The triumph of mid-fi


Isn't it ironic that companies like Sony and their products were distained as "mid-fi" by audiophiles just a few years ago but today we seem to be falling all over ourselves to get their SACD players while the vast majority of so-called "high-end" manufacturers have yet to produce anything like this. Comments?
rmueller01
The people at Sony, Phillips etc have the budgets to develop all kinds of new technologies, i.e cd's
I think the role of the high end isn't to develop new formats or technologies but really to improve upon them. Meridian I think is the obvious exception though, they have been heavily involved with the development of DVD-a.
-Vik
I agree with Vik.

Sony and Phillips are HUGE companies with mega R&D budgets. These companies want to dominate the mass market (where the money is), and even certain high end markets. Just because Sony does not necessarilly make a world class preamp or amp does NOT mean that they could not if they put their mind's/R&D departments to the task.

Heck, Sony is a seriously dominating force in the high end video industry. Do you think it is harder to produce high end video than it is to produce high end audio?

Small or even not so small hi end audio companies can crank out great amps, preamps, speakers, and even digital, and some even make DVD players. However, many of the parts in their CDPs and DVD players could (most likely) very well be made by Sony or Phillips (like the transport). Most companies do not make their own transports and are at the mercy of the huge audio companies (like Sony, Phillips, or Pioneer etc.) for their transports. I have even heard of an audio company who made CDPs shutting down because they were unable to get the transports for their CDPs anymore.

KF
High end companies are competing againt each other for your (our) money by building the best sounding equipment they can, whether within a budget or trying to build the best possible. They are motivated to give us better sound so that we will buy from them, and poeple that do buy demand better sound, so there is the market for real quality.
Sony, in particular, has a different market, as you well know, and has enough resources to actually create markets, and it should be obvious that they are, and have, created markets that they can dominate. While they obviously have the capital to create the finest possible, not trying to compete with another for state of the art is actually better for they're purposes because other companies are contributing to they're purposes. In addition, and perhaps a bigger reason, is that high end makers don't take enough of a market away from Sony.
It is also now in almost 2003 obvious that it is not a nessesity to create something that has better sound in order to create and/or dominate a market. It just has to be thought that it is better. If it had to be better, it would be. Cd's were at least good enough that the majority of people with the majority of record players and tape decks got improvments. Not enough were interested in updating they're equipment to actually find out if it was worthwhile and to most people convenience and accessability is more important, so long as the sound is sufficient. Where poeple tend to take sound quality for granted, Sony and others will take advantage where it benifits them.