advertisement


Audiophiles and Snake Oil...

At least they do not claim to be anything but subjective here:

"Subjective improvements include better timbral accuracy where separate instruments and voices take on a new degree of life-like realism"

Maybe they spell differently in California ?
 
On the surface he sounds knowledgable, convincing perhaps seductive but when you see his other reviews it’s the same ole same ole “this is definitely better because I can hear it and I said so and you aren’t spending enough to get rid of this issue and that issue ...” He is part of the snake oil mumbo jumbo problem that has alienated an entire generation of young people from Hifi (not to mention the very special breed of veil lifting upgraditis golden eared audiophiles and the greedy dealers that push 5-figure components otherwise it’s no good).
 
It seems a lot of people - at least those i see outside of the 'high end' community etc have a strong tendency toward expectation bias (not that we don't) simply based on their own MODEL of what is or is not possible - often this this may have to do with poring over spec sheets and reducing the possibilities to frequency range, tonal balance, and background noise (S/N ratio) and not much more. I was demoing a really really nice mic that I thought had amazing dynamics and a kind of (please permit me) '3D' presentation to a musician friend - and his only real observations were 'yeah good treble - good bass'. NOT to say that US audio folk aren't limited by our own models either however - the language we use tends to limit what we 'see into' the music i think. So anyway i think this is a kind of interesting aspect of how language shapes our experience or perception. I have a tendency to think that typical specs are next to useless in a world were nearly ALL audio equipment meets basic 20hz-20khz type specs ... as i'm sure MOST here will agree there are really no specifications for 'quality'. I don't see it as a major problem that we are forced to describe audio reproduction with flowery words. Words are evocative and connote experience. Sorry about this 'word pablum' by the way - just a few things that have been on my mind for a while and needed to get down 'on paper' as it were.
 
Jonathan said:
It seems a lot of people - at least those i see outside of the 'high end' community etc have a strong tendency toward expectation bias (not that we don't) simply based on their own MODEL of what is or is not possible - often this this may have to do with poring over spec sheets and reducing the possibilities to frequency range, tonal balance, and background noise (S/N ratio) and not much more. I was demoing a really really nice mic that I thought had amazing dynamics and a kind of (please permit me) '3D' presentation to a musician friend - and his only real observations were 'yeah good treble - good bass'. NOT to say that US audio folk aren't limited by our own models either however - the language we use tends to limit what we 'see into' the music i think. So anyway i think this is a kind of interesting aspect of how language shapes our experience or perception. I have a tendency to think that typical specs are next to useless in a world were nearly ALL audio equipment meets basic 20hz-20khz type specs ... as i'm sure MOST here will agree there are really no specifications for 'quality'. I don't see it as a major problem that we are forced to describe audio reproduction with flowery words. Words are evocative and connote experience. Sorry about this 'word pablum' by the way - just a few things that have been on my mind for a while and needed to get down 'on paper' as it were.
Click to expand...
Very well put Jonathan, totally agree with your sentiment.
 
He lost all credibility with me at the point an oscilloscope was positioned mirroring his head. I held strong though and made it as far as his explanations of the meanings of the words hifi and audiophile. I think I did well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top