Absolute Sound is Rubbish

[Gregadd]

From illusion to lie. what is next, conspiracy?

[Phelonious Ponk]

From illusion to lie. what is next, conspiracy?

Surely someone, somewhere has proposed collusion between audio manufacturers and the audiophile press to sell ever more expensive goods to hapless consumers? Many times, I'd think. Personally, I think it's a lot simpler than that. I think when solid state, and then digital, came along, the as-of-yet-unnamed audio hobby establishment preferred what they were used to. That probably wasn't at all hard in the early days of those two technologies, but the preference persisted as SS and digital were refined and passed by the older technologies by nearly every metric available to engineers. It wouldn't do, however, to merely accept that they, the hi-fi leadership, preferred something that wasn't actually as hi-fi as what they had been trashing, so measurements became unimportant, illegitimate even -- mysterious, immeasurable qualities became the thing that defined more "musical" components, and subjectivity became king, sort of, with an understanding that the more expensive, club-approved stuff is superior, and that part is not really subjective.

And "high-end" was born. No conspiracy necessary.

It has evolved. Now there is plenty of "high end" digital and solid state to be had. Much of it actually performs very well. Some of it can be soundly throttled by gear a fraction of its price and this can be thoroughly demonstrated, but it matters not, as all objective measures have been banished, allowing audiophiles to hear whatever they want to hear, and declare it as real as exhaustive bench testing. Which brings us right back to the illusion, but not the conspiracy theory. The only "conspiracy" I see is that I suspect many (most?) designers in the industry fully understand the realities, but find the margins irresistable. Consider the "Weiss High End" Minerva. A "Weiss Professional" DAC 1 with a new faceplate and an extra $3,000 on the price tag. Good work if you can get it.

Tim

[whart]

Surely someone, somewhere has proposed collusion between audio manufacturers and the audiophile press to sell ever more expensive goods to hapless consumers? Many times, I'd think. Personally, I think it's a lot simpler than that. I think when solid state, and then digital, came along, the as-of-yet-unnamed audio hobby establishment preferred what they were used to. That probably wasn't at all hard in the early days of those two technologies, but the preference persisted as SS and digital were refined and passed by the older technologies by nearly every metric available to engineers. It wouldn't do, however, to merely accept that they, the hi-fi leadership, preferred something that wasn't actually as hi-fi as what they had been trashing, so measurements became unimportant, illegitimate even -- mysterious, immeasurable qualities became the thing that defined more "musical" components, and subjectivity became king, sort of, with an understanding that the more expensive, club-approved stuff is superior, and that part is not really subjective.

And "high-end" was born. No conspiracy necessary.

It has evolved. Now there is plenty of "high end" digital and solid state to be had. Much of it actually performs very well. Some of it can be soundly throttled by gear a fraction of its price and this can be thoroughly demonstrated, but it matters not, as all objective measures have been banished, allowing audiophiles to hear whatever they want to hear, and declare it as real as exhaustive bench testing. Which brings us right back to the illusion, but not the conspiracy theory. The only "conspiracy" I see is that I suspect many (most?) designers in the industry fully understand the realities, but find the margins irresistable. Consider the "Weiss High End" Minerva. A "Weiss Professional" DAC 1 with a new faceplate and an extra $3,000 on the price tag. Good work if you can get it.

Tim

Tim,
with due respect (don't you hate it when people open that way?)

1. the coining of the term 'high-end' came about somewhere in 1973, or so legend has it, with the advent (no pun) of the Absolute Sound. Far from being a call to maintain the status quo in the face of new technology, it was a demand, as I remember it, to expect more out of the equipment in the realization of musical truth. (Perhaps not The musical truth, but something that went beyond the medicorities of mass produced consumer stuff marketed by big companies). Pearson was at that time touting Levinson, Audio Research and a few others, none of which at that time, were large corporate enterpricse with big ad budgets.
2. Although i'm not plugged into serious digital replay equipment, all those mags today seem to devote a fair amount of time to 'new' technologies.
3. the notion that there is a 'hi-fi leadership' really is hearing footsteps. do you remember that initiative, i forget what it was called, to revitalize serious audio as a market force in the face of competition from home theatre, computer gaming and the like? It fell totally flat. There was no leadership, just a bunch of companies fearful of getting their lunch and market eaten because new generations could care less.
4. there is more cottage industry growth and enterprise in this field than ever. Small amp producers, turntable producers, etc. Now, you may reject that by saying those are all outmoded technologies, rather than new ones, but i don't think the start up or engineering costs are as great as for, say, a DAC.
5. Weiss is a good example of crossover from pro to high end consumer. I grant you, if all they did was rebadge it as a 'high end' consumer product and add several thousand bucks to the price, they should get burned for it. People will find that out, and simply buy the pro model. (Didn't something similar happen with another piece of gear, which claimed that it was an expensive mod of an Oppo but was simply re-cased and they took enormous **** in the audio press fot it?)
6. There is no end to marketing to the gullible or branding everything high-end, just like food is now branded 'natural' or every service as a VIP segment which offers the same bad service you used to get in coach. (don't ask what coach is like). That's capitalism in all its glory and stupidity, but I don't think it is confined to, or reflective of, what's happening in audio.

