High-End BS?

[Don Richard]

Everything from stereos to cars to furniture to houses is scaled in dollars so that everyone can map the Utility<--?-------->Art function in a way that meets their budget.

 

And it is incumbent on the buyer to ensure that the "art" is not merely a con game designed to separate a fool from his money.

[tube fanatic]

At the other end of the industrial art spectrum are creations like this:

 

http://gallery.audioasylum.com/cgi/view.mpl?u=13291&f=JH_6SN7_preamp.jpg&v=f&UserImages=13291&session=&&moniker=Rick%20R&invite=&w=1600&h=1200

 

I've never heard any of John Hogan's creations, but they are supposed to be wonderful sonically.  I've always been amazed at how much visual appearance influences perception of sound quality. 

 

Maynard

[JJkizak]

Having refurbished/rebuilt every component/assembly/nut/bolt/poprivet/inner frame on a 1968 Corvette (and then some)  I can attest that I have found no Chinese pot metal components. The only things that come close are the interior aluminum castings and door lock knobs. And I am still trying to find the "Ragged" performance of the K-horn/Cornwal 4000HZ crossover distortion reported by someone in a previous thread. I have found if you use the internal graphic equalizers to peak up that point about 6 db things get a bit raspy.  I haven't replaced the power cords however that AC waveform got me to thinking about the Quantum Physics Plasma energy vacuum  creating the big bang. 

JJK

[Schu]

And here is your steam punk...

 

[Audible Nectar]

It is in the "cost is no object" realm that we learn.

 

Take luxury cars. Features like outside temperature and seat heaters were features that were thought of as "retched excess" - that now reside in a big percentage of new cars sold today, to the average consumer. Another such feature was the rear camera, which most minivans now have installed as standard equipment.

 

It is also true that many luxury features "fail" or don't integrate well or have that much of a lifespan, but it's in that trial and error that we all benefit. In the audio hobby, we often can "take what we want" and leave what we don't find useful or appealing, but just the fact that these options are available presents more choices. And you never know which of these high end frills will be useful to more pragmatic practitioners of the hobby.

 

I thought caps were in that "wretched excess" category but found out that they brought quite a benefit to my systems. So I say "let the wealthy play". We'll gather what they spill in product and knowledge in a more sensible and directed fashion.

[Mallette]

You may not have any particular reason to assume it, but I do have particular reasons to assume they are fine amps, and those particular reasons are designer Jeff Nelson's long accomplished track record, and my experience hearing his previous amplifiers.

 

But I have not and all well engineered SS amps sound the same to me.   Maybe these are different...but I rather doubt I'd walk away drooling with envy and desire. 

 

Dave

Edited December 26, 2014 by Mallette

[Chris A]

I thought caps were in that "wretched excess" category but found out that they brought quite a benefit to my systems. So I say "let the wealthy play". We'll gather what they spill in product and knowledge in a more sensible and directed fashion.

What you're describing is shown graphically in the Kano model. Over time, those product characteristics we deem most useful and are expected in the product transition toward "Basic needs", corresponding to bottom curve on this figure below, but start out as Delighter product characteristics that we don't expect to see in the product and don't use when comparing products considered for buying, i.e., the top curve.  Another method that is also used is this.

 

Both techniques are used to produce much better products the first time, and to develop products more effectively based on what people like in the products and are willing to pay for.

 

Edited December 26, 2014 by Chris A

[Thaddeus Smith]

The title here seems to fit the thread perfectly.

 

http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-bullshit

 

I proposed to my wife with a 3ct garnet from jcpenny's and she loved it, still wears it from time to time. Used my mom's 1ct CZ on our wedding day and she wears that sometimes too. Bought her a beautiful 2.5ct synthetic diamond ring a few years later and she lost it within a year. Now she wears a collection of bands filled with tiny CZ's.

 

Never spent more than $200 because it's all I could afford at the time. after seeing a few documentaries and doing her own research, she never wants to put a diamond on her finger.

 

she's a runner and I hate wearing clunky rings, so we're looking at getting a pair of these to wear: http://qalo.com/collections/all/mens+rings

 

to each their own - I'm glad to have found a chick that likes pretty things, yet isn't willing to break the bank for them.

[Chris A]

That's beautiful Chris. I had not heard of the Kano effect. It makes absolute sense.

 

I use Kano extensively when building product/service QFDs and decision models. It's actually the secret sauce in making QFD work--identifying which characteristics should be traded and which can't be traded effectively.

 

You'd be amazed to see how well it works on both simple or complex products.  It's also very interesting to use to understand product failures. 

Edited December 26, 2014 by Chris A

[wvu80]

 

That's beautiful Chris. I had not heard of the Kano effect. It makes absolute sense.

 

I use Kano extensively when building product/service QFDs and decision models. It's actually the secret sauce in making QFD work--identifying which characteristics should be traded and which can't be traded effectively.

 

You'd be amazed to see how well it works on both simple or complex products.  It's also very interesting to use to understand product failures. 

 

 

I also want to thank you for that Kano reference, I read the entire cite from Wikipedia, the Kano model makes perfect sense.  It has a lot of applicability in the real world.

 

I am in the field of psychology, but I used to take business classes to round out my knowledge base.  I always thought the best psychology literature was not in the theoretical psych journals, but in the applied business journals. 

[minermark]

Hitler speaks for me. that's about as much as i give a chit.

We all strive to build our system, then we tune it for life, and we are men, like Tim Taylor, we like to brag about our chit, nothing wrong with that.

I will not argue that you can hear something i dont, how the hell would i know ? i cant hear it!

Edited December 26, 2014 by minermark

[Chris A]

I always thought the best psychology literature was not in the theoretical psych journals, but in the applied business journals.

Motivational/buying psychology became taboo in the west but it was a different story in Japan.   I find that few people in the west put much effort into understanding and designing to buyer/user needs.