• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

How can bogus claims and inferior audio thrive in a competitive market?

This is an interesting thread. However, I am not clear on how all of this is a "problem" unless someone decides subjectively what are acceptable standards. All biases are described as "problems" and yet no one seems to accept this is plain human nature.

Every Church has its followers, and all followers will rationalize their involvement, their faith, as well as their behaviors in accordance to that adherence.

It becomes "wrong" once someone sets reference values and a majority agrees to it, generating new standards. The market conceptualization is certainly a bias worth consideration, but is a bias proper to the culture of reference, and cannot be ignored as duch. This is true just as much as the belief establishing that all humans are the same regardless of their origins, and therefore, all behaviors (cognitive included) are equivalent when confronted to identical stimulation.

I certainly agree that marketing plays a huge role in misinforming customers, and education is required to achieve either greater awareness or critical thinking, but the fact remains that no one really stands above the fray, despite "higher" knowledge on a topic.

Respectfully,
Respectfully I have to disagree. There is that famous debate between Bill Nye ("the science guy") and creationist Ken Ham. At one point both were asked "what would it take to make you change your view". Bill Nye answered "evidence", while Ham basically said "Nothing, I believe (my view of) the Bible".

Some of us are prepared to change our views when faced with verified evidence. Others are not, believing their subjctive personal perceptions and preconceived notions trump any objective evidence.

Okay.....

There seems to be some idea that belief in extreme audiophile subjectivism and belief in audio voodoo is a slippery slope that will lead to belief in Flat Earth Societies, reptilian overlords, and other tin foil hat stuff.

That kind of alarmism, when associated with a branch of home entertainment, seems just as whacky and conspiratorial as the supposed slippery slope of subjectivism.

It's just not that serious, people.

It's a hobby.
 
OK, to clarify, supplement, and agree with @watchnerd and @felizecat, I added the following reduction of my claims in the original post:

Let me state my claim explicitly (in after-posting edit): Market success proves neither a)better fidelity/accuracy, b) better sound quality, nor c) better engineering quality. It proves only that a product met the revealed preferences of some buyers, which may include, but are not limited to those three criteria. In real life, there are many criteria that complement, confuse, or even obscure these functional sound criteria. It is fine to use inaudible criteria, but sloppily confusing them with sound quality, or, worse, claiming market success *must correspond* to audible quality, only muddies the waters for those of us who prioritize fidelity and sound quality.
 
Okay.....

There seems to be some idea that belief in extreme audiophile subjectivism and belief in audio voodoo is a slippery slope that will lead to belief in Flat Earth Societies, reptilian overlords, and other tin foil hat stuff.

That kind of alarmism, when associated with a branch of home entertainment, seems just as whacky and conspiratorial as the supposed slippery slope of subjectivism.

It's just not that serious, people.

It's a hobby.
I totally agree it is a hobby. Based on the OP, I think a lot is at stake here, considering market influences that are not helping customers and amateurs and hobbyists to make potentially optimal choices in acquiring the instruments to enjoy music.

I mean, I made a choice to subscribe to this forum, since my ignorance is significant in terms of audio engineering, amongst many other things and I was looking for advice in acquiring a new DAC. I frolicked amongst audiophiles about 2 decades ago, spent and waisted money like many (and certainly, a lot of people in this forum had a similar experience as mine), having friends in the industry but also, amongst those professional reviewers. As a scientist from social sciences, I was quite shocked at the absence of any interest in objective reviewing in the material reviewed (ie; blind testing, etc.). I was even more shocked after seeing a 2 hour long conference on recording techniques, which lead me to reject any belief in audiophile music reproduction. Recording technicians will make choices in the production, the placement of microphones, the disposition of musicians, the recording environment wrecks any possibility of total fidelity. To me, audiophilia is a dream people can believe in, but that ship has sailed for me.

Up to a point, one might reflect on the possible futility of the accuracy of the machines, considering the instruments we purchase to bonify our listening experience may actually reproduce the choices made at the recording time, rather than the actual music experience. I come to the conclusion that what we have, as hobbyist, is the best we can get, being limited to the exposure of something that has nothing to do with the live experience. We make the choice to accept that the music recorded is perfectly reproductible as it was performed, and assume the instruments we use in our home will reflect that. But it is a subjective choice to accept it, or otherwise, we'd probably throw everything in the trash and instead, focus on live experience only.

But because we all love music, and can't afford concerts and for a plethora of other reasons, we get what we can, and make choices as we see fit based on our limited experience. I apologize if my previous posts lacked in clarity. I can only hope to contribute to a reflection on what we do, how we do it, and opportunities to improve on our human experience that brings us all together.
 
I appreciate and commend your perspective, but I think we have to differentiate between appreciating music (an artistic creation) and the objective science of accurately reproducing any recorded sound, be it the song of whales, the sound of a steam locomotive passing, Tibetan temple songs, or a Croatian punk rock band.

BTW, while my background is mostly in engineering, I did also study music, especially world music, at the University of Helsinki in Finland for a while. I also still enjoy the memory of demonstrating the Internet to Tuvan throat singer Albert Kuvezin back in 1994 - he was blown away by suddenly seeing pictures of his home town on my screen as we were webcasting the WOMAD festival.
Thank you. I clearly did not provide a good example regarding my friend's perspective on music. I must add that I envy your experience with this Tuvan throat singer!
 
I totally agree it is a hobby. Based on the OP, I think a lot is at stake here, considering market influences that are not helping customers and amateurs and hobbyists to make potentially optimal choices in acquiring the instruments to enjoy music.

I guess I have a different definition of "a lot".

The impact of mobile devices and social media is what I would call "a lot".

The impact of pricey cables....where high-end audio is a mature, perhaps declining sub-segment within a larger audio market that is moving towards quasi-mono streaming smart speakers....

To me, that just doesn't meet the bar of "a lot".

Thus, in the grand scheme of things, and given that time is one resource that I can't buy more of, I find myself asking, "how much mental energy do I want to put into debating tribal audio issues in my life?"

Versus, say, focusing on my system and my music.

I don't buy snake oil cables or USB-scrubbers or similar things. If those things go away, if objectivism wins, does it actually improve my life?

Hard to think how...
 
There seems to be some idea that belief in extreme audiophile subjectivism and belief in audio voodoo is a slippery slope that will lead to belief in Flat Earth Societies, reptilian overlords, and other tin foil hat stuff.

I think only the most militant (nutjob) objectivists have that idea.

All of those things do however fall under the same category of human nature to some extent. One of them will not lead to the other, but bundling them up helps to see the big picture from a psychological point of view.

But yes, it's just a hobby :)
 
I guess I have a different definition of "a lot".

The impact of mobile devices and social media is what I would call "a lot".

The impact of pricey cables....where high-end audio is a mature, perhaps declining sub-segment within a larger audio market that is moving towards quasi-mono streaming smart speakers....

To me, that just doesn't meet the bar of "a lot".

Thus, in the grand scheme of things, and given that time is one resource that I can't buy more of, I find myself asking, "how much mental energy do I want to put into debating tribal audio issues in my life?"

Versus, say, focusing on my system and my music.

I don't buy snake oil cables or USB-scrubbers or similar things. If those things go away, if objectivism wins, does it actually improve my life?

Hard to think how...

There's a lot of private equity money in audio, because the return on investment in a new snake oil product is high. If people stopped buying snake oil, a great deal of that money would go elsewhere, but some of it would stay in audio. This would be used to better effect. It might even help pump up product lines in the middle segment.

At the moment, however, the money is being split between low end, high volume products or high end, low volume products.

The first group doesn't care about audio quality. Their goal is met whenever a device powers up and makes pleasing noises.

The second group doesn't care about audio quality either. They only care about how their products add to their ego.

So anyone who cares about audio is affected by the current scheme of things. Perhaps not right at this moment but when the time comes to replace gear.
 
