• Check out the Annual AK Secret Santa exchange Program, signup before November 23rd in the AK Charities & Christmas forum!

While Strolling Through The Net Today...

Drum said:
I agree with most of that linked article. Like most things, as price goes up returns diminish. The only way to market the super expensive items is to appeal to something beyond performance.
Click to expand...


High end audio is very much like high end watches: they are jewelry that make the user happy. A cheap Casio G Shock will tell time more accurately and take a lot more abuse than an Rolex ever made and costs a fraction of a Rolex yet people keep buying Rolex'. They may perceive their Rolex keeps time as well but it never will.
 
People are involved in this hobby for a lot of reasons, and there are many different paths that can be traveled. For some its about nostalgia, for others its about the best sound they can afford, others like to repair and restore, some DIY, others are about the cheapest deal possible and they money they "save", and for some its the best possible sound regardless of price.

Each faction has merit, and appeals to a certain group of people. The problem comes when those folks choose to be inflexible in their understanding of the hobby, lash out at those who disagree with them, or are exuberant in their evangelism, The refusal to see alternating points of view, and to degrade those who have them is a problem on most audio boards, at least from what I have seen and experienced.

Personally I don't see this idea of more expensive audio gear being only a status marketing phenomenon. Some of it is, that is something I wouldn't deny. But the better gear does cost more money, and it costs more to build, and designers should be compensated for their intellectual property. I believe this last system I assembled is fairly decent, but I won't deny its expensive, and I could see where its past the point of diminishing returns. Yet to approach that goal of real music, its going to cost real money to get incrementally better, and its a different philosophy of getting to the point of adequate performance, of being good enough. And in terms of peripherals and accessories, often you don't want a night and day difference. As if you use it with well thought out electronics you don't want to change the very nature of a component or system, bur rather want to add one more refinement that results in a cumulative improvement that edges towards that target goal of real music. Certain levels of gear do not need wholesale improvements, but rather a foundational piece that allows it to maximize its abilities. This is a different way of doing audio than a lot of folks do. Doing something as well as you can possibly do requires experience, knowledge, effort, resources, often sacrifice, and in the end its never easy. This holds true for our hobby of audio too.

Regards
Mister Pig
 
I can agree that lots of amps sound the same. After all, they all sound at least similar. But on a bell curve, some sound worse, some better. And that's a fact, ime. I've always been able to hear the difference from one to another in my collection.
 
Bodyblue said:
High end audio is very much like high end watches: they are jewelry that make the user happy. A cheap Casio G Shock will tell time more accurately and take a lot more abuse than an Rolex ever made and costs a fraction of a Rolex yet people keep buying Rolex'. They may perceive their Rolex keeps time as well but it never will.
Click to expand...
Too bad the high-end stuff can't be advertised as such instead of with dubious claims. It's perfectly legitimate to buy and sell something because it's built like an heirloom with impeccable QC, precision first world manufacturing and elegant design. Why do we have to pretend that marginal to non-existent sonic differences are the only thing that matters?
 
Will S. said:
Too bad the high-end stuff can't be advertised as such instead of with dubious claims. It's perfectly legitimate to buy and sell something because it's built like an heirloom with impeccable QC, precision first world manufacturing and elegant design. Why do we have to pretend that marginal to non-existent sonic differences are the only thing that matters?
Click to expand...

Apparently we have different experiences of what "high end" audio is capable of.

Regards
Mister Pig
 
Mister Pig said:
People are involved in this hobby for a lot of reasons, and there are many different paths that can be traveled. For some its about nostalgia, for others its about the best sound they can afford, others like to repair and restore, some DIY, others are about the cheapest deal possible and they money they "save", and for some its the best possible sound regardless of price.

Each faction has merit, and appeals to a certain group of people. The problem comes when those folks choose to be inflexible in their understanding of the hobby, lash out at those who disagree with them, or are exuberant in their evangelism, The refusal to see alternating points of view, and to degrade those who have them is a problem on most audio boards, at least from what I have seen and experienced.

Personally I don't see this idea of more expensive audio gear being only a status marketing phenomenon. Some of it is, that is something I wouldn't deny. But the better gear does cost more money, and it costs more to build, and designers should be compensated for their intellectual property. I believe this last system I assembled is fairly decent, but I won't deny its expensive, and I could see where its past the point of diminishing returns. Yet to approach that goal of real music, its going to cost real money to get incrementally better, and its a different philosophy of getting to the point of adequate performance, of being good enough. And in terms of peripherals and accessories, often you don't want a night and day difference. As if you use it with well thought out electronics you don't want to change the very nature of a component or system, bur rather want to add one more refinement that results in a cumulative improvement that edges towards that target goal of real music. Certain levels of gear do not need wholesale improvements, but rather a foundational piece that allows it to maximize its abilities. This is a different way of doing audio than a lot of folks do. Doing something as well as you can possibly do requires experience, knowledge, effort, resources, often sacrifice, and in the end its never easy. This holds true for our hobby of audio too.

Regards
Mister Pig
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Just another wanker.....really !

Once, right after I installed new interconnects and turned the system on my daughter came out of her room with her nose wrinkled up and said "hey dad did you save the receipt cause that sounds like shite"! Then as they burned in I asked her if it sounded different and she described the differences that I also noticed.

So as far as I'm concerned the guy that wrote the article did so at the request of the editor just to keep his job ! The difference between audiophiles and others is the ability to pay strict attention to details. When they are finished we see the reason to continue and improve. We are more sensitive to sound and no one knows why. Though there are anti-audiophiles that seem to have hearing problems. But, this is just another attempt to make one group of people seem more credible than a supposed group of nut jobs. Too many times book smart people that have no hands on experience create an existence based on social ideology that creates a false sense of being and distances themselves from reality. Because if they can't accurately measure something, it does not exist.......
 
Last edited:
The whole post was well put

Mister Pig said:
Personally I don't see this idea of more expensive audio gear being only a status marketing phenomenon. Some of it is, that is something I wouldn't deny. But the better gear does cost more money, and it costs more to build, and designers should be compensated for their intellectual property.
Click to expand...

And when we think about this,

Mister Pig said:
For some its about nostalgia, for others its about the best sound they can afford, others like to repair and restore, some DIY, others are about the cheapest deal possible and they money they "save"
Click to expand...

The above really are in fact held back because of price point and not really because of sound quality and or build quality of newer equipment.

Just about anyone buying vintage gear are buying the best of the past they can afford. that they never could when it was new, just like today. If it was all nostalgia, where are all the All In Ones, and kids room setup, Who's recapping a York, Emerson, Philco and the old cheap equipment most of us had. People today on a limited budget are trying to buy the best of the best 30,40 and 50 year old equipment.

The point is, the same best of the best in newer gear today is out of reach for many, but if it was at the same price they would be buying it also.
 
Will S. said:
Too bad the high-end stuff can't be advertised as such instead of with dubious claims. It's perfectly legitimate to buy and sell something because it's built like an heirloom with impeccable QC, precision first world manufacturing and elegant design. Why do we have to pretend that marginal to non-existent sonic differences are the only thing that matters?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Different high-end (and low-end!) gear can have different sonic characteristics. Two different speaker cables, for example, may have sufficient differences in inductance, resistance and/or capacitance to have an audible effect (more effect on the high audio frequencies, less as the frequency drops) on amplifier loading and the signal reaching the speakers. What I object to is use of outright nonsense to sell gear. Here's an example:

Quantum Tunneling is a process that changes the way a cable conducts signal at the subatomic level, affecting the entire cable assembly: connectors (RCA, XLR, spade, or banana), solder joints, dielectric, and signal & ground conductors are all transformed and integrated as a single unit. By applying a two million volt signal to a cable at a specific pulse modulation, and ultra high frequency for an exact duration of time, we transform the entire cable at a molecular level through a process we call Quantum Tunneling. ... The before and after is startling, with a lower noise floor and improvements in inner detail, air, low frequency extension, and overall transparency and signal speed.​

This is pure flim-flammery, an abuse of scientific terminology, and a level of technobabble nonsense far beyond the colourful emotional puffery used to sell (for example) perfume and jewellery.

Imagine if computer or mobile device you're reading this on was sold not on the basis of the speed of the processor, amount of RAM, and size of hard drive -- or even how the case is designed and manufactured to exacting standards -- but on the fact that each circuit board is subject to a precisely-timed burst of microwaves. This transformative process -- which we call Quantum Oscillator Optimisation -- tunes the processor, maximises the RAM, and energises the hard drive to give the computer a startling fluidity of processing, freedom from lag or jitter, and vibrancy of screen colours with visibly higher resolution detail and crispness of both vertical and horizontal pixel lines.

That would be universally laughed at in the IT world -- particularly if a premium price was charged for Quantum Oscillator Optimisation -- and yet in the audio world the same silliness is not only tolerated, it's embraced, and its merits are debated and discussed, and those who point out that the emperor is naked are sometimes dismissed or even marginalised. (E.g., see the fifth bullet point under "posting etiquette" on http://www.head-fi.org/a/terms-of-service.)
 
I agree with a lot of what was written. For example, it's probably silly to spend money on expensive interconnects and speaker wire. And I agree with the importance of speakers to the overall sound of the system. On the other hand, I'm guilty of spending more money than was probably necessary on different components. I guess it's just human nature to believe that if we spend more money, we're getting "better" sound. Anyway, I try not to get carried away. I can usually think of other ways to blow money.
 
DaveVoorhis said:
Yes.

Different high-end (and low-end!) gear can have different sonic characteristics. Two different speaker cables, for example, may have sufficient differences in inductance, resistance and/or capacitance to have an audible effect (more effect on the high audio frequencies, less as the frequency drops) on amplifier loading and the signal reaching the speakers. What I object to is use of outright nonsense to sell gear. Here's an example:

Quantum Tunneling is a process that changes the way a cable conducts signal at the subatomic level, affecting the entire cable assembly: connectors (RCA, XLR, spade, or banana), solder joints, dielectric, and signal & ground conductors are all transformed and integrated as a single unit. By applying a two million volt signal to a cable at a specific pulse modulation, and ultra high frequency for an exact duration of time, we transform the entire cable at a molecular level through a process we call Quantum Tunneling. ... The before and after is startling, with a lower noise floor and improvements in inner detail, air, low frequency extension, and overall transparency and signal speed.​

This is pure flim-flammery, an abuse of scientific terminology, and a level of technobabble nonsense far beyond the colourful emotional puffery used to sell (for example) perfume and jewellery.

Imagine if computer or mobile device you're reading this on was sold not on the basis of the speed of the processor, amount of RAM, and size of hard drive -- or even how the case is designed and manufactured to exacting standards -- but on the fact that each circuit board is subject to a precisely-timed burst of microwaves. This transformative process -- which we call Quantum Oscillator Optimisation -- tunes the processor, maximises the RAM, and energises the hard drive to give the computer a startling fluidity of processing, freedom from lag or jitter, and vibrancy of screen colours with visibly higher resolution detail and crispness of both vertical and horizontal pixel lines.

That would be universally laughed at in the IT world -- particularly if a premium price was charged for Quantum Oscillator Optimisation -- and yet in the audio world the same silliness is not only tolerated, it's embraced, and its merits are debated and discussed, and those who point out that the emperor is naked are sometimes dismissed or even marginalised. (E.g., see the fifth bullet point under "posting etiquette" on http://www.head-fi.org/a/terms-of-service.)
Click to expand...


BINGO! If one dares to point out that sometimes perception is not reality, the amount of butthurt reaches "quantum tunneling" levels. When reading a post I automatically stop reading when somebody says they heard a "huge" or "big" difference when changing the smallest cable or interconnect. Even if I am sure something sounds different that actually does not make it reality. Does anybody really think (outside of the sponsors or people selling the cable) that a $5000 speaker cable gives a "better soundstage and bigger imaging" than say a $500 cable? And do people (again outside of the sponsors and people that sell them) really think a $20K cable sounds better than that $5000 cable? If somebody can point to even the most tiny actual fact proving any of that then I will believe it. But they never can, ever.

The best advice in the article is "Follow the money". Watch who buys ads in the magazines that are reviewing the item and watch who sponsors what........it is quite informative. People that have nothing riding on what is being written I tend to believe. The others? Not so much.
 
I'd have to say I agree with all his points except 7.I believe I can hear a difference in sound quality between cd's and SACDs or DVD-audio.
 
DaveVoorhis said:
Quantum Tunneling is a process that changes the way a cable conducts signal at the subatomic level, affecting the entire cable assembly: connectors (RCA, XLR, spade, or banana), solder joints, dielectric, and signal & ground conductors are all transformed and integrated as a single unit. By applying a two million volt signal to a cable at a specific pulse modulation, and ultra high frequency for an exact duration of time, we transform the entire cable at a molecular level through a process we call Quantum Tunneling. ... The before and after is startling, with a lower noise floor and improvements in inner detail, air, low frequency extension, and overall transparency and signal speed.​

This is pure flim-flammery, an abuse of scientific terminology, and a level of technobabble nonsense far beyond the colourful emotional puffery used to sell (for example) perfume and jewellery.
Click to expand...
What?! You don't believe in the benefits of Quantum Tunneling? What kind of science denier are you?

:eek2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom