SUMMER MUSINGS: What could possibly be wrong with the High-End Audiophile Industry?! 🤔 (The supplier side of audiophoolery.)

Alas all good things end including summer, so this will be the last instalment to my "Summer Musings" series for the year. For completeness, since we talked about the "audiophool" consumer hobbyist last time, let's make sure to address the other side of the coin when it comes to audiophile silliness - the supplier - manufacturers, and the media that sell us stuff.

As a pre-emptive comment against sounding like a grumpy old man who doesn't want audiophiles to have fun, let me just say that this commentary is not against "having fun". If fun means enjoying your music, trying out different hardware, exploring the various sounds you can achieve at all kinds of price points, I'm totally on board with that!

However, freedom to do all kinds of things obviously doesn't imply that we shut down our brains and accept that "anything goes!". Many things can be a lot of fun at the time but not good for us, the hangover could be nasty, and regrets more common than we might want to admit. So if there's foolishness when it comes to the Industry itself, let's make sure to think about that and come to terms with it for ourselves.

In the recent post about audiophoolery, Solderdude and Mikhail wrote the following comments:

Solderdude 18 August 2025 at 23:13

I have often wondered how many snake-oil sellers actually believe in what they are selling and are equally 'misguided' by their hearing (they are human after all). Examples could be Paul McClown and Danny.

Some, for sure, are just unscrupulous money grabbers (think Machina Dynamica and absurdly priced cable sellers).

And, oh boy, most audiophools as well as audiophiles usually have plenty of money to spend on their hobby and being human and lacking actual knowledge are very easy to 'hear' things that aren't there just as they are equally fooled by optical illusions.

Some might simply have fallen for the same 'perception effects' and fully believe in what they are selling. Are these sellers also unscrupulous ?

Perhaps only the ones that sell their wares at way too high margins for what it costs to manufacture ?

Mikhail 19 August 2025 at 07:18

Should we start calling this sector of the audio industry "alternative engineering"? If there was Federal Audio Administration they would require putting labels like "Claims not verified by double blind testing" and "This product is not intended to actually improve the sound of your audio system" on their products.

Interesting points. Let's talk about this.

To start, let's just zoom out and look at the Big Picture. Beyond forum audiophile debates. Beyond talking about measurements and whether we believe them. Beyond the "tribes" of audiophiles like "subjectivists" and "objectivists", there is the basic truth noted by Mikhail that audiophile product advertising by manufacturers is for the most part unregulated; for better or worse there is no "Federal Audio Administration". This has significant implications for the messages we receive as hobbyists and potential biases from those in the mainstream or social media that deliver the messages.

While individual audiophiles can claim this or that personally in forums, blogs, podcasts, and videos, these usually do not cause widespread impact. For example, once awhile, we see odd things like the Bughead Emperor music player a decade back during the "computer audiophile" years as discussed here and elsewhere. A hobbyist project like this can get a few audiophiles interested, but they come and go without creating long-lasting effect, because, well, in this case regarding music player software, eventually the "bits are bits" concept gets recognized as truth.

Manufacturers in comparison have a lot more power when it comes to creating influence since they have financial investors, advertising budgets and multi-generational product cycles. They're out to make money and "stretching the truth" in advertising is commonplace although there are limits as to what can still be considered within ethical boundaries. Without regulations applicable to many types of audio products (an exception might be FTC's rules on amplifier wattage claims), companies can almost literally advertise whatever they want, how they want, especially when it comes to esoteric, luxury products.

Whole industries like the "high-end cable" sector exist with probably hundreds of companies worldwide selling products without regulatory oversight. Some companies might be a bit more conservative in their advertising and would not push their products' benefits too far, whereas others will unabashedly make claims of significant sonic effects with no objective evidence. At audio shows, I've attended AudioQuest, Nordost, and Synergistic Research demos for example clearly intending to send a message to audiophiles that their products "sound better". Other advertising (like this AudioQuest HDMI one a number of years back) went a step further to change the sound to imply that the cable had an effect which is clearly false advertising.

[It's nice when companies like this and this can make fun of the obviously lucrative high-margin cable market.]

Nonetheless, consumer protection rules and regulations do exist around the world although enforcement might be weak. Governmental and independent agencies like the FTC in the USA, ASA based in the UK, Office of Consumer Affairs here in Canada, ICPEN internationally, and others exist, so I suppose worse comes to worse, an audiophile can appeal to these agencies or report on fraudulent companies if worth the hassle.

