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?