|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 13, 2017 7:20:16 GMT
There is so much talk bandied around the forums (including here in the past) about being "ripped off" that I thought I'd put my alternative viewpoint up for discussion. Here it is:
You cannot be ripped off unless you are sub-intelligent or there has been deliberate fraud involved.
Here's my reasoning: when you purchase anything you are making a value judgement. In marketing terms the equation going on in your head is:
Value = Benefits / Cost
You are the only person who can judge whether the item in question is worth the price being asked. At the point of agreeing to the purchase, you have decided that the item is of greater benefit than the money you are going to hand over. The corollary is that you will not make the purchase if the value equation does not work for you.
The arguments I hear most often to the above are:
"It was cheaper somewhere else". Irrelevant, the value equation worked for you when you agreed to pay the amount being asked. The value to you hasn't changed because it is cheaper somewhere else. In fact, never look at prices once you have bought something, you are just asking to become dissatisfied.
"The price was dropped later." Irrelevant, you were happy at the price being asked at the time. The value to you hasn't changed because it became cheaper later on.
"I could have bought the replacement model had I known". Irrelevant. It wasn't the replacement model you were value judging at the time of purchase.
If the product was falsely specified, is not of merchantable quality or there was some other sleight of hand going on, then of course you could have call to state that you were ripped off. Equally, if you are at risk of lacking good judgement due to mental illness or dementia.
Otherwise, when someone tells me they were ripped off the first thing I ask is the circumstances surrounding their purchase. The conversation often ends up with them getting annoyed at me because they want me to be sympathetic, when I am only trying to suggest that they made a perfectly good purchase (in their eyes) at the time!
|
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Jan 13, 2017 7:39:57 GMT
I disagree.  In retrospect I think I have been conned by the audiophile electronics industry in close collusion with my own subconscious biases. I am now firmly convinced that spending thousands on amps and DACs is a ripoff. I don't think you gain anything in sound quality above what is available for far less. You just have to choose carefully according to your own preferences. What you do get is the kudos of an expensive purchase, some nice blingy outer coverings and, possibly, a hernia from lugging the super-heavy beasts around. I have spent many £thousands on individual electronic components, let alone the horror of totting it all up to a grand total. So in retrospect I do feel I have been ripped off. The fact that I was happy with my purchases at the time seems irrelevant to me now. I was conned by the industry and its sycophantic / parasitic press and, tbh, the weight and momentum of similarly deluded audio friends and forums. ---- if only I had known!! _____ I present as supporting evidence my £75 Xiang Sheng DAC, £140 Philips power amp and my £75 JLH-design Chinese amp. I've not heard better sound than those deliver. I'd also add in my £110 Little Bear P8 valve preamp, it's superb irrespective of price. I do still think, though, that there are real benefits from spending Big Dosh on speakers, and I remain happy that I have done so. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 13, 2017 7:46:46 GMT
So in retrospect I do feel I have been ripped off. The fact that I was happy with my purchases at the time seems irrelevant to me now. It's a point of view, I hadn't factored in the time dimension  |
|
|
|
Post by zippy on Jan 13, 2017 8:20:26 GMT
I also strongly disagree - there are many levels of deception before one actually gets to real fraud.
I WOULD feel 'ripped off' to a certain extent if I was sold an item in the sellers full knowledge that an updated model was about to come out (especially if the price were the same or lower), but the seller didn't mention that.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 13, 2017 8:38:49 GMT
I tend to see different routes into good sounds
A traditional high end route like Martin and Mike
Using vintage gear I guess Andre is the biggest example of this
DIY like James and Philip can also help with cost
I have a mixture if approaches DIY speakers pro amplifier for the bass PC for transport and mid price amplifier for the rest. This has decreased costs
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 13, 2017 10:16:37 GMT
I WOULD feel 'ripped off' to a certain extent if I was sold an item in the sellers full knowledge that an updated model was about to come out (especially if the price were the same or lower), but the seller didn't mention that. Don't you think that it's up to you to research the product? What if the replacement is an inferior model (it happens)? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 11:06:13 GMT
It was Adam Smith (the founder of economics) who first explained the beauty of a voluntary exchange in a free market. Both parties to the voluntary exchange come out happy. For example, if I have £100 and you have a new DAC and I want the new DAC more than I want to keep the £100 and you want the £100 more than you want to keep the DAC then if we make a voluntary exchange we are both happy. It's a win-win.
The problem comes when the exchange isn't voluntary, either because the government gets involved and forces people to do things they don't want to do or because the buyer or seller withholds crucial information.
In financial services very few exchanges are voluntary due both to government interference and lack of transparency.
My guess is that in the hifi world it is a little bit better but many of the claims made by manufacturers are questionable if not completely bogus.
At the end of the day caveat emptor is the best protection you have. Laziness and apathy are no excuse and I agree with Martin that if you were happy at the time of the deal, unless you were hoodwinked you shouldn't really complain. We all make mistakes but the key is to only make the same mistake once in your life!
|
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Jan 13, 2017 11:20:15 GMT
Whether or not people feel ripped off I think depends very much on their priorities. Sure if someone overpays for some reason they'll be pissed off but that's not what I'm getting at. HiFi like most things offers greatly diminishing returns. I'm with Jerry in that DACs and Amps can be very good in sound quality for very little money. There are cosmetic, pride in ownership and sound quality gains to be made by spending say 4x to 10x the price of low cost products. Whether the sound quality improvements (if there are any) are noticeable or important to an individual is simply down to the individual. We also have business models to consider. Buying from a dealer who needs to make money (as well as the distributor) vs buying direct from a smaller manufacturer. Again it's down to the individual - does he/she need the support and advice of a dealer or not?
If we then look at fuses, interconnects and all sorts of "enhancers" then the price often reflects very high margins or very high marketing costs. I'm not sure where I'm going with this....I just feel people need to build a sense of perspective. We've all seen people who've spent huge sums upgrading through a product range only to become disenchanted and now they are bitter about this. A better sense of perspective in the first place would have made them less susceptible to the vendor's marketing strategy (Linn being an obvious one). Is this is rip off or not? People enjoyed the journey so maybe it wasn't a rip off at the time though on reflection some will feel miffed.
I think digital has been a great leveler. It's provided reference point for a flatish frequency response and resolution levels against which we can more fairly judge products - what is euphonic and what is not. I'm rambling now so I'll shut up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 11:31:36 GMT
There seem to be two threads now with the same topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Jan 13, 2017 11:33:27 GMT
There seem to be two threads now with the same topic. read post #1 of the other thread  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 11:40:26 GMT
There seem to be two threads now with the same topic. read post #1 of the other thread I think we have been ripped off. I don't accept fake imitations of the original thread! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 11:41:36 GMT
I think in terms of high priced products most buyers are seduced by the branding. They are not the type of customer that buys for sound quality alone. Then again it doesn't pay to buy cheapest knocked up bargain from China. There is also issue of support provided. An established brand will mostly guarantee extended support though this has been prove false with some including Sony. It is up to the buyer to compare prices and listen to alternative products both higher and lower priced to make a value judgement. You could argue that if you bought into the Naim /Linn hype and then saw the light 20 years later you were ripped off but you should have listened to other product at the time.
You are ripped off if the product becomes unreliable and the maker cannot make a lasting repair or refuses to support it. You are ripped off if you buy something on line and it is not delivered, the seller then disappearing. Yes most hi-fi is now at 'rip off' prices if you apply logic, but you are not being ripped off if you are happy to pay the money at time of purchase. Buyers have themselves to blame for maintenance of daft prices. Remove demand and overpriced gear will be reduced or manufacturer will leave the market.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 13, 2017 11:42:29 GMT
Posts merged - there is only ONE ripped off thread!!
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 13, 2017 11:46:10 GMT
It was Adam Smith (the founder of economics) who first explained the beauty of a voluntary exchange in a free market. Both parties to the voluntary exchange come out happy. For example, if I have £100 and you have a new DAC and I want the new DAC more than I want to keep the £100 and you want the £100 more than you want to keep the DAC then if we make a voluntary exchange we are both happy. It's a win-win. The problem comes when the exchange isn't voluntary, either because the government gets involved and forces people to do things they don't want to do or because the buyer or seller withholds crucial information. I like this, it tallies with my thinking. Your first para explains why you cannot be ripped off. Your second para explains the circumstances under which the exchange starts to become fraudulent, or at least suspect. Then it could reasonably be called a rip-off. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 11:48:35 GMT
I think in terms of high priced products most buyers are seduced by the branding. They are not the type of customer that buys for sound quality alone. Then again it doesn't pay to buy cheapest knocked up bargain from China. There is also issue of support provided. An established brand will mostly guarantee extended support though this has been prove false with some including Sony. It is up to the buyer to compare prices and listen to alternative products both higher and lower priced to make a value judgement. You could argue that if you bought into the Naim /Linn hype and then saw the light 20 years later you were ripped off but you should have listened to other product at the time. You are ripped off if the product becomes unreliable and the maker cannot make a lasting repair or refuses to support it. You are ripped off if you buy something on line and it is not delivered, the seller then disappearing. Yes most hi-fi is now at 'rip off' prices if you apply logic, but you are not being ripped off if you are happy to pay the money at time of purchase. Buyers have themselves to blame for maintenance of daft prices. Remove demand and overpriced gear will be reduced or manufacturer will leave the market. I agree with this 100% Most people think they behave rationally but emotions are far more important in buying decisions, but there are some good rules of thumb that you can use to protect yourself. “I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche |
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jan 13, 2017 12:49:41 GMT
I've made some bad decisions in the past. I cannot sensibly argue I was ripped off.
I was seduced by the Linn / Naim PR machine in the 70s and 80s and the Hifi Mags
My upgrade trail could and should have been simplified and I should have sold as I bought.
Sitting on kit and accessories that should be sold is again my fault.
I was seduced by the wonderful sounds coming out of the new pieces in the system
What still puzzles me is how a great sounding system is made even better.
My mind struggles with that.
No rip offs here
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jan 13, 2017 12:56:23 GMT
"Seduced by the branding"
Buyers are different. The "normal" distribution of buyers for most products are 20% always buy the cheapest regardless, 20% always buy the most expensive, regardless, and 60% will consider a range of factors in making a purchasing decision
But you make a choice. My son is very brand conscious - and although I find it bizarre, he gets "value" from exclusivity, herd following or whatever it is that brand does for him
And there is always a luxury market - where for buyers to gain satisfaction and perceive value, they want it to be as expensive as possible. That clearly is not a rip-off
Since Adam Smith has had an outing, this is classic demand curve stuff. If you plot volume sold on the y axis and price on the x axis, the normal demand curve slopes down from left to right. As the price is dropped, you sell more. But there are 2 exceptions
The first, rather naughtily, I have always referred to as the "Irish exception". This refers to basic commodities in a market where consumers are near the bread line. The classic example was potatoes in Ireland in the 19th century. When most of the population subsisted on potatoes, and the price of potatoes fell, demand fell. This was because previously all income was spent on potatoes, and there was none spare for a cabbage or a bit of mutton. As the price of potatoes (nearly 100% of discretionary spending) fell, so Irish peasants bought less potatoes, exchanging spare money for cabbage and mutton
The main exception to the left right downsloping demand curve is luxury items (including brands). Part of the reason people buy a Rolls Royce or Bentley is for the prestige. If everyone could afford them, the wealthy would look for something else with the cherished (price) exclusivity. Clearly this luxury / brand element exists in HiFi.
Martin's original premis I support completely. People make choices. A rip-off is in the eyes of the beholder
(PS: we are in the middle of a spectacular mountain snow storm here, with 100km/h gusts - very distracting)
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 13, 2017 13:07:47 GMT
Brand loyalty is a can of worms and takes many guises.
Some years ago there used to be a choice of Sky HD boxes. They were made by Thompson, Samsung and Amstrad. The specification was exactly the same.
I ordered a Samsung one. Why? Because Thompson had burned their reliability reputation by using cheap Chinese capacitors (CapXon) in the PSU of older boxes which failed in equipment as quickly as a few months old. Legitimate brand dislike.
So what about the remaining two? Simple, I would rather do without Sky than ever put money into the hands of that nasty ignorant barrow boy Sugar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 13:09:40 GMT
Brand loyalty is a can of worms and takes many guises. Some years ago there used to be a choice of Sky HD boxes. They were made by Thompson, Samsung and Amstrad. The specification was exactly the same. I ordered a Samsung one. Why? Because Thompson had burned their reliability reputation by using cheap Chinese capacitors (CapXon) in the PSU of older boxes which failed in equipment as quickly as a few months old. Legitimate brand dislike. So what about the remaining two? Simple, I would rather do without Sky than ever put money into the hands of that nasty ignorant barrow boy Sugar. The Amstrad PCW 8256 was superb. I'm sorry I sold mine. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 13:11:43 GMT
For me, there is often a difference between "feeling" ripped off/short-changed and this actually being the case.
Take for example the first Theta transports with the large laserdisc transport mechs. They were effectively a much cheaper Grundig laserdisc player literally dropped into a posh case. Now , they worked fine, apparently sounded good and had a nice Theta case and badge to give kudos. Once the innards were discovered and publicised, lots of people shouted "rip-off".
I can see why owners might feel that way but the players still delivered. It was just the level of "off the shelf" bits was higher than most other players, albeit to the point of being entirely something else internally.
For me the buyers weren't ripped off but I can appreciate why they would feel that way. I've opened up many a purchase and felt short-changed when I see the build and components. In truth I wasn't ripped off though, just disappointed.
Another contender would be the MF Nuvista 3D players. Cheap Taiwanese mechs that failed quickly on a £3k+ player and MF had no stocks to service them with. Obviously any failure within 12 months would be protected by statutory rights: Outside of that there's no liability. Bad form, yes, but if players lasted beyond the guarantee period then there is no law forcing MF to carry spares. Of course the bad press and loss of brand loyalty was arguably of greater cost to MF.
The fact these instances stick in my head suggests to me there is little in the way of rip-off in hifi. Others may differ but I guess it depends on how you define "rip-off. It clearly means different things to different people.
|
|
