Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy? - Page 8

Right, and I think the marketing hyperbole extends much further down the economic chain than one would think. I have to consider reviewers as a part of the big marketing machine, whether they're being genuine or not.

Internet sales has led to more consumer based product reviews for other products, but A/V has had its' marketing roots in professional reviews for as long as I can remember... and I'm older than dirt.

With A/V, you're simply not going to sell something, or as much of something, if there isn't reviews to support the product. It's changing a bit with the plethora of audio forums and discussions like these being out there but it's a slow transition. I'm convinced there's paid industry shills on these forums as well, there's just some consistent patterns appearing with regards to postings for it to be coincidence.

Hmm...., you think?

If you want to understand how this works, here's a great article. It's specifically about book reviews, but if you think the same thing doesn't happen with product reviews, you probably shouldn't be allowed to cut your own meat.

Yeah, trying to be diplomatic about it though.

Speaking of hyperbole, I assume your statement applies to entire AV industry. There is little that is unique to high-end there. If you don't believe it, here is a quick random example from the list of features on an Onkyo AVR: http://www.onkyousa.com/prod_class.cfm?class=Receiver&Source=sidemenu

"9in/2out HDMI Support for 3D, Audio Return Channel, DeepColor™, x.v.Color™, LipSync, Dolby® TrueHD, DTS-HD Master Audio™, DVD-Audio, Super Audio CD, Multichannel PCM, and CEC"

See the items in blue? There is no TV or movie programming that is released that uses either. Yet they are mentioned to make you think the unit somehow magically creates "deep" color. Let's not even talk about 24-bit or even 32-bit DACs which is constantly mentioned but has no reality behind it. There are a ton of fantasy features that are promoted regardless of product tier.

As for reviews, bad and good ones exist for all classes of products. What I especially dislike are reviews that are completely devoid of any measurements. Ironically, high-end magazine/site Stereophile almost always provides such data, making it an invaluable source of information for objective analysis of equipment performance. Strange then that so much member angst is reserved for them.

As noted there is a much bigger worry with respect to consumer reviews, posted under aliases with no way of verifying intent and authenticity. I find it very curious when vocal members have no equipment listed in their profiles and never talk about any audio equipment they own. Maybe you can explain to me their purpose here if it is not to share experiences as the rest of us do.

Yes, we are all here to just share subjective impressions. That is how the "science" of audio and video is advanced.

That is a very thought-provoking article. I'm sure that if we wanted to nominate people for a list of local shills, we'd come up with a fairly consistent list.

Interesting how the same brands (and not their competitors) come up again and again in certain participant's posts.

It seems certain vendors are associated with shilling a lot more than others. I would say The Upgrape Company tops the list. WyWires had a big shill contingent for a while there, and Schiit is bringing up the rear.

Does this member look like a shill for a store?:

Yes, of course. Your example fits the second definition of shill here, but I was thinking of the first meaning, associated with people posing as ordinary customers. I was trying to relate that to the interesting article mcnarus posted about shill book reviews.

I've noticed Audio Circle to be infested with shills of both types, far worse than here.

Not only that, but since he doesn't sell anything that really makes music, he's a dishonest shill, as well.

Remember that dishonesty implies knowing better. I suspect that our correspondent was simply caught in the audiophile myth that audio systems are like musical instruments.

Of course those of us who understand the meaning of words and have done a little introspection know that we hope they aren't! ;-)

True. Perhaps I was overly harsh. He isn't dishonest. He just doesn't know any better.

Sure. Some of them even have access to Star Trek transporters posting on multiple website whenever a particular product that they may own is contemplated for purchase or actually bought. I don't know if they get paid though but they're like Walmart greeters welcoming folks for browsing the brand or thanking them after they bought it. "Wow, great speakers! Post some pics! Welcome to the family." And they're just as adept at rising to the defense like ants or termites protecting the innards of the hive.

"Welcome to the family" LOL. That is so true!

They have lots of review sub-forums. I wonder why they were set up? I just checked the cable review forum, and it seems like at least one in three reviews is for WyWires. I've noticed the Schiit schiills branching out to several forums too, like the Asylum, Head-Fi and others.

And the censorship is insane too. It seems to have a protection racket business model, kind of like resellerratings.com

Nice thread.

I enjoyed the texts about Michael Fremer's controversial behaviour

I take it then all of you guys are in agreement?

About you and the business you're in?

Yes.

Based on some of the other references, I decided that he was pretty well spent by the time he worked his magic on me! ;-)

Agreed. I was banned for life on a certain shall we say placenta-oriented pro audio forum after making one very innocent post. Apparently all they had to see is my name.

After seeing the hatchet job they did on Ethan, I count myself lucky. Point is, many forums aren't exactly a picture of free speech or open minds.
Edited by arnyk - 8/31/12 at 3:44am

I remember reading those posts too. That's a totally crazy forum. The people there seemed like a bunch of button-pushers that didn't know anything at all about electronics design, but thought of themselves as gurus. I mean, just how many errors and misconceptions is it possible to pack into a single post?

Agreed.

I can get into the posts if I imagine each one prefixed with: "Like man, and then if..."

Fo shizzle, Arny.

That is pretty wild imagination being applied to how sampling theory works in that other forum! Reminds me of this description of SACD I read from another forum poster elsewhere:

"Reading between the lines and speculating wildly, SACD seems to me
to be a bit stream-oriented digital data coding technique, one that
effectively uses data words of various lengths for different parts
of the audio spectrum and/or sound levels. There seem to be claims
that such data that is transmitted is not subject to lossy
compression, but if, as I may erroneously or correctly infer,
different parts of the frequency and/or amplitude domains are coded
with different length data words, then it SACD is in fact a form of
perceptual (lossy) coding. FWIW, HDCD seems to have implemented a
subset of these benefits."

I think these two people must be neighbors. What say you? Fo shizzle???

Word, bro.

If you really understand spectrally shaping quanlization error, the above will strike a chord. SACD is a pretty aggressive implementation of this, qualified by the fact that it starts out with the bar set high enough to be perceptually irrelevant.

What's so pathetic is the guy was proven totally wrong by his own friends, yet he never posted an apology to me.

--Ethan

Yep, seems obvious.

Your point?

Likely something about closed minds in lockstep, the universe being more unknowable and how accepted theories are sometimes later proven wrong, etc.. So therefore, lets all reserve judgement and be prepared to throw out what evidence we do have and assume that it will all be turned upon its head eventually as a result of some new way of measurement or new theory which will finally validate all the long-suffering, "I don't care what you say, I can hear it, I KNOW I can!" audio hobbyists.

Below is one of the more telling JS posts from the past. In a nutshell, he was testing cables blind for a while, but was getting too stressed from the process. Though not specifically stated here, it was likely stressful because audible differences were too difficult to hear, which would certainly be troubling for a cable marketer. So he dropped that evaluation method altogether for a more natural method whereby his experience would be his guide. Here then, audible differences became more easily identified and characterized. Bringing in the other parts of the (creative) brain will tend to do that for you.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1192182/if-power-cables-make-a-diffrence-then-why-not/1320_60#post_18014233
Edited by CruelInventions - 9/3/12 at 10:48am

No kidding. I was in THIS thread a while ago that went on forever with a "pro recording engineer" whose entire argument was that someday his unicorn theories will be proven correct because he knows he can hear the difference between analog and digital "summing." He kept insisting that blind tests are invalid due to "stress," and that more research is needed using MRIs. I eventually asked brain expert and AVS member Kal Rubinson about the suitability of MRIs to assess DBT stress. Even real info from a real expert was unable to sway this guy.

--Ethan