There is also an ugly truth to face. Audiophiles, as a group, are fools with money. We may be individually knowledgeable, discerning and frugal but as a collective we are drunken sailors looking to shell out for the next thrill…and manufacturers know it.
I could take a $200 wooden rack, screw a big heavy fishing weight to the bottom that “neutralizes EM radiation”, coat it in a proprietary blend of “anti-resonance” varnish, and then add detailed instructions about how to calculate the proper “toe in” for your rack to experience “improved audio dispersion” and suddenly, I’ve got a $4000 rack, happily on sale for $3495. And sadly, not only would it sell, but I wouldn’t have to look far to find a willing enthusiast to give me a testimonial about the truly amazing improvements my state of the art rack has made to their system.
Im not saying real science can’t help build a better audio rack. I’m not saying sonic differences don’t exist. What Im saying is that we all want to believe, and that basic desire fuels a lot of hyperbole and industry deception on which we secretly feed, even as we critique, debunk and argue.
I could take a $200 wooden rack, screw a big heavy fishing weight to the bottom that “neutralizes EM radiation”, coat it in a proprietary blend of “anti-resonance” varnish, and then add detailed instructions about how to calculate the proper “toe in” for your rack to experience “improved audio dispersion” and suddenly, I’ve got a $4000 rack, happily on sale for $3495. And sadly, not only would it sell, but I wouldn’t have to look far to find a willing enthusiast to give me a testimonial about the truly amazing improvements my state of the art rack has made to their system.
Im not saying real science can’t help build a better audio rack. I’m not saying sonic differences don’t exist. What Im saying is that we all want to believe, and that basic desire fuels a lot of hyperbole and industry deception on which we secretly feed, even as we critique, debunk and argue.