The Truth about Whats Best Forum
- Thread starter Don C
- Start date
I agree with Doug that audio components should not be selected solely on the basis of price. Spending a lot of money on the trendiest and most advertised high-end audio components definitely does not guarantee good sound. Assembling a system comprised of the components of status-symbol brands definitely does not guarantee good sound.
Some of my favorite high-end audio systems cost only a fraction of the cost of much more expensive systems I personally did not care for.
But if somebody wants to drop a lot of money on status symbol audio jewelry and does not care about the sound quality per dollar why would any onlooker care? I think it is nonsense to impose one's personal values and preferences on another person's decisions, and suggest that the second person made a mistake or was foolish or imprudent to spend his/her money however he/she wishes.
Once I understand someone's musical genre preferences and subjective sonic preferences and room situation I am confident that I can assemble a great-sounding system by selecting from the top-of-the-line components of companies whose products I know well. Then the questions relate to value for sound quality, cost/benefit analysis and diminishing returns -- personal questions wholly dependent on one's pocketbook and personal preferences and idiosyncratic answers to these questions.
I think that generally I could put together a better system choosing from companies' more expensive products than from those companies' less expensive products. I do think that sound quality generally is somewhat positively correlated with price.
I think most manufacturers would concede that their top-of-the-line product -- which may cost several times more than their least expensive product -- may achieve only a relatively modest linear improvement in overall sound quality (diminishing returns). For example, Lampizator aficionados can estimate for us how much better is the Pacific at US$27,000 than is the Baltic3 at US$6,600. Is the Pacific 400% better than the Baltic3? Is it anybody's business other than the person writing the check if an audiophile chooses to purchase a company's top-of-the-line product even if to achieve only a subtle improvement in sound quality?
But why is this thread titled "The Truth About What's Best Forum"?
Some of my favorite high-end audio systems cost only a fraction of the cost of much more expensive systems I personally did not care for.
But if somebody wants to drop a lot of money on status symbol audio jewelry and does not care about the sound quality per dollar why would any onlooker care? I think it is nonsense to impose one's personal values and preferences on another person's decisions, and suggest that the second person made a mistake or was foolish or imprudent to spend his/her money however he/she wishes.
Once I understand someone's musical genre preferences and subjective sonic preferences and room situation I am confident that I can assemble a great-sounding system by selecting from the top-of-the-line components of companies whose products I know well. Then the questions relate to value for sound quality, cost/benefit analysis and diminishing returns -- personal questions wholly dependent on one's pocketbook and personal preferences and idiosyncratic answers to these questions.
I think that generally I could put together a better system choosing from companies' more expensive products than from those companies' less expensive products. I do think that sound quality generally is somewhat positively correlated with price.
I think most manufacturers would concede that their top-of-the-line product -- which may cost several times more than their least expensive product -- may achieve only a relatively modest linear improvement in overall sound quality (diminishing returns). For example, Lampizator aficionados can estimate for us how much better is the Pacific at US$27,000 than is the Baltic3 at US$6,600. Is the Pacific 400% better than the Baltic3? Is it anybody's business other than the person writing the check if an audiophile chooses to purchase a company's top-of-the-line product even if to achieve only a subtle improvement in sound quality?
But why is this thread titled "The Truth About What's Best Forum"?
Last edited:
The author of the article on study.com that Schneider cites in discussing the "placebo effect of price" has a Master's degree in Ancient Celtic History & Mythology and a Bachelor's in Marketing. Schneider suggests the placebo effect of price prevents you from trusting your ears.
One of Scheider's many magazines ran an annual 'feature' labeled "World's Best Audio System" or something like that. In 2004, for example, that included Wilson Alexandria X-2 speakers at ~$125,000. Is that an example of the placebo effect on price?
Unlike some forums, WBF has no fee for membership - so there seems to be little association between the forum itself and the article's subject matter. Perhaps the author is commenting on WBF members? Or like Scheider's article, attracting attention with a catchy title.
One of Scheider's many magazines ran an annual 'feature' labeled "World's Best Audio System" or something like that. In 2004, for example, that included Wilson Alexandria X-2 speakers at ~$125,000. Is that an example of the placebo effect on price?
Unlike some forums, WBF has no fee for membership - so there seems to be little association between the forum itself and the article's subject matter. Perhaps the author is commenting on WBF members? Or like Scheider's article, attracting attention with a catchy title.
Schneider has seen the light and now he must tell the world how stupid rich people are and then he finish the article by pin point and name one extremely expensive loudspeaker that is worth every cent (and try to make it logical because there are more expensive loudspeakers). I am not a conspiratorial person but this "article" was terrible.
The sad truth is that a lot (no, not all) of the ‘cost-is-no-object’-products sound fantastic and cheaper products do not sound terrible but often limited in one or more aspects of sound reproduction. But hey, if a Marxist audio reviewer has a problem with this, why should I care 
?
?
One reason why a mate of mine John Darko has become so successful with Darko.audio.
sensible priced gear compared to give any starter in hifi or a normal person with a smaller budget a great resource to read/look and learn what is out there.
Unlike many old reviewers, John is very adapt at current streaming technologies. I think he does a lot more for hifi out there in general than the guys that just review uber expensive hear.
sensible priced gear compared to give any starter in hifi or a normal person with a smaller budget a great resource to read/look and learn what is out there.
Unlike many old reviewers, John is very adapt at current streaming technologies. I think he does a lot more for hifi out there in general than the guys that just review uber expensive hear.
I couldn't agree more but would add that many (most?) of the giga-buck systems that sounded subjectively "average" to my ears were most probably poorly set up.
On the other hand, I can woefully admit that the sound I heard listening to a 6digit priced amp playing Mahler was, subjectively, sublime and not subtly so.
Good point!
Maybe because we can and do discuss, for example, 50,000 $ (euro) amps and 1000-1500$ ones, with the same curiosity and interest.
This is fine if they claim it was status or jewelry. For example, in auto, a ferrari owner will never claim he bought it because it was the best for mileage or to move his family around, take the kids to school, or go shopping. Similarly, a person who buys a used family car won't claim he bought it for status.
But audio is different. People who buy to make an announcement do often claim they did it because it also has better sonics. And they often make this claim without investigating competition.
To start with, price is more complex than the retail sticker. A direct price is cheaper than one that comes through a layered distribution channel. If a company is marketing in each audio show, the cost of shipping around and having spare pieces to send to reviewers has to be passed on to the end user. Companies who sell direct and made to order will have much, much lower costs. Also, the price incorporates the price for sonics and the price for servicing. Users normally don't consider all this and just compare the retail sticker
That's probably true. More generally, I think very few systems -- if any (?) -- are optimally set up and play to their full potential.
The lack of optimal setup includes my own system. I have worked on setup and room acoustics -- both important -- for years, and I am still able to make substantial improvements, with just the gear I already have. Not that I have been as motivated and focused on the issue as I should have either.
Last edited:
The systems referred to in the former are exceptions to the general view of the latter.
For most of us the only reason we don't have a mega-buck system is because we can't.
Schneiders source might be weak but I remember hearing as such from other source. Especially when it comes to medical. Placebo is very real. And if I remember back to college correctly, it's also cultural. We Americans are more susceptible to placebo than people from say South America.
After hearing the Dartzeel 468, I would buy them. But wait, too much. How about the 108. Ouch, still to much. What can I really afford????. Hmmm, a Legacy iV2 is only $4800. Baaa, to cheap and class D. It can't sound good.
That is only if your system strategy demands it. If it requires a SS amp, then yes, if you want the best, you have to pay up.
However, if your system strategy requires a 2a3 or 45 amp, then not so. Because these amps require minimal components. Even a 211 requires much more compared to them. an OTL does not even require a transformer.
the less the baffle for a speaker, the lower the cost.
Al, nice observation.
I think many/most systems would sound better if they were simply set up in better rooms. I would love a bigger room myself with LP storage on the back wall in lovely dark wood shelving. ddk's room is pretty awesome, and I have little doubt that after all the years that he has been there, and with his experience, that it is set up about as well as he is capable of setting it up. However, he did mention to me that he wishes the ceiling were another 5-10 feet higher. It would sound better, er closer to its full potential.
How can we ever truly know if a system has reached it's potential, or is even close? This is where the qualifications begin with the sound of the recording, the greatness of the room, the age of the tubes, the stylus life, the latest digital software upgrade. Cables and footers? I think we can only assess potential in a given context after we have worked on it for a while, and perhaps reflect on our experience with the gear in other contexts. Some keep trying to improve what they have while others simply move on to something different convinced that it will be better.
I'm rather sceptical of these broad generalizations about buyers.
Concern for product quality and product status easily coexist. I cannot see people who have the wherewithal to buy fine cars or fine stereos not considering many factors about a purchase. Sure there may be a few exceptions (lottery, trust fund) where the consumer treats an audio system as a home decorating function, but most did not get in position to purchase such by being simple.
Manufacturers who sell direct may have a price lower for the consumer than the consumer sees for other products in a showroom, but their costs may be the same or higher than selling to a distributor. The direct seller picks up the cost of all the things a dealer does and the cost of hiring employees to do those. Shows have costs but often it is a group of dealers who have a room. Shows can be a place where business is done - that's what CES was - and thus be written off.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |