Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
[snip]
Yes - if the innocent or gullable are mislead into thinking you
*have* to pay for the above to obtain good quality results for the
sound.
snip
The problem being that this [supply of 'high end' hifi] relies on
exploiting the ignorance of the purchaser and misleading them into
sending money, thinking they are getting something for the extra cash
which they may not.


But they *are* getting something extra for the cash?! They're getting
status, myth-worship, and the aesthetic.

But is this what "they" actually wanted/expected for the money? And
by "they" do you mean everyone?


[wry smile]

'They' are the people (in question) who buy/are in the market for
esoteric hifi stuff;

'Wants and expectations' - I think at the point of sale, 'yes', or they
wouldn't buy it. 10 minutes after leaving the shop, they'll question
what they've bought, dismiss nagging doubts, then toddle off home. Some
time after setting up their wunderamp, and having received opinion,
fettled their newborn, and actually listened to the thing, I'd guess
that in 20% of cases they'll be satisfied. If they're satisfied they'll
keep it until it breaks. If not, they'll 'upgrade'.

More tangibly they could well be getting higher quality components (from
case to switches to electronics) and

Question as above.


controversially (but don't discount it) better sound.

s/controversially/allegedly/ :-)


:-)


But are they? It would often be difficult for anyone to know on the
basis of the magazine 'reviews', the sale methods in the shops, and the
decisions they make on that basis.


They *think* they are - at least at the point of sale. Of course it's
interesting why they think that, and any of a number of very shady sales
techniques could illuminate this issue. I've already listed a few
tangibles that make something 'good'. Does this matter? Below ...

It's just a product of marketing followed by competitive materialism
with a whiff of tangible benefit. 'Ignorant' is a bit strong IMO.

'Ignorant' means that one doesn't have the necessary/relevant information.
This is either the case, or it is not. It seems to me blatently obvious
that this is likely to be the case in the situations being discussed.


Well, ignorant can be seen as a tad derogatory?! I'd prefer fickle. I
very rarely buy posh stuff, but when I do I consider myself 'daft'.
Perhaps it's a dialect thing; I wouldn't like to be called 'ignorant'
but I'd get over it :-)

I do believe that people, on the whole, *know* this is going on.

I have serious doubts about that "on the whole". If so, why would so
much unsubstantated/incorrect/vacuous nonsense appear in the magazines,
and some people then keep saying things which show they take it seriously?


It'd help me if you could give an example. But let's just say the review
mentioned 'soundstage like no other'. That David Price bloke is
incredible on that sort of thing. He must have bat ears or a peculiar
sense of mischief. Whatever. It's just gilding the lily. The fact is
that this reviewed product is the latest in a shiny line and it's being
pushed in what is little more than a sales catalogue. The nonsense
printed is there because it's in the publisher's interest. People buy it
(the magazine and the product) because they are conspicuous consumers
and there's the possibility of an increase in utility.

Why rubbish in the mags - it sells mags and the products within;
Why do people buy the mags/products - because they have (access to) the
money, they like to show that fact, and they believe for a while at
least that a tangible benefit will arise. In that order.

The concern here is that having read such material, they may assume the
'information' gives them a well-informed basis for decisions, when it
reality it does nothing of the kind.

Why would people take seriously 'comparisons' in a shop that may well
be meaningless, and purchase on that basis? The problem here is the
same as the above.

I agree that many people who go into a audio shop are aware they don't know
much about how the items work. They may also suspect that the salepeople
are ignorant or biassed. But on what basis do they then decide? Amd how do
they spot when the salespeople are using methods which would easily
mislead? They may or may not be aware of their ignorance, but the basis may
still be that ignorance - exploited by the methods used in the magazines
and shops.


Yes, that's one of the ways our evolved system of capitalism operates.

I would argue that many buy magazines, or consult a dealer, with the wish
to get reliable information and advice. OK, some people will also buy mags
as 'jewellery catalogues' and just to see pictures of wildly expensive
items they will never own, see, or hear. But is this the reason people buy
such magazines, or consult a dealer, before choosing what they actually buy
and take home?


I think so. Peer judgements as well I suppose.

I wish I had your/Keith's blythe confidence that this didn't matter.
However my own experience over the years does not lead me to share your
views, I'm afraid.


I really don't think it matters if people choose to spend stupid money
on hifi. Ridiculous maybe - think about it - spend 6 months' wages on an
*amplifier*! But that's how they've prioritised their lives, so so what.

I think it matters when the same process is shoved in kids' faces
(McDonalds, Coke, Pepsi, Nestle, Nike). And, on a personal level,
witnessing my hearing-impaired brother buy countless hearing 'aids',
and spending tens of thousands of pounds, on palpable nonsense backed up
by a 'scientific' promise. That matters. Hifi doesn't, on the whole, matter.

I can see why it gets up your nose. In a sense (IIUC) electronics design
is/was your job, and it's good to have a job you care about and are good
at. But we're talking largely about marketing here - and, hand on heart,
would you be good at marketing?! Good, btw, means 'selling'. And I say
'largely' because I don't want to discount tangible audible benefits. I
simply don't know because I can't hear the difference, most of the time.


This does not mean that the equipment they all take home is 'bad' or
sounds awful. Just that they can be easily mislead or exploited, and
might well have got something they'd have preferred if given more
reliable information and advice - possibly at a lower cost, or
possibly more capable for what they paid, according to their own
preferences.

OK, I go with that.

Rob

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


It's just a product of marketing followed by competitive materialism
with a whiff of tangible benefit. 'Ignorant' is a bit strong IMO.

'Ignorant' means that one doesn't have the necessary/relevant
information. This is either the case, or it is not. It seems to me
blatently obvious that this is likely to be the case in the situations
being discussed.


Well, ignorant can be seen as a tad derogatory?!

It may be taken as such, but that isn't what it actually means. We are
*all* ignorant in various ways. The specific problem here, though, is that
people are mislead by magazines and sales-staff into thinkning they 'know'
things which are either false or unreliable guides. Thus make decisions
unaware that they are mislead and ignorant. And make decisions which - if
they had been well informed - would have been quite different.



I have serious doubts about that "on the whole". If so, why would so
much unsubstantated/incorrect/vacuous nonsense appear in the
magazines, and some people then keep saying things which show they
take it seriously?


It'd help me if you could give an example. But let's just say the review
mentioned 'soundstage like no other'. That David Price bloke is
incredible on that sort of thing. He must have bat ears or a peculiar
sense of mischief. Whatever. It's just gilding the lily.

You give a reasonable example yourself. However it isn't difficult to find
similar things - often on many pages in almost any audio mag you pick up.



Why rubbish in the mags - it sells mags and the products within; Why do
people buy the mags/products - because they have (access to) the money,
they like to show that fact, and they believe for a while at least that
a tangible benefit will arise. In that order.

I doubt that is the case for *everyone* who buys such magazines. My
experience is that some people buy them in the expectation of obtaining
information that will guide them to buying equipment that will suit them in
terms of performance, and aid them in being able to decide which items will
do this most effectively.



Yes, that's one of the ways our evolved system of capitalism operates.

Well, a man with a gun who demands your money is also 'capitalism'. But I
don't regard that as an excuse or a justification for allowing or excusing
such behaviour. :-)



I wish I had your/Keith's blythe confidence that this didn't matter.
However my own experience over the years does not lead me to share
your views, I'm afraid.


I really don't think it matters if people choose to spend stupid money
on hifi. Ridiculous maybe - think about it - spend 6 months' wages on an
*amplifier*! But that's how they've prioritised their lives, so so what.

The concern isn't simply that they may spend a lot of money. It is that
they may do so on the basis of being mislead when they paid good money for
what they could reasonably assume would be useful and reliable guidance.



I can see why it gets up your nose. In a sense (IIUC) electronics design
is/was your job, and it's good to have a job you care about and are
good at. But we're talking largely about marketing here - and, hand on
heart, would you be good at marketing?! Good, btw, means 'selling'.

Depends on the field I guess. I've sold every article/book I've ever
written, thus far, over the last 30-odd years. In almost every case upon
first submission. And I work by the weird method of writing the article
first, then selling it. Most professional authors don't work like that as
it is too risky. They would do a synopsis or a few chapters for submission,
first. So I do seem to know how to 'sell' things - but perhaps do so by
concentrating on content as well as presentation.

FWIW I am well aware that it makes sense for equipment with good
performance to be built well, look excellent, etc. But this is a matter of
making the performance manifest, not dressing mutton as lamb. ;-

My concern isn't because I've been a design engineer. It is because I feel
that education is better than ignorance, also that reliable information and
understanding are better than misinformation and twaddle. That it is simply
wrong for people to be systematically mislead. Sorry if that seems
hopelessly 'moral' of me... :-)

It is one thing for people to be 'ignorant' and be aware of this, and to
proceed with due caution knowing this. It is something else for them to be
taken in by miselading or unreliable 'information' which causes them to
think they can make decisions on an 'informed' basis when in reality that
simply isn't the case. In various contexts in our 'capitalist' system (as
you call it) this would be regarded as illegal as well as of dubious
morality.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
[snip]
Yes - if the innocent or gullable are mislead into thinking you
*have* to pay for the above to obtain good quality results for the
sound.

snip

The problem being that this [supply of 'high end' hifi] relies on
exploiting the ignorance of the purchaser and misleading them into
sending money, thinking they are getting something for the extra cash
which they may not.


But they *are* getting something extra for the cash?! They're getting
status, myth-worship, and the aesthetic.

But is this what "they" actually wanted/expected for the money? And
by "they" do you mean everyone?

More tangibly they could well be getting higher quality components (from
case to switches to electronics) and

Question as above.


controversially (but don't discount it) better sound.

s/controversially/allegedly/ :-)

But are they? It would often be difficult for anyone to know on the
basis of the magazine 'reviews', the sale methods in the shops, and the
decisions they make on that basis.

It's just a product of marketing followed by competitive materialism
with a whiff of tangible benefit. 'Ignorant' is a bit strong IMO.

'Ignorant' means that one doesn't have the necessary/relevant information.
This is either the case, or it is not. It seems to me blatently obvious
that this is likely to be the case in the situations being discussed.

I do believe that people, on the whole, *know* this is going on.

I have serious doubts about that "on the whole". If so, why would so
much unsubstantated/incorrect/vacuous nonsense appear in the magazines,
and some people then keep saying things which show they take it seriously?

The concern here is that having read such material, they may assume the
'information' gives them a well-informed basis for decisions, when it
reality it does nothing of the kind.

Why would people take seriously 'comparisons' in a shop that may well
be meaningless, and purchase on that basis? The problem here is the
same as the above.

I agree that many people who go into a audio shop are aware they don't
know
much about how the items work. They may also suspect that the salepeople
are ignorant or biassed. But on what basis do they then decide? Amd how do
they spot when the salespeople are using methods which would easily
mislead? They may or may not be aware of their ignorance, but the basis
may
still be that ignorance - exploited by the methods used in the magazines
and shops.

I would argue that many buy magazines, or consult a dealer, with the wish
to get reliable information and advice. OK, some people will also buy mags
as 'jewellery catalogues' and just to see pictures of wildly expensive
items they will never own, see, or hear. But is this the reason people buy
such magazines, or consult a dealer, before choosing what they actually
buy
and take home?

I wish I had your/Keith's blythe confidence that this didn't matter.
However my own experience over the years does not lead me to share your
views, I'm afraid.



Not entirely sure from the above what the particular 'this' is that 'doesn't
matter' to me....??

My view with 'high-end'/expensive kit is quite simply that if the person who
buys it, *likes it* and can afford it then I don't see any harm in it, no
matter what route they took to their final decision or who/what played any
part in their decision.

Said it before - not everyone wants 'lab style' or the 'Frankensteinian'
look and some people are lucky enough to have a house where the standard of
decor demands something a little more sumptious than the modern, VFM
'aluminium look' that seems to be popular these days. If some (wily, if you
like) salesman is happy to ease the contents out of their wallets with the
necessary platitudes to put the whole transaction into 'Happy Bunny' mode,
then where's the real harm?

Not too sweet if outright lies and deception are employed, of course, but
even then I'm liable to think that a person who can easily afford the
fabulously high prices ought to be able to stand on his own two feet when it
comes to such purchases....

The 'car analogy' holds good here - in a strictly practical sense there
really is no need for cars to be up to anything other than the
Ford/VW/Fiat/Renault standard, but human nature being what it is, there
seems to be a ready market for all manner of extreme and (IMO) excessive
examples of 'luxury/lifestyle' types of vehicle.

Respectable, expensive audio brands are not to be confused with what is
usually labelled 'snake oil products', btw - that is another ballgame
entirely....



This does not mean that the equipment they all take home is 'bad' or
sounds awful. Just that they can be easily mislead or exploited, and
might well have got something they'd have preferred if given more
reliable information and advice - possibly at a lower cost, or
possibly more capable for what they paid, according to their own
preferences.


Your concern for your fellow man does you credit, but I would be happier to
see it directed toward the MI who still expects to fleece the public with
impunity - note the mention of 'obscene payouts' to MI personnel/artists
mentioned recently in another thread.....

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


It's just a product of marketing followed by competitive materialism
with a whiff of tangible benefit. 'Ignorant' is a bit strong IMO.
'Ignorant' means that one doesn't have the necessary/relevant
information. This is either the case, or it is not. It seems to me
blatently obvious that this is likely to be the case in the situations
being discussed.


Well, ignorant can be seen as a tad derogatory?!

It may be taken as such, but that isn't what it actually means. We are
*all* ignorant in various ways. The specific problem here, though, is that
people are mislead by magazines and sales-staff into thinkning they 'know'
things which are either false or unreliable guides. Thus make decisions
unaware that they are mislead and ignorant. And make decisions which - if
they had been well informed - would have been quite different.


I have serious doubts about that "on the whole". If so, why would so
much unsubstantated/incorrect/vacuous nonsense appear in the
magazines, and some people then keep saying things which show they
take it seriously?


