|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.126.254.2
In Reply to: RE: Amazing set of pictures from this weekend's Munich High End show posted by Dave_K on May 09, 2016 at 04:58:26
evidently.
I wonder how Spain and Italy are doing?
Follow Ups:
Whats the 10th of a percent problem?
and disappearance of the middle class. This equipment is NOT made for ordinary people. Not even for ordinary audiophiles.
and disappearance of the middle class.Right. It's only 50% of the U.S. adult population in 2015 currently.
"...Although the middle class has not kept pace with upper-income households, its median income, adjusted for household size, has risen over the long haul, increasing 34% since 1970 . "
Edits: 05/09/16
50% of the US population is sure as heck not buying this stuff pictured.Your link, BTW, demonstrates jedrider's point: the headline reads, " The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground; No longer the majority and falling behind financially ".
The fact that "high end" is getting higher & higher, (true for everything, not just hi-fi), illustrates the fact that wealth is concentrating: QED.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich ...
Edits: 05/10/16
I was contradicting jedriders's ludicrous claim that the middle class is "disappearing" using facts.
50% of the population is far from "disappearing".
"Losing ground" perhaps as it dropped from 61% to 50%. Disappearing? What are you guys smoking?
Losing ground vs. disappearing is semantic quibbling.
61% to 50% is a large decline, and who knows where it will stop.
In any case the trend to ever more expensive "high end" equipment is a symptom of rising disparities of income. 45 years ago when I first became interested in hi-fi you could buy a complete SOTA system of maybe $5000 or say $30,000 in today's dollars. Nowadays you can scarcely buy a single top-end component for that price.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich ...
That would be you.
Losing ground vs. disappearing is semantic quibbling.
Only for those who don't understand the meaning of the word "disappear". What I find in the dictionary is "cease to be visible". Half of anything isn't even close to that concept.
61% to 50% is a large decline, and who knows where it will stop.
There have been lots of changes since 1970! There is no question that automation has replaced many an unskilled labor job in the manufacturing arena along with mid level accounting functions elsewhere and will continue to do so. Do you think (increasing) computer technology and robotics might be here to stay? How about the internet? How many bills were you getting electronically and paying via ACH transfers in 1970?
45 years ago when I first became interested in hi-fi you could buy a complete SOTA system of maybe $5000 or say $30,000 in today's dollars. Nowadays you can scarcely buy a single top-end component for that price.
And today you can buy any number of $1M automobiles which, like the best audio gear available today, offer a vastly improved performance envelope over those distant predecessors. Conversely, with either product you can get more for your entry level models today than back then.
And now we return to more of the usual class warfare whining...
Dude, we just don't know...
how many young folks today fully understand the consequences of seeking careers that have been (or will soon be) replaced by automation.
The Pew Research report to which I linked earlier provides some data as to the effect of education level.
Even then, getting in debt to receive a degree in "European Literature" won't do much for you either.
... even for those who have done a good deal of research.
As for where the jobs will be, I'd guess China and India. Don't imagine that high-end jobs will remain in the USA when manufacturing and much of the service industry has have shipped off to those locations.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich ...
Not very "economical" - at least not when you're part of the 99%.
is directly related to the value individuals bring to the table. Many "traditional" jobs no longer meet that criteria in today's world. Successful economics is not driven by "nanny state" objectives. Just showing up is not good enough.
For those who are just entering the workforce, I strongly recommend they do their homework and understand where modern jobs are to be found and prepare accordingly.
As a supply chain consultant who sells software and services, my job is to educate and deliver tools to improve the productivity and thus the success of the companies I serve. Prolonging marginal or obsolete jobs is not part of that equation.
Let the "economy", as you describe it, collapse. And it probably will. Who in their right mind would want to sustain such a thing?
Different types of people want and need to do a number of different things. If the economy cannot sustain THIS idea, then it has failed as an economy. The cart is before the horse and we are already dead.
Let the "economy", as you describe it, collapse. And it probably will.
Fortunately for all of us, economics and social engineering are two completely different disciplines. Successful economics will always survive since it is based upon logic and reason. If you believe that others owe you a happy existence, then I wish you the best of luck.
Different types of people want and need to do a number of different things. If the economy cannot sustain THIS idea, then it has failed as an economy.
Folks may choose to do whatever they please. The question is whether or not they whine about the consequences of those choices.
We have already witnessed evidence of the latter.
..: Those with loaded guns, and those who dig."
Have fun digging.
At least you're not claiming I'm a "loaded gun" type. :)
The gangsters who run our economies, look to them.
The economy is in DC , head East youngman .....
You do not have to spend a fortune to obtain the closest approach to live sound.
> and disappearance of the middle class.
Sorry everybody, I can't let this go.
Throw this factoid in your calculus. Since 1970 there has been an explosion of public sector jobs. These are mostly middle class pay jobs. Add some quasi public organizations that are wholly funded through government grants. Also middle class jobs.
You have to consider that all forms of government in this country are now the largest employer in this country. That accounts for a great many middle class jobs. It helps your median income statistic that the lower middle class has taken the real beating. Factory workers who at least had a half decent hourly wage that they make into a lower middle class income with overtime. Those days are gone.
Of course the nasty catch is that these govt. jobs are paid for with printed money. We used to tax it. Then we couldn't tax enough. Then we borrowed it, but then we can't borrow any more. Now we are just printing it. Do you think that's sustainable? What does Pew research say about that?
Don't like anecdotes? Here's mine. Fifteen years ago I worked in a factory. The workforce has half white, and half black. Within two years all the black people but one was replaced by Hispanic women who had their papers. Do you think those black families saw their median income go up or down?. How does that help America? If that was fifteen years ago, what must it be like now?
------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
You have to consider that all forms of government in this country are now the largest employer in this country.
Given that 45% of our populace pay ZERO income tax, that's not necessarily a great message for their future.
Those days are gone.
Indeed. Those with high school educations can no longer make $45/hr turning bolts at GM.
Now we are just printing it. Do you think that's sustainable?
Absolutely not. Obama has profoundly overspent the most money in our history. "Free stuff to everyone!"
Within two years all the black people but one was replaced by Hispanic women who had their papers.
Demonstrable work ethic and productivity always trump entitlement.
reallySo, using raw dollars, Obama did oversee the lowest annual increases in spending of any president in 60 years.
Here are the results using inflation-adjusted figures:
Average percentage increase per year
Johnson 6.3
George W. Bush 5.9
Kennedy 4.7
Carter 4.2
Nixon 3.0
Reagan 2.7
G H.W. Bush 1.8
Clinton 1.5
Obama -0.1
Eisenhower -0.5
Edits: 05/10/16
What about the rest
Yeah what about it
Obama's statements by ruling (75% truth)True (21%)
Mostly True (27%)
Half True (27%)
Mostly False (12%)
False (12%)
Pants on Fire (2%)
Trump's statements by ruling (76% of statements false or worse)True (2%)
Mostly True (6%)
Half True (15%)
Mostly False (15%)
False (43%)
Pants on Fire (18%)
Sanders's statements by ruling (69% true but no outright lies)True (14%)
Mostly True (37%)
Half True (18%)
Mostly False (18%)
False (12%)
Pants on Fire 0%Clinton's statements by ruling (72% truth).
True (23%)
Mostly True (27%)
Half True (22%)
Mostly False (16%)
False (11%)
Pants on Fire (2%)Interesting factoids
Edits: 05/11/16 05/11/16 05/12/16
Surely everyone is aware of at least a dozen of those, but perhaps not that many!
Let's look at total debt:
It went from $10T in 2008 to $22T today. Adjusting for inflation, the beginning number would be $12.2T. Obama added another Ten Trillion to the national debt under his watch.
Here's another view as percent of GDP:
The last time the debt was 100% of GDP was during WWII!
Source: Source using GPO budget figures.
No, that is not sustainable!
If anyone has any queries on money or loan or debt, then they can clear their queries by contacting the national debt line.
Or then again.I can't say too much other than perhaps money isn't the only thing to consider when choosing between choice A and choice B.
I suppose whether people like/dislike Obama policy - doesn;t much matter at this point since he's there and that's the fact of life you gotta live with.
The more interesting thing is which choice is next - HC or DT? I have to say I do find US politics hugely entertaining. It's kind of like a game show.
Edits: 05/12/16
I suppose whether people like/dislike Obama policy - doesn;t much matter at this point since he's there and that's the fact of life you gotta live with.
The more interesting thing is which choice is next - HC or DT? I have to say I do find US politics hugely entertaining. It's kind of like a game show. - RGA
You tell me ........
Edits: 05/12/16
My last post was deleted - not sure why because it was not political - merely stated facts - but I suppose facts can be political - but if you and E-Stat looked at that political fact site you can key in each politician's name and you can see their rankings of true statements, mostly true, somewhat true, somewhat false, all the way down to pants on fire.When you talk Obama - regardless of which side you happen to be on - it doesn't matter - he's in and he's in until someone new comes in.
I do find it interesting the board allows all discussion on Obama but no discussion on Trump or Hillary.
It would seem that your choice as Americans will be between these two.
At the top of the page you merely key in any politician's name and you can see how many true/false or worse statements each make. I made no political statement just posted the results.
Edits: 05/12/16
Pegion hole much ..?
Your pretty Naive with this kind of stuff huh RGA ..:) you do realize Military spending pay a lot of Bills by creating high paying private sector jobs , jobs which create the technology necessary for a modern military ( and world ) of course (sigh) every now and again one of our despots do tend to get greedy and carried away ...
:)
Edits: 05/12/16
much matter at this point since he's there and that's the fact of life you gotta live with.
It will be generations to come who will have to "live with" the consequences.
BTW, the final swing vote for Obamacare was from an Arkansas Democrat named Blanche Lincoln. She was voted out of office by a landslide in 2010 by ignoring the will of the people she presumably "served".
Yes but as I noted there is no point in arguing about it because he is the president. Looking on boards who like the guy I get tons of graphs and articles that say he's great and on the other side tons of graphs and articles that say he isn't.
Reading more of what you have written on this page I tend to see more where you're coming from on the jobs area - people make their choices and should not whine about the choice. And they should work - Both things I agree with you on. As a teacher I see the thugs and the lazy butts do nothings who whine and complain when all they can get is a min wage job but want plenty of hand outs from John Q hardworking tax payer. Why work if you will be taxed to death when the taxes go to those kids who never bother to do homework but instead were getting high and throwing a football. And don't whine if you go into a profession that pays poorly.
What it all comes down to is choices for people and governments - how much money do you put where. Do you choose to allocate funds to help war vets or do you give Congress a 10% pay increase, do you choose to put money to feed children (because bad parenting isn't the kid's fault) or do you choose to spend it on missile defense which doesn't work). Do people choose to spend money on education or a new baseball stadium and $300 million for A-Roid?
And if you don't like something you vote. And if nothing changes your lot - you change your situation. I whined about teacher salaries - but I stopped whining because hey it's my responsibility to look into what the salaries are and the way the government treats teachers. In other words you (I) have to know what we're getting into when we sign up. I could have just as easily went into law - a more lucrative field. Or medicine but the smells and the blood - not my grades - kinda pushed that one off the table.
I chose to be a do-gooder and romanticize the teaching education field to my chagrin. But I complained for a bit - then saw nothing would get changed - and moved to a country where now as a teacher I make more than double what the top Canadian teachers earn. Canada is the 6th most taxed nation apparently at around 53% or so on a salary over about $120k. So after taxes. It's not like I live like a king - granted I do have a maid.
I would say I'm 80% with you on these things - but I think I have a kinder heart to the special needs needs - being a teacher I see more individuals where in it's not about effort level or being lazy it's about being physically and mentally incapable of doing higher wage work. I'm willing to pay more in tax to allow them to have a decent life and some food and vets to get free medical - I mean they did kind of fight so you and I can have a nice paying job the least we can do is you know make sure they have a decent life not begging on the side of the road - perhaps you're not willing to do these things. So there it is.
but I think I have a kinder heart to the special needs needs - being a teacher I see more individuals where in it's not about effort level or being lazy it's about being physically and mentally incapable of doing higher wage work.My wife's parents adopted two special needs children after raising their own four. One is a Rubella syndrome boy with autism and the other, a girl abandoned by her alcoholic mother who has fetal alcohol syndrome. Maybe the only way we might disagree is: who determines where charitable money should be spent. Years ago, Bill Clinton overtly claimed he could "spend other's money better than they". Naturally, I don't agree with liberal elites like he and his wife who suffer from a superiority complex.
I can have a nice paying job the least we can do is you know make sure they have a decent life not begging on the side of the road - perhaps you're not willing to do these things. So there it is.
I could get some really cool audio gear for the $20k we donate annually to a range of charitable organizations. :)
edit: I think I've mentioned this before, but I'm very supportive of education. My wife is a PharmD who chose to teach and make considerably less money than she could have in the private sector. I'm proud to say that she has also built a college of pharmacy from scratch as founding dean - we moved from Atlanta ten years ago for that dream to be realized. That was not an easy task. Now that the school is fully accredited and vibrant, she is now a vice provost over the entire university. I'm convinced that education is essential to personal enrichment and success.
On a related note, I count myself very lucky. My mother taught me to read before before I ever attended school. It is heartbreaking that teachers today in elementary school have to begin where parents should have already taken their children.
Edits: 05/12/16 05/12/16 05/12/16
Your wife's parents should be commended. If more people did those sorts of things we'd probably be better off.
I understand the irritation with the liberal like Bill when they say they could spend money better than you. Although what I would say is he's not talking about you or your wife's family - he's probably referring to the 9/10 who do nothing.
An individual can make a charitable donation instead of paying a tax but perhaps a tax can build a pool of money that can do a better job. An analogy might be a guy comes into the hospital with a bullet in his chest and 50 mosquito bites. A pool of money with one decision maker puts the money to hiring the best surgeons to deal with the chest and save the guy's life. The individual charities operating individually have smaller amounts of money - each can afford to deal with the 50 mosquito bites and there's only money for a band-aid for the guy's chest.
Sure the mosquito bite swelling is down and he can't feel the itch because he's dead.
If you think about - each person looks at the tax system from their own belief systems. A very conservative Christian might hate the idea of their tax money going to things that support gay marriage or helping women get abortions or various other programs. On the other side is the Atheist Liberal who get irritated that their tax money funds teaching some sort of creationism in the classroom, or that all churches ride completely tax free or money for military etc.
The point is that the money gets spent and each side will complain about what the money gets spent on. You can't please everyone - so I suppose that's why you have a vote - you choose the person who will spend your money on the things you want it spent on. You choose which person is more palatable on other social domestic issues. Depending on your situation you will vote accordingly. It's like the people who were hippies in the 60s and now very conservative - it's easy to vote liberal when you have nothing and then when you have something - you want to protect it.
For instance your wife's parents are certainly doing their part (more than their part in fact). So you could say - hey why pay tax why not rely on charity - but it makes the assumption that people are generous kind hearted people. I hate to be a cynic but I don't think most people are. Most people don't put their money or time to support their views.
Hypothetical: Take 100 relatively wealthy people and say okay these 100 people make $1 million each.
We can tax them at 20% and for a tax take of $20,000,000 and we can use that money to deal with special needs education in the given city (where the bill is $19,897,000. Covered and covered well with spare money leftover to test even better newer programs.
Or we can not tax them and rely on charity. Ten people are generous they give $300,000 each let's say - even more than they would be taxed. 20 more would give the tax rate - 20 more would give $100k and 20 would give $50k but 30 will give nothing - they're saving for the new Mercedes.
The problem now is that you only got $10m to deal with the issue but you needed $19.87m to actually do the thing properly.
Your wife's parents I respect because they actually put their money and time and love behind their beliefs. Perhaps they are pro-life and they back it up. What bothers me is people who claim to be pro-life but in fact are only pro-birth and then proceed to wash their hands of paying extra taxes to look after all the children with no parents where there isn't someone who volunteers to take them in. The state then needs money to look after them. From a purely business mindset- if you are going to force someone to have their kid - you better be willing to pay for that kid for their entire upbringing. If you convince them to have an abortion it saves a huge amount of money and resources.
Funny Huh , bet he was'nt prepared for such a response .... :)
Edits: 05/12/16
I can't say too much other than perhaps money isn't the only thing to consider when choosing between choice A and choice B. - RGA
Dont tell us , tell your Boss, he may want you to skip a few paychecks to pay for it ..
:)
True but you could also cut military spending in half and that would pay for pretty much every other program tabled and you still have a military better than the next 5 nations combined. It's always a choice of where the money goes. And taxes people would probably not mind paying if it went to something valid.
Funny how the biggest jump was in 2009 while under still the fiscal year 2008 budget set by the GWB admin. At least that's how it looks based on your quoted source.
"The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began."
So, a president takes office in late January and in a matter of 7 weeks manages to produce a completely new budget? Impressive!
The Democratic Congress installed in 2007.
Don't be so disingenuous. Obama had a head start.
Since President Barack Obama took office, the national debt has nearly doubled, growing from $10.6 trillion to exceed $19 trillion. In dollar terms, this is the largest increase in the national debt in U.S. history.
Since the traitors Cameron & Osborne came to power in the UK, according to the Independant National Debt has increased by £555 billions.
Since the Traitors Cameron & Osborne came to power in the UK according to the Independant National Debt has increased by £55 Billions
Edits: 05/10/16 05/10/16 05/10/16 05/10/16 05/10/16 05/10/16
Now who's basing his statements on anecdotes?
The pictures submitted on AA over the past few weeks are very telling..... Most of the systems were either modest in smallish rooms or grandiose in highly-affluent settings...... Not much in between.
Sorry, but I'm just not moved by unsupported or anecdotal statements found in posts by jedrider and you. We've already seen his *perception* is not supported by fact.
Show us some data. In which of those two extremes do you inhabit?
"Sorry, but I'm just not moved by unsupported or anecdotal statements found in posts by jedrider and you. We've already seen his *perception* is not supported by fact."That's all it is... Perception.... Doesn't mean you have to agree with it.....
When someone perceives the sky being blue, does he have to supply spectrophotometer data to back up what he perceived? (There might not be one such instance in human history.)
"Show us some data. In which of those two extremes do you inhabit?"
I think I'm one of the few who are "in between"... But another observer might not agree either.
Edits: 05/10/16
Perception.... Doesn't mean you have to agree with it....
Indeed. Your speculation is as good as anyone else's.
On the other hand, it took two minutes to disprove jed's "perception" with facts.
I'm one of those who prefer accepting reality than living in an imaginary world. :)
I'll give you a story of not much in between.
The boating industry. Like hi-fi it is a costly, unnecessary luxury. 30 to 40 years ago the biggest part of new boat sales was in the middle, 29-31ft boats. Weekenders for a small family. Then there was the 18ft boats at the low end, and 40+ft boats on the high end.
These days the middle of that market has all but disappeared. New boat sales are 95% on the high end or the low end.
This is a well known fact in the boating industry and the info is readily available on the net, so I'm not looking it up. You may discount it therefore if you wish.
---------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
This is a well known fact in the boating industry
What I would like to see is some facts to support Todd's assertion about the audio industry. Sorry, but I couldn't care less about boats.
Perhaps you might think similarly of the auto industry, but today's Honda Accord sedan can outperform many 60's icons like the Jaguar XK-E and Aston-Martin DB5. High end performance is now available to everyone.
He can't provide them. How about you? Anyone?
Any whiners out there have anything of substance to offer?
I've met bare foot peasants that have cell phones. They still live in shanty towns, though.
If our incomes are higher today, the landlord class is getting most of it, so it is not available for audio pursuits.
You're confusing technology with being well off
I grew up where the family TV was a 19" Zenith B&W. The family car was loaded - had AM radio and AC.
If our incomes are higher today...
If? That's what the data proves.
the landlord class is getting most of it, so it is not available for audio pursuits.
Why are there so many whiners here?
> Sorry, but I couldn't care less about boats.
It's an analogy.
------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
It's an analogy.
But doesn't necessarily apply to the audio industry. Trickle down technology and knowledge found in audio is different from disciplines that are based upon traditional construction techniques.
Are there any boats available today found at one-tenth the cost of comparable features and performance from ten years ago?
Where do you get the factor of ten thing?
Is a Yamaha amp ten times better, or ten times cheaper than one was ten years ago? No to both.
Has the Quad ESL ever been equaled or surpassed? Trick question. I see you own Soundlabs. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Where do you get the factor of ten thing?
That would be availability of today's gear vs that of the past.
Is a Yamaha amp ten times better, or ten times cheaper than one was ten years ago? No to both.
Not referring to Yamaha.
Has the Quad ESL ever been equaled or surpassed?
I first heard the Levinson HQD system back in '77. Dayton-Wrights were superior even back then.
Quad ElS 63 I used for several years but found TL speakers to be better.
Big deal. Of course, we are a WEALTHIER society.
Means zilch when an Audio Research type of company has to reach for the top of the top tier of society only.
You guys are expecting Trickle Down audio?
Of course, we are a WEALTHIER society.
Yes. Why the misery?
And the middle class is not "disappearing".
Means zilch when an Audio Research type of company has to reach for the top of the top tier of society only.
Reality continues to differ with your perception. The cost of really good sound continues to go down (yes, trickle down benefits are quite evident) so the benchmark for top tier companies like ARC continue to move upwards.
btw: Somehow I screwed up the original hyperlink to Pew Research in my previous post. Now it's functional if you have any interest in facts.
Nothing against Audio Research actually. I like the look of their equipment and it IS a lot more sophisticated that it use to be and, of course, has to cost more.
However, the trend to chase the 0.1%, I'm afraid, will have consequences.
ARC gear has never been inexpensive it has never really been entry level. ARC has always positioned itself to be SOTA performance and those kind of price tags. Their flagship Reference products are quite affordable compared to the competition about 1/2 the cost or less of competing designs.
Companies go where the market goes if they wish to survive. I was at ARC in Jan. 2012 shortly after they discontinued the VS-60 power amp their entry level amp around $4K. I asked why? There had always been an ARC basic 60-70watt amp at an affordable price at least by ARC standards. The reply? They weren't selling any of them. Stereophile component of the year great little amp but nobody was buying. Not much sense to build a budget amp if they aren't going to sell.
A few months later they introduce the REF75. Same basic circuit as the VS-60 I imagine but with a bigger power supply, fancier parts, fancier PCB, a little more output and two way cool power/bias meters on the front. $9K more than twice the price of the VS-60. They cannot build them fast enough.
Market forces. ARC would build more affordable gear and has in the past but the typical ARC buyer wants the flagship products. This is the situation many hi-end companies face these days.
However, the trend to chase the 0.1%, I'm afraid, will have consequences.
Hmmm. The income threshold for the top 0.1% in the US is $1.6M per year.
I think you'll find that there are many ARC customers whose earnings don't come close to that - like me!
The 0.1% IS pulling away from the rest of us.
Sort of confirmed my 'rentier' hypothesis in spades, doesn't it?
your envy.
simply because it can be made. It's not necessarily any more useful or sounds any better than
someone else's "vision" of the same type of component. More likely its someone that can afford
to build it and maybe has convinced some backer that it can (or might) sell.
I think at best it's aimed at a specific demographic that probably doesn't know much about the audiophile hobby and doesn't care.
Of all the equipment on display there I'd be curious to know how much is in any sort of steady production, how many of the companies
are even close to being in the black and how many will be around in five years.
What we have there is mostly the equivalent of vanity pressings.
Lots of ego on display there, "startups" with an actual product.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
"I think at best it's aimed at a specific demographic that probably doesn't know much about the audiophile hobby and doesn't care."
Why do you think just because you have a lot of money you can't know what good sound is like. Met a guy in Florida recently. He has tons of money and one of the best sounding systems I have ever heard. There are plenty of people out there with moderate incomes who buy the less expensive stuff and they don't have a clue what they are doing. I can't afford any of this stuff but I enjoy seeing and hearing them at shows. All this bitching just sounds to me like jealousy. I can't afford a Bughatti but would love to drive it. There new model is over $2,000,000
Alan
Bugattis are show cars. I'll bet a lot of them are never driven, just maintained as new in environmentally controlled spaces as part of private collections. I doubt you will ever see a Bugatti at a track day or club race or autocross. You'll find the real driving enthusiasts at club events behind the wheel of Corvettes, Miatas, BMW Ms, 911s, Honda S2000s and the like.
Similarly, half the systems I saw there in the Munich photos were show pieces. A lot of the design is purely for visual impact and makes no sense from an audio engineering standpoint.
You would be wrong , many are taken out , more so than most supercars ....
can't or don't know what good sound is like. Most of the well established audio companies have built their business'
over the years with audiophiles that HAVE money and KNOW what good sound is and WILL spend the scratch
to pursue it. All as it should be.
It's the MANY little boutique companies making all this EXPENSIVE equipment that leave me wondering how
they reach who they reach. Is it through WOM? Are their ad folk THAT GOOD? Reviews?
It's certainly NOT listening to any of this stuff at a show, is it?
Leaves me thinking the lifestyle aspect much of this equipment represents is a LOT of what sells
it. IF in fact, this stuff is selling.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
It's the monetary inverse of the Crosley turntable gang. Both ends of this bell curve are just burning money.
Ripple
aa
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Sheeesh , Bitching at Audio pics must be in .. Thanks for The Link Dave
Edits: 05/09/16
Those movie stars who make tens of millions for a few months work, pro athletes that make tens of millions for each year, Hip Hop stars and professional politicians who make millions, but no one knows how. Also lets not forget the maybe 500 or so CEO's like from Apple, GE or Microsoft.
Yeah I agree they are the only ones who can afford that supper high end stuff.
Working stiffs like me who were high school drop outs and went to work and studied at night, can only afford the mid price stuff...$500 to 30K
I'm not sure if you might have meant 1%'s instead of .1%ers. but I could be wrong.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: