[UltimaNoctis]

So we've probably all seen the KSS or "Cinema beta" the famous $6 million home cinema that consists of:
 
8 Snell THX Music & Cinema reference Towers
16 Snell THX 1800 sub woofers
30 McinTosh MC2102 amplifiers 
Sony SRX-S1110 4096x2160 projector
3 Crown Macro gold amplifiers
2 Mark Levinson N° 33h Amplifiers 
10 MuRata ES103A Super Tweeters
3 THX Snell LCR-2800 cente speakers
And a few sources, etc...
 
How in gods name can they charge 6 million for it? I did my best to try and "recreate" the home cinema.
 
The McinTosh amps could have been sold for about $15,000 each. 
 
http://www.stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/429/index.html
 
Thats $450,000 worth of amps.
 
3 crown macro gold amplifiers? 
 
Well here's the price of some of their products: 
 
http://www.retrevo.com/s/Crown-Macro-Reference-Amps-review-manual/id/22262dj897/t/1-2/
 
lets assume its 3 grand for them.
 
$453,000 in total
 
The MuRata super tweeters sell for $3000.
 
http://www.audiophilia.com/hardware/murata.htm
 
Thats $453K + $30K
 
$483,000... hardly scratching the surface of the overall cost
 
The Snell THX 1800's retail for about $2500 each. http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speakers/subwoofers/snell-acoustics/sub-1800-thx/PRD_120562_2741crx.aspx
 
Thats still only $40,000! 
 
 
As for the Sony SRX-S110 ... I can completely understand how expensive a 4096x2160 projector would be....
 
They don't sell them any more but the Sony SRX R220 goes for $220,000 http://hometheaterreview.com/sony-srx-r220-4k-professional-cinealta-front-projector-reviewed/
 
That being said I cannot imagine any one paying more than $500,000 for the SRX S110 in 2008.
 
Even with all that I think I've only barely hit the ~ $1 million mark. 
 
Where are the missing 5 million?
 
* Platinum made cables? 
* Diamonds attached on his speakers?
* Palladium used in his amplifiers?
* Did they happen to build the the cinema in fifth avenue / bond street?
 

 

[HiGHFLYiN9]

I assume the company flies to your home and sets everything up and treats the room, so you're paying for the consulting fees as well. Perhaps they service the setup after the sale too. Re-tubing 30 amps every couple of years would be an expense. Is that worth the extra mark up? IMHO not really, but I'm sure there are people out there that feel otherwise.

 

[UltimaNoctis]

Quote:

I assume the company flies to your home and sets everything up and treats the room, so you're paying for the consulting fees as well. Perhaps they service the setup after the sale too. Re-tubing 30 amps every couple of years would be an expense. Is that worth the extra mark up? IMHO not really, but I'm sure there are people out there that feel otherwise.

Hmm, I would guess that's a contributing factor to the price. Are the Snell's the best speakers money can buy though? I would have Wilson/B&W speakers were better since they seem to be chosen as the audiophile speakers of choice. 
 
And I'm agitated that there is absolutely no information on the Snell THX Music & Cinema reference towers...

 

[AcuVox]

The last Snell Theater I worked on the Reference model tower was $25K a pair and a bargain.  But the boxes are not the most expensive part of a valid system, which is the big lie in audio sales.  Just like the 99% of the general population that have never heard good equipment or good recordings, 99% of audiophiles have never been in a purpose-built room that was designed correctly for sound reproduction and don't know why they are never satisfied.
 
No amount of money spent on gear nor any quantity of after-market acoustic treatments can correct flawed architecture - and 1% of high-end residential architects are good at acoustics.  To get ultimate sound you have to tear the building to the ground and start over and just the acoustic design and verification are six figures.  My guess is the K.S.S. building cost at least double what the gear cost, and you will not get the same level of performance without all-new specialty architecture.
 
Additionally, the power supply equipment in the K.S.S. is several levels above "audiophile grade" toys.  It has dedicated step-down transformers from the street feed and custom grounding, just like the highest end recording studios that are comparable in cost.  
 
And yes, Kipnis builds, calibrates and services the theater and the best people are not cheap.  The performance is guaranteed, which is something few residential contractors offer. 
 
No, I can't afford the K.S.S.  My knowledge and skills get me a lot of the way there on the cheap - I build acoustic furniture, know the bargains in used equipment and scale down to the minimum.  BUT, I still see value in the best and I can see and hear the difference.  Now if I can just get a tour to verify the final product...

 

[Uncle Erik]

They justify their prices the same way Tiffany justifies its jewelry.

Really the same thing, anyway.

 

[Clarkmc2]

Quote:

They justify their prices the same way Tiffany justifies its jewelry.

Really the same thing, anyway.

Yep. To answer the thread title, they are looking for some of the many citizens who possess more money than brains. Even since the economy crashed, there is no shortage.

 

[AcuVox]

I'm guessing the nay-sayers do not attend acoustic concerts.  After all, how can you justify $100 for a symphony or $200 for an opera when the CD is $15?  For that matter, only a fool would pay $6,000,000 for a Stradivarius when you can get a copy for $99.  They are made alike of wood, steel and varnish.  Better yet - buy the wood, steel and varnish and make your own violin.  I bet you can do it for under $50.
 
The client base for the real high end - the synergy of extreme engineering with sophistication in hearing - tend to be music and movie professionals or patrons of acoustic music.  They are likely to be practiced in classical music since that is considered a component of privileged education and has been shown to increase mental acuity and problem solving ability.  The people with more money than brains and/or taste spend on visuals, as in sculptural case designs and AV systems hidden by the Interior Designer.
 
So I have to ask - did any of you play an acoustic instrument, or did someone in your childhood home play one?  If not, you may have never learned what music sounds like and not be able to appreciate the subtle differences between a good $250,000 Theater and the KSS.  Note that I don't believe spending a lot is any guarantee.  I have heard $70,000 speaker pair and $50,000 amps sound awful in a bad room, for example, and most "High End" designs spend more on the front panel than on circuits because they are selling eye candy that happens to approximate music.
 
My only problem with KSS is that movie sound is 99.5% fake.  I have taken a professional tour of a "sausage factory" where soundtracks are created and it confirmed that the sounds have more in common with a Cuisinart than the movie shoot.  OTOH there are some movies about music with worthy sound tracks ("Kansas City", "Touts les Matins du Monde") and DSD surround recordings that captured musical illusions.  
 
I can't say the KSS is worth $6M because I have not experienced it yet; but I can say that until you have experienced it and valid comparisons, you can't say it's not worth it.  I spend over $10K per year to hear the best musicians from the best seats in the best halls and have a grand piano and harpsichords in my residence; so I know accurate reproduction when I hear it - and it is not cheap.  The rooms I like start at about $500K including the architecture.

 

[Clarkmc2]

Quote:

I'm guessing the nay-sayers do not attend acoustic concerts.

Well, I fit your profile of a lifelong acoustic listener. It is nice to hear someone else say that most high end audio gear is wildly overpriced and poorly designed. Also nice to have corroboration that home theater is not a natural venue for high fidelity, given the source material.
 
Given that last statement, I would think that it is obvious that spending tons of cash on home theater sound is pointless, no matter what the result. Room treatment will yield the most results for sure, when does it not, but why bother to go high end with it at all? Garbage in, garbage out. Factor in that no good movie was ever made better by surround sound, and that no bad movie was ever improved by it, then the whole exercise seems pointless.
 
Speaking generally, not a response to your post, the whole idea of thinking "classical" (to misuse the word) music listeners have a monopoly on sound reproduction discernment smacks of social darwinism. (What reviewer of high end equipment does not drag out the same symphonic passages time after time? 

) It is sound reproduction after all, of which music is a part. But not necessary to the endeavor at all from a reproduction standpoint. It does so happen that my touchstone for live music sound quality is a performance where I was five or six feet away from the Chicago Symphony String Quartet (three Stradiveri instruments) in a tiny theater in the round which approached acoustic perfection. But I do not consider that qualification to think myself better than anyone else in any way. I can add that the sound quality is remembered but I was not concentrating on it at the time. The playing was fantastic and the selections were thrilling. I was even exposed to a new  - to me - piece of music, the Debussy string quartet. I love it still.
 
