Are audiophile products designed to initially impress then fatigue to make you upgrade?
If not why are many hardly using the systems they assembled, why are so many upgrading fairly new gear that’s fully working? Seems to me many are designed to impress reviewers, show-goers, short-term listeners, and on the sales floor but once in a home system, in the long run, they fatigue users fail to engage and make you feel something is missing so back you go with piles of cash.
Going to the store and finding something you don’t already have at home. +1, if you already have a "stereo" don’t keep buying/upgrading MORE stereo. Supplement (not replace) with an immersive audio layout. BTW, anyone who decides to simply get better two channels, fine. Don’t max out your credit card, just get a pair of all in one, active speakers and you are done. For example: Dynaudio Focus 50- Best Product 2022
|
I am a cognitive psychologist and worked most of my professional career conducting research to measure consumers'/users' perceptions of products. Designers and engineers are fascinated with novel product design features because they attract attention and differentiate their products from others. I had to constantly caution them to avoid seeking novelty alone because "different" is not necessarily "better". When the novelty rush wears off (and it always does) what remains might be revealed to be less pleasing. |
+ 1 Alex/Wavetouch |
I must agree with the OP partly -- though not necessarily with the fatiguing part. There is a relationship between price and quality --but only up to a point. @ghasley for example makes an argument using Audio Note Ongaku. But the price of the unit ? -- $100,000 !!!! A 100K piece of equipment !!!! Is the sound going to improve so much that I cannot get it at $5000 or even $3000. What is this game? Is listening to music only meant for the uber-rich? Where does one draw the line? I would think that after a price point enough money has gone into getting the sound right, which by now all manufactures who are worth their salt should already have eliminated things like noise, harshness, etc. etc. that are some of the basics of "good" sound. Indeed, on these basic factors after a price point all manufacturers should be converging in the quality of audio they produce. They may differ in the extra features offered. Equipment that requires you to spend $5000 on just ONE component just does not make sense any more given the supposed technical advances made. Is the basics of audio quality still not understood despite of technical advances? I would think at $3000 price point I expect the manufacturer has figured out how to get a good sound out of the equipment. $3000 is a lot of money for most people. The market seems to be only for people who can afford a McIntosh in their bathrooms as well as bedrooms! Where is the technological advance that I as a middle class consumer cannot get a good sounding unit I can keep for along time? It is no wonder that at around $3000 price point it is very, very difficult to choose equipment based on sound quality ALONE. And I think $3000 is too much to pay to achieve this equality. Finally, most commercial review sites are BS. Their views are so biased and driven by sucking up to manufacturer's that I never trusted their reviews.
|
