And it attracts the very best people. That's why companies like Bain and McKinsey hire Harvard and Stanford MBAs who were at the top of their class.
Not directly relevant to your own personal experience but a quick proof of correlation for speaker drivers...post #1... Morel has better quality and higher price than GRS. QED.
This has been well covered in the thread.
No one says material cost DICTATES selling price. Material cost is a factor in equilibrium market price. (See earlier discussions on Beryllium.)
Consumers don't DICTATE price. The aggregation of consumer demand functions produce the market demand function. Factors include price, tastes, income levels, prices of compliments and substitutes, etc.
Use that appropriate speaker driver as needed, for example, tweeter for high frequencies and woofers for low frequencies. Similarly, use marketing to answer marketing questions and economics to answer economics questions.
Yes, but one swallow doesn't make a summer.
You can't take one (anecdotal) example and therefor call it proof.
That is not how this game works.
Besides the fact that it's a wrong conclusion based on correlation does not imply causation.
Anyhow, as I mentioned before, it 100% beats me why people want to so badly proof the opposite about this?
A couple of comments on stories/puzzles...
A story or example does not prove or refute general theories, put can provide a puzzle to be explained. If an explanation cannot be found, then the theory may lose credibility and upon further investigations may even have to be altered - see Copernican heliocentrism.
Why would raising the price of a good increase its demand in a standard economic theory of supply and demand? In terms of fashion goods, like Gucci bags and Rolex watches, status and taste - highly influenced by marketing, matter a lot. Note, Gucci bags and Rolex watches are not BAD quality, but their high quality is NOT the primary reason for their high price.
But in terms of general products that serve some objective goal, such as a loudspeaker, automobile, medical device or consulting services, there is uncertainty about the product and its quality. There is asymmetric information - i.e., the seller has better information than they buyer regarding the quality of the product. Joseph Stiglitz, George Akerlof, and Michael Spences won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 for there work on the economics of information. The textbook example is the "Market for Lemons", where Lemons is a term for a bad used car. In the market for lemons, the seller can offer a warranty to "signal" that the car is not a lemon. A seller can "signal" to consumers that it offers a high quality product by selling it for a higher price. Note, this only works in the long run if the product does in fact offer higher quality.
Examples:
A story or example does not prove or refute general theories, put can provide a puzzle to be explained. If an explanation cannot be found, then the theory may lose credibility and upon further investigations may even have to be altered - see Copernican heliocentrism.
Why would raising the price of a good increase its demand in a standard economic theory of supply and demand? In terms of fashion goods, like Gucci bags and Rolex watches, status and taste - highly influenced by marketing, matter a lot. Note, Gucci bags and Rolex watches are not BAD quality, but their high quality is NOT the primary reason for their high price.
But in terms of general products that serve some objective goal, such as a loudspeaker, automobile, medical device or consulting services, there is uncertainty about the product and its quality. There is asymmetric information - i.e., the seller has better information than they buyer regarding the quality of the product. Joseph Stiglitz, George Akerlof, and Michael Spences won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 for there work on the economics of information. The textbook example is the "Market for Lemons", where Lemons is a term for a bad used car. In the market for lemons, the seller can offer a warranty to "signal" that the car is not a lemon. A seller can "signal" to consumers that it offers a high quality product by selling it for a higher price. Note, this only works in the long run if the product does in fact offer higher quality.
Examples:
- A speaker company comes up with a new, excellent sounding, low distortion loudspeaker. They offer it at a very high price and market it as a ultra-high-end driver. People buy it, measure it, and make speakers with it. The speakers measure outstanding and sound great. The driver continues to sell at high prices and the owners of the firm retire to the French Riviera when they are rich enough.
- A speaker company comes up with a new speaker. The owners want to be rich so they set the price really high to signal that it is high quality. People buy it, measure it, and make speakers with it. Hifi Compass and Voice Coil magazine measure it. The speaker is crap - it measures badly and sounds even worse. The company lowers the price 90% and offers it on Aliexpress or goes bankrupt.
- A person really knowledgeable and experienced about marketing or speaker design offers consulting services. To signal their high quality, they provide some references and charge a high hourly rate. They are hired and provide excellent advice. They continue to offer high-quality consulting services for several years and retire to the French Riviera.
- I really like speaker building so I quit my job and become a loudspeaker consultant. To signal my abilities I set my consulting fee at $4,000 an hour. Someone actually hires me and the conversation turns to BL. I explain that I don't know what BL is. Then they ask about intermodulation distortion. I ask if "inter" means "between" 3rd order and 2nd order harmonic distortion. They fire me.
I 100% proved that the statement "has absolutely no correlation" was false.
If I wanted to prove that there is a strong or general correlation between price and quality that would take more than one example.
As I mentioned, I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to argue against?
What benefits does it have to believe that the statement that price doesn't always correlate to quality, isn't true?
Second of all, I am just really wondering how much good proper solid scientific literature has been read?
This reminds me of a video I was watching the other day. (I forgot by who)
Some people argue and discuss to find out the truth and realities.
Other argue and discuss to win an argument.
I am most certainly not someone who belongs to the second group.
I don't even care who is right or wrong. (if you can even call it that)
I have far better means of getting right and proper information instead of ping-ponging bits of text back and forth.
I don't even enjoy that in real life in person.
That is just filling time for the sake of it.
Besides the idea that it starts to sound that the experiences I have aren't true?
It's probably not meant that way, but it most certain reads that way to me.
Absolutely zero offense intended.
What benefits does it have to believe that the statement that price doesn't always correlate to quality, isn't true?
Second of all, I am just really wondering how much good proper solid scientific literature has been read?
This reminds me of a video I was watching the other day. (I forgot by who)
Some people argue and discuss to find out the truth and realities.
Other argue and discuss to win an argument.
I am most certainly not someone who belongs to the second group.
I don't even care who is right or wrong. (if you can even call it that)
I have far better means of getting right and proper information instead of ping-ponging bits of text back and forth.
I don't even enjoy that in real life in person.
That is just filling time for the sake of it.
Besides the idea that it starts to sound that the experiences I have aren't true?
It's probably not meant that way, but it most certain reads that way to me.
Absolutely zero offense intended.
Last edited:
Very nice examples! I had a good laugh! 🤣
Here's another one:
I recall an insightful interview with Bruno Putzeys discussing the development of the Mola Mola Tambaqui. Initially envisioned as a $2K add-on module for the Makua pre-amp, the Tambaqui quickly demonstrated performance levels far surpassing DACs priced at twenty times that amount. Recognizing its exceptional potential, the decision was made to launch it as a standalone product, equipped with its own enclosure, additional inputs, and a dedicated power supply.
This narrative underscores how innovation often stems from a confluence of circumstances rather than solely from rigorous scientific pursuit. What remains unexplored, however, is the hypothetical scenario in which the Tambaqui was positioned at a more accessible price point, akin to Hypex products, rather than being marketed as a premium Mola Mola offering.
Had the Tambaqui been introduced with a less costly, more utilitarian enclosure and priced around $3,999, it could have precipitated significant market disruption. Such a strategy might have rendered numerous budget audio manufacturers noncompetitive. Projecting annual sales at 100,000 units, this approach could have achieved substantial market penetration. While individual unit margins would be lower, the high volume could have translated into aggregate profits reaching the billion-dollar mark.
The goal is to find the answer (truth) to the original poster's question.
Based on my reading of the thread, the three most important factors determining the price of a tweeter, in order, are likely to be: Perceived sound quality, labor costs, material costs. There at probably 10 other valid factors listed throughout the thread.
You have stated that there is no correlation between price and quality. You haven't stated that quality isn't the most important determinant, or one of the most important determinants, but that it is not a determinant. So, in my opinion, the "argument" is based on determining the true answer to the OP's question.
And I would like to state, as you did, that no offense is intended. In particular, I highly respect you opinions and knowledge. I have learned a lot from your posts here and in many other threads.
I am getting a bit confused because before it was said that question of the topic starter was already answered.
But on top of that order, I would add marketing value as well as production quantities.
I also have a feeling this is going in circles at this point.
But maybe that is just me?
Not my experience. those needing big money consultants have arrived at their position without having a clue what they are doing. So they buy ideas from hot air merchants that have no more clue about what is happening but have better psychology. Those that are up there that really know what they are doing don't need that.
Select DIYers are some of the best there is. Their experience is part of that. You’ll often see new graduates hanging out here to learn. Despite being able to hire consultants.
