Is quality really important to us?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I attended a local meeting of a few ISF/Cedia trained installers last night and walked away with a very interesting perspective regarding quality when it comes to both audio and video presentations.

One of the first trends most of us began to notice was this move towards cheap components. It seems that even those folks who can afford to get better sounding, better built components are instead going for mediocre quality stuff. But they want it to sound like the expensive stuff!

Two of the video guys have complained that once they properly calibrate a projector according to SMPTE standards, the customer wants them to turn up the contrast or brightness to damaging levels. Now why would one purchase a $20,000 projector, and not want it calibrated properly I will never know.

The audio guys have tons of complaints. My pet peeve is this, once you tweak the response of the system(get a reasonably flat house curve) the customer wants the sub turned up 10db more!!!!. That results in a flattened soundstage, and tipped system balance. Yeck!

The customer wants X speaker because it looks so cool. One problem, it SOUNDS like cow plop.

The customer wants the speakers placed behind the screen. He tells me that after purchasing a NON preforated screen. When you tell them it will sound horrible, eh do it anyway. Can anyone tell me a better way to waste my time.

You are asked to design and put together a sound system for X size room. It requires that more than one sub is required for that size room. The customer says it cost too much, but the want the same performance you get from two out of one. Riiiight!!

Here is my best one. I was putting toether a install for a un-named director. His screening room is pretty large, and probably would require some large efficient speakers to fill the room with sound. I get this call from him shouting he wants a M&K speaker package that he saw in a small mixing suite at his studio. I tell him those speakers are way to small to work in his setup. He insist, I purchase them knowing he will melt them in a week. Guess what, I get a call a week later with him complaining that two of the speakers sounded distorted. He melted them while trying to overdrive them.

I read a recent poll in a RIAA sponsered mag that said most people would prefer low resolution downloads off the net, rather than either of the high resolution formats. I found that rather alarming in that it tells me that we prefer convience over quality. When asked if these people had hometheaters, more than half said they did, but still preferred downloading lossy data with a low bit rate rather than purchasing a high resolution disc.

We now see that all of the cries for affordability has lead to many quality control issues. I have heard many stories here at audioreview, and on other online forums of people buying electronics and having them fail within weeks. Hometheater mag even tested both the audio and video quality of a $45 DVD from a unheard of manufacturer and found that it couldn't even downcovert a anamorphic encoded DVD to 4:3 analog television cleanly, and the audio DAC's were so cheap that aliasing was evident with CD playback.

Were have we gone wrong here? What happen to pride of ownership of good quality equipment? What happen to audio as a long term investment?

Okay, off my soapbox now. You all can return back to your rrrrregularrrly scheduled program.

What are your comments?

[Geoffcin]

Were have we gone wrong here? What happen to pride of ownership of good quality equipment? What happen to audio as a long term investment?

Okay, off my soapbox now. You all can return back to your rrrrregularrrly scheduled program.

What are your comments?

Most people don't like music, they just like the way it sounds.

As silly as this statment is, there's a lot of truth in it. I can't think of but a handful of people that I know personally that take the time to just sit and listen to music "for the joy of it".

I CAN think of a lot of people who have music playing in every room of the house, although it's nothing more than backround music to them. You've probably installed a few of thier systems!

For all the advancements in audio quality, the same cannot be said for peoples attitudes.
When you don't consider great audio worthwhile, why pay more for quality components?

[topspeed]

We live in the era of instant gratification.

Why wait to be able to afford the expensive, high quality stuff when this cheaper crap will do just as well at less than half the price? Why should I get in my car and drive down to Tower Records when I can sit my fat a$$ at the computer and download the songs I want. Yeah, it doesn't sound as good as a cd but I never like every song on the cd anyway and let's be real, my Rio/iPod/iRiver ain't that great to begin with.

The other trend you're seeing is that as HT's become more and more mainstream, they will be forced to appeal to the lowest common denominator. This means ease of set-up, aesthetics, and "wow" factor will take precedence over sound quality. The mainstream consumer wants something that matches their decor while impressing their friends with rattling explosions, even if it's at the cost of balanced, high quality sound. Remember that article Wooch posted a while back regarding Boston Acoustics new priorities? WAF and aesthetics were the leading factors in design, not sound quality. Scary.

[jamison]

Don't forget this axiom " The customer is always right" I work in the horticulture industry and its the same thing in our industry. people buy a little burning bush and plop it down 2 feet from their window not realizing the plant will get 15 feet high and 15 feet wide. Arrgg! I love retail. One thing ive figured out is that customers will do whatever the *#@% they want, whether its right or not its their money. I guess thats why I don't work retail I can't stand it when people listen to what you have to say and then do the opposite. drove me up the wall.

I guess thats what I liked about a police officers job........" the customer is always wrong"

LMAO

[Woochifer]

Wow T, quite the tall soapbox you've built yourself today. I'll try to address a few things from my vantage point.

First off, I think that this trend towards expecting more for less has always been there. The difference is that right now, in all aspects of consumer goods, you're getting huge price declines for manufactured products all over the place. People go to a store (increasingly WalMart) and can now find a $6 toaster and an $80 color TV. Compare that to what those same items would have cost just 10 years ago.

It may seem like people no longer care about quality, but I'm not altogether sure that the mass market was ever all about quality to begin with. I think the big difference is that big ticket items that used to be out of reach for a lot of consumers are now available at more affordable price points. Let me give you some perspective on what I'm getting at.

The Marantz receiver that I grew up with cost $600 in 1976. That's for a 75 watt/channel two-channel receiver. In real dollar terms (after accounting for inflation), that $600 receiver today would cost about $2,000. If I budgeted $2,000 for a two-channel receiver, I'm sure I could buy something much better than that Marantz (which was a decent receiver). And at that price point, it's easy to build something with higher quality.

If you could not afford a receiver back then, the alternatives were much more limited, and the drop off in quality from component-based systems to the next step down was much steeper. The quality at the entry level price points is a lot better now than it ever was, but the trade-off is that those products are not built to last.

Just look at TVs and how disposable they've become. In 1974, when color TVs cost $800 (worth over $3,000 in today's dollars), you would repair them because they cost so much. Now, you can get a TV with better picture quality than that older set for around $100. That thing breaks, no sense in repairing it. Think of how much TV you can now buy for $3,000, but how many people are spending that much on a TV when there are so many lower priced alternatives available?

