That is a very interesting post. I suspect not only very informative but accurate as well. +1
Is it "whats best forum" , or what's more expensive
- Thread starter MarinJim
- Start date
That is a very interesting post. I suspect not only very informative but accurate as well. +1
I concur - the ones who are adapting quickly to the bubble will die when the bubble bursts, as bubbles always do. The bubble is bending them out of shape, they really are not being authentic to themselves in chasing such ephemeral profits.
Myles- not trying to incense you, but I do think folks and reviewers including yourself ought to challenge value at these upper echelons such as 35k tonearms. Ask the tough questions! Art Dudley lamented similar things at his last show review--as every component he saw was like 25k+. Jeff Fritz has openly challenged manufacturers as well (speaker cabinet material). Since reviewers are so uniquely powerful in this industry, I think it makes sense.
The other thing reviewers need to do is compare products---if I see another review on a 30k item without a comparison to other things, it's worthless and I feel is basically an advertisement. I'll call one out--Alan Sircom just reviewed Magico S5s without a single comparison to another speaker. Most of the TAS cover stories are similar.
The issue (FOR ME ONLY) is there isn't that much R&D or materials going into this stuff- price just begets price as manufacturers are trying to sell overseas with pretty cases (copper heat sinks which while expensive, don't add anything to the sound of Dan's monos). And the reason I can't hear it is I can't demo it! Please give me a list of dealers who have the 35k tonearm in stock that I can take home overnight. 99.9% of dealers aren't stocking a 200k speaker or 50k phono stage either.
The issue for MY FRIENDS (age 35, so the demo that all manufacturers want) is that they see the prices of this stuff at the high end and laugh. Why bother getting a 10k system, when SOTA is a 50k preamp. It discourages sales imo. This happened to me when I took a guy with basic Revels and a receiver to a stereo store in San Diego. He asked how much the stack in front of him was and 100k was the answer. At that point his tune changed.
When I started out in this hobby in 1999, there wasn't near the amount of unobtanium in this business. The model has changed and manufacturers have actively done this. And I successfully wrote this post without talking about the cable business
The truly expensive products do come across as ludicrous in terms of pricing I agree, but even late 80s the top end reference-statement products were very high priced, and the more high end mainstream are nearly comparable to then/now when adjusting prices.
Someone else posted on Stereophile how much their system cost in very early 90s, around $50k and that was not the top system-components available at the time.
I have posted in the past on Stereophile some original prices and I can safely say the very top high end back in 70s-80s-90s was still eye watering when price adjusted.
Key being very top high end, which it seems to me has broadened with more manufacturers declaring more products within that category.
To me this is the trend that has changed and is detrimental to the perception of high end IMO; more products appearing or declared by manufacturers in the niche reference-statement top end with the prices that goes with them with these shown more than the lower down models.
Would be like going to Mercedes and 1st being shown SLR McLaren rather than the run around C-class model the average person wants to buy.
But there are those who can afford the SLR McLaren and would be interested, same goes for the reference-statement audio products, just unfortunately these have become too prominent and at the expense of the more accessible priced and still excellent entry reference products; manufacturers and some dealers wrongly looking to the extreme rich to survive without looking to the future foundation.
That said there are manufacturers that are high end and importantly with accessible pricing.
Regarding Alan Sircom review, I must say I liked the review and to be fair he did compare it to the Q model range in Magico and why he feels that the S5 is a better model for many listeners.
For me this approach was important as I have followed Magico for a long time but more interested in the path the S5 has taken, which personally I feel Alan covered well.
I agree it is useful to compare a product to others out there, but to me it does not necessarily mean it must be compared to a competitor.
Also as someone who subscribes to 4 hifi magazines, I do like there to be a differentiation between approaches, these days for printed audio publications to survive they have to be more than just about a single product review that will be put online and read for free by many (definitely not directed at you but something I have noticed as a trend with other forums when they critique writers).
A very few audio publications get this IMO and I include Alan in that group, but that is just my preference and view.
Not necessarily disagreeing, especially when one considers the excesses of some product prices, but there is a lot of good out there.
Problem is noticing this when one's eye is continually drawn to said OTT products by manufacturers; audio publications are right to still to cover these along with the sensible products though IMO.
It is down to manufacturers and dealers to provide the narrative they want to publications and customers at shows/news releases etc.
Just my take anyway.
Cheers
Orb
Last edited:
As far as Mercedes, and for me, forget the SLR and the C class. The Mercedes sweet spot is the E class, and I'll take the AMG E63 . I am a Venture Audio speaker fan. As an example, their $98K and $139K speakers get all the reviews and accolades, but Venture has an awesome $40K speaker, the Encore, which gets hardly any ink.
. I am a Venture Audio speaker fan. As an example, their $98K and $139K speakers get all the reviews and accolades, but Venture has an awesome $40K speaker, the Encore, which gets hardly any ink.
Hi
I wish it were true. This bubble (if this term applies) has shown to be very resilient. Higher prices are the norm in High End. Every year the "better" product cost more. How long can an "authentic" remains so? It will be tempted at some point. Just a little bit of increase to test the waters. It is more than likely that results will sway it toward higher prices. The manufacturers are in business to increase their worth. Let's not be naive about that.
