BTW, the article was written by Eric Barbour, an applications engineer with Svetlana Electron Devices Inc. (the tube manufacturer).
He makes several points worth discussing:
1. Audiophiles are unnaturally interested in details that most people cannot hear or don't care about. The implication is that a normal person wouldn't spend the kind of money audiophiles do on equipment. You probably know audiophiles -- I do -- whose hobby is not fascination with listening, but fascination with equipment.
2. Reviewers' opinions are completely subjective. What they hear may not be what you hear, yet companies rise and fall on whether on not a reviewer says their product squeezes the last fractional Db out of the striking of a triangle. How are they influenced by how much that company spends on advertising in the publication they are writing for? Why is it that Stereophile, for one, won't review certain equipment, no matter how great it may be, that hasn't sold well already?
For more on this subject, check out
http://www.high-endaudio.com/index_ac.html
and be sure to read his "Reviewing the Reviewers," his expose of Sterophile's "Recommended Components" and his vitiolic exchange with Stereophile reviewer Michael Fremer.
3. Audiophiles, lemming-like, read the magazines and rush out to buy the flavor of the month -- they pay thousands for boxes with $50 worth of parts and for power cords that are nothing more than zip cord with a fancy cover. Of course they say they hear a difference. If they disagree with the reviewers, what will their audiophile friends think? What will their spouse think? "Gee, honey, you know that $2,000 power cord "we" just bought? It doesn't improve the music at all." They'd have to admit they were conned, and most people's egos won't permit that.
He makes several points worth discussing:
1. Audiophiles are unnaturally interested in details that most people cannot hear or don't care about. The implication is that a normal person wouldn't spend the kind of money audiophiles do on equipment. You probably know audiophiles -- I do -- whose hobby is not fascination with listening, but fascination with equipment.
2. Reviewers' opinions are completely subjective. What they hear may not be what you hear, yet companies rise and fall on whether on not a reviewer says their product squeezes the last fractional Db out of the striking of a triangle. How are they influenced by how much that company spends on advertising in the publication they are writing for? Why is it that Stereophile, for one, won't review certain equipment, no matter how great it may be, that hasn't sold well already?
For more on this subject, check out
http://www.high-endaudio.com/index_ac.html
and be sure to read his "Reviewing the Reviewers," his expose of Sterophile's "Recommended Components" and his vitiolic exchange with Stereophile reviewer Michael Fremer.
3. Audiophiles, lemming-like, read the magazines and rush out to buy the flavor of the month -- they pay thousands for boxes with $50 worth of parts and for power cords that are nothing more than zip cord with a fancy cover. Of course they say they hear a difference. If they disagree with the reviewers, what will their audiophile friends think? What will their spouse think? "Gee, honey, you know that $2,000 power cord "we" just bought? It doesn't improve the music at all." They'd have to admit they were conned, and most people's egos won't permit that.