A couple years ago, I went over to an Audiogon members house to listen to his $600K system. How did it sound? Fabulous, best I ever heard. Was it x100 better than my $6K system? No. Was it even x10 better than my system? No. Could he have achieved the same sound for less money? Yes.

This guy clearly fit some of the personality profiles mentioned by the OP. He is also a very smart man with a lot of disposable income. Even with his claimed engineering background, he had some whacky ideas on what influenced the sound of his system. I wasn’t going to be an obnoxious guest and argue with him. I enjoyed the audition.

Clearly, he made decisions that I would not have. As wasteful and over the top as his system was, I admired him in some way for it. He left nothing on the table. He did everything he could to improve the sound (not all of it worthwhile). It is his all consuming hobby. More power to him.
 
A couple years ago, I went over to an Audiogon members house to listen to his $600K system. How did it sound? Fabulous, best I ever heard. Was it x100 better than my $6K system? No. Was it even x10 better than my system? No. Could he have achieved the same sound for less money? Yes.

This guy clearly fit some of the personality profiles mentioned by the OP. He is also a very smart man with a lot of disposable income. Even with his claimed engineering background, he had some whacky ideas on what influenced the sound of his system. I wasn’t going to be an obnoxious guest and argue with him. I enjoyed the audition.

Clearly, he made decisions that I would not have. As wasteful and over the top as his system was, I admired him in some way for it. He left nothing on the table. He did everything he could to improve the sound (not all of it worthwhile). It is his all consuming hobby. More power to him.

I'm curious, in particular, what the speakers were.

Why the speakers?

Because no matter how much money you spend, you're still making pretty compromised choices among different schools of speaker design.

Whereas, in the electronics world, you buy stuff that is objectively transparent at almost every price point.
 
I guess I have a different definition of "a lot".

The impact of mobile devices and social media is what I would call "a lot".

The impact of pricey cables....where high-end audio is a mature, perhaps declining sub-segment within a larger audio market that is moving towards quasi-mono streaming smart speakers....

To me, that just doesn't meet the bar of "a lot".

Thus, in the grand scheme of things, and given that time is one resource that I can't buy more of, I find myself asking, "how much mental energy do I want to put into debating tribal audio issues in my life?"

Versus, say, focusing on my system and my music.

I don't buy snake oil cables or USB-scrubbers or similar things. If those things go away, if objectivism wins, does it actually improve my life?

Hard to think how...
I think people make the choices they do with the best of their knowledge and with what is available to them. Not sure all of them do this to improve their listening experience, but I hope many do. Personally, I built a lot of my stuff myself and decided not to look around to compare so i can enjoy music, and entertain the idea that I am my own warranty. In this regard, my outlook on the market is minimal, if not quasi-null, but I am fascinated as to how people make the choices they do, with their relative convictions.
 
He had the Magico Q series speakers. I remember him saying they were $85K at the time. He did not subscribe to the 50% budget for speakers. The room was acoustically engineered.
 
He had the Magico Q series speakers. I remember him saying they were $85K at the time. He did not subscribe to the 50% budget for speakers. The room was acoustically engineered.
I’m not sure I’d get much more than I have now, if cost were no object, but I suppose some room treatments would be a possibility. One reason is that I don’t have, and now don’t want, a listening room. I want good sound in the living room, where I hang out in with my wife. I used to have a listening room. I didn’t go in there.

Which is what I am doing now, listening to an excellent recording of Beethoven Cello Sonatas. (Eischenbroich and Grynuk, Onyx/PM Classics/Deutschland Funk 2019) on Qobuz. I’m not even sitting in the sweet spot.
 
I guess I have a different definition of "a lot".

The impact of mobile devices and social media is what I would call "a lot".

The impact of pricey cables....where high-end audio is a mature, perhaps declining sub-segment within a larger audio market that is moving towards quasi-mono streaming smart speakers....

To me, that just doesn't meet the bar of "a lot".

