How to disguise science with snake oil !

[paulb]

but I think what you are describing is replacing less than bit perfect playback mechanisms with your own one. That's not snake oil and what you have built is a transparent playback engine. Great stuff.

 

Of course, if what you are saying is that it was bit-perfect before your player was built, and still bit-perfect afterwards using your player (e.g. you looked at the data coming out of the digital out) and all other parameters such as jitter, noise etc were consistent, but it sounded different, then I would suggest that one or other of those statements isn't true, or you have made a change and just haven't realised what it is yet. Computers are very noisy environments, so processing something in a different way might change noise on the signal coming out, but DACs are used to handling that kind of garbage.

 

I am interested to hear what you think you have actually done to improve the sound - what was driving your coding design?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tfarney]

I've experienced what you're talking about when comparing components. I had a very nice tube headphone amp in here for a couple of weeks. In a fast A/B comparison, I was struggling to hear a difference between that amp and my vintage HK integrated when driving HD580s. Then I unplugged the HK and listened to the tube amp exclusively for the remainder of my 2 week listening period. As time went on, I became increasingly more convinced that I was hearing a harmonic richness and micro dynamics in the critical midrange that was absent from the HK. At the end of my time with the little tube amp, I hooked my DAC back up to the old HK, and what I heard, immediately, was less significant, but seemed real -- it seemed as if the HK was just a tiny bit leaner in the upper mid range. I didn't hear a loss of dynamic detail. After listening to the HK for a couple of hours, the leanness was gone.

 

Given a few days/weeks of listening, had I convinced myself to hear, in the tube amp, what years of audiophile reading had prepared me to hear? Maybe.

 

Given a couple of weeks of listening to the tube amp, did the inevitable comparison to my old HK reveal a bit leaner midrange? Probably.

 

Given a couple of hours of re-entry with my old HK, did my ears re-adjust? Definitely.

 

Does any of this matter much to the music listener? I don't really think so. I think, in fact, that if you have to work that hard to hear it, it is at best unimportant and at worst, listening to gear instead of music. So I still think the AB/X test is a better benchmark than critical listening over time which is ripe to the point of bursting with opportunity for psychological bias.

 

Fatigue is a different subject, though, and an important one. I listen to good recordings through my very modest headphone system for hours on end without fatigue. I get fatigued listening to bad mastering or too high a volume, particularly when the loudness is concentrated in the treble region. This can be a function of any component, I suppose, but if anything, less capable cables should deliver less high frequency information and be less fatiguing. If you experienced reduced fatigue from cables that delivered more high frequency information (as almost all better cables are supposed to do), that would be very confusing. Unless your old cables were unshielded or somehow otherwise adding noise to your signal.

 

ON EDIT: Re-reading I see that your fatigue issue was with a DAC, not cables. I'm not surprised. The one DAC, inside or outside of and amp or source component, I've heard that really stood out (it was not subtle) from the many DACs I've heard, stood out for its extreme leanness in the mid-bass and glaring treble. I think there is no excuse for this in a technology as mature and refined as digital to analog conversion and while my example was an extreme one, I'm sure subtler examples are out there. I'm very curious. Was it the Beresford that was fatiguing over time, or was it the Beresford that cured the problem?

 

Tim

 

[g0rf]

No, the Beresford DAC is absolutely not fatiguing. It is in no way the last word in hifi reproduction, but it is very smooth to my ears. The thing I found strange was the fatigue induced by the far better headphone output of a rather expensive headphone amp. In this case a Harmony EAR90. As I mentioned the sound was on the face of it quite stunning, but I found long listening was tiring. I am now using an Argon HA1 at just under a fifth the price, and while it isn't in the same league, I prefer it over long periods.

 

Just to clarify my 'headphone' system is PC /FLAC -> Roland Edirol UA 1EX -> Beresford DAC -> Argon HA1 -> Senheisser HD595

My main system is Squeezebox FLAC to Harmony DA9 DAC to Lyngdorf SDAI 2715 amp to Dali Ikon 6 speakers.

 

I am using a £16 ebay (Van damme) balanced lead from the Harmony DAC to Lyngdorf amp, and it is wonderful. My main system speaker cable is NVA LS3.

 

 

 

 

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

What I find strange is that people can randomly dip in and out of science. This is where any analogy between hi-fi and evolutionary bioscience breaks down. Those who question evolution question the whole process - you may or may not agree with their stance on bioscience, but it's an internally consistent stance. This same internal consistency is not apparent in hi-fi - audio is a subset of consumer electronic technology, which is itself an applied science. So that means when discussing the wonders of cables (claims that do not stand up to testing or validation) one is doing so within a scientific discipline (which is predicated on testing as validation). Perhaps a closer analogy then is in medicine - people will happily accept the strictures of modern medicine, only to wig-out haphazardly on something distinctly soup-noodle like homeopathy, even in the knowledge that it has no robustly demonstrable medicinal effect (barring placebo) within those strictures.

