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?
I don't buy into diminishing returns. That assumes solid objective evaluation criteria, and also paints the picture of a nice clean horizontal asymptote where performance NEVER decreases as price increases infinitely to the right. Reality is a LOT more random than that. |
@gkelly No disrespect but I don't think a $300k turntable is using a manufacturing formula for that price. The parts are the parts. Luxury items basically pull a price out of thin air as far as I can tell. |
one very obvious justification to charging more for the Wilson Benesch GMT One turntable is that the development was somewhat funded by UK Government. if WB had to amortize all that funding into the development expense the price would have been higher considering the projected volume. surely Mr. Fremer/Absolute Sound were well aware of that. scroll down a little on this link for details. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_Benesch we are not speaking about value here, that is purely a personal question. just the way a product is priced to allow development to proceed and for a reasonable return on the cost/risk. |
