Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

Critic's Corner

TAS serves up another crock of cognitive dissonance.

64.12.116.141

Well, it’s happened again. Another audio reviewer equates a component selling for five figures (in this case a $16,000 pair of speakers) with *affordability.* I’m referring to the headline on the cover of the current TAS: “WORLD-CLASS SOUND, REAL-WORLD PRICE.”

Curious, I glanced inside. The headline refers to Chris Martens' review of the Usher BE-20, which sells for $16,400 per pair. I’m unsure as to which “world” Mr. Martens frequents, and I don’t suppose he even wrote the hook, but this casual attitude vis-à-vis price is indicative of what’s wrong with hi-end audio. To wit, such gear is simply unattainable for 99+ percent of would-be consumers, and to suggest otherwise is to turn a blind eye to the obvious, something industry spokesmen have been doing for years.

The question arises: At what price point would TAS decline to suggest a speaker is affordable? (C’mon, guys, just give us a number.) Fortunately, I’m at that stage of my life where the BE-20 is easily within my reach. But this happy fact does not blind me to the reality that such a purchase would be an extravagant luxury for most consumers—even audiophiles.

Someone once said that the average American is a bit above average. Translation: most Americans are imbued with enough commonsense to recognize when they’re being massaged. :)

Follow Ups:

RE: TAS serves up another crock of cognitive dissonance. - HiOnFi 05:48:02 03/24/08 (0)
Take what you neeed and leave the rest
RE: TAS serves up another crock of cognitive dissonance. - john.potis@comcast.net 09:31:43 03/20/08 (16)
Hey Regmac,

Gotta love the knee-jerk responses you're getting to what is a very valid point. As it happens, last night I was sitting inside my $30k turbo-charged Subaru Outback waiting for my daughter to come out of swim practice and I was thinking about all that $30k bought in the way of car and the thought popped into my head of the $16k pair of Bryston 28B SST amplifiers I reviewed a couple months ago. You look at the car and then you look at the amps and you can’t help but scratch your head.

I won’t go into why $16,000 can buy you a fairly sophisticated automobile today or it can buy you a pair of what happens to be a pair of extremely fine audio amplifiers. But I will say that to an awful lot of TAS readers, $16k probably is affordable. But like most such purchases, it will require one to assess his priorities. We're talking sacrifices. An awful lot of audiophiles drive used cars so that they can afford a killer system. It may not be comfortable and it could be a stretch, but I think $16k is indeed affordable… as in “doable”. And if in the writer's opinion they actually compare well to speakers costing multiples of that price, I guess I can understand the enthusiasm.

Now we can debate weather affordable translates into a smart purchase and a wise use of one’s resources but that's a whole nuther topic. :-)

Best,
JP
- In 1973 I picked up 3 ARC pieces worth $2300 in my Ford Capri, $1800, to use on my Servostats, $2400. nt - Norm 08:10:18 03/23/08 (0)
  a
- RE: TAS serves up another crock of cognitive dissonance. - regmac 17:42:02 03/20/08 (1)
  Hi JP:
  
  Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post.
  
  “Gotta love the knee-jerk responses you're getting to what is a very valid point.”
  
  I enjoy tossing the bears a little red meat from time to time. It’s “me” Irish sense of humor at work. Besides, just because their reactions are knee-jerk doesn't mean they're jerks, merely misguided. :)
  
  “As it happens, last night I was sitting inside my $30k turbo-charged Subaru Outback waiting for my daughter to come out of swim practice and I was thinking about all that $30k bought in the way of car and the thought popped into my head of the $16k pair of Bryston 28B SST amplifiers I reviewed a couple months ago. You look at the car and then you look at the amps and you can't help but scratch your head.”
  
  Our priorities and sense of proportionality appear to be similar.
  
  “But I will say that to an awful lot of TAS readers, $16k probably is affordable. But like most such purchases, it will require one to assess his priorities. We're talking sacrifices. An awful lot of audiophiles drive used cars so that they can afford a killer system. It may not be comfortable and it could be a stretch, but I think $16k is indeed affordable… as in “doable.”’
  
  Well, what’s “affordable” is certainly “doable.” But what’s doable is not always affordable. The subprime mortgage crisis is a good example of what I mean. “Doable” may very well require one to max out his credit cards and his banker’s patience in order to buy that shiny new stereo. But that certainly doesn't make the stereo affordable—at least by any definition of the word I'm familiar with. I don't wish to turn this into a tedious semantic exercise but your paragraph prompts such thoughts.
  
  I take issue with those who seek to define “affordable” for their own selfish ends. A $30K stereo, housed in a $90K home, with a rust bucket parked out front, speaks volumes about one’s priorities, or lack thereof. Such priorities are not only overly indulgent, they strike me as being morally repugnant if a wife and children are in the picture. I realize this sermonizing is not good for business, but I wish to be clear about such matters.
  
  I'm of the opinion that in order for something to be *affordable* one must be able to write a check for the item without it adversely impacting other areas of one’s life. There are obvious exceptions: house, car, etc. But I think we would agree that $16K mono blocks do not come remotely close to making the list of notable exceptions.
  
  Like it or not a dependable car is a necessity for most people. Moreover, it offers a certain utility and functionality that amps do not. The amp does one thing: play music. Whereas a car fulfills myriad needs. Consider price and longevity: One can purchase a new Honda Civic, one of the most dependable cars on the road, for about $18K, and look forward to driving it for 10-15 trouble free years. Moreover, it’s fun to drive!
  
  Lest anyone misunderstand, I have no problem with conspicuous consumption. If one can *afford* to drink Chateau Petrus each day ($1,500 per 25 ounce bottle), purchase 6 Wilson Alexandria’s for his multichannel stereo, garage a fleet of gas guzzling 12 cylinder Lamborghinis, and live in a 30,000 square foot mansion, I will be the first to applaud his success and to wish him a good long life!
  
  I trust you and your family will have a safe and enjoyable Easter holiday.
  - My bad... - john.potis@comcast.net 18:17:15 03/20/08 (0)
    "Such priorities are not only overly indulgent, they strike me as being morally repugnant if a wife and children are in the picture."
    
    ... I didn't consider that said audiophile may actually have a mate. :-)
    
    Seriously, that's quite a bleak picture you paint and in such a situation I certainly agree with you. But it's also somewhat of a worse case scenario, isn't it? I've never seen one myself but I do gather that there are parts of the country where you can buy a fairly nice home for $90k, but not in my part of the country. Around here you can buy a townhouse (row home) for $250K. And assuming that the used car is a five-year-old Honda, I can see a guy swinging it because wage rates are commensurately higher here, too.
    
    OK, I'm weaseling around here a little bit because I hate to be wrong, but the truth is, I certainly agree with the spirit of your original post. 10 years (or so)ago a reviewer called 20+ thousand dollar Dunavy speakers a good value or something like that. So it's hardly anything new. But I think it's more than fair for people to point out the idiocy and try to keep these guys' feet on the ground.
    
    Happy Easter to you, too!
    
    Best,
    JP
- Confused... - Jim Austin 10:45:14 03/20/08 (12)
  > > You look at the car and then you look at the amps and you can’t help but scratch your head. < <
  
  When I read this I honestly wasn't sure which price made you scratch your head--the car or the amps?
  
  A couple months ago, a girl who hadn't adequately cleared her windshield of snow came across the center line and totaled my car--which isn't hard to do when it's worth about $1200 bucks. So I took the insurance settlement (more than it was worth, about $2K) and went shopping for a new car. I bought a rust-free 1996 Jetta with 113K miles on it. Because it had been assembled from two previous cars by a qualified, employed VW mechanic, in his spare time, it cost me just $2,000. Drives great, looks okay, and doing that kind of deal is a lot more fun than shopping on a used-car lot.
  
  I would never, ever spend $30K on a car, unless (God forbid) I were to find myself commuting 50 miles each way to work by car. Given my current lifestyle, the idea of spending that kind of money for a car is ludicrous. And it's not an income thing; I could afford it without stress. It just doesn't interest me.
  
  Now, $16K for a pair of amps seems a bit rich to me, too, but it's less crazy than $30K for a car (let alone what a truly high-end car would cost). Assuming they're good of course.
  
  So (and I direct this question to anyone who wants to comment)--what's a real world price for a car? $2,000? $3,000? $30,000? Does the fact that Circuit City sells disc-spinners for preposterously low prices condition our response?
  
  I'm not saying value isn't a consideration; it is, and I think it's fair game for reviewers to say whether something is worth the price. But people's values, and how they perceive value, differ.
  
  Jim
  - RE: Confused... - john.potis@comcast.net 13:20:22 03/20/08 (8)
    Hi Jim,
    
    What I was trying to say is that when you look at all the automobile an amount of money will buy you and compare it to how much you can spend on a pair of amplifiers, the cost of the amplifiers can seem out of whack.
    
    Very honestly, when I wrote what I wrote I wasn't thinking that a $30k car was very expensive. It brings up another discussion on perspective and what seems to be the societal norm. I live in an affluent area where there are more BMWs, Mercedes and Lexuses in drive ways than Chevys. Personally, I drive a 5-year old Impala that I paid $17k for. But when it comes time to look for something to put the wife and girls in, that's quite another matter-- from my perspective. The car is 4-wheel drive, quick as hell (the ability to get out of harm's way counts too, you know) and it's loaded with airbags. That was a whole lot easier to justify than spending as much on a pair of speakers.
    
    Some say that if we had to sit down and write a check to Uncle Sam every week to settle our tax bill there would be a tax revolt. But since we never see the money, people can be pretty complacent about it all. Where cars are concerned, 4- year loans used to be the norm but now we see 60 and 72- month loans all the time. Were this not the fact, I seriously doubt we’d see the aforementioned cars in the same abundance. So… what would happen if audio dealers started offering the same kind of financing on equipment? Yeah, we’d all be sick of our speakers before they were paid off . Can you imagine having negative equity in your audio system? :-)
    
    It’s somewhat remarkable how much people will drop on a car that indicates status to drive back and forth to work in but they absolutely balk at paying for a pair of Paradigm speakers, let alone a pair of Wilsons. I know one guy who stated that spending a thousand dollars on a pair of speakers is stupid. It just so happens that his monthly bar bill is probably just about that.
    
    It’s all about priorities and what seems normal to you.
    
    Best,
    JP
    - "Can you imagine having negative equity in your audio system?" - Dave Pogue 16:50:15 03/20/08 (3)
      I saw the smiley, but I'm still not sure of your meaning, since we ALL have negative equity, etc., even those who bought Marantz 7Cs brand new (when you consider inflation).
      
      But what do I know? I never ever knew there was a four-wheel-drive Impala.
      - I'm sorry... - john.potis@comcast.net 16:59:30 03/20/08 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: "Can you imagine having negative equity in your audio system?" posted by Dave Pogue on March 20, 2008 at 16:50:15
        
        ... I didn't see any smiley faces and I have no idea if you're being funny or obtuse.
        
        RE: I'm sorry... - Dave Pogue 17:12:40 03/20/08 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I'm sorry... posted by john.potis@comcast.net on March 20, 2008 at 16:59:30
        
        Recheck the end of your third paragraph.
        
        Got it... - john.potis@comcast.net 17:25:52 03/20/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I'm sorry... posted by Dave Pogue on March 20, 2008 at 17:12:40
        
        ... you couldn't tell that I went from talking about my Impala to the Subaru that my wife drives. Hope that clears it up.
        
        And negative equity, in this context, is when you owe more on your speakers than they're worth on trade for a new pair. That must have been one heck of a loan term if they're still paying on a Marantz.
    - RE: Confused... - Jim Austin 13:24:43 03/20/08 (3)
      > > It just so happens that his monthly bar bill is probably just about that. < <
      
      Hey, mine, too, what's wrong with that? ;-)
      
      A very important point about my car is that my wife drives a 4WD Honda Element that's pretty safe. She commutes about an hour each way to work, and if we go somewhere as a family (I've got a 10-year-old son) we take her car.
      
      I work from home and put about 3,000 miles a year on my car. So I put far more miles on my audio system. So factor that in.
      
      Cheers,
      Jim
      - So... - john.potis@comcast.net 13:34:32 03/20/08 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Confused... posted by Jim Austin on March 20, 2008 at 13:24:43
        
        ... what you're saying is that you spent TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS for a car you don't even use??
        
        Easy come, easy go, huh Jim? :-)
        
        JP
        
        Hmmm... - Jim Austin 13:37:25 03/20/08 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: So... posted by john.potis@comcast.net on March 20, 2008 at 13:34:32
        
        I guess that was kind of an indulgence, wasn't it?
        
        Scooters don't work so well up here in Maine, however, so I guess I'll keep it.
        
