|   Why audiophile vacuum tube amplifiers cost so much | skeptic
Oct 28, 2003 10:39 AM | | Back around 1960, the heyday of the vacuum tube audio amplifier, the state of the art conisited of Marantz 7c preamp and 8 power amp and McIntosh C22 preamp and Mc75 power amp. These beautifully conceived and designed units were built to last seemingly forever, and exploit the existing technology to its utmost. At about 70 to 75 wpc, a stereo setup would cost around $2000. But for less than $300, you could get a pair of very cleverly designed and well built 60wpc Dynaco MKIIIs and the PAS2 preamp which performed nearly as well. By contrast, a 25 inch RCA color television set cost about $500, was relatively unreliable needing constant adjustment and occasional tube replacement by qualified technicians, had color and picture quility that would be considered miserable by today's standards and was a luxury for most people. Today, a 27 inch color TV set that easily outperforms it in every way can be had for about half the price in absolute dollars or probably less than a tenth the price in real dollars. In fact, it would probably be considered by most people to be a throwaway item, never to be repaired but merely trashed and replaced if and when it fails. What can you get for $150 or even $300 today in the way of a vacuum tube audio preamplifier and power amplifier? The answer is just about nothing. In fact, entry level vacuum tube equipment will usually run you $1000 or more. Are they better than their 40 year old predecessors I've mentioned. Hardly. Why? In the design of vacuum tube audio amplifiers there is absolutely nothing new under the sun. And when you look at those huge power and output transformers of the old Marantz and McIntosh units weighing about 60 pounds per channel or even the 28 pounds each MKIII weighs and compare that with modern tube equipment, you can see why. Those manufacturers understood the limitations of their technology very well and did everything possible to overcome them.
So why do today's vacuum tube amplifiers cost so much more than they used to when the overwhelming trend in electronics is constant cost reductions? Several factors conspire to keep costs high.
1. Lack of available parts. There was a time when vacuum tubes themselves, suitable power transformers, power output transformers, and multisection high voltage electrolytic capacitors were plentiful, readily available from many sources, and competition to supply them OEM to manufacturers was fierce. Even customized designed had competitors bidding to manufacture them. No more. The electronics industry abandoned these technologies a long time ago. Now manufacturers must obtain the small quantities they need from sometimes questionable and unreliable sources (who would you rather deal with, Sovtek and Svetlana or GE, RCA, Sylvania, Telefunken, and Mullard?)
2. No economy of scale. When you build many hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands of the same model, there is what is called in manufacturing, economy of scale. The cost to develop and test the design, tool up to manufacture, and train labor is spread over many units and so the cost per unit is small. When you make only a handful, the cost per unit is high. Also purchasing parts in large quantity drives the cost per part way down. Less significant but somewhat irritating is the idea among high end audio manufacturers that their designers and engineers are god's gift to electronics. Forty years ago, an electronics design engineer was just another working stiff. Today they think of themselves as researchers and imagine that they should be paid what real scientists get.
3. Labor intense manufacturing. Much of what goes into vacuum tube amplifiers has to be hand assembled not only because of its inherent nature but also if for no other reason than the small production runs can't justify tooling up automated assembly. If it's made in the US, legally required high labor costs including fringe benefits are the result. If it's made overseas w |
| Why audiophile vacuum tube amplifiers cost so much part 2 | skeptic
Oct 28, 2003 10:40 AM | | 3. Labor intense manufacturing. Much of what goes into vacuum tube amplifiers has to be hand assembled not only because of its inherent nature but also if for no other reason than the small production runs can't justify tooling up automated assembly. If it's made in the US, legally required high labor costs including fringe benefits are the result. If it's made overseas where labor is cheap such as in Mexico or some countries in the orient, there is far less direct control over quality. Most manufacturers of audiophile equipment today could never qualify for ISO 9000 certification, the gold standard for assuring the customer of manufacturing quality and production uniformity. This unfavorable situation is not likely to change IMO. |
| Why audiophile vacuum tube amplifiers cost so much part 2 | RGA
Oct 28, 2003 4:29 PM | | ISO 9000 is a bogus government job creating piece of dog do out to help the American business by discrediting foreign products. Canada does the same crap with their CSA approval versus the UL in the States. We're on the same freaking grid but oh no that Item only has UL approval so your house will burn down if it's not CSA approved. Since they test 1/1000 that come off the line(and I bet it's even lower) it's a job creator and another level of beurocracy to give some politician's brother in law a a mega paying job.
Besides that nonsense...you have a warranty anyway. ISO 9000 does not save you from a lemon |
| re: Why audiophile vacuum tube amplifiers cost so much | RGA
Oct 28, 2003 4:22 PM | | "The cost to develop and test the design, tool up to manufacture, and train labor is spread over many units and so the cost per unit is small. When you make only a handful, the cost per unit is high."
True...but a Ford Focus is still not better than a hand built Rolls Royce, Bentley or Ferrari - for that matter neither is Ford's or GM's best cars. The fact tht Rolls Royce has been bought and bastardized and now are far worse cars than when they were under British Control sure didn't see a price drop.
A realease not long ago state that Toyata vehichles had 18-20 man hours per car...Maybe $600.00. The tooling costs and plant costs work out around 2k and the actual costs of materials slight under 2k. ALL Toyotas. Under 5k a car on average. Holy profit. Recivers are disposable pieces of crap...some are better disposable pieces of crap...but the COST to build the Flagship and entry level are at best minimal. Maybe $30.00 to $75.00. Norm Strong wondered how a discman can be mae for $12.00...easy becaue it costs $1.89 in plastic. The better models from Sony and Panansonic might even be well built and cost them $3.39. For which they charge $129.00 not $12.00.
Tubes can be had today for $6.00. Svetlana and Sovtek are both pefectly fine tubes as are JJ Teslas, EI, etc. One can buy the AQ2004DT preamp and two Wave 8 Monoblocks for $497.00 with a nice 5 year warranty, no biasing required. Not the last word in home amplification but certainly better than any $500.00 reciever you can point me to. With the one issue that you are limited to sensitive easy to drive speakers...otherwise the receiver is I guess better(but actually such a sound is intolerable). So if you buy the speaker that needs a power house amp...you're looking at big money for REAL SS amp or you buy used. It's FAR cheaper to buy the ASL set-up and sensitive speakers and get good sound for 1k.
Point 3...made in foreign countries labour is dirt cheap - quality is probably better than the lazy asses in the US anyway. Been making crappy cars forever I doubt they can make tubes...though yes they will cost more. |
| re: Why audiophile vacuum tube amplifiers cost so much | 300A
Nov 4, 2003 8:49 PM | | "But for less than $300, you could get a pair of very cleverly designed and well built 60wpc Dynaco MKIIIs and the PAS2 preamp which performed nearly as well."
Well, this is one key, "nearly as well". With any product, that last bit of improvement costs. The law of diminishing returns comes into play with any product. Cheap sounding SS is a dime a dozen. Look at the $20k SS amps.
The technology and parts are better. There are also some tricks to the trade that the average person like yourself doesn't know. You think they are just going to give away their livelihood?? Don't be a fool. |
| re: Why audiophile vacuum tube amplifiers cost so much | skeptic
Nov 6, 2003 4:56 PM | | Thirty years ago, McIntosh amplifiers were far more expensive than Dynaco for several reasons. They had very expensive proprietary transformers. They were built on chrome plated chasis. They had more parts. They were simply built to higher standards. Becaue of the high performance of Dynaco equipment, the price differential went beyond the point of diminishing returns. I never saw an AR company demo room where they used McIntosh or Marantz. They didn't want to frighten off their potential customers. They usually used Dynaco until about 1967 or 1968 when they introduced their own solid state integrated amplifier which was rated 60 wpc and tested more like 90.
What I was saying was that not only did you get something for your money when you paid extra but there were low cost practical alternatives. Today tubes generally equals expensive and for absolutely no justifiable reason IMO. These are basically old designs using old design parts. It is very expensive remanufacturing the past when you and a handful of others are the only ones doing it and on a small scale at that. |
| re: Why audiophile vacuum tube amplifiers cost so much | RGA
Nov 6, 2003 10:31 PM | | Expensive? 99.00 Wave 8 monoblock. $299.00 preamp. Under $500.00 and you get all tubes. Heard them drivig the Tannoy Churchill's($15,000.00) and they sounded very nice. Used a comparably priced NAD - C320 I believe. And I'd be surprised if anyone would buy the NAD after a direct comparison.
Tubes can be had for dirt cheap and are well built and sound nice. Most of the time you can pay far less for tube amplifiers for comparable sound.
Indeed, the new Rotel RA01 is 40 watts. For significantly less money you can get the Wave 20 monoblocks and a preamp. You lose 3db.
