|
Post by guitfiddler on Nov 24, 2016 18:46:09 GMT -6
I just hope on my next upgrade some of these companies are still in business.
|
|
|
Post by jin167 on Nov 24, 2016 19:01:56 GMT -6
past a certain price point 'sounds good' should be a bare minimum requirement. On top of sounding good it should be able to offer extra functionalities that allow its user to achieve more with less time & effort. This particular piece of gear does none of that. IME it sounded like nothing which some people may prefer but to me, a well designed plugin EQ will do the same at the fraction of a cost. Do you own the maselec mea-2? Was planning on having one. I've cancelled that plan after hearing one & seeing what's inside of it. I'm getting this instead www.knifaudio.com/cgi-bin/view_eng.cgi?page=soma
|
|
|
Post by jin167 on Nov 24, 2016 19:04:06 GMT -6
Fair reasoning. But then again.. if you are going to charge $7k for something at least try to use that empty space to add more features you know.. does nothing more than a typical stereo eq. Not if that space is there to eliminate problems caused by inductive coupling. Poor layout is one of the major problems in much of today's less expensive gear. There are other ways of eliminating inductive coupling issues. Space is the cheapest way and I don't expect to see cheap solutions on a unit that costs $7k.
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Nov 24, 2016 19:52:46 GMT -6
jin167 can you explain more in layman terms why you think the prism maselec eq is not worth $6915? What abou t is layout and design strike a nerve with you? Remember simple terms so us bumpkins can understand:)
|
|
|
Post by jin167 on Nov 24, 2016 20:17:23 GMT -6
jin167 can you explain more in layman terms why you think the prism maselec eq is not worth $6915? What abou t is layout and design strike a nerve with you? Remember simple terms so us bumpkins can understand:) I don't think I've made any technical comments in this particular thread. Leave that to the experienced engineers like Mr. Williams, Svart, or EMRR. My complaints are: 1. If there's so much space left inside of a chassis at least try to add more useful features like M/S matrix and in/bypass for each band. 2. If more features can't be added for whatever the reason, then why is it so expensive? Like Mr. Williams said, they aren't using parts that are crazy expensive (apart from the switches. But even then, $7k?). 3. This one is personal. There is nothing special about this unit in terms of its sound. Sure, it's a mastering eq and it's not meant to sound like anything according to some people but then why pay $7k for something that does exactly what a plug in EQ can do equally well or even better. Thus why I've decided to go with Soma. I have his Vari Mu II and it's worth every single cent I've spent on it and I trust Soma will be the same.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Nov 24, 2016 20:46:35 GMT -6
I find a lot of fairly expensive gear that 'adds no sound' is much better at it than plugs. If you have that impression and can afford it, I'm certain you're happy to own whatever does that for you.
More features are frequently a path to worse sound and reliability. You may be paying somewhat for the benefit of that informed judgment. Maybe additional features were auditioned and proved less beneficial than the resulting compromise was worth.
Space should foremost be a matter of ergonomics and best technical solutions, solutions being a series of informed judgement calls. If that call is brute force use of space based on prototype testing, it would be a red herring to criticize the fact the space wasn't packed with additional features. Back to ergonomics, the panel height does not suggest a lot of space for additional features. I haven't seen a single mastering guy who works a 40 hour week say "gee i wish this piece had more smaller knobs with less space between them so i'd have more features." If anything, they tend to say "gee i wish this piece had larger more tactile controls so i could have a more intuitive driver experience, which would allow more focus on the ears versus the hands and eyes." Those guys tend to pick boxes for singular features anyway, often ignoring many of the things available on a particular box, and adding boxes based solely on the box having been judged best at one particular application. I've seen guys with 2-3 high end EQ's in series using particular bands on each one, ignoring others because "they dont sound good."
Again, I've no idea what it sounds like, nor do I see a reason to feel the piece represents highway robbery.
|
|
|
Post by jin167 on Nov 24, 2016 21:22:39 GMT -6
I find a lot of fairly expensive gear that 'adds no sound' is much better at it than plugs. If you have that impression and can afford it, I'm certain you're happy to own whatever does that for you. More features are frequently a path to worse sound and reliability. You may be paying somewhat for the benefit of that informed judgment. Maybe additional features were auditioned and proved less beneficial than the resulting compromise was worth. Space should foremost be a matter of ergonomics and best technical solutions, solutions being a series of informed judgement calls. If that call is brute force use of space based on prototype testing, it would be a red herring to criticize the fact the space wasn't packed with additional features. Back to ergonomics, the panel height does not suggest a lot of space for additional features. I haven't seen a single mastering guy who works a 40 hour week say "gee i wish this piece had more smaller knobs with less space between them so i'd have more features." If anything, they tend to say "gee i wish this piece had larger more tactile controls so i could have a more intuitive driver experience, which would allow more focus on the ears versus the hands and eyes." Those guys tend to pick boxes for singular features anyway, often ignoring many of the things available on a particular box, and adding boxes based solely on the box having been judged best at one particular application. I've seen guys with 2-3 high end EQ's in series using particular bands on each one, ignoring others because "they dont sound good." Again, I've no idea what it sounds like, nor do I see a reason to feel the piece represents highway robbery. I'm sure there are people out there who would not hesitate to spend absurd $$$ only to use one band of an EQ. Sure. It's their money and I don't care how they spend them. Me? I would like to get what I pay for. After seeing what Mr. Knif is capable of making Maselec looks like a joke to me tbh.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Nov 24, 2016 22:30:37 GMT -6
EmRR, this "adds no sound" argument is kind of moot innit? I mean, sometimes we can't even quantify it, but we can still sense the weight of transformers in the sound delivery from a lot of gear. I guess it could be argued that each piece of hardware adds a minuscule amount of THD whether desired or not or even noticeable or not, and it is that which is adding to the sound. Don'tcha think?
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Nov 25, 2016 5:50:30 GMT -6
I mainly want to call into question the idea that software does 'no sound' or 'clean' better. It frequently does not. Everything adds distortion.
|
|
|
Post by jin167 on Nov 25, 2016 6:24:16 GMT -6
I mainly want to call into question the idea that software does 'no sound' or 'clean' better. It frequently does not. Everything adds distortion. are you making this statement based on your mathematical knowledge or just your personal perception?
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Nov 25, 2016 6:54:28 GMT -6
Personal perception of course, in regard to sonics. Distortion is indisputable; if it's processed it's distorted at some micro-level. Plenty of hardware processing results sound cleaner than software, meaning the artifacts are preferable in the analog domain versus the digital domain. This is of course not an absolute statement, but a perception I experience frequently. A mid-side plug? Digital is gonna win that one. There's of course good and bad software and hardware.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Nov 27, 2016 9:52:20 GMT -6
If I look at something and think to myself, "This is too expensive," then my immediate next thought is usually, "This is clearly not meant for me." Just ignore that stuff. It's meant for someone else.
If you're really handy and ambitious, take a look at the DIY Racked Sontec EQ project. I bought the PCB and case but haven't attempted to buy the parts and build it yet. On the topic of value, the finished product will end up costing me under $1500 most likely, along with many hours of labor.
It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me to criticize the price of boutique high end gear. It's an extreme specialty market, and the prices will reflect that.
|
|
rjr
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by rjr on Nov 29, 2016 17:35:22 GMT -6
Looks like about $4000 profit. I'm not a fan of Evox blue mylar caps for EQ either. $4000 profit for whom? This is retail, and there's 3 entities in that food chain: the manufacturer, the wholesale distributor, and the retail dealer. At $6915 retail, the manufacturer is probably getting somewhere between $3500-$4500, with the remainder of the retail price being split between the distributor and retailer. And realistically their take home is probably closer to the 50% mark since the market for gear above $3k has a glacial pace for turnover, so it's more of a risk for a dealer to sit on, and keep their money tied up in, a unit that expensive. Now after that 50% take...the manufacturer has parts costs, employees to pay, bills to pay, etc. I don't think their actual net profit is going to be monumental. And as far as space inside a chassis not being used...what does that really matter? With this particular unit, the pcb is mounted off the front panel. Some manufacturers mount their pcb's off the bottom panel (giving the appearance of more "utilized space"). However for an EQ with the large number of controls that it has, mounting the pcb on the bottom panel would mean a lot more wiring, which means a lot more assembly/labor time, which means more cost. So it makes sense to solder the switches right to the pcb, and then mount the pcb on the front panel. Faster assembly=less labor cost. And maybe they're using this same size chassis on another model, so it makes sense to use the same chassis for two units, and split the parts cost for the chassis order between two models, thus lowering the cost per unit. Would you prefer they used a chassis that's not as deep, if it meant you had to pay slightly more for the unit? Honestly I think empty space inside a chassis is a silly thing to criticize a manufacturer for.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,943
|
Post by ericn on Nov 29, 2016 18:59:00 GMT -6
Looks like about $4000 profit. I'm not a fan of Evox blue mylar caps for EQ either. $4000 profit for whom? This is retail, and there's 3 entities in that food chain: the manufacturer, the wholesale distributor, and the retail dealer. At $6915 retail, the manufacturer is probably getting somewhere between $3500-$4500, with the remainder of the retail price being split between the distributor and retailer. And realistically their take home is probably closer to the 50% mark since the market for gear above $3k has a glacial pace for turnover, so it's more of a risk for a dealer to sit on, and keep their money tied up in, a unit that expensive. Now after that 50% take...the manufacturer has parts costs, employees to pay, bills to pay, etc. I don't think their actual net profit is going to be monumental. And as far as space inside a chassis not being used...what does that really matter? With this particular unit, the pcb is mounted off the front panel. Some manufacturers mount their pcb's off the bottom panel (giving the appearance of more "utilized space"). However for an EQ with the large number of controls that it has, mounting the pcb on the bottom panel would mean a lot more wiring, which means a lot more assembly/labor time, which means more cost. So it makes sense to solder the switches right to the pcb, and then mount the pcb on the front panel. Faster assembly=less labor cost. And maybe they're using this same size chassis on another model, so it makes sense to use the same chassis for two units, and split the parts cost for the chassis order between two models, thus lowering the cost per unit. Would you prefer they used a chassis that's not as deep, if it meant you had to pay slightly more for the unit? Honestly I think empty space inside a chassis is a silly thing to criticize a manufacturer for. 50% if your paying map, remember the dealer is the only one who takes a hit on any discount! Part of the price of gear that nobody understands is that everybody who's involved has to eat and keep a roof over their head, you need to realize how many people your feeding in each step and how long this one purchase is going to pay their bills!
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Nov 29, 2016 19:13:55 GMT -6
$4000 profit for whom? This is retail, and there's 3 entities in that food chain: the manufacturer, the wholesale distributor, and the retail dealer. At $6915 retail, the manufacturer is probably getting somewhere between $3500-$4500, with the remainder of the retail price being split between the distributor and retailer. And realistically their take home is probably closer to the 50% mark since the market for gear above $3k has a glacial pace for turnover, so it's more of a risk for a dealer to sit on, and keep their money tied up in, a unit that expensive. Now after that 50% take...the manufacturer has parts costs, employees to pay, bills to pay, etc. I don't think their actual net profit is going to be monumental. And as far as space inside a chassis not being used...what does that really matter? With this particular unit, the pcb is mounted off the front panel. Some manufacturers mount their pcb's off the bottom panel (giving the appearance of more "utilized space"). However for an EQ with the large number of controls that it has, mounting the pcb on the bottom panel would mean a lot more wiring, which means a lot more assembly/labor time, which means more cost. So it makes sense to solder the switches right to the pcb, and then mount the pcb on the front panel. Faster assembly=less labor cost. And maybe they're using this same size chassis on another model, so it makes sense to use the same chassis for two units, and split the parts cost for the chassis order between two models, thus lowering the cost per unit. Would you prefer they used a chassis that's not as deep, if it meant you had to pay slightly more for the unit? Honestly I think empty space inside a chassis is a silly thing to criticize a manufacturer for. 50% if your paying map, remember the dealer is the only one who takes a hit on any discount! Part of the price of gear that nobody understands is that everybody who's involved has to eat and keep a roof over their head, you need to realize how many people your feeding in each step and how long this one purchase is going to pay their bills! This is somewhat of a semi-sequitor, which has the smaller carbon footprint - software or hardware?
