- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,336
- Likes
- 12,299
Poor value for money isn't an objective criteria. Value judgments are subjective. You can rate value for money on any set of values you like. It could be performance against measured criteria, or it could be aesthetics (or something else). People often get confused because they value the former (an objective measurement) versus the latter (a subjective response) and assume that their value judgment itself also is objective. But the choice of what to value is inherently subjective, there is no escaping that.
The choice to value, say, a high Olive score based on Klippel measurement is fairly common here. Measured against that criteria the TuneTots have lower value for money that an equivalent or cheaper Genelec one series. But if you value particular visual aesthetics and/or haptics you may come up with a different result. For people who find the Genelec aesthetics unacceptable, then the value for money result is different.
These are hypothetical—albeit common—values, not mine specifically (I don't rule out Genelec one series due to aesthetics, for example). I'm simply commenting on the frequent mistake people make when invoking value for money. It always depends on what values you are comparing.
Yep!