Stereophile doubles down on the snake oil!

[kemmler3D]

What a shame. For 40k you could allocate 35k for speakers. Easily. And get something crazy, including two 18" subs or whatever floats your boat. For that kinda money virtually anything is possible, and they put regular 2.5-ways there and call it a day? Seriously?

View attachment 452622

Margins on cables and amps will tend to be better, especially when you account for return shipping as a percentage. Shipping cost is driven more by size than weight and that explains some of this. Manufacturer COGS will tend to be higher as a percentage for speakers too. I assume a transaction like this is driven almost 100% by dealer economics.

 

[Taiga]

What I don’t understand about people who respond to cable marketing, is the lack of information provided by sellers on the technical design decisions that are needed to produce a desired outcome from the cable. i.e. if I want a better cable, these are the things I need to do.

Speaker manufactures, for example, talk about design decisions in driver size, magnets, crossovers, etc. and how they produce a specific outcome (whether or not it’s actually realized in measurement or audibility). These decisions are generally based on known and accepted principles of speaker design and their contribution to a desired outcome. i.e. if I want to improve my speaker’s bass extension, these are the things I need to do or consider.

But makers of expensive cables present their argument backwards. They say this is the outcome of our cables and it is because of the way we decided to make them. It’s a subtle difference in marketing, but it relies on trust rather than understanding.
They do not explain that in order to achieve X we had to do Y. They ask you to believe that because we did Y, it achieved X. And their explanations on how Y achieved X rarely seem to follow recognized design principles or to even be coherent.

Of course, this marketing technique is not unique to cable manufacturers or to audio. They just seem to pull it off with greater success and profit.

 

[PristineSound]

". . .but 10%–20% of total system cost seems reasonable for a good audio system."

Shockingly, a pair of 8ft Blue Jeans Cable will run you ~$150. If you have a system that's $3k that's 20%.

Of course, you don't need Blue Jeans Cable.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

". . .but 10%–20% of total system cost seems reasonable for a good audio system."

Shockingly, a pair of 8ft Blue Jeans Cable will run you ~$150. If you have a system that's $3k that's 20%.

Of course, you don't need Blue Jeans Cable.

no, you certainly don't. A 100ft spool of 14ga speaker wire will cost you less than $30 and I can assure you you wouldn't be able to hear any difference without being told which you were listening to.

 

[ivayvr]

". . .but 10%–20% of total system cost seems reasonable for a good audio system."

Shockingly, a pair of 8ft Blue Jeans Cable will run you ~$150. If you have a system that's $3k that's 20%.

Of course, you don't need Blue Jeans Cable.

Is this not (150 out of 3K) 5%?

 

[PristineSound]

Is this not (150 out of 3K) 5%?

Sorry, brain fart.

Yeah, 5%

 

[kemmler3D]

It’s a subtle difference in marketing, but it relies on trust rather than understanding.

Keep in mind that most people don't understand speaker design at all.

The average person could make a credible guess as to why certain speaker cones are bigger than others, but only because intuition will tend to be correct in that bigger = louder and lower. But this tends to true of any object that makes noise. They might know speakers have magnets in them if they ever took one apart. That's about it.

People take speaker marketing on trust just as much as cables, amps, or anything else.

They mostly have to take the marketing copy as if it were some distorted version of the truth, and reviews as if they were the actual truth. This is equally true for all audio products for most people.

They don't understand how speakers or amps produce sound in the first place, let alone the specific (and much smaller than portrayed) role of cables, so if you make esoteric claims about materials or polarity or quantum this or that, they can only assume there is some kernel of truth to it.

The idea that manufacturers would engineer features that have zero audible impact doesn't occur to people, because it doesn't make sense until you pull back the curtain and realize their real business model is selling placebos to a relatively small group of audiophiles who have somehow managed to addict themselves to placebos.

I'm not saying this to denigrate the average consumer... they don't teach this stuff in school unless you seek it out specifically. It's just easy for us ASR types to forget that most of the world isn't equipped to evaluate whether claims about audio (even ridiculous ones) might be true or not.

 

[Salt]

Page 6 of 6

 

[DVinylfan]

Page 6 of 6

Cables that look fancy and cost a zillion $ are just another kind of superyacht.
This conversation about the idiocy of expensive audio cables will continue endlessly or until the debate undergoes a shift of emphasis to the political, which is to say it veers into commentary on the prevalence of wealth and profligacy in our societies, which debate exists outside the accepted scope of this website, and the thread is closed.
So, make hay while the sun shines.
I have a van den Hul DC102 Mk2 interconnect and QED silver anniversary biwire speaker cable which I likely spent too much money on but probably won't swap out 12AWG copper wire for anytime soon.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

discussions about snake-oil will continue as long as there's snake-oil to discuss. Which means forever.

 

[Gregss]

". . .but 10%–20% of total system cost seems reasonable for a good audio system."

Shockingly, a pair of 8ft Blue Jeans Cable will run you ~$150. If you have a system that's $3k that's 20%.

Of course, you don't need Blue Jeans Cable.

Sorry, but you might want to check your math. 150/3000 = .05 ( That's is 5% )

 

[PristineSound]

Sorry, but you might want to check your math. 150/3000 = .05 ( That's is 5% )

Post 106

 

[Arindal]

discussions about snake-oil will continue as long as there's snake-oil to discuss. Which means forever.

