[maverickronin]

Quote:

Have you ever read George Berkeley?

I refute it thus.  *Kicks rock*

 

[sphinxvc]

Quote:

I refute it thus.  *Kicks rock*

Esse est percipi.
 

 

[maverickronin]

I just mentioned that line since I think its hilarious.  Are we actually going to debate philosophy here?

 

[sphinxvc]

I wasn't planning on it.  But if you want to, it's probably best to read a book or something.  

 

[mosshorn]

I feel that a LOT of stuff is placebo effect, don't get me wrong. But it's like carving. Going from a soundcard to your first 100 dollar rig is a HUGE chunk of refinement. Keep spending to knock more and more detail out of your music, but once you hit a certain price bracket, it's merely whittling out fine details. Details that to the average joe would be invisible or "barely noticable", but to the woodworker is as bright and apparent as the sun. 
 
 
 
IMO, people should never start this hobby out expensive. Start out low, and work up. You'll appreciate every detail even more. Hell, I'm only in low-mid fi, and I can tell you my stuff is night and day compared to past setups

 

[dorino]

if you start out at the top of the line you'll never know how good you have it.

 

[justin w.]

Quote:

 
 
The ratio is about right, but not to "parts cost".
 
It's more like a 1:5 ratio between manufacturing cost and retail price - so that includes all the overheads and labour costs in making the product ans well as the raw parts cost.  The raw parts cost can be quite low when compared to this.
 
The manufacturing cost is:-
Cost of parts
Cost of labour
Cost of building and upkeep
Business Tax and insurance
Power costs (gas and electricity)
 
IE: everything it costs to to actually make the product before you make any profit.
 
THEN
 
You have to add a profit margin
 
You have to add a Distributor margin
 
You have to add a dealer margin.
 
The Dealer margin alone will be 30 - 40% of the retail price for a consumer product (sometimes more - but less for a pro product).

 
 

Interesting thread!  Everything I have ever built and sold is at 2 to 3x the cost of parts.  I've always been told that's too low.  It seems to work but efficiency and maintaining low risk is key.
 

 

[Spareribs]

IMO, it's not a bad idea to go to the DIY route especially if gear is one of your hobbies. Even if you can afford a great $2000 amp, it's still a worthy venture I feel. Some people feel that a soldering iron is fearful but in likelihood, you probably in your lifetime may need one handy for other things and even young girls during World War 2 did a lot of welding so I think a girly man can do it too especially with the wealth of information out there these days.
 
I don't know much about DIY headphone amps but there's a lot of tube amp kits out there for speakers and guitars.  Also, if on a budget, you can also consider making speakers too.
 
 

 

[John Willett]

Quote:

Interesting thread!  Everything I have ever built and sold is at 2 to 3x the cost of parts.  I've always been told that's too low.  It seems to work but efficiency and maintaining low risk is key.
 

But it sounds like you are a small business, building yourself and selling direct.
 
I assume you have a very low advertising budget and don't employ people.
 
Do you make these at home and don't bay business rates and all the other stuff that a business working in commercial premises have to do?
 
 

 

[krod3003]

Quote:

if you start out at the top of the line you'll never know how good you have it.

Haha! That was me.
 
 
 

 

[Wharfrat]

I found this thread enlightening and confirming some of my experiences in listening to source and signal gear that range from mid tier to high-end.  My experience has been that one should pay more attention to the quality of the first and last parts in the sound chain, namely the source gear, be it a CD player/DAC or a vinyl rig and the sound reproduction end, e.g., the speakers/headphones.  One way of looking at it: this is where one can more readily discern differences between products at various price points and apportion their expenses according to their listening preferences. 
 
There is definitely a point where price and performance approach dimnishing returns with source and sound gear.  As for amplification components lying between the two, it has been my experience that the differences are much less noticeable and then for those to whom it matters, it is one's personal idiosyncracy in play.  Some people seek high resolution, analytical over warm and forgiving components and others love tubes with the note decays and softer transients for jazz but would not for orchestral works.
 
This is where the expense in the hobby lies, the upgrading and the tweaking.   There are the low-aspirers and then there are the Asperger's types.
 
Then there are the rich....

 

[justin w.]

Quote:

But it sounds like you are a small business, building yourself and selling direct.
 
I assume you have a very low advertising budget and don't employ people.
 
Do you make these at home and don't bay business rates and all the other stuff that a business working in commercial premises have to do?
 
 

For the most part, that is true.  The model you have proposed doesn't work for headphone amplifiers (except maybe in China) because there aren't enough customers to make up for those costs.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

I found this thread enlightening and confirming some of my experiences in listening to source and signal gear that range from mid tier to high-end.  My experience has been that one should pay more attention to the quality of the first and last parts in the sound chain, namely the source gear, be it a CD player/DAC or a vinyl rig and the sound reproduction end, e.g., the speakers/headphones.  One way of looking at it: this is where one can more readily discern differences between products at various price points and apportion their expenses according to their listening preferences. 
 
There is definitely a point where price and performance approach dimnishing returns with source and sound gear.  As for amplification components lying between the two, it has been my experience that the differences are much less noticeable and then for those to whom it matters, it is one's personal idiosyncracy in play.  Some people seek high resolution, analytical over warm and forgiving components and others love tubes with the note decays and softer transients for jazz but would not for orchestral works.
 
This is where the expense in the hobby lies, the upgrading and the tweaking.   There are the low-aspirers and then there are the Asperger's types.
 
Then there are the rich....

Analog sources?  Yes.  Modern DACs of any sort?  Ha!  Differences are not so easily discerned.  Even between $30 and $1000 DACs, because the $30 DACs are already more or less "good enough" just like well-designed modern amplifiers.
 

 

[Wharfrat]

Sorry to be thick in the skull but I ain't quite sure I grasp your point with reference to analog sources?  Are you saying that refinements have been greater in the analog domain (i.e., TTs, phonostages, cartridge/arm designs) than they have been in the DAC domain?
 
What about DAC refinements that have brought forth high res sources to our clearly discerning ears?  Redbook 44/16 can't hold a candle to 192/24 to my ears....unless the latter was a very poorly recorded job (then it will sound clearly bad..., pardon the pun).
 
 

 

[maverickronin]

Its just easier and cheaper to make a transparent DAC than a transparent vinyl rig.
 
Also, studies suggest that Redbook is indeed transparent to human ears unless you listen at insane volumes and need the extra dynamic range from 24 bits.  Hi-rez releases are just usually better mastered than normal CDs because anyone who spends the extra money on it is going to be more critical of the quality.