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

[Wombat]

LOL. It works that way on Jersey Shore and the Kardasians anyway. And we know that's moving human evolution back towards the La Brea tar pit.

Compensation for 'manhood' size? Women see right through that .

***** was censored by this adult site. Peculiarly American.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Compensation for ***** size? Women see right through that .

Ha ha. Eventually, they do. Best to have them hoping it's big enough rather than strutting around like it's the biggest.

Used to be called under promising and over delivering.

 

[RayDunzl]

Compensation for 'manhood' size?

 

[GrimSurfer]

***** was censored by this adult site. Peculiarly American.

Ah yes. You can buy an automatic weapon but the Puritans reserve the right to control diction.

 

[watchnerd]

Ha ha. Eventually, they do. Best to have them hoping it's big enough rather than strutting around like it's the biggest.

Used to be called under promising and over delivering.

Dudes.....

Seriously?

 

[GrimSurfer]

@Wombat was talking about watches...

 

[Wombat]

Central Scrutinizer indeed> Or is that Scrotumizer?

 

[GrimSurfer]

Central Scrutinizer indeed> Or is that Scrotumizer?

Is that a Swiss brand?

 

[digicidal]

It seems like there's a similar effect to Godwin's Law in place... except it pertains to genitalia.

 

[Blumlein 88]

That would be nice, I've spent literally 100's of hours on this and have accumulated many test LP's and have my own set of opinions some of which go against the grain. IME you can rip LP's at 44.1/16 but you can not be sloppy about setting the headroom. If you want to measure the noise floor you really should use a guaranteed silent track from a test LP. I have several vintage LP's where the tape hiss cutting in is easily audible.

Yeah, the vinyl itself and tone-arm cartridge setup and alter noise floor. A friend with a nice linear tracking arm has much less apparent surface noise than most rigs. I don't do vinyl myself anymore, but you can take a LP from somewhere else to his house and hear the improvement in surface noise on good quality LPs. Even though I don't have a TT he "lets" me maintain the tune of his rig.

 

[Wombat]

It seems like there's a similar effect to Godwin's Law in place... except it pertains to genitalia.

Your astuteness is noted.

"Himmler, had only one brass ……… "

 

[digicidal]

Your astuteness is noted. View attachment 36936 "Himmler, had only one brass ……… "

Door knocker? Headboard? Spittoon? Band?
Actually, considering what he did I'd say he had "quite a pair on him" colloquially speaking of course.

 

[pozz]

Late coming to this thread. Thanks @ahofer for putting together the most comprehensive picture we have of the situation so far.

I think we're getting a bit lost in the weeds here. The main thing I'd say is that audio as a whole does not represent a single competitive market. The various segments do not compete with each other. Off the top of my head, audio is split into these areas:

• Consumer (supermarket/retail)
• Consumer custom home integration
• Audiophile (boutique)
• Pro for studios
• Pro for sound reinforcement (large and small scale, inside and outside)
• Pro for commercial settings like restaurants, offices, malls

Each of these has relatively little idea what the other is doing. They represent different customer demographics (not just different people with different income levels and wants, but also businesses and corporate entities). The main thing to recognize here is that each of these customer bases required different information and shaped the marketing to suit them. I think what we're experiencing is some admixture of them all. What was once separate is now, crudely, coming together. There's a level of convergence happening that's exposing these markets to demands, informational and otherwise, that they haven't needed to address before.

There's one other market (or multiple specialized markets) to consider, and that is "Pro for manufacturing", which would include all the various companies and suppliers which help produce all of the above. This one would probably be less distinct since there are many parts and machines that aren't unique to audio (screws, cases, PCBs, chips, wiring, components, cnc machines, ovens and robotics) and ones that are (analyzers is what really comes to mind; I don't know the manufacturing side well). This supply-side market would have a very different set of informational, buying and selling demands. But in general its view would likely be the most comprehensive in the sense that they would have the broadest customer bases with the widest overall, but not very deep, insight.

I think that, ideally, we should get to the point where manufacturing and production capabilities are better understood, with real data on pricing. As Amir has said many times in reviews, the economics of certain gear make no sense from our standpoint. Once we have a better contextual picture and a comprehensive understanding of how these markets interact, the sources of the various exchanges and disparities we see on the buy side (inclusive of advertising) will become clearer. For comparison think of informationally developed markets like oil & gas and finance (credit), where the best players and analysts can trace effects in price to political events, sentiment and technology shifts, major and minor, and know roughly who particpates, from types individuals to large multinationals and governments.

 

[watchnerd]

There's one other market (or multiple specialized markets) to consider, and that is "Pro for manufacturing", which would include all the various companies and suppliers which help produce all of the above. This one would probably be less distinct since there are many parts and machines that aren't unique to audio (screws, cases, PCBs, chips, wiring, components, cnc machines, ovens and robotics) and ones that are (analyzers is what really comes to mind; I don't know the manufacturing side well). This supply-side market would have a very different set of informational, buying and selling demands. But in general its view would likely be the most comprehensive in the sense that they would have the broadest customer bases with the widest overall, but not very deep, insight.

You tried to keep it G-rated, but I see what you hid in there.

 

[felizecat]

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,

 

[Julf]

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 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.

 

[pozz]

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 such. 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,

Your view makes sense in general, but then only in general. When you get down to the specifics of "the fray" and what certain manufacturers allow themselves to say, how their products are presented in reviews and sold at shows and stores, the issue becomes far more pressing.

 

[ahofer]

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,

I agree, actually, with much of what you say. The “problem” is limited, which is why I made a limited claim: market success does not prove audible fidelity, engineering superiority, or sonic superiority.

Some of the signaling priorities of audio and other purchases are also a problem, in my view. They direct resources towards activities that are not particularly constructive, and serve evolutionary ends, like selective mating and male dominance, that much of society would like us to leave behind.

On the other hand, I would never dream of interfering in the market, even in the unlikely hypothetical where I have that power. After all, I am a human, with biases, and my own central planning, like others in history, would probably be worse.

I sought only to dismantle the arguments that market success proves audible fidelity, sonic superiority, or engineering superiority.

 

[felizecat]

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.

I understand. But the argument you use comparing Bible and facts is clearly Western-based. I would suggest even the type of facts chosen will differ at some points.

What I was referring to cultural references is based on a personnal experience. I used to live in the Arctic, and a friend of mine, Inuk, was listening to some Bach. He could not recognize it as music. But then, many of us would have a hard time recognizing throath songs as music. But for Inuit, it is music as well as a game. So yes, subjectivity is at play based on personal understanding of what is music, but where does that end?

In the realm of technology, measurement values are comparable data, and can be replicated in proper settings with rigorous parameters. That is objectivity, of course! But how are thresholds decided? How do we decide a value is good enough? Is that not a choice? How objective is that choice?

The journey of every human being is based on experience, and conclusions gathered here and there from losses, successes, lessons learned or misunderstood... This forum is certainly the product of millenia of human understanding and intellectual development. But it remains a testimony of human experience.

 

[Julf]

I understand. But the argument you use comparing Bible and facts is clearly Western-based. I would suggest even the type of facts chosen will differ at some points.

What I was referring to cultural references is based on a personnal experience. I used to live in the Arctic, and a friend of mine, Inuk, was listening to some Bach. He could not recognize it as music. But then, many of us would have a hard time recognizing throath songs as music. But for Inuit, it is music as well as a game. So yes, subjectivity is at play based on personal understanding of what is music, but where does that end?

In the realm of technology, measurement values are comparable data, and can be replicated in proper settings with rigorous parameters. That is objectivity, of course! But how are thresholds decided? How do we decide a value is good enough? Is that not a choice? How objective is that choice?

The journey of every human being is based on experience, and conclusions gathered here and there from losses, successes, lessons learned or misunderstood... This forum is certainly the product of millenia of human understanding and intellectual development. But it remains a testimony of human experience.

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.