Review of Audio Note Turntable. [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Review of Audio Note Turntable.



RGA
02-24-2006, 06:46 PM
Yeah I'm the Audio Note fan but I read a review from this fellow on AA and thought that some in the market here might be interested in something a little outside the mainstream. I was also impressed by the level of detail from an amateur reviewer in that the info is well laid out and quite informative. This is also one of the turntables I will be looking at when the time comes. http://www.mostlyaudio.com/tt2review.html

SlumpBuster
02-24-2006, 07:50 PM
Yeah I'm the Audio Note fan

No shame in being a fanboy, as long as your honest about it. :P

Nice read actually.

AN offers a complete line of products. How do you think AN rectifies the old maxim "Jack of all trades, master of none" in a world that seems to be becoming more specialized and compartmentalized? Do you think they are spread too thin or do they balance quality through the line. The only other manufacturer I can think of off the top of my head that does the same is McIntosh, and I don't even know if that is true anymore. Come to think of it, I don't think they ever made turntables. Mind you, I think its kind of cool that you could but together an all AN system.

RGA
02-25-2006, 12:07 PM
Well the notion of the jack of all trades master of none is true if makers let it be true. Plus Audio note does not re-invent the wheel - they took a number of top flight platforms in a number of products and simply revamped them and made them better which is less onerous than designing everything from the ground up. The turntable is based off of SystemDek II transports, the Arms are improved Regas and improved carts from Goldring. Speakers were designed by Leo Beranek and improved by Peter Snell and then AN. All of these makers have made great stuff so in many ways AN is saving themselves from a large part of the work The TT3 for example is a Voyd player. Audio Note bought Voyd. Unfortunately Voyd had a certain contractor for power supplies who closed so Audio Note does not have a supplier for the motors anymore. So AN is stuck. can't make Voyd players. They have recently built their own uber player but the guy in town here has been waiting over a year for his to be made.

This is why I like their level system (though it is painfully unclear to most) because the system should not have a weak link but a system works together. That means that perhaps a given stand alone unit may actually not be as good as someone elses stand alone product for the same money -- but if it works to serve the system better then it is better to buy that unit to get a better result. (not sure if that makes sense). My amp for instance works for my system but objectively speaking the OTO has a lot of issues starting with low power that would make it completely unnacceptable in many set-ups but having said that may beat a Krell at 10 times the price when connected up to an AN system.

Lastly, Peter is the owner and gets the most talk and does the most talking -- but it's the guys behind the scenes, the actual engineers, who are doing the designing. Andy Grove has designed amps for Quad most notably -- they also have or had one of the big guys from Sonic Frontiers and a fellow who is now at Sugden.

But hey they state in plain view everything they got from others. Even going further by saying that if Snell had lived he would have been making better speakers than AN could make. Unfortunately Snell was replaced by Kevin Voecks and so the proof is in the pudding. Listen to an AN E versus a Snell B-Minor (around the same price) and tell me who knows how to build good sounding speakers. The difference is Snell obviously listened to his products - while Voecks no doubt knows how to use a computer.

theaudiohobby
02-25-2006, 02:56 PM
... Listen to an AN E versus a Snell B-Minor (around the same price) and tell me who knows how to build good sounding speakers. The difference is Snell obviously listened to his products - while Voecks no doubt knows how to use a computer.

You never cease to amaze me with your disparaging and often incorrect comments about various products, How did you know that Voecks does not listen to his products, on what basis did you arrive at this conclusion? He and his colleagues run a facility for that very purpose, listening, neither is there any consensus about the superiority of either designs, so your comments are preposterous in the extreme.

RGA
02-25-2006, 07:01 PM
"He and his colleagues run a facility for that very purpose, listening"

If he had confidence in his own ears and listened for himself then why would he need to bring in average Joe's off the street to help him be the arbiter of what good sound is?

Consensus? No there is no consensus there is opinion...my opinion is that the B-Minor is a terrible loudspeaker compared to the E. What is your opinion after having listened extensively to both of these loudspeakers?

Of course I wonder why the E has been selling in one formn or another since 1980 or so with more orders than they can keep up with and the B-Minor ran for a few years and soon got replaced by a completely different design despite being aided with adverts/review in Stereophile. I'm sure the excuse for the replacement is this week's new revolutionary superior improvement in computer modelling and aerospace materials that make the new better. After all that argument is valid -- why did you buy a pre 1970's design again? Ahh.

theaudiohobby
02-26-2006, 09:34 AM
Please, please RGA, I do not want this to degenerate into a free for all, but here goes

"He and his colleagues run a facility for that very purpose, listening"

If he had confidence in his own ears and listened for himself then why would he need to bring in average Joe's off the street to help him be the arbiter of what good sound is?
Ever heard of the term, "Field testing"?


Consensus? No there is no consensus there is opinion...my opinion is that the B-Minor is a terrible loudspeaker compared to the E. What is your opinion after having listened extensively to both of these loudspeakers?
Better go and re-read your original comments, your singular opinion is insufficient premise to arrive at your original conclusion, all you can deduce from your opinion is that you do not like Kevin Voecks designs, nothing more.

Of course I wonder why the E has been selling in one formn or another since 1980 or so with more orders than they can keep up with and the B-Minor ran for a few years and soon got replaced by a completely different design despite being aided with adverts/review in Stereophile.
The E and indeed most Audio Note speakers are very much like Toyota Corolla and such like, it has maintained the same name, but has changed enormously over it's production lifetime, probably the only the thing that remains intact from the original design is the basic cabinet dimension and the driver sizes. The crossover, drivers, etc have all changed considerably over the years.

I'm sure the excuse for the replacement is this week's new revolutionary superior improvement in computer modelling and aerospace materials that make the new better.After all that argument is valid -- why did you buy a pre 1970's design again? Ahh.
A copout..the AN's may have kept the same basic dimensions and name over the years but as mentioned previously, a lot has changed and is still changing, hence the gobblekook naming nomenclature to differentiate various iterations of the speaker. Your comments about my choice of speaker are a copout that has no relevance to your original comments which disparaged Kevin Voecks work.

RGA
02-26-2006, 07:14 PM
"Field testing"

Unnecessary unless he's tone deaf and does not trust his own ears. I he making a speaker that HE believes is good based off the live events and all his knowledge of music or is he more interested in the Big Mac approach to speaker building. Make it bland and innoffensive and everyone can passably eat/hear one -- great they ain't.

But I'm not here to convince you -- If you think the B-Minor is better go for it - it would not surprise me.

"all you can deduce from your opinion is that you do not like Kevin Voecks designs, nothing more."

True and if the B-Minor was any good they would have kept it in the line.

"the AN's may have kept the same basic dimensions and name over the years but as mentioned previously, a lot has changed and is still changing"

Yes change is good if it serves to better the sound. Many never get a good sound at the outset so they have to change a LOT more. Voecks' B-Minor IMO is not a change for the better -- the market told them so.

Like many companies who bring out new products, new is not always new for the better. This is why I get into arguments with a poster on AA who everytime I hear a new speaker like the Quad 989 I'm quickly told that it's not as good as the older no longer made unit. I hear a certain panel starting with A then the excuse is that particular model was dreadful (despite Stereophile's entire staff saying otherwise)

Still, I can accept what he says in part because it is not unusual for the founder to leave or die and the beancounters to take over and basically survive off of the name building inferior dreck and it is also true that I disagree with Stereophile often enough to keep an open mind that he may be right.

Is any opinion on a speaker going to be objective fact? No unless you are talking about specific traits such as does the speaker hit 20hz. One can simply purchase a Sound and Vision test cd play the 20hz frequency and confirm yes or no.

theaudiohobby
02-27-2006, 03:53 AM
"Field testing"

Unnecessary unless he's tone deaf and does not trust his own ears. I he making a speaker that HE believes is good based off the live events and all his knowledge of music or is he more interested in the Big Mac approach to speaker building. Make it bland and innoffensive and everyone can passably eat/hear one -- great they ain't.

With all due respect, you are expressing an opinion about an accepted market practice without knowledge of the actual commercial realities surrounding the decision. Comments such as "he making a speaker that HE believes is good based off the live events and all his knowledge of music or is he more interested in the Big Mac approach to speaker building" is simply an ignorant presumption IMO that is based on a simplistic view of loudspeaker manufacturing. If Kevin Voecks current company has the resources to field test their products before commercial release, more power to them, that ability is a strength not a weakness.


Is any opinion on a speaker going to be objective fact? No"

The question you should be asking this "Is a single anecdotal opinion on a speaker reliable?" and the answer to that is highly unlikely. However, the same cannot be said for a body of opinion, at least it carries much more weight than a single opinion.

kexodusc
02-27-2006, 05:08 AM
The question you should be asking this "Is a single anecdotal opinion on a speaker reliable?" and the answer to that is highly unlikely. However, the same cannot be said for a body of opinion, at least it carries much more weight than a single opinion.

I think that sums up rather nicely the objectives behind market research. People too often associate marketing and advertising as somehow being bad for audio. Just the opposite. Using focus groupts to predict with some accuracy how a speaker will be received by the community isn't a bad thing at all. A much less arrogant approach, IMO. Consulting with focus groups is pretty honest and pretty humble. Find a need in the market place, then devise your product to meet the needs of your target market. That's high school business 101.
The alternative is the Henry Ford model applied to audio. Make your product the way you want, then push it as hard as you can through whatever channels you think will work. Most people will probably dislike it, but the few that do like the product will idolize it with cult like reverance.

JohnMichael
02-27-2006, 09:50 AM
I think that sums up rather nicely the objectives behind market research. People too often associate marketing and advertising as somehow being bad for audio. Just the opposite. Using focus groupts to predict with some accuracy how a speaker will be received by the community isn't a bad thing at all. A much less arrogant approach, IMO. Consulting with focus groups is pretty honest and pretty humble. Find a need in the market place, then devise your product to meet the needs of your target market. That's high school business 101.
The alternative is the Henry Ford model applied to audio. Make your product the way you want, then push it as hard as you can through whatever channels you think will work. Most people will probably dislike it, but the few that do like the product will idolize it with cult like reverance.

Yes the cult like reverence can turn me off towards a product and the person revering the product is suspect.

theaudiohobby
02-27-2006, 09:58 AM
The alternative is the Henry Ford model applied to audio. Make your product the way you want, then push it as hard as you can through whatever channels you think will work. Most people will probably dislike it, but the few that do like the product will idolize it with cult like reverance.

I certainly agree with that, :)

RGA
02-27-2006, 03:10 PM
I think that sums up rather nicely the objectives behind market research. People too often associate marketing and advertising as somehow being bad for audio. Just the opposite. Using focus groupts to predict with some accuracy how a speaker will be received by the community isn't a bad thing at all. A much less arrogant approach, IMO. Consulting with focus groups is pretty honest and pretty humble. Find a need in the market place, then devise your product to meet the needs of your target market. That's high school business 101.
The alternative is the Henry Ford model applied to audio. Make your product the way you want, then push it as hard as you can through whatever channels you think will work. Most people will probably dislike it, but the few that do like the product will idolize it with cult like reverance.

The problem with the democracy or body of voters being right versus one guy being right is that arrogance and snobberry aside what is right or truth and what is "voted to be" right or truth does not make a thing so. You can have 100 doctors in a room 99 of whom make the identical diagnosis, while the other 1 actually made the correct diagnosis. There is a big difference between what is made well and what is marketed well -- High school Business 101.

For a lesson on marketing see Bose -- Bose is the king of selling loudspeakers in this industry and they have no interest whatsover in quality loudspeaker design. Since they are market leader many other companies strive to eat into that market share. B&W has done a rather wonderful job of gaining in that they start with prestige - build up the advertising as much as possible with big posters and flood the magazines with endless pages of sexy sleek powerful looking products and dump technobabble in there as much as is humanly possible. so that when you walk into the dealer the custmer can read "used in Skywalker sound studio."

There is nothing at all wrong with field testing for example but that is not REALLY what the field testing is all about. Like the say what something appears to be is not really what the magician is doing. It is another impressive advertising campaign that we "field tested our speakers and most agree ours is best in a blind listen" which of course is impressive tag line but that's really all it is. Most the VAST majority of buyers do not do any such listening session certainly not the 6 big dealers in my area all of whom claim that most listeners spend less than 1/2 listening and knew what they were going to buy before they ever walked into the store. Largely why for such a long period watts were the selling feature for amplifiers and still are effective. That revceiver is 75 watts andthe lower model is 65 so it's certainly worth paying an extra 40% more money - this can be heard from pretty much every Future shop best buy like saleman going. Or the old Yamaha is better than the Technics because yamaha is in RMS power or some such drivel. Which is not to say that the Yamaha is not better but not for the reasons the useless salestaff provides. And since MOST people are first exposed to audio gear through Future Shop outlets this is where they pick up most of their initial knowledge and of course where BOSE is located.

Harman International is a major selling conglomerate which is solely "in it for the buck" just as McDonald's is solely in it for the Buck and Ford is solely in it for the Buck. If tomorrow someone told Ford Motor company that they would make more money selling pencils by switiching over operation then it would be done ASAP. They have ZERO interest in cars but have very high interest in money. The founders may have had interst but most of them are long gone or dead.

Field testing is huge. When I worked at McDonalds way back the entire country of Canada was field tested when McDonald's became the proving ground for McPizza -- Every store had pizza ovens and McDonald's instantly became the largest Pizza chain. It was tested the consumers bought it in droves because we could make it faster than pizza hut and with drive thru -- then after some years it obviously wained as people will love to try it because it's new and interesting and to get them out of the hum drum usual line-up. Then ohh isn't that interesting Pizza Hut is still around -- McPizza went the way of the brotosaurus. The people were fooled for a while and McDonalds sold more pizza per store than 5 pizza huts combined but like the Snell B-Minor and other hot shot products with no real quality or staying power soon get found out for the rubbish it is and McPizza the rubbish it was dissapeared quietely for a new revcolutionary replacement -- like McRibs or Sub satelite systems.

The majority may choose the Ford Focus but that does not mean the minirity who chose a Bently are in the wrong.

Lastly the issue of majority and minority should be compared in a fair sample size. More people will buy a Voecks loudspeaker than an Audio Note loudspeaker because one can buy a Voecks loudspeaker at probably 1000 times the number of outlets (very conservative number too I should think). Just as many more people will buy a Ford or GM than a Toyota. The majority has spoken. That doesn;t mean the Toyota is inferior in any way -- in fact in many provable ways they are generally much better vehicles.

McDonalds is so popular for the primary reason that their food is for the most part bland. Bland is innofensive to the largest number of people and sells the best. Bland is a neutral taste.

kexodusc
02-27-2006, 03:58 PM
The problem with the democracy or body of voters being right versus one guy being right is that arrogance and snobberry aside what is right or truth and what is "voted to be" right or truth does not make a thing so. You can have 100 doctors in a room 99 of whom make the identical diagnosis, while the other 1 actually made the correct diagnosis.
This only applies in a world where there are two possibilities, one being correct, the other incorrect. Anything remotely subjective wouldn't fit in this capsule.


There is a big difference between what is made well and what is marketed well -- High school Business 101
There's a big difference between giraffes and oranges too. Are you saying anything marketed well can't possibly be made well? Audio Note is among the absolute best marketers I can think of in audio. But their products seem well made to me.


For a lesson on marketing see Bose -- Bose is the king of selling loudspeakers in this industry and they have no interest whatsover in quality loudspeaker design. Since they are market leader many other companies strive to eat into that market share. B&W has done a rather wonderful job of gaining in that they start with prestige - build up the advertising as much as possible with big posters and flood the magazines with endless pages of sexy sleek powerful looking products and dump technobabble in there as much as is humanly possible. so that when you walk into the dealer the custmer can read "used in Skywalker sound studio."
IMO Bose is a terrible marketer. I hope you don't associate Bose tactics with marketing concepts. AN employs more cost-effective, progressive marketing strategies than Bose does. They just don't clear cut amazon forests to make brochures. Bose doesn't market well at all. They're a one-trick pony that preys on inexperience. Nothing more. Abuse of trust (salespeople) and inexperience (consumer) is it. But they aren't selling absolute audio refinement, they're selling lifestyle. They'll admit to that. B&W have hit and miss products with me. But they're a much better marketing machine than Bose. And they have better products.


There is nothing at all wrong with field testing for example but that is not REALLY what the field testing is all about. Like the say what something appears to be is not really what the magician is doing. It is another impressive advertising campaign that we "field tested our speakers and most agree ours is best in a blind listen" which of course is impressive tag line but that's really all it is.
That is the biggest suggestion of conspiracy I've ever read. You could not be further from the truth. Do you really believe that or are you joking? Field testing saves a company a ton of time and money in pushing a product nobody will buy. Consumers could care less if it was "field tested". Most probably assume every product is to some degree. You look down on society too much. Perhaps the Bose buyers would be conned into your theory, but Voecks' consumers aren't that gullible, and I'm sure have heard at least a few other offerings. Highly unlikely.


Largely why for such a long period watts were the selling feature for amplifiers and still are effective. That revceiver is 75 watts andthe lower model is 65 so it's certainly worth paying an extra 40% more money - this can be heard from pretty much every Future shop best buy like saleman going. Or the old Yamaha is better than the Technics because yamaha is in RMS power or some such drivel. Which is not to say that the Yamaha is not better but not for the reasons the useless salestaff provides. And since MOST people are first exposed to audio gear through Future Shop outlets this is where they pick up most of their initial knowledge and of course where BOSE is located.
This isn't marketing, just abuse of trust and inexperience again. Besides, watts are cool and everyone knows more is better :D


Harman International is a major selling conglomerate which is solely "in it for the buck" just as McDonald's is solely in it for the Buck and Ford is solely in it for the Buck. If tomorrow someone told Ford Motor company that they would make more money selling pencils by switiching over operation then it would be done ASAP. They have ZERO interest in cars but have very high interest in money. The founders may have had interst but most of them are long gone or dead.
And none of these guys have survived by intentionally screwing their customers over with evil deceptive tactics. At least not intentionally (though I wonder about Ford..)


Field testing is huge. When I worked at McDonalds way back the entire country of Canada was field tested when McDonald's became the proving ground for McPizza -- Every store had pizza ovens and McDonald's instantly became the largest Pizza chain. It was tested the consumers bought it in droves because we could make it faster than pizza hut and with drive thru -- then after some years it obviously wained as people will love to try it because it's new and interesting and to get them out of the hum drum usual line-up. Then ohh isn't that interesting Pizza Hut is still around -- McPizza went the way of the brotosaurus. The people were fooled for a while and McDonalds sold more pizza per store than 5 pizza huts combined but like the Snell B-Minor and other hot shot products with no real quality or staying power soon get found out for the rubbish it is and McPizza the rubbish it was dissapeared quietely for a new revcolutionary replacement -- like McRibs or Sub satelite systems.
If you speculate about audio like you do the above, no wonder you arrive at the conclusions you do.
Do yourself a favor and learn the history of McPizza... And this truth will undermine all you beliefs about "corporate conspiracy" and "in it for the buck". It's product demand didn't wain...just the opposite. It thrived more than any focus group ever predicted. It was the worst thing that could happen for McDonalds. McDonalds had a gold mine on their hands. But HQ canned it one morning. Why? Because 50 yrs of McDonald's history was about burgers and the Big Mac. What was McDonald's known for? Pizza? Nope...Pizza was cannibalizing the business...stealing from the Big Mac. McDonald's business wasn't growing the way they intended. Pizza revenue was great. But McDonalds revenue isn't really dependant on longterm food sales. Do you know what their business really is? They're the 2nd largest land owner on the planet. A huge commercial land developer and real estater. Only the Catholic Church (surprise) owns more land.
Pizza was bad for the McDonalds vision... burger and fries sales declining within, transferred to Pizza. It wasn't their "identity". So they gave up on the Pizza and went back to burgers and fries.
So if you think McD's or Ford would sell pencils for the buck tomorrow, think again. History suggests otherwise.


The majority may choose the Ford Focus but that does not mean the minirity who chose a Bently are in the wrong.
Here's your problem..you assume there has to be a right and a wrong. Why not 2 rights or 2 wrongs? The Focus meets consumer needs a helluva lot more than a Bently does. I live in freakin' Canada now. Winters here suck way more than Atlanta. There's so much salt on the roads, owning a Bently would be ridiculous. A Focus, well, not my cup of tea, but it was made to die, might as well let it get me from A to B for cheap.


Lastly the issue of majority and minority should be compared in a fair sample size. More people will buy a Voecks loudspeaker than an Audio Note loudspeaker because one can buy a Voecks loudspeaker at probably 1000 times the number of outlets (very conservative number too I should think). Just as many more people will buy a Ford or GM than a Toyota. The majority has spoken. That doesn;t mean the Toyota is inferior in any way -- in fact in many provable ways they are generally much better vehicles.
Better to whom? Not to lease customers who never drive vehicles off warranty. (at least not yet). Better to my dad who owns cars for 10 years though. Know your target market. Most companies try not to compete if they can find a niche and maximize profit while satisfying consumer needs. Competition only benefits the lousy consumer.


McDonalds is so popular for the primary reason that their food is for the most part bland. Bland is innofensive to the largest number of people and sells the best. Bland is a neutral taste.
Interesting theory. Except McD's doesn't sell the best anymore. They're not selling taste either, that's a very small part of it. Toys, playgrounds, fast food, cheap prices...that's all part of it. Personally, I think they drug the food.

You want a conspiracy? Read up on all proven harmful products of drinking milk...that's conspiracy driven (not by corporations) by lowly farmers. Name 1 other animal on the planet that drinks milk naturally beyond infancy? Think mother nature intended for us to drink milk as adults, or for cows to produce 13 times they're natural amount of milk per day? Nope!

Go pick on the dairy industry and leave the poor audio companies alone...

RGA
02-27-2006, 06:43 PM
There's a big difference between giraffes and oranges too. Are you saying anything marketed well can't possibly be made well? Audio Note is among the absolute best marketers I can think of in audio. But their products seem well made to me.

No a product that is marketed well does not mean it is automatically bad but a product marketed well can cover for lousy products. Audio note marketing is very similar to Bently and Rolls Royce. The attitude is simple -- if you want the best you know where to find it and if you need to be advertised to you don;t know what the best is nor would you be able to appreciate it anyway -- so buy some overprice garbage wreck like Cadillac.

It is amazing to me that the no advertising approach ****tiest web-site on the planet for audio can be called great marketing. A HUGE aspect of marketing is to create name brand recognition so that when you walk down a street and talk to average shmoes and say name me a POP they reoply Coke or Pepsi. name me a speaker or in most cases name the best loudspeaker they answer more often than not with BOSE.



IMO Bose is a terrible marketer. I hope you don't associate Bose tactics with marketing concepts. AN employs more cost-effective, progressive marketing strategies than Bose does. They just don't clear cut amazon forests to make brochures. Bose doesn't market well at all. They're a one-trick pony that preys on inexperience. Nothing more. Abuse of trust (salespeople) and inexperience (consumer) is it. But they aren't selling absolute audio refinement, they're selling lifestyle.

I'm sorry but you're way off here. Audio note's marketing concept is to buuild a good product that people can listen to and decide for themsleves -- that's the extent of it. Please point to the big pulsating marketing brain behind it. I suppose you could say word of mouth is smart marketing but RGA is not very big in the big scheme of things - and while FREE for Audio note generates a HUGE amount of controversary which will turn off as many people as those open minded enough to put the verbiage aside and try it out..and RGA would only be yapping in the first place if it actually performed better otherwise....

Bose markets extremely well -- their product itself is designed to be marketed well because ti isn't designed to sound good. Aside from television infomercials they even dictate to sellers how it will be presented to possible customers usually by NEVER allowing anything resembing an A/B session. You say they are a one trick pony -- yes a well marketed and very well advertised trick and you may say they are not innovative but they don;t need to be innovative at this point. They sell more speakers than anyone else and it isn't just because of style and low prices because they're highly overpriced. You can also say they are "tricking" consumers but that is also untrue. Many Bose buyers continue to buy bose for second and third purchases. Many people are very happy Bose owners. The proof is in the numbers and they continue to sell despite 10 years of auio forums with everyone saying how truly crappy Bose is and another 10 years of higher end magazines that either ignore them from their pages or give them pretty crappy reviews.

Exactly how is Audio Note with their zero advertising, zero brochures, and lousy outdated web-site better marketing than Bose. As Peter noted he's much prefer to have Bose's bank statements. His advertising is what? Pissing reviewers like Morricab and posters like TAH off on audioasylum and basically lambasting the reviewers and competitors -- that just makes him come actross as a crank. Hardly a great advertising engine. If I read befroe I heard I can tell you I'd probably be in the other camp too.



B&W have hit and miss products with me. But they're a much better marketing machine than Bose. And they have better products.

Well marketing is an interesting and tough to prove concept. the point of marketing is to sell product and keep thee company strong with public presence. B&W has learned no question about how to market from BOSE by completley flooding the market with advertising. The result though is that Bose sells far more has sold far more and will continue to sell far more for a long time. OTOH I certainly won;t argue that B&W is bad at marketing -- quite the opposite they are one of if not the best of the bunch who claim high end pretensions.

And they make much better products to boot.



That is the biggest suggestion of conspiracy I've ever read. You could not be further from the truth. Do you really believe that or are you joking? Field testing saves a company a ton of time and money in pushing a product nobody will buy. Consumers could care less if it was "field tested". Most probably assume every product is to some degree. You look down on society too much. Perhaps the Bose buyers would be conned into your theory, but Voecks' consumers aren't that gullible, and I'm sure have heard at least a few other offerings. Highly unlikely.

Firstly we are talking about loudspeakers and the number one selling speaker company in the world seels what is considered by most audiophilia inflicted individuals as JUNK (Back to Bose). if this was field tested in blind tests they would have flunked. So Please explain exactly what FIELD TESTING is doing for Voecks! This is the same advertising that is posted on harman's site. Most people prefer qualities A, B and C in loudspeakers -- great who is that for? is that for the benefit of the consumer? No because the consumer doesn't care and have shown through hiistory not to care -- it is a MARKETING tool to convince people with a half way scientific mind that gee the company selling the speaker also did a field test and came to this conclusion and it looks impressive because they have a guy who has a DR. in front of their name so they must be right. That is MARKETING. A speaker's job is to sound good and reproduce music well - one can listen and determine that - no need for anything else.

Now if you mean field testing int he sense that let's make sure if we bring this to market that people will actually buy it then along with the above you can put people in a room and find out what they would choose. I have been involved in such tests myself where a series of images of product designs were shown to me and picked what I liked and why -- the research is very valuable to BIG companies because if they screw up it can obliterate financial success for the year. This sort of field testing though does not have thing one to do with the quality of the product.



And none of these guys have survived by intentionally screwing their customers over with evil deceptive tactics. At least not intentionally (though I wonder about Ford..)

Well Ford clearly has on a number of occasions and most thinking people know how truly evil Ford Motor Company is. They still sell cars even though one can get something else (usually a lot better and usually for less money). Sorry most people are apathetic and have very short term memories. They have very impressive marketing and advertising campaigns to say how great they are -- the opposition has little money and can be BANNED from political statement or anti-advertising political statement. See the Phillip Morris anti-advertisement in Canada recently about PM spending tens of millions of dollars on how nice they were to give a a dwarfed dollar amount to good causes - they advertise how charitable they are when they caused the problems in the first place -- and there asre enough stupid sub 100 IQ people who fall for it.



Do yourself a favor and learn the history of McPizza... And this truth will undermine all you beliefs about "corporate conspiracy" and "in it for the buck". It's product demand didn't wain...just the opposite. It thrived more than any focus group ever predicted. It was the worst thing that could happen for McDonalds. McDonalds had a gold mine on their hands. But HQ canned it one morning. Why? Because 50 yrs of McDonald's history was about burgers and the Big Mac. What was McDonald's known for? Pizza? Nope...Pizza was cannibalizing the business...stealing from the Big Mac. McDonald's business wasn't growing the way they intended. Pizza revenue was great. But McDonalds revenue isn't really dependant on longterm food sales. Do you know what their business really is? They're the 2nd largest land owner on the planet. A huge commercial land developer and real estater. Only the Catholic Church (surprise) owns more land.
Pizza was bad for the McDonalds vision... burger and fries sales declining within, transferred to Pizza. It wasn't their "identity". So they gave up on the Pizza and went back to burgers and fries. So if you think McD's or Ford would sell pencils for the buck tomorrow, think again. History suggests otherwise.

And yes you must have got that from mcDonald's Brass because it is totally idiotic. McDonalds doesn't give a rat's bottom about their name being associated with the Big Mac -- They care about making money - they did for a while make more money on pizza and thejn SALES tanked. The spin you believe is ridiculous. No company spends that much money to tool up to be the biggest pizza chain in the world and then the SAME PEOPLE say gee we are just making too much money at this so let's stop selling ti because Big mac sales are being crippled. The ONLY reason that could POSSIBLY be true if McDonald's projected that 5 years down the road the pizza sales would die and people would forget about the Big Mac and then they'd have Mac sales down AND pizza sales down. By the way they're sales is waining anyway. When I worked there the president of McDonald's Canada swore that the then number two world franchise Subway would NEVER surpass McDonalds and that McDonald's would open TWO franchises for every Subway that opened. 14 year later and McDonald's is way behind in outlets -- and I mean WAY WAY WAY behind and now McDonald's is playing catch-up or is that ketchup with now serving yup -- sub sandwitches.

And when i say Ford would switch to Pencil making if they could make more money I stand by that. The exception is the long term viability - If Ford could do that knowing that they could sell well into the future otherwise they'd stick with their current plan -- so there is a long term financial viability equation there. Though Ford would simply do both



Personally, I think they drug the food.

yeah with the milk additives :D




You want a conspiracy? Read up on all proven harmful products of drinking milk...that's conspiracy driven (not by corporations) by lowly farmers. Name 1 other animal on the planet that drinks milk naturally beyond infancy? Think mother nature intended for us to drink milk as adults, or for cows to produce 13 times they're natural amount of milk per day? Nope!

Go pick on the dairy industry and leave the poor audio companies alone...


Yeah they also developed the Canadian Food guide. Which what do you know claims you should eat tons of grain and milk. Why because grain is the cheapest thing they can make and sell and get the absolute highest profit on and has the longest shelf life. Meat is evil because it has the least priofit the shortes fresh shelf life. Interesting how that workls eh. Buy a $7.00 box of ceral that costs pennies (the box costs more than the cereal). Then add heavily chemacaliized milk with hormones to get everyone fat and tubby then sell them billions ion diet books and diet pills and then they get sickj and you can sell them endless drugs to reduce all the ailments they get.

This is why anti-cable people bug me. If they spent their time going after the AMA drugs that don;t do anything except produce worse side-eeffects than protecting some millionaire who might overpay for a cable that doesn;t do anything except make them self deludedly happy the world might get somewhere. The evil-doer cable maker versus the evil-doer drug comapny. No contest.

kexodusc
02-28-2006, 06:15 AM
It is amazing to me that the no advertising approach ****tiest web-site on the planet for audio can be called great marketing. This is because your concept of marketing is poor.


A HUGE aspect of marketing is to create name brand recognition so that when you walk down a street and talk to average shmoes and say name me a POP they reoply Coke or Pepsi. name me a speaker or in most cases name the best loudspeaker they answer more often than not with BOSE.
This only applies to a few companies. For many, many products, brand name and recognition is irrelevant. If a company truly had the best product, they don't care if you remember the name, as long as your decision making process is consistent, you should choose them every single time.



I'm sorry but you're way off here. Audio note's marketing concept is to buuild a good product that people can listen to and decide for themsleves -- that's the extent of it. Please point to the big pulsating marketing brain behind it. I suppose you could say word of mouth is smart marketing but RGA is not very big in the big scheme of things - and while FREE for Audio note generates a HUGE amount of controversary which will turn off as many people as those open minded enough to put the verbiage aside and try it out..and RGA would only be yapping in the first place if it actually performed better otherwise....
The biggest joke in audio is companies who prey on ignorant consumers, employing the old "we don't market our product" marketing scam. BS. Anyone who tells you that deserves to be fed feces on a stick.

Advertising does not equal marketing. This is the biggest misconception among people without higher order business training. Advertising is a very small subset of promotion, which is a subset of marketing. Most products employ very little advertising in the traditional sense (TV, radio, print ads). If you cannot grasp this reality, or blindly choose to deny it, there's not much point in conversing with you. If you are open minded enough to consider the possibility for a moment that there are times when advertising is needed (Bose business model) and times where it would have little benefit (AN, North Creek Music Systems, Tyler Acoustics, or any other of the thousands of small audio manufacturers today) you will quickly come to the realization that while AN doesn't employ the Bose marketing plan of Brochures, ads in GQ magazine, and floor space at Sears or Best Buy, they have a very well crafted and strategically designed marketing plan. Bose needs to buy ads, print brochures, sell at Sears because they are trying to reach yuppies who know very little about audio. How else could they achieve this? It's a necessary evil in thier business, and just a numbers game. Advertise as much as you can to the point where spending 1 more dollar of advertising does not yield the required internal rate of return on investment.

Here's a website that stole a very old chart found in any marketing textbook since the early 1980's.
http://www.quickmba.com/marketing/mix/
you'll notice the large table at the bottom entitled "Summary of Marketing Mix decisions".
These are just some of the decisions a company must make in their marketing plan (simplified). Advertising is but one small concern.
AN promotes their product quite well. An excellent (not crappy at all) webpage that is informative, and not "too busy" like B&W or Bose sites. Seemingly perpetual communication with potential buyers on web forums. Strategically determined channels of distribution. Etc....Marketing 101. Relying on competent sales personnel to push the product.

AN knows that yuppies won't buy their speakers, so they don't bother advertising in GQ magazine or at Sears like Bose does. Instead they rely on high-end audio magazine reviews, word of mouth, a website, and large high-end audio shops in reasonably in viable markets. That strategic product placement is more effective in this market than brochures and magazine ads ever could be. Most audiophiles aren't fooled by Bose or B&W marketing schemes. They listen for themselves and arrive at a decision. Having AN speakers at the source where listening tests are conducted only makes sense. AN doesn't sell at Best Buy not because they don't want to sell a ton and make a ton of money, but because people who shop for speakers at Best Buy won't buy AN speakers anyway (at least not until they learn from their mistakes).
Long story short, every decision AN makes towards getting their products from England to consumer is a part of a crafted and executed marketing plan. The fact that they don't buy a zillion magazine ads that would be ineffective and a big waste of money doesn't mean they don't have a good marketing strategy. It means they understand their product and their customers. It means their product isn't in the same market competing against Bose. So any comparison to those companies in support of these would be high moral ideals is bogus anyway.



Bose markets extremely well -- their product itself is designed to be marketed well because ti isn't designed to sound good. Aside from television infomercials they even dictate to sellers how it will be presented to possible customers usually by NEVER allowing anything resembing an A/B session. You say they are a one trick pony -- yes a well marketed and very well advertised trick and you may say they are not innovative but they don;t need to be innovative at this point. They sell more speakers than anyone else and it isn't just because of style and low prices because they're highly overpriced. You can also say they are "tricking" consumers but that is also untrue. Many Bose buyers continue to buy bose for second and third purchases. Many people are very happy Bose owners. The proof is in the numbers and they continue to sell despite 10 years of auio forums with everyone saying how truly crappy Bose is and another 10 years of higher end magazines that either ignore them from their pages or give them pretty crappy reviews.
Their strategy is effective when sales is the metric. Their marketing plan is just a bigger version of the same concepts AN uses, but with a bit more focus on print advertising and less on product demonstration.


Exactly how is Audio Note with their zero advertising, zero brochures, and lousy outdated web-site better marketing than Bose. As Peter noted he's much prefer to have Bose's bank statements. His advertising is what? Pissing reviewers like Morricab and posters like TAH off on audioasylum and basically lambasting the reviewers and competitors -- that just makes him come actross as a crank. Hardly a great advertising engine. If I read befroe I heard I can tell you I'd probably be in the other camp too.
Ask yourself this. Go back to that legendary marketing table. Remove any 1 single item from AN and Bose's marketing mix decision matrix. AN could most likely remove any item and still be a viable company. Bose cannot. They're position is extremely vulnerable and dependant on a massive advertising campaign. That's a high cost, high risk business. AN has a much safer, less vulnerable marketing plan. If sales in the lifestyle speaker industry is the metric you are using to compare whose marketing is better, then of course Bose wins. If the metric is who has better sales in the "performance audio"/audiophile market, well, I bet you won't find any audiophile on the planet who would argue Bose is outselling AudioNote in that market.



Well marketing is an interesting and tough to prove concept. the point of marketing is to sell product and keep thee company strong with public presence.
Sell product, yes, winning the public presence war, no. Marketing is critical and even more difficult to generic, non brand name products.



So Please explain exactly what FIELD TESTING is doing for Voecks! This is the same advertising that is posted on harman's site. Most people prefer qualities A, B and C in loudspeakers -- great who is that for? is that for the benefit of the consumer?
Simple...Voecks asks "what is a good niche market within the audio industry?". and "What do consumers in that niche market want?". Field testing provides the answers. They build and sell the product. Both sides win.



And yes you must have got that from mcDonald's Brass because it is totally idiotic. McDonalds doesn't give a rat's bottom about their name being associated with the Big Mac -- They care about making money - they did for a while make more money on pizza and thejn SALES tanked. The spin you believe is ridiculous. No company spends that much money to tool up to be the biggest pizza chain in the world and then the SAME PEOPLE say gee we are just making too much money at this so let's stop selling ti because Big mac sales are being crippled. The ONLY reason that could POSSIBLY be true if McDonald's projected that 5 years down the road the pizza sales would die and people would forget about the Big Mac and then they'd have Mac sales down AND pizza sales down. By the way they're sales is waining anyway. When I worked there the president of McDonald's Canada swore that the then number two world franchise Subway would NEVER surpass McDonalds and that McDonald's would open TWO franchises for every Subway that opened. 14 year later and McDonald's is way behind in outlets -- and I mean WAY WAY WAY behind and now McDonald's is playing catch-up or is that ketchup with now serving yup -- sub sandwitches.
I was doing an internship as a young student in Toronto at McDonalds Canada back in 1994 when this happened. Your denial of the historical accuracy of this event is amazing. It is a common case study in both marketing and psychology courses. Self cannibalization and the biggest case of identity make-over in the history of commerce where not on the agenda for McDonalds at the time. The product was immensely successful on its own, but soon became too problematic for the corporate vision of McDonalds (Canada). Who knows, maybe McPizza would have lead the company to new riches. Maybe not. McPizza was a hit in Canada. McDonalds even issues a memorandum to shareholders to vote on this issue. Since McDonalds is not majority owned by evil rich billionaire capitalists, but rather by institutional investors representing millions of Joe Everymans, these institutional investors canned McPizza fast. I can appreciate how easy a student of the arts would find it to simply believe a big corporation is always evil, always willing to do anything to make money, corporate history and consumer be damned, right? Here's a homework question for you. Ever wonder why McDonald's doesn't sell hot dogs? (I'll give you a hint, it's not because they couldn't make money from them) BTW, you'd be amazed at how many "evil" corporations are owned by very progressive, liberal shareholders.

In this case, the reality is it was a risk that McDonald's was not prepared to take. If you choose to deny truth, there's not much else I can say.



And when i say Ford would switch to Pencil making if they could make more money I stand by that. The exception is the long term viability - If Ford could do that knowing that they could sell well into the future otherwise they'd stick with their current plan -- so there is a long term financial viability equation there. Though Ford would simply do both.
Ridiculous. Ford is a big company and therefore must be evil and exclusively money driven. But benevolent Peter Q admits he could make more money compromising his product and chooses otherwise. So Pete Q is noble, and Ford is evil. Only Peter Q (may he be blessed) could stand by his corporate philosophy for AN and not sell-out. No company (may they rot in hell) could ever display such an act of higher morality and principle.

If Ford's owners want to sell pencils for enhanced profitability, they'll just buy a pencil company.

What a wonderful world of convenient morality you live in.

RGA
02-28-2006, 09:19 PM
My background is fairly diverse -- Just to let you know I'm a qualified Marketing and Business high school teacher - having taught grade 10-11 Marketing this time last year and the four P's - in fact there is another P that I can't remember at the moment which this site has left off.

Anyway - you do bring up the main point of which I agree that marketing is not just advertising. You are also correct in your analysis of target marketing in that that AN's target market is considerably different than Bose's target market.

I'm certainly not saying Peter Q is a dunderhead when it comes to marketing. He put the company on the map and if it was not for him Kondo would have never had the Ongaku immortalised in the first place.

The do nothing marketing approach you call brilliant from AN I do not. That is where we are at here. Firstly Word of mouth is totally uncontrollable on Audio Note's part or any other business endeveour. Unless they KNOW the product is so totally superior that they KNOW everyone will talk it up. Now if you are saying that Peter knows his product is the best and knows customers will rave about it then I will conced to you that that is truly genius of him and I'll conced every point that building the best will yield the best word of mouth and therefore is free advertising. Brilliant marketing.

Back to the target markets. You say that AN does not need to advertise in Sears because that is not their market which is true. Bose does not advertise in Stereophile because that is not their market. Bose knows who they can attract and they are looking to attract the largest number of people. The largest number of people are not interested in "audiophilia" so they won't waist their time with such a small readership who mostly hates their stuff anyway.

Audio Note though is another matter - they don't advertise in either. Their target market is Stereophile readers. i will grant you though that a number of US dealers put their money together and took out an advertisement in one of the big magazines. Soundhounds paid $200.00 and that was just their share the ad cost several thousands of dollars in one issue of one magazine basically to show all the dealers so people knew where to audition. Though yes I am quite sure that Peter would have had to OK that decision.

"a website, and large high-end audio shops in reasonably in viable markets. That strategic product placement is more effective in this market than brochures and magazine ads ever could be. Most audiophiles aren't fooled by Bose or B&W marketing schemes. They listen for themselves and arrive at a decision"

I'm not convinced at all by this. In every high end dealership without exception when you listent o Paradigm or B&W there are lots of brochures and usually some advert in a glass plaque that has "all these reviewers love this thing" and they are not created by the dealers but created by the companies. B&W does not pay to make plaques and brochures and adverts to put on top of the speakers for no reason -- that reason is to help the customer choose his/her speaker - sometimes with a sexy woman showing the speaker (or was that magnepan with the ladies bare ass).

Listening -- again this is not what I have experienced when talking to people in the sales end of the industry or my own albeit brief turn in selling. They do not, even in high end stores, spend a lot of time listening. Yes true music lover audiophiles like you and I would probably spend several days (full days) listening to stuff (AT LEAST ) before putting the credit card on the table. But that is simply not the case. Many high end dealers are set-up to make you feel guilty for spending time there. So most who have read reviews have seen the advertising and product placement (Martin Logan on Friends) or B&W in the movie Traffic or was it Before Night Falls where they actually talk about the speakers.

Anyway I'm getting off track. I am not even convinced by the "dealers will sell the customer" which I'm sure you believe. Dealers are quite happy to sell anything they sell. A sale is a sale to most of them. it's far harder to sell an "unknown" product than one like B&W when the customer goes in Knows who B&W is rather than selling butt ugly boxes (relatively) with less drivers.

Again if one is conspiracy theory minded they could argue that the "just listen" approach is brilliantly marketed and again kex i'll agree with you but the Just listen approach only works if it dovetails back that in the listening room the product actually beats the competing B&W or Martin Logan.

And since Martin logan has decided to go to Best Buy and Totem has elected to go to A&B Sound (the equivelant of Best Buy) or as my dealer noted - they never sold in the "just listen" rooms so they had no choice but to pack their bags is interesting.

Consider that Boston Acoustics has the same rights to Peter Snell speakers -- they even admit to the superiority of the AN speakers to anything they made. The BA owner always wanted his stuff to be considered more seriously in the high end but said while AN was much better it didn't look modern and would not sell. Some big conglomorate has taken them over now I believe Denon?

I actually tend to agree with you on the website in that they are fairly informative and present a lot of philosophies - but those philosophies were right ins to publications not written as ad-copy - though yes it can certainly serve as both. But the site is painfully outdated and most everyone complains about how bad it is.

Ultimately I will say that they are not bad at marketing -- peter has not made the big mistake of biting off more than he can chew - which happend to 3a before they became Reference 3a. He's pretty careful about what he's doing so in this sense he's good at what he's doing.

As for Ford. I am not against big companies across the board. nor even car companies. Ford though has a track record and a current record that is appalling. GM may build junk ok I can live with that - Ford chooses to save a buck than do a recall because it's morre profitable to pay the lawyers than put the protective plate to cover the gas tank (Pinto). Never mind the Nazi loving Henry Ford and their fuel econiomy track record. Ohh and they also build junk on top of all of that.

McDonalds I have seen nothing in numbers that would prove that they dumped Pizza for any other reason than the loss of money on them. As PC at McDonalds at that time I can say that our store when we did our costs lost money on them for a long time -- then they changed the finished product (less cheese, less peperroni etc per unit) and then that resulted in worse prioduct and less sales. Sorry the spinsters at McDonalds say a lot. The big thing McDonalds makes cash on are drinks. $50.00 case ofn syrup will make 1000 large sized drinks. The cups cost more than the pop.

"Here's a homework question for you. Ever wonder why McDonald's doesn't sell hot dogs? (I'll give you a hint, it's not because they couldn't make money from them) "

You'll have to give me more than hint you'll have to prove it to me in some way.

kexodusc
03-01-2006, 05:03 AM
My background is fairly diverse -- Just to let you know I'm a qualified Marketing and Business high school teacher - having taught grade 10-11 Marketing this time last year and the four P's - in fact there is another P that I can't remember at the moment which this site has left off.
Between my Bachelor degree and my Masters, 4 or 5 other P's were added to reflect timing, market supply and demand forces and bunch of other tertiary concepts. McCarthy's 4 P's revolutionalized the way business operate though, so I just leave it at 4 and let the leeches who are trying to reinvent the wheel have their day.
BTW, I don't mean to question your qualifications, sometimes internet dialogue comes across a bit more harsh than intended...my apologies.

The do nothing marketing approach you call brilliant from AN I do not. That is where we are at here. Firstly Word of mouth is totally uncontrollable on Audio Note's part or any other business endeveour. Unless they KNOW the product is so totally superior that they KNOW everyone will talk it up. Now if you are saying that Peter knows his product is the best and knows customers will rave about it then I will conced to you that that is truly genius of him and I'll conced every point that building the best will yield the best word of mouth and therefore is free advertising. Brilliant marketing. [/quote]
Cost effective marketing is what I deem brilliant. The idea behind marketing isn't to spend money on promotion..it's to increase revenue while decreasing costs. Good marketing doesn't add to the product price, and should decrease it. SImply put, if it cost you 1 dollar to promote a product,and you only made $0.99 back, you wouldn't do it.
Peter spends a lot of time on web forums that he doesn't own and operate. AN has paid someone a pretty penny to reinvent their website over the last year or so. AN might not buy adds in stereophile, but let's be honest, most stereophile readers probbaly aren't seduced by adds anyway. AN does benefit from the odd product review by some magazines. Rarely are product reviews done without permission. There's usually some dialogue and discussion, perhaps a recommendation to review a different model. They certainly aren't avoiding that. Placing more emphasis on his distribution/dealer network was a good idea too. He makes other people do all the work and doesn't pay them for it. And let's be honest here. A good chunk of AN's marketing efforts are directed at their dealers. Once the dealers by the speakers, AN's job is over...it's up to the dealer to sell them. I'm not even sure you or Peter Q can honestly say AN has never paid money or endorsed the paid promotion of one of AN's products. Not that it matters. The speaker industry today (and for some time now) has changed. We don't have many big names in speakers, instead there are hundreds,maybe thousands of small regional outfits that you'll never see advertised beyond a website and product brochure. I can think of a few that don't even have that. Most speaker comanies don't want to be the next B&W or Harman. Small 1 or 2 man operations that allow the owner to engage in the hobby they love and earn a living off of it.


I'm not convinced at all by this. In every high end dealership without exception when you listent o Paradigm or B&W there are lots of brochures and usually some advert in a glass plaque that has "all these reviewers love this thing" and they are not created by the dealers but created by the companies. B&W does not pay to make plaques and brochures and adverts to put on top of the speakers for no reason -- that reason is to help the customer choose his/her speaker - sometimes with a sexy woman showing the speaker (or was that magnepan with the ladies bare ass).

Again, you're comparing what the small minority of speaker manufacturers do to promote their products to their target market. You won't see North Creek, EFE, Tyler Acoustics, Ascend Acoustics, Adire Audio, etc employ these tactics either. Personally I think that's just bad marketing. I've met some stupid people in my day, but I don't know anyone that bought a speaker because a brochure told them these reviewers loved it. The worst I've seen are people on this site who choose equipment based on the product review ratings. I can't imagine anyone thinking Paradigm or B&W brochures hold independant assessments of their products performance. The one exception might be the rich tools who walk in and buy a bunch of equipment in 3 minutes without doing any research or listening tests. But then, that's usually a case of them buying the first thing they see.
To be fair to B&W and Paradigm (not that Paradigm is even remotely close in size to B&W), anytime a company gets that big, they're pretty much forced to advertise the way they do to stay in business. This is because they're in a very homogenous market. Most of their marketing efforts are directed towards the entry level consumer. They build their stupid Nautilus speaker to have a signature model, much like every car company has their signature concept/sports car,but they don't build their business around them. Those are just there to raise eyebrows among the 19 year old kids with $300 who are looking for their first set of speakers.


Listening -- again this is not what I have experienced when talking to people in the sales end of the industry or my own albeit brief turn in selling. They do not, even in high end stores, spend a lot of time listening. Yes true music lover audiophiles like you and I would probably spend several days (full days) listening to stuff (AT LEAST ) before putting the credit card on the table. But that is simply not the case. Many high end dealers are set-up to make you feel guilty for spending time there. So most who have read reviews have seen the advertising and product placement (Martin Logan on Friends) or B&W in the movie Traffic or was it Before Night Falls where they actually talk about the speakers.
Maybe that's a Vancouver thing? I spend 4-6 months of the year travelling through different cities in the US and Canada now through my job (wi-fi at airports - how do you think I get my post count so high). When I'm in a town for more than a day or two I usually visit some audio shops. I almost always see listening sessions if anyone is in the store. Some people only take 5 minutes to do it and only compare two or three pre-determined models, but I think a large portion of consumers do test-drive their audio equipment. Though with web-based speaker companies stealing more of the market share, that's changing a bit. Now you have to buy the speaker first. :rolleyes:


Anyway I'm getting off track. I am not even convinced by the "dealers will sell the customer" which I'm sure you believe. Dealers are quite happy to sell anything they sell. A sale is a sale to most of them. it's far harder to sell an "unknown" product than one like B&W when the customer goes in Knows who B&W is rather than selling butt ugly boxes (relatively) with less drivers.
If dealers didn't push the product, they'd only carry the speakers with the highest margins on them. But they don't. They want their customers to be happy for repeat business/word of mouth purposes. So they carry a wide variety and are happy to sell them all. If I walked into Soundhounds and said I had $5000 to spend, I want a very nice sounding set of speakers, I'm sure someone would direct me to Audio Note. Or why carry the brand at all?


Consider that Boston Acoustics has the same rights to Peter Snell speakers -- they even admit to the superiority of the AN speakers to anything they made. The BA owner always wanted his stuff to be considered more seriously in the high end but said while AN was much better it didn't look modern and would not sell. Some big conglomorate has taken them over now I believe Denon?

Big company that employs a lot of people. Selling a superior speaker to a few hundred buyers a year probably isn't an option for Boston Acoustics. So they sell cheap entry levelish stuff. More money in that part of the market I suspect. Most people don't spend $1000 or more on a pair of speakers.
Oddly enough, I haven't seen Boston Acoustics in a Canadian store for a few years now...and rarely in the US. Are they still in business? I see adds in magazines now and then, but no speakers.


I actually tend to agree with you on the website in that they are fairly informative and present a lot of philosophies - but those philosophies were right ins to publications not written as ad-copy - though yes it can certainly serve as both. But the site is painfully outdated and most everyone complains about how bad it is.
Well, I don't know as much about AN as some do, but when I visit the site, I can find their products and all relevant infor faily easy, along with their philosophy on a variety of things audio related. The post-purchase consumer support element may be outdated or insuffiicent, but I wouldn't know. Potential customers probably wouldn't recognize that either.


Ultimately I will say that they are not bad at marketing -- peter has not made the big mistake of biting off more than he can chew - which happend to 3a before they became Reference 3a. He's pretty careful about what he's doing so in this sense he's good at what he's doing.
Running a business like that is tricky. No doubt Peter has resisted the temptation to spend a pile of money on promotion, or to enter a severly watered down market. He didn't buy into that trap. A lot of speaker companies don't these days. They're quite content to exist in their little corner of the world selling to people who think like them. Ed Frias's company doesn't even have a web page, and he's just a 1 man operation.
You can tell by the car he's driving, and the mansion he's living in that he does okay, though.


As for Ford. I am not against big companies across the board. nor even car companies. Ford though has a track record and a current record that is appalling. GM may build junk ok I can live with that - Ford chooses to save a buck than do a recall because it's morre profitable to pay the lawyers than put the protective plate to cover the gas tank (Pinto). Never mind the Nazi loving Henry Ford and their fuel econiomy track record. Ohh and they also build junk on top of all of that.
I don't like anything Ford, but GM's got some nice models, especially the ones Toyota or Korea make for them :D. I think the perception that imports are better cars is killing these guys more than anything. I left Honda almost 3 years ago, but by their own estimations they didn't build a car any better than Chrysler or GM (Ford had some problems the few years I was there). But they certainly benefitted from the market perception that their cars were better because they were Japanese. Mazda and Nissan scored worse than Ford and GM in product quality while I was there. But they're benefiting from not being American too. Perception is a pretty hard thing for a company to fight. Our research suggested the Big 3 cars still have the lowest total-cost-of-ownership over lease and finance periods (up to 5 years). meaning they might breakdown more, but are cheaper to fix and operate long run. I'm pretty sure Ford wil recover someday.
Toyota is an interesting case in big corporations not acting "evil" and trying to grow at all costs. Toyota is one of the few car companies that won't do "deficit financing"...If you owe money on your trade-in, they won't carry that balance to the next vehicle. Their philosophy is simple. We're a car company, not a bank. But it costs them thousands of sales every month. I'm sure now more than ever, with them gaining so much market share recently, they're tempted to change policy, but so far they haven't.


McDonalds I have seen nothing in numbers that would prove that they dumped Pizza for any other reason than the loss of money on them. As PC at McDonalds at that time I can say that our store when we did our costs lost money on them for a long time -- then they changed the finished product (less cheese, less peperroni etc per unit) and then that resulted in worse prioduct and less sales. Sorry the spinsters at McDonalds say a lot. The big thing McDonalds makes cash on are drinks. $50.00 case ofn syrup will make 1000 large sized drinks. The cups cost more than the pop.
Not sure what I can say...Maybe a Google on the subject? I have a few marketing textbooks here that use it as a case study. (american textbooks at that). McDonald's Canada, not McDonald's USA. McPizza was using a few states and all of Canada as a pilot project. The results were unexpected of course. But the product sold.

[quote=rga}
You'll have to give me more than hint you'll have to prove it to me in some way.[/QUOTE]
McDonald's corporate philosophy is that hot dogs are not "sanitary". That's the word they use...kind of funny...I wouldn't think McDonalds could find a food that was to unsanitary for them...Anyway, it's enshrined corporate policy not sell hotdogs.

RGA
03-01-2006, 02:09 PM
Actually i can agree with most all of these points.

McDonald's is pretty good sanitation wise certainly compared to most other fast food chains. I worked at mcDonald's for 3 years as Production caller/Crew trainer - turned down being a swing manager because McDonald's would expect free overtime. Kind of like being Salaried as opposed to hourly. I made $6.90 an hour (back when min waged was around $4.10. Anyway a Manager made supposeldy $7.50 per hour but put in considerably longer hours -- I worked it out that hourly they made about $4.50 but got the prestige of being a manager which would help their resume. I figure Crew Trainer and Crew Chief looked good enough :)

But I would go to a burger King or a other chain and I would see things that employees did that would get them booted out of a McDonald's pretty darn fast. Handling money and then touching food is one example of a big no-no.

Interestingly, McDonalds always seemed to be a huge stickler for quality control and sanitation and I give them big credit for this. It seems to have slipped a bit over the years but they still appear at least here to do a superior job. Of course there are some pretty sick stories too but probably not much different than any chain.

Plus they were good to us generally speaking having Christmas parties all paid for for the entire crew and a summer party at the waterslides or something - taking everyone on big busses out there. They sure didn;t have to do those sorts of things and I always thought it was a nice touch. When i was employee of the month they would pick you up in a stretch limo at your house and take you down to the corporate offices to see "hamburger university" and meet the big brass. Champiagne, a plaque the whole thing. So I think they're pretty decent and sometimes unfairly criticised. Sometimes not.

Honda and Toyota though still maintain the best quality standards of fewest problems. Expense to repair is higher largley because the part is a lot better. But the hassle of dealing with repair shops has to be entered into the equation and never is. Time is more valuable to me than money -- if money matterred I would have stayed in accounting rahter than become a teacher. So if I have to spend 10 hours of my time for every 1 hour because I chose a Pontia Grand Am over a Honda Civic then I choose the latter - even if the repair bill is $100.00 more. Generally if you avoid cars with power options you'll be better off. Power windows, locks seats etc seem to be pitiful in a number of vehicles. And people make fun of British cars for this - man they must have been truly abysmal.

Mazda remember though is owned by Ford. I remember the best rated GM car in Lemon aid a few years ago (and the ONLY car they recommended) was the Sprint. The sprint was made by Suzuki. I mentioned this to a GM dealer owner who said yes they get first time buyers with a cheap but reliable car that impresses so that they hope to get lifelong customers - then they can pawn off the overpriced clunkers on them. That make sense. As he pointed out the worst car GM made from a QC standard were all of the cars geared to retired people. Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Buick because older folks had grown up expecting cars to fall apart many of whom are still mad at Pearl Harbor and were lifelong Ford or GM buyers and would never buy anything else. The cars broke down all the time and cost huge sums of money to repair but that was expected.

I'm sure it's better now - it has to be because a Lexus is just too good and breaks down so little that the competition has to improve. After my terrible two American Cars and the truly wonderful result I had with a Honda Civic - it would take an awful LOT to get me to consider buying an American car ever again. proof was in the owning for me personally and it's really hard to buy from the same company that IMO screwed me the first go around. Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me. Since there are SOOOOO many companies out there a first impression means a lot. If I buy a GM and it's a terrible lemon then there is hardly motivation for me to buy a second one.

Perhaps I'm older school in this thought process but to me if you have good luck with something you should consider it again. I bought an HP laptop over a Toshiba or Sony not because HP is better -- the repair records are a little worse overall -- but I did so because my home computer is 8 years old and has never had any problems. I have owned Sony products that have been hit and miss. So HP at the flip of the coin had a few more features like a bigger HD and a DVD Burner and is only 5lbs and a little less money so what the hell let's take the chance.