3 ms·

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 som

by 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

> 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