We Don't Get No Respect

It never fails. Browse Stereophile's Facebook page, scroll through the comments to an article that refers to life as an audiophile, and splat—appearing like bird droppings on your glistening screen are anti-audiophile wisecracks pointing out exactly how far off the "normal" track our hobby has derailed. Occasionally, I catch myself in mid-sentence, already replying to one of these droppings, the gist of my intended message invariably being: "If you're an anti-audiophile, what are you doing using up what life you have left reading a webpage devoted to a hobby you don't get? Shouldn't you be hanging out with your own friends?" Then, realizing that I'm wasting my time.

Maybe it's just me, but I've been getting the sense lately that anti-audiophile sentiment is more bitterly hostile than it once was. I vividly recall it consisting, for the longest time, of a general apathy, and whiny exasperation from whomever I'd politely plead with to listen to how great my system sounded. (And it did—I swear!) Obviously, the Internet is a bonanza for those who want to target us, but forget about the quantity of the criticism; what's with the tone? Are non-audiophiles really that fed up with the audiophile lifestyle?

It sure seemed that way when Neil Young's PonoPlayer hit the market. The blogosphere's backlash was spontaneous: a unanimous gag reflex. Most notable about it was not what a mob of non-audiophiles actually said in disparagement of the Pono or Neil Young, but what wasn't said and was clearly readable between the lines. Take a step back, reread the nastier comments, and a picture emerges: The anti-Pono backlash was about more than taking down an oddly shaped portable player: It was a payback-style assault on the audiophile identity. That the ambushee was the PonoPlayer was happenstance; it could have been any audio device with perceived audiophile pretensions that dared to pass itself off as a product for the masses. "Better sound"? "The way music is supposed to be heard"? The nerve!

The episode set my thoughts on two tangents: first, about how the Internet is a bottomless well for spawning irritating people; and second, about how our hobby always gets slammed for the same four infractions:

"The audiophile hobby is an arrogant endeavor exercised by arrogant people." If we can all agree that obnoxious bozos roam both sides of the audiophile/non-audiophile divide, I concede that our hobby is populated by more than its share of them, while noting this happier turn of events: Life on our side has gotten a lot less obnoxious since there's been a lot less of: a) the patriarchal schools of thought that decreed what one had to like, follow, or believe in order to be taken seriously as an audiophile; and b) some of the old-guard bricks-and-mortar audiophile boutiques, whose smug and patronizing sales "help" so often made my presence feel as desired as a gassy bellyache, and left me feeling inadequate, bothersome, and reluctant to ever return to a hi-fi store, even one with a good reputation. I say to such establishments, "Good riddance: Serves you right for not serving right."

"You guys with your silly tweaks that make no scientific/engineering sense?!" My audiophile cred be damned, I can't tell you how often I thought a tweak was doing more for the sound of my system than was the case—which I'd realize sometime later, after I'd removed it. Nonetheless, there is a well-grounded rationale for using tweaks: some of them can mitigate distortions that would otherwise contaminate the musical signal. On the less-grounded side, remember when tweaks, by and large, were both cheap fun and had a plausible-sounding logic behind their workings? Boy, I miss those days. The market is now glutted with tweaks silly and specious, many of them priced as high as sophisticated electronic components.

"You guys care more about sound and gear than music." No doubt some of us mostly do, just as most of us occasionally do—such as when we're itching for a new component or in the throes of Audiophilia nervosa. But this sort of thing can be said of any hobby that, by its very nature, requires the flame of obsession to keep it going. That flame doesn't devalue that hobby's central purpose, which in our case is to use really cool audio gear to turn recordings into living, breathing performances that have the power to steal us away from the present.

"The cost of high-end audio equipment is through the roof!" This is the part of the audiophile belly that attracts the most slings and arrows, and it's easy to see why: The biggest target is the easiest to hit. Prices for competing megabuck audio products are rising at a clip dizzying enough to spin the head of even the staunchest apologist for high-ticket gear. Assuming that the skyrocketing prices are commensurate with advances in parts and technology, is audio equipment really sounding that much better that much faster? And at what point do increases in audible returns diminish to the point where they're simply not worth the increases in price?

My take: Seeing the prices of audio equipment rise in thousand-buck bounds does not ring true with the hobby I fell in love with 30 years ago. What does ring true is the dichotomy that can be found at the other end of the price spectrum: the insuppressible proliferation of audio gear that keeps sounding better at prices more of us can afford. It's those products that are our hobby's best chance of growing in popularity.

At the 2015 Consumer Electronics Show, Neil Young made a point of saying that the PonoPlayer was not an "audiophile" product, but one geared to the general music-loving population. Anyone aware of Young's abiding aversion to both lossy digital compression and artists "selling out" knows he wasn't just paying lip service to sell more Ponos. Young still believes what he's been saying all along: Listeners should be able to hear their recordings the way the artists, producers, and engineers intended.

Neil Young gets it. And he gets it for the same reason we became audiophiles.—Robert Schryer

COMMENTS
Steve C's picture

I remember hearing the Klipschorns back in '74 and that was when I knew I had to have horns. Settled on LaScala's and Heresy's. At the time they were expensive compared to other manufacturers but I was set on a certain sound. After several tweeks, I have settled on the sound I prefer. But some of what I read on the prices of more esoteric pieces, I cannot justify spending that much for a marginally better sound. Having a dedicated room and a good DIY sub will do wonders for existing equipment.

Allen Fant's picture

Decent article- no doubt that we all are in search of the "sound".
Music is certainly the best driver (no pun).

To Steve C. that is indeed something very special about K-horns.

AlexMetalFi's picture

"The anti-Pono backlash was about more than taking down an oddly shaped portable player: It was a payback-style assault on the audiophile identity. That the ambushee was the PonoPlayer was happenstance; it could have been any audio device with perceived audiophile pretensions that dared to pass itself off as a product for the masses. "Better sound"? "The way music is supposed to be heard"? The nerve! "

You can not be serious, Robert. As a self-professed, bonafide audiophile, I take real umbrage to these comments.

No, it wasn't any device, it was the Pono. Why? Because you had a rock star that doesn't really understand technology selling to the public the idea that "high-res" sounds better without giving a reason why (and let's not even go into the fact that with his hearing at his age there is a good chance high-res isn't going to do much for him anyway). And then when asked by experts (including the audiophile press) if the Pono ecosystem is going to solve some of the real issues that plague high-res - providence of masters, standardizing the format, preventing labels from blindly upsampling and pawning it off as high-res - the answer was no, no, and double no. Basically, at the end of the day, the Pono offered nothing NEW from a technology standpoint. Nada. So the public reacted correctly, as they should.

But on top of that, oh lord, on top of that, we all find out that albums on PonoMusic may cost double to triple the amount of money per album, with prices per record soaring to $20 bucks or higher. Why? I couldn't tell ya because it doesn't cost more to produce nor does the price per storage to house these larger downloads warrant such a huge upcharge (a few pennies maybe). If Neil is so interested in spreading the "high-res" love, shouldn't he charge the same amount for high-res or make it somewhat competitive with the alternatives?

What was the real shame with the Pono was the audiophile's press reaction to the backlash of it. Instead of being defensive, it should have been informative. It should have said, "Hey Neil, we are so glad you are into high-res and it's so great that you are making the average Joe realize their are other types of downloads other there other than just iTunes and MP3s. But hey Neil, just so you know, this technology has been around for a while and we are still working out some of the issues. And Neil, not everyone is going to hear the differences since a lot of the time there are none, or they are so subtle, it's not really worth the price premium. But we still encourage high-res because it gives artists/studios the ability to preserve their existing masters in its original format as well as a release vehicle for new recordings to take full advantage of the digital spectrum. Also, since high-res is not a standard, we need to be careful on what we actually say is high-res vs low-res."

Instead, it was more "Woe is me!" diatribes like this one on how audiophiles are under attack when in reality most of the world doesn't give a flying ...

Musico's picture

So Ayre, the main technology partner in this, also does not understand selling technology to the public? Neil is the catalyst, while others, such as Ayre, record label executives and music artist promoters, are the specialists in getting music to the public. That's what's making this venture so successful.

AlexMetalFi's picture

Ayre was OEM'ed for the player. The marketing, or "pitch" behind it was all Neil/Pono. The record companies couldn't care less about Pono adoption, as they are in the middle of an all out streaming war.

The PonoPlayer was a wildly successful crowdsourced project, yes, but as a business plan it has so far been hardly a success. I cite the recent Facebook post on Neil's page which outlines how challenging it has been to bring the Pono to the mass market - justifiably so.

As I've said/written in the past, what they need, as well as the other technologies I'm about to mention, is convergence. Tidal + Pono + Roon as a unified audiophile grade ecosystem (one company) based on a $15-20/month subscription model is probably the only way any of them will survive in the long run.

dbtom2's picture

Having become recently reacquainted to the hobby I conclude there has never been a time when there was so much information available to make informed buying decisions. The signal has never been better. For me, the golden age of audio is right now. The major downside is the decline in the number of bricks and mortar audio/hifi stores.

The UPS guy is often the face of audio for this listener.

crenca's picture

I am a "computer geek", happy with my $20 earbuds and lossy mp3's until this summer. I always knew there was something called "high fidelity" having heard it briefly during college, but I was very suspect of many of the claims made by the "audiophile" world.

Then, this summer I purchased some AT m50x headphones, and suddenly my mp3 did not sound "right" and CD's sounded better. It was off to the races then.

Whenever I see one of those otherwise intellegent computer geeks on youtube pop in an 8 bit synth recording that is "high res" and they listen and claim "I don't hear a difference, high res/audiophile claims are a myth" I perfectly understand. They come from a commoditized world, and if you can't explain it in rather straightforward "engineering" terms they think you are selling snake oil. Thing is, they are right too often. I have read some things about USB cables and computer audio in general by otherwise well respected audiophile "experts" that make my skin crawl. I am quite familiar with those things and I see too much snake oil being sold. Truth is, sometimes (in certain domains) bits really are just bits. It is "complicated" in an audio chain, but some people are taking advantage of said complication.

That said, if you grew up on poorly recorded, highly compressed, $20 ear bud low-fi, you don't know any better, and it all sounds OK to you. What can be done? Not sure but experience helps - getting something that sounds good into their hands.

As far as the prices of equipment, it really is silly sometimes. I would like to see a major publication like Sterophile try something. Review and talk about affordable equipment for 6 months, staying under $5000 per speaker pair/amp/etc. When I go to Car and Driver or MotorTrend, yes they review supercars and Bentleys, but the majority of what they review is actual "affordable" vehicles that people actually own. Guess what, an average family sedan is much much more powerful, much more reliable, and much more advanced than they typical family sedan was 40 or even 20 years ago. I suspect the same thing is the truth in the audiophile world, but the major audiophile press seems to focus on the Bentleys. Look at their "recommended component" lists - all supercar prices and performance. Perhaps a "Class A" list of sub $5k components would actually move equipment and bring in advertisers. Sure, every boy has a poster of a Lamborghini on his wall, and then grows up to drive the family around in a minivan. When he reads the audiophile press, he is really looking for his next minivan, yet for some reason the publishers and advertisers keep talking about the latest Lamborghini...

dalethorn's picture

I vote for continued coverage of the very high end, as long as it's high-end sound. A small analogy: Whether the Sennheiser Orpheus 2015 sounds better than a Stax SR009 or other competitor, unquestionably the $55k pricetag is for luxury of an extremely limited item, like Lamborghini cars. Let's think about that for a minute - do Lamborghinis outperform Corvettes? Then what you pay for isn't "car performance", it's luxury and status, with enough performance to satisfy the luxury customer. Not mentioning which luxury audio brands sell for high prices but don't perform with the best, still I think we can see that most of the audio ultra-high-end is made for performance.

crenca's picture

I too love reading about the ultra high end. I just wonder if the "audiophile" press is not overly tilted in that direction. The auto press seems to be better balanced, and better able to deal with the cost differentials in a much more clear, straightforward manner (for example, when they compare a $250k Lamborghini to a $65k Corvette). With the "audiophile" press, I sense a much more cavalier attitude to the cost differentials, and even a sort of resentment and arrogance about it sometimes. This is a generalization of course, but I think it is a valid one...

dalethorn's picture

Agree on all counts. It's like audiophile audio is still an adolescent.

Not.fooled.by.snake.oil.or.arrogant.pompous.rich.boys's picture

The amount of time and paper spent reviewing "audiophile" products that are affordable only to the top 1/1000th of the top 1% wealthiest members of our population in this country, is ridiculous. This type of smug, arrogant, "rich-boy" toys attitude is what completely turns people off from EVER wanting to be referred to as an "audiophile."

You "Rich-Boys" can take your $250,000.00 Lamborghini, $100,000.00 "hi-end" sound system, and your $5 million dollar yachts, and go sail far, far away to some distant star system where someone actually gives a damn about what you have, and that you have the means to afford it. Really?!

No one cares about "what great stuff you have" except you. Geez! Get over yourselves! Unfortunately, all the money in the world will never buy you "golden ears." Those are free, and you either have them or you don't.

What you hear as "differences" that justify an outrageous price, are nothing more than pompous personal opinions (or what "experts" have told you) and have no other realistic value, except your own self-glorification.

The person with $20 earbuds may have "golden ears," and realize that a sound system investment of $5k or less will please their ears for a lifetime of enjoyment. And, they will enjoy the music played through their sound system more than you ever will. Why? Because you will NEVER be satisfied until you have spent more than "the Jones's" did for their system.

Nellomilanese's picture

I have worked for years in the high-end auto industry...and driven daily almost every supercar...from Lambo to Ferrari to Apollo Gumpert, Bentley, Porsche, Maserati the Bugatti and Corvette, even the Atom and all the BMW Ms.
Now to compare the Corvette to a Lambo you're very very far off.
Yes 0-100 might be close and yes they might not be that far off in terms of performance around a given track as price would suggest but the Lambo is levels above. If you step down from a Lambo and into a Corvette you feel like you're in cheapo land.
And don't get me started on the technology and level of sophistication...decades apart.
It's like looking at the specs of 2 amps that can push 75W into 8ohms...thus both will play your speakers at around 100db...except one is AudioResearch Reference and the other is a 250 $ Onkyo LOL

dalethorn's picture

I'll accept your argument for the time being at least, but here - think about this one for awhile: Before WW2, the Italians led in tech engineering, but the Germans "borrowed" a lot of it, and combined with huge investments and good-old brute force, the modern legends of superior German engineering were born. I have at least 2 Leicas made in Germany, other similar things, but twice as much of things made in Italy and designed there. So where does that go? For me, the proof of the audio pudding is in the sound. And BTW, my new Beyerdynamic DT-1770 has a fantastic sound quality and soundstage, and it's a closed-back headphone, made in Germany. Another one for the Germans. Now if I were wealthy and wanted to impress young gold-diggers with my taste in fast cars, I would probably get a Lamborghini. But being the savage that I really am, I'll take the Corvette - stick of course.

Not.fooled.by.snake.oil.or.arrogant.pompous.rich.boys's picture

You should read my comment above, because I believe it applies to you, "Mr. Lambo."

I'm insulted by your comments about my favorite car (Corvette), and I hope, one day, to be able to afford a Vette "toy," and any year or model would make me very happy. Your "Lambo" spends all of it's time in your garage, or your mechanic's garage, not being regularly driven, unlike a Vette, that wants to be driven every day.

Ask if anybody cares about your Audio Research Reference amp. And don't knock Onkyo, Pioneer, Marantz, or any other "mid-fi" manufacturers, who work diligently to produce excellent gear, at a price range the average person can afford. At least those customers will value their investment, and enjoy the MUSIC they hear, and won't ever worry about whether they can afford to keep up with your unlimited spending habits. I seriously doubt YOU could ever hear the difference between those products anyway. All you care about is whether your gear costs more than your neighbor's gear. Too bad for you . . .

Nellomilanese's picture

Looking at ur posts I see u reply mostly out of anger and hate for the rich guys without actually stop and think b4 insulting people!
1st : read my post...I said I worked with high-end auto...point me where I said I own them? I drive a Toyota LOL
Yet just because I said Lambos are nicer you went on and basically run with it imagining stuff.
2nd: I was pointing to the danger of looking at specs only...thus my analogy between an 75W Onkyo vs Audio Research.
And if u can't hear the difference between them change hobby.
Same thing for the Corvette vs Lambo..it's about the driving experience...not only about how much bhp I can get per dollar.
Btw I owned Onkyo and Pioneer....again u assumed I own AudioResearch just because I praised it.
It's all in ur head dude...forgot ur pills maybe?
One more thing... since when someone's taste for a product or brand constitutes an insult for you?
So if I don't like Corvette I'm insulting you??

Grow up...some people like sophisticated, nice, expensive things and are willing to pay dearly for that last 0,5 % performance.

crenca's picture

I have also driven the majority of the cars you have (not the Apollo or a Bugatti or an Atom) and sorry, the analogy works. Yes, the luxury is very very nice but in terms of REAL performance they simply do not usually justify the extra cost, or rather there is usually a much lower priced car that comes awfully close that is (quite literally) a 1/4 of the price (or better). You pay quite a premium for all that leather, carbon, wood, and branding.

The thing is, it makes even less sense in the audiophile world (IMO) because the cost/performance relationship is even more skewed (or down right upside down). I am not speaking in terms of specs (mere watts, SPL, etc.), I am speaking in terms of SQ...

la musique's picture

The Problem is simple about all this.
We live in a world of LOOK AT ME I have better than you.
In HI END fi,I have seen soon many times certain people (of asian) just wanting to show of their purchase and not being able to understand anything about music replay.
SOOO we must sell at very EXPENSIVE price to justify.!!!!!
Enjoy the music is easy.
close your eyes, don't look at what is in front of you.
Vive la musique.

Not.fooled.by.snake.oil.or.arrogant.pompous.rich.boys's picture

What you said, la musique! You're right on point!

drblank's picture

I wonder how much longer they will be in business. Anyone have any current metrics on the number of people that bought and still use them? Have they broke the 100,000 user mark yet?

dalethorn's picture

I'd buy the Pono in a heartbeat, if it ran apps similar to my iPhone6s. I realize that some folks take a purist approach and don't want it cluttered with apps, but it's not a stay-at-home player, OK? It's portable, and carrying it and the large-ish iPhone6s-plus also is a no-go.

plw92's picture

I thing that audiophiles are subject to great derision because in a lot of cases it is well-deserved.

Can you imagine trying to explain your decision to purchase a set of car tires that cost well over $10,000? What magical properties do they have? How do they make driving better? Can you point to data to support the maker’s claims? If you bought a set, your relatives would probably start shopping for a padded room to house you.

The “audiophile” community seems to have no issues with $2000 USB cables which claim to have magical properties and are also, of course, more musical than all others. How about power cables that cost in the thousands? Frankly, I would have serious questions for the amplifier manufacturer if my amplifier sounded different when I changed the power leads.

I love stereo and listening to a great recording for me is on a par with attending a live concert. And, to me, there lies the gold standard. My humble stereo will reproduce the human voice or acoustic instrument with amazing fidelity. Electrified instruments sound splendid as well, but there is no solid baseline as to how electric instruments should sound, so fidelity claims for these are a bit dodgy. I know enough physics, chemistry and digital technology to know that digital cables will not make any changes to the audio output. Oh, how do you explain cable lifts to people? There is no logical reasoning possible.

We live in charmed times for music reproduction. A $2-4k stereo, if well selected, would easily outperform anything from the 80’s or 90’s. Why, when there is such spectacular equipment available, does the audiophile community retreat into the realm of snake oil and voodoo dolls? Perhaps we should be focusing on the 60’s goal of high-fidelity. If a system reproduces an acoustic guitar or a voice so well that can be mistaken for real, what more do we really need to add?

crenca's picture

Not so much why "magical" and insanely priced USB and power cables exist (the reason is simple - "a sucker born every minute"), but why the Audiophile press in general covers them at the rate they do? The other side of the coin is why they don't cover more gear in the "affordable" range, and why they don't contrast and compare such gear to the high end better.

Osgood Crinkly III's picture

No $4k stereo can provide more music than "anything from the 80's or 90's" (sic)." What's happened is that digital has so degraded the signal that reduced expectations and lowered standards are the norms -- you think you're eating filet mignon, when you're actually chewing on a cheese burger. If you think a CD or mp3 is music, you have been infected by this propaganda. Woe to you.

The only reason $4k is adequate is that the signal source is so bad that mediocrity, mid-fi, is now enough. True hi-end, Audio Reseach or Conrad Johnson, is obsolete and overkill. If only the so-called "hi-end" press were honest enough to tell you this. But no, they're shills for manufacturers of $30k amps, $60k speakers and $16k DACs. The "hi-end" press perpetuates the illusion to line their pockets.

volvic's picture

I have argued with people on these same pages over the cost of 200k speakers, yes they are expensive but the trickle down effect from costly gear over the last decade, to more modestly priced gear has improved tremendously to the point where you can now get a $1000 DAC that will keep you satisfied for a very long time and whose performance you couldn't come close to 10 years ago.

No, I don't need to hear the viola in the third row or to hear a mistake or miscue the oboist did or didn't do in the 3rd movement. I want to be able to hear the line of music that was recorded and appreciate what the composer wanted to convey. To that end the improvement in performance vis a vis cost for budget gear is at its highest it's ever been and that is good news for us all.

P.S. Stereophile has a Facebook page? Who knew.

AlexMetalFi's picture

...that has nothing to do with the cost of the $200k speakers and everything to do with advancement in digital technology (chipsets, fab, etc.).

In fact, floorstanding speakers if anything have steadily gone up (while other technologies have steadily gone down) as the industry redefines itself as one based on exclusivity than sheer performance. And this rebranding is a direct result of the economy tanking followed by an extremely anemic recovery, where now large amounts of expendable income for the average family is fairly low (certainly less than 20k). That in turn has forced the stereo industry to cater to a select group of people - hence why Martin Logan makes an $80k electrostatic speaker (a product that clearly makes zero sense for the general purpose audiophile market).

I think when it comes to speakers, the audiophile world has pushed folks into the monitor world, where a set of fantastic sounding 2-way or 3-way monitors can be had for under 5k (even under 2k, see the BMR Philarmonics). The average audiophile can build a complete system around that.

I do hope Stereophile recognizes this fact and has more monitor coverage (and for that matter articles about building a complete system for under 5k, under 10k, etc.). I feel individual component reviews are great, but complete system reviews are even better! Audio shows also need to follow suit, and have an under 5k room, and under 10k room etc.

plw92's picture

The speaker industry, especially in Canada, was thrust forward by research at the National Research Council of the Canadian government. This research spawned industry leaders such as PSB, Axiom, Paradigm and others. Axiom in particular is still reaping the benefits of that research given the accolades given to the recently released Bryston speakers. Brystons, by the way, are tweeked/rebadged Axioms.

AlexMetalFi's picture

I have no idea what that has to do with the topic at hand, i.e. "trickle-down" speaker economics.

Your point doesn't really comment on market forces driving floorstanding speakers to astronomical prices. Moreover, given that the research was done with tax payer dollars, I would expect the final products that resulted from it to be less than a completely privately funded design.

plw92's picture

My point is that a lot of the innovation in speakers has come out of psycho-acoustical research performed in university and institutional environments. The purveyors of high-priced towers leverage that knowledge and commercialise it. The trickle is from research to the industry, not from high-end builders to the mainstream.

AlexMetalFi's picture

You are addressing someone's else post about "trickle-down" economics where they made the analogy that the 20k+ set has technology in it that gets incorporated into lower-end models.

I made no such claim.

My main point was that speaker prices have been driven upward due to current market forces and an industry that has gone out of its way to alienate mainstream audiophiles (read: someone that doesn't have 20k+ to burn on speakers) more so than any kind of real breakthroughs by vendor's reference level products.

Osgood Crinkly III's picture

Your's is the defence of the mediocre, the stubborn acceptance of the lowest common denominator. No, you don't "need" to differentiate the viola in the "3rd row" because a general blur of instruments is just fine with you. You just want to be able to tap your toe to "the line of the music," whatever that is; and you have no patience with those who want more. There are those of us who don't listen for mistakes, but commonly need to discern first from second violins, English horns from oboes. Too bad digital only yields a myopic blur, a congealed aggregate, where only the toe tapper can contentedly follow "the line of the music," even though no such thing exists.

volvic's picture

And forgive me I wasn't clear, but I was making the example of 200k speakers to make the point that some of the technology in say the top end Kef's for instance has trickled down to their monitors which at $1000.00 are better overall (there are exceptions) better built and better sounding than monitors of the same price 20 years ago. That's all, was speaking in broad brush stroke generalities.

plw92's picture

And I think my point was missed too. Try explaining the value in $10,000 speaker wires to anyone not involved in the audiophile world. It's really heard to make a case for them and most likely your audience will think you mad as a hatter.

That really is the response to the original article.

Dylan Hunt's picture

the problem with this scared angry herd of computer nerds is their blind subservience to authority. they are too scared to trust their own senses and experience. They never think for themselves. they're extremely conformist to dogma and corrupt institutions of power and domination. they're anti-creative technocrat trolls. for them science and theory is an infallible perfection rather than makeshift and erroneous in the face of which their senses and experience are nothing, the infinite wisdom of shallow pop science is indisputable truth. no matter how many lies their sleazy conman Randi spreads they continue their blind devotion, senses be damned.

dalethorn's picture

From Star Trek, Balance of Terror (quote approximate): Commander: "How many comrades have we lost in this way, Centurion?" Centurion: "Our portion, Commander ...(pause)... is obedience."

It's a subtle line, but it speaks volumes to me. What we have is what we have, and you either ride the roller coaster or get off and hang with the other non-players. I for one like my offerings, knowing that I can't afford the 7 or 8 new items that I "really need" right now, but knowing in a different way that I'll get there by doing the background work now, and making better decisions later.

Dylan Hunt's picture

indeed expensive audio equipment is no great injustice or outrage as some pretend. those getting upset about a $400 pono because they're outraged about people listening to a higher resolution than CD is silly. I'm not even really into digital but pono is obviously an exceptional value. and the PS audio directstream dac looks very interesting too. the answers presented by the mass media are often simple answers for dishonest questions built on false assumptions.

billyb's picture

Regardless of why Pono has become a flashpoint for debate, and i think that's a shame, there are so many solutions for lossless portable audio that the debate or whatever is left of it is moot.

I can for example, load any lossless file i like on my ipod and have been able to for quite some time. at least when its drive works.

What i do use- on my iphone, is a cute little app called ds audio that allows me to play my entire home library of digital audio (much hi-res) anywhere in the world you can get an internet connection in full resolution if i like. i spent about $300 on a NAS for that. It's the most useful thing ever. Or i can downsample it all to save on bandwith when i'm out roaming. Say on roadtrips for example. I use the same NAS from Synology to direct out to a Wavelength Proton DAC through Shindo and Pass Labs gear at home. All the tech is there to enjoy music wherever you go anytime. Spotify, Tidal, et al as well. I don't get the fuss. I'm very happy with it all and didn't need to spend much for that aspect of playback. In fact, the digital side of the music industry seems to be the most value centric area in all of audio at the moment.

The super high end seems to give the least value of all and i agree with many comments above. The rise in retail cost for components seems to be in direct proportion to the quantity of expendable income available to a great deal of people and not necessarily based on any real value. Of course r&d is expensive, but the highest end is very Bling heavy, it's more like shopping at Chanel than for music playback equipment. Even the small boutique shops are going through the roof with prices. The market is corrupted with items that don't justify their cost up and down the scale. Just look at the amount of companies operating now, we could wipe off half of them and literally no one would notice. sorry it's true. no more project? just buy rega. music hall? same. if their were only 5 turntable models available in the world I'm not sure if we would miss any of the rest. And the competition for ever shrinking market share is the largest factor in high pricing.

What it upsetting for me is when i try to plan an upgrade and the options are so limited because of the inflated prices offered at retail audio shops. Even the most simple little devices are not sold at even close to their real value. I actually see the value in products from companies such as Wilson audio, the craftsmanship and innovation on display are staggering. But much of the high end simply doesn't connect the listener with enough value to justify the expense.
I would buy a m series or a porsche, at least my wife could ride along. And you do get what you pay for with them.

billyb's picture

Regardless of why Pono has become a flashpoint for debate, and i think that's a shame, there are so many solutions for lossless portable audio that the debate or whatever is left of it is moot.

I can for example, load any lossless file i like on my ipod and have been able to for quite some time. at least when its drive works.

What i do use- on my iphone, is a cute little app called ds audio that allows me to play my entire home library of digital audio (much hi-res) anywhere in the world you can get an internet connection in full resolution if i like. i spent about $300 on a NAS for that. It's the most useful thing ever. Or i can downsample it all to save on bandwith when i'm out roaming. Say on roadtrips for example. I use the same NAS from Synology to direct out to a Wavelength Proton DAC through Shindo and Pass Labs gear at home. All the tech is there to enjoy music wherever you go anytime. Spotify, Tidal, et al as well. I don't get the fuss. I'm very happy with it all and didn't need to spend much for that aspect of playback. In fact, the digital side of the music industry seems to be the most value centric area in all of audio at the moment.

The super high end seems to give the least value of all and i agree with many comments above. The rise in retail cost for components seems to be in direct proportion to the quantity of expendable income available to a great deal of people and not necessarily based on any real value. Of course r&d is expensive, but the highest end is very Bling heavy, it's more like shopping at Chanel than for music playback equipment. Even the small boutique shops are going through the roof with prices. The market is corrupted with items that don't justify their cost up and down the scale. Just look at the amount of companies operating now, we could wipe off half of them and literally no one would notice. sorry it's true. no more project? just buy rega. music hall? same. if their were only 5 turntable models available in the world I'm not sure if we would miss any of the rest. And the competition for ever shrinking market share is the largest factor in high pricing.

What it upsetting for me is when i try to plan an upgrade and the options are so limited because of the inflated prices offered at retail audio shops. Even the most simple little devices are not sold at even close to their real value. I actually see the value in products from companies such as Wilson audio, the craftsmanship and innovation on display are staggering. But much of the high end simply doesn't connect the listener with enough value to justify the expense.
I would buy a m series or a porsche, at least my wife could ride along. And you do get what you pay for with them.

Osgood Crinkly III's picture

Not only "Southern man," but every American don't need Neil Young. He can't sing, write songs or play the guitar. But miracles of miracles, his capitalistic venture into portable MP3 players has received the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval by the so-called "hi-end" audiophile press. Yeah, right. As if this isn't just another pug-pulling scam. And they even have a black T-shirt. Please, dear reader, consider what this hi-end audiophile press is. Yuck!...

volvic's picture

LOL!! Coming from a man who listens to Spotify to critique music on these pages, that's rich.

Not.fooled.by.snake.oil.or.arrogant.pompous.rich.boys's picture

I enjoy your magazine, and will continue to subscribe.

However, please consider reviewing gear that the "common man" can afford as a regular component (pun) of your periodical. Reviewing 2-3 super-hi-end components, each piece priced over $5K (or $30k for that matter) is nice for a short "pipe-dream," and to see where technology is going.

But, what I want to see, are thorough reviews of affordable components, in the $250 to $1500 range. These are items I may be able to save up for and purchase.

Even if I could, I would NEVER pay the outrageous prices these 1-person manufacturers charge for their "state of the art" components. They will all be "obsolete" and available at 1/100th of their original prices within 2 years anyway. Only an idiot would spend $2000 per foot for cables and speaker wire (a highly profitable business, if you can can successfully fool people into buying them). Most people, except perhaps, Stereophile editors and reviewers, will ever hear a difference between a $2000 per foot cable, and a $15 cable.

Finally, while Stereophile reviewers and editors may not be wealthy, or able to purchase, at retail price, the majority of the components they review, please keep in mind that you are exposed to a multitude of gear that most people will never see, let alone test and compare with other like products. Many times the editors and reviewers will end up keeping "comp" gear as a "thank you" for a great review. Over time, the reviewers and editors accumulate a hoard of top, high-end equipment, that was never paid for, given as a "gift," or purchased at a price phenomenally less than the retail (or wholesale) price. This allows them to compare unbelievably high-priced gear in their own home.

We "common people" will never have such industry "benefits" to listen to the "best of the best" gear, at home, on a daily basis. Because of this disparagement between your world and reality, a somewhat smug and condescending attitude comes through, belittling anything that costs under $10k.

Want to keep publishing your magazine for years to come? Then consider changing your format to reviewing the best of what the "common man" can afford, rather than what Mr. Richie-Rich, "Lambo" guy can afford. Otherwise, your readership population will eventually die-off, and so will your magazine. Seriously, that would truly be a shame.

John Atkinson's picture
Not.fooled.by.s... wrote:
what I want to see, are thorough reviews of affordable components, in the $250 to $1500 range. These are items I may be able to save up for and purchase.

While we do review some very expensive products we try to balance those reviews with coverage of affordable products. See our Budget Components" section on this website.

Not.fooled.by.s... wrote:
Many times the editors and reviewers will end up keeping "comp" gear as a "thank you" for a great review.

Not at this magazine. Once a product is reviewed, it is either returned, purchased, or kept as a formal long-term loaner to use as a reference for future reviews of comparable products. In the latter case, the product remains the property of the manufacturer and is returned on request.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Not.fooled.by.snake.oil.or.arrogant.pompous.rich.boys's picture

Mr. Atkinson,

Please accept my apology for any offense, as none was intended. Thank you for your clarification as to the status of gear that has been reviewed by Stereophile.

As to reviews of affordable products, the definition of "affordable" will be a subjective determination by each consumer. A $2500.00 turntable may be "affordable" for some audio aficionados, and entirely out of reach for others. That doesn't mean that particular audio consumer wouldn't spend more if they had enough disposable income, or that they don't care about the fidelity of the sound they hear.

These days, there are some decent TT's out there between $450.00 and $750.00 (with a tonearm), and while they may be considered "affordable," that doesn't mean that they sound "cheap." And, at the "affordable" range, many well-designed direct-drive TT's compete quite favorably with belt-drives containing a walnut-sized, plastic, electro-magnetic motor designed to power slot cars, held in place with rubber bands.

There are many wonderful, accurate speaker systems out there for under $5000.00 per pair, that are not just little bookshelf speakers held up with an expensive stand.

There are headphones under $250 that are remarkably accurate, and great sounding MM phono cartridges under $350 (not all folks can afford the expense of MC cartridges + a head amp).

Up to date tech CD players under $800.00? Great sounding, "full-sized" DACs under $500.00?

These are the types of gear, and price ranges (give or take 50%) that I believe are "affordable," without completely sacrificing the level of fidelity we all strive to achieve. There are not many reviews in Stereophile of gear fitting that description, yet $50,000.00 speaker systems, and $10,000.00 mono block amps are given quite lengthy reviews, while the "cheap stuff" get much shorter and less-thorough reviews. In my not-at-all-humble opinion, I believe it should be the other way around, because the "affordable" gear is what most people who appreciate quality sound reproduction can realistically justify, financially. While the $50k speakers and $20k TT's are not relevant to 99% of those same people.

Yes, it IS interesting, and, we do want to know what is the "cutting edge." And, yes, we can appreciate the technical genius, the craftsmanship, and artistic creativity of these ridiculously priced components. But in reality, it's like looking at gold in Ft. Knox -- you'll never have it. Thus, the hyper-priced gear should get MUCH shorter-lengthed reviews that highlight the innovations and precision, while the "affordable" gear should get a lot more attention. I believe short reviews are fine for all gear, because you can then review and publish a much higher number of relevant, "affordable" product reviews in the same number of printed pages.

The benefit? Now you'd be reaching out to the ears of younger generations, who probably don't know what they've been missing. BUT, if they did find out what they're missing, they will want hi-fidelity sound reproduction just as much as any of us seek the same. And, when they read Stereophile, they would then get honest, expert, individualized, and thoughtful reviews. AND, they will discover that they can likely afford to piece together a great system for financially much less than the "audiophile" conventional wisdom has consistently preached for the last 60 years.

Let's set a NEW example for the younger folks, that a great sounding system will be fun and affordable to put together. Upgrades can come later, right? Then, the children of the current 20-30 year-olds will be exposed to great sound and great music, as we likely were, and they, too, will pass on the experience.

Otherwise, as I already stated, we will die-off, and the notion of an "audiophile" will die with us. Kind of like the old "mimeograph" machines my high school teachers used in the early '70's.

My comments come from a background in music, with a degree in Music Performance & Composition from the Univ. of Denver, Lamont School of Music, and a lifetime (since age 12) of passionate interest and study in the physics of music, and fidelity sound reproduction for the home. I am also an on-air host for Denver's 24-hour public radio jazz station: 89.3 KUVO [FM](stream at kuvo.org).

Ok. I'm done, and now stepping off of the soapbox. Thanks for your patience in reading my diatribe, and I welcome any debate as a way to learn more about how much I don't know.

-- Mike Wulfsohn

RadarLove's picture

I got so much from my mid-fi equipment during the years... and yes, considering my budget limitations, I was on that HI-FI track, too. This is how I see HIGH-END today.

1.) The chain. HI-FI is about reproduction of music. Specifically, reproduction of conserved music. And High-End guys tend to spend big money on the very last mythical link to the recording chain. But still, what has never been recorded, will never be reproduced, regardless of the amount of big cash you have spent on your system. And I have never - ever heard, or read any article of Hi-End recoding gear...

2.) Turing. For artificial intelligence Alan Turing has made his famous test. A man-made something can be considered intelligent only, if it can not be distinguished in a blind test from a human. I believe the same test fits very well for HI-FI. Put a human singer into a darkened room, and do the blind test: If a listener can decide if she/he listens to a recording or live performance, than reproduction is not perfect. I don't think that even the most expensive equipment would outperform capable mid-fi on these tests. (And I don't even recommend to use musical instruments, I suppose human voice will be sufficient to embarrass all the fancy toys.)

3.) Price/quality enhancement ratio. Comparing HI-FI to perfomance cars is not totally adequate, in my opinion. Because cars can always go faster, but reproduction can't be any better than 1:1. And how things work - a good, harmonic contemporary mid-fi system is so close to the technically possible highest ratio, that it is simply illogical to spend far-far more money to achieve a fraction of a percent of enhancement in reproduction quality. Of course it's not forbidden. Just illogical.

4.) Psichology. I am far from being rich, so buying top-class HI END stuff is (and will ever be) just impossible for me. Still I am (had been) interested in musical reproduction, and had my own sets of equipments.
My summer system in my family's weekend house consists of some cheap, second (n-th) hand mid-fi gear.
But I have to tell you, I really liked how it played music!!! It was just great. I had spent long-long hours listening to my CDs there. This summer it turned out - incidentally - that all the greatness I had been so fond of, was an auto-on DSP effect of the DVD player... When I realized the issue, I have turned it off immediately - and the magic just disappeared. My system still sounds quite good... but it is far from its last years performance. And it has all been an effect, I wasn't aware of. :( It was so, so - disappointing. I have lost something. For ever. I don't think I will spend any more cents on audio gear...

X