As far as audio quality goes, the consumers opting for MP3s and other lossy downloadable formats are the same consumers that would have opted for prerecorded cassettes and 8-tracks 25 years ago. Comparing an 8-track to an MP3, what would sound better? Keep in mind that cassette sales passed LP sales before the CD was introduced, so it's not like people were concerned about the dropoff in sound quality between the formats. The difference in audio quality between a CD and a lossy download is a lot narrower than the difference between LPs and prerecorded cassettes.

As nostalgic as people get about vinyl, my recollection of that era was that the majority of record players that I saw in people's homes were the BSR or Garrard record changers that you typically found in those all-in-one systems (y'know, the ones with the lid on top and a record changer dropped in). Unbalanced tonearms, noninterchangeable cartridges, and stack spindles that listeners used to drop up to 10 LPs during a listening. Hardly the best way to eek out optimal performance from vinyl. Even a $20 CD player from the local drug store would provide better performance than those record changers provided, irregardless of any digital vs. analog arguments.

And your story about consumers wanting to bump up the bass or crank up the brightness is also a pretty consistent tale. Just because a consumer has the money to afford a nice system doesn't mean that they will necessarily take the time to use it properly, or even know if what they're watching/listening to is any good to start with. People have always cranked up the brightness and sharpness, and that's how manufacturers default the settings on TVs out of the factory. And bumping up the bass is another constant.

Around the dotcom boom, I knew a lot of people who used their stock options to buy a lot of high end equipment. Having a high end system did nothing to evolve their appreciation for music or even develop their sense of things to listen for.

All in all, I think you're right that most people care more about price than they do about quality. But, that's pretty much how it's always been. The difference is that the cheaper stuff is a lot better now than before, so it drives how people perceive value.

[edtyct]

You have us at a disadvantage, since you actually have to go into strangers' homes and witness them squandering their opportunities. Money is certainly no guarantee of excellence or appreciation. At its worst, it can mask a multitude of sins. It's easy to forget that good eyes and ears require dedication, work, and practice. The ability to recognize quality is not god-given, but once learned, it often spreads across boundaries; it's contagious and self-validating. Our culture stresses speed and convenience, neither of which is conducive to the kind of attention that it takes to listen and see well, especially since the baseline of acceptability is generally good enough in a paint by numbers society. Besides, someone is usually available to do what we can't or won't do, if we pay them enough, and appearances can pass for reality at a distance. A long-standing traditon in this culture is to relegate aesthetics to the idle and impractical. But those of us who have any sense of enthusiasm know just how much practical knowledge participates in matters of sensibility. One cannot exist adequately without the other. Personally, I think that serious hobbies like audio/video are signs that people are looking for something to capture their full faculties and elevate them out of the mundane. People will always be able to obtain wonderful things but not have any idea of how to take proper advantage of them. So much the worse for them; that's their misfortune. In a complex world, not everyone can be expected to have the same interests. Nevertheless, anything worth doing is worth doing well. People wasting their home theaters are the least of our worries, but they may well be a sign of a kind of mediocrity that gets a lot of encouragement. Celebrate those who can learn, teach, and enjoy without restraint. Thankfully, we all have a chance to be among them.

Ed

[paul_pci]

Just in case nobody wants to say it, I will. Americans (I know, not all you guys live in the U.S.) are stupid, but not just a generic brand of stupidity. I'm refering to a stupidity that is punctuated by illogic and contradiction. I'll never forget this article I read when the first one-piece iMac came out. They took a group of consumers gave them boxed versions of the new iMac and a Dell (if I remember correctly) and then asked them to rate specific aspects of their experiences with the new computers. The group unanimously marveled at the ease with which they could hook up the iMac and were really satisfied with that. And on the other hand, they were pretty unanimously frustrated with hooking up the Dell with all the wires, connectors and what not. But when asked which computer they thought was the better value, they unanimously proclaimed the Dell was the better value because it CAME WITH MORE STUFF!! That is the type of studipty that is punctuated by contradictory illogic. And that is what came to mind when I read your post Terrence.

[Quagmire]

The word that springs to my mind is "Erosion". Little by little, the emphasis on quality in all areas of life is slowly being eaten away. The movement is always toward the lowest common denominator -- what is quick, what is easy, what is cheap. At some point in time, it won't be that folks simply appreciate the convenience of things like mp3 over better sounding formats; no they won't even realize that something of better quality is possible. The end result? A continual lowering of our expectations and standards. I know I will come off sounding melodramatic and generally like an ol' fart, but this decline really does bother me. I don't think that we as a society realize we are all the victims of our own apathy and mediocrity.

For me personally, I am surrounded by this mediocrity in most areas of my life on a daily basis. It's like trying to hold back the tide to fight against it. It's a shame to be looked at strangely because you really do care about doing your job well; about the quality of your work and not just the paycheck. For me, the audio hobby has increasingly become an oasis from this prevalent mindset, so it saddens me to see that it too is in decline.

Years ago, I took some fencing classes. LOVED IT! I remember the first day of class our instructor asked a simple question... "Why fence? It isn't as though this is the way men settle a score or even fight wars anymore: It's not likely to come in handy on the street or even be practical for some other application. So why fence?" We all just stood there dumbfounded not knowing what to say, but after an uncomfortable pause he opened up his mouth and said "Because it makes you a better person. That's why. You must demand excellence from yourself. As you sharpen your skills, the sword will sharpen you." Hey... what better reason does one need?

Q

[Quagmire]

You have us at a disadvantage, since you actually have to go into strangers' homes and witness them squandering their opportunities. Money is certainly no guarantee of excellence or appreciation. At its worst, it can mask a multitude of sins. It's easy to forget that good eyes and ears require dedication, work, and practice. The ability to recognize quality is not god-given, but once learned, it often spreads across boundaries; it's contagious and self-validating. Our culture stresses speed and convenience, neither of which is conducive to the kind of attention that it takes to listen and see well, especially since the baseline of acceptability is generally good enough in a paint by numbers society. Besides, someone is usually available to do what we can't or won't do, if we pay them enough, and appearances can pass for reality at a distance. A long-standing traditon in this culture is to relegate aesthetics to the idle and impractical. But those of us who have any sense of enthusiasm know just how much practical knowledge participates in matters of sensibility. One cannot exist adequately without the other. Personally, I think that serious hobbies like audio/video are signs that people are looking for something to capture their full faculties and elevate them out of the mundane. People will always be able to obtain wonderful things but not have any idea of how to take proper advantage of them. So much the worse for them; that's their misfortune. In a complex world, not everyone can be expected to have the same interests. Nevertheless, anything worth doing is worth doing well. People wasting their home theaters are the least of our worries, but they may well be a sign of a kind of mediocrity that gets a lot of encouragement. Celebrate those who can learn, teach, and enjoy without restraint. Thankfully, we all have a chance to be among them.

Ed
Speaking of quality... This is an excellent post. Very inspiring. Thank You, Ed.

Q

[edtyct]

Thanks, Q. Sir T put his finger squarely on an outlook that can be very frustrating--to say the least. The fact that it evoked a broad response from people only goes to show that this pursuit of ours--any elevating pursuit, really--is far from irrelevant.

Ed

[kexodusc]

I have a completely different take on this subject.

What is quality? In terms of a piece of electronic equipment, quality does NOT mean durability, or longevity. Nor does it mean superior performance. It is very wrong to equate these to quality. Quality means that the object accomplishes its design goal within the pre-determined parameters for failure. If it does what it's designed to do, it's of good quality, period. If an object is designed to operate for 2 years before failure, 99% of the time, at a price of less than $100, then they are "high-quality" if they do just that. If it exceeds expectations, it's higher in quality, if it doesn't meet expectations, it's lower in quality. Too often expectations (at the consumer end) are unrealistic, and "poor quality" is unfairly assigned. I don't think Sony or Panasonic claim their $40 players will last 25 years without failure 99% of the time.

You want something that last longer? You'll have to pay for it...if it's designed to last 5 years and only lasts 4 though, I'd argue it's of lower quality. It doesn't accomplish the design goal.

You can't just examine "quality" in isolation, either...value should enter the picture.
Consider a DVD player that cost $100 with a life-expectancy of 2 years, and another that cost $600 with a life expectancy of 8 years. Consider also that the $600 player is a better "performing unit" (in year 1), but with diminishing returns as they are, the differences are subtle, and to many, offer no real benefit.
You can buy 4 $100 DVD players over 8 years (probably with some feature upgrades along the way) and be $200 ahead of the guy that bought the $600 player. Now you have to ask, given the differences in performance, was the $200 savings worth it? Maybe...but I doubt it.

If you bought a DVD player in 1998, you probably got a very basic player, no progressive scan, doesn't play DVD-R's well, etc...the guy that kept buying the crappy cheap ones has spent less money and has had more DVD player over that same period of time.

I think the trend to "disposable" equipment has more to do with people not wanting to invest paying a premium for durability or longevity in something that they figure they will upgrade 2 or 3 years down the road anyway. So cheap electronics come out.

Nothing wrong with that. Does anyone today really care if their Commodore 64 lasts 25 years? My cell-phone has more computing power and is cheaper in absolute terms.

As for sound quality or video quality...If people are happy with what they have, power to them. I don't think audiophiles should dictate to the masses that they need to spend more money than they'd like to have something they wouldn't use or appreciate. It would be nice if stuff I liked was cheaper because of better economies of scale, but you can't have it all.

Though it can be frustrating when people you car pool with blast a lousy 128 kb/sec MP3 through even lousier factory speakers. But hey, that's their choice to make, not mine.

[shokhead]

I've said this a million times,the now generation likes quanity,mp3's and ipod. Older guys like me like quality over quanity.

[Worf101]

back in Junior High or High School... I was always into Science Fiction or "Speculative Fiction" as I like to call it. This whole conversation reminds me of a classic short story called "The Marching Morons". In thumbnail. a hustler from the 50's is accidently placed in suspended animation and reawakened in the distant future. A future wherein the 10% that can think and reason for themselves are held captive, litterally and figuratively, by the cretinous 90% that can't. Those that can think ask the man from the past to help them come up with a "final solution" for their idiot problem which he does in novel fashion. Their problem was that intelligent people stopped having kids or families while the mentally less than stellar kept right on having kids by the bushel full. While this premise may sound spurious, Sir TT's experience with the director's HT sound system sounds like it came right out of this story...

Sigh kinda makes me sad...

Da Worfster :rolleyes:

[edtyct]

kexodusc,

Your points are important ones to make, but we have to be careful of liberating the term "quality" so much semantically that it loses bite. Your statement is a good look at the market from a certain perspective, but maybe at the cost of being too forgiving. To me, "accomplishing a design goal within pre-determined parameters of failure" would come under the heading of "truth in advertising" as much, if not more, than the heading of "quality." Someone who buys a plasma TV that he expects to last 60,000 hrs, but in fact lasts 40,000 may not sacrifice all sense of "quality" to the lost 20,000 hrs, especially if he, and presumably others, happened to enjoy the plasma during its lifespan. He may well, however, "qualify" his opinion of it and distinguish its build quality from its visual or feature quality, or he may just say, with a hint of comprehending irony, the company was generous with its time estimate. But it's hard to tell how long a piece of equipment will last, at any price point, and those that don't last as long as hoped, aren't necessarily lemons.

When dealing with design parameters that cluster around features and performance, however, truth in advertising is highly elusive. It might be refreshing for some of us to hear a company say, for example, that a particular display has false contouring, mediocre scaling, inaccurate colors, etc., but, hey, what do you expect for the price? What we generally get is either silence on the issues or vague hyperbole about how good the product is, which is anathema for an uninformed public neither willing nor able to do the necessary legwork. You'd think that the admonition, "you get what you pay for," would be a lesson well learned by now, but people are surprised and disappointed all of the time. The assumption that advertisers want you to make is that you are buying a "quality" product, regardless of how much it costs. Obviously, not everyone will be able to afford high ticket items that perform superbly and look elegant (forget last forever), but as a culture, if we tend to default to the lowest common denominator--to those only in search of a bargain or to those who don't much care what they get--we wouldn't be doing justice to "quality" no matter how honest we were about it. This is not to say, however, that affordability and quality are polar opposites. In audio/video, we certainly know that they can be happily compatible, and some companies are better at matching them than others. We also have a sense of how the law of diminishing returns applies. Honesty, if it is even possible in marketing, is not the same as quality--no more than honesty about prejudice is a substitute for not having it.

Even within the modern reality of disposability and planned obsolescence, products ought to show respect for the consumer. Most of us will always have to make compromises based on income and other variables, but that will not mean that we won't care about the products that we purchase to use and enjoy in the here and now. I agree with you that no one should presume to dictate to the masses, of which all of us are a part. But having a sense of excellence and gracefully imparting it is not dictating. Let the chips fall where they may. High-quality A/V is a small enough niche that no mass exodus toward better products or information is likely to happen, but a conspicuously healthy respect for quality can have all sorts of consequences in all sorts of places. Happiness is a notoriously relative term. We can all be content with anything if we are ignorant of alternatives. This is as true of psychological outlooks as it is of DVD players. I'm as guilty as anyone else of laziness and shortsightedness, but we owe it to ourselves, as well to everyone else, to show that we can wake up from time to time. Then if we should decide to buy something shoddy that is a mere temporary convenience, at least we'll know what we're doing, and won't mistake it for something else.

Ed

[jocko_nc]

Interestig rant...

I think people make rational decisions based upon motivates them. When we look a someone else's actions, they might seem strange to us because we do not understand their priorities.

About 10 years ago, my mother-in-law drove a red convertable Jaguar, the decked-out one. White top, tan leather, it looked GREAT. However, as a vehicle it left a lot to be desired. For its size, it was tiny inside. I could not sit in it. With the top down, I had to cock my head to one side. The hood was enormously long. It was not particularly quick. Handling was a bit sloppy. It required premium fuel. Most of all, however, everything broke on it. Did I mention the price?

If someone was looking for performance, quality, and value, that old Jag was the most irrational purchase possible. However, if someone was looking for style over all else, it makes perfect sense.

Consider "fashion", and all that can be wrapped up in it. Function, preformance, value, and longevity are not in the picture at all. The goal is an emotional reaction to how one feels about themselves, and more importantly, how they think others feel about them.

I bet most of the readers here tend to be very logical and mathematical. Hence, functionality, performance, and value. Don't forget doing things the right way! I am guilty as charged. I simply cannot understand fashion because it is so illogical to me.

Here is a good one. I busted out last night when I heard this, however, Wife did not find it so funny...

She wants to re-upholster two chairs we have. (Furniture people grow on trees around here, they will almost work for food.) They are nice chairs, very decent quality. Problem, they are red. She wants them blue, in order to better match the room we are putting together. However, we have spent a ton of money lately, she wants to keep the cost down. So she comes home with some crappy blue fabric for $5.00/yard. No way are we going to rip off nice fabric to replace with this junk, I told her. Well, she says, better fabric is 2 to 3 times as much and we'll need 20 yards.

Her exact words that I found so funny. "I hate to put cheaper fabric on... However, I do not want to spend a lot. The chairs will not be so nice or last as long... but that's o.k., no one is going to be sitting on them anyway." I fell on the floor.

And that is totally logical to her. Amazing.

jocko

[Quagmire]

Kex,

I understand the point you're making and it may only be a matter of semantics, but I wouldn't use the word "quality" to describe what you're talking about. To me, the word "value" best describes this property. I'd have to say that quality does mean such things as durability, longevity, and superior performance, otherwise how would you be able to describe these properties. I think quality is a singular property, something is either high quality or not, whereas value is a measure of one property against another. If something does not perform exceptionally well it may not be a very high quality component, but if it can be obtained for an very good price, it may still be considered a good value. Conversely, it is possible to have a component which is very high quality, but doesn't really represent a good value to most consumers. Some very high quality audio components fall exactly into that catagory.

Like I said, Kex. I understand the point that you're making, but I can't say that I agree because I think the terminologly is wrong.

Q

[shokhead]

Quility, listening to a cd on your nice HT. Quinity,downloading 5000 cd's onto something and walking around while you lister to them.

[kexodusc]

Kex,

I understand the point you're making and it may only be a matter of semantics, but I wouldn't use the word "quality" to describe what you're talking about. To me, the word "value" best describes this property. I'd have to say that quality does mean such things as durability, longevity, and superior performance, otherwise how would you be able to describe these properties. I think quality is a singular property, something is either high quality or not, whereas value is a measure of one property against another. If something does not perform exceptionally well it may not be a very high quality component, but if it can be obtained for an very good price, it may still be considered a good value.

I have to disagree, quality is comparative too...Quality is probably the most subjective trait of any product. I would think a Lexus sedan to be higher quality than a Ford F-150, but if I'm towing 1500 lbs every day, I'm pretty sure that Lexus will break down first...it all comes back to design goals. If you only need a parachute to work once, you don't really care if it's made with leather, gold, made etc...as long as it does the job it was designed to do. Part of its design goals include the cost aspect, hence the quality and cost must be related. In my above example, both are vehicles but have different features (and possible uses). In this case the cheaper one might be "higher quality" for certain uses. Maybe I'm biased having worked for Honda, that was certainly the definition Honda used, and I'm aware of its acceptance in other manufacturing firms as the definition of quality.

To me "truth in advertising" means the correct dissemination of features and price...power windows are either there, or not. Quality is too subjective a term to describe tangibly. You'll rarely see a company promise a level of tangible quality (ie: rate of failure less than 1%, etc..) Instead they walk a fine line and allow the consumer to fill in the blanks.

I think we are discussing semantics here though. Perhaps it's about time the consumers started demanding specs on quality such as "rate of failure, expected longevity, etc" in addition to the performance specs we all want. Then we could flame a company that refuses to provide this info, or misleads us.

I think Sir Terrence is right about changing values, however. When I worked for Honda, our customer research revealed our customers to hold Quality (typical definition, ie: longevity, durability, no break-downs etc) higher than Price, Performance, Safety, and Ergonomics. (on a side note, Honda's internal research suggested the US manufacturers had closed the "quality gap", but perceptions remained in the market).
GM customers value Performance and Price almost equally, with Quality a distance third.
I may be out of touch, but at one point in time, Volvo's customers viewed Safety as the most important feature.
If I tell somebody to build me something, for X dollars, that performs in such a way, and is reliable 89% of the time, the product is of high quality if it accomplishes that. I cannot complain if the manufacturer meets my expectation. If I expect reliability 99% of the time, but buy something that has reliability only 89% of the time, I was either lied to, or I compromised. If I compromised, I only have myself to blame.

[edtyct]

I had almost finished a post when I lost power--an omen? Anyway, I agree that semantics is a big part of this discussion. That said, the car companies don't have a monopoly on what "quality" means to people. Language use is too slippery for any one pragmatic definition to dominate. However, to the extent that "quality" means "characteristic" or "feature," kexo is right to privilege design parameters. Interestingly, though, the term by itself has assumed the sense of something superior rather than merely generic. And the term "value" has acquired two senses, almost completely at odds--either cost effectiveness or monetary worth. Both a Honda and a Jaguar will get you from point A to point B (though the Jag may break down more). Each has more value than the other for completely different but not necessarily conflicting reasons, despite the shared descriptive term. The comparison of apples and oranges usually isn't controversial. A truck can haul, and a Lexus can seat comfortably. No one's going to lose any sleep debating this point. Nor is anyone likely to get all worked up because, say, leather, as opposed to cloth, makes for quality seating, even if the justification for the term turns out to be price alone.

We can generally see through or ignore distinctions that boil down to semantics or discontinuity. Relative quality comes up only when we expect a certain group of items under a single heading to perform similar functions. Quality is also at stake when things generally don't perform well because not enough people care or can tell--whether longevity, function, WAF, or construction is the root of the problem. At the risk of triviality, take a DVD player (#). The very name implies competence at various tasks, but how many tasks and how much performance at what cost, compromise, or margin for error? And how obligated is a manufacturer to tell you? As kexo says, somewhere along the line, consumers are responsible for what they purchase, but consumers don't alwyas come into the world, or the store, knowing what to look for. Companies and advertisers have had a field day giving people less than they can at their price because, for one reason or another, they were able to traffic on ignorance (or, less perjoratively, lack of knowledge). This happens all of the time; it's almost built into the system. On a board like this one, we're hoping to get information that isn't always forthcoming through the readily available channels. To some extent, consumer responsibilty correlates with level of interest and conscientiousness, but not completely. Business cultures have their characteristics, too, and in a complex, specialized society, much can be hidden. If a company gets the idea that it can make a few bucks deceiving the public, it just might. The tactic has been successful enough to repay repetition.

Kexo wrote, "If I tell somebody to build me something, for X dollars, that performs in such a way, and is reliable 89% of the time, the product is of high quality if it accomplishes that. I cannot complain if the manufacturer meets my expectation. If I expect reliability 99% of the time, but buy something that has reliability only 89% of the time, I was either lied to, or I compromised. If I compromised, I only have myself to blame." True, but how much of what you own is a result of your own specifications. Most of what you have, you purchase. What you purchase is largely amenable to your research, but not completely. A great deal of your information comes from manufacturers and their advertisers. If we're lucky, an independent press will help to pick up the slack. But a great deal of what we use may as well be a black box, and we don't have time to reinvent it ourselves to determine whether it's up to snuff.

By the way, this isn't a rant on anyone. I mainly agree with kexo, Q, and everything written in this thread, it's just a damn interesting topic, and I can't resist running my mouth, er fingers, off.

Ed

[kexodusc]

Weird, before my last reply to you and Q simultaneously, I had a 500 word essay on the go to you alone, Ed, then my power cut out too...guess it wasn't meant to be.

I'm reminded of a little hanging my barber has in his shop, something to the effect of:

"We offer service three ways:

Good, Fast, Cheap

You can have any two of the three:
If you want it quick and cheap, it won't be good.
If you want it cheap and good, it won't be quick.
If you want it quick and good, it won't be cheap."

[edtyct]

kexo,

We defy fate and press firmly ahead. As for the barber, thank god I'm thinning. Nice talking to you.

Ed

[Quagmire]

"I have to disagree, quality is comparative too..."

Oh I'm not saying that there aren't degrees of quality, this is certain. In fact it is up to the discriminating consumer to evaluate the quality of a product compared to the price being asked. To me, that is the process of determining its value.

"...Quality is probably the most subjective trait of any product."

Sorry, but I totally disagree. What is subjective, open to interpretation, etc... is OUR PERCEPTION of the product's quality. The intergrity of the product itself does not change in response to our opinion of it.

"...it all comes back to design goals. If you only need a parachute to work once, you don't really care if it's made with leather, gold, made etc...as long as it does the job it was designed to do."

And if you were inspecting the chute before your jump and found that it was constructed of tissue paper... what would you think of its quality then? But to play devils advocate for a moment, lets say that you had mistakenly heard that this was the latest greatest material being used in modern parachute design. Your belief or perception is that this is a fine quality chute, plus it's being offered at half the price of conventional parachutes. None of your beliefs about the parachute are going to change the fact that if used, it is going to disentegrate, and you are probably going to plummet to your death. The parachute seemed a good value to you, but only because you misjudged the properties of the material and thus, the overall quality of the parachute. The properties of the chute material can be objectively and scientifically tested. That a particular brand of parachute is made with high grade materials and to exacting standards will determine the overall quality of the product. Whether or not it represents a good value to the customer is open to interpretation and is a highly subjective thing.

"You'll rarely see a company promise a level of tangible quality (ie: rate of failure less than 1%, etc..) Instead they walk a fine line and allow the consumer to fill in the blanks."

My point exactly. The customer filling in the blanks is the subjective aspect of this process evaluating various criteria (including their perception of the quality) against other things like cost, functionality, style, availability, etc... to make a determination as to the product's overall value to them.

"If I tell somebody to build me something, for X dollars, that performs in such a way, and is reliable 89% of the time, the product is of high quality if it accomplishes that."

And if somebody else builds the same type of product and it is reliable 92% of the time it is made to an even higher standard of quality. But it may hold little value to the consumer if they want to charge 10 times as much for it. Whether or not someone is willing to pay that price to get the extra 3% reliablity is up to them. It may be needed or highly desired by one person, but not that important to another. Its value is determined by the consumer but the added reliability or "build quality" is determined by the manucturer. The numbers to support the better build quality are either there or they are not and that is not up for interpretation.

I do agree it is a matter of semantics in what you call it, but I also think there is an important distinction between the two principles.

Q

[kexodusc]

Sorry, but I totally disagree. What is subjective, open to interpretation, etc... is OUR PERCEPTION of the product's quality. The intergrity of the product itself does not change in response to our opinion of it.

No the characteristics of the good remain fixed, however its use will play huge role in determining quality. You will typically see quality defined as "the customer’s perception of how a good or service is fit for their purpose and how it satisfies stated and implicit specifications." (source: International Standards Organization)
The key here being "satisfying needs." I'm afraid unlike a physical property, quality is subjective, quality is based on perception. Something used in 2 different functions may exhibit different quality characteristics, it may be successful in one function 100% of the time, yet successful at another only 90% of the time. The physical properties remain the same, yet degree of satisfaction changes.



And if you were inspecting the chute before your jump and found that it was constructed of tissue paper... what would you think of its quality then? But to play devils advocate for a moment, lets say that you had mistakenly heard that this was the latest greatest material being used in modern parachute design. Your belief or perception is that this is a fine quality chute, plus it's being offered at half the price of conventional parachutes. None of your beliefs about the parachute are going to change the fact that if used, it is going to disentegrate, and you are probably going to plummet to your death.

Your tissue paper chute example leaves out one critical aspect of my argument...the design goals/needs...it is unlikely that a chute using tissue paper would accomplish its goal of getting landing the body safely and under control. It's also unlikely the manufacturer or the consumer would expect it to land the person intact. However, if it's goal was to kill the me, then it would accomplish that very well. If the manufacturer claimed it would land me intact and it failed more than acceptable parameters (which are probably exceptionally high for parachutes), then it is poor quality. If by the grace of good this tissue chute landed me intact 100% of the time, what difference does grade or cost of material make?
If you use copper tubing to deliver hot water in your home, or platinum tubing, is the platinum of higher quality simply because it costs more, oxidizes at a slower pace, is more maleable, etc?



The parachute seemed a good value to you, but only because you misjudged the properties of the material and thus, the overall quality of the parachute. The properties of the chute material can be objectively and scientifically tested.
My point exactly, if I misjudged the properties of the material, and wasn't lied to (or misguided) by the seller, how can I blame anyone but myself?



And if somebody else builds the same type of product and it is reliable 92% of the time it is made to an even higher standard of quality.
No, it is made to higher degree of reliability, added quality only exists if there is a net benefit of having 92% reliability in this case. If 92% is unecessary and yields no benefit to me, even if costs are equal, I am indifferent to either selection. Quality is very much about meeting needs. One cannot look at the measurable properties in isolation of the designed purpose of the object in question, or the demands of the consumer. Sometimes these don't necessarily equal the same thing, this is where expectations come in. This I think is the real topic of this thread, the gap between corporate design goals and consumer expectations at certain price points.

[Quagmire]

Funny, I know of many companies and manufacturers which have "quality control" programs in place to ensure that what they send out the door meets certain standards. This function is not in the control of the consumer. What you are describing to me would relate more to the marketing of a product and "customer satisfaction". There may definitely be a correlation between the quality of a product that gets sent out the door and the customers' satisfaction, but they are not one and the same.

"No the characteristics of the good remain fixed, however its use will play huge role in determining quality."

No, its use may determine the degree of customer satisfaction, which I once again assert is a determination of its "value" relative to the consumer, but it doesn't change the product. The customer either values the quality of a product or does not.

"No, it is made to higher degree of reliability..."

And how is this accomplished? If a manufacturer doesn't use a higher quality material, a better design, or better methods of construction, then how is reliability inscreased. The consumer doesn't determine this, the consumer only responds to the increased reliability and places a value on the product.

"This I think is the real topic of this thread, the gap between corporate design goals and consumer expectations at certain price points."

This we agree on. ;-)

Q

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Some of the comments and observations in this thread are very interestering.

Keep it up folks!!

[topspeed]

I agree. This is one of the most intriguing threads I've read here in a long time.

[Quagmire]

Okay, T-man.

I had to rush my reply to Kex the last time around so here are a few more thoughts for us to mull over. Kex said...

"No the characteristics of the good remain fixed, however its use will play huge role in determining quality.”

I responded to this once already, but here are some more thoughts: The foundation for the concept of quality differences is that all products are NOT created equal. Products which perform at a higher level of quality can be differentiated from those which perform at lesser levels. What must be determined by the customer is what level of quality will satisfy their needs at a price they are willing to pay. Once again I point out that quality is being weighed along with other factors to determine which product represents the best value to the customer. Two products which are EQUAL in performance but vary widely in price do not differ in quality; they both do the same thing and one does not perform better than the other; but the less expensive one probably represents a better value to the customer.

Kex also said...

“Something used in 2 different functions may exhibit different quality characteristics…”

I would say that something used in two different functions may exhibit different “performance characteristics”. A heavy metal hook may make a good anchor, but a poor floatation device. The fact that it can’t perform both functions equally well doesn’t disqualify it from being thought of as a quality product with respect to what it does well.

Kex again...

“If you use copper tubing to deliver hot water in your home, or platinum tubing, is the platinum of higher quality simply because it costs more, oxidizes at a slower pace, is more maleable, etc?"

Actually, if the platinum tubing is superior in all respects (like some of the ones you mentioned) compared to the copper tubing, then yes it is a higher quality material. If it cost the same as the copper tubing is there any doubt that people would chose it over the copper tubing? But because it cost more, the consumer must weigh the benefits of using the higher quality material against its higher costs. If it cost twice as much but lasts four times as long, then a wise consumer might decide that the initial investment, though larger, is justified and in fact the more expensive tubing represents a better value in the long run. Others might prefer the platinum tubing but cannot afford it. For them the lesser quality, less expensive material is the better value only because it’s what they can afford. Still others might have the money, but see the advantages of the platinum tubing as being irrelevant, and at twice the cost, of no value at all.

Just so there are no misunderstandings... these are my responses to Kex and not to you, Sir T. I just thought I'd tag them on here since you said, "Keep it up folks!!"

Q

[kexodusc]

Quagmire,
I really can't disagree with anything you are saying here...and I can't help but think defending my position is a exercise in futility.

That being said I will march onward.

The differences in our respective opinions begins with our fundamental definition of quality. You are defining quality as a physical property of an item, a fixed property that exists or doesn't exist.

I'm using a definition I know exists in a corporate environment that is probably user, but essentially pegs quality as a relative characteristic, subject to external forces. Not necessarily fixed.

I recognize at this point I will fail to move you from your definition to mine. I see this more as my failure to elaborate than a flaw in my position.

I will ask you a question, so I am sure I understand where you are coming from.

Consider widgets X and Y. Widget X has 100% reliability and 100% performance scores when used indoors during the night but 90% when used indoors during the day. Widget Y has 100% reliability and performance scores when used indoors during the day, but 90% when used indoors during the night.
Both widgets are used do the same job. Is one of higher quality than the other?

[Quagmire]

"The differences in our respective opinions begins with our fundamental definition of quality."

Agreed.

"You are defining quality as a physical property of an item, a fixed property that exists or doesn't exist"

Actually, I would define quality as the ability to hold known parameters of a product to specific tollerances which relate directly to various aspects of its operation such as performance, reliability, ease of use, etc... It is not setting up one property of a material as defining quality to the exclussion of all other properties; for instance steel is a very strong material but it is also very heavy whereas aluminum is also very strong but is light weight compared to steel: So if one is building airplanes aluminum would be seen as the superior product due to the fact that airplanes are intended to fly. If the weight of the material were not important for a different application, then aluminum may not be seen as the superior product. The customer does form an opinion as to the quality of a product (this may be where we are getting crossed up); as in your example of the copper and platinum tubing -- even though some viewed the platinum material as being superior to the copper material, it cost more than they where able or willing to pay. That doesn't mean that they viewed it as an inferior product, but its lack of affordability made it a lesser value than the copper tubing. The customer participates in determining the value of a product, but not is quality.

"I'm using a definition I know exists in a corporate environment that is probably user..."

As am I. I definitely know that companies have quality control protocals and that companies are also concerned about customer satisfaction. As far as your example of widgets X and Y... there must be some property of the widgets which causes them to function differently depending on whether it is day or night. If one widget is designed for daytime use and is marketed to the customer that way and the other is designed for nighttime use and is marketed to the customer that way, then they are of equal quality. The manufacturer has changed some property of the widgets to perform better for the appropriate application. If neither has been designed to operate better at a particular time of the day then this is not a design criteria. If they are the same in all other respects then they would be of equal quality but one would represent a better value to the customer who does need it to operate within a specific time frame. If all such widgets are designed to operate during the day, then one is definitely of higher quality than the other. However, given that both operate at a relatively high rate of reliability, it could very well be that IF the lesser quality widget (widget X) sells for one tenth the cost of widget Y, widget X may be viewed as a better value to some customers. If the customer requires a reliability rate of no less that 95% then the better quality widget (widget Y) is also the better value -- the cost of downtime far outweighs the extra expense of the better widget. As you can see, this is still about meeting needs, but the manufacturer determines the standard of the product and thus its quality, the customer makes a decision as to whether the product is of value. I didn't factor in the other variable that you mentioned, indoor use, because both work equally well indoors. Typically, quality is not measured by how well a product performs various unrelated functions: Products are designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold to perform specific functions. Quality is usually measured by how well a product performs a specific function relative to other like products.

"I really can't disagree with anything you are saying here...and I can't help but think defending my position is a exercise in futility."

I hope you're not upset with this argument. I'm certainly not. I was enjoying the discussion and judging by some of the comments, so were others. That is why I chose to continue. There is no anger or hostility in anything I have to say. I very much enjoy reading your post, not just on this thread but all of the time.

Q

[sh0rty]

Were have we gone wrong here? What happen to pride of ownership of good quality equipment? What happen to audio as a long term investment?


I am new to this forum, just joined to do some research about my first home theatre system (not spending more than $500) and I find it really funny that every enthusiast web forum I have ever been to has threads just like this one.

Mountain Bike Forum: "Why would anyone bother mountain biking if they don't have a custom built $10,000 race bike." (paraphrase)

Digital Photography Forum: "Why would anyone bother taking a picture if they don't use the latest $10,000, Digital SLR and the best lenses money can buy." (paraphrase)

Here: "Why would anyone bother watching a movie at home if they don't have $10,000 worth of top end audio equipment attached to their TV." (paraphrase)

The other common thread found on all enthusiast forums is the topic of "Posers". People who simply want the best of everything (or at least what is marketed to them as the best) simply as a status symbol. They really have no interest in using the product to their fullest potential, they simply want to own it for the sake of owning it.

Examples: How many Porsche owners spend their weekends at the race track to take full advantage of their car's capabilities? How many Hummer owners (not counting Military) have ever pushed their vehicle to it's limits...let alone ever taken it off a paved road?

I believe a very large portion of consumers who purchase the very top end of any consumer product would fit into the "Poser" category. Don't overlook the necessity of this important segment of consumer. Without these people driving the volume of sales at these price points it would not be cost effective to produce these top end products for most large manufacturers, and not many small manufacturers would survive entirely off of enthusiast business. The volume keeps premium consumer products (relatively) affordable to the less wealthy enthusiasts. Posers are good for enthusiasts! (IMHO)

As for pride of ownership, I really do not think much has changed in recent years: Enthusiasts have always and will always be proud of their equipment, will continue buying the best they can afford (sometimes more than they can afford), keep it in top form, and use it to it's fullest potential. "Posers" will always want the best money can buy (or at least what is marketed to them as the best) but don't really care about taking full advantage of it. The majority simply don't care...never have...never will...they just want something that works today that does not break the bank. If anything, the internet (with websites such as these) has greatly increased the number of enthusiasts (of all types) in recent years...and no doubt created many new posers as well...thus shrinking the "uninformed masses", increasing the sale of all types of premium products...and helping to driving up consumer debt load. (IMHO) :p

On your final point of "What happen to audio as a long term investment?" Consumer Technology is never an investment (financially)...unless your business is to produce it or sell it...at the very least it is an incredibly bad investment (financially). Any consumer product (cars, computers, TV's, audio equipment, etc.) loses a huge chunk of value the minute it leaves the store, and continually decreases in value after that until it either becomes obsolete or an antique. As long as manufacturers are coming out with "new and improved" models every year, this will be the case.

This reply turned out a lot longer than originally planned. I hope you enjoyed my views on enthusiast web forums, and modern consumerism. :D

sh0rty :P

[Mr Peabody]

First of all let me go on record by saying I am pretty much the opposite of the folks Sir T described. Friends and family find it quite odd that I can sit on my sofa and just listen to music. I listen to my audio system far more hours in a week than viewing TV. They also find it disturbing that I am comfortable with my components not matching cosmeticly.

With that being said, let me be devil's advocate. This still will not explain why customers don't follow advice they paid for or want to misuse expensive equipment. I understand there is no cure for stupid. BUT, how do you think the person who bought a $3,500.00 receiver or more expensive processor felt when his "investment" was almost worthless the next year because better digital processing was on the market or newer surround sound formats were available? Audio is and has been in a technical or digital improvement race similar to what computers were for years. Look at how fast the HDTV technology is coming. These sets aren't cheap. Hell, we're trying to figure out how to get 720p and 1080I displayed on our sets and they are coming out with 1080p sets. The manufacturers are moving rather quickly to flood the market with new technology when most people can't even receive a HD signal or choose not to. I don't think cable or satelite can provide more than a dozen HD channels at best. But that's straying off subject. Except that I just paid over $3k on a HD DLP TV and it's not a comfortable feeling to know better TV's are on the way before I ever get to see mine at it's full potential. The copy guard protection hampering new technology is a big turn off. Even though the majority of people aren't smart enough to realize it this copy protection and manufacturers not using it to it's potential has made HDMI nothing more than a digital version of a RF connector. Not to mention we may have two HD DVD formats out soon going to war to further add to everyone's confusion. Keep in mind this is our hobby or profession for some and we can't agree and are sometimes confused, so how is our average customer perceiving all this? I'm not ever planning to buy one of those ultra cheap DVD players but I doubt I will spend as much on my next as I did on the one I have now. Things are going to have to settle down some before I feel comfortable paying big money for nice equipment, excluding 2 channel of course.

I personally feel that the so called industry is pissing in their own water well.

Another thing while I am being devils advocate and stepping on toes, there are many here on these very forums that tell newbies all the time there is no difference between CD players, amps, cables etc. so why should we put out more money? One guy is telling me his Yamaha receiver sounded better than high dollar A/V processors, another says zip cord sounds the same as high dollar speaker cable, another says his $199.00 Sony cd player sounds as good as an Arcam, so what's a guy to do? I'd say take all this advice with a grain of salt and be wise enough to do your own comparisons if you really care.

[robert393]

Wow TT, this is the most interesting exchange of idea's I have seen in some time. Some very insightful input. Certainly get's a person to thinking...

I will try to be concise with my thoughts.....

At 44yrs of age, owner of 2 corporations (>100 employees), my experience is that in most instances 1) "quality comes with a price", and 2) "You get what you pay for"

A person wants a new car to drive to work, and his morning commute is 30min. He (or she as the case may be) can purchase a very dependable 5yr old Hyundai for $4,000.00 that accomplishes his goal of getting to work & home each day!. Or he can purchase a 1yr old BMW 745il for $40,000.00 that will be dependable and accomplish the same goal (getting to work & home each day!).

So, what's the difference? Both these cars accomplish the same goal of getting the person to-and-from work each day, but the difference in PERFORMANCE, COMFORT, SUSPENSION, HANDLING & OVERALL RESPONSE between the 2 vehicles is going to be huge. That difference could be described as "QUALITY". You simply cannot get the performance, comfort, and handling of a BMW 745il for the (admission) price of a Hyundia!

Same goes for HT. The person buying a "$500.00 HT" is not getting much. Heck, I don't know what he COULD get for $500. Maybe a decent HD ready 27" monitor? Or if he already has the monitor maybe he could get the "HT-in-a-box" that I see on sale at the local CC, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, and Flee-Markets.

But make no mistake about it, they are NOT getting anything even close (or resembling!) a "quality" HT for the whopping price of $500.00.

Now, so you don't think me to be "snooty" or simply some rich-bastard that can afford it let me tell you that my HT system has been 10yrs in the making. I started with the "$600 budget" too. But I (very quickly) learned that "quality" did in-deed come with a price, and all speakers (and components/accessories) are not the same, and the $600.00 I spent was more of an initiation fee than anything else. For if I wanted quality, the price would be much higher! The pieces I originally bought ended-up being given away, used for my telephone on-hold messeging, and some of the "really good deal" pieces being tossed in the trash!

Since then I built my system one piece at a time. Always choosing the individual pieces after thorough research and listening, then choosing based on performance 1st and price 2nd. With that being said, I also notice there being a "point of diminishing returns". That point being different for each individual. That is why I never "put down" the person wanting the "$500 HT system". I will however argue that they are NOT getting "quality" HT for $500.00.

As for the people the poster mentioned above that say "all wires, cables, DVD players etc...are all the same". More power to the un-educated. PT Barnum said it best 'their's a sucker born every minute". There IS a difference. And those people that say there is none are not dealing within the realms of reality, but rather listening to a "snake-oil" salesman trying to make-a-buck by selling inferior products with the promise that they will sound/perform as well as a better/more expensive piece.

It has been my experience that there is no "short-cut" or simple/cheap route to aquiring a "quality" HT set-up. It takes LOTS of time (researching/listening/comparing) and a considerable amount of $$ to get it "right". It may not require "passion", but it helps...

Robert

[Mr Peabody]

All I can say to you young man is, AMEN!!

[nightflier]

From kexo: "I think the trend to "disposable" equipment has more to do with people not wanting to invest paying a premium for durability or longevity in something that they figure they will upgrade 2 or 3 years down the road anyway. So cheap electronics come out. Nothing wrong with that...."

If I could suggest a tangential thread: there's something really wrong with the idea that the masses should buy crappy $100 systems if they can replace them every two years: it's called waste. Sure the $600 system may seem to be a 'bad' investment, but what about the cost of waste on our landfills (or rather the landfills of countries who are coerced into buying our trash)? Is that really worth the $200 difference?

This whole attitude that whatever the next guy does is none of our business, is flawed. We're all in this together, and eventually this system of disposable goods will start to pile up in our own backyards. Heck we here in California, are already having to pay for this cost as an add-on tax to the electronics we buy.