SuperMacro-3 is available with promotion (2XBUF634 for free)
Mar 17, 2005 at 1:34 AM Post #181 of 314

atx

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
915
Likes
13
Quote:

You are confused between value and sound quality


Why on earth would you buy anything that is of little value?
biggrin.gif
Everything has value, including sound quality!

What is the value of the SR-71's sound? Apparently $400 because people are buying it at that price.

Now if you've paid $400 for the SR71, and Ray suddenly slashed the amp's price by half, guess what buddy? You've just been ripped off ! That's exactly what Xin did, implicitly of course.
 
Mar 17, 2005 at 1:44 AM Post #183 of 314

atx

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
915
Likes
13
Quote:

Sound quality remains constant.


In that case, you're not a rational consumer. You're probably the type of consumer who'd spend $5000 on an amp as long as it sounds good.

For most people, sound quality is not constant. The SR-71 is a good amp for $400. For $2000, however, I'd rather get a car.

EDIT: wow, you own a DAC1! I should've known.
biggrin.gif
 
Mar 17, 2005 at 1:48 AM Post #184 of 314

NotoriousBIG_PJ

Step 1: Plug power cable into wall. Step 2: Plug other end of power cable into....umm.... Step 0.5: Order something to power with power cable.
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Posts
3,487
Likes
18
Heh re-read what you just said.

Biggie.
 
Mar 17, 2005 at 1:56 AM Post #186 of 314

some1x

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
May 20, 2003
Posts
2,186
Likes
59
Quote:

Originally Posted by atx
It's because sound quality is always a function of price. A cmoy sounds great for its price. But if a cmoy costs $1000, the sound quality is awful !


Here, you say that an increase in cost of an amp = a decrease in quality of sound.


Quote:

Originally Posted by atx
Now, if your Supermacro V1 sounds great at $300, wouldn't it sound even better at $150 ? By introducing the V3 and discontinuing V1, Xin effectively de-valued your V1 by half, hence, making the sound quality worse !


Now, a decrease in the cost of an amp = a decrease in the quality of sound.



What is the magical function relating sound quality and cost?
 
Mar 17, 2005 at 1:58 AM Post #187 of 314

atx

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
915
Likes
13
Quote:

Now, a decrease in the cost of an amp = a decrease in the quality of sound


I said:

Now, if your Supermacro V1 sounds great at $300, wouldn't it sound even better at $150 ? By introducing the V3 and discontinuing V1, Xin effectively de-valued your V1 by half, hence, making the sound quality worse !

It means you've paid $300 for an amp whose market value is $150. The cost of the amp has increased.
 
Mar 17, 2005 at 1:58 AM Post #188 of 314

jamato8

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Posts
18,241
Likes
3,209
On Audio Asylum we call this a troll.

John
 
Mar 17, 2005 at 2:02 AM Post #189 of 314

eastside504

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Posts
298
Likes
10
ATX i dont think you understand sound quality and value. The V1 still sound as good as the day you brought it despite the fact that it lost value. It is funny how you run your circular logic.
 
Mar 17, 2005 at 2:07 AM Post #190 of 314

some1x

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
May 20, 2003
Posts
2,186
Likes
59
If you purchased another SuperMacro V1 for $150, it should sound better than the SuperMacro V1 that your purchased for $300? Can you prove this in a blind test that you love to swear by?

Buying a SuperMacro V1 for $150 will make one feel better, because it's a better deal (i.e., higher performance/price ratio).
 
Mar 17, 2005 at 2:15 AM Post #191 of 314

atx

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
915
Likes
13
Quote:

ATX i dont think you understand sound quality and value. The V1 still sound as good as the day you brought it despite the fact that it lost value. It is funny how you run your circular logic


It's not circular logic at all. You've paid $300 for something that now costs $150. You've overpaid. Simple as that.

Quote:

On Audio Asylum we call this a troll.


Sorry, I didn't expect to give a lecture on Economics 101.
biggrin.gif


Quote:

If you purchased another SuperMacro V1 for $150, it should sound better than the SuperMacro V1 that your purchased for $300? Can you prove this in a blind test that you love to swear by?


Read what I said again: sound quality is a function of price. If you don't agree with this, then this discussion is moot.
 
Mar 17, 2005 at 2:33 AM Post #192 of 314

alanz

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Posts
160
Likes
0
Then the discussion is clearly moot. And for me, this part of the discussion is over.
 
Mar 17, 2005 at 2:35 AM Post #193 of 314

some1x

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
May 20, 2003
Posts
2,186
Likes
59
Clearly define your ingenious function please.

Sound quality=
"Objective" Sound quality of your amp?
"Objective"sound quality of all SuperMacros?
Your perception of the sound quality of your amp?
Your perception of the sound quality of all SuperMacros?

Price=
Price that you paid for your amp?
Price that the amp is sold at now?
Price difference between what you paid for the amp and the current price?
 
Mar 17, 2005 at 2:38 AM Post #194 of 314

Spektrograf

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Posts
370
Likes
121
atx,

It seems to me that you may be confusing intrinsic value, extrinsic value, and consumer perceived value. While these values are all related, they are not a one-to-one correlation. Before I dive too far into economic theory, let's apply this to the SR71.

Ray has priced his product offering at $400. That offering sits at a certain point on the supply and demand curve where, in this case, the pricing is NOT market determined, but rather supplier determined. In a perfect market system, all buyers have perfect information, and a seller would just place his/her product onto the marketplace and the determined economic value would be the true "fair market value" -- a fairly determined extrinsic value -- this is obviously not the case. eBay comes close, but doesn't make it because premiums and discounts are randomly determined depending on the relative access to information that a pool of bidders have about the product at the time of the auction.

The intrinsic value of an object available to the market for purchase takes on more attributes than, in this case, "sound quality". You are right in saying the perceived sound quality may be influenced by product pricing, but the degree and amount of correlation may not be as strong as you are stating. I think that's where people are taking exception to your statement. To some people, "sound quality" is completely uncorrelated to pricing after a purchase has been made. Take a vintage Gibson Les Paul guitar. Though upgrades have occurred to the product where new products are cheaper and more precisely manufacturered, certain vintages and finishes still command a premium on the order of multiples above the pricing for a new market item.

Now, you're getting into perceived value. There is substantial perceived value that people who are interested in purchasing products from Xin receive knowing that he continually improves and upgrades his products while trying to hold down price -- as much as those who value Ray's philosophy of building a high-quality product that does not need upgrading. These are two different intrinsic values that have an undetermined impact on product pricing (unless someone wants to do this for their masters thesis in microeconomics) and have an undetermined impact on the idea of "sound quality".

Your idea of a "rational" consumer is flawed since it requires that all consumers will seek to attain perfect information before making a purchase decision. That's obviously not the case, hence the need for sellers to have a BRAND... i.e. a container to hold the consumer's opinions on a company, product, or service. A perfect example of this are the Apple iPod's, that have been commanding market dominance and a distinct price premium despite the fact that there are equally useful products at the specifications level.

EDIT: Your statement...

[Sound Quality] = f{price}

...is incorrect. Rather, the equation would start like the following...

[perceived Sound Quality] = f{price, user's experience, user's knowledge of audio, user's knowledge of electronics, user's source, user's source material, user's emotional fulfillment for supporting their favorite amp builder, user's emotional satisfaction for purchasing from a small one-man band v. a large company, user's mood on any given day,...}

Obviously, this is not a complete function, but I think you get the idea...
 
Mar 17, 2005 at 2:42 AM Post #195 of 314

mavis

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Posts
406
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by atx
It's not circular logic at all. You've paid $300 for something that now costs $150. You've overpaid. Simple as that.


Not that I enjoy beating this horse, but ...
wink.gif


I paid $300 for a v1 SM because I thought it would sound good, and it had the features I wanted. Now, the v1 SM is worth quite a bit less, but the sound quality is unchanged, and the features I wanted are still there. I don't see what your problem is. I got EXACTLY what I paid for.

I mean, by your logic, people should be irate every time Intel or AMD releases a faster CPU. Or how about video cards? My $800 Radeon X800XT-PE was top of the line when I bought it last summer, but now it isn't. The resale value is substantially lower too. Am I losing any sleep over it? No, because it's just as fast as it was when I bought it a year ago, and I got exactly what I paid for. The situation is exactly the same with the SM, minus the dates. I guess you'd rather there were NO advancements and no progress, but that's not the way technology works, I'm sorry to say ... If you bought a v1 SM for $300, you got exactly what you paid for, end of story.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top