How can bogus claims and inferior audio thrive in a competitive market?

[ahofer]

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about insurance. My financial adviser had a client who didn't bother with a personal all hazard umbrella policy, $200 or so a year for $4M coverage. During one of our NorEasters his wife backed out of their driveway over one of their neighbors crippling her for life. The first court action in discovery was to tabulate their entire assets.

Yes liability insurance can be worth it, and is a much more competitive, and objectively valuable market than extended warranty. I don’t think insurance is like audiophoolery, other than extended warranty, and maybe some forms of life insurance. But it is a market where these behavioral issues can play havoc with good decision-making. Low-frequency/high severity events are difficult for humans to understand and price well. And, as you sort of point out, having the company arrange the defense is also good value.

As ever, the price is the rub.

 

[KozmoNaut]

16/44.1 people assemble! I also don't see (and hear) any point to higher resolution than this.

I would standardize on 48KHz instead, to keep it nice and divisible by 8 and have the same samplerate across all consumer formats and pro audio gear, IP telephony and so on.

Opus with its enforced 48KHz sample rate is a step in the right direction. We're not bound by the limitations of Red Book CDs anymore, so lets have a proper standard for once.

 

[Hank Nova]

The bandwagon fallacy takes many forms. What is popular and what is correct are two different things. You may gauge a product's financial success by referencing the market, but not the actual utility of a product.

 

[Fluffy]

@KozmoNaut
Generally, I agree. But the industry is already backwards compatible with 44.1, so starting to release recordings in 48 doesn't make a lot of sense. I suppose we can agree that in audible terms there is no difference, so the practical consideration takes precedence.

And by the way, we both know that if labels start releasing music in 48khz, they will claim it's higher quality and want to charge more for it…

 

[KozmoNaut]

Some of the music I buy on Bandcamp comes as 48KHz FLAC (either 16- or 24-bit), but yeah. Major releases will probably stick to 44.1KHz for a long long time.

 

[FrantzM]

16/44.1 people assemble! I also don't see (and hear) any point to higher resolution than this.

I agree with the notion that putting a clear audibility threshold in the measurements is a good sanity check when reading a review. Also the post regarding thresholds quoted by @BillG should be constantly in the back of our minds.

I think there is nothing wrong with chasing engineering perfection, even passed the point of audible diminishing returns. Just as there is no wrong in buying expansive gear for the bling. As long as you are aware of what you are actually looking for, and finding the thing that is most cost effective given your means, everyone should buy whatever the like. I think @amirm is doing a good job reviewing products based on their engineering competency, whilst constantly reminding us that not everything is audible, so we shouldn't concern ourselves with tiny nuances.

I do see the perfectionist bias in many ASR reviews and am comfortable with it. Underlying ASR is a chase toward higher objective performance. in this light, products that present these traits, are or should be rewarded or at the very least congratulated. Most here accept these premises and I don't see anyone claiming, intoning or suggesting, for example, that the Benchmark DAC3 is better than the Topping D50 since it cost 15 times more... The combo of the JDS Atom Labs + Khadas Tone board has come to be affectionately called here, the "ASR Special" because of its price and overall engineering excellence. Most here who understand a chart fully "grok" that this combo is not audibly distinguishable from an RME ADI-2 ...
High End Audio "marketing" is based on the same principles of Luxury goods that claim performance but make sure that it remains elusive and not measurable ... Breitling watches always have some Airplane Acrobatics in the background .. The Rolex Submariner is waterproof down to 660 feet, a feat that many Casio G-Shock will perform day in and day out for 100 times less money (There is a $47 version of this watch on Amazon)... It is more precise, shock proof and may outlast the Rolex Submariner that is about 200 times more expensive ... It performs better than the Rolex on all front except the fuzzy and not easy to define criteria of Luxury. We find the same in High End Audio, the performance pretext; one that their Industry makes sure to avoid any elements of repeatable measurements or metrics. heck! they make sure of eliminating Science, rather they rally around the incredibly stupid but maintained, repeated and believed notion, that the ears are superior to instruments... It would shock the youth on this forum to know that many (most) audiophiles able to purchase these stupendously expensive components are men (99.99%) above 50 years old .. those physically incapable of hearing anything past 14 KHz ... In this World (alternate reality), a $5000 DAC with measurements easily bested by an Apple dongle is "entry-level". The same number ($5000) and qualifier, (entry-level) are also used for speakers, amplifers, Turntables, Phono Cartridge. Digital is decried, DSP is a monster and should be avoided at all cost (the higher the better_. High End Audio is a place where a $170,000 solid sate amplifier. I think I need to write that down in letter ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND dollars amplifier pair has second harmonics of -60 dB relative to 1 KHz .... produce about 500 watts at 8 ohms and 200 odd watts at 2 ohms ... If you believe that such performance is not that good, wait until you read (please!) the measurements HERE for a pair of SET Tube amps (they are monoblocks ) that used to cost $350,000 in 2009 (may cost $500,000 today) ... The reviewer conclusions may be read HERE ... It is almost an offense to intelligence.