Not sure about that. There was snake oil phenomena coming and going in the heydays and phase of decline of high end audio. Not everything prevailed. Interestingly, some of the most obscure esoteric ideas have fallen into the abyss.

Imagine an audio world some 50 years from now in which the industry has to rely on people who grew up solely with bluetooth speakers as main buyers. I would not expect them to pay 87 Grand for cables, it is too far off from what they had learned about how things work.

Ironically, calling snake oil ´snake oil´, insulting its supporters or bombarding them with technical explanations or calling for blind tests, will not contribute to the vanishing of snake oil.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Not sure about that. There was snake oil phenomena coming and going in the heydays and phase of decline of high end audio. Not everything prevailed. Interestingly, some of the most obscure esoteric ideas have fallen into the abyss.

Imagine an audio world some 50 years from now in which the industry has to rely on people who grew up solely with bluetooth speakers as main buyers. I would not expect them to pay 87 Grand for cables, it is too far off from what they had learned about how things work.

I wasn't just referring to the world of audio. There's always going to be people shilling snake-oil of some kind.

Ironically, calling snake oil ´snake oil´, insulting its supporters or bombarding them with technical explanations or calling for blind tests, will not contribute to the vanishing of snake oil.

Maybe not, but it's sure satisfying!

But I think it's worth pointing out that this is Audio Science Review here right? This is the proverbial hub of audio objectivity...the very nadir of blind-testing and verification of results. I'm not sure why anyone would expect or require us here at this place to withhold our views on these things. If people don't want to know the truth about their boutique cables then they should probably avoid this little corner of the net just like I avoid the many many places on the net where nobody questions anything at all about anything anybody says regarding audio gear. You know...places where $20 sets of ear buds are described as benefitting from (or even requiring) 150 hours of "burn in" in order to reach their ultimate sonic glory. That sort of thing.

 

[Liberal Democracy]

Stereophile is still a thing? ...

 

[BeeKay]

Maybe a small subset of authors and editors still is.

 

[mcdn]

discussions about snake-oil will continue as long as there's snake-oil to discuss. Which means forever.

I was hoping it would be more of a discussion about the editorial direction of Stereophile. It’s had a foot in both camps for a long time but this article in particular seems to signal a move to pure subjectivism

 

[Arindal]

Maybe not, but it's sure satisfying!

Okay, maybe our definitions of satisfying might differ.

This is the proverbial hub of audio objectivity...the very nadir of blind-testing and verification of results.

Fully understood. My question was rather if one does the idea of audio objectivity a good service by focussing on mocking, insulting and calling for blind tests. My personal opinion would rather tend to the opposite direction, although I share the same goal. In the eyes of audiophiles and unaffected music lovers, the attitude of many audio objectivists is the opposite from appealing, perceived as ´no compromise´, ´no fun´, ´no understanding´, ´no tolerance´, ´no music´. While that might be lauded by fellow objectivists and feared by snake oil supporters writing comments, it appears to be highly deterrent to a lot of unaffected music lovers who might have entered this scene recently. At least that is what I have witnessed, a lot of hi-fi novices ignore measurements and objectivism. Looks like it is the opposite of fun in their eyes.

My personal experience is rather hinting to the direction of showing people how to have more fun with objectively useful measures. Teach them how to choose the best speaker for their needs, give them some EQ and knowledge to solve their room problems, give them the best bass reproduction imaginable, and they are much more likely to believe in objectivism than when anyone is disparaging their cables.

 

[Purité Audio]

I was hoping it would be more of a discussion about the editorial direction of Stereophile. It’s had a foot in both camps for a long time but this article in particular seems to signal a move to pure subjectivism

A small toe in the objective camp perhaps.
Keith

 

[Mart68]

Okay, maybe our definitions of satisfying might differ.



Fully understood. My question was rather if one does the idea of audio objectivity a good service by focussing on mocking, insulting and calling for blind tests. My personal opinion would rather tend to the opposite direction, although I share the same goal. In the eyes of audiophiles and unaffected music lovers, the attitude of many audio objectivists is the opposite from appealing, perceived as ´no compromise´, ´no fun´, ´no understanding´, ´no tolerance´, ´no music´. While that might be lauded by fellow objectivists and feared by snake oil supporters writing comments, it appears to be highly deterrent to a lot of unaffected music lovers who might have entered this scene recently. At least that is what I have witnessed, a lot of hi-fi novices ignore measurements and objectivism. Looks like it is the opposite of fun in their eyes.

My personal experience is rather hinting to the direction of showing people how to have more fun with objectively useful measures. Teach them how to choose the best speaker for their needs, give them some EQ and knowledge to solve their room problems, give them the best bass reproduction imaginable, and they are much more likely to believe in objectivism than when anyone is disparaging their cables.

You make a good point but I regret that the older I get the less tolerance I have for the utter horseshit that is the subject of this thread.

Especially when I see friends with mortgages and other debts spunking their money up the wall on this stuff because they've been told for decades that it's all real.

And no, you cannot really change their minds by showing them 'objectively useful measures' since the brainwashing runs too deep for that. They think they are the experts. It's all very sad. The best that can be hoped for is that new people are coming in fresh with a more rational approach that has not been defiled by 30 years of reading nonsense in the magazines.