Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

Hi guys,

I was auditioning some lovely Mcintosh amplifiers this weekend and came
across a sales guy commenting "Mark Levinson amplifers are just
overrated peice of yuppy trash".

I know that all the top-of-line Lexus models carry MLs. But car stereo
systems don't mean much to me. High-end 2-channel home audio does ;-)

Any comments would be very much appreciated.

Cheers

Max

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

On 14 Jan 2007 14:36:54 -0800, "max graff" wrote:

Hi guys,

I was auditioning some lovely Mcintosh amplifiers this weekend and came
across a sales guy commenting "Mark Levinson amplifers are just
overrated peice of yuppy trash".

I know that all the top-of-line Lexus models carry MLs. But car stereo
systems don't mean much to me. High-end 2-channel home audio does ;-)

Any comments would be very much appreciated.

Cheers

Max

Are you looking for genuinely good performance or just bragging
rights? If the former, buy pretty much anything that takes your fancy;
buy on the basis of offering you the right kind and number of inputs,
and power to suit your needs. If your room or speakers are
particularly dire you might want to include a set of tone controls.

The result will be indistinguishable from the best of high end
amplifiers, and a great deal better than a good number of them, which
have put cosmetics before design competence.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

"max graff" wrote in message
oups.com
Hi guys,

I was auditioning some lovely Mcintosh amplifiers this
weekend and came across a sales guy commenting "Mark
Levinson amplifers are just overrated peice of yuppy
trash".

As if Mcintosh would never sell any of their seemingly less overpriced
products to any yuppy with the coinage and the desire.

I know that all the top-of-line Lexus models carry MLs.

A simple case of branding by Harmon International, who own the name.

Mark himself has lost the rights to both his name and his sexy wife, the
author.

But car stereo systems don't mean much to me. High-end
2-channel home audio does ;-)

What means more to you, sound quality or bragging rights?

Any comments would be very much appreciated.

Well, these are "any comments". ;-)

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"max graff" wrote in message
oups.com
Hi guys,

I was auditioning some lovely Mcintosh amplifiers this
weekend and came across a sales guy commenting "Mark
Levinson amplifers are just overrated peice of yuppy
trash".

As if Mcintosh would never sell any of their seemingly less overpriced
products to any yuppy with the coinage and the desire.

I know that all the top-of-line Lexus models carry MLs.

A simple case of branding by Harmon International, who own the name.

Mark himself has lost the rights to both his name and his sexy wife, the
author.

But car stereo systems don't mean much to me. High-end
2-channel home audio does ;-)

What means more to you, sound quality or bragging rights?

Any comments would be very much appreciated.

Well, these are "any comments". ;-)


In my view, both the statements in the Subject line are true for most
"high-end" equipment.

As Don said, as far as sound quality goes, almost any modern piece of
electronics will sound the same when you don't know the brand. Buy on
facilities and looks, as hopefully you'll be living with it a long time.

Having said that, high-end equipment isn't just about performance, looks
and build-quality come into it a great deal. ML equipment, as is Krell,
MF, Audio Research etc etc are very well built, perform superbly, are
well engineered and therefore are "good". They have achieved Brand
values that allows them to charge premium prices which other brands
can't. I remember years ago Sony, Technics, JVC and others had a
"premium" range selling at similar prices to other High-End brands and
which I'm sure was just as good, but very few shops carried them and
enthusiasts shunned them. Their Brand just couldn't carry the price.

So the earlier advice seems sound. There's nothing wrong with ML, and
they are well built etc, *but* performance-wise, you can get the same
for a *lot* less money.

S.

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

"Bob Latham" wrote in message


There you go. Now tell me I'm an idiot without a clue and
all amplifiers sound the same and the dealer stitched up
my mate. Actually, if that's what you're going to say,
save yourself the bother.

As usual Bob, you've missed the point of 1,000s of posts on the topic. Your
error was not that you were ignorance of the well-known fact that all amps
sound the same, because that is not a well-known fact.

In fact your statement about amps sounding the same is a straw man that you
regurgitated so that you could premptively dismiss anybody who disagreed
with you on the grounds that good amps probably don't sound all that
different.

No, the problem is that you base a far-reaching claim on so-called listening
tests that were probably utter crap. They appear to be utter crap because
there is no indication of proper level-matching, no indication of any checks
to see that the amps are proper representatives of their make and model, and
above all, no indication of any bias controls.

Speaking as someone that has done more level-matched, bias-controlled
comparisons of audio products, over a longer period of time than almost any
living human, I'm here to say that good amps just might sound a little
different under certain critical circumstances, but that the kind of
differences you have listed out are no doubt due to the slapdash means you
seem to use to compare amplifiers. Garbage in, garbage out!

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

"Bob Latham"

Right so at the demo I had no way of knowing what the gain of the
amplifiers were and so we employed a sound pressure meter and a 1kHz CD
test tone. I'm sure the sound levels were within a db or perhaps at worst
2db.


** A TOTALLY crap test.

You are NOT sure of such an error margin with a ****wit test like that.

In any case, even + /- 0.5 dB level error will sway a listener's
opinion.



But having done all of this, what are you supposed to do?


** Use basic scientific method - of course.

That is the only way humans have EVER learned a single damn thing about
anything.

YOUR idea of " science " is the same as witchcraft and black magic.

Easy or see you goofed off majorly in all the hard science classes.

****WIT !!





........ Phil

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

Phil Allison wrote:
"Bob Latham"


Right so at the demo I had no way of knowing what the gain of the
amplifiers were and so we employed a sound pressure meter and a 1kHz CD
test tone. I'm sure the sound levels were within a db or perhaps at worst
2db.



** A TOTALLY crap test.

You are NOT sure of such an error margin with a ****wit test like that.

In any case, even + /- 0.5 dB level error will sway a listener's
opinion.




But having done all of this, what are you supposed to do?



** Use basic scientific method - of course.

That is the only way humans have EVER learned a single damn thing about
anything.

YOUR idea of " science " is the same as witchcraft and black magic.

Easy or see you goofed off majorly in all the hard science classes.

****WIT !!





....... Phil





I just realised that Phil's posts make far more sense if you picture the
old South Park bus driver while reading them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms._Veronica_Crabtree


:-)

--
Nick

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

"Serge Auckland" wrote

As Don said, as far as sound quality goes, almost any modern piece of
electronics will sound the same when you don't know the brand. Buy on
facilities and looks, as hopefully you'll be living with it a long time.

Having said that, high-end equipment isn't just about performance, looks
and build-quality come into it a great deal. ML equipment, as is Krell,
MF, Audio Research etc etc are very well built, perform superbly, are well
engineered and therefore are "good". They have achieved Brand values that
allows them to charge premium prices which other brands can't. I remember
years ago Sony, Technics, JVC and others had a "premium" range selling at
similar prices to other High-End brands and which I'm sure was just as
good, but very few shops carried them and enthusiasts shunned them. Their
Brand just couldn't carry the price.

So the earlier advice seems sound. There's nothing wrong with ML, and they
are well built etc, *but* performance-wise, you can get the same for a
*lot* less money.



The demise of 'famous names' in the face of steep competition isn't
restricted to hifi gear. I believe it's the inevitable consequence of
manufacturers try to retain a significant percentage of the available market
without fully understanding the radical changes needed to be able to keep up
('parts bin/existing designs' thinking for a start). The question is are
companies like ML and Krell in a healthy position? If so, I don't see any
problem - not everyone is impoverished scum and not everyone wants their
converted lofts/penthouses/yachts sullied with the *cheapest* kit that'll
get the job done....

(Unlike me, but then my kit isn't trying to be *furniture* or trying to
impress anybody other than by its *sound*....)

Having said that, I am nearing the end of my own 'audio quest' and have
proved I can get a pretty good sound from fairly basic kit and some
homebrew - any changes in the future are likely to be of an 'upward' nature
to kit that has a degree of 'aesthetic appeal', some twinkly bits and mebbe
a few nice, blue LEDs....

:-)

Remotes are good also....

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

"Bob Latham" wrote


Okay, I know I'll regret this but......

In October 2004 a guy at work asked me about a surround sound amplifier.
He already knew I was a Kef,Meridian,Arcam kind of guy and so was not
surprised when I suggested the Arcam amp. Not the P7/AV8 that I have but
one more in his price range. Now being less convinced that all amps are
perfect and sound the same I did suggest he listened to it before buying.

I arranged a demo with a dealer that I used for 20 years and they agreed
with me that the Arcam was very good. We turned up on the Saturday morning
and listened and it sounded fine. Then the dealer said we have a Denon in
the same price bracket, it has more bells and whistles though. We tried
that.

I think all 3 of us were surprised by the result. The Denon was quite a
bit more punchy and dynamic than the Arcam, so much so that we needed to
check both amps had the same settings and configuration and *volume* which
we set with an admittedly cheap and nasty sound pressure level meter.

Dave (work guy) and I would each have put money on taking home the Arcam
but no, the Denon lives at his house.



No suprise there - Denon make some nice amps (I've got one) and offer far
better 'bang for your buck' than certain pricey English makes from what I
can see of it. One major appeal to me is that the Denon's phono stage seems
to be pretty good (for SS) - better than the dull and weedy NAD and ProJect
cheepie standalones, IME......

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Bob Latham" wrote in message


There you go. Now tell me I'm an idiot without a clue and
all amplifiers sound the same and the dealer stitched up
my mate. Actually, if that's what you're going to say,
save yourself the bother.

As usual Bob, you've missed the point of 1,000s of posts on the topic.
Your error was not that you were ignorance of the well-known fact that all
amps sound the same, because that is not a well-known fact.

In fact your statement about amps sounding the same is a straw man that
you regurgitated so that you could premptively dismiss anybody who
disagreed with you on the grounds that good amps probably don't sound all
that different.

No, the problem is that you base a far-reaching claim on so-called
listening tests that were probably utter crap. They appear to be utter
crap because there is no indication of proper level-matching, no
indication of any checks to see that the amps are proper representatives
of their make and model, and above all, no indication of any bias
controls.

Speaking as someone that has done more level-matched, bias-controlled
comparisons of audio products, over a longer period of time than almost
any living human, I'm here to say that good amps just might sound a little
different under certain critical circumstances, but that the kind of
differences you have listed out are no doubt due to the slapdash means you
seem to use to compare amplifiers. Garbage in, garbage out!



Ay oop, mind yer backs - Arny's trying to wipe his recently-endowed
'slapdash' bogey off....!! :-)

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

Keith G wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote

As Don said, as far as sound quality goes, almost any modern piece of
electronics will sound the same when you don't know the brand. Buy on
facilities and looks, as hopefully you'll be living with it a long time.

Having said that, high-end equipment isn't just about performance, looks
and build-quality come into it a great deal. ML equipment, as is Krell,
MF, Audio Research etc etc are very well built, perform superbly, are well
engineered and therefore are "good". They have achieved Brand values that
allows them to charge premium prices which other brands can't. I remember
years ago Sony, Technics, JVC and others had a "premium" range selling at
similar prices to other High-End brands and which I'm sure was just as
good, but very few shops carried them and enthusiasts shunned them. Their
Brand just couldn't carry the price.

So the earlier advice seems sound. There's nothing wrong with ML, and they
are well built etc, *but* performance-wise, you can get the same for a
*lot* less money.



The demise of 'famous names' in the face of steep competition isn't
restricted to hifi gear. I believe it's the inevitable consequence of
manufacturers try to retain a significant percentage of the available market
without fully understanding the radical changes needed to be able to keep up
('parts bin/existing designs' thinking for a start). The question is are
companies like ML and Krell in a healthy position? If so, I don't see any
problem - not everyone is impoverished scum and not everyone wants their
converted lofts/penthouses/yachts sullied with the *cheapest* kit that'll
get the job done....

(Unlike me, but then my kit isn't trying to be *furniture* or trying to
impress anybody other than by its *sound*....)

Having said that, I am nearing the end of my own 'audio quest' and have
proved I can get a pretty good sound from fairly basic kit and some
homebrew - any changes in the future are likely to be of an 'upward' nature
to kit that has a degree of 'aesthetic appeal', some twinkly bits and mebbe
a few nice, blue LEDs....

:-)

Remotes are good also....



I think you've put your finger on the reason for the current state of
"high-end" that seems to be all about architectural, sculptural,
aesthetic (choose your own term) appeal. It has nothing to do with sound
quality which is, as I think many of us agree, already of a very high
order. Consequently, what now distinguishes the high-end from the
"normal" stuff is the machined-out-of-solid casework, turntables that
could easily hold up the Parthenon, 'speakers that could *be* the
Parthenon and so on. It's moved on from a quest for audio "perfection"
to something that enhances the decor, becomes a talking point with
visitors, or is just pleasing to look at. Much like a statue, painting
or any other objet d'art.

S.

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

"Serge Auckland" wrote



I think you've put your finger on the reason for the current state of
"high-end" that seems to be all about architectural, sculptural, aesthetic
(choose your own term) appeal. It has nothing to do with sound quality
which is, as I think many of us agree, already of a very high order.
Consequently, what now distinguishes the high-end from the "normal" stuff
is the machined-out-of-solid casework, turntables that could easily hold
up the Parthenon, 'speakers that could *be* the Parthenon and so on. It's
moved on from a quest for audio "perfection" to something that enhances
the decor, becomes a talking point with visitors, or is just pleasing to
look at. Much like a statue, painting or any other objet d'art.


Absolutely, but is it really such a bad thing?

There's a scale (passing through good VFM) from cheap crap to OTT bling in
all things manufactured/purchased - food, clothing, furniture, tools, sports
equipment &c, but my favourite analogy for hifi is the subject of cars -
nowadays, they mostly all do the job they are designed for pretty well and
they are within the scope of anybody who is old enough to drive (more's the
pity). Cheaper models now have all the features that used to be only on the
most expensive marques and its up to the individual (and his
requirements/resources) as to what he spends his money on. (Apologies to the
Grammar Police...) In both cars and hifi, it's the top end of the market
that sets the standards and it's only a good thing when the cheaper (VFM)
stuff catches up, IMO...

There is no *need* to buy the biggest/best that money can afford and there
will be occasions and circumstances when this wouldn't be the best way
forward anyway, but the choice is there for anyone sufficiently interested
in it or whose lifestyle (and social standing?) requires it. POQ differs
with the individual and, although I probably would not go for silly-priced
gear myself, even if I could afford it, I don't blame anyone who does if
they don't have to sell a kidney to get it.

(Interestingly, it seems a common thing for the hoi polloi to scream
at/about those who do choose to spend at the 'bling' end of the spectrum but
I have yet to hear a 'bling purchaser' do the same to the people buying the
cheaper stuff...??)

There was a time when good 'hifi' sound was the exclusive province of people
like 'surveyors', bank managers and dentists (Quad Squad), the irony is that
now anyone can afford it seems they've let the standards of the
recorded/broadcast music *itself* go to the point where the 'quality' of the
kit matters less now than it ever did, provided the kit has enough poke to
get the sound levels high enough..!!

Just my toupee.....

Nuck Gorham = Dead Meat
 

"Nick Gorham"


** You are a pile of ****ing criminal garbage.






....... Phil

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

"Bob Latham" wrote in message

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bob Latham" wrote in message


No, the problem is that you base a far-reaching claim on
so-called listening tests that were probably utter crap.
They appear to be utter crap because there is no
indication of proper level-matching, no indication of
any checks to see that the amps are proper
representatives of their make and model, and above all,
no indication of any bias controls.

Right so at the demo I had no way of knowing what the
gain of the amplifiers were and so we employed a sound
pressure meter and a 1kHz CD test tone. I'm sure the
sound levels were within a db or perhaps at worst 2db.

More than enough to explain just about any kind of differences that you
think you heard.

But having done all of this, what are you supposed to do?

Recognize noisy data for what it is - noisy data.

1) Not bother to listen to it because they're all the
same.

How clueless does someone have to be to rerun the same straw man argument in
quick sucession?

Obviously, you have no pride in yourself, nor any respect for your readers.

2) Decide which you like the sound of but buy based
on price/facilities

At least that would be support by the relevant reliable facts.

3) Buy the one *you* think sounds
best *even* if it doesn't really.

Nonsense. You should have started and stopped with alternative 2.


When you get this home are you going to congratulate your
self for the life of the amp on the bargain you got or
the wonderful facilities it has (that rarely if ever get
used) or listen to the thing playing music?

Do what you want - base your purchase decisons on obviously false data, if
that's what you want to do.

Nuck Gorham = Dead Meat
 

Phil Allison wrote:
"Nick Gorham"


** You are a pile of ****ing criminal garbage.






...... Phil









I prefer "dead beef" myself, at least it can be expressed in binary :-)

--
Nick (\033653337357) Gorham

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

Keith G wrote:
snip

(Unlike me, but then my kit isn't trying to be *furniture* or trying to
impress anybody other than by its *sound*....)

Having said that, I am nearing the end of my own 'audio quest' and have
proved I can get a pretty good sound from fairly basic kit and some
homebrew - any changes in the future are likely to be of an 'upward' nature
to kit that has a degree of 'aesthetic appeal', some twinkly bits and mebbe
a few nice, blue LEDs....

:-)


Blue LEDs - it's the future Keith; don't resist :-)

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:
snip

(Unlike me, but then my kit isn't trying to be *furniture* or trying to
impress anybody other than by its *sound*....)

Having said that, I am nearing the end of my own 'audio quest' and have
proved I can get a pretty good sound from fairly basic kit and some
homebrew - any changes in the future are likely to be of an 'upward'
nature to kit that has a degree of 'aesthetic appeal', some twinkly bits
and mebbe a few nice, blue LEDs....

:-)


Blue LEDs - it's the future Keith; don't resist :-)



I know, I know!!

I wanted a pair of jimjams with blue LED buttons on for Christmas but didn't
get them:

a) I'm ahead of myself and they don't exist yet...

b) Changed my mind anyway - don't want to start a trend/mad rush and add
further to the planet's *global warming* problems!!

;-)

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Serge Auckland" wrote



I think you've put your finger on the reason for the current state of
"high-end" that seems to be all about architectural, sculptural,
aesthetic (choose your own term) appeal. It has nothing to do with
sound quality which is, as I think many of us agree, already of a
very high order. Consequently, what now distinguishes the high-end
from the "normal" stuff is the machined-out-of-solid casework,
turntables that could easily hold up the Parthenon, 'speakers that
could *be* the Parthenon and so on. It's moved on from a quest for
audio "perfection" to something that enhances the decor, becomes a
talking point with visitors, or is just pleasing to look at. Much
like a statue, painting or any other objet d'art.

I tend to regard it as "jewellery for boys". :-)


Absolutely, but is it really such a bad thing?

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.

I'd certainly recommend people to buy equipment whose looks, features, and
durability are of a high order - if they are minded to agree that those
aspects are important to them. However the concern is for those who only
'known' what they have read by scanning a few magazines who go into a shop
and are mislead into parting with a lot of cash under the delusion that
these things are required for good sound.

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
 

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Arny Krueger
wrote:
"Bob Latham" wrote in message


No, the problem is that you base a far-reaching claim on so-called
listening tests that were probably utter crap. They appear to be utter
crap because there is no indication of proper level-matching, no
indication of any checks to see that the amps are proper
representatives of their make and model, and above all, no indication
of any bias controls.

Right so at the demo I had no way of knowing what the gain of the
amplifiers were and so we employed a sound pressure meter and a 1kHz CD
test tone. I'm sure the sound levels were within a db or perhaps at
worst 2db.

Which, alas, is unlikely to be a close enough level match to exclude the
possibility that a change in sound level was mistaken for a change in sound
quality.

Nor would a precise level match, in itself, be sufficient to ensure that a
comparison would return a result which would be a reliable basis for making
a decision on any differences in the 'sound' produced. Unless one of the
units has a relatively gross or obvious problem, any differences may easily
be confounded or hidden by other factors.

But having done all of this, what are you supposed to do?

1) Not bother to listen to it because they're all the same. 2) Decide
which you like the sound of but buy based on price/facilities 3) Buy the
one *you* think sounds best *even* if it doesn't really.

4) Realise that the test you did may not have been useful as a guide to any
'differences', and that your conclusions on that may simply have been
unfounded.

The implication being that either unit may well have been fine. So it may
well not have made any difference which one you chose. In that sense, the
test was OK as you did not hear any clear problems with either amp. However
unless you tested them with the same speakers, ancilliary equipment, room,
etc, as they will be used with at home, the test may not have told you what
you really needed to know. So, for example, with different speakers at
home, one amp might have shown problems when the other did not.

Recall the story of your FM4 and your amp. An impedance interaction
affected the response. If you'd compared the amp with another in the shop
you might not have know that one would lead to this when you took it home,
but the other might not.

BTW Bob, have you read the papers I sent to you some months ago? Reply by
email if you wish.

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
 

any changes in the future are likely to be of an 'upward' nature
to kit that has a degree of 'aesthetic appeal', some twinkly bits and mebbe
a few nice, blue LEDs....

:-)

Hi Keith

How about some laser lights shining around on the ceiling while the
music plays?

David

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

"David Houpt"


How about some laser lights shining around on the ceiling while the music
plays?


** Now we all know were this ADS ****ed , bedroom ****** is coming from
.......





..... Phil

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

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

"Serge Auckland" wrote



I think you've put your finger on the reason for the current state of
"high-end" that seems to be all about architectural, sculptural,
aesthetic (choose your own term) appeal. It has nothing to do with
sound quality which is, as I think many of us agree, already of a
very high order. Consequently, what now distinguishes the high-end
from the "normal" stuff is the machined-out-of-solid casework,
turntables that could easily hold up the Parthenon, 'speakers that
could *be* the Parthenon and so on. It's moved on from a quest for
audio "perfection" to something that enhances the decor, becomes a
talking point with visitors, or is just pleasing to look at. Much
like a statue, painting or any other objet d'art.

I tend to regard it as "jewellery for boys". :-)


Absolutely, but is it really such a bad thing?

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.



How innocent or gullible can you be to actually *have* the money to throw
down on 'high-end bling'? (Different story if someone sold a
kidney/child/their only house to buy it - then the sooner they are removed
from the gene pool, the better!!) But I maintain that if anyone perceives
(or is persuaded to perceive) a 'better sound' from expensive (ridiculously
expensive, if you like) kit and *they can afford it* where's the harm? Said
it a million times before - not everyone seeks 'cheap' or even 'good VFM' -
even with stuff like casual footware, the 'badge' is all for some types....

I for one don't think the dissappearance of the 'high end' in any commodity
is a good thing - as I stated earlier, standards are are raised only by the
high end and, from what I can see of it, 'cheap only' usually brings down a
commercial organisation that can't achieve the necessary, unassailable
'critical mass' like that of Walmart and Tesco, who can 'pile it high and
sell it cheap'...!! (Witness the occasional disappearance of 'home
electronics' high street chains and Internet dotcoms...)

'Expensive only' is a different ballgame and can/does work in many areas,
but mostly for very well-established brands in the various *luxury item*
categories - it can be a short road to ruin for organisations that don't
realise *positive cashflow* needs to be as regular as the need to eat....

(Note also the topic is about expensive brands, not 'snake oil' products as
such....)



I'd certainly recommend people to buy equipment whose looks, features, and
durability are of a high order - if they are minded to agree that those
aspects are important to them. However the concern is for those who only
'known' what they have read by scanning a few magazines who go into a shop
and are mislead into parting with a lot of cash under the delusion that
these things are required for good sound.


There's probably more of that goes on at the low-midfi end of the market
than with the truly expensive stuff - this month's '5 star product' kinda
thing....??

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

"David Houpt" wrote in message
. uk...
any changes in the future are likely to be of an 'upward' nature
to kit that has a degree of 'aesthetic appeal', some twinkly bits and
mebbe a few nice, blue LEDs....

:-)

Hi Keith

How about some laser lights shining around on the ceiling while the music
plays?

David



I could do better than that, now my room is Screen 2 in our 'Home
Multiplex' - I could get some footage of those wax/oil transparencies from
the 60s and project it on the wall!!

:-)

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

I just realised that Phil's posts make far more sense if you picture the
old South Park bus driver while reading them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms._Veronica_Crabtree


:-)

--
Nick

that's great but I always think of Les Pattersons younger brother who
is more slobby and can't get any.

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

Tim wrote:
I just realised that Phil's posts make far more sense if you picture the
old South Park bus driver while reading them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms._Veronica_Crabtree


:-)

--
Nick


that's great but I always think of Les Pattersons younger brother who
is more slobby and can't get any.


It was the screaming that made it for me (that and the bird that lives
in her hair).

--
Nick

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

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.



How innocent or gullible can you be to actually *have* the money to
throw down on 'high-end bling'? (Different story if someone sold a
kidney/child/their only house to buy it - then the sooner they are
removed from the gene pool, the better!!)

Sad to say, the reality is that most of the people who go into a shop to
buy an audio system (and most of those who regularly read the relevant
consumer mags) have almost no real understanding of either the physics or
the engineering involved. They also are unlikely to have any knowledge of
the relevant physiology, psychology of perception, or how to carry out a
comparison in order to get meaningful results.

This does not stop them having the money. Nor does it prevent them from
enjoying listening to music. Indeed, they might know a great deal about
music.

Even sadder to say, this means that they make choices on the basis of
ignorance and misinformation which easily misleads them. The mags often
don't give them reliable information which relates to their case. And the
man in the shop may know no more than them about the above, so cheerfully
misleads them. So it is often presented as 'mysteries man cannot
understand' why one item might be judged different to another. Ignorance
presented as a way of life.


But I maintain that if anyone perceives (or is persuaded to perceive) a
'better sound' from expensive (ridiculously expensive, if you like) kit
and *they can afford it* where's the harm? Said it a million times
before - not everyone seeks 'cheap' or even 'good VFM' - even with stuff
like casual footware, the 'badge' is all for some types....

Sure. But is that the same is taking money from people on the basis of
exploiting their ignorance?

If someone goes into the shop and says that they *don't* want the best
sound for their money, or to only to spend sufficient to get a decent
sound, fair enough, fleece them. But how many people say this?

I for one don't think the dissappearance of the 'high end' in any
commodity is a good thing

Alas, "high end" is a meaningless term in this context as it confuses
"fancy price", "neat appearance", etc, with "better sonic results".

The problem being that this 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 this isn't just about the fabled "high end". It is also about people in
situations like the one recounted by Bob Latham recently. They go into the
shop and are involved in a 'comparison' which may actually be worthless or
misleading. This may mean they buy one item, when something else might have
actually been 'better' (in terms of their *own* judgement) in actual use,
for much the same price, even for modestly priced items.

I can't see the above as being a good thing to put people through. It isn't
something I'd be happy to defend or excuse away.

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 , 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.



How innocent or gullible can you be to actually *have* the money to
throw down on 'high-end bling'? (Different story if someone sold a
kidney/child/their only house to buy it - then the sooner they are
removed from the gene pool, the better!!)

Sad to say, the reality is that most of the people who go into a shop to
buy an audio system (and most of those who regularly read the relevant
consumer mags) have almost no real understanding of either the physics or
the engineering involved. They also are unlikely to have any knowledge of
the relevant physiology, psychology of perception, or how to carry out a
comparison in order to get meaningful results.


I know - *disgusting* isn't it? :-)



This does not stop them having the money. Nor does it prevent them from
enjoying listening to music. Indeed, they might know a great deal about
music.


Oops....



Even sadder to say, this means that they make choices on the basis of
ignorance and misinformation which easily misleads them. The mags often
don't give them reliable information which relates to their case. And the
man in the shop may know no more than them about the above, so cheerfully
misleads them. So it is often presented as 'mysteries man cannot
understand' why one item might be judged different to another. Ignorance
presented as a way of life.


Sure, but so what if it's smiles all round...??




But I maintain that if anyone perceives (or is persuaded to perceive) a
'better sound' from expensive (ridiculously expensive, if you like) kit
and *they can afford it* where's the harm? Said it a million times
before - not everyone seeks 'cheap' or even 'good VFM' - even with stuff
like casual footware, the 'badge' is all for some types....

Sure. But is that the same is taking money from people on the basis of
exploiting their ignorance?


Indirectly yes, I would say - the groundwork to set up the 'badge' as the
desired item will have been done some time in the past, but there's all
sorts of exploitation goes on, it's not uncommon and I don't think it's
always negative - I bet there's *dozens* of nuclear physicists cheerfully
getting ripped off by dodgy washing-machine repairmen every single day!!



If someone goes into the shop and says that they *don't* want the best
sound for their money, or to only to spend sufficient to get a decent
sound, fair enough, fleece them. But how many people say this?


Huh? It's OK to fleece people who say they only want a cheap but decent
sound?

I have overheard plenty of people say they 'don't want to go overboard' and
that they would be happy if the sound is 'merely OK' (my words) - I've also
heard a cheap, secondhand turntable described by the shop owner as
'perfectly OK if you just want to make a bit of noise'. Not everybody is up
there in La La Land wanting the 'being there' experience from hifi kit -
quite a few realise that 'you only get what you pay for' and don't expect
the very best for shirt buttons!



I for one don't think the dissappearance of the 'high end' in any
commodity is a good thing

Alas, "high end" is a meaningless term in this context as it confuses
"fancy price", "neat appearance", etc, with "better sonic results".


No James, it confuses nothing - it *encompasses* all those things! Most
sensible *ordinary people* have a pretty good idea of which way's up and are
well aware of the '****take possibilities' in most things, I find....

In my book, ignorant isn't somebody being sold a pup, it's when people buy a
pup *knowing* it's a pup!! Fake clothing and watches spring immediately to
mind, as opposed to *unknowingly* buying 'counterfeit goods' which are
indistinguishable from the originals, like certain car parts for instance!!


The problem being that this 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.


I don't really think all high-end gear is sold like that, but perhaps I
should shut up - I don't own any 'high-end' gear, I don't want any and so
I'll never buy any.....

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

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. More tangibly they could well
be getting higher quality components (from case to switches to
electronics) and controversially (but don't discount it) better sound.
It's just a product of marketing followed by competitive materialism
with a whiff of tangible benefit. 'Ignorant' is a bit strong IMO.

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

Rob

Mark Levinson - are they good or just over rated
 

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.

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.

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
 

"Rob" wrote in message
...
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. More tangibly they could well be
getting higher quality components (from case to switches to electronics)
and controversially (but don't discount it) better sound. It's just a
product of marketing followed by competitive materialism with a whiff of
tangible benefit. 'Ignorant' is a bit strong IMO.

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


The difficulty is trying to explain that a lot of people get their pleasure
from a lot of different things when it comes to stuff like hifi, which is
why I occasionally advise 'buy summat you can't really afford' - nothing
worse than getting a quick, easy and cheap solution to anything, it *never*
satisfies the demon within...

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.