Sigh, no I was insulted for having a different view to you; look back I laid out the foundations for those perceptions; mine is UNCOMPROMISED ENGINEERING AND SOUND.
Yours is great sound but engineering is secondary (for some reason, some and possibly you do not understand that Audiolabs is using compromised engineering mostly in the implementation architecture and process).
However I also pointed out both perceptions are wrong that includes mine.
You cannot deem high end entry at "a price point based on a 90% there sound quality performance" because two companies may subjectively have close sounds but where one improves it could take more engineering development-implementation and costs including build-manufacturing process.
Hence why I hinted at materials in one post, but that is just one consideration; Sound improvements at these prices including even up to $10k usually involves gaining and losing some sound quality as there is NOT the perfect product due to the diverse nature of achieving subjective sound performance in terms of architecture (whether electronics or speaker), engineering design including tools used, components and materials used,etc.
Most "upgrades" are not really an upgrade but a side move with different subjective threshold and sound qualities-performance.
So one product could be $2k and the other with higher tolerances and a design that at its cheapest could only make a $5k product, your logic is that the $2k is the entry product and the $5k is a flawed or too costly product even if it cost more to improve that part of subjective sound but possibly at the cost of what some may like in the cheaper product.
Only a very few products improve subjective sound quality in all ways, even considering higher prices.
Anyway this then starts to break down because the logic would dictate an arbitary solution making every other product redundant; such as the Vincent or Cambridge Audio 851 models and a single specific speaker with same level of engineering and subjective sound performance (again the flaw is which speaker design counts as 90% getting there to high end as these have different costs and pros-cons, some will argue box speakers are far from perfect compared to electrostatics that has different compromises and some that need serious engineering).
Now if you argue other products may offer better bass,treble-etc but without the same overall performance, you then have to accept entry includes products that can improve in one area but may add several thousand to the price due to the cheapest engineering available to do that.
I am not writing a freaking essay because it should be possible to realise both perceptions (mine being non-compromised sound and engineering for both design and build for entry high end) are flawed in their premise, mine is flawed because it means entry high end has a too wide spectrum for some people that being in general from around $5k (ignoring digital that is cheaper) to around $15k depending upon said design and processes.
Can we both drop this now because it is rather tiresome do you not agree?
The issue is some think a sound performance-quality can be quantified to a price and that better is just that rather than gain and lose something that can have non-linear price affects.
Orb
Yours is great sound but engineering is secondary (for some reason, some and possibly you do not understand that Audiolabs is using compromised engineering mostly in the implementation architecture and process).
However I also pointed out both perceptions are wrong that includes mine.
You cannot deem high end entry at "a price point based on a 90% there sound quality performance" because two companies may subjectively have close sounds but where one improves it could take more engineering development-implementation and costs including build-manufacturing process.
Hence why I hinted at materials in one post, but that is just one consideration; Sound improvements at these prices including even up to $10k usually involves gaining and losing some sound quality as there is NOT the perfect product due to the diverse nature of achieving subjective sound performance in terms of architecture (whether electronics or speaker), engineering design including tools used, components and materials used,etc.
Most "upgrades" are not really an upgrade but a side move with different subjective threshold and sound qualities-performance.
So one product could be $2k and the other with higher tolerances and a design that at its cheapest could only make a $5k product, your logic is that the $2k is the entry product and the $5k is a flawed or too costly product even if it cost more to improve that part of subjective sound but possibly at the cost of what some may like in the cheaper product.
Only a very few products improve subjective sound quality in all ways, even considering higher prices.
Anyway this then starts to break down because the logic would dictate an arbitary solution making every other product redundant; such as the Vincent or Cambridge Audio 851 models and a single specific speaker with same level of engineering and subjective sound performance (again the flaw is which speaker design counts as 90% getting there to high end as these have different costs and pros-cons, some will argue box speakers are far from perfect compared to electrostatics that has different compromises and some that need serious engineering).
Now if you argue other products may offer better bass,treble-etc but without the same overall performance, you then have to accept entry includes products that can improve in one area but may add several thousand to the price due to the cheapest engineering available to do that.
I am not writing a freaking essay because it should be possible to realise both perceptions (mine being non-compromised sound and engineering for both design and build for entry high end) are flawed in their premise, mine is flawed because it means entry high end has a too wide spectrum for some people that being in general from around $5k (ignoring digital that is cheaper) to around $15k depending upon said design and processes.
Can we both drop this now because it is rather tiresome do you not agree?
The issue is some think a sound performance-quality can be quantified to a price and that better is just that rather than gain and lose something that can have non-linear price affects.
Orb
Last edited:
