Afair it's not just that they are using some minor stuff done by Paravincini but that he modified the tape electronics and supplied the cutting amps for MoFi's halfspeed mastering cutting lathe (operated by the late Stan Ricker) .
Last edited:
Greed? Let's see; it is a bit dated/legacy product but the retail price in Germany was around 1,500 € which already includes the VAT. In 2007 that were 240 € so 1,260 € left. The retailer wants to makes some profit, the importer needs to make some money and I'd assume that the manufacturer has to as well. You know packaging,transportation and warranty must be paid.
What would you consider as a fair markup for each part of the chain?
Further, I've seen two step up transformers on the pcb; have you checked these?
As you were just mentioning the tubes (and some additional parts), I was wondering, as the price range among such parts is quite large.
And rdf has a point; without measuring you don't know about the precision maybe some extra time was spent on selection of parts. But I'd agree that a manufacturer should specify the RIAA deequalization accuracy.....
Afair it's not just that they are using some minor stuff done by Paravincini but that he modified the tape electronics and supplied the cutting amps for MoFi's halfspeed mastering cutting lathe (operated by the late Stan Ricker) .
I didn't mention that as I wanted to check that was still the case. I know he had provided the cutting amps but didn't know if they had since upgraded. I was trying to leave the office before the kids were in bed.
Afair it's not just that they are using some minor stuff done by Paravincini but that he modified the tape electronics and supplied the cutting amps for MoFi's halfspeed mastering cutting lathe (operated by the late Stan Ricker) .
I played for several years in a community Big Band with Stan Ricker. Only at his memorial service did I learn what he had done all his life. Never got a chance to talk shop with him...
As a Brit, we are more familiar with the black steel box version. The shiny front version was introduced at the request of dealers, perhaps so it matched the 859, perhaps because the original distinctly utilitarian versions didn't look "good" enough.
So I slightly concede your point on that particular product. In this instance the manufacturer amended the product to make it more attractive to the customer on dealer feedback. If the customer wishes to pay more for a shiny box, is it wrong to not accommodate?
Last edited by a moderator:
I look at it this way. If it was possible to buy an excellent tube based pre-amp with RIAA for, say, $200; and an amp that was equal to the task for, say, $400; then would we have a thriving community on DiyAudio, and would we have the marketplace of a myriad of suppliers supporting us in our passion?
How much did a radio cost in 1930? Or a fridge in 1940? Or a TV in 1950? We somehow have lost sight of the value of these possessions, and are confusing them with the disposable consumer electronics we are addicted to today.
How much did a radio cost in 1930? Or a fridge in 1940? Or a TV in 1950? We somehow have lost sight of the value of these possessions, and are confusing them with the disposable consumer electronics we are addicted to today.
I came across a second hand mains lead on fleabay a few months ago, 2m long, and only cost £14k, (new nearly double that), and it looked as though it had had ordinary insulating tape wrapped around it.
I cant help but think that what is achievable with 12AX7s has to be very limited regardless of configuration and design skill, and would never buy valve gear purely on their very evident technical failings, vulnerability, microphony, inefficiency, and deterioration with time.
T de P was not a wealthy man when I met him in about '91, first meeting him at a disc cutting session in London.
His home in Essex was an old converted chapel with a tree growing inside, in his lounge, and with several Siamese cats climbing it. He offered me a job, but I declined, and a year later he had gone bust.
I cant help but think that what is achievable with 12AX7s has to be very limited regardless of configuration and design skill, and would never buy valve gear purely on their very evident technical failings, vulnerability, microphony, inefficiency, and deterioration with time.
T de P was not a wealthy man when I met him in about '91, first meeting him at a disc cutting session in London.
His home in Essex was an old converted chapel with a tree growing inside, in his lounge, and with several Siamese cats climbing it. He offered me a job, but I declined, and a year later he had gone bust.
[For the record, I am not wealthy.]
The above, is an example of where the topic of product pricing becomes particularly interesting, it seems to me. Here, the production cost is certainly only a tiny, tiny fraction of the purchase price. Which means that the price is intended to reflect an market in which the targeted customer's PERCEIVED value of this product is very high. We are dealing with an luxury good. Luxury good value perception is emotionally based, not rationally based. This truth lay behind the pricing of all luxury goods, to one degree or another. Just try to get a woman to rationally justify the price of her Louis Vuitton handbag.
I take, perhaps, an bit different view than typical regarding the pricing of luxury goods. If an adult percieves (for whatever emotional reasons) an high value for an luxury good, and also has the means to afford that good, then I have no moral or intellectual issue with the selling of that good. Such sales are not some form of profiteering, as the purchaser has no absolute or emergency need for the item, and so is free to purchase or not. Those of us who do not percieve the same high value for a given good as someone else typically have greatly lower priced alternatives to select from. Alternatives which provide the same essential function. After all, an $20 handbag provides the same essential function as an $2,000 Louis Vuitton bag. I may sometimes wish (and often do) that the very best products cost much less, but that wish does not dictate the price which others are willing and able to pay. It seems to me that those who object to luxury good pricing do so much out of their own moral convictions about fairness. This amounts, however, to substituting their own perceptions of value for those of another person's.
Here's another analogy; what is the value of a Ferrari as transportation from point A to point B, on a speed limited road along with everyday traffic? In my perception, the value is very low. My Honda Accord sedan does so just as effectively, given the road constraints, and certainly does so more efficiently. I might even go as far as to think that a purchaser of a Ferrari is outright foolish - which I don't think, by the way. But it's not my money. So long as someone's not starving their family to finance the acquisition, who am I to otherwise declare that they are wrong in their value perception. Or, they tell me that I am wrong in mine regarding my Accord?
Consumer market goods pricing strategy, perhaps, first pivots on whether the perception of a product's value is rational, or irrational. Is it primarily emotional, or is it primarily logical. A given product may bring intellectual satisfaction, but intellect is not bring emotional satisfaction. At least, not passionate emotions. We are emotional beings (often, passionately so) who can be logical. So, while intellectual satisfactioncan be rewarding, the satisfaction of passionate emotionsis far more rewarding.
As an aside comment: In macroeconomic terms, spending on luxury goods is positive activity. Such expenditures naturally distribute wealth from a point of concentration to many points of consumption, stirring economic growth. The excess money paid for a luxury good is not destroyed, regardless of the amount by which the price may be in exceed the real material cost. Luxury good purchasing is NOT akin to simply lighting large amounts of cash on fire, which I would judge as a morally criminal.
+1.
The view that anybody, who pays more for something than you would have, is a stupid moron, is arrogant in the extreme and displays a very narrow world view.
Who are we to determine what something is worth to anyone?
I know people who are into fancy cooking and will happily pay $ 1000 for a special knife. Are they stupid morons because I make do with a $ 6.95 knife? Of course not!
The important point is honesty. If I sell $ 10k power cables with a story that clearly is dishonest and misleading, I am a bad person. But if someone buys it, goes home and enjoys the fantastic open and pinpoint sound that he perceives with the new cable, how is that bad?
Jan
The view that anybody, who pays more for something than you would have, is a stupid moron, is arrogant in the extreme and displays a very narrow world view.
Who are we to determine what something is worth to anyone?
I know people who are into fancy cooking and will happily pay $ 1000 for a special knife. Are they stupid morons because I make do with a $ 6.95 knife? Of course not!
The important point is honesty. If I sell $ 10k power cables with a story that clearly is dishonest and misleading, I am a bad person. But if someone buys it, goes home and enjoys the fantastic open and pinpoint sound that he perceives with the new cable, how is that bad?
Jan
That might be true in small part for some of the high end market. But the audio market has this particularity of calling "high end" boutique manufacturers who proudly stuck with yesterday's technologies, as exemplified by the product that launched that discussion.
In that respect the trickle down argument isn't as strong or general with hifi as it is with other technology fields.
Several aspects of those posts 'grate' with me.
It is arguable that emotional fulfilment is a rational process; our rational selves allow it.
To watch others spend exorbitantly on things which we can see do not fulfil a primary objective, is to see them to not be scientific in their approach to spending, and this has implications for limited resources and ecology, as well as their intellectual development.
This behaviour, probably because of the latter, will also have implications for other aspects of their lives, but I suppose if they are really wealthy, they can just buy advice on everything, and be 'carried' through life by experts.
When in my 20s, I always wanted the 'contents' to be the best, and also the 'packaging' (aesthetics), which to me is beauty in design.
I am of the view that those who buy emotionally, tend to be superficial, and so I want little to do with them; they tend to project onto the item their own internal fantasies in a closed loop, and not deal with underlying objective realities.
Virtually all of my clothes come from charity shops, and often they are nearly new, my suspecting that the original buyer was not really properly and thoroughly reasoning his purchasing philosophy.
The 'trickle down' theory of capitalism is often used to justify the behaviour of the wealthy in the market, but I think that is just a rationalisation, (in the psychological sense).
It is arguable that emotional fulfilment is a rational process; our rational selves allow it.
To watch others spend exorbitantly on things which we can see do not fulfil a primary objective, is to see them to not be scientific in their approach to spending, and this has implications for limited resources and ecology, as well as their intellectual development.
This behaviour, probably because of the latter, will also have implications for other aspects of their lives, but I suppose if they are really wealthy, they can just buy advice on everything, and be 'carried' through life by experts.
When in my 20s, I always wanted the 'contents' to be the best, and also the 'packaging' (aesthetics), which to me is beauty in design.
I am of the view that those who buy emotionally, tend to be superficial, and so I want little to do with them; they tend to project onto the item their own internal fantasies in a closed loop, and not deal with underlying objective realities.
Virtually all of my clothes come from charity shops, and often they are nearly new, my suspecting that the original buyer was not really properly and thoroughly reasoning his purchasing philosophy.
The 'trickle down' theory of capitalism is often used to justify the behaviour of the wealthy in the market, but I think that is just a rationalisation, (in the psychological sense).
Last edited:
My view is that Snake oil is Snake oil, whether financially it costs a little or a lot is immaterial.
The moral price is high regardless.
Naturally those who sell a product or products, usually take exception to someone saying it is not value for money, and are (or should be) aware of the profit margins involved.
A RRP of 2 to 3 times build cost is pretty usual in many industries.
An RRP of 10 times the build cost is basically milking a rich cash cow - noone wants to pay for the 3 years of development before release, and neither should they.
Usually business builds a price by tender of labour and build costs, and a price point is set to identifying it to a market. Then they go about advertising and selling it. The development cost is part of the initial tender, exceed it and, it comes out of profit.
Only audio, does it seem, that the customer is expected to pay for dev costs, reworks, and failures, and THEN provide the manufacturer their desired profit margin.
The moral price is high regardless.
Naturally those who sell a product or products, usually take exception to someone saying it is not value for money, and are (or should be) aware of the profit margins involved.
A RRP of 2 to 3 times build cost is pretty usual in many industries.
An RRP of 10 times the build cost is basically milking a rich cash cow - noone wants to pay for the 3 years of development before release, and neither should they.
Usually business builds a price by tender of labour and build costs, and a price point is set to identifying it to a market. Then they go about advertising and selling it. The development cost is part of the initial tender, exceed it and, it comes out of profit.
Only audio, does it seem, that the customer is expected to pay for dev costs, reworks, and failures, and THEN provide the manufacturer their desired profit margin.
For audio 5x parts cost is usually used.
The difficulty with cables is the genie can never be rebottled. Like when you buy a new TV and they try and shift a £50 HDMI cable. They get as much profit from that as the TV in some cases. Same in audio land. A hifi shop actually needs to sell silly overpriced cables to stay in business. Their customers in general seem happy to follow their advice.
The difficulty with cables is the genie can never be rebottled. Like when you buy a new TV and they try and shift a £50 HDMI cable. They get as much profit from that as the TV in some cases. Same in audio land. A hifi shop actually needs to sell silly overpriced cables to stay in business. Their customers in general seem happy to follow their advice.
He's been "led", influenced, coached, and quite possibly, brainwashed.
The internet, and its huge repository of easily accessed information and mis-information, is obviously one of the current sources that influence the masses.
He also may have inner issues such as OCD, an inferiority complex, or an eccentric personality.
These are all elements of psychological disorders.
These people can function within society, and treatments can help maintain some stability, if employed.
Also, not everyone is educated to the same level, some being utterly ignorant of technical facts and the laws of physics and science.
Mrs Brown, a middle-aged housewife, might be able to bake the finest bread in her kitchen, but doesn't have a clue what an RCA connector is.
All she knows, or wants to know, is that her stereo system from Walmart makes music while she's whipping up goodies in her kitchen.
These "esoteric manufacturers", not all mind you, take advantage of the fact that those "easily led" and with endless funds, are potential targets for their baited advertising.
It's nothing new, but seems to have flourished since the internet arrived.
Look at products made before the internet came along.
Sensible pricing, usually honest descriptions and statistics, and quality mantained by strict governing rules, particularly safety.
Those $145,000.00 Basis "Works Of Art" turntables were not around then, nor were those $110,000.00 amplifiers.
There was no need or interest for such rediculous products costing more than some homes are worth.
Even McIntosh, one of the higher-end audio manufacturers of the 1960's/70's, kept their line and pricing in sensible territory, along with good value for the dollar.
The blooming of greed, along with false advertising, has taken a seat and rooted itself in modern times.
To associate those things with Inflation and pizz-poor excuses relating to desirability isn't valid nor pretty.
Last edited:
Like in in the 1950s do you? I make the bread in our house, and do much of the cooking. As do many others on this forum. You appear to be a bit out of date?
@bilshurv,
+1 (especially on cooking)
@wiseoldtech,
I'm still interested to learn about your proposals of a fair markup for each part in the distributing chain. And of course about the price of the step up transformers I've seen on the pcbs (which are presumably doing the MC gain)
@mondogenerator,
I'm a bit surprised; who if not the people who are buying the stuff are supposed to pay for R&D ?
Ok, if a company is really huge there is often some sort of spending by the community overall (discount on tax and so on), but usually all the expenses of a company must be paid by its customers, otherwise it normally won't survive.
Ok, ok if you think about companies like Tesla it looks differently but in detail it is not.
+1 (especially on cooking)
@wiseoldtech,
I'm still interested to learn about your proposals of a fair markup for each part in the distributing chain. And of course about the price of the step up transformers I've seen on the pcbs (which are presumably doing the MC gain)
@mondogenerator,
I'm a bit surprised; who if not the people who are buying the stuff are supposed to pay for R&D ?
Ok, if a company is really huge there is often some sort of spending by the community overall (discount on tax and so on), but usually all the expenses of a company must be paid by its customers, otherwise it normally won't survive.
Ok, ok if you think about companies like Tesla it looks differently but in detail it is not.
Cables are the worst snake oil, perpetuating a myth that OFC or crystal aligned copper is somehow superior to standard electrical copper, already pretty much the purest grade available.
Silver cable is another cash cow-yes it conducts better, but a few uOhm is not going to change anything audibly.
My good guy audiophile friend is shopping for balanced interconnected next-nothing wrong with that.
He will probably pay a few hundred for some fancy shiznit-I offered to make him some with the 100 of so XLR I have laying about and havent used up yet. Then I politely challenged him to listen to them blind and tell me the difference. It should be fun, if he can bear to try them blind
Jakob2,
Products always decrease in price, unless considered vintage in which case the opposite is true.
Prices start high, development costs, tooling and set up, these are all initial costs, and yes they are borne by the customer, but then typically in volume production, the customer (eg retailer) will expect the cost PU to come down - the initial development set up and tooling have been completed and used to make X units.
Why then should the middleman retailer/distributor pay the same price, when design work is done, especially 3 to 5 years down the line?
I feel this applies less and less, these days. My main reason for that is that products seem to be designed to be obsolete before that point (referring to initial base costs), new revisions, new updated versions, and this keeps the price high - selling something and then a revision or face lift after 3 years, not necessarily meaning a pre requisite improvement, and usually resulting in less costs to the manufacturer.
The same tactics are used by boutique companies to make create another sought after vintage model, in a couple of decades time.
See the prices that simple gaming consoles cost now?
Famicom/NES/SNES/Sega MegaDrive/Mastersystem/Saturn/Dreamcast etc etc.
Its imaginable that it will be the same for the console of today or the more recent past.
I.e. the investor in me (very small almost 0) is really tempted to buy 10 fully loaded *Insert newest console here* packages, and store then in my attic for the next 20 years.
If that makes any sense
It may not be all or the majority of business, but it is the way I have noted tends to happen in companies for example, like Rolls Royce Aero being one of many suppliers "selling" to BAE, who in turn have a MOD contract.
Silver cable is another cash cow-yes it conducts better, but a few uOhm is not going to change anything audibly.
My good guy audiophile friend is shopping for balanced interconnected next-nothing wrong with that.
He will probably pay a few hundred for some fancy shiznit-I offered to make him some with the 100 of so XLR I have laying about and havent used up yet. Then I politely challenged him to listen to them blind and tell me the difference. It should be fun, if he can bear to try them blind
Jakob2,
Products always decrease in price, unless considered vintage in which case the opposite is true.
Prices start high, development costs, tooling and set up, these are all initial costs, and yes they are borne by the customer, but then typically in volume production, the customer (eg retailer) will expect the cost PU to come down - the initial development set up and tooling have been completed and used to make X units.
Why then should the middleman retailer/distributor pay the same price, when design work is done, especially 3 to 5 years down the line?
I feel this applies less and less, these days. My main reason for that is that products seem to be designed to be obsolete before that point (referring to initial base costs), new revisions, new updated versions, and this keeps the price high - selling something and then a revision or face lift after 3 years, not necessarily meaning a pre requisite improvement, and usually resulting in less costs to the manufacturer.
The same tactics are used by boutique companies to make create another sought after vintage model, in a couple of decades time.
See the prices that simple gaming consoles cost now?
Famicom/NES/SNES/Sega MegaDrive/Mastersystem/Saturn/Dreamcast etc etc.
Its imaginable that it will be the same for the console of today or the more recent past.
I.e. the investor in me (very small almost 0) is really tempted to buy 10 fully loaded *Insert newest console here* packages, and store then in my attic for the next 20 years.
If that makes any sense
It may not be all or the majority of business, but it is the way I have noted tends to happen in companies for example, like Rolls Royce Aero being one of many suppliers "selling" to BAE, who in turn have a MOD contract.
Last edited:
Pharos - "Virtually all of my clothes come from charity shops, and often they are nearly new"
Same here. This extends to pans I cook with daily, plates and spoons we eat with, art on the walls of our home, the Laptop I'm typing on, my iPhone - and much of my stereo is also sourced from the abundant excess we enjoy in America. Where people enjoy the luxury of just "disposing of" that which no longer suits them for whatever reason and buying new. Now if the retailers could only keep us all stuck in that cycle...
I did buy the Lii F15s retail. Why? Because I felt at the moment that nothing else (as affordable) would do what those FR drivers would do for me. In retrospect, I have mixed feelings about the purchase - while it was fun going through the process of learning, building, posting progress, tweaking filters and testing, I honestly could have done the same with the Dayton 8" FR drivers I picked up used and already had on hand. The F15s are quite enjoyable, but looking back I didnt have to have them, as I could have "made do" and quite possibly found the same joy through the same effort.
The 18" assist woofers were priced as something someone just wanted to get rid of asap - even though they were a "retail" purchase - again I took advantage of the over the top abundance of this stuff here in America. Pretty sure half what I paid was absorbed in the "free shipping" offered in the sales terms. I'm sure those drivers, powered by their own amp which I purchased - you guessed it - would have 'assisted' the 8" Daytons just fine, as well as the new F15s.
So for me, I take advantage of "the abundance" that remains after others make their impulse buys, decide in retrospect it's no longer wanted, and happen to disown the thing through a channel I happen to have access to.
I 'spose another philosophical debate could be about folks who disown their stuff in such a way that they make sure it's of no use to anyone. Are we not mere custodians of these things, with some level of responsibility toward ensuring they remain in good shape perhaps going into future hands? Or is it A-Ok to just trash completely anything you buy, because "well, I paid for it"? I think that connects into the who's willing to pay what for what idea of value, but I'm not making the connection at the moment.
Same here. This extends to pans I cook with daily, plates and spoons we eat with, art on the walls of our home, the Laptop I'm typing on, my iPhone - and much of my stereo is also sourced from the abundant excess we enjoy in America. Where people enjoy the luxury of just "disposing of" that which no longer suits them for whatever reason and buying new. Now if the retailers could only keep us all stuck in that cycle...
I did buy the Lii F15s retail. Why? Because I felt at the moment that nothing else (as affordable) would do what those FR drivers would do for me. In retrospect, I have mixed feelings about the purchase - while it was fun going through the process of learning, building, posting progress, tweaking filters and testing, I honestly could have done the same with the Dayton 8" FR drivers I picked up used and already had on hand. The F15s are quite enjoyable, but looking back I didnt have to have them, as I could have "made do" and quite possibly found the same joy through the same effort.
The 18" assist woofers were priced as something someone just wanted to get rid of asap - even though they were a "retail" purchase - again I took advantage of the over the top abundance of this stuff here in America. Pretty sure half what I paid was absorbed in the "free shipping" offered in the sales terms. I'm sure those drivers, powered by their own amp which I purchased - you guessed it - would have 'assisted' the 8" Daytons just fine, as well as the new F15s.
So for me, I take advantage of "the abundance" that remains after others make their impulse buys, decide in retrospect it's no longer wanted, and happen to disown the thing through a channel I happen to have access to.
I 'spose another philosophical debate could be about folks who disown their stuff in such a way that they make sure it's of no use to anyone. Are we not mere custodians of these things, with some level of responsibility toward ensuring they remain in good shape perhaps going into future hands? Or is it A-Ok to just trash completely anything you buy, because "well, I paid for it"? I think that connects into the who's willing to pay what for what idea of value, but I'm not making the connection at the moment.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.