Is quality really important to us?

[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)

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.

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.