Why didn't HP/Keysight/Agilent/Keithley/BK Precision/Datron make Audio Amps?

[Fried Chicken]

Like especially back in the 80s when all the legendarily good stuff was made (video killed the radio star).

My list in the title isn't even exhaustive, could be any of a number of test equipment companies.

I mean HP made the 3458A 8.5 digit multimeter... and the first atomic clock...  Wouldn't it be entirely within their purview to make a balls-to-the-wall perfect audio amplifier?  Put their engineers to task and come up with something out of this world.

But no.  At least as far as I can tell.

Is it the subjective component inherent to audio that stopped them?  Did it never occur to them?  I mean all the parts are there;  audio amplifiers are basically test equipment with audio amplification internal electronics...

Should have been right up their alley... at least one of them should have had that creative/romantic instinct to do so

[xrunner]

Could they have done it? Sure. But why would it be better than other manufacturers who have the knowledge and have been doing it for years?

Turn the question around - why didn't exceptional audio manufacturers make really good test equipment? Companies want to be know for a certain product line so they stick to that and don't (usually) try to challenge an established product line outside what they are known for.

[squadchannel]

In the past, IBM also did not manufacture products for the consumer sector. IBM PC etc...

You would not use an audio amplifier in business.
is not to say that hp never made products for audio purposes. hp 8903 is an analyzer for audio.

[oPossum]

https://www.hewlettpackardhistory.com/item/the-barney-oliver-amplifier/

https://nscainc.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/A_6824A.pdf

[themadhippy]

You would not use an audio amplifier in business

best go and tell me mates they dont need  those flight cases full of amps for there buissness

[Fried Chicken]

https://www.hewlettpackardhistory.com/item/the-barney-oliver-amplifier/

https://nscainc.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/A_6824A.pdf

Damn I'd love to hear that amp

[Fried Chicken]

Could they have done it? Sure. But why would it be better than other manufacturers who have the knowledge and have been doing it for years?

Turn the question around - why didn't exceptional audio manufacturers make really good test equipment? Companies want to be know for a certain product line so they stick to that and don't (usually) try to challenge an established product line outside what they are known for.

Well because they're full of hot air and hippy types, and not rigorous lunatic engineers

[coppercone2]

while possessing advanced knowledge you would be surprised how little outside of their field of expertise most engineers will go at work when they are comfortable, if you don't work, you will learn that, I don't think atomic clock guys want to burn out making another world class product just because their brain might be capable of it.

And I think those teams are pretty damn big, so just re coordinating everyone to learn something new and split up the work to be managable for their corporate culture etc is not easy/cheap

usually the truth is that its a orchestra of people doing very little (and someone has to write the composition), especially at big companies, its usually not jimmy hendrix lol

its the borg

and its probably pretty boring and unappealing compared to some advanced design they do at higher frequencies. And less money

[Fried Chicken]

Would it not be "child's play" for them at that level?

I guess that's the crux of the question: why not eek out some profits here as the expertise, tools, production, etc. has a lot of overlap.

Like a toothpick company also making shish kabobs (I couldn't think of a better analogy)

[coppercone2]

no because difficulty is relative.

i.e. in RF you might not consider voltage and current to be a thing (they just operate on power)

and you would think it might be childs play for a VLF designer to make audio, but then you realize hes a expert at dealing with a very narrow bandwidth and audio is broad band. they are all different and the only thing you get trying to compare difficulty levels of different engineerings is offending people and also getting punked in a design review . When a design gets precise or complicated enough, there is never that much commonality.

and audio has to deal with the monster that is a speaker

[zrq]

One exception: National Instruments made one: PXIe-4610

[factory]

Philips once made both test equipment and consumer grade audio stuff, they weren't the only company doing this.

David

[Fried Chicken]

Philips once made both test equipment and consumer grade audio stuff, they weren't the only company doing this.

David

Like this


But none seem to play in consumer HiFi

[themadhippy]

Philips once made both test equipment and consumer grade audio stuff

some of there audio gear was aimed at the pro market, had some of there 100v line speakers and microphones,both which sounded very good, at a previous place of work.

[TimFox]

My system’s FM tuner is a Philips 1851.
A traditional solid-state unit with multi-gang tuning capacitor and slide-rule dial.
There is enough unused volume inside the housing to hold an amplifier: perhaps the original plan was to make a complete receiver.

[factory]

Philips once made both test equipment and consumer grade audio stuff, they weren't the only company doing this.

David

Like this


But none seem to play in consumer HiFi

This consumer tat grade enough? they made radios from the 1930s onwards and stereos, midi systems & separates etc. Some older stuff seemed to be rebranded Norelco for the US market.

David

[coppice]

Philips once made both test equipment and consumer grade audio stuff, they weren't the only company doing this.

If you look at many of the Japanese companies in consumer electronics, they also made test equipment - Sony, Trio, National Panasonic, Hitachi, etc. Japan also has a number of test equipment makers who appear to have done nothing else, like TMK, Yokogawa, Hioki, etc.

Distribution channels are key to success, and the distribution channels for consumer equipment and test equipment are completely separate. Even if one company operates in both areas they need to treat them more or less like two different businesses.

[factory]

UK/European makers did too, such as Cossor, Grundig, Marconi etc. And seeing that budget Philips stereo, has reminded me of the "crime against humanity" Schneider stereo from a Photonicinduction video, Schneider once sold test gear too.

David

[coppice]

UK/European makers did too, such as Cossor, Grundig, Marconi etc. And seeing that budget Philips stereo, has reminded me of the "crime against humanity" Schneider stereo from a Photonicinduction video, Schneider once sold test gear too.

David

Most of the European consumer makers had some kind of professional equipment groups. Cossor, EMI, Decca, Thorn, Solartron and other UK consumer makers had either test equipment, defence, emergency service or other non-consumer divisions. Many of those, especially Thorn, were heavily into components as well as equipment, and often made almost every component in their consumer products, as well as the product itself. It also felt like anyone who pressed vinyl records (or shellac before that) also made weapons.

[BeBuLamar]

Well the reason is that they are test instrument manufacturers and not audio equipment or consumer hifi manufacturers. That is that.

However, it could be that if you use these accurate instruments from HP, Tek etc... to measure a very expensive tube amp you may not see why it should be that expensive.

[Geoff-AU]

Wouldn't it be entirely within their purview to make a balls-to-the-wall perfect audio amplifier?

Yes but the first reviewer to write about it would call it "sterile" and suggest that their SET tube amp sounded nicer.

[KungFuJosh]

Wouldn't it be entirely within their purview to make a balls-to-the-wall perfect audio amplifier?

Yes but the first reviewer to write about it would call it "sterile" and suggest that their SET tube amp sounded nicer.

And they'd be correct. 😉

[Fried Chicken]

Wouldn't it be entirely within their purview to make a balls-to-the-wall perfect audio amplifier?

Yes but the first reviewer to write about it would call it "sterile" and suggest that their SET tube amp sounded nicer.

And they'd be correct. 😉

oh boy....

[SteveThackery]

Wouldn't it be entirely within their purview to make a balls-to-the-wall perfect audio amplifier? 

Surely this question has been asked ever since the birth of capitalism. I think in general companies often embody particular expertise in their personnel, such that they might be exceptional at designing test gear, but just don't have the cutting edge skills needed to compete with the best audio amp manufacturers.

Also, expanding into other product types might well require some serious marketing effort in order to gain credibility in that new space; it might need a completely new business model and processes (eg if HP decided to sell ice cream); and it might require establishing complex supply chains. Also, the company might need to buy in expertise on regulatory issues (what does HP know about food safety?).

So I can see lots of reasons why companies decide to stick with what they are good at. Expanding too widely might well mean being mediocre, or average, in that new space. It's better to be exceptional at what you do.

[coppice]

I think a more interesting question is how did a company like McIntosh, that makes exotic audio products for wealth consumers, end up supplying large numbers of amps for rock bands to take on the road. The have never been a purveyor of ruggedised products, and I don't think they ever produced customised touring tolerant products for people like the Grateful Dead.