Is High end Hi Fi too expensive?

[aquapiranha]

http://www.cnet.com/news/high-end-audio-too-expensive-compared-to-what/#ftag=CADf328eec

[walpurgis]

http://www.cnet.com/news/high-end-audio-too-expensive-compared-to-what/#ftag=CADf328eec

NO

It wouldn't be 'high end' otherwise.

[rubber duck]

YES High end is not about high price. The price of high end gear has really spiralled out of control and bears no relation to inflation, material costs or reality. I'm not the only one who thinks so: http://positive-feedback.com/Issue71/skoff.htm

[CageyH]

It depends on if you can afford it or not. I can't afford it, so for me it's too expensive.
However, it good to see what people come up with when they can push the boundaries.

[Lynster]

The problem I have with the term ‘high end’ is that to some it tends to refer to outright performance or technical superiority, whilst to others it’s more about exclusivity. In practical terms, many items claimed to be high end probably incorporate a mix of both concepts and this can cause confusion in any discussion.

Paying more for the incorporation of better quality components, design expertise, research etc makes sense even where that becomes fairly expensive to cover costs. We can all choose just where we stop in the spiral. But high end items that just rely on image or bling alone and are marketed exclusively to those endowed with excess disposable funds can spiral as much as they like and it won’t worry me. If gold plating can make something sound better, it may well be worth a premium price but if its just for show or exclusivity, then it has nothing to do performance oriented high end IMO and is of little relevance to those who just wish to choose components to better enjoy the music.:)

[Light Dependant Resistor]

The problem I have with the term ‘high end’ is that to some it tends to refer to outright performance or technical superiority, whilst to others it’s more about exclusivity. In practical terms, many items claimed to be high end probably incorporate a mix of both concepts and this can cause confusion in any discussion.

Paying more for the incorporation of better quality components, design expertise, research etc makes sense even where that becomes fairly expensive to cover costs. We can all choose just where we stop in the spiral. But high end items that just rely on image or bling alone and are marketed exclusively to those endowed with excess disposable funds can spiral as much as they like and it won’t worry me. If gold plating can make something sound better, it may well be worth a premium price but if its just for show or exclusivity, then it has nothing to do performance oriented high end IMO and is of little relevance to those who just wish to choose components to better enjoy the music.:)

Hi
The individual is empowered to source better quality components, and evoke design expertise- however greatly assisted by similarly minded people who have already done most of the design and research. Its called DIY and you can access kits to build and in part modify your existing hifi. I would call it the modern day high end. Forums such as this one greatly assist to exchange ideas and get to know what is really good.

Cheers / Chris

[Gordon Steadman]

Its no different to any other commodity.

How can a car be worth more than a house? If I had the money for a McLaren, I'd be buying ten old Alfas.

Same with hi-fi. Diminishing returns applies plus an inverse law of some kind. Every 1% increase in quality seems to take 101% increase in cost.

[StanleyB]

Same with hi-fi. Diminishing returns applies plus an inverse law of some kind. Every 1% increase in quality seems to take 101% increase in cost.
I would beg to differ. I tend to aim for a higher quality to price ratio.

[Gordon Steadman]

I would beg to differ. I tend to aim for a higher quality to price ratio.

Yeah but your stuff isn't 'high end' in the accepted meaning of the term. I believe you only run up to three figures:eyebrows:

The more you spend, the more its worth.

[StanleyB]

My calculator only goes up to six digits, of which one is a dot and two are for the pennies in the £. So £999.99 is the maximum number that I can calculate to :D.

[Firebottle]

:lol:

[walpurgis]

The (abused) term 'High End' suggests to me that equipment categorised as such will have a price tag to match it's performance, quality of construction and possibly reputation. Such equipment will have a limited market, so unit costs will obviously be higher to cover high quality materials bought in in limited batches, and expensive development & tooling, etc.

[jandl100]

There are people who are willing and eager to spend big money, so the market has developed to meet that demand. It's just good old fashioned capitalism at work.

[Macca]

High end is a terrible concept as it plays to the idea that spending thousands on a component will guarantee you a better sound than spending hundreds, which it won't. You can't, or shouldn't compare hi-fi to stupidly priced watches or handbags or whatever. It is fundamentally different in that it has a practical purpose that cannot be accomplished any other way, unlike a fancy watch or a handbag which is bought purely for status purposes. And it leads to the 'how can it be any good? - it only cost £xxx' or 'how can it be any good? It's from thirty years ago' attitude which always grinds my gears.

[walpurgis]

It seems inevitable that the best gear will be 'High End'.

[YNWaN]

This whole question is puerile in the extreme - sorry.

the concept of 'value' is an entirely relative and abstract term. Whether something is considered 'good value' depends on the income of the individual and how much of that income that individual is prepared to apportion to the object in question.

Should a car cost more than a house? It depends on the car and the house - it's reasonably easy to find a car that costs more than a dilapidated terraced house in a deprived area - it's not easy to find a car that costs more than a mansion house in the centre of London.

If you find yourself craving objects that are beyond your financial reach you are hell bound for unhappiness.

[The Grand Wazoo]

I tried to raise this issue in a thread a while back. However, I used a slightly different tack whereby I pointed out that a magazine article of the late 80s suggested that the entry price to the high end was about £2,000 for a two source system.
Since everyone has a seemingly different definition of high end, I wonder what is the current minimum price for a system which people would consider to fit their criteria of high end?

Illustrated kit lists with prices are of course welcome!

[Mr Kipling]

I keep asking myself what budget hi fi is these days.

[Reffc]

This whole question is puerile in the extreme - sorry.

the concept of 'value' is an entirely relative and abstract term. Whether something is considered 'good value' depends on the income of the individual and how much of that income that individual is prepared to apportion to the object in question.

Should a car cost more than a house? It depends on the car and the house - it's reasonably easy to find a car that costs more than a dilapidated terraced house in a deprived area - it's not easy to find a car that costs more than a mansion house in the centre of London.

If you find yourself craving objects that are beyond your financial reach you are hell bound for unhappiness.


+1

Add to that, many craving hifi outside their financial reach sometimes end up ridiculing it for possibly that very reason. All that glitters is not always worth its weight in gold though and hifi is no different.

There are some great designs about and built to good quality standards for reasonable money...the choice has never been so great as it is today. There's never been the number of multi-millionaires about as there are today either and a whole new type of "high end" market has grown up to meet that demand. Some people will pay for it, simply because it is desirable to them and it's there and not for purely hifi credentials. Same reason that some people want to buy a Rolls Royce Celestial Phantom studded with goodness knows how many diamonds. Does that make it a better car in outright terms? No; it does make it more desirable though to those with the money to spend, no-matter how distasteful others might find the concept.

The other term for "high-end" meaning "high performance" is where the discerning hifi buyer would probably spend the money given the room and available funds. That can start at relatively modest 3 figure sums and typically lead to relatively speaking modest 4 figure sums for those with the outlay to spend. We all do it without thinking about it. We spend according to our taste and budgets. In hifi, the entry level inevitably leads to upgraditis until we find our own level for diminishing reruns given our listening environments and budgets. That folks, is about as high end as we will ever probably wish to go. Once we can settle to listen to music without fretting about the kit, I suspect most of us will lose a lot of interest in what the market is doing anyway until we need to replace something. Live and let live. Better a live and flourishing market than a dead market with no-one bringing anything new and decent to that market.

[Gordon Steadman]

Should a car cost more than a house? It depends on the car and the house - it's reasonably easy to find a car that costs more than a dilapidated terraced house in a deprived area - it's not easy to find a car that costs more than a mansion house in the centre of London.



Of course but I was making more a moral judgement. Its appalling that something essential should valued less than something entirely unnecessary.

However, the way of the world isn't about to change. I have been in both positions during my life but still never indulged in 'status' stuff. Free world though and if bling they want, bling they can have, naturally.

[YNWaN]

Morality is also a rather fluid and abstract notion - even within 'the church'.

[awkwardbydesign]

The problem with audio is that to a lot of people "high end" means Technics separates (I'm dating myself here!). With cars and watches etc. they have a better grasp of the manufacturers and prices. Even I have heard of Philippe Patek watches, and I don't even have a watch!

[The Barbarian]

My definition of Hi-Hi end is/was usually USA over engineered products. Take one scrap the massive build enclosure, plonk it in a cheap mass produced tin box at a fraction of the price would it sound the same? So what is it your are buying this equipment for?

ofc i love high quality build & one of the reasons i buy vintage equipment.

[BTH K10A]

"Expensive" is only relative to disposable income and overall wealth.

For the average person it really comes down to what percentage of your annual disposable income are you prepared to spend on HiFi ?

[r100]

Same with hi-fi. Diminishing returns applies plus an inverse law of some kind. Every 1% increase in quality seems to take 101% increase in cost.

that is exactly what i've been thinking lately with my recent purchase of a low cost (studio) amp .. had it been markeded for the "high-end" and put into a fancy alu case it would have cost at least 10x the price.. ultimately, this being a emotional, subjective hobby, many users would probably think the overpriced, marketed version of the same amp would sound better.. the marketing dpt will do everything to augment the perceived value so as to be able to sell it at a premium price (apple, rolex, etc. not that these are bad products)

[losenotaminute]

Part of allure of hi-end hif-fi is that it is expensive. It's the same with hi-end watches, cars, yachts, clothes etc.. It's only too expensive if you can't afford it ;-)

[Alan Sircom]

High end is a terrible concept as it plays to the idea that spending thousands on a component will guarantee you a better sound than spending hundreds, which it won't. You can't, or shouldn't compare hi-fi to stupidly priced watches or handbags or whatever. It is fundamentally different in that it has a practical purpose that cannot be accomplished any other way, unlike a fancy watch or a handbag which is bought purely for status purposes. And it leads to the 'how can it be any good? - it only cost £xxx' or 'how can it be any good? It's from thirty years ago' attitude which always grinds my gears.

The inverse holds too. "How can it be any good? - it costs £££££s", or "How can it be any good? It wasn't made 30 years ago". These attitudes are just as fallacious, just as bigoted, and I think far more prevalent than their alternatives across most forums. What grinds my gears is the idea that everyone who can afford high-end audio is either obsessed by shiny things or is some kind of tin-eared sap who empties their wallet at the first sign of a passing huckster. In many cases, those who can afford high-grade audio equipment are every bit as discerning as any audio enthusiast, but simply have the wherewithal to indulge their passion with a different set of financial constraints.

Put two vinyl-loving enthusiasts in a room, and you may end up with one Rega and one Pro-Ject owner, purchased on the basis of listening tests. Give the same enthusiasts 10x the disposable income they currently enjoy, and you might have one VPI and one Brinkmann owner, purchased on the basis of listening tests. Give them 100x the disposable, and you might have one Clearaudio and one TechDAS owner, purchased on the basis of listening tests. At what point would these listening tests just become listening to the sound of jewellery rattling?

Snobbery is an ugly thing, whichever way it points. Fortunately, it's extremely rare in the wild. Most people are so pleased to encounter a fellow traveller in audio that they want to share the tales of their respective hi-fi travels. I've met people with systems that cost almost as much as my house, but in most cases are happy to share that hobby with someone whose equipment cost less than a take-away ruby.

There has always been, and likely shall always be, Veblen goods in audio. The products that are prized for their expense alone, and are expensive because they are expensive. But there are also products that cost a good deal of money because they are not cheap to make, if they meet the expectations required of them. You could probably fabricate an SME Model 30/12 cheaper if you scaled back the materials, the build, the finish, or the country of origin, but then it wouldn't be an SME. If you scaled the first two back enough, it wouldn't sound like an SME; regardless of whether you think that a good thing or not, SME's reputation is built in part on its stentorian sound quality. Lose that, and you lose elements of the brand. SME isn't alone in this.

It's also worth considering that without the economies of scale involved at the time, those classics of the past would be extremely expensive goods in today's market. Think how much it would cost to make a Garrard 301 from scratch today, given it would sell to hundreds instead of tens of thousands, and you would be looking at a turntable that would cost ££££s or even £££££s.

[r100]

... nice post

[aquapiranha]

I am glad to see different views here.

[walpurgis]

Not everything with a simple case and cheap controls is bad.

[Marco]

It's also worth considering that without the economies of scale involved at the time, those classics of the past would be extremely expensive goods in today's market. Think how much it would cost to make a Garrard 301 from scratch today, given it would sell to hundreds instead of tens of thousands, and you would be looking at a turntable that would cost ££££s or even £££££s.

That’s an excellent point, Alan, and also very true. I'd suggest that an even better example of 'economies of scale' at work is the Technics SL-1200.

Not long before it was discontinued, a MKII version, brand new, cost a (quite frankly ridiculous) and paltry £350, given the levels of engineering prowess on offer. Now, how much would one cost today, if made by, say, SME (arguably the only British company capable of producing such a high quality direct-drive motor unit from scratch), instead of Matsushita Electric? ;)

Also, given that with the best vintage equipment (such as the Garrard 301 you mentioned), you can obtain £££££ performance for ££, then you can understand why savvy enthusiasts, seeking to obtain the 'biggest bang for their buck', go down that route, particularly when in many cases said vintage kit outperforms its modern counterparts, whilst leaving £££ in your pocket, instead of in that of a high-end dealer........

Regardless of how wealthy one is, it pays to 'think smart' before reaching for one's wallet.

Marco.

[Alan Sircom]

That’s an excellent point, Alan, and also very true. I'd suggest that an even better example of 'economies of scale', at its best, is the Technics SL-1200.

Not long before it was discontinued, a MKII version, brand new, cost a (quite frankly ridiculous) and paltry £350, given the levels of engineering prowess on offer. Now, how much would one cost today, if made by, say, SME (arguably the only British company capable of producing such a high quality direct-drive motor unit from scratch), instead of Matsushita Electric? ;)

Also, given that with the best vintage equipment (such as the 301 you mentioned), you can obtain £££££ performance for ££, then you can understand why savvy enthusiasts, seeking to obtain the 'biggest bang for their buck', go down that route, particularly when in many cases said vintage kit outperforms its modern counterparts, whilst leaving £££ in your pocket instead of that of a high-end dealer........

Regardless of how wealthy one is, it pays to 'think smart' before reaching for one's wallet.

Marco.

Yes, but it also depends on how one chooses to spend, and on what.

There's a strong school of thought that says the best possible car to buy (in terms of both depreciation and overall running costs) is a Mercedes from about 15 years ago. Not everyone wants to drive a 15 year old Mercedes, however, for reasons more complex than simply wanting that new car smell.

A savvy buyer might well be prepared to pay a premium (even a handsome premium) to buy new, because their time is better spent not having to trawl for spare parts in serviceable condition, or tracking down those who know how to repair classics. A savvy buyer might also be able to see objectively where vintage equipment has its limitations and shortcomings, and buy either a mix of new and old, or even all new as they see fit. In audio, they might even be able to look at something like a Technics SL1200 and see its spiritual heirs lie in products like the Brinkmann Bardo or even the VPI Classic Direct Drive (despite the massive price differential between them) and choose one of these on the basis of sound quality, unencumbered by constraints of price.

I'm not convinced that everyone thinks 'savvy' equates to being parsimonious when it comes to their hobbies and passions. I actively buy my photographic equipment from a specialist retailer, who is routinely about 15%-20% more expensive than buying online, but I value their expertise and knowledge and am prepared to pay for that. Although I spend more per product, overall I save more money by not buying random things that I like the idea of, but fail to come up to snuff in reality. That disposable income has been put aside for the purchase of photo equipment; if I saved £££ somewhere in the process, that extra cash will probably just be deployed in buying other photographic equipment that I don't really need.

Sometimes, you buy cheap, you buy twice. And sometimes 'think smart' in terms of wallet means digging deep.

[Barry]

Both good posts Alan.

I would be more likely to buy a camera from a specialist dealer than buy on-line, as I value, and am prepared to pay for, the advice, knowledge and expertise and the back up only a specialist dealer can provide.

Too many people use specialist outlets for advice, then go and buy the product on-line. Small wonder bookshops, record shops and audio retailers are disappearing at an alarming rate. Even the local branch of Whittard has disappeared here.

[SLS]

My dad came round for dinner the other night as I was unpacking a DAC I've just bought for £2,500 - a neutral change having sold an inferior Linn streamer for the same price. No big deal. He almost fell over when I told him the price. Lucky he didn't as he might have damaged his £40,000 watch and struggled to drive home in his Porsche. He listens to music much of the time, but is perfectly happy with an ancient Aiwa mini stack that probably cost him £300. I don't wear a watch and am fine with a Golf 1.6 diesel. Each to their own. It's called capitalism (the work/earn/consume cycle).

What does get my goat a bit is the cost of distribution. When a product requires a profit for the manufacturer, distributor and retailer, and is only being sold in small quantities, not much of your cash is being spent on the cost of making the thing. As a small business owner I like to support small businesses and most of my hifi (by total cost) was purchased direct from the manufacturer. I am thinking of doing the same with my next speakers (a 3-way 4 drive design with top notch components weighing 94kg each and costing about £5,500). So are those speakers less hi-end because they cost £5k from the manufacturer than a similar branded/marketed pair that might retail at £15k or £20k?

[SLS]

The issue is service. I bought my camera third hand off eBay, but take it to Leica for service. I'll go to a shop and buy if I get service and advice. Some like Dave at MCRU is technically an online shop, but he gives top notch service. Amazon may be tax cheats, but they realised the importance of service and went from being impossible to no argument returns and refunds. We have quite a few successful local book shops because they offer something different (advice, specialties, in store events). Waterstones offer little if anything more then Amazon, so I'm not surprised if they struggle.

[Barry]

The issue is service. I bought my camera third hand off eBay, but take it to Leica for service. I'll go to a shop and buy if I get service and advice. Some like Dave at MCRU is technically an online shop, but he gives top notch service. Amazon may be tax cheats, but they realised the importance of service and went from being impossible to no argument returns and refunds. We have quite a few successful local book shops because they offer something different (advice, specialties, in store events). Waterstones offer little if anything more then Amazon, so I'm not surprised if they struggle.

I'm a Leica user (M3 and M4) and have been for over thirty years. I'm currently interested in the digital Leica M (or is it M10 ?), but wouldn't dream of buying one on-line. I would go to a Leica dealer, explain my requirements and seek his advice, and if the new Leica suited me I would buy from the dealer.

Amazon, whilst offering an enormous stock cannot advise you. All they can offer is the "Buyers who bought XXX, also bought these: XXXXX". That's not really the same as talking to the bookshop staff, or record shop staff face-to-face. Anyway I like browsing in shops; you don't get the serendipity effect browsing on-line.

Agree with you concerning Waterstones, though the staff in the former Ottakers (bought up by Waterstones) are knowledgable and helpful. In general the staff in HMV are not a lot of help, so no surprise they too are floundering.

[SLS]

I'm a Leica user (M3 and M4) and have been for over thirty years. I'm currently interested in the digital Leica M (or is it M10 ?), but wouldn't dream of buying one on-line. I would go to a Leica dealer, explain my requirements and seek his advice, and if the new Leica suited me I would buy from the dealer.

Amazon, whilst offering an enormous stock cannot advise you. All they can offer is the "Buyers who bought XXX, also bought these: XXXXX". That's not really the same as talking to the bookshop staff, or record shop staff face-to-face. Anyway I like browsing in shops; you don't get the serendipity effect browsing on-line.

Agree with you concerning Waterstones, though the staff in the former Ottakers (bought up by Waterstones) are knowledgable and helpful. In general the staff in HMV are not a lot of help, so no surprise they too are floundering.

Bought an M9 on eBay, but inspected before handing over the cash. Had just been serviced. Lenses and other bits of kit from Red Dot and Classic Camera. Very helpful, as are R G Lewis. Found the guys in Aperture a bit snooty.

When I used Canon used MPB Photographic - an online business that provides great service and is a hugely successful business.

[r100]

IMHO the M8 or M9 digital Leicas won't hold their value as well as their film siblings did. But if you have ever used a Leica M then you would probably not be put off by the huge price difference compared to other brands like Fujifilm.. I have used M3 and 6 cameras which i loved but sold them when i gave up my dark room because of lack of time... since then no camera i have used has given me that special extra pleasure i got from my mechanical Leicas. I still have two lenses which i am hanging on to just in case... :-)

[SLS]

IMHO the M8 or M9 digital Leicas won't hold their value as well as their film siblings did. But if you have ever used a Leica M then you would probably not be put off by the huge price difference compared to other brands like Fujifilm.. I have used M3 and 6 cameras which i loved but sold them when i gave up my dark room because of lack of time... since then no camera i have used has given me that special extra pleasure i got from my mechanical Leicas. I still have two lenses which i am hanging on to just in case... :-)

I bought an M9 because I was fed up lugging around loads of Canon kit. It has it limitations, but it has a full frame sensor, is the perfect size, light, incredibly easy to use, and a spare lens can slip in your pocket. It makes you think in an enjoyable way. The Fuji X-Pro is a great camera, but the lenses are bulky and slow and not as much fun.

I was lucky that I got a great deal on the M9, the guy needed to sell in 12 hours for cash to buy a camera for a particular shoot the next day. I don't expect the M9 to hold value, but I don't plan on selling it. Same with my turntable.

The issues are much the same as audio, you pays your money and makes your choice, for whatever personal reason and for whatever budget you have.

Re your lenses, please keep them !!! You might find that on a digital Leica they need recallibrating. I bought a 90mm f/2.8 Tele Elmarit, simply because of its size, 25 years old, one careful owner. Only ever used on the same M6. The chap inherited it from his dad and was sad to see it on the shelf. Cost £300 and £350 to get recallibrated by Leica, and hopefully it will see me out as well. Don't think people would feel that way about a Canon 18-55. Shame his dad didn't also leave him a Garrard 301.

My neighbour is a professional photographer. Has a darkroom at the end of his garden. He bought a 10mp Canon 5D about 10 to 15 years ago, the first in the UK, cost about £6,000, and hasn't used the darkroom since.

[Naughty Nigel]

The issue is service. I bought my camera third hand off eBay, but take it to Leica for service. I'll go to a shop and buy if I get service and advice. Some like Dave at MCRU is technically an online shop, but he gives top notch service. Amazon may be tax cheats, but they realised the importance of service and went from being impossible to no argument returns and refunds. We have quite a few successful local book shops because they offer something different (advice, specialties, in store events). Waterstones offer little if anything more then Amazon, so I'm not surprised if they struggle.

For what its worth, my Quad II monoblocks cost £27 17/6d each in 1955. How much would that be today given that petrol cost about 3/- (15p) a gallon in 1955! Oh, and a three bedroom house within commuting distance of London would cost about £2,500.

If we translate that into modern money using the petrol price as a reference each monoblock would cost about £1095.00 which is not far short of today's prices.

As for whether this equipment is overpriced, I suppose it depends how long it lasts. I am talking about a pair of fifty years old amplifiers which are still in regular use, so it probably compares favourably with cheaper equipment replaced every six or seven years. At least specialist equipment tends to be built with discrete components, so there is no reason why it shouldn't be repaired if the need arises. Specialist manufacturers also tend to support their equipment for much longer than mainstream manufacturers.

With regard to the point about specialist retailers, I too would willingly pay a bit more for unbiased, specialist advice on subjects such as photography and HiFi. Likewise if I am buying a new car or having one repaired. However, my experience over the past ten years or so is that salesmen tend to sell whatever they have been 'incentivised' to sell that week, rather than what is best for the customer. I believe this is one of the main reasons that consumers increasingly boycott the high street when purchasing specialist equipment.

As for car dealers, there is not one that I trust right now, but that is another story!

Nigel.

[SLS]

For what its worth, my Quad II monoblocks cost £27 17/6d each in 1955. How much would that be today given that petrol cost about 3/- (15p) a gallon in 1955! Oh, and a three bedroom house within commuting distance of London would cost about £2,500.

If we translate that into modern money using the petrol price as a reference each monoblock would cost about £1095.00 which is not far short of today's prices.

As for whether this equipment is overpriced, I suppose it depends how long it lasts. I am talking about a pair of fifty years old amplifiers which are still in regular use, so it probably compares favourably with cheaper equipment replaced every six or seven years. At least specialist equipment tends to be built with discrete components, so there is no reason why it shouldn't be repaired if the need arises. Specialist manufacturers also tend to support their equipment for much longer than mainstream manufacturers.

With regard to the point about specialist retailers, I too would willingly pay a bit more for unbiased, specialist advice on subjects such as photography and HiFi. Likewise if I am buying a new car or having one repaired. However, my experience over the past ten years or so is that salesmen tend to sell whatever they have been 'incentivised' to sell that week, rather than what is best for the customer. I believe this is one of the main reasons that consumers increasingly boycott the high street when purchasing specialist equipment.

As for car dealers, there is not one that I trust right now, but that is another story!

Nigel.

The unofficial consumer inflation index always used to be the Mars Bar.

When the Garrard 301 came out in 1955 it cost £25, 3 shillings and 6 pence (£25/3/6 to you and me - which I reckon is 6042 pence). A Mars Bar cost 4 pence. A Mars Bar now costs 60p at Tesco. So I make a 1955 Garrard 301 to be 1,510 Mars bars, which would now cost £906.

If anyone wants to sell me a Garrard 301 boxed new for 900 quid, PM me.

[SLS]

I'm on a roll ...

When I sent a lens to Leica for recallibration (£300 to £500 estimate) they insisted on having the body as well to make sure all OK, even though lenses are fixed to an absolute standard. A month later they said the body was cracked and needed to be replaced at well over £1,000, and would not send it back without doing the work. After another month I got a photo of the crack, apparently taken with an electron microscope, on the base, not the body. Even the head of Leica UK Customer Services (JH - a true gent) had difficulty spotting it and managed to persuade the Germans to send it back.

Years ago I had a Primare amp, bought ex-dem, and something blew when it was 8 years old. I sent it to Denmark to be repaired. They sent it back 2 weeks later, fixed, cleaned, serviced with my postage refunded and no charge. They said it should not have failed.

If I took my amp in to have a plug fixed and they wouldn't return it without rebuilding it, I might give up listening to music and take up fishing.

There's service .. and then there's service.

[hifi_dave]

What does get my goat a bit is the cost of distribution. When a product requires a profit for the manufacturer, distributor and retailer, and is only being sold in small quantities, not much of your cash is being spent on the cost of making the thing. As a small business owner I like to support small businesses and most of my hifi (by total cost) was purchased direct from the manufacturer. I am thinking of doing the same with my next speakers (a 3-way 4 drive design with top notch components weighing 94kg each and costing about £5,500). So are those speakers less hi-end because they cost £5k from the manufacturer than a similar branded/marketed pair that might retail at £15k or £20k?

May I suggest that many of the more mainstream UK products are priced to sell abroad. The prices are artificially inflated for the UK, so that they sell in, say China, for the same price as here, after being shipped, with import duties and distributor markup. So, your good ol' British speaker at £6K could easily sell in the UK for £3K with all concerned still making a profit.

When you are aware of this, few products now look to be good value. The £15K speaker sold direct at £5K is more like the retail price it should be without the artificial inflation and the manufacturer is still making a very handsome profit.

[BTH K10A]

I always use this calculator which is based on RPI/CPI http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1633409/Historic-inflation-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html
In todays money my BTH K10A's (£50 each in 1950) would be £1,495 each for driver and crossover only and my Westrex 2326A's (£225 each in 1960) would now be £4,525 each so they are worth more today than when new

Conversely, although I haven't a clue how much my EMT 930 cost new in 1962 they were apparently too expensive for general use in the BBC (Radio Caroline splashed out on a couple), I'd wager that in todays money it would be more than the price they currently sell for so, in real terms, compared to a Garrard 301 they could be an absolute bargain :exactly: :D

[Alan Sircom]

For what its worth, my Quad II monoblocks cost £27 17/6d each in 1955. How much would that be today given that petrol cost about 3/- (15p) a gallon in 1955! Oh, and a three bedroom house within commuting distance of London would cost about £2,500.

If we translate that into modern money using the petrol price as a reference each monoblock would cost about £1095.00 which is not far short of today's prices.

As for whether this equipment is overpriced, I suppose it depends how long it lasts. I am talking about a pair of fifty years old amplifiers which are still in regular use, so it probably compares favourably with cheaper equipment replaced every six or seven years. At least specialist equipment tends to be built with discrete components, so there is no reason why it shouldn't be repaired if the need arises. Specialist manufacturers also tend to support their equipment for much longer than mainstream manufacturers.

With regard to the point about specialist retailers, I too would willingly pay a bit more for unbiased, specialist advice on subjects such as photography and HiFi. Likewise if I am buying a new car or having one repaired. However, my experience over the past ten years or so is that salesmen tend to sell whatever they have been 'incentivised' to sell that week, rather than what is best for the customer. I believe this is one of the main reasons that consumers increasingly boycott the high street when purchasing specialist equipment.

As for car dealers, there is not one that I trust right now, but that is another story!

Nigel.

But if you use the house price as a reference point, each Quad II would cost £6,480.

There's a part of the Internet the size of Wales just given over to calculating such things.

[SLS]

May I suggest that many of the more mainstream UK products are priced to sell abroad. The prices are artificially inflated for the UK, so that they sell in, say China, for the same price as here, after being shipped, with import duties and distributor markup. So, your good ol' British speaker at £6K could easily sell in the UK for £3K with all concerned still making a profit.

When you are aware of this, few products now look to be good value. The £15K speaker sold direct at £5K is more like the retail price it should be without the artificial inflation and the manufacturer is still making a very handsome profit.

Will PM

[Lee1976]

YES big style.

[Mr Kipling]

But if you use the house price as a reference point, each Quad II would cost £6,480.

There's a part of the Internet the size of Wales just given over to calculating such things.

Is it really the size of Wales?

[Macca]

Is it really the size of Wales?

In the UK it is, but in the USA it is the size of Texas - Both the Wales and the Texas being offical AOS units of measurement (see http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?30580-Giving-measurements-on-the-Forum)

[Rush2112]

Hi one and all, many points above are valid. Aspiration is a term not used much in the Hi Fi world now but the idea we all aspire to getting the best sound we can is I think a fair starting point. The law of diminishing returns has always applied to Hi Fi and never more so now as pointed out high end gear is getting pricier and therefore less attainable to more of us. Whether this is down to costs or lack of demand or other factors is a debate that can run and run. One thing is for sure there are less of us who see Hi Fi as aspirational after all a iPod and Beats is Hi Fi ! So who needs an iPod dock equipped amp and expensive speakers any way. Times have changed and the big boys (High End) need to bring back aspiration if they are to survive in the future. Or we will be left with a USB lead and wireless pair of computer speakers!

[Mr Kipling]

In the UK it is, but in the USA it is the size of Texas - Both the Wales and the Texas being offical AOS units of measurement (see http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?30580-Giving-measurements-on-the-Forum)

Really? I was thinking perhaps Alan had made the error of mistaking "Wales" for "a whale". Easy enough done.

[struth]

I guess Hi End it where most of us would like to be; just not at the hi cost. I, try to improve my systems as I can, without costing me too much; often by selling to fund it. I like to think the stuff I have now is an improvement, even if it is just in my perception.
It could be said that silly amounts of money spent on hifi is obscene but so what. It is one of the great wonders of the world...if you got it, then flaunt it if you want....whether you should have that kind of cash available for hifi is another argument altogether....as was said earlier, why buy a Mclaren super sports car that can go at over 150mph when the max you can go legally and safely is 70.....coz you can.:lol:

[Rush2112]

It's true for me too if I have good fortune come my way there's a whole list of high end (expensive) kit to audition and buy! It will have to sound great not just cost a fortune though!

[YNWaN]

For me, the appeal of 'high end' audio is that the extra cost allows designers to pursue design solutions that just wouldn't be economically viable. Of course that doesn't mean that the more expensive solution is inherently better, it just makes it interesting in a design sense.

Years ago when I sold hi-fi people would occasionally espouse the view that 'surely as hi-fi got more expensive it must sound more similar to other equally expensive kit'. In fact the exact opposite is the case, as the designers have less financial constraints they are free to pursue ever more extreme solutions to the problems they (they, but not necessarily other designers) believe to be the key to good sound.

[Haselsh1]

What price high end hi-fi...? As I have said before on this very forum the margin on hi-fi in the current UK market is 2.5 times so to work out what the dealer has to pay to buy in that hi-fi, divide the price you are expected to pay by 2.5. That gives you what the dealer has had to pay for that item. Kind of makes the price of very expensive hi-fi look ridiculous doesn't it...? So, what is it truly worth.

This profit margin goes for just about everything you pay for in the current UK market. So five grand for a TV...? It is only truly worth two grand. Twenty five grand for an amplifier...? You are giving the dealer around ten grand just because he has the shop. Silly isn't it.

[hifi_dave]

Divide by 2.5 gives a 60% profit and that's just cobblers for all but the chains selling the What Hi-Fi recommended.

If only I could make 60%

[YNWaN]

The kind of dealers in the UK that sell 25K amps don't generally have shops - not like a shop you can just pop in to and that 'shop' also happens to be their home...

At the same time, the number of 25K components sold in the UK can be counted in singular units per year (if one is lucky) and they are often the 'ex-dem' unit with a multiple thousand pound discount (as you say, there is a lot of margin to allow for some discount). In all honesty, I think it is dealers and distributors buying kit that largely keeps the high-end going - they are the actual customers - that's why the Munich show is so important to manufacturers (most of the visitors have trade badges) - a lot of business and signing of new distribution contracts is done there.

[Haselsh1]

During my time in retail I used to work for a very large high street supermarket who sold digital cameras. They stocked a camera made by Vivitar that was mainly aimed at youths and teenagers with a retail price of £79. One day whilst using the shops Telxon gun for stock information I noticed the actual cost to the shop... £3.50 per unit item. Don't tell me that 2.5 times margin is cobblers because it is indeed fact.

[Rush2112]

I think the point may be less about the margin but more about the volume of sales! To think of it interns of the margin is missing the point. If you sell one item at £600 margin you would have to sell 100 at £6 margin to make the same return, so it is relative to volume!

[YNWaN]

Are you referring to me Shaun? If you are, I didn't mean to (I didn't think I had) suggest your comments regarding markup were incorrect (though it does vary and back in the day none of the manufacturers I dealt with gave that much margin).

[SLS]

Perhaps we should start a list of mid/hi end products and manufacturers where we the punters do not think we are being ripped off.

I doubt the list will include a lot of cable manufacturers.

[hifi_dave]

During my time in retail I used to work for a very large high street supermarket who sold digital cameras. They stocked a camera made by Vivitar that was mainly aimed at youths and teenagers with a retail price of £79. One day whilst using the shops Telxon gun for stock information I noticed the actual cost to the shop... £3.50 per unit item. Don't tell me that 2.5 times margin is cobblers because it is indeed fact.

You are referring to profit in a "very large high street supermarket" selling a particular Vivitar camera. They probably bought that in thousands and was something Vivitar wanted to dispose of. I can assure you that Hi-Fi retail doesn't have anywhere near the 60% profit you are saying is "fact". I would be a very happy bunny if I could get anywhere near that.

[Marco]

Yeah, perhaps the likes of Richer Sounds achieve that sort of profit margin, when selling stuff from Cambridge Audio, etc, on the back of WTF '5-star reviews'. As for small, specialist hi-fi dealers, selling low-production high-end equipment (cables aside), forget it! :nono:

Sorry, Shaun, you're way off-beam here, mate.

Marco.

[Alan Sircom]

What price high end hi-fi...? As I have said before on this very forum the margin on hi-fi in the current UK market is 2.5 times so to work out what the dealer has to pay to buy in that hi-fi, divide the price you are expected to pay by 2.5. That gives you what the dealer has had to pay for that item. Kind of makes the price of very expensive hi-fi look ridiculous doesn't it...? So, what is it truly worth.

This profit margin goes for just about everything you pay for in the current UK market. So five grand for a TV...? It is only truly worth two grand. Twenty five grand for an amplifier...? You are giving the dealer around ten grand just because he has the shop. Silly isn't it.

Well no, and no. First, I don't know of any dealer who is making anything even remotely approaching those margins. At best, you might be looking at around 25% for high-end audio equipment, and closer to 2.5% for a typical TV sale.

Second, it really comes down to what level of service a dealer provides to their customers and prospective customers. If a dealer is using his or her listening room purely as a space where brands can sell their wares to customers, with no input from the dealer aside from extracting money from the customer, then yes... that's pretty silly.

It's also something close to fantasy.

A dealer holds stock, both demonstration and ideally live sale stock. They should hold enough demonstration stock to be able to compare X with Y; that doesn't mean every single product on an elaborate shopping list of a prospective buyer can or should be available, but it should allow comparisons within a fair degree of the original intent on the part of the buyer. That means not just holding one player, one amp, and one pair of loudspeakers any given price point, but possibly several variations on a theme. Even staying well below the boundaries of 'high-end', that means amassing a crushing financial burden of inventory.

In many cases, the demonstration (or demonstrations) requires a considerable amount of precise installation and adjustment; a system in the home might have the benefit of having hundreds of hours of fine-tuning to get it exactly so, where the dealer needs to be able to get most of the way there in the time between one demonstration and the next. Which is why sometimes you find a sales person sitting in a room at 10pm or later, making sure the system can be heard in the best possible manner to show what that equipment is capable of. And they do all this, in the certain knowledge that two out of every three demonstrations that are not repeat business customers end in being an unpaid service for an online discounter.

Now, not every dealer goes the extra mile for this. Not every dealer has - or can afford - the inventory. Not every dealer has the knowledge (or, sadly, the interest) in fine-tuning a system to the customer's requirements, and especially if they then have to repeat the exercise in a home demonstration (those who go the extra mile in the listening room aren't likely to just load the box into the boot of the prospective buyer's car, are they?). But a few do. And each time one of these 'oh they are just ripping you off' comments comes up again, it's these people who go the extra mile who tend to suffer most, because they live or die by their reputation for excellence, which can sadly be scrubbed off by association to assumption.

I'm sure in saying this, I'm only echoing the frustration felt by many of those who are at the coal face and do the job properly. They can't voice this without being castigated for self-promotion, but the other side of the rant needs to be aired from time to time.

[Rush2112]

Well I can only agree with that said above. If the service you receive is above expectation I doubt you ever find yourself thinking about how much the dealer has made from the deal!

As for margins well I can talk with some expertise that in the new car trade margins can vary from less than 1% to as much as 30% with less than 7% being typical. Despite what you might be thinking the 1% relates to a car that retails at below 10k while the 30% relates to cars retailing between 35k and 50K which I might add sell at less than 1 a month! So as already stated above take into account demonstrators and live stock which can in car terms account for around £1.5 million most of which is fully paid and no matter what the margin your hardly coining it in. Unless that is your doing volume in which case happy days.

[SLS]

Recent perusals led me to the first bit of stereo kit that I have heard of, the Spectone stereosonic tape deck, which was demonstrated to the trade at Abbey Road in May 1955 and then in a "recital" at the Festival Hall later that year. Tickets were 5 shillings. Yours for £250, or £5,700 in today's money. Allowing for wage inflation, that's probably more like £10,000 - so serious bucks for high-end kit even in 1955.

By way of comparison, the Garrard 301, which I came out in 1954, cost £25, 3 shillings and 6 pence.

So not a lot changes, except you don't have to pay for demo's these days. Mind you, by 1956 they were doing recitals in Selfridges and the price had come down with a budget unit at £100.

Curiously, no mention of cables in 1950s and 1960s audio. Obviously a modern marketing ploy.

[Rush2112]

Well that's it I guess things don't change as much as we think. However, new audio mediums and portability will I fear still be a nail n the coffin of the high end manufacturer if they don't create the desire and aspiration.

[Marco]

Sorry, but I simply don't understand why anyone would buy hi-fi equipment on 'aspiration'. It's simply a tool with which to play music to a high sonic standard, not a rare ornament to be coveted and admired!

Marco.

[Haselsh1]

I certainly do concede that major supermarkets can buy in massive quantities but I also know that they can consume vast amounts of our money also. I also know that standard markup in UK retail is 2.5 times at the current moment however VAT has to be deducted from this because we are all glorified tax collectors for the government. YNWan, I was not specifically referring to you, please do not take offence. In fact I am only referring to my own personal experience of working in retail and how it treats the general public. I am pretty disgusted to be honest.

[Haselsh1]

Sorry, but I simply don't understand why anyone would buy hi-fi equipment on 'aspiration'. It's simply a tool with which to play music to a high sonic standard, not a rare ornament to be coveted and admired!

Marco.

Definitely +1 from me

[Floyddroid]

In short no! if you have the money to buy it.
http://www.cnet.com/news/high-end-audio-too-expensive-compared-to-what/#ftag=CADf328eec

[Rush2112]

I think the fact that people aspire to have a better hi fi a better car a better house is not a bad thing ! All of those things need not be aspirational they may be simply functional but if that was the case I dare say there would be no Koetsu no Ferrari or Huf Haus etc Aspiring to better sound better performance better design by the designer goes hand in hand with the same aspiration by the purchaser!

[Macca]

I think the fact that people aspire to have a better hi fi a better car a better house is not a bad thing ! All of those things need not be aspirational they may be simply functional but if that was the case I dare say there would be no Koetsu no Ferrari or Huf Haus etc Aspiring to better sound better performance better design by the designer goes hand in hand with the same aspiration by the purchaser!

Better sound and performance is one thing but what if the sound and performance are no better? I often wonder this about blingy high-end amps such as those pictured on the Munich Show thread. I mean surely it is the same damn circuit near enough that you will get in an amp at a tenth of the price? But if it is just in a plain box then you can't ask £20K for it. Well you could but no=one would buy it which tells me that the market for the high end cares a lot about how it looks, perhaps more so than how it sounds. That is the aspirational side of it, wanting to be surrounded by beautiful, expensive things. That's not my bag but I suppose if you are not a multi=millionaire then it is difficult to think like one.

[Alan Sircom]

Better sound and performance is one thing but what if the sound and performance are no better? I often wonder this about blingy high-end amps such as those pictured on the Munich Show thread. I mean surely it is the same damn circuit near enough that you will get in an amp at a tenth of the price? But if it is just in a plain box then you can't ask £20K for it. Well you could but no=one would buy it which tells me that the market for the high end cares a lot about how it looks, perhaps more so than how it sounds. That is the aspirational side of it, wanting to be surrounded by beautiful, expensive things. That's not my bag but I suppose if you are not a multi=millionaire then it is difficult to think like one.

I've met quite a few people with extremely high-end systems, and I've not met one who buys something on the basis of how it looks, rather than how it sounds. There are likely those oligarchs who buy status symbols, and there is a social climbing component to audio in some parts of Asia, but that's a small subset of a very small market.

The fact someone earns law-partner money and wishes to indulge their passion does not make them any more or less discerning than someone who earns chip-shop money and wants to do the same. The fact their income allows them to explore the exotic and esoteric does not mean they switch off their discernment. I find this inverted snobbery extremely distasteful, especially as you don't find that many high-enders calling you a bunch of lightweights because you haven't spent a small fortune on building a dedicated listening room.

It might be hard for you to take, but I've met people who have enough money to try a Technics and a TechDAS, and if the TechDAS does the better job for them, the price differential is not a problem. I also know one who started down the Technics route and ended up with a Kuzma XL4 and an 4-Point arm; they could have just spent the extra if it were just about the status, but in listening they preferring the 4-Point to the Air-Line. That's a discerned difference experienced through listening - how is that just spending money for the sake of it?

The latest Krell models give an example of what you need to do now to make a high-end amplifier. It has to sound good (in a Krelly-way), and better than its predecessors. The amp needs to be powerful (250W/8ohms and doubling down into two ohms and below is fairly minimum-standard now, with the capability to hit 1-2kW peaks with ease), it needs to have fairly heavy protection (the last thing you want is an amp burning out drive units, when the drive units belong to an expert in litigation), but somehow that protection needs to be both quick and easy to reset, and inaudible. It also needs to have a high degree of self-monitoring, ideally periodically sending diagnostic information to the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer, because your high-end buyer today expects the same treatment he gets from his electronics as he might get from his 7-series BMW. Naturally, things like power on/power off thumps and the like are strictly off the radar, even if the amp is used in a DC-offset rich environment (like the lair of a supervillan) or has the sort of reservoir capacitance that could jump-start an A380.

Now, if you can do all that for less than the others charge for that kind of technology, I know a lot of CEOs of electronics companies who will give you a job tomorrow.

[Macca]

Alan you are missing my point I think. I wasn't intending to sound inverted-snobbish but I suppose I did. I'm a libertarian-capitalist so I'm all in favour of the existence of wealthy people and for the opportunity for those who aspire to it to become wealthy. So I have no problems with these products existing or with the people who buy them. I just personally don't see the point in blinging-up audio gear. For me form should follow function, if they have a great amp with loads of value added such as you describe, then why add all the bling and chrome? They don't offer a 'plain' version for those who don't want to pay the extra for the bling, so why is that?

