The industry of high-end audio chronicles the passion for emotionally-engaging sound, the pursuit of engineering perfection and the love of music. The designers of our components come to audio from many different fields, but each designer wants to fill our ears and our souls with joy from the sound of extraordinarily reproduced music.
We are an unusual industry, comprised of a few relatively large companies, and many small companies. Many high-end audio manufacturers start as one person efforts, literally in their garages.
High-end audio is a very unique hobby-based industry in which manufacturers often are in direct communication with end-users, often through WBF. This post is a request for greater honesty and transparency from manufacturers in this industry.
A manufacturer announces a new product, and the manufacturer's distributors and dealers discuss that product publicly. To the end-user the buzz states explicitly or at least implies that the product appears to be a completely engineered, completely tested and ready for production component.
Hobbyists order the component from dealers and the order payments go up the distribution chain back to the manufacturer. If the manufacturer does not have stock on hand, then these payments are used to produce the next copies of the component. In a small, under-capitalized manufacturer this is fine, because the companies are not large enough to produce a quantity of components and maintain an inventory. This is why in our industry orders often take several weeks or months to fill as the manufacturer literally produces the component to order after receiving payment.
But what if, in reality, the manufacturer uses the first purchaser order payments merely to continue and to complete the design and the testing and the pre-production of the component? I think this is wrong.
If a manufacturer conveys talking points to its distributor and that distributor conveys those talking points to its dealers and its dealers convey those talking points to prospective purchasers, I want those talking points to be scrupulously accurate. I don't want those talking points by the manufacturer -- which then are propagated downstream -- to be merely aspirational. If a product is announced as in existence and ready for purchase then that product should be actually fully designed and actually fully tested and actually in production or ready for immediate production.
Unfortunately in high-end audio many manufacturers are under-capitalized with inadequate funds for proper testing of new components under development and about to be released. Manufacturers don't have a dozen prototypes which they send out across the world to be tested in situ in many different audio systems comprised of many different components. High-end audio manufacturers are not like Porsche which sends out prototypes across the world to be test driven from the freezing roads of Finland to the desert roads of Saudi Arabia.
This is not the consumers' problem. This is the manufacturer's problem. Low volume manufacturers in this industry should not use early purchasing consumers as the beta testers. In my opinion many components in this industry are too expensive for the manufacturer effectively to be using the first purchasers as the beta testers.
I advocate for complete honesty and transparency from manufacturers. A hobbyist should not have to wait many months or even a year or more for a component to arrive at his/her front door as the product's design and testing and reproduction -- unbeknownst to the purchaser and maybe even unbeknownst to the distributor and to the dealer -- actually is completed.
Manufacturers should not announce product release dates which are not realistic.
Manufacturers should not take payments for products which are not yet actually fully designed and actually fully tested and actually in production or ready for immediate production.
Manufacturers should not use early-adopting purchasers as beta testers.
Partisan preferences for particular brands and components aside, I hope we all can agree that manufacturers should be scrupulously honest with us hobbyists.
We are an unusual industry, comprised of a few relatively large companies, and many small companies. Many high-end audio manufacturers start as one person efforts, literally in their garages.
High-end audio is a very unique hobby-based industry in which manufacturers often are in direct communication with end-users, often through WBF. This post is a request for greater honesty and transparency from manufacturers in this industry.
A manufacturer announces a new product, and the manufacturer's distributors and dealers discuss that product publicly. To the end-user the buzz states explicitly or at least implies that the product appears to be a completely engineered, completely tested and ready for production component.
Hobbyists order the component from dealers and the order payments go up the distribution chain back to the manufacturer. If the manufacturer does not have stock on hand, then these payments are used to produce the next copies of the component. In a small, under-capitalized manufacturer this is fine, because the companies are not large enough to produce a quantity of components and maintain an inventory. This is why in our industry orders often take several weeks or months to fill as the manufacturer literally produces the component to order after receiving payment.
But what if, in reality, the manufacturer uses the first purchaser order payments merely to continue and to complete the design and the testing and the pre-production of the component? I think this is wrong.
If a manufacturer conveys talking points to its distributor and that distributor conveys those talking points to its dealers and its dealers convey those talking points to prospective purchasers, I want those talking points to be scrupulously accurate. I don't want those talking points by the manufacturer -- which then are propagated downstream -- to be merely aspirational. If a product is announced as in existence and ready for purchase then that product should be actually fully designed and actually fully tested and actually in production or ready for immediate production.
Unfortunately in high-end audio many manufacturers are under-capitalized with inadequate funds for proper testing of new components under development and about to be released. Manufacturers don't have a dozen prototypes which they send out across the world to be tested in situ in many different audio systems comprised of many different components. High-end audio manufacturers are not like Porsche which sends out prototypes across the world to be test driven from the freezing roads of Finland to the desert roads of Saudi Arabia.
This is not the consumers' problem. This is the manufacturer's problem. Low volume manufacturers in this industry should not use early purchasing consumers as the beta testers. In my opinion many components in this industry are too expensive for the manufacturer effectively to be using the first purchasers as the beta testers.
I advocate for complete honesty and transparency from manufacturers. A hobbyist should not have to wait many months or even a year or more for a component to arrive at his/her front door as the product's design and testing and reproduction -- unbeknownst to the purchaser and maybe even unbeknownst to the distributor and to the dealer -- actually is completed.
Manufacturers should not announce product release dates which are not realistic.
Manufacturers should not take payments for products which are not yet actually fully designed and actually fully tested and actually in production or ready for immediate production.
Manufacturers should not use early-adopting purchasers as beta testers.
Partisan preferences for particular brands and components aside, I hope we all can agree that manufacturers should be scrupulously honest with us hobbyists.
Last edited:
