How does Boulder equipment avoid obsolescence?

Companies that come out with new versions of their gear billed as a huge sonic breakthrough each year, are simply trying to make $. Most of the technology doesn't change that much from year to year, and in some cases the older parts sound better than the newer parts. DACs and computer audio are the one big exception there.

I suspect Boulder does use some different parts in a piece they build today versus the same piece built 5 years ago. They just don't choose to re-brand it and send all of their current customers scurrying for the latest changes. I bet if you called them you could verify that.

I rather like the way Boulder keeps the same designs reminds me of Nagra in that way.

I continue to be amazed at Boulder's track record in this regard. Other manufacturers change designs and update components slightly every few years to get you to upgrade; the exception being digital components where progress continues to be made. I had the chance to visit the Boulder facility a few months ago and I can tell you that everything is done in house; designs, casework, surface mount technology. I suppose they change components through the years but the design is rock solid and the results are stunning in my view. They did a demo of the 1021 CD player playing high resolution files from the network, through an 810 pre-amp, and a 2060 amp on Wilson Alexandria IIs. If you add up all the dollars that we spend upgrading through the years vs the cost of a single purchase that lasts 10-12 years, I will bet the economics of the more expensive Boulder purchase looks pretty good. The problem is having the money for the original purchase! Can you say lottery win!

Think about which train you'd rather be on to get to your destination.

A rock solid design with years of refinement and fine tuning behind it?

The latest and greatest and yet unproven new design that tries to solve the same basic problem that has been around for about 100 years (amplified reproduction of sound) differently yet again?

I completely understand your concerns. I shared similar worries before I bought my 1012. I totally agree with the posts above and have only a little more to add.

When auditioning the 1012 against "newer" competitors, I realized I tended to automatically equate newer with better. But I learned newer usually means "different" and any given person might like that difference. But maybe not if you listen carefully.

When I checked my biases, as much as anyone really can, the 1012 outperformed the newer and similarly priced equipment to my surprise.

So I stuck to my ears and bought it. And, after the same process, a 1060 to go with it.

The 1012 is a remarkable piece.