@chenry great post. Great balance in the way you explained everything. These are interesting times. A lot of work goes into product creation and bringing innovation to the market.
WHY IS THERE SO MUCH HATE FOR THE HIGH END GEAR ON AUDIO GEAR?
It seems like when I see comments on high end gear there is a lot of negativity. I have been an audiophile for the last 20 years. Honestly, if you know how to choose gear and match gear a lot of the high end gear is just better. When it comes to price people can charge what they want for what they create. If you don’t want it. Don’t pay for it. Look if you are blessed to afford the best bear and you can get it. It can be very sonically pleasing. Then do it. Now if you are also smart and knowledgeable you can get high end sound at mid-fi prices then do it. It’s the beauty of our our hobby. To build a system that competes with the better more expensive sounding systems out there. THOUGHTS?
429 responses Add your response
We live in interesting times. In audio, there has never been a better time to be seeking and buying audio equipment, for many reasons. The web has made information available to everyone with a smartphone at every level of the industry not previously possible, but particularly from end users where experience of new products at the end-user level was previously difficult, commonly only by word of mouth, sometimes filtered through dealers who may have had their own interests in mind when it came to sharing information. New producers in China and elsewhere have added novel and competitively-priced equipment that introduce new considerations to the value proposition. Buyers rightfully question whether the prices asked for some gear represent a fair return for the price paid both in performance and reliability. Support for costly gear becomes a legitimate question for dealers who are the intermediaries to the end user and who really should be prepared to support the customers effectively, especially for goods priced well above mass market products. That means having an efficient and capable local service facility and cultivating relationships only with producers that have an effective parts and service network for their products. "Hate" for high-end products is wasted emotional energy. In consumer goods, Veblen goods have always existed, exclusive by being expensive, attractive because of exclusiveness. Unmasking some of those goods as poor value in the WWW by product analysts and testing reviewers restores a balance to what was once a very assymetrically-informed market. That is a good thing. At the same time, recognizing that some factors in pricing gear at the high end are a necessary part of a functioning economy: domestic (e.g., USA) production requires skilled people making attractive-enough wages, companies that have resources to devote to new product development and to support their end users and dealer networks. Everyone needs to eat. |
At the level participated in by many here, this is a niche hobby with a relatively wide range of products being marketed to a relatively small (and becoming smaller) audience of hobbyists. As such, development, manufacturing, inventory, and sales costs are high on a per unit basis. Parts and construction costs are not going to directly relate to retail pricing in many cases. There are many considerations that impact the difference between a successful endeavor and a failure in this industry, such as the depth of a product range, price points served, dealer network or not, volume of manufacturing operation, and more. I suspect for most, success in the audio industry is precarious at best, mostly for people who really love audio, and certainly not for the faint of heart. As a buyer, do your homework and realize the person looking out for you the most is yourself. If you find some folks along the way that you develop good relationships with and can trust, remember that those relationships need to be 2-way streets to survive. |
@jl35 That assumes markets are efficient. High-end audio is the poster child of inefficient markets! That is what this and other similar threads should focus on. Its not how much we have to pay for a particular piece of gear rather do we get what we think we are buying. |
I wouldn't label particular audio products as a "farce" any more than many other types of commercial products. In cases where key performance metrics are mostly subjective rather than measurable, then the value can only be judged by what a buyer is willing to spend. Many of the arguments here originate from folks wanting to make absolute judgements (i.e., better or best) about components, speakers, or tweaks that are mostly judged based on subjective, not measurable, criteria. The subjective nature of many audio products also opens the door for marketing departments to exercise their poetic license. |
@ellajeanelle , I had the original TAD Reference (Andrew Jones' cost no object design), which was bought used from a friend of mine and hence it wasn't too much a wallet abuser. When it was released back then, it was considered to be one of the best speakers ever made (sonically) in a few circles. Living with a speaker like that tends to raise the "point of reference", could make one real nitpicky thereafter, i suppose. I wanted to fund a second speaker with some different strengths for the same room and the Schweikert 55 qualified, (not cheap again/German). I found a guy who was willing to trade the Schweikert and some cash in exchange for the TAD. I used that cash to fund the later released/trickledown lower TAD model (E1TX), which gets "close enough" to the Reference model after subs and sufficient tweaks are in place. It just so happens that the speakers i've personally preferred (sonically) haven't been from local American manufacturers. The local bigger names are also again subject to this 50% markup by dealers (PS Audio being a recent exception). I am not quite the fan of the Magico/Wilson sound either. More recently, i got a bit jaw dropped by Borresen speakers (made in Denmark, would have been nice if they were American instead). If i do buy the trickledown X3 model (relatively affordable 11k msrp), it wouldn't feel as bad perhaps forking out the "dealer's cut" in this instance, i.e., i could stomach it. It just starts to get plain obnoxious forking out the "dealer's cut" when the speakers exceed a certain price bracket (i.e. the high end price brackets). Frankly, i am done dealing with that extortive price bracket! I know enough to make things sonically beat down all the extortive crap with what i already have. If other guys are willing to fork out a 100k for looks, bragging rights, etc, whatever, to each his own.
|
I have no hate for anything related to audio The more money that someone spends on gear the more money circulating in society. However, on a personal level I find the price of a lot of high-end gear a farce. I laugh a lot these days when I read reviews, especially from TAS. A lot of audio companies are not selling a sound, but a price point. I use the following "low cost" speaker as an example. The TAD ME1 was selling for $15k for a long time. Then for 3 months they set the price at $10k, a much better price for the sound that monitor speaker delivered. After the 3 months, TAD raised the price to $15k again. They obviously could make money on the ME1 at $10k but I figured they felt a loss of prestige with the lower price. For me, that is a farce.
|
when I was in Italy last year I bought a digital phono preamp from an Italian company and 2 active bass traps from a Swiss company. I saved a lot of money. The cost of shipping to a distributor, distributor mark up, shipping from the distributor to the retailer and then retailer mark up adds up even with small margins. It was quite fortunate that I happened to be in the right place to get the exact gear I wanted |
deep_333: May I ask why not deal with a US based manufacturer that will sell directly to you, or are you so fond of TAD? |
@ellajeanelle , happy for ya.. I’ve had a couple of different TAD models for the past 20 years. They are still a part of Pioneer, i.e., a sizable multinational corporation, for Christ’s sakes and could very easily facilitate some manufacturer direct avenue for their customers. But, i just can’t figure out why they go through these highly unscrupulous//unconscientious dealers in the US. I had to buy my current TAD directly from a private party in Japan to avoid being fleeced by these guys!...got it through cheap freight by sea eventually. I am certainly not going through a 50% markup for one of these guys to answer a phone call and drop off a box with the mail guy. |
| Post removed |
The best audio in the world need the best room in the world ... Nobody can afford it ... Forget it ... In the same way you forgot the top F1 car which need a designed road for his performance when you drive any normal usual very good car ...
Be creative and redesign or optimize your Toyota or your Ford... Audio is about being creative and about acoustic learnings and learning design ... It is not and never had been about the best in the world ... ( Save for the like of Bill Gates or Bezos) I am so proud of my low cost system optimized and modified , so good it is , with his not to heavy limitations , that i almost pity those who spend 50 times the amount of money i put in it for a better experience for sure than mine but not so much far in advance that what they think anyway, and thats is my point ... When you reach the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold , defined as some balance ratio of quality between all the acoustics factors involved; you are happy with the music , you listen without stop and knowing that some way better system/room exist dont impede your ectasy at all ... There is a minimal threshold ...Learn how to reach it ...
