I shouldn't do this, but, - why that gear cost so much

[Mister Pig]

I didn't waste my time trying to read you OP either. I got the gist of it.

1. Most so called high end audio equipment isn't any better than what some derogatorily refer to as mid-fi. Walk into a room blindfolded and listen to any "super' audio equipment and you will discover several things. A. If you are at all familiar with what real sounds like, you'll know what you are hearing is a hi fi system. The best of it isn't up to real. B. You can't tell what equipment you're listening to, usually even equipment you own yourself if the room and recordings are unfamiliar. A lot of "adjustments' can be made to alter the sound of equipment deliberately. Equalizers are very effective at this. A valuable tool in the right hands, more usually a disaster in the wrong ones.

2. Methods of manufacture of most high end audio equipment drives costs up. Failure to use off the shelf components. No economy of scale. Manufacturing in garage type operations. BTW, most high end audio equipment could never meet any recognized manufacturing standards such as ISO 9000 or ANSI. What you get is anyone's guess because recognized quality control processes have not been followed. Much high end equipment is of ordinary manufacturing quality, some is much worse. You really don't get what you pay for and your unit may perform very differently from the prototype or demo model.

3. Most high end audio designers/manufacturers/sellers have an overinflated sense of what their products are worth, what their "work" is worth. Most of their so called "research" is little or no more than tinkering until they get something they like better than their last effort. Suddenly that's a breakthrough.

4. A lot of money is spent on useless cosmetics. Audiophiles often buy with their eyes and by reviews, not with their ears. Why is such visual perfection so important? Perhaps those who still are audiophiles have OCD. Try to find anything used on e-bay that doesn't have its share of scars and blemishes that invariably come with life in the real world.

5. If you really wanted to and you are an engineer or technician, you could "reverse engineer" a copy of the essence of most high end audio equipment and build your own copy of it for about 5% of the retail price. If you can't make an exact copy of say an exotic loudspeaker you can make a close copy that is equivalent. There's no real magic in any of this.

Ordering food in a restaurant must be difficult also. Lord knows that those veggies and a few ounces of meat is worth no where what the finished meal costs. All that produce and ingredients is off the shelf too.....nothing custom about it. Oh man, lets not even get into clothes..... You do buy clothes don't you?

Regards
Mister Pig

 

[rcspkramp]

I'm convinced that the vast majority of audiophiles who believe the "high end" marketing have no idea how electronics and electro-mechanical systems work, nor do they have the slightest inclination to bother learning. To them, it IS magic. The "high end" marketers take every advantage of their willful ignorance.

With all due respect, audio companies don't have a clue how to market themselves. Their best efforts are pathetic at best. The only company that ever did have a clue is Bose who put most of their development costs into advertising rather than put it into the product. Audiophiles don't need to know how the product works, they only need to be satisfied by the way the product sounds.
I have not idea how a double-clutch transmission works, but I know I like using it.

 

[JohnVF]

Both sides of the price coin, as they exist to just mock the other, are about ego and arrogance.

The guy who remarks that all vintage and affordable gear is crap? Ego, arrogance and a willing lack of exposure. There's a lot of excellent affordable gear.

The guy who remarks that all high-end gear is delusion and the playground of fools? Ego, arrogance, and a willing lack of exposure. There's a lot of gear that truly is expensive to build, and that has performance attained because of the cost of parts and design.

That's it.

And so why do we have yet another thread about this stuff? The two sides are not any different from each other. This hobby really sucks sometimes. It really reminds you what a bunch of asses are out in the world. Mind your own business and your own stereo and don't pretend to understand what anybody else is getting out of theirs.

 

[Soundminded]

I'm not an engineer....and you are so you have more credibility here than me...but, that said, you're dead on.

For a casual reader, here's a story for you.

Klipsch for example, gets its K33 woofer from someone. I think that is currently Eminence but it doesn't matter.

