AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy? - Page 14

post #391 of 3048
9/27/12 at 11:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOH View Post

It is funny, but I think she's a plant, it's a bit. It may be legit, but there's some tells that just don't ring true.
While it is impossible to know for sure, the video is posted on a commercial site so FTC rules around full disclosure of commercial interest probably applies but there is none. You can see the reference to the site in the author's comment under the video:

"Sam Roberts talked to Rachel, who was waiting on line for an iPhone 5 on 5th Avenue in Manhattan for no apparent reason. This woman is not a plant, she is a real person, and she is brilliant. For more see http://notsam.com or @notsam on twitter."

So what do you say guys? Should we go and save these people? I am pretty sure she needs saving (financially) more than a high-network lawyer or doctor who is buying expensive audio cables. smile.gif

Poor girl doesn't know that the $199 is not the true cost of the real phone. She would have to cough up $50/month for data plan and such. Over two year life of that phone before the next upgrade, that would add up to another $1,200 making the total cost $1,400. Over say, 6 years, we are talking nearly $5,000. In our family our post-smartphone cell bill ballooned to over $250/month. In the same two year period our expenses for just the phone bill is $6,000. Add another cycle to that and we are at a whopping $12,000. Did someone say you don't spend $10,000 on your phone? I think not! This is pure luxury. Being able to play games, browse the web, do email, etc. on the run. Before the cellphone revolution, we used to pay $16/month for home phone!

I am actually getting ready to pay $600 for my phone upgrade because my carrier, Verizon, will take away my unlimited data plan if I take advantage of the subsidy and get it for $199. So don't ask me to join you for protest against smartphones if you choose to take up that mission. biggrin.gif
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #392 of 3048
9/27/12 at 11:23am
Where's dragon or local in this thread?



Sent from my iPhone4 using Tapatalk
Reply
Reply
post #393 of 3048
9/27/12 at 11:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

They aren't needed to know if a treatment is 'objectively' good (assuming we agree on what objective targets equal 'good'). But I'm sorry, Ethan, they really are needed to know if the listener's preference has been influenced by non-audio factors. And this is not a trivial point as regards acoustic treatments....it is a real possibility. And you know I detest amir's tactics and obfuscations, but here he has a point.

I know what you're saying, and I do understand the value of blind testing for preference. But the improvement - not just the "difference" - is so obvious it's incomprehensible to me that anyone would question the benefit of a properly treated room. This is why I said it's not necessary to disconnect your tweeters to know if you prefer the sound with them connected. It's also why I think Olive's findings that people universally prefer flat and accurate in loudspeakers can be applied equally to rooms. So in my mind that testing for preference has already been done. If we know for sure that people prefer speakers that are flat and don't ring, then the same applies for the coloration added by rooms.
Quote:
alas for acoustic treatments we do NOT have a standardized measured data set, like we do the NRC-tested loudspeakers

ASTM C423 specifies how absorber products are to be tested, though it ignores how absorbers are used in a home setting, and especially how corner placement affects the results. That's why I wrote my article Test Methods for Acoustic Treatment Products for Sound & Vibration magazine, to get pro acousticians at least thinking about the need to update the standard tests.
Quote:
DBTs would be hard to do without actually blindfolding someone.

I've thought about that many times. I've seen setups at audiophile shows where two adjacent rooms were decked out with identical gear, with one room treated and the other not treated. So that could work with blindfolds, with someone else leading listeners between the two rooms. I've also thought about how to "turn treatment on and off" in a room, perhaps with motorized MDF baffles that swing into place to cover all the bass traps and other absorbers. But I don't have $100,000 to implement that!

And Yes times 500 about Amir's tactics and obfuscations. biggrin.gif

--Ethan
Reply
Reply
post #394 of 3048
9/27/12 at 12:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOH View Post

It is funny, but I think she's a plant, it's a bit. It may be legit, but there's some tells that just don't ring true.

Maybe, but it's pretty well done if that's the case. The thing is with humans, there's a tendancy for the truth to be stranger than fiction!
Come to think of it I saw a pretty clever ad by Samsung along the same lines, where people in line for the iPhone were being told; "got that already", by people that had Galaxy III's.
Reply
Reply
post #395 of 3048
9/27/12 at 12:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

So what do you say guys? Should we go and save these people? I am pretty sure she needs saving (financially) more than a high-network lawyer or doctor who is buying expensive audio cables. smile.gif

Nope, bottom line is that she will end up with something useful that actually does what it claims to do.
The same can't be said for the latter.
Reply
Reply
post #396 of 3048
9/27/12 at 2:21pm
Is it really so surprising that someone in the high-end audio business doesn't know the difference between selling a product and committing fraud?
Reply
Reply
post #397 of 3048
9/27/12 at 2:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

Nope, bottom line is that she will end up with something useful that actually does what it claims to do.
The same can't be said for the latter.
She will end up with something useful even if she bought a free smartphone. And she would not have to sit in line for days to get it. She is paying for luxury that makes her *feel* good. That's what she is doing. Isn't the person buying that expensive cable having the same satisfaction?

Years ago when the original iPod came out, we tore it apart bit by bit trying to figure out its key to success. We noticed some small details. Take a look at this:

apple-ipod-classic-4.jpg

See anything out of ordinary? Let me help. Here is a generic headphone jack that is PCB mounted:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQag_3NTSJhxHvfSIA04-OQLpDnGDV5o9VMEVHUMGqqpPLUdGTOCw

See the difference? No? See how the connector surrounds is shiny metal? You can also get them in plastic black. What you can't get them in, at least not then, was color matched to the iPod. Apple paid to have custom designed one of the most trivial and commoditized parts around. Needless to say, that cost money and that cost was passed to the consumer. The customer did not benefit in any way from its functionality. It was still a headphone jack. But that tiny attention to design and look of the device, likely snagged their emotional side. And we know that has been and continues to be one of the main reasons people buy Apple products in such high volumes.

I can tell this story 1000 times and there is nary of a negative reaction. If anything folks praise apple for such things. Yet we are up in arms if someone makes a fancy looking cable and charges more for it. We seem to want to leave no room for the cable buyer to feel good about their purchase even though we give so much slack to the iOS Apple buyer.

Just saying smile.gif.
Reply
Reply
post #398 of 3048
9/27/12 at 2:33pm
Is it really so surprising that someone in the high-end audio business doesn't know the difference between selling a product and committing fraud?
Reply
Reply
post #399 of 3048
9/27/12 at 2:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

I know what you're saying, and I do understand the value of blind testing for preference. But the improvement - not just the "difference" - is so obvious it's incomprehensible to me that anyone would question the benefit of a properly treated room.
What if someone did question those "improvements"; e.g., when given a choice between absorbing high gain early reflections on the side walls vs leaving them alone. Which do you think listeners would prefer? Which do you think listeners would say makes vocals/dialogue easier to understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

It's also why I think Olive's findings that people universally prefer flat and accurate in loudspeakers can be applied equally to rooms. So in my mind that testing for preference has already been done. If we know for sure that people prefer speakers that are flat and don't ring, then the same applies for the coloration added by rooms.
Olive's tests showed that the flatter and smoother a speaker measured in an anechoic chamber, the more it was preferred in blind listening tests. Those same speakers were not flat in-room, but instead had a downward tilted response, a tilt that would later be exploited when Olive was testing preference in his room correction comparison. If you equate accurate with flat response in-room, then that turned out not to be what listeners preferred; hence the validity of Krabapple's comments that there are benefits to blind testing even when differences are obvious, like with room treatments. What you measure as an improvement might not be what listeners prefer.
Reply
Reply
post #400 of 3048
9/27/12 at 3:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

If you actually read what Sean wrote, you'd understand that people prefer a playback that is as accurate and neutral as possible. The speakers that are closest to flat are the ones that are universally preferred. When the meters say it's good, so do the ears.

So I know Sean is well respected but this doesn't pass the sniff test to me. How would he explain the popularity of Bose speakers? Or the "Loudness" button that was so prevalent on gear in the 90s?

I'm sure he's right because I have no data at all, but it's 180 degrees from what I would have thought.
Reply
Reply
post #401 of 3048
9/27/12 at 3:36pm
Quote:
So I know Sean is well respected but this doesn't pass the sniff test to me. How would he explain the popularity of Bose speakers?
Bose isn't chosen by people using blind comparisons.
Quote:
Or the "Loudness" button that was so prevalent on gear in the 90s?
Was there still a loudness button in the 1990s? Anyway, the point f the loudness button was to make the sound seem more flat when listening at low volumes. Also, nobody used a blind test to decide whether to engage it.
Reply
Reply
post #402 of 3048
9/27/12 at 3:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

I know what you're saying, and I do understand the value of blind testing for preference. But the improvement - not just the "difference" - is so obvious it's incomprehensible to me that anyone would question the benefit of a properly treated room. This is why I said it's not necessary to disconnect your tweeters to know if you prefer the sound with them connected. It's also why I think Olive's findings that people universally prefer flat and accurate in loudspeakers can be applied equally to rooms. So in my mind that testing for preference has already been done. If we know for sure that people prefer speakers that are flat and don't ring, then the same applies for the coloration added by rooms.

Careful. Olive's studies, typically for psychacoustic studies (and much science involving living organisms generally), do not find that people universally anything. Nor could they 'prove' such a thing -- no one can sample every human being on this matter.

What Olive's study describes is a correlation...these are hardly ever 100% perfect even among the sampled subjects.

It may very well be that the observed *trend* towards preferring loudspeakers that 'measure well' will prove true for treatments that help a room 'measure well' too. But those studies haven't been done, as far as I know. AFAIK there isn't even any facility comparable to Harman's loudspeaker testing room, or NRC's anaechoic measurment facility, to allow for benchmarking of acoustic treatment products, much less comparison.
Edited by krabapple - 9/27/12 at 4:04pm
Reply
Reply
post #403 of 3048
9/27/12 at 4:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

They aren't needed to know if a treatment is 'objectively' good (assuming we agree on what objective targets equal 'good'). But I'm sorry, Ethan, they really are needed to know if the listener's preference has been influenced by non-audio factors. And this is not a trivial point as regards acoustic treatments....it is a real possibility. And you know I detest amir's tactics and obfuscations, but here he has a point.

I know what you're saying, and I do understand the value of blind testing for preference. But the improvement - not just the "difference" - is so obvious it's incomprehensible to me that anyone would question the benefit of a properly treated room. This is why I said it's not necessary to disconnect your tweeters to know if you prefer the sound with them connected. It's also why I think Olive's findings that people universally prefer flat and accurate in loudspeakers can be applied equally to rooms. So in my mind that testing for preference has already been done. If we know for sure that people prefer speakers that are flat and don't ring, then the same applies for the coloration added by rooms.
Quote:
alas for acoustic treatments we do NOT have a standardized measured data set, like we do the NRC-tested loudspeakers

ASTM C423 specifies how absorber products are to be tested, though it ignores how absorbers are used in a home setting, and especially how corner placement affects the results. That's why I wrote my article Test Methods for Acoustic Treatment Products for Sound & Vibration magazine, to get pro acousticians at least thinking about the need to update the standard tests.
Quote:
DBTs would be hard to do without actually blindfolding someone.

I've thought about that many times. I've seen setups at audiophile shows where two adjacent rooms were decked out with identical gear, with one room treated and the other not treated. So that could work with blindfolds, with someone else leading listeners between the two rooms. I've also thought about how to "turn treatment on and off" in a room, perhaps with motorized MDF baffles that swing into place to cover all the bass traps and other absorbers. But I don't have $100,000 to implement that!

And Yes times 500 about Amir's tactics and obfuscations. biggrin.gif

--Ethan

Like this room?
Harman Reference Listening room
SeanHessTraining+in+Ref.png ..Untitled+Image+10.png
Edited by mtbdudex - 9/27/12 at 4:29pm
Reply
Reply
post #404 of 3048
9/27/12 at 4:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Bose isn't chosen by people using blind comparisons.

People make a lot of decisions without blind comparisons. Surely some of Bose's success can be attributed to brand bias and marketing, but all of it? Again no data on my part other than casual observation but people seem to actually like the things.
Reply
Reply
post #405 of 3048
9/27/12 at 4:07pm
Duplicate post...sorry wink.gif
Edited by EEcle - 9/27/12 at 6:30pm
Reply
Reply
post #406 of 3048
9/27/12 at 4:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EEcle View Post

People make a lot of decisions without blind comparisons. Surely some of Bose's success can be attributed to brand bias and marketing, but all of it? Again no data on my part other than casual observation but people seem to actually like the things.

And again, you haven't read the research, which is hardly confined to audio products, that shows how EXTREMELY biased one's preferences can be without regard to actual 'quality', or even actual *difference*. The most famous recent example being people tending to strongly prefer wine with more expensive label/price tag , even though in reality it's the exact same plonk as in the cheaper bottle.

Btw, I owned Bose 901s for years, in my 20's and early 30s, so I'm not a Bose hater. ( 901s are sold with their own dedicated equalizer, which in retrospect makes me laugh at the sheer balls Dr. Bose had in marketing them). But the 901s were their boutique product, not their best sellers, which must be those tiny cubes and the Bose wave radio. When people have no fair comparison -- and demo-ing in a Best Buy or even a high-end audio salon is NOT a fair comparison -- all sorts of factors come into play (like simple level mismatch between the things being compared, in addition to non-audio factors).

Meanwhile, Bose has done a fantastic brand-building job over the years -- even today they're the only audio advertiser I typically see in the non-audio magazines and newspapers I read. That's their real strength, I think: marketing savvy. They are also famously aggressive about 'punishing' bad reviews....you don't see Bose products bench tested much in print. wink.gif
Reply
Reply
post #407 of 3048
9/27/12 at 4:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Isn't the person buying that expensive cable having the same satisfaction?.

Yes absolutely, but again you either skirt the issue or are in need of some drug that helps you focus on the topic at hand.

This discussion isn't about the buyer or what the product sells for, it's about the seller's ethics.

Regardless of how it's built, iPhone says: "This phone does X,Y & Z"...... and guess what..... it does X,Y & Z!!

Regardless of how it's built, a "high-end" cable vendor say's "my cable will lift the veil off your system" .....and guess what...... it doesn't.
Reply
Reply
post #408 of 3048
9/27/12 at 5:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EEcle View Post

People make a lot of decisions without blind comparisons.....
Yes, that is why the consumer marketplace is full of woo woo products;) biggrin.gif
Reply
Reply
post #409 of 3048
9/27/12 at 5:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EEcle View Post

Or the "Loudness" button that was so prevalent on gear in the 90s?
Loudness compensation is still prevalent on modern gear, just more sophisticated (Audyssey Dynamic EQ, Dolby Volume, THX Loudness Plus).
Reply
Reply
post #410 of 3048
9/27/12 at 5:43pm
Quote:
People make a lot of decisions without blind comparisons.
True. What's your point?
Quote:
Surely some of Bose's success can be attributed to brand bias and marketing, but all of it?
Why not? Marketing is really, really effective. That's why companies do it. Besides, Bose makes it utterly impossible to do any side by side comparisons before purchase.

BTW, I think Bose does not deserve the blanket bad rep it has. The little cubes are a poor product, but Bose is hardly alone in making subpar speakers. The Wave Radio is a pretty good tabletop radio, as tabletop radios go. Comparing it to a good component system makes no sense.
Reply
Reply
post #411 of 3048
9/27/12 at 5:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

And again, you haven't read the research, which is hardly confined to audio products, that shows how EXTREMELY biased one's preferences can be without regard to actual 'quality', or even actual *difference*. The most famous recent example being people tending to strongly prefer wine with more expensive label/price tag , even though in reality it's the exact same plonk as in the cheaper bottle.

Why the attitude? We agree on what you said above, but I'm asking whether this bias is a better explanation for Bose sales than people actually liking the performance of the product. It's an awfully cynical assertion and, in my opinion, pretty unlikely. Bose products have a distinctly exaggerated mid-range that certainly sound *different* than the other speakers on the shelf. I would think the sound of the speakers would weigh at least moderately in the purchasing decision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

When people have no fair comparison -- and demo-ing in a Best Buy or even a high-end audio salon is NOT a fair comparison -- all sorts of factors come into play (like simple level mismatch between the things being compared, in addition to non-audio factors).

These things would go against Bose as often as for them.


Even if we throw out the Bose issue, would we expect someone to blind test the "loudness" button on their boom box? Or the "mega bass" button? Of course not, it's easy to tell when those settings are turned on. And the fact that they exist means that someone's product testing showed that a significant portion of users liked the feature. Which brings me back to my original musing, do people universally prefer flat, accurate reproduction? There just seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that they don't.
Reply
Reply
post #412 of 3048
9/27/12 at 5:57pm
Quote:
There just seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that they don't.
The plural of anecdote is not data. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #413 of 3048
9/27/12 at 6:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Quote:
Surely some of Bose's success can be attributed to brand bias and marketing, but all of it?

Why not? Marketing is really, really effective. That's why companies do it.

Because if Bose speakers made all your music sound like Alvin and the Chipmunks then I'm reasonably sure no one would buy them. If we could attribute *all* of their success to marketing then people would buy them if they were anything better than broken.

I really didn't intend to pick on Bose, they were just the first thing that came to mind when I needed an example of non-linear response.
Reply
Reply
post #414 of 3048
9/27/12 at 6:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

The plural of anecdote is not data. smile.gif

Totally agree. I acknowledged earlier that I'm probably wrong given Sean Olive's research. I just don't understand why.

You could be right. People see the "mega bass" button and assume the device sounds better with it on, even if they would choose differently in a controlled test. Hard for me to believe people are that dishonest with themselves when they're setting up their discman biggrin.gif but I suppose it's possible.
Edited by EEcle - 9/27/12 at 7:13pm
Reply
Reply
post #415 of 3048
9/27/12 at 6:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

Quote:
People make a lot of decisions without blind comparisons.....
Yes, that is why the consumer marketplace is full of woo woo products;) biggrin.gif

Come on now, you don't blind test everything you buy do you? You must have some other way of determining whether you're about to buy woo woo biggrin.gif

Just last night I went to the frozen yogurt place and they had "Orange Supreme" next to "Raspberry Breeze" or something. I tasted both, preferred the orange and purchased a bowl. I might have selected the orange because I was swayed by the name telling me it was superior to the others...or perhaps I just didn't need a blind test to know I like orange better than raspberry cool.gif
Reply
Reply
post #416 of 3048
9/27/12 at 6:27pm
Quote:
Because if Bose speakers made all your music sound like Alvin and the Chipmunks then I'm reasonably sure no one would buy them. If we could attribute *all* of their success to marketing then people would buy them if they were anything better than broken.
You're moving the goalposts here. Your original question was, "If people prefer flat frequency response, why does anybody buy Bose?" And the answer is, they prefer flat frequency response when presented a choice in blind, level-matched tests. So we know what their sound quality preference is. If they exhibit a different preference in the marketplace, we may reasonably assume that this different preference reflects the influence of non-sonic factors.

If we didn't have Sean Olive's data, we might reasonably conclude from anecdotal evidence that people preferred something other than flat frequency response. But we do have Sean Olive's data. When the anecdotes and the data conflict, the first thing you should do is not question the data. The first thing you should do is ask whether there's a way to square the two. Attributing the market behavior to no-sonic factors does so, and has a lot of empirical heft behind it.
Reply
Reply
post #417 of 3048
9/27/12 at 6:33pm
Quote:
Come on now, you don't blind test everything you buy do you? You must have some other way of determining whether you're about to buy woo woo
It's called measurements. I'm betting from your screen name you know something about them.
Quote:
Just last night I went to the frozen yogurt place and they had "Orange Supreme" next to "Raspberry Breeze" or something. I tasted both, preferred the orange and purchased a bowl. I might have selected the orange because I was swayed by the name telling me it was superior to the others
Yes, exactly. You don't know why you preferred the former. On the other hand, you were happy, which is the whole point. It doesn't matter why.

In audio, however, it does matter if you're on a limited budget and want to maximize real sound quality.
Reply
Reply
post #418 of 3048
9/27/12 at 6:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EEcle View Post

Which brings me back to my original musing, do people universally prefer flat, accurate reproduction?
The only papers I've read on this were from Jan Pedersen (Lyngdorf) and Sean Olive (Harman), both of which were researching target curves for their respective room correction systems. Turns out that people prefered sound that was perceptually flat, not measured flat. Makes sense, since our human hearing is less sensitive in the lower frequencies, so a boost in that range gives the impression that we're hearing all frequencies equally.
Reply
Reply
post #419 of 3048
9/27/12 at 6:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

If we didn't have Sean Olive's data, we might reasonably conclude from anecdotal evidence that people preferred something other than flat frequency response. But we do have Sean Olive's data. When the anecdotes and the data conflict, the first thing you should do is not question the data. The first thing you should do is ask whether there's a way to square the two. Attributing the market behavior to no-sonic factors does so, and has a lot of empirical heft behind it.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you here. But you have to admit it's strange, an entire population acting against their best interest.

I can't think of any other product category where consumers exhibit this behavior. People claim to like stylish, powerful, easy to use phones and they buy the iPhone. People claim to like reliable, roomy cars with good gas mileage and they buy Camrys. In every category I can think of, and certainly every one in which I've worked, the market research matches the consumer behavior.
Reply
Reply
post #420 of 3048
9/27/12 at 7:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

The only papers I've read on this were from Jan Pedersen (Lyngdorf) and Sean Olive (Harman), both of which were researching target curves for their respective room correction systems. Turns out that people prefered sound that was perceptually flat, not measured flat. Makes sense, since our human hearing is less sensitive in the lower frequencies, so a boost in that range gives the impression that we're hearing all frequencies equally.

This is what I was missing, thank you!
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?