[KeithEmo]

I just wanted to point out a few things here.....
(This reply is directed mostly to @gregorio - but others may find it interesting.)

First off, I absolutely agree that some audio manufacturers go out of their way to convince people to buy equipment they don't need, to make upgrades that won't improve anything, and to fix problems they don't have. And, like it or not, that really is just good business. (Is a car really better because your kids can watch two different movies at the same time in the back seat? According to the car commercial I saw last night it is.) However, it's not all some sort of conspiracy. For example, most of the DACs Emotiva has sold in the past few years support sample rates up to 24/192k. However, it's not all some sinister plot to convince people to buy something they don't need.... In fact, I don't recall that we ever made an official claim that high-resolution files sound better. We're simply selling products with the features our customers are asking for this year. We don't charge extra for it as a premium feature. In point of fact, every high-quality DAC chip we considered for our latest product already offers it... at no extra cost. And, if we omitted it, our customers would wonder why, and a few would consider that omission a reason not to buy our product. Of course, anybody who sells any product that isn't a consumable must continually find excuses why their customers should upgrade to this year's model.

I should also point out that a lot of the conspiracy aspect of new products being hyped in magazines is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that "new and interesting things" and "controversy" sell magazines. An audio magazine suggesting that a new technology isn't exciting and wonderful would be the equivalent of a news station reporting that nothing interesting happened today. Imagine an audiophile journal running a cover story that announced: "a bunch of new amplifiers came out this year - and they sound about like last year's models". There's a very good reason why magazines that suggest things like that too often are no longer there to be read. They need novelty and excitement to sell subscriptions. And that's doubly true if the new product makes truly outrageous claims - so they can get a real debate going about it. (Without any consideration of whether it works or not... MQA has been a huge success in terms of generating blog entries, page count and "buzz".)

Second, let's put the silly argument about recording cymbals to rest. We both seem to agree that there is significant attenuation of ultrasonic frequencies at distances of several meters; and we both seem to agree that, within a few meters, where a lot of the microphones used to record cymbals are placed, that attenuation would only be a few dB. We also both seem to agree that microphones with a response to 30 kHz exist and are available. Therefore, we seem to be agreeing that it would be technically quite possible to record cymbals with a frequency response extending to 30 kHz if we wanted to... and that there would in fact be ultrasonic musical information present in the recording if we did (I am considering "the sound coming from the cymbal" to define "musical content" - to avoid any debate about whether it's useful or not). All we seem to disagree upon is whether that would be worth doing. Yet, when I suggested that, if we wanted to run some scientific tests, to determine whether it sounded better or not, we could technically do so, suddenly we seem to have an argument. @gregorio seems to be suggesting that, since he is already quite certain there would be no audible difference, it is offensive to suggest that perhaps we should run a few tests ourselves. (@gregorio seems offended that I'm unwilling to take his word for it that it would be wasted effort. And @bigshot, who at other times seems to consistently call for us to ignore opinions and personal claims and only consider proven and documented test results, is strangely silent. I would expect him to be the one demanding documented test results.)

Third, I agree that there are some brilliant engineers out there, and some studios turning out great work. However, I must also note that, based on a truly massive number of ongoing debates and discussions, a lot of people are of the opinion that a lot of modern recordings don't sound very good at all. I point this out for two related reasons. First, just like audio equipment manufacturers, studios and engineers serve customers. I see little difference, in terms of "morality", between an audio manufacturer who sells 192k audio files or DACs that support 192k, "because customers are buying them", and a studio that produces a recording with very little practical dynamic range, "because the artist thinks that's what his listeners like". In both instances, we are simply placing the highest priority on delivering what our customers are asking us for.

I also feel obligated to point out something else... @gregorio seems to be quite certain that there would be no possible reason why we might want to consider recording cymbals using a microphone with an ultrasonic response. Note that, rather than scientific data, his reasoning is simply that "he's tried it and knows it wouldn't improve anything". Now, in all fairness, he could be right. In fact, it might even sound worse. However, to be quite blunt about it, considering how many people seem dissatisfied about the quality and production values of many modern recordings, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me to suggest that we should run a few tests to find out for sure. And, once we accept that improvements are a possibility, it only seems to make sense to consider all of the possible avenues for improvement.... rather than exclude every possible thing that anyone is convinced "couldn't possibly make any difference".

(In simplest terms, if the recording industry is turning out recordings that a lot of people don't think sound good, then perhaps it is time to take a second look at a lot of the things that the recording industry "is convinced can't possibly matter". To be extremely blunt... if everybody was doing everything right then everybody would be happy with the results... right? Note that I quite agree with many people that most of the problem is what we might call "production values" rather than technical limitations. However, if we're conceding that the whole system needs improvement, it seems foolish to exclude any viable possibilities. Q: Is choosing a microphone that tops out at 18k instead of one that tops out at 26k an "artistic choice", a "technical limitation", a "practical limitation", or a "production value"? I'm not convinced that the answer to that question is all that clear.)

Clearly but why let being confused stop you from making-up another bunch of nonsense?

Initially I felt insulted by your response (as was obviously your intent) but almost instantly I realised that it simply represents the huge gulf between your segment of the industry and mine. The clients of the top class studios are world class musicians (who've been round the block) and billion dollar record labels, who already know every trick in the book. So bullsh*tting or trying scam our clients is almost certain to be found out and because they have such a low tolerance for it, it's completely counterproductive. This is almost the exact opposite of your clients, who are almost crying out to be BS'ed and scammed and are not only tolerant of it but will often come back for more!

What makes world class studios "world class" is having the finest equipment and facilities and the most knowledgable, experienced and talented engineers, and thereby consistently producing the best results. Therefore, when the engineers run tests on equipment/technology it is because we need to know the full capabilities of that technology, it's strengths and it's weakness, so that we can employ it more effectively than others and thereby maintain the position of being a world class studio. These tests are not for publication or any use outside the studio, are absolutely NOT designed to fulfil any marketing agenda but specifically designed to get to the actual facts, as ultimately the reputation and livelihood of the engineers and studio are at stake! "Ensuring failure" or achieving failure inadvertently, is therefore a colossal waste of time and resources, is ENTIRELY counterproductive with no upside or benefit for anyone involved and it would not be expected or tolerated of an intern in their first week, let alone even an assistant engineer.

Your "curious to know" is therefore a shocking and sad indictment of your industry segment and your company. Your serious consideration/suggestion of inadvertent or "ensured" failure demonstrates an expectation that your "engineers" are not even competent enough to be interns in my industry segment and/or that your marketing agenda can/will take precedence over any/all actual facts! Which leads to ...


1, And, yes, selling people equipment that actually performs NO BETTER, for a higher price, is even more profitable!
1b. And, for this reason, many audiophile companies are going to try to sell you snake oil; the promise (or at least, strong implication) that it's a higher performing product, when in fact it performs no better in practise than a vastly cheaper product.

2. Go right ahead, what's stopping you? In fact, I strongly advise that you take your own advise and do exactly that. You might actually learn some facts and practical realities, instead of just making-up nonsense suggestions based PURELY on the complete ignorance of never having done it and how you think it all should/might work! If you're advising ME what to do though, then that advice is ABSURD; I can't "start by recording a few drum solos" because I ALREADY started recording drum solos nearly 30 years ago and way more than just a few of them, with virtually every cymbal imaginable (and some that aren't), using virtually every type of mic and countless different positionings of those mics. Bizarrely, you don't seem to know what a recording engineer actually does, which makes it even more absurd that you appear to be telling a long time professional engineer how to do their job. The level of cognitive error (brain-fart) required to do that is truly staggering!

After all these years of engaging with audiophiles, I'm fairly well inured to the audiophile community's antics, assumptions and presumptions and not often shocked. The presumption of a level of incompetence not even expected of a beginner in my community and/or the presumption of deliberate test falsification, coming as it did "straight from the horse's mouth", an actual member of the audiophile trade, has still managed to shock me though!

G

PS. I note again your continued refusal to answer a simple question but instead to deflect and misrepresent it. I also note your serious misunderstanding/misuse of the laws of physics, as per usual.

 

[KeithEmo]

Strictly speaking it's not a double blind test...
(or not a typical one - and the details are actually rather complicated)

A "double blind" refers to the fact that neither participant knows which condition is which.
(So, when the audiologist presses the button, he doesn't know whether a tone will play or not.)

In general there are two reasons for doing this:
1) to prevent any sort of bias on the part of the scorer from influencing how the test is scored
2) to prevent knowledge of which sample is which from "leaking" from the
person conducting the test to the test subject

The reason saying: "I didn't say anything, but my wife noticed a difference when she walked into the room" doesn't qualify is that you cannot rule out the possibility that she noticed you're smiling, or saw the box arrive yesterday, or noticed you got up early today, and so had a hint that she was listening to something different.

In this case, the definition is blurred....
- Youtube "knows" that their files are frequency limited (so it is NOT blind from their perspective)
- but Youtube doesn't actually exist as a participant (so they cannot leak information)
- but you cannot rule out the possibility of other information or bias

In this case, by seeing a post labelled "20 - 20 kHz Hearing Test", the subject is being presented with a claim that the test does in fact contain those frequencies. He wasn't asked if he thought 20 kHz was present - he was TOLD that 20 kHz was present and then asked if he could hear it. In fact, we might even extend that to say that anyone simply reading "hearing test" might assume that tones covering the full range of human hearing would be included. This creates a sort of placebo effect where he may actually PREFER or EXPECT to hear it.

A proper blind type test would have been more like:
"You'll see a red circle flash on your screen 20 times."
"After each flash, you will hear a tick, which may or may not be followed by a two second tone."
"Press the button at those times when you hear a tone."

(Even though it is technically not double blind - because the test program "knows" when it's playing tones - you would satisfy the requirement that the test computer won't provide any hint to the subject to bias his response.)

(Note that we included the tick, even when the tone is not present, so that the person would not be able to use the typical tick that occurs when any sound signal starts playing as a "tell".)

(There are so many perceptual, bias, masking, and neurological timing issues to saying "tell us when you can no longer hear the tone" that, as a pure test of hearing acuity, it's more or less worthless. For example, hearing a tone at a certain frequency makes us less sensitive to tones at nearby frequencies, but the effect varies depending on the starting frequency, the difference between the frequencies, and the time separating them.)

Agreed. So if neither the uploader nor the listener knows about the 15k cutoff, then it's a perfect double blind test, isn't it?

AFAIK, Youtube changed their audio settings in 2014 to the same encoding quality for all video formats. So all the more recent videos have the cutoff. Prior to that, they had different audio qualities depending on video quality, so there may be some legacy stuff on YT that goes higher than 15k.

 

[gregorio]

For example, most of the DACs Emotiva has sold in the past few years support sample rates up to 24/192k. However, it's not all some sinister plot to convince people to buy something they don't need.... In fact, I don't recall that we ever made an official claim that high-resolution files sound better. We're simply selling products with the features our customers are asking for this year. We don't charge extra for it as a premium feature. In point of fact, every high-quality DAC chip we considered for our latest product already offers it... at no extra cost.

Round and round we go again, with you just continuing to do exactly what you've been accused of! For example, what do you mean "a premium feature", it's not a premium feature, it might have been a premium feature 15-20 years ago but today pretty much all DAC chips are 192/24. And what does this premium feature DAC chip cost? About $1 at bulk price rates, cheaper even than peanuts!! You're busy trying to sell your "premium feature" DAC, using analogies with Ferrari and other premium brands but your "premium feature" is in fact found in the CHEAPEST consumer DACs!

[1] We both seem to agree that there is significant attenuation of ultrasonic frequencies at distances of several meters; and
[2] we both seem to agree that, within a few meters, where a lot of the microphones used to record cymbals are placed, that attenuation would only be a few dB.
[3] We also both seem to agree that microphones with a response to 30 kHz exist and are available.
[4] Therefore, we seem to be agreeing that it would be technically quite possible to record cymbals with a frequency response extending to 30 kHz if we wanted to

1. Yes, we agree on this point.
2. No, we do NOT agree on this point. Or rather, I could agree, if like you I decided to ignore the laws of physics!
3. Yes, we agree on this.
4. No, we do not agree on this. It is possible under some conditions.

[1] @gregorio seems to be suggesting that, since he is already quite certain there would be no audible difference, it is offensive to suggest that perhaps we should run a few tests ourselves.
[2] @gregorio seems to be quite certain that there would be no possible reason why we might want to consider recording cymbals using a microphone with an ultrasonic response.
[3] I also feel obligated to point out something else... Note that, rather than scientific data, his reasoning is simply that "he's tried it and knows it wouldn't improve anything". Now, in all fairness, he could be right.

1. No, that's completely misrepresenting what I stated. The odds of this misrepresentation being "inadvertent" along with all the other "inadvertent" errors and misrepresentations is astronomical, leaving us with only one rational conclusion; that it is NOT "inadvertent", it's deliberate. Exactly contrary to your deliberate lie "inadvertent error", I specifically "strongly advised" you to try some drumkit/cymbal recording and test for yourself!
2. That too is a deliberate lie "inadvertent" misrepresentation.
3. You mean you "also feel obligated" to deliberately lie "inadvertently" misrepresent the facts again. My reasoning is not "simply that" at all!!

However, I must also note that, based on a truly massive number of ongoing debates and discussions, a lot of people are of the opinion that a lot of modern recordings don't sound very good at all.
[1] I point this out for two related reasons. First, just like audio equipment manufacturers, studios and engineers serve customers.
[2] I see little difference, in terms of "morality", between an audio manufacturer who sells 192k audio files or DACs that support 192k, "because customers are buying them", and a studio that produces a recording with very little practical dynamic range,
[3] Q: Is choosing a microphone that tops out at 18k instead of one that tops out at 26k an "artistic choice", a "technical limitation", a "practical limitation", or a "production value"? I'm not convinced that the answer to that question is all that clear.

1. No, you "point this out" for the same reason you've pointed out just about everything else, to obfuscate and misrepresent. There are reasons why some modern recordings do not sound particularly good but contrary to your assertion, they are NOT related.
2. Yep, we appear to differ drastically in what we "see ... in terms of morality"!!
3. Will wonders never cease? Asking a question about something you don't know about, rather than just making up a bunch of nonsense assertions or analogies, is an unexpected response on your part! Unfortunately, from past experience, it can only be interpreted as a fishing expedition to get more information to "inadvertently" misrepresent again and I'm not willing to play your game. That's a shame because it might have proven useful or interesting to others in this thread, if there's actually any others left after so many pages of thread crapping!!

G

 

[bigshot]

What happened to "build a better mousetrap"? Why is it "create the illusion of a better mousetrap" now... or "make people afraid that a different brand of mousetrap might not catch theoretical mice as well"? Why do people tolerate and put up with this?

 

[KeithEmo]

Last reply - then I give up.
(I'll leave it to everyone else to decide who seems to be making sense here...)

1)

According to the laws of physics, at least in this universe, at 20 degrees Celsius, at sea level, at 50% relative humidity, the attenuation at 30 kHz is 0.94 dB / meter.
That means that, at six feet, the attenuation is just under 2 dB.
Unless you were referring to the laws of physics in some other universe - that's what the ones in this universe say.
(And, if you tried to record ultrasonic frequencies at a distance of a few feet, and were unable to do so, then something else must have been the cause of your inability to do so.)
I don't need to try it myself - I'll settle for believing the laws of physics - as you seem to be suggesting I should.

Here's the link to the calculator:
http://resource.npl.co.uk/acoustics/techguides/absorption/

2)

And, at one point, when I suggested that we might try recording cymbals with a microphone whose response extends to 30 kHz...
You started by replying that most studio mikes don't go that high.
But later, when I offered some microphones that do, and some other folks also listed a few...
You changed your story, and claimed that "of course you'd already tried this and found no benefit to doing it"...
(I'll leave it to @bigshot whether he's willing to take your word on that without any actual documentation.... )

Note that I'd be perfectly willing to accept your conclusions if you'd recorded those frequencies, played them back for some listeners, and found that nobody could hear the difference, or just plain didn't like it.
However, arguing about the laws of physics seems to be sort of a waste to me.

3)

Since you seen to want to be adversarial, I'll pose my last assertion as a question...

Many people seem to agree that many modern recordings sound bad.
(It seems obvious that, if all engineers were great, and doing their best work, and all the equipment was good, this simply would not be happening.)
So......
Do so many modern recordings sound bad because most engineers these days are simply incompetent and it's the best they can do?
Or do they sound bad because, even though most engineers could make great sounding recordings, their customers are demanding poor sound quality, so they're delivering what their customers are asking for?
Now, to be fair here, I never try to sell customers features or capabilities they don't need... but, if they ask for something I don't think they need, or even that I think would be bad for their performance, I'm not going to refuse outright to sell it to them...
How about you?

And, let's be a little bit more adversarial...
We seem to agree that many modern recordings sound bad...
And we seem to agree that there are reasons for this...
However, since you're the recording engineer, isn't it YOUR job to find those problems and fix them?
All I do is sell equipment designed to reproduce the performance - doing the best we can with whatever quality recording the recording folks give us (and our customers).

4)

I actually said, if you read carefully, that we do NOT sell 24/192k as a premium feature on any of our DACs...
The reason for this is that it is NOT a premium feature...
So nobody is being charged extra for it - whether they need it or not...
(Although, since nobody is being charged extra for it, then I fail to see much harm in GIVING them a little extra performance they really don't need.)

Round and round we go again, with you just continuing to do exactly what you've been accused of! For example, what do you mean "a premium feature", it's not a premium feature, it might have been a premium feature 15-20 years ago but today pretty much all DAC chips are 192/24. And what does this premium feature DAC chip cost? About $1 at bulk price rates, cheaper even than peanuts!! You're busy trying to sell your "premium feature" DAC, using analogies with Ferrari and other premium brands but your "premium feature" is in fact found in the CHEAPEST consumer DACs!

1. Yes, we agree on this point.
2. No, we do NOT agree on this point. Or rather, I could agree, if like you I decided to ignore the laws of physics!
3. Yes, we agree on this.
4. No, we do not agree on this. It is possible under some conditions.

1. No, that's completely misrepresenting what I stated. The odds of this misrepresentation being "inadvertent" along with all the other "inadvertent" errors and misrepresentations is astronomical, leaving us with only one rational conclusion; that it is NOT "inadvertent", it's deliberate. Exactly contrary to your deliberate lie "inadvertent error", I specifically "strongly advised" you to try some drumkit/cymbal recording and test for yourself!
2. That too is a deliberate lie "inadvertent" misrepresentation.
3. You mean you "also feel obligated" to deliberately lie "inadvertently" misrepresent the facts again. My reasoning is not "simply that" at all!!

1. No, you "point this out" for the same reason you've pointed out just about everything else, to obfuscate and misrepresent. There are reasons why some modern recordings do not sound particularly good but contrary to your assertion, they are NOT related.
2. Yep, we appear to differ drastically in what we "see ... in terms of morality"!!
3. Will wonders never cease? Asking a question about something you don't know about, rather than just making up a bunch of nonsense assertions or analogies, is an unexpected response on your part! Unfortunately, from past experience, it can only be interpreted as a fishing expedition to get more information to "inadvertently" misrepresent again and I'm not willing to play your game. That's a shame because it might have proven useful or interesting to others in this thread, if there's actually any others left after so many pages of thread crapping!!

G

 

[bigshot]

I could already tell who was making sense and who wasn't. Attacking a whole profession because you arguments don't stand up is lame.

 

[KeithEmo]

There is an easy answer to that question.
If people really believe that the current mousetrap is "as perfect as they could possibly use" then there isn't much reason to try to build a better one.
The game is over; we've all won; have a beer.

Therefore, from the seller's point of view, if they want to stay in business, they'd better either:
a) find some way to improve a mousetrap that their customers and competitors didn't think of (and convince them it's really better)
b) make a new model mousetrap, with fancier decorations, and a few fancy blinking lights, that doesn't actually do any better at catching mice, and simply convince their customers that it's better

It's pretty simple.....
If you actually own a DAC...
And are absolutely convinced that it is "audibly perfect"...
Then you're probably never going to buy another one.
(And, since you aren't shopping for a DAC, neither I nor anyone else can possibly sell you one.)

And, from the customer's point of view:
If he's really already got a mouse trap that he's certain is perfect.... then he's not shopping for a mouse trap any more.
His game is over; he isn't going to buy another one; he is an EX-customer.

However, the reality seems to be that many people who own DACs in fact do NOT believe that "The DAC they own now is so perfect that there's no point in looking for a better one".
Likewise, a lot of people seem to be engaged in a never-ending quest to find an amplifier that does something just a tiny bit better than the one they have now.
(If they were really totally satisfied, they'd never see our magazine advertisements, because they'd be listening to music instead of reading audio magazines.)
The reality seems to be that many people aren't as convinced as you are that "perfection has already been reached".
And, to be quite honest, I suspect many would be quite disappointed, and even a bit depressed, if they decided that there was nothing else to hunt for or hope for...

And, if an endless quest for new audio gear is just an addiction, like being addicted to opiates, or chocolate, then neither of us is going to cure them.
(Luckily for us all it's a perfectly legal addiction... and the only possible serious withdrawel symptom is boredom.)

What happened to "build a better mousetrap"? Why is it "create the illusion of a better mousetrap" now... or "make people afraid that a different brand of mousetrap might not catch theoretical mice as well"? Why do people tolerate and put up with this?

 

[bigshot]

If you have a DAC for sale and people already have one, the best way to sell them a yours is to make them think that your DAC sounds better than the one they already have. That isn't necessarily the truth though. In fact, it probably isn't true at all. Many things salesmen say to sell high end audio products isn't true. In my experience, when it comes to honesty and integrity, high end audio salesmen are a notch below lawyers and a tiny notch above used car salesmen. They're regulated a lot less than either of those professions, so they probably get away with more monkey business than lawyers and used car salesmen do.

There. I just insulted a whole profession too! But that said, I'd rather listen to music recorded by professional sound engineers than set foot in a high end audio store.

 

[KeithEmo]

That would be quite true...
Except mine are the arguments that actually do stand up.

Ahh... welll....

Incidentally, I'm not "attacking the profession" in the least...
I am quite convinced that many recording engineers are in fact quite competent...
And I'm quite convinced that they turn out overly compressed audio BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE FOLKS WHO HIRE THEM ASK THEM TO DO.
I was simply pointing out that it doesn't suggest any lack of integrity to deliver to your customer exactly what they ask you for.

So, if his customers ask for overly compressed music, and my customers ask for 24/192k DACs, we are both simply giving our customers what they asked for.
It isn't his job to refuse to turn up the compression if his customers asks him to...
And it isn't my job to refuse to sell my customer a 24/192k DAC if they ask me for one.

I could already tell who was making sense and who wasn't. Attacking a whole profession because you arguments don't stand up is lame.

 

[KeithEmo]

I'm quite inclined to agree with you...

There is a lot of snake oil in the high end audio industry...
And also a lot of extremely dubious claims - and "facts" that aren't necessarily actually true.
However, to be honest, I think that's true for many industries.
(I'm not convinced that there is such a thing as a bottle of wine, or a painting, worth $20k either.)

And, yes, it is interesting how representatives of some industries seem immune to claims of plain old false advertising.

I suspect a lot of it boils down to who is usually involved...
We feel bad if someone cheats granny out of her life savings on some new and especially bogus cancer med...
But we don't feel so bad when a rich old gal spends $800 on face cream that turns out to be plain old cold cream with a fancy label...
And people who don't buy expensive audio gear feel no sympathy at all for people who waste money on expensive gear that they can't imagine anyone needs to begin with... (whether it works or not)...

I should also point out that, after quite a bit of experience, I am quite convinced that many snake oil salesmen actually believe what they claim.
That's probably why so many esoteric products are simply claimed to "sound good".... simply because nobody's ever measured them... or they measure badly and someone simply likes the way they sound.

If you have a DAC for sale and people already have one, the best way to sell them a yours is to convince them that your DAC sounds better than the one they already have. That isn't necessarily the truth though. Many things salesmen say to sell high end audio products isn't true. In my experience, when it comes to honesty and integrity, high end audio salesmen are a notch below lawyers and a tiny notch above used car salesmen. They're regulated a lot less than either of those professions, so they probably get away with more monkey business than lawyers and used car salesmen do.

There. I just insulted a whole profession too!

 

[KeithEmo]

I already mentioned that I don't actually disagree with you on this one.
There are a lot of products on the audiophile market with, shall we say, dubious benefits to recommend them.
And, on that side of that argument, people do have a natural inclination to rationalize choices they've already made.
So, once people buy something, they almost certainly have at least a slight bias to like their choice - so they can avoid feeling like they made a mistake.

However, it's only fair to point out the other side of the coin...
At Emotiva, where I work, we have a 30 day return policy on almost all of our products (excluding the occasional clearance item).
And quite a few other reputable audio companies, and even stores, have similar policies.
So, let's say I could somehow convince you that something I wanted to sell you was better, when in fact it really wasn't.....
Or let's say I could even convince you that it was much better when, in reality, it was only a little bit better...
If that happened, odds are you'd come to your senses before your 30 days was up, and you'd return that item.
And, if that happened, you'd be out the return shipping, but we'd have to sell the product you returned at a discount as "factory renewed".
Not to mention all the extra work of re-testing it, re-packing it, and shipping it all over again.
So it really isn't in our best interest to sell you a product that we're not pretty sure you're going to like - and want to keep.

And, at another level, companies that sell products like high-res recordings don't make all that much on each album they sell.
So they're really counting on your liking that first purchase enough to become a repeat customer.
(They may not offer refunds, so they may still make a few bucks on that first sale, but they really are hoping you'll be happy enough to come back for more.)
This actually does give them some incentive to limit themselves to claims they can justify and promises they can keep.
And some of them offer a few free sample downloads... so you can judge their product for yourself.

I always advise people in that situation to forget about whether it's high-res or not....
They should just judge it like they would any other re-master.... based on whether they think it actually sounds better or not.

If you have a DAC for sale and people already have one, the best way to sell them a yours is to make them think that your DAC sounds better than the one they already have. That isn't necessarily the truth though. In fact, it probably isn't true at all. Many things salesmen say to sell high end audio products isn't true. In my experience, when it comes to honesty and integrity, high end audio salesmen are a notch below lawyers and a tiny notch above used car salesmen. They're regulated a lot less than either of those professions, so they probably get away with more monkey business than lawyers and used car salesmen do.

There. I just insulted a whole profession too! But that said, I'd rather listen to music recorded by professional sound engineers than set foot in a high end audio store.

 

[bigshot]

After 30 days, the expiration date has passed and it isn't snake oil any more. Your job now is to convince yourself you made a good "investment". That involves going into Sound Science and arguing with people...

 

[KeithEmo]

Errrrr.....
I think it either is or isn't snake oil... regardless of the expiration date.
It's up to you to police your own brain and keep track of your perceptions and make sure they don't drift too badly.

However....
We generally recommend that people open the box and listen to their new equipment when it arrives.
Amazingly, even before the 30 days are up, we find that most of our customers are quite pleased.
Of course, I can't speak for anyone else.

And, if you're going to go into Sound Science, wouldn't it be a better idea to do that before you buy something?

After 30 days, the expiration date has passed and it isn't snake oil any more. Your job now is to convince yourself you made a good "investment". That involves going into Sound Science and arguing with people...

 

[bigshot]

I wasn't referring to your DACs in particular. I'm sure your DACs sound just the same as any DAC.

 

[Indiana]

I wasn't referring to your DACs in particular. I'm sure your DACs sound just the same as any DAC.

The same or worse. That's also a possibility, what I do not hope for his customers.