I've got a lot of respect for engineers pushing the envelope of what's possible to achieve. Whether it's actually needed or whether it makes that much a difference in daily life is another matter. It keeps the contracts flowing in though, in a field where it's a number game.
Let's be serious for a moment. Define the "hugely improved" sound of that new "velvet sound" AKM process. Marketing hyperbole at its best. They say what their clients (not us btw, the hifi manufacturers) want to hear 🙄
Let's be serious for a moment. Define the "hugely improved" sound of that new "velvet sound" AKM process. Marketing hyperbole at its best. They say what their clients (not us btw, the hifi manufacturers) want to hear 🙄
I would think that a key driver of the price differences would be differences in parts cost.
Would sound quality fall under your definition of "functionality"?
No, makes sound quality another entry.
Parts cost... depends on the brand. Depends a lot on how many devices they can share the development costs (and marketing, and distribution, and so on) and the public they're aiming for.
Parts cost... depends on the brand. Depends a lot on how many devices they can share the development costs (and marketing, and distribution, and so on) and the public they're aiming for.
So the public-bamboozling hifi manufactures are getting bamboozled themselves by the chip makers?
Super-plausible and lyrical!
Welcome aboard Team Awesome!
If they all sound the same, wouldn't it be silly to buy anything but the cheapest electronic components?
Welcome to the real world, it can be a bit scary at first, but if you accept the brutal reality you may eventually find a semblance of peace
The real world of rampant bamboozlement?
You must be surprised when products improve over time, if you believe that there are no differences between them, if it's just hype that differentiates.
It's more down to earth than that. The hifi manufacturers need to come up with something "new and improved" every year or so. The chip makers need to make that possible to stay in business too.
Noone is actually bamboozled except for some customers and maybe some naive boutique manufacturers.
Plenty of reasons not to: unreliable designs and parts, underrated components, lack of functionality, poor warranty, lack of long term support, lack of ergonomics, etc. I bet someone will point out that you can get all that with some esoteric hifi manufacturers. But I'm not about to diss the price of properly engineered pieces such as Benchmark's or Lavry's DAC.
I believe there are differences, but it is marginal and the cost is disproportionate, as is the hype. This is a mad world, where growth is god but unsustainable and we burn fossil fuels but understand the carbon cycle. These things are BS on a grand scale, accept it, you have no choice
Yea, welcome to the real world where we have to live everyday with being unsure of our choices & realising that we are fallible in all we do - that there are no absolutes or surety despite how much we might yearn for it.
If you're happy with the conclusion that all audio devices sound pretty much the same except for speakers that's fine, it's your reality, enjoy it.
Others find that they encounter better sounding equipment in lots of devices upstream of the speaker & some describe this in words of enthusiasm.
Still others laugh at or demean these people & their words seeking to prove them wrong when their only fault is that maybe they are being somewhat over-enthusiastic.
Enthusiasm breaks out all time in most hobbies - this is the brutal reality. A semblance of peace can also be found in accepting such enthusiasm as a natural part of any hobby.
That has to be determined device by device. I was stating more general reasons not to buy the cheapest stuff, even if it sounds similar.
Edit: ooh and I pretty much agree with mmerrill99 last post. Thing is.. I used to be enthusiastic about small differences. I now prefer to put my money on what has the most impact.
Last edited:
Are these conclusions limited to high end audio, or does this brutal reality prevail in other markets?
I guess it is super-difficult to check hyperbolic claims made by manufacturers, no real way to do that these days....
And, I guess if all the competitors agree among themselves to not actually improve anything very much but instead just share the market using only hype....
Yeah, I guess you are right. That seems like the most plausible explanation of how things work in the real world.
Consider me a member of the informed!
+1
I would even say, that the "Audiophool" fringe has gone mainstream years ago. People quite like to be deceived, and especially to deceive themselves, it is a curious aspect of human nature - well know from eg. religion.
Not exactly, as has been well documented by cognitive psychologists. All humans are susceptible to certain biases and errors of thinking. Nobody is immune, although most may think they are.
Among the biases, it's easier to see the faults in others than in one's self. Most people see other people's faults quite well, while focusing on their own strengths. Makes for a very favorable comparison.
I think you are mising the point of my point.
First: Although I find your posting style rather abrasive, I (naturally) agree that proper rigor and procedures should be applied to scientific experiments. Is is notoriously hard to produce valid and repeatable results in most fields, so all variables must be controlled (as far as possible) and suitably high quality test equipment must be used, etc etc.
My point was however, that if the differences in the audio reproduction in a given test are so small, that they can only be proven under the strictest test conditions and with the most expensive gear, then these differences are insignificant for any practical application.
I.e. If it is not possible to tell apart two DAC, or Amplifiers, or whatever, in a test using typical decent quality Hi-Fi gear in a living room (using either ABX or A-B or whatever blind test you prefer - not sighted!), then both devices under test are for all practical purposes equally good (or bad).
My abrasiveness is borne out of frustration as I try to explain myself as best I can when I post (doesn't everyone, you say!). As with everyone, this takes effort & when someone then posts a reply as if nothing I have said matters, I get frustrated. Now it may be that you haven't read the 10 or so times I already posted the same explanation as I gave in that post or maybe you just popped into the thread or maybe you are just poking me or maybe I haven't explained myself properly, or maybe...... - I don't know. Maybe it's arrogant of me to expect people to read what I have posted many times as I guess that is often the nature of forums but the result in me is frustration & that results in abrasiveness. You should have seen the post before I edited it (I do try to take out the excess stuff)
And I'm trying to point out that the problem is with the test. As I said before - our auditory system is not concerned with (& hasn't evolved) to be good at differentiating small differences in such quick A/B testing. That does not mean that these small differences have a small effect in our normal longer term listening. Despite the focus on short term memory & differences that these tests are premised on, there is another aspect to auditory perception, more important to our hobby - it's ability to extract & store patterns or (to be more accurate store statistical analysis) of what we hear - let's call it a sound profile. Over longer term exposure to the same sound object (our audio devices or our mother) we strengthen & refine aspects of this stored pattern which then becomes the characteristic sound of that auditory object. Now here's where the small differences come into play - we can often recognise upset or emotion in our mother or voices we are familiar with even over bad reproduction systems like a telephone. Similarly we can recognise changes from audio system which we are familiar with & have built up such a profile of. This is where small changes can be more profound when out of the circumstances of short A/B testing.
Now, depending on the type of that change, it may enhance our emotional connection with the playback as it sounds more realistic & we can better comprehend the musical interplay - it just makes more sense. This is often being reported as "night & day" differences - why? - because it has a far more fundamental effect than just a change in sound, it actually changes our involvement & interest in the playback sound. The opposite of this is, of course possible, we become less involved or interested in the playback sound which is never reported as "night & day" difference - why? - because it is not having the emotional effect - it's more of a "meh, not really interested in that"!
All of what I wrote above answers this, I believe - hopefully I expressed it in an understandable way? The main point is that auditory perception does not have strengths in the aspects that are being examined in these tests - it has strengths in other areas so it's a mistake to use such tests to evaluate how an audio device sounds to us (just as it's a mistake to judge "competent design" in this way)
Last edited:
I think your point has been clear for quite a while. The facts that we subconsciously process information and that our ability to extract that information through noise (to the point of falsely discerning patterns when they are missing) is pretty good aren't in question.
However, has it been clearly established that we are able to extract information and form patterns on the basis on auditory clues that would not be distinguishable in focused listening (assuming training if you want to) ? If not, ABX seems still a pretty valid method, training and individual abilities being important side issues.
However, has it been clearly established that we are able to extract information and form patterns on the basis on auditory clues that would not be distinguishable in focused listening (assuming training if you want to) ? If not, ABX seems still a pretty valid method, training and individual abilities being important side issues.