Stereophiles editor Jim Austin publicly disagreeing with Kal Rubinson

[Doodski]

But that's just the thing - it's not your money! Why does it matter to you if people want to spend their money on things they think will make their system sound better but actually don't? Did they ASK you to help them understand controlled, blinded listening tests? Do you really think the vast majority of audiophiles outside of ASR really care that much about controlled, blinded listening tests?

After handling a big lot of people over 9 years of selling audio gear in a major city I think that the majority of people interested in getting some audio gear want to learn about audio and are very receptive to being shown stuff. I call it stuff because there are so many things that just pop up that are interesting and they want answers to questions because they want to learn and are genuinely interested. Those are near and dear to my heart and it usually resulted in hours of sales effort on my part and a sale whether that be the same day, the next week or 6 months down the road because I took somebody aside on a slow day and coached them. People mostly want to talk, be seen and heard and really listened to and if you provide that they will let you coach/teach them and sell them stuff.

What do you think would bring the average audiophile more joy and happiness: a) spending $1,000 on a cable that makes them perceive an improvement in their sound system (irrespective of an actual improvement), or b) you telling that audiophile that he just wasted $1,000 and that you can prove it, and that he should call up his friends to tell them he was wrong about the $1,000 cable and he got fooled.

The solution is to get to them before the damage control needs to be done. Explaining to a customer that they where sucked in by one they trust(ed) is a hard pill to swallow sometimes and it might just make you give them a negative experience. It comes back to coaching the public and relying on your good manners and good intentions to sell them the best you can with what you have in stock. I have advised customers that they have been ripped off in more gentle but firm polite terms. It requires some hand wringing, politeness, calm manner and genuine humility to get them on one's side of the matter. I have had customers return gear to a different retailer and come back to me and buy the better gear and take my advice. So people can and will listen and be educated and again it comes down to listening and reacting properly.

 

[MAB]

Primare A35.8 8-channel power amplifier

Back in 1999, while reviewing the Wazoo integrated amplifier from Bow Technologies, I learned that its designer and company founder, Bo Christensen, had previously founded another audio company. That's how I discovered Primare. Over the years, various products from Primare have appeared at audio...

www.stereophile.com

This comment is amazing:

> you're not telling us what it sounds like, you're telling us what the combination of your ears, eyes, brain and all the sighted cognitive biases that entails thinks it sounds like.

Yes, that was incredibly well stated. Thanks for highlighting that comment!

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Your umbrage seems to be selective; you admit the damage of lies and fraud ..... except in regards to one, particular subject. Why does your righteous condemnation apply to other instances, but you defend this one, singular subject .... deceit as regards to audio?
It's not a question of whether they can afford it. And it's not even a question of whether there are some who do not even realize that they are victims of a scam. It's a question of whether or not deceitful dealings should be allowed to continue unfettered.


I don't believe that they should.

Jim

 

[xaxxon]

Do you REALLY not know, Jim? If you really don't, use the search terms "misinformation and harm" in Google, and the first page of hits will be what you're looking for.

Maybe we can just end this bit of the thread? Getting pretty distasteful.

 

[Mart68]

But that's just the thing - it's not your money! Why does it matter to you if people want to spend their money on things they think will make their system sound better but actually don't? Did they ASK you to help them understand controlled, blinded listening tests? Do you really think the vast majority of audiophiles outside of ASR really care that much about controlled, blinded listening tests?

In any hobby part of the community aspect is to help each other out. I wish there had been people around to give me good advice back when I started. It would have saved me a lot of time and money.

Imagine starting a new job where you have much to learn but none of your experienced colleagues will help you out because they are busy with supposedly more important problems. Would that be a good thing?

 

[Trell]

But that's just the thing - it's not your money! Why does it matter to you if people want to spend their money on things they think will make their system sound better but actually don't? Did they ASK you to help them understand controlled, blinded listening tests? Do you really think the vast majority of audiophiles outside of ASR really care that much about controlled, blinded listening tests?

What do you think would bring the average audiophile more joy and happiness: a) spending $1,000 on a cable that makes them perceive an improvement in their sound system (irrespective of an actual improvement), or b) you telling that audiophile that he just wasted $1,000 and that you can prove it, and that he should call up his friends to tell them he was wrong about the $1,000 cable and he got fooled.

Whereas, when misinformation in other domains threatens the health and well-being of your family and your neighbors, that *IS* your problem.

You see the difference?

I get it that you don’t care about people being misinformed and taken advantage as long as it does not affect you. The only thing that bothers you about this is that other people are bothered about it.

So why do you think we have various consumer protection laws, imperfect as as they are? One important part of them is about information given to the consumer by the seller. For some reason the seller can’t just [edit: add missing word] say anything they want.

Some people are against such laws as well as agencies to help enforce them, and from your posts I guess you’re against as well.

 

[ahofer]

Ah, but I'm not making the utilitarianism argument, which would be that people in general should be spending time fighting misinformation of greater detriment to broader society instead of audio misinformation. My point is that people can choose to get behind whatever cause they choose to because it's THEIR time and THEIR energy - so if someone wants to fight audio disinformation and not medical science misinformation, that's THEIR right, and it doesn't have to be rational or make sense to other people. LIKEWISE, if an audiophile wants to spend HIS money to buy tweaks that HE thinks will make a difference after reading whatever information source he chooses, that's HIS right to do so, even though it makes no sense and seems wasteful to us.

Well, you did make that argument. Now you are claiming it was only a clever ruse to buttress your strawman argument that someone at ASR is trying to prohibit people from buying the audio equipment of their choice. Could you please provide a citation for that?

 

[trackrat888]

I get it that you don’t care about people being misinformed and taken advantage as long as it does not affect you. The only thing that bothers you about this is that other people are bothered about it.

So why do you think we have various consumer protection laws, imperfect as as they are? One important part of them is about information given to the consumer by the seller. For some reason the seller can’t just [edit: add missing word] say anything they want.

Some people are against such laws as well as agencies to help enforce them, and from your posts I guess you’re against as well.

Yes, but...

Consumer protection laws and agencies are there to protect, in spirit, fraud that can affect people's lives. Stuff like bad loans that can ruin a family or a medicine that will kill you or make you sick.

No one will die if they believe a cable will make things sound better. If a person can afford a $10k cable, their families are going to be crushes by debt; its a luxury albeit not-so-smart purchase for said buyer.

 

[Trell]

Yes, but...

Consumer protection laws and agencies are there to protect, in spirit, fraud that can affect people's lives. Stuff like bad loans that can ruin a family or a medicine that will kill you or make you sick.

No one will die if they believe a cable will make things sound better. If a person can afford a $10k cable, their families are going to be crushes by debt; its a luxury albeit not-so-smart purchase for said buyer.

That is a narrowing claim of what they do and is not true.

 

[puppet]

preload ... you're missing the whole point of this thread I believe.
One on hand a fellow (a) states that his beliefs in cables are XYZ and need no proof to establish the superior quality of his belief. Another fellow(b) points out that XYZ needs proof to make such claims in the forum he chose, being a forum of audio knowledge to which fellow(b) contributes. Still another fellow(c) comes along and goes to bat for fellow(a) but in the process drags fellow(b) down into the mud attempting to make his beliefs seem foolish and off point.

This is how worlds are formed. This one has fellow(c) as the arbiter of all things in his world. Even though fellow(b) is correct fellow(c) sides with fellow(a) destroying a bit of fellow(b) credibility in this new world.

Most people here think that fellow(c) should be called out on it. I personally could give a rats ass what somebody says or does ... just leave others out of it. Cross that line and pay the price.

 

[trackrat888]

That is a narrowing claim of what they do and is not true.

Yes, narrow hence the term "in spirit". That is, the comment was meant to be in the spirit of "in general".

 

[preload]

Well, you did make that argument.

I certainly did not make a utilitarianist argument, and I provided that clarification. Now that we've established that you have misinterpreted, generally it would be gracious to accept the clarification and move the conversation forward together. Instead you insist that I have made a (quite frankly, ridiculous) argument because it's easier to attack (again because it's ridiculous and I didn't actually make it). There's a term for that...

Now you are claiming it was only a clever ruse to buttress your strawman argument that someone at ASR is trying to prohibit people from buying the audio equipment of their choice. Could you please provide a citation for that?

Nope also never said that either.
So far you're 0 for 2 on reading comprehension.

 

[preload]

preload ... you're missing the whole point of this thread I believe.
One on hand a fellow (a) states that his beliefs in cables are XYZ and need no proof to establish the superior quality of his belief. Another fellow(b) points out that XYZ needs proof to make such claims in the forum he chose, being a forum of audio knowledge to which fellow(b) contributes. Still another fellow(c) comes along and goes to bat for fellow(a) but in the process drags fellow(b) down into the mud attempting to make his beliefs seem foolish and off point.

This is how worlds are formed. This one has fellow(c) as the arbiter of all things in his world. Even though fellow(b) is correct fellow(c) sides with fellow(a) destroying a bit of fellow(b) credibility in this new world.

Most people here think that fellow(c) should be called out on it. I personally could give a rats ass what somebody says or does ... just leave others out of it. Cross that line and pay the price.

Except fellow(c) is the editor in chief of the publication that fellow(b) works for, fellow(b) has agreed to adhere to the policies and standards of that publication, and fellow(c) has a responsibility to the magazine to enforce those policies and standards.

See my earlier post where I offer my unpopular opinion on the interaction between these players.

For me, I understand exactly where fellow(c) was coming from, even though I don't agree with it.

 

[preload]

Yes, but...

Consumer protection laws and agencies are there to protect, in spirit, fraud that can affect people's lives. Stuff like bad loans that can ruin a family or a medicine that will kill you or make you sick.

No one will die if they believe a cable will make things sound better. If a person can afford a $10k cable, their families are going to be crushes by debt; its a luxury albeit not-so-smart purchase for said buyer.

I don't know where you came from, @trackrat888, but glad you're here!

 

[ahofer]

I certainly did not make a utilitarianist argument, and I provided that clarification. Now that we've established that you have misinterpreted, generally it would be gracious to accept the clarification and move the conversation forward together. Instead you insist that I have made a (quite frankly, ridiculous) argument because it's easier to attack (again because it's ridiculous and I didn't actually make it). There's a term for that...


Nope also never said that either.
So far you're 0 for 2 on reading comprehension.

I think it is pretty obvious you are a bad faith actor. So you are now on ignore.

 

[preload]

I get it that you don’t care about people being misinformed and taken advantage as long as it does not affect you. The only thing that bothers you about this is that other people are bothered about it.

Almost. I DO care when people are being misinformed in way that causes considerable harm to themselves and others, even if it doesn't affect me. But if I'm at the grocery store, I'm not going to tell someone in the fruit aisle that the store across town has better quality peaches and theyre making a big mistake.

And it doesn't bother me that other people are bothered about audio misinformation. I'm simply curious and I'm asking questions.

So why do you think we have various consumer protection laws, imperfect as as they are? One important part of them is about information given to the consumer by the seller. For some reason the seller can’t just [edit: add missing word] say anything they want.

Some people are against such laws as well as agencies to help enforce them, and from your posts I guess you’re against as well.

I think trackrat already responded, but would also add that there's a difference between audio equipment claims, and say consumer safety claims. In the latter case, the law establishes an objective standard (medical science), and as is the case for drugs and pharmaceuticals, the FDA (in the US) is given broad authority to regulate medical claims made my drug companies. No such body exists for audio equipment claims. Gee, why is that?

 

[Trell]

Almost. I DO care when people are being misinformed in way that causes considerable harm to themselves and others, even if it doesn't affect me. But if I'm at the grocery store, I'm not going to tell someone in the fruit aisle that the store across town has better quality peaches and theyre making a big mistake.

And it doesn't bother me that other people are bothered about audio misinformation. I'm simply curious and I'm asking questions.


I think trackrat already responded, but would also add that there's a difference between audio equipment claims, and say consumer safety claims. In the latter case, the law establishes an objective standard (medical science), and as is the case for drugs and pharmaceuticals, the FDA (in the US) is given broad authority to regulate medical claims made my drug companies. No such body exists for audio equipment claims. Gee, why is that?

Nice strawman. Consumer protection laws and agencies are not just about safety.

As another poster wrote I think you are arguing in bad faith.

 

[Mart68]

Almost. I DO care when people are being misinformed in way that causes considerable harm to themselves and others, even if it doesn't affect me. But if I'm at the grocery store, I'm not going to tell someone in the fruit aisle that the store across town has better quality peaches and theyre making a big mistake.

Even if you were already discussing with him where to get the best peaches? I think then you might give your advice.

 

[trackrat888]

Nice strawman. Consumer protection laws and agencies are not just about safety.

As another poster wrote I think you are arguing in bad faith.

I don't see this as a bad faith argument. @preload is not disguising the core point of the argument where he "really" believes that $1OK cables are a must and then defending the point in a misleading way.

 

[Killingbeans]

But if I'm at the grocery store, I'm not going to tell someone in the fruit aisle that the store across town has better quality peaches and theyre making a big mistake.

What does misinformation have to do with the quality of things?

It's more like if the store was selling gummy bears claiming it was vital food supplements. It would be perfectly reasonable to go: "Hey, that's just gummy bears. The store across town sells peaches. They will do you a lot more good than both gummy bears and supplements."