|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
209.144.63.76
In Reply to: RE: Measurement and Perception and the Value of Each (Long Post) posted by jrlaudio on November 03, 2012 at 00:46:42
We don't worry about measurements for video. Why should we worry about measurements for audio? Noone is demanding measurements for color accuracy or contrast or color saturation for TVs. We buy a particular TV based on budget and how it looks compared to others in the price range at Best Buy or Costco. Measurements are for audio magazines that wish to project an image of scientific rigor and objectivity. In terms of what advanced audiophiles really lust for - e.g., soundstage, transparency, presence, wetness, air, microdynamics, etc. - it might be fruitless to try to correlate specific measured parameters to specific sonic attributes.
Of course, you can come up with absurd examples of pricing in any industry, or even exaggerate prices as you have done. When looked at as a whole, prices in the audio industry vary from extremely inexpensive to ridiculously expensive - just as they always have. The items that are priced very low will be perceived as junk. Duh. Nothing new under the sun.
Follow Ups:
You say, "it might be fruitless to try to correlate specific measured parameters to specific sonic attributes." Well actually all the sonic attributes you mention and many others already have specific measuremnt parameters that are well understood. Or at least the physics contibuting to these are understood. Both in terms of what is required from the system and how the ear/brain mechanisms detects and processes into a sound.
To simply discount known science, and take people marketing highly profitable items at their words has never been wise. This is why I used the term Snake Oil. It alegedly cured all types ailments, even ones we haven't cured today, and it was sold at high profit on the correct presumption that most people didn't understand medical science. And it wasn't even snake oil, it was petroleum. And many people swore to it's healing properties based on their perception.
And at the beginning of hi-end things were expensive, but not to the level we see today. I have not exagerated margins. Several $25,000 DAC's using the same chip set as many MP3 players exist. $15,000 loudspeakers are the average for hi-end these days. Preamps and amplifier in the $10,000 and up range are common. And I know most of them do not cost even a tenth of what they are sold for, including design and development.
The point is, it is not gamble for a manufacture to make a marginal product, price it very, very high to give perceived value, market it well and sell many. Aspecialy when they know the market is full of people who have fallen prey to deceptions that skew their perception. All based on faith.
What I say to people in this hobby (as a person in the know so-to-speak) is know the details, know the facts, learn the science and you will find what you hear changes. You will hear what is a real wide soundstage versus one created by reflections, which are out of phase and indirect. You will find that you will enjoy the recordings more and worry less about getting the "next best newest that promises audio nirvana".
Oh and BTW, the last magazine that used its own labs to test products was Audio and they went away decades ago. The industry nailed that coffin by not advertising in it anymore, once they began talking about the real specs and performance of ultra hi-end products. No magazine now would dare to published anything other than the published spec of the manufacturer. And some accept full copy for the articles from the manufacturers. Ask Harry Pearson; right now with his disgust with what has happened to his mag AS, he is very quick to divulge the dirty little secrets going on today with magazines and hi-end. Both industries are trying to survive the MP3 generation.
Seems to me that HP IS part of the problem. He was reviewing and giving his blessing on extraordinarily expensive items, based simply on the fact that the quest for Absolute Sound knew no monetary boundaries.
Well OK, I can deal with that, BUT he also received review samples for free and while using them often ignored cerain fundamental issues.
Case in point: Infinity IRS V's. I had an opportunity to work with them, To my ears they were a disjointed system where the woofers could not blend in with the mids and highs. Not a word of this issue was published by HP till the IRS were discontinued and he received the new replacement Genesis design. In his initial assessment of the Genesis he refers to the discontinuity between the woofer and upper frequencies which he said plagued the IRS.
Duh, what was it?, something like 5 years that he used the IRS and uttered nary a negative word about their performance. But give up the freebie and get a free replacement and all of a sudden what seemed to be his darling is a flawed design.
I have seen many reviewers and even visited the home of a currently active one. Let me unequivocally state that every reviewer I met have no better ears than anyone else on this forum. The primary difference is that they have the gift of writing, and do it well.
Stu
"You say, "it might be fruitless to try to correlate specific measured parameters to specific sonic attributes." Well actually all the sonic attributes you mention and many others already have specific measuremnt parameters that are well understood. Or at least the physics contibuting to these are understood. Both in terms of what is required from the system and how the ear/brain mechanisms detects and processes into a sound."Well, I'm not talking about the "many others," I'm only talking about the ones I mentioned. The last time I checked there is no soundstage analyzer, no transparency analyzer. There is no "musicality" analyzer. I would go so far as to say science, at least in the scientific organizations like AES and the Acoustic Society of America, to name two, appear to dismiss out of hand what is going on in the high end or very slow coming to terms with many aspects of this hobby - from exotic cables, to controversial tweaks, to wire directionality, to high end fuses, etc.
"To simply discount known science, and take people marketing highly profitable items at their words has never been wise. This is why I used the term Snake Oil. It alegedly cured all types ailments, even ones we haven't cured today, and it was sold at high profit on the correct presumption that most people didn't understand medical science. And it wasn't even snake oil, it was petroleum. And many people swore to it's healing properties based on their perception."
But nobody is dismissing science. The market is what it is. Just like any marketplace. There is a place for Ferrari and big Mercedes in the auto industry and there is a place for expensive speakers and cables and DACs in this industry. The snake oil argument is really just a strawman argument. This is audio, not medicine, so it's not logical to claim that because some medical remedy is ineffective or perhaps even a hoax that what you perceive as overly expensive audio products are over-priced, ineffective or hoaxes.
"And at the beginning of hi-end things were expensive, but not to the level we see today. I have not exagerated margins. Several $25,000 DAC's using the same chip set as many MP3 players exist. $15,000 loudspeakers are the average for hi-end these days. Preamps and amplifier in the $10,000 and up range are common. And I know most of them do not cost even a tenth of what they are sold for, including design and development."
Did you just wake up from a long sleep. If you want to make your point, I suggest you use 100,00 dollar loudspeakers, $10,000 cartridges, $30,000 amplifiers. But to say the prices you quoted are common or average is just not true. Besides, nobody pays retail. Especially in this economy. :-)
"The point is, it is not gamble for a manufacture to make a marginal product, price it very, very high to give perceived value, market it well and sell many. Aspecialy when they know the market is full of people who have fallen prey to deceptions that skew their perception. All based on faith."
Well, I dunno about all that. People are free to buy whatever they want to. If they don't like it they can certainly take it back.
"What I say to people in this hobby (as a person in the know so-to-speak) is know the details, know the facts, learn the science and you will find what you hear changes. You will hear what is a real wide soundstage versus one created by reflections, which are out of phase and indirect. You will find that you will enjoy the recordings more and worry less about getting the "next best newest that promises audio nirvana"."
I suspect it is probably easier than all that. All thst's required is to be able to hear, buy what you like and either return what you don't like or sell it on Audiogon.
"Oh and BTW, the last magazine that used its own labs to test products was Audio and they went away decades ago. The industry nailed that coffin by not advertising in it anymore, once they began talking about the real specs and performance of ultra hi-end products. No magazine now would dare to published anything other than the published spec of the manufacturer. And some accept full copy for the articles from the manufacturers. Ask Harry Pearson; right now with his disgust with what has happened to his mag AS, he is very quick to divulge the dirty little secrets going on today with magazines and hi-end. Both industries are trying to survive the MP3 generation."
Stereophile routinely measures performance of speakers, possibly other magazines do, too. Not sure I agree with your bleak analysis of the situation. People have been talking about the end of high end for at least 25 years. Harry was always free to leave or express himself, what took him so long? Seems like a case of sour grapes.
Edits: 11/03/12
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: