[Steve]

Who supports Audioholics? Is it consumers or companies?

     

[Dan Banquer]

If you visit a website or read a magazine esposing the objectivist angle you are obviously soliciting those views.  Nobody's trying to force this stuff down your throat anymore than the more subjective press is.

And isn't any review etc. supposed to "limit choice" simply because there are so many choices out there?  I don't see this as a negative thing.  Whether it's Stereophile or Audioholics they both have to narrow down what they are and aren't going to review.  And what does it matter what their purposes are, if it's to sell as much botique gear for as much money as possible or to find stuff that's more accesible and affordable? It's fine to have both camps and whatever else in between.  The objectivist aren't going to stand in the way of anyone who wants to spend a jillion dollars on a system, but they might show how silly it is and make fun of such people.  Where's the harm?  Couldn't it be argued that the subjective magazines were established to correct a perceived wrong in the marketplace - that people are buying too much cheap gear and not the fancy high end stuff?  Shouldn't equipment costing extreme amounts of money have their feet held to the fire?

I guess I haven't read anything where the author was pushing the fraud angle, but if so I wouldn't agree with such an approach.  I might be sick of the silly claims and puffery, but these people don't belong in jail by any stretch!  I would much rather have the charlatans exposed, not by lawyers but simply by enthusiants and\or EE type people who just might know what they're talking about.  Better yet, I would rather have the charlatans attacked viciously - with sarcasm!  

With audio you can have all sorts of different people involved.  I really don't grok the whole electricity thing myself.  Usually if someone is explaining something electrical I can't fully grasp it, but since I am in doubt I would feel arrogant to dismiss their argument.  So I'm glad there are the objectivists out there.  They keep your head out of the clouds.  And my own experiences have matched to a large degree with what they have been saying anyway.

Here's an open question to any objectivist out there:  Who in the Hi-Fi industry would you like to see in jail?  Seriously.

I don't think jail is necessary, but some of us would like to have the FTC take a look at some of the claims being made, and make a decision if the advertising is making fraudulent claims or is deliberately misleading.

             d.b.

[sts9fan]

Audioholics is as bad as sterophile just with a different angle. They push all their favorite on line companies the same way Stereophile pushes Levinson etc. These are "for profit" ventures with "for profit" motives (not that there's anything wrong with that). The content they have is strictly dictated by what they think their consumers want. These are not philanthropic organizations. I find it funny that Audioholics is VERY touchy on the subject. They would like you to think they are a group of audio loving monks out to protect you...

[woodsyi]

They would like you to think they are a group of audio loving monks out to protect you...

Since when did monks protect you? 

[sts9fan]

well there was this one time....

[dado5]

I guess there's no accounting for different perceptions. I read all the back issues of The Audio Critic and completely missed what you are describing.

The existence of the Audio Critic and Audioholics is proof in itself.  They would not exist if the creators did not view the presence of relatively expensive, technically inferior gear in the market as a problem.

he objectivist aren't going to stand in the way of anyone who wants to spend a jillion dollars on a system, but they might show how silly it is and make fun of such people.  Where's the harm?

For the Objecivist, consumer preference does not enter in to it. They are not simply poking fun at folks choosing to spend lots of money on a trivial pastime. As the Audioholics banner itself declares, it is a matter of truth and falsity.  Selling technically inferior stuff at high prices is wrong and buying it is a mistake.  Put another way, there is a whole segment of a market that is currently operating under false pretenses. 

Here's an open question to any objectivist out there:  Who in the Hi-Fi industry would you like to see in jail?  Seriously.

That misses the point. If, as is presented in these publications, producers are marketing their wares using demonstrably false information, they are, by definition, engaging in fraud. Why don’t they state the obvious? I suspect it is fear of controversy by and large. Perhaps they don’t view this as fraud because it takes place in a leisure industry? There could well be other reasons, but I see it as some variation of the three points I raised in the previous post. Maybe you can answer this yourself - if by silly claims you mean false ones, why don’t they deserve to be in jail?

And isn't any review etc. supposed to "limit choice" simply because there are so many choices out there?

Most review institutions showcase products individually. They do not present information to show that a portion of home audio producers are fleecing their customers as a matter of course or that these customers don’t know how to properly judge quality.

To restate and simplify; Objectivists are market haters. They either reject or fail to understand the subjective nature of economic exchange. In so doing they view exchanges that do not reflect their own value scale as morally wrong. This moral outrage then compels them to speak out.  I see this as obvious and even axiomatic.

[lcrim]

Earlier in my life I earned my living as a lighting designer in the theatre.  Dance and industrial shows were also fair game.  I bring this up because I was very interested in the opinions of theatrical critics at that point of my life.  Critics could very definitely affect the financial viability of a production.  A show with bad reviews usually closed quickly, and as a designer, my weekly share in the profits would then be over.
On the other side of this coin, the critics, by their very existence and influence, in a very real sense imposed standards.  Much as I may have disagreed with their views in specific instances, the imposition of standards is valuable.  The critic , in my view creates his or her influence, by their competence.  This includes the ability to interest and entertain.  The critic would not have a following w/o an audience.  Yes they are judging the validity of the work of a group of artists.
I think that the reviewer of audio stuff whether its hardware or even music itself, are attempting to create standards.  While I may not agree with them, I think it is a vauable undertaking. 
I most thoroughly enjoy negative reviews. aa

[Bob Reynolds]

I don't think jail is necessary, but some of us would like to have the FTC take a look at some of the claims being made, and make a decision if the advertising is making fraudulent claims or is deliberately misleading.

             d.b.

I agree with Dan. It surprises me that the high-end audio industry has been able to fly under the FTC's radar for so long.

[Bob Reynolds]

I guess there's no accounting for different perceptions. I read all the back issues of The Audio Critic and completely missed what you are describing.

The existence of the Audio Critic and Audioholics is proof in itself.  They would not exist if the creators did not view the presence of relatively expensive, technically inferior gear in the market as a problem.

Another assumption with no evidence. Oh, I forgot -- it's self-evident.

[nathanm]

I don't think jail is necessary, but some of us would like to have the FTC take a look at some of the claims being made, and make a decision if the advertising is making fraudulent claims or is deliberately misleading. d.b.

Well that I am wholly opposed to.  Take out the words "the FTC" from that sentence and insert "people" and I am all for it.  It's fine to inform people about what think is screwey about the market but wrong to bring the feds into it.  That just makes it look like consumers are too stupid to think for themselves.

The reason I don't think making false claims about products should be a jailable offense is that I don't think your rights are being violated by it.  It's wrong, but it's not wrong to everybody.  It seems to me that some of the purveyors of B.S. that AH rails against truly believe in their products, they haven't experienced the paradigm shift to the other side.  So it's a faith thing.  And these wrongs are so easily righted by just getting people to dismiss these things and promote a healthy degree of skepticism.  I really don't think the world would be a better place if some guys who make cables are sitting in a jail cell.  I don't want a leisure hobby to be polluted with lawsuits and regulation and all sorts of that kinda B.S.  People are smart enough to be pursuaded to dismiss the more egregious flim flammery and if they don't then so what, it's their money which they voluntarily paid and nobody should stand in their way.  If the engineering and science is correct then it does not need the force of government to help it.

If you are designing products that explode, catch fire during normal operation or electrocute people (steel bolts spring out and plunge through both hands!) then I can see the law getting involved, but anything else can be sufficiently handled within the marketplace, and the objectivists are certainly in the marketplace themselves.  If AH was some politcal or lobbying group that was out to see these guys sued or prosecuted I'd be against it.  By doing that you're taking away my freedom to choose.

Besides, in the most general sense aren't ALL marketing claims a load of crap anyway, open to all sorts of interpretation?  Every other product out there is claimed to make your life easier and better in one way or another!  Do we believe every bit of ad copy blindly?  Of course not!  You filter out the crap.  People don't need to be saved from themselves.

[chadh]

Dado5,

Please, consider the following completely hypothetical situation in the market for toasters.

Suppose we have two toasters available in the market.  Suppose that the two toasters are identical, except cosmetically.  That means that they cook toast in exactly the same way.  So that if I put 1000 slices of bread through toaster 1, with toaster 1 on a given setting, and then put 1000 slices of toast through toaster 2, with toaster 2 on exactly the same setting, that in every conceivable aspect of the toast produced toaster 1 generates the same distribution of outcomes as toaster 2.

Now suppose that toasters 1 and 2 are equally easily obtainable, but that toaster 1 sells for twice the price of toaster 2.  And suppose that the information concerning the relative toasting abilities of the two toasters is commonly known in the market.  What would you imagine would be true about the relative sales of these two toasters?  I suspect that we would agree that the answer would depend on the subjective willingness of individuals to pay for the more expensive cosmetics of toaster 1.

Alternatively, suppose that the information concerning the relative toasting abilities of these toasters is not widely distributed.  Do you imagine that the relative sales of the two toasters would be different from that generated when consumers are fully informed?  While you may choose not to agree, I would happily wager a large amount of money that there would be a difference, and that sales in the uninformed case would be skewed in favor of the expensive toaster.  In a world in which they are uninformed, the consumers look to infer something from prices, and some proportion of consumers is likely to conclude that the higher priced toaster is actually a more capable toaster.  Given the description of the toasters, these people would be wrong. 

Which situation is more desirable?  The answer depends on who you are.  If you manufacture toaster 1, or hold shares in that firm, then you like the uninformed situation.  If you manufacture both toasters then you probably also prefer the uninformed situation.  If you're a consumer, then you clearly prefer to be equipped with all the relevant information.  And if you care about the efficiency of the market (the market's ability to ensure that exchange takes place if and only if there are mutual gains to that exchange), in this case you would agree with the consumer.  In suppressing this information, one distorts the incentives to produce toasters, encouraging a greater proportion of type 1 toasters to be present in the market.  Thus the average price of toasters rises, and fewer toasters will be sold.  One also generates real uncertainty amongst consumers about the relative quality of toasters in general, which translates to a reduction in the quantity of toasters sold.  The bottom line is that this market will do a poorer job of delivering toasters to people who care to toast.

Now, the information about the toasters does not preclude choice in the toaster market.  It simply allows people accurately to express their preferences when purchasing toasters.  People who buy toaster 1 express a strong preference for the cosmetics of toaster 1.  People who buy toaster 2 reveal that the cosmetic differences between the toasters is not enough to encourage them to buy toaster 1.  If the market outcome is that so few people buy toaster 1 that in ceases to be cost effective to provide it, then so be it.  The market has spoken.  This is a conseqence of toaster 1 not providing sufficient value to the consumer to merit its price. 

Why on earth would I object to an organisation dedicated to revealing this sort of information about toasters?  Why on earth would I accuse such an organisation of any kind of anti-market mentality?  The real information that this organisation strives to present actively promotes the efficacy of the market to direct resources to their most valued uses.  And on this dimension, for the life of me, I cannot see the distinction between your Objectivists and an organisation dedicated to providing information about my hypothetical toasters.

You may doubt that the information produced by these Objectivists is accurate.  In that case, discount the information.  You may doubt that the information is relevant.  In that case, feel free to ignore it.  Clearly, many audio enthusiasts choose exactly this course.  But to label the efforts as detrimental to the efficacy of the market simply makes no sense.

Chad

[Bob Reynolds]

I don't think jail is necessary, but some of us would like to have the FTC take a look at some of the claims being made, and make a decision if the advertising is making fraudulent claims or is deliberately misleading. d.b.

Well that I am wholly opposed to.  Take out the words "the FTC" from that sentence and insert "people" and I am all for it.  It's fine to inform people about what think is screwey about the market but wrong to bring the feds into it.  That just makes it look like consumers are too stupid to think for themselves.
.
.
.
Besides, in the most general sense aren't ALL marketing claims a load of crap anyway, open to all sorts of interpretation?  Every other product out there is claimed to make your life easier and better in one way or another!  Do we believe every bit of ad copy blindly?  Of course not!  You filter out the crap.  People don't need to be saved from themselves.

I agree with some of your points especially in a perfect world. However, many people are easily swayed by marketing and advertisements. Here I'll say that their existence is proof that it is so.

Also in such a market a manufacturer needing to decide where to budget its funds is more likely to allocate a larger (possibly much larger) share to marketing than research/engineering. In those instances we all lose.

[nathanm]

So you're saying that consumers ARE too stupid to think for themselves?  Everybody or just everyone except you, or maybe "us" as in Audiocircle posters?    I know what you mean, I think the same thing quite often.  But it's really easy to think that I'm smart and everyone else is a dullard, but it's probably not true.  I fail to see a guy who has expensive cables propped up on little chopsticks fed into an amp with a jar of pebbles on it as a victim.  If he's happy who cares?  I will make fun of him, I will argue that his tweaks aren't doing anything, but the man is not a victim of some evil plot.

Even though there's a huge number of hifi products available people like us are still a tiny minority in the scheme of things.  How many people would really be rescued from buying "bad" products if the FTC started a witch hunt?  It would just make things really ugly really quick.  Look at the Monster Cable thing - they used government to strong arm other companies just for having a lousy word in their name, and not even their audio competitors!  I don't want any of that awfulness in the hifi business.  If peddling audio snakeoil was such a lucrative field why isn't Apple doing it?  They're selling millions of iPods without any claims that you need a braided, pure silver, cryo-treated wire for it to sound good.  Didn't the whole issue of sound quality as it concerns the mainstream market (not the audiophiles) get born and die when CD was introduced?  The mainstream crowd isn't hearing the crazy stuff that goes on in our little world here.  I just am not seeing widespread victimization going on here, even though I may be annoyed and incredulous over the more far-fetched products.

[dado5]

.....it's self-evident.

indeed it is.

And I had not noticed earlier, but my point about state intervention was proved as well by Dan and echoed by yourself.

Well that I am wholly opposed to.....

One the on hand, nathanm, you are not a market hater.  You are overtly opposed to state intervention and, If  I read you right, you are saying if folks are satisfied with their purchase, no harm has been done. But on the other hand you still view the market condition of high priced, pseudo-science promoted audio gear as  a 'wrong' that needs to be 'righted'.  This tells me you still desire to change the market situation to one that better suits your value scale. Given that, do you really agree with your closing sentence?

Please, consider the following ....

The implicit point of your illustration is that most people inherently value toasting performance more than aesthetics and if they have this performance info they will go one way and if they don't they will buy based on the idea that high price and good looks = good performance. You are universalizing your own value scale here. I have no idea whatever what most folks would do. I know that I put a pretty high value on toaster aesthetics myself and I routinely pay more for a toaster that is not an eyesore in my kitchen. I guess that makes me a toasting performance objectivist  , they all make brown bread so I buy the one that looks good.

Your analysis of the market is confused. Exchange takes place because of expected mutual benefit. It does not have to be ensured. The only things that affect this normal state are violence and/or deceit. And I take it you are saying the market does not work optimally without review publication information. This is an incorrect idea. The two participants in an exchange are the only ones who have the relevant and required information. No one else on earth has more at that moment in time. Only they know the reasons for their transaction. If the CU was bombed tomorrow by vacuum cleaner rights activists, there would be no glut or shortage of dishwashers, toothbrushes or window cleaners.

I never said that the efforts of Objectivists are harmful to market efficiency. I said that their desire is to limit consumer choice to the range of products that they feel are legitimate. They certainly want to alter the market. And as has been demonstrated, they carry this to the point of unilateral violent interference.

[woodsyi]

Also in such a market a manufacturer needing to decide where to budget its funds is more likely to allocate a larger (possibly much larger) share to marketing than research/engineering. In those instances we all lose.

That's why we are here at AC with most of the direct sales folks.     I like inefficient market -- locally at least if not globally.  How else am I going to find bargains?

[nathanm]

This tells me you still desire to change the market situation to one that better suits your value scale. Given that, do you really agree with your closing sentence?

My desire is for more people to not take audio so seriously and laugh at the stuff which doesn't stand up to the light of reason without any state intervention of any kind.  I just want persuasion instead of force.  And I am pretty much getting what I want already because the government doesn't have it's nose in our hobby and there are plenty of people who joke about foo foo products, so I am mostly satisfied.  If there were NO fulla-crap products out there the world would be less funny and I'd be sad.

So yes, people don't need to be saved from themselves by the government, but if they want to be saved (or rather "better informed") I think it's perfectly fine to have as many sources of information as people want to provide.  I also would like such information to come from people who actually care about this kinda stuff and not politicians who just want to co-opt other people's causes for their own political gain.

But really, my true desire is to buy a car stereo with big knurled knobs and single-mode function!  The market has failed me in that regard!  Maybe we should pass a law...

[WEEZ]

Amen, brother nathanm 

Objective opinions; subjective opinions; I read 'em all. There's enough hooey on both sides to go around as far as I'm concerned. Anybody remember Julian Hirsch?

WEEZ

[Steve]

     IF the state gets into the middle, who is going to determine what is scientific and what isn't? Will data from Physicists and other disciplines be considered, or merely swept aside as has been amply demonstrated in previous strings? And who is going to define what is fraud and what isn't?
 
     Quite simply those with the most money, the midfi corporations and their sockpuppets. And what do you think is their adgenda, but the elimination of competition. Afterall, the goal is continued and increased sales.

     (Now, as mentioned before, there are those who will produce components that will actually be physically dangerous. This concern should be addressed.)

     The government rules will be determined by who lobbies most effectively. And that will be the midfi giant corporations and their sockpuppets. As such, the government will define the definition of "good design" and what is "scientific" as what the corporations and their "objectionists/scientific" sockpuppets define as good. That will be measurements and measurements alone. Forget subjectivity.

Here is an interesting article from Stereophile magazine. It is an Audio Engineering Society (AES) convention. Notice the setup conditions.

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/107/


     The end result, a set of rules will be imposed by industry giants and sockpuppets. And DIYers posts and comments  will be in the same boat.

[Dan Banquer]

For those of you who may be interested in how a real double blind test should be done you may wish to look up the work Jim Johnston. He is a former ATT researcher and also a member of the AES. I believe he just retired from Microsoft. The protocols for doing these tests are very demanding and rarely if ever done correctly in consumer audio. (remember: consumer audio is more about marketing than anything else). He has also posted quite frequently on Propellor Head Plaza in AA. When he isn't be harassed by some of the idiots on that board he is a wealth of knowledge.
There is one thing that I really find tough to swallow is the general claim that all "competently designed" electronics (whatever that means) sound the same. I would think that would be statistically impossible.
                  d.b.

[dado5]

IF the state gets into the middle,......

Thanks for the link Steve.

There you have it.  A call for state intervention.

FYI here is a link about the economic model of the state 'capturing' and industry.  It begins with those in the industry itself asking for the state to 'weed out' the bad guys

http://www.mises.org/story/2320

Thanks,
Rob