Audiophile Societies - A True Story

[microstrip]

(...) I get that there is an entire industry built around the manufacturing, marketing/promotion, distributing and selling of hi-fi gear, and there are people of unscrupulous morals throughout.

It is simply a more efficient and much more effective strategy to modify my own process in dealing with it, than it is to attempt to change theirs. Not because I don't care people are getting ripped off, but because the real-world measurable impact and scalability of harm is so low. In matters in which the real-world measurable impact and scalability of harm is high as I mention above, I'm more willing to engage on both an individual and collective level of change.

Best,

853guy

Thanks for your post. Really wise words, IMHO.

 

[PeterA]

Hi Al,

Yes, that's possibly true.

I get that there is an entire industry built around the manufacturing, marketing/promotion, distributing and selling of hi-fi gear, and there are people of unscrupulous morals throughout.

It is simply a more efficient and much more effective strategy to modify my own process in dealing with it, than it is to attempt to change theirs. Not because I don't care people are getting ripped off, but because the real-world measurable impact and scalability of harm is so low. In matters in which the real-world measurable impact and scalability of harm is high as I mention above, I'm more willing to engage on both an individual and collective level of change.

Best,

853guy

Hello 853guy. It seems to me that the scalable harm goes beyond the individual when the vendor knowingly tricks the audience, and then when this is brought to the attention of the event's organizer, the vendor is protected. I'm with Al on this one. Bob Levi represents 2700 members and seems to be sanctioning this kind of trickery. To make matters worse, he expels from his organization the one member who exposed the trickery. Buyer Beware is fine, but I would not want to be involved with an organization where the principle thinks misleading its members is OK.

I agree with you that this is all pretty minor stuff when it comes to the world's real problems, but do we really want to brush aside unethical behavior in an organized event that is meant to provide information to those in attendance?

 

[ack]

I'm with Al on this one. Bob Levi represents 2700 members and seems to be sanctioning this kind of trickery. To make matters worse, he expels from his organization the one member who exposed the trickery.

+1, which is why I said I don't care about Bob Levi - sanctioning trickery and punishing its exposure?????

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I would lol but again it’s fair game at shows and stores even events setup for a few venders

I do not think it is "fair game" to intentionally deceive at any time.

 

[853guy]

Hello 853guy. It seems to me that the scalable harm goes beyond the individual when the vendor knowingly tricks the audience, and then when this is brought to the attention of the event's organizer, the vendor is protected. I'm with Al on this one. Bob Levi represents 2700 members and seems to be sanctioning this kind of trickery. To make matters worse, he expels from his organization the one member who exposed the trickery. Buyer Beware is fine, but I would not want to be involved with an organization where the principle thinks misleading its members is OK.

I agree with you that this is all pretty minor stuff when it comes to the world's real problems, but do we really want to brush aside unethical behavior in an organized event that is meant to provide information to those in attendance?

Hello Peter,

The question for me is not: “Do we really want to brush aside unethical behavior in an organized event that is meant to provide information to those in attendance?”.

The question is: “What should be the expectation of the individual who attends an event in which membership is optional - not forced - of an organisation that states explicitly on its homepage it's dedicated to being a “guide to the finest dealers and most exciting gear available in Southern California (to) meet the experts and gurus of our fantastic hobby and learn about the newest, cutting-edge technologies to enhance (the) listening experience (…) (assuring) you a great time and great fellowship as you learn about both the best bargains and most extravagant gear in the world”?

Perhaps you’ve noticed, as I have, the words “truth” and “ethics” are not mentioned a single time.

If I go to a sports bar of my own volition, I’m not looking for the truth or ethics. I’m looking for a large television in which I can watch sports and drink beer*.

If I sign up as a member of an organisation that explicitly states in its mandate it exists to promote “extravagant” hi-fi gear fronted by “gurus”, then perhaps it’s fair to conclude that Mr. Levi’s invitation to Mr. Waldrep to “Enjoy and sell and entertain and inform” will be weighted more toward the first three priorities, rather than the latter.

Again, the responsibility of any individual freely participating in any organisation is to evaluate whether or not the organisation meets their expectations relative to its stated purpose. The purpose of the LAOCAS seems pretty clear to me.

Be well, Peter.

853guy


*Terrible example. I neither go to sports bars nor drink beer.

 

[DaveyF]

I do not think it is "fair game" to intentionally deceive at any time.

