MUSINGS: Why Do People Equate High End Audio with Snake Oil? [And McGill MQA Study Summary]

[Available as audio podcast summary.]

I ran into this video post by Paul McGowan a few weeks back... "Why do people equate high end with snake oil?" (Start at 3:00 to skip past the chat on building their studio...)



Interesting discussion I guess...

If you do a search for the words "snake oil" on this blog, you'll see that I typically don't use the term much in my writings. But we do find it used in the forums and in discussions online. It's certainly not uncommon for people to express opinions that certain marketed audio devices or components belong to this understandably maligned category of product.

McGowan's answer is (of course) the usual apologetic arguing for the existence of the "high-end", which is basically that there is a sonic distinction between "high-end" products from presumably the "lower-end". The points he made I think can basically be distilled down to the following:

1. People who call "high-end" audio snake oil have their "worldview threatened". Mr. McGowan then proceeds to use analogies with restaurants, cars, expensive homes as justification that certain higher classes of goods presumably naturally exist to satisfy consumer needs - including "high end audio". "All a matter of perspective" he says.

2. Such people are "lashing out" because they feel threatened. He suggests that these are people who opine that "It can't cost that much money!" again because of worldview issues. There is presumably some kind of inherent meanness and anger; maybe an expression of projected jealousy? He at one point uses an example of him choosing to be a vegetarian many years back, preferring organic foods, etc. and then experiencing the reaction of others at times out of kindness showing concern about his at-that-time questionable choice, and also on occasion "anger and ridicule" (he could be "riddled with maggots" because he didn't consume pesticides?!). Not sure if others find this argument all that convincing or if the analogy makes sense speaking of audio products.

3. Not unexpectedly, he then suggested for the disbeliever to "take some time to find out for yourself". He suggests that there is a "huge chasm between what we listen to in high-end audio and what others listen to in home stereo that don't have 'that'" (whatever 'that' refers to is up to some interpretation). He feels that the "chasm is as large as the Grand Canyon" (~8:00).

Let's roll back the clock more than 100 years. Let's think about what "snake oil" is referring to...

For some historical background on "snake oil", it's worth reading this article from NPR. Interesting that the original "snake oil" likely came from the Chinese indentured laborers who brought with them a traditional Chinese medicine based on extract from the water-snake which may have had some anti-inflammatory properties. However, what we remember as "snake oil" in the West is the fraudulent profiteering famously demonstrated by showmen like Clark Stanley:

It's arguable whether Stanley's claims of actual "rattlesnake oil" would have had any medical benefit, but the sad fact is that his "oil" apparently did not contain any snake products at all! It was all just mineral oil, beef fat, pepper and turpentine. Pure fraud. However, this didn't stop Mr. Stanley from being "successful" as a businessman of his time. He was apparently slapped on the wrist with a symbolic $20 (~US$500 these days with inflation) fine when caught for his fraudulent practices! Furthermore, it is said that Mr. Stanley appeared in shows including the 1893 World Expo where he would dissect a live snake and boil the animal's parts to extract the oil as demonstration of the extraction process and presumably impress upon the audience of the medicinal properties.

When we speak of "snake oil" these days, we are of course referring to this combination of a product that contains no actual efficacy, yet sold with the promise of positive benefits which are often said to be far-reaching, typically attached to a level of salesmanship that suggests some level of authority as demonstrated by Mr. Stanley.

Snake oil sales is an example of a "confidence game", or more colloquially, a "con", and the individuals who partake in the sales, "con men". The idea is to take advantage of and sell to "suckers", usually those felt to be naïve enough for the manipulative fraudster to capture his/her confidence. In many cons, there are often willing accomplices involved who can either derive gain from the fraudulent claims and sales directly (ie. getting a cut of the proceeds) or indirectly (eg. secondary gains like recognition or benefits of association). These accomplices are "shills" and I've certainly seen this term used more than once in the audiophile world to describe certain individuals.

Notice that Mr. McGowan's response actually did not address the question being posed to him at all! He never actually answered the question: is there "snake oil" being sold in "high end" audio such that the public would associate the two?

McGowan's silence in addressing the presence of "snake oil" implies that these kinds of fraudulent products or sales tactics do not exist. That somehow, if we were to just "open our minds", then we would see the truth and appreciate the "chasm" in sound quality between "high end" products and I suppose whatever is below such a lofty level of performance. He seems to paint the picture that those willing to call out highly questionable if not full-on fraudulent claims as malcontent Customers who have had their worldview threatened instead of the actual dubious practices being done on the side of the Industry.

Permit me be be frank. IMO, yes, I believe there is very much "snake oil" salesmanship going on in many areas of "high end" audio. Remember though that fraudulent products and sales tactics happen in many places, not just audiophilia (for example, think of fraudulent pharmaceuticals, naturopathy, homeopathy, the local psychic, etc.). However, like most things in life, it's a bit more complicated and it would not be fair to classify everything as black or white.

If we take some time to break it down, I think there are actually 3 “classes” of devices in audiophilia that could be considered dubious, judged in the light of whether the device actually improves audio fidelity. From most dubious to perhaps more acceptable depending on one's station in life...

Class A: Audio “Snake Oil” Products

These products likely will immediately raise the objections of many audiophiles simply because they challenge common sense and audio science! These companies will either never release objective evidence of benefit, or if they do, the conclusions are of an unconvincing form (for example, release tests with no description of set-up, graphs with axes poorly labeled, inappropriate measurements in the MHz and GHz rather than audio frequencies...). Truly the “cream of the crop” when we think of “snake oil”.

It's not hard to point to examples of the exotic and bizarre. Over the years, we've seen things like  CD/DVD demagnetization, green pens to color the margins of CDs, CD disc "mats", small room tweaks here and here, cup-like "resonators", "beaks", strange bags of rocks, "base" devices, fuses and outlets, clocks in the room, stick-on foils, EMI reducing “stones”, "soundfield" optimizers, thing that combats bad RF, quantum purifiers, cable risers, phone calls that improve sound…

Presumably there are still faithful adherents for some of these products, and some of the concepts behind certain devices may seem more plausible to one's sensibilities than others. The time has come and gone for many of them (anyone still interested in the Tice Clock?). One rarely hears about some of these anymore, thankfully.

More reputable audiophile magazine and writer will not bother to mention these products. In fact, I hope that serious writers will get a bit more courageous in actively cautioning readers about controversial claims rather than staying quiet.

Class B: Unnecessary Audio Accessorizing

There are other devices I would consider being highly unlikely to be beneficial but often marketed as if these can or even should be used by many audiophiles. These are devices that exist in the "gray", between worthless to possibly having some marginal value. Some of the items I listed above may belong in this category for you if you think their mechanism of action holds some truth.

At least Class B products don’t purport to have bizarre or magical properties. For example, there are accessories meant to improve certain technical factors like "lower noise", "less jitter", or "better frequency extension" but really have little ability to do so. I remember attending a demo for AudioQuest’s Jitterbug where the suggestion was made that one should buy 3 or 4 of these to use even with unconnected USB ports (supposedly lower the noise of the overall USB system if you plug up a connector with one of these)! I would stick similar type of products like the UpTone Regen and iFi Purifier products in this category. Likewise, I’ve attended sales demonstrations where very expensive power filtration boxes were used with the claim that “everyone” would be able to hear a difference. I think most people left the demo less than impressed with the non-effect.

Some of these accessories may be beneficial in limited situations (like with a terrible computer / audio streamer, or maybe if one lives in a city with ridiculously poor power grid). Unless companies can prove otherwise, I think it’s wise to steer clear of these claims since there’s no point rewarding companies for making generally useless things even if the cost isn’t extremely high.

Class C: Audio Jewelry

This is where luxury, price and purported “better sound” converge. “High end” disk spinners, amplifiers, pre-amps, speakers, headphones, computer servers, streaming devices can be found in all manners of shapes, sizes, and MSRPs starting typically at four-figures with the sky being the limit. One could argue that "high end" products are by definition Class C by virtue of the price.

As many here are already aware, luxury and price do not necessarily make for a high fidelity sound. For example, check out the review of this recent boutique DAC with an asking price of US$17,000. Lots of fancy claims about how good it is, how it uses expensive parts (look ma, no chips, just precision R2R ladders and FPGAs!), how the background and theory of operation is awesome (galvanic and magnetic isolation people!), right? Then look at the severity of jitter and the noise floor in those measurements, plus the amount of distortion; these results would be embarrassing even for good DACs selling at 1/10 the price - never mind the lack of a reconstruction filter!

The example of this specific $17,000 product is worth considering when it comes to the typical “high end” marketing approach. If we look at the product's web page under "Reviews and Awards", we see that the company depends on accolades from the audiophile press offered as "proof" that it deserves the esteem of the audiophile hobby. So what does it mean when something like this gets so much praise? Is it that the "golden ears" are not able to discern the limitations of this device or that maybe even if they heard the high jitter and noise, they still prefer it? If it is the former, then maybe their ears/minds as instruments of auditory acuity were never "golden", and if it's the latter, then isn't it a bit hypocritical to recommend this device with suboptimal sound? Either way, the subjective review process seems flawed when there's no input from objective analysis to confirm basic domains of performance. We can be thankful that at least Stereophile continues to publish measurements here in North America.

Is it any wonder that often the word "shill" is applied to audiophile magazines and the writers who typically seem to provide favorable opinions to very expensive equipment? Rather, these products, often coming from small, young companies need to be critically assessed especially with that kind of asking price. Instead, we see time and again, all kinds of expensive products obtaining an easy “pass” or even meaningless awards like "Greatest Bits" from the press, utilizing their low bar of subjective assessment to gather interest and sales based on nothing but weak testimony.

In the past, I have spoken of the "non-utilitarian functions" of products that give the impression of luxury and recognize that some customers will pay for that pride of ownership. As suggested above with the triad of luxury, price and sound quality, luxury in and of itself almost never seems to be acceptable. There's the inevitable claim that somehow "it sounds better" when one enters the "high end" as echoed by Paul McGowan. I see little proof that “high end” necessarily correlates with “better sound”. There is evidence that some products like the $17,000 DAC (among many others) sound worse.

In the world of fashion, the subjective notion of luxury which comes with higher prices can be appreciated independently. For example, a woman does not need a Louis Vuitton handbag. However, by owning such an item, she sends out a message that she has at her disposal certain financial resources and this would help anchor her social / financial stature and induce admiration in those who appreciate such things. This has nothing to do with the utilitarian "carrying capacity" of the bag itself, and the woman doesn't need to go around insisting that the product’s asking price showed good value because the available volume inside the "high end" bag was better than something less expensive!

Why must audiophiles then insist that a "high end" brand's 2-metre audio cable "sounds better" than a much less expensive one when at the end of the day, objective measurements, science and common sense states that it makes no meaningful difference to the sound? Is there anything wrong with the audiophile proudly stating that the hand-made, small volume, workmanship of a $3000 cable made by “artisans” in a family-run business out of Bavaria is what differentiates his product from an equivalent length of $50 cable from China using otherwise good quality wire and connectors and that "the sound" isn't what defines one from the other? Likewise, if a head-fi audiophile wants to demonstrate a splash of elegance wearing limited edition Focal gold plated headphones (only 100,000 euros), so be it. Is there anything wrong in admitting as an audiophile that many of these "high end" products are statements of prestige and social stature much like the expensive handbag or maybe some nice jewelry made with the same attention to detail, expert design, and material costs?

At a time in history when the science of the typical 2-channel audio reproduction system has reached maturity in many ways, I think there's an honesty in accepting that "high end" audiophile products are simply status symbols now (and has been for many years). By facing this honestly, it would take away the need for "snake oil" tactics to market certain products by claiming what they cannot deliver (ie. an actually better sound quality when objectively they don't). To me it is this unspoken yet plainly obvious conflict which creates such ridicule and tension not just among audiophiles with different value systems on public forums (eg. subjectivists vs. objectivists), but also in how the general public and the scientific community view the "high end" audio industry and the marketing tactics used.

As far as I can tell, McGowan is very wrong when he claims that the "chasm is as large as the Grand Canyon" between the sound of "high end" products and presumably competent, affordable high-fidelity equipment. Rather, my experience has been that once you take out the psychological effects of expectation bias, there is simply no "chasm" when it comes to the sonic difference. The biggest differences between say a good "high end" DAC and an otherwise technically competent one are presentation, fancier appearance, perhaps better materials and workmanship for these "high end" products. For some, the extra expense could be worth it and there's no shame in accepting this if one has been ogling some Nordost cables, Burmester CD player, or Magico speakers to adorn the man cave! But please… Let's not overstate actual sonic benefits.

If you look at that snake oil ad at the very top of this article, you see the claim "GUARANTEE A CURE in every instance or MONEY REFUNDED". Interesting isn't it that to this day, the "30-day money back guarantee" is so often used by purveyors of dubious gear as justification of why you should “just try it because it's safe" and you can get your money back? Of course, this is a great method to induce sales. Whether it works or not, once you get a product home, there's a resistance to go through the process of a return. Sometimes an RMA is needed from the company, then there's the packing and making sure you're not missing something, then there's driving to the local mail office, the cost of shipping... More likely than not, to try a product means one loses some money on the shipping either to one's home and/or back. Good marketing tactic back when snake oil was an actual product, just as good now :-).

Finally, you might be wondering about cables. Probably more than any other single “component” in the audio system, “high end” cables are both common and contentious. IMO, depending on what is being promoted; cables can span all 3 Classes. There are true “snake oil” Class A cables like those that claim to incorporate smoke and mirrors “technology” like “cryogenic treatment”, have “quantum” properties, treated with thousands of volts to “change molecular structure”, are "directional", etc. I personally consider all expensive digital cables Class A if claims are made about "better sound" (here's a beautiful example). Some cable manufacturers could be claiming special construction and dielectrics that improve resistance, inductance, and capacitance but not likely beneficial for typical lengths and for audio applications (ie. Class B dubious product). Finally, there are Class C cables simply aiming to be expensive and demands to be owned by high class, elite audiophiles who desire luxury.

There is of course nothing stopping a product from transcending all classes. Consider this Synergistic Atmosphere Cable Level 4 review. It's got everything from pseudoscience (?Uniform Energy Field technology? Anti-resonance for cables? Bullets presumably like what I previously examined?), to dubious benefits (monofilament silver you say?) to of course an attempt at luxury (handsome with good-sized girth, RCA starting at US$2500 for 1m, speaker cables US$5000 for 8-ft). All written of course in flowery subjective language some would describe as "shilling".

Here's a thought... If Stereophile can have fun subjectively rating devices as Class A/B/C/etc., why not rate these devices as well based on snake oil "Dubiousness Class" (DC)? Inexpensive tweak with pseudoscience claims - Class A (DC-A). Non-egregiously-priced analogue cable with monofilament silver that might have slight benefit for very long cables but the company insists "sound better" - DC-B like maybe this Crystal Cable assuming the price is OK for you or in the used market. Luxury with no clear benefits - DC-C like this Vitus Audio amplifier. Expensive luxury item with pseudoscience claims (like this Synergistic power cable) - DC-AC...

Ultimately, for me, being a rational audiophile that avoids all true “snake oil” seems reasonable. I don’t mind learning about DC-B products but I’m certainly not going to “buy to try” unless the manufacturer works hard to show me evidence of benefit in a good system. And maybe I’ll even splurge on some expensive gear if I want a DC-C product that lustfully appeals to me! As consumers, we should remain educated and I think it is the responsibility of the press to elevate understanding among hobbyists, and in the process, help with weeding out "snake oil". Sadly, it appears that much of the audiophile magazines and writings these days exist for the purpose of pushing sales.

Never mind the snake oil ("high end" or otherwise)... Enjoy the music...

----------------------

Speaking of cons... er... MQA. Here's something I wrote on the Computer Audiophile forum the other day. A summary of recent research on sonic "clarity" of the so-called MQA "format".

Posted on June 6, 2018:

Thanks to one of the members here for letting me have a look at the McGill AES article. Can't put it up in its entirety for obvious reasons, but I'll summarize... 

A good read and they certainly spent quite a bit of time getting this done. Here are the "vital stats" from the paper "A Comparison of Clarity in MQA Encoded Files vs. Their Unprocessed State" released May 2018: 

- 24/96 PCM sources. 3 pieces of music: pop "Right On Time" (Jerry Douglas & Marc Cohn), jazz "Trampolin" (Chick Corea), classical "Shostakovich 5th, 1st Movement" (Andris Nelsons & Boston SO). 24/96 PCM vs. 24/48 MQA encode by MQA themselves. 30-second segments used. Samples checked for level match of course. They didn't say if they checked that the Brooklyn DAC wasn't accidentally using MQA filters for PCM playback! 

- Hardware: ITU-R BS. 775-1 standard room, speakers B&W 802D, headphones Sennheiser HD800. Some audio switching based on MIDI control, 2 independent laptops playing either PCM or MQA to 2 Brooklyn Mytek DACs. SM Pro PM8 passive summing box --> Crookwood C10 monitor controller for switching. Alas, switching added 500ms of silence rather than more instantaneous transition. 

- Listeners: 3 sets of 10 subjects. The 3 sets: "Expert listeners" from McGill graduate music program, "Musicians" mostly with university level training, and "Casual listeners" (presumably some students and employees). Average age in all 3 groups in their late 20's (~25-29). Didn't mention what the men:women ratio was. 

- Test: A/B testing, asked to choose which sample seemed "clearer" as in "all details of a performance can be clearly perceived; the opposite of 'muddy'; the subjective impression that all details of the performance can be clearly perceived". 15 trials using the headphones, 15 trials with speakers; total ~45 minutes doing the test. 

- Results: When averaged out, the 3 groups showed nothing significant. I wish I could post Figure 5 - that's all you need to see :-). With multi-way analysis, "engineers" tended to like MQA pieces on headphones, "musicians" preferred the PCM jazz piece on speakers. Casual listeners rated MQA higher for the jazz piece on headphones and the PCM classical piece on speakers. As for individual analysis, 6 listeners tended to choose one over the other - even split of 3 preferring MQA, 3 preferring PCM (but this was before Bonferroni correction which took away the statistical significance)! 

Bottom line: The conclusion of course addressed a few of the issues like the 500ms silence introduced in the switch... Maybe other pieces of music would have been better... Maybe something other than "clarity" needs to be assessed. 

1. "The de-blurring processing in MQA encoding does not necessarily provide additional clarity over the original" 

2. "MQA is successful in providing a smaller, more easily streamable copy of the source WAV file, while maintaining a very similar level of clarity" 

No surprise, and basically my conclusions last year as well... Too bad they didn't comment if the Brooklyn DAC was stuck on the MQA filter when playing back the hi-res PCM! In fact, they didn't mention the word "filter" at all in the paper. Should have passed the paper to an audiophile familiar with all these MQA discussions to provide feedback :-). 

No evidence of "revolution", "paradigm shifts", "birth of new worlds", etc... etc...

I'd consider MQA either Dubiousness Class A (DC-A) if the company keeps insisting that the questionable "de-blur" and filters sound better on a "revolutionary" scale. DC-B if on the other hand it's just meant to be a form of partially lossy data compression that's supposed to deliver the "essence" of streamed hi-res audio. Either way, it's still a dubious product.

Hard to imagine much more discussion needed about MQA. I think it's done.

Addendum: May 2022

Well after all these years, what the heck, here's Figure 5 from the MQA paper with summary of the data; notice how insignificant the differences:

10 subjects each in the "casual", "engineer", and "musician" cohorts for a total of 30 listeners.

Addendum: October 2024 - for those who prefer an audio/podcast A Dive into... summary of "Audio Snake Oil":