No benefit to you; to others it may have a quality feel or look that they like or a name they are fans of. I see nothing wrong with catering to a market that puts a lot of value in the name, look and feel of a product and is willing to pay for exclusivity. As long as it functions well enough within the audible range, or in some cases even adds things that the buyer prefers to the sound.
People buy things like watches and cars based on looks and brand name all the time. Sometimes they get ones that perform well, sometimes not.
The purpose of clothes are protection from the environment and covering, anything that is more expensive than a couple dollars would be snake oil. A $100 shirt???
There are few interests or hobbies that I'm aware of where so many people judge so many others for wanting something different than what they want and judge companies so harshly for giving it to them.
For perspective someone paid $120,000 for this:
View attachment 310384
Wow. No offense intended, but I think that’s a pretty boorish and frankly cringeworthy assessment of modern art—which despite the fact that you think you could think up these cheapo works all by yourself, is about something a whole lot more significant, sophisticated and complex than what’s at work over at Chord—with their charging $14,000 in 2023 for a mass-produced eight year old DAC/amp combo with 2015’s
digital audio technology, and one that measures worse than today’s $350 SMSL at that.
I’m guessing that by your definition, the obsolete DAVE, and the Hugo, with its insultingly outdated micro USB ports, justify their price points as “luxury items”, no different than a Ming vase or a Fabergé egg? That’s your understanding of how this phenomenon works, based on your example up there? You know, the one you scoff at as a $120,000 banana taped to a wall, that who knows what fool would pay for—because please, what does the Guggenheim know about Maurizio Cattelan’s conceptual art piece depicting a humorous indictment of our current state of global trade? What do you proudly display on your walls at home, Farrah Fawcett’s poster? One of those pretty Monet or Klimt prints they sell at college book shops?
The thing about those “luxury” purchases you’re referring to to justify everyone’s right to spend their money on the finer things, is that brands like Rolex, Armani and Ferrari earned their blue chip reputations and the right to charge ritzy prices because they built that reputation on integrity, and by producing the
finest quality wares one can buy—that are as sophisticated in their design and build quality as they are in their aesthetics. They
earned the right to charge those prices. In the auto industry, you can’t slap a $50,000 price tag on a Yugo and expect it to sell as a luxury indulgence, even if you make it look snazzy. People can tell the difference.
But in the audiophile industry, where most folks (mostly men, go figure) are so preposterously gullible and oblivious to cognitive bias that a brand like Chord or PS Audio can pull off exactly that—put out something that looks like a toy, weighs a ton, and performs not a micron beyond than the limitations of the human ear—then write some florid marketing copy full of made up science, prop up some suitably professorial-appearing shill to repeat it officiously and endlessly, then price it arbitrarily at 200 times the overhead cost and magically make it a “luxury” investment based on price and price alone. And all those suckers over at that other forum will
aspire to part ways with thousands of dollars of hard-earned cash, year after year past launch, even if it’s a digital product with a short lifespan.
You are aware that DACs are just computers right? Know anybody that would pay $14,000 for the TOTL tower PC from 2015? You think those folks buying Chord or PS Audio are being sophisticated consumers (as opposed to those suckers over at the Guggenheim or the Art Basel in Miami), by paying a fortune for average gear shoved into a shiny package, that has
only achieved exclusivity because few can afford it? I dunno, personally I aspire towards luxury items that reek of quality inside and out, and that last a lifetime—but I guess it’s all a matter of taste, or at least the lack of it.
Apologies for the snarky response my friend, but your analogy was an unfortunate one—so much so that I’m left to wonder what attracts you to ASR to begin with? The whole ethos here is about poking holes in many of the very brands Google Bard came up with for me up there. A few of them are the real deal, but they ALL sell their feloniously-priced wares based on lies and manipulation—which is the absolute antithesis of the values of the luxury brands you based your thesis on. And based on how long you’ve contributed to this site, I think you know better—I’ve read and admired many of your contributions on here, and with this one I think you’re arguing for the mere sake of it. You CAN’T actually believe this.
And as for this:
“There are few interests or hobbies that I'm aware of where so many people judge so many others for wanting something different than what they want and judge companies so harshly for giving it to them.”
If you feel that way, what on earth are you doing on this “snake oil” thread, which is the very
definition of doing exactly what you’re indicting here? Are you on the level or pulling our legs?
that there are some "audiophile" products that represent, in essence, what at used to be called performance art.
