Devialet gets pushed onto vivid audio often too. i think its a style and aesthetic apparition thing. they both want to be seen as high technology products so as companies they fit together well.
Devialet gets pushed onto vivid audio often too. i think its a style and aesthetic apparition thing. they both want to be seen as high technology products so as companies they fit together well.
that's true but with vivid and devialet there is more going on. they know each other in some way. its off topic but you will often find clever brand management by distributors where they pair a marque name with a less well know (high profit margin) brand, using the known high brand value product to enhance the lesser well known.You also have to look at who's doing the distribution. Distributor's usually dictate how their products will be presented in the dealer showrooms. You will always see products from the same distributor paired together, even if other components in the same dealer showroom would represent the product better. They are also very fussy about the other brands being sold at the same dealer. They prefer dealers who deal with their lineup exclusively.
that's true but with vivid and devialet there is more going on. they know each other in some way. its off topic but you will often find clever brand management by distributors where they pair a marque name with a less well know (high profit margin) brand, using the known high brand value product to enhance the lesser well known.
stillpoint legitimised entreq in the u.s an example
First you have to define "musicality" in clear and unambiguous terms. The problem is that's not possible. Go ahead and try. I'll wait.Should one developing high end audio gear in today's high end audio landscape, focus on impeccable measurements, or should they focus on trying to achieve what the masses refer to as "musicality"?
My take on it is "perceived accurate reproduction of the original event" Human hearing is full of flaws. Placebo's are also a very powerful part of the subjective experience.First you have to define "musicality" in clear and unambiguous terms. The problem is that's not possible. Go ahead and try. I'll wait.
--Ethan
If you can build an amplifier that measures perfectly for $1,000, re-engineer in a gentle hump peaking at about 60hz, and a slow roll-off starting at about 10khz, put it in a really impressive looking box with humongous speaker terminals and a single knob that weighs no less than a pound. There. Now it should sell for $10,000.
I exaggerate (though not much) for effect, but the strategy is sound. The big bucks in the high end are not going for accurate reproduction. High status with soft sound is where the big money is. Is that what you were asking Blizz...er, Mivera? Hey would it be really cool if your real name was Blizzard Mivera?
Tim
I agree, but much of the high-end crowd does not. In fact for many who are spending the most, DSP is a four letter word.What you're describing is traditional ways manufacturers try to achieve "musicality" I think the best approach is using solid engineering to make accurate hardware, and using DSP to do any drastic minipulation to the signal in order to please this crowd.
If you plan to market, then study the market. It will reward you or not if you meet its perceived needs. You can't replace their perception with what you think is good for them and succeed.
I think you've missed the point rather - TAG's mistake with the market is exactly the thing I was endorsing in Blumlein-88's post i.e. 'You can't replace their perception with what you think is good for them and succeed'. TAG is an example of such - they chose the wrong price because they had the attitude that they know better than the market.
Err no. the change of price was forced, because of their intiial mistake.
The initial mistake wasnt ignoring the market, it was trying to offer excellent value for money. If they had continued with too low pricing they would have gone out of business anyway.
You need to stop trying to spin it into something it isnt.