Well this was a book written in a more scientific style.
I even think it was a result of somebodies thesis.
In the absolute sense, there can never be 100% proof with such things, since it's literally and physically impossible to create a control group.
But if someone is struggling for years to sell something, changes just ONLY the price and all of a sudden there is a massive amount of interest.
The likeliness of correlation there is pretty high.
But let me return a question.
What is there against the idea that price doesn't always equals quality?
People seem to be very against the idea on an emotional level.
In some cases I even wonder if some of those people even developed such products?
It has been my job, worked for several companies (sometimes not audio related at all), and I can even tell from my own experience that there is absolutely no correlation between price and quality.
To even such a level that I just quite a job or refused to consult certain clients, since it passed my personal ethical limits.
Quality cannot be (easily) measured, mainly because there is a lack of consensus regarding it's definition - fortunately, by the way!
So for the everlasting human desire to rank and sort everything the price seems to be the ideal "objective" substitute.
I'm not sure I agree with that.
With proper, objective, and unbiased standards in place, comparing products isn't too difficult.
We could argue about the word "easily".
Unfortunately we need people like Erin to really understand what's going on.
By the way, "better" isn't the same as "different".
A fancy appearance and finish doesn't automatically mean a product is higher quality, as illustrated by my previous door example.
When it comes to speakers, I don't focus much on frequency response or directivity when I look at the comparisons.
Because many products considered "high quality" already have serious resonance problems.
In the jobs I mentioned quitting, companies often used much lower-quality parts to maximize profits, knowing they would eventually fail.
Worse, some even built in measures to deliberately cripple the product. In one case, severe incompetence led to very poor quality in a product sold for governmental purposes (= paid by tax money).
These companies are still seen as "(very) high quality," but when you actually look under the hood, it quickly reveals otherwise.
If you follow Louis Rossmann on YouTube, you can see how this works.
In one of his recent videos, he mentions certain soldering techniques that can make a much higher quality product for just a few cents.
Nothing.
But just having an expensive product doesn't mean it automatically sells either. When I design a circuit and it goes to accounting and say there are five 220pF caps and two 180pF caps listed in the BOM I will be asked if this is necessary or if it could be seven 180pF or 220pF caps. And if 10k 220pF caps need to be bought it will be checked what is good enough and I have never ever seen that the most expensive offer is picked unless it was the only choice to meet a certain time frame.
Anecdote: A while ago I bought a solder pot. I got the cheapest one off Ebay. The temperature control didn't work and after a few weeks the heater broke. I still didn't get the expensive ERSA pot but the second cheapest off Ebay, a notch up from the cheapest that died. I have been happy with it ever after. What went wrong, that I didn't pick the most expensive I could get and the cheapest sold?
Just try to define those "objective, unbiased standards". If you do this here on diyaudio you will start a war.
But of course you can define your personal standards.
Erin's videos come close to that.
I don't understand the war?
We are not talking about the interpretation and judgements of those standards or measurements yet.
But literally how products are being compared on a objective way.
Those are two totally different things.
On the other hand, some people will find a way to be offended and all emotional and dramatic about something.
So I also get your point. 😀
😀
Maybe this one? I know I read the story you are referring to, It bugs the hell out of me when I can't remember!! 😉 I'm quite sure I first bought this one because of my bias towards the ever expanding uses of Duct Tape 🤣
I agree.
But still, everyone will have his/her own subjective weigthing.
E.g. someone might prefer bass extension and compromise on spl.
So while it's probably possible to standardize quality of single properties it's difficult or impossible (and maybe not even desirable) to have a standardized comprehensive quality factor.
In 1986 I was a junior in high school and had a Coke with my friend's dad who was a management professor and management consultant.
He explained he was the highest paid faculty member at the University of Nebraska, made more money than the president of the university as the chairman of the management department.
Then he told me he charged $3000 to $5000 a day for private consulting sessions with CEOs.
My jaw hit the floor.
My dad didn't make that in a month.
He said, "The reason I charge $5,000 a day is not because I need more money, I have plenty of money. The reason I charge them is for RESPECT. When a CEO pays you $5,000 a day to tell him what’s wrong with his company. When you sit down and tell him, he takes notes."
Today I'm a consultant. Been in the advice business for 20 years.
I charge $4000 per hour.
I can absolutely assure you: People respect advice a LOT more when they pay for it. And they follow the advice a LOT more to the greater benefit of themselves. In fact I hate giving free advice because most of the time they don't act on it.
I had a friend who was a brilliant Silicon Valley CEO, who complained to me once:
"I had dinner with a guy. I gave him a million dollars of advice. He's not going to take the advice. And I paid for the !@#$%^ dinner."
Please explain the gist of this... "The reason I charge $3,000 a day is when a CEO pays you $5,000 a day to tell him what’s wrong with his company." ...
//
If we are still talking about transducers, their integration into a system will define most outcomes. The drivers are just one part of the intricately assembled components of a hi-fi system.
Therefore, the perception of these drivers will vary according to their synergy with the overall system. Matching the best driver with an inappropriate enclosure, crossover, or amplifier can yield very different results compared to a carefully “matched” system. Thus, quality is perceived within the specific use case.
However, if we compare objectively with the established standard, it becomes somewhat easier to compare and decide according to one’s use case.
Yet, just because something looks great on paper is in no way a guarantee of the results. Some components measure quite well but sound awful. Hence, this audiophile hobby is part art and part science.
Therefore, the perception of these drivers will vary according to their synergy with the overall system. Matching the best driver with an inappropriate enclosure, crossover, or amplifier can yield very different results compared to a carefully “matched” system. Thus, quality is perceived within the specific use case.
However, if we compare objectively with the established standard, it becomes somewhat easier to compare and decide according to one’s use case.
Yet, just because something looks great on paper is in no way a guarantee of the results. Some components measure quite well but sound awful. Hence, this audiophile hobby is part art and part science.
Last edited:
How will you define a integral, objective quality factor combining several single objectively measured aspects?
You need to weigh them.
And that cannot be done objectively (or can it?).
It's a matter of credibility. CEOs won't care about free advice. Charge them accordingly and they will pay attention. In capital Markets we charge them crazy amounts and the C Suite do listen. Its just the way it works in that world.
While there is truth in that, at the same time it doesn't imply that the advise give at $5000/day is any better then the free advise. In fact, it could be far worse because at that level just the fact that is is expensive is reason to believe it is good. The money gives it credibility, not quality.
Just like audiophile reasoning in fact.
Yes: read posts 18 and 19. The whole game really took off big time with Mark Levinson, who brutally began charging 10-20x what his conventional competitors (e.g. Quad) charged. Wilson followed suit.
This new price setting was a radical break away from price setting based on conventional margins of profit. From that time on the price setting became the major marketing tool. Any relation with manufacturing costs has gone in Hi End since then: the JC2 e.g. does not cost much to produce, even less so in series.
Not really. Let me expand on my previous post.
The C-suite of a publicly traded company, operating in the capital market, is far from naive. Ideas pitched to them can be worth billions of dollars. Anyone with experience in this space understands the immense value of their insights and would never offer them for free.
The high cost reflects the expertise and potential impact of the advice, rather than just lending it credibility.