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Nov 29, 2016 19:28:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kilroyrock on Nov 30, 2016 12:14:06 GMT -6
They had me at "Counter Spiral Geometry"
|
|
rjr
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by rjr on Nov 30, 2016 12:28:38 GMT -6
$4000 profit for whom? This is retail, and there's 3 entities in that food chain: the manufacturer, the wholesale distributor, and the retail dealer. At $6915 retail, the manufacturer is probably getting somewhere between $3500-$4500, with the remainder of the retail price being split between the distributor and retailer. And realistically their take home is probably closer to the 50% mark since the market for gear above $3k has a glacial pace for turnover, so it's more of a risk for a dealer to sit on, and keep their money tied up in, a unit that expensive. Now after that 50% take...the manufacturer has parts costs, employees to pay, bills to pay, etc. I don't think their actual net profit is going to be monumental. And as far as space inside a chassis not being used...what does that really matter? With this particular unit, the pcb is mounted off the front panel. Some manufacturers mount their pcb's off the bottom panel (giving the appearance of more "utilized space"). However for an EQ with the large number of controls that it has, mounting the pcb on the bottom panel would mean a lot more wiring, which means a lot more assembly/labor time, which means more cost. So it makes sense to solder the switches right to the pcb, and then mount the pcb on the front panel. Faster assembly=less labor cost. And maybe they're using this same size chassis on another model, so it makes sense to use the same chassis for two units, and split the parts cost for the chassis order between two models, thus lowering the cost per unit. Would you prefer they used a chassis that's not as deep, if it meant you had to pay slightly more for the unit? Honestly I think empty space inside a chassis is a silly thing to criticize a manufacturer for. 50% if your paying map, remember the dealer is the only one who takes a hit on any discount! Part of the price of gear that nobody understands is that everybody who's involved has to eat and keep a roof over their head, you need to realize how many people your feeding in each step and how long this one purchase is going to pay their bills! Exactly. I've heard it many times where someone says something to the effect of, "Look at the parts cost. I could build and sell X for half of what so and so is charging and make a killing". Whether that X is guitar pedals, pro audio gear, guitar amps, etc. So many people have no idea the costs involved, and in reality how little net profit margin there actually is for the manufacturer after they've paid all their bills. Because they're not taking home the full retail price. That retail price is getting split up, like you said, to feed a bunch of different mouths. And not to mention the fact that products don't just sell because they're for sale. A lot of these companies disappear. Just look at the guitar pedal market. I can't even keep up with all these companies that come and go.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,943
|
Post by ericn on Nov 30, 2016 12:51:31 GMT -6
50% if your paying map, remember the dealer is the only one who takes a hit on any discount! Part of the price of gear that nobody understands is that everybody who's involved has to eat and keep a roof over their head, you need to realize how many people your feeding in each step and how long this one purchase is going to pay their bills! Exactly. I've heard it many times where someone says something to the effect of, "Look at the parts cost. I could build and sell X for half of what so and so is charging and make a killing". Whether that X is guitar pedals, pro audio gear, guitar amps, etc. So many people have no idea the costs involved, and in reality how little net profit margin there actually is for the manufacturer after they've paid all their bills. Because they're not taking home the full retail price. That retail price is getting split up, like you said, to feed a bunch of different mouths. And not to mention the fact that products don't just sell because they're for sale. A lot of these companies disappear. Just look at the guitar pedal market. I can't even keep up with all these companies that come and go. The other part most don't get is that a small manufacturer is not building their entire line at once, so you have to often sit waiting for a specific part, that means your money is sitting on a shelf, you have a batch built to tide you over till the next run , that equals the same money is sitting on a shelf. Now you want the big dealers ? Okay they are going to want an off sheet deal at any quantity, plus terms. Now to cover the demands of those dealers your going to need more stock sitting on the shelf thats more cash sitting on the shelf. Over seas? Okay your cash is either sitting on a boat or your shipping express to a dealer who wants it now!
|
|
|
Post by rocinante on Nov 30, 2016 13:00:15 GMT -6
RjR (Im assuming you're Regular John) makes a great point though. To add A LOT goes into the design and research and protyping of gear. That Maselec could very well have begun its journey from design to product two-three years before it hit the dealers. Think about that for a turn around. And its not like those things are flying off the shelves. Without seeing the pcbs and components that are against the front panel its hard to tell but that space between could very well be for noise blocking/filtering from the psu. The size of the case might be imperative to its silent operation. And the case being so big is not the highest price point necessarily. It might be using Elma switches which individually would cost more than the case. Ive bought transistors that together cost nearly as much as (if not more) than the case.