        Cheers,
        Jim
        
        $30,000 = 146,000 DKK, exactly the price of my Mitsubishi Colt - Frihed89 01:12:59 03/22/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Hmmm... posted by Jim Austin on March 20, 2008 at 13:37:25
        
        Jim, some of us don't have the luxury of your choices, where I live (Denmark), when cars are taxed at 280% and imported stereo gear costs and additional 100% over US retail.
        Greetings from the sunny Brønshøj riveria on the banks of the lovely Utterslev Mose
  - $17,000 - DustyC 12:40:50 03/20/08 (2)
    My wife and I have yet to purchase a car over this amount. Of course we would like to spend more, but can't really justify it.
    Considering the amount of engineering and manhours spent in R&D and manufacturing for autos, most of them are bargains at that price.
    High End audio? No way. There isn't enough mass production to get the cost per unit down. Hence $16,000 speakers.
    - Fair point, but... - Jim Austin 13:06:40 03/20/08 (1)
      ...I don't entirely agree. The beauty of audio is that you've got the whole continuum from well-optimized mass-market stuff up to made-by-hand boutique stuff. You get to choose. And naturally the latter costs more.
      
      Still, a hand-made car (what would that be, a Bentley?) costs many hundreds of thousands of dollars, so your $17K is indeed on the low, mass-produced end of the range. Fact is, if I could play in that league (boutique cars) I might be interested--but I can't, not by a mile. Yet there are some areas where I can enjoy high-end, boutique stuff. I drink good coffee, have a few pieces of nice hand-made furniture, and I've started to collect smoking pipes.
      
      BTW, pipes are VERY similar to audio in this respect, but cheaper. All you need for a pipe is a chunk of wood that doesn't catch on fire a bowl carved in it, and a mouthpiece with a hole that goes through with the bowl. You can get a pipe meeting the minimum technical requirements for $30 (or $5 if you go for a corn cob). A $1000 pipe is hardly different at all, technically. But people who take pipe-smoking seriously will swear to you that a really nice high-grade pipe, carved by a master, isn't just prettier, but smokes better. Is it worth it? I dunno--is it worth it to you? Can you taste the difference? If you smoke Prince Albert it probably isn't.
      
      Jim
      - RE: Fair point, but... - DustyC 13:59:29 03/20/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Fair point, but... posted by Jim Austin on March 20, 2008 at 13:06:40
        
        "Yet there are some areas where I can enjoy high-end, boutique stuff. I drink good coffee, have a few pieces of nice hand-made furniture, and I've started to collect smoking pipes."
        That sums it up right there. Everyone can play in the high-end market. It is a matter of setting priorities. Malcom Forbes once remarked that over his Harley bike road travels worldwide he met a broad spectrum of people and one thing they all had in common was that they set aside some money for acquiring something that related to their hobby that represented "the best". The example was a biker who lived in a trailer park but had a $45,000 custom Harley, his "pride and joy". For some audio guys a $16,000 speaker might be within their means, thus the tag "affordable".
RE: TAS serves up another crock of cognitive dissonance. - ark0884 07:43:46 03/20/08 (7)
I totally understand your point, and agree with it. This despite the fact that I formed MusikMatters Inc., exclusive US Distributors of Usher loudspeakers, to explicitly address the issue of the distortion of price/performance in high end audio.

Our best selling products are the $ 400/pair S-520's and the recently developed "tiny dancer", the $ 2,800/pair Beryllium tweeter based monitors. Most of our marketing spending is in support of these exciting, high value products. I would urge people to give the Be 718's a listen regardless of the price point they are willing to pay. At $ 2,800/ pair, these are true giant killers.

The Be 20's that were reviewed by CM and featured on the TAS cover is our flagship, top - of - the line, product that we believe competes effectively with loudspeakers costing 2 to 3 times as much. It is in that "relative" context that they are "affordable", not in any absolute sense. It is the Beryllium tweeter from this loudspeaker that we "trickled down" to the Be 718 to achieve the price performance breakthrough. We are now working on further "trickle -down" effect in our sub $ 1,000 products; stay tuned.

I hope this context is helpful.

