I think Bill means that it might be helpful to clarify if you mean objectively better, or subjectively better to your ears. That's because we are used to saying things like .00008% distortion is better than 3.0% distortion, where the implication is that we mean objectively better. Not that I'm defending it, but around here people just seem to take the unqualified use of the word better as implying an objective claim. So long as you look out for a few sensitive nerves, its overall a friendly and very knowledgeable group.
Just saying 'better' is essentially useless except for indicating preference.
Much better is to describe changes and how/why these changes are preferred.
Experience is required in order to accurately describe changes.
Dan.
Much better is to describe changes and how/why these changes are preferred.
Experience is required in order to accurately describe changes.
Dan.
I know, I know, I'm being overly sardonic right now. 🙂
Just reiterating that a lot of claims, one way AND the other, are going to be very, very, VERY hard to prove to even the widest of error bars. Which is a long ways to say, "just enjoy whatever the heck you like, for whatever reason." Just qualify what you mean by "better." Usually with the words, "to me." 🙂
All true, but the trouble starts when you are in the business to sell boxes of parts as audio equipment and you somehow have to convince someone else (a lot of someone else's) that it also will sound 'better' to them.
You basically have two options: provide objective measurements (which can include controlled listening tests) or make up a nice story. The latter is easier, cheaper and more effective.
Jan
I really don't know why this MYTH of people who make audio products are always making up a story, is allowed to be continually repeated. It is just a slander on the audio designers, who actually compete with each other as to who can make the best sounding audio product in its price range. Virtually all the audio designers that I respect, are not cynical about their designs, but think of them as their 'creations' much like their own children. Only the 'failures' in this field have a reason to be cynical about the ideals of others who are my competitors. My most respected competitors give me real competition in the audio world, and we are always trying to outdo each other. Perhaps the only people that I can actually respect are the audio designers who have to have one or more 'A' recommendations in either Stereophile or TAS, showing that they can compete and 'win'.
Not sure if that is realistic. Not clear if a boutique manufacturer of very nice sounding (if mildly pleasantly distorted) equipment could stay in business against the competition if they were excruciatingly objective about their products. The courts in the US hold "puffery" to be perfectly okay, and not false advertising. This is true whether the product is audio gear or bathroom tissue or most anything else. To change it would require legislation, which would also have the effect of keeping competition between manufacturers on an even footing.
There is a third option. No fault return. And the 0.5 add on portion of that option is keep prices lean.
Last edited:
Mark: Benchmark manage to stay in business with an honest engineering approach. If I had real money to drop on new digital products they would be top of my list.
But Mark is that not exactly my point? You of all people are very much aware that it is very effective to have a nice story to convince people that whatever it is you are selling is a must-have for them. That is what it is and it is useless to try to attach a judgement on that, it is more a matter of accepting how we people are wired.
But a lot of the objective, may I say 'engineering types' here, have issues with that; somehow it doesn't seem fair that you can be successful in an engineering discipline by just making up a nice story. But that is mixing things up: it is engineering to design and build a well-performing piece of audio equipment, and that game is basically about the numbers.
But the next step is getting people to pull out their bankrolls for one, and that is no longer an engineering game but a marketing game.
As an audio designer, you can't say, I designed this technically very sophisticated piece of equipment, and therefor it sells well. That's nonsense. An extreme example is that WAVAC that is such a crappy piece of overpriced equipment yet sells thanks to a good story.
The other side of the coin is that you can design the worlds' best sounding equipment but if there is no marketing clout and money, you'll never get past a few local aficionados.
Has nothing to do with audio per se - it's the current state of our society.
Jan
In extremis yes. Everyone (even you) is working on marketing all the time. But as you are old and wizened and generally friendly looking you get away with it 😛
(or the other way
1. do I want this
2. is it a good price
3. is BS minimised
=> good I will pay)
(or the other way
1. do I want this
2. is it a good price
3. is BS minimised
=> good I will pay)
It occurs to me that engineers who are interested in, and who design, low distortion audio equipment, are not unbiased in their views.
It likely the same for other engineers or manufacturers somewhere else who design or sell other types of products. To them, certain competitors are the bad guys, liars, cheats, evil, you name it.
In other words, there is a deeply felt sense among many here that puffery in audio products is unethical, immoral, its just plain wrong, and anybody who does it is a bad guy.
But, it may not be nearly so offensive if puffery occurs in the bathroom tissue market, or in some other area.
What about cars? Cars are not sold on excruciatingly objective specs, they are sold by looks, some imaginary experience of owning one, by associating with sports figures, etc. Why isn't that totally outrageous to us here? My guess would be the reason is mostly that we are not deeply invested and interested in DIY objectively superior cars.
It likely the same for other engineers or manufacturers somewhere else who design or sell other types of products. To them, certain competitors are the bad guys, liars, cheats, evil, you name it.
In other words, there is a deeply felt sense among many here that puffery in audio products is unethical, immoral, its just plain wrong, and anybody who does it is a bad guy.
But, it may not be nearly so offensive if puffery occurs in the bathroom tissue market, or in some other area.
What about cars? Cars are not sold on excruciatingly objective specs, they are sold by looks, some imaginary experience of owning one, by associating with sports figures, etc. Why isn't that totally outrageous to us here? My guess would be the reason is mostly that we are not deeply invested and interested in DIY objectively superior cars.
Yes. That is why it is so important to aim your marketing strategy as good as possible to the clearly defined target group.
Spending a marketing fortune on in-ear buds for babyboomers is likely to be less effective than you'd want.
Good points. I wonder, if you talk to car designers at, say Ford, would they see the Chevvy people as cheats, liars, etc?
Jan
Actually as a former kit car owner I am interesting in better DIY cars as well.
Cars are designed to very objective specs. When a new platfom costs $1bn or more by the time all the type approvals are done you have to. These specs are available, but then marketing create the 'dream'. But that matters not a jot to the individual members of the engineering team.
Of course they do cheat and lie. Volvo on fuel economy, VW on emissions, Ford on exploding pickups etc.
For Audio, what has got hackles up on here for the last 10 years or so are the real snake oil products. Like Bybee quantum purifiers, or cables that cost as much as a car.
Cars are designed to very objective specs. When a new platfom costs $1bn or more by the time all the type approvals are done you have to. These specs are available, but then marketing create the 'dream'. But that matters not a jot to the individual members of the engineering team.
Of course they do cheat and lie. Volvo on fuel economy, VW on emissions, Ford on exploding pickups etc.
For Audio, what has got hackles up on here for the last 10 years or so are the real snake oil products. Like Bybee quantum purifiers, or cables that cost as much as a car.
I remember reading somebody's book on the car industry. It may have been Iaccoca or DeLorean. Anyway, the story as I remember it is roughly that there was a bad vibration and instability above 80 mph or so, in a particular model low cost car. A cross brace under the dash that cost $8 would have fixed the problem, but it was nixed by management because of the cost and based on the argument that the problem only occurred well above the speed limit, so it should not ever be needed.
Now, I'm not saying that is representative of the auto industry in general, but cars are built to a price point, and not all of the cost of building one is invested in performance and reliability.
Regarding expensive cables and similar items, maybe some of those things do go over some social and/or legal line, but I'm not sure they are necessarily worse than something like legalized gambling or certain other potentially ruinous money sinks.
In any case, I don't think JC amplifiers fall into that particular category. They may sound very nice, I don't know. And like anything made in small quantities they cost more than mass produced and marketed items.
Now, I'm not saying that is representative of the auto industry in general, but cars are built to a price point, and not all of the cost of building one is invested in performance and reliability.
Regarding expensive cables and similar items, maybe some of those things do go over some social and/or legal line, but I'm not sure they are necessarily worse than something like legalized gambling or certain other potentially ruinous money sinks.
In any case, I don't think JC amplifiers fall into that particular category. They may sound very nice, I don't know. And like anything made in small quantities they cost more than mass produced and marketed items.
Last edited:
In my audio life, spanning the period 1966-2017,a NICE chunk of 50 years, I have found John, that audio gear designers are some of the most subjective people I have ever come across (most, of course, not all). The more unexciting their work sounds, the taller story you are likely to be served. Much to their surprise, the taller the story the less general impac their products usually make - inflate the percieved (by you) virtues of what your're selling and the tougher the opposition gets to be.
On the other hind, I often find that gear which does stand high in a group usually does so quietly and unobtrusively, almost never in-yer-face. It just quietly goes about its business and it takes a bit of time to realize that it's doing a hell of fine job and is just waiting for you to catch on and realize that. The best example I can think of is the Maantz 3250B preamp and DC 170 power amp. Both mine were manufactured in March 1978, and I took my sweet time refreshing it, related to caps only, I wanted a straight refresh, no rebuilding, no new parts,. I was eventually rewarded by a delicate combo, however not afraid to flash some muscle if required, easly up to 200W into 4 Ohms in 50 mS peaks. Is it perfect? Certainly not, there is a small price to pay. Overall, however lifelike it manages to be, it still comes across as a bit polite, as if it's a bit afraid to REALLY let it rip. I was told this was one of the last models the late Sid Smith breathed on, and that was the last series Marantz did which was "Designed in the U.S.A., built in Japan", from the next onwards they became jsut another Japanese company after your money. I am not acquainted with their current models.
This designer subjcetivity can be quite a problem. One might run against another system unit which the designer will swear ruins his work, yet many a customer disagrees and in fact feels quite the opposite. Works the other way as well - the designer may want to try to impress you by recommending a well known and very expensive device (e.g. a Theta) even when many of his device owners feel that's a mismatch, so they end up telling their customers that they don't get it.
The key mistake is trying to introduce absolute truths into what is by definition a subjecetive field. Some people like brunettes, others like blonds. If something is found an the A list of a reputable amagazine, then we can conclude that is is probably something specia, but even then, it will be special for some, perhaps many, but never one and all.
I know that book but in my memory they did add the brace and the engineer was chastised for causing a huge loss to the company ;-)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.