Why is pro gear so expensive?

[Good4it]

It’s quite a bit more than even a nice AVR and with 2 or more units takes up more space.

Is it because it is comprised of better parts or what? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[lovinthehd]

What piece(s) of pro gear are you referring to?

 

[Good4it]

What piece(s) of pro gear are you referring to?

Pre Amp + Amp vs AVR

 

[Hetfield]

Pre Amp + Amp vs AVR

I think there simple answer is because it's 2 pieces instead one box. That is the simplest way of thinking about it. I'm sure someone will know whether better parts are used in each because they are 2 separate pieces of equipment. I know the amp in a stand alone amp is typically a much better amp than on a receiver.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Good4it]

2 boxes = twice the space and a rack. An AVR can be set almost anywhere.

Has to be more than that if so many do it. Is it you look more professional if you have a rack with more blue/green lites. I only have a 4’ bookcase and my AVR, Center speaker, Blue Ray and Dish box take what space there is. My BMR speaker are in front of that.

 

[lovinthehd]

Pre Amp + Amp vs AVR

I thought you meant professional gear rather than separates....

Generally it's attributed to economies of scale....far more avrs are sold.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Pre Amp + Amp vs AVR

You mean "separates" components, not "Pro Gears".

It's a niche market - economies of scale.

Few people buy pre-pro + amps, so the cost will be a lot higher.

A lot of people buy AVR, so the cost will be lower for AVR.

I don't think it's so much higher quality parts used in separates.

IOW, the Marantz/Denon/Yamaha/Anthem pre-pros are pretty much the same as their AVR's. They just take these AVR's and modify them to become pre-pros and amps.

I don't know if you remember or heard of this. But not too long ago, Moon Audio took a $1,200 AVR and modified it into a Pre-pro (removed the amp section, put into new beautiful chassis, added XLR Inputs/Outputs, etc.) and charged $18,000 for it!

 

[lovinthehd]

You mean "separates" components, not "Pro Gears".

It's a niche market - scales of economics.

Very little people buy pre-pro + amps, so the cost will be a lot higher.

A lot of people buy AVR, so the cost will be lower for AVR.

I don't think it's so much higher quality parts used in separates.

IOW, the Marantz/Denon/Yamaha/Anthem pre-pros are pretty much the same as their AVR's. They just take these AVR's and modify them to become pre-pros and amps.

I don't know if you remember or heard of this. But not too long ago, Moon Audio took a $1,200 AVR and modified it into a Pre-pro (removed the amp section, put into new beautiful chassis, added XLR Inputs/Outputs, etc.) and charged $18,000 for it!

EDIT: Looks like HD beat me to the punch on the scales of economics.

I'm liking scales of economics as well as economies of scale!

 

[Good4it]

Thanks for all the answers but no one has said their better just more expensive.

 

[Good4it]

I'm liking scales of economics as well as economies of scale!

SEPARATES sorry

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I'm liking scales of economics as well as economies of scale!

Haha. LOL.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Thanks for all the answers but no one has said their better just more expensive.

Well, some people believe separates do sound better. Others don't.

Check out this thread on Separates vs AVR:

https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/the-separates-vs-avr-thread.110901/

 

[lovinthehd]

I've not had multich separates. AVRs work well so no need. I did have separates with 2ch gear and it wasn't as impressive as it was sold to be....when I relegated my 2ch gear (only had separates since the 80s) to the spare bedrooms I didn't miss them a bit. Comes with a bit more freedom to use a massive amp or two, but otherwise....

 

[lovinthehd]

SEPARATES sorry

Hey, that was ADTG who was scolding you, not me There is pro gear, but not much in the way of competition to an avr or pre-pro/amp combos. Professional level theater gear ain't cheap.

 

[WaynePflughaupt]

Thanks for all the answers but no one has said their better just more expensive.

Certainly more expensive, but separates can certainly be better, too. And certainly offer more options.

For instance, if you have a whole set of low-efficiency 4-ohm speakers, probably no receiver would be able to drive them. With separates you could get a high-powered amplifier rated for a 4-ohm load.

