Snake Oil Department, Top This

[MarkS]

Not many of us have $15,0000 speakers let alone the amplification to drive them.

I guess we'd better stop talking about Revel Salon 2's, Revel 328Be's, etc.

 

[fffffgggg54]

ASR's owner has invested well into five figures into his amplifiers, and has Revel Salon2 speakers that cost twenty grand or thereabouts. Is he a fool for spending so much? Does spending so much signify some lack of regard for science on his part?

(My humble opinion and a lengthy explanation follows, this is not an attack or provocation of any form)

TL/DR: No and no. Price can be justified for appearance/prestige if that is what you desire. For boutique products (probably six figures or more), you pay for their reinvent-the-wheel engineering, likely at the cost of objective performance compared to mainstream products, rarity, and marketing or overengineering to ensure an extremely esoteric (read niche) product can turn a profit. If that is what you want and are happy with, then (IMO) there is little room for criticism.

No, I don't think spending so much on anything is foolish so long as it doesn't put you in financial jeopardy (ie. you can afford to do so comfortably), the purchase was thought out (ie. not an impulse purchase), and there is some justification in doing so.

I think justifying the purchase of an expensive piece of equipment, even if it, on paper, is objectively worse, can be broken down into a few factors:

- Appearance/prestige, even in lieu of performance/practicality - I think, ultimately, that a speaker is a piece of furniture. It sits, takes up space, and serves a function. Good looks are desirable in furniture. In the case of these speakers, that includes the complex geometry and exotic materials utilized in the construction of the speaker. The curved design and higher quality materials used on the Revel speakers cost more to produce than a box that may be found on the average three figure floorstander. The glossy finish on the front and the complex stand also cost more and are more complex than a simple box on cheaper designs.
Think McIntosh vs a plain metal box class d amp that does its job. the McIntosh unit likely costs close to 10 times as much and the latter. What are you paying for? The cosmetic appeal, the brand prestige, and those iconic blue meters, despite the measurements on this forum embarrassing the McIntosh unit so hard its meters could blush red with embarrassment .

- (over)engineering - boutique electronics that start from scratch (read reinvent the wheel) and discrete r2r dacs come to mind. These products accomplish what mass market electronics do, and perhaps perform worse than them, while costing magnitudes more than comparable products. Your money goes to the (rather impressive) engineering feat/extra work involved with making these products functional and perhaps comparable to mass market products. They then have to distinguish themselves through various means, such as unconventional construction or definitely-not-biased reviews, which is also funded by your hard-earned $$$.

The aforementioned analogies involving watches and cars also fall under these principles.

For watches, you can compare the costs involved with purchasing a two figure quartz watch, a three figure mechanical, and four or more figure mechanical. Two figures gets you a decent performing quartz watch that will keep accurate time (ie. if it deviates more than one second a month every two days it's almost certainly a dud). It may look generic and is most certainly mass produced, but it does it's job. Three figures gets you a functional mechanical watch. It will keep worse time than the quartz, likely deviating up to 20 seconds per day, but you can appreciate the engineering that went into it. Four figures or more will likely get you something from a name brand, with higher accuracy, more refined design and styling, and likely some prestigious branding (Omega, Rolex, etc). Pay prices on the order of a new car and you can get handcrafted, limited run, and esoteric watches. Do any of these watches keep better time than that quartz watch? Very likely not. But they are still desirable due to their style, workmanship, prestige, rarity, and the engineering necessary to create them.

For cars, the average commuter car will have good fuel economy, high reliability, accessible and affordable service, and practical design. They are not speed demons, gas guzzlers, or limited run supercars, but they get the job done. More of your hard-earned cash will get you luxury features such as nicer interior, more power, tuned (read louder) exhaust systems, classier style, or branding associated with prestige (BMW, Audi, Mercedes-Benz). These cars may be less practical (2 seats, less cargo) or use more gas, and accomplish the same basic job of commuting and traveling, but now in comfort and luxury. Go up more or less one magnitude and you find exotic cars with esoteric styling with marketing focused on design/exclusivity, excessive and overengineered powertrains, and limited production. The upcoming Koenigsegg Gemera comes to mind and serves as a comparison to boutique electronics in audio. The Gemera has camless piston engine, the first of its kind in a "production" automobile afaik, 10x the horsepower of the average commuter car (civics, corollas, and similar sedans for the US), impractical top speeds, a 300-unit production run. The design is unconventional to say the least, but draws attention and IMO looks pretty nice, especially compared to other designs from the same market bracket.

There may be other justifications for the purchase of such esoteric, exotic, and pricey products, but I have listed and explained the main ones in my view.

I also do not believe this splurging on the part of our (dare I say, beloved?) host represents a blatant disregard for science. Sure, there may be better choices based on objective measurements, and perhaps some subjective experience voodoo magic (potentially unexplained) psychoacoustic effects present during listening to different pieces of equipment, but I believe Amir made an educated choice to purchase the various components in his system based on a combination of objective measurements and subjective experiences regarding the sound and aesthetics of each component prior to purchasing.

Of course, only Amir himself can tell us the decision-making process behind his system .

 

[mansr]

For watches, you can compare the costs involved with purchasing a two figure quartz watch, a three figure mechanical, and four or more figure mechanical.

What about 4-figure quartz?

 

[fffffgggg54]

What about 4-figure quartz?

I'm not that familiar with the watch market/industry but a quick search brought me to Omega's line of quarts watches.
From my quick glance, the money goes into exotic materials (gold, diamonds), branding/brand prestige, production in based in Switzerland, not, say, China, and manufacturing/design.
I have seen a video saying that more expensive watches are typically produced with higher precision/attention to detail, particularly on the dial and case, and finished to a higher quality. While this is probably at least partly marketing BS, there is likely at least some truth to this.
Here is another video showing the difference in finishing quality between different watches.

 

[rdenney]

Yes, but I’m not sure a hobby magazine about stuff that merely gets the job done would be successful. It’s the aspirational and esoteric stuff that is interesting to read about.

Snake oil is pure placebo—an inert substance that falsely purports to cure a range of ills. It’s not a term I apply to expensive hobby stuff that is at least competently functional.

By the way, a cheap quartz watch won’t be more accurate than maybe 15 seconds a month, without some good luck. Greater accuracy than that requires thermocompensation, such as provided with high-accuracy quartz watches that are well into three figures for cheaper models. Those can achieve 10-15 seconds a year accuracy. The most accurate mechanical watches are usually better than a minute a month (2 seconds a day)—but accuracy is only loosely related to price, and the most expensive watches rarely target that level of accuracy. Watches are in many cases ridiculously overpriced, but that does not make them snake oil.

I was reacting to the notion implicit in the post I responded to that Stereophile’s list is snake oil because the stuff on it was priced higher that some particular threshold. Those items do work, after all. And the notion that Stereophile promulgates snake oil because they writes a lot about very expensive stuff. I agree that the correlation between price and objective functional effectiveness is weak, but that works both ways. Expensive stuff can functionally work very well, even if the price is ridiculous.

(My most accurate mechanical watch is a Ulysse Nardin Marine Chronometer which is not remotely inexpensive. My most accurate quartz watch is a thermocompensated Certina that is one of my least expensive watches. I don’t expect a correlation. But the ownership experience is much more than measured accuracy, as you point out.)

Rick “much of whose system appeared at one time in the Recommended Components list, but still isn’t that expensive” Denney

 

[mansr]

By the way, a cheap quartz watch won’t be more accurate than maybe 15 seconds a month, without some good luck. Greater accuracy than that requires thermocompensation, such as provided with high-accuracy quartz watches that are well into three figures for cheaper models. Those can achieve 10-15 seconds a year accuracy.

I'm wearing a low 4 figures Tag Heuer quartz. When I reset it at DST start/end, it's usually off by a few seconds. Good enough for me.

 

[andrewinnj]

(My humble opinion and a lengthy explanation follows, this is not an attack or provocation of any form)

TL/DR: No and no. Price can be justified for appearance/prestige if that is what you desire. For boutique products (probably six figures or more), you pay for their reinvent-the-wheel engineering, likely at the cost of objective performance compared to mainstream products, rarity, and marketing or overengineering to ensure an extremely esoteric (read niche) product can turn a profit. If that is what you want and are happy with, then (IMO) there is little room for criticism.

No, I don't think spending so much on anything is foolish so long as it doesn't put you in financial jeopardy (ie. you can afford to do so comfortably), the purchase was thought out (ie. not an impulse purchase), and there is some justification in doing so.

I think justifying the purchase of an expensive piece of equipment, even if it, on paper, is objectively worse, can be broken down into a few factors:

- Appearance/prestige, even in lieu of performance/practicality - I think, ultimately, that a speaker is a piece of furniture. It sits, takes up space, and serves a function. Good looks are desirable in furniture. In the case of these speakers, that includes the complex geometry and exotic materials utilized in the construction of the speaker. The curved design and higher quality materials used on the Revel speakers cost more to produce than a box that may be found on the average three figure floorstander. The glossy finish on the front and the complex stand also cost more and are more complex than a simple box on cheaper designs.
Think McIntosh vs a plain metal box class d amp that does its job. the McIntosh unit likely costs close to 10 times as much and the latter. What are you paying for? The cosmetic appeal, the brand prestige, and those iconic blue meters, despite the measurements on this forum embarrassing the McIntosh unit so hard its meters could blush red with embarrassment .

- (over)engineering - boutique electronics that start from scratch (read reinvent the wheel) and discrete r2r dacs come to mind. These products accomplish what mass market electronics do, and perhaps perform worse than them, while costing magnitudes more than comparable products. Your money goes to the (rather impressive) engineering feat/extra work involved with making these products functional and perhaps comparable to mass market products. They then have to distinguish themselves through various means, such as unconventional construction or definitely-not-biased reviews, which is also funded by your hard-earned $$$.

The aforementioned analogies involving watches and cars also fall under these principles.

For watches, you can compare the costs involved with purchasing a two figure quartz watch, a three figure mechanical, and four or more figure mechanical. Two figures gets you a decent performing quartz watch that will keep accurate time (ie. if it deviates more than one second a month its almost certainly a dud). It may look generic and is most certainly mass produced, but it does it's job. Three figures gets you a functional mechanical watch. It will keep worse time than the quartz, likely deviating up to 20 seconds per day, but you can appreciate the engineering that went into it. Four figures or more will likely get you something from a name brand, with higher accuracy, more refined design and styling, and likely some prestigious branding (Omega, Rolex, etc). Pay prices on the order of a new car and you can get handcrafted, limited run, and esoteric watches. Do any of these watches keep better time than that quartz watch? Very likely not. But they are still desirable due to their style, workmanship, prestige, rarity, and the engineering necessary to create them.

For cars, the average commuter car will have good fuel economy, high reliability, accessible and affordable service, and practical design. They are not speed demons, gas guzzlers, or limited run supercars, but they get the job done. More of your hard-earned cash will get you luxury features such as nicer interior, more power, tuned (read louder) exhaust systems, classier style, or branding associated with prestige (BMW, Audi, Mercedes-Benz). These cars may be less practical (2 seats, less cargo) or use more gas, and accomplish the same basic job of commuting and traveling, but now in comfort and luxury. Go up more or less one magnitude and you find exotic cars with esoteric styling with marketing focused on design/exclusivity, excessive and overengineered powertrains, and limited production. The upcoming Koenigsegg Gemera comes to mind and serves as a comparison to boutique electronics in audio. The Gemera has camless piston engine, the first of its kind in a "production" automobile afaik, 10x the horsepower of the average commuter car (civics, corollas, and similar sedans for the US), impractical top speeds, a 300-unit production run. The design is unconventional to say the least, but draws attention and IMO looks pretty nice, especially compared to other designs from the same market bracket.

There may be other justifications for the purchase of such esoteric, exotic, and pricey products, but I have listed and explained the main ones in my view.

I also do not believe this splurging on the part of our (dare I say, beloved?) host represents a blatant disregard for science. Sure, there may be better choices based on objective measurements, and perhaps some subjective experience voodoo magic (potentially unexplained) psychoacoustic effects present during listening to different pieces of equipment, but I believe Amir made an educated choice to purchase the various components in his system based on a combination of objective measurements and subjective experiences regarding the sound and aesthetics of each component prior to purchasing.

Of course, only Amir himself can tell us the decision-making process behind his system .

Agree on this - if you are fully informed, you are then paying for the values you see in the product.

With speakers for example, all performance characteristics equal, I would pay more for more attractive visual design. I would not pay for attractive speakers that perform poorly, just as I would not pay for generic (certainly ugly) speakers that perform great. Other might, but that is because their values are different (not wrong).

 

[maxxevv]

For watches, you can compare the costs involved with purchasing a two figure quartz watch, a three figure mechanical, and four or more figure mechanical. Two figures gets you a decent performing quartz watch that will keep accurate time (ie. if it deviates more than one second a month its almost certainly a dud). It may look generic and is most certainly mass produced, but it does it's job. Three figures gets you a functional mechanical watch. It will keep worse time than the quartz, likely deviating up to 20 seconds per day, but you can appreciate the engineering that went into it. Four figures or more will likely get you something from a name brand, with higher accuracy, more refined design and styling, and likely some prestigious branding (Omega, Rolex, etc). Pay prices on the order of a new car and you can get handcrafted, limited run, and esoteric watches. Do any of these watches keep better time than that quartz watch? Very likely not. But they are still desirable due to their style, workmanship, prestige, rarity, and the engineering necessary to create them.

Most single digit dollar value quartz watches deviate by a single digit second a day.

Double digit dollar value ones about a single second every 1~2 days.

Triple digit dollar ones about 1~2 second a month.

So you are a fair bit off the mark there.

What about 4-figure quartz?

A high 4-digit value one such as a Grand Seiko or Citizen Chronomaster are rated to deviate by a single digit second in a year for accuracy. Tag Heuer's are not in that league of accuracy as far as I'm aware.

 

[Mart68]

1. I am indeed very far from rich. In fact I'd bet I earn less than most on this forum.
2. The reason I own those speakers is because it's my passion. I don't own a nice car, or a cottage, or watches or motorcycles or boats or engage in any other expensive hobbies. It's taken a long time for me to be able to buy those speakers (I could buy the Thiels because I sold smaller products I'd accumulated over time, and I had to sell the Thiels to get the Joseph speakers).

Even so, I don't think that only the stinkin' rich could buy those speakers.

I know a number of middle class/upper middle class friends who could afford to buy those speakers IF IT WERE THEIR PASSION TO DO SO, but instead they put similar or much more money in to upgrading some part of their house, or into a "better" version of the car they want, or vacations, cottage, whatever.




Then it doesn't sound like you are speaking of the actual target - the hobbyist target of the magazine - audiophiles.

Go to many audiophile forums and you'll see plenty of people who own gear in the multiple thousands of dollars range, some of which is found in Stereophile. And it's often not because they are richer than most, but that music/audio is their passion and they do what they can to afford it.

This is a pretty good snapshot of the range of gear owned by such audiophiles, and they aren't all wealthy:

Hi-Fi Audio Systems & Audiophile Listening Rooms

Explore audiophile equipment, hi-fi audio systems and listening rooms for inspiration and ideas.

systems.audiogon.com

I generally agree with all of that. (And there are caveats to put aside).

But that doesn't entail the collusion Mr. Mojo ranted about, and you have put it in much less broad-brushed, less disparaging terms.

Cheers.

True - for many people its a question of where they spend the money, you don't have to be a millionaire to buy this stuff, it's just that non-millionaires have to make sacrifices elsewhere in order to own it.

M father always said that if he hadn't had three children he'd have been driving a Ferrari. Although the truth is he was as tight as a duck's arse and if the god Shiva gave him a million dollars and said 'Buy a Ferrari' he still wouldn't have bought one.

But...I think most of the people who buy the crazy money kit do buy it because they think it's better, a fallacy Stereophile (et al) do nothing to dissuade - except in the measured performance which most buyers disregard anyway as they don't understand it.

 

[mansr]

Most single digit dollar value quartz watches deviate by a single digit second a day.

Double digit dollar value ones about a single second every 1~2 days.

Triple digit dollar ones about 1~2 second a month.

So you are a fair bit off the mark there.


A high 4-digit value one such as a Grand Seiko or Citizen Chronomaster are rated to deviate by a single digit second in a year for accuracy. Tag Heuer's are not in that league of accuracy as far as I'm aware.

I last set mine when DST started in March. It is now 5 seconds behind, so just shy of 1 second per month. In scientific terms, that's about 300 ppb. If they ever do away with DST, I suppose I'll have to make it a habit to adjust it once or twice a year anyway.

 

[rdenney]

The generally accepted standard for "high-accuracy quartz" is 15 seconds per year. The typical accuracy expectation for standard-quality quartz in nice watches is 15 seconds per month. The difference is thermal compensation of the quartz crystal.

Rick "who has both" Denney

 

[Robin L]

Last time I had a watch was about 15 years ago. It was a $20 Casio. Used to have one of those, wristband removed, glued to my microphone preamp above the DAT recorder, all in an Anvil case.

Wonder how accurate the time is on my smartphone?

 

[voodooless]

Wonder how accurate the time is on my smartphone?

They can and will cheat and regularly get the time from a pool of NTP servers. I'm betting otherwise accuracy would not be much better than a few handful seconds per day.

 

[Mojo Warrior]

This forum is way off topic.

Did an industry troll sidetrack the discussion to wrist watches, instead of audio equipment?

 

[voodooless]

This forum is way off topic.

Did an industry troll sidetrack the discussion to wrist watches, instead of audio equipment?

Well, while on the subject of clocks then, if you were to power a time keeping device with an audiophile clock, it would not fair very well compared to a quartz watch. Frequency matching is usually between 5 and 100 ppm. 12 ppm is roughy a second per day, so make of it what you want

 

[mhardy6647]

I think John is correct... consistency is desireable. He also is “measured” in his subjective remarks, a trait I admire.

Don't make me quote Emerson...

 

[Robin L]

They can and will cheat and regularly get the time from a pool of NTP servers. I'm betting otherwise accuracy would not be much better than a few handful seconds per day.

But over time, would be close enough to perfect due to automatic adjustments. There's a servo of sorts to prevent long term drift.

The two things that changed when Digital sound became common: Pitch & Speed errors. Pitch and speed consistency can be be considered a fixed problem. With analog recording, the issues are inherent. One can get to "good enough", but never get close to the "perfect" of digital devices. Redbook encapsulates what we can actually hear. Snake oil "works" by attempting to convince us that we can hear more than that. Perhaps overpriced gear functions for some much as collectible watches: it's all about bragging rights. Being a cheapskate, I like getting the results I want with gear that cost me $1,000.00 instead of $100,000.00. And I have heard gear that cost $500,000.00 that didn't impress me at all.

 

[MattHooper]

This forum is way off topic.

Did an industry troll sidetrack the discussion to wrist watches, instead of audio equipment?

All audio forum discussions devolve to watch talk, given the time

 

[egellings]

With watches & clocks people look at, it's not as if those are incorporated into test systems to make accurate microsecond or tinier interval timing measurements the way a timer/counter instrument would. I personally do not need 2 second/month accuracy at all. Most people don't need that much wrist watch accuracy. That reminds me of worrying about getting 0.005% THD in an amp when you'd never even hear 0.05% THD in the amplifier. It's just impractical spec-chasing.

 

[JRS]

Ask your doctor if Ayahuasca© is right for you!

View attachment 103449

Next 5 to 10 years perhaps: there is the "cognitive liberty" movement afoot, and psychiatry is rather at an impasse, and has taken the blinders off with respect to the therapeutic potential of ketamine, psilocybin, MDMA, etc. . In remote corners of the field there are even whispers of improving the lives of everyman versus simply and inadequately treating the mentally ill.

The more"medical" use a substance gets, the more clamor and greater the likelihood of decriminaliation/legalization becomes. After all if it can be prescribed as a medicine, how dangerous can it be? Witness what has happened with magic mushrooms in Oregon and numerous college towns, i.e. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Denver, Colorado, Berkeley, California, Santa Cruz, California, Somerville and Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Washington D.C. (BTW I occasionally imbibe to dbl blind components, but usually end up sidetracked, albeit extremely entertained by how good Hi-Res audio has become).