As for legal statutes, there's the "Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act" here in British Columbia, Canada. I imagine the content of this legislation is similar through most jurisdictions. Here are a few excerpts to consider (underlining and some bold added):

4   (1) In this Division:

"deceptive act or practice" means, in relation to a consumer transaction,

(a) an oral, written, visual, descriptive or other representation by a supplier, or

(b) any conduct by a supplier

that has the capability, tendency or effect of deceiving or misleading a consumer or guarantor;

"representation" includes any term or form of a contract, notice or other document used or relied on by a supplier in connection with a consumer transaction.

(2) A deceptive act or practice by a supplier may occur before, during or after the consumer transaction.

(3) Without limiting subsection (1), one or more of the following constitutes a deceptive act or practice:

(a) a representation by a supplier that goods or services

(i) have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, ingredients, quantities, components, uses or benefits that they do not have,

(ii) are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model if they are not,

(iii) have a particular prior history or usage that they do not have, including a representation that they are new if they are not,

(iv) are available for a reason that differs from the fact,

(v) are available if they are not available as represented,

(vi) were available in accordance with a previous representation if they were not,

(vii) are available in quantities greater than is the fact, or

(viii) will be supplied within a stated period if the supplier knows or ought to know that they will not;

Prohibition and burden of proof

5 (1) A supplier must not commit or engage in a deceptive act or practice in respect of a consumer transaction.

(2) If it is alleged that a supplier committed or engaged in a deceptive act or practice, the burden of proof that the deceptive act or practice was not committed or engaged in is on the supplier.

In the "representation" section we find text about what "deceptive" practices are. These are wide-ranging including misrepresentation of quality, performance, benefit, and amount (important for claimed limited edition collector items). Deception can happen at any time with relation to the transaction. The burden of proof section makes it clear that if there are allegations that the claims are deceptive, it is the "supplier" of the customer transaction who has to provide proof.

This doesn't just mean the company that makes the product, but would include secondary advertising agencies, magazines/websites/video channels that facilitate the transaction. The only time that a publication can claim innocence around false advertising is when they're running ads on behalf of the supplier and unaware that the ad contains deceptive information:

Advertising

6 (1) In this section, "advertiser" means a supplier who publishes advertisements.

   (2) An advertiser who, on behalf of another supplier, publishes a deceptive or misleading advertisement is not liable under section 171 [damages recoverable], 172 [court actions respecting consumer transactions] or 189 [offences] if the advertiser proves that the advertiser did not know and had no reason to suspect that its publication would contravene section 5.

   (3) An advertiser, for each advertisement accepted, must maintain a record of the name and address of the supplier who provides the advertisement.

In the above comment by Solderdude when he said:

"I have often wondered how many snake-oil sellers actually believe in what they are selling and are equally 'misguided' by their hearing (they are human after all)..."

Indeed, I suspect there are both types of snake-oil sellers. Some, like the Machina Dynamica guy could seriously have strong beliefs in what he's selling, but then there are the Ted Denneys of this world, selling this kind of stuff who I suspect are totally aware of the confidence game they're perpetuating - delusional persons or liars, which is worse?

While we can suspect, it's not possible to prove the insightfulness (or lack of) of these individuals. In any event, I'm not sure if that matters when it comes to allegations of misrepresentation if any of that went before the courts since these guys (the suppliers) are still responsible to provide proof for what they claim.

At least more reputable companies are careful about their claims. For example, if PS Audio says that their power conditioner like this PowerPlant 20 will make your audio systems sound amazing, then perhaps one could claim possibly deceptive advertising and demand that they provide proof (measurements are not particularly complementary of this kind of product).

Instead, we see that companies regularly utilize subjective testimonies within the information they give to imply benefits at some arm's length. For example if we scroll down a bit in that PowerPlant 20 webpage, we see this:

Thanks to the kindness of such esteemed gentlemen like Michael Fremer, Rafe Arnott, Jeff Dorgay, Tom Lyle, and Jim Austin, PS Audio can use their words to make claims they would not be able to say themselves. Subjective opinions are what they are, and so long as the subjective message isn't misconstrued as objective (see ASA 3.6), that's at least not legally fraudulent even if some of us might find this sketchy.

And so it is that there has been this incestuous relationship between "high end audio" and the various media outlets, magazines writers, "influencers" who feed off this system as their profession - effectively the unspoken advertising arm of such companies (some further examples here and here). The company thus leverages third-party credibility of such individuals and uses these third-party testimonies as "social proof" to bolster their product. This kind of practice of course transcends audiophilia into many types of product - HE-MAN supplements anyone?

From recent South Park, Season 27 Episode 2. The "Masterdebating" podcast. 🤣

[BTW: Paul McGowan as a representative of PS Audio needs to be careful about making claims when talking about devices like the PowerPlant in his YouTube videos.]

Within this dynamic, conflicts of interest become key issues. When we read reviews, are we told whether the reviewer was given the product for free? Is it a "long term loan" - how long term? If bought, did they receive a considerable discount below market value? Can they resell the item at market value? Is it clear that their writings/videos (advertising) of products could result in any financial gain - either directly from the supplier as a paid review or secondary kickbacks? Do positive reviews result in other benefits like future advertising revenue for the publication? Maybe less obvious benefits like a free meal at the audio show and drinks at the bar (like this), exclusive demos, personalized home set-up, etc.

While conflicts of interest can bias all reviews since even objective measurements could be done in ways that favor a product and the written report would still contain subjective judgments, at least objective results provide us with non-imagined findings that can be replicated across different evaluators and likely in different audio systems. The extra challenge with objective reviews is making sure results are valid using calibrated instruments, consistent procedures used, variables adequately controlled, and a wide enough battery of tests are used to capture what's audibly important. In many ways, it's harder to construct objective reviews than purely subjective ones where the reviewer can just say almost anything without putting much thought into the testing procedure or methodically organizing results to present to the reader/viewer. I think this is at least in part why we don't see as many objective reviews - it's not as "fun", requires more technical knowledge, and actually takes work to get it done.

Recently, more subjective-only reviewers are making it a point that they're doing "side-by-side listening" (eg. this Darko.Audio video). Sure, while that's much better than comparing the sound to a long-gone-component and will improve reader's faith in the subjective opinion as reflecting "truth", there are still all kinds of issues of potential undisclosed conflicts, and limitations of uncontrolled evaluations. As discussed, we should never call this kind of evaluation "objective" because it's not.

Let's end off with talking about why truth-in-advertising and integrity matter; some things we want to avoid happening in this hobby so as to reduce more "phoolishness":

1. Let's not erode consumer trust any further.

IMO, erosion of trust among audiophiles has already happened thanks to the decades, nay, generations of non-sense we have witnessed within the magazines and online. The rise of "objectivism" among hi-fi hobbyists in the last decade is an expected natural reaction to the numerous issues that have arisen over the years causing damage to the level of "faith" among audiophiles.

Given all the objective results published out there, easy access to information, companies now also sharing data for their products, audiophiles have access to more detailed knowledge about high-fidelity technology than any time in history. It's certainly a far cry compared to when I was a beginner-audiophile in the '90s reading magazines and chatting with just-as-clueless hobbyists about silly green pens for marking up CDs! This access to knowledge has been a very positive change for the hobby.

Purely-subjective reviewers and publications of course cannot be happy about this because often the objective results can easily undermine their desire to influence (ie. their credibility). The whole MQA enterprise (dragging in senior members of magazines into the nonsense), and more specifically examples like Michael Fremer's attempt to hype it can be undone quite easily once we show the facts. It's no wonder that comments are shut off on some websites, and some YouTube videos' feedback heavily moderated to obscure criticisms (see comments for this guy's videos for example).

Discussed as recently as a few months ago, Stereophile likely just did not want readers to talk back as they embark on more nonsense like publishing this $5,000  "ZERO-Tech" product placement which I bet would have gathered a few snarky remarks, or to the highly questionable performance of the Volti Audio Lucera speaker review. 😂 Can't let the Industry sponsors be unhappy that audiophiles might want to question the benefits/values of such things, right? (I know, Stereophile posted this editorial; sure, whatever.)

If one is interested in meaningful high-fidelity sound evaluation these days, I think one would be better-informed by looking at the objective data for background research, then trying the device in your own system using your own ears/preferences, cutting the "middleman" subjective-only reviewer out of the sonic evaluation if possible. Subjective impressions about sound quality are more than likely meaningless - at best an idiosyncratic reflection of their ears, their mental state, and their specific systems, including their room of course. 

Note that this doesn't mean we shouldn't watch the subjective videos or read the testimonial articles! There's social entertainment to be had, and from a product evaluation perspective, these articles/videos can still be used for assessing appearance, build quality, user-friendliness, feature set, reliability, as opposed to seeing them as serious sound-quality assessments from "golden eared" influencers. I suspect in time, this kind of attitude among hobbyists will go a long way towards breaking that co-dependent manufacturer/conflicted-subjective-interviewer-as-advertising linkage for promoting questionable sonic claims.

$6000 in used gear; $9000 in cables, cleaners, lifters, power conditioners,
accessories, and tweaks.

2. Let's not waste time and money.

This one should be obvious. While it's a hobby and we can spend time and money in whatever way we see fit, there's still something to be said about being misled when we could have enjoyed music, spent money to encourage our favorite musicians or companies with good engineering that embody an ethical spirit.

Instead, questionable companies invite us to squander our productivity into enriching con-artists based on false ideas and typically grossly inflated prices. I trust this goes against the moral principles engrained in most of us desiring to act as wise consumers.

I also want to remind everyone not to judge, thinking that it has to do with socioeconomic status. Millionaires did not become rich and own assets because they were foolish and accepted whatever the salesmen told them. In the past, some have suggested that audiophiles who criticized products were somehow all just "envious" (like Michael Lavorgna did years ago or have to "COPE" because we're missing out) which is ridiculous much of the time; some stuff might be good, but why would anyone envy foolish decision-making with most of the very expensive stuff? Sure, multi-millionaires can afford expensive things, but why if ultimately they come to the same conclusion as a middle-income hobbyist that certain types of products from certain companies lack value?

Heck, I think the multi-millionaire audiophile enthusiast probably would experience greater gratification putting together his own Red Dragon speaker cables than just dropping money on some Nordosts for example. 😆

3. Let's not disadvantage and distract from ethical businesses that make quality products.

Because snake oil companies never actually add to technological progress in exchange for the money they take, the fostering of false beliefs disadvantage audiophiles from focusing on things that really do make a difference.

Consider for example the companies that make room treatment products (like GIK Acoustics, Primacoustic, Vicoustic, RealTraps, ASC) and provide useful analysis of room acoustics. I don't know the size of the "high-end cable" industry, but imagine if audiophiles shifted more dollars into making sure their rooms are better treated. Perhaps we could be rewarding companies like these that make useful products based on acoustic science or a company that innovates with materials and designs that would make meaningful impact.

There's a potential "virtuous cycle" if we invest in Industries that bring about advancement as they innovate and we as audiophiles and music lovers further benefit from each generation. After all these decades, has there been any meaningful sonic improvement if we compared generic 12AWG OFC copper zip cord speaker cables to the latest, greatest, and costliest Synergistic Research, MasterBuilt Audio, Nordost or AudioQuest? What progress has those companies made to improve audiophile quality of life, exactly? Is there even a need for so many cable companies in the "high-end audio" space?

4. As a hobby, let's make sure to not end up technologically stagnant.

Since snake oil companies do not propel technology forward but rather they just want to sell us fictional claims with "quantum" this and "mythical" that, excess focus on these companies/products result in stagnation. The Industry might end up in a cycle of promoting meaningless trinkets or even the worship of very expensive "over-engineered" luxury goods for little benefit (ie. grossly diminished returns).

All technology at some point will become antiquated, obsolete. Sometimes we have to let things go if they are relics of that past. I assume there might still be a group of enthusiasts excited about a new line of masterfully constructed and adorned horse-drawn carriages, but for transportation, a car has been the superior technology since the early 1900's.

For audiophiles, while there will likely always be a subgroup of us who will continue to be fascinated by anachronistic hardware (ie. tube amps, vinyl, turntables and cartridges, old analogue tapes, etc.), I don't hear/consider these products as possessing any "magic", nor the idealistic sonic "purity" of all-analogue media and gear as something special beyond audible and quantifiable distortions due to their technical fidelity limitations.

Some audiophiles speak of this stuff as "magic", effectively hyping up old analog gear, forever potentially consumed with the next $250,000 turntable (first 33.3rpm LPs released in 1948) with whatever essentially meaningless diminished returns at ever-increasing prices. Doesn't this all seems foolish, as if relentlessly chasing the wind, at some point? If the audiophile hobby becomes wrapped up mostly in esoteric retro stuff presented as having magical sonics, we could certainly be depriving ourselves of better audio technologies to be found beyond this myopic view.

I get the sense that the old-skool retro ideas of some audiophile writers and the kinds of products (yet more BBC LS3/5A-like speakers anyone?) featured in magazines touting higher-prices and luxury as desirable have already created a kind of culture that has perpetuated a strange pseudo-ideal of "purity". Within this culture, often beneficial features such as the use of EQ is looked down upon, modern digital streaming is somehow viewed as lower fidelity than analogue (false), or using more powerful DSP techniques such as room correction somehow seen as tarnishing the sacred idea of minimum processing. I also think for too long, magazines and reviewers have de-emphasized the importance of accurate spatial reproduction.

Hopefully, this evolves in the years ahead within mainstream respectable audiophilia as we embrace technological innovations and understand objective improvements in fidelity rather than hold on to false "received wisdom".

[Speaking of those tubes, vinyl, megabuck turntables and cartridges, etc.

The other day, I got a kick out of this Fremer video where he played a segment of Lori Lieberman's "Truly" on his very expensive turntable, cartridge, (pre)amp, speakers, etc. I believe that for hi-fi playback in the 21st Century, one should not need to make excuses for the presence of excess noise on playback as he often does. But even disregarding audible surface noise and some issues with adequacy of frequency response, the loss of resolution from his vinyl is obvious through the binaural recording. There's a muddled sound if you compare this to good digital playback of this song. I wonder if Fremer can hear that or maybe he's so used to it in that room that he thinks it's "better"? (I've spoken about the audibility of LP's inferiority through YouTube videos previously.)

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with loving vinyl, but let's just recognize that by design, LP's fidelity which might have been great in the '70s, has easily been supplanted since the arrival of digital audio, definitely as digital matured through the late '80s and '90s. Nostalgia, physicality, and collectability are powerful forces for us humans so absolutely enjoy those benefits of vinyl, but not for any kind of particularly excellent high-fidelity sound compared to a good digital master.

BTW, have a look at all the time he spent discussing the potential pitfalls of vinyl playback earlier in the video: combatting dirt/noise, ways of reducing turntable noise/timing issues, importance of proper EQ curves (we're talking +/-20dB adjustments to low-amplitude signals with the RIAA curve!), geometry variables like azimuth, rake angle, tonearm counterweights and calibration, etc. This kind of error-prone, kludgy, system will result in countless sound quality issues and obviously not high-fidelity audio playback of the 21st Century.]

In summary...

Enjoy the last bits of summer 2025, friends! 🥹

As usual, just be wise - don't be "audiophools" - about what we purchase, where we buy things from, the "influencers" we have faith in. Snake oil products, dishonest companies, biased opinions with conflicts of interests abound in all kinds of ways but perhaps worse in audiophilia when we see audacious marketing using bizarre claims sporting shamelessly huge price tags presented without evidence, as if there is true value.

I'm very much a capitalistic free-enterprise guy so I'm not sure I'd want the government to be too heavy-handed in regulations that could diminish innovation. I'd rather see that audiophiles are educated and can mindfully reward companies that do good work, disregarding empty advertising mouthpieces, and shunning scam companies and their representatives. Be curious and think critically about what is truly "new" and worthy of your attention.

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

Let's end with some new albums this week.

I've been in a rock mood lately. For rock/pop lovers, I see Bryan Adams just released Roll With The Punches (as usual the multichannel version is more dynamic with DR11 average, compared to the 2-channel 24/48 DR6, examining the Apple Music offerings) - here's "Never Ever Let You Go":

And John Fogerty just dropped re-recordings of CCR material in Legacy: The Creedence Clearwater Revival Years (John's Version) (DR7 2-channel, DR12 multichannel) - here's an old-skool favorite redone, originally from 1970, "Have You Ever Seen The Rain":

One last video embed. A summer party tune to take us out - The Beaches with "Last Girls At The Party" (from No Hard Feelings, a tragic DR6 average for the 24/96 2-channel mix and reminder why hi-res is often not worth it, and much more dynamic DR11 multichannel mix):

Hope you're all enjoying the music.