On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:26:40 GMT, Bruce Abrams
wrote:

"BEAR" wrote in message
news:WcPrb.116514$mZ5.786443@attbi_s54...
*quotes out of order*
(Is a Patek Phillip "watch" a rip off?? I can buy a Timex for $19.95)

A Patek Phillip or any other fine watch is first and foremost a piece of
jewelry with form and appearance as its primary design goal. It is only
secondarily a functional instrument. This is clearly the opposite of audio
equipment.

Actually no - this would appear to be *exactly* what so-called 'high
end' audio equipment actually is. Remember, deep inside the alloy
casework of a $10,000 Mark Levinson CD transport, is a standard $50
Philips mechanism with all its associated electronics...............

I suppose that to the extent that someone wishes to own audio
equipment as decorative home furnishing the analogy would be valid, but for
the vast majority (one would hope the entirety) of the readership of this
newsgroup, such equipment is first and foremost for the funtional purpose of
musical reproduction. If, on the other had, we make the assumption that the
primary function of any watch's is the accurate keeping of time, then the
Patek Phillip would be a rip off as a digital Timex is clearly more
accurate.

Actually, if it says 'Patek Phillip' on the dial, then it's
*definitely* a ripoff! :-)

The underlying logic in your analogy regardless of its validity, yields an
interesting conclusion. Assuming the primacy of musical reproduction as
design goal, any audio component that fails to achieve a standard of
performance previously attained by another component at a lower price can be
said to be a rip off. Of course we need to define a "standard of
performance", but assuming we do so by some combination of controlled
listening and measurement, the subsequent value analysis should be fairly
straight forward.

OK, so all tube amps are ripoffs. Glad we cleared that one up! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering