[jamato8]

We are starting to get off the original point of the post. I am looking forward to hearing the further sound reproduction devices Xin and everyone else has to offer. What fun that audio has taken such nice advances that we are not stuck with mass produced muck.

Bring on the music.

John

 

[Darwin022]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamato8 mass produced muck. Bring on the music. John

That was actually a question I was wondering. I'll have to ask Xin, but I was wondering what production numbers were in general... eg: how many orders/amps built a week/month/whatever.

I'm curious if this is the type of thing where there are just say <100 or so SMs in existance or if production is much higher

 

[TWIFOSP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by atx It means you've paid $300 for an amp whose market value is $150. The cost of the amp has increased.

Thats kind of a backwards way to think about it, in terms of economics. I realize this is all your opinion and what not, but market value...

First off, it's pretty damn hard to assign a market value to a niche segment like HiFi headphone amps. They're worth 1. the sum of their parts and 2. what people obsessed with the hobby will pay for them. Since their sound quality is completely subjective, this isn't really a market value item.

For example, when you drive a new car off of the lot, and it immediately depreciates on the open market by ~15%, do you consider this at 15% increase in the cost of what you paid for the car? It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. But I hope you get the point. In this particular case, it's not even that the amp has depreciated, it is that it's been knocked off the high horse as the flag ship design. This lowers it's value. The fact that you have the choice to raise the value is something rare in most product segments.

Secondly, the cost of the amp has not increased one bit. The value of what people are willing to pay for it has gone down. This does not mean the item has changed, it means the market has changed. Either the supply, or the demand. In this case, the supply has improved.

It really sounds like you have a chapped hide due to a case of no longer having the best of the best. Well sorry to say, but you should really stop complaining. Why should you be compensated at ALL just because the market and the product line won't stagnate. Are you seriously upset over the price of innovation and improvement? You made a decision to purchase an amp based on a price point, specifications, and value. None of this has changed just because the value has decreased because another amp has come out. This would have happened ANYWAY, it just happened to have happened (how's that for enough happens in a sentence) in a very short period of time because Xin is an animal.

You have a tangible product with the option of upgrading. You've already paid for said tangible product. You bought based on specifications that it met at the time of purchase. You don't have to pay a single dime to keep owning what you have. You already have it. However, if you wish to see an improvement, then yes, you'll have to pay for it. Name a single product where this is not the case.

I consider it fantastic customer service he's offering to upgrade the old amp for such a cheap price in the first place. You keep acting like you're losing money on the deal, but you still have a tangible product which you used to enjoy before you realized there was a later and greater model. So what's changed here? You. Placebo effect.

At any rate, I can't see a single scenario where the customer loses.

 

[Akuan]

I disagree with the speculation about supermini-3 sounding better than SM V1.0. There is a small improvement with 3-channel design assuming everything else is the same. The SM V1.0 is not a 3-channel design but it does have a buffered virtual ground. The main difference between this topology and the ground in the 3-channel design is that the input ground is separated from the higher-currend draw of the output ground.
If you look at the old SM board you will see that ground connection for the input and out are on the same trace. The ground connections on the new version do not share the same trace.
The biggest gain in this topology is lower channel crosstalk measurement.
However, the SM V1.0 has a very good 94dB (@1Khz) performance.
Quality of the opamps and the buffers will make more difference.
It is ironic that having said that, I'm working on a 4-channel headphone amp to use on my HD600 headphone with modified HD650 cable.




Quote:

Originally Posted by atx I'm not saying Xin ripped anyone off. What I'm saying is that V1 amps are being de-valued. Whether or not you feel ripped off depends on what you do. If you do as you suggested, then you'll come out ahead-- assuming you can sell V1 for $150, which I doubt, since a new supermini-3 is at the same price and to me seems like a better deal since there's an upgrade path to supermacro-3. Whereas if you buy a used supermacro v1 from someone else, you're stuck with it. There's no upgrade, or warranty even-- since Xin probably doesn't have the pcb's for v1 anymore (if he has, it'll run out soon).

 

[goto2003]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akuan It is ironic that having said that, I'm working on a 4-channel headphone amp to use on my HD600 headphone with modified HD650 cable.

Wow, four channels, cool! Forgive my ignorance, what the "four" channels stand for? Thanks.

 

[Akuan]

Same concept as 3-channel except for separate ground output for left and right channel. That is why I bought I spare Sennheiser cable to split the left and right ground connections.

Quote:

Originally Posted by goto2003 Wow, four channels, cool! Forgive my ignorance, what the "four" channels stand for? Thanks.

