I don’t think Wilson-Benesche got government funding for development of the extremely expensive turntable. It helped them get their business off the ground when they were starting out with more modest products.
They should charge more for it…
The Absolute Sound magazine just elected the new Wilson Benesch GMT one turntable as their turntable of the year…and awarded it as such.
In the mini review of the table, the author writes, you know something is up when a competitor states..“ they should charge more for it”. Yet, the table under consideration is priced at a measly $302k! Yes folks, more than a quarter of a million dollars! Yet we are being lead to believe that this product is maybe underpriced?
Interesting attitudes prevailing in high end audio reviewing these days…
Perhaps it is under priced, as maybe it could sell for millions of dollars…to the right audiophile consumers? The Absolute sound reviewer, and lately most audio reviewers, seem to think that any price asked is fine, so long as the piece basically delivers the goods. Are they correct?
Showing 3 responses by newton_john
Diminishing returns can’t possibly apply in this context, anyway. Sound quality is by definition qualitative not quantitative. It is meaningless to say that one product sounds twice as good as another or for that matter any numerical factor of goodness, whatever that is, better. The Wilson Benesche costs ten times more than say a Klimax LP12 or whatever. But no one can authoritatively say it is or isn’t ten times better sounding. |
@pindac Thanks for that. Fascinating story. WB are clearly a cut above many other manufacturers. I’ll pay more attention to them in future. A whole system approach rather than attacking one component at a time like say Linn sounds an ambitious project. I hope they can pull it off. If only to encourage the others. |