Are audiophile products designed to initially impress then fatigue to make you upgrade?

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.

If only manufacturers had the capital to build products that impress and then create a tiredness and then loathing enough to dump perfectly good equipment....

Most of these companies are so tiny and sales so low, they won't even be around in 5 years.

And even if they could pull off this diabolical plot, why would someone come back and buy from the same company that they now believe is tiresome to listen to?

@boxcarman likely has the best answer.

@tubie

There exists terrific equipment at every pricepoint. The Ongaku example was meant to disprove the one size fits all obsolesence conspiracy being implied. Yes, great sound can be aquired at $150,000 (retailish of the Ongaku), $100,000, $50,000, $5,000, $500…but no matter how much we might like it to be different there will always be something better and there will always be something more expensive or that we can’t/won’t spend for. Go listen to the best stuff out there and then decide where you want to compromise. We all compromise. But make no mistake, if you ever hear a properly setup system anchored by an Ongaku you will never forget it. You might think the price is out of line with your value set (it is out of line with my value set) but it (and others of the ilk) are cost no object, moonshot attempts by manufacturers. The trickledown from which we all benefit.

In fact, there has never been a better time to be in the market for hi fidelity gear. The key is to shop and stay within our comfort zones financially while achieving our sound reproduction goals.

@mitch2 Could another reason be that the constant barrage of review press, forum threads by enthusiastic owners, manufacturer marketing releases, new tweaks, and "breakthrough" innovations has conditioned many audio enthusiasts to continually look for the next best thing

That has a lot to do with it, plus if you're a gear-head (nothing wrong with that), you're always going to be looking for the next big thing.  It's like guys with customized cars.   There is no end point, only a continuous series of upgrades to make things better/faster/louder.

cdc 04-02-2023 at 09:09pm

Can you explain more? Agreed, I have been coming to the same conclusion and decided stereo is inherently unnatural.

I often dislike the way my stereo sounds. when I turn on the stereo, my brain has to adjust from natural sounds of real life to this odd noise coming from boxes. Maybe people who listen to orchestra music do not have this adjustment problem..

People who listen orchestra music hear the same ear adjustment problem.

There are natural sounds (human voice, dog barking, baby crying, water flowing, etc.) and unnatural sounds. Human can’t hear a natural and unnatural sounds together simultaneously. If they are presented at the same time, the human ears must choose one of them. Audiophiles can switch back and forth (extremely fast) between natural and unnatural sounds due to years of practice with their audio systems. However, most people (non-audiophiles) ears are almost in natural sound mode.

In below video, if I didn’t say "hello", you could hear both (L & R) speakers fine with automatic audiophile’s ear adjustment. But saying "hello" (natural sound) holds your ears to stay in a natural sound mode and you are hearing what non-audiophiles hear.

The both speakers in videos were same sounding speakers. The right speaker is converted to a natural sound speaker by me. The left speaker is untouched. Almost all speakers (include $million speakers) in the world sound/behave like the left speaker.

Piano (Natural vs. Unnatural sound)

Orchestra (Natural vs. Un-natural sound)

Vocal - Coffee (Natural vs. Un-natural sound)

Alex/Wavetouch