I enjoyed reading this post. I'll offer some counterpoints. Not to be too negative, but I hope also interesting.
HiFi publications receive review samples from product makers/sellers, the relevant material considerations that may bias review include that supply, and income from advertising. Consumer Reports declares strict protocols for sourcing products to test (including secret buyers, retail shopping and multiple samples) in order to eliminate such sources of bias. ASR does something in-between, advertising revenue is avoided but the material consideration of review product supply from makers/sellers is still open, so conflict of interest is implicit (note that this is distinct from expressed bias, which may or may not result).
The issue of cognitive bias is complex, but I think assigning special weakness to the ear (or ear-brain) is tendentious. We can be misled by sight, taste, touch and smell quite easily also. The examples you cite for other senses are gross differences more easily distinguished. We can often hear gross differences just fine as well. The obvious difficulty with music is that we experience it though time, so comparing performance (of reproduction systems) is more sequential than parallel, which is difficult.
I'm sure there is an interesting subtext to regularly invoking trust and betrayal in the narrative. Quite a few ASR participants describe their road-to-Damascus conversions as the veils of audiophile myth were pierced. I don't think I was ever so deep into such audiophilia, so I don't bear that formative emotional scarring. Also, I think trust (in external entities) is a nonsense concept too tangled up in expectation and moral judgement, I avoid it where possible. So instead of trust/betrayal I think probability/error makes more sense in day-to-day judgement.
I can read (and enjoy) the review of a product like DAVE and be in no danger of buying one, so the stakes are relatively low here.
On the pricing and margins I think you assume facts not in evidence. Chinese manufacturing at scale versus boutique manufacturing in the UK (for example) require different business models.
I agree you can take it personally, but I'm not sure why I would want to. Some find it invigorating, but I find living in a state of constant moral hysteria stressful and unpleasant. Interesting use of sacrifice though, as you've also invoked betrayal (see above). What's going on there?
Lol…well I’m not sure what you enjoyed about my post exactly, other than the opportunity to produce counter arguments with somewhat surgical precision
You make some good points, there’s definitely a couple of touchés in there, and I think I’m going to have to be lame and not offer such a thoughtful response in return—I think I’ve already beaten my original point to death. I’ve already made it somewhat hysterically clear that I have some resentments towards Chord for seducing me into an outlandish expense that I later regretted. And I’m fully aware that I chose to be seduced.
And that’s perhaps the only point on which I’d like to congenially disagree—the one about the stakes being low for reading product reviews. You’re an informed consumer with a serious investment in the science of audio—at the very least you’ve shrugged off cognitive bias denialism. Many folks, myself included in a not-so-distant past life, are not so enlightened, and can easily fall prey to false advertising. The vicious battles between this site and those such as Head-Fi are proof alone that reviews matter.
I can relate to the folks who get defensive about the brands they’ve invested in, because like many of them I made significant sacrifices to put together what I have, and I’ve felt that crumminess when someone questions your choices and leaves you wondering if you made a terrible mistake. Even with all I’ve learned, I still catch myself returning to the same reviews over and over to reassure myself that I’ve made the right decision about my headphones. I’m not supposed to admit that on these sites but it’s the truth.
I also can’t explain why one negative review, or a new product deemed superior to what I have, can suddenly make my music sound despairingly unsatisfying, when the day before I loved it. Speaking only for myself, music has been my most consuming passion all of my life, and the quality of the gear that I use to enjoy it is very personal—for me.
I hope that explains why I can’t help but take it personally when folks like Watts attempt to exploit my weaknesses with technical claptrap that suggests wisdom beyond my reach, promises of ecstatic pleasures that can only be demonstrated through ownership instead of data, and prices only within my grasp if I am willing to spend until it hurts. Being presented with evidence that his claims are unsubstantiated, at these price points at least, is almost a betrayal. I guess the options to cope with it are either denial or to get pissed. I’ve chosen both strategies in the past and frankly, they both suck. When he gets smug about it, I do kinda wish that his nose would light up so people can line up to take turns punching it—and once and for all, on this topic I promise I’m done…