Having said that I have always been a big fan of backlit VU meters and wooden side cheeks so maybe I am just confused.

[Marco]

Alan you are missing my point I think. I wasn't intending to sound inverted-snobbish but I suppose I did. I'm a libertarian-capitalist so I'm all in favour of the existence of wealthy people and for the opportunity for those who aspire to it to become wealthy. So I have no problems with these products existing or with the people who buy them. I just personally don't see the point in blinging-up audio gear. For me form should follow function, if they have a great amp with loads of value added such as you describe, then why add all the bling and chrome?

They don't offer a 'plain' version for those who don't want to pay the extra for the bling, so why is that?


A very good point, Martin, and *exactly* my position on the matter.

If I loved the sound of Dan D'Agostino monoblocks, but could save, say, £5-6k (or more) on their price by removing the superfluous frippery, and having the circuit put inside the sort of cases Glenn Croft uses for his products, then I'd do it - and I don't see how anyone else who isn't buying it on its looks wouldn't do the same! ;)

Marco.

[RMutt]

I'm glad I've never heard one of the systems Alan Sircom describes. It's bad enough knowing that the elusive sound you crave for is just beyond your financial reach, but perhaps ultimately attainable. I can only imagine the frustration of knowing you will never be able to afford it. As it is I'm perfectly happy to improve what I have within my means and in blissful ignorance.

[Macca]

If I loved the sound of Dan D'Agostino monoblocks, but could save, say, £5-6k (or more) on their price by removing the superfluous frippery, and having the circuit put inside the sort of cases Glenn Croft uses for his products, then I'd do it - and I don't see how anyone else who isn't buying it on its looks wouldn't do the same! ;)

Marco.

That is because we consider £5K a lot of money. That is what I mean by thinking like a multi-millionaire. If I had a disposable income of say 1 million a year, and I heard some blinged up bit of kit and liked what it did would I just buy it as the fact that I was paying an extra, say, £5K just for the bling would not be enough money to trouble me? I don't know.

[Marco]

I think the fact that people aspire to have a better hi fi a better car a better house is not a bad thing ! All of those things need not be aspirational they may be simply functional but if that was the case I dare say there would be no Koetsu no Ferrari or Huf Haus etc Aspiring to better sound better performance better design by the designer goes hand in hand with the same aspiration by the purchaser!

It's probably just me, Mark. I just have a problem with the term 'aspirational', as for me it often relates to behaviour that causes people to live beyond their means, by 'aspiring to a lifestyle' they can ill afford - and today's society is largely in the state it's in because of that kind of mindset.

Marco.

[Mr Kipling]

What's an oligarch?

It's no good coming here bandying high falutin terms with us AOS peasants, Alan.

I often wonder about amplifier design and if there is really anyway for it to go.

Surely, if there's a maket for a product, then someone will attempt to supply it. If people want blingy hi-fi based on looks then makers will produce it. The world is getting increasingly ever more fragmented and hi-fi is no exception.

I'm with Macca on the VU meter matter.

[Marco]

That is because we consider £5K a lot of money. That is what I mean by thinking like a multi-millionaire.

That's not the point I'm getting at.

It's not the money; it's the fact that the superfluous frippery is not one iota responsible for how the amplifiers sound, given that whatever more 'sober' looking casing used instead was equally as functional, sonically.

As an audio enthusiast, form always follows function, so It wouldn't matter a tinker's cuss to me whether I was a millionaire or not. The bottom line is that I simply wouldn't want anything fitted to the audio equipment I use that was surplus to requirements!

For me, dressing hi-fi equipment in superfluous jewellery is akin to owning a Diamante-encrusted 24ct gold-plated iPhone: utterly pointless unless one revels in pretentiousness.

Marco.

[hifi_dave]

That's not the point I'm getting at.

It's not the money; it's the fact that the superfluous frippery is not one iota responsible for how the amplifiers sound, given that whatever more 'sober' looking casing used instead was equally as functional, sonically.

As an audio enthusiast, form always follows function, so It wouldn't matter a tinker's cuss to me whether I was a millionaire or not. The bottom line is that I simply wouldn't want anything fitted to the audio equipment I use that was surplus to requirements!

Marco.

There is an awful lot of embellishment, decoration, frippery and over-engineering which does nothing for the performance but does cost a lot of money. Often the casework and front panel costs more than the internals.

[Marco]

Precisely, Dave - and it is *that* which I'm getting at.

If you're first and foremost a genuine audio enthusiast/purist, such things are totally irrelevant. It's what's under the hood that matters!!

:exactly:

Marco.

[losenotaminute]

Precisely, Dave - and it is *that* which I'm getting at.

If you're first and foremost a genuine audio enthusiast/purist, such things are totally irrelevant. It's what's under the hood that matters!!

:exactly:

Marco.

I don't see why being a hifi enthusiast means that you can't derive æsthetic pleasure from looking at the hifi kit as well as listening. It's like classic cars, the looks are important as well as the way they drive.

Lawrence

[Alan Sircom]

Alan you are missing my point I think. I wasn't intending to sound inverted-snobbish but I suppose I did. I'm a libertarian-capitalist so I'm all in favour of the existence of wealthy people and for the opportunity for those who aspire to it to become wealthy. So I have no problems with these products existing or with the people who buy them. I just personally don't see the point in blinging-up audio gear. For me form should follow function, if they have a great amp with loads of value added such as you describe, then why add all the bling and chrome? They don't offer a 'plain' version for those who don't want to pay the extra for the bling, so why is that?

Having said that I have always been a big fan of backlit VU meters and wooden side cheeks so maybe I am just confused.

In part because if you are prepared to save money on a cheaper case, you are prepared to also put up with a switch on thump, so the whole rationale for the checks and balances inside something like a Soulution is academic. The reverse is also true.

The other thing to consider is those who don't want to pay extra don't seem to want to buy anything audio at this time. If you look at the market for new audio equipment in the UK, it tops out at the £600 mark, levels out between £600-£5k, then drops off like a stone until it gets to around £13k, at which point it begins to pick up again. Right now, if you made a £20k thing and decided you could make an £8k version of the same by cutting a few non-essential corners, no matter how good that £8k thing was, it wouldn't sell as well as the £20k thing, both in value, and volume.

Remember that we are in a time when AMG can't simply make a souped-up Mercedes in all the places it matters. It has to improve all the places where it doesn't matter now as well. You are paying extra for the IWC name on the clock on the dashboard on the AMG S63, whether it means anything or not. These buyers are not simply buying bling (many of those who buy a S63 or - when it arrives - a S65 know what it does compared to the standard S-Class), but there is an expectation of build quality that goes with the performance, now.

[Macca]

But if I had millions in the bank and the bling was not optional and I wanted the product solely for its audio ability then I buy it regardless of the fact that I am paying an extra £5K for something I don't want or need because £5K is nothing to me.

But as an enthusiast I don't care what the kit looks like as long as it performs. So are the buyers of these blingy high end products wealthy enthusiasts who look at the bling version and think 'well I don't want all that but I am buying it anyway' or are they the sort who will look at the same product in a plain box and think 'well it sounds fantastic but I won't buy it as it doesn't look like it cost a fortune so people might think it is not very good'? Or are they just wealthy enough to think 'well I like the sound and since I have pots of money I want to pay extra to have it looking really flash and expensive because why the hell not?'.

[Alan Sircom]

Precisely, Dave - and it is *that* which I'm getting at.

If if you're first and foremost a genuine audio enthusiast/purist, such things are totally irrelevant. It's what's under the hood that matters!!

:exactly:

Marco.

That is a fallacy of equivocation. Someone who is enthusiastic about audio is, by definition, an audio enthusiast. It doesn't matter how that enthusiasm pans out, and any attempt by you, me, or anyone else to ascribe our own personal definition on someone else's hobby is trying to behave like an intellectual despot.

A 'genuine' audio enthusiast could just as easily be someone who only listens through reel-to-reel, and considers everyone else just a mere part-timer. By their own definition, they would be right.

[Alan Sircom]

But if I had millions in the bank and the bling was not optional and I wanted the product solely for its audio ability then I buy it regardless of the fact that I am paying an extra £5K for something I don't want or need because £5K is nothing to me.

But as an enthusiast I don't care what the kit looks like as long as it performs. So are the buyers of these blingy high end products wealthy enthusiasts who look at the bling version and think 'well I don't want all that but I am buying it anyway' or are they the sort who will look at the same product in a plain box and think 'well it sounds fantastic but I won't buy it as it doesn't look like it cost a fortune so people might think it is not very good'? Or are they just wealthy enough to think 'well I like the sound and since I have pots of money I want to pay extra to have it looking really flash and expensive because why the hell not?'.

Maybe, just maybe, they choose things on entirely the same basis as everyone else. Sound quality.

Here's the thing. A Croft is a great amp. Some people might not buy it because it looks a bit drab. A Jeff Rowland is a great amp. Some people might not buy it because it looks a bit bling. Is either making a value judgement based on sound quality, if that's all that really matters?

[Macca]

A 'genuine' audio enthusiast could just as easily be someone who only listens through reel-to-reel, and considers everyone else just a mere part-timer. By their own definition, they would be right.

By any definition they might be right ;)

'Audio enthusiast' is a sliding scale. Just having a very good hi-fi system does not necessarily make an enthusiast. On the other hand there are people out there who have built their entire rig themselves, making those of us who claim to be enthusiasts with our poxy store-bought kit look a bit ridiculous.

[Mr Kipling]

There is an awful lot of embellishment, decoration, frippery and over-engineering which does nothing for the performance but does cost a lot of money. Often the casework and front panel costs more than the internals.

And why is that? Because it's a designer world we live in and people want designer label hi-fi. If they can afford it they will buy it. If it could be made cheaper by housing it in a more mundane case the same individuals would not buy it.

Earlier this year there was an item on BBC 2 about about perception and rational thought. During experiments done it was found that as soon as money is introduced rational thought takes a step back and that people are influenced by the percieved notion of financial reward.

I would imagine that if you have millions you just don't see things in the same way as the ordinary bloke in the street - how could you. Saving 5K on de-blinging an amp would mean nothing, I would imagine.

People knock Chinese amps but quite often they are worth it just for the casework.

[Macca]

Maybe, just maybe, they choose things on entirely the same basis as everyone else. Sound quality.

Here's the thing. A Croft is a great amp. Some people might not buy it because it looks a bit drab. A Jeff Rowland is a great amp. Some people might not buy it because it looks a bit bling. Is either making a value judgement based on sound quality, if that's all that really matters?

Okay then let's take the Croft amp and put it in the Jeff Rowland case and charge the extra. Would Croft now sell more amplifiers despite the price hike due to the fancy case work alone? You seem to be suggesting that in the current market they would indeed sell more. So the buyers of these products cannot be judging solely on SQ.

[Alan Sircom]

By any definition they might be right ;)

'Audio enthusiast' is a sliding scale. Just having a very good hi-fi system does not necessarily make an enthusiast. On the other hand there are people out there who have built their entire rig themselves, making those of us who claim to be enthusiasts with our poxy store-bought kit look a bit ridiculous.

Of course it doesn't. There are many people (actually, an increasing number of people, at last) who buy a good audio system for the purposes of hearing good sounds and have absolutely no interest in engaging with the audio equipment as a potential hobby. And why not?

However, there are those who are fully engaged with the hobby, who derive a great deal of pleasure from experimenting with different bits of audio equipment, have a system in a permanent state of work-in-progress that is always two upgrades from complete, but would hate the idea of it actually being complete.

Some of them do this on a tiny budget. And why not?
Some of them do this with more disposable income. And why not?
Some of them do this with considerable disposable income. And why not?

A person who started with an Arcam amp 30 years ago, and stepped from there to a Croft integrated and now to an EAR pre-power, has typically made this journey through a series of tightly discerned and nuanced listening tests to build the best system they could at this time. If they now made the jump from EAR to Lamm, the journey continues. It doesn't equate to "now I have money, my priorities have changed" and it doesn't equate to "now I am rich, I have become lobotomised". They deploy the same discerning listening skills, but with a larger amount of money to invest in their hobby.

If they wind up in penury as a result of this journey into high-end then yes, they are an idiot. But I've never, ever met such an individual. Most people who buy good audio have the resources to pay for good audio without it causing significant distress to their bank account.

[Marco]

I don't see why being a hifi enthusiast means that you can't derive æsthetic pleasure from looking at the hifi kit as well as listening. It's like classic cars, the looks are important as well as the way they drive.


I agree. I should've written "It's what's under the hood that matters most." That last word is crucial, in terms of getting my point across correctly.

To use your car analogy, therefore, would a classic car enthusiast buy an E-Type Jag if it drove and performed like a sack of potatoes, despite looking gorgeous? No, and so therefore what matters most is performance, otherwise it is simply an expensive ornament.

It's exactly the same for any genuine audio enthusiast buying hi-fi equipment: what matters most is what's under the hood, not what's on the outside.

Let's take price out of the question for the moment.

Therefore, if faced with the option of, say, choosing an amplifier that looked fantastic (to them) and sounded merely 'good', or one which looked somewhat utilitarian and sounded 'utterly incredible' (to them), which amplifier, in your opinion, would the most genuine audio enthusiast choose? ;)

Marco.

[Mr Kipling]

Okay then let's take the Croft amp and put it in the Jeff Rowland case and charge the extra. Would Croft now sell more amplifiers despite the price hike due to the fancy case work alone? You seem to be suggesting that in the current market they would indeed sell more. So the buyers of these products cannot be judging solely on SQ.

It would be interesting to see what would result. And it might be somewhat surprising.

[Marco]

If they wind up in penury as a result of this journey into high-end then yes, they are an idiot. But I've never, ever met such an individual. Most people who buy good audio have the resources to pay for good audio without it causing significant distress to their bank account.

I'm not saying you're not right, Alan, but exactly how do you know that as fact? Do you have access to their bank statements or something?

In my experience, it's often the case that those who live beyond their means, 'aspiring to own' this and that, put on a convincing facade that it's their money which has paid for all the 'flashy things' they own, and not merely that of the bank or credit card company, until they end up biting off more than they can chew!! ;)

I own a £35k+ hi-fi system, every bit of which has been bought and paid for. I wouldn't have it any other way, as it's not fun being in lots of debt.

Marco.

[Alan Sircom]

Okay then let's take the Croft amp and put it in the Jeff Rowland case and charge the extra. Would Croft now sell more amplifiers despite the price hike due to the fancy case work alone? You seem to be suggesting that in the current market they would indeed sell more. So the buyers of these products cannot be judging solely on SQ.

Probably not. The Croft amp would be severely underpowered for the kind of loudspeakers used at that price. It doesn't reach sufficient standards required in that part of the market, and the JRDC amp does. It would also be considered too limiting (in terms of not having the option of either phono or DAC, having no remote) and too lacking in protection circuitry for today's buyer.

I also think most modern listeners would compare the Croft with the Jeff Rowland in sound quality terms and buy the Jeff Rowland. That probably wouldn't be the case here, but most people are not you people (if the forums were a truly representative slice of modern audio listeners in the UK, six of the people posting on this thread would need a Cyrus amp and Monitor Audio loudspeakers).

[Alan Sircom]

I'm not saying you're not right, Alan, but exactly how do you know that is true? Do you have access to their bank statements, or what?

In my experience, it's often the case that those who live beyond their means put on a convincing act that it's their money which has paid for all the 'nice things' they have, and not that merely of the bank or credit card company, until they bite off more than they can chew!! ;)

Marco.

Because they keep coming back. Credit card companies tend to catch up with people who live a champagne lifestyle on a beer budget. Especially after 2008. Someone buying a pair of Wilson Alexias this year to replace a pair of Sashas from five years ago, which replaced a pair of Watt/Puppys from eight years before that, which replaced a pair of Sonus faber Extremas from 1989 isn't doing this on perilous tick, and isn't doing this without some good cash reserves.

[losenotaminute]

It would be interesting to see what would result. And it might be somewhat surprising.

If I had the money, I'd go for the one that looked the best. Most people would.

Manufacturers like Linn and Naim survive because their kit looks good. It would be unfair to say that people who buy new Naim and Linn kit aren't hifi enthusiasts, but they do place a higher value on looks and brand than those who prefer manufacturers who don't put as much effort into appearance and brand. Of course, there's a hygiene factor in that the kit has to sound good as well, if it sounds terrible they wouldn't last very long. And then people like me can buy it pre-owned and get the best of both worlds :-)

[Marco]

Because they keep coming back. Credit card companies tend to catch up with people who live a champagne lifestyle on a beer budget. Especially after 2008. Someone buying a pair of Wilson Alexias this year to replace a pair of Sashas from five years ago, which replaced a pair of Watt/Puppys from eight years before that, which replaced a pair of Sonus faber Extremas from 1989 isn't doing this on perilous tick, and isn't doing this without some good cash reserves.

Perhaps not, but without drilling down into the facts of the matter, one can only surmise. The folk I'm referring to, incidentally, are just as real!

Marco.

[losenotaminute]

I'm not saying you're not right, Alan, but exactly how do you know that as fact? Do you have access to their bank statements, or something?

In my experience, it's often the case that those who live beyond their means, 'aspiring to own' this and that, put on a convincing facade that it's their money which has paid for all the 'nice things' they have, and not that merely of the bank or credit card company, until they end up biting off more than they can chew!! ;)

I own a £35k+ hi-fi system, every bit of which has been bought and paid for - and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Marco.

Quite right, buying hifi on credit is a mugs game.

Hifi is cheap hobby compared to say sailing or art collecting or fine dining. At least with hifi you have something that gives you hundreds of hours of pleasure and isn't quite as perishable or as subject to the vagaries of fashion as a lot of hobbies.

[Marco]

If I had the money, I'd go for the one that looked the best. Most people would.

Manufacturers like Linn and Naim survive because their kit looks good. It would be unfair to say that people who buy new Naim and Linn kit aren't hifi enthusiasts, but they do place a higher value on looks and brand than those who prefer manufacturers who don't put as much effort into appearance and brand. Of course, there's a hygiene factor in that the kit has to sound good as well, if it sounds terrible they wouldn't last very long. And then people like me can buy it pre-owned and get the best of both worlds :-)

Fancy having a go at my post #93, Lawrence? :)

Marco.

[Alan Sircom]

Perhaps not, but without digging into the facts of the matter, one can only make an educated guess. The folk I'm referring to, incidentally, are just as real!

Marco.


Some people can afford the things I cannot. Many of them can afford these things without having to suffer the financial consequences. A few of them are living on borrowed time. I am comfortable with all of that, and don't need some additional validation to determine how many are living beyond their means, to prove I'm somehow superior.

What's the weather like up there on your high horse?

[Macca]

Perhaps not, but without digging into the facts of the matter, one can only make an educated guess. The folk I'm referring to, incidentally, are just as real!

Marco.

I've known a few as well but I would suggest that given that mentality high-end hi-fi is not something they would be spending the money that they don't have on. My experience has been that they blow it on a flash house, a flash car (or cars), exotic holidays, jewellery, kitchen appliances and in a couple of cases, cocaine. You won't impress the neighbours with your Jeff Rowland amp because they don't know what it is but a fully specced Range Rover Sport can be envied by everyone.

[Alan Sircom]

I agree. I should've written "It's what's under the hood that matters most." That last word is crucial, in terms of getting my point across correctly.

To use your car analogy, therefore, would a classic car enthusiast buy an E-Type Jag if it drove and performed like a sack of potatoes, despite looking gorgeous? No, and so therefore what matters most is performance, otherwise it is simply an expensive ornament.

It's exactly the same for any genuine audio enthusiast buying hi-fi equipment: what matters most is what's under the hood, not what's on the outside.

Let's take price out of the question for the moment.

Therefore, if faced with the option of, say, choosing an amplifier that looked fantastic (to them) and sounded merely 'good', or one which looked somewhat utilitarian and sounded 'utterly incredible' (to them), which amplifier would the most genuine audio enthusiast choose? ;)

Marco.

False dichotomy. The two can co-exist, and I would wager most people would gravitate toward a product that looks pretty good and sounds pretty good. Because that's precisely what they do.

Presenting the extreme end of the bell-curve as 'normal' and then implying anyone who isn't at a similar extreme as not a 'genuine' enthusiast is disingenuous.

[losenotaminute]

Fancy having a go at my post #93, Lawrence? :)

Marco.

I completely agree with your post #93, for any sane person they would select the kit that sounds the best IMO.

I suspect you would agree however, that reality can be a lot more complex. The only way to find out which kit sounds the best is to try it out in the environment where it will be used. Kit can sound great during a demo in the shop but that doesn't mean it will sound good at home. The contrary also applies. Add to that expectation bias, peer pressure, brand reputation, people's very limited experience of different kit, access to dealers etc etc and purchasing decisions become a minefield.

We know that all people buy with their eyes, and are strongly influenced by the sales environment, that's just human nature. But I agree a genuine hifi enthusiast should regard sound quality as by far the most important factor, but many don't.

[doodoos]

What I would add is that if the listening room isn't right then buying high end may be a waste of money. Having got myself a pair of Audeze lcd3 cans + Trilogy headamp the clarity in the base has put my system to shame ( a bit ). Still, it's the journey rather than the destination that makes it all worthwhile.

[Marco]

Some people can afford the things I cannot. Many of them can afford these things without having to suffer the financial consequences. A few of them are living on borrowed time. I am comfortable with all of that, and don't need some additional validation to determine how many are living beyond their means, to prove I'm somehow superior.

What's the weather like up there on your high horse?

Alan, if in your occassional visits to AoS, when you 'parachute in' (on behalf of your employer) to defend the 'high-end', you're unable to be polite and instead insist on making personal remarks, such as those above, just because you don't like what you're reading, then in future you will not be allowed to contribute here.

Marco.

[Alan Sircom]

Alan, if in your occassional visits to AoS, when you 'parachute in' (on behalf of your employer) to defend the 'high-end', you're unable to be polite and instead insist on making personal remarks, such as those above, just because you don't like what you're reading, then in future you will not be allowed to contribute here.
Marco.

Marco,

I only make personal comments when riled, and I find myself exceptionally riled because I find your none too thinly-veiled tone high-handed and exhibiting the worst kind of inverted snobbery. However, if you cannot recognise that as extreme frustration on my part, do what you will.

