[TheChairGuy]

dado5 / Lightfire,

Let's please not let different beliefs erupt into a major squabble.  You are of different beliefs - just respect that of one another.  Nathan - I've know you long enough here - I know you'll bow out if it gets to nasty (thanks in advance).

Frankly, I think this topic 'shot it's wad' a day back...let's not run it completely into the ground, guys.

Thanks,

John / TCG / Moderator

[Ethan Winer]

John,

> Let's please not let different beliefs erupt into a major squabble. <

I think I have finally found what explains all of this stuff. Here's my take:

www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html

What do you guys think?

--Ethan

[nathanm]

Good points, especially the part about factors like sitting down in the same spot, crawling on the ground and whatnot.  If you are going to do some kind of test I think it's best to have someone else do all the work while you sit calmly in your chair.  The comb-filtering thing makes sense.  Although I think we tend to notice that filtering sound effect more when it is continuously changing and mostly in the higher frequencies.

A really big factor I think has to do with people's ability to put what they hear into words.  I could never come up with a good way to describe differences I heard.  Some people are really good at that though and as they go down that path I think that's what turns into the flowery language that the objectivists object to.  Maybe the believers are just better poets.  I've heard things that made sense in my mind, but expressing that to someone else is extremely difficult.  And you may be biased in a social situation to say something that sounds plausible cause if you keep saying "erm, sounds the same to me" then you look like a doofus and nobody wants to play audiophile with you anymore.  However if you bubble over with all sorts of superlative phrases then everyone's happy and thinking they're doing something interesting.  No doubt that is more exciting than the alternative, no question why that's the more popular avenue to take.  There's a lot more going on here in the psychological realm and yes, that is not being measured.  Isn't it more reasonable to accept that human perception is more variable than fixed objects?

[Brad]

And you may be biased in a social situation to say something that sounds plausible cause if you keep saying "erm, sounds the same to me" then you look like a doofus and nobody wants to play audiophile with you anymore. 

Perfect sentence, Nathan   

[totoro]

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?

I don't actually think that the Black Marias should be showing up at the doors of the Voodoo Pebbles manufacturer (although I have been accused of being a crypto-fascist).

The issue here was really about fraudulent claims, I think, and not about price. As far as I understand it, the way fraud is prosecuted works something like the way patents are enforced. People are allowed to make whatever claims they want initially, and if enough people complain or someone dies and the claims are shown to be false, then they're not allowed to make them anymore. This isn't a principled, intellectually satisfying position to take as the libertarian one dado5 seems to propose, but it is pragmatic.

In this particular instance, it may be a fine line, as you point out. The problem with a pragmatic approach to this is that you are essentially on a slippery slope, and have to make arbitrary decisions somewhere (perhaps with much more serious kinds of fraud).

My main point, I think, is that manufacturers should expect to have their feet held to the fire by _somebody_, reviewers, consumers, whoever, when they make egregious claims. And it's pretty clear
that there a number of manufacturers of "audio products" who are either delusional or cynical liars.

The funny thing about me actually arguing these points is that I subscribed to the magazine and never really liked it.....

hopefully i haven't offended anyone too much.

[nathanm]

If, heaven forbid, laws were passed in an attempt to regulate the Hi-Fi industry who will be the most powerful lobbyists helping to make sure these laws didn't hurt them?  The companies with the most money of course.  If the feds come down on the cable biz you can be sure Noel Lee will have his guys in Washington greasing the palms with a quickness.  This isn't going to be decided by fair and reasonable scientific discourse, it's going to be an ugly political maneuvering.  Little guys like the Audio Critic aren't going to have any pull, they can't afford to buy off the government.  Only the most successful peddlers of alleged B.S. will have that kind of clout.  The law will only make things worse and there will just be a slight adjustment in how they are pitching you their crappola.

Why bother with that I say.  Just keep preaching what you think is right and some people will come over to your side and some won't.  Are we really so concerned with what wealthy people do with their disposable income?  I bought my silver cables and got "fleeced", realized cables weren't the thing for me and then sold them to someone else.  No big deal, the sun still came up the next day. 

Worst case scenario; maybe you could have an "intervention" if a friend or family member you know is addicted to placebo audio tweaks.  Try to convince him to get professional help.  Have him attend some meetings with fellow sufferers, everyone will have a jolly time ABXing some Diana Krall followed by a calm and reasonable lecture from a concerned objectivist about ohm's law and whatnot and bob's yer uncle.  No government intervention needed!

[totoro]

relax, man 

i'm not actually advocating coming down on the voodoo pebbles vendors with the law. i was really just playing.

i do think that this country has a major problem with general innumeracy poor science education, which is where i see all of this coming from.  i'm segeuing into the diy part of the hobby now, which is a more
congenial place for a geek.

but it would be nice to see more reviews of equipment that non-ceos could afford which don't make absurd claims for themselves,and i think reviewers who slam the voodoo purveyors are doing a service.

[totoro]

btw, i keep seeing diana krall mentioned on bboards-- what is it with that? i don't think i know anyone with one of her recordings 

[Steve]

Just what I said in an earlier post Nathan, the ones who can lobby the most effectively, the large corporations and their sockpuppets would win out.

They cannot admit to learning new info (also selective in what science they believe),  because that would be admitting their products are not as advanced as the smaller companies, which are faster to adapt to change. By logical extension, they must also disagree about parts, wire etc not sounding different, to be consistent, and by whatever means possible.

The large corporations must also deal with planned obsolescense, to keep sales recurring. In fact, smaller companies often design and build their products to last "forever", although some companies do have breakdown problems.

The large corporations do not have the government behind them, yet. soooooo...

So they do whatever possible to limit competition.

Push mid-fi sounds as good as hi-end. Guess how that is accomplished?

Some day, if the Feds get into the picture, well.......

[dado5]

On the technical side:

A really big factor I think has to do with people's ability to put what they hear into words.

You hit the nail on the head. At the core of the whole issue is a purely internal experience.  It is, by nature, a one-time event that can only be related through language - it can never be independently tested.  Only there are only two possibilities here: An experience was reported or there was no experience and a fiction was reported. As there is no method to determine one from the other, the only socially acceptable (unless you enjoy calling folks liars) thing to do is take such testimonies on their face.

On the market side:

The issue here was really about fraudulent claims

As you point out, a victim is required for fraud to exist. A producer marketing something using unconventional notions may well have many satisfied customers. It is very difficult to say fraud has taken place here regardless of the ad claims. Dissatisfied customers will have their own decision of redress to make, up to and including criminal prosecution. To seek to restrain a producer just because one does not like his ad copy only serves to reduce choice and innovation.

My main point, I think, is that manufacturers should expect to have their feet held to the fire by _somebody_, reviewers, consumers, whoever, when they make egregious claims.

I agree 100%. You offer something to everyone, you'll soon know if there is enough love out there to keep you making more of it.

And it's pretty clear that there a number of manufacturers of "audio products" who are either delusional or cynical liars.

I disagree 100%. That is a speculation impossible to prove. See the reply to nathanm above

hopefully i haven't offended anyone too much....

I, for one, am most deeply non-offended.  I think some Voodoo Pebble makers may feel differently however now that they know you threw away perfectly good small-colored-rock-buying money on that flight-by-night Audio Critic scam.

[totoro]

I, for one, am most deeply non-offended.  I think some Voodoo Pebble makers may feel differently however now that they know you threw away perfectly good small-colored-rock-buying money on that flight-by-night Audio Critic scam.

I wouldn't call the magazine a scam so much as just poorly written. In its way, it was every bit as bad as 6moons, only ill-spirited as well. And he was just a prone to panegyrics, as well. For instance, it would have been interesting to see a bakeoff between the benchmark, lavry blue, lavry black, mytek, and rosetta dacs, rather than yet another song of praise for the benchmark. Oh, well.

But as far as cynicism/lying/delusion goes: you think the guys selling the little clocks on audiogon, to give an easy example, aren't in that category?

[dado5]

But as far as cynicism/lying/delusion goes: .....

I don’t believe most makers are charlatans and I doubt any are suffering from delusions. I think most just came across something that sounded good and want to pass it on, hopefully feeding their kids in the process.

Overall, fraud in the form of an actual end product is rare. Bait and switch or non-delivery is the normal mode.   Making a product (even if it is only re-branding something), marketing it (with intentional deception remember), and hanging around with a bank account, business address and inventory waiting to collect the money is the most costly, inefficient and risky way to run a scam.  If the clocks or rocks dudes are doing this, they are piss poor con men. Come to think of it, if any of you guys are reading this thread, drop me an email and I will happily suggest a number of safer and far more profitable ventures for only a small share of the proceeds.

Just what I said in an earlier post Nathan,...

Steve’s exactly right.  Regulation will enforce mediocrity and halt innovation.

[Steve]

Dado5, better put than I stated. Nicely done.

Large corporations appear to be using the same old parts, resistors and capacitors etc.
Not much innovation. Anyone know if ANY of the large corporations use good parts and good solder? I know the old Rotel CD players, like the 865 used blackgate caps. The resistors, though, looked like cheap carbon composition/carbon film types.

[Fiji5555]

I come back to this thread after a few days and I find that the only ones left still responding to it are the types that The Audio Critic warned us about LMAO. Yes we get it by now that you don't like The Audio Critic which is a real shame because it's one of the rare audio mags that actually told the truth about high end audio.....oh well you keep kicking the dead horse here if it makes you feel better about all the money you wasted on the "next best thing"...buh bye!

[Steve]

Below is a couple of interesting books that will help in understanding things more fully. Additional information can also be gleaned on the internet from responsible sources that adds to what is published below.

"Semiconductor and Tube Electronics, an introduction": by James G. Brazee.

A college/university textbook from the late 60s. Read the first chapter, Device Physics. It provides a very basic help in understanding how current "flows". Again, one can add to the info base of this book by seaching out responsible articles.

RCAs "Radiotron Designers Handbook" Edited by F. Langford-Smith. 26 Engineers cooperated in the writing of this book. 4th edition published 1960.

Great information on negative feedback and its consequences. Chapter 7 is particularly interesting. 

Both books provide information that has been known for decades.

Branching out studying physics and medical base concerning the hearing mechanisms, whether from the National Institute of Health or other responsible sources will also be helpful in finding out what is true.

[James Romeyn]

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 ...

Can you provide any evidence for this statement? Thanks.

See for instance this study on coke versus pepsi for the effect of visual stimuli and brand recognition

Study

Thanks, the study shows exactly the reason why sighted listening comparisons are of no value. You hear what you want to hear when you see the logo on the front panel based on preconceived notions like cost, brand reputation or magazine reviews. Properly conducted ABX comparisons remove that bias.

Do Peter Aczel & other "objectivists" proclaim that the audio phenomena titled "imaging" & "soundstaging" are real or simply imagined by gullible, stupid audiophile subjectivists?

If real, what are the "scientific" component specifications that directly correlate w/ the above phenomena? 

[TheChairGuy]

I split off the rest of this topic into the Fight Club.....it just wasn't substantive stuff, ya' know?

Jim/RibbonSpeakers, the mere mention of Hitler and Third Reich makes a lot of folks skin crawl (with fair reason); you might want to not want to use he or they in any point of reference.  I'm not necessarily telling you not to, it infringes on no rules I am aware of here at AC. It's just quite icky stuff that really does little to drive home your point that you are trying to make.

In fact, it draws people from your point and to other matters entirely.

Thank you all.

John / TCG (Moderator)

[Occam]

http://www.guidenet.net/resources/wanker.html

[nathanm]

Sorry to bring this thread up again, but I have found evidence that the claims of state-intervention fantasties are indeed true.  Well, at least for one guy that is.  This comes from the "Doctor Zaius" article, an updated version of a 10 year old article from the webzine:

I can think of only one effective remedy. Many years ago, long before our younger readers became interested in audio, the Federal Trade Commission put an end to fraudulent power-output claims in amplifiers. Today, the power-output specification must take the form of “200 watts continuous power into 8 ohms from 20 Hz to 20 kHz at less than 0.25% total harmonic distortion.” Before then, the same amplifier could have claimed 800 watts because it could produce that for 2 milliseconds at 1 kHz into 2 ohms with 10% distortion. What if the FTC suddenly became interested in audio cable advertising, for example? That chattering sound you hear comes from the teeth of cable vendors at the mere mention of the possibility. And that low, rumbling sound you hear is Doctor Zaius growling, “That's heresy!”

Anyone out there whose nephew or brother-in-law is a young, crusading, Ralph-Nader-like employee of the FTC? Get him interested!

Boo!  That definitely gets a tubesock against the cheek, er I mean the thumbs down!   I don't get it; he'd produced a magazine for 30 years fighting the good fight and it still isn't good enough.  It would be even sweeter if people thousands of miles away who don't truly give a damn about his area of interest started pretending to give a damn and cracked the heads in of his "tweako" enemies.  This is the kind of temptation we all must resist, even if it's only in your mind.  Do you really want to live to see the say when the president gives a speech and says, "My resolve is resolved to fight the War On HiFi...let me be clear my fellow Americans: If you harbor cable elevators and Shakti Stones in your home, you're Against Us!"  Please no!!!

[dado5]

Sorry to bring this thread up again, but I have found evidence that the claims of state-intervention fantasties are indeed true.

It is should not surprise anyone. In reality, all those who view a particular market as wrong with enough passion to put capitol into publication of their views will, as a matter of course, call for state suppression of that market. They 'know' that in such cases the producers are charlatans and the consumers are dupes, so punishment and salvation are the only logical outcomes.

And don't forget that Dan B. and Bob R. called for FTC action in this thread.



Rob