Thus, in the grand scheme of things, and given that time is one resource that I can't buy more of, I find myself asking, "how much mental energy do I want to put into debating tribal audio issues in my life?"

Versus, say, focusing on my system and my music.

I don't buy snake oil cables or USB-scrubbers or similar things. If those things go away, if objectivism wins, does it actually improve my life?

Hard to think how...

I think the market for good audio products could grove much bigger than its current sad status.
If the snake oil and USB scrubbers go away .

Wonder how many music enthusiasts every wacky audiophool scares away when they bring up thier quantum entangled cables etc.
If this hobby could become reasonable and sensible again it could see a new resurgence in popularity.
Sadly currently our hobby has the same appeal as Scientology and Homeopaty combined .

Can we have cables designed by our reptilian overlords :)
 
He had the Magico Q series speakers. I remember him saying they were $85K at the time. He did not subscribe to the 50% budget for speakers. The room was acoustically engineered.

Hmmm.....

Looking at my system, where all costs are what I paid, not what things retail for....

Speakers (includes subs and stands): 30%
Electronics (includes integrated amp/dac/streamer): 28%
Analog (includes TT, tonearm, cartridges, headshells, SUT, tube phono stage, tubes*, reel-to-reel deck): 43%

Headphones and cables are in single digit percentages relative to the rest of the system, so I don't bother counting them.

I guess I need to spend more on speakers.

Interestingly....

System: LP Collection Ratio: ~2:1

Or maybe I should spend more on records....
 
Hmmm.....

Looking at my system, where all costs are what I paid, not what things retail for....

Speakers (includes subs and stands): 30%
Electronics (includes integrated amp/dac/streamer): 28%
Analog (includes TT, tonearm, cartridges, headshells, SUT, tube phono stage, tubes*, reel-to-reel deck): 43%

Headphones and cables are in single digit percentages relative to the rest of the system, so I don't bother counting them.

I guess I need to spend more on speakers.

Interestingly....

System: LP Collection Ratio: ~2:1

Or maybe I should spend more on records....

The only thing that matters to the industry is that you spend more.
 
Ok. This is closer to what I was originally expecting. There's a solid 20 dB difference from 1 kHz on.

Here is a modern BIS all digital recording vs the LP. LP in red and BIS in green. Much larger difference here.
View attachment 36905


This is one of the reasons why I only collect LPs of recordings made before CDs and digital recording became mainstream.

I draw a hard line at no LP collecting for things released after 1985.
 
This is one of the reasons why I only collect LPs of recordings made before CDs and digital recording became mainstream.

I draw a hard line at no LP collecting for things released after 1985.

This is interesting...

I'm a digital guy, so my interest is in well mastered DDD recordings. Or well mastered ADD ones. But they have to be well mastered, which is sometimes a challenge in contemporary music.
 
Ah yes. You can buy an automatic weapon but the Puritans reserve the right to control diction.
When people might have automatic weapons, you don't want to risk saying the wrong thing to them.
 
snip................
I was even more shocked after seeing a 2 hour long conference on recording techniques, which lead me to reject any belief in audiophile music reproduction. Recording technicians will make choices in the production, the placement of microphones, the disposition of musicians, the recording environment wrecks any possibility of total fidelity. To me, audiophilia is a dream people can believe in, but that ship has sailed for me.

snippage......................

But because we all love music, and can't afford concerts and for a plethora of other reasons, we get what we can, and make choices as we see fit based on our limited experience. I apologize if my previous posts lacked in clarity. I can only hope to contribute to a reflection on what we do, how we do it, and opportunities to improve on our human experience that brings us all together.

Yes, once you learn a bit about what happens in recording, and worse processing after recording you realize most of the audiophile concerns are barely myths. Closer to fiction born of an imagination though an imagination of good intentions. The Absolute Sound, realism, fidelity, all of that stuff with 99% of recordings simply isn't possible at all. Audiophiles worry about straight wire with gain transparency, and recording guys may stuff a mic in a trashcan to get a neat sound on a bass guitar.
 
Back
Top Bottom