SY:
I am not sure that "branding" necessarily controls everything. Especially in the electronics industry.
There are many cases where a brand came around offering equal value for less, and people bought it.
For that matter, remember when IBM was the big home computer manufacturer? They made the mainframe computers that most home computer owners back then used on their job, (the average person didn't care about computers back then-if you ever saw what operating systems were used, you would understand why), and it would seem their position would be unassailable.
Then came Compaq and Dell, and they grew huge offering essentially the same machine for much, much less. And now both those brands are big in themselves.
I think a lot has to do with whether the item is largely utilitarian, or a luxury item. Chanel is luxury, obviously. So are some watch brands.
But this stuff is a lacquer, meant to perform certain tasks on a stereo system. True, the various components might be in the luxury category that "branding" is so vital for, but this is essentially a utilitarian item, even if it used on luxury items.
If another product came around and got people to vouch for it, I think it would have a good chance of success.
I am not sure that "branding" necessarily controls everything. Especially in the electronics industry.
There are many cases where a brand came around offering equal value for less, and people bought it.
For that matter, remember when IBM was the big home computer manufacturer? They made the mainframe computers that most home computer owners back then used on their job, (the average person didn't care about computers back then-if you ever saw what operating systems were used, you would understand why), and it would seem their position would be unassailable.
Then came Compaq and Dell, and they grew huge offering essentially the same machine for much, much less. And now both those brands are big in themselves.
I think a lot has to do with whether the item is largely utilitarian, or a luxury item. Chanel is luxury, obviously. So are some watch brands.
But this stuff is a lacquer, meant to perform certain tasks on a stereo system. True, the various components might be in the luxury category that "branding" is so vital for, but this is essentially a utilitarian item, even if it used on luxury items.
If another product came around and got people to vouch for it, I think it would have a good chance of success.
Hans L said:
Either you have a good sense of humor or ...
I call something a con because a basic substance is sold for more than a HUNDRED times its equivalent substitute. How does this statement reflect on my psyche according to the 'Basic psychology 101'?
Cya
A bit of each!
It is 'Standard operating proceedure' for a business to create situations where raw material costs are not directly reflected in the retail price. Packaging, research efforst, etc. Market exclusitivity, etc. 100x over material costs, especially a fluid based on common resins is -not unreasonable-, in ANY market.
For example, I know of some products from 3M, a industry Giant, that are well over 100x their base cost analysis. These specific products do as they are supposed to do. No specifications or product analysis results are given, but results are IMPLIED. The product, to the end user, or even the scientifically minded, are as the C37 is.. they exist as implied MAGIC. This, from 3M. So don't think this C37 guy is gouging you on the price. This is standard business practice, right from the top of the industry.
If the product is needed, and it does work or a job, that -nothing else- out there does..they you pay the price, or do without. You can complain all you want, but...I don't have to hear or listen to you, and neither does this C37 guy, or 3M.
And..3m will go on raking people over the coals, financially.... as long as the market exists for their products. I'm sure both companies are not making fortunes on these given products. I am on the inside (in one given case example) to a small degree, insofar as the development one of these products goes.... and I can tell you that the price is not reflected in the costs or the development proceedure. The results are unique, and therefore, so is the price. Deal with it, because the price is not changing any time soon. SY said:
Always the alternative thought. The other side of the coin. Yes, look at all possibilities. Maybe 3M is a charlatan too. But I think not. At least in 3M's case. We don't know about thsi other gentleman, and I'm not willing to speculate without more information. The difficult part hs always been..that.. the charlatan looks eerily similar to the legitimate creator.
The real genius must protect his ability to bring his efforts to market, by not telling people what his lines of thinking, logic, and analysis are. Proprietary thinking, it is. It is up to the customer to either spend the time and effort of figuring out what he is doing, if they so desire to. They can 'belly up to the bar' with their craniums,and figure the damn thing out...or simply buy it becase they feel it works as stated. Or they can do whatw we see here. either way, the inventor does not or should not give a damn.
The Charlatan has to hide beind his lack of knowledge and delivers a -very- similar spiel as the real genius. This creates a situation where it is difficult to tell the two apart, unless you can figure things out yourself.
fdegrove said:Hi,
Actually if you understand German it's not too hard to guess what's in C37.
It would require a lab however to find out the exact proportions of the ingredients.
As you mentioned cone doping materials....
There's quite a great variety of those around and they all work by evening out some resonant peaks, it may be interesting to see if there are products around similar enough to be compared directly to C37.
To my mind there's absolutly no justification whatsoever to shell out green ones for a damping compound you can very well make yourself.
Once you know the resonant behaviour of the component you want to treat, a cone or something else, it's no big deal to treat it so it can lose it's energy in the compound.
The C37 trick IMO sits with a resonance shift toward a frequency band that's less offensive to the ear, not to do away with the resonance entirely.
Overdamping often makes for a dull, lifeless sound.
Finding the right balance is what this C37 is all about....
Anyone having treated a few woofers with damping compound can tell you that anyway.........
Cheers,
Yes, my thinking exactly. I don't like to speak on such things as I have to exist in the industry and make a living of it. For example, we have a labaratory that has produced over 5000 (about 5500 now?) formulations in the past 10 years. Yes, we know formulations of ,well, fluids. I/We have my/our own ideas for creating simialr fluids and will be pursuing such soon. Perhaps the pricing will be more resonable, BUT DON"T COUNT ON IT! I have to put food on the table too. It is a tiny market, you know.
kw, magic goop isn't the electronics industry, it's the fashion industry.
I've dealt with 3M on a professional basis for about 25 or 30 years; probably bought a few million bucks worth of adhesives from them. Their stuff is solid, scientific, well-specified and documented, and priced in line with similar products. I don't see the analogy.
I've dealt with 3M on a professional basis for about 25 or 30 years; probably bought a few million bucks worth of adhesives from them. Their stuff is solid, scientific, well-specified and documented, and priced in line with similar products. I don't see the analogy.
SY said:
Yes and no.
Sometimes one thing IS the best for many things.
Some time ago, the manufacturer of large audio products company stated the position about tape head cleaners and similar products in a letter to the editor of Audio magazine. He said the challenge his company faced was to come out with application-specific formulations to take the place of Freon, because Freon WAS the best, hands down, for so many things.
So what he had to do was to find formulations of non-Freon materials that came as close as possible to what Freon did. And there were several formulations, each for specific applications.
Of course, I don't know how applicable all this is to C37, because Freon was a great all purpose cleaner and solvent, but C37 not only is supposed to coat your speaker cones, it is supposed to make your electronic chips work better when applied. Not even Freon ever said they could do that.
Still, the point is, sometimes something comes along which really IS the best for a variety of things. Although coating speaker cones and the outside of IC's are not two things that would seem to demand similar requirements.
Yes, Sy. I really DO know of some products in the 3M lineup that are exactly as I have stated. Implied abilities, no information given. I have direct contact with one of the people who was involved to a degree,in the development of that given product.
~~~~~~
Sometimes people hide answers because the thinking and lines of thought are proprietary,and they inventiveness and lead in to other ideas, creations, and products that are not yet fully fleshed out or explored.
Best not to give people ideas. It's not financially sound. They can steal your future financial and inventive thunder, while you are not looking. All because youu are stupid enough to open your mouth.
That's pretty darned basic and correct operating proceedure, for any given commercial enterprise that is based on proprietary thought and ideas. The ideas and thoughts ARE the business... Ie, brain trust.
What I have a really hard time understanding, is how people constantly refuse or desire not to see that one simple logical point.
Case in point? See how I speak of some '3m Product'. Note how I do not hint at what it is, whatsoever. This is simply because I don't want you or anyone else doing any thinking anywhere near that product, AT ALL.
~~~~~~
Sometimes people hide answers because the thinking and lines of thought are proprietary,and they inventiveness and lead in to other ideas, creations, and products that are not yet fully fleshed out or explored.
Best not to give people ideas. It's not financially sound. They can steal your future financial and inventive thunder, while you are not looking. All because youu are stupid enough to open your mouth.
That's pretty darned basic and correct operating proceedure, for any given commercial enterprise that is based on proprietary thought and ideas. The ideas and thoughts ARE the business... Ie, brain trust.
What I have a really hard time understanding, is how people constantly refuse or desire not to see that one simple logical point.
Case in point? See how I speak of some '3m Product'. Note how I do not hint at what it is, whatsoever. This is simply because I don't want you or anyone else doing any thinking anywhere near that product, AT ALL.
kw, use logic. Speaker cones are made from a dizzying range of materials with an enormous range of geometries and terminations. They suffer from all sorts of faults, differing from one driver to another- some break up sharply, some roll off gently. Some have treatments, some don't. Some break up radially, some break up angularly. Some have high mass, some have low mass. Some are deliberately stiff, others are deliberately flexible. Tape heads and tapes are much more uniform in comparison.
If there were one universal treatment that improved all speaker cones, quality-oriented speaker manufacturers would use it. The fact that they use a wide variety of treatments (and some, none at all) is suggestive.
If there were one universal treatment that improved all speaker cones, quality-oriented speaker manufacturers would use it. The fact that they use a wide variety of treatments (and some, none at all) is suggestive.
KBK said:See the final line or edit in my last post.
That's cheap...
"I know a certain something you don't... which proves by example that you're wrong. Whay can you not follow the simple logic of that"...
Well, basically, because I think it's a bunch of baloney... If you would have had any knowledge about loudspeakerunits and the materials and geonometry that are used to control the way and the extend to which the cone is damped, you would not be writing pages on the vague principles or examples why C37 is 'normally' priced.
KBK said:
Seems to me most of the stuff I get from 3M costs about 4 bucks for a 6 ounce can or so.
This fellow charges $60 for half an ounce, (15 ml).
I really don't care too much that the stuff in the 3M can only costs them 4 cents. If it's 100 times over manufacturing cost, so what? It's still only 4 bucks.
If the stuff in C37 costs approximately as much as the stuff in the 6 ounce 3M can, then C37 is charging 18,000 times cost.
That's what I think is sticking in the craw of the audio fans here. Yes, you know it's a specialty market, the manufacturer is small, there is no savings through mass production. So we expect to pay though the nose.
We might pay 100 times cost, 200 times cost, 500 times cost. That's life. But a suspected 18,000 times cost? There are limits.
demand elasticity for C37
He might be selling it at a VERY reasonable and MORAL price, even if it is inexpensive for him to produce it, if what I perceive to be true of the kind of audiophile (or is that spelled audiophool?) who buys into this kind of thing, is in fact true:
The audiophools would not buy as much of it if it were inexpensively priced, because they wouldn't think it was any good.
The illusion of value is created by the high price.
It helps the placebo effect result too; the audiophool is not willing to believe that he was a phool, so he will believe that his system sounds better after applying C37.
So if the high price is helping more audiophools feel better about their sound systems, I don't think anyone can complain.
-- mirlo
He might be selling it at a VERY reasonable and MORAL price, even if it is inexpensive for him to produce it, if what I perceive to be true of the kind of audiophile (or is that spelled audiophool?) who buys into this kind of thing, is in fact true:
The audiophools would not buy as much of it if it were inexpensively priced, because they wouldn't think it was any good.
The illusion of value is created by the high price.
It helps the placebo effect result too; the audiophool is not willing to believe that he was a phool, so he will believe that his system sounds better after applying C37.
So if the high price is helping more audiophools feel better about their sound systems, I don't think anyone can complain.
-- mirlo
Here is a post with the results of my testing so far from the sample of C37 that was 1st sent to SY.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1348617#post1348617
dave
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1348617#post1348617
dave
Yep yep yep. I have a B 75 varnish made from a spring mountain muss **** with addition of my grandma ashes and a tad of blubbery pie.
You guys are forgetting that a comparison to an old Strad warmish is a great commercial trick. Remember Strad from Sonus Faber? It has nothing to do with the violin varnish but sounds fantastic.
Did you ever think as to WHY violins and other musical instruments needed varnishing in the first place? I am curious to your thoughts.
You guys are forgetting that a comparison to an old Strad warmish is a great commercial trick. Remember Strad from Sonus Faber? It has nothing to do with the violin varnish but sounds fantastic.
Did you ever think as to WHY violins and other musical instruments needed varnishing in the first place? I am curious to your thoughts.