Separates also allow for external processing between the pre-amp and amps, such as an outboard equalizer. An electronic crossover could also be used by people who have DIY multi-way active speakers.

Or, if you’re the last living FM radio connoisseur, you could get an outboard tuner that’s miles better than the things that come in AVRs these days.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

 

[TLS Guy]

Thanks for all the answers but no one has said their better just more expensive.

I personally believe there is much to be gained from separates. I personally regard receivers as an absolutely horrible concept, and getting worse.

The problem is that electronic solid state deices have a time/heat curve before destruction. It is in all the specs for every solid state device and has to be for the designer. So there is no argument components operating at a higher temperature will have a shorter life. That is not up for debate. The smaller voltage amplifying stages, and especially microprocessors, are especially vulnerable. So essentially it is really bad design to place heat producing power amps, and the more amps you add makes it worse, alongside and in the same case as the small signal voltage amplification stages and even worse to put them in with digital processing circuits.

In addition there is just not enough room to build all those amps with decent sized output devices. In addition I like my power amps to have the output devices tripled and not singles, so six output devices per channel and not two. This makes for much longer life and relaxed reproduction. I can tell you that decent separate power amps sound much better than receiver amps. When using a really well designed power amp versus a receiver the better power amps just really let good speakers come alive. I also favor a unique amp topology which runs cool and gives class A performance with none of the problems. I have used current dumping power amps exclusively since their introduction over forty years ago now.

Lastly a pre pro and multiple power amps enables much more freedom of speaker design with the possibility of a massive increase in performance and realism. I could not power my speakers from a receiver. The design of this system compels the use of separate voltage and power amplification. This 7.1 system is powered by 14 current dumping power amplifier channels.

 

[Johnny2Bad]

Maybe the proper way to phrase the question is:

"Why is consumer gear so cheap?"

Of course outlays of hundreds or thousands of dollars may not seem cheap, especially if you have to struggle to save or simply abandon any idea of purchasing, but things cost what they cost. When a consumer level commodity resistor and a precision instrument grade resistor have a cost differential of 1000x, it's not hard to see why there are differences in price scale between consumer and pro gear.

The revolution over the last 40 years has been making pro gear less expensive, and the progress is staggering. You can buy a setup for a few thousand$ today that is equivalent* to a setup that cost hundreds of thousands$ 40 years ago, and $300K in 1980 dollars is more or less a million$ in 2018 dollars. I don't know of any industry that can boast that level of cost reduction over the same period.

Yet, the price complaints are EXACTLY the same as they were in any year you care to name between then and now. In 1978 when you couldn't expect to buy a proper HiFi for less than about $600 ($2324 in 2018 dollars) and the average system sold for somewhere between 1 and 2 thousand dollars ($3871 to $7742 in 2018 dollars),people found a way to buy what was important to them.

I'm reminded of my buddy, a machinist who makes absolutely stunning motorcycle parts, and in his day job builds components for aerospace, a particle accelerator, experimental projects at a Univeristy Machine Shop. I asked him (many years ago) about people who would spend on parts and then just sell the bike. His reply " Some people just don't give a Fsxk about bikes". Same goes for HiFi, or anything, really. If you want it as part of your life, you will find a way to pay for it.

If good AV receivers were $80, people would still complain that they aren't $40. It's not some evil plot, it's just Human Nature. And that is why I find threads about price so pointless. 40 years from now when a HiFi is the size of a pack of gum and costs $27 the same threads will spontaneously sprout, complaining that the $227 variant is "overpriced" while at the same time wishing to own that very item because the $27 version isn't quite as good.

* By "equivalent" I don't mean the same specs or performance, I mean of sufficient quality to meet Pro Level standards of the time, whether today or some year between 1978 and now.

 

[sterling shoote]

Maybe the proper way to phrase the question is:

"Why is consumer gear so cheap?"

Of course outlays of hundreds or thousands of dollars may not seem cheap, especially if you have to struggle to save or simply abandon any idea of purchasing, but things cost what they cost. When a consumer level commodity resistor and a precision instrument grade resistor have a cost differential of 1000x, it's not hard to see why there are differences in price scale between consumer and pro gear.

The revolution over the last 40 years has been making pro gear less expensive, and the progress is staggering. You can buy a setup for a few thousand$ today that is equivalent* to a setup that cost hundreds of thousands$ 40 years ago, and $300K in 1980 dollars is more or less a million$ in 2018 dollars. I don't know of any industry that can boast that level of cost reduction over the same period.

Yet, the price complaints are EXACTLY the same as they were in any year you care to name between then and now. In 1978 when you couldn't expect to buy a proper HiFi for less than about $600 ($2324 in 2018 dollars) and the average system sold for somewhere between 1 and 2 thousand dollars ($3871 to $7742 in 2018 dollars),people found a way to buy what was important to them.

I'm reminded of my buddy, a machinist who makes absolutely stunning motorcycle parts, and in his day job builds components for aerospace, a particle accelerator, experimental projects at a Univeristy Machine Shop. I asked him (many years ago) about people who would spend on parts and then just sell the bike. His reply " Some people just don't give a Fsxk about bikes". Same goes for HiFi, or anything, really. If you want it as part of your life, you will find a way to pay for it.

If good AV receivers were $80, people would still complain that they aren't $40. It's not some evil plot, it's just Human Nature. And that is why I find threads about price so pointless. 40 years from now when a HiFi is the size of a pack of gum and costs $27 the same threads will spontaneously sprout, complaining that the $227 variant is "overpriced" while at the same time wishing to own that very item because the $27 version isn't quite as good.

* By "equivalent" I don't mean the same specs or performance, I mean of sufficient quality to meet Pro Level standards of the time, whether today or some year between 1978 and now.

A piece of stereo equipment that cost about $300 in the early 1970's will cost about $3000 today, or 10 times more if it is made as it was made in the early 70's. Thing is, the average salary has only risen to about 6 times what it was in the early 70's. It might be why the $4000.00 price tag on a pair of the new JBL L100 Classic Speakers is an even harder pill to swallow today than it seemed to be back in the early 70's. Technology, has come the rescue for some electronics but if you want it like it used to be it's going to cost ya.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

TLS guy said:

Hypothesis:
"I can tell you that decent separate power amps sound much better than receiver amps."

Methodology:
???

What are your scientific methods when drawing that conclusion?

 

[Johnny2Bad]

A piece of stereo equipment that cost about $300 in the early 1970's will cost about $3000 today, or 10 times more if it is made as it was made in the early 70's. Thing is, the average salary has only risen to about 6 times what it was in the early 70's. It might be why the $4000.00 price tag on a pair of the new JBL L100 Classic Speakers is an even harder pill to swallow today than it seemed to be back in the early 70's. Technology, has come the rescue for some electronics but if you want it like it used to be it's going to cost ya.

Well, maybe where you live. Early 70's ... I was working for $2.50/hr in 1973 and 1974 during the summer, running heavy equipment (at age 16/17, I was a Crusher Operator, sometimes drove a D8 Cat and a loader when we were short) which was the average for a "good job" back then. (My first full time job I was 14, worked the summer months making eyeglass lenses, for minimum wage. That kind of thing was legal back then).

During the High School school year I worked pumping gas for a bit above minimum wage which was $1.10/hr. Minimum wage today in Canada is 12~14x that, and if you are making $25/hr you are on the bottom end of a "good job" wage scale. Most people I know earn $35~50/hr, I know police officers and firemen who make more than 100K/yr. Starting wage for a teacher right out of school is $45K/yr. Nurses earn $85~125K a year. (Those salaries are not guesses ... everyone who works for the city and earns more than $50K has their salary published annually, so I looked up some people I know, same for everyone in my local Health District; 25% of Nurses in my district earn more than $100K/yr).

Quite a bit different than in the early 70's when $3,500~$6000 were typical annual salaries. Moving on to the late 70's, a wage of $6~10K/yr was not uncommon, and something between $15 and $20K/year was really good money. In 1978 I made $17K and when I told my father what I was making his face went ashen. It didn't click with me at the time, but I later figured out that at 21 I was making more than he was, and he had a pretty good job at the time.