What does design language mean? Maybe the font of their logo?
|
Rolexes are jewelry and it is ridiculous to compare McIntosh to Rolex unless you never intend to play it. The most accurate timepieces are quartz, but they don't have a sweeping second hand. I prefer that but realize it may lose a minute or two a month. I've never got even close to the point of it needing resetting before winding it anyhow.
People buy jewelry as luxury items and when they can be good investments also, why not? Most are not - Rolex and other collectible watches are the exceptions.
Most people buy higher end audio equipment for the sound, so long as the look isn't atrocious. If McIntosh offers poor value as most audiophiles agree, then the people most likely to buy them are looking at it from an investment of luxury good/snob appeal standpoint. There's a market for everything. |
There is a market for everything….
I bet all stereo manufacturers sales are way up with people staying home during the pandemic, assuming they can meet the demand. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Some people have to have blue meters, regardless of SQ. I. would rather read, watch tv with the sound off or just listen instead of watching needles bounce. People with knowledge of science/physics understand that measuring something decreases its performance (in theory).
if you have to be visually entertained by your stereo, why not get a spectral analyzer (most come with equalizers that can be bypassed) and you can watch the colored lights bounce. Who cares if it degrades SQ- it’s entertaining. |
I am by no means a McIntosh hater. If people like how they sound and represent a good resale value in case you want to get rid of them, more power to you.
I put them (maybe mistakenly) in the same category with the old B&O stuff. Cool looking, but you are of course paying for that. If you’re ok with that, that’s why they make chocolate and vanilla.
I’m not in favor of equipment that looks like it belongs in a physics lab, and I want the cost to go into maximizing SQ, not interior decorating. So long as it fits in my allotted space for the stereo and the boss doesn’t kick it out of her den, I really don’t care about the look. |
@audioquest4life I don’t have any other room where I could possibly expect the stereo to sound as good, and if I did, I am sure I would not be able to listen to it as much as I do now.
I am curious as to why you don’t list a Porsche. I had an awesome M3, and when BMW’s product cycle left them without a viable replacement for my E36, I drove a 911 for the heck of it. After I drove it, I bought a used one and told my wife that as long as I can get in and out of it, this is what I am going to drive. If I have more $, it will be a little nicer, if not, I’ll keep what I have. Mine is now 10 years old and I can’t think of an alternative I’d be as happy with, so this may be it.
Still have to deal with keeping my wife happy in her car that I drive more than her so I have input :-) into that decision which seems to keep coming up every 3-4 years. My car doesn’t experience precipitation except by completely unforecasted weather, so I need to be happy with her car as well for all the rainy and wintry conditions. |
@audioquest4life - sorry to hear about your back surgery. Like I said, that’s why I said the 911 would be my car so long as I can get in and out of it. They guy who traded in my GTS was waiting for the next gen GT3 after they had to replace all the engines of the then current model. I like the GT3 but can’t live without a sunroof and don’t want to go back to 997.1, so the normally aspirated GTS is the best I can do. I need some semblance of practicality and reliability, something McLaren,R8 or Lambo (really an Audi) can’t provide. Same with Ferrari. Also, I am not looking for the flashiness of those cars - I prefer stealth- to the degree a 911 can be, considering that there are plenty of them driving around.
As far as stereos go, I am not a frequent trader- I’d rather improve what I have. Had my previous speakers for 25 years, turntable for 9 and my amp is now 16 and counting….At this point, I just like this site for the comedy and the seriousness of some of the posters. It’s not life and death. |
@jb1 - I guess 99.9% of audiophiles have Frankenstein systems. Very few manufacturers offer all components (maybe Rega and Linn?) and even they may not have all the components of a CD system.
I do like turntables sold with arms from the same manufacturer with one continuous cable from cartridge (from a third party manufacturer) to phono stage (no separate headshell) . Of course you want to make sure the cartridge is a good match to the tonearm.
To solve the electronics issue as far as amps go, it's simple, just get an integrated amp and rid yourself of all the extra interconnects. |
femoore12 - by logic that means you would rather have inferior SQ to a better looking component for the same money. Remember, nothing is ever exactly equal when comparing the SQ of two products.
Are you an interior decorator or something?
Best sound should be the norm on this forum. |
@fenmoore12 - logic dictates that in circumstances where a piece of equipment sounds better than another but less money was spent on improving the looks (or adding unnecessary, sound degrading meters) and the cost is lower than an inferior sounding one that looks nicer and costs more, you would take the inferior sounding one (at times).-
Here is the logic: let's say you set aside a fixed amount of money (or had points to spend and couldn't use any leftover points for anything else) for a new box and the nicer looking one of the two under consideration costs exactly that amount of $$ or points and the better sounding one costs a little less. I am assuming that you want to maximize the value of the dollars that you spend. If you don't buy the nicer looking one, you will leave money or points on the table, whereas a person only concerned with the SQ (assuming as I mentioned in a previous post, it is not hideous and disallowed by the boss in her den) will buy the less expensive one because it sounds better.
This is theoretical of course, but demonstrates the error of an audiophile putting beauty ahead (or a major consideration in relation to) of SQ.
Now, I have no problem with this if that is important to you, which is why I asked if you are an interior designer. I would expect them to care very much about the looks, perhaps even beyond the SQ a piece of equipment delivers. I am sure that those people kept B&O afloat for a while and is a major contributor to MacIntosh's undisputed success and popularity.
People's Mendoza line for acceptance of looks varies from person to person, but IMHO, it should be a yes or no proposition, and if it meets or exceeds that line, the only criteria of a serious audiophile for a piece of equipment is SQ.
|
@jerryrocks- Mendoza line is used as a reference to a cut off point. Mario Mendoza hit about .200 which got referenced as a minimum average for a major league hitter. I use it as a minimum quality of the looks of a piece of equipment. If it passes, then the differentiating factor is SQ.
Of course equipment manufacturers invest in the looks of their gear, but only the MacIntoshes and the like expect it to be a differentiating factor.
I just mentioned interior designers as an extreme example, I would think everyone has their own Mendoza line of visual appeal and I hope audiophiles select the best value of SQ and don’t let nice aesthetics overtake something of better SQ/value for the dollar.
The biggest value hit recipient would be a MacIntosh buyer who keeps the meters off. Like a previous poster said, why not have it as an option and the deleters save a few bucks?
Anything that measures something and is somehow attached to it impacts its performance in theory. Whether it is audible or not is debatable. |
@mhwilliford - My vote is for 1A. Much of the cost goes into the look/meters IMHO. In terms of 2A, nobody looks to buy stereo equipment as a positive investment. If you are already thinking of getting rid of it when you buy it, something is wrong. |
And trolling to boot..... |