 

Few audiophiles would countenance buying an amplifier or loudspeakers (for example) without having at least a minimal scan of the specifications, thereby putting a degree of reliance upon 'the science bit'. However, when it comes to the cables the same person may be perfectly willing to accept as fact the sort of nonsense that would get you drummed off the Star Trek set. Cables made of Boridium Isobromine? Yes of course sir... we can supply that with a jacket of Salskinium and a Dilithium dielectric. And PVC. You'll need that to ensure the polaron emitters remain in phase.

 

I guess the problem is that few people have enough of an understanding of basic physics to spot the difference between technological development and BS. And that must also include those who comment on audio for a living, as well as those who sell the stuff (at all levels) - I include myself in the list of the scientifically stunted. There are, however, people who make genuine advances in audio and AV connections; they are called 'engineers'. There are a handful of them in the industry - currently mostly working on next-gen fibre-optic multi-HDVOD pipelines or getting HDMI to deliver 1080p signals across anything longer than about 5m. Then there are people who managed to get an account with General Cable, buy reels of random telecomms cables and then gift-wrap them in White Papers and velvet boxes.

 

(The trick for prospective cable 'manufacturers' in the second group is to buy some funky plugs and packaging and make sure the first 10m pay for the reel, the termination, the boxes and the plugs. That means the remaining 45 sets of 1m pair cables go toward advertising, marketing, 'research' (more marketing), walking overheads (paying marketing people and hiring guys with cold-weld crimp guns) and reinvestment into the company (paying off your mortgage). The only thing you don't need to do is buy a reviewer. They come for free - just make sure your cable 'White Paper' offers enough left-field nu-science to give 'em something meaty to write about. And make sure you don't send the cable to the one or two that might actually have some scientific background by mistake. Whether I mean 'sending the product by mistake' or the reviewer having a scientific background by mistake... I'll leave for you to decide.)

 

Expensive cables do have their uses; they help keep hi-fi dealers alive. If a dealer sells a $1,000 TV, it will be lucky to make $100 on the sale. It's usually slightly better on separates components - if a dealer sells a $1,000 pair of speakers, it will make between $250-$400 on the transaction. If it sells $1,000 worth of cables (or equipment supports or loudspeaker stands), the dealer will often make $500. So, it's in the dealer's interest to 'sell up' cables.

 

That being said, I am openly skeptical about these things. I think of them in exactly the way I think of vitamins for most people - it's a way of making very expensive piss. But I reserve the right to be wrong.

 

[Ashley James]

Gag Halfrunt

 

A fabulous dissertation with which I totally agree. I wish I had even 10% of your fabulous writing skills!

 

One point though; Speakers are at least 50% and cables more in the UK right now.

 

Ashley

 

 

 

[g0rf]

Good post, but...

 

"Few audiophiles would countenance buying an amplifier or loudspeakers (for example) without having at least a minimal scan of the specifications, thereby putting a degree of reliance upon 'the science bit'."

 

Disagree. If you let me try 3 amps (just say) I would test them and keep the one I felt sounded best to me, in my system, regardless of specs.

 

[PeterSt]

Tim, allow me : great post and great relativation. I most certainly feel something like it is not necessary to convince others of "my achievements", and although it is possibly nature to do so, I feel it is my job to share wherever I can. A rather main point is : this is not about money and the most expensive systems, but the urge to improve by relatively simple means (no matter it took me several 1000nds of hours so far). Sadly, it is not simple to look through everything, which I feel is a necessity anno 2008.

 

g0rf, you pointed out one of the very most important phenomena IMHO : take a week to judge and nothing less unless you can't stand it within that time.

I admit : I never AB(X) because you will concentrate on the wrong stuff, and will be, well, percetual of things. How hard is it to *not* hear the tiny bell once you have heard it ?

No, just run random music (of different types), and when track after track you have a better satisfaction than the week before in the other setup, it is almost better. Why almost ? because *also* you shouldn't be disturbed more than the week before. These are two different subjects !

Fatigueing is one of the most important downsides from more detail, if it isn't really right. Also, detail is the (I used to think) most important attractive thing. It is not. Just the same as that it is not so difficult to emphasize (men's) timbre -> it must be *right*. If it's not it may be interesting, but it will go wrong in other recordings. You know, those who you coincedentally run on Thursday.

 

paulb, No, I am not really saying that all other parameters like jitter or noise were consistent. I do say though, that before (or other players for that matter) and after as as bit perfect as could be (not even determined by "the DTS test" but by reading back the data and compare (which needs DACs with digital out to do it).

but DACs are used to handling that kind of garbage.

If you know how DACs work (and I just assume that) you know this is not completely true; besides you can feed them with an amount of jitter (they can better or less deal with properly), there are parameters which let them better or less good deal with accuracy in the analogue domain. It *is* true though, that I am not sure which of the both I influence most/best, because the analogue part cannot be measured against the digital input (to my knowledge).

Just try to take it as a fact, that a most clean PC environment will perform better than a not so clean environment (and either operatews bit perfect), which is a more vague parameter than "influence by means of software directly". So, it all started with creating the clean environment (think of cMP which kind of does the same), but it goes further in the details.

I am not sure whether I wrote it in this forum sometime, but it was proven (ABX) that burning a CD while my software was playing (without sound) opposed to when e.g. Foobar was playing, pressed the signature of both on the burned CD. Look for "Voodoo" on my forum and you will find it. The crazies who performed the test even recognized the different versions of XXHE playing, while burning the CD.

This is - and cannot - be related to the DAC directly, but my own explanation is that it influences the PSU of the PC at the micro level. I wouldn't know of any other explanation.

That we are not done with audio for a long time from now, is another conclusion. What a life.

 

Gag, may I ? great post. I dare to add that if the reviewer is not bought, the review is written by the manufacturer himself. Yes, it often goes like that, and it saves a trip for the reviewer.

It is simple : when (chronologically) one after the other conclusion is : this is te best I ever heard, for me this is enough - and logic - not to trust anything anymore.

It is worse : when, nowadays, I walk into a respected audio shop and ask the questions right down to the merits, it is over and done. Or the answer testifies that the guy doesn't know (anymore !) what he is talking about at all, or he is just a liar to start with. The latter is less common for the respected shop obviously, but the first shows survival habits IMO.

 

I said it earlier, and others have said in in better wordings : audio playback is subject to reasoning largely, and when we have done this sufficiently enough it is time to derive science from that. It doesn't go the other way around at this moment, no matter how hard the snake oil sellers try. One of the reasons indeed, is that the one element won't cause the difference in "your" system, unless it smooths out the harshness which is the most weak thing to do for a solution IMHO. But :

 

As I said elsewhere, things become rather difficult if one starts to recognize that we are reaching limits. Like the tweeter which can't follow the 1:1 representation of the wave, which we so carefully tried to have 1:1. This by itself is already difficult to judge as being the best thing to do, because digital = digital and we want analogue. So, better smooth that out with analogue parts which can't follow anyway ? yes, maybe, but then in a controlled fashion. Scientifically proven maybe, or reasoned out in an understandable way.

 

Peter

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

@Ashley: Comments duly noted - and thanks! The upping of percentage points on speakers is hardly surprising; an ever-increasing number of brands chasing an ever-decreasing number of customers and dealers that service them - that means the dealers still in business can demand more points from their suppliers.

 

@g0rf: Very fair point, but even if you don't personally rely on specifications to draw up a shortlist of products, such measurement-based specs still exist for sources, amps and speakers. Not so cables; cable 'makers' don't generally publish measurements, preferring instead to produce a list of ingredients. Why? If there were a demonstrable, numerical advantage to be exploited in cables, someone would exploit it. Surely statements like 'our cable delivers 23.4% less jitter than any other wire' are more tangible hooks with which to hang sales on than 'we use really, really, really pure copper'?

 

@Peter: I seriously doubt those who write about audio for a living would continue to do so if they merely let the manufacturer write the words for them. They might do the lazy journalist thing (cut and paste the press release), but to do the really lazy thing and get someone else do it? No - setting aside the checks and balances that should kick in when the journalist's writing is edited, if nothing else there are too many egos, too many people who love the look of their own words in print to let someone else do their bidding for them.

 

[PeterSt]

Hi Chris,

 

Much has been said in this thread, and it occurred to me that -although I responded in general terms- I did not look at the video, which I now did. This encourages me to wonder what made you bring up the subject like you did, which was not anonymous towards the manufacturer concerned, and although you said you gave him the benefits of the doubt ... were you yourself honest enough ?

(and hey, no offence meant, I just wanted to twist the subject because snake oil is snake oil only when it is, and today's Internet is known of disbelief and a lot of copying of eachothers words, which I so far never did). So, just putting in some counterweight for those poor manufacturers :-)

 

contrived tests such as this are at best misleading

 

I don't see any context here, and the only thing I see is that you say these tests are misleading. In the context of the video, I don't see any misleading act. I could have missed that though (meaning : if he presses buttons on the scope in the mean time, which for me, for now, is nonsense to think).

 

For instance, on the cable matter (and I didn't look at that video) this is so easy. That is, for LS cables it is. Connect a scope to the output of the amp and to the input of the speaker terminal, and there you go. There is no way you can imagine the speaker can produce music, looking at the degradation of the wave towards the speaker.

 

Just for a reminder, this is a quote of myself in this thread. You know now that I already agree with the video, which I did not see at the moment of that writing.

You also know now I have lousy LS cables (hahaha, which I also told somewhere down the line) ...

 

The effects he is demonstrating are nothing more than changes in the frequency response of the system due to the inductance and capacitance of the various cables he is using.

 

Yes, and what ? this is just true. Out of context this is just negatively put. In context, see below.

 

Furthermore, these artefacts only affect the response at several 100kHz, so have absolutely no influence on sound quality. There is no non-linear distortion introduced at all.

 

So, now you must be saying that the video, in which a test tone of 2KHz is used, is manipulated ?

No, instead I assume that you do not suggest this at all, but maybe you didn't get what it is about (and, your first part of the sentence above is just incorrect :-)

 

The video shows exactly what I told (see my quote above), and the only thing needed to get into one's mind is that the distortion you see is audible. This is all not related to using/showing square waves of which one might think they do not exist in audio, just because they do exist.

 

If Townshend show they created a cable that exactly matches the factor of 8 to overcome the impedance problems being there otherwise, there is nothing in my mind that won't believe that, because it just can exist, and is supported by that same video.

I didn't hear anyone say in the video Townshend is the only one being capable of doing this, that it is unique or whatever, and the only thing what happened is that they created a cable that solves the impedance problem. This is no snake oil ... this is just a very good thing. BUT :

 

As the text somewhere says : "most speakers have 8 Ohm", and here is a small snake;

If mine are 2 or 4 or 16, it apparently doesn't work. Or doesn't work as good.

The next snake is : The resistance is frequency dependend, and now what.

This means that if I run the same test with those cables at 16KHz the anomaly will be there again (to a certain degree, which will be IMO less than the video shows).

 

Furthermore, these artefacts only affect the response at several 100kHz

 

As said elsewhere, I am not an engineer. However, I do not recognize this from making passive crossovers where not taking these impedance-non-linearities taking into account, this sure matters. And I don't see the difference (in current and all) where you're just a few cm further down the line of the cabling, before or after some coils, capacitors and resistors. But again, I'm not an engineer, so I could be wrong on this.

 

There is no non-linear distortion introduced at all.

 

I don't want to nag, but the distortion just shows. Again, unless I am to think the video is manipulated, and my own very same tests were applied wrongly.

 

I can't emphasize more on those very tiny changes of the wave(s) do influence. They add up and may introduce squares were squares should not be there, that by itself creating, say, twice the energy opposed to what was intended, and it is exactly this what makes Jan Garbarek unstandable when it works out wrongly (you may recall the topic I referred to somewhere in this thread).

 

Then, allow me to change the subject a little, on the assumption that snake oil means : solves everything;

As implied above already, no one cable with one capacitance and without intelligence (which might change the capacitance) can solve the problem for the whole frequency range. The only thing we can do is make the match as good as possible, (me) not even knowing whether "best as possible" is in the middle, at the low end or at the high end or somewhere else. It *is* the most important factor to my findings, and it *will* improve your system when doing it right to the largest degree imagineable. This happens between the main amp and the loudspeaker, it happens between the preamp and the main amp, and it happens between the DAC and the preamp;

No snake oil exists to have all these matches perfect, and each connection should be manually made so the match is optimal (again, not even knowing what that is). This *is* needed, once you recognize that even the smallest "distortion" can have a high influence on the sound quality.

 

Peter

 

[Daphne]

Gentlemen, this has been an interesting discussion.

 

I would like to offer a alternative view on the subject.

 

The speaker cable market can be broken down into two market segments. The cables for the masses, and the esoteric expensive cables for the privileged few.

 

There is a good deal of pseudoscience involved with many cable design theories. The manufacturers have been at it for 20 years or more which is ample time to refine their semantics and pseudoscience into claims and demonstrations which become very difficult to disprove.

 

[ Just to make clear the definition of pseudoscience - any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no scientific basis. ]

 

Basic speaker cable, beyond common lamp zip cord, will generally cost $10 to even $50 per meter. Just about all of this cable is better than adequate for everything from low to high end systems. Many of these cable designs are based on known proven electrical engineering facts.

 

The pseudoscience and associated semantics generally shelter or camouflage the outrageously priced cables marketed to the privileged few.

 

There are now so many claims and misinformation that it is difficult to peal back the multitude of layers. When you break the subject down you are left with the question: is there a difference between all the cables, and the answer is yes. The video demonstration offers a degree of proof. Just about every cable will show a measured difference with the test in question. Being "Different" is the whole point of the test. It is the slight of hand use of language coupled with a demonstration. Different absolutely does not mean improved or better sound. (I believe this is referred to as a semantic field, where the words traditionally used in a description are twisted to infer an alternative meaning.)

 

Believe me, there are not hundreds of thousands of people lined up to purchase these expensive cables. The market share is very limited, the main reason why many of the cable manufacturers produce several lines of cables from the affordable to the insanely expensive.

 

Exactly how much of an improvement in the quality of sound actually exists between a cable costing $100 per meter compared to one from the same manufacturer, using the same basic design, costing $7000 per meter. Most likely very, very little, if any. Nevertheless, the target audience is "told" that the top quality cables are reserved for those who have refined taste in good music, those refined few with the hearing ability to recognize hearing a "difference," those you settle for nothing short of the very best in life, and especially the few who can afford the privilege of owning them. All the tell tale signs of marketing directly to the affluent. The manufacturers supply all the basic steps of conditioning the prospects, conditioning patronage opinion leaders, conditioning those who influence affluent readers. Well proven key principles of marketing products to the affluent.

 

Any pseudoscience needs a cult like following to become accepted which, time and again, has proven easy to establish with the affluent. Throughout history every well known astrologer will list the "rich and famous" as their devoted clients, self-proclaimed clairvoyants always prefer to prey on the wealthy. With high end audio cables, the cult is first established by drawing in the retailers, one can almost consider them the priests of the dogma, the disciples who will spread the credence.

 

Now we enter the realm of selling to the affluent, where proactive professional audio/visual salespeople can identify the hungry fish and euphoric prospects, then wait until the spending frenzy hits. High end audio retailers have become experts in the art of subtly focusing on needs and desires; exploiting the affluent prospect's need to affiliate.

 

Then there is pseudoscience reserved for the truly gullible affluent. If one pair of outrageously expensive speaker cables can work miracles, just imagine what can be achieved with bi-wiring.

 

An aspect of the industry I find interesting is how most cable makers rarely if ever improve their basic cable line. New products are focused on upping the ante of ever more expensive cables. The trend seems to be short manufacturing runs resulting in high profits.

 

This whole subject makes for a very interesting academic discussion, but in the real world (forgive me for asking), how many participating in this forum can actually afford speaker cables which equal or exceed what many pay for their mortgage each year?

 

The cable manufacturers have been rather resilient over the many years of challenges, accusations, and verbal assaults. While many audiophiles shouted "snake oil," the companies continued to grow in number, and their claims became even more sophisticated. They really don't care what the average audiophile believes or has to say. Their target audience is the affluent, the privileged few who can easily afford and are willing to pay 10 or 20 thousand or more for a pair of magic wires.

 

Recently, this deception has been justified under the disguise of being good for the A/V industry. The poor, poor, pitiful retailers are having a tough go at earning profits. Anyway, the wealthy can afford it, and it's their responsibility (some would even say their moral duty) to spread the wealth. This reminds me of the common trait found with all embezzlers - their ability to completely justify their act of deceitful theft.

 

Daphne

 

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

Daphne,

 

I agree entirely with what you say, with one addition: The struggling dealers helped sow the seeds of their own demise by pedaling this nonsense to begin with. When you add in a lack of credibility to a lack of confidence we are currently all suffering in making any purchase, little wonder they are a dying breed. The only problem is legitimate dealers and products are being undermined by the rogues. Personally, I see no problem with cables being used by the dealer as a sale closer - to 'throw in' $100 worth of cables (dealer loses $30 in profit) instead of giving $100 worth of discount (dealer loses $100 in profit) - because the end user is still going to need cables of some description. This also has a psychological bonus for the buyer - there's a difference between feeling like you got something for nothing and the feeling of being a black-belt haggler - which helps too. But that's not how it works anymore; the dealer refuses to give the $100 discount, then tries to sell you $100 worth of cables... for $500.

 

[shenzi]

Agree absolutely. A friend of mine was completely put off buying a decent stereo system when the specialist hifi dealer told she would need expensive cables to go with it (by expensive I don't mean the stratospheric prices). So she went back to her boombox and later bought a cheap music centre from a catalogue shop. She used to apologise for it every time I went round to see her. Nowadays, she has an iPod and listens to that all the time instead. Dealer loses a sale and the hobby gains a sceptic who thinks we're all mad.

 

Of course, to hear the iPod at its best she should really have these little pillar things which suspend the earphone cables away from the body and prevent vibration and RFI ...

 

[Ashley James]

These are very interesting points because in the UK where things are pretty bad for dealers and manufacturers right now, it's clear that both are architects of their possible future demise.

 

Expensive cables were the beginning of the problem, now fantastically expensive mains cable too are being touted and in my opinion the dealers often believe it all!

 

We did the Bristol Show, it was a waste of time if we were looking for new customers, but it was an education for a company that's always had a lowish profile (I know ADM9.1s changed all that with a bang!), because we'd never appreciated how much of the hobbyist there was in a UK dealer.

 

A leading Industry PR man came to see us, he was an extremely nice bloke and he does a good job. He told us how he'd advised one of the dealer chains to turn over a central London shop near a tube station to Apple products. The dealer was horrified at the suggestion but agreed to put it to his managers. The unanimous response was that computers couldn't make music and categorically no, they were only interested in proper hi fi! This was four years ago and the shop had to close. These people believe implicitly in the upgrade path and the fine tuning with cables type of hi fi. It's been a lucrative way to sell for years, but many customers now recognise that it hasn't delivered better sound quality and it's mightily pissed off some who've spent large sums of money before they've realised. The business been contracting for years and yet many still don't really want to admit it or recognise why.

 

IMO computers have brought all this to a head because it's shown how many were unhappy with the situation. Before there was a cosy little relationship between Dealers, Manufacturers and the Press and anyone who didn't go along with the way it worked stayed away, and in increasing numbers as the years passed. I hate to say it but egos probably saw to it that no one took stock of the market requirement or the seriousness of the decline. Compressed music was dismissed as beneath the salt, then Napster and finally iPods, even when people on Forums were asking how to get their expensive hi fi to sound as good! Brit Forums get pretty acrimonious at times and it's often caused because those who believe in the snake oil/magic solutions have no answer to their more practical/scientific protagonists, so hurl insults. Now there is more second hand and nearly new second hand hi fi on the market than ever before as more and more people give up with it.

 

Companies have already failed or been taken over and I think there may be more before the present situation stabilises. I think its very sad but that there's a Phoenix in there somewhere for us to look forward to.

 

Ashley

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

I love the idea of expensive mains cables. I especially love the idea of custom-made, hand-rolled expensive fuses (both case fuses inside the product and inside the mains plug itself). Whoever came up with these ideas should receive a medal, cast from the very cannon used to fire clowns into safety nets at P.T. Barnum's circus.

 

Of course, the Gold Standard in audiophile nonsense must be Shun Mook Mpingo discs; Oreo-sized slabs of some African hardwood mix with an ideogram carved into one surface. Apparently you are supposed to put three of them on top one of your hi-fi components to something, something, something... resonate; something, something, something... entire audible spectrum. You can then put them on every other component and that something, something, something... unwanted harmonic distortions; something, something something... enriching the musical reproduction. (that's best read in the voice of the Emperor in the Star Wars movies).

 

Then, if you've proved yourself enlightened/gullible enough to take all this in, you get to do the same thing to fresh air, by putting trios of these black discs on little wooden stands and planting them in predetermined places in the room. When you finally get to 44 of the things, apparently its 'as though the walls have disappeared'. Presumably they fell through the big hole in your bank balance. There are replacement feet and record clamps of the stuff also available. I'm sure when you've reached this stage of audio nirvana your hi-fi sounds magnificent, but how do you get to the remote control without loosening the straps on your straitjacket?

 

 

[Ashley James]

I'm glad you mentioned fuses because we've suffered from them as well!

 

For a time Britain's favourite snake oil company sold, for a very reasonable £20, a better sounding fuse for enthusiasts to fit to our Integrated amplifier. No problem you might assume, but be wrong, because all that is require is light pressure and 40 degrees of anti-clockwise rotation with the thumb to remove the cheap, bad sounding one we'd scurrilously charged the customer 35P for and a reverse of the procedure with a good one. Or that's how it'd be if the characters who believed in this boloney were remotely practical; they aren't, they can electrocute themselves turning the lights on.

 

The result was we had to refund the cost and have one Amp back from one chap who'd used a massive screwdriver to fit his and twisted the entire fuse holder loose on the back panel and completely off the PCB inside. Two others did nearly as much damage and then tried to set their houses alight by resting objects against the end of the fuse holder to hold it in because they'd broken the bayonet fittings off the end! The result was an imperfect connection, lots of sparks and eventually smouldering Bakelite!

 

It need hardly be said that we were totally to blame for all these problems and that the dealers supported their customers claims that replacements should be under guarantee.

 

Our present fuse holders clip in and pull out so there is less scope for damage.

 

At its worst this subjective nonsense has bred neurosis verging on paranoia IMO!

 

Ash

 

[tfarney]

I'm not convinced of the pricey interconnect salesmens' affluent marketing expertise. I've been a strategic marketing professional for nearly 30 years, I've done more than my share of marketing to the affluent, including the launching and re-branding of private banking, professional & executive banking and wealth management (and trust me, it doesn't come much more insubstantial and flattery-driven) products for brokerages and banks, and I just don't see much marketing expertise among the tweak vendors. The snake oil salesman analogy seems more appropriate. And not to give sympathy to the devil, but I think there's a good chance that quite a few of them actually believe their own hokum. Most of them are, after all, audiophools themselves. And phools we can be.

 

I'm reminded of the review I read...and if I've told this here before, I apologize, but it was just so stunning...in which the reviewer said that a piece of gear enabled him to listen past the darkness and irony in Tracy Chapman's voice to hear the bit of hope there. He got that from a piece of gear.

 

This is not the stuff of strategic anything. Not even marketing. This is blind faith, at best, though self-delusion is more likely.

 

ON EDIT: I would like to reserve the aforementioned benefit of the doubt to the designers and manufacturers of actualy audio equipment. The guys with the pet rocks and magic pieces of wood that make the very walls disappear are simply thieves....hey, Jack. Magic beans here...

 

Tim

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Wow, this is quite the thread. I love all the different opinions. I thought I would ad a picture for those of us who need a little intermission from all the text.

 

 

 

 

 

[tfarney]

Here at Computer Audiophile, thread drift is a way of life. Thanks for this place, Chris. It is an oasis of reason.

 

Tim

 

[Phil Bishop]

....ah, so that's what it looks like! I think a few folk contributing to this thread are going to need to rub some into their aching RSI-affected muscles!

 

Phil

 

[Daphne]

Hi Tim:

 

I am very familiar with private banking services, a very difficult service to market and sell. Banks are their own worse enemy, they seem to always fail on promises to their clients. When did people forget that banks are all about making profits for themselves, not other people. Now look where we are today, all the major private banking and wealth management crooks have thrown the industrial world into deep financial crisis. I agree with a number of economists that it will be a long, long time before anyone in their right mind will trust any of the major banks with wealth management. Since they cannot fall any lower, perhaps they will start to target delusional senior citizens. The only survivors of the crisis so far seem to be the Swiss banks. Anyway, I should not get started on this subject.

 

Where I reside, I'm stunned with some of the sophisticated sales techniques used by a number of independent Audio/Visual retailers. I noticed the trend emerge around 2000 and really become refined by 2003.

 

Here is a good example that just came to mind. I wondered into a listening room one day at a high end store. A middle aged salesman was talking to a prospective customer. The "Rite of Spring" was playing at a low volume. I was not present for the introduction conversation, just the closing. The salesman looked right in the eyes of the customer and asked, "so what do you think?" The customer looked down for a good minute. The salesman backed away and remained silent. Then the customer asked something about the CD player; the salesman did not even answer. He went right for the kill by stating "Just imagine how you will feel sitting back in your favorite chair after work being absorbed into Stravinsky." Just that quick the sale was closed for a McIntosh system costing in excess of $100,000.

 

I've seen this technique used by luxury car salesmen, but not in a retail A/V store. A classic Carl Jung psychoanalyst technique used to determine one's thinking type through asking a simple question during casual conversation. If the prospect looked up, it would mean he responds to the visual; side to side - audio; down - feelings; in multiple directions - highly intelligent which requires a more detailed response.

 

I have also been witness to the initial sales approach used. The problem for a salesperson in Palm Beach county for example, is someone who just walks in off the street. One of the first introduction conversation techniques is to determine whether the prospect is old money, or nouveau riche. In other words, a couch potato who has never had a job and living off generational wealth, or a wealthy high achiever from the corporate world. It makes a big difference in the sales technique used. For the old money group a typical conversation would revolve around dropping names from his peer group, systems they have installed in luxury homes of his neighbors, the old keeping up with the others ploy. Then perhaps into charity events, golf, polo, exotic cars, or anywhere a personal connection can be made.

 

For the high achiever I've seen the backgrounds of the audio component designers included. Many of the affluent in my area come from the high technology fields. So the sales approach is generally connected to listening to all the accomplishments of the prospect then relating the like achievements to those in the A/V industry. I saw a salesman demo and sell a Wilson Audio surround sound speaker system that I knew must have cost in excess $200,000. At first I thought the salesman wrote Wilson's biography. He went into his start as a pharmaceutical research chemist relating "you know how tough that industry is." Pointing out the trials and tribulations of establishing a business, setting the highest standards, working 12 to 16 hour days, on and on. And the customer was eating up the whole experience with a smile. (By the way, This salesman has never spoken to me. I believe he has gender issues.)

 

Now for the celebrities it is what I call the Wow technique. No specifications mentioned, just a pitch based on all flattery and emotion. After all, celebrities love people who worship their narcissistic side. So, my favorite observation was the two rappers and a small petite Hispanic girl with a brief case. The rappers were decked out in their traditional gold and diamonds over their favorite sports teem jerseys. The salesman was cranking up the volume on sub woofers. The two seemed unimpressed. Then they were enthusiastically offered the ultimate. Wilson's Thor's Hammer. "The finest, baddest, huge, sub woofers ever!" The two rappers looked at each other and shouted "da hammer!" They requested two. The salesman commented "no one needs two Thor Hammers." To that, the reply was, "we have a big room to rock." Oh, and here is the amazing part, no Thor Hammers in the store, and a six to seven month wait for delivery. No problem. The sale was closed on just the word Hammer. Neither rapper had any idea who Thor was, "da Hammer" said it all. A few minutes later the Hispanic girl was at the reception counter with open briefcase writing checks. The two rappers had smiles from ear to ear, doing their crazy hand shake, congratulating each other on spending money, and how well da hammers will sound with their four Wilson Alexandrias. (Personally, I have very little knowledge of the Thor Hammer, have only seen a photo, and have never listened to one.)

 

Every month or so I receive direct mail ads and promotions from local independent A/V retailers (not a chain store operation). Letters suggesting it is time to upgrade my system, and I'm amazed with all the tweako items mentioned, from cables to crazy CD conditioning solutions.

 

One audio store owner (a guy my dad went to high school with), told me of how he watches the property transfer notices in the newspaper. Then several mornings before work he will drive around to check out the properties. For the ones which look promising the names and addresses will be added to his introduction list for a direct mail campaign, especially if the prospect is new to the area. He includes a DVD showing everything from simple systems to million dollar home theaters, a hand written formal invitation to visit the store (or what he calls the studio), and a gift which can be anything from an impressive gift basket to concert tickets (I believe he has discontinued the DVDs). For the personal touch, his marketing girl will attempt a background check on the internet, looking for hobbies, membership in charity organizations, achievements, awards, or anything that can be used to make a personal connection in an introductory letter. However, networking is his forte. he maintains memberships to several country clubs and plays golf with a number of contractors who custom build luxury homes and condos. He can obtain jobs which include everything from pulling cable for whole house A/V systems to installing luxury home theaters. He regularly purchases season box seat tickets to concert halls, race tracks, and sporting arenas to pass on to architects and interior designers. This man leaves few stones unturned when it comes to recruiting and selling to the affluent market. And he is not the only independent A/V retailer I see following this path.

 

There is one thing I dislike about this gentleman - he is a fan of just about every crazy tweako gizmo around (well... not every one), especially if it looks impressive. You could tie this guy to a chair and slowly break every finger and toe, and he still would not admit there is one small greasy smear of snake oil involved. Also, one needs to stay focused around his sales staff, he trains them well.

 

One cannot describe the above as aggressive marketing and sales, I mean the A/V retailers are not running television ads like a car dealership, or have their sales staff waiting in the parking lot to greet you prior to entering the store, or watch the customers like large hungry cats. To survive in the A/V business one must do more than wait and hope for customers to show up.

 

Actually it is quite refreshing to ask a question and find the staff friendly, well informed, and not pushy when it comes to speakers and all the various electronic components. However, beware, the truth and facts about accessory products can easily be embellished and exaggerated, and with any number of fabrications added by some salespeople who have become very believable and very clever at selling, especially to the affluent.

 

One positive change I have noticed is a more open attitude at audio stores in my area. I can recall a time, when just being a woman, I was completely ignored. If a prospective customer entered a store to just look and listen, many a salesperson would not even take 20 seconds to turn on a system. The old "if you're not here to buy, go somewhere else." I could just never understand that attitude.

 

Today, if I was interested in a certain component, I can call for an appointment to audition it in my home system. The store will send out a salesperson with the item (something within reason of course, excluding large 200 pound items). I only know of two retailers who perform this service, but it's very nice.

 

Small A/V retailers who do not reach out for business, or fail to offer exceptional service, or with snobbish, inattentive, ignorant sales staff will quickly go under here in southeast Florida. Nevertheless, I still hear tales about poor high end audio stores, and I know everyone reading has their own horror stories from where they reside.

 

Anyway, what fun would this hobby be without obstacles to overcome around every corner. Just selecting the right DAC and server to meet your needs is like having to solve a cipher before the treasure hunt begins.

 

daphne

 

[tfarney]

Knowing the lifestyle needs and motivations of the customer, relating the product to those needs and motivations, providing good service, asking for the sale -- hardly strategic, but it sounds like good salesmanship. And it sound like you have some excellent dealers in your area. Now if one of them were to analyze the marketing position of each dealer in the area and the customer groups that they serve, then come up with a unique marketing position that differentiates their store from alll the others in a way that appeals to a specific target market large enough to sustain the business, THAT would be strategic.

 

It's not often done, other than intuitively, in small one-shop retailers, however.

 

By the way, the market never completely trusted comprehensive wealth management from banks. Since the Glass-Steagal act was repealed and those doors were opened, quantitative and qualitative research studies have repeatedly been run by people such as myself for clients in the brokerage and banking business, assessing affluent (and not so affluent) customers' attitudes, and financial institutions have never quite broken through the belief that the broker is better at investments and banks are better at banking. The current financial crisis is just a blip on a scope that has been measuring the customers' resistance to change for decades. And boy, are we off topic!

 

Tim

 

[PeterSt]

And then to think I excused myself for long posts. Hahaha

 

Here in Holland it is the most common to bring equipment and cables home and try it out for a week or so.

Each, say, 20x20 miles homes a high end audio dealer, and my experiences are nothing less than the owners will turn even into almost good friends. So, generally, this is not about "salesmen" as such, but about freaks like me (and you hehe). Of course I don't talk about the general stores.

 

What I do recognize, however, is that the scope of most of those dedicated shops is somewhat narrow. They are driven by dealerships, and obviously can't store the even one product from all manufacturers.

This, as far as I see it, leads to starting to be behind, which goes rather fast. Stupid thing is, where I tend to find my stuff on the Internet, it is seldom that I will buy there. But sadly, what can be found on the Internet usually can't be found in those shops ... it is too new or maybe too expensive to invest (I didn't say - in).

 

Here, it has become quite common (or a desease maybe) to obtain some rather random audio product from the Internet, listen to it for one or two months, and then sell it in the context of being a dealer. Such a "dealer" (could just be me) sells from his living room, is as fully harted as the normal dealer, but *does* have the new stuff. Now what.

 

Times are changing.

Peter

 

[Ashley James]

Peter

 

That's very interesting because we've been heavily criticised for not offering home demonstrations and for discouraging our dealers from doing the same on various Forums, though rarely if ever directly. In truth it isn't a very effective way to sell and it isn't necessary. 95% of our sales are now direct and without audition to customers all over the world. We are as likely to ship to the Far East or all over Europe as we are to the UK. Quite a few visit the factory but it's small numbers compared to overall sales.

 

Sadly it's not unusual for Brit customers to expressly state that the purchase is contingent on their not having to visit a hi fi shop! I think this is because of hostility to and lack of knowledge of computers for hi fi and because, as I previously stated, specialist shops tend to be hobbyists rather than business people and instead of listening to what customers have to say, they just try persuade them to buy their preferred brand and the tweaks that got with it.

 

Ashley

 

Ashley

 

[wgscott]

the arguments against science in both instances [Evolution vs. Creationism, and audio tweaks], are remarkably similar. "Science doesn't know everything" and " I believe the evidence of my own ears" are two sentences that have me reaching for a Baseball Bat in America and a Cricket one at Home!

 

I came to a very similar conclusion, now that I have a finger in each pot...