Value - Some Worthless Questions.

This thread has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Naim have recently launched a CD player that spins red book CDs only, and they expect folks to pay £20,000 for each one including its power supply.

I'm not saying it can't possibly be worth twenty grand, just that the thread itself may appear to be more than a little defensive perhaps?

Adam Meredith said:

quote:

Why is a diamond more valuable than a petrified turd?

Cause your girlfriend is looking at it pal.

Value. PAH!

Things cost more because the manufacturer has an expensive house to pay for and most people are mugs - let's face it.

The fact is where fast moving consumer goods is concerned value has everything to do with style and price.

To this extent the 555 is no different. I think if people are really really honest CD players do not sound massively different, for most its not a lot at all. The value in the 555 for instance comes when sat at home with a few wines in you, you can grin at your really expensive hifi, you just don't get that grin with a comet job.

Similarly most people arn't going to enjoy looking at a dell PC in their living room, it has no value its cheap and lives in the spare bedroom. An iMac flat screen however looks great, has more perceived value as a result and lives in the downstairs hallway.

quote:

Originally posted by Martin D:

Anyone read Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance?
Martin

Yes, I have read it - and "Lila" too.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Lawson:

"renewability"

Why the quotation marks?

It alludes to the usability of the unit being restored. (to a high standard) But the case and most of the innards remain orginal. To simply state that something was renewed without the inverted commas would require the replacement of the unit in its entirety. This is not a criticism of course. Merely an observation. Desperately pedantic, but true I think.

I am torn between loathing for a £20K CD player and rather wishing I could have one. But I wouldn't dream of spending £20k on a car either which is rather more essential to rural life today.

Within my own personal set of value standards neither makes much sense on a pound per mile travelled or per CD enjoyed.

Aint capitalism torture for the soul?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:
I'm not saying it can't possibly be worth twenty grand, just that the thread itself may appear to be more than a little defensive perhaps?

No - it is intended to be interesting and is prompted by the discussion of the "blue" interconnect.

Value from rarity.
Value from effect.
Value from content.
Value over time - cost/lifespan.
Value as multiple of cost/pleasure.

Value changes -
A lottery ticket when bought - that same ticket when it has won (Oh yeah) or that same ticket when it has lost.

So, the question revolves around what exactly informs decisions in respect of the allocation of relatively scarce resources.

Is this a fair summation of the question?

I'd like to submit value as perceived quality per £££

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
I'd like to submit value as perceived quality per £££

That's still a lot of pounds!

Let's not forget that perceived value is also a judgement affected by one's income or inherent wealth.

4 years ago I posted the following discussion point

“… just what VALUE does a dealer provide? and at what PRICE?
OK, so Oscar Wilde defined a cynic as

'a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing'. This might accurately describe some of us (and a fair number of dealers), but does it really help?

Try John Ruskin :-
Value is the life-giving power of everything
Cost, the quantity of labour to produce it
Price, the quantity of labour which its possessor will take in exchange for it.

How do you assess the VALUE of your dealer, and do you actually have any idea of his PRICE?
Discuss, with the emphasis on value.”

The original Ruskin definition of VALUE didn’t have any unit of measurement. I have suggested the “smile” ie the bigger the smile, the better the value. Others have suggested the “smirk”

Note, there is no reference to the “cost of materials” this is deliberate. It is merely reflected in quantity of labour at some previous stage.

Cheers

Don

If I may..
Value is a personal gauge based on emotions, interests, sentimentality, relationships, love and an individuals lifestyle. What you are discussing here is applying that personal value globally. It can't be done - it doesn't apply. You therefore have to translate that to a price, or call it a "monetary value". It isn't at all the same thing, and you must leave "value" behind when you get to that stage. You can't take this discussion forward until you define what you are talking about here.

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
What you are discussing here is applying that personal value globally. It can't be done - it doesn't apply.

Not applying personal value globally. Instead (trying to) abstract from the qualities universal to decisions based on personal value and then poking logical sticks at the abstractions.

But this thread hasn't even got to abstraction yet.

Adam,

Interesting that YOU raise this question.

I've never knowingly heard a 135. Here's why: Naim's description of the 135 makes it sound like just over half the parts of a 250 at twice the price. Clearly Naim is rippping off its customers.

If I hear a pair if 135s, however, I suspect that I'll think they're better than the 250 I have. So fewer parts may produce more value.

Aside: perhaps one definition of rip-off is 'something I want that I can't afford'.

But - as has already been said - value is decided by each of us individually, although cultural norms have a lot of influence. Obviously, most of us on this forum - perhaps just most of us in the US, where Krell and ML are idealized - are somewhat immune to hifi's culturall norms.

Regards.

Phil

quote:

Naim's description of the 135 makes it sound like just over half the parts of a 250 at twice the price. Clearly Naim is rippping off its customers.

A NAP 135 adds a fan-cooled heatsink and control PCB, and loses a NAPA amp board and NAPS regulated supply board. Otherwise, the same parts are involved, certainly not half. There is still a chassis, transformer and amp channel to test and package.

In fact, the heatsink on a NAP 135 may be MORE expensive than the two amp PCBs...

FWIW, in the current range, a NAPV 145 (not fan-cooled) costs LESS than a NAP 250-2. (That difference is, essentially, a complete channel module and a pair of capacitors.)

Adam,

Interesting as you mentioned interconnects. I bought two pairs of Chord Anthems for £600 a few years back and ended up swapping them for something better that cost considerably less.

Has anyone wondered whether Adam is doing an OU degree in marketing or some such in his free time, and is wanting you guys to help him with an essay...

Well, thats my theory anyway.

Value is the life-giving power of everything

In other words, it’s a PERSONAL thing. It simply CAN’T be assumed that two or more people will ever agree on the value of anything, although we do seem to share a lot of common values. They often stand much more chance agreeing the PRICE of something (see definition below). Sometimes the word “appreciation” can be substituted for “value”. An individual’s value of something can change with circumstances (age, income, savings, friends…). It is also affected by the human “herd" instinct, envy and lust – at least in some people, but I doubt whether this reflects true value.

135s produce a better (more enjoyable) sound than a 250, and a better sound than any other amp at that (135) price. Listening to music through 135s is more life-giving than listening to music through a 250 etc. It is also (to me) more life-giving than buying a sports-car and driving along a country lane.

Of course “value” can be linked to price. At £2k a pair, I can relax and get lots of smiles from 135s. At £20k a pair the smiles would be interrupted by thoughts of what else I could enjoy for £20k. I am not sure how I would value a pair of 500s, because I haven’t listened to them in my system. I am pretty sure they would sound a lot better than 135s, but I’m not sure whether the smiles would be bigger, at the prospect of only having to pay £25k.

Cost, the quantity of labour to produce it.

Very few manufactures (or dealers) are willing to reveal the COST of their product, even in equivalent £££. They are worried that something that is cheap to produce (including research and development etc) will not be properly appreciated or valued (as defined above).

If its cheap to produce, but enough people give it a high value, then the possessor can command a high price (providing there is no competition).


Price, the quantity of labour which its possessor will take in exchange for it.

The relationship between cost and price is diverse. It is often influenced by supply and demand, which in turn is affected by the “herd instinct” and commonly shared values.


So, manufactures A, B, C, D, E, F, and G all produce good, honest, amps that cost £1,000 and are priced at £1,200. Manufacturer N comes along and produces an amp that, in all respects, sounds twice as good as A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. It costs £100 and is priced at £1,250 and you know all this. I would buy amp N and I wouldn’t whinge etc. I would appreciate the true VALUE of amp N.

What would you do?


Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
Adam Meredith said:

quote:

Why is a diamond more valuable than a petrified turd?

Cause your girlfriend is looking at it pal.

Anika the archaeologist. Dig it?

I don't think that Adam is doing an OU Marketing course at all.

He's probably gathering "material" for an absurdist play...

Price conveys information about how people value things; these valuations are based both on the tangible and the intangible characteristics of the commodity.

If all manufactured goods were marketed on a cost-based strategy (price based directly on production cost + required margin), very few products would be sold at prices that refected their perceived value among consumers, and those only by accident. A market-based pricing strategy attempts to figure in the intangibles - it sets a price based on value (the actual physical goods + the benefits it brings, perceived or real), not on costs alone.

With his focus on status competition in the "leisure class", Thorsten Veblen assigned a large premium to the importance of intangibles in valuation. So, the values of the various products X, Y, Z, 2, and iLLpo9, depend (in Veblen's world) on the particular brand of one-upmanship in which I am engaged with my fellow acquirers. If they aren't impressed by Rhondidium, I don't value it. If they worship said acknowledged hifi genius, owning his product gives me a competitive edge, socially speaking. Etc.

I think it's quite likely that we don't necessarily need a peer group to engage in such one-upmanship. Some of us are quite happy (? if not happy, at least distracted) trying to outdo ourselves on our own playing field, according to our own rules. However, it doesn't lessen the gerbil-on-a-wheel experience one bit to be the only rodent running.

quote:

Price conveys information about how people value things

I would say that "Price conveys information about how people hope others will value things"

Price is set by the possessor. It might well change (rather quickly sometimes) if the possessor recognises that others don't value the object (or inteletual property etc) that is being offered.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by jayd:
Price conveys information about how people value things; these valuations are based both on the tangible and the intangible characteristics of the commodity.

So what, then, are some of the qualities of these intangible characteristics? Are there universal qualities that one can observe in all decisions about value based on these intangibles?

I have a friend who is a reviewer (shock, horror). He likes to make his initial judgements on a piece of equipment without knowing what the purchase price is. Some surprising results here.

It is always interesting to ask - "Would I take this as my only .... if given for free?" Years ago, when CD players first emerged, I found a cardboard box in the offices of Hi-Fi Review. An unconsidered trifle (early Rotel player). I took it home, plugged in and listened to a few discs. It was so comically bad that I just boxed it up and took it back to work.

Many years ago I had a pocket calculator. The next model up (which cost quite a bit more) had 2 additional function buttons situated in the top row.
One day the facia unpeeled - revealing below the metal two patches which, when pressed, accessed the additional functions. A lesson in effective production and marketing.

quote:

So, the values of the various products X, Y, Z, 2, and iLLpo9, depend (in Veblen's world) on the particular brand of one-upmanship in which I am engaged with my fellow acquirers. If they aren't impressed by Rhondidium, I don't value it. If they worship said acknowledged hifi genius, owning his product gives me a competitive edge, socially speaking. Etc.

in other words

Value = "keeping up with the Jones"

What a sad world Mr Veblen lives in...

Cheers

Don