Before the show fades into the netherworld of the brain and becomes a distant memory, what do you still remember about it?
It seemed that every where I went - every room, every hallway, every elevator, the most ubiquitously spoken words were: "They want THAT $$$$ for that? It's a joke!". But high cost of audio gear is nothing new. Even big companies like Sony and Pioneer, who can easily shift costs from the millions of "cheap" electronics they sell, still charge a lot of money for TAD and SS-AR, their elite lines of gear. Selecting the drivers, selecting the wood for the cabinets, engineering the crossovers, etc., is a lot of work. Developing and building high end gear is expensive, and not a whole lot will be sold. Only imagine what TAD and SS_AR gear would cost if someone built them in their garage...
Now I know there are some folks here who think high end audio is a scam, so they can stop reading right here. (Other than enjoying to argue, what the heck are you guys doing here anyways?) But the fact that the really expensive gear doesn't demonstrate its real benefits at a show doesn't stop exhibitors from trying. Is that really a smart marketing move? Should consumers be left with the thought of a company charging a lot of money for dreck mit pfeffer?
To my ears, the $10K NOLA KO driven by the more modest ARC gear was a clear winner for a speaker under $70K. The NOLA sonic signature and Carl's genius were obvious to anyone who stepped into the suite: there was MUSICplaying in Carl's suite, not a bunch of audio gear that makes sound yet brings a whole hoard of media elites, as there was in the Wilson Alexa room. As a result, anyone who was introduced to or re-acquainted with the NOLA sonic signature can now step into a dealer that has several NOLA models on display in more comfortable surroundings and compare the KO to the more expensive models. They can easily determine if the sonic benefits of the higher priced models are worth paying for. So NOLA was not only the best of show, but did a brilliant job of marketing as well, as it was obvious what value NOLA delivered for what they charged.
What were your takeaways?
It seemed that every where I went - every room, every hallway, every elevator, the most ubiquitously spoken words were: "They want THAT $$$$ for that? It's a joke!". But high cost of audio gear is nothing new. Even big companies like Sony and Pioneer, who can easily shift costs from the millions of "cheap" electronics they sell, still charge a lot of money for TAD and SS-AR, their elite lines of gear. Selecting the drivers, selecting the wood for the cabinets, engineering the crossovers, etc., is a lot of work. Developing and building high end gear is expensive, and not a whole lot will be sold. Only imagine what TAD and SS_AR gear would cost if someone built them in their garage...
Now I know there are some folks here who think high end audio is a scam, so they can stop reading right here. (Other than enjoying to argue, what the heck are you guys doing here anyways?) But the fact that the really expensive gear doesn't demonstrate its real benefits at a show doesn't stop exhibitors from trying. Is that really a smart marketing move? Should consumers be left with the thought of a company charging a lot of money for dreck mit pfeffer?
To my ears, the $10K NOLA KO driven by the more modest ARC gear was a clear winner for a speaker under $70K. The NOLA sonic signature and Carl's genius were obvious to anyone who stepped into the suite: there was MUSICplaying in Carl's suite, not a bunch of audio gear that makes sound yet brings a whole hoard of media elites, as there was in the Wilson Alexa room. As a result, anyone who was introduced to or re-acquainted with the NOLA sonic signature can now step into a dealer that has several NOLA models on display in more comfortable surroundings and compare the KO to the more expensive models. They can easily determine if the sonic benefits of the higher priced models are worth paying for. So NOLA was not only the best of show, but did a brilliant job of marketing as well, as it was obvious what value NOLA delivered for what they charged.
What were your takeaways?