It'd help me if you could give an example. But let's just say the review
mentioned 'soundstage like no other'. That David Price bloke is
incredible on that sort of thing. He must have bat ears or a peculiar
sense of mischief. Whatever. It's just gilding the lily.

You give a reasonable example yourself. However it isn't difficult to find
similar things - often on many pages in almost any audio mag you pick up.



Why rubbish in the mags - it sells mags and the products within; Why do
people buy the mags/products - because they have (access to) the money,
they like to show that fact, and they believe for a while at least that
a tangible benefit will arise. In that order.

I doubt that is the case for *everyone* who buys such magazines. My
experience is that some people buy them in the expectation of obtaining
information that will guide them to buying equipment that will suit them in
terms of performance, and aid them in being able to decide which items will
do this most effectively.



Yes, that's one of the ways our evolved system of capitalism operates.

Well, a man with a gun who demands your money is also 'capitalism'. But I
don't regard that as an excuse or a justification for allowing or excusing
such behaviour. :-)



I wish I had your/Keith's blythe confidence that this didn't matter.
However my own experience over the years does not lead me to share
your views, I'm afraid.


I really don't think it matters if people choose to spend stupid money
on hifi. Ridiculous maybe - think about it - spend 6 months' wages on an
*amplifier*! But that's how they've prioritised their lives, so so what.

The concern isn't simply that they may spend a lot of money. It is that
they may do so on the basis of being mislead when they paid good money for
what they could reasonably assume would be useful and reliable guidance.



I can see why it gets up your nose. In a sense (IIUC) electronics design
is/was your job, and it's good to have a job you care about and are
good at. But we're talking largely about marketing here - and, hand on
heart, would you be good at marketing?! Good, btw, means 'selling'.

Depends on the field I guess. I've sold every article/book I've ever
written, thus far, over the last 30-odd years. In almost every case upon
first submission. And I work by the weird method of writing the article
first, then selling it. Most professional authors don't work like that as
it is too risky. They would do a synopsis or a few chapters for submission,
first. So I do seem to know how to 'sell' things - but perhaps do so by
concentrating on content as well as presentation.

FWIW I am well aware that it makes sense for equipment with good
performance to be built well, look excellent, etc. But this is a matter of
making the performance manifest, not dressing mutton as lamb. ;-

My concern isn't because I've been a design engineer. It is because I feel
that education is better than ignorance, also that reliable information and
understanding are better than misinformation and twaddle. That it is simply
wrong for people to be systematically mislead. Sorry if that seems
hopelessly 'moral' of me... :-)

It is one thing for people to be 'ignorant' and be aware of this, and to
proceed with due caution knowing this. It is something else for them to be
taken in by miselading or unreliable 'information' which causes them to
think they can make decisions on an 'informed' basis when in reality that
simply isn't the case. In various contexts in our 'capitalist' system (as
you call it) this would be regarded as illegal as well as of dubious
morality.

Slainte,

Jim


In the mid '80s, I owned and operated two hi-fi shops with high-end
pretentions. Sadly, (for me!) I worked on the principle that if
something didn't make sound engineering sense, I wouldn't sell it. That
put me at odds with the various magazines of the time, and I suffered
accordingly. Whilst we did very well with the 50 year old Chartered
Accountant (better still with the Chartered Engineer), we did badly with
younger people who "had a friend who knew something about it" and even
worse with the people who came in with a magazine under their arm and
believed the magazine over, not only me, but also their ears.

We were trying to sell CD when all the mags said a Linn or Rega was much
better, and was trying to sell Quad when all the mags said Naim was the
only amplifier worth having. As to cables, I wouldn't sell anything more
expensive than QED 79 strand at, if I remember correctly, around 50p/metre.

With hindsight, I should not have been surprised that I went bust in the
middle of a consumer boom as I completely misunderstood the purpose of
hi-fi in many people's lives. It was nothing to do with playing music,
and lots to do with playing with hi-fi. I had one customer who came into
the shop every three months to upgrade his 'speakers. Why he didn't just
buy what he wanted, then live with them for 20 years was (and still is)
beyond me. I wanted nothing to do with the endless upgrade cycle and
tried to discourage it as much as possible.

After four years of banging my head against the proverbial, I called it
a day, and went back to the sanity of the Broadcast Industry which then
still operated on engineering principles.

So I'm not at all surprised that the "high-end" has evolved to be where
it is now, as audio jewellery or toys for boys. Given that there's
little or no audible difference between "ordinary" hi-fi and the
expensive stuff, it can only be sold on intangibles, exactly as
jewellery or objets-d'art. After all, if you're buying an expensive
watch or picture for your wall, what does it actually do other than give
pleasure in the ownership that a £5 quartz watch or a reproduction won't
do? I think that high-end hi-fi is now exactly the same.

S.