24 ms·

The buyer is led to believe they are spending $695 on a device which will improve their audio quality. In fact, it will have absolutely no benefit whatsoever. T

by pslam 13y ago

The buyer is led to believe they are spending $695 on a device which will improve their audio quality. In fact, it will have absolutely no benefit whatsoever. They will feel ripped off for the extra $694. The seller knows damn well their device does absolutely nothing to improve audio quality. They know they are profiting from deliberately misleading buyers. Every time this happens, they make almost $695 profit. So, why is this not illegal?

baddox 13y ago
> The buyer is led to believe they are spending $695 on a device which will improve their audio quality. The problem is, there's probably no good way to legally argue that it doesn't improve their audio quality, since audio quality is obviously incredibly subjective, especially when most of the buyers are probably very satisfied.
- pslam 13y ago
  No, there is a good way to argue it: it is provable that there is no improvement. That is exactly what's wrong with this industry: it convinces people that something entirely provable and quantifiable by math and physics, is in fact unmeasurable and qualitative. It's not limited to "audiophile" nonsense of course - there's all sorts of herbal remedies flooding shelves at your local store which rely on this non-exist fuzziness. Most buyers are probably very satisfied, but I'm sure if it were a painkiller they were buying, they would be horrified to learn later that it was just sugar. The difference is that in "audiophile" nonsense land, the manufacturers would still be openly advertising it as containing sugar.
  - baddox 13y ago
    > it is provable that there is no improvement. I don't think so. I genuinely believe that these people do perceive more enjoyable audio from their systems than if they had purchased cheaper components. Sure, you can prove that they would fail blind listening tests, but that goes for the vast majority of things (cars, clothing, perfume, computers, etc.). > The difference is that in "audiophile" nonsense land, the manufacturers would still be openly advertising it as containing sugar. That would depend highly on the exact wording the manufacturers used. I doubt they tend to lie about the actual chemistry of the cables. They probably do use gold, or silver, or whatever. Claims about "smoother" or "clearer" sound aren't really disprovable, and are essentially claims (often accurate) about how the owner will perceive the sound. Even the directionality crap is basically a subjective claim. I haven't researched the exact wording of many manufacturer's sites with a lawyer's scrutiny, but this one seems pretty innocuous from a legal standpoint: http://www.audioquest.com/hdmi/hdmi-slinky http://www.audioquest.com/hdmi/hdmi-slinky

by pslam 13y ago

baddox 13y ago

> The buyer is led to believe they are spending $695 on a device which will improve their audio quality. The problem is, there's probably no good way to legally argue that it doesn't improve their audio quality, since audio quality is obviously incredibly subjective, especially when most of the buyers are probably very satisfied.

pslam 13y ago
No, there is a good way to argue it: it is provable that there is no improvement. That is exactly what's wrong with this industry: it convinces people that something entirely provable and quantifiable by math and physics, is in fact unmeasurable and qualitative. It's not limited to "audiophile" nonsense of course - there's all sorts of herbal remedies flooding shelves at your local store which rely on this non-exist fuzziness. Most buyers are probably very satisfied, but I'm sure if it were a painkiller they were buying, they would be horrified to learn later that it was just sugar. The difference is that in "audiophile" nonsense land, the manufacturers would still be openly advertising it as containing sugar.
- baddox 13y ago
  > it is provable that there is no improvement. I don't think so. I genuinely believe that these people do perceive more enjoyable audio from their systems than if they had purchased cheaper components. Sure, you can prove that they would fail blind listening tests, but that goes for the vast majority of things (cars, clothing, perfume, computers, etc.). > The difference is that in "audiophile" nonsense land, the manufacturers would still be openly advertising it as containing sugar. That would depend highly on the exact wording the manufacturers used. I doubt they tend to lie about the actual chemistry of the cables. They probably do use gold, or silver, or whatever. Claims about "smoother" or "clearer" sound aren't really disprovable, and are essentially claims (often accurate) about how the owner will perceive the sound. Even the directionality crap is basically a subjective claim. I haven't researched the exact wording of many manufacturer's sites with a lawyer's scrutiny, but this one seems pretty innocuous from a legal standpoint: http://www.audioquest.com/hdmi/hdmi-slinky http://www.audioquest.com/hdmi/hdmi-slinky