Now if I were to spend six million dollars on music, I would rather record the really great musicians I know who are not widely known. That way I would be improving music for posterity in some meaningful way, not building an expensive playroom for myself and my friends.
 
So no, I do not think it would be worth it.
 
Not that I do not sympathize with your wish to hear the better film music in high fidelity.  Another film that does have music worth reproducing well is Storefront Hitchcock. After all is said and done, I do listen to films on really good systems. My speaker and Stax two channel rigs.

 

[DaveBSC]

One of the very best acoustic experiences I've had was attending a concert at the famous Vienna music house. You want to know what it sounds like from the audience? Stereo. If you want to talk fake, surround sound is fake, and home theater is a big gimmick that's as tired as the Matrix slow mo bullet sequence that I'm sure every two-bit salesman is still using to sell you the latest Denon A/V Monster 9000 - now with SIXTY-FOUR HDMI ports!!! You want my interest? Let's talk high-res, let's talk vinyl, let's talk stereo.
 
More than a pair of speakers is just not necessary. There are many different paths to great stereo sound - concentric or full range point-sources, omni radiators, electrostats, line-sources, etc. None are necessarily right or wrong. The only constant is that you need two.

 

[edstrelow]

I am a consistent attendee of live, unamplified concerts, but also like contemporary blockbuster films having just seen the last Harry Potter with the family.  Such movies, including Star Wars, Raiders and the like would be nothing without their soundtracks and which are mostly added after the fact and about 95% unreal.  I am not sure that one needs 10 channel surround to make them work, good quality stereo is pretty effective,  still Dolby and Dolby Headphone can add quite a bit.
 
Surround sound is not so much of a gimmick as the current fad of 3D.    My family was unanimous that 3D was simply a distraction to Harry Potter and we wish to re-see the movie without it. I don't think this was just a quirk on the part of my family
 
Visual 3D uses binocular visual cues to enhance distance perction, i.e. the image differences between the left and right eyes to perceive depth.  However these cues really don't apply to objects more than about 30 ft away because the image differences between the 2 eyes become  negligible.  (You will find this discussed in a basic text of perceptual psychology.)   Now most of what we saw in Potter was of objects much further away than 30 ft, at distances at which binocular cues would be minimal.  However the movie makers were artificially creating binocular cues where none would normally be.  Thus you would be getting  binocular cues appropriate for 20 ft whereas the actual objects would be much further away in the scene.  Such binocular 3D is not merely a gimmick, it creates false and conflicting perceptions.  That is why viewmaster images look so odd and exagerated at times.  
 
The Potter 3D also caused a reduction in picture quality, rather like watching an an old videotape on a high def tv.  In any event we are able to make pretty decent judgements of distance, certainly relative distances without the need for binocular, 3D cues as we have been doing for a century already at the movies.
 
Surround sound could be similarly abused but in practice does not seem to create such obvious anomalies.  As long as the basic left and right are correct and some sense of depth and a quasi realistic ambience are created it sounds ok.   This probably reflects the fact that auditory distance and direction cues are not as precise as visual cues.   We can tolerate a lot more slop in auditory spatial information. 

 

[arnaud]

Quote:

 This probably reflects the fact that auditory distance and direction cues are not as precise as visual cues.   We can tolerate a lot more slop in auditory spatial information. 

Out of topic but, I think our ears are extremely precise to determine angle (like a few degrees only). But I think what's helping a great deal here is that - as you mentioned - most of the audio special effects are recreated a posteriori to help reinforce the visual effects. Our brain is using the visual cues and thus probably a lot more tolerant of imperfections in the audio rendering. I don't think it works the other way around as much.
 

 

[tim3320070]

It's all reproduction of live or pretend live when the real thing is unattainable. What does it best or closest to the original is what matters if you can't get to the theater downtown (of which I have access to many but cannot afford most). Blu-ray video with surround is as close as we get to real because the last time I checked, seeing (or feeling the rumble of) a jet flying over our heads or a car explode isn't part of daily life. Cheesy as surround sound may be, it's entertaining and fun. 

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

One of the very best acoustic experiences I've had was attending a concert at the famous Vienna music house. You want to know what it sounds like from the audience? Stereo. If you want to talk fake, surround sound is fake, and home theater is a big gimmick that's as tired as the Matrix slow mo bullet sequence that I'm sure every two-bit salesman is still using to sell you the latest Denon A/V Monster 9000 - now with SIXTY-FOUR HDMI ports!!! You want my interest? Let's talk high-res, let's talk vinyl, let's talk stereo.

? Very strange. So you went to see a concert in a concert hall, how many musicians were there 20, 50, 80? So that's (let's say) 50 sound sources which with stereo you've have to try and recreate with just 2 sound sources, how is that not fake? When you listened to the musicians, depending on where you were sitting, probably 40% of what you heard was not directly from the musicians but reflections of the musicians from the walls and ceiling, behind you, to the side of you and above you. Trying to recreate that with stereo is impossible! You want to hear as closely as possible what you heard in the concert hall, then let's not talk vinyl. Sure, vinyl has a lovely warm sound to it but linear it is not!
 
I'm not going to try and say that film sound and surround sound systems are not fake, of course they are but no more fake than stereo and maybe (done well) slightly less fake than stereo because at least we can create a semblance of a 360deg sound field. However, $6m for a home cinema is way over the top. I'd be trying to recreate the systems found in the top mixing stages so I would hear as close as possible what the director and re-recording engineer heard (and intended) when they finalised the film sound and it sure wouldn't cost anywhere near $6m.
 
G

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

? Very strange. So you went to see a concert in a concert hall, how many musicians were there 20, 50, 80? So that's (let's say) 50 sound sources which with stereo you've have to try and recreate with just 2 sound sources, how is that not fake? When you listened to the musicians, depending on where you were sitting, probably 40% of what you heard was not directly from the musicians but reflections of the musicians from the walls and ceiling, behind you, to the side of you and above you. Trying to recreate that with stereo is impossible! You want to hear as closely as possible what you heard in the concert hall, then let's not talk vinyl. Sure, vinyl has a lovely warm sound to it but linear it is not!
 

I was sitting about mid hall, fairly near the middle. The Vienna music house is famous for its reflections - the music is unamplified and everything you hear is direct or reflected sound. It never sounds like there are musicians playing behind you, nor does it sound like your on stage, in between the players. Thats what surround sound music sounds like to me, being on stage with musicians actively playing behind you. That's not the experience that you get being in the audience. I admit that I used to like that effect back when I had a surround system, but its not realistic.
 
A pair of speakers, the sound of the hall captured on the recording, and your own well treated listening room can transport you back to that seat in the audience. This is particularly true of speakers like MBLs or Duevels which trade a bit of imaging focus for a more enveloping soundstage. With SACDs and DVD-As with discrete channels its different, but to me any kind of DSP to turn a stereo recording into surround always sounds fake.

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

I was sitting about mid hall, fairly near the middle. The Vienna music house is famous for its reflections - the music is unamplified and everything you hear is direct or reflected sound. It never sounds like there are musicians playing behind you, nor does it sound like your on stage, in between the players. Thats what surround sound music sounds like to me, being on stage with musicians actively playing behind you. That's not the experience that you get being in the audience. I admit that I used to like that effect back when I had a surround system, but its not realistic.

 
Providing the reflections are lower in amplitude and within a certain time frame (10ms - 100ms depending on attack) the reflections from different angles are just considered by the brain as acoustical information of the sound source, rather than as echos or a different sound source, this is known as the Haas Effect. Obviously, this can to a certain extent be recreated with a surround system but it needs particularly well done production (which your experience doesn't sound like) and the consumer needs to have a very well balanced and positioned surround system in a well treated listening environment. It's not often that all these factors come together but when they do, it can be amazing and far superior to a stereo recording. Just a dB or two off in the surrounds (or a foot or so misplaced) and the whole image can collapse, stereo is much more forgiving.
 
I agree with you though, I've yet to hear a DSP create even a half convincing surround mix by expanding a stereo mix. My comments above relate strictly to a recording recorded and mixed in surround.
 
G