Yes you can be crazy and spend 10k on a tube amp...of course you can pay 10k on a solid state amp which I seriously dobt will sound any better than a Bryston 4b...and if it does that $7500.00 will buy a small percentage improvement.
And lest not forget that dizzying prices can be found in the 70K monoblocks from Krell. Though at least you're getting all class A and mega watts. I want to hear em. I will make the trip I think. Their power amps are their big strengths...not convinced by their integrated's so perhaps their let down is the preamp section. |
| Anecdote ... | Feanor
Nov 7, 2003 12:51 PM | | I recently auditioned the ASL Wave 8 driven by an ASL preamp, I think the LH-01, and also the ASL MGSi15 integrated. The speakers were my own Paradigm MiniMonitor V3, (87 db/watt).
Both of these beat out my $250 Sony Dolby Prologic receiver -- no surprise there. The MGSi15 was much better than the Wave 8 combo, having much better detail and dynamics. Paul L attributed this in part to the LH-01 and to the lower power of the Wave 8, (8 watts vs. 15). No huge surprise there either.
When I go home I rushed to listen to the same music on my home setup, at the time my Apt Holman driving the power section of my 30 year old Harmon Kardon 330A solid state receiver. Granted I listened through my Magneplanar MMGs rather that the MiniMonitors but I'm pretty familiar with the differences in sound of these two. The Apt/HK combo trashed the MGSi15 in every respect.
Point is, I'm a long, long way from being convinced that this cheap tube equipment is an actual alternative to reasonable SS equipment. The MGSi15 is US$745; for less than that you can get a NAD C370. I'd be disposed to the latter. |
| Anecdote ... | RGA
Nov 7, 2003 10:20 PM | | First of all the monimontors are not my cup of tea, and the MMG is made by a speaker maker that has to be one of the WORST possible choices of any speaker currently available for a small watt tube amp. I would choose the Nad C370 as well with those speakers or any electrostat or panel speaker.
Small watt amps are not going to succeed with these kinds of speakers - but then I have problems with the designs of the speakers that require mega watt amps like the Nad C370...a competant but uninspired sounding product. Planar's generally present very difficult loads strange dips and are for the most part inneficient and difficult to drive. Too difficult for any currnt $500.00 Solid state amp as well to do any real justice too. IMO there is no good $500.00 amp from anyone That I have heard that would be worth owning for typical speakers. If you have sensitive speakers then I would conisder the Wave combo(but I'd rather buy used).
You really need a speaker with at least 90db sensitive 8ohm with no difficult dips for the Wave combo and the MG15 which is considerably less in different modes.
The AQ1003DT is a lot better amp IMO for about a $100.00 more. I was not very impressed with the MG 15 myself for the money they want for it so I won't disagree with you on it. I'm also a little suspicious of the KT88's as they are quite costly tubes. The AQ1003DT uses the EL 34 which are considered by many to be the best sort of tubes for home audio amplifiers on the cheap.
What "Might" work to get a better tube flavour is to try a tube preamp with a given Solid state power amp.
And lastly, do not assume that I am a tube defender. I mention again my top 3 amps under 2k are all Solid state amps. The reason is that it takes a considerable amount to get a tube to where I would like it to sound. (Though I did not try any ASL tubes with the AN K speakers). The Audio Note Soro SE 10 watt integrated could certainly create bass to rattle the room with my AN K.
But the best headphone amplification device on this planet without a doubt in any circle is the Orpheus/Sennheiser system which is an all tube design. One of the best amplifiers on the planet is considered to be the all tube Ongaku-On, and the best DAC for red book cds is arguably the all tube DAC 5 - as ridiculously overpriced as it may be you do apparently get performance.
The best amps from McIntosh are tubes, The best Solid State amps are all class A designs from Krell, Sugden Masterclass etc.
The Wave 8s are all class B. We're talking about monoblock power amps for $198.00. There is a limit here to what they can do. |
| I take your points, RGA; a couple of things ... | Feanor
Nov 8, 2003 11:26 AM | | Remember,I tested the ASL's with the Paradigm, not the Magneplanar. The former are 8 ohm with 87 db/wt.
Magneplanars are 4 ohm but this is minimum and they are otherwise an easy, non-reactive load, (unlike some electrostatics as I understand).
The A11003 isn't 4 ohm-capable otherwise I might be interested. BTW, the Wave 8 has gone up in price, the Divertech website notwithstanding: Paul L tells me the best he can do is Cdn$400 a pair.
