There's one more thing that bears mentioning: The hifi scene in India is really only restricted to the ultra high end. There is no concept of "sensible" hifi. Here, I don't just mean price, although price is often the single biggest blocking factor.
I also mean sensible in terms of size, WAF, safety, versatility etc. In many cases, the sheer size, weight, and heat generated is a challenge for even many of the humongous houses in the US, much less the 2000 square feet apartments that most people live in (and that are really 1400 square feet after all the "saleable area" shenanigans). I mean, honestly, who is going to setup and run tube monoblocks in their 10 x 20 living room especially with kids running around? Yes, a few will, but only a very very few.
There most certainly is a micro-niche market for the enthusiasts who want no-holds barred performance and quality - be it Class A or large horns or whatever. However, if you are going to talk about marketability and practicality, these "prestige" products are none of the above. What sells is entry level Class AB hifi built to a price, and more importantly, mid-fi that is pricey but not ridiculously so, large but not so large it won't fit in a standard cabinet, and will not be a safety hazard for your children.
My point is - even in the examples that Bhagwan posted, all had Nautilus class equipment or higher. I mean, okay, I'm not buying onions in the sabzi-mandi, but neither am I buying a Rolex. To be clear, I'm talking about myself personally (I prefer no-nonsense stuff) but also think it holds true for many others.
Bose actually gets it. It gives people what they want or what they think they want. Or at least it gives them an experience in their sound rooms that most people have never had. And most people think that's "as good as it gets" when it comes to quality audio. And how tragic is that? Especially if they knew that far better quality is to be had for far less money?
Personally, I have never felt that multi-channel audio is inferior to stereo. Its like saying stereo is inferior to mono! Multi-channel is only inferior to stereo in a given price point. I've always felt that the same motivation that people have to buy a home theater setup (loudness, clarity, bass, construction quality, prestige, bling factor, etc.) should apply to a stereo setup. The reason why they don't is only because of utter lack of access and choice and even information.
I mean it is not just hifi. You will see this de-exclusivity happening in other niche sectors as well. People will come back to India from their stints abroad, and will wonder why the heck they can't pay green fees and play golf on a course of their choice in India, instead of having to wait for 10 years, get "sponsored", pull strings, and finally get a coveted club membership.
Honestly, this is not targeted at dealers or anyone in particular, and apologies if anyone feels bad. That is most certainly not my intention. It is just frustrating to see how poorly developed this market is.
I also mean sensible in terms of size, WAF, safety, versatility etc. In many cases, the sheer size, weight, and heat generated is a challenge for even many of the humongous houses in the US, much less the 2000 square feet apartments that most people live in (and that are really 1400 square feet after all the "saleable area" shenanigans). I mean, honestly, who is going to setup and run tube monoblocks in their 10 x 20 living room especially with kids running around? Yes, a few will, but only a very very few.
There most certainly is a micro-niche market for the enthusiasts who want no-holds barred performance and quality - be it Class A or large horns or whatever. However, if you are going to talk about marketability and practicality, these "prestige" products are none of the above. What sells is entry level Class AB hifi built to a price, and more importantly, mid-fi that is pricey but not ridiculously so, large but not so large it won't fit in a standard cabinet, and will not be a safety hazard for your children.
My point is - even in the examples that Bhagwan posted, all had Nautilus class equipment or higher. I mean, okay, I'm not buying onions in the sabzi-mandi, but neither am I buying a Rolex. To be clear, I'm talking about myself personally (I prefer no-nonsense stuff) but also think it holds true for many others.
Bose actually gets it. It gives people what they want or what they think they want. Or at least it gives them an experience in their sound rooms that most people have never had. And most people think that's "as good as it gets" when it comes to quality audio. And how tragic is that? Especially if they knew that far better quality is to be had for far less money?
Personally, I have never felt that multi-channel audio is inferior to stereo. Its like saying stereo is inferior to mono! Multi-channel is only inferior to stereo in a given price point. I've always felt that the same motivation that people have to buy a home theater setup (loudness, clarity, bass, construction quality, prestige, bling factor, etc.) should apply to a stereo setup. The reason why they don't is only because of utter lack of access and choice and even information.
I mean it is not just hifi. You will see this de-exclusivity happening in other niche sectors as well. People will come back to India from their stints abroad, and will wonder why the heck they can't pay green fees and play golf on a course of their choice in India, instead of having to wait for 10 years, get "sponsored", pull strings, and finally get a coveted club membership.
Honestly, this is not targeted at dealers or anyone in particular, and apologies if anyone feels bad. That is most certainly not my intention. It is just frustrating to see how poorly developed this market is.