This is what supports High End Audio: The magazines print or web. They regularly perpetrate the mantra. They make sure of avoiding anything resembling an objective metric: It is downright dangerous to their welfare. Once you own similar (expensive gears) you do become a guru. Your words carry weight, importance , however few they are. You no longer measure. You listen... to increasingly more expensive gear and cables ... even Ethernet Cables and grade them. The other audiophiles salivate , know they can't (yet) afford a $10,000 Ethernet cable (!!! WTF) but know their $2000 (!!!!!) Ethernet cable is a step in the right direction... And the magazines review these components, grade them, compare them, compare Ethernet cables , USB cables and AC Power Cords, and come up with creative ways to describe the midrange reproduction of an Ethernet cable (!!!!) or the dark background and wider soundstage of an Ethernet Switch.
There is competition in High End Audio, it is not based on measurable performance. It is the exact same in Luxury goods, there is intense competition between brands but they tacitly agree to not bring repeatable metrics to the forefront. Let perception sets in, sell as many items as possible while you are riding the wave of (false) perception. Use influencers and intelligent marketing, do not make clear, repeatable comparisons... FUD Science as much as possible.

 

[GrimSurfer]

16 bit / -96 dB is probably easy to justify just based on the CD standard alone.

Heck, round it up to -100 dB if people like triple digits better.

Three devices in an active audio chain, each of with have -100 dB of SINAD, have a calculated total SINAD of -95.22 dB. Just shy of 96 dB.

Those three devices could be DAC, preamp, amp or CDP, preamp, amp, etc.

I wouldn't lose sleep over the 0.78 dB difference between 96 dB and 95.22 dB but it is important to know that a -100 dB standard won't deliver -100 dB in real world audio chains.

We're not bound by the limitations of Red Book CDs anymore, so lets have a proper standard for once.

There will always be technical limitations, as there were during the development of the CD, but a lot of thought went into the Red Book standard. 24 bits would be nice but as for a 48 vs 44 Kbps sampling rate... meh. I'm with @Fluffy on this one.

 

[Killingbeans]

One can easily interchange the religious mom and her genius son for someone convinced a $1k audio interconnect cable sounds better than a well engineered $40 cable and an ASR purist who bases his belief on Amir's apparently real scientific measurements.

The similarities between audiophoolery and religion are as obvious as a 100 feet neon sign in your front yard. Only problem is that starting a discussion about religion in any thread is a sure-fire way of killing it in no time

That, to me, is measurement fetishism.

I have no problem with measurement fetishism. As long as it's not presented as something that should be the sole deciding factor behind a purchase.

I'm actually more intersted in teardowns. Functionality + measurements + good PCB layout/cable management + proper soldering and flux cleanup = my fetish

 

[GrimSurfer]

even Ethernet Cables and grade them. The other audiophiles salivate , know they can't (yet) afford a $10,000 Ethernet cable (!!! WTF) but know their $2000 (!!!!!) Ethernet cable is a step in the right direction...

In certain places, like the sector I worked in, a bit more care and attention was spent on Ethernet cabling and termination. The reason is ostensibly EMI/RFI suppression but this was code for security. The cables were really well shielded (similar to coax) and the RJ45 connectors have a metal body to drain incoming RF to ground.

It makes a measurable difference on data flow, but these were only apparent at gigabit speeds and not important in the overall scheme of things.

The cable cost about 6x the price as the normal Cat 5e you can buy at Home Depot. The metal connectors were $25 each (as opposed to $0.25 each for the snap together plastic ones) in bulk. So it cost about $60 in materials for a three foot patch cord. And trust me, with the right labor, the cables were insanely high quality. But when you're charging thousands of dollars, most of that is ending up in someone's pocket. Or you're NASA and the costs are going up because of insane QC and destructive/non destructive testing lab time.

 

[Soniclife]

At least if we put an audibility line on the SINAD graph those who aren't so educated on the matter will know where that "certain point" is and can make an informed decision.

I agree with your point, but would go further and dump the SINAD graph completely, as one single number does not describe the whole products performance.

What would be better would be some sort of audibility grouping like @BillG suggests based on a collection of measurements, and only into a about 3 groups, e.g.
Not transparent.
Real world transparent.
Always transparent.

 

[Fluffy]

I agree with your point, but would go further and dump the SINAD graph completely, as one single number does not describe the whole products performance.

Doesn't SINAD takes into account multiple properties? It's basically like your groups suggestion, just as a number form and in more granularity. Plus, the reviews are not only the SINAD, but consists of other factors. There are products with descent SINADS that fail in other areas.

 

[Soniclife]

Doesn't SINAD takes into account multiple properties? It's basically like your groups suggestion, just as a number form and in more granularity. Plus, the reviews are not only the SINAD, but consists of other factors. There are products with descent SINADS that fail in other areas.

It is a collection of measurement in itself, but only with it's specific test parameters.
e.g. It will tell you nothing about how much power a device may produce.

 

[Fluffy]

I'm not sure if there are people that base their purchases in SINAD alone. That sounds unwise…

 

[GrimSurfer]

I agree with your point, but would go further and dump the SINAD graph completely, as one single number does not describe the whole products performance.

What would be better would be some sort of audibility grouping like @BillG suggests based on a collection of measurements, and only into a about 3 groups, e.g.
Not transparent.
Real world transparent.
Always transparent.

Even were this done, there would still be all kinds of criticism by people whose gear was non-transparent or not always transparent. People with gear close to the line would say that Amir got it wrong, was biased, etc. etc. Or they'd say that the differences aren't significant, blah, blah, blah.

I'm not saying that what you and Bill propose isn't sound. Just the people who wouldn't accept whatever standard is used to tell them their gear (and mad audiophile skills) is less than perfect.

It's the fragile nature of audiophiles' objectivity that's the real issue.

 

[Soniclife]

Just the people who wouldn't accept whatever standard is used to tell them their gear (and mad audiophile skills) is less than perfect.

These people can present objective evidence in the threads on where the thresholds should be placed, the best available science should drive the groupings. When understanding advances the groups may have to change.

 

[watchnerd]

I'm not sure if there are people that base their purchases in SINAD alone. That sounds unwise…

I've read several threads in the last few days about people who own top 5 SINAD DACs or headphone amps wondering if they should upgrade based upon a few single digit improvements in SINAD of latest leaderboard members.

Some people seem to want to own whatever is #1 on the chart.

 

[GrimSurfer]

These people can present objective evidence in the threads on where the thresholds should be placed...

Like they do now? LOL.

I'm not laughing at you, or what you're proposing. I'm imagining a whole new round of "the hunger games" with people who use objectivity as a weapon for reason instead of a tool of reason.

I just went throught something similar with a guy yesterday. Each bit, presented in isolation, seemed plausible. But the logic was so flawed that it was laughable. Just like this:

 

[GrimSurfer]

I've read several threads in the last few days about people who own top 5 SINAD DACs or headphone amps wondering if they should upgrade based upon a few single digit improvements in SINAD of latest leaderboard members.

Sort of like the people who upgrade from 100 to 200W RMS on the premise that they'll double their sound intensity.

This is what the world is like in the age of the internet. Imagine what it was like when people had to do laps between their homes and the library to learn anything.

The level of ignorance is the same. The only thing that's changed is the clock speed.

 

[Fluffy]

@watchnerd I am very sad to hear that, and this reaffirms what I said about the ASR narrative fallacy.

If this is true, I think one can roughly divide ASR readers to two groups – those who peruse perfectionism and those who peruse cost effectiveness. The first kind is very similar to audiofools, but instead of maximizing subjective sound quality based on reviews, they maximize objective measured performance. The ones who seek cost effectiveness need only to reach an audible transparency (and reliability) threshold whilst minimizing cost. The first group's quest can go on forever as better and better equipment is produced, while the second group are able to achieve peace of mind when they reach what is in their view 'good enough'.

I want to believe I'm in the cost-effective group, because I really don't want to keep upgrading indefinitely.

 

[Thomas savage]

I've read several threads in the last few days about people who own top 5 SINAD DACs or headphone amps wondering if they should upgrade based upon a few single digit improvements in SINAD of latest leaderboard members.

Some people seem to want to own whatever is #1 on the chart.

Yes and that feeds a insecurity that a more objective veiw on audio is ment to cure.

It a bit odd but we are in danger of becoming a self defeating force I think.