Namely, I find it hard to believe that so many people spend tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars, after listening to multiple systems, and still haven't been able to collectively figure out a basic truth that diminishing return happens around $200.
Like you said, this hobby has been going for decades. And we still haven't figured this out? A super obvious truth that Amir is showing us right in our faces?
Yeah these are good points/questions.
First, it has been known for many decades at least in professional circles. For example look at the work George Lucas did to standardize, calibrate, and certify cinema sound way back when. He knew that was the way for his movies to sound the best to the most people in the widest range of theaters. He was far from the first on the pro side obviously, but I think his work on the THX standard is a big part of why standardized performance began to make its way into consumer tech.
As for why audio hasn't been sold to consumers this way? Chief factors IMO:
1. In previous decades, up through the 1980s/1990s perhaps, the stereo system in your living room (much as the car in your driveway) was a "status symbol" as much as something you bought for status as much as objective performance.
2. Before measurements like those seen at ASR were democratized, unless you were a studio engineer with access to accurate reference equipment, you had no way to judge whether the hifi system you bought at the mall was objectively accurate. As opposed to a television where you'd easily notice if the colors of skin tones and everyday common household objects were off.
3. The audiophile press was caught in an absolutely toxic snake-oil cycle. The magazines relied upon advertising dollars from companies peddling high-margin snake oil. As a matter of survival they were unable and unwilling to refute a lot of BS and "lay down the law" in a factual way.
4. As we see from ASR's work, the measurements that largely define objective performance are a bit complex and require technical understanding. Frankly somebody browsing bluetooth boom boxes at Wal-Mart isn't gonna know or care about interpreting that stuff.
5. Audio makers can't hype objective performance too much. Because what if somebody offers better objective performance for less money? Why should anybody buy your brand then? Besides, objective performance measurements can be gamed to an extent, at least in isolation. ex: "power output" ratings for amps.
And I'm not talking about magic. I'm talking about measurable stuff we're not measuring, or that might be difficult/impossible to measure currently.
My opinion is "yes." Though I think a lot of it boils down to stuff we can already measure but haven't perfectly correlated to enjoyment yet. The ability of the playback chain to handle massive transients/dynamics is something we haven't really... nailed down, IMO. On the amplifier side we're talking slew rate and damping factor, not exactly new concepts. But I think they're under represented/measured. I think this is related to detestable subjective audiophile terms like "speed" and "slam"... maybe.
Not exactly what you're talking about but FWIW objectivists do recognize the value of creature comforts like form factor, build quality, the feel of the controls, etc!This is exactly the type of comparison I'm worried about with this forum. There are experiences in driving a $200,000 car vs. driving a $20,000 car. How the car smells. How stable it feels. How it feels when shifting. Etc.
My [ridiculously expensive watch] tells time with slam and PRaT, far more than the [slightly less expensive last year’s model] It’s almost as if it allows the essence of time to emerge, with all its component dimensions intact. Highly recommended.
Thanks to the miracle of quartz, this isn't true!A Rolex and a Casio will give you the exact same information.
The Casio will be more accurate than any Rolex.
(Except for those quartz models Rolex sold briefly and would like you to forget...)
Last edited: