My last post has been percolating in my mind since I made it. I was uncomfortable with it’s tone, and knew it didn’t express what I was trying to. But as I was watching A Few Good Men on TV, my thoughts on the subject of hi-fi pricing crystalized.
Brooks Berdan was a dealer of both Wilson Audio and Vandersteen in the 1990’s. I accompanied him to the Vegas CES for a number of years, sitting in at a meeting with the Wilson sales manager during one of them. Brooks’ Wilson Audio purchasing history for the past year was reviewed---the dollar amount of his purchases of Wilson product, where he ranked amongst Wilson dealers, what Wilson expected of him the following year, etc. At that time, The Watt/Puppy was the entry-level Wilson speaker.
Brooks’ other main line of speakers at the time was Vandersteen, and back then Richard had only the Models 1, 2, and 3. They were all priced below the Watt/Puppy, so Brooks could demo and sell Vandersteen to one strata of customer, and Wilson to another---the more financially affluent. Of interest is that some of those more affluent preferred and purchased Vandersteen instead of Wilson, even though they could afford the latter.
At CES I learned how the more of a companys product a dealer buys, the more valued they are as a dealer. Well no duh! The company partners with the dealer in paying for advertising, the company splitting with the dealer the cost of promoting its products (and the dealer). Sometimes the dealer is given better wholesale prices if its purchase volume reaches a certain level. What this arrangement does is reward a dealer who sells a lot of one companys product, rather than a little of many companys products. This is basic Retail 101, of course.
Brooks relationship with both Wilson and Vandersteen worked very well for all concerned, Brooks becoming one of each companys highest selling dealers. But with the introduction of a new, higher-priced, higher-performing model Vandersteen, that situation changed. I think it was the Model 5 which caused a problem between Brooks and Richard; Brooks wanted to continue to sell the Watt/Puppy at its price point, and Vandersteen 1, 2, and 3 at theirs. Richard naturally wanted Brooks to sell the new Model 5 as well. I believe the Model 5 and the Watt/Puppy were in direct competition with each other at their price points, but I could have the Vandersteen model wrong. I don’t know if it was that Brooks felt the W/P was the better speaker, and that he therefore could not in good conscience sell the Model 5, or if he wanted to continue selling as many W/P as he had been, to maintain his dealer status with Wilson. Either way, that was not acceptable to Richard---he expected his dealers to demo and sell his entire line---and he and Brooks ended their relationship. I couldn’t believe it! Brooks, baby, whatta ya doin’? Vandersteen is one of the two highest price-to-performance loudspeakers on the market (the other being Magnepan, of course).
The contrast between David Wilson and Richard Vandersteen is an interesting and instructive one. Wilson is always in suit and tie in public, looking very much the patrician. Richard is more apt to be found wearing a short sleeved shirt and windbreaker. Blue collar, to the core. Dave aspires to achieve the highest level of quality, including fit & finish---for pride of ownership---possible, cost be damned. If it costs $1000 more per speaker to create a BMW-quality paint job, so be it.
Richard is more of a bang-for-buck kinda guy. He will spare no expense to create the best sounding speaker at a given price point he is able to, but endeavors to offer it to consumers at as low a price as possible. Jim Winey of Magnepan is the same kind of designer and manufacturer, perhaps to a fault---his x/o parts are pretty bad, and considerably compromise his speakers’ ultimate potential, imo.
So back to the 2150. How close to it’s sound quality could Boulder get if the amps price point was $49,000? Or $29,000? And to what degree are they offering it out of a belief that if it’s priced high enough, it will appeal and sell to consumers desiring not just great sound, but bragging rights, or membership in an exclusive club, or whatever? Pride of ownership is one thing, vanity another.
To my original post, I don’t like seeing products like the Boulder 2150 reviewed because I am more interested in high bang-for-the-buck products, those which punch way above their weight class. For every page spent on a review of a product such as the Boulder 2150, a page of the review of a product offering a higher price-to-performance ratio remains unpublished. That’s bad not just for us already audiophiles, but for the cause of promoting better sound amongst music lovers; the poor price-to-performance ratio is off-putting to potential enthusiasts.
