Re: [ARSCLIST] Clarifying the MAM-A gold comment

[Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am actually somewhat surprised that there isn't a large enough medical and mil-spec market for 
high-quality data storage that a manufacturer would have enough critical mass right there. Tack on 
archvies/institutions and the music "business" (in quotes because it is quickly becoming the 
opposite of a business model if business model = profitable and long-term) and it seems there's room 
for a quality niche. Why not?

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Richter" <mrichter@xxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Clarifying the MAM-A gold comment


> Steven C. Barr(x) wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Mike Richter" <mrichter@xxxxxxx>
> > > Soon after, the company folded. They could not compete on price with schlock from the Orient; 
> > > they could not compete on reputation with the high-end product. I fear that without supplement, 
> > > the wanderings of Mitsui/MAM gold will continue until a cliff is encountered and quality audio 
> > > media vanish.
> > IF the "free market" works the way it is supposed to in theory (and note
> > that I make my comment as a NON-fan of it...!) there should be the following
> > result:
> >
> > 1) There presumably exists (must, for this to happen) a body of users
> > (aka "demographic") to whom quality is of sufficient importance to
> > reduce the importance of price.
> >
> > 2) Given the truth of (1) above, there will arise a manufacturer who
> > specializes in making available discs of consistently very high quality
> > and predicted life span...in order to sell them at a higher price to
> > the above-defined demographic.
> >
> > There are any number of products where there exists a minority demographic
> > who demand and require a higher quality and/or dependability than does the
> > average consumer thereof. In almost all cases, there arises a supplier who
> > can fill that/those need(s). What can happen, though, is that the general
> > public start purchasing these "high-end brands" based on their anecdotal
> > repuation; in many cases, the increased production leads to a decrease
> > in quality!
> >
> > I have a personal example here. Among my posessions is a c.1946 E.H. Scott
> > 800-B radio (the last model designed under the supervision of Mr. Scott).
> > These sets were intended to be as close to perfect as a commercially-sold
> > radio could be, and "hang the cost!" Mine has 24 tubes, chrome-plated
> > chassis, a 15" coaxial dual-driver speaker, a solid-mahogany cabinet
> > (veneered with decorative mahogany as well!) and cost over $1,500 at
> > a time when a new Chevrolet cost $1,200.
> >
> > I don't know the history involved, but not too long after the 800-B was
> > introduced, E.H. Scott left his firm and it was sold to other owners,
> > who tried to use the name to market ordinary high-end sets and quickly went under...
>
> I hope we're not belaboring this subject, but at the risk of that, let me add some notes.
>
> Your first point is well taken, which is why I suggested medical media, where quality and 
> longevity are mandated by the process and, in some cases, by law.
>
> The second is less clear. If the market is not large enough to support reasonable cost - say ten 
> times that of standard product - then there may well be no manufacturer. There was a time when RCA 
> would press a custom disc if the customer had the high but standard price; that day is long gone, 
> presumably because that price with all its overhead was excessive.
>
> Your radio example is valid. Presumably, Scott built the 800-B as a proof of principle and as a 
> personal indulgence. My guess is that its $1500 price did not mean profit for the company. At that 
> price, there would have been too few purchasers to do great harm to the company.
>
> But the CD-R manufacturer of whom I wrote was more comparable with a Haffler trying to work in a 
> high-production environment. You can make a radio or a preamp by hand, but it takes massive 
> capital investment to make CD-Rs. In fact, it takes ever more investment as the quality target 
> rises regardless of how many units are sold. And there is another factor for the newcomer to the 
> quality market: proof. You can prove many of the virtues of your Scott 800-B by listening and by 
> measurement. But how does one prove the longevity of a CD-R? And how are claims made credible 
> versus such established champions: T-Y and MAM?
>
> Perhaps lining up with the few users of quality in quantity we will be able still to find archival 
> media in several years. But the archival market alone is unlikely (IMHO) to suffice.
>
> Mike
> --
> mrichter@xxxxxxx
> http://www.mrichter.com/