Is this what is wrong with this hobby?

[SIY]

Can you explain to me how spending 35 times as much money or more, increases any enjoyment of music, or in this case gives higher quality reproduction which is after all the stated aim of the audiophile and underpins the term High Fidelity?

You continue your error. Just because having a piece of equipment like this doesn't entertain you or meet your particular desires (nor mine, for that matter) does not mean that it doesn't entertain or meet the desires of other people.

It may be hard to understand that not everyone shares your goals and esthetics, but please accept the fact that this is nonetheless true.

 

[Shadrach]

Lots of products receive flattering reviews for a variety of absurd reasons. Friendship and/or worship of the guru behind the product is certainly one explanation.

But I'm not convinced that products such as the Pass HPA highlight the problem. Sure, it's pricey, but it actually performs. We've seen SO many genuinely defective products - across a broad range of prices! - which illuminate the industry's cancer much more vividly.

Finally, Nelson generously gives back to the community and freely states that many of his products intentionally produce a non-transparent signature. That may not match ASR's mantra, but it's not a scam. Let's beat up on the folks who sell expensive hardware with poor or nonexistent audible "benefits" while loudly claiming it's more accurate. Fair?

Yes, fair.
There are others who are a lot worse imo and I'm not anti Pass.
If I'm questioning anyone specifically it's the people who buy the products.

 

[Sal1950]

I trying to find out why anyone would pay 35 times the price of a unit that performs equally well.

There has been a trend in this "hobby" for many years now, that the more a product costs, the better it sounds. This trend has been powered by a media whose income is mainly derived from it's advertiser base. The company making big expensive high margin gear can afford to pay for 1 an 2 full page color ad's in the print media and bigger size ad's on web media. It's been a vicious circle for near 3 decades now with little end in sight.
Throw in the luxury appeal of beautiful machined aluminum cabinet like the Pass and you can begin to understand the analogy of the Rolex vs Timex.
High Fidelity is a MATURE TECHNOLOGY. Everything behind the loudspeaker can be obtained in a fully transparent box for little cost.

To quote once more from my trusted source Peter Aczel
"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information? It wasn’t always so. Between the birth of “high fidelity,” circa 1947, and the early 1970s, what the engineers said was accepted by that generation of hi-fi enthusiasts as the truth. Then, as the ’70s decade grew older, the self-appointed experts without any scientific credentials started to crawl out of the woodwork. For a while they did not overpower the educated technologists but by the early ’80s they did, with the subjective “golden-ear” audio magazines as their chief line of communication. I remember pleading with some of the most brilliant academic and industrial brains in audio to fight against all the nonsense, to speak up loudly and brutally before the untutored drivel gets out of control, but they just laughed, dismissing the “flat-earthers” and “cultists” with a wave of the hand. Now look at them! Talk to the know-it-all young salesman in the high-end audio salon, read the catalogs of Audio Advisor, Music Direct, or any other high-end merchant, read any of the golden-ear audio magazines, check out the subjective audio websites—and weep. The witch doctors have taken over. "

 

[Shadrach]

You continue your error. Just because having a piece of equipment like this doesn't entertain you or meet your particular desires (nor mine, for that matter) does not mean that it doesn't entertain or meet the desires of other people.

It may be hard to understand that not everyone shares your goals and esthetics, but please accept the fact that this is nonetheless true.

My point has nothing to do with aesthetics. It's solely based around performance. If people want to buy something because it looks nice that's fine.
You are verging on insulting. Debate is fine.

 

[JJB70]

Recognising that good audio performance does not have to be expensive is not incompatible with recognising the appeal of nice gear (which IMO is not synonymous with high end). I am perfectly happy with the gear I have had for years but as I say I do have a bit of a thing for very well made equipment even though I don't think it would sound better in any meaningful way. That may be illogical and silly but as human beings many of the things which are pleasurable are subjective and defy logic.

 

[svart-hvitt]

There has been a trend in this "hobby" for many years now, that the more a product costs, the better it sounds. This trend has been powered by a media whose income is mainly derived from it's advertiser base. The company making big expensive high margin gear can afford to pay for 1 an 2 full page color ad's in the print media and bigger size ad's on web media. It's been a vicious circle for near 3 decades now with little end in sight.
Throw in the luxury appeal of beautiful machined aluminum cabinet like the Pass and you can begin to understand the analogy of the Rolex vs Timex.
High Fidelity is a MATURE TECHNOLOGY. Everything behind the loudspeaker can be obtained in a fully transparent box for little cost.

To quote once more from my trusted source Peter Aczel
"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information? It wasn’t always so. Between the birth of “high fidelity,” circa 1947, and the early 1970s, what the engineers said was accepted by that generation of hi-fi enthusiasts as the truth. Then, as the ’70s decade grew older, the self-appointed experts without any scientific credentials started to crawl out of the woodwork. For a while they did not overpower the educated technologists but by the early ’80s they did, with the subjective “golden-ear” audio magazines as their chief line of communication. I remember pleading with some of the most brilliant academic and industrial brains in audio to fight against all the nonsense, to speak up loudly and brutally before the untutored drivel gets out of control, but they just laughed, dismissing the “flat-earthers” and “cultists” with a wave of the hand. Now look at them! Talk to the know-it-all young salesman in the high-end audio salon, read the catalogs of Audio Advisor, Music Direct, or any other high-end merchant, read any of the golden-ear audio magazines, check out the subjective audio websites—and weep. The witch doctors have taken over. "

One Aczel a day keeps the doctors away

 

[Shadrach]

There has been a trend in this "hobby" for many years now, that the more a product costs, the better it sounds. This trend has been powered by a media whose income is mainly derived from it's advertiser base. The company making big expensive high margin gear can afford to pay for 1 an 2 full page color ad's in the print media and bigger size ad's on web media. It's been a vicious circle for near 3 decades now with little end in sight.
Throw in the luxury appeal of beautiful machined aluminum cabinet like the Pass and you can begin to understand the analogy of the Rolex vs Timex.
High Fidelity is a MATURE TECHNOLOGY. Everything behind the loudspeaker can be obtained in a fully transparent box for little cost.

To quote once more from my trusted source Peter Aczel
"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information? It wasn’t always so. Between the birth of “high fidelity,” circa 1947, and the early 1970s, what the engineers said was accepted by that generation of hi-fi enthusiasts as the truth. Then, as the ’70s decade grew older, the self-appointed experts without any scientific credentials started to crawl out of the woodwork. For a while they did not overpower the educated technologists but by the early ’80s they did, with the subjective “golden-ear” audio magazines as their chief line of communication. I remember pleading with some of the most brilliant academic and industrial brains in audio to fight against all the nonsense, to speak up loudly and brutally before the untutored drivel gets out of control, but they just laughed, dismissing the “flat-earthers” and “cultists” with a wave of the hand. Now look at them! Talk to the know-it-all young salesman in the high-end audio salon, read the catalogs of Audio Advisor, Music Direct, or any other high-end merchant, read any of the golden-ear audio magazines, check out the subjective audio websites—and weep. The witch doctors have taken over. "

Love it.

 

[Shadrach]

Recognising that good audio performance does not have to be expensive is not incompatible with recognising the appeal of nice gear (which IMO is not synonymous with high end). I am perfectly happy with the gear I have had for years but as I say I do have a bit of a thing for very well made equipment even though I don't think it would sound better in any meaningful way. That may be illogical and silly but as human beings many of the things which are pleasurable are subjective and defy logic.

I can understand this. It reads like honesty. I have the same problem. I have recently ordered the jds Atom. I am not concerned about it's performance. What I am concernecd about much to my horror is will it look okay on my stack of Exposure amps.
I am also slightly concerned that I may not enjoy it as much as the distortion box I currently listen to.

 

[SIY]

My point has nothing to do with aesthetics. It's solely based around performance.

And that's great for YOU. No-one is making you hand $$$ over to Pass Labs. Other people make different choices based on different criteria than yours. That seems to be difficult for you to understand, but you're not alone in making that mistake.

Pass doesn't deal fraudulently, any more so than (insert name of expensive pants brand) does. I won't spend $400 on a pair of pants that do nothing my $20 pants don't do, but others make different choices and I am grateful that I live in a society where such divergent choices are available. The "28 different kinds of shampoo" that one of our politicians lamented is a feature, not a bug!

Audio manufacturers who make fraudulent claims are a different matter, and I have been vocally critical of them for many decades and will continue to be so.

 

[Ron Texas]

Silliness is rampant among audiophiles.

1. expensive wires and interconnects
2. tubes
3. Pass Labs makes expensive gear. Others make insanely priced gear.
4. poorly performing NOS DAC's
5. Wickedly expensive 2 way box speakers based on a 1980's design
6. Vinyl

And many more I missed. one of the main services ASR offers us is the debunking of this nonsense.

 

[Shadrach]

And that's great for YOU. No-one is making you hand $$$ over to Pass Labs. Other people make different choices based on different criteria than yours. That seems to be difficult for you to understand, but you're not alone in making that mistake.

Pass doesn't deal fraudulently, any more so than (insert name of expensive pants brand) does. I won't spend $400 on a pair of pants that do nothing my $20 pants don't do, but others make different choices and I am grateful that I live in a society where such divergent choices are available. The "28 different kinds of shampoo" that one of our politicians lamented is a feature, not a bug!

Audio manufacturers who make fraudulent claims are a different matter, and I have been vocally critical of them for many decades and will continue to be so.

I'll try one more time.
A general point is quite acceptable. You are making personal points and by forum convention , shouting.
I am quite capable of understanding people make choices using different criteria. What I've asked is if not the fidelity of the product, which is I believe the point of audio reproduction then what is the criteria being used and why.

 

[Shadrach]

Silliness is rampant among audiophiles.

1. expensive wires and interconnects
2. tubes
3. Pass Labs makes expensive gear. Others make insanely priced gear.
4. poorly performing NOS DAC's
5. Wickedly expensive 2 way box speakers based on a 1980's design
6. Vinyl

And many more I missed. one of the main services ASR offers us is the debunking of this nonsense.

"one of the main services ASR offers us is the debunking of this nonsense."
This is the impression I was under when I decided to join.

 

[SIY]

What I've asked is if not the fidelity of the product, which is I believe the point of audio reproduction then what is the criteria being used and why.

Entertainment. The same reason people spend a bazillion dollars on watches or pants that do nothing that their $15 equivalents don't do.

Clearly it doesn't entertain you. A Rolex doesn't entertain ME any more than a $15 Timex.

 

[Shadrach]

Entertainment. The same reason people spend a bazillion dollars on watches or pants that do nothing that their $15 equivalents don't do.

Clearly it doesn't entertain you. A Rolex doesn't entertain ME any more than a $15 Timex.

Okay, so in the case in question it's entertaining to spend 35 times more on a tool to do a particular job than buy one that does the same job at 35 times less.

 

[Ron Texas]

Entertainment. The same reason people spend a bazillion dollars on watches or pants that do nothing that their $15 equivalents don't do.

Clearly it doesn't entertain you. A Rolex doesn't entertain ME any more than a $15 Timex.

It isn't just entertainment. Many view a Rolex as a sign they have arrived. Some are showing off or have more money than they know to do with. Some expensive audio gear is pretty, especially McIntosh.

 

[ryanmh1]

Your question seems sincere enough, and I hope you're figured the answer by now. But say you had a bunch of spare money burning a hole in your pocket and you wanted something nice for your desk at the office. The money doesn't matter, so do you buy something in a crappy plastic box that looks and feels just as cheap as it costs, or do you buy an absolutely beautiful piece of audio jewelry (inside and out) like the HPA-1?

Many would choose the latter. I still wouldn't. But I wouldn't want the Atom, either. I would want something with a PGA2311 or better volume control operated by a rotary encoder (with a hefty, solid knob, preferably detented), the performance of the Atom, plus a balanced output, probably with a DAC built in, and an input switcher, all in a far nicer custom-milled enclosure. That could be delivered for less than Pass is charging, and blow it out of the water. Benchmark has something close to that, but the price is unnecessarily high (licensing fees?) and they don't include the DAC, and it's still sort of ugly. The RME comes closer, but I'm going to guess the casework would add another $500, and analog line in with input switching a bit more.

Different strokes for different folks. Don't get too worked up trying to figure out why some buy a Subaru and some an Audi, when they both have all wheel drive and get to the store...

 

[SIY]

Okay, so in the case in question it's entertaining to spend 35 times more on a tool to do a particular job than buy one that does the same job at 35 times less.

For some, yes. And as status symbols, as Ron pointed out.

 

[wiggum]

. For a while they did not overpower the educated technologists but by the early ’80s they did, with the subjective “golden-ear” audio magazines as their chief line of communication. . The witch doctors have taken over. "

From what I have read, Japanese hi-fi magazines started the trend(1980s) of subjective reviews? I am waiting for the day someone files a lawsuit against JAS for the Hi-Res nonsense. It would be false advertising in many countries.

 

[SIY]

From what I have read, Japanese hi-fi magazines started the trend(1980s) of subjective reviews?

I think Gordon Holt might have gotten there a wee bit earlier.

 

[garbulky]

I don't believe I have made an error. I've put forward a view and asked a question.
Can you explain to me how spending 35 times as much money or more, increases any enjoyment of music, or in this case gives higher quality reproduction which is after all the stated aim of the audiophile and underpins the term High Fidelity?

Because whoever bought it enjoyed it more. It doesn't have to sound better in a DBT or measure better on a scope to justify the cost. It just has to make sense to the person who uses it.
If a big case and nice looking components and a higher price makes somebody think they bought quality then that's pretty important because they are the people who are going to use it. Don't discount emotional and visual appeal. It's all part of the package. You don't listen with your ears. You listen with your brain.