[mcgsxr]

Good point about the need to optimally marry marketing with excellence in design and manufacture.

I think the saving grace for audio, is that although the market is increasingly niche, it is one that is also quite full of passion for those that dig it - unlike a really, really good mousetrap that would sell only because it worked well, there are many other variables that go into what makes audio gear sell well.

The DIY nuts (myself included) are a whole other niche!!

[toobluvr]

as i said before, the thing that really offends my sensibilities is when a manufacturer simply re-labels another product and sells it for multiples of the original product's price.  while there is some lower-end chinese tubed gear that seems to share a lot of major componentry, the worst offender i am aware of like this, is red rose music, which i mentioned earlier.  a couple examples:

A bunch of years ago Red Rose Music did the same exact thing with the old Audio Prism gear.  What a complete turn off!

 

[doug s.]

A bunch of years ago Red Rose Music did the same exact thing with the old Audio Prism gear.  What a complete turn off!

 

w/audio prism, red rose simply bought the company, and then doubled the prices.  not quite so bad, but yes - still a turn off.  you can still buy the stuff from red rose today...

http://www.redrosemusic.com/tubes.shtml



doug s.

[SonicReducer]

JohnR:

I didn't say that these designs were definitely, unambiguously unique, just that it's suspicious that these designs - feature-for-feature and spec-for-spec, with only minor, and possibly irrelevant differences - are almost identical. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, maybe only one or two share both design and components. From a business angle, I find it odd that a manufacturer would go to all the trouble of designing completely unique circuitry but packaging it in exactly the same way (almost identical layouts and features) as his (numerous) competitors. Would it not make more marketing sense to add or even subtract features, or give the consumer a different aesthetic, or do anything at all to differentiate the product? At this level of the market, I would guess that many consumers are being as influenced by features, aesthetics, price, brand and even novelty as they are by the sound. The fact that they all go toe-to-toe with features and specs at least suggests similar electronics, even if the original circuitry is modified in a number of ways. 

Anyway, the whole point is to get the information out there. At the very, very worst, I've merely provided a very small overview to a particular product in a particular segment. I fully expect others to use the information as a starting point and possibly even prove me wrong. No matter the outcome, I don't see any "losers" in this process.

[srb]

The fact that they all go toe-to-toe with features and specs at least suggests similar electronics, even if the original circuitry is modified in a number of ways. 

There are hundreds of different 'similar' amplifiers that have little in common with circuit design, board layout and parts selection.  Having similar features and specs suggests absolutely nothing, certainly not similar electronics.
 
Yes, we get the Aurum Cantus/Red Rose and the Oppo/Lexicon examples, but the fishing expedition is now starting to border on the ridiculous.
 
Steve

[doug s.]

sonicreducer, i must agree to disagree.  other than the fact that these items are integrated amps w/similar power, i do not see much similarity in them at all.  different layouts, different features, internally and externally.  yes, they all have inputs and outputs, and a wolume control.  but "almost identical"?!?  not even close, imo.  other than the fact that it's kinda hard to design an integrated amp w/o inputs and outputs, and a wolume control, eh?   

to get my attention, an integrated amp should have tape loop(s), and balance controls, and preamp outs/main ins.  and a remote.  some do, some don't.  other folks have different priorities.  i'd prefer rca's attached to the case, and wired to the board w/wire, not plastic assemblies directly glued and soldered to the board.  etc...  internally, dual mono construction is nice, all other things being equal.  (but when are all other things equal?)

your complaint seems to me similar to someone complaining that all cars have four wheels/tires, doors, and a steering wheel, brakes and motor, so they're all the same.   

doug s.

[SonicReducer]

I may be completely wrong about these products being rebadges, but your position is a gross oversimplification. At one end of the scale, you have amps that are very minimal, sometimes having only a single input and a volume control. At the other end of the scale, you have the A/V amps with every feature and connection under the sun. Given the vast range of feature possibilities, I find it interesting that all of these amps are nearly identical (or at least very similar) in both features and layout. I can't make you actually go through all of the advertisements in detail, critically compare all the of amps, and then think about the issue in a balanced fashion. 

What seems obvious to me is that a number of people have an emotional stake in the notion high-end audio as an old-school gentleman's industry far removed from contemporary business practices. Again, while I may be wrong about these products being exact rebadges, the notion that there is not even a basis for comparison is equally ridiculous.

[TheChairGuy]

btw, SonicReducer, I admire your 'pluck' on this topic.

Tho (personally) I feel it's much ado about little-to-nothing...I admire your want to fight the good fight, nonetheless

Regards, John

[doug s.]

s/r, that's where you are wrong - all these amps don't have even remotely similar layouts and features, except for the fact that they have inputs, outputs, wolume control...  like my car "simplification".  what should they do?  put the controls on the back?    put the connections on the top?  yust to be different?     any mfr, wanting to make a mid-power integrated amp, will have a product that fits a parameter similar to the products you have presented.  even if they all are totally designed & built from scratch, in a wacuum.  one reason, if no other:  19" rack-mount size is one industry standard that many mfr's follow, so this does influence the size/shape of the component.

doug s.

[srb]

Tho (personally) I feel it's much ado about little-to-nothing...I admire your want to fight the good fight, nonetheless.

Seems more like a fight for the sake of a fight, based more upon unresearched speculation than fact.  But if I do come upon a component that I can identify as blatant rebadge, I will certainly share it.
 
Steve

[SonicReducer]

TheChairGuy:

Thanks. Every point that I'm arguing is intended to be to the benefit of consumers. It's true that I can't absolutely prove that these amps have even a single part in common. Paying more attention to industry practices and sharing information, however, can only be a good thing, and the continued pushback on this issue feels more like ego than intellect. A lot of people in this forum have invested a great deal of time and money into high-end audio, and perhaps rightly feel that they have a handle on the industry. As I stated earlier, I don't think that there are any winners or losers in this discussion. The discussion - and the thought that goes into it - is in itself a mild bonus for consumers. 

Doug:

Can't you and I do something fun and productive, like argue about the merits of speaker cable for fifty pages?

[doug s.]

how about this, sonic - all those integrated amps you mention are hi-fi, but not hi end.  and they look similar because they all share the industry-standard 19" width     i initially chimed in when i thought it was worthwhile to discuss - blatant rebadging.  however, your integrated amp comparo is barking up the wrong tree, imo.  while i agree that there are many challenges to hi-end audio, this ain't it.

also, don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong w/"hi-fi" - you can get great sound w/o having to go "hi-end", if you are a prudent consumer.  i definitely agree w/you that one is better off being a prudent consumer!     of the gear that i own, that which i would consider "hi-end", instead of hi-fi, was primarily purchased used - only way i can afford it.   

regarding cables, i am not sure we'd have much to discuss - unless you like paying a lot - anything >$10/foot is throwing your money away, imo.   

best,

doug s.

[srb]

regarding cables, i am not sure we'd have much to discuss - unless you like paying a lot - anything >$10/foot is throwing your money away, imo.   

Ouch, Doug!  Kind of pricey there.  I bought some for less than that, but maybe that was the problem - they turned out to be rebadged Belden!
 
Steve

[doug s.]

Ouch, Doug!  Kind of pricey there.  I bought some for less than that, but maybe that was the problem - they turned out to be rebadged Belden!
 
Steve

doug s.

[SonicReducer]

Doug:

I was actually using the "layman's" definition of "high-end". I realize that in an industry where $5,000 speakers are barely considered "mid-fi", a $1,000 integrated amp hardly qualifies as much more than a second- or third-system option.

"While I agree there are many challenges to hi-end audio, this ain't it."

I have to disagree with you. The hundreds of small companies and the endless parade of "me-too" product shapes audiophile culture to an enormous degree, in my opinion. I think the large scope of the industry either directly or indirectly influences the infamous "upgrade addiction"/consumer dissatisfaction, publication favoritism, obscurantist boosterism, lack of industry transparency, and the persistent presence of so-called "snake oil", to name but a few. The choices facing the general high-end consumer are numerous and yet often not particularly well documented, even on the Internet. Finding any kind of reasonably reliable information on some of these tiny companies and their products is anything but easy. Who actually designs and manufactures all of these (often very similar) products? I have no idea, and that's precisely the point. Ultimately, I just want to listen to decent-sounding music, but to do this without getting taken (and to maximize my budget) I need a lot of information, often more than I can currently access. The sprawling, opaque high-end industry is both the solution and the problem to finding the right gear. "Rebadging" is only one facet of the informational challenges facing today's consumer. 

[doug s.]

Doug:

I was actually using the "layman's" definition of "high-end". I realize that in an industry where $5,000 speakers are barely considered "mid-fi", a $1,000 integrated amp hardly qualifies as much more than a second- or third-system option.

"While I agree there are many challenges to hi-end audio, this ain't it."

I have to disagree with you. The hundreds of small companies and the endless parade of "me-too" product shapes audiophile culture to an enormous degree, in my opinion. I think the large scope of the industry either directly or indirectly influences the infamous "upgrade addiction"/consumer dissatisfaction, publication favoritism, obscurantist boosterism, lack of industry transparency, and the persistent presence of so-called "snake oil", to name but a few. The choices facing the general high-end consumer are numerous and yet often not particularly well documented, even on the Internet. Finding any kind of reasonably reliable information on some of these tiny companies and their products is anything but easy. Who actually designs and manufactures all of these (often very similar) products? I have no idea, and that's precisely the point. Ultimately, I just want to listen to decent-sounding music, but to do this without getting taken (and to maximize my budget) I need a lot of information, often more than I can currently access. The sprawling, opaque high-end industry is both the solution and the problem to finding the right gear. "Rebadging" is only one facet of the informational challenges facing today's consumer.

you are missing the point, me-thinks.  re-read tcg's earlier post, re: companies producing audio gear for other than the walmart market - there almost seems to be more mfr's than consumers for this type of gear!     any similarity is due more to the task needing to be performed.  much more-so, imo than the few known rebadging operations, or mfr's stealing other folks' circuits, or all mfr's using a few companies to get the same innards.

perhaps you would be happy with less choices?  that, more than finding out similarities of 60wpc integrated preamps, seems to be the only real answer to the question you are trying to answer.  the marketplace usually takes care of it in the long run.  all 60wpc integrated amps are gonna be quite similar, simply due to the nature of the task they will be called on to perform.  re-read my and johnr's earlier posts, directly referring to your "almost identical", as you call it, list of integrated amps.  other than the fact that they are all s/s integrated amps, they seem to be not at all identical to johnr and myself.  and, i suspect they seem quite different to many others.  that's why you are getting this type of response - many disagree - what you think is so similar many think is quite different.

i really don't see much purpose discussing it any more; it's kinda like this:   

best,

doug s.

[SonicReducer]

"perhaps you would be happy with less choices?  that, more than finding out similarities of 60wpc integrated preamps, seems to be the only real answer to the question you are trying to answer."

????

Well, I can see why you've thrown in the towel; I'm not sure whom you're having a conversation with, but it's not me. It's true that in my post above, I went from discussing only rebadging to discussing how rebadging relates to the more general issue of the availability of useful consumer information in an industry that's flooded with tiny, marginal companies, a toothless press, and, from what I've seen, consumers who often value elitism and insularity over the value of shared information.

Regarding the integrated amps, I'm not sure what to tell you. If you still think that the only similarities they have is that they're solid state and integrated, then I can only assume that you haven't actually spent much time looking at the specs and features. I'll say AGAIN that while I freely admit that I could be wrong about any of the amps being rebadges, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see more than a few similarities between them.

Also, given the realities of the industry (numerous, tiny companies, crappy press, lack of transparency, global acceptance of OEM outsourcing), it's going to take more than a few vague assurances that "there's nothing to see here, move along" to convince me that "the marketplace usually takes care of it" and that there's simply no need whatsoever to be more aware of what we're buying. Perhaps dyed-in-the-wool audiophiles are drinking your Kool-Aid, but I think that I'm a little more in touch with both contemporary consumer sentiment and contemporary business practices.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, or come off harshly, but your dismissiveness, however unintentional, is unwarranted.

[K Shep]

WOW!

[srb]

Regarding the integrated amps, I'm not sure what to tell you. If you still think that the only similarities they have is that they're solid state and integrated, then I can only assume that you haven't actually spent much time looking at the specs and features. I'll say AGAIN that while I freely admit that I could be wrong about any of the amps being rebadges, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see more than a few similarities between them.

Each time you repeat that (and believe me, it's been excruciatingly often), I couldn't disagree with you more.  On this particular point, I don't think you're going to find anyone that agrees with you.
 
Besides, you're kind of starting to suck all of the fun out of audio equipment.
 
Steve
 
 

[SonicReducer]

You mean the party's over? But...but...we were all just starting to have a good time!