|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
209.43.1.25
In Reply to: RE: I agree - but it works both ways. posted by tomservo on October 15, 2010 at 07:34:20
>The difference were small but if one used the right portions of music, then one could differentiate between several of them<
Precisely. And for me personally, the differences are not worth the cost. I use a $1000 (retail) integrated amp because I'd rather spend my money on music. But the differences are there, often even when folks believe they shouldn't be.
Follow Ups:
Is there a bias to assume that if a difference is heard, that the more expensive component is automatically the better of the two "differences"? It seems this is common in demonstrations. What if one is not necessarily more true-to-source than the other, but they just sound different? Would it not stand to reason that the fact they are different just means there may be a subjective preference of one over the other?
Many sales pitches seem to be based on the claim that ANY difference that one can achieve can be offered as an improvement - so long as you charge enough, or insane amounts of money. I think there is a lot of "you get what you pay for" mentality built into audio marketing. I also think some differences are subjective and not necessarily "better" and folks may be paying for a difference that, albeit there, is just a difference and not necessarily better.
The psychology of expecting more because you're paying more is very interesting. Ironically, "expecting" more is in and of itself a basic form of bias. One may believe that "I get more since I pay more" when in fact they're just getting something different for more money. There are cables which employ passive components that some say merely CHANGE the sound. The listener hears a difference, believes the difference is a positive one as per the marketing-speak (I mean, why would a cable maker lie?) and pays more based on the fact a difference was heard.
It reminds me of the freshly cleaned, detailed and waxed car that is "happy" and drives smoother.
The human mind is a wonderful place where the line between perception and reality is not often clearly drawn.
Cheers,
Presto
> Is there a bias to assume that if a difference is heard, that the more expensive component is automatically the better of the two "differences"? <
I believe we tend to make that assumption. After having been nailed by that myself a couple of times, I later made arrangements to audition new gear in my home for 30 days. What happened on some occasions is that the newer component would sound "better" in one or two obvious ways but worse in other, more subtle ways that I discovered I couldn't tolerate.
I may be bass-ackwards, but the only time I audition blind is when I'm convinced I can hear a difference and I can't decide which component I like better. Ok, not always but usually.
But I think we're geared to thing more expensive is better... and I've found it to be the case most of the time, but not always.
All true, I think. Toole (or Olive?) did an experiment in which they found that a cheap-looking little speaker outperformed more expensive speakers in blind tests, but was rated lower in sighted ones. This was apparently true not just of inexperienced listeners, but of company engineers who were convinced that they could compensate for that sort of bias as well.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: