Just came back from my first audio show and oh boy

[digicidal]

It cuts both ways.

Paying $10k for an amp that generates audible noise and distortion is stupid. So too is paying $500 for an amp that generates audible noise.

One can do better than standing on the extremes of excess or thrift; choose gear based on its verifiable performance.

True, and both deserving of some criticism (and possibly derision). The real questions arise when it's the opposite, and both are perfectly transparent... is one still stupid in that case?

 

[GrimSurfer]

True, and both deserving of some criticism (and possibly derision). The real questions arise when it's the opposite, and both are perfectly transparent... is one still stupid in that case?

No. Just a smart shopper, assuming that the inexpensive piece of gear lasts and is properly grounded.

 

[digicidal]

No. Just a smart shopper, assuming that the inexpensive piece of gear lasts and is properly grounded.

Agreed, though that has not been my experience in general. Most of the inexpensive gear that I've purchased (audio, PC, or otherwise) did not have the same longevity as the pricier ones. Admittedly I've never spent more than a few thousand on a single piece... but I've put dozens of $200-300 "equivalents" in the garbage after some or all of it stopped functioning correctly and there being no option for repair due to the inherent disposability of the designs.

 

[GrimSurfer]

This raises the question of what is a better value... a $300 dollar piece of gear that gets replaced 5 times due to failure, irritation etc. or a $1500 piece of gear that provides great service?

It's a trick question with several explanations favoring the piece of gear that lasts.

 

[watchnerd]

This raises the question of what is a better value... a $300 dollar piece of gear that gets replaced 5 times due to failure, irritation etc. or a $1500 piece of gear that provides great service?

It's a trick question with several explanations favoring the piece of gear that lasts.

What's the difference in sustainable materials used?

Is it a $300 compostable item or $300 worth of e-waste?

If e-waste, I'd rather have the $1500 item and only sin once.

 

[digicidal]

If you come across great measuring, inexpensive, compostable audio gear... be sure to share!

 

[GrimSurfer]

What's the difference in sustainable materials used?

Is it a $300 compostable item or $300 worth of e-waste?

If e-waste, I'd rather have the $1500 item and only sin once.

That is certainly one of the correct answers favoring the $1500 item.

 

[watchnerd]

If you come across great measuring, inexpensive, compostable audio gear... be sure to share!

You can have 2 of those things, but not all 3.

 

[Fluffy]

Good engineering is not only audio performance, it's also reliability and longevity. I don't think even 5,000$ is too much to pay for an amplifier that performs brilliantly and will last a life time.

The problem is where you pay more for the brand name and the prestige than for solid engineering, and justify it buy claiming you can hear the differences. No one pays 100,000$ on speakers or amplifiers because they sound better, they pay it because it makes them feel better about themselves. If you are one of those, then you are not in the audio business, you are in the fashion business, and it's no different than owning an expansive watch or a piece of jewelry. Just please don't claim that the sound itself is worth the price.

 

[watchnerd]

Good engineering is not only audio performance, it's also reliability and longevity. I don't think even 5,000$ is too much to pay for an amplifier that performs brilliantly and will last a life time.

The problem is where you pay more for the brand name and the prestige than for solid engineering, and justify it buy claiming you can hear the differences. No one pays 100,000$ on speakers or amplifiers because they sound better, they pay it because it makes them feel better about themselves. If you are one of those, then you are not in the audio business, you are in the fashion business, and it's no different than owning an expansive watch or a piece of jewelry. Just please don't claim that the sound itself is worth the price.

In that case, the audio community shouldn't have given Lexicon so much shit for putting well-measuring Oppo players inside higher-status Lexicon boxes:

But I agree with you.

Nobody in the car world gets mad that Lexus shares many common parts with Toyota, but comes with a higher price and sexier interiors.

And, I would argue, the durable luxury audio brands mostly get this. It's the cottage industry types who seem to be trying to pull a fast one...and who have accomplices in the audio press and fanboi boner crowd.

 

[MattHooper]

I suggest both of the posts quoted below show the failure to take other people's interests in to account. As I've said before here, people are often pretty bad at accurately ascribing motivations to other people when they don't share the same criteria and motivations. In other words "Given MY goals I can't think of a good reason why anyone would buy X, so I will ascribe some dismissive motivation for THEIR reasons to buy X."

No one pays 100,000$ on speakers or amplifiers because they sound better, they pay it because it makes them feel better about themselves.

That's simply incorrect. Just because you can't understand someone thinking a $100,000 purchase doesn't sound any better than something else doesn't mean he isn't buying it because he thinks it sounds better as a main motivation. This really is a failure to understand the motivation of other audiophiles.

I've known a number of rich audiophiles and they sure as hell believed that their purchases were based mostly on sonics. They were friggin' obsessed with what they felt to be sonic changes from cables, to amps, to their expensive speakers.

Take the MBL 101E speakers, which are getting closer to 80 grand, and throw in their amps (or some other audiophile amp) and you are moving to the 100G mark. Speakers sound different. Those speakers sound different. They are very expensive. If someone loves their sound and can afford them, they buy them. Who would you be to say they don't "sound better?" The other person may judge that they do, for his tastes and goals. Copy and paste that scenario for all sorts of high end speakers. If you think for instance Jeff Fritz over on soundstage, with his hundreds of thousands of dollar systems isn't motivated by actually thinking the sound was "better" or worth it, then that's a flat refusal to believe what anyone tells you about their own motivations. (He is downsizing, but certainly was motivated by chasing great sound).

You see this same poor psychoanalyzing from non-audiophiles all over the place (e.g. youtube comments on audiophile videos). To non-audiophiles almost any "expensive" audio gear seems needlessly extravegant: "Anyone who spends $1,000 on a pair of speakers is nuts - it's all about the bling, not the sound!" My protests about why I have spent more on speakers - or others here - will fall on deaf ears insofar as some stranger thinks he is better at psychoanalyzing me than I am at knowing myself.

Really, it's ok to accept that other audiophiles are honest in expressing their motivations. Audiophiles tend to be obsessed with sound. And their spending will tend to scale with their income (actually...they will often spend more than their income would predict they could spend ;-)). I spend a lot on audio equipment within my means; a rich audiophile does so within his means, which in many cases gets in to the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It cuts both ways.

Paying $10k for an amp that generates audible noise and distortion is stupid. So too is paying $500 for an amp that generates audible noise.

Given your personal criteria, sure. But yours isn't the only criteria. Other people have other criteria and goals, right?

Depends on what exactly you mean by "audible noise."

Do you mean hum? Or do you mean some level of distortion or deviation from neutral?

My Conrad Johnson and my Eico tube amps (both over $500) are very likely interacting with a variety of speakers I own to either introduce some level of "noise" (possible tube amp distortions) or at least deviate from neutral. But I love the sound of my system and think the tube amps are really cool.

The Eico combines a funky old amp aesthetic with what seems to have an especially prominent sonic character (not that surprising if you look at the measurements) that absolutely pushes my buttons. I like it. Is that ok?

The same question can move in to speakers. Plenty of audiophile speakers produce distortion (as do most speakers at some level) and coloration. Yet some prefer to own some speakers that don't sound as, perhaps, you would like them to sound.

Is it "stupid" for someone to enjoy things you personally don't enjoy?

 

[GrimSurfer]

I suggest both of the posts quoted below show the failure to take other people's interests in to account.

It's in people's interest to get what they think, or are told, they're paying for.

Were this "Psychology Today", perhaps one could argue that this forum should pander to peoples' feelings. But it's actually a forum on audio science and advertised as such.

If you perceive this as blunt, that's your call. I meant it as direct.

 

[Fluffy]

@MattHooper I believe one of the goals here in ASR is to defeat psychological illusions and expose an empirical reality in the audio field. I 100% believe that those people who buys speakers like the MBL 101E are completely convinced that they sound better and that's why they bought them. But my main thesis, and I suppose other people here will support that, is that those speakers doesn't sound better because of any intrinsic objective property of their own, but because of the expectation by their owner that they will sound better. He believes the marketing statements and raving reviews enough to make him convinced that he hears an actual improvement in sound quality over other speakers (or more improvement than there is actually there). And the same thing goes for cables and amps and dacs and file formats etc.

So in that way, the expansive speakers make their owner believe he has achieved a superior sound quality, and thus make him feel better about himself. I don't know how many people are aware of that effect on themselves, and I met people who are oblivious to that to the point that it's inconceivable to them that they can experience any sort of mental illusion or be influenced by suggestion. And those are the kinds of people the very high end manufacturers are targeting, the ones that are convinced enough of their superior sound-quality perceiving ability that they are willing to spend unnecessary amounts of money on gear that is amped up to be much more than it really is.

I really think everybody should do what they want, and if something makes you feel good or enjoy yourself, you are free to do it. If it's buying overly priced audio gear, go for it. It's the arrogant belittling of people who are not fooled by those marketing ploys into believing that they need 1,000$ speaker cables to enjoy their hi-fi system – that's what upsets me. And also the dishonesty that lies in the core of a lot of manufacturers that is robbing people of their money on the baseless promise of a better musical experience. Those companies aren't selling audio gear, they are selling expansive placebos for people who don't need them.

I'm not at all bitter about how someone choose to spend their money. I'm just upset with the snake-oil vendor who fooled them out of their money.

 

[GrimSurfer]

And it works in reverse, with manufacturers selling inexpensive devices under the illusion that they outperform more expensive ones.

It's the dishonesty, not the price tag, that is the offense.

 

[MattHooper]

It's in people's interest to get what they think, or are told, they're paying for.

Were this "Psychology Today", perhaps one could argue that this forum should pander to peoples' feelings. But it's actually a forum on audio science and advertised as such.

If you perceive this as blunt, that's your call. I meant it as direct.

You have phrased your reply in a way that avoids answering the point I was making.

So I'll try a simpler approach:

Was I being "stupid" in buying my tube amplifiers?

If so: please be clear on why that is the case.

 

[Fluffy]

Was I being "stupid" in buying my tube amplifiers?

If you are aware of any non-ideal property they have and made a conscious choice to buy them despite of that because they bring you joy, then I'll say you made a good purchase.

I would question your intelligence if you were to declare them to be objectively superior to any listener's ears without providing empirical evidence

 

[MattHooper]

@MattHooper I believe one of the goals here in ASR is to defeat psychological illusions and expose an empirical reality in the audio field.

A goal I whole heartedly support!

I 100% believe that those people who buys speakers like the MBL 101E are completely convinced that they sound better and that's why they bought them.

Right. But your claim seemed to be that the motivation was not about getting the sound the person wanted, but rather some OTHER factor like "feeling good about themselves."

But my main thesis, and I suppose other people here will support that, is that those speakers doesn't sound better because of any intrinsic objective property of their own, but because of the expectation by their owner that they will sound better.

Then I suggest that is a poor thesis. Or at least poorly formed.

What do you mean by "sound better?" What's your criteria?

The MBL speakers being omnis have a particular sonic characteristic of very open, boxless, detailed and spacious imaging/soundstaging.
If someone is looking for that type of sound, who are you to say it doesn't "sound better" than a speaker YOU like? You could appeal to ways that, for instance, it measures differently than a speaker you like, but if it produces a sound of the type someone is looking for, then it is "better" for that person's taste and criteria.

He believes the marketing statements and raving reviews enough to make him convinced that he hears an actual improvement in sound quality over other speakers (or more improvement than there is actually there).

But since speakers do sound different, and if the presentation of the MBLs is what someone is looking for, then it DOES "sound better" from that person's criteria. I don't see any reason to just grant your premise that the MBLs won't "sound better" as it seems based on some as-yet-unargued for value scheme or criteria (and which you will also have to argue for).

And the same thing goes for cables and amps and dacs and file formats etc.[

Not quite the same as there may not be sonic differences between most DACs and competently designed cables, so that's another ball of wax. But different speaker designs do sound different, and hence someone's personal preferences plausibly come in to play.

If you buy an expensive sports car should I be telling you that's a waste of money beccause you can get from A to B cheaper? Or...do we allow that people have different tastes, goals, which can make their decisions quite rational in fulfilling those desires?

So in that way, the expansive speakers make their owner believe he has achieved a superior sound quality, and thus make him feel better about himself.

I don't follow. How does it follow that someone buying A expensive audio gear makes it about "feeling better about himself" than someone buying "B" expensive audio gear.

Many on this forum have bought and own audio gear that is VERY EXPENSIVE and looks extravegant from a non-audiophile's perspective. Do you think everyone's motivation is "to feel better about himself?" If yes, then I don't see the particular point you'd be making about someone buying on expensive item over another. In other words, no need to pick on someone buying a really expensive set of speakers in particular.

But, if it isn't everyone's motivation to "feel good about himself" in making an audio purchase, I don't see how you actually have grounds to make the exception you want to make for a more expensive speaker purchase.

(I just spent the most money I've ever put out for a pair of speakers. They are by any normal joe's viewpoint, extravagent. Did I do it to "make me feel better about myself?" Sorry, I don't recognize that motivation. I wanted a particular aesthetic and especially the particular sound of this speaker which really pushed my buttons. I don't recognize feeling "better about myself" before or after the purchase. Unless it's just that I'm quite happy with my purchase. But if THAT is what you are talking about...again...I don't see any point in your selecting out that for someone buying even more expensive gear.)

It's the arrogant belittling of people who are not fooled by those marketing ploys into believing that they need 1,000$ speaker cables to enjoy their hi-fi system – that's what upsets me. And also the dishonesty that lies in the core of a lot of manufacturers that is robbing people of their money on the baseless promise of a better musical experience. Those companies aren't selling audio gear, they are selling expansive placebos for people who don't need them.

Sure. Agreed. But that didn't seem to be your point. I was only arguing against the claim about the psychology of someone buying really expensive speakers (e.g. $100,000) being based on "how it makes them feel about themselves" as if the main motivation were not in fact "chasing better sound and buying the speakers on those grounds." As I suggest: most audiophiles buy for similar reasons: they like audio gear, and look to have systems with (to them) great sound. And their spending scales with their income.

 

[MattHooper]

If you are aware of any non-ideal property they have and made a conscious choice to buy them despite of that because they bring you joy, then I'll say you made a good purchase.

I would question your intelligence if you were to declare them to be objectively superior to any listener's ears without providing empirical evidence

Exactly.

The problem is Grimsurfer's blanket claim about stupidity didn't seem to leave room for this.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Lexus shares many common parts with Toyota

It is even more extreme with VW group cars.
The Bentley is a VW Phaeton with nicer interior, Porsche Panamera shares a platform with the Audi A8 etc.
I actually do care, but I am an engineer...

 

[GrimSurfer]

You have phrased your reply in a way that avoids answering the point I was making.

So I'll try a simpler approach:

Was I being "stupid" in buying my tube amplifiers?

If so: please be clear on why that is the case.

My response was not intended to deny you a point. It was intended to respond to your question in as clear and objective a manner as possible.

Re: Your next question...

If your primary objective was accurate sound, and if you chose to ignore the objective evidence against tubes presented to you, then you'd be willfully ignorant (which could lead to stupidity).

If you chose tubes for sound qualities that appealed to you, then your choice would be a rational one on subjective terms.

You see, stupidity is a harder bar to cross. One must demonstrate an inability to learn. A poor decision says nothing about your cognitive capacity as a whole. You may have been misinformed. Anyone can be misinformed, even bright people when the issue is outside their area of expertise.

The problem is Grimsurfer's blanket claim about stupidity didn't seem to leave room for this.

Actually, it does. Continuing to ignore objective evidence to the contrary, while attacking those presenting it, is the embodiment of what I would call "militant stupidity" (that was the exact term I used). It is a two component test.