[totoro]

dado5--

I'm a little mystified by your claim that all objectivists are anti-market. As you well know, a market presupposes perfect information. More information seems to me to be what they are trying to provide and/or demand.

Many purveyors of voodoo pebbles and 10k cables, as well as more "respectable" companies, make strong performance claims about their products. In some cases, these
putative performance benefits are not measurable through any known measurement. It is perfectly possible, of course, for an effect to exist which we can perceive, but which cannot be measured at present. In such a case, for a performance claim to be at all valid, it would need to be shown with something like a double blind test (in the case of
cables, it would be at least a start if people could be shown to be able to reliably tell them apart in a well-conducted test) or some proposed alternative with some sound basis (from a field like medicine).

Otherwise, what do we have but marketing claims?

If the claim were that this is like the watch market (where nobody claims a rolex keeps better time than a timex), then perhaps the "objectivists" you rail against would have no leg to stand on. However, the boutique manufacturers (who may be right), along with the outright fraudsters, feel the need to make performance claims precisely _because_ their customers apparently desire to have better performance, as well as more "prestige", better looks, etc. In this case, why is it bad to puncture their bubble if their claims are false? And if their claims are true, why wouldn't they themselves be open to some kind of testing?

On a side note, for all those who feel that double blind testing is anathema, I suggest that you stop trusting in those horrible double blind tests dome by the pharma industry, and only evaluate drugs based on your own personal experience (after all, isn't that all that matters?)

[Bob Reynolds]

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.

Dan, thanks for the reference to Jim Johnston.

[Rick Craig]

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.

Another thing that the Audio Critic covers is often not found in other audio magazines - reliability and construction. If you look over past issues you'll find one Audio Circle manufacturer who they nailed for shoddy construction 

[Bob Reynolds]

Another thing that the Audio Critic covers is often not found in other audio magazines - reliability and construction. If you look over past issues you'll find one Audio Circle manufacturer who they nailed for shoddy construction 

Yes, David Rich is very particular. Little details like whether or not switches and pots are sealed, what type of capacitor is in the feedback loop, thickness of the sheet metal, how reliable is the speaker protection circuit, etc. And yes a few AC folks appear in their pages.

[Steve]

'Thanks for the link Steve."

 Interesting, the "elite" had weeks or months to plan the event and contact others in AES if need be. Afterall, it was an AES convention. 

Yet I have not heard Any from AES commenting on the poor performance of this AES event and the testing. (Please give a link if I am wrong.)

[dado5]

I'm a little mystified by your claim that all objectivists are anti-market. As you well know, a market presupposes perfect information......

The economic equivalent of the Humor/Disease or Caloric/Heat theories. It was a backstep from the subjectivist revolution (Menger/Jevons) and a return to worst aspects of the Classical school. Mises, Hayek, Kirzner, Rothbard and many others have pointed out the errors of the 'perfect competition' model since Marshall proposed it and the economic 'mainstream' finally acknowledged the model's futility with the 2001 Nobel prize. I think that was pedantic enough, but I certainly can try harder if anyone wants.

Objectivists (again for clarity, I am only referring to those who publish against 'exotic' audio gear) clearly believe that a segment of the audio market should not be allowed to practice business as it does. If Objectivists really believed that people should be free to produce and purchase according to their own needs and wants then they would not publish in the first place.

Many purveyors of voodoo pebbles.......

This is another instance of universalization of personal value scales (everyone does it...I am not trying to be insulting here). It looks like you place a relatively high value on the scientific accuracy or falsifiability of marketing claims. Other people may not. To make such requirements a requisite upon entry into the market though, is to limit choice.

If the claim were that this is like the watch market .....

Folks can burst as many bubbles as they like but if their goal is limitation or destruction of the offending market segment, I'm gonna call them on it.

[Bob Reynolds]

My last comment on this topic is that those with open minds should buy the back issues, read them and then decide for yourself if they are of any value to you.

People like dado5 have successfully done their job of limiting our choice (the very ideal they claim to support), because The Audio Critic is no longer in print and there is no other magazine like it in the market. I believe the market and consumer are the worse for it.

[dado5]

People like dado5 have successfully done their job of limiting our choice......

Muhahahaha! my plan worked perfectly

The most likely reason for the closing of AC was Peter could not realize the profit he hoped for.  In other words, not many wanted to hear what he had to say.

[Dan Banquer]

Another thing that the Audio Critic covers is often not found in other audio magazines - reliability and construction. If you look over past issues you'll find one Audio Circle manufacturer who they nailed for shoddy construction 

Yes, David Rich is very particular. Little details like whether or not switches and pots are sealed, what type of capacitor is in the feedback loop, thickness of the sheet metal, how reliable is the speaker protection circuit, etc. And yes a few AC folks appear in their pages.

Yes, Dave Rich has done some of this, some of his criticism has been right and some has been off the mark. Personally I think he could have gone into greater detail on a number of technical issues but he chose not to. I consider the "sin of omission" to be just as important as the sins not omitted.
                   d.b.

[totoro]

Snarg-- dado5, you bad person, I went and posted on your decoy thread

I'm not an economist, but I really can't see how information asymmetry can be considered a _good_ thing.

If the maker of the hypothetical voodoo pebbles makes a claim that his pebbles make your system _sound_ better, then he should be amenable to proper testing of this claim.

If he is not, or such testing proves that people actually can't hear any difference (and, for the sake of argument, they don't do anything measurable, either), then I don't see why you would have a problem with him being prevented from making such false claims.

If he simply refuses to submit to such a test, and a reviewer calls him, what is your problem, exactly?

Not to be inflammatory, but this argument seems to me to lead to the conclusion that, eg, the marketing of quack treatments of cancer is ok, as well, and that any attempt to destroy the market for them is bad on ideological grounds.

I think the main point the objectivists are making is that some of these manufacturers are making clearly dishonest claims, and that technically unsavvy people are not being given the information they could use to evaluate this.
If better information kills the market in voodoo pebbles, why is this bad? If they can sell the pebbles purely on the basis of prestige or exclusivity or whatever, fine.

But that often does not seem to be the case. Again, if they are making essentially fraudulent claims, I cannot see the harm in this being pointed out. I think the destruction of the Laetrile market was a good thing....

Just in case I came across as someone who thinks voodoo pebbles are as bad as Laetrile: I don't. And I view these kinds of discussions as a bunch of dorky guys (myself included) having fun arguing, so I hope this doesn't come across as a personal attack Smile. The only reason I brought it up was because it seemed to me that dado5 was making an argument which, taken to its logical conclusion, would lead us there.

Dado5: if you think that fraudulent claims wrt medical treatments are in principal different, then what is the test (again, I'm not claiming voodoo pebbles are in the same league) for which kinds of fraudulent claims should be prevented? It seems to me that your position would make it difficult not to end up on a slippery slope here.

Maybe I'm putting words in other people's mouths, but I think it is precisely the intrinsically _testable_ claims (like "voodoo pebbles make your sound better", which is at least testable insofar as we should be able to tell whether people can distinguish the difference in sound between a particular system with voodoo pebbles and without) being made without any testing that people are objecting to.

If the claim were "voodoo pebbles increase your enjoyment of your stereo through the stimulation of your spiritual being" or "voodoo pebbles increase your pride of ownership and enhance your self esteem", I think you would be on firmer ground, but an awful lot of really dubious products have had a lot of testable claims made about them with pretty much no justification for these claims.

Just to finish flogging (my probably  now long dead and seriously decomposed Smile ) horse: it's not intrinsically untestable marketing claims I (and I think others) am objecting to here. The problem I have is with essentially dishonest misrepresentations about empirically testable claims. In some cases, this might be replaced with delusion, but I think we all know there is a fair amount of this stuff going on.

The audio critic wasn't the best thing ever, but I'd say, for instance, 6moons, are at least as bad in the opposite direction (prone to swoonings and panegyrics, as opposed to curmudgeonliness)

[nathanm]

I should point out that it's not accurate to call them "voodoo pebbles".  I contacted a leading witch doctor in his bayou swamp lair and he assured me that such pebbles have nothing to do with proper voodoo rituals and that they are misusing voodoo to market their products.  He never heard of voodoo being used to treat stereos, however he did offer to put a hex on anyone who sold me a bad stereo.

[lonewolfny42]

I should point out that it's not accurate to call them "voodoo pebbles".  I contacted a leading witch doctor in his bayou swamp lair and he assured me that such pebbles have nothing to do with proper voodoo rituals and that they are misusing voodoo to market their products.  He never heard of voodoo being used to treat stereos, however he did offer to put a hex on anyone who sold me a bad stereo.

Who do....the VooDoo.......

[dado5]

Snarg-- dado5, you bad person, I went and posted on your decoy thread Smile

doh! Sorry about that.

If the maker of the hypothetical voodoo pebbles makes a claim....

I don't think he should at all. As a producer he is only answerable to his customers and no one else. They will voice their opinions about his claims loud and clear through the megaphone of their wallets.

Not to be inflammatory, but this argument seems to me to lead to the conclusion......

I firmly believe anyone is free to bring any product they wish to market and advertise any way they want.

The big picture is that if a producer has satisfied customers no one can assert a crime has been committed.  Dissatisfied customers will let themselves be known as a matter of course. If the product truly does not deliver what it promises, the producer will get that feedback very quickly in the form of unsold inventory.   Laetrile is still available around the world but few use it anymore because it does not do a very good job of curing cancer.

Just to finish flogging .....

I agree with you here.  A claim of .0001% THD is empirically verifiable while a claim of improved sound is not. It is purely subjective.

This really exposes the folly of what AC and others attempt to do. Most audio consumers have no way of verifying the claimed technical performance metrics of a product for themselves. This is second hand QA based on pure faith in the pronouncements of experts (or salesmen), it has nothing whatever to do with the intended use of the device.  By far most folks purchase audio gear to hear music for entertainment, (of course some may derive entertainment from ongoing displays of THD, but the dearth of slick ads for THD meters leads me to think this is very niche market). This means that producers who make claims about the sonics of their gear inherently open themselves up to a very high level of scrutiny by the consumer .  Indeed if fraud was the goal of a producer he would stand a much greater chance of running his scheme if he used specs as ad copy exclusively - consumers would not be able to check his claims and he would be off the Objectivicts radar entirely. AC and co. are litterally asking us consumers to replace our direct experience with their declarations as our primary means of judging product quality.

Then comes the question of exactly what the Objectivist institution is trying to accomplish and who is its target customer?  Its writing will be statements of the obvious to like-minded objectivists and water off the duck's back (or perhaps a source of anger) to subjectivists. Is there a third, fence-sitting group they are after? Some who've heard about audible differences but not yet listened for themselves perhaps? Are they trying to reach this group before they fall on the wrong side of the hobble? Who are they preaching to? Given their audience is not easy to define, what is ther intended goal if not to limit or destroy the market they rail against?

[LightFire]

For me anyone who defends ABX is completally insane. There is much more than simply statics in the complex human perception process where vission has a role even in AUDITION events, people seems to be aware of this in other areas but in audio there are two kind of rattlers "objetivists" and "subjectivists", personally I distrust both kinds, a mixed more intellgent approach is needed.

Anyone who distrust ABX is obviously insane (misinformed at least).

How can you distrust "objectivists" and "subjectivists", once your statements are obviously from a subjectivists point of view. So you are subjectivist and distrust yourself?!!! That is illogical!

[LightFire]

...By the way The Audio Critic Magazine is an excellent magazine.

[totoro]

I don't think he should at all. As a producer he is only answerable to his customers and no one else. They will voice their opinions about his claims loud and clear through the megaphone of their wallets.

I think this is where we diverge. This is the reason I brought up the quack medecine example. As far as I can see, your argument leads to the conclusion that, even if the information is available to debunk the claims of a quck proprietor, it is more or less ok for a customer with poor information to die as a result of purchasing quack medicine x over real medication y, pretty much on the grounds that this is market behavior. In essense, _any_ predatory behavior by players with some information advantage is ok on this argument, even if they are committing out and out fraud.

The fact that, eg, laetrile is available in some countries does not seem to me to bolster your position, either. Sure, I can go to Bangkok and buy anything I want: this doesn't mean that this is an aspect of Thai governance that is particularly admirable, or that we should want to adopt.

The big picture is that if a producer has satisfied customers no one can assert a crime has been committed.  Dissatisfied customers will let themselves be known as a matter of course. If the product truly does not deliver what it promises, the producer will get that feedback very quickly in the form of unsold inventory.   Laetrile is still available around the world but few use it anymore because it does not do a very good job of curing cancer.

Again, in the medicine case, the the main way a dissasatisfied customer gets to let himself be known is by dying. This seems to be a pretty high price to pay to preserve an informational asymmetry. In this case, we're saying, essentially, "any predatory behavior whatsoever is ok, as long as it is part of a market". Since we aren't allowing the aggrieved relatives of the dupe in question the only response of the same magnitude (ie, killing the fraudster and impoverishing his heirs, in the worst case), I don't see why the fraudster's behavior should get such protection.

I agree with you here.  A claim of .0001% THD is empirically verifiable while a claim of improved sound is not. It is purely subjective.

Yes and no. Going back to the Voodoo Pebbles (TM), if they have _no_ discernible effect whatsoever on the sound, then they cannot really be said to improve it. And this, at least, is verifiable.

Most audio consumers have no way of verifying the claimed technical performance metrics of a product for themselves. This is second hand QA based on pure faith in the pronouncements of experts (or salesmen), it has nothing whatever to do with the intended use of the device.

Quite true. But this is exactly what truth in advertising laws are for. Even then, we would be relying, at least in part, on the government to enforce these laws, and that doesn't work very well. But there at least is _some_ recourse in this case in getting fraudulent claims out of the marketplace.

But still, the fact remains that many proprietors of products very similar to Voodoo Pebbles (TM) make claims that their products _improve_ sound. Since we can verify that they do or don't _effect_ (and, in the case of Voodoo Pebbles (TM), whether placing simple gravel in the listening environment has the same effect), I don't see the problem of expecting them to (at least in principal) be able to show that they have _some_ verifiable effect. If they are shown
to have no effect, they are forced to retract their claim, and they continue to sell based on their "intangible" qualities, fine. But if the retraction of this claim causes the market for their products to collapse, that seems fine to me, as well. 

[totoro]

NEW PRODUCT ANNOUNCEMENT:

After years of development, we are proud to announce the release of our new product, Marie Laveau's Syncretistic System Enhancement Modules^TM (also known as Voodoo Pebbles^TM), using our new patented Syncretistic Halide Integument Technology^TM.

Our lead technologist, Toulouse DeBlanc (PhD, Carnegie Mellon^*), along with Marie LeFarge, one of the last known descendants of Marie Laveau, has worked long and hard to come up with this wonderful new technology. This new product has the following benefits:

• Enhances Pace, Rhythm, and Timing of any audio system
• Makes any system sound much better, through the channeling of loas
• Allows you to see into the soul of the music.
• Due to the exclusivity of this product, causes wonderful feelings of self-satisfaction and superiority.

These modules are made of the finest granite, coated, using our patented SHIT^TM technology, with a fine coating of calomel, which gives the product a wonderful glow, and truly brings out the soulfullness of the music. Combined with our innovative Loa Alignment System^TM, this results in unprecedented performance from any audio system. We currently have three modules available, as below, and will be making more available in the near future. Finding the right mixture of these modules will Free Your Soul. These modules are endorsed by Dr John^**, Professor Longhair^***, and Jelly Roll Morton^***.

• The Papa Legba: this is the core of our system, the Gatekeeper, if you will.  You will need at least two of these per channel, one under the speaker wire, and one on the connection between your preamp and amp. This module will give your system ineffable balance. $2400 each.
• The Baron Samedi: this module will help you truly appreciate any death-related music, from death metal to Mozart's Mass in C Minor or Bach's Art of the Fugue. You will never experience true soulfulness without at least one of these. $1300 each
• The Madame Urzulie: do you want your date to really "ride the loa"? Then you need to have an Urzulie. Guaranteed to have her "put the red dress on". $3600
  

As a special promotion, we are offering a fully balanced module system for our new customers, consisting of

• 4 Papa Legba modules
• 2 Baron Samedi
• 2 Madame Urzulie

This set will give you a glimpse of what is available in a fully balanced system (we recommend 8 Papa Legba, 2 Baron Samedi, and 4 Madame Urzulie for a truly transcendant experience), for a very attractive introductory price of $11000.

For our most discerning customers, we offer the ultimate in sonic refinement. We can upgrade any module to True Houngan^TM status, by bathing in in the tears shed by a young virgin while being deflowered by a master houngan under the corpse of a black cat. This can be done for a fee of only $2000 per module, and achieves truly miraculous results.

^* 1972, College of Fine Arts
^** Dr John Phleb, Chiropractor, Peoria, Ill
^*** posthumous

[dado5]

We have way highjacked this thread totoro!

