[Hifiearspeakers]

Reviewers give us the idea that with the emergence of DFC the acclaimed DFR looks like bad equipment and totally obsolete. Funny that.

I own the Sennheiser 800S and love it. It came after the 600 and 650. Did that make them obsolete? No. There are still plenty of people that love those models and prefer their sound signature. From a technical standpoint, they’re definitely inferior, but that doesn’t mean people can’t prefer their sound. So if anyone prefers the sound of the Dragonfly Red to the Cobalt, then more power to you.

My problem is not that someone PREFERS the Red to the Cobalt. It’s when he implies that our reviews are fake or that we’re somehow getting paid to lie about how good we think the Cobalt sounds. I don’t work for Audioquest and I’m not a sponsor for anything related to audio. I’ve also given many unbiased reviews for other audio products and numerous headphones. And I do it because I love this hobby and enjoy sharing with this community. I’ve made many blind purchases on here based on what others have said, and most of the reports have been pretty accurate.

So you can disagree all you want. But don’t start calling people shills for no reason unless you want to be called out for trolling.

 

[JohnNick]

I appreciate your opinion, do not misunderstand me. I am not directly criticizing any reviewer, I am just reporting that it is difficult to choose a product that was acclaimed when it has a new and "better" product from the company.

For those who have never heard of DFR, is it really worth the extra 100 usd for DFC? That's the answer I'm trying to find out.

 

[thecrow]

So you can disagree all you want. But don’t start calling people shills for no reason unless you want to be called out for trolling.

You may have confused or combined posts/ideas from JohnNick with Sotiris over the last few pages

But i might be wrong

 

[a-LeXx]

Well, the DFC has an interesting pricing. The manufacturing costs should be the same or close to that of DFR, it‘s made basically of newer versions of the same components, which have the same pricing as the older components a few years ago. So, why a 50% higher asking price? Did you guys have such a massive inflation in the US during the last 3-5years? What justifies the price? Don‘t say it‘s R&D, DFR/DFC cost both maybe $15 in components, probably less...

 

[Condocondor]

Aside from the parts, there is quite of bit of coding from what I've read, that went into the COBALT project. It's not just parts upgrades.

 

[Sotiris]

Reviewers give us the idea that with the emergence of DFC the acclaimed DFR looks like bad equipment and totally obsolete. Funny that.

Totally agree....If you read reviews about DFR before cobalt , you will believe that os the best product of Audioquest....

 

[Hifiearspeakers]

You may have confused or combined posts/ideas from JohnNick with Sotiris over the last few pages

But i might be wrong

I was making a general statement. My comments weren’t directed specifically at JohnNick.

 

[a-LeXx]

Aside from the parts, there is quite of bit of coding from what I've read, that went into the COBALT project. It's not just parts upgrades.

Well, it's an internal R&D investment and it doesn't bother me as a user, because the end product is not getting e.g. any new features through this. Any new HW generation always needs some SW changes, if any software is involved at all, for any product, if it's not a knock-off...
Basically DFC is the same product as DFR, based on a newer available components. Well, at the time DFR was released, those components were also new, they also required some coding. This doesn't really justify a price increase of 50%. So, either there is some ongoing inflation in the US, which I believe to some extent is true, or AQ is just trying to milk their customer base.

 

[thecrow]

I was making a general statement. My comments weren’t directed specifically at JohnNick.

Cool

I was worried that @JohnNick was getting worried

(And i had no problem with your post either)

 

[megabigeye]

Well, it's an internal R&D investment and it doesn't bother me as a user, because the end product is not getting e.g. any new features through this. Any new HW generation always needs some SW changes, if any software is involved at all, for any product, if it's not a knock-off...
Basically DFC is the same product as DFR, based on a newer available components. Well, at the time DFR was released, those components were also new, they also required some coding. This doesn't really justify a price increase of 50%. So, either there is some ongoing inflation in the US, which I believe to some extent is true, or AQ is just trying to milk their customer base.

I think what you're calling "milking the customer," AudioQuest would probably call "retaining sales" and "not going bankrupt."

Product pricing is a tricky business and there are books and business school classes dedicated to it. Part of the problem is that, if they had a lower price for the Cobalt, the DFC's sales will start to eat into the sales of the DFR; then they have to lower the price of the Red, then its sales will cannibalize the Black's sales. So they either raise the price of the top tier models so that it's meaningfully distinguishable from the lower models, or they risk losing sales of other models.
Then they could, say, drop the Black altogether and lower the price of the Red to fill somewhere closer to that price slot. Then what happens? Then, for new customers especially, people don't only see a $200 device that's now available for $100—a bargain— they also see a $100 device that used to sell for the absurd price of $200— a ripoff— and this image extends to the rest of the company's product portfolio. Things are further complicated by the fact that now the DFC no longer costs 50% more than the DFR, it costs 100% more.

I think part of the trick is that the price of a product isn't just a matter of adding up the costs of materials and R&D and manufacturing and whatever other overhead they have, it's all of that plus taking into consideration how that price affects how the customer perceives the value of that product, all similar products from that company, and, ultimately, all of that company's products (and beyond that, the value of all similar products throughout the market... and when that happens it's all a race to the bottom to see who can survive the longest on the lowest margins (Hint: it's Amazon)).

