Are audiophiles wired differently?

[fas42]

Most of us seem to be addicted to the notion of "best" something. I think that often we have to re-train ourselves to enjoy the art and forget the media that carries it ... For example I know I am bothered to no end if I go to a movie theater and the exit lights are too bright ...

Frantz

Yes, we don't like compromise. We may have different ways of attempting to achieve higher performance but the underlying dislike of "good enough" thinking is probably universal. For example, in the visual area, someone may buy an expensive screen and pay a trained specialist to fine tune it, as compared to someone like me who will spend hours fiddling with every control that seems to be relevant to get the best out of the equipment.

Frank

 

[microstrip]

Most of my friends who already think I am totally nuts get their confirmation when they see my huge Soundlabs and the monster tube amps that drive them.

I have the same speakers and the VTLs MB750, but my system is prepared to avoid frightening my friends - the back wall acoustic treatments are hidden by a black acoustical curtain that cover all of the wall, the speakers frame and cloth are black, and I removed the silver front panel of the mate black VTLs that are partially hidden behind the speakers. As friends usually came at night, most of them they do not get the perception of the size of the system, as this zone of the room is purposely kept under weak illumination. Only the tube filaments call for attention. But the musicians are real size!

BTW, everything gets obvious when they see the size of the Studer A80 ...

 

[caesar]

We recently had a fairly high end piece of furniture delivered to our house. The delivery guy has been delivering to very high end homes for 30+ years, and he told me he has never seen anything like what I have. I played some Stevie Ray Vaughan for him, and he was smiling from ear to ear, while his eyes were as big as saucers. And I know I am just on the borderline of lunatic fringe with my system, compared to some audiophiles.

I think to any non-audiophile, anything with tubes is just plain strange. Most people coming over to the house ask "what's that?", while actually meaning to say "You are freaking weird!". Of course, I am thinking that the poor S.O.B. has one less thing he is passionate about in his life.

 

[microstrip]

(...) For example I know I am bothered to no end if I go to a movie theater and the exit lights are too bright ...

Frantz

Even worst - there is a local movie teather in my town where the luminous row letters on the floor are brighter than a lighthouse!

 

[caesar]

I have the same speakers and the VTLs MB750, but my system is prepared to avoid frightening my friends - the back wall acoustic treatments are hidden by a black acoustical curtain that cover all of the wall, the speakers frame and cloth are black, and I removed the silver front panel of the mate black VTLs that are partially hidden behind the speakers. As friends usually came at night, most of them they do not get the perception of the size of the system, as this zone of the room is purposely kept under weak illumination. Only the tube filaments call for attention. But the musicians are real size!

BTW, everything gets obvious when they see the size of the Studer A80 ...

Wow!!!!! Nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everything is in my living room. However, I (or the wife, in anger) remove the room treatments when people come over.

 

[JackD201]

ALL people are wired differently.

Substitute "Pepsi" and "Pepsis" with "System" and "Systems" and you'll see what I mean. I call it Individualization Howard calls it Horizontal Segmentation. I like his term better. I feel very lucky to have come across this lecture, I thought I should share it.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Great stories about Howard, and a lot of truth there, but it isn't nearly that simple. As an old brand marketing pro, I could tell stories that would lead to exactly the opposite conclusions, starting with the story of "New Coke," just for the synergy. Heck, I could tell the same stories differently and lead to exactly the opposite conclusions. People are incredibly complex and they respond to a lot of different things. The Grey Poupon story, as an example, doesn't really support the point of this talk at all, does it? It made it's mark with a singular product and a ton of upmarket appeal not through a variety of options. In business, in marketing, that's often the thing that works. There's a lot to be said for focus and a lot of danger in excess product diversification, but it is a nice story. The bottom line is, whether it's snobby mustard visible solids, or a variety of choices, the real key is finding out what people want, but are not getting, and offering it to them.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

Tim,

My main line is Mass Media, Marketing Management and Behavioral Science. This High-end audio dealer thing, I do for fun. I'd sure like to see what conclusion you would come to when faced with a scatter plot. Something tells me you would have gone with the "culturally authentic", the exact same way you go with "fidelity to the signal" in audio. Same thing isn't it? It's the way it is so that's the way I should like it. Well, I wish I had come to the same conclusions as good ol' HW. Not only did he make a lot of tummies happy, had I come up with it I would be consulting for some of the biggest multinationals, helping them make billions cumulatively and thus have created thousands of jobs. No, it isn't that simple the difference between you and me is I don't expect to see every detail in a talk limited by the organizers to no more than 20 minutes.

As I've mentioned in another thread, the downside of product diversification is higher prices due to the increased capital outlay for more production lines with ever smaller production runs and the multiplication of promotional campaigns by the same factor. The reason I posted this is that it is clear that the audio market in general, not just the high end, is responding to ever smaller differences segments exactly the same way every single industry is. The upside is you get what you want and how you want it.

In case you weren't listening, the Grey Poupon example was laid out as a counterpoint, and not a supporting anecdote. The lesson taken home he says was the wrong one. Unless of course you agree with snob appeal marketing, which I thought you were vehemently against or are you just playing the contrarian? Just curious. You like to mention Sean and Harman, but Sean himself said that they use different samples for different targets. The universal concept is passe. It has been since the late eighties. It is no coincidence that the diversification of products and the steady increase in retail prices picked up at this time and has brought us to where we are today. There is no point in arguing what is best, only what is best for you and even that changes depending not solely on preference but circumstance. You and I use the same laptop but there are three different versions of the MacBook Pro. I don't know which of the three you got but I didn't get the pimped out model because I don't need the extra ram and processing power of the top model. A graphic artist or video editor would have chosen differently. Every sport has its own shoe and you have a choice of hundreds for that particular type. Good old Howard wasn't responsible for this but he was responsible for chunky spaghetti sauce. You like near field, I like my scale large. It doesn't make me better than you nor does that make you better than me. I admire that you stick to your guns Tim, you've got that platonic ideal about what goes in being the same as what goes out. I respect that even if I don't buy it anymore than you buy frank's perfect tweeter philosophy. The whole point is I don't have to buy it. I don't matter. I don't matter because there will be someone making stuff for your needs and others making stuff for me for mine. Let's face it. The days of the ST-70 are gone.

As far as the story of New Coke goes, I'd say it supports the hypothesis. If you look closely at the beginnings of the New Coke story, the CEO at the time in particular, you'll see something interesting. I'll give you a clue. Where was he based before he became CEO and what about that place made him convinced that changing the formula at all could legitimately be put on the table?

 

[garylkoh]

Thanks, Jack. That video is spot on - thanks. It illustrates the diversity of what type of system makes the members of this forum happy, but the problem is that there hasn't been a Howard Moskowitz for the hifi industry. At this point, everybody still seems to think that they like the universally "culturally authentic spaghetti sauce" - the system that "reproduces live", not knowing that their system is not what reproduces live, but what reproduces what they like.

The hifi industry is more like Grey Poupon.

 

[JackD201]

Unfortunately you are right Gary. I hope that changes, especially the Grey Poupon part. I've never seen fundamentalism in any form lead to anywhere good except as examples of where not to go.

 

[garylkoh]

Jack, may be you need to be the high-priced consultant to take this idea to Harman, B&W, Pioneer, etc. It would be far better for the industry if these companies made speakers that were like chucky, spicy and extra garlicky instead of the product lines with the same sound but at different prices.

Everybody hears a different thing. Even though I agree with Tim on a number of fundamental issues, from his comments he heard the Grey Poupon story completely different from the way I heard it.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

My main line is Mass Media, Marketing Management and Behavioral Science. This High-end audio dealer thing, I do for fun. I'd sure like to see what conclusion you would come to when faced with a scatter plot. Something tells me you would have gone with the "culturally authentic", the exact same way you go with "fidelity to the signal" in audio. Same thing isn't it? It's the way it is so that's the way I should like it. Well, I wish I had come to the same conclusions as good ol' HW. Not only did he make a lot of tummies happy, had I come up with it I would be consulting for some of the biggest multinationals, helping them make billions cumulatively and thus have created thousands of jobs. No, it isn't that simple the difference between you and me is I don't expect to see every detail in a talk limited by the organizers to no more than 20 minutes.

As I've mentioned in another thread, the downside of product diversification is higher prices due to the increased capital outlay for more production lines with ever smaller production runs and the multiplication of promotional campaigns by the same factor. The reason I posted this is that it is clear that the audio market in general, not just the high end, is responding to ever smaller differences segments exactly the same way every single industry is. The upside is you get what you want and how you want it.

In case you weren't listening, the Grey Poupon example was laid out as a counterpoint, and not a supporting anecdote. The lesson taken home he says was the wrong one. Unless of course you agree with snob appeal marketing, which I thought you were vehemently against or are you just playing the contrarian? Just curious. You like to mention Sean and Harman, but Sean himself said that they use different samples for different targets. The universal concept is passe. It has been since the late eighties. It is no coincidence that the diversification of products and the steady increase in retail prices picked up at this time and has brought us to where we are today. There is no point in arguing what is best, only what is best for you and even that changes depending not solely on preference but circumstance. You and I use the same laptop but there are three different versions of the MacBook Pro. I don't know which of the three you got but I didn't get the pimped out model because I don't need the extra ram and processing power of the top model. A graphic artist or video editor would have chosen differently. Every sport has its own shoe and you have a choice of hundreds for that particular type. Good old Howard wasn't responsible for this but he was responsible for chunky spaghetti sauce. You like near field, I like my scale large. It doesn't make me better than you nor does that make you better than me. I admire that you stick to your guns Tim, you've got that platonic ideal about what goes in being the same as what goes out. I respect that even if I don't buy it anymore than you buy frank's perfect tweeter philosophy. The whole point is I don't have to buy it. I don't matter. I don't matter because there will be someone making stuff for your needs and others making stuff for me for mine. Let's face it. The days of the ST-70 are gone.

As far as the story of New Coke goes, I'd say it supports the hypothesis. If you look closely at the beginnings of the New Coke story, the CEO at the time in particular, you'll see something interesting. I'll give you a clue. Where was he based before he became CEO and what about that place made him convinced that changing the formula at all could legitimately be put on the table?

I'm just pointing out that while a diversified product line focused on a number of customer segments is a legitimate strategy, so can be a strategy in which a company focuses on a singular position and sticks with it. Sorry if that came off as contrarian. The only thing in that presentation I would contradict is the notion that you do not succeed by asking people what they want. Of course you do, and that's exactly what they did with the tomato sauce. They weren't as basic as to simply ask "What do you want in tomato sauce?" But they asked, nonetheless, built their product around the answers, and succeeded as a result.

Tim

 

[caesar]

ALL people are wired differently.

Substitute "Pepsi" and "Pepsis" with "System" and "Systems" and you'll see what I mean. I call it Individualization Howard calls it Horizontal Segmentation. I like his term better. I feel very lucky to have come across this lecture, I thought I should share it.

Jack, great video! I have a background in Behavioral Sciences also, btw. I agree that people don't always know what they want and can't explain what they want. To overcome that, following them around and watching what they do is the best way to figure out the clusters of variability that Gladwell is talking about. But that gets expensive...

Gladwell's concluding point about a general coffee score of 60 vs. scores of 75-80 for specific clusters of coffee lovers begs the question of: what are the different clusters of variability in audio? I am not sure what they are, but imagine that guys who listen to A LOT of different gear have a pretty good idea, if they think analytically.


Without the groups, the problem for the consumer is that there are just to many choices. And too many choices results in paralysis.

http://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Choic...5696/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302642726&sr=8-1

As a result, the consumers can't make up their mind and don't pull the trigger. As a personal example, I have been looking for a source for a while. However, there are just too many damn choices out there with too little opportunities to critically evaluate them in my system. I don't want to get one, and hear one I like better the next week. So I wait... but new ones come out every other month... complicating the issue further...

Unfortunately, the audio magazines are worthless to help group and categorize the gear. I haven't figured out if they are plain dumb to understand this vital consumer need, or just too gutless to group gear in cohorts and evaluate/ rank products in the cohort as car magazines do.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...1_bmw_535i_2011_infiniti_m37-comparison_tests

Wouldn't it be nice if Valin packed up "his" Magico's and Harley packed up his Rockports and sent them to Jacob Heilbrunn's home or HP's home for a real shootout? I know I have a better chance of winning the lottery than to live to see that happening...

 

[tonmeister2008]

Tim,

My main line is Mass Media, Marketing Management and Behavioral Science. This High-end audio dealer thing, I do for fun. I'd sure like to see what conclusion you would come to when faced with a scatter plot. Something tells me you would have gone with the "culturally authentic", the exact same way you go with "fidelity to the signal" in audio. Same thing isn't it? It's the way it is so that's the way I should like it. Well, I wish I had come to the same conclusions as good ol' HW. Not only did he make a lot of tummies happy, had I come up with it I would be consulting for some of the biggest multinationals, helping them make billions cumulatively and thus have created thousands of jobs. No, it isn't that simple the difference between you and me is I don't expect to see every detail in a talk limited by the organizers to no more than 20 minutes.

As I've mentioned in another thread, the downside of product diversification is higher prices due to the increased capital outlay for more production lines with ever smaller production runs and the multiplication of promotional campaigns by the same factor. The reason I posted this is that it is clear that the audio market in general, not just the high end, is responding to ever smaller differences segments exactly the same way every single industry is. The upside is you get what you want and how you want it.

In case you weren't listening, the Grey Poupon example was laid out as a counterpoint, and not a supporting anecdote. The lesson taken home he says was the wrong one. Unless of course you agree with snob appeal marketing, which I thought you were vehemently against or are you just playing the contrarian? Just curious. You like to mention Sean and Harman, but Sean himself said that they use different samples for different targets. The universal concept is passe. It has been since the late eighties. It is no coincidence that the diversification of products and the steady increase in retail prices picked up at this time and has brought us to where we are today. There is no point in arguing what is best, only what is best for you and even that changes depending not solely on preference but circumstance. You and I use the same laptop but there are three different versions of the MacBook Pro. I don't know which of the three you got but I didn't get the pimped out model because I don't need the extra ram and processing power of the top model. A graphic artist or video editor would have chosen differently. Every sport has its own shoe and you have a choice of hundreds for that particular type. Good old Howard wasn't responsible for this but he was responsible for chunky spaghetti sauce. You like near field, I like my scale large. It doesn't make me better than you nor does that make you better than me. I admire that you stick to your guns Tim, you've got that platonic ideal about what goes in being the same as what goes out. I respect that even if I don't buy it anymore than you buy frank's perfect tweeter philosophy. The whole point is I don't have to buy it. I don't matter. I don't matter because there will be someone making stuff for your needs and others making stuff for me for mine. Let's face it. The days of the ST-70 are gone.

As far as the story of New Coke goes, I'd say it supports the hypothesis. If you look closely at the beginnings of the New Coke story, the CEO at the time in particular, you'll see something interesting. I'll give you a clue. Where was he based before he became CEO and what about that place made him convinced that changing the formula at all could legitimately be put on the table?

I would argue that there is a fundamental difference between measuring consumer's taste preferences for food (e.g. spaghetti sauce, mustard, coffee, wine) versus their preferences for quality of sound reproduction.

When the goal of sound reproduction is "accuracy" or "fidelity" then consumer preference doesn't t even enter into the equation: simply make the audio product as accurate as possible, and your job is done. The performance of the product can be measured objectively and/or subjectively to determine its accuracy.

The only time you might do sound quality preference testing is when the product, for example a loudspeaker, isn't accurate (due to cost constraints, industrial design,etc), or as a marketing exercise: to prove you sound as good or better than your competition. The goal of the listening test is to determine whether you've made the right design tradeoffs based on the feedback from the listeners.

When we do these types of listening tests, we find that a large majority of both trained and untrained listeners prefer the more accurate loudspeakers. There may well be clusters of consumers who prefer slightly brighter speakers over duller ones, and vice versa. But when given the option between a bright, dull and neutral loudspeaker, the majority of listeners prefer the neutral one. For the other listeners, I suppose that is why receivers have tone controls on them, which they can adjust to suit their taste. Tone controls are also useful to correct the "mistakes" in the recordings we purchase.

With food, there is no such thing as an "accurate" wine or spaghetti sauce. We can't judge the accuracy of a Chardonnay because there exists no natural references in the world against which it can be compared and measured.

In audio, we have familiar every day sounds that we can record and reproduce, and assess the accuracy of the entire chain against those references. We can conduct objective measurements on the products and predict the listeners' sound quality ratings of those products with good accuracy. For these reasons, I question the efficacy of testing the perceived sound quality of audio products as you would test spaghetti sauces. The design goals for audio and food are simply not the same.

 

[garylkoh]

While I agree that there is a fundamental difference between measuring a consumer's taste preference for food vs their preference for quality of sound reproduction, I feel IMHO that the music reproduction system is far enough away from perfect that preferences are valid because of the trade-offs we have to make. For example, a system like Steve's where he supplements his very large speakers with subwoofers, vs a system like Tim's which sacrifices deep bass for clarity and accuracy. Even without taking cost into account, we all have trade-offs and preferences. When you cannot make the product as accurate as possible because of cost constraints, the areas in which the designer decides to trade off becomes a personal preference that he imposes on his products, and hence his customers. Then, when that personal preference is different from the customer's preference, the customer goes into an upgrade spiral.

 

[tonmeister2008]

While I agree that there is a fundamental difference between measuring a consumer's taste preference for food vs their preference for quality of sound reproduction, I feel IMHO that the music reproduction system is far enough away from perfect that preferences are valid because of the trade-offs we have to make. For example, a system like Steve's where he supplements his very large speakers with subwoofers, vs a system like Tim's which sacrifices deep bass for clarity and accuracy. Even without taking cost into account, we all have trade-offs and preferences. When you cannot make the product as accurate as possible because of cost constraints, the areas in which the designer decides to trade off becomes a personal preference that he imposes on his products, and hence his customers. Then, when that personal preference is different from the customer's preference, the customer goes into an upgrade spiral.

Yes, I would agree with you that listening tests are still required, particularly in the case of loudspeakers, where compromises exist. The most common tradeoffs are bass extension versus max SPL versus price. With very large expensive loudspeakers, there is less of an excuse for compromises and tradeoffs.

The meat of the audio market these days are small >$500. Ipod/iPad docking stations. These products have significant compromises in terms of frequency response, bass extension, and maximum SPL output. The results of the listening tests can change depending on where you set the volume control on the products.

The sad thing is there are no meaningful specifications on audio products that tell consumers what tradeoffs have been made.

 

[tonmeister2008]

The hifi industry is more like Grey Poupon.

Well put!

 

[JackD201]

This puts us at a conundrum Sean. I mean, even within Harman's umbrella, in particular price overlapping models, we've got JBL, Infinity and Revel that while all accurate under common metrics, cater to different groups. What defines each one's "house sound", that which not only draws in new customers but becomes the basis for brand loyalty? Tim mentioned New Coke. It's a perfect example of tampering with a proven and tested formula and the resulting consequences. Personally I really like the Revel sound and if I were Harman's CEO and market testing showed the company wasn't serving a segment that wanted rolled off and humped, I wouldn't tell Kevin to change a thing. I'd buy a company that already had a hold on rolled off and humped. It may even be possible that Harman bought Infinity to reach a market JBL couldn't and set up Revel to do the same. Sound quality aside, for geographic penetration purposes they bought Selenium. One can say that Harman has been doing a Harold, except Harman hasn't been doing it on a product by product basis but by a brand and line basis.

What we do know is that asking questions isn't difficult. What is difficult is asking the right questions.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

This puts us at a conundrum Sean. I mean, even within Harman's umbrella, in particular price overlapping models, we've got JBL, Infinity and Revel that while all accurate under common metrics, cater to different groups. What defines each one's "house sound", that which not only draws in new customers but becomes the basis for brand loyalty? Tim mentioned New Coke. It's a perfect example of tampering with a proven and tested formula and the resulting consequences. Personally I really like the Revel sound and if I were Harman's CEO and market testing showed the company wasn't serving a segment that wanted rolled off and humped, I wouldn't tell Kevin to change a thing. I'd buy a company that already had a hold on rolled off and humped. It may even be possible that Harman bought Infinity to reach a market JBL couldn't and set up Revel to do the same. Sound quality aside, for geographic penetration purposes they bought Selenium. One can say that Harman has been doing a Harold, except Harman hasn't been doing it on a product by product basis but by a brand and line basis.

What we do know is that asking questions isn't difficult. What is difficult is asking the right questions.

My guess/impression is that these three lines are differentiated by their compromises, not their objectives. I look forward to Sean's reply.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

The way I see it, the objectives define the compromises and not the other way around. I'll wait for Sean's reply too. It's a big privilege for folks like us to get the kind of information Sean shares. Gotta love the internet.