If one were to sample the posts in this specific thread it could be concluded that most audiophiles here have accepted High End Audio constant price increases and are at least resigned or willing to pay. If I were a manufacturer sampling forums to have an idea of where my pricing strategy stands, I would be encouraged to raise my prices. Marketing will follow. And frankly it has been the case consistently. Audiophiles will make the case. After, maybe, a few hours of ire. We are an industry where prestige and reputation are key marketing and selling points. Unfortunately what we deem prestigious are the expensive items. Those that fall under the classification of "modestly priced" become automatically less prestigious, less SOTA if you will, less desirable an important metric in luxury markets.
What I really would like to see from anyone contending that SOTA products are a rip off is a breakdown of the costs involved in designing, building, bringing, setting up and maintaining a given product.
And of course, this also discounts (not unlike what auto companies do with concept cars) the trickling down of technology developed for a companies SOTA product to their lower priced products. Why do you think that that the industry is also experiencing an unprecedented period where the quality of entry and mid-level products supersedes the performance what was regarded as SOTA but a few years ago. Not to mention that the development expenses for the lower priced products are written off against the "concept" audio piece; otherwise how do you think companies could come out with great sounding, less expensive gear?
And of course, this also discounts (not unlike what auto companies do with concept cars) the trickling down of technology developed for a companies SOTA product to their lower priced products. Why do you think that that the industry is also experiencing an unprecedented period where the quality of entry and mid-level products supersedes the performance what was regarded as SOTA but a few years ago. Not to mention that the development expenses for the lower priced products are written off against the "concept" audio piece; otherwise how do you think companies could come out with great sounding, less expensive gear?
IMHO some people have a distorted view of the existence of high priced high-end because they fear what should be the exceptional case, but can happen easily without being noticed immediately - a product that is not worth its high cost.
I only have direct exposition to a few examples of products costing between $30k and $200k. IMHO most of them are worth their price, in a sense that no products of lower cost was able to sound better. I have no problem to admit that an well designed and engineered product costing more sounds better than a cheaper one. High-end quality has been in evolution, and sometimes this order is perturbed during a short period by a new product, but designers learn fast. Also market rules are ruthless - if you do not improve you are out of the game.
Gary Koh in the thread about the Vertere tonearm said it all but people did not take care. If you are wanting to spend $1M in a system you have a different perspective. And I hope that no one thinks that you can assemble a system having the sound quality of that of Jacob Heilbrunn http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/state-of-the-art-in-dc/ spending only $100K.
It is not easy to pass this message in this forum, but IMHO single components follow the diminishing returns law (logarithmic value for money) but properly assembled systems (including the room) after a certain value manage to break it completely. I have experienced this level a few times, and I know I will never go there, as I do not have the resources or the obsession to arrive there. But it was enough to understand that there is another layer in the high-end and the entrance and permanence tickets are expensive.
How the public exposition of the existence of this layer and the few bad sheep risks to damage the audiophile market is another subject. But this is purely marketing and reviewing affairs, nothing else.
But I am only taking your time. These two people said it all, I see now I only added that the $1M system in my opinion can sound better.
I only have direct exposition to a few examples of products costing between $30k and $200k. IMHO most of them are worth their price, in a sense that no products of lower cost was able to sound better. I have no problem to admit that an well designed and engineered product costing more sounds better than a cheaper one. High-end quality has been in evolution, and sometimes this order is perturbed during a short period by a new product, but designers learn fast. Also market rules are ruthless - if you do not improve you are out of the game.
Gary Koh in the thread about the Vertere tonearm said it all but people did not take care. If you are wanting to spend $1M in a system you have a different perspective. And I hope that no one thinks that you can assemble a system having the sound quality of that of Jacob Heilbrunn http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/state-of-the-art-in-dc/ spending only $100K.
It is not easy to pass this message in this forum, but IMHO single components follow the diminishing returns law (logarithmic value for money) but properly assembled systems (including the room) after a certain value manage to break it completely. I have experienced this level a few times, and I know I will never go there, as I do not have the resources or the obsession to arrive there. But it was enough to understand that there is another layer in the high-end and the entrance and permanence tickets are expensive.
How the public exposition of the existence of this layer and the few bad sheep risks to damage the audiophile market is another subject. But this is purely marketing and reviewing affairs, nothing else.
But I am only taking your time. These two people said it all, I see now I only added that the $1M system in my opinion can sound better.
Myles/Micro,
yeah totally agree, this debate usually focuses on the extreme products not worthy of said prices or should not be in the category of high end reference-statement products.
But I do stand by the point this is becoming a problem because this niche top tier reference-statement product region is growing (includes products that should not be there) and a focus for many manufacturers and dealers without a consideration of their future foundation (that of new audiophiles-client base from a younger generation).
The narrative is set by the manufacturers and dealers.
KEF IMO is an example that tries to do this well and consider their future; they create top tier reference-statement products (such as the Muon and original unobtanium Concept Blade), but importantly define a narrative and persistent presentation for the lower models that works through to the dealers (that I know anyway) as well.
Difference being KEF could be seen being in both upper high end (with the Muon) and entry point for many price point levels of budget all way up to high end.
However that said many high end manufacturers do have a "moderate" accessible entry point (all relative I guess) into high end but this becomes lost in the narrative at shows and at dealers; many complain about Wilson Audio XLF price and ignore the existence of Sophia3, or Magico Q7 and ignore the S1.
List goes on, but I feel the attention is drawn to the extremes, especially on forums
Cheers
Orb
yeah totally agree, this debate usually focuses on the extreme products not worthy of said prices or should not be in the category of high end reference-statement products.
But I do stand by the point this is becoming a problem because this niche top tier reference-statement product region is growing (includes products that should not be there) and a focus for many manufacturers and dealers without a consideration of their future foundation (that of new audiophiles-client base from a younger generation).
The narrative is set by the manufacturers and dealers.
KEF IMO is an example that tries to do this well and consider their future; they create top tier reference-statement products (such as the Muon and original unobtanium Concept Blade), but importantly define a narrative and persistent presentation for the lower models that works through to the dealers (that I know anyway) as well.
Difference being KEF could be seen being in both upper high end (with the Muon) and entry point for many price point levels of budget all way up to high end.
However that said many high end manufacturers do have a "moderate" accessible entry point (all relative I guess) into high end but this becomes lost in the narrative at shows and at dealers; many complain about Wilson Audio XLF price and ignore the existence of Sophia3, or Magico Q7 and ignore the S1.
List goes on, but I feel the attention is drawn to the extremes, especially on forums
Cheers
Orb
Last edited:
The problem is getting the info. At CES we had a "look" at a new speaker (you can find this story in our CES coverage, linked below). We were told the tweeter was the company's own design. It was clearly an SB Acoustics model that we've seen in several other speakers. When confronted with this information they changed their story and said they developed the tweeter "with" SB Acoustics. This speaker costs $48,000/pr. and is made of MDF. The press has to call them out, plain and simply, or the press becomes part and parcel to the problem.
http://soundstageglobal.com/index.p...s-inside&catid=93:feature-articles&Itemid=354
Frankly, I want the manufacturer to "show me" why it costs what it does. They should be able to. I know many in the press that are not comfortable with this line of questioning and these types of articles.
And of course price matters. It always does.
I couldn't agree with you more - I am a show-me consumer as well! And I really enjoyed that system's candid description: The most important question is, how did the system sound? I am fortunate enough to have $10,500 worth of a Hegel H300 integrated amplifier/DAC and KEF R900 loudspeakers in my listening room at home, and I've listened to the entirety of The Thin Red Line through the system. And it sounded much, much better than the almost $100,000 worth of MAD/Viola equipment on offer in this particular room at the Venetian. There are occasions when beauty is only skin deep, and this was emphatically one of them. Epic fail.
Fits in with my point of the trend now of creating models and claiming them to be top tier high end reference-statement model from outside the well designed-engineering background companies.
Same applies to some (key point some and not all) of those doing turntables-arms-etc and prices 4x higher than that of SME.
I remember Ken Kessler ranting last year in an article at one show an "upcoming" company selling $100k+ turntable and did not even know who Continuum was, even though they were competing with them.
These are the extremes IMO, such as the MAD/Viola and nowhere near matching that of what could be deemed a high end audio company and its product.
Cheers
Orb
Ah K thanks Jeff so it was MAD.
Yeah I have heard of them being in the UK myself and usually reviewed by those interested in showing budget range, definitely not what one would call a high end company even though their budget products do seem to be good, their background just is not enough IMO to qualify for what is needed to create even a high end product let alone a top reference-statement one - just my opinion for those who are fans.
And that is comparing them to another new company such as Devialet when considering engineering/knowledge-management-design-build quality who easily fit into the high end group IMO.
Does sadly seem the trend for more manufacturers claiming a reference-statement product model without the background ability to create said product.
Cheers
Orb
I'm sorry but if someone--that more often than not being a consumer--is accusing a manufacturer of overpricing, they better have the info to back it up. Otherwise, it's nothing more than audio McCarthyism.
I am not understanding your application of this, Myles. So two direct questions:
1. Is it not fair to ask a manufacturer to show you (press) why a product costs what it does, particularly if it is very expensive?
2. When we (press) clearly sees that a product is not what the company claims it to be, is it not our job to point that out?
For the record, my answer is "yes" to both.
Just out of curiosity, is that your publication's way of looking out for the consumer?
Doug Schneider
The SoundStage! Network
When accusing, yes - one such example is the MAD/Viola comment Jeff's staff made: they listened first and then called it an epic fail; I'd say that's adequate "info" on the consumer's part, IMO. But most of us here are careful not to accuse, but to raise valid, strongly-worded questions to bluntly ask the manufacturers "show me", if and when we cannot easily understand and justify the prices they command. This is exactly what happened, for example, in the Venere arm thread; and frankly, this is what will always happen when all we have, at first, is just a picture and price tag: "OK fine, tell me why $xxxx; what's the technology".
Similar threads