Creativity and music exclude hate ... Ectasy exclude envy ... But the bad news : creativity dont always exclude pride ... I am very proud of my peanuts costing system/room ... I apologize for that and for my long and highly vocal posts... 😁😊😉
|
Logical fallacy, ad hominem: Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. |
| Post removed |
@ellajeanelle In general, the companies are not the culprit. It’s always the dealer mafia. The latter sits around, answers a phone call and claims a 50% cut, i.e., he contributes to a 50% markup. If you bought a 50k speaker, he siphoned 25k into his pocket. There are many manufacturers who should not be dealing with a dealer and going direct all day long for the sake of their customers.... If any customer’s IQ is above room temperature, they should be writing to the manufacturers (whose stuff they really like) about going direct.
|
I think that there are many reasons as your answer such as Jealousy, ignorance and knowledge and experience. Many with the knowledge and experience know better and can quickly spot when something is overpriced, and they let it be known. As with anything, more expensive is usually better, but not in every case. There are many companies out there taking profit margins to extremes while others underprice or price their products fairly and still outperform the overpriced ones. Often by far. |
The fact that a process is methodically established and rigorously as a high cuisine protocol "chef" dont means it is relevant to be called science ...It can be based on scientific attitude as medecine is, but medecine based on science is also a healing human art ...It is not reducible to linear diagnostic eliminative methods automation so useful thery can be and they are ... Science is not about protocol and statistics , even if there is protocols and statistics in science for sure ...The attitude and protocol of the INDIVIDUAL thinking process and of awareness direction are primary for creativity ...Standardization of the thinking process is the death of art as it is the death of science ....Technology subsist very well to the standadization of the thinking process in a new religious form : transhumanism ... Then there is an abuse of the word here using the word science associated to double blind test ... The simple or double blind test may be objectives controls method they are not sciences "per se" ... The bowl containing water is not the water ... In Acoustics the neurophysiology of hearing and the multiple theories of hearings are the background behind which any objecttive description of the facts must be interpreted to be called science ... Acoustics is a science, not double blind test which is a tool and a protocol which may be or may be not part of a process , the results of such tests are facts that waited to be interpreted ... These test are not a mechanism for producing facts they are themselves merely facts among other facts waiting to be interpreted in the context of psycho-acoustics theories ... As i said simple blind test are usual in any desing process , double blind test protocols, cannot be used on a day to day designing routine process ...They are mainly useful at the end as a marketing or as a manifestation of a result for everybody who want to try ... When an audiophile design his system parts together in an long and continuous optimization process mechanically, electrically and acoustically , he use simple blind test by intention or by accident or the two ... Proposing to audiophiles a public double blind test protocols is meaningfull for secondary acoustic facts : which cables make a difference for example ... It is impractical and useless for primary psycho- acoustic facts evaluation which may resulted from multiple electrical,mechanical and acoustical specific factors all together ...It is way easier to learn how to listen and hear objectively by trials and errors and by analysing scientific principles behind the audio system/room /ears ... Simple blind tests are s necessary and are enough for all designers and audiophiles ... Claiming that double blind test must be done by audiophiles is scientist ideology at best not science and may be an organized deception on a stage at worst ... Industry using products as new drugs need these double blind protocols to eliminate placebo effects first and second to compute statistics for the establishment of the effect of a drug , this drug can be useless by the way, it does not matter for them .... In the perception of sound qualities, placebo effect and biases are inevitable, we must learn how to put them aside not necessarily to erase them ...Qualia too are studies in acoustics not only physical waves .. In psycho-acoustics too scientist designed double blind tests , for example to measure some aspect of sound perception , but they do it as a protocol to ELIMINATE FOR A MOMENT a biased interpretation and search for the correct theory behind the facts when they can isolate them, and they use this protocol statistically ... This method cannot be transfered to audio evaluation perception directly in a room during the designing process of one designer ...As i said simple blind test is enough during the optimization of the audio perceptive and choosing process ... Scientism masquareding as science is a big problem nowadays ...It has been one for centuries ...Materialism was this unsunkable Titanic of scientism till he encounter the invisible iceberg : quantum mechanics ...Now technological cults has replaced the sunked Titanic materialism and want to impose this ideology on the world for a complete control of the inexisting free spirit ...Materialism was affirmative : only matter exist ....Now the refined ressuscitated materialism in the technological cults as transhumanism devalorise humans to be replaced by "intelligence" because if matter dont exist , the soul dont exist too , only abstract intelligence existm machines ...No free will and no soul ....
|
@cleeds , You are imagining very unnecessary things. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Blind Test: Step a) Test subject sits with a blindfold on couch --------------------------------------------------------------------- Step b) ASR dude does cable swaps between 2 speaker cables 8 ft long each 20 times. He may swap, he may not even swap and say "ok, go" to try and trick the test subject, etc...20 freaking times (for statistical significance). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Step c) Another guy or 2 watch ASR dude so he ain’t doing anything too weasely...like he brought a 3rd cable with him or something, which was not under test consideration just to fk with the test subject. In other words, they watch his ass so he’s only doing swaps between the 2 specific cables under consideration. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Serves the Purpose! Works pretty good! Highly scientific! |
| Post removed |
Thanks for granting your approval, but we really don't need your permission before making a decision. You'll have to live with that.
You couldn't be more wrong. For one thing, precise level-matching and the ability to switch quickly are basic requirements of an ABX test. There's no ABX program that truly simplifies that for comparing a component, and a flawed ABX test is, by definition, scientifically invalid. As I've noted before, conducting a scientifically valid controlled listening test such as ABX is not as simple as it may appear. I've participated in a few such tests conducted by real professionals, and the degree of diligence they displayed was really impressive. It's not a casual undertaking. |
“My observation was there only to say that BACCH filters is a more interesting matter and more important than your debunking invitation to solve costly cables differences obsession among audiophile ...” Go back to my original post in this thread. The ONLY thing I was trying to debunk were the cliche mischaracterizations of audiophiles that accept what science tells us about the audibility of certain controversial elements of high end audio. It’s not jealousy, it’s not a lack of experience, it’s not a lack of “resolution” in my system or any of the other made up reasons. Clearly that original post started a fire here. now what more would you like me to say about the BACCH that I haven’t already said? I am happy to talk about that! |
You are right about the phone then i apologize for my remark ... 😑
You are right about this specfic thread question too too ...😑 My observation was there only to say that BACCH filters is a more interesting matter and more important than your debunking invitation to solve costly cables differences obsession among audiophile ...
For me audio is mainly and primarily about acoustics not about price tag...Then not about double blind test either ...More about acoustics parameters as in the BACCH filters case and real revolution .. You are way more well placed than me to spoke about it if you mind about people here and mind about giving them a real important information instead of a patronizing song ...... I guess it is the case for you too acoustics matter the most , if i put aside your double blind test protocol insistance which insistance is also partaken by the objectivist crowd ...Hence the negative reaction against you from people who dont want to be patronized , nevermind if they are wrong or right about their cables tasting with or without double blind tests ... Hate come from ignorance...There is nothing else to say about hate ... 😊 |
@scottwheel I audited the BACCH extensively, had Choueiri do me the demos (talked to him a lot), etc before i bought it. I have it tweaked it to the point where it sounds better in my room than what i experienced with Edgar’s demo. BACCH is perhaps the best thing that ever happened with 2 channel stereo. But, if you have a big enough room to set up 4 serious speakers (that mean business) and can apply the same ethos that you would apply for a high-end hifi setup (i.e., no dinky li’l sht speakers and 16 of them in a room the size of a closet!!, i.e. the typical hometheater dude’s dumass setup for atmos), Sony’s 360 reality SSM is freaking nuts good, granted you are patient and took the time to study/set it up/calibrate it correctly. Most dudes write off object based audio as something inferior for movies because there’s a big learning curve, they set everything up incorrectly and call it quits. On the same note, Sony’s stuff is quite different from Atmos or Auro. It’s cheap to try it out too/nothing to lose there, i.e.,less than a 3rd or 1/2 the cost of BACCH for entry. |
I used simple blind test in my working acoustic process , and most people may or already use it ... But if we are not obsessed by our 35 amplifiers and 103 cables and 57 dac , we dont need to compare them in a double blind test .... Most audiophiles buy few cables and called it job done ... As i did to turn to more serious matter : acoustics ... Most audiophiles must tune their room and study acoustics a bit ...No need for double blind test for that ,... Most audiophiles must adress the electrical noise floor of the gear/room/house; no need for double blind test here ... Most audiophiles must treat their speakers and gear against vibrations and resonance , even their headphones ; no need for a double blind test here ... As you can see my post also is an information ... Then you can read it and reply to me : " ok i understand why most audiophiles as you dont need double blind test ...Simple blind test may be enough most of the times " ...😁😊 Do you catch it ?
