[chadh]

George,

I feel terrible now.  By using you as an example, I was only trying to illustrate a set of characteristics of a buyer who would be effected in a particular way.  You're very gracious to say that it was fine to use you as an example, and I honestly hope that nothing I said was taken the wrong way.

Certainly, I never wanted to question your motives for auditioning the gear, or the sincerity of your interest, and I'm certain that the D-200's would sound wonderful in either of your systems.  I hope you get a chance to hear them there one day.

Finally, I'd like to say that, as a relatively new participant here, I greatly appreciate the information that you and so many other old hands provide about products and audio issues in general.  I'm sure that the manufacturer participation on this site is an indication that they appreciate it too, and wish to encourage you to continue.   Keep up the good work and who knows: maybe you'll be getting manufacturers begging you to review components for our reading pleasure.

Chad

[zybar]

George,

I feel terrible now.  By using you as an example, I was only trying to illustrate a set of characteristics of a buyer who would be effected in a particular way.  You're very gracious to say that it was fine to use you as an example, and I honestly hope that nothing I said was taken the wrong way.

Certainly, I never wanted to question your motives for auditioning the gear, or the sincerity of your interest, and I'm certain that the D-200's would sound wonderful in either of your systems.  I hop ...

No offense taken at all.

I just wanted to make sure somebody reading the thread didn't get the wrong impression.  

Have a good night.

George

[suits_me]

>I'm not sure why 10% of $2300 vs 10% of $2475 was relevant at all. The pricing scheme is designed to offer different pricing arrangements that would appeal to different people.

Those are not different pricing schemes if considered in light of the restocking fee. That's why it's relevant: It's an unfunctional complexity.

And I believe Dusty expressed concern about tire kickers who never were serious about purchasing the product. They are the more serious problem for him, since they will never be customers. You want to eliminate them - except, imo, not his, in controlled ways to get them blabbing about how great your stuff is.

So you think an additional, _fully refundable_ 175.00 tacked on the list price will deal with them? It won't. It would actually encourage them compared to the current CIA restocking policy.

Now, I understand you acknowledge this fact, but think the larger problem is another group of potential, but not so serious buyers. We also disagree on that point.

[chadh]

>I'm not sure why 10% of $2300 vs 10% of $2475 was relevant at all. The pricing scheme is designed to offer different pricing arrangements that would appeal to different people.

Those are not different pricing schemes if considered in light of the restocking fee. That's why it's relevant: It's an unfunctional complexity.

I'm so confused.  In the pricing scheme suggested, 10% of $2475 is never calculated for any reason.  I don't know why it was ever written in any post.  It isn't relevant.  One caluculates 0% of $2475, and I'm pretty sure that this is significantly different from 10% of $2300.  These are the respective amounts of money that one risks under the two pricing options.  If you are prepared to put your $230 at risk, you are given the chance to buy the product at $2300.  If you want to put $0 at risk, you can only buy the product at $2475.  I don't think the complexity is unfuctional - it's necesary to induce different people to make different choices.

Now, I understand you...think the larger problem is another group of potential, but not so serious buyers. We also disagree on that point.

I'll probably toss and turn all night, but by morning I should be able to come to grips with the idea that we disagree.

Cheers.

Chad

[suits_me]

1. Your idea encourages completely unserious amp shoppers by removing any penalty for them except for shipping. So it does the opposite of what CIA has stated it wants and what it does presently. That's pretty unambiguous. No wonder you tossed and turned thinking it over.

2. The 10% of one tier price compared to 10% of your other postulated tier price is just about nil. You reiterate the higher price entails no 10% fee, and thus that my observation is not relevant.

You're missing a point about unnecessary complexity. Why bother to have two prices when there is no effective difference in 10% of either price - as concerns the inevitable, undesired consumer who is very likely to return the thing after playing with it?

This holds true even though the "more expensive" price has no restocking fee. This is somewhat more subtle than my first point, so you might have to think it over for a whole minute.

I acknowledge your scheme may slightly reward those who buy the product and keep it - if they elect the restocking fee option - but since it doesn't punish the abusers your scheme doesn't make much sense and it isn't worth discussing any further, imo.

[CIAudio]

ok...I think everyone's had their say on the issue (and no one agrees).

Let's call it the end  

[DaveX]

Dusty:
How much voltage can the D-200s handle at their inputs?? Many tube pre-amps output 20V or more which can seriously overload the input pair of transistors of most solid-state amps, whether the power amp is turned on or off.

D-200 has an input sensitivity of 2v for the rated output of 200w into 8 ohms, which would be very low on the volume pot of the preamp. Overdriving it while playing music would simply cause the amp to clip.
Extreme overdriving could cause the input stage to fail.

Dusty, doe's this mean that a preamp with much less than 20V output would give more headroom. Thanks.

[CIAudio]

Dusty, doe's this mean that a preamp with much less than 20V output would give more headroom. Thanks.

I doubt your preamp actually has 20v output with a standard 2v source (20v is probably a maximum rating). All it really means is that you would be overdriving the amplifier very early in the volume controls rotation.