• 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!

Snobbery in Hi-Fi. Why are people so stupid and turn their noses up at gear costing much less which is just as good?

TTT15 said:
. If you think measurements are important then the subjectivists are more successful at marketing their views.
Click to expand...
I don't know how much the hi-fi industry spends as a whole on marketing in any given year, I'd assume a figure in at least tens of millions. So that's what we're pushing against, it's always going to be an unequal contest.

As regards snobbery no-one can do anything about that. Most members on most forums are not snobby towards people with inexpensive systems, or people with systems that measure poorly. You will always get some arseholes, that's the way of the world.

My own peeve is the golden ear types who say things like 'You're lucky if you can't hear the difference, it saves you money.'

Of course they've never done a blind test of anything. Nor will they, since secretly they're terrified of finding out they won't hear a difference either.
 
The HiFi You Tube channels seem to operate on limited budgets though as I do know that you need a huge numbers of hits to make any serious money out of You Tube There are very low barriers to entry. Therefore the measurement results are clear that the sublectists are just better at making content that people want to watch. It seems to me without making better you tube blind test content the objectivists are just tilting at windmills. Not much point in being right in my experience if you can’t prove it to other people and can’t convince them.
 
Unsighted comparison which by the way is only used to determine difference has to be performed by the individual.
The realisation that you can’t hear the ‘differences’ you previously perceived is really quite profound.
Keith
 
TTT15 said:
The HiFi You Tube channels seem to operate on limited budgets though as I do know that you need a huge numbers of hits to make any serious money out of You Tube There are very low barriers to entry. Therefore the measurement results are clear that the sublectists are just better at making content that people want to watch. It seems to me without making better you tube blind test content the objectivists are just tilting at windmills. Not much point in being right in my experience if you can’t prove it to other people and can’t convince them.
Click to expand...


You're all over the place. So now Youtube video hits are your standard for...what? Who wins an argument? To that we can say: You can lead a jackass to water etc.

And that having been said, having participated in audio communities online since Usenet days, I can confidently assert that 'objectivists' have gained enormously more influence over the hobby and vastly more presence on the 'net, over the years.
 
Last edited:
TTT15 said:
Not much point in being right in my experience if you can’t prove it to other people and can’t convince them.
Click to expand...
The point is that I don't sit in front of my stereo system and pine after "upgrade" DACs, amps and cables, thinking that I have to be missing out on the angels singing because what I have hasn't cost a lot. For now, with DIRAC set up, I already have very enjoyable sound with quite clear stereo imaging, very natural tonality, plenty of good bass, all at beyond the maximum volume that the neighbours in the apartment below are willing to tolerate. Upgrade paths in the future are strictly speakers and room treatment.
 
As I have touched on before here as well as some others in this thread, its amazing how some people invest significant fiscal resources and time setting up their audio systems to high standards of aesthetics and subjective ideas of system design, but pay no heed at all to room acoustics or even a semblance of room symmetry. Some youtube reviewers who claim superior audio expertise are actually prime examples.
 
Given the complete scarcity of women at a recent HiFi show I don’t find that at all surprising. Not many people have the luxury of a dedicated listening room.
 
TTT15 said:
And that is good. The point is there is no need to get sniffy about anyone else’s discretionary consumer spending choices. That is not good.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, the subject of this thread is the sniffiness of 'subjectivists' about 'objectivist' consumer spending choices.

Start your own thread if you want to change the subject.
 
Torin Krell said:
its amazing how some people invest significant fiscal resources and time setting up their audio systems to high standards of aesthetics and subjective ideas of system design, but pay no heed at all to room acoustics or even a semblance of room symmetry. Some youtube reviewers who claim superior audio expertise are actually prime examples.
Click to expand...
There's a YouTube video about a "million dollar system" that sits in an untreated cellar room with a sofa with the wall directly behind it as the listening position. But hey, the cost of the equipment racks is multiple times that of my entire system, so who cares about room acoustics?
 
Alexander Gödde said:
There's a YouTube video about a "million dollar system" that sits in an untreated cellar room with a sofa with the wall directly behind it as the listening position. But hey, the cost of the equipment racks is multiple times that of my entire system, so who cares about room acoustics?
Click to expand...
Its most likely that even a well chosen $2000 (or less) system in a reasonably well treated room with favorable dimensions will sound far better than that "million dollar system".
 
sergeauckland said:
However, in the case of the Casio, it's actually better at its primary function, that of telling the time, than the more expensive Patek Philippe.

Unless of course, the primary function of a watch is to impress...

S.
Click to expand...
How about asking the question: If I buy the Casio, will I still have it in 20-30 years? (my answer is that I would probably loose it while it is still fine [I left my G-Shock on a UPS truck that I was working on. By the time I realized it, the truck was gone] I have had the Enicar Swiss Watch that my wife gave me after I did not wear a watch for 8 years because of the G-Shock incident, In 20 years, I have not lost or hurt the Enicar, I guess that it will become our son's).
Why: because it is valuable enough for me to take care of what I do while wearing it & when I take it off to do something, it goes in my pocket or the glovebox of my car.
For many, the next question is: Will it give me enjoyment for the time that I do have it?
And another question is: How is my investment in this watch doing.
I think that not many buy a High Dollar watch expecting to loose money, regardless of whether it is for show or not.
But, if it makes them happy, it is their money.
Are not people who look down on those that buy things like that for themselves: guilty of reverse snobbery?
Or even envy?
Not that I would personally buy a super high end watch.
For the money, I would modify my truck or buy a better boat or something else that makes me happy.
I already donate 10% of my income to causes that help others, why should I not make myself happy by buying what I can afford and want for my own (& perhaps my families) enjoyment with whatever else I have?
To me, the whole debate about "well, they could use their money for something else" is dumb.
Yep, if that is what they wanted to do with their money, they could. But, it's THEIR money & they choose to do what makes THEM happy.
You get the same choice with YOUR money.
 
Last edited:
Is there any utility in keeping this thead alive? The obvious has been stated repeatedly, the obvious objection has been stated repeatedly, and the obvious counter to that has been stated repeately. This deceased horse is well and truly beaten.*


(*analogies to luxury watches is usually a good sign of this in audio forums)
 
I tend to agree. But then what is the point of any thread on any forum where opinions are expressed if people are not willing to consider other views and change their opinion which is rare in my experience. I suspect you would not be left with much on any forum.
 
The issue is not expression of views per se. It's the redundant expression of views, the same views over and over.
 
I totally agree. But you see that on most threads on most forums.
 
krabapple said:
The issue is not expression of views per se. It's the redundant expression of views, the same views over and over.
Click to expand...
That is just allowing different people to express their opinions, whether they align with others (or not).
Out of billions & billions of people, a few would like to express their views (and should be allowed to).
No one requires that you (or anyone else) continue to read a particular thread.
But others may enjoy continued reading of the thread.
 
Agree, but when the same old song gets played over and over and over, it can get tiresome. After awhile it can make sense to just cut the cord. Open the window; let some fresh air in.
 
egellings said:
Agree, but when the same old song gets played over and over and over, it can get tiresome. After awhile it can make sense to just cut the cord. Open the window; let some fresh air in.
Click to expand...

No, everyone has to be allowed to contribute a fart first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom