[quote name='tbonepete' timestamp='1442092399' post='2864430']
Yes, but once they were in production the unit costs sold would gradually reduce the overall cost, and again, this doesn't have to be born by only one manufacturer. More costly yes, but the technology already exsists in sound reinforcement I'd have thought. Not just a question of swapping a badge on a full range powered PA cab with dsp, for a badge on a bass cab, but nevertheless the technology is out there..........
This of course may not be true, but it seems plausible to me that it is.
Still the status quo must be maintained it seems.
Cheers Pete :-)
[/quote]
Trouble is bass amps don't sell in high enough volume (compared to consumer electronics like TVs etc) so the component costs won't necessarily drop as much as you think as the manufacturers don't have the buying power of saying "we're using tens of thousands of components per month", more like a couple of thousand a year max.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with where you're coming from but it's not as easy as that.
Example - 10 years ago I was working for an electronic component company who sold components to Amstrad (amongst others). Amstrad made the Sky boxes and Sky Plus boxes at the time and were buying approx 100k components per month from us, all the same spec, at around 4 cents per unit. They were rejecting about 10% of their boards and kept blaming our component.
Rigorous testing followed where it became abundantly clear that their circuit design was so sh*t it needed to tighten an already ridiculous spec to the degree the price of the component doubled. They were, understandably, pretty pissed off about that but it wasn't the component being faulty so they couldn't blame us no matter what legal threats came our way. They had to swallow the price increase.
Scale that down over a thousand fold and you are looking at the higher-volume amp makers, think how that tightening of the component tolerance affects them.