The idea of QUALITY

[JimiBryant]

man, you guys are a buncha Poindexters!!
I'm such a dummy that I can barely keep up with all of y'all.

seems to me that "quality" is something that largely went out-the-door once
"profit" became the top priority for most everybody concerned.

ZATAOMM is a great book, though!

[stevied]

Originally Posted by JimiBryant

man, you guys are a buncha Poindexters!!
I'm such a dummy that I can barely keep up with all of y'all.

Amen brother.....feel like my heads gonna explode reading this thread
BUT, very interesting.

Steve

[pengipete]

Originally Posted by odiemann

subjective indeed. Seemingly there are more and more concepts that are increasingly subjective these days. What does that mean?

I hope that it means that we are more cynical when it comes to unsupported claims of quality from manufacturers and vendors.

It's also the thing that lets us listen to an incredibly well produced, highly polished pop record and still recognise how awful it really is.

[Tele-Caster]

Originally Posted by sax4blues

Another aspect of the Toyota/Ferarri comparison quality is consistency.

The Toyota is to McDonalds as the Ferarri is to gourmet cooking. You can get a perfect Big Mac every time anywhere around the world. Each gourmet dinner you get may be slightly different but would be considered higher quality than McDonalds.

You can't get a perfect Big Mac everywhere.

Try getting even an edible one in Tahlequah, Oklahoma!

Also, I am not so sure that consistancy = quality. I mean, you walk through those Golden Arches, expecting prompt, courteous service, as well as edible food.

What you get is something else entirely.

It might be consistant in that a Big Mac tastes about like a Mc Nugget does, which in turn tastes like every other Mc Item on the Mc Menu.

Fast it may sometimes be but food it most definitely is not.

It is more like "Mc Fuel" than food.

The fact that it is consistant doesn't matter if it is consistantly cr@ppy.

But where Mc Fuel is concerned, there is variation in quality across the various Mc Outlets. Some locations serve Mc Items that are indeed cr@ppier than those served at other Mc Outlets.

The very thought of Mc Fuel makes me want to Mc Hurl.

I'd rather get my nutrition through a feeding tube than have to choke on any Mc Item from the Mc Menu. At least the stuff that goes into feeding tubes is actually capable of sustaining life. I suspect that quite the opposite might be true where Mc Fuel is concerned.

I think the analogy works best if you're talking bland, lifeless lukewarm mediocrity. Then I can see the case for Toyota being the Mc Donalds of the auto world.



TC

[franchelB]

IMO, I definine "quality" with "value". In terms of guitars copied from the Fender Stratocaster, I'd rather get an "MIA" Fender Strat rather than spending more for an Anderson, Suhr, or Tyler copies of it.
Hey, it all does the same thing...play music. And really, most of the audience could care less about the gear anyways.

[getbent]

Originally Posted by franchelB

IMO, I definine "quality" with "value".

if you use the terms that way they have to work forward and reverse.

Can something of quality not be a good value?
Can something that is of great value not be of good quality?

Once a person spends some time with those two questions... I think you'll find that your formula may work for you as a way of making choices, but it can get much more complicated than simple.

Thought exercise: Put all the guitars you listed above in a pitch dark room but each connected to an old fender bf deluxe (or the amp and settings of your choice.. not a twin, the other guy in the experiment is old and can't lift stuff)

play them all without seeing them. Pick the one that sounds the best plays the best.. the guitar that you'd love to play every day and own the rest of your life... say you are going to live another 40 years. Would it really matter to you if it was a 1000 or 2000 or 3000 dollar guitar? Over time the cost would be negligible... but you'd have a guitar that you truly, truly loved. For me, when I buy on price... I always feel like I'm 'settling' and at this stage of my life I'd rather do without than settle. You may still choose your MIA but at that point you'd be choosing based on 'quality' rather than 'value'.

[yegbert]

I think of quality as absolute. However, is is relative to specifications. And whether the specifications or the quality matters to a given consumer is relative to that consumer's needs.

Guitar pickup specifications may call for wax potting in order to eliminate feedback squeal under high volume and high gain application.

One pickup maker may have researched and settled on materials for wax potting (types of wax and their proportions, e.g. beesway and paraffin) that have been found to be more stable over a long period of time, or that seep into the crevices better and do a more thorough job of filling all the gaps. A second pickup maker may put less effort into research or just use whatever material are cheapest, and so his pickups may [often] turn out more microphonic than those of the first maker, or their wax may dry up quicker and the pickup becomes microphonic over a shorter period of time.

One consumer may use his guitar in high volume and high gain situations regularly, and finds that the specifications and quality of the pickups made by pickup maker number one are absolutely essential for his needs.

But a second consumer may want the pickup to be a little microphonic. So this consumer figures out that the pickups made by the first pickup maker don't meed his needs (because the specifications were "wrong" for him). He might consult with a third pickup maker to have some made to different specification (no wax potting or minimal wax potting). Or he may figure out that the pickups made by the second pickup maker usually turn out just right for his needs (because the "lower" quality was actually better).

A third consumer never uses his guitar in high volume or high gain situations, or does not plan on keeping the guitar for long enough for the wax to dry out. So the specifications or quality of the wax potting may not matter to him. The lower cost of the pickups (or a complete guitar that came with stock pickups) made by the second pickup maker better meets this consumer's needs.

[getbent]

Yegbert, well put.

[boneyguy]

Originally Posted by yegbert

I think of quality as absolute. However, is is relative to specifications.

That's an interesting statement. Your sense of the 'absolute' is 'relative'. That's esentially what I'm getting from your statement. If that's what you meant to say I agree wholeheartedly.

And whether the specifications or the quality matters to a given consumer is relative to that consumer's needs

You've just defined value exquistely.

Originally Posted by getbent

if you use the terms that way they have to work forward and reverse.

Can something of quality not be a good value?
Can something that is of great value not be of good quality? .

Yes to both questions.

From reading further down in your post GB it seems you are relating the idea of value exclusively with monetary considerations. If that's correct I don't agree.


We place value on many things for many different reasons. Values exist in a hierarchy. We value some 'values' over others. How much money was spent on something relative to your enjoyment of said thing is only one of many possible values.

[getbent]

Originally Posted by boneyguy

Yes to both questions.

From reading further down in your post GB it seems you are relating the idea of value exclusively with monetary considerations. If that's correct I don't agree.

BG, That is how I see it too (that you can answer yes to both questions) not everyone will... but if I can answer yes to both then they aren't totally interchangeable (not that FranchelB intended that)

on the second part, I don't actually (in my day to day life) equate monetary considerations very closely with price at all. However, my response was about how I perceived FranchelB's method for determining value... if that makes any sense. I perceive value a little differently probably than some. I will see a product and I'll evaluate it based on my needs and requirements and then I'll select a sort of 'good, better, best' of solutions. good will satisfy say 90% of my requirements, better 95% and best usually exceeds my requirements by a margin of several percent. Then the issue is of re-evaluating based on cost and convenience. I'm looking for a 'sweet' spot of maximizing the elements of the solution, valuing convenience and service and then settling on price.

[boneyguy]

Originally Posted by getbent

BG, That is how I see it too (that you can answer yes to both questions) not everyone will... but if I can answer yes to both then they aren't totally interchangeable (not that FranchelB intended that)

on the second part, I don't actually (in my day to day life) equate monetary considerations very closely with price at all. However, my response was about how I perceived FranchelB's method for determining value... if that makes any sense. I perceive value a little differently probably than some. I will see a product and I'll evaluate it based on my needs and requirements and then I'll select a sort of 'good, better, best' of solutions. good will satisfy say 90% of my requirements, better 95% and best usually exceeds my requirements by a margin of several percent. Then the issue is of re-evaluating based on cost and convenience. I'm looking for a 'sweet' spot of maximizing the elements of the solution, valuing convenience and service and then settling on price.

It sounds to me like you have a very useful strategy for determining the value something has for you. That's a good thing to have. We all know folks who don't. They're the ones with their credit cards on the TV tray watching infomercials when they should be sleeping and their houses are full of crap they'll never use. But maybe it's quality crap??

[The Bone2]

Cars are not clones of each other (neither are big macs).

One can get a quality Toyota, and the next one of the exact same model off of the lot can be low quality.

I suspect the same is true of Ferrari.

If you want to define quality as "repeatable process control" (or some such moniker), look at Budweiser. Regardless of whether you like Bud or not, every single bud tastes exactly the same as the last, year after year.

By the way, I've had really good Big Macs and absolutely terrible ones. The good ones you can tell have just come off of the grille, and are assembled neatly, not thrown together. The nasty ones have been sitting there for a while (it doesn't take very long for a Big Mac to sit before it gets nasty).

I suspect that a person who has the type of money to purchase and maintain a Ferrari could be bold enough to claim they bought it for the quality, but I believe that person, with or without introspection would realize that is not really the reason they purchased a Ferrari.

[boneyguy]

The fact that we can include McFood in a discussion about quality proves beyond a doubt to me the 'relativity' of the notion of quality.

[The Bone2]

exactly.

Compare the quality of one Big Mac to the next. Don't compare the quality of a Big Mac to a Steak from Peter Luger Steak House.

Compare the quality of a 2008 Toyota Camry to another 2008 Toyota Camry.

Quality is not an absolute. It can only be an absolute if you compare items whose end product is meant to be exactly the same every time, regardless of that products' appeal to any single person.

Someone used a canned vegetable analogy earlier. I used to be a competitive chili cook. Some cooks swore by "Hunts" brand tomatoes, others "Del Monte" (or whatever). Those cooks could possibly WRONGLY claim that Hunts was higher quality than "Del Monte" or vice versa. In reality the sugar content of the tomatoes was what they were judging. Some cooks preferred a sweeter tomato, and some a more acidic. Nothing whatsoever to do with quality.

