Thanks for some thoughtful and illuminative posts on this thread. Let me add another perspective.
It seems to me that two phenomena interact here: (1) Quest for the best possible sound WITHIN ONE'S OWN FRAME OF REFERENCE, and (2) pride of ownership/snob appeal/equipment-as-an-end-in-itself. That observation is nothing new. What occurs to me, though, is that these same variables interact all up and down the continuum from Aiwa boomboxes to Levinson et alia.
Examples: I have seen people in Best Buy arguing with just as much vehemence and sincerity over the sonic merits of this boomer versus that boomer as people on a-gon argue over the merits of Plinius versus Krell. I've also seen folks choose boomers on the basis of glitzy LED displays, futuristic extruded plastic cabinets, and "supermegawoofers." And, God knows, that same phenom goes on in the high end, if a bit more subtly.
I've noted the same phenomenon at the mid level, with some people listening earnestly to the musical merits of Bose versus Polk versus Cambridge Soundworks and others choosing from that group on the basis of perceived cachet.
My point is that the high end is a niche market primarily because of price rather than because of more esoteric phenomena. By that I mean that the factors of quest for sound and quest for ego-reinforcement operate just the same way at our level as they do at the Circuit City level. There just aren't many people who can play on the high end field, not matter how much they want to.
If we as a-file end users could get past the ego thing, we could exercise some clout with high end manufacturers to get them to price their gear reasonably. An EE/audiophile here in Orlando recently disassembled a >$20K amplifier from a well known and highly respected manufacturer. He then priced out EVERY SINGLE PART from the case screws to the capacitors to the hand-machined face plates. Even in one-each quantities, the total cost was well under $1,000. People like Brian Cheney can cite instances of speaker systems selling for $50,000 that contain $500 worth of parts and cabinetry.
Why does this apparent contradiction of Adam Smith persist? Because people are willing to pay those prices. Period. In fact, as y'all well know, inexpensive gear is instantly suspect among a great many audiophiles because of the belief that superb equipment is of necessity extremely costly to produce. This despite readily verifiable evidence to the contrary.
So why don't high end companies trade off selling price for volume? First because even at reasonable markups their gear would be out of the affordable range of the masses. Second, because their own egos are substantial. God help them, the Wilsons of the world really have convinced themselves that the stuff they sell is worth the absurd prices they charge for it.
That's the view from here. As always, YMMV.
Will
It seems to me that two phenomena interact here: (1) Quest for the best possible sound WITHIN ONE'S OWN FRAME OF REFERENCE, and (2) pride of ownership/snob appeal/equipment-as-an-end-in-itself. That observation is nothing new. What occurs to me, though, is that these same variables interact all up and down the continuum from Aiwa boomboxes to Levinson et alia.
Examples: I have seen people in Best Buy arguing with just as much vehemence and sincerity over the sonic merits of this boomer versus that boomer as people on a-gon argue over the merits of Plinius versus Krell. I've also seen folks choose boomers on the basis of glitzy LED displays, futuristic extruded plastic cabinets, and "supermegawoofers." And, God knows, that same phenom goes on in the high end, if a bit more subtly.
I've noted the same phenomenon at the mid level, with some people listening earnestly to the musical merits of Bose versus Polk versus Cambridge Soundworks and others choosing from that group on the basis of perceived cachet.
My point is that the high end is a niche market primarily because of price rather than because of more esoteric phenomena. By that I mean that the factors of quest for sound and quest for ego-reinforcement operate just the same way at our level as they do at the Circuit City level. There just aren't many people who can play on the high end field, not matter how much they want to.
If we as a-file end users could get past the ego thing, we could exercise some clout with high end manufacturers to get them to price their gear reasonably. An EE/audiophile here in Orlando recently disassembled a >$20K amplifier from a well known and highly respected manufacturer. He then priced out EVERY SINGLE PART from the case screws to the capacitors to the hand-machined face plates. Even in one-each quantities, the total cost was well under $1,000. People like Brian Cheney can cite instances of speaker systems selling for $50,000 that contain $500 worth of parts and cabinetry.
Why does this apparent contradiction of Adam Smith persist? Because people are willing to pay those prices. Period. In fact, as y'all well know, inexpensive gear is instantly suspect among a great many audiophiles because of the belief that superb equipment is of necessity extremely costly to produce. This despite readily verifiable evidence to the contrary.
So why don't high end companies trade off selling price for volume? First because even at reasonable markups their gear would be out of the affordable range of the masses. Second, because their own egos are substantial. God help them, the Wilsons of the world really have convinced themselves that the stuff they sell is worth the absurd prices they charge for it.
That's the view from here. As always, YMMV.
Will