Let's Play UpMarket • DownMarket...The audio game

I would change that to long established company with a lot of R&D available, to startup with new ideas.
But, to be closer to the OP question, hard to say. Aside from my bias toward long established companies, i would say in defense of the hi end cheaper product, that it would contain the better stuff in the (non political version) of trickle down. That it can have great proprietary stuff in it.
As for the mid fi's company best product, the may be making a statement product, and usually those are a good value. IE they are not so much trying to make money, as build the brand.
Either way I think it depends far more on the individual product, rather than so loose a concept.
As for myself, I bought a Forte' 4a years ago. It was a lower priced high end company's mid priced line (threshold). It was a wonderful amp.
Then I bought a Sony top of the line preamp and it was a chunk of Camel-spit.
So from experience, i would tend to choose the lower priced product of a high end company.

you have asked a rhetorical question.

i would attempt to audition a product from each.

i think the issues you raise could be irrelevant to a purchase decision because,i might not like the products produced by either company, regardless of the prices of their top models.

its an interesting academic and philosophical question.

elizabeth, you are funnier than jay leno.

I think that without any additional information I'd choose to purchase a downmarket product from an expensive vendor. Because so much of the price is based on the market rather than material costs there's a significant change that the cheaper products will share a lot of the more expensive technology and components from the more expensive models.

I have Focal 836v speakers that are the flagship of the budget Chorus series. I really like the idea that a single company has products ranging from about $500 for a pair of 705v bookshelf speakers all the way to the $180k Grande Utopia EM speakers.

My father-in-law has the 706v speakers that share the same tweeter with my 836v. I told him that he's either got a $600 pair of speakers with a $3,000 tweeter or I have a $3,000 pair of speakers with a $600 tweeter. It's a perfect example of a component being shared providing excellent value to the lower end speakers.

I think a company, like Focal, works very hard to maintain the high end name even with the budget products in a way that isn't as important for a low/mid fi company to do when building their name.

There's less risk for the company that producing their first flagship product because it will have less of an impact on the overall opinion of their compnany than if a high end company started selling "junk." The audiosnobs would could easily lose respect for the name and stop purchasing the expensive gear while the average consumer won't care that much about a flagship product (most will think it's an improvement anyways) and will continue as they were before.

What is ignored is what product has the best circuit design, for in the end that is what you hear. Most time the design is the same, whether up or down. The execution in components is often what decides price. I am partial to finding the best design as most often it is that which creates a better sound. I find interesting the business model of Cayin, which takes the classics designs and executes them with current state of the art components.

Your question has made me realize that I have a bias in favor of the "downmarket" products of higher end manufacturers. That is reflected in most of the major components of my system - preamp, amp, speakers.

I would like to say that this preference is the result of conscious deliberation and judicious reasoning. But it probably just means that higher end manufacturers have more persuasive marketing. :-(

I have noticed that, as I become more experienced as an audiophile, I am increasingly drawn to products from companies with a lead designer whose design philosophy I believe in, e.g., Pass, Merlin, Atma-sphere, etc.

Bryon