I believe all markets should be free, medicine included. Ultimately only an individual can determine if he is feeling poorly and only he can make the decision to relieve his suffering. He is free (or rather should be) to choose conventional medicine or alternatives  and accept the consequences either way. If someone diagnoses him with a condition, promises a cure and he dies from the disease or his otherwise injured by the treatment, he or his survivors have every right to pursue justice.   Government restriction of the medical market is no solution here. It ends up doing far more to protect the holders of the government granted monoply privilege  than provide justice to those injured by their practices and products. Let med school grads and acupuncturists, pharmaceutical companies and herbalists, psychiatrists and scientologists all offer their wares without restriction and let the consumer decide who provides the better treatments.

'Improved sound' is purely subjective. DBX testing would prove nothing pass or fail. All someone has to do is say that the stuff 'improved the sound' of his system....how can one prove it didn't?. And again why 'should' any producer submit his product to such testing? If he has happy customers, he is delivering what he promised and no crime has been committed. If he has unhappy customers, they will seek redress or simply not give him any more of their money. The only ones satisfied by such testing will be those calling for it.....it is very unlikely that negative results on conventional tests are going to sway buyers already shopping in an unconventional market.

[LightFire]

We have way highjacked this thread totoro!

I believe all markets should be free, medicine included. Ultimately only an individual can determine if he is feeling poorly and only he can make the decision to relieve his suffering. He is free (or rather should be) to choose conventional medicine or alternatives  and accept the consequences either way. If someone diagnoses him with a condition, promises a cure and he dies from the disease or his otherwise injured by the treatment, he or his survivors have every right to pursue justice.   Government restriction of the medical market is no solution here. It ends up doing far more to protect the holders of the government granted monoply privilege  than provide justice to those injured by their practices and products. Let med school grads and acupuncturists, pharmaceutical companies and herbalists, psychiatrists and scientologists all offer their wares without restriction and let the consumer decide who provides the better treatments.

'Improved sound' is purely subjective. DBX testing would prove nothing pass or fail. All someone has to do is say that the stuff 'improved the sound' of his system....how can one prove it didn't?. And again why 'should' any producer submit his product to such testing? If he has happy customers, he is delivering what he promised and no crime has been committed. If he has unhappy customers, they will seek redress or simply not give him any more of their money. The only ones satisfied by such testing will be those calling for it.....it is very unlikely that negative results on conventional tests are going to sway buyers already shopping in an unconventional market.

I don't think people should be "free" to take advantage of other people. By the way ABX double blind tests prove everything for audio. It takes the psychological (placebo) factor out of the equation.

[nathanm]

I did find one specific example in the magazine where fraud\law involvement was brought up at an AES convention.  It wasn't entirely clear if the editor was in favor of such a thing but I wouldn't suspect he'd be upset if one of his enemies got the hammer put down on 'em.  That's the only thing which rubs me the wrong way with The Audio Critic, they make this list of good guys and bad guys.  Is this really necessary?  Are ad hominem attacks helpful?  Look, I can dig going after the B.S. purveyors, but why make it so personal?  Ray Kimber was labeled a "black hat" simply because he sold a cable that cost too much, but was complimented for also selling reasonably priced cables.  What gives?  And Aczel scolds his own contributors if they even dare write something descriptive of sound like "pace" or "depth".  Geez man, lighten up!  Using a word to describe something as nebulous as one's own thoughts when hearing sound is not the work of the devil.

Here's what I don't get; is it okay to sell a really expensive cable as long as you don't claim it makes music sound better?  If you market it as being durable and good looking then it's fine, but if I say it sounds better the Man should shut me down?  Is the only difference between a Rolex watch and a pricey cable the fact that Rolex doesn't claim it tells time more accurately?  This seems like a mighty fine line to get all bent out of shape about.  Why isn't Rolex or any other maker of luxury goods being taken to task for their exorbitant prices? 

And I suppose I shouldn't be defending this magazine or objectivists anyway because by definition I am a TWEAKO CULTIST since I own a turntable (and LIKE IT) and own tube equipment (and LIKE IT)  Evil evil evil...I should be put away!  Or am I not a tweako cultist since I don't necessarily claim that these things are superior sonically to solid state\CD and just enjoy the cosmetics and nostalgia?  Man, I just don't know if I'm with us or the terrorists!

The issue with the reader letter about the difference between photography and audio was excellent - a really obvious thing I hadn't thought of before regarding time.  Cool.