Atul Kanagat
- RE: TAS serves up another crock of cognitive dissonance. - regmac 07:36:11 03/24/08 (0)
  “The Be 20's that were reviewed by CM and featured on the TAS cover is our flagship, top - of - the line, product that we believe competes effectively with loudspeakers costing 2 to 3 times as much.”
  
  Should your belief prove to be accurate then I applaud your efforts! A $16K speaker offering the same sonic performance as speakers approaching $50K gets Usher close to what I call the “Hafler Effect.” You may recall that in the late 1970s David Hafler introduced a small, nondescript preamp (DH-101). The unit retailed for $299.00 ($199.00 kit form).
  
  Its performance embarrassed many hi-end audio “engineers” of that era, sending them back to their drawing boards mumbling, “How’d he do that?” Suddenly, anyone could partake of the hi-end without suffering financial difficulties. This was unprecedented. Audiophiles could benefit mightily from more Hafler moments.
  
  If a speaker designer were to tell me he’d built the best floorstander on the market, and that it retailed for $50K, I wouldn’t be overly impressed. (Even if every high profile reviewer on the planet concurred.) After all, any designer worthy of the title should be capable of building a “world beater” with such a lavish budget as that. But let another designer come along offering the same sonic characteristics in a speaker costing about $15K and one can’t help but be impressed.
  
  Yours is the sort of “giant killing” design philosophy that real-world audiophiles crave. Best of luck to Usher in future endeavors designed at knocking down price barriers.
- Question about your moniker - Charles Hansen 09:32:47 03/20/08 (5)
  The (R) after your name indicates that you are a reviewer, and indeed your profile says that you work for The Absolute Sound. But your post seems to indicate that you are now the importer for the Taiwanese-made Usher line of speakers.
  
  So doesn't this create a conflict of interest, to be a reviewer and an importer?
  
  Or have you stopped being a reviewer and simply forgot to update your profile? (Then it would be more like the case of ex-politicians who have gone on to become lobbyists and typically use their personal relationships with ex-colleagues to further their new commercial agenda?)
  - RE: Question about your moniker - ark0884 11:14:44 03/20/08 (2)
    Thanks for bringing my outdated profile to my attention. I had forgotten that I had ever entered one since I haven't regularly used this site till now.
    
    Here are the facts. I worked at TAS for less than a year upon retirement; I spent 20% of my time at TAS, not as a Reviewer (the R refers to any affiliation with the Press, not just as reviewer). I worked on what you might call business development; my major contribution in that role was structuring and conducting the acquisition of Hi Fi Plus to save it from going under.
    
    I currently am Vice President of the League of American Orchestras and CEO of MusikMatters. I am pursuing neither of these for money; I spent 23 years making money in a far more lucrative profession, and decided to devote whatever talent and energy I still had after retiring from my main career, to the two things that I care about a lot: Audio and Classical music. Both are facing enormous challenges in sustaining their industries.
    
    I hope you are not suggesting that anyone that had anything to do with an audio magazine is permanently barred from making any other contributions to the world of audio. I continue to shake my head at the amount of backbiting that routinely goes on in an industry that focuses its attention on infighting rather than taking on the more difficult and important challenge of figuring out ways to fight the creeping invasion of Lo Fi into the lower price levels of audio and the mainstream press that reflexively attacks the high end as a bunch of crazies and ignores the phenomenal accomplishments of this tiny market niche we all live in.
    - well said, Atul, well said! - danny kaey 22:55:45 03/22/08 (0)
      ...
    - Thank you - Charles Hansen 17:03:49 03/20/08 (0)
      < < conducting the acquisition of Hi Fi Plus to save it from going under > >
      
      Thanks for the clear explanation and thanks for working to continue Hi-Fi+'s continued success. I enjoy that magazine very much and am glad that it has continued unchanged since its acquisition.
  - or maybe.. - Craiger56 10:19:26 03/20/08 (1)
    ..like retiring military brass going to work for defence contractors?
    - It seems like an easy (but perhaps unethical) way to make easy money. [nt] - Charles Hansen 10:58:35 03/20/08 (0)
      nt
They must mail out issues with different content based on reader profiles. - Enophile 21:59:42 03/19/08 (0)
My issue says, "World Class Sound, Out of This World Price."

Maybe when I filled in my demographic data they profiled me as not being able to afford this price level product.

Did your most recent issue list in the table of contents, "VTL Siegfried Power Amplifier...well beyond your means?"

My issue with the PSB Alpha came with this title..."The new PSB Alpha, so cheap, even you can afford it!"

Keep us posted on your income bracket, 'kay?
Rant on! - bjh 21:22:51 03/19/08 (0)
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn

Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
"Real-world" doesn't include people too cheap to buy audio magzines...(nt) - mkuller 19:48:41 03/19/08 (1)
(nt)
- I take it as you're disapproving something in OP - what, exactly? - carcass93 09:49:49 03/20/08 (0)
  Or is it just knee-jerk, corporate solidarity response, along the same lines as "wondering" of one of industry-related fellas below?
  
  Not trying to start a war, just curious what one could find objectionable in that post. Hopefully, we can agree that whether he bought it, or just glanced at it, is totally irrelevant.
I think the dealer demo section of Audiogon backs you up - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 19:34:56 03/19/08 (2)
I read your post, and it's clear you aren't suggesting 16K is out of the question for a product that brings that much value to the table.

However, labeling it "real world" seems to be your complaint, since "real world" has consistently been a phrase used to imply "affordable to the general public".

I work in the A/V business, and I work in the real world. True, I have clients who have spent more on a pair of speakers, but those clients fall into two camps. Enthusiasts who choose to spend their savings on the products that bring them a specific level of satisfaction or clients who have deep pockets and want the best based on other reasons than the enjoyment of sound reproduction.

As for the connection with Audiogon, I often see the most expensive examples of product sold as dealer demo's, where the savings are significant and buying demo gear at 50% or more off retail in my opinion represents the real "REAL WORLD" of hi-end audio shopping.

A question for you Reg. Why is it that a marketing mechanism as important and succesful to the hi-end audio marketplace as Audiogon been ignored by TAS and Stereophile? Why doesn't Audiogon receive in depth analysis from either one of these publications?
- retail pricing today is complete fiction - jdouglas51 07:26:48 03/21/08 (1)
  no one at any price level pays retail.
  - Not true - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 12:08:35 03/21/08 (0)
    Many of the biggest box movers sell their product at or near MSRP. Look at Best Buy and Circuit City. True, they do have their sales like most others, but that's usually on product that is nearing the end of it's run and will soon be replaced.
    
    With new product, not only do they sell at or near MSRP, there's typically no negotiating. The same goes for PC's, Laptop's and the software is hardly discounted. The appliances are hardly discounted because there's not much of a mark-up on mass produced white goods to begin with.
    
    Taking into consideration the massive amount of near-free financing, the plummet on the profitability on most flat panels which drove the business for so long and continues to, and these two companies have no choice but to sell what they can at close to MSRP.
    
    At my company, we hardly felt Circuit or Best Buy was a threat regarding low price. In fact, the reality is they hold the line on MSRP better than anyone. The best thing that can happen to a Custom A/V company is to have a Best Buy or Circuit City open up across the street from them. The increase in floor traffic that comes from being seen across THAT street, coupled with the ability for the average "independant" sales person or systems designer to beat BB/CC prices while still keeping things profitable means very good business for competitors like myself.
    
    The internet on the other hand, well....that's a different story.
Make more money, then complain. - ontrack2@gmail.com 18:50:47 03/19/08 (3)
Considering the enjoyment one can receive from a fine set of speakers and that they are likely to own them for 10 years or greater, 16K or even 40K+ is simply not out of range AT ALL for many people here. I know a fellow who paid 255,000 for the front doors to his home. If you got it, spend it. If you don't have it, don't complain about it.

There is no price which is unaffordable to those who have the resources. Perhaps "real world" to you is something other than a high fidelity purchase of this type.
- $225,000.00 for front doors......? - Ozzy 03:23:39 03/21/08 (0)
  .....did I read that right?
  
  Oz
- Ah, where do you get your info? - Rick W 20:59:20 03/19/08 (1)
  I have no doubt that some percentage of both S'phile readers and AA inmates spent $16-40,000 on their speakers. But I'd sure as hell bet its way more than most - if not the overwhelming majority - of us could afford.
  AFAIK the term "real world" is not used to define the much less limited possibilities afforded to those with considerably more $$ than most people in a society. In my entire life (I'm 60) I've only personally known two people who had speakers which cost at least $16,000. BTW - neither one of them kept their expensive speakers for 10 years. They sold them after a few years and bought other expensive speakers.
  Its obviously true that there are enough people with $$ to generate building/marketing/sales of speakers costing $16-40,000 (and above). But it hardly means those prices are "real world affordable" for the overwhelming majority of audiophiles, let alone the general public.
  To state "There is no price which is unaffordable to those who have the resources." is about as profound as declaring "A penniless Bowery drunk is unlikely to buy a set of Valhalla speaker cables".
  
  Edits: 03/19/08 03/20/08
  - RE: Ah, where do you get your info? - ontrack2@gmail.com 21:20:53 03/19/08 (0)
    Thank you for your comments.
Been reading at the newsstand again or did you buy it this time? (nt) - mkuller 16:00:53 03/19/08 (3)
(nt)
- Actually, he must have a subscription, since most news stands don't put the new issue out until the 1st - JMCIII 16:55:32 03/19/08 (1)
  NT_
  John Crossett
  ___
  It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying.
  - RE: Actually, he must have a subscription, since most news stands don't put the new issue out until the 1st - regmac 17:10:43 03/19/08 (0)
    "Actually, he must have a subscription, since most news stands don't put the new issue out until the..."
    
    I noticed the new TAS at my local "Books-A-Million" last Friday. The new Hi-Fi Choice appeared today. Alas, the current Stereophile has yet to make its appearance. Judging from the avalanche of late delivery complaints one reads at this venue, if I did have a subscription it would be unavailable to me for at least another week, perhaps two. :)
- That's what I was wondering. -t - Bruce Kendall 16:03:53 03/19/08 (0)
I doubt I'd call any piece of audio gear at $16,000 "real world" - John Marks 15:13:38 03/19/08 (9)
Hi-

I understand your position. I don't feel as passionately about it as you do, but I agree I'd hesitate before calling any piece of audio gear at $16,000 "real world."

My yardstick is pretty simple: adjusted for inflation, the average Stereophile reader's stereo system cost about $15,000. So, once I venture beyond $7,000 speakers and $5,000 amplifiers or digital sources, I am writing about things that are real-world relevant to fewer and fewer readers--discounting for the moment the issue whether people want to read about things they can't afford, which they most certainly do.

And I am somewhat certain that the writer had nothing to do with the headline or subhead.

Stereo equipment is a luxury good. The sky's the limit, well, almost. Going by the factoid about the $15,000 system average, KEF's $20,000/pr. Reference speaker is for a subset of the readership, so, KEF's $140,000/pr. Muon is for a minute subset of a subset. But there are more than a few, perhaps even more than 100, Stereophile readers who could write that check with no pain if they felt like it. But I also know that, just as my car budget is used Hyundai but I like reading about Mercedes amd Maseratis, many and perhaps even most Stereophile readers are interested in learning about hyper-expensive equipment.

Cheers,

JM
- RE: I doubt I'd call any piece of audio gear at $16,000 "real world" - regmac 17:55:04 03/19/08 (8)
  Hello John:
  
  Your thoughtful and courteous reply is greatly appreciated. Some quick comments concerning your observations:
  
  “I understand your position.”
  
  I’m confident most people do.
  
  “I don't feel as passionately about it as you do, but I agree I'd hesitate before calling any piece of audio gear at $16,000 "real world."’
  
  Trust me when I tell you that I’m not passionate about this subject or any other involving audio. Simply put, my message to TAS is “don’t try to romance an old romancer.” I suspect you and I both know what’s going on here. TAS is attempting to plant the premise that $16K speakers are “affordable.” That’s the mindset industry types wish to instill in hobbyists. And while I don’t accept their premise I certainly understand their strategy. Promoting this sort of general attitude makes it easier to sell that $25K pair of speakers.
  
  “I am writing about things that are real-world relevant to fewer and fewer readers--discounting for the moment the issue whether people want to read about things they can't afford, which they most certainly do.”
  
  Agreed. Only someone consumed by the politics of envy would balk at reading about something he can’t afford. I can’t afford a luxury yacht but I enjoy reading about them.
  
  “And I am somewhat certain that the writer had nothing to do with the headline or subhead.”
  
  Yes, I addressed that in my original post when I expressed doubt as to whether Mr. Martens wrote the “hook.”
  
  “Stereo equipment is a luxury good.”
  
  Agreed.
  
  “…many and perhaps even most Stereophile readers are interested in learning about hyper-expensive equipment.”
  
  I made that precise point on here a few weeks ago. GMTA :)
  
  “…adjusted for inflation, the average Stereophile reader's stereo SYSTEM cost about $15,000.” {Emphasis Mine}
  
  I rest my case.
  
  Wishing you and yours a lovely Easter.
  - The rested case... . - John Marks 19:47:29 03/19/08 (7)
    Hi-
    
    I am at the moment, listening to a $3300 SYSTEM, and ITFOT I hope to be able to tell people how it fares against the Meridian/Ferrari $3000 boom box; and, those who aspire to wisdom should not bet against the Meridian before hearing it. I hold no brief for advertisers, and no brief for non-advertisers.
    
    Now, a $15,000 AVERAGE perhaps has some zillobuck systems pulling it up, OR, it might have lots of $2500 systems pulling it down. But I have never seen a distribution.
    
    What I do know is that I know church organists/musicians and school music teachers with "fun" cars or posh cars, whereas by driving a beater like I do, they could have a $15,000 stereo before you could say Jack Robinson.
    
    I consider it my job to help them understand how an ***optimal*** stereo could add to their enjoyment of music in the home, but I do not consider it my job to run interference for any particular piece of gear, especially gear that costs lots of money.
    
    I have played nice harpsichords (very poorly) in the $15,000-$35,000 range. I also know that some people apparently spend that much on cables. For that kind of money, you could start in St. Petersburg and work back to London, hearing concerts in the greatest halls, and eating in the finest restaurants, staying in the finest hotels, and have some money left to give to the homeless when you get back. I try to keep both feet on the ground.
    
    If TAS is now going the bling route, that is sad. I recall in the mid 1970s, when I was living in Nashville, and friends there subscribed, each new issue would be such an event (usually because you never knew it was coming), and there was a good balance of budget gear.
    
    Deo volente, by year's end I will have an opportunity to write about the KEF Muons, and I hope to maintain an even keel. I recall when $21,000 for Duntech Sovereigns was all the money in the world.
    
    Thanks for the personal wish. Not the best Lent I have ever kept. However, have been reading "The Year of Living Biblically."
    
    Cheers,
    
    JM
    - John, please help me out... - Charles Hansen 20:04:06 03/19/08 (6)
      ... I still haven't figured out "ITFOT". I tried acronymfinder.com and it didn't help. Thanks.
      - Right, thanks. Trans: "Eventually" - John Marks 09:15:29 03/20/08 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: John, please help me out... posted by Charles Hansen on March 19, 2008 at 20:04:06
        
        nt
        
        RE: Right, thanks. Trans: "Eventually" - Charles Hansen 09:37:56 03/20/08 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Right, thanks. Trans: "Eventually" posted by John Marks on March 20, 2008 at 09:15:29
        
        OK, thanks. I like your translation also. It kind of reminds me of "presently". There are two contradictory definitions. It took me a while to figure out that the less-obvious definition is more often intended. More information at the usage note linked below. (I love usage notes!)
        Two meanings of "presently" (Open in New Window)
        
        And what of poor #3? - clarkjohnsen 08:42:30 03/21/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Right, thanks. Trans: "Eventually" posted by Charles Hansen on March 20, 2008 at 09:37:56
        
        Go tell the Duke and's wife I'ld speak with them --
        Now, presently.
        
        -- King Lear
        
        "Fast" versus "Fasten" - John Marks 17:26:24 03/20/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Right, thanks. Trans: "Eventually" posted by Charles Hansen on March 20, 2008 at 09:37:56
        
        Fast is, moving speedily.
        
        But, fasten, is to hold in one place!
        
        Prince Hamlet of Denmark, in Jacques-pierre's imagination, said:
        
        "He that lets me is a dead man!"
        
        But what he meant was, he that ties me up, is a dead man.
        
        There's a slew of them!
        
        JM
      - Let me guess...In The Fullness of Time...nt - charlieboy11 21:26:38 03/19/08 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: John, please help me out... posted by Charles Hansen on March 19, 2008 at 20:04:06
        
        nt
        
        Cf. Galatians 4:4... [nt] - David W. Robinson 11:06:14 03/21/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Let me guess...In The Fullness of Time...nt posted by charlieboy11 on March 19, 2008 at 21:26:38
        
        nt

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.