2 Responses to “OT: The Best Audiophile Ripoffs”  

1. 1 Pascal Ravach Oct 17th, 2007 at 4:53 pm

   Please, guys, stay in your area of expertise.

   Your website is one of the very few I read everyday as a (very modest) documentary filmmaker.

   But as someone working since three decades in high-end High-Fidelity, and having gained in Europe and North-America a very solid reputation for my no-nonsense approach in this job, I must tell you that your comments are not valid.
   I’ve spent my life struggling against over-priced gear and accessories (and there are millions of them, including some of the products mentioned in this “funny” page!).
   Yet, there are many accessories that simply work… while our common sense tells us they shouldn’t.
   A real scientist believes in the results of his experiments, not in his pre-conceptions.
   And yes, I’ve been able to demonstrate, hundreds of times, to golden-ears as much as to beginners, the impact of cables and accessories on the final sound of a system. The Nespa trashed by this nay-sayer you mention is another good example of something that looks silly, but actually works… unfortunately, since it is not cheap.
   No, I don’t sell it (competitor’s profit!) and yes, I demonstrate it every week… and it works.

   Dumb hardcore engineers believe only in their books. They should learn a couple of things about a) the methodology, since most systems (either sound systems either imaging systems!) are not as good as believed (even if very expensive) and allow no perception of those differences b) the ear and audition process, since this must be, like the vision, the taste and everything else, educated a bit. Not much, but just with an open mind.

   We have conducted enough “double blind” sessions, with many people, confronting our notes after the whole session, to need no further proof about the reality of those perceptions… and, in the same time, about the unfortunate reality of the existence of tons of money-greedy crooks selling pretentious stuff for an outrageous price.

   Oh, by the way, a few pieces of metal, plastic, nuts and bolt… 3000, 10000 dollars and way more. Called Steadycam, Follow Focus, you name it…
   I don’t remember anyone attacking them. Just nice work, long studies, fine craftmanship… and results appreciated by those having developped their Art.

   Dont’ believe High Fidelity is in any way different, thanks.

   Happy filming!

   Pascal Ravach
   Mutine Inc.

2. 2 Matthew Jeppsen Oct 17th, 2007 at 8:12 pm

   Pascal, I appreciate you taking the time to comment.

   Your arguments about the viability of high-priced products like Steadicam and high end Follow Focus units I certainly agree with. In those examples, there is generally a build-quality or ease-of-use advantage over lower-priced options. So for discriminating buyers, the “expensive” option can be a very worthwhile investment. Likewise, others may not demand the same tight tolerances, hence the plethora of low-cost models on the market.

   On the subject of audio cables, well I will agree with your assessment that it is not my particular area of expertise. It’s interesting, I read today that a journalist has accepted James Randi’s $1 Million audio cable test challenge for the $7K Pear Audio cables. So perhaps we will learn that there is an advantage in using those particular cables, when the test has been completed. Or perhaps not. To my knowledge, Pear has not to date publically shared the results of an independent double-blind test for those cables, so really the burden of proof lies with them. We shall see.

   Regarding your comments about the Nespa, well I simply don’t believe it. Nor will I ever, until I see some 3rd party scientific explanation and analysis. Yes, I understand that the concept of the Nespa is that the device “flashes” the pits on an optical disc with a high-intensity light source, making the pits “better” in a sense, requiring less error correction by the disc reader. However, that glosses over the fact that pits on a CD or DVD are either a 1 or a 0. There is no ambiguity…it either works or it doesn’t. And the Nespa review linked in the article did NOT appear to use any scientific method of analyzing the results. In the reviewers words:

   “The Handel tracks now exhibit far greater smoothness. The distance between solo violin and accompanying strings has shrunk. The clavichord is more rotund in sound. The harshness of picked strings has evaporated as though the instrument had aged like a good wine. Just as on the guitar duo recording, the venue is more resolved. In the “Allegro”, the cello’s fill-in is much more delicate.”

   Whoopdee doo. Pascal, I am sorry but that sort of inexact testing methodology is complete and utter BS. I’m happy that the reviewer believes it sounds better…but the human mind has been proven again and again to be fully capable of deceiving itself. Perception is not always reality, there are well-documented psycological limitations of the human condition. Now, had the Nespa reviewer shown a difference in measurable frequency or waveform analysis, or even a double blind listening test by several people with a sensitive ear, they might have a leg to stand on. But to simply say “it sounds better to me” is to say nothing at all.

   I am more than happy to accept that my ear is not “educated” enough to perceive the audio advantages claimed by most of those products. With all due respect…without backing up the advantages with independent blind testing or scientific proof, I have a hard time believing that others ears are as well educated as they claim.

   -Matt Jeppsen

Leave a Reply

There was an error with your comment, please try again.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail