Why doesn’t dCS partner with CH Precision for transports?

[Lee]

Obviously dCS has a challenge with Esoteric stopping the supply of their excellent transport...yet CH has created an amazing new transport by most accounts.

Now CH can be super competitive and keep the glory for themselves (if you want it then you have to buy CH)…however it seems if they partnered with dCS it would be great PR and a huge seal of approval for CH. Plus, CH would benefit by having more sales and that could offset their R&D costs. dCS would benefit by solving a thorny supply problem.

It’s bit counterintuitive but it could expand the market a bit. They could have a bit of fun with the marketing.

CH Precision: Our new transport is so good dCS wanted it!

dCS: We demand the very best for our discerning customers. There’s a new King in transports so we have partnered with CH Precision.

Thoughts?

 

[TDX]

Aren’t they direct competitors?

 

[XV-1]

Why would it be good business for CH to supply DCS wirh transports where it wasn't for Esoteric?

If transports are that important to DCS, why aren't they making their own?

 

[Dunc69]

I believe most dCS transports are sold to China, and around that area these day's.
Not that many being sold in percentage to the dac's, so how big the market is for a very expensive cd transport these day's is a question.
I am sure dCS could make one, but probably not a good financial decision looking at sale's.
I know they have a few still, but the new vivaldi one, was limited to 50 worldwide I believe down to transport numbers, but that could be miss information.
But whatever cd transports are not big seller's these day's, especially one's that cost over £40k

 

[Lee]

Aren’t they direct competitors?

Yes they are, but that was addressed in the OP. I am thinking about the benefits of partnership.

 

[Lee]

I believe most dCS transports are sold to China, and around that area these day's.
Not that many being sold in percentage to the dac's, so how big the market is for a very expensive cd transport these day's is a question.
I am sure dCS could make one, but probably not a good financial decision looking at sale's.
I know they have a few still, but the new vivaldi one, was limited to 50 worldwide I believe down to transport numbers, but that could be miss information.
But whatever cd transports are not big seller's these day's, especially one's that cost over £40k

The wholesale cost of just the transport should be much more manageable. It doesn’t make sense for dCS to invest in a greenfield effort given that many don’t want a transport.

 

[Elliot G.]

Obviously dCS has a challenge with Esoteric stopping the supply of their excellent transport...yet CH has created an amazing new transport by most accounts.

Now CH can be super competitive and keep the glory for themselves (if you want it then you have to buy CH)…however it seems if they partnered with dCS it would be great PR and a huge seal of approval for CH. Plus, CH would benefit by having more sales and that could offset their R&D costs. dCS would benefit by solving a thorny supply problem.

It’s bit counterintuitive but it could expand the market a bit. They could have a bit of fun with the marketing.

CH Precision: Our new transport is so good dCS wanted it!

dCS: We demand the very best for our discerning customers. There’s a new King in transports so we have partnered with CH Precision.

Thoughts?

For the same reason Wilson doesnt partner with Magico!

 

[Lee]

For the same reason Wilson doesnt partner with Magico!

You are missing the point of my OP. There is an opportunity to partner here and CH recoups their investment in the transport.

 

[Lee]

If I were CH, I would gain by:

1. More marketing opportunities with news stories.
2. Increase revenue/offset costs of transport development.

Maybe CH‘s decision is to weigh the revenue benefit of selling to dCS versus not selling and cost of extra time/capital to recover development costs and also perhaps some existing cannabilization with CH player sales. I am assuming the development effort was expensive but obviously don’t have any inside information.

 

[Lee]

Also, the working assumption for dCS is that given lower demand it doesn’t make sense to invest $1million+ to create a proprietary ground up transport.

Just trying to think out of the box here.

 

[Lee]

Why would it be good business for CH to supply DCS wirh transports where it wasn't for Esoteric?

If transports are that important to DCS, why aren't they making their own?

We don't know that it wasn't good business for Esoteric.

It's expensive to create an entirely new transport. There may not be enough demand to justify the expense. Seems CH is playing the long game there.

