Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[Michael Lavorgna]

If you live inside a tiny box inside a shoe box, this would be a great question; "What other industries can you guys think of that suffers this ill?  All of them to some degree, but I mean to this extant?".

 

Here are few items to add to your list:

• Religion
• Art
• Collectables
• Wine
• Fashion

Those are some obvious starters. Skipping over Religion, Art is a multi-billion dollar unregulated global market. Q - Who determines value in the Art market?

 

[Michael Lavorgna]

10 hours ago, esldude said:

What is the difference between something written by Michael Lavorgna and Lewis Carroll?

 

 

Lewis Carroll knew he was writing nonsense and fantasy. 

I didn't realize I was in the children's section.

[Michael Lavorgna]

16 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

oh snap!

hehe - well  - look at the Audiostream site (michael lavorna's site)  - check the cable reviews; they always turn into a bloodbath -  to be fair to michael he gets into the fray - unfortunately he doesn't add much - his responses are always a variation of "I hear what I hear"....

 

I am fascinated by this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Paris_(wine)

 

I do believe that in a double blind volume matched, etc test  some if not all of the experts will not be able to tell a Schiit stack from a million dollar setup...

 

v

 

I've written 3 cable reviews in 6 years. Two of those were published in 2012/13 and the most recent was in 2015. Steve Plaskin has written a number of cable reviews.

 

In terms of your Schiit test (wink), why does Schiit make different models at different price points of the same device?

 

 

[Michael Lavorgna]

Just now, vmartell22 said:

hehe

 

pls to meet you, Michael !

 

well - because they are subjectivists! - Jason has stated that - the thing is that they are also REASONABLE -   no $250,000 amps here!  - hence the love from the objective side of the house. 

 

v

 

 

 Nice to meet you.

 

"Reasonable" is, like, totally subjective.

 

;-)

[Michael Lavorgna]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Like Michael Lavorgna.

 

I love the sentiment, mansr!

[Michael Lavorgna]

2 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

haha - well we could go on - imho no -  a $250,000 amp is unreasonable and objectively wrong given that the $600 Vidar gives you the same service (remember you cannot also tell them apart) - doesn't matter if you can afford to be unreasonable for non-logical reasons... 

 

I am afraid this could go on forever...

 

 

v

 

We could go on forever but we don't have to.

 

First off, I do not hold to the notion that "you cannot tell them apart" for many reasons. Mainly  no one gets to dictate how people choose to appreciate a hobby. Of course you can think and say what you like, but when you take the step of saying something is "unreasonable" you become unreasonable.

 

Hi-Fi is not a commodity item for some people so performance is not the entire story. If someone chooses a component for other reasons in addition to performance, or pays for an upgrade that is 100% cosmetic, they are not being unreasonable. They are *enjoying the hobby*.

 

Then again, I know plenty of people who would never spend $600 on a piece of hi-fi gear. They think it's nuts.

 

Back on topic, I posted a response to the OP which is what I was interested in discussing.

[Michael Lavorgna]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Is that not what Michael does just before he writes a review?

 

ba-da-ta-ta

 

Seriously though, is the fact that Michael has become a subject of discussion (putting aside his mostly acerbic postings on this site..or his own for that matter) not simply symptomatic of the confidence game that he and his compatriots play?  Many folks believe that the subjectivist "sounds like" audio trade press does not earn respect - it simply asserts and demands it.  Understandable in an "all is fair in war and business" sort of way, but where is proof in the puddin so to speak? 

 

You know I'm not dead, right?

 

;-)

 

I am the subject of discussion because I posted a response to you, which on one has addressed. That is why I'm here - to discuss your notion of a "confidence game" which I see you've taken from theory to reality in no time flat.

[Michael Lavorgna]

Just now, crenca said:

 

I would apologize for you being the only person on my ignore list (besides some leftover accounts from some guy Chris banned) but as most would recognize no apology is necessary  

 

Give me a minute to look for your original response...

 

 

 

My point was *no one* addressed my response to your post. Instead, they chose to insult me while calling me insulting.

 

;-)

[Michael Lavorgna]

Just now, crenca said:

 

 

Hey, not bad Michael (once again overlooking the insults from which you can't seem to help yourself)!  I myself don't "do" any of these hobbies excepting perhaps "Collectibles" in the form of cars, though I have not participated in that industry for a while.  

 

 

 

 

 

Right on cue. You call the industry I work in and the job I do a form of swindling and you take offense at my response.  And you do not address one single point beyond your faux condescension - "not bad Michael".

 

Please put me back on your ignore list. No apology needed.

[Michael Lavorgna]

10 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

 

Well - is not wrong being unreasonable - I own (yes, own - that means physical media) 300 different versions of Beethoven's 9th - I have been called unreasonable - the only right response is Thnx!

 

I missed your first post between all that bike noise - first thing I saw was your reply to the lewis carroll thing... apologies

 

Wanna comment on your OP  - you are 100% right many industries suffer from that, to me wine being one the most egregious - I will re-post this

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Paris_(wine)

 

I think the gist is that it is a basic problem cast the shadow of the doubt in the whole industry, be it Wine or Expensive-Fi - in the eyes of some of us (like Peter Aczel) , serious enough that we get the urge to fight it with all our might... maybe we are being unreasonable - but (again, itoh and weakening my my own argument) unreasonable does not mean wrong!

 

In a sense and hope fellow travelers will agree, we are fighting for the truth, justice and the weak and defenseless - except in this case, the weak and defenseless can afford $250,000 dollars amps!

 

Also funny to me that you added Religion to the list of industries!  hahaha

 

The Art market is trickier -  there is critical consensus, availability, market forces etc - none of those I believe apply exactly the same to the Super Expensive-Fi industry.

 

 

v

 

 

So let me get this straight - you are fighting the good fight for the poor, defenseless, unknowing people who can afford to buy $250k amplifiers. Yea, that makes sense ;-)

 

Religion is an industry. If you don't think so, please explain their material wealth.

 

The top price paid for a single painting at auction is $180M. For a private sale that number is north of $300M. For a single painting. The question I asked that you did not address is - who determines value in the art market? The answer is - galleries, auction houses, collectors. In other words, the people who profit from the market the most.

 

What do you think the total sales are for high end audio?

[Michael Lavorgna]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

This is the major reason why many people have a hard time taking the audio press seriously.

 

Real journalists such as those who report on financial services for The Wall Street, for example, don't consider themselves part of the industry that they report on.

 

This is an excellent point. Reviewers, which is what I was hired to be, are necessarily part of the industry. We deal directly with manufacturers and their representatives to procure review gear, we attend industry events, e.g. CES, etc.

 

If the claim is audio reviewers are not "real journalists", which I take to mean investigative journalists, then I would agree.

 

But that is not to say that reviews, whether that be book reviews, art reviews, wine, theater, film, serve no purpose. Pointing out that a book reviewer is a part of the book industry, they get free books to review, etc., is hardly news. The same with every other form of reviewing.

 

Some people don't find any value in reviews, some do. That's also hardly news.

[Michael Lavorgna]

9 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

vmartell -- They are not trained in science or engineering.  Many are simply little rich kids who went to high quality liberal arts schools on daddy's money, and confuse the inheritance of capital with ability.

 

This isn't new.  Thorsten Veblin wrote an entire book on it decades ago.  And it was common in medieval times as well.

Do you have anyone in mind with that "high quality liberal arts school" comment? I mean, could it be someone I know?

[Michael Lavorgna]

3 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

Of course it doesn't ;  that was my point- by implication, I was pointing out the funny irony of it (let me explain it: they obviously do not need defending, therefore there is a contradiction that I find funny)  - yet I will never stop doing it.  

 

 

won't touch the religion part - could make the discussion nasty!

 

Re: your comment on the art market, I thought I addressed it by saying:

"The Art market is trickier -  there is critical consensus, availability, market forces etc"

Although I think your comments imply that there is analogy to the Expensive-Fi market and that both are a confidence game - which is not good.

 

Last, I CBF to look for the data, but inferring from your comment, the Expensive-Fi industry is not that big... therefore, any conspiracy theory etc, might seem out of place... maybe.

 

Maybe they are sincere - maybe that is fine. Let them be happy with their Ultrasound Othello and let the others be happy with their Schiit Vidar... 

 

Problem is what how is promoted in the press  - because sometimes it feels like promotion, not a critical review - I am still trying to wrap my head around the concept of a "very musical" ethernet cable...

 

 

v

 

 

 

 

 

The hi-fi industry is not a confidence game. Referring to the art market, religion, etc was a way of putting things in some perspective.

 

Here's a tip for you - cables don't have a sound. If you don't believe me, pick one up and put each end in your ears. Nothing.

 

Systems, on the other hand, have a sound and cables can certainly effect the sound of a system.

[Michael Lavorgna]

1 minute ago, rando said:

 a self promoting artist you say? 

 

/audible sigh    

Yea. I'm a fan of the self-effacing artist approach.

 

;-)

[Michael Lavorgna]

2 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

Well , obviously that is what I meant  - lemme re-phrase it

 

"No, an ethernet cable won't change the sound of your system."

 

That said, that is another discussion, isn't it?

however related, lemme apologize and steer away from that.

 

let me dare:

"Given enough time, most internet audio discussions, will turn into cable discussions" 

 

can we call it the martell law, pls?

 

v

 

I reviewed Ethernet cables 5+ years ago. You brought it up.

[Michael Lavorgna]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

If boxes of rocks and thimbles full of "nanotechnology" did not put this assertion under a critical light, then certainly MQA has.  The mistake the industry made is trying to put a "taste", a subjectivity, to domains where such things do not and can not belong (such as math).  Essentially, you are asserting that realities such as "lossy encoding", DRM, and bit depth are subject to the same subjectivety as whether you like a paining (or a band) or not.  No how many times such assertions are made, they are incredulous.

 

In other words, MQA has exposed the confidence game like perhaps nothing before it.

 

The effort to save face (and regain lost confidence) is itself instructive.  Robert Harley's attempt to recover trust by trying to paint MQA as a living example of Kuhn's "revolutions" is laughable even as a piece of rhetoric (to say nothing as social, cultural, and scientific theory).  

 

This is not to say the usual trade publications are not going to continue on as they had before.  It is however a denial that their dignity rises even to the level of an old fashioned tent revival...

 

 

 No I'm not asserting *your arguments*. Since you are not speaking to me or what I've written, I'll pass on the rest.

[Michael Lavorgna]

2 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

 

and I apologize again - it was an example to a bigger point - until remembered martell's law (see what I did there, already promoting it)  - bringing in cables muddles the issue.  Lemme make my point explicit - it does bother me a little bit that some of the language in the Expensive-Fi press feels like wine or coffee reviewing  - and that (to me) doesn't jell with the fact this is an engineering/scientific discipline.

 

And I will immediately admit, before it is pointed out, yes I read it - it is fun and I enjoy the gear pr0n.  Because is fun - I hope you don't think me a hypocrite, just a bag full of contradictions. So much fun to disagree with the printed word and mutter to yourself a discussion only happening in your head. 

 

Although doing it in the forums is also a lot of fun.

 

v

 

If it's not fun I recommend finding another hobby.

 

As I said, some people find value in reviews, some don't. Based on what you've said of your beliefs, I have to think that reading reviews would be no fun at all. It would be like looking for a pen in a pencil factory.

[Michael Lavorgna]

1 minute ago, vmartell22 said:

 

Au contraire - a lot fun - as I said I had wonderful discussions and disagreements in my head with many Sterophile, TAS, the English magazines (like Hi-Fi choice, new, plus - they are so much fun - love the big format) etc reviewers -  so much fun sometimes I get lost on it and all of the sudden I realize I have been in the can for  2 hours!

 

v

Ew.

[Michael Lavorgna]

15 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's a flawed analogy. Art is by definition not utilitarian. Its worth is determined solely by the amount of money someone is willing to pay to possess it. Moreover, each piece is unique, meaning manufacturing costs do not even register when demand is such that buyers are willing to pay thousands of times more for it. Indeed, much of the value ascribed to works of art derives from the prestige associated with owning the only copy.

 

Audio products, on the other hand, exist primarily to reproduce sound. Because they are mass-produced, high demand can be met by increased production; additional units do not detract from the utility of the product. Beyond a reasonable markup over production costs, any additional asking price serves purely to render the product artificially exclusive. There is nothing wrong with this per se. What is wrong is perpetuating the notion that these super-expensive items deliver anything material over cheaper well-designed alternatives other than the feeling of owning something only few can afford. Especially nefarious is the widespread practice of offering a multitude of variants with prices ranging from only slightly expensive through the silly to the outright ludicrous, thus ensuring that for every customer, there is an option just within reach, and another to be lusted for until he afford the "upgrade," again and again. There is no such thing as a slightly better Picasso.

 

Art is not utilitarian. I agree. However, owning a $100M painting serves a utilitarian purpose in some cultures.

 

Some buyers are not interested in cheaper alternatives, whether that be in Art, hi-fi, wine, etc. I don't take issue with these people but I do not relate.

 

Small, medium, large is a winning selling strategy.

 

[edit] I should have added that there are products in hi-fi that embody aesthetic concerns such as limited edition finishes, finish upgrades, artisan hand-made products, etc. Things that are meant to appeal to concerns beyond utility.  I see no problem with this.

[Michael Lavorgna]

26 minutes ago, mansr said:

Especially nefarious is the widespread practice of offering a multitude of variants with prices ranging from only slightly expensive through the silly to the outright ludicrous, thus ensuring that for every customer, there is an option just within reach, and another to be lusted for until he can afford the "upgrade," again and again. There is no such thing as a slightly better Picasso.

 

I just realized that you shared the cost of your watch = $1,000. So you clearly can relate to paying for things beyond utility. Why is it you don't allow for this same impulse in hi-fi? After all, a watch is about as utilitarian as you can get.

[Michael Lavorgna]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

analogies to books, art, wine, theater, film are flawed because they have no objective standard

 

music doesn't either but equipment to reproduce music does have an objective std.

 

So you say but reality says otherwise. If every "objectivist" owned the exact same hi-fi, down to the cables, I might begin to agree with this point of view. As it stands, saying that there's an "objective standard" in hi-fi is like saying there's an objective standard in a spouse.

[Michael Lavorgna]

5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

anti-vaxer in Calif.

Of course.

[Michael Lavorgna]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Art can't be 'wrong' - but audio can. If one learns to discriminate faulty reproduction then this 'hobby' becomes a very simple pursuit - merely do whatever it takes to eliminate audible flaws. Otherwise , all one is doing is choosing a different sauce to flavour one's food - which is fine if one is partial to sweet and sour, or mustard, etc; but it means that the particular flavour chosen is always embedded to some degree in what one hears.

 

Personally, I prefer au naturel: the incredible diversity in the sound of the recordings in themselves more than makes up for "losing" a personal favourite type of sound. But I do note that this goal is very rare amongst audiophiles ... .

 

Reproduction is lossy ;-)

[Michael Lavorgna]

Just now, mansr said:

Congratulations, you completely missed the point.

Why not explain how?

[Michael Lavorgna]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Lossy? More, additive - as in, the extras imparted by the reproduction chain upon the sound by various parts of it not doing their job as well as they could.

We're talking past each other.

 

What I find most interesting in this exchange, and I mean in general, is that people are arguing that they know better than others and their views should dictate other people's behavior. Otherwise, these people are fools.

 

And the major dig we get as reviewers is that we exert too much influence.

 

Funny, no?