 

[atx]

Quote:

I disagree with the speculation about supermini-3 sounding better than SM V1.0. There is a small improvement with 3-channel design assuming everything else is the same.

Since the major difference between SM V1 and V2 is the 3-channel changes, then what you're saying is that there's a small difference between V1 and V2, and that the major factor in V3 improvement is the stacked buffers (since opamp is replaceable).

Well, it's all speculation now. Xin may change the Supermini design by the time it comes out, so we'll just have to see what goes out.


Quote:

For example, when you drive a new car off of the lot, and it immediately depreciates on the open market by ~15%, do you consider this at 15% increase in the cost of what you paid for the car?

Market depreciation is natural. A car whose price goes down because demand is lower for a used car is a natural condition. But if Toyota discontinues the model a month after you bought it, that's a completely different circumstance, because you could have bought the car new at a much lower price, being that its now an obsolete product.

Quote:

First off, it's pretty damn hard to assign a market value to a niche segment like HiFi headphone amps

The only way to know is to actually sell the supermacro V1. Let's see how it goes. I predict the early sellers will get their asking price. The late sellers will have a harder time, especially once the supermini-3 comes out.


Quote:

It really sounds like you have a chapped hide due to a case of no longer having the best of the best. Well sorry to say, but you should really stop complaining.

If I have the supermacro, I'd probably feel that way. But I returned the Supermacro a month ago and got myself a Portaphile !

I'm not complaining one bit. I'm just opinionated.

 

[Akuan]

I did not comment on difference between SM versions.
However I will not be surprised if the actual difference is small since I believe that most well-designed headphone amps sound much closer to each other than most people in this forum believe.
As for the supermini-3 sound, I don't much about it but it clear that it uses cheaper components since it does not use BUF634U (which is relatively expensive buffer).

Since the major difference between SM V1 and V2 is the 3-channel changes, then what you're saying is that there's a small difference between V1 and V2, and that the major factor in V3 improvement is the stacked buffers (since opamp is replaceable).

Well, it's all speculation now. Xin may change the Supermini design by the time it comes out, so we'll just have to see what goes out.

 

[erikzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akuan I will not be surprised if the actual difference is small since I believe that most well-designed headphone amps sound much closer to each other than most people in this forum believe.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[jamato8]

I would have to agree also. Be the amp tube or solid state, if it is doing right then it is not coloring the sound and what is reproduced should be very much the same: just a different road to arrive at the same point.

John

 

[Darwin022]

from what I've been reading, that is correct. Granted, the SM will be my first headphone amp. my Rotel does a damn good job at driving headphones, but the more I listen to different equipment, the more I realize:

there are TONS of GREAT components out there, everything has a unique sound signature... Depending on what you like.

I don't think anything recommended on headfi will sound even remotely BAD.... it's all a matter of what individuals LIKE hearing.

 

[TWIFOSP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akuan I did not comment on difference between SM versions. However I will not be surprised if the actual difference is small since I believe that most well-designed headphone amps sound much closer to each other than most people in this forum believe. As for the supermini-3 sound, I don't much about it but it clear that it uses cheaper components since it does not use BUF634U (which is relatively expensive buffer).

You're absolutely right. The differences are present, but small. And defining worse or better is nearly impossible. People usually equate different with good without being able to explain why it's better than another setup.

People (atx) also seem to equate price, rarity, flagship and fanboyism as a function of the sound or overall value.

 

[atx]

Quote:

You're absolutely right. The differences are present, but small. And defining worse or better is nearly impossible. People usually equate different with good without being able to explain why it's better than another setup.

That is what I've been saying all along! The supermini-3 seems like a better deal than the supermacro-3 because I think the difference is small enough that the $150 price difference will far outweigh it. Ditto between supermacro v1 and supermini-3.


Quote:

People (atx) also seem to equate price, rarity, flagship and fanboyism as a function of the sound or overall value.

The other way around. I care about money. I don't care about rarity, flagship, nor fanboyism. The sound quality I perceive depends on how much money I've spent.

 

[grawk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by atx The other way around. I care about money. I don't care about rarity, flagship, nor fanboyism. The sound quality I perceive depends on how much money I've spent.

So would it sound better if it were given to you or if you paid $100,000? If sound quality is because of low price, then don't buy anything, and it'll sound best. If it's because of high price, then buy stax.

 

[alanz]

gawk,

If the equation use is:

sound quality = sound / price

and you get it for free, you run into a divide-by-zero error < s >