That would be an even better thing.This is a good thing because without it Danny's services would disappear.
The shills (or more likely, sock puppets) are always amusing.
That would be an even better thing.This is a good thing because without it Danny's services would disappear.
Busted!Danny, is this you??
Almost all would claim they "think" they can hear a difference. After the test they will claim you cheated them as they didn't think you would be so low as to only let them listen to cheap 16ga wire (common lamp cord) with no changing to the high end 12ga mega buck wire. So again, it was the testers fault that the persons tested failed miserably. It is always the same answer. The test is the problem, not the listener!If an A/B test was set up where the participants were asked whether or not they could hear a difference in performance between cheap and expensive audio cables but no actual change was made and the same cable was used for both A and B I wonder how many would claim they could easily hear a difference?
Almost all would claim they "think" they can hear a difference. After the test they will claim you cheated them as they didn't think you would be so low as to only let them listen to cheap 16ga wire (common lamp cord) with no changing to the high end 12ga mega buck wire. So again, it was the testers fault that the persons tested failed miserably. It is always the same answer. The test is the problem, not the listener!
Even worse, many listeners claim cables influence soundstage, impact, pace, timing, resolution, and other imaginary metrics. And, they justify it by buying into exotic insulation (skin transients!), twists, and other silly stuff. How one argues with that nonsense is beyond me.
Yup!How? Ignorance.
If you go to, say, Madisound and have a look, the retail price of a ceramic composite cone woofer is about $100 each (starting). Beryllium tweeters are about $300 each. So not a few dollars.What puzzles me about this video; is it really the case that the components of a $4000 speaker from Revel only cost a few dollars? Even if you take into account research, marketing, etc.: what is the point of paying so much money for it? (Serious question from me as a layman, sorry).
To give you the economicist's answer... things are actually worth whatever amount somebody is willing to pay for it.What puzzles me about this video; is it really the case that the components of a $4000 speaker from Revel only cost a few dollars? Even if you take into account research, marketing, etc.: what is the point of paying so much money for it? (Serious question from me as a layman, sorry).
I think the real puzzle there is that Revel performed double blind controlled testing of speakers before releasing them. Here we have Danny modifying them without a single listening test -- sighted or otherwise -- stating his improvements made them better. If it is all about the "ear," they why is he not using it when he is making drastic changes to the speaker?What puzzles me about this video; is it really the case that the components of a $4000 speaker from Revel only cost a few dollars?
I don't think that's it. I have a pretty good idea of the production cost for the Revel. Chinese factories are very efficient, and the crossover board supplier (I use the same one) also provides excellent value. The difference comes in overhead and research, and distribution, which probably dwarfs the production cost. I don't know of any other company out there with Revel's commitment to research.To give you the economicist's answer... things are actually worth whatever amount somebody is willing to pay for it.
To give a layman answer, go order the components and try to recreate the speaker and you will quickly find out for yourself how much workshop space, labour, skills, time and equipment it takes to build something that is at the level of execution of the Revel speaker. Lots of people do DIY great sounding and great looking speakers, but they A) don't have to pay themselves for the time and effort B) derive pleasure from the process and C) kiss all resale value goodbye.
I think that we are making the same overall point. The creation of a speaker (nor any product) is not encapsulated by a list of parts with corresponding prices. It was brought into being by a structure of production that spans time, space, and human effort and ingenuity. You highlight the research component, but I'd imagine that seeking out, dealing with, and doing QC with a Chinese factory is an entire job in of itself. How much is that work worth? I was trying to get the OP to re-orient their thinking in terms like that.I don't think that's it. I have a pretty good idea of the production cost for the Revel. Chinese factories are very efficient, and the crossover board supplier (I use the same one) also provides excellent value. The difference comes in overhead and research, and distribution, which probably dwarfs the production cost. I don't know of any other company out there with Revel's commitment to research.
I'm a professional economist, so i'm pretty familiar with diminishing returns of various sorts and the efficiency of markets. My only point is that the production side of the speaker biz doesn't account for most of the time and effort of large speaker manufacturers. That's not a negative comment, just a fact of life in the speaker biz.I think that we are making the same overall point. The creation of a speaker (nor any product) is not encapsulated by a list of parts with corresponding prices. It was brought into being by a structure of production that spans time, space, and human effort and ingenuity. You highlight the research component, but I'd imagine that seeking out, dealing with, and doing QC with a Chinese factory is an entire job in of itself. How much is that work worth? I was trying to get the OP to re-orient their thinking in terms like that.
Anyways, this entire topic is a bit moot because of this. What we're doing is akin to somebody complaining about the price a painting sold for because he tallied up the cost of oil paints, canvas, etc. and things aren't adding up.
Same mechanisms here. The price of a painting is determined by what people are willing to pay for the ownership. It is not determined by usefulness, in terms of productivity. The pay-back of ownership is nil. One hopes that the 'market' will hold. (I'm times in that 'market' and know how, e/g artists eagerly manage their 'market value'--lots of kinky activities the layman doesn't know about. It makes up to 95% of the artist's daily work.)The creation of a speaker ... spans time, space, and human effort and ingenuity. You highlight the research component, ... doing QC with a Chinese factory ...
Anyways, this entire topic is a bit moot because of this. What we're doing is akin to somebody complaining about the price a painting sold for because he tallied up the cost of oil paints, canvas, etc. and things aren't adding up.
So do i. Sometimes he doesn't even attempt it. He had a pair of ATC SCM19 v2, didn't even try to fix them.Btw, I do like GR's approach to repair bad product.
What is this problem exactly? He takes cheap speakers, changes the network and presents different FR graphs. Now, i can live with that. I can see people that want to give this a try, for a few bucks.I think that would solve the apparent problem with GR.
I don't like his binding post or cable crap, but not everyone has to be a saint in all regards to be appreciated i think. Just a guy, people, just a guy.
I suppose so, in an ideal world that would be the case.An utterly honest approach would be to sell the re-design of an x-over on one bill, and bill parts of reasonable 'quality' separately. So people would be able to decide themselves, if they want to pay extra for magic spells.