|
|
|
Post by BradM on Nov 30, 2016 13:11:08 GMT -6
Exactly. I've heard it many times where someone says something to the effect of, "Look at the parts cost. I could build and sell X for half of what so and so is charging and make a killing". Whether that X is guitar pedals, pro audio gear, guitar amps, etc. So many people have no idea the costs involved, and in reality how little net profit margin there actually is for the manufacturer after they've paid all their bills. Because they're not taking home the full retail price. That retail price is getting split up, like you said, to feed a bunch of different mouths. And not to mention the fact that products don't just sell because they're for sale. A lot of these companies disappear. Just look at the guitar pedal market. I can't even keep up with all these companies that come and go. For a lot of these companies still playing the distributor/dealer game, a good portion of the margin goes to them. Look at any piece of gear on Sweetwater and Vintage King and assume that retail price is about 5-6x the BOM cost. Dealers get ~30-$50%. Distributors take like 10-15% maybe? What's left of course goes to pay for things like BOM parts and manufacturing labor to build the product. But don't forget things like the cost of packaging and landed costs like shipping and import duties to receive components and send them to manufacturers or distributors or dealers. It also costs money to develop a new idea and turn it into a product. Not everything works on the first try. When you first launch a product you are digging yourself out of a financial hole after you pay designer fees and prototyping expenses. I know from experience this can be many 10's of thosands of dollars. I wasn't even paying myself a for my time when I designed the Silver Bullet. If I had been then we're talking $100k+. Then there's marketing costs. Putting a half page ad in one of the big magazines costs tens of thousands of dollars a year. You also have to factor in the cost of repairs and customer service. No matter how well you build things, inevitably something breaks and you have to fix it. There's also all the administrative costs: accounting, office supplies, web hosting and web design, merchant acounts, banking costs, office rent, etc. If you have employees you are also paying payroll. It's maddening how much even a little company like mine spends every month just to keep the doors open. Thank Zeus for reward credit cards. Ha. Oh, let's not forget the biggest whammy of them all: state and federal income taxes. Let's say you are a small mom and pop operation filing as a sole proprietor LLC. You file your business earnings on Schedule C of your 1040. If you do a modest amount of business and don't totally suck then you probably fall in at least the 25% income tax bracket. In California we pay about another 10% to the state, plus an annual LLC tax. Where am I going with all this? In the end I'd be surprised if most pro audio companies earn more than a 10%-20% net profit in a good year. Why do companies go out of business? My guess is that they don't understand what they are up against when they develop their business plan. Running a small business is risky and the truth is most fail. Brad
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,943
|
Post by ericn on Nov 30, 2016 13:26:38 GMT -6
Exactly. I've heard it many times where someone says something to the effect of, "Look at the parts cost. I could build and sell X for half of what so and so is charging and make a killing". Whether that X is guitar pedals, pro audio gear, guitar amps, etc. So many people have no idea the costs involved, and in reality how little net profit margin there actually is for the manufacturer after they've paid all their bills. Because they're not taking home the full retail price. That retail price is getting split up, like you said, to feed a bunch of different mouths. And not to mention the fact that products don't just sell because they're for sale. A lot of these companies disappear. Just look at the guitar pedal market. I can't even keep up with all these companies that come and go. For a lot of these companies still playing the distributor/dealer game, a good portion of the margin goes to them. Look at any piece of gear on Sweetwater and Vintage King and assume that retail price is about 5-6x the BOM cost. Dealers get ~30-$50%. Distributors take like 10-15% maybe? What's left of course goes to pay for things like BOM parts and manufacturing labor to build the product. But don't forget things like the cost of packaging and landed costs like shipping and import duties to receive components and send them to manufacturers or distributors or dealers. It also costs money to develop a new idea and turn it into a product. Not everything works on the first try. When you first launch a product you are digging yourself out of a financial hole after you pay designer fees and prototyping expenses. I know from experience this can be many 10's of thosands of dollars. I wasn't even paying myself a for my time when I designed the Silver Bullet. If I had been then we're talking $100k+. Then there's marketing costs. Putting a half page ad in one of the big magazines costs tens of thousands of dollars a year. You also have to factor in the cost of repairs and customer service. No matter how well you build things, inevitably something breaks and you have to fix it. There's also all the administrative costs: accounting, office supplies, web hosting and web design, merchant acounts, banking costs, office rent, etc. If you have employees you are also paying payroll. It's maddening how much even a little company like mine spends every month just to keep the doors open. Thank Zeus for reward credit cards. Ha. Oh, let's not forget the biggest whammy of them all: state and federal income taxes. Let's say you are a small mom and pop operation filing as a sole proprietor LLC. You file your business earnings on Schedule C of your 1040. If you do a modest amount of business and don't totally suck then you probably fall in at least the 25% income tax bracket. In California we pay about another 10% to the state, plus an annual LLC tax. Where am I going with all this? In the end I'd be surprised if most pro audio companies earn more than a 10%-20% net profit in a good year. Why do companies go out of business? My guess is that they don't understand what they are up against when they develop their business plan. Running a small business is risky and the truth is most fail. Brad A lot of companies die when one of 2 things happen 1. They hire 1-5 of their first employees, the cost of labor is a huge expense / risk. 2. Move out of the house and into their own building. all you have to do is think of your own bank acct and the hit of unexpected expenses, now think of that acct pays the rent of others And the unexpected multiplying !
|
|