Bob Crites sells replacement K33 woofers. He called Eminence to order say, '50' drivers so he could stock them and Eminence said they can't sell him any because it's a Klipsch (branded) driver.

Bob being crafty and knowing all the TS parameters of the driver said (paraphrased) "ok, then I'd like to order 50 drivers with the following TS characteristics" and gave them the K33 tech sheet.

So now they are making the exact driver for Bob because he ordered them not as Klipsch drivers but instead, with a certain TS parameter.

Eminence is happy, Bob is happy and people who buy replacement woofers from Bob are happy.

For years Acoustic Research manufactured its own drivers. The last variant of their 12" driver was manufactured for them by Tonegen. Cello's speaker system was actually a rebranded AR LST. The McIntosh ML-1C I have uses the AR 1 1/2" dome upper midrange. Anyone who thinks these products aren't or can't be bid out to the lowest bidder OEM and rebranded is naïve and knows nothing about manufacturing. There are no secrets in manufacturing audio equipment. This is old and easy technology. So is your PC except for the CPU and OS. Those are tightly guarded secrets. The rest is off the shelf, power supplies, memory, cases, etc. There are some manufacturers who design and build their own drivers. JBL, YGL, and a few others. However there are comparables to those which will give similar results.

 

[Soundminded]

Ordering food in a restaurant must be difficult also. Lord knows that those veggies and a few ounces of meat is worth no where what the finished meal costs. All that produce and ingredients is off the shelf too.....nothing custom about it. Oh man, lets not even get into clothes..... You do buy clothes don't you?

Regards
Mister Pig

I've eaten in a zillion restaurants, many times at other people's or company's expense. I prefer my own cooking. That way I know I'll get exactly what I like. I've yet to taste much I couldn't duplicate closely if I wanted to.

Of course I buy my clothes. Who could make them cheaper than the Chinese. Besides, making clothing is much harder for me than building electronics. However, most of what I want or need is available cheaply on the market especially since perfectly fine equipment is available in abundance at low cost used.

 

[sony6060]

With all due respect, audio companies don't have a clue how to market themselves. Their best efforts are pathetic at best. The only company that ever did have a clue is Bose who put most of their development costs into advertising rather than put it into the product. Audiophiles don't need to know how the product works, they only need to be satisfied by the way the product sounds.
I have not idea how a double-clutch transmission works, but I know I like using it.

Cary did a good job too. This is a single person starting from zero in audio of late. Cary put a load of money back in advertising and ensured the products looked world class.

 

[Soundminded]

I could probably built the equivalent of a Wilson Alexandria or an Infinity IRS for about 5 or 10 thousand a pair if I really wanted to. But why would I want to? Look in a parts catalog and see how cheap parts are for building amplifiers. Many so called high end audio amplifiers especially SETs IMO are junk. People who don't know how to use negative feedback have given this powerful tool a bad name. Anyone who can get an amplifier to work without blowing up is suddenly a design genius. When you take this equipment apart on a bench minus its fancy escutcheons, examine it, test it, you get to separate the wheat from the chaff. Any audio power amplifier that does not have a robust well regulated power supply is usually a poor performer. If the money went into bells and whistles, connectors and lights instead of transformers and capacitors, you're not getting very much. I can't understand why any 2 way 8" loudspeaker system should cost more than about $1000 if you don't count the mirror finish on the enclosure that makes it look like it's for a car. Most of what I see today strikes me as ugly looking. Not only do audiophile systems which wreck what is often the largest room in a home intended for entertaining guests have a low WAF, I don't accept it either. They make the room look like an electronics junkyard.

 

[tomlinmgt]

Both sides of the price coin, as they exist to just mock the other, are about ego and arrogance.

The guy who remarks that all vintage and affordable gear is crap? Ego, arrogance and a willing lack of exposure. There's a lot of excellent affordable gear.

The guy who remarks that all high-end gear is delusion and the playground of fools? Ego, arrogance, and a willing lack of exposure. There's a lot of gear that truly is expensive to build, and that has performance attained because of the cost of parts and design.

That's it.

And so why do we have yet another thread about this stuff? The two sides are not any different from each other. This hobby really sucks sometimes. It really reminds you what a bunch of asses are out in the world. Mind your own business and your own stereo and don't pretend to understand what anybody else is getting out of theirs.

I'd add personal insecurity to that, as well. IME, when a person feels it necessary to talk down what someone else has it's more often than not a case of them being insecure about themselves and what they have. It's evident in all walks of life and the audio hobby is no exception. It's especially curious to me that that's the case with audio reproduction as it seems a completely trivial thing to feel insecure about. At the levels most folks are dabbling in the hobby it's really not that difficult or expensive to change things for the better or perhaps just to a different, equally satisfying flavor. A little effort, open mindedness and patience can go a long way if you're so unhappy with your stuff you have to bad talk others.

- Michael

 

[BMWCCA]

My job is selling high-end automobiles (guess which brand!). It's not that different from high-end audio. People buy what they like. Actual performance is a given at this level Beyond that it's what you like and what makes you feel good. I could call it shallow self-image and touch upon those who buy only to impress others, don't drive what they buy, or only take it out on weekends. These folks exist in the Audio community, too. Checkbook researchers. But let's restrict this to those who actually drive their purchases or are deep-listeners with their hi-fi systems. Aston owners generally drive to impress others. My BMW friends take their cars to the track as often as they can.

Bass slam in hi-fi can be thought of as horsepower or torque in a car.
Nuances such as sound stage or articulation are akin to steering and butt-dyno feedback.
Laid-back sound versus in-your-face horns are like any Lexus or Mercedes versus the same class of car from BMW or Porsche. I mean a horn should sound like a horn, right? :bash:

A Panamera can coddle you in luxury and still bust down a country road better than it has any right to. A Lexus can't walk and chew gum at the same time. It isn't designed to. Its intent is to feel sportier and better constructed than a Cadillac while not offending anyone with vibration, noise, or harshness.

The best cars have a balance of power and feedback. You may prefer one while I prefer another. I've sold that German sports car famous for the engine in the rear as well as that German car thought to be the originator of front-wheel-drive, both for over twenty years. I prefer the German make famous for being the only one that also makes motorcycles. Some prefer the aesthetic of one over the other and make their decision that way. I go for overall balance. You'd think color would make no difference in a performance car but our brains see us in the car even if we don't while driving so aesthetics, including color, play an import role in decision making.

I prefer buying used, in both cars and audio equipment. The balance of performance, safety, feedback, quality, value, and longevity is what motivates me. Yeah, there are colors I just won't buy in even a used car which I suppose compromises my objectiveness. So be it!

I do the same in audio. I've bought my share of JBLs, Crowns, Soundcraftsmen, and Nakamichi brand new .... and still have them all. But today the value I get from vintage gear (even though the same incremental argument that the OP states exist) is what I'm looking for. Original cost is somewhat moot. As it will be in the high-bucks gear the OP mentions. Depreciation is a real issue and a driver in a lot of decision making for me. Let the original owner take the brunt of it and I'll pocket the savings.

I'm selling a BMW that 5-years ago was state-of-the-art in luxury sport cars. It cost over $100,000 when new. Today there's a new model of that car. It costs more. The 5-year-old version has only 45,000 miles and will sell for roughly 40% of the original cost new. It gives up some modern tech (Bluetooth audio but still has USB and Bluetooth phone) and has slightly less power (362-hp vs 400) and boasts 19-inch wheels compared to the optional Twenties on the new version.

I drove it for over an hour yesterday. Is the newer one better? Sure, incrementally. Is the used one less fun to drive? Probably not. Plus I won't worry about dinging it the same as a new one, or using it, or parking it at a restaurant. 60% less buyer's remorse, too, maybe. Would I recommend it to a friend? You bet, and that's just what I did.

And that's why I use twenty-year-old JBL studio monitors myself instead of $66,000 JBL Everests. And Crown PS400 amps for $200 instead of the latest from Krell or Bryston, or beyond! And did anyone notice what happened to the price of the leftover DD6600 JBLs when the DD6700 came out? There's your value-versus-incremental-improvement equation in stark reality right there! You have to pay to play.

So we're talking about incremental improvement, even if we take the money issue away. But, we buy what we can afford. The buyer of a $10,000 amp won't normally be dining at the same restaurant that I do, either, or with the same frequency—or lack thereof. Will my local restaurant's food be that much lower quality than the famous hangout that would never give me a reservation anyway? Do I care enough to ever find out?

We buy what we can afford. Many of us will spend an inordinate amount of our discretionary money on audio compared to "normal" folk. That's a hobby. It's not a hobby because it's expensive. It's a hobby because we enjoy doing it over other endeavors, or time-suckers, or obligations. Look at golf and the incremental improvement in a driver and the broad range of prices! It's still golf—just a day outside and a walk in the woods.

It's not always about money. When I go to a car show in an old 4-cylinder convertible I bought on my honeymoon thirty-years ago even the owners of the latest model ooh and ahh over my $3500 classic. And I enjoy driving it as I enjoy my audio systems. That's why I have over a dozen different speakers and enjoy them all. It's fun, and I can afford to do it where if I'd "invested" in a TOTL system today, I'd have no home, cars, or old audio systems to enjoy.

So, enjoy what you have. Lust after what you would like to have. Enjoy the systems of others when invited to. But don't worry about it. It's really all about the music.

 

[Soundminded]

My job is selling high-end automobiles (guess which brand!). It's not that different from high-end audio. People buy what they like. Actual performance is a given at this level Beyond that it's what you like and what makes you feel good. I could call it shallow self-image and touch upon those who buy only to impress others, don't drive what they buy, or only take it out on weekends. These folks exist in the Audio community, too. Checkbook researchers. But let's restrict this to those who actually drive their purchases or are deep-listeners with their hi-fi systems. Aston owners generally drive to impress others. My BMW friends take their cars to the track as often as they can.

Bass slam in hi-fi can be thought of as horsepower or torque in a car.
Nuances such as sound stage or articulation are akin to steering and butt-dyno feedback.
Laid-back sound versus in-your-face horns are like any Lexus or Mercedes versus the same class of car from BMW or Porsche. I mean a horn should sound like a horn, right? :bash:

A Panamera can coddle you in luxury and still bust down a country road better than it has any right to. A Lexus can't walk and chew gum at the same time. It isn't designed to. Its intent is to feel sportier and better constructed than a Cadillac while not offending anyone with vibration, noise, or harshness.

The best cars have a balance of power and feedback. You may prefer one while I prefer another. I've sold that German sports car famous for the engine in the rear as well as that German car thought to be the originator of front-wheel-drive, both for over twenty years. I prefer the German make famous for being the only one that also makes motorcycles. Some prefer the aesthetic of one over the other and make their decision that way. I go for overall balance. You'd think color would make no difference in a performance car but our brains see us in the car even if we don't while driving so aesthetics, including color, play an import role in decision making.

I prefer buying used, in both cars and audio equipment. The balance of performance, safety, feedback, quality, value, and longevity is what motivates me. Yeah, there are colors I just won't buy in even a used car which I suppose compromises my objectiveness. So be it!

I do the same in audio. I've bought my share of JBLs, Crowns, Soundcraftsmen, and Nakamichi brand new .... and still have them all. But today the value I get from vintage gear (even though the same incremental argument that the OP states exist) is what I'm looking for. Original cost is somewhat moot. As it will be in the high-bucks gear the OP mentions. Depreciation is a real issue and a driver in a lot of decision making for me. Let the original owner take the brunt of it and I'll pocket the savings.

I'm selling a BMW that 5-years ago was state-of-the-art in luxury sport cars. It cost over $100,000 when new. Today there's a new model of that car. It costs more. The 5-year-old version has only 45,000 miles and will sell for roughly 40% of the original cost new. It gives up some modern tech (Bluetooth audio but still has USB and Bluetooth phone) and has slightly less power (362-hp vs 400) and boasts 19-inch wheels compared to the optional Twenties on the new version.

I drove it for over an hour yesterday. Is the newer one better? Sure, incrementally. Is the used one less fun to drive? Probably not. Plus I won't worry about dinging it the same as a new one, or using it, or parking it at a restaurant. 60% less buyer's remorse, too, maybe. Would I recommend it to a friend? You bet, and that's just what I did.

And that's why I use twenty-year-old JBL studio monitors myself instead of $66,000 JBL Everests. And Crown PS400 amps for $200 instead of the latest from Krell or Bryston, or beyond! And did anyone notice what happened to the price of the leftover DD6600 JBLs when the DD6700 came out? There's your value-versus-incremental-improvement equation in stark reality right there! You have to pay to play.

So we're talking about incremental improvement, even if we take the money issue away. But, we buy what we can afford. The buyer of a $10,000 amp won't normally be dining at the same restaurant that I do, either, or with the same frequency—or lack thereof. Will my local restaurant's food be that much lower quality than the famous hangout that would never give me a reservation anyway? Do I care enough to ever find out?

We buy what we can afford. Many of us will spend an inordinate amount of our discretionary money on audio compared to "normal" folk. That's a hobby. It's not a hobby because it's expensive. It's a hobby because we enjoy doing it over other endeavors, or time-suckers, or obligations. Look at golf and the incremental improvement in a driver and the broad range of prices! It's still golf—just a day outside and a walk in the woods.

It's not always about money. When I go to a car show in an old 4-cylinder convertible I bought on my honeymoon thirty-years ago even the owners of the latest model ooh and ahh over my $3500 classic. And I enjoy driving it as I enjoy my audio systems. That's why I have over a dozen different speakers and enjoy them all. It's fun, and I can afford to do it where if I'd "invested" in a TOTL system today, I'd have no home, cars, or old audio systems to enjoy.

So, enjoy what you have. Lust after what you would like to have. Enjoy the systems of others when invited to. But don't worry about it. It's really all about the music.

Around 35 years ago Robert Parker rocked the world of fine wines exploding myths perpetrated by British wine negociants in collusion with Bordeaux winemakers. They were furious. There was no correlation between price and reputation on one hand and quality on the other. Wine Spectator Magazine's ratings using blind tastings to rate wines came to the same conclusion.

About 20 or 25 years ago many owners of Oldsmobiles were horrified to find that their rocket engines in their model 88s and 98s were made in a Chevy plant, in fact were the same engines. In fact they were for all practical intents and purposes the same car as the Chevy Caprice with a different brand on them. Of course replacement parts made for the Olds' had different numbers and cost much more. All of this came as no surprise though to any car mechanic in the US.

 

[JohnVF]

These companies don't have the money to pull off the type of marketing many are accusing them of. By and large, high end audio companies are completely inept at marketing. Certainly they play in a field where who you know, and networking those connections, pays off but that is every business, not just audio. The marketing itself, outside of Bose, is amateurish, ineffective, and largely non-existent in the types of coercion many of you are saying is rampant. You want it to be, because it explains things more easily. But its not. The high end audio community is far more complicated than you want it to be.

 

[Soundminded]

I believe you, except maybe 5%, although on very high prices, you are probably correct.

One would be surprised at how many "designers" are simply copiers of other designs, often just older designs. And many designers are not engineers, and even many engineers don't know the weaknesses of their own designs, or copies.

Marketing almost always buries competitent engineering/designing. Check out the companies with great reviews, yet went belly up. Shills are a dime a dozen. One should probably read "Truth be Told" by Martin DeWulf (a criminal defense attorney), editor of Bound for Sound.

He describes the history of the written word and how shills work.

http://www.boundforsound.com/Sample Reviews.htm#Truth

Consider an audio magazine reviewer who has (I have personally witnessed) attacked parts incorporated in a design.

His qualification is that he is a weatherman. That is right, just a weatherman, without any electronics education, no testing, at all. He cannot even design a basic power supply, or circuit.

Evidently he simply reads what others post, and attackes at his whim. Yet, I have seen mobs "hang" on his coat tails, and believe him. One would think he was a celebrity.

Soundminded, alot is like you imply, smoke and mirrors, and human nature is spot on. People are willing to be suckers to those who are shills, or attain some little credentials, a little importance.

The sad part is, those who really can design great products often become extinct as marketing always rules.

Cheers.

Most of the really creative and inventive people in this world, certainly the ones I know won't waste their time or energy in this area. There are far more interesting and exciting things for them to focus on. IMO while the reasons high end audio is a dying industry are many and complex, one of them is that there hasn't been any real advances in this technology since introduction of the CD over 30 years ago and it still follows the failed 2 channel paradigm for home audio that's over 50 years old. They just regurgitate the same old ideas over and over again in new packaging.

 

[Soundminded]

These companies don't have the money to pull off the type of marketing many are accusing them of. By and large, high end audio companies are completely inept at marketing. Certainly they play in a field where who you know, and networking those connections, pays off but that is every business, not just audio. The marketing itself, outside of Bose, is amateurish, ineffective, and largely non-existent in the types of coercion many of you are saying is rampant. You want it to be, because it explains things more easily. But its not. The high end audio community is far more complicated than you want it to be.

In the 1960s the then recent startup company Acoustic Research Inc. used low key marketing to capture 1/3 of the entire US domestic loudspeaker market. No other audio equipment manufacturer has ever come remotely close to it. How? By offering products that combined excellent performance, low prices, outstanding quality, and a very generous service policy. That it treated its distributors terribly to the point where some actually sabotaged their sales demo units or tried to steer customers away didn't seem to deter buyers.

At that time you could assemble an excellent audio system for about $1000 or less. In the intervening 50 years where every other category of consumer electronics has offered more and more product at lower and lower cost, the high end audio market has been the sole exception. Today some people spend more than $1000 on a power cord. The most expensive systems have gone from the price of a new car to the price of a very large luxury house. IMO it's insane especially in light of the fact that it really isn't that much better.

 

[DougMac]

Back to the OP. I'm confused. "The Last Waltz" was mentioned. The OP talked about hearing Robertson getting closer (physically) to Clapton. I'm trying to remember that song. Weren't they both playing electric guitars? Did Robertson's amp roll with him? Are you talking about the vocals?

 

[charles 1973]

I think Stereo Equipment is like most other consumer goods, their is a significant profit margin in selling high end, high priced products. Do you think GM makes the same profit from with a $14,000 Chev Cruise as it does a Cadillac CTS-V. I think not! I'm betting with stereo equipment the mark-up is even higher than that.

To be fair though, due to some higher end products being more labour intensive, perhaps some of which is skilled, and building some amps in countries with higher overall manufacturing costs, this will drive the costs up. And Profit margins no doubt vary greatly between different manufacturer's.

Do we need to spend big $ for good sound...I don't think so! I would say a system consisting of a Marantz 8004 Integrated Amp ($1,000) a pair of Monitor Audio Silver RX-6 Towers ($1,200), and a Music Hall MMF 5.1se TT or CD player for the same price ($1,100) would be very satifying for most of us, including myself.

That said, I've been blessed with enough extra cash to afford a more expensive system, and since I can't take it with me, I might as well enjoy it.
While IMO it is worth every cent for me, the way it can Delineate each Intstrument and Voice, and make them sound Absolutely Real, while Placing them Precisely in the Soundstage, I wouldn't recomended any more than the system I discribed above for most folks. It will likely got a lot closer to that sound than the difference in price would suggest. High End Stereo IMO is a Luxury, like the Cadillac CTS-V, most of us would be quite happy with a well equipped Malibu I believe.

 

[JohnVF]

In the 1960s the then recent startup company Acoustic Research Inc. used low key marketing to capture 1/3 of the entire US domestic loudspeaker market. No other audio equipment manufacturer has ever come remotely close to it. How? By offering products that combined excellent performance, low prices, outstanding quality, and a very generous service policy. That it treated its distributors terribly to the point where some actually sabotaged their sales demo units or tried to steer customers away didn't seem to deter buyers.

At that time you could assemble an excellent audio system for about $1000 or less. In the intervening 50 years where every other category of consumer electronics has offered more and more product at lower and lower cost, the high end audio market has been the sole exception. Today some people spend more than $1000 on a power cord. The most expensive systems have gone from the price of a new car to the price of a very large luxury house. IMO it's insane especially in light of the fact that it really isn't that much better.

It's not 1960 and you're not the person buying so it doesn't affect you in any way.

 

[Soundminded]

The usual markup for consumer electronics at retail should be about 10x the cost to manufacture. More troubling to me than the inefficient way most high end audio equipment is manufactured that necessitates high retail prices is the lack of truly superior performance or better quality. At best these are only marginally better than mass market alternatives but at much higher prices. Quality is highly variable but is sometimes very poor. There are also occasionally serious reliability problems. Another is poor quality control resulting in an inconsistency of product. This is typical of garage operations because the added cost of testing and inspection in low volume production is very high per unit output.

 

[Isotonic]

Fair warning. I have not read all the posts. I didn't get through the entire OP post. But I think I got the gist of it.

I live in both worlds. I have excellent quality newer pieces that were pretty expensive and certainly high performing. It is true that sometimes when listening to this system I hear subtle details that give me new insight into the performance. This is a wonderful thing. However this aspect of the listening reward is only a small part of it.

I have other systems that sound excellent, or "euphonic" with varying degrees of resolution. They are also very pleasurable to listen to. I will never sell my Pioneer 950 for example.

I think proponents of the new and expensive get in trouble when they try to say that their new and expensive gear is better than the other. Because is simply not true. If I thought that my EAR/Theil/Odyssey system contained everything offered everything that my Pioneer 950 does, then I would not care about the Pioneer. But it simply does not do the same great thing.

 

[Soundminded]

It's not 1960 and you're not the person buying so it doesn't affect you in any way.

As an engineer I'm accountable for knowing what things cost and what they are worth. Supervisors and clients want to know why some designs cost more than others and what the justification is before they agree to buy them. They also want to explore alternatives in what's called "value engineering" also known as cost cutting. There had better be good reasons to spend other people's money or you don't stay in business very long. In high end audio, doesn't seem to be a problem. Some people will spend anything to get what they think they want.

 

[Soundminded]

Fair warning. I have not read all the posts. I didn't get through the entire OP post. But I think I got the gist of it.

I live in both worlds. I have excellent quality newer pieces that were pretty expensive and certainly high performing. It is true that sometimes when listening to this system I hear subtle details that give me new insight into the performance. This is a wonderful thing. However this aspect of the listening reward is only a small part of it.

I have other systems that sound excellent, or "euphonic" with varying degrees of resolution. They are also very pleasurable to listen to. I will never sell my Pioneer 950 for example.

I think proponents of the new and expensive get in trouble when they try to say that their new and expensive gear is better than the other. Because is simply not true. If I thought that my EAR/Theil/Odyssey system contained everything offered everything that my Pioneer 950 does, then I would not care about the Pioneer. But it simply does not do the same great thing.

I bought a Pioneer SX 950 receiver in mint condition at a garage sale for $20 about 5 years ago. It's an excellent receiver. How much more do you get new for $2000 or $20,000? Why draw the line there and not go for $200,000? What makes rational sense and what doesn't?