The psychological effects of marketing on sound perception

[AJM1981]

I wonder about the psychological effects of marketing on audiophiles.

When KEF came out with the LS 50 meta it was this “meta material” disc to counter wave-effects that was almost presented as a joy of wonder that some reviewers picked up as a plus. In some ways it seemed a bit like a gimmick. It is not known if the LS50 had a problem to conquer in the first place and if that minuscule sound signature difference is related to the disc or could have been achieved by another tweak. Some even prefer the original to the meta.

B&W had their “diamond tweeters”. Since diamond is associated with transparant and clear it seems a logical choice, but the tweeter only consists of some diamond-powder molded into a solid. Which could as well work with sand or maybe even regular dust.

I also think that Kevlar as a material for woofers is not that necessary for no other reasons than what we associate it with and yes, its appearance is probably more of a thing than its sound.

now, the idea of having a bullet proof woofer and a “diamond tweeter” is probably already enough for some to make their music sound better. ; )

Any other examples?

 

[Keith_W]

Little nitpick here, I think you are thinking of psychological effects. Psychoacoustics is a multidisciplinary science which includes acoustics, physiology, and perception.

There may be very good engineering reasons behind B&W's diamond tweeter, or KEF's metamaterial absorber. But - with large companies, the engineers are not the same people who do the marketing. There are many other examples, like VTEC or Retina displays. Lots of people have engines with variable valve timing, but only Honda has VTEC. And when Samsung and other companies came out with higher resolution displays, Apple's response was "only Apple has a Retina display". In both cases, there are good engineering and practical reasons for those choices.

I am not qualified to pass judgement on diamond tweeters or kevlar woofers. I simply don't know the answer. Are diamond tweeters more pistonic than (say) paper or silk? Maybe someone on ASR knows. But for now, I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Ze Frog]

I wonder about the psycho acoustic effects of marketing on audiophiles.

When KEF came out with the LS 50 meta it was this “meta material” disc to counter wave-effects that was almost presented as a joy of wonder that some reviewers picked up as a plus. In some ways it seemed a bit like a gimmick. It is not known if the LS50 had a problem to conquer in the first place and if that minuscule sound signature difference is related to the disc or could have been achieved by another tweak. Some even prefer the original to the meta.

B&W had their “diamond tweeters”. Since diamond is associated with transparant and clear it seems a logical choice, but the tweeter only consists of some diamond-powder molded into a solid. Which could as well work with sand or maybe even regular dust.

I also think that Kevlar as a material for woofers is not that necessary for no other reasons than what we associate it with and yes, its appearance is probably more of a thing than its sound.

now, the idea of having a bullet proof woofer and a “diamond tweeter” is probably already enough for some to make their music sound better. ; )

Any other examples?

It's definitely part of people's perception. The LS50 Meta for instance is a great speaker, although I personally found them extremely overrated after seeing all the reviews. The 'Meta' part does make scientific sense, although 'Meta'is a bit of a buzzword and not really indicative of what the implementation is, it's not a meta material at all in the true sense of the word.

Definitely the marketing does effect a lot of people, tell someone something is amazing enough and people will flock towards it and also to validate their decision will wholeheartedly agree with the marketing and hype because of the sense of validation. It's why you see people vehemently defending a piece of gear they own and love, human nature is extremely odd. Rather than see some scientific review and see something doesn't measure well, rather than shrugging their shoulders and just saying 'well it sounds great to me regardless' the same person will go full on attack mode in defence of a product. The marketing team's for many of these companies in or outside of audio actually usually have psychologists or people versed in behavioural science to direct marketing strategy etc. You can sell anything and make people love it no matter the product or how good or bad with the right marketing. Right now with internet being relatively new, at least in masses accessibility we have the influencer stage which is a complete boon for marketing, yet at the same time extremely short sighted as people will realise the con over time, hence why many of us are here on this forum. Turns out the current trend of marketing via influence could actually damage companies in the long term when found out by objective scrutiny. This was a large part of Tekton's downfall, companies don't feel the need for transparency and honesty and live off generated hype. Alas a lot of these influencers now also look extremely silly, only a matter of time before more sites like this for other products pops up leading to the bursting of this kind of practice.

 

[tomtoo]

I call it the acoustic placebo effect. Some explanation (you just have to think it has a influence) and it sounds better. Its the same how placebo work. And dont get it wrong they work.

 

[AJM1981]

I call it the acoustic placebo effect. Some explanation (you just have to think it has a influence) and it sounds better. Its the same how placebo work. And dont get it wrong they work.

Yes.

I just applied a change to the title. Psychoaccoustics was not the right term, because there is not really something going on soundwise. But the "cable effect" might apply here. The " If things look better, they sound better" idea.

It's definitely part of people's perception. The LS50 Meta for instance is a great speaker, although I personally found them extremely overrated after seeing all the reviews. The 'Meta' part does make scientific sense, although 'Meta'is a bit of a buzzword and not really indicative of what the implementation is, it's not a meta material at all in the true sense of the word.

Definitely the marketing does effect a lot of people, tell someone something is amazing enough and people will flock towards it and also to validate their decision will wholeheartedly agree with the marketing and hype because of the sense of validation. It's why you see people vehemently defending a piece of gear they own and love, human nature is extremely odd. Rather than see some scientific review and see something doesn't measure well, rather than shrugging their shoulders and just saying 'well it sounds great to me regardless' the same person will go full on attack mode in defence of a product. The marketing team's for many of these companies in or outside of audio actually usually have psychologists or people versed in behavioural science to direct marketing strategy etc. You can sell anything and make people love it no matter the product or how good or bad with the right marketing. Right now with internet being relatively new, at least in masses accessibility we have the influencer stage which is a complete boon for marketing, yet at the same time extremely short sighted as people will realise the con over time, hence why many of us are here on this forum. Turns out the current trend of marketing via influence could actually damage companies in the long term when found out by objective scrutiny. This was a large part of Tekton's downfall, companies don't feel the need for transparency and honesty and live off generated hype. Alas a lot of these influencers now also look extremely silly, only a matter of time before more sites like this for other products pops up leading to the bursting of this kind of practice.

With the let's call it the "Kef LS50 disc" I read that it was to counter waves behind the driver in the cabinet.

Makes sense in its own right, but I have doubts if anything needed countering. The original LS50 was highly popular, got great reviews and most important, had no mentionable shortcomings. It has been a really long running model. Almost surpassing the competitors. If there really was something to fix or improve, it should have been already applied in the early stages of the original LS50.

I think the Ls50 meta was born out of a huge "where next?" question.

The effect is probably not to fix or improve anything. It might be an aim to detach proud original LS50 owners from their original gear implementing the thought that their original product was a bit flawed, basically asking big bucks for the same speaker again. I wonder what's next after the meta and if they can perform a similar trick again.