Are HiFi products luxury items?

[Freddy58]

Here's a thought.

You're the only inhabitant on the planet. Would the company of one other be considered a luxury? Do we not need the company of others for our well-being? Not sure this actually adds anything to the debate

If the two people left were the same sex, then there would be no more people....making the company of the opposite sex essential for survival of the species, and so not a luxury. :shifty:

But surely, one doesn't need the company of another to survive?

 

[CnoEvil]

But surely, one doesn't need the company of another to survive?

I'm looking at the big picture here....humankind does.....meaning we are all not a luxury, even if we think otherwise.

 

[the record spot]

Is a hifi a luxury item? That depends on the circumstances in which the question's being asked.

In most of the western world, it can provide us with a psychological wellbeing which is essential to our lives, or at least, to living a happy and productive life.

If, on the other hand, your circumstances are a little more dire, then yes, it's a luxury item. We can get by without a hifi fine. Might not like it, but there's no question hifis are additional optional extras for the most part.

 

[BigH]

Well most people seem to live without a hifi system.

 

[Freddy58]

But surely, one doesn't need the company of another to survive?

I'm looking at the big picture here....humankind does.....meaning we are all not a luxury, even if we think otherwise.

Looking at an even bigger picture, I'm sure the Universe considers us a luxury

 

[CnoEvil]

But surely, one doesn't need the company of another to survive?

I'm looking at the big picture here....humankind does.....meaning we are all not a luxury, even if we think otherwise.

Looking at an even bigger picture, I'm sure the Universe considers us a luxury

How comforting. :roll:

 

[jcbrum]

Well most people seem to live without a hifi system.

But very few live without Television.

Perhaps Mr Micawber's test is the best one. Is happiness a 'luxury' ?

JC

 

[jcbrum]

p.s. Happiness is an unalienable right, according to the American Declaration of Independence, 1776. - JC

 

[chebby]

p.s. Happiness is an unalienable right, according to the American Declaration of Independence, 1776. - JC

"The pursuit of happiness" is one of the unalienable rights described.

It says nothing about any right to win that pursuit.

 

[DandyCobalt]

p.s. Happiness is an unalienable right, according to the American Declaration of Independence, 1776. - JC

"The pursuit of happiness" is one of the unalienable rights described.

It says nothing about any right to win that pursuit.

Happiness could be considered a luxury - it's not necessary for survival, and obtaining personal happiness could come at the cost of someone else's happiness.

Just think of all the corporate career ladder-climbing and backstabbing that goes on.

However, happiness is directly related to better health. Depression is directly related to poor health etc.

So maybe not a luxury but in the same class as vitamins?

 

[spiny norman]

p.s. Happiness is an unalienable right, according to the American Declaration of Independence, 1776. - JC

Fail to see the relevance if you don't live in the USA, and thus have no right to happiness. Which could explain a lot!

 

[spiny norman]

Happiness could be considered a luxury - it's not necessary for survival, and obtaining personal happiness could come at the cost of someone else's happiness.

Just think of all the corporate career ladder-climbing and backstabbing that goes on.

Agreed, but such things seem to make some people happy. 'Greed is good' and 'Lunch is for wimps' have a lot to answer for.

However, happiness is directly related to better health. Depression is directly related to poor health etc.

Not sure I get that: can't someone be physically perfectly healthy but yet suffer from poor mental health, and vice versa?

So maybe not a luxury but in the same class as vitamins?

You mean happiness is perfectly achievable naturally, but subject to lots of people trying to sell us apparent short cuts to it at inflated prices?

(I think we just got back on topic)

 

[BenLaw]

Two thoughts occur:

A lot of the semantic arguments may be resolved by borrowing a concept from poverty. There could be 'absolute' luxury (all items that are non-essential to survival) and 'relative' luxury (taking into account what is normal in any particular society). Although I'm afraid either way and even in this country dedicated music making components costing in excess of one or two hundred pounds would constitute a luxury.

Second, there's an interesting and very stark correlation between those seeking to justify their hifi as a non-luxury and the cable believers / subjectivists (and vice versa with the objectivists). Any thoughts as to why?

 

[BigH]

Well most people seem to live without a hifi system.

But very few live without Television.

Perhaps Mr Micawber's test is the best one. Is happiness a 'luxury' ?

JC

Interesting question, I would say no, I know lots of poor happy people, its when they get money that they seem to become less happy and have fill there lives with luxuries to try and make them selves happy, material world. Happiness is not a material, its a state of mind, not sure you can buy it, lots of rich people are not happy.

 

[chebby]

A lot of the semantic arguments may be resolved by borrowing a concept from poverty. There could be 'absolute' luxury (all items that are non-essential to survival) and 'relative' luxury (taking into account what is normal in any particular society). Although I'm afraid either way and even in this country dedicated music making components costing in excess of one or two hundred pounds would constitute a luxury.

A lot of affluent people with plenty of disposable / discretionary income would blanch at some of the amounts suggested here for a 'modest' system. (Like Cno's proposal of a £1000 - £1600 'non luxury' hi-fi.)

I would say - based on anecdotal evidence from numerous IT colleagues over the years - that dedicated audio systems are a very low priority that fall waaaay behind cars, holidays, cameras, social spending, the latest smartphones, tablets, coffee making machines and doing up their homes.

A few years ago (when I had an entry level, all-Naim, seperates system) a bloke I worked with was indredulous when I said how much my system cost. (He was asking me about which "5.1 system in a box" was best for a couple of hundred quid.)

The same colleague used to pick my brains about photography and ended up buying about two grand's worth of Canon DSLR and lenses. So it's not just people with little or no money who think spending equivalent sums on audio as luxury (let alone madness).

 

[jcbrum]

p.s. Happiness is an unalienable right, according to the American Declaration of Independence, 1776. - JC

"The pursuit of happiness" is one of the unalienable rights described.

It says nothing about any right to win that pursuit.

Isn't the right to win happiness the whole implied reason for the Declaration, and the consequent 'War of Independence' (American), which developed pretty much into a world war ?

The Colony were very unhappy with British Rule, and complained bitterly that they were unhappy, and asserted their right to be independantly happy, by armed revolution.

JC

 

[matt49]

Isn't the right to win happiness the whole implied reason for the Declaration, and the consequent 'War of Independence' (American), which developed pretty much into a world war ?

The Colony were very unhappy with British Rule, and complained bitterly that they were unhappy, and asserted their right to be independantly happy, by armed revolution.

JC

No, no, no.

The complaint of the colonies was on a matter of (political and fiscal) principle: 'no taxation without representation'. The British government imposed taxes on colonial trade, but the colonies had no representation at Westminster. It had very little to do with 'happiness'.

The 'happiness' clause in fact had more to do with religion than politics. The Consitution was intended to guarantee the religious freedoms of a very diverse and highly sectarian group of Christians, many of whom were descended from people who had fled religious persecution in Europe and for whom New England was a modern realization of the Promised Land of the Old Testament. 'The pursuit of happiness' was a necessarily secular formula designed to satisfy the demands of people of a very diverse religious beliefs and practices. It is of a piece with the Constitution's insistence of the complete separation of church and state.

The War of Independence didn't develop 'pretty much into a world war'. It was confined to the American colonies, although France did get involved on the colonists' side, and Britain recruited quite a few German soldiers, who were in effect sold into military service by their rulers. But the War of Independence was on a far smaller scale than the war that immediately preceded it, the Seven Years' War (1756-63), which saw the European powers engaged across Germany and Poland, the Mediterranean, the Caribbean, India, and Canada.

:cheers:

Matt

 

[jcbrum]

Hmmm, thanks Matt. I take your points, but I think it's important to distinguish between the tenets of the three relevant documents.

1. Declaration of Independence.

2. American Constitution.

3. Bill of Rights, and ongoing amendments, contained in the full amended version of the Constitution.

In particular it was the Bill of Rights which addressed religious freedoms.

Re-reading them, gives specific information on their causes.

JC

 

[chebby]

p.s. Happiness is an unalienable right, according to the American Declaration of Independence, 1776. - JC

"The pursuit of happiness" is one of the unalienable rights described.

It says nothing about any right to win that pursuit.

Isn't the right to win happiness the whole implied reason for the Declaration, and the consequent 'War of Independence' (American), which developed pretty much into a world war ?

Your version says that happiness is a right.

The Declaration itself states that it is your right to pursue happiness. (But doesn't guarantee it.)

This difference is clear.

 

[Ajani]

Two thoughts occur:

A lot of the semantic arguments may be resolved by borrowing a concept from poverty. There could be 'absolute' luxury (all items that are non-essential to survival) and 'relative' luxury (taking into account what is normal in any particular society). Although I'm afraid either way and even in this country dedicated music making components costing in excess of one or two hundred pounds would constitute a luxury.

Good points.

A car is a luxury (Absolute), but there are still classes of cars termed "luxury cars" (Relative). I agree that whether you define luxury as absolute or relative, what we generally consider HiFi (even entry level) would fall into the category of luxury.

 

[Jota180]

If you don't need it then it's a luxury.

No-one needs a hi-fi.

Thread should have ended after post #2! Totally agree.

 

[spiny norman]

I would say - based on anecdotal evidence from numerous IT colleagues over the years - that dedicated audio systems are a very low priority that fall waaaay behind cars, holidays, cameras, social spending, the latest smartphones, tablets, coffee making machines and doing up their homes.

And therein is the entire problem of the hi-fi industry, from manufacturers to retailers to press, which has failed to address the point it is fighting those industries you mention for consumers' discretionary spending, and has instead for far too long been inward looking, and fighting itself.

High-quality audio, which was once a must-buy for most people clutching their first pay-packet or student grant, has failed to maintain itself as something sexy or desirable, and so it's right off the radar when people have some spare cash to spend.

 

[CnoEvil]

Two thoughts occur:

A lot of the semantic arguments may be resolved by borrowing a concept from poverty. There could be 'absolute' luxury (all items that are non-essential to survival) and 'relative' luxury (taking into account what is normal in any particular society). Although I'm afraid either way and even in this country dedicated music making components costing in excess of one or two hundred pounds would constitute a luxury.

Nicely summed up.

It also raises the question of what constitutes "Hi-Fi". Is it anything that produces a sound, or is there a minimum standard that needs to be reached?

Second, there's an interesting and very stark correlation between those seeking to justify their hifi as a non-luxury and the cable believers / subjectivists (and vice versa with the objectivists). Any thoughts as to why?

There may well be a correlation due to a certain mindset.....which is interesting.

Taking my slightly random figure of £1k-£1.6 as being modest and not luxury, I suspect most contributors to this thread, would indeed have luxury systems.

 

[Ajani]

I would say - based on anecdotal evidence from numerous IT colleagues over the years - that dedicated audio systems are a very low priority that fall waaaay behind cars, holidays, cameras, social spending, the latest smartphones, tablets, coffee making machines and doing up their homes.

And therein is the entire problem of the hi-fi industry, from manufacturers to retailers to press, which has failed to address the point it is fighting those industries you mention for consumers' discretionary spending, and has instead for far too long been inward looking, and fighting itself.

High-quality audio, which was once a must-buy for most people clutching their first pay-packet or student grant, has failed to maintain itself as something sexy or desirable, and so it's right off the radar when people have some spare cash to spend.

I agree. I actually think that part of the problem is failing to really establish HiFi brands as luxury items in the way a Mercedes or a Rolex is.

Why do people buy luxury watches? Is it really because they are obssessed with having "the most accurate time" or "exquisite Swiss craftmanship"? Chances are that much of it has to do with the perception that these luxury items are things to be desired and a sign of success and good taste...

Your point reminds me of a really silly controversy a few years ago with the major American HiFi Mag: Stereophile. The mag had the "audacity" to allow a luxury car brand to advertise in an issue (instead of the usual HiFi brand adverts), and that upset many audiophiles... Since they felt the mag should be purely about HiFi, so even the adverts should be HiFI...

How do you attract non-audiophiles, if you spend all your time catering to audiophiles?

 

[Ajani]

Taking my slightly random figure of £1k-£1.6 as being modest and not luxury, I suspect most contributors to this thread, would indeed have luxury systems.

Sure, but that range for "modest" would only be so for audiophiles. I'm sure the average person's idea of a stereo is more inline with a £200 Panasonic or Sony minisystem. They would likely think you'd gone mad suggesting that £1.6K is in anyway modest.