Jump to content
IGNORED

Value, lack there of, and "High End"


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bluesman said:

 

And that's exactly what the "value formula" is telling you.

value = worth / cost

Value is subjective, i.e. there's no universal unit of reference against which to measure it.  But it's an ordinal (i.e. rankable) measure with categorical objectivity that varies from person to person.  Your ranked list of values for everything in your world is your value scale, and you place everything that comes into your life somewhere on that scale to decide whether and how avidly to pursue it.  Each of us (if not totally insane) devotes our resources to the things we value most highly.  So whether or not to buy something is an objective decision that's based in large part on perceived value measured on your personal value scale.

 

W system, so they can attain the best possible compromise for them and their budgets. No one can determine the value of a playback system for you except you.

FWIW,- i don't disagree with most of what you wrote above...

 

"" Experience is only knowledge if it results in durable education and retention of factual information gained from that experience.  "

No, experience is always knowledge, it is one of the categories of knowledge types. It is one type that forms the definition of knowledge. You can have varying levels of knowledge, you can have weak, no, or a lot of knowledge in certain areas, and about certain things. Knowledge can be said to be BETTER if you retain that knowledge for sure. Or if you have a lot of experiences and/or evidence to strengthen or enhance it.

 

" Discerning but impecunious concertgoers will assign their own values to the characteristics of a playback system, so they can attain the best possible compromise for them and their budgets. No one can determine the value of a playback system for you except you."

 

Again, - FWIW, - I agree 100% and one would think that that would be obvious to everyone. But, - there are still a small minority of folks here who think that there is some sort of objective criteria that will bring some sort of universalizable certainty where there can be none.

 

Cheers,

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, crenca said:

First, the "high end" space occupied by these particular Devore's is often justified by the "trickle down" effect - the SQ gains in alleged to exist in this stratosphere eventually make their way down to more affordable products.  Yet, the evidence is slim.  Most real SQ gains appears to be made in places outside this niche "high end", such as the more general consumer electronic world and the pro audio world.  The myth of the artisan designer (such as Devore himself) making fundamental "discoveries" is just that, a myth.  Real research and gains is actually a much harder process that takes time and money these 1 man shops don't have..

 

What boutique makers have always contributed is the attitude that taking extra care makes a real difference. And doing that costs money, meaning the consumer pays for it. Of course, a lot of the cost goes into having a super duper, bling exterior, which certainly helps the buyer feel he's getting value for money :).

 

If one wants realistic, competent, convincing sound, then there are no discoveries to be made .. except, that attention to detail is critical. Many people in isolation over the years have tripped over this fact, myself included - but the industry as a whole is not interested; not an exciting enough concept ... ^_^.

 

So, for as long as the mainstream "never gets it" there will always be room for small crews to put together and deliver systems that achieve high standards in SQ - and charge as much as everyone is comfortable with.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

experience is always knowledge, it is one of the categories of knowledge types

 

I have a bit of training and experience at knowledge management, e.g. GE Lean / 6 Sigma and Change Management training, with certification as a MBB (the highest level), and I've never seen experience categorized as knowledge.  If you have a reference or link to a source for your statement, I'd appreciate your posting it so I can see it in context and become familiar with the author.

 

The classic definition of knowledge is "facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education".  Read Plato's Meno for an excellent and classic discussion of the distinction between knowledge and experience, e.g.  

  • "Teaching and knowledge are placed in contrast with practice or experience, emphasizing the distinction between these two operations in both meaning and purpose"
  • "At first glance, knowledge and experience look very similar to one another. By definition, knowledge is information and skills acquired through experience or education. Similarly, experience is defined as the knowledge or skill acquired by a period of practical experience of something. Although the two words are used in each other’s definitions and are seemingly very similar, a distinction can be made between knowledge and experience."
Link to comment
5 hours ago, crenca said:

First, the "high end" space occupied by these particular Devore's is often justified by the "trickle down" effect

 

It could be that a company's flagship model is merely a statement of their abilities, values, etc. and not made to bring in much profit itself but helps to sell a lot of 'lesser' affordable models.

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
17 hours ago, emcdade said:

If $90k speakers are what help Devore Fidelity and Stereophile survive, then I'm all for it.

 

I'd much rather live in that world than a world where no boutique Hifi brands can survive and we're discussing whether we should buy the Apple or Amazon home surveillance speaker model.

 

There's a heck of a lot of room between these extremes.

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

I like Type N connectors like this (but probably good for only unbalanced cables):

https://www.amphenolrf.com/connectors/n-type.html

Yeah, those look good.  But they only work up to between 10 and 20 ghz.  They'll be totally insufficient for DSD 32,768 when it comes out in about 6 years.  :)

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, bluesman said:

 

I have a bit of training and experience at knowledge management, e.g. GE Lean / 6 Sigma and Change Management training, with certification as a MBB (the highest level), and I've never seen experience categorized as knowledge.  If you have a reference or link to a source for your statement, I'd appreciate your posting it so I can see it in context and become familiar with the author.

 

The classic definition of knowledge is "facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education".  Read Plato's Meno for an excellent and classic discussion of the distinction between knowledge and experience, e.g.  

  • "Teaching and knowledge are placed in contrast with practice or experience, emphasizing the distinction between these two operations in both meaning and purpose"
  • "At first glance, knowledge and experience look very similar to one another. By definition, knowledge is information and skills acquired through experience or education. Similarly, experience is defined as the knowledge or skill acquired by a period of practical experience of something. Although the two words are used in each other’s definitions and are seemingly very similar, a distinction can be made between knowledge and experience."

Hi,

""The classic definition of knowledge is "facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education"."

 

Exactly right, - "through experience"

 

Our dictionary definition is roughly the same or similar to how Kant defined knowledge via the 4 main categories of knowledge. Of course there's a whole body of work on epistemology. Largely though, - we all write and speak via the (very good) dictionary definitions of something as those, (by and large), include everything that needs to be included, and excludes everything else that allow to distinguish between it, and something else.....  (In this case, - {comparative listening evaluations}, - observable experiences.

 

Again, - one can, and does forget things. There is good knowledge, bad knowledge, better knowledge... worse knowledge.....

 

""a distinction can be made between knowledge and experience"

No,  the definition doesn't say that. We get and interpret "information" all of the time, - often without even realizing it. When you pile up comparative listening tests, - (for example), - you are gaining knowledge from different experiences and you naturally interpret and categorize into "knowing."

 

I observed John hitting Jack in the head with a baseball bat. That is experiential knowledge. Was it a sunny day or raining? What were John and Jack wearing that day? I have baseball bat in my hand now. Is there blood on it? I tested the blood and I tested Jack's blood. Those other "tests" give corroboration to the observable knowledge and make the knowledge better. But that doesn't mean that the knowledge still isn't there....

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, esldude said:

Yeah, those look good.  But they only work up to between 10 and 20 ghz.  They'll be totally insufficient for DSD 32,768 when it comes out in about 6 years.  :)

 

By my calculation, DSD768 requires 0.036864GHz (36,864kHz 48kz family / only 33,868.80kHz  44.1kHz family). and double for DoP.   Can you check your calculation? Or did you actually mean DSD 32,768?

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

By my calculation, DSD768 requires 0.036864GHz (36864kHz). and double for DoP.   Can you check your calculation?

AFAIR -- N connectors would be overkill (afair, a little big also) in any case.  BNC/Bayonet seems pretty good -- but I am not a connector expert (I don't know all of the various things about contacts, oxidation, etc.)  Used to use BNC all of the time on my video equipment.  Also, the bayonet has a nice solid physical connection.

 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

AFAIR -- N connectors would be overkill (afair, a little big also) in any case.  BNC/Bayonet seems pretty good -- but I am not a connector expert (I don't know all of the various things about contacts, oxidation, etc.)  Used to use BNC all of the time on my video equipment.  Also, the bayonet has a nice solid physical connection.

 

 

I suppose if you try to squeeze in as many outputs/inputs as possible on the back of equipment, then you'll likely need twice the real estate for N connectors.  I do like BNC -- easy/quick to connect and reconnect.

 

Doesn't the B in BNC stand for Bayonet?

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
5 hours ago, esldude said:

Too bad Camac/Lemo connectors didn't replace RCA's.  They are fairly simple and gas tight. Levinson used them on some gear at one time. 

 

Long term, high integrity gastightness is the key; soldering is the simplest, but least convenient solution, well done silver pastes, etc, application also works.

 

The ultimate solution is to have everything in one chassis; but that then introduces other concerns; vibration, adequate isolation and shielding between electrical areas - and disrupts the audiophile's need to fiddle, :P.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Long term, high integrity gastightness is the key; soldering is the simplest, but least convenient solution, well done silver pastes, etc, application also works.

 

The ultimate solution is to have everything in one chassis; but that then introduces other concerns; vibration, adequare isolation and shileding  between electrical areas - and disrupts the audiophile's need to fiddle, :P.

Camac connectors were originally designed for instrumentation use in French Nuclear reactors. Gas tight, ground first, vibration resistant.  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

I suppose if you try to squeeze in as many outputs/inputs as possible on the back of equipment, then you'll likely need twice the real estate for N connectors.  I do like BNC -- easy/quick to connect and reconnect.

 

Doesn't the B in BNC stand for Bayonet?

I also call that big desert as the Sahara desert -- I also have a computer computer :-).

 

John

Link to comment
On 5/15/2019 at 10:50 AM, crenca said:

As I sit working procrastinating at my computer waiting for FedEx to deliver a $1,500 pair of ZMF headphones, I contemplate the place of "value" in this hobby.  Casualty perusing the show reports, I click on Stereophile's (I know, I know, crenca the hypocrite ;) ) report on Devore's recent $90k creation:

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/devore-fidelity-orangutan-reference

 

Nothing surprises me about this overpriced bling, nor the Audiophile trade publication obsession with this stuff.  No matter how it sounds, it is simply irrelevant to 99.999% of even "Audiophiles"...or is it? I am pleased however that the commentary is almost uniformly negative.  No one believes that there is anything intrinsically rational to this pricing - it's a unique luxury market.  $90k, $180k, 1 million - it's all the same in that none of it makes sense.

 

On the other hand, are not my HP's just as irrational?  Maybe, but I don't think so.  Given the small boutique company that ZMF is, literally hand making each HP out of real wood, they are going to be expensive.  $1.5k is expensive, but is it irrational?  If they were $15k, ok.  There not, they are "only" $1.5k.  Is the delta between them and say, a $300 HD650 justifiable?  There are some irrational prices out there in the "personal audio" space - Sennheiser's Orpheus 2 for example.

 

What say you?  Has this hobby lost all sense of value?  Do the trade publications and webzines focus too much on "halo" products such as the Orangutan Reference?  What would Audiophile 'reporting' look like if they took seriously the reality of value?

 

Without batting an eye, I could say the industry has lost its way but I can't.  Because that implies it was on the right track at some point in time past and I can't recall for certain it ever was.

 

As things stand, audio reporting simply cannot be taken seriously, even if some truth leaks out every now and again.  IMO, many so-called leaders are more blinded and corrupted than the vast majority of enthusiasts.  If that is true, there can be no worthwhile reporting on "reality of value" as you put it because first you'd have eliminate the cancer.  And since Stuart, Atkinson, Harley et al have yet to be driven out, it seems the stage 4 cancer will always remain with this industry.  

 

It's a shame because there really can be some insightful and rather pleasing aspects to this hobby.  Primarily its performance potentials.  But today's leaders (and many followers) have made real performance a footnote and now it's all about the bling, the price, and the measurements. 

 

Today's so-called leaders have done all they could to milk from this industry and in the process destroy this industry.  It's rather sad and even pathetic actually.

The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait.  It's all just variations of managing electrical energy.  -Me

Link to comment
23 hours ago, Albrecht said:

1st, - there is no objective measure of value in the paradigm of subjectivity.

 

While I find @bluesmanuse of the usual formula for value in economics useful and cogent, I can't help but wonder about it's presupposition of the "paradigm of subjectivity"

 

High Fidelity has this basis as an endeavour grounded in a real objectivity:  the "perfect" (or approaching perfection as much as possible) reproduction of the original performance and/or recording.  Given this, while granted we all have subjective preferences, the ultimate goal is subjective.

 

If I am right about this, then there is a basis for a value judgement in Hi Fi that is not based in the radical subjective preferences, financial means, and circumstances of the individual.

 

Related to this is how "high end" and "audiophiledom" has skewed (if not outright skewered it) the older/origninal quest for high fidelity...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

While I find @bluesmanuse of the usual formula for value in economics useful and cogent, I can't help but wonder about it's presupposition of the "paradigm of subjectivity"

 

High Fidelity has this basis as an endeavour grounded in a real objectivity:  the "perfect" (or approaching perfection as much as possible) reproduction of the original performance and/or recording.  Given this, while granted we all have subjective preferences, the ultimate goal is subjective.

 

If I am right about this, then there is a basis for a value judgement in Hi Fi that is not based in the radical subjective preferences, financial means, and circumstances of the individual.

 

Related to this is how "high end" and "audiophiledom" has skewed (if not outright skewered it) the older/origninal quest for high fidelity...

Interesting post and one that bears thinking about more in depth,- in my opinion.

 

Although I don't quite understand what is meant by radical subjectivism. Giving a practical example, - (and I may be getting you wrong), - but people do form what may be called a relative consensus about products, - this is of course a subjective consensus. And, as with any kind of knowledge, - we are learning beings and our viewpoints change with more and different knowledge. For example, - there is a significant difference between "that violin section sounds really nice,"  to "those Stradivarius violins sound correct."

 

The latter belies an amount of experiential knowledge about what a Stradivarius violin is supposed to sound like, and likely,- experiences at events where both Stradivarius and other brands/types of violins are played. As a producer, songwriter and musician who plays and am in bands with musicians who play Rickenbacker, Guild, & Gibson guitars among others, - I've a fair amount of experience and knowledge about what those guitars sound like. But of course, their sound can be significantly altered in different context(s) through different amps, and various effects, and EQ settings, - not only on their amplification, - but applied during the recording process.

Going back to the Meitner example, - I have heard Ed's players many many times, in varying and different systems. I have made a "VALUE" judgement that is of course subjective, - that value judgement is based on it's performance. I think that there is a very large agreement upon the community who has heard these products, - that they perform incredibly well and do a great job as part of system that accurately reflects what is on the recording, - much better than others at both lower, and higher prices. That doesn't mean that I can afford to buy a Meitner... but I'm not judging it's sound quality on whether or not I can afford it. Of course Meitner DACs measure well, and have very low jitter, - but so do a lot of other DACs that are both cheaper and more expensive: and don't perform nearly as well.

 

So, - just because a product is expensive, (and unaffordable to most of us), - doesn't mean that it sucks. There are two different types of judgements, - the affordability part of the equation is objective, - it's performance is not.

 

I go to audio shows like CES or RMAF out of interest and curiosity to see what's new, how well gear performs, and what combinations of components work well together to make a system sound great. I also go there to hear how well my system stacks up against others. I know that I can't afford much of what I hear, - but I don't let a component's price point interfere with enjoying or not-liking what I'm hearing. I have been both surprised at how much super expensive gear sucks, and how great really cheap gear sounds much better than it's price indicates.

 

Finally, - I'd like to say that a lot of unreasonable criticism of retail prices of components occurs in two main areas, - 1. is the cost to build and the parts that make up the component. (This is especially significant in comparison to retail price markups in other luxury goods). And, 2. No one ever pays retail prices for these higher cost big 3 components of amps, speakers, CD/DACs: knowing the 40% dealer cost rule....

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Albrecht said:

I go to audio shows like CES or RMAF out of interest and curiosity to see what's new, how well gear performs, and what combinations of components work well together to make a system sound great. I also go there to hear how well my system stacks up against others. I know that I can't afford much of what I hear, - but I don't let a component's price point interfere with enjoying or not-liking what I'm hearing. I have been both surprised at how much super expensive gear sucks, and how great really cheap gear sounds much better than it's price indicates.

 

 

Audiophiles, and the industry in general, don't get it ... remarkably low cost, unpretentious equipment, especially these days, can easily trounce very expensive rigs in nearly every area that gives long term listening pleasure. "Monster rigs" may do well at some showoff, gymnastic sound exercise - but sound pretty awful at everything else ... what they frequently lack is attention to detail at sorting all the "little things" out; and hence are nigh on impossible to take seriously ...

Link to comment

I think in some ways what you are saying is true, but I do not think it is as simple as all that. There are other factors involved than just cost, making a multi-dimensional axis necessary to plot the value and quality of a system in. 

 

It's all well and good to make broad sweeping statements, but the devil is in the details.  More details please. 

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Audiophiles, and the industry in general, don't get it ... remarkably low cost, unpretentious equipment, especially these days, can easily trounce very expensive rigs in nearly every area that gives long term listening pleasure. "Monster rigs" may do well at some showoff, gymnastic sound exercise - but sound pretty awful at everything else ... what they frequently lack is attention to detail at sorting all the "little things" out; and hence are nigh on impossible to take seriously ...

Although I hear and respect your point, - I think that it's a decent size generalization that I could give counter examples. Although, - you and I may mean something different by "monster rig." I do think that there is a certain truth to diminishing returns: that is also a moving target that varies from person to person. IMO, - there's more than a few $40,000 retail systems that sound incredible, fit into different size rooms, and perform significantly better than system's at half the cost, - and although said $40K system might not be quite as great ad some really great systems costing more than double that, - diminishing returns on those big systems make it not worth it, - at least as far as I hear them.....

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...