Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[Michael Lavorgna]

2 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

 

and I apologize again - it was an example to a bigger point - until 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

 

If it's not fun I recommend finding another hobby.

 

As I said, some people find value in reviews, some don't. Based on what you've said of your beliefs, I have to think that reading reviews would be no fun at all. It would be like looking for a pen in a pencil factory.

[vmartell22]

13 minutes ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

 

If it's not fun I recommend finding another hobby.

 

As I said, some people find value in reviews, some don't. Based on what you've said of your beliefs, I have to think that reading reviews would be no fun at all. It would be like looking for a pen in a pencil factory.

 

Au contraire - a lot fun - as I said I had wonderful discussions and disagreements in my head with many Sterophile, TAS, the English magazines (like Hi-Fi Choice,  Hi-Fi News, Hi-Fi+ , they are so much fun - love the big format) etc reviewers -  so much fun sometimes I get lost on it and all of the sudden I realize I have been in the can for  2 hours!

 

v

[Michael Lavorgna]

1 minute ago, vmartell22 said:

 

Au contraire - a lot fun - as I said I had wonderful discussions and disagreements in my head with many Sterophile, TAS, the English magazines (like Hi-Fi choice, new, plus - they are so much fun - love the big format) etc reviewers -  so much fun sometimes I get lost on it and all of the sudden I realize I have been in the can for  2 hours!

 

v

Ew.

[mansr]

42 minutes 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.

That's a flawed analogy. Art is by definition not utilitarian. Its worth is determined solely by the amount of money someone is willing to pay to possess it. Moreover, each piece is unique, meaning manufacturing costs do not even register when demand is such that buyers are willing to pay thousands of times more for it. Indeed, much of the value ascribed to works of art derives from the prestige associated with owning the only copy.

 

Audio products, on the other hand, exist primarily to reproduce sound. Because they are mass-produced, high demand can be met by increased production; additional units do not detract from the utility of the product. Beyond a reasonable markup over production costs, any additional asking price serves purely to render the product artificially exclusive. There is nothing wrong with this per se. What is wrong is perpetuating the notion that these super-expensive items deliver anything material over cheaper well-designed alternatives other than the feeling of owning something only few can afford. Especially nefarious is the widespread practice of offering a multitude of variants with prices ranging from only slightly expensive through the silly to the outright ludicrous, thus ensuring that for every customer, there is an option just within reach, and another to be lusted for until he can afford the "upgrade," again and again. There is no such thing as a slightly better Picasso.

[vmartell22]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's a flawed analogy. Art is by definition not utilitarian. Its worth is determined solely by the amount of money someone is willing to pay to possess it. Moreover, each piece is unique, meaning manufacturing costs do not even register when demand is such that buyers are willing to pay thousands of times more for it. Indeed, much of the value ascribed to works of art derives from the prestige associated with owning the only copy.

 

Audio products, on the other hand, exist primarily to reproduce sound. Because they are mass-produced, high demand can be met by increased production; additional units do not detract from the utility of the product. Beyond a reasonable markup over production costs, any additional asking price serves purely to render the product artificially exclusive. There is nothing wrong with this per se. What is wrong is perpetuating the notion that these super-expensive items deliver anything material over cheaper well-designed alternatives other than the feeling of owning something only few can afford. Especially nefarious is the widespread practice of offering a multitude of variants with prices ranging from only slightly expensive through the silly to the outright ludicrous, thus ensuring that for every customer, there is an option just within reach, and another to be lusted for until he afford the "upgrade," again and again. There is no such thing as a slightly better Picasso.

Just up-voted your post -  you expressed what I have been clumsily hinting. Thnx!

 

v

[Michael Lavorgna]

15 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's a flawed analogy. Art is by definition not utilitarian. Its worth is determined solely by the amount of money someone is willing to pay to possess it. Moreover, each piece is unique, meaning manufacturing costs do not even register when demand is such that buyers are willing to pay thousands of times more for it. Indeed, much of the value ascribed to works of art derives from the prestige associated with owning the only copy.

 

Audio products, on the other hand, exist primarily to reproduce sound. Because they are mass-produced, high demand can be met by increased production; additional units do not detract from the utility of the product. Beyond a reasonable markup over production costs, any additional asking price serves purely to render the product artificially exclusive. There is nothing wrong with this per se. What is wrong is perpetuating the notion that these super-expensive items deliver anything material over cheaper well-designed alternatives other than the feeling of owning something only few can afford. Especially nefarious is the widespread practice of offering a multitude of variants with prices ranging from only slightly expensive through the silly to the outright ludicrous, thus ensuring that for every customer, there is an option just within reach, and another to be lusted for until he afford the "upgrade," again and again. There is no such thing as a slightly better Picasso.

 

Art is not utilitarian. I agree. However, owning a $100M painting serves a utilitarian purpose in some cultures.

 

Some buyers are not interested in cheaper alternatives, whether that be in Art, hi-fi, wine, etc. I don't take issue with these people but I do not relate.

 

Small, medium, large is a winning selling strategy.

 

[edit] I should have added that there are products in hi-fi that embody aesthetic concerns such as limited edition finishes, finish upgrades, artisan hand-made products, etc. Things that are meant to appeal to concerns beyond utility.  I see no problem with this.

[Michael Lavorgna]

26 minutes ago, mansr said:

Especially nefarious is the widespread practice of offering a multitude of variants with prices ranging from only slightly expensive through the silly to the outright ludicrous, thus ensuring that for every customer, there is an option just within reach, and another to be lusted for until he can afford the "upgrade," again and again. There is no such thing as a slightly better Picasso.

 

I just realized that you shared the cost of your watch = $1,000. So you clearly can relate to paying for things beyond utility. Why is it you don't allow for this same impulse in hi-fi? After all, a watch is about as utilitarian as you can get.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Speed Racer said:

 

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....

 

BS. You can't get a copper chassis made in the us with 5k. I said nothing about performance. You read into that way too much. 

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

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

 

anti-vaxer in Calif.

[Ralf11]

analogies to books, art, wine, theater, film are flawed because they have no objective standard

 

music doesn't either but equipment to reproduce music does have an objective std.

[Michael Lavorgna]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

analogies to books, art, wine, theater, film are flawed because they have no objective standard

 

music doesn't either but equipment to reproduce music does have an objective std.

 

So you say but reality says otherwise. If every "objectivist" owned the exact same hi-fi, down to the cables, I might begin to agree with this point of view. As it stands, saying that there's an "objective standard" in hi-fi is like saying there's an objective standard in a spouse.

[Michael Lavorgna]

5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

anti-vaxer in Calif.

Of course.

[fas42]

Art can't be 'wrong' - but audio can. If one learns to discriminate faulty reproduction then this 'hobby' becomes a very simple pursuit - merely do whatever it takes to eliminate audible flaws. Otherwise, all one is doing is choosing a different sauce to flavour one's food - which is fine if one is partial to sweet and sour, or mustard, etc; but it means that the particular flavour chosen is always embedded to some degree in what one hears.

 

Personally, I prefer au naturel: the incredible diversity in the sound of the recordings in themselves more than makes up for "losing" a personal favourite type of sound. But, I do note that this goal is very rare amongst audiophiles ... .

[Speed Racer]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

BS. You can't get a copper chassis made in the us with 5k. I said nothing about performance. You read into that way too much. 

 

You are talking exclusivity again. Answer my question: What are the host of things, besides exclusivity, that a $25,000 power amplifier can give you that a $5,000 power amplifier cannot?

 

If it is not about performance, it is about exclusivity...bling.

[Michael Lavorgna]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Art can't be 'wrong' - but audio can. If one learns to discriminate faulty reproduction then this 'hobby' becomes a very simple pursuit - merely do whatever it takes to eliminate audible flaws. Otherwise , all one is doing is choosing a different sauce to flavour one's food - which is fine if one is partial to sweet and sour, or mustard, etc; but it means that the particular flavour chosen is always embedded to some degree in what one hears.

 

Personally, I prefer au naturel: the incredible diversity in the sound of the recordings in themselves more than makes up for "losing" a personal favourite type of sound. But I do note that this goal is very rare amongst audiophiles ... .

 

Reproduction is lossy ;-)

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

I just realized that you shared the cost of your watch = $1,000. So you clearly can relate to paying for things beyond utility. Why is it you don't allow for this same impulse in hi-fi? After all, a watch is about as utilitarian as you can get.

Congratulations, you completely missed the point.

[Michael Lavorgna]

Just now, mansr said:

Congratulations, you completely missed the point.

Why not explain how?

[fas42]

Just now, Michael Lavorgna said:

 

Reproduction is lossy ;-)

 

Lossy? More, additive - as in, the extras imparted by the reproduction chain upon the sound by various parts of it not doing their job as well as they could.

[Michael Lavorgna]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Lossy? More, additive - as in, the extras imparted by the reproduction chain upon the sound by various parts of it not doing their job as well as they could.

We're talking past each other.

 

What I find most interesting in this exchange, and I mean in general, is that people are arguing that they know better than others and their views should dictate other people's behavior. Otherwise, these people are fools.

 

And the major dig we get as reviewers is that we exert too much influence.

 

Funny, no?

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

You are talking exclusivity again. Answer my question: What are the host of things, besides exclusivity, that a $25,000 power amplifier can give you that a $5,000 power amplifier cannot?

 

If it is not about performance, it is about exclusivity...bling.

 

Huh? Build quality using expensive materials, made by hand in the US, by an employee with health insurance, in small quantities with brand name internal components.

 

I'm not saying any of this matters to anyone, but it has nothing to do with exclusivity and everything to do with price. 

 

Bling doesn't equal exclusivity. Cubic zirconia is all about bling and zero to do with exclusivity. Shiny gold audio components and chassis are bling, not always expensive nor exclusive.  

[fas42]

9 minutes ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

 

 As it stands, saying that there's an "objective standard" in hi-fi is like saying there's an objective standard in a spouse.

 

The "objective standard" is that the playback system does not contaminate what is on the recording to an audible degree - two system, totally different in how they they have been assembled, play a particular recording behind a concealing curtain. In an AB test, they should be close to impossible to pick apart, if both are functioning correctly.

[Michael Lavorgna]

Just now, fas42 said:

 

The "objective standard" is that the playback system does not contaminate what is on the recording to an audible degree - two system, totally different in how they they have been assembled, play a particular recording behind a concealing curtain. In an AB test, they should be close to impossible to pick apart, if both are functioning correctly.

 

Sure. That's a lovely sentiment. If you think it's anything more than a sentiment, try reconciling reality with your point of view.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Speed Racer said:

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

I must ask, what does this mean?

 

Speakers? The speakers I paid for? Or, the host of speakers I have in now for review with a compete Schiit system, ranging in price from a couple thousand to ten thousand.

 

Your mind about me is made up, but you can't shove the "evidence" into your narrative to make it work. 

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

We're talking past each other.

 

What I find most interesting in this exchange, and I mean in general, is that people are arguing that they know better than others and their views should dictate other people's behavior. Otherwise, these people are fools.

 

And the major dig we get as reviewers is that we exert too much influence.

 

Funny, no?

 

 

 

Fair enough .

 

The need for people to have others think the same as they do themselves is very strong ... otherwise, it introduces the troubling possibility that they may not be totally right about everything ...

[Michael Lavorgna]

Just now, fas42 said:

 

Fair enough .

 

The need for people to have others think the same as they do themselves is very strong ... otherwise, it introduces the troubling possibility that they may possibly not be totally right about everything ...

Yes. The need to be right about everything and the Internet were born on the same day ;-)