Quote:
Originally Posted by gevorg /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Earbuds? Major FAIL!
|
I'm pretty sure I've read about this particular picture before, and it's not headphones/earbuds, it's a phone bud with the microphone on the cord.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakhai /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I like Grado headphones and all, but there's something to be said about quality products. I know we want superior sound, but that does that mean it has to come at the expense of other things? Is is so wrong to ask for both quality sound and a solid build? Perhaps if Grado upgraded their WWII gear, they could build their headphones more efficiently, cut costs, and charge their customers a lower price. Imagine what it'd be like if the GS1000 costs us $600, the RS1 $350, etc. Modern machinery are more efficient. There's no denying that.
|
Let's examine this thought a bit.
If Grado is using a WWII lathe, I guess I don't see the problem. The equipment built in that era was built to last much longer than the majority of crap built these days. As long as the current equipment will hold the tolerances required, how can it be "better" to use more accurate equipment?
As far as the cost, and efficiency, you are completely wrong, and right. It would be more efficient to buy a CNC lathe and milling machine with a robot arm to load/unload/transfer the parts between the raw stock conveyor belt, the machines, and the unload conveyor belt. All very clean, with a programmer standing by to make changes between different models.
The problem arises, of course, with the cost of these shiny machines. Exactly how many of these headphones do you think they make each year? If they were making several thousand a month, it might, and I stress might, make sense to buy these machines. Last time my company bought a CNC lathe, milling machine, and the robot arm to load/unload/transfer, I think the bill was just a bit over $1.5 million. Grado would take 25 years or so to service that loan, I think. It doesn't make sense any way you look at it.
I've worked for a big company that was $10 billion or so/year, and now I'm working for a little company that's about $10 million or so/year, and even if we don't have the sterile, spotless facility with lab-coated workers standing by shining machines, the product produced is of the same quality, and in some cases, I think, better.
The first product the company I work for now made was a reel-to-reel copy machine, that would copy a master tape to 6 tapes. It was the standard for many years. The facility it was made in would probably make you pass out. No running water or toilet facilities, no A/C, busy railroad track 6 feet from the side of the building. When I say building, I use the term somewhat loosely. It was a quonset building. The company next door made porta-potties, and they gave one to us when they found out that there wasn't any toilet. All the equipment, lathes, milling machines, press brakes, etc., really was WWII surplus equipment.
I find it quite amusing that people judge the quality of the product by the environment it was made in.