"chung" wrote in message
...
B&D wrote:
On 7/12/04 9:40 PM, in article g4HIc.60690$JR4.18225@attbi_s54,
"chung"
wrote:

It makes me wonder why any of them would see the $350k Wavac
amplifier as
special.

I have found that with most things quality tends to rise with
price to a
point. Above that point things get needlessly complex and the
quality and
performance suffers. I can't see how this would be any
different!

You are missing the point. This amp is seriously bad. To say that
quality or performance of this amp suffers is like saying a car
that can
only get up to 25 mph has performance that suffers, despite a $1
million
price-tag.

No, I didn't miss the point. What I am saying is that if you pay
too much
for something - way out of line from what you would expect, the
quality and
performance, except, perhaps in one or two regards, is *likely* to
stink.

I am agreeing with you - but also adding that I am not surprised.

I am very surprised that a $350K can be this bad. I can understand
if
the performance is simply average, but this amp has really no
redeeming
qualities, from a measurement point of view, other than looks (and
debatable of couse). How often do you see an electronics product
that is
perhaps 100 times the cost of products that do the same thing, and
yet
has performance that is among the worst?

It has been said that the perfect amplifier is a "straight wire with
gain." In the last couple of decades even low priced amplifiers have
approached this performance so closely that it would be impossible to
hear any difference, even if it was perfect. This leaves amplifier
companies with a problem: How can they make an amp that actually
sounds different than the competition?

Make it worse, instead of trying to approach the asymptote of
perfection even more closely. It appears that that is what Wavac has
done--marketed an amp with performance that is bad in such a way that
some people will prefer its sound.

Norm Strong