Ilikehifi wrote:
beomud wrote:
Well for luxury goods it never is rational. Although you pay 5x more for perhaps just 2x the quality, the utility (personal satisfaction/happiness) that it brings sometimes cannot be measured.
So you are unable to ascertain how much pleasure you get from stuff?
That's weird!
I think you can usually measure that - mainly by asking yourself honestly after the novelty factor has worn off. This seems to be confirmed by peoples ability to articulate their conclusions about stuff they own.
By the way.. by which criteria do you regard the quality of a BV10 2x the of the latest greatest Pioneer? It's certainly not 2x the picture quality. 😁
It's probably time someone corrected you on this Pioneer thing. They stopped making TVs last year. So the latest and greatest isn't that late or great. Also: It sounds from your posts like you're pretty young.
A quick personal story to illustrate what many are trying to communicate to you: I currently watch morning and evening news (and the occasional movie) on a BeoVision MX that's been in my family for almost 25 years. It's survived so many advances in technology, including the HD and flat panel revolutions, that it couldn't be considered anywhere close to technologically relevant.
So here's where your model for decision making falls apart:
-I'm assuming that your intention in examining "the facts" is to wind up with a purchase that has lasting value in the long run.
-I think we can also agree that technology moves at a steady pace and that the industry releases a new version at least once a year at CES with incremental updates on an ongoing basis.
-The "facts" that you'd have a buyer examine are all based on the capabilities available among various brands' portfolios of technology. Things like color gamut, refresh rate, pixel count, backlighting technology, physical dimension, longevity, etc.
-However, as these things change significantly from year to year, it stands to reason that if a product is to last 10 years (15 less than my oldest television), it will spend the majority of its existence as a somewhat obsolete product. This goes for any brand, any technology, and any price. Time will leave it behind.
-So why, I would ask you, would I make my decision primarily (or entirely) on criteria that will only remain relevant for a small percentage of the life of the product? Will I care whether I bought the 240hz or the 600hz when there are 10,000hz TVs on the market?
Of course not.
-I think what many, including myself, are trying to articulate is that making a decision that satisfies you on an emotional level will yield a more satisfying result in the long run than a purely "fact based" decision. My BeoVision MX & Avant haven't been technologically current for many many years, but what's kept them in my home and in heavy use is the emotional benefit I get when using them. Just like my favorite shoes & watch and many other things I own, they fill my days with tiny pleasures that would simply be unavailable to me had I made "consumer reports" type purchase decisions.
-And that's how I look at these other televisions. However exemplary they may be here today at this very moment, they will be bested. As soon as that happens, I have to look at what's left. And it's usually a black plastic rectangle. It's appeal drys up and blows away the very second it's obsolete.
So if your method of decision making works for you and you don't require, or don't desire, an emotional content to the items you interact with every day, that's just fine. But passion is an important component to any decision and I'd hate to think that I'd ever spend a penny on something I didn't feel passionately about.
