Expensive HiFi and cheap wine

It all depends on the cost of the research, the costlier, the more 'believable' the paper's conclusion 

But seriously, the biggest problem with 'sound' is human memory. If it is difficult for me to tell which pair of PMC speakers are playing off the same system (if I walk in ''blind") and it is very obvious to hear a difference when playing mono and swinging the balance control (adjusting for sensitivity) then it is most likely the actual sound plays a small part in 'discriminating' when testing upgrades. I'm not really that susceptible personally to expensive things as I'm more interested in paying less, not more, so a more expensive speaker performing better is counter to the stated 'enhancement'.

Science can proof anything, once financed by the right sources. Just see all the research on the positive / negative effects of coffee.

The more expensive the consultant that offers the advice, the more seriously it is taken.

It seems to apply in a number of fields...

You forgot to add 10kg in 'ballast' for a weightier feel and a user manual for the colourblind!

Whilst the attempt to explain the phenomenon as 'neuroimaging' may be new, there's nothing new about the concept.

There is a general conviction that higher quality costs more, ergo something that costs more is higher quality. Patently this is not a hard fact, as a manufacturer can set any price, but higher priced things aren't likely to sell well if the consumer can reasonably tell it isn't better. And there have been reported instances when a manufacturer with a good product at too low a price has found it hasn't sold well because of consumer perception that the low price means poor quality, and on upping the price it has sold better.

There is also something in the human psyche - I'm sure theres a proper term for it, though I have thought of it as a form of sophistry which is probably wrong- where people tend to want to justify what they have spent, and convince thamselves it was a wise purchase (except where something is clearly wrong and redress is sought). Witness the many 'mine is better' discussions in virtually all fora.

And some people have a craving always to get something better, even when they've got the best there is, so that anything offering an apparent improvement, even slight, becomes a 'must have'.

Now enter hi-fi.  Above a base SQ level, albeit different for different people, and always affected by everything else in the listening chain from recording through to ears, and discounting speakers, differences between different items of equipment tend to be subtle, and subjective (not all will perceive the same effect as better). This is where there is a risk of the £££=better assumption can kick in, also and also where at the relative novice is easily swayed by a salesman saying "there, hear how the...." when they can't, but don't want to appear stupid or 'cloth-eared'. Then, once purchased, the convincing of self kicks in.  Witness (and I know some people will slate me for suggesting this) 'burning in' of things which are most unlikely to change in use, even clearly impossible (e.g. lengths of wire), which other than things like speakers where there are physically compliant components like the cone surrounds I personally believe is purely people getting used to the new sound if it has changed, and convincing themselves that their purchase was justified.

Maybe the research will eventually find some biological receptor in the brain that can be stimulated or suppressed, and maybe we can take what amounts to a 'truth serum' before listening tests, which would be fantastic because we'll never again be hoodwinked into parting with more hard-earned cash than necessary to achieve our goals...  Somehow I doubt it!

Ummm....interesting. I agree that this phenomenon of believing a more expensive wine is always better, can well (and probably does) apply to other products including Hifi. My slight reservation is that, at a conscious level, not all of us think or process information (be it real or implied) in the same way (IMHO). I cannot be sure if this, however, applies to unconscious thought processes.

Take for example comparing the behaviour exhibited by a 'keeping up with the Joneses' type of individual with that of a truly (high) price-averse individual. Would they vote the same way in the AB test of Hifi knowing the comparative prices in advance - particularly if the image of the high-price system was surrounded by hype and was the 'must-have' kit at the time? I accept this is an extreme example.

From my time working in Market Research working on product pricing we would test attitudes towards products at differing price points. At the low end of the spectrum there was a concept of the product being 'too cheap' and arousing suspicions of poor quality. Of course at the other end it becomes an attitude of poor VFM.

I guess what I am saying is that I don't dispute the research and don't necessarily dispute such consumer attitudes apply to other product categories. What I would say however is that we are all different and our behaviours are driven by subtly differing mental make-ups. So let's not make the mistake of assuming we all behave in the same way as each other although I accept the human condition may result in behavioural traits.

What I am sure of is that my terminology is incorrect (apologies to all the psychologists out there). 

The analogy with wine is misleading...  Wine is grape Fermented. differences in taste in any wine are from subtle changes in basic shared process. An expensive wine could be accountable for its price from being from a low harvest yet be no better than a cheaper mass produced equivalent, it's no surprise that preference can be affected from knowing the price tag.

Whereas with Hifi, well a layman could say that they all follow a basic shared process , to provide music, but we all know it's more complicated than that.

a discerning wine buyer may wish to buy an expensive wine just for its obscurity and rarity and another

discerning wine buyer may wish to buy a cheap wine so to get pissed. 

In Washington State (USA), the taxes control the quality of the wine.  At a specific alcohol content % a huge tax kicks in.  Many of the cheaper wines are blended to hit just below the taxation point.

The price jumps quite a bit when you cross it, but the alcohol content isn't what makes  a wine taste good...however the wines *do* typically end up tasting better, perhaps because they are not "engineered."

They also have more alcohol in them, though.

What hasn't been mentioned yet is the part a brand can play in all of this and the premium that can be charged for a strong, valued and trusted brand. Bizarrely one of the few product categories that has no ( or few) actual leading brands is wine where it is all about the grape, the winery, the climate, the cellars etc. Way too many variables to establish the consistency required for a brand.

Once you have established your brand and created the image you want to portray and have managed to 'live up' to the promise the brand makes to consumers, then you can charge a premium accordingly. The product itself may or may not 'perform' as well as it's competition - that is irrelevant once you have got your target market believing in your brand.

The big problem with big brands is that they have to be carefully managed. As soon as the brand fails in it's key promises to consumers and trust in the brand has been betrayed, the brand owners are in for a massive hit - I give you VW.

As well as making great Hifi, Naim have done a great job in creating a brand in a sub-sector (let's call it premium Hifi) that traditionally has traded more on performance delivery rather than brand values (IMHO). There is, however, a danger (Naim would call it a benefit) that us Naimees can be a little blinkered by the brand. The attitude that this is the next new thing from Naim - but it is Naim so it must be good. If you are a Naim devotee, Naim gear is going to have an automatic advantage when comparing to it's competition.

That is why it is great that there are those on here that investigate and sometimes choose the competition. It can be an eye-opener and a wake up call for us all. It keeps Naim on their toes which in the long term is good for them and good for us music lovers. Naim should also be congratulated for permitting (within reason) discussion about competitors such as Chord. It shows a confidence and maturity we are all looking for in a manufacturer. Come to think of it these are not bad brand values.

Night night

Well presented addition.

I've never understood the brand loyalty thing from a consumer's point of view, except where there is real added value such as exemplary customer service and support not evident from competitors.

with HiFi, my own introduction at the time when all-in-one 'radiograms' were rife, was that what later became called 'HiFi seperates' gave the dual advantages of upgrading, in small steps, and being able to choose each component on its merits. And as a generalisation different manufacturers had strengths in different areas, so one might follow a line of R&d in amplifiers that gives theirs an edge in SQ, while another may do likewise with DACs, another with small speakers, etc., so the mix and match approach makes every sense.

When I joined the Naim Forum, having bought my first piece of Naim kit because it's SQ matched that of a defunt item I was replacing, I was surprised at the strength of brand loyalty held by some people, as evidenced in requests for suggestions for some new component, adding  'but it must be Naim' . However the maturity and confidence Naim show in allowing some of the discussions herein shows perhaps a combination of confidence in themselves, respect for good competitors, and a desire to learn and inform their own development.

Excellent post.

Seems to apply to Linn too. Naim and Linn are kind of known for having customers that have systems that are nearly all Naim or all Linn systems. Plenty of exceptions but the generalisation is fairly accurate and brand value plays strongly to that.

Saying that though, it works the other way around too. When a brand has become associated with negative quality in someone's mind, it is nigh on impossible for it to crawl back and regain favour with those consumers. New customers can be swayed and existing ones can be maintained but no amount of expensive wine marketing will give it a second chance for burned customers. There are several brands which are now associated with quality and reliability which I had bad experiences in the past and even knowing my thought process is irrational, I cannot force myself to think of those brand's products as anything other than crap even though they might be good now.

For Naim I think there is a certain amount of brand loyalty. But I think there is also a higher number of music lovers and fewer die hard audiophiles in the customer base. As music lovers with high disposable income, you may be more likely to go all Naim to keep things simple, worry about the hi-fi less, and appreciate the music. As Naim users, we do definitely try other components, but if you read the posts, most of us are changing components every few years or longer. There are die-hard audiophiles out there that cannot go without major changes to their setup every few months. I sometimes wonder if the fake expensive wine analogy has more sway on that type. 

There is an advantage to choice making, when the marketplace is crowded or confusing, plus there is the old adage 'if it ain't broke'. I once bought a newer car (same make/model) purely because I had no time or interest to relearn where switches, fuses, filler caps, tyre pressures, what would/would not fit in the boot etc. Sounds bizzare even to myself but my time was in really short supply (no social life either!)

However there are Naim owners without high dispoable income, who have no less a goal for quality of music reproduction than their better-off brethren, but strive to achieve it through a very different path.

Their own upgrade route may be more apparently haphazard than that of more affluent audiophiles, with leapfrogging of component quality, such that at any point in time aficionados might consider their systems aren't 'balanced', though if each step gives an improvement and therefore greater enjoyment, and is also a major step towards the ultimate goal, 'balance' is an anachronism: if it sound better than it did, and is a bigger move towards the goal than changing more items with smaller steps that ultimately would cost far more, then it is good.  They may often buy secondhand, age of equipment being irrelevant as long as it still performs and can be expected to be reliable, and for them nothing is replaced simply because there is a newer model, but only when the newer model makes a significant difference to SQ.

Maybe not a manufacturer's dream consumer, but nonetheless a real one, and just as hell-bent on listening on a good system. For them, upgrade-itis is something to encourage and nurture - in others, to make decent gear available secondhand! But through that, they assist those that do want to keep up with the latest models, by providing the outlet for the to-be-discarded items, so in fact everyone's a winner!