Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[Michael Lavorgna]

Just now, crenca said:

 

I would apologize for you being the only person on my ignore list (besides some leftover accounts from some guy Chris banned) but as most would recognize no apology is necessary  

 

Give me a minute to look for your original response...

 

 

 

My point was *no one* addressed my response to your post. Instead, they chose to insult me while calling me insulting.

 

;-)

[crenca]

20 hours ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

If you live inside a tiny box inside a shoe box, this would be a great question; "What other industries can you guys think of that suffers this ill?  All of them to some degree, but I mean to this extant?".

 

Here are few items to add to your list:

• Religion
• Art
• Collectables
• Wine
• Fashion

Those are some obvious starters. Skipping over Religion, Art is a multi-billion dollar unregulated global market. Q - Who determines value in the Art market?

 

 

 

Hey, not bad Michael (once again overlooking the insults from which you can't seem to help yourself)!  I myself don't "do" any of these hobbies excepting perhaps "Collectibles" in the form of cars, though I have not participated in that industry for a while.  

 

 

 

 

[vmartell22]

13 minutes ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

 

We could go on forever but we don't have to.

 

First off, I do not hold to the notion that "you cannot tell them apart" for many reasons. Mainly  no one gets to dictate how people choose to appreciate a hobby. Of course you can think and say what you like, but when you take the step of saying something is "unreasonable" you become unreasonable.

 

Hi-Fi is not a commodity item for some people so performance is not the entire story. If someone chooses a component for other reasons in addition to performance, or pays for an upgrade that is 100% cosmetic, they are not being unreasonable. They are *enjoying the hobby*.

 

Then again, I know plenty of people who would never spend $600 on a piece of hi-fi gear. They think it's nuts.

 

Back on topic, I posted a response to the OP which is what I was interested in discussing.

 

 

Well - is not wrong being unreasonable - I own (yes, own - that means physical media) 300 different versions of Beethoven's 9th - I have been called unreasonable - the only right response is Thnx!

 

I missed your first post between all that bike noise - first thing I saw was your reply to the lewis carroll thing... apologies

 

Wanna comment on your OP  - you are 100% right many industries suffer from that, to me wine being one the most egregious - I will re-post this

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Paris_(wine)

 

I think the gist is that it is a basic problem cast the shadow of the doubt in the whole industry, be it Wine or Expensive-Fi - in the eyes of some of us (like Peter Aczel) , serious enough that we get the urge to fight it with all our might... maybe we are being unreasonable - but (again, itoh and weakening my my own argument) unreasonable does not mean wrong!

 

In a sense and hope fellow travelers will agree, we are fighting for the truth, justice and the weak and defenseless - except in this case, the weak and defenseless can afford $250,000 dollars amps!

 

Also funny to me that you added Religion to the list of industries!  hahaha

 

The Art market is trickier -  there is critical consensus, availability, market forces etc - none of those I believe apply exactly the same to the Super Expensive-Fi industry.

 

 

v

 

[Michael Lavorgna]

Just now, crenca said:

 

 

Hey, not bad Michael (once again overlooking the insults from which you can't seem to help yourself)!  I myself don't "do" any of these hobbies excepting perhaps "Collectibles" in the form of cars, though I have not participated in that industry for a while.  

 

 

 

 

 

Right on cue. You call the industry I work in and the job I do a form of swindling and you take offense at my response.  And you do not address one single point beyond your faux condescension - "not bad Michael".

 

Please put me back on your ignore list. No apology needed.

[Michael Lavorgna]

10 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

 

Well - is not wrong being unreasonable - I own (yes, own - that means physical media) 300 different versions of Beethoven's 9th - I have been called unreasonable - the only right response is Thnx!

 

I missed your first post between all that bike noise - first thing I saw was your reply to the lewis carroll thing... apologies

 

Wanna comment on your OP  - you are 100% right many industries suffer from that, to me wine being one the most egregious - I will re-post this

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Paris_(wine)

 

I think the gist is that it is a basic problem cast the shadow of the doubt in the whole industry, be it Wine or Expensive-Fi - in the eyes of some of us (like Peter Aczel) , serious enough that we get the urge to fight it with all our might... maybe we are being unreasonable - but (again, itoh and weakening my my own argument) unreasonable does not mean wrong!

 

In a sense and hope fellow travelers will agree, we are fighting for the truth, justice and the weak and defenseless - except in this case, the weak and defenseless can afford $250,000 dollars amps!

 

Also funny to me that you added Religion to the list of industries!  hahaha

 

The Art market is trickier -  there is critical consensus, availability, market forces etc - none of those I believe apply exactly the same to the Super Expensive-Fi industry.

 

 

v

 

 

So let me get this straight - you are fighting the good fight for the poor, defenseless, unknowing people who can afford to buy $250k amplifiers. Yea, that makes sense ;-)

 

Religion is an industry. If you don't think so, please explain their material wealth.

 

The top price paid for a single painting at auction is $180M. For a private sale that number is north of $300M. For a single painting. The question I asked that you did not address is - who determines value in the art market? The answer is - galleries, auction houses, collectors. In other words, the people who profit from the market the most.

 

What do you think the total sales are for high end audio?

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

I think the gist is that it is a basic problem cast the shadow of the doubt in the whole industry, be it Wine or Expensive-Fi - in the eyes of some of us (like Peter Aczel) , serious enough that we get the urge to fight it with all our might... maybe we are being unreasonable - but (again, itoh and weakening my my own argument) unreasonable does not mean wrong!

 

In a sense and hope fellow travelers will agree, we are fighting for the truth, justice and the weak and defenseless - except in this case, the weak and defenseless can afford $250,000 dollars amps!

 

 

Whether it is pricing or sound quality assessment, the radical subjectivist "anything goes - it is purely subjective " assertion is what brings out a very natural "objectivist" response.  All understandable, but is "High End" purely a subjectivist pursuit and as such so easily susceptible (and even dependent on) the confidence game?  If there is room for a subjectivist "sounds like" reality to all things musical, is there not also room for a dark side - a confidence game played by manufactures and their willing compaitriates in the trade publications who (for whatever reason - money, personal aggrandizement, etc.) relish getting to guide the herd as to what taste and fad is popular in that week?

 

What happens when (as is the case with MQA) they overreach and the game comes to the foreground where it is not supposed to be?

 

 

[Ralf11]

22 minutes ago, crenca said:

...the confidence game that he and his compatriots play?  Many folks believe that the subjectivist "sounds like" audio trade press does not earn respect...

 

 

not much respect, that is certain

 

The Audio Press would, if consumer focused, do evaluations double-blinded and do comparisons at various price points.

 

The hodgepodge of attempts to duck reputable methodology is pathetic.  Many publications and bollgers are just shills.

 

But I don't want to discount the usefulness of paying attention to careful listeners and their evaluations -- there are some who post here.  One might liken this to the medical field and compare it to 'clinical experience' which is useful, but does not substitute for in vitro and in vivo testing.  

 

I don't have a problem with buying partly for ergonomics or for just looks (much less reliability or build quality (Mac)  and warranty support (Bryston) or pay for repairs (about 50 years for Audio Research)).  But the SQ should be there and it is for the co.s I mentioned.

 

 

[vmartell22]

20 minutes ago, crenca said:

[snip]

 Many folks believe that the subjectivist "sounds like" audio trade press does not earn respect - it simply asserts and demands it.  

[snip]

 

 

I certainly agree with that - you hit it right in the head -   specially when their attacks are based on what is by implication, economic status  - "what do you know??!!!  you haven't heard what a $250,000 dollar amp sounds like" <---- hate it when they do that, it only makes me want to fight it harder.

 

Another big problem I see is that the experts in the  audiophile press seem to be experts in the folklore of it, not necessarily in the scientific/engineering discipline of audio - remember a post from the editor of a well know audiophile magazine, where he demonstrated not knowing how a DAC works!

 

v 

 

[kumakuma]

15 minutes ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

 

You call the industry I work in and the job I do a form of swindling and you take offense at my response.  And you do not address one single point beyond your faux condescension - "not bad Michael".

 

Please put me back on your ignore list. No apology needed.

 

This is the major reason why many people have a hard time taking the audio press seriously.

 

Real journalists such as those who report on financial services for The Wall Street Journal, for example, don't consider themselves part of the industry that they report on.

[Ralf11]

vmartell -- They are not trained in science or engineering.  Many are simply little rich kids who went to high quality liberal arts schools on daddy's money, and confuse the inheritance of capital with ability.

 

This isn't new.  Thorsten Veblin wrote an entire book on it decades ago.  And it was common in medieval times as well.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

I certainly agree with that - you hit it right in the head -   specially when their attacks are based on what is by implication, economic status  - "what do you know??!!!  you haven't heard what a $250,000 dollar amp sounds like" <---- hate it when they do that, it only makes me want to fight it harder.

And the related "you're just jealous because you can't afford it."

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, vmartell22 said:

...a $250,000 amp is unreasonable and objectively wrong given that the $600 Vidar gives you the same performance...

 

A $600 amp doesn't give you exclusivity and a host of other things that a $250,000 amp can give you, performance aside. If you want just performance, take a look at some DIY breadboard designs at half the cost of the $600 Schiit, because $600 is more than 99% of people will ever spend on audio. They think $600 is unreasonable. 

[Michael Lavorgna]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

This is the major reason why many people have a hard time taking the audio press seriously.

 

Real journalists such as those who report on financial services for The Wall Street, for example, don't consider themselves part of the industry that they report on.

 

This is an excellent point. Reviewers, which is what I was hired to be, are necessarily part of the industry. We deal directly with manufacturers and their representatives to procure review gear, we attend industry events, e.g. CES, etc.

 

If the claim is audio reviewers are not "real journalists", which I take to mean investigative journalists, then I would agree.

 

But that is not to say that reviews, whether that be book reviews, art reviews, wine, theater, film, serve no purpose. Pointing out that a book reviewer is a part of the book industry, they get free books to review, etc., is hardly news. The same with every other form of reviewing.

 

Some people don't find any value in reviews, some do. That's also hardly news.

[Michael Lavorgna]

9 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

vmartell -- They are not trained in science or engineering.  Many are simply little rich kids who went to high quality liberal arts schools on daddy's money, and confuse the inheritance of capital with ability.

 

This isn't new.  Thorsten Veblin wrote an entire book on it decades ago.  And it was common in medieval times as well.

Do you have anyone in mind with that "high quality liberal arts school" comment? I mean, could it be someone I know?

[Speed Racer]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

A $600 amp doesn't give you exclusivity and a host of other things that a $250,000 amp can give you, performance aside. If you want just performance, take a look at some DIY breadboard designs at half the cost of the $600 Schiit, because $600 is more than 99% of people will ever spend on audio. They think $600 is unreasonable. 

 

Okay, what are the host of things, besides exclusivity, that a $25,000 power amplifier can give you that a $5,000 power amplifier cannot?

 

I think you are letting your "reviewer" life get in the way of reality. The same thing happens with speakers and you....

[vmartell22]

5 minutes ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

 

So let me get this straight - you are fighting the good fight for the poor, defenseless, unknowing people who can afford to buy $250k amplifiers. Yea, that makes sense ;-)

 

 

Of course it doesn't ;  that was my point- by implication, I was pointing out the funny irony of it (let me explain it: they obviously do not need defending, therefore there is a contradiction that I find funny)  - yet I will never stop doing it.  

 

 

won't touch the religion part - could make the discussion nasty!

 

Re: your comment on the art market, I thought I addressed it by saying:

"The Art market is trickier -  there is critical consensus, availability, market forces etc"

Although I think your comments imply that there is analogy to the Expensive-Fi market and that both are a confidence game - which is not good.

 

Last, I CBF to look for the data, but inferring from your comment, the Expensive-Fi industry is not that big... therefore, any conspiracy theory etc, might seem out of place... maybe.

 

Maybe they are sincere - maybe that is fine. Let them be happy with their Ultrasound Othello and let the others be happy with their Schiit Vidar... 

 

Problem is what how is promoted in the press  - because sometimes it feels like promotion, not a critical review - I am still trying to wrap my head around the concept of a "very musical" ethernet cable...

 

 

v

 

 

 

 

[Michael Lavorgna]

3 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

Of course it doesn't ;  that was my point- by implication, I was pointing out the funny irony of it (let me explain it: they obviously do not need defending, therefore there is a contradiction that I find funny)  - yet I will never stop doing it.  

 

 

won't touch the religion part - could make the discussion nasty!

 

Re: your comment on the art market, I thought I addressed it by saying:

"The Art market is trickier -  there is critical consensus, availability, market forces etc"

Although I think your comments imply that there is analogy to the Expensive-Fi market and that both are a confidence game - which is not good.

 

Last, I CBF to look for the data, but inferring from your comment, the Expensive-Fi industry is not that big... therefore, any conspiracy theory etc, might seem out of place... maybe.

 

Maybe they are sincere - maybe that is fine. Let them be happy with their Ultrasound Othello and let the others be happy with their Schiit Vidar... 

 

Problem is what how is promoted in the press  - because sometimes it feels like promotion, not a critical review - I am still trying to wrap my head around the concept of a "very musical" ethernet cable...

 

 

v

 

 

 

 

 

The hi-fi industry is not a confidence game. Referring to the art market, religion, etc was a way of putting things in some perspective.

 

Here's a tip for you - cables don't have a sound. If you don't believe me, pick one up and put each end in your ears. Nothing.

 

Systems, on the other hand, have a sound and cables can certainly effect the sound of a system.

[rando]

4 minutes ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

Religion is an industry. If you don't think so, please explain their material wealth.

Well, that settled what type of mindset we have on display in today's 'Debate with industry personnel' highlight thread.  A reviewer (which isn't the same as a critic) and a self promoting artist you say? 

 

/audible sigh     

 

13 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Thorsten Veblin wrote an entire book on it decades over a century ago.

 

1899 is what the copy in my library has printed on it.  They even bothered to spell his name correctly on the title page, Thorstein Veblen.   

 

[vmartell22]

24 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

A $600 amp doesn't give you exclusivity and a host of other things that a $250,000 amp can give you, performance aside. If you want just performance, take a look at some DIY breadboard designs at half the cost of the $600 Schiit, because $600 is more than 99% of people will ever spend on audio. They think $600 is unreasonable. 

 

Right - think covered in my post on the "other reasons" part.  

 

That said, after doing some research on DIY came to the conclusion that it is not less expensive - it only looks like that way.. getting to "done and working" could be more trouble and expense than $600.  I know that is not your point, but well, made me think of that...

 

Re: the point, yes, sure - another contradiction - here I am talking about the $600 Vidar as exemplary, when most people are happy with $200 JBL Bluetooth pill..  I am not perfect!

 

Depends on context, I guess..

 

v

 

 

[Michael Lavorgna]

1 minute ago, rando said:

 a self promoting artist you say? 

 

/audible sigh    

Yea. I'm a fan of the self-effacing artist approach.

 

;-)

[vmartell22]

9 minutes ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

 

Systems, on the other hand, have a sound and cables can certainly effect the sound of a system.

 

Well , obviously that is what I meant  - lemme re-phrase it

 

"No, an ethernet cable won't change the sound of your system."

 

That said, that is another discussion, isn't it?

however related, lemme apologize and steer away from that.

 

let me dare:

"Given enough time, most internet audio discussions, will turn into cable discussions" 

 

can we call it the martell law, pls?

 

v

[crenca]

1 minute ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

 

The hi-fi industry is not a confidence game. Referring to the art market, religion, etc was a way of putting things in some perspective.

 

 

If boxes of rocks and thimbles full of "nanotechnology" did not put this assertion under a critical light, then certainly MQA has.  The mistake the industry made is trying to put a "taste", a subjectivity, to domains where such things do not and can not belong (such as math).  Essentially, you are asserting that realities such as "lossy encoding", DRM, and bit depth are subject to the same subjectivety as whether you like a paining (or a band) or not.  No how many times such assertions are made, they are incredulous.

 

In other words, MQA has exposed the confidence game like perhaps nothing before it.

 

The effort to save face (and regain lost confidence) is itself instructive.  Robert Harley's attempt to recover trust by trying to paint MQA as a living example of Kuhn's "revolutions" is laughable even as a piece of rhetoric (to say nothing as social, cultural, and scientific theory).  

 

This is not to say the usual trade publications are not going to continue on as they had before.  It is however a denial that their dignity rises even to the level of an old fashioned tent revival...

 

 

[Michael Lavorgna]

2 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

Well , obviously that is what I meant  - lemme re-phrase it

 

"No, an ethernet cable won't change the sound of your system."

 

That said, that is another discussion, isn't it?

however related, lemme apologize and steer away from that.

 

let me dare:

"Given enough time, most internet audio discussions, will turn into cable discussions" 

 

can we call it the martell law, pls?

 

v

 

I reviewed Ethernet cables 5+ years ago. You brought it up.

[Michael Lavorgna]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

If boxes of rocks and thimbles full of "nanotechnology" did not put this assertion under a critical light, then certainly MQA has.  The mistake the industry made is trying to put a "taste", a subjectivity, to domains where such things do not and can not belong (such as math).  Essentially, you are asserting that realities such as "lossy encoding", DRM, and bit depth are subject to the same subjectivety as whether you like a paining (or a band) or not.  No how many times such assertions are made, they are incredulous.

 

In other words, MQA has exposed the confidence game like perhaps nothing before it.

 

The effort to save face (and regain lost confidence) is itself instructive.  Robert Harley's attempt to recover trust by trying to paint MQA as a living example of Kuhn's "revolutions" is laughable even as a piece of rhetoric (to say nothing as social, cultural, and scientific theory).  

 

This is not to say the usual trade publications are not going to continue on as they had before.  It is however a denial that their dignity rises even to the level of an old fashioned tent revival...

 

 

 No I'm not asserting *your arguments*. Since you are not speaking to me or what I've written, I'll pass on the rest.

[vmartell22]

8 minutes ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

 

I reviewed Ethernet cables 5+ years ago. You brought it up.

8 minutes ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

 

 

(damn it I messed up the double quote, apologies)

and I apologize again - it was an example to a bigger point - until I remembered martell's law (see what I did there, already promoting it)  - bringing in cables muddles the issue.  Lemme make my point explicit - it does bother me a little bit that some of the language in the Expensive-Fi press feels like wine or coffee reviewing  - and that (to me) doesn't jell with the fact this is an engineering/scientific discipline.

 

And I will immediately admit, before it is pointed out, yes I read it - it is fun and I enjoy the gear pr0n.  Because is fun - I hope you don't think me a hypocrite, just a bag full of contradictions. So much fun to disagree with the printed word and mutter to yourself a discussion only happening in your head. 

 

Although doing it in the forums is also a lot of fun.

 

v