Now why not explaining instead the BACCH filters you already own to people here who for the most part are ignorant of this revolution and inform them about a real matter instead of crusading for a trivial very well not so useful known matter : double blind test ... Just my two cent advice ...Choueiri is more important for audio than sellers of the ABX DBT toy ... true science is more interesting than stance about gear tastes testing ... Acoustics rule audio and the gear not the reverse ....
« The cherry never beat the cake, do you need a double blind test ? »--Groucho Marx 🤓
|
“You misinterpreted my post because you are too captive of your blinders testing motto ...” yeah whatever dude. Par for the course. “Nobody need a ABX DBT to tune a room or to modify a pair of speakers or headphone etc ...” and where did I say anyone needed ABX for room treatments or home brewed speaker mods? “Must i use an ABX comparator to know if my electrical panel is better working for my audio component with or without my homemade plates ?”
Do whatever the hell you want. All I said was ABX doesn’t have to be complex or difficult to do thanks to a number of ABX programs. That’s just information. What you or anybody else does with that information is up to you and them. |
You misinterpreted my post because you are too captive of your blinders testing motto ... Nobody need a ABX DBT to tune a room or to modify a pair of speakers or headphone etc ... Must i use an ABX comparator to know if my electrical panel is better working for my audio component with or without my homemade plates ? I dont need it for comparing dac or amplifier because i dont upgrade anyway and even if i upgrade i will not need them ... If i had been able to tune 100 homemade Helmholtz resonators from few inches to 8 feet by ears and modify my room i can trust my ears to pick what suit me ... Go for electronical perfection , i myself prefer learning by experiments with my ears and i am happy with creativity my own way ... Your protocols suit best the cables collectors ... I am not one ...Then before objecting to someone try to read him right ... When someone tune a room he dont need ABX test , only some measures and his ears ... Or a DSP ...
And please learn to use the bloc quote just above the post window when using a quote for another post , it will be less fatiguing to read your post ...😁 it is more easy to figure out than the ABX protocol ...
|
| Post removed |
Cut and paste. What’s the date on my post? scottwheel85 posts “@scottwheel no one is piling on you. You just want to push how you feel on those who will not agree with you. Agree to disagree and move on.” where did I say anyone was piling on me? What happens if I don’t agree to disagree? 😎 but please don’t try to tell me what *I* want. It’s obnoxious. You want to challenge the merits of my position great. Do so using facts and logic. But ascribing fake motives to me is a bit of a dick move. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
“Totally agree here scottwheel ...I’m definitely thinking that nobody was thinking you were in China...though also agree it has no relevance to you finding all the previous responses except that one...” In China it was literally the next day. So when the reference was to a post I made on 11/30 that’s the date I checked. On my side it was 12/01. But really, is that what y’all want to talk about? What day are he word “dick” was used? Was it used as an adverb or a noun? |
| Post removed |
