Are you Guys Rich or What!?


I have an old system, nothing special, Adcom, Vandersteens etc and I recently set foot for the first time in a "high end" shop, hoping to get to the next level of audio nirvana. When I saw some of the prices for monoblock amplifiers, cables, the latest speakers etc, I practically fell off my chair when I realized that I could blow $50-100K pretty easily on this stuff. I am not rich. Do you big budget system guys all work on Wall Street or something or do you eat macaroni and cheese most nights to put a few bucks away for CDs and your next upgrade?
thomashalliburton5534

Showing 3 responses by cogito

There is a moral issue in how much we spend on audio or any consumption although most of people in a capitalist society are standing in the other side of the line. It may be that the issue is metaphysical to the degree that it hardly fits the scope of this forum, regradless of where you stand. At any rate, let alone moral implications, there is one more thing to think about -- namely opportunity cost. If the opportunity cost of that 75K is minimal for you, you can go ahead and spend it however you desire within the boundary of capitalitic ethos, which is what the capitalism is about. If you are spending without that consideration (i.e., while not being so affluent), I think you will have a dilemma there. For instance, a question can be raised with respect to how much in proportion you allow for yourself with other members of the family. I came to a conclusion that 5K to 7K is adequate for my home economy. Of course, as my net wealth grows, I might upgrade my system. But, I probably won't because besides the fact that I have hobbies other than audio that require money in, the price differential is hard to justify the improvement. Of course, that is a subjective assessment. For those who are affluent enough to consider 75K "not much," the improvement may be well appreciated even when the opportunity cost is taken into consideration. On the other hand, I feel that people are actually doing themselves a favor by refusing to buy super expensive gears -- Rolex or whatever -- in the long run. Let me put it this way, if everyone refuses to buy Rolex or Ferrari on the issue of price, do you think if the companies will go out of business or come back with more palpable pricing? Their modus operandi is to maximize profits. By creating a market segment filled with status symbols with proper quality and therefore product differentiation, they are maximizing their profits by selling less at higher price. Not because they will lose money by selling more at lower price. Since I am a quasi to pseudo audiophile, I much prefer to boycott 15K monoblocks, for instance, even when I may be able to afford it. A simple choice to protect and enhance my own interests to enjoy better gears at lower price in the long term. Of course, the aura of status or whatever may well be gone since the premium for the aura is removed by then -- well, at least for Rolex. I have no problem with those who can afford them. However, if the trend reported is true that the number of diehard audiophiles among middle class has been declining, I am confident that many high end companies will revise the current business model in terms of price, at least partially. Because some, though less than before, profits are better than none by abandoning the business altogether. Why shouldn't they evolve when everybody else has to? But, I am pretty darn sure that I am stuck with my gears since that won't happen in my life time. For those gears are specifically marketed to people in a gated community, many of whom are well groomed by the industry as well (that is, no consumer protection by counterbalancing the power of suppliers with most consumer audiophile magazines being self-congratulatory with the manufacturers, let alone minimal criticism from consumers). So, some of you need not bless me to keep my current gears to the grave -- thanks for the thought, though. At the same time, my simplistic argument will not be met with sympathy; after all, I am talking to audiophiles. And, who knows, I may join the Force of Dark Side. By the way, the nature of business environment for the high end audio industry can be identified as monopolistic competition (not true competition); in other words, they thrive on product differentiation to different sonic taste, which is why we have so many functionally similar yet sonically different gears in the market. So, you need not worry about less diversity when the industry business model changes, since they can make more profits by being diverse before and after. Gentlemen (and ladies), get your eggs ready... P.S. I totally agree with those who think one can get a very reasonably good system with 7K...
Kthomas, your point well appreciated. As long as one is living in this society, he may not have moral superiority when it comes to the degree of consumption. But, that does not mean that there is no moral implications however strong or otherwise it is. As one previous poster pointed out, it also is all relative. In that sense, I am a culprit of this audiophile industry; thereby, I based my opinion not on morality but on pragmatism at individual level which I think can be more relevant to this issue though that can be as subjective as you pointed out. At the same time, the fact that I love something to death does not justify much if at all, though it may give us a clue to understand certain pattern of behaviors or consumption, when it comes to pragmatism. I love freedom to death, but I need to be responsible for my actions. One needs to think about his expenditure in that context. In other words, it would he helpful for one to think about his consumption behaviors in the light of pragmatic aspects once in a while. In this audiophile community, I think it is rather acceptable to say that I am willing to spend this much because I love them to death. Without talking about pragmatic aspects. For most of us with regular lives, it may not be O.K. Again, it is not to accuse anyone but to rephrase the followings. My morality may be no better than yours. nor may I be as pragmatic as you are. But, the issues are there for us to examine, flamed or otherwise. We all may not be that great or good morally or pragmatically; but, it would help us to think about the dimension. As I have said in the previous post, I am sure most of us are adamant in our positions. But, I am hoping that there are more people in the audiophile community who would agree with me not because that is a right thing to do but better for my own interests. Again, it is about individual pragmatism, not morality although I crudely rebutted one's claim of no moral issues involved here. If you can afford within "your" boundary of pragmatism, then what can others say in the society we are living in? I am hoping that audiophiles of middle class have a chance to examine the issues. Maybe, some people jocularly say that it is music and sound, stupid. Or, considering (therefore assuming) the pragmatic aspects. BUt.. Anyway, thank for the thoughtful comment... P.S. Would it not be better to have luxury items at cheaper price without having to take my comment as a impracticcal attempt to root such out (I did not mean it that way either)?
Cornfedboy, I am not sure who you are talking to, but it is safe to assume that I must be one of your audience. It does not take Marxism to talk about morality. Charity is still morally superior to, say, spending extra money on yourself even in our society, isn't it? But, nobody will blame you for not rising above the norm of capitalistic instincts in our society. But, we will congratulate you for rising above the norm, though. In other words, good thing is good thing is good thing. No need to lean on ideology for morality. Not to feel too badly if you have not done a lot of good things with your money. I have not. Nobody has to in the US. But, sharing still is a good thing. Robbing is bad. And, neither is neutral in our society. In your context, morally neutral. That is how I see it, and my moral stance with money has been mostly neutral. Still, sharing is morally fulfilling as someone said here, and I do admire people who does that. Nonetheless, that is not to propose how much is "morally acceptable." Only you can determine that in the US. Are you materially affluent enough to buy your gears, so that the opportunity cost is minimal (that was the argument of mine)? Then, that is it. If you want to go into "morally acceptable" figures, that is about it. No ideological issues here. Who is trying to take the gears from your hands? By the way, there are rich Democrats and even rich Socialists. I am not sure why you are assuming so much here to put forth an argument nobody has hinted. If interested, we can talk some more tonight..