 

[mtemur]

IOT partner with dCS they (CH) need to make a CD/SACD transport first. The transport used in CH D1.5 is a Marantz unit bolted on metal block. Unlike Sony, Philips, Marantz or Sanyo, the companies like CH and dCS don't have the resources, engineering background and the desire to build a transport. I highly doubt they built an IC yet, let alone a full transport with control electronics.

On the other hand buying a good transport from a respectable manufacturer putting it onto a metal block and designing a fancy case for the unit full of ICs from Japanese companies is much easier and profitable. We can not blame CH or dCS for diong this cause same is true for almost all high end companies.

IMHO there is nothing to partner.

 

[XV-1]

IOT partner with dCS they (CH) need to make a CD/SACD transport first. The transport used in CH D1.5 is a Marantz unit bolted on metal block. Unlike Sony, Philips, Marantz or Sanyo, the companies like CH and dCS don't have the resources, engineering background and the desire to build a transport. I highly doubt they built an IC yet, let alone a full transport with control electronics.

On the other hand buying a good transport from a respectable manufacturer putting it onto a metal block and designing a fancy case for the unit full of ICs from Japanese companies is much easier and profitable. We can not blame CH or dCS for diong this cause same is true for almost all high end companies.

IMHO there is nothing to partner.

LOL. Thank you. Good to hear someone knows the truth.

What a waste of a thread based on bs.

 

[AndrewChen]

Obviously dCS has a challenge with Esoteric stopping the supply of their excellent transport...yet CH has created an amazing new transport by most accounts.

Now CH can be super competitive and keep the glory for themselves (if you want it then you have to buy CH)…however it seems if they partnered with dCS it would be great PR and a huge seal of approval for CH. Plus, CH would benefit by having more sales and that could offset their R&D costs. dCS would benefit by solving a thorny supply problem.

It’s bit counterintuitive but it could expand the market a bit. They could have a bit of fun with the marketing.

CH Precision: Our new transport is so good dCS wanted it!

dCS: We demand the very best for our discerning customers. There’s a new King in transports so we have partnered with CH Precision.

Thoughts?

What thorny problem? dCS fully qualified the D&M transport to meet their strict requirement, as compared to the VRDS Neo, and implemented it in the $47K Rossini Transport. They don’t need CH Precision.

 

[nirodha]

What thorny problem? dCS fully qualified the D&M transport to meet their strict requirement, as compared to the VRDS Neo, and implemented it in the $47K Rossini Transport. They don’t need CH Precision.

dCS and transports… still give me the creeps. Ancient history… when my Verdi broke down, dCS told me they could not fix it anymore because they did not have spare parts. dCS …. Oh the joy when I got my Nagra cd player. dCS… ancient history but never forgotten.

 

[dcathro]

The high end DAC companies seem to be committed to streaming, not disc based replay.

 

[Lee]

IOT partner with dCS they (CH) need to make a CD/SACD transport first. The transport used in CH D1.5 is a Marantz unit bolted on metal block. Unlike Sony, Philips, Marantz or Sanyo, the companies like CH and dCS don't have the resources, engineering background and the desire to build a transport. I highly doubt they built an IC yet, let alone a full transport with control electronics.

On the other hand buying a good transport from a respectable manufacturer putting it onto a metal block and designing a fancy case for the unit full of ICs from Japanese companies is much easier and profitable. We can not blame CH or dCS for diong this cause same is true for almost all high end companies.

IMHO there is nothing to partner.

My understanding is that the CH transport is not a ‘Marantz unit bolted onto a metal block.’

 

[Lee]

LOL. Thank you. Good to hear someone knows the truth.

What a waste of a thread based on bs.

If you don’t like the discussion, you don’t have to click on it.

 

[Lee]

What thorny problem? dCS fully qualified the D&M transport to meet their strict requirement, as compared to the VRDS Neo, and implemented it in the $47K Rossini Transport. They don’t need CH Precision.

The Rossini transport is around $25K. The transport is excellent but arguably not at Esoteric levels.

 

[Lee]

The high end DAC companies seem to be committed to streaming, not disc based replay.

I think this is true but the demand for transports is still there. CD and SACD playback has a big advantage over streaming: the user controls the selection of the mastering and hence the sound quality to some extent.