[Boon[_2_]]

There's a lot of buzz in the audio community about this "modernized"
version of the Dynaco A-25 loudspeaker from Annandale Acoustics. I
know a couple of people who have ordered a pair, and Jeff Dorgay
reviewed a pair and found them to be similar in balance to the Harbeth
Compact 7, saying that they had a "pretty warm sound overall, pleasing
but definitely on the lush side."

The problem with these speakers (other than the fact that they're not
much to look at) is the price. A pair of new A-25s once cost $79, but
these are $2500 a pair! Even taking inflation into account, these
should be well under $1000. But, as the advertisments say, these
speakers will take you places the originals couldn't.

http://annandaleacoustics.com/

I'm still pretty curious. I heard a pair of restored originals about
two years ago, and they weren't half bad even by today's standards.

[Bret L]

On Apr 21, 5:53*pm, Boon wrote:
There's a lot of buzz in the audio community about this "modernized"
version of the Dynaco A-25 loudspeaker from Annandale Acoustics. I
know a couple of people who have ordered a pair, and Jeff Dorgay
reviewed a pair and found them to be similar in balance to the Harbeth
Compact 7, saying that they had a "pretty warm sound overall, pleasing
but definitely on the lush side."

The problem with these speakers (other than the fact that they're not
much to look at) is the price. A pair of new A-25s once cost $79, but
these are $2500 a pair! Even taking inflation into account, these
should be well under $1000. But, as the advertisments say, these
speakers will take you places the originals couldn't.

http://annandaleacoustics.com/

I'm still pretty curious. I heard a pair of restored originals about
two years ago, and they weren't half bad even by today's standards.

There are a lot of gullibards and trendies out there, and this might
be trendy a while.

Are they better than the originals? I hope so because the originals
were what they were, an inexpensive box speaker.

They were competitive with the "Boston Blando" Acoustic Research
speakers, which with an AR table and a Dyna ST70 and PAS combination,
the canonical college dorm system for moderately affluent college
students in the 1963ish micro era. Times changed rapidly then and what
was au courant in '61 was hopelessly quaint by '64, which in turn by
'67 was hopelessly outmoded. That combination was a lot better than
the suitcase record players college students had in those days, but it
was not what we would call high end audio today.

Unfortunately, the A-25 came out quite a bit later-roughly 1970, by
which time only a few backward people still used tube amps in new
installs, and when the price of high power solid state amps started to
come down bigtime. But most people weren't buying separate amps, but
rather receivers, a trend solidified by the Japanese products pouring
in at that time. Most of them were harsh sounding and the A-25 helped
cover that up somewhat.

The A-25 is eclipsed handily by the MTM designs with smaller woofers
that have replaced the ten inch two way and many are available at a
much lower price.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Apr 21, 6:28�pm, Bret L wrote:
On Apr 21, 5:53�pm, Boon wrote:





There's a lot of buzz in the audio community about this "modernized"
version of the Dynaco A-25 loudspeaker from Annandale Acoustics. I
know a couple of people who have ordered a pair, and Jeff Dorgay
reviewed a pair and found them to be similar in balance to the Harbeth
Compact 7, saying that they had a "pretty warm sound overall, pleasing
but definitely on the lush side."

The problem with these speakers (other than the fact that they're not
much to look at) is the price. A pair of new A-25s once cost $79, but
these are $2500 a pair! Even taking inflation into account, these
should be well under $1000. But, as the advertisments say, these
speakers will take you places the originals couldn't.

http://annandaleacoustics.com/

I'm still pretty curious. I heard a pair of restored originals about
two years ago, and they weren't half bad even by today's standards.

�There are a lot of gullibards and trendies out there, and this might
be trendy a while.

�Are they better than the originals? I hope so because the originals
were what they were, an inexpensive box speaker.

�They were competitive with the "Boston Blando" Acoustic Research
speakers, which with an AR table and a Dyna ST70 and PAS combination,
the canonical college dorm system for moderately affluent college
students in the 1963ish micro era. Times changed rapidly then and what
was au courant in '61 was hopelessly quaint by '64, which in turn by
'67 was hopelessly outmoded. That combination was a lot better than
the suitcase record players college students had in those days, but it
was not what we would call high end audio today.

Unfortunately, the A-25 came out quite a bit later-roughly 1970, by
which time only a few backward people still used tube amps in new
installs, and when the price of high power solid state amps started to
come down bigtime. But most people weren't buying separate amps, but
rather receivers, a trend solidified by the Japanese products pouring
in at that time. Most of them were harsh sounding and the A-25 helped
cover that up somewhat.

�The A-25 is eclipsed handily by the MTM designs with smaller woofers
that have replaced the ten inch two way and many are available at a
much lower price.

The nice thing about A-25s is that they're one of the few vintage
speakers that didn't use foam surrounds, so you didn't have to worry
about buying a refoam kit when you happened upon a nice used pair. On
the other hand, I don't trust a 10-inch woofer in a conventional two-
way design...the crossover tends to be less than seamless.

[Bret L]

On Apr 21, 6:32*pm, Boon wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:28 pm, Bret L wrote:



On Apr 21, 5:53 pm, Boon wrote:

There's a lot of buzz in the audio community about this "modernized"
version of the Dynaco A-25 loudspeaker from Annandale Acoustics. I
know a couple of people who have ordered a pair, and Jeff Dorgay
reviewed a pair and found them to be similar in balance to the Harbeth
Compact 7, saying that they had a "pretty warm sound overall, pleasing
but definitely on the lush side."

The problem with these speakers (other than the fact that they're not
much to look at) is the price. A pair of new A-25s once cost $79, but
these are $2500 a pair! Even taking inflation into account, these
should be well under $1000. But, as the advertisments say, these
speakers will take you places the originals couldn't.

http://annandaleacoustics.com/

I'm still pretty curious. I heard a pair of restored originals about
two years ago, and they weren't half bad even by today's standards.

There are a lot of gullibards and trendies out there, and this might
be trendy a while.

Are they better than the originals? I hope so because the originals
were what they were, an inexpensive box speaker.

They were competitive with the "Boston Blando" Acoustic Research
speakers, which with an AR table and a Dyna ST70 and PAS combination,
the canonical college dorm system for moderately affluent college
students in the 1963ish micro era. Times changed rapidly then and what
was au courant in '61 was hopelessly quaint by '64, which in turn by
'67 was hopelessly outmoded. That combination was a lot better than
the suitcase record players college students had in those days, but it
was not what we would call high end audio today.

Unfortunately, the A-25 came out quite a bit later-roughly 1970, by
which time only a few backward people still used tube amps in new
installs, and when the price of high power solid state amps started to
come down bigtime. But most people weren't buying separate amps, but
rather receivers, a trend solidified by the Japanese products pouring
in at that time. Most of them were harsh sounding and the A-25 helped
cover that up somewhat.

The A-25 is eclipsed handily by the MTM designs with smaller woofers
that have replaced the ten inch two way and many are available at a
much lower price.

The nice thing about A-25s is that they're one of the few vintage
speakers that didn't use foam surrounds, so you didn't have to worry
about buying a refoam kit when you happened upon a nice used pair. On
the other hand, I don't trust a 10-inch woofer in a conventional two-
way design...the crossover tends to be less than seamless.

Refoaming isn't that big a deal, but I tend to prefer speakers that
don't use foam. Tannoy DCs, Altec 604s, JBL and Altec woofers in
cabinets with gain.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Apr 21, 6:34�pm, Bret L wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:32�pm, Boon wrote:





On Apr 21, 6:28 pm, Bret L wrote:

On Apr 21, 5:53 pm, Boon wrote:

There's a lot of buzz in the audio community about this "modernized"
version of the Dynaco A-25 loudspeaker from Annandale Acoustics. I
know a couple of people who have ordered a pair, and Jeff Dorgay
reviewed a pair and found them to be similar in balance to the Harbeth
Compact 7, saying that they had a "pretty warm sound overall, pleasing
but definitely on the lush side."

The problem with these speakers (other than the fact that they're not
much to look at) is the price. A pair of new A-25s once cost $79, but
these are $2500 a pair! Even taking inflation into account, these
should be well under $1000. But, as the advertisments say, these
speakers will take you places the originals couldn't.

http://annandaleacoustics.com/

I'm still pretty curious. I heard a pair of restored originals about
two years ago, and they weren't half bad even by today's standards.

There are a lot of gullibards and trendies out there, and this might
be trendy a while.

Are they better than the originals? I hope so because the originals
were what they were, an inexpensive box speaker.

They were competitive with the "Boston Blando" Acoustic Research
speakers, which with an AR table and a Dyna ST70 and PAS combination,
the canonical college dorm system for moderately affluent college
students in the 1963ish micro era. Times changed rapidly then and what
was au courant in '61 was hopelessly quaint by '64, which in turn by
'67 was hopelessly outmoded. That combination was a lot better than
the suitcase record players college students had in those days, but it
was not what we would call high end audio today.

Unfortunately, the A-25 came out quite a bit later-roughly 1970, by
which time only a few backward people still used tube amps in new
installs, and when the price of high power solid state amps started to
come down bigtime. But most people weren't buying separate amps, but
rather receivers, a trend solidified by the Japanese products pouring
in at that time. Most of them were harsh sounding and the A-25 helped
cover that up somewhat.

The A-25 is eclipsed handily by the MTM designs with smaller woofers
that have replaced the ten inch two way and many are available at a
much lower price.

The nice thing about A-25s is that they're one of the few vintage
speakers that didn't use foam surrounds, so you didn't have to worry
about buying a refoam kit when you happened upon a nice used pair. On
the other hand, I don't trust a 10-inch woofer in a conventional two-
way design...the crossover tends to be less than seamless.

�Refoaming isn't that big a deal, but I tend to prefer speakers that
don't use foam. Tannoy DCs, Altec 604s, JBL and Altec woofers in
cabinets with gain.

Altec 604s and 608s are in vogue in Japan right now. I've heard these:

http://www2.117.ne.jp/~y-s/YS-605P-new-eng.html

They're based on 605s. I really enjoyed these a lot...powerful, smooth
and warm.

[John Stone]

On 4/21/10 5:53 PM, in article
, "Boon"
wrote:

There's a lot of buzz in the audio community about this "modernized"
version of the Dynaco A-25 loudspeaker from Annandale Acoustics. I
know a couple of people who have ordered a pair, and Jeff Dorgay
reviewed a pair and found them to be similar in balance to the Harbeth
Compact 7, saying that they had a "pretty warm sound overall, pleasing
but definitely on the lush side."

The problem with these speakers (other than the fact that they're not
much to look at) is the price. A pair of new A-25s once cost $79, but
these are $2500 a pair! Even taking inflation into account, these
should be well under $1000. But, as the advertisments say, these
speakers will take you places the originals couldn't.

http://annandaleacoustics.com/

I'm still pretty curious. I heard a pair of restored originals about
two years ago, and they weren't half bad even by today's standards.

Correction: the original A25 was $79 ea., not $79/pr. Over 1 million
original A25's were made: cabinets in Denmark, drivers in Norway, assembled
in both places depending on demand.

The cabinet on this new speaker is much fancier and more costly, being made
of baltic birch ply and hand assembled in small quantities. The originals
were mass produced from veneered chipboard. The drivers are similar to the
originals but much improved. But the biggest difference is the crossover.
The original A25 consisted of a single capacitor and resistive attenuator on
the tweeter, with the woofer connected directly to the input terminals. The
Annendale has a full blown crossover network like you would find in any
modern speaker. The crossover design was done by a very well known and
respected engineer in the industry.

Yes, the price is high, but it's hard to compare this system with the
original given the very changed nature of the marketplace. The original A25
was designed to be mass produced at minimal cost. Today that business is all
in China. But the Annandale product is still using expensive European
drivers and US produced cabinets, purchased in very small quantities, and
assembled here. They spend over $200 in driver costs alone, considerably
more than the retail price of a completed pair of speakers in 1970.

I don't know if a rehashed A25 is a good idea given that it will always be a
low volume niche product which will, by necessity, have to be sold for a
very high price. Time will tell.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Apr 21, 9:40�pm, John Stone wrote:
On 4/21/10 5:53 PM, in article
, "Boon"





wrote:
There's a lot of buzz in the audio community about this "modernized"
version of the Dynaco A-25 loudspeaker from Annandale Acoustics. I
know a couple of people who have ordered a pair, and Jeff Dorgay
reviewed a pair and found them to be similar in balance to the Harbeth
Compact 7, saying that they had a "pretty warm sound overall, pleasing
but definitely on the lush side."

The problem with these speakers (other than the fact that they're not
much to look at) is the price. A pair of new A-25s once cost $79, but
these are $2500 a pair! Even taking inflation into account, these
should be well under $1000. But, as the advertisments say, these
speakers will take you places the originals couldn't.

http://annandaleacoustics.com/

I'm still pretty curious. I heard a pair of restored originals about
two years ago, and they weren't half bad even by today's standards.

Correction: the original A25 was $79 ea., not $79/pr. Over 1 million
original A25's were made: cabinets in Denmark, drivers in Norway, assembled
in both places depending on demand.

The cabinet on this new speaker is much fancier and more costly, being made
of baltic birch ply and hand assembled in small quantities. The originals
were mass produced from veneered chipboard. �The drivers are similar to the
originals but much improved. �But the biggest difference is the crossover.
The original A25 consisted of a single capacitor and resistive attenuator on
the tweeter, with the woofer connected directly to the input terminals. The
Annendale has a full blown crossover network like you would find in any
modern speaker. The crossover design was done by a very well known and
respected engineer in the industry.

Yes, the price is high, but it's hard to compare this system with the
original given the very changed nature of the marketplace. The original A25
was designed to be mass produced at minimal cost. Today that business is all
in China. But the Annandale product is still using expensive European
drivers and US produced cabinets, purchased in very small quantities, and
assembled here. They spend �over $200 in driver costs alone, considerably
more than the retail price of a completed pair of speakers in 1970.

I don't know if a rehashed A25 is a good idea given that it will always be a
low volume niche product which will, by necessity, have to be sold for a
very high price. Time will tell.

Thanks for the info.

By the way, I've never been nuts about that layered ply look favored
by some Scandinavian companies (such as Penaudio). The pictures of the
Annandale speaker are not that flattering, either.

Still, it's a very interesting speaker and I'd like to hear it. I'm
intrigued by the comparisons to Harbeth.

[Bret L]

Yes, the price is high, but it's hard to compare this system with the
original given the very changed nature of the marketplace. The original A25
was designed to be mass produced at minimal cost. Today that business is all
in China. But the Annandale product is still using expensive European
drivers and US produced cabinets, purchased in very small quantities, and
assembled here. They spend *over $200 in driver costs alone, considerably
more than the retail price of a completed pair of speakers in 1970.

I don't know if a rehashed A25 is a good idea given that it will always be a
low volume niche product which will, by necessity, have to be sold for a
very high price. Time will tell.

Low volume usually means a onesy twoesy man shop with no ISO-9000, no
product liability (not a big factor with speakers usually, though ones
with active power supplies could catch fire and of course Maggies
could fall over and hit someone if they fell apart), engineering costs
a one time consulting fee (i.e. they paid $500 for a Dick Pierce or
Joe d'Appolito half day consultation), etc. They are probably
manufacturing out of a back lot space in a "business incubator" or in
a defunct strip mall- or a suburban garage.

Anyway, $200 in parts plus a cab means if you are paying two thousand
plus you are getting screwed. In my opinion.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Apr 22, 4:01�pm, Bret L wrote:
Yes, the price is high, but it's hard to compare this system with the
original given the very changed nature of the marketplace. The original A25
was designed to be mass produced at minimal cost. Today that business is all
in China. But the Annandale product is still using expensive European
drivers and US produced cabinets, purchased in very small quantities, and
assembled here. They spend �over $200 in driver costs alone, considerably
more than the retail price of a completed pair of speakers in 1970.

I don't know if a rehashed A25 is a good idea given that it will always be a
low volume niche product which will, by necessity, have to be sold for a
very high price. Time will tell.

�Low volume usually means a onesy twoesy man shop with no ISO-9000, no
product liability (not a big factor with speakers usually, though ones
with active power supplies could catch fire and of course Maggies
could fall over and hit someone if they fell apart), engineering costs
a one time consulting fee (i.e. they paid $500 for a Dick Pierce or
Joe d'Appolito half day consultation), etc. They are probably
manufacturing out of a back lot space in a "business incubator" or in
a defunct strip mall- or a suburban garage.

�Anyway, $200 in parts plus a cab means if you are paying two thousand
plus you are getting screwed. In my opinion.

One of the marketing formulas in audio is "times ten." Parts are
usually around 10% of the MSRP. That certainly doesn't mean your
margins are 90%, or even 50%. R&D, labor, advertising, shipping and
other fixed costs take a big chunk out of the pie.

Have you ever run your own business? Generally, businesses need to
make a profit, you know.

[Bret L]

On Apr 22, 4:52*pm, Boon wrote:
On Apr 22, 4:01 pm, Bret L wrote:







Yes, the price is high, but it's hard to compare this system with the
original given the very changed nature of the marketplace. The original A25
was designed to be mass produced at minimal cost. Today that business is all
in China. But the Annandale product is still using expensive European
drivers and US produced cabinets, purchased in very small quantities, and
assembled here. They spend over $200 in driver costs alone, considerably
more than the retail price of a completed pair of speakers in 1970.

I don't know if a rehashed A25 is a good idea given that it will always be a
low volume niche product which will, by necessity, have to be sold for a
very high price. Time will tell.

Low volume usually means a onesy twoesy man shop with no ISO-9000, no
product liability (not a big factor with speakers usually, though ones
with active power supplies could catch fire and of course Maggies
could fall over and hit someone if they fell apart), engineering costs
a one time consulting fee (i.e. they paid $500 for a Dick Pierce or
Joe d'Appolito half day consultation), etc. They are probably
manufacturing out of a back lot space in a "business incubator" or in
a defunct strip mall- or a suburban garage.

Anyway, $200 in parts plus a cab means if you are paying two thousand
plus you are getting screwed. In my opinion.

One of the marketing formulas in audio is "times ten." Parts are
usually around 10% of the MSRP. That certainly doesn't mean your
margins are 90%, or even 50%. R&D, labor, advertising, shipping and
other fixed costs take a big chunk out of the pie.

The poor ratio of build cost to sale price is why most high end
products today are not very good. And, most of them are NOT very good.
Higher volume would help, but the addiction of audiophools to insanely
priced advertising media and the products advertised therein is a big
one too.

Most high end products today are minimally engineered in fact.
Cookbook design is the rule.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Apr 22, 5:44�pm, Bret L wrote:
On Apr 22, 4:52�pm, Boon wrote:





On Apr 22, 4:01 pm, Bret L wrote:

Yes, the price is high, but it's hard to compare this system with the
original given the very changed nature of the marketplace. The original A25
was designed to be mass produced at minimal cost. Today that business is all
in China. But the Annandale product is still using expensive European
drivers and US produced cabinets, purchased in very small quantities, and
assembled here. They spend over $200 in driver costs alone, considerably
more than the retail price of a completed pair of speakers in 1970.

I don't know if a rehashed A25 is a good idea given that it will always be a
low volume niche product which will, by necessity, have to be sold for a
very high price. Time will tell.

Low volume usually means a onesy twoesy man shop with no ISO-9000, no
product liability (not a big factor with speakers usually, though ones
with active power supplies could catch fire and of course Maggies
could fall over and hit someone if they fell apart), engineering costs
a one time consulting fee (i.e. they paid $500 for a Dick Pierce or
Joe d'Appolito half day consultation), etc. They are probably
manufacturing out of a back lot space in a "business incubator" or in
a defunct strip mall- or a suburban garage.

Anyway, $200 in parts plus a cab means if you are paying two thousand
plus you are getting screwed. In my opinion.

One of the marketing formulas in audio is "times ten." Parts are
usually around 10% of the MSRP. That certainly doesn't mean your
margins are 90%, or even 50%. R&D, labor, advertising, shipping and
other fixed costs take a big chunk out of the pie.

�The poor ratio of build cost to sale price is why most high end
products today are not very good. And, most of them are NOT very good.
Higher volume would help, but the addiction of audiophools to insanely
priced advertising media and the products advertised therein is a big
one too.

�Most high end products today are minimally engineered in fact.
Cookbook design is the rule.

Maybe so, but no one's getting rich in high-end audio these days,
except maybe Dave Wilson.

[John Stone]

On 4/22/10 4:52 PM, in article
, "Boon"
wrote:

�Low volume usually means a onesy twoesy man shop with no ISO-9000, no
product liability (not a big factor with speakers usually, though ones
with active power supplies could catch fire and of course Maggies
could fall over and hit someone if they fell apart), engineering costs
a one time consulting fee (i.e. they paid $500 for a Dick Pierce or
Joe d'Appolito half day consultation), etc. They are probably
manufacturing out of a back lot space in a "business incubator" or in
a defunct strip mall- or a suburban garage.

�Anyway, $200 in parts plus a cab means if you are paying two thousand
plus you are getting screwed. In my opinion.

One of the marketing formulas in audio is "times ten." Parts are
usually around 10% of the MSRP. That certainly doesn't mean your
margins are 90%, or even 50%. R&D, labor, advertising, shipping and
other fixed costs take a big chunk out of the pie.

Have you ever run your own business? Generally, businesses need to
make a profit, you know.

On 4/22/10 4:52 PM, in article
, "Boon"
wrote:

On Apr 22, 4:01�pm, Bret L wrote:

�Low volume usually means a onesy twoesy man shop with no ISO-9000, no
product liability (not a big factor with speakers usually, though ones
with active power supplies could catch fire and of course Maggies
could fall over and hit someone if they fell apart), engineering costs
a one time consulting fee (i.e. they paid $500 for a Dick Pierce or
Joe d'Appolito half day consultation), etc. They are probably
manufacturing out of a back lot space in a "business incubator" or in
a defunct strip mall- or a suburban garage.

�Anyway, $200 in parts plus a cab means if you are paying two thousand
plus you are getting screwed. In my opinion.

One of the marketing formulas in audio is "times ten." Parts are
usually around 10% of the MSRP. That certainly doesn't mean your
margins are 90%, or even 50%. R&D, labor, advertising, shipping and
other fixed costs take a big chunk out of the pie.

Have you ever run your own business? Generally, businesses need to
make a profit, you know.

Obviously he doesn't have a clue. He thinks Dick Pierce or Joe d'Appolito
will do crossover consulting work for $500. You can multiply that figure by
8-10X. He also leaves out the costs of crossovers, input terminals, wire,
fasteners, variovents, damping material, grille, documentation. Then there's
the little matter of shipping cartons and packing material. And never mind
the labor involved in assembly and testing. Given the cabinet design,
overall BOM costs on these has to be over $600, so I don't see these as
overpriced in the context of BOM cost to MSRP ratio. The simple question-to
be answered by the customer- is whether or not the design choices are
desirable at that price.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 23, 6:21*am, John Stone wrote:

Obviously he doesn't have a clue. He thinks Dick Pierce or Joe d'Appolito
will do crossover consulting work for $500. You can multiply that figure by
8-10X. He also leaves out the costs of crossovers, input terminals, wire,
fasteners, variovents, damping material, grille, documentation. Then there's
the little matter of shipping cartons and packing material. And never mind
the labor involved in assembly and testing. Given the cabinet design,
overall BOM costs on these has to be over $600, so I don't see these as
overpriced in the context of BOM cost to MSRP ratio. The simple question-to
be answered by the customer- is whether or not the design choices are
desirable at that price.

DO NOT argue with Bratzi. Someone more powerful than God is on his
side: der Fuhrer.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Apr 23, 6:21*am, John Stone wrote:
On 4/22/10 4:52 PM, in article
, "Boon"





wrote:

Low volume usually means a onesy twoesy man shop with no ISO-9000, no
product liability (not a big factor with speakers usually, though ones
with active power supplies could catch fire and of course Maggies
could fall over and hit someone if they fell apart), engineering costs
a one time consulting fee (i.e. they paid $500 for a Dick Pierce or
Joe d'Appolito half day consultation), etc. They are probably
manufacturing out of a back lot space in a "business incubator" or in
a defunct strip mall- or a suburban garage.

Anyway, $200 in parts plus a cab means if you are paying two thousand
plus you are getting screwed. In my opinion.

One of the marketing formulas in audio is "times ten." Parts are
usually around 10% of the MSRP. That certainly doesn't mean your
margins are 90%, or even 50%. R&D, labor, advertising, shipping and
other fixed costs take a big chunk out of the pie.

Have you ever run your own business? Generally, businesses need to
make a profit, you know.

On 4/22/10 4:52 PM, in article
, "Boon"





wrote:
On Apr 22, 4:01 pm, Bret L wrote:
Low volume usually means a onesy twoesy man shop with no ISO-9000, no
product liability (not a big factor with speakers usually, though ones
with active power supplies could catch fire and of course Maggies
could fall over and hit someone if they fell apart), engineering costs
a one time consulting fee (i.e. they paid $500 for a Dick Pierce or
Joe d'Appolito half day consultation), etc. They are probably
manufacturing out of a back lot space in a "business incubator" or in
a defunct strip mall- or a suburban garage.

Anyway, $200 in parts plus a cab means if you are paying two thousand
plus you are getting screwed. In my opinion.

One of the marketing formulas in audio is "times ten." Parts are
usually around 10% of the MSRP. That certainly doesn't mean your
margins are 90%, or even 50%. R&D, labor, advertising, shipping and
other fixed costs take a big chunk out of the pie.

Have you ever run your own business? Generally, businesses need to
make a profit, you know.

Obviously he doesn't have a clue. He thinks Dick Pierce or Joe d'Appolito
will do crossover consulting work for $500. You can multiply that figure by
8-10X. He also leaves out the costs of crossovers, input terminals, wire,
fasteners, variovents, damping material, grille, documentation. Then there's
the little matter of shipping cartons and packing material. And never mind
the labor involved in assembly and testing. Given the cabinet design,
overall BOM costs on these has to be over $600, so I don't see these as
overpriced in the context of BOM cost to MSRP ratio. The simple question-to
be answered by the customer- is whether or not the design choices are
desirable at that price.

When I worked for TONEAudio, I learned just how much packing materials
really cost. Even the simplest cardboard boxes and styrofoam inserts
for a pair of floorstanding speakers could cost $100 to $200. I'm
amazed at companies such as Aperion Audio who offer affordable gear
and free shipping while still double-boxing each speaker and placing
it in its own purple velvet bag. Get a big high-end speaker that's
over 150 pounds, then you're talking professional packing crates and
shipping that cost the better part of a grand.

You even have to hire a guy called a packaging engineer to design the
right shipping materials for your product. That's a handsome chunk of
change as well. We dealt with one guy who manufactured a four-tower
machined aluminum speaker system for $110,000. He actually delivered
the system himself anywhere in the US...he said it was cheaper that
way.

Bratzi also seems to be stuck on the cost of the drivers, when any
speaker designer will tell you that the cabinet is the most expensive
part of a speaker. If you're going to charge a lot for a speaker, it
had better look gorgeous, and that takes the skills of a master
carpenter. Those guys aren't working for minimum wage, either.