The difference between mainstream HIFI, budget seperates, midrange and high end?

[Dave Simpson]

Who Doesen't
Nando.

Sorry Nando, but I'm lost. Who doesn't....?????

 

[nando]

there have being cases all over the existance of,"not only hi-fi" that same products were the same but re-presented as mk 12345 and so on, different box and marketed as such, not all manufacturers have done that , most of them are very genuine as to improvements in their upgrades on their prior products, some went in reverse mode,
the point that i am trying to say "without prejudice" is that sometimes upgrades are not necesserily a better advance on the old technology, re-packing or re-badging could be a great way to and for clients to "as a hobby" sell the old and i am shure that we all get a kick out of opening a new box, but how many after wards think, oops i wish i kept my old one? but sometimes tech. inproves to sound for pound, catch 22? i wonder, i love opeing boxes and admire the items inside, lissening to them. and sometimes due to my big mouth i either make a comment"personal" that get's me in the sxxxxxxx
nando.

 

[RobHolt]

All just ideas, I'm not defending the high prices, just considering possible reasons!

Me neither - just questioning.

This in turn means they have to not only charge for the higher production cost but also add something to cover the lower sales volume. Regardless of the manufacture costs, people need to make enough profit to live from.

In a capitalist, market driven society do you think that the end user gives two hoots about that?

Does he care about your standard of living, perhaps feeding and providing for a family, or does he compare A to B and buy the cheapest, assuming that both meet a minimum standard?

Naturally I'm generalising here.

 

[RobHolt]

Another question (sorry I'm on roll ).

The impression I'm getting is that most people adopt a fairly relaxed view toward pricing. So what truly defines a rip-off?
Can we define a rip-off wrt hi-fi equipment?

 

[Dave Simpson]

there have being cases all over the existance of,"not only hi-fi" that same products were the same but re-presented as mk 12345 and so on, different box and marketed as such, not all manufacturers have done that , most of them are very genuine as to improvements in their upgrades on their prior products, some went in reverse mode,
the point that i am trying to say "without prejudice" is that sometimes upgrades are not necesserily a better advance on the old technology, re-packing or re-badging could be a great way to and for clients to "as a hobby" sell the old and i am shure that we all get a kick out of opening a new box, but how many after wards think, oops i wish i kept my old one? but sometimes tech. inproves to sound for pound, catch 22? i wonder, i love opeing boxes and admire the items inside, lissening to them. and sometimes due to my big mouth i either make a comment"personal" that get's me in the sxxxxxxx
nando.

I'm sure we could find many cases of Last Year's Model being repackaged as New and Improved but that's where safe buying practices such as an audition prior to purchase will flush out the imposters. A good dealer would be happy to prove why this years model is better than last.

 

[Dave Simpson]

Me neither - just questioning.



In a capitalist, market driven society do you think that the end user gives two hoots about that?

Does he care about your standard of living, perhaps feeding and providing for a family, or does he compare A to B and buy the cheapest, assuming that both meet a minimum standard?

Naturally I'm generalising here.

He probably doesn't give a hoot and will get what he deserves in the long run.

 

[Dave Simpson]

Another question (sorry I'm on roll ).

The impression I'm getting is that most people adopt a fairly relaxed view toward pricing. So what truly defines a rip-off?
Can we define a rip-off wrt hi-fi equipment?

For me, a rip-off is a piece of equipment that doesn't deliver what it promises in more tangible terms i.e. WPC; stated bandwidth, THD, IM, etc. Sound quality vs selling price doesn't come into play for me as a possible rip-off. We all have different values.

 

[nando]

Quote

For me, a rip-off is a piece of equipment that doesn't deliver what it promises in more tangible terms i.e. WPC; stated bandwidth, THD, IM, etc. Sound quality vs selling price doesn't come into play for me as a possible rip-off. We all have different values.

i think we should go back to the future, hence what happenend to the past?
did or have we lost enthusiasm or are we merelly slaging what are we involved in, ? are treating this as a premier ship football league? can we not any loger discuse the items that are existing with in our industry with out bitching as to what? that i believe is not only unprofesional but somewhat childish, i quit this pantormine, good luck,
nando.

 

[Dave Simpson]

Bitching? Who's bitching? Who's slagging anyone or anything in particular off?

 

[Tenson]

The impression I'm getting is that most people adopt a fairly relaxed view toward pricing.

Only on a hi-fi forum. When it comes time to open the wallet the attitude will change. Everyone expects a discount because they are special or to receive some free product or other.

 

[Dave Simpson]

LOL...JV once referred to discounts as passing your income on to someone else. The man had a point. Would you like to give up part of your income (besides taxes) on a daily basis?

 

[GTM]

Well, I've agreed a truce with David offline so perhaps this is a good time to go back to the original thread topic.

---------------------------------------------------------


So for starters,

- why do some CD players cost north of £10k and what technology might they include that cannot be implemented for say £1k?

- Why do some SS amplifiers cost £10k+ and again what is there inside those that cannot be achieved at one tenth of the price?

Depends on your definition of "cannot be achieved/implemented". There isn't a commercially available (retail) audio item that couldn't be achieved/implemented for a third or so of it's retail cost. That's the affect of margins, particularly of dealerships.

As to why the top end equipment costs significantly more well there are two reasons that spring to mind immediately:

a) Lower volume sales, therefore higher margin requirement just to stay in business.

b) Use of significantly more costly parts, specifically relating to power supplies and casing. e.g. the power supply in a typical £150 CD player costs of the order of a few tens of pennies to the manufacturer. That in a, (well engineered), £1,000 may well cost a few pounds up to tens of pounds depending on the manufacturer. Same goes for Amplifiers and Cases.

Of course b) feeds back in to a)

Generally speaking even your average "midrange hi-fi" equipment from manufacturers the size of say Musical Fidelity at their most popular will be sold on to the dealers for around twice what they cost to manufacture, (i.e. a 50% margin), and that "trade" price is around 50-60% of what the final retail price is, (i.e. 40-50% margin). For higher volume equipment the manufacturers margins will drop significantly with volume, but the dealers margins will probably not change much. Moving up to the extremely low volume "high end" market, manufacturer margins may well reach 100% and beyond.

Of course most stuff is developed with a final retail price in mind, (true for all retail goods not just audio), with the view to being "competitive" and outselling similar priced items.

 

[titian]

I don't bother to think about if a price is a rip off or good.
I just analyse if I need that and if I'm willing to pay that price for it .

What other people think about it is for me mostly very marginal.
When it comes to hifi, what people think about it is nearly completely irrelevant. I've got my own taste, I know what I want, I apparently hear different than a lot of people so why bother with the opinion of other people when it comes to consider if something is a rip or not? Even if the price is hundreds time more than the technology which is inside, I just say: if I can afford it and I'm willing to pay so much then I buy it. Otherwise forget it but don't feel bad when somebody else buys it.

 

[nando]

LADS, please let us get back to this theme that had a point of issue as to what, the point in this thread has ,"i think " become rather personal.
back to zero i say and no slaging off, this is not A POLITICAL BROADCAST ON BEHALF OF............... PARTY
thank you, vote for me,
nando.

 

[RobHolt]

b) Use of significantly more costly parts, specifically relating to power supplies and casing. e.g. the power supply in a typical £150 CD player costs of the order of a few tens of pennies to the manufacturer. That in a, (well engineered), £1,000 may well cost a few pounds up to tens of pounds depending on the manufacturer. Same goes for Amplifiers and Cases.

I would only add that more costly doesn't always = better in audio electronics, certainly once you get above a reasonable baseline.
For example I can think of a number of £250 CD players and dacs that you'd have a hard time proving to be inferior (technically) to players costing well over £1k.
In fact the opposite is often true IMO and you find very expensive audio more contrived in it's performance, deviating quite deliberately from a superb technical performance.

 

[titian]

I would only add that more costly doesn't always = better in audio electronics, certainly once you get above a reasonable baseline.
For example I can think of a number of £250 CD players and dacs that you'd have a hard time proving to be inferior (technically) to players costing well over £1k.
In fact the opposite is often true IMO and you find very expensive audio more contrived in it's performance, deviating quite deliberately from a superb technical performance.

Rob

what is the problem if they are people ready to pay x times more to get something which is deviating quite deliberately from a superb technical performance?
Everybody knows that more costly doesn't always means better.
But what is better? For you maybe it is technical specifications. For others it could be what they believe they hear which is depending on their taste.

 

[RobHolt]

Rob

what is the problem if they are people ready to pay x times more to get something which is deviating quite deliberately from a superb technical performance?
Everybody knows that more costly doesn't always means better.
But what is better? For you maybe it is technical specifications. For others it could be what they believe they hear which is depending on their taste.

Nothing at all, so long as the buyer understands what is happening.

It is easy to engineer sonic effects into audio products and sell them as benefits - benefits that justify the additional cost.

To give you an example, phono cartridges with rising HF are perceived as being more detailed, faster and more open.
The seller can quite easily charge a considerable premium for this, when in fact he could simply tweak the performance of his entry level cartridge to have the same response.

I think people should understand what they are paying for.

If its extra for a prestigious brand, exotic casing, exquisite construction, or a particular presentation then fine. So long as we know.

 

[titian]

I think people should understand what they are paying for.

If its extra for a prestigious brand, exotic casing, exquisite construction, or a particular presentation then fine. So long as we know.

Well people who are not technical people just want to listen to music and enjoy that. The only thing they should understand is, if they are enjoying more hearing music with this unit or with the other. That's all. If someone finds it absolutely fantastic to hear music with +10 db for all frequencies under 100 Hz than why not. He shouldn't understand anything else than just enjoy listening to music. And if he pays 1000 times more for that, it is his choice.

 

[RobHolt]

Well people who are not technical people just want to listen to music and enjoy that. The only thing they should understand is, if they are enjoying more hearing music with this unit or with the other. That's all. If someone finds it absolutely fantastic to hear music with +10 db for all frequencies under 100 Hz than why not. He shouldn't understand anything else than just enjoy listening to music. And if he pays 1000 times more for that, it is his choice.

I don't agree.

I'm not saying that everyone should be an expert, simply that they should take some time to understand the basics.

This goes back to the earlier discussion of what constitutes a rip-off. Manipulating a design via inexpensive means to produce an effect, then charging a high premium is the perfect example of an audio con IMO.

The only way to avoid this is to develop some understanding.
If you understand the mechanisms causing the effect and you still choose to pay the premium, well that at least is an informed choice.

 

[titian]

Manipulating a design via inexpensive means to produce an effect, then charging a high premium is the perfect example of an audio con IMO.

For you yes!
Others don't care about that. They just want to enjoy music. The idea of manupulating the basics to make it sounding great is fantastic and that's worth the premium. The cost of the manupulation is completely irrelevant.