The Hi-Fi Industry and Hobby

[_D_S_J_R_]

Mr Pyle would do well to realise that it's the likes of Richer Sounds that is really keeping the UK audio retail market alive, enthusiastic purchasers of such goods moving upwards to the more upmarket 'salons' as their experience (and income?) grows. I believe that forum people tend to furnish the used market and many forum members today, wouldn't venture near a dealer with a barge-pole...

[Lindsayt]

On the Stan Curtis article, a team of 5 people needing 18 months to design and develop an amplifier seems excessive to me. It might apply to a Devialet amplifier. It won't apply to an NVA amplifier.

If we're looking at a pair of speakers, even high end ones, I can't see any sort of justification for needing 7.5 man-years to develop them.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

He is part of the established industry, it is in his interest to defend it with bullshit justification - because of us and others with working brains he is being found out!

[Lindsayt]

Mr Pyle is speaking for himself. I've been using Google to research my hi-fi purchases for years. With most of the search results leading to hi-fi forum posts.

It's an irony that I've been called a luddite for buying and using vintage hi-fi equipment. This is from people who adhere to the "read hi-fi magazines and go to a local dealer for a demo before buying" paradigm. IE they're using traditional, legacy 20th century shopping methods whereas I prefer to use 21st century shopping methods.

[_D_S_J_R_]

Not all 70's expensive gear was good and conversely, some of it has responded brilliantly to the current mostly digital age and drastically upgraded (through setting up) analogue sources and with proper sensible cabling throughout instead of the patch-cords and bell wire we used back then. You have to be very careful. At one time, the better 70's gear was cheap enough, but surviving examples have been found out and prices are shooting up.

[Daniel Quinn]

Stan Curtis charged an arm and leg for the Cambridge CD1 which was largely off the shelf parts.

[Frasernash]

On the Stan Curtis article, a team of 5 people needing 18 months to design and develop an amplifier seems excessive to me. It might apply to a Devialet amplifier. It won't apply to an NVA amplifier.

If we're looking at a pair of speakers, even high end ones, I can't see any sort of justification for needing 7.5 man-years to develop them.

Stan Curtis does seem to have been a real success as I think Cambridge Audio are one of the better companies out there and his article here seem sensible and hes right why would any one spend £20 k on a amplifier when its all built on bling.

[Daniel Quinn]

STAN ASKS SOME PERTINENT QUESTIONS ABOUT ‘HIGH END’ PRICING -

DQ says Where the bloody hell are they stan : I cannot find them ? Did you get DSJR to ghost write this as it is 1568 words of rambling truism and half-baked points.

You define hi end strictly in terms of pricing and then go of on 3 pages of hypothetical ramblings which I find difficult to believe. Care to name one company who spent 700,000 on a single product R&D, one of the things about R&D is of course that there are a plethora of applications .If Kef are to be believed then the R&D undertaken on their Blade model now finds its way in to all its new products .Thus simple equation between cost and 1 product is silly.

The reason you have not tackled the issue and have written was is ostensibly an apology to high end pricing, is because you have created a convenient restricting tautology in your first sentence . “High-End audio equipment is, by definition, expensive” high end is expensive ,it is expensive because it is high end. Dear me.

You use the Ferrari/ford focus analogy and exploring this will highlight why you are wrong vis a vis high end audio pricing . Yes both are modes of transport but
Ferrari’s performance is demonstrably and exponentially superior in any specification you care to mention.
The cost of producing a Ferrari over a Focus is significant .

Returning to audio , how can it costs a dealership significantly more to sell a 50k amplifier than a 5k amplifier and as such a flat % mark up on the selling price is pure greed.

The truth is High end audio is not commensurate with price and neither is it commensurate with sound quality.
The state of high end audio reflect the state of Capitalism, in that there are a small percentage of people who have extreme wealth and who do not care about price merely status . Audio companies , like yacht makers , luxury car makes and the rest of rest of the market have realised that they can charge what the bloody hell they like and do so.
This is a model that is not sustainable , conspicuous consumption of an elite cannot sustain a global capitalist market . It is much better for the economy to sell 20 Ford Focus than 1 Ferrari . And much like the 70s Oil crisis precipitated an economic crisis because all the worlds money was flowing in to the oil countries who then failed to spend it , the increasingly cioncentration of wealth within an elite will precipitate a further global economic crisis.
So Stan , the truth about high end audio is that is a consequence of particular period of capitalism . You cannot justify the price as all there is to say , it is costs than much because some pilarks will pay it .

[Daniel Quinn]

Stan association with Cambridge ended a long time ago .

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Stan association with Cambridge ended a long time ago .

Cambridge Audio were in financial trouble as Stan was never a good business man. He worked out a system to defraud Customs and Excise (vat). The problem is he fell out with and sacked a member of staff who knew what he was doing. The next time he had stuff making a second pass down the production line having serial numbers changed he was raided. He spent 6 months in jail for VAT fraud. The company was sold out of bankruptcy.