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
with due respect (don't you hate it when people open that way?)

1. the coining of the term 'high-end' came about somewhere in 1973, or so legend has it, with the advent (no pun) of the Absolute Sound. Far from being a call to maintain the status quo in the face of new technology, it was a demand, as I remember it, to expect more out of the equipment in the realization of musical truth. (Perhaps not The musical truth, but something that went beyond the medicorities of mass produced consumer stuff marketed by big companies). Pearson was at that time touting Levinson, Audio Research and a few others, none of which at that time, were large corporate enterpricse with big ad budgets.
2. Although i'm not plugged into serious digital replay equipment, all those mags today seem to devote a fair amount of time to 'new' technologies.
3. the notion that there is a 'hi-fi leadership' really is hearing footsteps. do you remember that initiative, i forget what it was called, to revitalize serious audio as a market force in the face of competition from home theatre, computer gaming and the like? It fell totally flat. There was no leadership, just a bunch of companies fearful of getting their lunch and market eaten because new generations could care less.
4. there is more cottage industry growth and enterprise in this field than ever. Small amp producers, turntable producers, etc. Now, you may reject that by saying those are all outmoded technologies, rather than new ones, but i don't think the start up or engineering costs are as great as for, say, a DAC.
5. Weiss is a good example of crossover from pro to high end consumer. I grant you, if all they did was rebadge it as a 'high end' consumer product and add several thousand bucks to the price, they should get burned for it. People will find that out, and simply buy the pro model. (Didn't something similar happen with another piece of gear, which claimed that it was an expensive mod of an Oppo but was simply re-cased and they took enormous **** in the audio press fot it?)
6. There is no end to marketing to the gullible or branding everything high-end, just like food is now branded 'natural' or every service as a VIP segment which offers the same bad service you used to get in coach. (don't ask what coach is like). That's capitalism in all its glory and stupidity, but I don't think it is confined to, or reflective of, what's happening in audio.

Mine was an interpretation of the events, not a recollection of the rationale behind the title. And I didn't say that hi-fi leadership was either organized or effective. But there was a hi-fi leadership and there is a high-end leadership, comprised of designers, manufacturers and reviewers, and a few of the hobbyists themselves. I'm not sure the hobby picks it's leaders well; my guess is that many more high-end Audiophiles know the work of Fremer than Toole and that, in my estimation, is knowing more L. Ron Hubbard than Edison. YMMV.

5. Weiss is a good example of crossover from pro to high end consumer. I grant you, if all they did was rebadge it as a 'high end' consumer product and add several thousand bucks to the price, they should get burned for it. People will find that out, and simply buy the pro model. (Didn't something similar happen with another piece of gear, which claimed that it was an expensive mod of an Oppo but was simply re-cased and they took enormous **** in the audio press fot it?)

This is precisely what they did and I saw Daniel Weiss admit it online. Oddly, they didn't get burned for it. Probably because they make very good stuff and aren't just con artists. As I said, they just found the margins in "high-end" irresistable. Can't say I blame them.

I remember the Oppo story as well. English company...don't recall the name. That made a bit more of a stink, probably because they didn't design anything at all, they just dropped an Oppo in a new box and marked it up a few grand.

Tim

[Gregadd]

COLLUSION
: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose
Conspiacy
kuhn ·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.

[Phelonious Ponk]

Collusion: An agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition.

Emphasis mine. And I wasn't saying there has been collusion between high-end manufacturers and journalists, only that it has surely been proposed.

Tim

[Gregadd]

Surely someone, somewhere has proposed collusion between audio manufacturers and the audiophile press to sell ever more expensive goods to hapless consumers? Many times, I'd think.[ Have they ever proven it?The argument concerns the the term "absolute sound". Is it a lie?] Personally, I think it's a lot simpler than that. I think when solid state,[Soilid State preceded the high- end press.]and then digital, came along, the as-of-yet-unnamed audio hobby establishment preferred what they were used to.[The hoobyist preceded high end press] That probably wasn't at all hard in the early days of those two technologies, but the preference persisted as SS and digital were refined and passed by the older technologies by nearly every metric available to engineers.[The high -end annointed countless SS and digital devices. It was the concept of digtial that took the big hit] It wouldn't do, however, to merely accept that they, the hi-fi leadership, preferred something that wasn't actually as hi-fi as what they had been trashing, so measurements became unimportant, illegitimate even -- mysterious, immeasurable qualities became the thing that defined more "musical" components, and subjectivity became king, sort of, with an understanding that the more expensive, club-approved stuff is superior, and that part is not really subjective.[No doubt the high-end press found measurements wanting. The fact that they tried to translate them into every day language does not mean they were ignored. For example I learned about Richard Heyser from the hign- end press. Agian I don't know what magazines you guys are reading. Just take a look at the 12 most signifcant preamps in tas. Plenty of Solid State choices.]
And "high-end" was born. No conspiracy necessary. [Harry Pearson claims he originated the term high -end. I prefer to think the high-end was not born per se, rather it emerged for the Primordial Ooze and is stiil evolving.]
It has evolved. Now there is plenty of "high end" digital and solid state to be had. Much of it actually performs very well. Some of it can be soundly throttled by gear a fraction of its price[ Best buck per dollar and best buy selections are regular features of high end magazines. Price point competion is a feature of capitalsim] and this can be thoroughly demonstrated, but it matters not, as all objective measures have been banished, [ Really, banished? Maybe just not given the attention some think they desrve]allowing audiophiles to hear whatever they want to hear, and declare it as real as exhaustive bench testing. [Whatever your audio philosophy, you can find the press willing to indulge it.]Which brings us right back to the illusion, but not the conspiracy theory. The only "conspiracy" I see is that I suspect many (most?) designers in the industry fully understand the realities, but find the margins irresistable. Consider the "Weiss High End" Minerva. A "Weiss Professional" DAC 1 with a new faceplate and an extra $3,000 on the price tag. Good work if you can get it.[Charging a premium for a premium product. Those audiophile manufacturers are marketing genuises.]
Tim

[Kal Rubinson]

I remember the Oppo story as well. English company...don't recall the name. That made a bit more of a stink, probably because they didn't design anything at all, they just dropped an Oppo in a new box and marked it up a few grand.

Lexicon.

[microstrip]

(...) I'm not sure the hobby picks it's leaders well; my guess is that many more high-end Audiophiles know the work of Fremer than Toole and that, in my estimation, is knowing more L. Ron Hubbard than Edison. YMMV. (...)

Tim,

Although I hate posting in a thread unhappily carrying the inelegant and misapplied word rubbish , I have to comment your wretched sentence. Gathering Fremer , L. Ron Hubbard, Toole and Edison can only be explained by audiophile phobia, as no parallel can exist. Edison was a great inventor and a business man, but not a scientist - some of his poor decisions were due to his limited knowledge of science. F. Toole is really an audio scientist - that as far as I know you do not appreciate - Fremer is an audio reviewer and although I have never deeply studied the life of Ron Hubbard, he is often associated with pseudo-religion, legal cases and fraud.

I find it a very inappropriate mix. You are free to dislike also Fremer - I also do not agree with many of his views but respect them and have learned a lot reading from his large experience. To conclude, IMHO, you really do not need Edison or Toole to embellish your anti-audiophile opinions.

[Phelonious Ponk]

Surely someone, somewhere has proposed collusion between audio manufacturers and the audiophile press to sell ever more expensive goods to hapless consumers? Many times, I'd think.[ Have they ever proven it?The argument concerns the the term "absolute sound". Is it a lie?]

That was in response to your comment "what's next, conspiracy?" I was pointing out that it's not next, it has already occurred, not trying to say it was true.

The rest of your red type above ranges from non-sensical to irrelevant to what it appears to be responding to. You'll have to forgive me that I'm not inspured to untangle it.

Tim