Mcondon,
I appreciate your comments since they stimulate a deeper discussion of the matter. One can find the predictable responses to my posts:
1. Most companies do the same thing. If you don't like it move on to companies you like. Stop complaining and let us enjoy the music and the forums.
2. Way to go company!! Keep those great products coming so they can trickle down to us.
Both of these responses avoid the issues that I am encouraging discussion of, which are:
1. How much are you paying for the sonic improvements you are looking for? Do you feel you are paying too much -- or way too much -- for incremental improvements?
2. How are companies marketing their products? What motivates some companies to stick with a slower tried-and-true line that attracts a loyal following through good word of mouth and that evolves slowly -- while other companies gallop ahead with one fantastic improvement after the next --- accompanied by assertive marketing claims, to be sure, and replete with superlatives.
In hindsight, most improvements turn out to be no more than incremental. Customers are hyped to pay top dollar with the promise of something dazzling in return. A whole new line is usually rolled out to satisfy every budget interested and to give the illusion that no matter how lowly one's budget, everyone will participate in the latest and greatest, to one extent or another.
Frankly, I think it's all about getting audio buyers as excited as possible to motivate them to buy new. This may be an obvious point but I feel it cannot hurt to mention it. The pricing structure of new lines will be whatever new buyers are willing to bear. That is usually dictated by historical pricing -- what has become the pricing norm for individual manufacturers.
In other words, you will rarely see a manufacturer cutting the price of their top-rated new product by 50% vs. their previous comparative market entrant. You will likewise rarely see a manufacturer doubling the price of their top-rated new product vs. their previous comparative market entrant. To a great extent, once the cost of production and reasonable mark-up have been taken into account, prices are related to marketing when we are looking at the very high end companies.
Each new line is the absolute best, of course. So, when you look back, by corollary, if you bought 2 lines ago you paid way too much for way too little. The faster this marketing process is speeded up the truer the statement, IMO. Each successive line is highly touted, of course. It becomes a game that only the very well-heeled can participate in from start to end.
If one is budget-conscious, one is in a bind. It may take 2 or 3 years to get a really good buy on a line you may have a strong interest in. This means waiting longer than many people are willing to do. Patience is hard to come by when the latest and greatest is dangling before your eyes.
I appreciate your comments since they stimulate a deeper discussion of the matter. One can find the predictable responses to my posts:
1. Most companies do the same thing. If you don't like it move on to companies you like. Stop complaining and let us enjoy the music and the forums.
2. Way to go company!! Keep those great products coming so they can trickle down to us.
Both of these responses avoid the issues that I am encouraging discussion of, which are:
1. How much are you paying for the sonic improvements you are looking for? Do you feel you are paying too much -- or way too much -- for incremental improvements?
2. How are companies marketing their products? What motivates some companies to stick with a slower tried-and-true line that attracts a loyal following through good word of mouth and that evolves slowly -- while other companies gallop ahead with one fantastic improvement after the next --- accompanied by assertive marketing claims, to be sure, and replete with superlatives.
In hindsight, most improvements turn out to be no more than incremental. Customers are hyped to pay top dollar with the promise of something dazzling in return. A whole new line is usually rolled out to satisfy every budget interested and to give the illusion that no matter how lowly one's budget, everyone will participate in the latest and greatest, to one extent or another.
Frankly, I think it's all about getting audio buyers as excited as possible to motivate them to buy new. This may be an obvious point but I feel it cannot hurt to mention it. The pricing structure of new lines will be whatever new buyers are willing to bear. That is usually dictated by historical pricing -- what has become the pricing norm for individual manufacturers.
In other words, you will rarely see a manufacturer cutting the price of their top-rated new product by 50% vs. their previous comparative market entrant. You will likewise rarely see a manufacturer doubling the price of their top-rated new product vs. their previous comparative market entrant. To a great extent, once the cost of production and reasonable mark-up have been taken into account, prices are related to marketing when we are looking at the very high end companies.
Each new line is the absolute best, of course. So, when you look back, by corollary, if you bought 2 lines ago you paid way too much for way too little. The faster this marketing process is speeded up the truer the statement, IMO. Each successive line is highly touted, of course. It becomes a game that only the very well-heeled can participate in from start to end.
If one is budget-conscious, one is in a bind. It may take 2 or 3 years to get a really good buy on a line you may have a strong interest in. This means waiting longer than many people are willing to do. Patience is hard to come by when the latest and greatest is dangling before your eyes.