advertisement


Rega Naia

Jamie said:
https://www.whathifi.com/features/r...red-randd-turntable-became-a-pound12k-reality
Click to expand...
Interesting. Another veil comes off in the marketing strategy.

If you deduct the cost of the arm (less a17% package discount as per the cartridges) the turntable only Naia would cost c.£5,900 with the corresponding figure for the P10 being c.£2,800, a difference of £3,100. Per the interview the ceramic bearing is a few (5?) hundred pounds so probably about £350 more than the cost of the P10's bearing. That leaves c.£2,750 for the different ceramic platter material /machining, the extra cost of carbon fibre sheet over phenolic resin, the sub platter, extra belt and feet. The power supply is the same as the P10 apparently. On this basis it doesn't appear to represent good value. On the other hand if it's sounds as good as a £30,000 Naiad it's a bargain.

In Paul Darwin's (futile) attempt to dampen down speculation (he's obviously not in the marketing strategy loop or maybe it's too subtle for me) he said the Naia would compete with comparatively priced turntables. RG obviously believes it is state of the art so competitive with anything. So never mind the Lp12 Selekt (Sacked) bring on the Klimax (Defunkt)?
 
Aspro, I think you are confusing us with others when you refer to "marketing strategy / marketing strategy loop". We neither have a marketing department nor a marketing budget, to remind, we have never ever paid for an advert in any HiFi Magazine nor any other publication in 50 years so your concept is fanciful and flawed. As for my "futile" attempt to dampen speculation, that was borne out of a desire for people to wait and see rather than make inaccurate observations on cost vs performance, which however well intentioned has failed as your post proves.
 
Not much for £12,000 1kg of materials excellent VFM

rega-naia-skeletal.jpg
 
Well, I can't wait to hear it. I'm sure it will be special. Just getting a (white) P6 for my second system now. Maybe Naia next.....
 
Honestly, for the price they’re going to ask for this table, there is no excuse to have the foam of the plinth exposed. Cover it would veneer, carbon fiber, rubber, or whatever. But you can’t ask £12,000 for a plinth that is the same as the P10 plinth with just carbon fiber used on the top and bottom. Let’s face it, carbon fiber isn’t even that expensive anymore. So other than a different bearing and tonearm, I don’t see how much better this could be from the P10. Definitely not enough to warrant the radical increase in price.
 
This comes up again and again and again.

Stuff in the hifi world is not, was not ,and never will be priced at what it is worth. It is all aspirational stuff and priced accordingly.

To complain that it is not priced fairly is to completely miss the point.
 
I understand that audiophile equipment is always going to prices more than what the item costs to manufacture. But when there is already a product (P10) with a price of roughly £4,000, changing just the bearing and tonearm on that same product (the platter, plinth, other than the carbon fiber sandwich which honesty probably has little effect other than aesthetics, and power supply remaining exactly the same) absolutely does not justify a £8,000 price hike, even taking into account the huge margins in audiophile pricing.

I’m not complaining about the price of the Naia, I’m complaining that you are not getting that much more than a P10 for almost triple the price. It’s just nonsense.
 
Erocka2000 said:
Let’s face it, carbon fiber isn’t even that expensive anymore
Click to expand...

The cost of materials is being confused with the cost of manufacture.

As an example from my world, the manufacture of resin-impregnated geological thin section slides is a highly specialised and precision process with accuracy and consistency measured in microns. The glass slide costs £2, the specialised epoxy resin costs ~£20/litre and around 300ml of resin is needed per slide (wastage is quite high), so lets call that £7. The geological sample itself is free (ignoring the cost of collection which is borne by the customer). So the total cost of materials is probably ~£12 when machining and polishing powders, clean-up materials, etc. are included.

The retail costs for this service would be £200-£400 per slide, depending on size, because of the amount of highly skilled and experienced labour required plus the considerable capital cost of the machinery involved and costs of the safety environment in which it is used (some resins are quite poisonous). Not every sample makes it through the process unscathed or to quality so some may have to be remanufactured from the start. There are very few organisations that provide this service and relatively few customers.

The process is analogous to the manufacture of esoteric, precisely-engineered, low-volume, carbon fibre (sic) components such as turntables. I imagine that not every plinth makes it through the process and that discards add to the costs.

The same considerations no doubt apply to the bearing, the platter, the arm, the motor mount, the feet, and so on.
 
IceG said:
The cost of materials is being confused with the cost of manufacture.

As an example from my world, the manufacture of resin-impregnated geological thin section slides is a highly specialised and precision process with accuracy and consistency measured in microns. The glass slide costs £2, the specialised epoxy resin costs ~£20/litre and around 300ml of resin is needed per slide (wastage is quite high), so lets call that £7. The geological sample itself is free (ignoring the cost of collection which is borne by the customer). So the total cost of materials is probably ~£12 when machining and polishing powders, clean-up materials, etc. are included.

The retail costs for this service would be £200-£400 per slide, depending on size, because of the amount of highly skilled and experienced labour required plus the considerable capital cost of the machinery involved and costs of the safety environment in which it is used (some resins are quite poisonous). Not every sample makes it through the process unscathed or to quality so some may have to be remanufactured from the start. There are very few organisations that provide this service and relatively few customers.

The process is analogous to the manufacture of esoteric, precisely-engineered, low-volume, carbon fibre (sic) components such as turntables. I imagine that not every plinth makes it through the process and that discards add to the costs.

The same considerations no doubt apply to the bearing, the platter, the arm, the motor mount, the feet, and so on.
Click to expand...

That’s fine. There just isn’t £8,000 additional cost in manufacturing the Naia over the P10. Stamping carbon fiber sheets in the shape of the plinth can’t cost that much.
 
Erocka2000 said:
I understand that audiophile equipment is always going to prices more than what the item costs to manufacture. But when there is already a product (P10) with a price of roughly £4,000, changing just the bearing and tonearm on that same product (the platter, plinth, other than the carbon fiber sandwich which honesty probably has little effect other than aesthetics, and power supply remaining exactly the same) absolutely does not justify a £8,000 price hike, even taking into account the huge margins in audiophile pricing.

I’m not complaining about the price of the Naia, I’m complaining that you are not getting that much more than a P10 for almost triple the price. It’s just nonsense.
Click to expand...

Erocka2000 said:
That’s fine. There just isn’t £8,000 additional cost in manufacturing the Naia over the P10. Stamping carbon fiber sheets in the shape of the plinth can’t cost that much.
Click to expand...


And again.....your posts just come down to you thinking that the pricing structure is "not fair"

What they are trying to say with the Naia is ...." this one goes up to eleven "

The price is irrelevant to anything you have highlighted.
 
Joe said:
And again.....your posts just come down to you thinking that the pricing structure is "not fair"

What they are trying to say with the Naia is ...." this one goes up to eleven "

The price is irrelevant to anything you have highlighted.
Click to expand...

Again, you’re misconstruing my comments. Rega currently has a nice variety of turntables, the P1,2,3,6,8,10. Each one gives a bit more than the model beneath. Each model, as you go up, is more expensive, but more realistic in its price increase. I’m questioning why for the Naia they decided to forego their normal price increase and instead triple the price of the next model down, when the only true differences between the P10 and Naia are the bearing and tonearm?

If the plinth, platter, power supply (and bearing and tonearm) were all different, I could understand why there was such a disparity in price. But for some reason, according to you, I’m not allowed to criticize their decision because Rega said the Naia will be better than the P10, even though there is not all that much different between the two models? You don’t find that ridiculous? The next model up better sound better than the model below it, especially if you’re charging 3 times the price.

And to say this critique is irrelevant is also nonsensical. I’m sure it’ll be relevant when people opt to buy a P10 instead (or not a Rega at all, if looking in the >£10,000 turntable market) because the value of the Naia is very hard to understand.
 
Erocka2000 said:
Again, you’re misconstruing my comments. Rega currently has a nice variety of turntables, the P1,2,3,6,8,10. Each one gives a bit more than the model beneath. Each model, as you go up, is more expensive, but more realistic in its price increase. I’m questioning why for the Naia they decided to forego their normal price increase and instead triple the price of the next model down, when the only true differences between the P10 and Naia are the bearing and tonearm?

If the plinth, platter, power supply (and bearing and tonearm) were all different, I could understand why there was such a disparity in price. But for some reason, according to you, I’m not allowed to criticize their decision because Rega said the Naia will be better than the P10, even though there is not all that much different between the two models? You don’t find that ridiculous? The next model up better sound better than the model below it, especially if you’re charging 3 times the price.

And to say this critique is irrelevant is also nonsensical. I’m sure it’ll be relevant when people opt to buy a P10 instead (or not a Rega at all, if looking in the >£10,000 turntable market) because the value of the Naia is very hard to understand.
Click to expand...
But you haven't heard it yet... how on earth can you make any sort of judgement as to its value or whether people are going to buy it or not until you've actually listened to it?

I wish Rega the very best with it and hope it's a success.
 
tiggers said:
But you haven't heard it yet... how on earth can you make any sort of judgement as to its value or whether people are going to buy it or not until you've actually listened to it?

I wish Rega the very best with it and hope it's a success.
Click to expand...

Because I’ve owned a P5 and a P9 in the past and have heard the P8 and P10. I feel like I’ve heard enough Regas to formulate a general idea of what it will sound like.
 
Erocka2000 said:
Again, you’re misconstruing my comments. Rega currently has a nice variety of turntables, the P1,2,3,6,8,10. Each one gives a bit more than the model beneath. Each model, as you go up, is more expensive, but more realistic in its price increase. I’m questioning why for the Naia they decided to forego their normal price increase and instead triple the price of the next model down, when the only true differences between the P10 and Naia are the bearing and tonearm?

If the plinth, platter, power supply (and bearing and tonearm) were all different, I could understand why there was such a disparity in price. But for some reason, according to you, I’m not allowed to criticize their decision because Rega said the Naia will be better than the P10, even though there is not all that much different between the two models? You don’t find that ridiculous? The next model up better sound better than the model below it, especially if you’re charging 3 times the price.

And to say this critique is irrelevant is also nonsensical. I’m sure it’ll be relevant when people opt to buy a P10 instead (or not a Rega at all, if looking in the >£10,000 turntable market) because the value of the Naia is very hard to understand.
Click to expand...
From what I understand, the plinth, platter, sub platter, feet, bearing and tonearm are all different from the P10.
 
John said:
From what I understand, the plinth, platter, sub platter, feet, bearing and tonearm are all different from the P10.
Click to expand...


The plinth (outside of being carbon fiber) and platter look the same to me. They’ve basically been using the same platter on their top decks ever since the first P9.
 
Erocka2000 said:
The plinth (outside of being carbon fiber) and platter look the same to me. They’ve basically been using the same platter on their top decks ever since the first P9.
Click to expand...
It has a ceramic brace on both sides and the way the bearing attaches is different. The platter is also different and more similar to what’s on the Naiad. There’s a video someone posted that goes more into the details.
 
Erocka2000 said:
Again, you’re misconstruing my comments. Rega currently has a nice variety of turntables, the P1,2,3,6,8,10. Each one gives a bit more than the model beneath. Each model, as you go up, is more expensive, but more realistic in its price increase. I’m questioning why for the Naia they decided to forego their normal price increase and instead triple the price of the next model down, when the only true differences between the P10 and Naia are the bearing and tonearm?

If the plinth, platter, power supply (and bearing and tonearm) were all different, I could understand why there was such a disparity in price. But for some reason, according to you, I’m not allowed to criticize their decision because Rega said the Naia will be better than the P10, even though there is not all that much different between the two models? You don’t find that ridiculous? The next model up better sound better than the model below it, especially if you’re charging 3 times the price.

And to say this critique is irrelevant is also nonsensical. I’m sure it’ll be relevant when people opt to buy a P10 instead (or not a Rega at all, if looking in the >£10,000 turntable market) because the value of the Naia is very hard to understand.
Click to expand...


You still don't get it..... they are simply going to charge what they are going to charge. It has nothing to do with incrementalism in improvements or materials values or anything else.

It is going to be priced at where they want it to be in the market place.

You seem to keep coming back to perceived value for money.

You will either buy it or not...and for your reasons. You will possibly not buy it because you are unhappy about its projected price/performance ratio.

If nearly everyone thinks as you do then Rega will have made a mistake in their reading of the current market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top