The Role of R&D in Product Development

I think that high end consumer audio is quite different than other types of manufacturing (I've been in manufacturing for over 40 years). High end audio as we know it today is largely driven by a conceptual story that the principal owner/designer wants to tell. Without that story a company can't charge multiple times the price that other companies charge for similar performing products. One of the characteristics of the ultra high-end is that companies do things the hard (expensive) way and claim that this methodology improves the sound quality. The process described by the OP just doesn't apply to this segment. Ultra expensive cars are another example of making very costly design decisions that don't necessarily lead to higher performance.

In mass market audio I think the process described in the OP is more applicable. The Chinese are becoming the most skilled manufacturers on the planet and they are masters at making cost/performance tradeoffs that provide the best performance for the money. Companies like Topping, FiiO, and Eversolo, are producing very well designed products that compete with products many times their price. I realize that this statement will anger some audiophiles but we must note that there is virtually no evidence that using blind testing methodology a listener can distinguish between a $1000 DAC and a $20,000 DAC. If the audible differences were easy to distinguish the high end audio companies would be running these tests all the time and crowing about the results.

Regarding "Snake Oil," IMO, there is not much difference between a company making $10,000 cables and a company making a $100,000 DAC. In both cases there is absolutely no objective evidence that these ultra expensive products sound any better than those that cost 1/100th of their price. Again, if that evidence existed the companies would be promoting it every day.

This design and marketing game is enabled and supported by a cadre of reviewers and internet influencers. The industry depends on everyone believing that more money equals better sound. But the largest enablers are audiophiles who believe, contrary to massive evidence, that they can hear huge differences between two DACs or interconnects that measure functionally the same.

So, my point is that the design and manufacturing proocess for high end audio just doesn't correlate to a typical consumer product. I believe that in many cases the owner/designer is intentionally making decisions that will raise the cost without regard to whether or not it improves the performance. They execute the design and parts choices that support the story that they tell to the dealers, reviewers, and the customers. If they use materials, processes, and parts that are difficult and expensive to manufacture then they can claim that their $100,000 products are worth the money. It's as much about pride of ownership as it is about the actual sound quality.

@kennyc 

I'm not.

I am pointing out that it is more than bling that makes a product that is useful and reliable. 

I will not buy from any company unless I see hard data backing their claims, who can demonstrate the performance of their product. Industry experience has demonstrated that the description I provided ensures a quality products.

I'm not proposing anything radical. The processes I describe have been used for many decades and are constantly refined.

I have had a lot of experience in this milieu, more than most have. I can see how what I'm saying may be a shock.

One only need to examine the business practices or interact with a company such as Acoustic Research, Revel, Bryston, Mark Levinson and others to understand why their products are still coveted after so many years.

These companies are still selling products decades after inception. And are still repairing older products. I had my SP-6B preamp refurbished at AR this year.

If any of the aspects I described above are missing, then one might investigate further. Are claims backed up with independent technical reviews?  Is there any quality data?

In hindsight, I wish I hadn't posted on this topic. I see now that the way I presented it and the descriptions I made created confusion . Believe me, what I describe is the way product development occurs in companies that are successful, that create quality products that meet performance requirements. I didn't make it up.

The view I expressed in the original post is top down - big picture. I deliberately did not name names, since I was not attempting to attack any single company. I was describing best business practices. And mention that one needs to be aware of that when choosing a product to buy. Certainly one can pick names. That's not what I'm interested in.

On a related topic... Newtonian physics and electromagnetism which form the basis for audio products are settled fields of study. There will be no more new discoveries in these disciplines that alters the paradigm. This may sound arrogant, but it is a fact. Please don't take my word for it. Look it up. Many more new applications will continue to be created, but  the basic physics is settled. Not so for quantum mechanics and general relativity. These are on the forefront of new discoveries.

This last paragraph describes why I know that power cables do not have a sound signature. If a power cable were deliberately designed to alter the sound, the effect would be measurable and most probably have an undesirable effect. 

This is how I see this topic.

Now, the interaction of human listening hardware with sound and the brain's interpretation of that information is not a settled field. Advances in this field may shed more light. After all, you do say that you perceive a difference between cables. Why one does is not yet fully explained. I'm not suggesting blind testing. Blind testing has its uses and may uncover hidden biases but will never be able to discover the why. One needs to look at the causes, not the result.

If I am uninformed, please send me some references to read so I can form a more informed opinion.

It is probably best to use some form of equalization such as a PEQ, GEQ, or digital filters to achieve a desired sound. They take the guesswork out of the search for the sound one likes. And only one is needed rather than searching cable to cable to find the best one for one's individual taste.

I'm an ordinary guy from a technical background, working to make sense of the topics discussed in this forum. I may make statements that are disagreeable.

And finally, if I have misjudged this forum, if I am way off base, if my topic is not suitable for this forum, please tell me. I will work to remove all my comments and/or disappear from this forum.

@8th-note 

I appreciate your comment. I agree that some companies operate as you describe. The boutique car industry is a good example.

I was pointing out that since we are all consumers and want the best for our hard earned cash, a company that has good practices can provide products that will meet claims and back it up with measurements and have a quality/repair function in place.

Certainly all of what I say can be disregarded. I'm recommending aspects to consider in order to get a value product. If value is not the prime consideration, then everything is fair game.

I have a fine audio system. I really like the sound. It is still improving. I have drifted to the equipment I have through considerations such as I've described (among all considerations). I've posted pictures and descriptions in this forum.

Great sound can be achieved by companies with good business practices. They are not an impediment. And innovation will continue to occur in order to keep up with the competitors.

I will not buy from any company unless I see hard data backing their claims,….

That’s your choice.  In an ideal world, high-end audio would be transparent.  After investing time, effort, resources, few are willing to shoot themselves in the foot by revealing their R&D/engineering in our highly copy cat market especially cabling.  Most R&D results are kept in house- I’m somewhat surprised that your position is make results public - yes it’s great for the customer but terrible for the company to give their competitors the research for free.

Also, product markups must cover business operating costs.  Since our high-end hobby is a small niche market, higher markups are not uncommon.

I’ve given up on requiring proof of engineering, it won’t happen and it’ll severely limit my choices.  I simply look at reviews and use my ears to demo what I like within budget.  

@kennyc 

I apologize for creating confusion. I was not advocating that companies disclose all the details of how there products were designed and manufactured.

But they can publish how they test, list the test equipment used, publish data on final performance that shows the product meets claims and specifications, test report on the product received (may be skimpy, but signed by a human being), their QA practices, how they handle repairs, etc.

None of these discloses the "secret sauce" used in the product. They describe the processes used to ensure performance claims are met.

I developed a product that had numerous innovations, ones that placed the value of this product company's products far above similar offerings from competitors. None of my "secrets" were exposed, except ones that sales could use in their pitch and didn't expose anything we didn't want our customers to know for fear they'd tell our competitors. However, methods and test equipment, quality assurances, vendor reviews, suggested uses, practices for achieving best performance, customer training, repair and service are carefully laid out for all to review.

My inventions and ideas are protected by patents.