+1000

It would seem that 853guy has no problem justifying deceit, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone..or at least too many people.

@ 853guy, when do you think that it is now NOT ok to deceive people...after how many have actually been damaged ( and please inform us on what your opinion is of the definition of 'damage')...one, two, tens, hundreds...please do enlighten us.

 

[853guy]

+1000

It would seem that 853guy has no problem justifying deceit, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone..or at least too many people.

@ 853guy, when do you think that it is now NOT ok to deceive people...after how many have actually been damaged ( and please enlighten us on what your opinion is of the definition of 'damage')...one, two, tens, hundreds...please do enlighten us.

I've already done that to the best of my ability in my previous posts #32, #34, #36, #40, and #45, Davey, which you're welcome to re-read if they're not clear enough, and also, in previous PM's with you.

And I'm sorry, I'm happy to discuss the issue at hand, but I won't do so over a straw man argument of justification of deceit.

Best,

853guy

 

[Al M.]

And I'm sorry, I'm happy to discuss the issue at hand, but I won't do so over a straw man argument of justification of deceit.

Best,

853guy

Unfortunately, I don't think it's a straw man argument, 853guy.

Al

 

[DaveyF]

853 guy--What does the term 'straw man' mean to you??

 

[853guy]

853 guy--What does the term 'straw man' mean to you??

Actually, Davey, it's not on me to tell you what my understanding of 'straw man' is, it's up to you to show me where I've justified deceit.

Best,

853guy

 

[DaveyF]

Actually, Davey, it's not on me to tell you what my understanding of 'straw man' is, it's up to you to show me where I've justified deceit.


Best,

853guy

Except, you are the one who brought up the term 'straw man'. Maybe re-read your prior points...like: "No, because it is not the responsibility of the person running the demo what the audience do with their money. If the general hi-fi buying public are not willing to take responsibility out of the hands of people who write about hi-fi for a living, or demo it for a living, or sell it for a living, and develop a robust process for their purchasing decisions when evaluating first-world luxury purchases of a non-essential variety, then that's their problem."

 

[Steve Williams]

Except, you are the one who brought up the term 'straw man'. Maybe re-read your prior points...like: "No, because it is not the responsibility of the person running the demo what the audience do with their money. If the general hi-fi buying public are not willing to take responsibility out of the hands of people who write about hi-fi for a living, or demo it for a living, or sell it for a living, and develop a robust process for their purchasing decisions when evaluating first-world luxury purchases of a non-essential variety, then that's their problem."

I think it was summed up perfectly when someone posted "caveat emptor". Sage advice IMO

 

[microstrip]

I think it was summed up perfectly when someone posted "caveat emptor". Sage advice IMO

The same "caveat emptor" applies when someone brings a subject coming from another blog to WBF - I expect that the person documents himself on exact facts and participates in the discussion, elucidating people. All the current talk is based on "if" , "it seems", I do not like "him". No one in this debate has reported anything new to the thread, it seems we are back on our old never ending arguments on high-end.

 

[DaveyF]

Interesting Steve- if, that is, you believe that 'caveat emptor' is always the best approach. Used to be in the old days that acquiring a large purchase in California was under the 'caveat emptor' guidelines, doesn't apply anymore....I know which method I prefer. I suspect that you do too!

 

[Steve Williams]

Interesting Steve- if, that is, you believe that 'caveat emptor' is always the best approach. Used to be in the old days that acquiring a large purchase in California was under the 'caveat emptor' guidelines, doesn't apply anymore....I know which method I prefer. I suspect that you do too!

I'm trying to say that we adults are hopefully educated enough to make an educated decision, so yes, let the consumer beware. Due diligence also comes to mind.

BTW I am in agreement that the deceit carried on at the meeting was wrong also agree that Bob Levy's dealing with the situation was somewhat amateurish and shed a bad light upon him

 

[853guy]

Except, you are the one who brought up the term 'straw man'. Maybe re-read your prior points...like: "No, because it is not the responsibility of the person running the demo what the audience do with their money. If the general hi-fi buying public are not willing to take responsibility out of the hands of people who write about hi-fi for a living, or demo it for a living, or sell it for a living, and develop a robust process for their purchasing decisions when evaluating first-world luxury purchases of a non-essential variety, then that's their problem."

Thanks, Davey.

I'll make this my last post.

I would have preferred to be shown where I justified deceit (as opposed to where I place the onus for how the consumer spends their disposable income on them rather than gurus or experts) (1), but in the absence of any such evidence, I'll say this...

People believe in extraterrestrials. People believe in UFOs. People believe in gods. People believe in vampires. People believe in four leaf clovers. People believe in love at first sight. People believe in Santa. People believe in moon landing conspiracies. People believe in jars of magic stones that increase soundstage palpability and midrange bloom. All despite the fact no such robust scientific evidence exists whatsoever.

The willingness of a given population to be deceived is usually much, much greater than the number of individuals willing to deceive them. Some of them even sign up to "audiophile societies", because they believe that sonic nirvana is only a ceramic/carbon composite tweak away - at least, that's what reviewer X wrote in The Absolute Stereophile (2).

Am I saying I don’t care about people being deceived? No. I do care, especially for those closest to me. But I can’t do much about what other people are willing to believe. And, in any case - and to repeat what I have tried very hard to articulate in my previous posts - in all the above examples, the measurable impact and scalability of real-world harm is low to zero.

I’m sorry I can’t put this any clearer than I already have.

Enjoy the thread.

Best,

853guy


(1) Note: I make a distinction between disposable income and investments. I believe I covered that in the last paragraph of post #34.

(2) I won't get into the logical fallacies associated with appeals to authority here, and the need for individuals to justify expenditure relative to the recommendations of those with no skin in the game, i.e. guys who get paid to host cable demos.

 

[Al M.]

I think it was summed up perfectly when someone posted "caveat emptor". Sage advice IMO

The problem is that it's not always easy to do your own research for "caveat emptor".

It's not always easy to know that the volume has been raised a bit in order to make things sound better (in fact, I have been fooling myself too about volume levels, even when diligently trying to volume match! -- I don't think I am the only one). But that is a rather simple example compared to something like MQA, for instance. It took a bunch of experts on Computer Audiophile and a blogger named Archimago to expose the technically quite intricate scam, which is obviously not about sound quality but about digital rights management and the associated stream of money (yes, some might still think MQA sounds better, but that is not because it is, but because it introduces pleasant euphonic distortions or because the particular mastering listened to is better).

Of course, the whole MQA episode now leaves 'esteemed' writers like John Atkinson and Robert Harley, who had praised in into the Heavens, embarrassed, with their pants down (even if they won't concede that). I think it's a shame, frankly, that they failed miserably on MQA without asking the tough questions, because otherwise I often find Harley in particular a good reviewer/writer.

Yet how would the non-technical consumer know?

So anyone who exposes deceit gets my up vote.

 

[KeithR]

I am glad this exchange was published, and thank Bob for the link. I don't know who Bob Levi is, but I don't think I care about what I read from him. It was interesting that the society has 2700 members - how active is the society and what do they do? I hope they don't waste their time attending power cord demos. And who's Sunil? I guess I won't be visiting his store.

The funny thing which you eastern guys don't know is people sticking up for Sunil.

 

[Empirical Audio]

His demo produced audible/measurable increases in the amplitude of identical music selections. A result that is impossible according to the laws of physics. Electrical engineers and those with even a casual knowledge of how electrical circuits and power supplies work know that a heavy twisted cable worth thousands of dollars cannot — and should not — increase the plus and minus voltages needed by the various circuits in the equipment in question.

Electrical Engineers know that even cables have an effect on di/dt. If you are talking about a steady-state sine-wave, then no. If you are talking about transients, then it can certainly have an effect. Dielectric absorption, inductance and capacitance will all have some effect, depending on the impedances of the circuit the cable is operating in. Wires are not just low-ohm resistors.

The other thing that is typically unknown is the physics of the conductor metallurgy/molecular structure. This is NOT in the physics books, at least attributing effects on audio frequencies. I have measurements on a TDT showing the effect of broken crystal lattice in metal conductors. This causes reflections of HF energy which causes audio effects, at least in some systems. I suspect only where there are transistors involved, not tubes.

The rest of this pissing contest is inconsequential. The important thing here is THE PHYSICS. Someone evidently needs a refresher course.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

 

[KeithR]

I'm trying to say that we adults are hopefully educated enough to make an educated decision, so yes, let the consumer beware. Due diligence also comes to mind.

BTW I am in agreement that the deceit carried on at the meeting was wrong also agree that Bob Levy's dealing with the situation was somewhat amateurish and shed a bad light upon him

+1