabta, well said! That was long due.
post #170 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mehve View Post
Interesting enough thread, despite the derailment.

In regards to Erik's first post, there is some truth in it. You can cut an unbelievable amount of cost off electronics components if you want to, and some of those methods can impact quality of reliability. But at the same time, there are a whole contingent of components that aren't "audiophile-grade", but are otherwise quite capable of doing their assigned job. You may only get a $300 amp instead of a $1000 amp, but a sound-reproduction issue isn't the same thing is a safety or reliability issue.

As far as my own Little Dot experience, I can at least vouch to owning the MkIV, DAC_1, and Mk VII+. All have been rock solid, and have seen sustained 18+ hr listening sessions, with absolutely no trouble at all. Cursory inspection of the internals shows good quality construction, with none of the hallmarks of really bad jobs. Looking across the model range, it's pretty obvious that they're employing a common form factor approach across quite a few of their models, with things like the enclosure, knobs, jacks, faceplates, etc. Small, but those sort of things do contribute to savings, without compromising reliability.

Long-term? Who can say. Maybe they'll spontaneously combust a year from now. Or maybe they'll still be working just fine. But LD is selling to a fickle community that relies heavily on word-of-mouth and that will flay any manufacturer alive if they smell blood in the water, and they're doing it with one of the more thorough warranty policies around - I would submit that they probably can't AFFORD to skimp on reliability. Certainly not after being around this long.
I would like to think that they will be around in years to come, and why not ,there internal market is vast by itself and I believe that they also manufacture full size amps for the domestic market as well.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphone Amps (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › Why are Little Dot amps so inexpensive ?