Also BTW I personally can't stand headphones. They are more-or-less uncomfortable to wear, but the real reason is that I want the sound to come from in front of me, not from inside my head! |
| I take your points, RGA; a couple of things ... | RGA
Nov 8, 2003 3:36 PM | | You're right about the 1003DT. ASL did not provide a 4ohm tap...for another $100.00 I would perhaps look for the same design of amp from a company called Passion.
The Waves have gone up because i believe they stopped making them...they wer an attempt to get the ASL name out there - now that they have succeeded they dropped their loss leader.
The MG 3.6 has an oddball frequency graph with a giant bass pronounciation which would be a nightmare for a tube...if the other planars from these guys are similar then I would avoid tubes. I rarely hear of anyone using low poweed tube or SS for that matter successfully with Magnepan speakers.
The paradigms would be a better match - though not spectacular.
As for headphones they have certain advantages in the detail department and no room reflections to be worried about. You can also buy binaural recordings which wer designed strictly for headphones so that the band sounds like it's coming from several feet in front of you. They are extremely difficult to find and selection is minimal - mostly classical recordings.
This is like anything else. An $800.00 NAD or Rotel is not a 70k krell and an ASL 1003DT or Jolida 302B is not a Jadis, Cary or Audio Note integrated.
The disadvantage of the sub 1k tubes is that they are not going to drive all the speakers that would be driveable by the SS counterparts. The advantages (presuming you use the speaker that CAN be driven by the Tube) is a much more engaging midband, sweeter top end and fuller sounding bass(generally not as punchy though - so it's going to come down to preference - the low notes on a piano should sound but rock drums maybe not).
Plus a lot of the cheaper tube amps to keep costs down use cheap tubes - which does not help.
I have three 12AX7 tubes for my ASL MG head DT and all three sound different - And they are all around the $10-$15.00 mark. One is better for classical one seems more suited to rock and the one that came with the unit is a bit more balanced if unexciting. The differences are not gigantic - more of a subtle tweak.
Still it's tough to beat the Sugden A21a under 2k. Another glowing review in the current issue of Stereophile...it was not a formal review it was in their earlier section...
I may move to that integrated if I find a deal on it somewhere. |
| Magneplanar frequency response | Feanor
Nov 9, 2003 11:58 AM | | The graph you have shown for MG 3.6 on recent posts doesn't reflect the perceptions of users. I would say that the following Enjoy the Music review for the MMG is more like what most experience:
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/1199/donibbles.htm
Note the these two plots are <i>not</i> anechoic chamber. They indicate a mild dip in the upper midrange which is not out of line with my own impressions. I'd say the mid base peaks and troughs are, as the article suggest, artifacts of the particular listening room.
What frequency plots cannot show is the excellant soundstage and transparency that this speakers deliver. Mid and upper bass are exemplary in the perception of most users -- exceptionally detailed and tight.
With the MMGs at least, there is a loudness deficit playing rock or large scale orchestral works in mid or larger rooms regardless of amplifier power. As you and others of suggested, this is perhaps due to the limited excursion of the bass panels. Larger Magneplanars probably have less of a problem. The "solution" for me when I want high volumes is to up the hi/lo pass for the subwoofer from usually prefered 50-60Hz. |
| Magneplanar frequency response | RGA
Nov 9, 2003 1:07 PM | | I was not knocking the 3.6 graph...merely indicating hat the graph does not tell a person whether they will like a speaker or not. I see the reviewer feels the same as me about the woofer intigration problem of the MLs. Dynamic impact in the bass is not the only problem with the planar/Stat. The mid range has dynamics as well. It's a trade-off and it's that simple...there is no perfect speaker...the reviewer says the MMG is at home against 1k competition which is fine. In some ways I expect that since they don't have to pay a retailer who would add 50%+ to the mark-up. I also agree with the reviewer on $500.00 speakers with cheap dome tweeters...it's more the cheap box IMO.
Soundstage is more directional on boxed speakers geenrally so no surprise their...soundstage, while not as big, tends to be more accurate however with a quality boxed design. But either way soundstage is not the end all wherever you sit on the issue.
My main problem is the 4 feet from a wall part of that review. For $500.00US, however, I can't think of a single boxed speaker that just blows me away...so it would be worth the effort to give the MMG a try. It may not have the bass dynamics...but then what $500.00 Standmount does...the DM 602S3 but I'm not entirely convinced by the treble. |
| |
