Killingbeans
Major Contributor
- Thread Starter
- #181
You pointed out my #1 quirk that I often see posted. To me snake oil (as @Mulder pointed out) is the fraud in this industry. There is plenty and it needs to be called out.
Absolutely! But when is something just clever design and/or marketing, and when does it become snake-oil?
For instance, a manufacturer, who makes an amplifier in a particularly heavy enclosure, knows very well that the weight will give an impression of quality and sturdiness. There's a good chance that it will result in an increase of favorable reviews. It would be silly to classify that trick as snake-oil, but it's based on the same mechanisms.
To me, the only thing that puts something like this in snake-oil territory, is when ridiculous claims are being made. The mechanisms, that the real swindlers are exploiting, are however omnipresent and we are being subjected to them all the time.
And no, I'm not telling you to go paranoid and put on a tinfoil hat. But when hard evidence points to something as being too good to be true, at the very least it should warrant a healthy spoonful of scepticism.
(I understand why "flat earther" is being used indiscriminately as an insult by both sides in this debate... but lets not go there)
What grinds my gears, is when poster states that a moderate upgrade is chasing snake oil or that the listener has (magic ears).
Even from the likes of a company like Topping. If someone says that they are interested in say the D90, they will sometimes be accused of chasing snake oil by the folks who think the D10 is all you will ever need!
I don't think many of us would go as far as calling crazy high SINAD numbers "snake-oil". Personally I'd go for "overkill", or if I'm in a provocative mood: "wishful thinking"
There's no doubt that human hearing is a wonderful thing that can give many great experiences, but the idea of using "critical listening" as an accurate assessment tool seems deeply flawed to me.