[LM]

Hugh,

I like the RR analogy.  I have read a number of books on early RR engineering and originally it was all about simple properly engineered design and built in house for what we would today class as Quality Management reasons.  Noise, vibration, unnecessary complication were all an anathema to Henry Royce.  Wear and failure were simply due to inadequate engineering and other companies could do that by buying in poor quality parts if they wished.  A lot of people don’t realise that RR made pretty much all their own electrical components as well apart from batteries if I remember properly.  Charles Rolls was the sales and marketing man, a great team in its all too short day.

[stvnharr]

The intriguing aspect of the amp is its over the top cost and how it can be justified - which is exactly what the discussion focused on.

After thinking about it my concern is not with the price itself, that I now believe is a marketing ploy, but with the gushing review that tries to give the impression that price buys you a better performing amp. 

Thanks
Bill

Bill,
Since you've declared your "interest" in manufacturer's retail audio prices, why restrict yourself to the relatively modest priced Tenor amp, why not go for the top?
Here: http://www.wavac-audio.jp/sh833_e.html
There is also a Version 1.3 that you might like to critique.
Here: http://www.wavac-audio.jp/he833v13_e.html

And if you want to substantiate the "marketing ploy" angle, here's the Stereophile review of the above amp, and Stereophile is always known as just as shill for high priced audio gear, the more expensive the better.
Here: http://www.stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/704wavac/
And if you don't like Stereophile then you can go with this review, if you like Positive Feedback.
Here:http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue9/wavac833.htm


Steve

[bhobba]

Since you've declared your "interest" in manufacturer's retail audio prices, why restrict yourself to the relatively modest priced Tenor amp, why not go for the top?
Here: http://www.wavac-audio.jp/sh833_e.html
There is also a Version 1.3 that you might like to critique.
Here: http://www.wavac-audio.jp/he833v13_e.html

Because I did not see a post about them that piqued my interest.  I think I have now laid out my position on 'overpriced' gear without investigating other examples.  Just to recap, that position is for the typical guy that posts on this forum, a blind listening test showing their audible supercity, or otherwise, is almost mandatory.  But, IMHO, such high price amps are not targeted at those that frequent here. Legitimately, they are targeted at guys like Bill Gates, for whom that type of money means nothing, and can say, well at that price it must at least be good.  They may also be targeted at those who want the mystique of an artisan crafted product like a RR, if that is how they were built.  Perhaps less 'legitimately', but an equally valid market ploy, they are targeted at those that want a 'status' symbol. 

And if you want to substantiate the "marketing ploy" angle, here's the Stereophile review of the above amp, and Stereophile is always known as just as shill for high priced audio gear, the more expensive the better.
Here: http://www.stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/704wavac/
And if you don't like Stereophile then you can go with this review, if you like Positive Feedback.
Here:http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue9/wavac833.htm

I have never been a 'fan' of Stereophile or other related magazines.  I read and enjoy them, but take what they say with a grain of 'salt'.  Only reviews that include blind listening tests get my guernsey as top flight audio journalism eg
http://www.stereomojo.com/SHOOTOUT2007INTEGRATEDS.htm
Although I rate the above highly, IMHO it could be 'improved', eg the panny was fed a signal from a preamp - not from the digital out of a transport, which is how any sane person would use it.  I also would like to see non blind evaluations done in a persons home on their equipment, interspersed with blind evaluations, done over a period of months, to see if acquaintance with the equipment changed the outcome.  I do not know the background of the panelists in the steromojo review, it quite possibly includes the type of people I am about to suggest,  but I would also like to see people that design the type of equipment being reviewed by ear - people like Hugh who designs his amps by ear. To me, such reviews would be instructive not just for the reader, but for those taking part.

Thanks
Bill

[stvnharr]

Just to recap, that position is for the typical guy that posts on this forum, a blind listening test showing their audible supercity, or otherwise, is almost mandatory. 

Hmm, my take on the typical guy on THIS forum is that most are interested in Hugh's amps, not some irrelevant something costing 20-50X as much.  I could be wrong about that, though. 
I don't really recall any outcry for blind tests with ????????????  Could be wrong about that too......

[bhobba]

Hmm, my take on the typical guy on THIS forum is that most are interested in Hugh's amps, not some irrelevant something costing 20-50X as much.  I could be wrong about that, though. 

From what I saw of those that responded, they found the discussion 'interesting' - which was my intent in posting.

I don't really recall any outcry for blind tests with ????????????  Could be wrong about that too......

My concern with an amp costing that much is people may think the price equates to performance, and subconsciously give it higher marks that it is worth - biases are very hard to consciously put to one side. A blind test is about the only way I know to objectively remove them.  But yes - point taken - if a blind test is good for a high price amp, it is good for more modestly priced gear like Hugh's.  The reason I am not too worried is I have been following Hugh's work for many years, and have developed respect for, and trust in, his judgement.  I often hear people say you must listen to this piece of equipment and judge for yourself.  I am only too aware of the biases we all carry about, and how it can be subconsciously, or consciously, manipulated.  For that reason I don't trust my judgement as much as those whose opinions experience has taught me can be trusted.  I am taken back to when I purchased my last pair of speakers - Axis LS88's - a ported three way.  I had a old pair of sealed Gale 402's.  Compared to the LS88 its bass was 'anemic', and was played up by the sales guy.  I initially thought how great it was.  After living with it for some time my opinion changed 180% - I much preferred the bass on the Gales. The midrange is another issue - it left the Gales and virtually every other speaker except electrostatics and ribbons far behind - and even then it was close.  My friend had LS28's at the time - a ported two way.  He listened to the LS88's and said they weren't any better than his 28's, but after 6 months of acclimatising to them, he couldn't listen to the midrange of the 28's - the 88's left it for dead - he went out and got a pair of 88's.  Since that experience I have learnt to be wary of my view, and give greater weight to those with more experience whose view I think I can trust.

Anyway, I think this thread has been mined enough, so this will be my last contribution to it.

Thanks
Bill

[stvnharr]

From what I saw of those that responded, they found the discussion 'interesting' - which was my intent in posting.

My concern with an amp costing that much is people may think the price equates to performance. 

Yes, an interesting discussion.
But posters here are more generally concerned with Hugh's amps rather than those that they have not heard and cannot afford.

I fail to understand your concern, judgement, and/or justification about the price of products that cost a lot, other than perhaps it is just a complete mystery as to why some products are priced so astronomically high. 

The price/performance curve is a slippery one, to be sure.  The value of diminishing returns can set in pretty quickly in audio equipment.  Yet if value is not a critical concern, then price becomes somewhat irrelevant, and cost becomes no object.