[getbent]

I'll give you a recent example of the quality connundrum. My son has a nice, mid priced (90.00,) well constructed glove of traditional lineage. We bought it with the thought that it would serve him through his 12 year old year old year in little leage (about 2.5 years.) I have started working with his team and since I gave my last really good glove to a former player who'd gotten a scholarship... I decided I wanted a decent glove. Along the way, a light came on for me.... my son is a good player (all stars, travel team, committed athlete etc) and wants to continue play... so, I decided I would buy a high quality glove, break it in (the better the quality the longer it takes to break in--ironically) over the next couple of years and then it would be ready for him when he gets to that point.

We got the glove in the mail yesterday... oh my! it is stellar! My son is a middle infielder (and pitches and catches) so I found a place that sells the pro model rawlings gloves. I have to be honest, this thing is better than any glove I ever owned (and I had one of the last american made Wilson A2000's) I had a great pro model Rawlings in the 70's which at the time was REALLY expensive but it served me well through high school and college and into coaching...

Quality has lots of areas that are subjective to be sure, but there are just as many elements that anyone would have to acknowledge make the thing THE THING. In this case, anyone with experience with ball gloves would look at this glove and say... "oh my, that is a beauty!" it may not be the glove they would choose but it is an amazing piece of craftsmanship... the same with guitars and amps..

I think Tony's post about canned vegetables or the ones about mcdonalds or budweiser are interesting and the manufacturers would be mightily dismayed to know that there is such a variance... one of their stated goals is 'consistency of experience'. Meaning their quality control guys are absolutely fixated on their products being EXACTLY the same.

What has given Toyota a good reputation over the years is that their tolerances in the build quality are extremely narrow so one Camry is EXACTLY like another. The fact that you find them not to be would be troubling to the manufacturer as one of their visions of quality is consistency in build quality.

So, we are mixing terms a bit.. we just need to be aware of that. If I understand Yegbert's post... his absolute is the conception that an individual holds for what the object should be and should do.

In that case there would be the absolute... it would be in the execution of that absolute that you'd see the differences.

[The Bone2]

I had a really nice Rawlings glove that I used from my sophomore season all the way through my senior season. It just felt great. I did have to restring it several time, but to be honest, I kind of liked doing it.

When I went to college, I didn't play baseball, but a LOT of softball and I used a baseball glove for softball. It was a Wilson A-3000 (I think). That thing was an absolute rock. It was stiff in a good way, and never had to be re-strung. I used it as a goalie in street hockey. I finally had to retire it because the metal grommets on the heel of the glove got worn down from street hockey.

There is nothing like the feel of a quality baseball glove.

[getbent]

Originally Posted by The Bone2

There is nothing like the feel of a quality baseball glove.

I have restrung about half the kids gloves on my sons LL and Travel Ball teams.. It is so nice to have a good piece of leather, the right tools and some good lanolin (my new favorite oiling technique) work the glove in, form it... so many of them come to me like old dry pancakes and when I take them back it is so great to see their faces when they see how their gloves could be!

The gloves you mentioned are really nice!

[rhinocaster]

What is it with you guys?!!

I feel like people read my mind sometimes.

For some reason, a high quality baseball glove is almost ART to me. Something handmade from a company like Nokona is an amazing example of quality. For some reason, it really stands out to me with a baseball glove.

Didn't know we were going to go here when I started this thread! Cool!!

[boneyguy]

[quote=rhinocaster;1138548]What is it with you guys?!!

I feel like people read my mind sometimes.

For some reason, a high quality baseball glove is almost ART to me. Something handmade from a company like Nokona is an amazing example of quality. For some reason, it really stands out to me with a baseball glove.

Didn't know we were going to go here when I started this thread! Cool!![/QUOTE]



Perhaps that's evidence of a quality thread?!! Good work!!!

[jmoore65]

OK, as an engineer in the automotive industry I can confidently add that:

a. Both the Ferrari and the Toyota are basically means of extracting money from the punters on behalf of the shareholders. They just do it different ways.

b. "Quality" in the automotive industry has certain definite meanings, which have more to do with factors such as predictability and uniformity than "performance".

c. It is generally harder to design down to a price than up to a performance level, because the profit margin is so much smaller. In terms of pure engineering a Toyota has probably had a lot more input in terms of engineering effort and decisions than a Ferrari (mainly because of the enormous effort involved in controlling the cost of every last part and process).

[klasaine]

Originally Posted by klasaine

Like my wife says, "you can pay now, or you can pay later". I HATE paying later!

If I had to delineate it for myself, I guess QUALITY is "how many of my needs for said item does it fulfill" - including aesthetic needs. If I could afford it, including ALL operating costs, Ferrari (or similar) absolutely.

Relating it to guitar. I don't do cheap stuff. Most of it, other than the rare exceptional "find", doesn't fit my needs. Nothing that I own would be considered inexpensive or cheap from the 'retail' POV. Do I own a $6500.00 Tele or Start? No. That kind of money on my budget would impact the 'quality' of the rest of my life. Is the $6500 guitar high 'quality'? Probably, usually at that price(?). But it's not fitting ALL my needs right now.
So maybe quality resides in