Is this what is wrong with this hobby?

[Shadrach]

Which puts you in a tiny minority of buyers. Perhaps the fundamental answer is that consumers' ignorance + opportunist sellers + status quo media = a diseased market. Did we really need 3 pages to get that?


Sounds accurate.

As I've become more knowledgeable, I've been able to get better results for less money. And when I brag about my purchases, my friends hear about how cheap they were. The engineers, in particular, like this.

OTOH, a Porsche sales manager showed me the 918's options a few years ago. Premium paint was $60k extra! I said something like, "Who the hell would order that instead of a Boxster daily driver?" "Every single buyer."

"Did we really need 3 pages to get that?"
It seems so. So is the example I gave in the OP what's wrong with this hobby?

 

[Killingbeans]

There's nothing wrong with honest audio jewelry. If the physical appearance of your equipment, peace of mind in terms of build quality and/or bragging rights over the price tag has higher priority to you than state of the art technical performance, then I don't see any reason to stop you from throwing cash at it. As long as you are aware of your motivations.

It only starts to get criminal when the product is aimed at people who desperately wants magic to be a part of the real world.

 

[JJB70]

I think it is worth making the point that there is a difference between well engineered but expensive equipment, and snake oil (or expensive ringers). As I say I like companies like Accuphase and Benchmark as they make well engineered, well made equipment, it isn't cheap but at least you can see where the money has gone (and not all of it is accounted for by low volume manufacture). Both companies also have an enviable reputation for after sales support and spares availability, product repair and servicing etc. There are other companies offering well engineered and well made equipment (I miss the old Sony ES range which fitted into that category). Is such equipment worth the cost? In terms of audible performance no, you can get audibly transparent equipment for a fraction of the price. However, quality of design and construction also has a price and if you buy this gear for the long haul then it starts to look a lot less silly, like I say my Sony ES gear has given me over 25 years of pure pleasure and I still see no reason to replace it, if you look at it that way then buying pricier but well made gear does make sense in my view.

However, I think we all know that the hi-fi market is awash with over priced snake oil (cables, power chords, cable supports, power supplies to name just a few), high end gear which is not well designed and made (I tried that game in my youth and was very disappointed in the shoddy fit and finish and poor build of many audiophile brand components). Then there are ringers, a few years ago Mark Levinson bought in $200 amplifiers from China, slapped a Red Rose sticker on the front and did good business selling them at $2000 (helped by glowing reviews from reviewers who probably wouldn't wipe their backside with the things if carrying the honest original Chinese brand name. Or buying a disc players, putting it in a new case and increasing the price by $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$s. If people buy this stuff then it's their choice (in a free world freedom has to include the freedom to do things others might consider dumb) but it is when I look at that side of the audio industry that I understand why parts of it have such an image problem and I have no time for such practices personally.

 

[Shadrach]

I think it is worth making the point that there is a difference between well engineered but expensive equipment, and snake oil (or expensive ringers)..

I believe what amirm mentions frequently in his reviews is that those items he tests which produce 'good' results are well engineered. In fact, it's a point he constantly emphasizes. The cheap items that perform well do so because they are well engineered while the expensive items that perform badly under test are not.

 

[JJB70]

I believe what amirm mentions frequently in his reviews is that those items he tests which produce 'good' results are well engineered. In fact, it's a point he constantly emphasizes. The cheap items that perform well do so because they are well engineered while the expensive items that perform badly under test are not.

No argument that good engineering doesn't have to cost a lot, and especially if combined with high volume manufacture. On the other hand, at a certain point if you also want longevity and durability then that tends to means specifying higher grade components and materials, tighter manufacturers tolerances, more robust quality assurance procedures etc etc. Which does bump the price. None of that necessarily adds to sound quality, but it does tend to add to reliability and longevity. The question becomes I suppose whether replacing a cheap component is more sensible than paying more for something you can expect to last the long haul.

However, the problem with a lot of high end stuff is that it is not well engineered, is not manufactured to a high standard and is shamed on every level by much cheaper kit.

A good example of a company that offers well engineered, well made equipment and also offers good after sales support, all at very modest prices, is JDS Labs. But, just as not all expensive gear is well engineered or made, so not all cheap stuff is a well engineered bargain either.

 

[JJB70]

A good example of cheapness is smart phones, I honestly think some smart phones offer SQ as good as expensive DAPs (certainly at audible level), their downfall tends to be low power output because of hearing protection regulations. However if I listen to music on my Sony XPeria XZ Premium phone the DAC is transparent and the headphone amp perfectly good if you are happy with the output power. And when I pair it with wireless speakers the results are excellent. I use it as a source with a pair of active speakers and it is excellent. Which indicates just how commoditised good sound is nowadays, you don't even need audio equipment as such except for speakers and headphones to enjoy excellent sounds.

 

[Shadrach]

No argument that good engineering doesn't have to cost a lot, and especially if combined with high volume manufacture. On the other hand, at a certain point if you also want longevity and durability then that tends to means specifying higher grade components and materials, tighter manufacturers tolerances, more robust quality assurance procedures etc etc. Which does bump the price. None of that necessarily adds to sound quality, but it does tend to add to reliability and longevity. The question becomes I suppose whether replacing a cheap component is more sensible than paying more for something you can expect to last the long haul.

However, the problem with a lot of high end stuff is that it is not well engineered, is not manufactured to a high standard and is shamed on every level by much cheaper kit.

A good example of a company that offers well engineered, well made equipment and also offers good after sales support, all at very modest prices, is JDS Labs. But, just as not all expensive gear is well engineered or made, so not all cheap stuff is a well engineered bargain either.

When I've built stuff in the past, the bulk of the cost has always been my choice of casework and connectors; the components themselves are relatively cheap.
For a portable device, a robust construction is important; they get dropped and mishandled generally. For a unit that will probably sit on a special shelf and may only get touched to operate a switch or change headphones you could probably get way with very light weight case. Studio equipment for example tends not to look particularly appealing in the domestic environment, but needs to be built reasonably well because it may get mishandles a lot.
The point here being, you could probably replace the components in many units with over specified options. This may give the unit greater longevity but a point worth bearing in mind is many of the 'cheap' units will be replaced when the next state of the art product becomes available.
Tolerances are for a purpose, making them tighter doesn't necessarily mean better performance, or greater longevity. They need to be fit for the job and no more.
I read occasionally that some items are particularly expensive due to pre production research and extensive testing. Having worked in this area I sincerely doubt this for the majority of audio equipment. Just about every configuration of an amplifier circuit has been developed before to a point where minor changes in the circuit design make a further generation.
I would have thought that quality control is more of an issue for the manufacturers of high volume sales items.

 

[Sal1950]

JA Do you see any signs of future vitality in high-end audio?

JGH, Vitality? Don't make me laugh. Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. For the record: I never, ever claimed that measurements don't matter. What I said (and very often, at that) was, they don't always tell the whole story. Not quite the same thing.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/index.html#dwgjpRyeY2F4Ctoy.99

 

[SIY]

@Sal1950 And there's a key point here: High End audio is a tiny and shrinking niche market. It is NOT the mainstream. Pseudo-science and fraud-peddling have not taken over audio, it's a fringe. The mainstream is soundbars, Bluetooth, and smart speakers.

 

[Sal1950]

The mainstream is soundbars, Bluetooth, and smart speakers.

But that's not High Fidelity audio, that's consumer audio.
Soundbars and smart speakers will never be able to reproduce the sound of a symphony orchestra or a rock band in the way a good traditional 2 ch or multich playback system can. Not with the dimensionality and impact we now expect.

 

[SIY]

Depends on which ones. I'm using some Bluetooth speakers at the moment that do a remarkable job, especially when a (consumer grade) subwoofer is added.

And I would aver that Quad ESL57 or Rogers LS3/5A from the "golden age" would also "never be able to reproduce the sound of a symphony orchestra or a rock band."

 

[JJB70]

I think that the churn associated with people wanting the next big thing is great, as it keeps the clearance bargain section of shops well stocked as well as meaning that there are always plenty of nearly new S/H bargains. One of the good things about audio (and indeed most hobbies) is that if you don't have to have the latest product of the moment it is surprising just what you can get without breaking the bank. Call me a tight ass but I buy virtually all my audio stuff from clearance sections or B stock. I paid £399 for my Beyerdynamic T5P II headphones from the UK, despite being B stock they were sealed and with the 5 year warranty. I got a really very nice Shanling M3s DAP for £170 a few weeks ago, still fully sealed. There are plenty of bargains and audio doesn't have to be that expensive.

 

[Sal1950]

Depends on which ones. I'm using some Bluetooth speakers at the moment that do a remarkable job, especially when a (consumer grade) subwoofer is added.."

Soundbars and smart speakers will never

That's why I didn't include it, Bluethooth is a transmitting tech that might be used with any speaker.

And I would aver that Quad ESL57 or Rogers LS3/5A from the "golden age" would also "never be able to reproduce the sound of a symphony orchestra or a rock band."

With a good sub they might come close. But that's always been true of small speakers even today.

And to correct myself, there are capable soundbars and have been for 6+ decades now.
1957 Paragon, just set your flat screen on top.
BTW, they could be purchased active! What's old is new again. LOL

 

[JJB70]

Depends on which ones. I'm using some Bluetooth speakers at the moment that do a remarkable job, especially when a (consumer grade) subwoofer is added.

And I would aver that Quad ESL57 or Rogers LS3/5A from the "golden age" would also "never be able to reproduce the sound of a symphony orchestra or a rock band."

I agree on smart speakers and sound bars, their performance is improving all the time and some of them are very good. I think some sound bars are genuinely capable and an alternative to more traditional set ups as a hifi solution. I have listened to a few recently that I would be perfectly happy with. Certainly I can understand why the mainstream has pretty much abandoned traditional hifi.

 

[invaderzim]

I think these magazine reviews for the most part aren't really written for people that are going to buy these items. They are the equivalent of 'reviews' of super cars in magazines and on TV. Eye candy for people to get excited about. Top Gear and Grand Tour rarely if ever show "hey this affordable car is great fun to drive and functions as a daily driver too!". That just isn't what they are about. Many of the super expensive exotic cars have been shown to be full of squeaks, rattles, wind noise and temperamental electronics and transmissions. They'd be horrible to actually drive anywhere but the magazines and shows gush over them because that is what people want to see. If you want to know what is going to be a good daily driver you go to consumer reports, if you want to know what car will go around a track, that you will never drive, the fastest you go to MotorTrend.

These same magazines and sites make their money from advertising and JDS Labs isn't going to be buying a big ad from them. If they can keep up their image that they are high end then they will keep getting higher end advertising. If their reviews start showing that a lot of the crazy high end is stupid and you can get excellent results at a fraction of the price then why would the big players want to advertise anymore?

The smaller, affordable manufactures are finally getting access to the masses with youtube though as we see a lot of inexpensive items getting raved about there because they just have to send a pile of free stuff to a youtuber to get it shown, not buy a years worth of advertising in a magazine.

And finally, just like the people that buy the ridiculous cars to impress, nobody that would buy the HPA-1 would buy an Atom in its place. Their friends, neighbors and co-workers would not be awed by it. Now, pop that Atom in a large, heavy, sculpted case and you may have something

 

[svart-hvitt]

JA Do you see any signs of future vitality in high-end audio?

JGH, Vitality? Don't make me laugh. Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. For the record: I never, ever claimed that measurements don't matter. What I said (and very often, at that) was, they don't always tell the whole story. Not quite the same thing.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/index.html#dwgjpRyeY2F4Ctoy.99

High end consumer is an awkward market, I agree.

But is high end pro ridiculous too?

I find most inspiration in pro products. Who does not these days?

 

[invaderzim]

JA Do you see any signs of future vitality in high-end audio?

JGH, Vitality? Don't make me laugh. Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. <snip>

I find it ironic when people like Paul McGowan do videos asking how 'we' can get more people into audio and then he throws out there all benefits to expensive power cables, interconnects, speaker cables, fancy tables to set your stuff on and more. To me that is what turns people off. Even if they think it works it makes even a modest setup extremely expensive and complex. Then even after they've spent all that extra money for all the ridiculous stuff their system isn't really any better so they chase the next stupid craze to improve it. When they could have put all of their money into a well performing amp and quality speakers to then enjoy for the next few decades with maybe only switching out their DAC as technology changes.
But by wanting more people to be into audio they don't want people to buy and keep good equipment they want people to chase the imaginary improvement by buying more and more and more and more and more.

 

[Sal1950]

I agree on smart speakers and sound bars, their performance is improving all the time and some of them are very good. I think some sound bars are genuinely capable and an alternative to more traditional set ups as a hifi solution. I have listened to a few recently that I would be perfectly happy with. Certainly I can understand why the mainstream has pretty much abandoned traditional hifi.

Capable of what, sounding pleasing, OK
But as any serious alternative to a real 5.1 and better multch system, not even close.
You can't make a relatively small line of speakers across the front of the room give the immersive experience of 7.1.4 Atmos system no matter how much magic dsp and phasing games you play.
Or maybe I can sell you a $15,000 6' power cable?

 

[sergeauckland]

I find it ironic when people like Paul McGowan do videos asking how 'we' can get more people into audio and then he throws out there all benefits to expensive power cables, interconnects, speaker cables, fancy tables to set your stuff on and more. To me that is what turns people off. Even if they think it works it makes even a modest setup extremely expensive and complex. Then even after they've spent all that extra money for all the ridiculous stuff their system isn't really any better so they chase the next stupid craze to improve it. When they could have put all of their money into a well performing amp and quality speakers to then enjoy for the next few decades with maybe only switching out their DAC as technology changes.
But by wanting more people to be into audio they don't want people to buy and keep good equipment they want people to chase the imaginary improvement by buying more and more and more and more and more.

This applies to all consumer spending, and a fair bit of pro spending too. Whether clothes, shoes, cars or whatever. Buying a car and keeping it for 20 years won't help the car manufacturers any more than buying a pair of loudspeakers or an amplifier and keeping them 30 years. With some stuff, like tablets and mobile telephones, they effectively stop working after a ridiculously short period as apps and security updates are discontinued.

Even in Pro audio, a studio not offering the latest gizmo is at a commercial disadvantage, even if that latest gizmo is a perfectly restored analogue tape machine!


S.

 

[RayDunzl]

As for "Modern Living", I'm still stuck trying to figure out why everybody just has to have tattoos.