In sum of what currently transpires, IMO:

1. People buy things that sound good
2. People buy things that look good
3. If something looks good and sounds good, they buy a lot more
4. If something sounds good and looks bad, they buy a lot less
5. If something looks good and sounds bad, they buy a lot less
6. If the 'bad' part of either #4 or #5 is too extreme, they don't buy at all
7. This applies universally, irrespective of price
8. If this were 50 years ago, we'd be having precisely the same discussion about the then-current products; we'd just be doing it by post

[Marco]

Well, all I can say is that you get "exceptionally riled" and 'extremely frustrated' rather easily, and are all too quick to start throwing ad hominem remarks around when the belief system that pays your wages is challenged ;)

Have I made any personal remarks against you? No, because I've stuck to the argument, rather than made it personal. Therefore, please extend me the same courtesy.

If you don't like my views, then ignore my posts, or I'll just ignore yours, as no offence, I've got more important things to concern myself with just now than arguing with you.

Marco.

[Macca]

8. If this were 50 years ago, we'd be having precisely the same discussion about the then-current products; we'd just be doing it by post

No, I think expensive products from that long ago were far more honest in their appearance. With the odd exception the really blingy kit to my mind started to appear in the late 'eighties and the amount seems to have grown exponentially, possibly down to modern production methods making various stylings easier/cheaper.

[Alan Sircom]

May I just interject to say that I am delighted to see that someone has finally pointed this out on a hi-fi forum.....

For the record, I was insulting you, not using argumentum ad hominem. There is a difference.

.........sorry. As you were!

[Macca]

This is an audio forum not the comments box underneath a u-tube video. We don't want any insults or any Latin thanks (I had enough Latin at school to last me out). You may continue to quote Shakespeare where appropriate.

[DSJR]

Back in my pre-school youth, the Hifi products of the day were bought by fairly well off hobbyists - Doctors, Lawyers, Architects and so on. The rest of 'us' bought radiograms, the best being Dynatron (I think) and B&O to name but two from the early 60's anyway (loads more discussed on the Vintage Radio forum). There were some really good (for the period) record players too, and Hacker is regarded as one of the very best of these (the Dynatron Mazurka and Decca Deccalians were well reviewed at the time I think).

From memory, the separates market as 'we' may recognise it, only seemed to come along in the mid to late 60's and the Japanese all but took it over in the early to mid 70's. I could be wrong, but the US led Top End seemed to be noticed worldwide? in the late-ish 70's (although Crown/Amcron were regarded as expensive Top End in the UK by the mid 70's with three UK dealers I recall) , although they'd been bubbling along mainly in the Pro market for some years before.

The UK Top End market, which I understand is rather smaller than mainland Europe and the far east, seems dominated by oligarch-like buyers, where a few tens of thousands of pounds on a bit of good sounding 'bling' is relative small change. We're talking WAY above the old 'B&O level' here and, if they can spend £100k on a flash looking system, then the likes of KJ W1 are there to part them with their money. The rest of us can happily live with our Croft amps, Harbeth/Spendor (in my case) and 'sensible' digital sources, safe in the knowledge that the music comes first and we've spent the best we can to get good musical sounds at home.

Does any of the above make sense?

[Floyddroid]

High end hi-fi is all bollocks. been there done that got the t-shirt. In the process of shedding many high end items from my system as to be quite frank they just don't sound as good as some components priced at a fraction of their packing cases. Take a look at Crackorama's system in the gallery. It plays music and looks great. Listening to this made me change my whole view of hifi. Hence my opening gambit. And before anyone says that i should listen to a properly fettled high end system of what ever brand or persuasion i have, lots of them. I even owned one.

[Marco]

May I just interject to say that I am delighted to see that someone has finally pointed this out on a hi-fi forum.....


For the record, I was insulting you, not using argumentum ad hominem. There is a difference.


.........sorry. As you were!

Who are you quoting, Alan [the bit in bold]?

Marco.

[Marco]

This is an audio forum not the comments box underneath a u-tube video. We don't want any insults or any Latin thanks (I had enough Latin at school to last me out). You may continue to quote Shakespeare where appropriate.

We don't tolerate anyone dishing out personal insults here, period. Anyone guilty of such will be banned, simple as that.

Marco.

[The Grand Wazoo]

Whoah, that's a bit weird. That was my post, quoting Alan. How did it get published under his name?

[Marco]

High end hi-fi is all bollocks. been there done that got the t-shirt. In the process of shedding many high end items from my system as to be quite frank they just don't sound as good as some components priced at a fraction of their packing cases. Take a look at Crackorama's system in the gallery. It plays music and looks great. Listening to this made me change my whole view of hifi.

I wouldn't say that it's ALL bollocks, Steve, but I do strongly agree with your sentiments. The problem is that too many people are 'seduced by the badge', and also buy into the notion that 'newest and/or most expensive is best', when patently that is not always true.

If only more folk were able/willing to think outside of the box!

Marco.

[Marco]

Whoah, that's a bit weird. That was my post, quoting Alan. How did it get published under his name?

Sorry, Chris, you've lost me... :scratch:

Marco.

[The Grand Wazoo]

Your post 115.
It quotes my post 111.
However, my post has been credited to Alan.

[talisman2]

normally i would agree , but the best sounding system by a very long way that i heard at the whittlebury show last october cost pennies short of £100,000 . the speakers were £38,000 and were from Pioneer (japanese !!) and the stand for the electronics cost £7,500. .
we also heard £50,000 systems sounding poor , so , i suppose, it's alll a matter of taste

[Marco]

Your post 115.
It quotes my post 111.
However, my post has been credited to Alan.

How on earth did that happen?

Well, just so that I know exactly where I stand... Alan, was your intention to insult me? From the quote, and your remarks attached to the post, it certainly looks that way.

Marco.

[Alan Sircom]

How on earth did that happen?

Well, just so that I know exactly where I stand... Alan, was your intention to insult me? From the quote, and your remarks attached to the post, it certainly looks that way.

Marco.

Yes Marco, I did intend to insult you, as I feel deeply offended by your statement.

For the record:

1. I put my photographic business into voluntary liquidation in 1989, because of a significant downturn in business
2. I did not then, nor have I ever, declared myself bankrupt, incurred significant business debts, or had to force my mother to pay off my business debts by selling her house
3. With the exception of a brief period in 2005 when I racked up credit card debt because of paying for my mother's funeral expenses, my finances have been in good form for years and, overpaid mortgage and an interest-free loan on a 14mm Fuji lens aside, I am entirely debt-free and have been since 2005/2006
4. If you speak to the person you were quoting from, please tell him that Roger from RCM thanks him for the contribution to the purchase of a phono stage

I must, however, congratulate you for staying just the right side of defamatory and actionable in your post.

Now, if you feel the need to wield your banhammer, go ahead. I have no intention of caring either way.

[Marco]

Well, excuse me, Alan, if I'm not a mind reader, and so wasn't aware of the circumstances of your photographic business. I'm sorry to hear that. However, I was simply expressing an opinion.

You've written things in the past here that I've found similarly offensive (if you remember we've had disputes like this before, as clearly we have very different views on audio), although like now, I refrained from making it personal, so it's not only my behaviour that has nudged the 'offence-o-meter', as it were.

Anyway, that said, I sincerely apologise for offending you. That was most certainly not my intention. All I want to do is discuss the thread topic by playing the ball, not the man, so if we can both agree to do that, let's put this dispute behind us and move on.

Marco.

[Alan Sircom]

Well, excuse me, Alan, if I'm not a mind reader, and so wasn't aware of the circumstances of your photographic business. I'm sorry to hear that. However, I was simply expressing an opinion.

You've written things in the past here that I've found similarly offensive (if you remember we've had disputes like this before, as clearly we have very different views on audio), although like now, I refrained from making it personal, so it's not only my behaviour that has nudged the 'offence-o-meter', as it were.

Anyway, that said, I sincerely apologise for offending you. That was most certainly not my intention. All I want to do is discuss the thread topic by playing the ball, not the man, so if we can both agree to do that, let's put this dispute behind us and move on.

Marco.

That's OK Marco, I am somewhat sensitive on this subject as I've been burned before.

I suspect the best course of action here is for me to withdraw from this forum for a while. I am a great believer in freedom of speech and try to represent the voice of loyal opposition in places like this. If you find that offensive rather than simply an alternate view on things, there is little point trying to continue to prosecute this line of reasoning.

[Marco]

Alan, it's only a few things you've written in the past that have bothered me - no biggie. I've probably done the same to you. We all say stuff sometimes that we regret!

Freedom of speech is always something we seek to promote here, providing that no personal remarks are directed at others in the process, which is what I objected to from you (simply because if that's not nipped in the bud on forums, all hell can break loose), not any of your views on hi-fi, no matter how much I disagree with some of them.

Anyway, how you proceed from here is entirely your decision. You'll always be welcome. Life's too short to fall out over this kind of stuff, so let's not :)

Marco.

[Accudazed]

In answer to the original question the answer has to be...

YES

Having just recently visited the "Million dollar stereos" website I can't help but think that no sane and rational person could conclude otherwise.

But, that's okay. I mean, why not have ludicrously priced high end hifi? The industry should cover every aspect of people's needs, tastes and budgets.

If I had the money, I'd go for it :).

[SLS]

Million dollar system ? Slacking.
How about a million euro pair of speakers. See Kharma.com

[Rush2112]

Well Marco, you are quite right it's not an ideal I would promote, in respect to living beyond our means that is. I just wonder where hi fi will be when as I mentioned at the beginning of my first "rant" when we have a large proportion of a generation who think a iPod and Beat's are hi- fi !

[Marco]

Indeed, although if you know where to look or dig deep enough, there are plenty of youngsters well into their T/Ts and 'vinyls', as they call them [check out the Steve Hoffman forum, for example], although you certainly won't be aware of that fact if your outlook is based on mainstream interests, and so fail to see beyond the end of your nose... ;)

When I go into Liverpool this afternoon, and pop into my favourite record shops, I'm expecting as usual to be outnumbered by kids! So I can assure you, it's not all 'doom & gloom'...

Marco.

[Macca]

Well Marco, you are quite right it's not an ideal I would promote, in respect to living beyond our means that is. I just wonder where hi fi will be when as I mentioned at the beginning of my first "rant" when we have a large proportion of a generation who think a iPod and Beat's are hi- fi !


30 years ago a large proportion of that younger generation considered a Saisho midi-system playing cassette tapes to be hi-fi. So you could argue that things have improved a little. Marco is right about 'kids' in the record stores. It is surprising how many of 25 years and younger you will see looking through the racks of vinyl.

[Marco]

...and that trend is set to continue.

Btw, the ones I'm referring to are 'kids': 16-19 year olds, walking out with piles of records, some of which are even 7" singles! :eek:

Marco.

[StanleyB]

30 years ago a large proportion of that younger generation considered a Saisho midi-system playing cassette tapes to be hi-fi. So you could argue that things have improved a little. Marco is right about 'kids' in the record stores. It is surprising how many of 25 years and younger you will see looking through the racks of vinyl.
But how many of us have ever sat down and considered why it is that the younger generation are picking up vinyl? Well I have. And my conclusions are not really surprising.
Most people with no previous experience with vinyl have had nothing else than their iPhone or mp3 player to play back music. Moving up to a home audio system has allowed many to get a better idea of quality playback. But then many of them decided to at least listen to vinyl once even if it was at a HIFI show or at a friend who owned a turntable. And it is here where things then get a bit more exciting. The majority of the old poor performing turntables and rack systems that had a turntable have long since been confined to the rubbish tips. It is mainly the good to excellent sounding and reliable turntables that have survived the decades. So most first time listeners of vinyl are spared the awful experience that the we were subjected to by the likes of Bush, Binatone, Amstrad, etc. It was after all these poor sounding system that drove most, if not all, of us to switch to CD instead.
The new generation of vinyl listeners will never know how bad vinyl can sound on a BSR turntable, so beloved by many of the budget rack system manufacturers. Remember them?

[Macca]

Good point that is, Stan. One good thing about crap hi-fi is that it doesn't last whereas the quality stuff survives. A sort of Darwinian filter mechanism.

[Mr Kipling]

If you could go back in time 30 years and say to people that in 30 years time the average house price in the UK would be £180,000 or that footballers and tv presenters would be earning millions a year, they would be looking at you as if you had 2 heads. Expensive hi-fi is just part of the world we now have and will become increasingly so.

I would imagine some young 'uns have turned to vinyl because it's a hands-on, physical experience.

There's still shite turntables out there. A few years ago when the vinyl revival started the MD of Steepletone was on QVC demonstrating his record player/radio/cd/usb port/amplifier unit, said that he was selling more turntables than in the final year when they stopped turntable production. There's also a brand IOS I think that make cheap usb decks that seem worse than any BSR.

[DSJR]

The new generation of vinyl listeners will never know how bad vinyl can sound on a BSR turntable, so beloved by many of the budget rack system manufacturers. Remember them?

Depends on the BSR Stan :) Some ceramic cartridges can sound really good in a 'direct' kind of way if properly loaded IMO.

[StanleyB]

I spent some happy time working in the QC department at Fidelity in Acton surrounded by high end users. But was not the BSR turntables that were high end. It was the Pakistani Gold, Moroccan Red, Durban Poison, Jamaican Sensei, etc. Northern Lights were not on the horizon in those days. If it wasn't for that kind of high end gear I would have put a hammer to all those BSR decks. They were that awful.

[The Barbarian]

I had a Fidelity 'Music Master' when i was a kid..

[Techno Commander]

Wow, I had one of those too when I was about 12.:)

[Beobloke]

Depends on the BSR Stan :)

No it doesn't. All BSRs were crap!

[Lynster]

I would imagine some young 'uns have turned to vinyl because it's a hands-on, physical experience.

I think there is actually a wider truth behind this. The problem with digital ‘everything’ is that a lot of physical hands on things have gradually been left behind. Other than keyboards, it’s only been a virtual world for many of the young.

It isn’t just music recording media either. Photographic film and the large physical cameras that use it, video tape etc. have largely gone from everyday use. What youngster would understand owning a splicing machine to edit Super 8 film? How many would contemplate making a model airplane from scratch or assembling a model railroad in their attic? Much more likely they would be using a digital games console to simulate space combat or flying a 747 around the world. However, I’m convinced from what I’ve seen through my kids and their friends etc that there is often a fascination at rediscovering some of these old physical ways. I’m just rather pleased that it appears that Vinyl rather than CD was ‘rediscovered’.:)

[Alex_UK]

I’m just rather pleased that it appears that Vinyl rather than CD was ‘rediscovered’.:)

Give it another 10 years... :D

[anthonyTD]

And,,,Speaking of hands on, i wonder how many under 20's will have seen one of these in the flesh!
12649

[Marco]

I think there is actually a wider truth behind this. The problem with digital ‘everything’ is that a lot of physical hands on things have gradually been left behind. Other than keyboards, it’s only been a virtual world for many of the young.

It isn’t just music recording media either. Photographic film and the large physical cameras that use it, video tape etc. have largely gone from everyday use. What youngster would understand owning a splicing machine to edit Super 8 film? How many would contemplate making a model airplane from scratch or assembling a model railroad in their attic? Much more likely they would be using a digital games console to simulate space combat or flying a 747 around the world. However, I’m convinced from what I’ve seen through my kids and their friends etc that there is often a fascination at rediscovering some of these old physical ways. I’m just rather pleased that it appears that Vinyl rather than CD was ‘rediscovered’.:)

Excellent post, Lynton :clap:

For me, anything that reduces folk's 'virtual existence', in today's society, and unhealthy obsession with/reliance in technology, and instead encourages a return to old physical ways, has to be a good thing.

For the sake of the future development of the human race, we need to embrace more that which makes us human, rather than having our minds continually controlled by machines, lest we eventually become dehumanised to such an extent that we too turn into robots!

Marco.

[Marco]

And,,,Speaking of hands on, i wonder how many under 20's will have seen one of these in the flesh!


I think that little beauty deserves to be seen in all its glory.... All-valve too, and fettled by your good self, I presume? :)


http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/853/73iu.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/np73iuj)


...whilst accompanied by this:


6W6y7YhHdVE


:yesbruv: :)

Marco.

[SLS]

30 years ago a large proportion of that younger generation considered a Saisho midi-system playing cassette tapes to be hi-fi. So you could argue that things have improved a little. Marco is right about 'kids' in the record stores. It is surprising how many of 25 years and younger you will see looking through the racks of vinyl.

Only listens to vinyl, down at Alan's Records or Sister Ray most weekends, gigs all the time and off to Glasto' with his mates and girlfriend - that's my 17 year old son.

(System: Project Genie + Ortofon Red, Inca Tech Claymore, Ruark Icons - iphone and Sennheiser Momentums)

[Marco]

Major :respect:

That's how all kids today should be brought up (or at least those with hi-fi/music-loving parents)! We have to keep 'our thing' alive, man.....

Marco.

[Jimbo]

My friends son is about 22 and has become a vinyl fanatic and loves the whole experience of buying, owning and playing vinyl. He likes the physical tangability that vinyl has which gives it that other dimension digital just cannot achieve.
It is great that another generation born in the digital age have redisovered vinyl and are treasuring it for all the qualities we all appreciate, those of us who still play the black stuff and know what pleasure it can bring.:)

[SLS]

Major :respect:

That's how all kids today should be brought up (or at least those with hi-fi/music-loving parents)! We have to keep 'our thing' alive, man.....

Marco.

Even more respect for wangling his way into Kasabian's recent album launch party at Abbey Road Studio 2. Don't know how he managed that, just got a load of texted selfies with hairy rockers and a few pics of some very nice kit.

[Marco]

Lolz - love it! :thumbsup:

What on earth did you put in his cornflakes, Steven? ;)

Marco.

[SLS]

Lolz - love it! :thumbsup:

What on earth did you put in his cornflakes, Steven? ;)

Marco.

All I did was play him a bit of Pink Floyd in the car on the way to nursery at age 4.

Thereafter nature took its natural course ....


Last October we had a big family lunch at home, 60 people sit-down, and my father-in-law asks for a vodka. So we find a bottle in a cupboard. He takes a sip - and exclaims "it's water". The little lad goes bright pink. Seems he took it to Glasto, brought the empty back, filled it with water and put it back in the cupboard. Given he was 16 at the time, I was rather proud of his strategic thinking. Just got the end-game wrong.

We should have seen the writing on the wall, when at age 13 he produced £1,300 - he'd saved every penny for 4 years - to get a Les Paul Starburst. Was £300 short so I made up the difference. Has since acquired a Fender bass, Statocaster, Fernandez sustainer, Gretsch acoustic and one more I forget which. He does like his music.

[Marco]

I'm speechless! You must be rather proud of him :)

Marco.

[SLS]

.. in a rather subversive way. I'd rather he get some decent AS results.

What is fun is when your son, against all the odds, introduces you to music you actually like. The Libertines, etc ...

Unfortunately my other son has an encyclopaedic knowledge of pop music 2005 to present and lives in a world of low-res downloads.

p.s Off to hear Kissin play a bit of Scriabin this evening. Nothing like a bit of proper music. Will give King Crimson / The Beat a spin when I get back and give it a vote.

[anthonyTD]

Brilliant! :)
All I did was play him a bit of Pink Floyd in the car on the way to nursery at age 4.

Thereafter nature took its natural course ....


Last October we had a big family lunch at home, 60 people sit-down, and my father-in-law asks for a vodka. So we find a bottle in a cupboard. He takes a sip - and exclaims "it's water". The little lad goes bright pink. Seems he took it to Glasto, brought the empty back, filled it with water and put it back in the cupboard. Given he was 16 at the time, I was rather proud of his strategic thinking. Just got the end-game wrong.

We should have seen the writing on the wall, when at age 13 he produced £1,300 - he'd saved every penny for 4 years - to get a Les Paul Starburst. Was £300 short so I made up the difference. Has since acquired a Fender bass, Statocaster, Fernandez sustainer, Gretsch acoustic and one more I forget which. He does like his music.

[anthonyTD]

:eek::lol:
I think that little beauty deserves to be seen in all its glory.... All-valve too, and fettled by your good self, I presume? :)


http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/853/73iu.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/np73iuj)


...whilst accompanied by this:


6W6y7YhHdVE


:yesbruv: :)

Marco.

[SLS]

I think that little beauty deserves to be seen in all its glory.... All-valve too, and fettled by your good self, I presume? :)


http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/853/73iu.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/np73iuj)


...whilst accompanied by this:


6W6y7YhHdVE


:yesbruv: :)

Marco.

Very pretty indeed, but methinks a lot of dusting and polishing involved. Do you play the thing?

Just curious, but did you run out of wallpaper?

[anthonyTD]

Hi Steve,
Its quite easy to keep clean, just a wipe over now and again, yes, i play it most days,[i rebuilt it about two years ago now] its a 1959 AMI J, and it was one of the very first jukeboxes to offer stereo sound, although the box itself was mono, it had two amps fitted, and when you selected the stereo option in the price bar, it would bring on extra speakers in the pub, or cafe it was in! as for the wall paper,;) there are two alcoves in that room, either side of the fireplace, the Jukebox is in one.
Very pretty indeed, but methinks a lot of dusting and polishing involved. Do you play the thing?

Just curious, but did you run out of wallpaper?

[SLS]

Hi Steve,
Its quite easy to keep clean, just a wipe over now and again, yes, i play it most days,[i rebuilt it about two years ago now] its a 1959 AMI J, and it was one of the very first jukeboxes to offer stereo sound, although the box itself was mono, it had two amps fitted, and when you selected the stereo option in the price bar, it would bring on extra speakers in the pub, or cafe it was in! as for the wall paper,;) there are two alcoves in that room, either side of the fireplace, the Jukebox is in one.

I reckon it puts a smile on your face every time you look at it.

[anthonyTD]

It certainly does Steve, and when i think it probably spent most of its life in a bar or cafe in Canada, being kicked and abused etc, its a wonder it survived at all!
A...
I reckon it puts a smile on your face every time you look at it.

[SLS]

It certainly does Steve, and when i think it probably spent most of its life in a bar or cafe in Canada, being kicked and abused etc, its a wonder it survived at all!
A...

I won't comment about spending most of one's life being kicked and abused, but ...

Never mind whether hifi is too expensive. What about concert tickets? Just got in from Evgeny Kissin at the Barbican Hall, allegedly one of the top performers in the world, and it was only about two thirds full. Average ticket price about £70, for one bloke and an old Joanna. According to the not unattractive Russian girl next to me there were a load of Russian expats present. Taken them out and not much of a crowd. A lot of money for one Schubert and two Scriabin sonatas in a building with as much atmosphere as a morgue.

That said, the Scriabin was superb, as was a Chopin encore. Back to the black stuff - Kasabian 48:13 and KC/The Beat

[anthonyTD]

Yep,
Sorry for the thread drift everyone, as you were!:)
A...