Does this mean that I agree with their pricing strategy? Eh, I don't know. I'd like to think that if it were up to me, I'd introduce two new products as upgrades/updates to the Black and Red, raise the prices by something like 10%-30%, and then discontinue both of the older models... Of course, this raises the problem of having a limited product portfolio.

Like I said, it's not just a matter of adding up costs and dividing it by sales. It's tricky.

 

[jnorris]

I think what you're calling "milking the customer," AudioQuest would probably call "retaining sales" and "not going bankrupt."

Product pricing is a tricky business and there are books and business school classes dedicated to it. Part of the problem is that, if they had a lower price for the Cobalt, the DFC's sales will start to eat into the sales of the DFR; then they have to lower the price of the Red, then its sales will cannibalize the Black's sales. So they either raise the price of the top tier models so that it's meaningfully distinguishable from the lower models, or they risk losing sales of other models.
Then they could, say, drop the Black altogether and lower the price of the Red to fill somewhere closer to that price slot. Then what happens? Then, for new customers especially, people don't only see a $200 device that's now available for $100—a bargain— they also see a $100 device that used to sell for the absurd price of $200— a ripoff— and this image extends to the rest of the company's product portfolio. Things are further complicated by the fact that now the DFC no longer costs 50% more than the DFR, it costs 100% more.

I think part of the trick is that the price of a product isn't just a matter of adding up the costs of materials and R&D and manufacturing and whatever other overhead they have, it's all of that plus taking into consideration how that price affects how the customer perceives the value of that product, all similar products from that company, and, ultimately, all of that company's products (and beyond that, the value of all similar products throughout the market... and when that happens it's all a race to the bottom to see who can survive the longest on the lowest margins (Hint: it's Amazon)).

Does this mean that I agree with their pricing strategy? Eh, I don't know. I'd like to think that if it were up to me, I'd introduce two new products as upgrades/updates to the Black and Red, raise the prices by something like 10%-30%, and then discontinue both of the older models... Of course, this raises the problem of having a limited product portfolio.

Like I said, it's not just a matter of adding up costs and dividing it by sales. It's tricky.

The Dragonflies, starting from the second iteration which sold for $100 I believe, represented the only products in Audioquest's lineup that represented true value. Much of the rest of their offerings were mostly overpriced and overhyped optical, USB and RCA cables. I currently own that second iteration and the DFR, and still believe they represent good value, having used them for years with satisfactory results. It was only upon comparison with somewhat more costly DACs that their failings became apparent. I do not believe that at $300, the Cobalt represents a good value at all, and it seems that AudioQuest is once again breeching that price/performance relationship. I have not heard the Cobalt, but my guess is that the same failings will show themselves when the device is compared with similarly priced or moderately higher-priced devices. There just isn't enough new technology in the Cobalt to warrant the additional cost.

 

[Condocondor]

Like I said, it's not just a matter of adding up costs and dividing it by sales. It's tricky.

What is beautiful is that you're willing to try and understand what is going on. The other thing is that AQ can always come down in price but customers don't like it when prices go up. Right now, AQ has a fine product in COBALT with few equally performing competitors in it's dongle class. Who else is using the ESS 9038, Microchip's superb PIC32MX274 microprocessor, and ESS's 9016 amp, in a dongle with MQA unfolding? No one that I know. The spoils go to the innovators & first movers plain and simple. Good for them. I hope AQ's success with COBALT will draw competitors with "as good or better" specifications. For now I still thinks there's still a lot of value in COBALT at $300 based on the few (if any) current portable alternatives with similar performance. Next year? Who knows? Perhaps the market will be flooded with similar gear and I'll regret jumping on the band wagon so soon (me, not really)? In the mean time, I like the value-to-performance of COBALT. Do I wish it was even cheaper? Sure, but it's OK at $300.

 

[a-LeXx]

I think what you're calling "milking the customer," AudioQuest would probably call "retaining sales" and "not going bankrupt."

That's what all other HW manufacturers usually do: new product is being released for a same price (or adjusted for inflation) as an old one. The old one is being reduced in price. If there is even an older version, it's being reduced further or discontinued, because manufacturing of too many versions of the product does not have any business justifications - manufacturing costs for all versions are almost the same, different pricing is there to serve all market segments.

So, no, AQ would not go bankrupt from selling the DFC for the same price as DFR. They just made a probably educated decision that market is ready to pay more. Or they want to upsale the DFR.

There is a well known business case taught for beginners at every business school. It's about McDonalds, and how they were 'creative' with their profit optimization. Everyone knows most profit is in the sales of beverages. Initially they just had small (0.33l or whatever you guys use in the US) and 0.5l big sizes for Cola. Most customers went for small. Then they introduced new big size 1l, and renamed old 0.5l size into medium. From that point on, most customers went for a medium 0.5l size...

 

[Condocondor]

BTW, If AQ came out with a Dragonfly Purple that had 2X/3X the power and had a balanced jack similar to LH Labs GOV2 for $499-699, I'd buy it.

 

[Sotiris]

For me what i hate most is marketing . I love my DFR , i use it every day but when you launch a new product and you try to create the need to buy it by comparing to the previous one which suddenly is not the super duper product you used to praise in all the reviews, then you dont respect me as a customer and you just want to sell . Not all companies are like that.