As if higher prices always correlate to fidelity: Stereophile's Defense of Luxury Audio & the false Binding Statement of High-End Audio.

Hublot Big Bang Unico, ~US$20k+ depending on model.

Hey everyone, I just got back from the wonderful trip to Central Europe and figured I'd extend some thoughts expressed in the previous article: The Luxury of Sound and Time: Audiophile products, the Rolex and Timex Analogy.

That article went online October 12th and I was surprised to see Stereophile posted their article “In Defense of Sticker Shock” on October 17th written by Rogier van Bakel featuring a fancy looking, but inexpensive quartz wristwatch as the title image; what synchronicity! I assume his article must have been published in print/e-magazine earlier than when it showed up online.

I see the article pretty much opens with this statement:

Say “$10,000 DAC” and watch audio-forum commenters descend like pigeons on a dropped hot dog, flapping and furious.

Yeah, that's probably a fair observation! However, I think the first question we must ask ourselves is: “What’s wrong with that?”

You see, we have to consider context. Unless one is on a high-end manufacturer-specific forum where everyone owns one of these $10k DACs and presumably feels that the device is of good value, these days on most free and open audiophile forums, the hobbyist ethos I believe remains aligned with the desire for function first (sonic fidelity, transparency, "functionalist" philosophy) and form second (appearances, brand names, and other non-utilitarian "aesthete" factors). We can see this tendency among audiophiles in this thread on Steve Hoffman Forums asking about preference for “sound or esthetics”.

As I discussed last time, in the world of luxury goods, like that fancy Hublot wristwatch above, it’s the opposite priority. Clearly dollars are spent not on the best accuracy (the Hublot Unico mechanical watches are typically accurate within +/-3-4 seconds/day), but on fancy materials, craftsmanship, brand image, design, and other subjective hedonic factors promoting pride of ownership.

Given my comments previously, I do believe that luxury goods have their place, and manufacturers pursuing that market can certainly find financial success. That is not an issue. However, I wish audiophile magazines like Stereophile can simply be open about their bias as advertising agents for that luxury market. As demonstrated in his article, Mr. van Bakel attempts to uphold a kind of “moral order” that keeps exotic (Ultra) High-End products on top which I believe most audiophiles can already transparently see as questionable.

In his defense of the expensive “sticker shock” products, he continues to perpetuate a core “binding statement” that the hi-end segment wants readers to believe:

More money buys you better sound quality.

Through the years of listening, technical and objective analysis, those of us exploring this hobby have I believe overwhelmingly demonstrated that there is no meaningful correlation between better sonic fidelity and the upper price echelon (for example this); in fact, it could in some cases be the opposite (as per issues with the Linn streamers). Whether a DAC costs five-figures or three-figures really doesn't matter fidelity-wise for us in the 21st Century with this kind of mature technology. This logical truth can be further verified with blind listening tests (which the high-end subjective-leaning folks often refuse to acknowledge as useful) and also with measurements (which the high-end would rather us believe doesn't relate to sound quality). There is indeed a rather clear price-performance “diminishing return” on fidelity, possibly no returns, or even negative fidelity returns (with expensive tube amps for example) across all components.

A collapse of that binding statement of faith correlating price with sound quality should automatically put doubt into the value of much of the (ultra) high-end products among functionalist audiophiles. This would also render whole classes of "components" like very expensive cables and tweaks (cable risers, tiny "acoustic treatments", fuses, various "noise" filters, unnecessarily clocks, expensive power supplies) with no objective benefits into snake oil or quackery territory if promoted as significantly improving sound.

I trust that none of what I'm saying here is a surprise. At some level, it's just common sense for many of us with experience over the years. I see that Mr. van Bakel tries his hand at doctrinal apologetics on behalf of the high-end companies, rationalizing that stratospheric high prices are due to: inflation, the complexity of running a business, HR, supply-chain issues, tariffs, dealer and distributor overheads, and of course low volumes. So what? Every manufacturer needs to make sure their products have value and adequate consumer demand. If a company truly can “innovate” and successfully market their items, they'll stand a fighting chance, otherwise, such is the free-market system regardless of what price tag they demand because they stayed up all night haunted by whether their cymbal fade subjectively sounded right!

How silly to compare spending $50-60k on a car which is not a luxury item but often a necessity for work and family life versus an entertainment stereo system at comparable prices! Also consider the amount of materials, technologies and components in a vehicle compared to DACs, speakers, and amps. How even more cringeworthy to glorify the idea that a stereo “can take you everywhere else” and the car only takes us from point A to B! Does he not think a hi-res capable $500 DAC can stir our memories and elevate emotions when playing music from that concert hall in Tokyo just as well as some unspecified $10k DAC? For me, a song played on an AM car radio can transport me to times and places in life also - such is the power of art, not merely the things we own!*

* Cue the Alan Parsons' quote that "Audiophiles don't use their equipment to listen to your music. Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment." IMO there is a level of maturity we've achieved when we're able to clearly see/hear, and love the art, rather than merely fetishizing the hardware.

Let’s get real, man. If one seriously wants to be immersed in that Tokyo venue, get into multichan… Oh wait… Stereophile almost exclusively is stuck with 2-channel stuff, never mind. IMO they're missing out on a superior experience. 🙁

I would highly recommend that Rogier van Bakel, Stereophile magazine, and the High-End Industry embrace that “Veblen Goods” concept. Just be honest with us and don't fight the obvious truth in such a silly, pretentious, way. Clearly, many of these products are not meant for audiophile hobbyists looking for high-fidelity sound.

There's of course nothing wrong with audiophiles having fun reading about very expensive products, checking out beautiful pictures, or enjoying listening to these high-end pieces at audio shows and dealerships. However, from an industry money-making point of view, this luxury segment is unlikely to achieve growth just because a few geeks like to read about this stuff in magazines, blogs, watch videos, or show up to superficially listen to the components in an unfamiliar sound room with no intent of purchasing. Rather, it's obvious that these companies are aspiring to achieve credibility in the playgrounds of those seeking luxury – among premium brands like Louis Vuitton, Hermès, Tiffany & Co., Ferrari, Rolls-Royce, Rolex, Hugo Boss, Dolce & Gabbana, and whatever companies make big yachts. 😉

I think manufacturers of these kinds of products should have a frank discussion with Stereophile, The Absolute Sound, Hi-Fi+, Hi-Fi News & Record Review, and others they sponsor with advertising about how their goods are being portrayed, promoted, what image they desire to project, and represented by whom. As discussed to some extent in the previous post's comments, maybe it's time to start considering a new advertising game plan that actually caters to the kind of consumers they're wooing because this kind of Stereophile article, the negative reactions and sentiments on typical forums by audiophiles exasperated by ballooning MSRP are not doing them any good. I suspect this is still the main reason why Stereophile scrubbed their website of all public comments earlier this year. Opacity rather than open dialogue and furthering understanding will not grow the hobby.

Older generation, homely-looking gentlemen with oversized, expensive hardware in small basements and cluttered rooms might not be the best image to present to the buyers that the High-End companies are aiming for. Clearly, many of these products are meant for individuals in very high socioeconomic tiers, who also have mansions, who look like they have the money to actually own these things at MSRP; "cool" people who also own other products from the brands listed above.

If this High-End “Sticker Shock” Industry is what a magazine like Stereophile wants to primarily serve, protect, to help create positive sentiment and demand for $10,000+ DACs, $20,000+ amplifiers, $50,000+ speakers, $1,000+ interconnects, there’s certainly nothing wrong with that decision. But is it working out for them? And are they serving a diverse enough range of audiophiles including the younger generations who might not want to spend more than $500 on a DAC but are the future of this hobby?

If they do desire to grow the audio hobby, I wonder if explicitly identifying product "tiers" could be helpful. For example, the A Blog To Watch site sets a threshold between wristwatches <$500 and those priced above in their reviews. In the same way, maybe audio magazines can categorize products as "High-Fidelity" or "High-End" based on the intended market segment. Thorough measurements of High-Fidelity products would be warranted, and I think exempting the High-End items from similar objective analysis, perhaps as per manufacturer request, would also be fine.

While it would be interesting to know the measurement results for something like a $175k Wadax Atlantis Reference DAC or a $1M DarTZeel phono cartridge, it actually doesn't matter because no rational hi-fi audiophile would buy such things based primarily on accuracy and there's no need to believe that they measure particularly well; just as mechanical Rolex accuracy should not be assumed to rival the quartz Timex (always good to see COSC accuracy certification however). Furthermore, I'm sure some companies would prefer the absence of numbers and graphs to perpetuate the mystique surrounding their equipment's performance. I believe it's fine for objectivists to be gracious towards fellow audiophile pilgrims who prefer only subjective reviews as recognition that they desire euphonic rather than accurate sound from such luxury products. Their money, their toys, and I suppose it's okay that some might need a subjective reviewer to provide external validation for their purchase.

Explicitly categorizing the products also will allow the magazine to promote different reviewers for each tier with different styles of creative writing, different priorities, perhaps emphasizing nice pictures of certain products, catered to that "class". By doing this, a magazine like Stereophile might even want to use a tag line like "Your one source for High-Fidelity and High-End audio." catering to both subjective and/or objective evaluations depending on the product, comfortably reviewing down-to-earth high volume hi-fi brands for the masses like Schiit, Topping, SMSL, and ELAC right next to the exotic luxury of Wilson, Magico, Burmester, D'Agostino, and mbl. This will allow readers the freedom to choose their form of engagement with the hobby. Some fly economy and others pay for premium class seats, both can get us to the same fun vacation destination.

So then, let’s stop playing games about whether a $10,000 DAC’s “sound quality” likely has anything special to offer hi-fi audiophiles. Dispense with that incorrect "More Expensive = Better Sound" principle beyond reasonable prices that rapidly hit diminished returns. No need to desperately defend audio products that are primarily sold as status symbols. No need to feel indignant when audiophiles recognize such products as luxury items. If craftsman-made, rare, luxury is what an audiophile wants, go for it, be proud of it, no need to claim idealistic utilitarian performance without evidence as an excuse for high prices!

Finally, Mr. van Bakel, hobbyists seeking value and accuracy should not be seen as merely deserving of the pejorative "cheap seats". I suspect that for many of us, real wealth is built with the wisdom of knowing when we don't need certain luxury material things.

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

With that, let’s end off with some photos from Europe! (All images taken with the Sony Alpha α6700.)

Strahov Monastery Library, Prague. Beautiful place with a nice brewery and restaurant on premises - delicious roasted pork knuckle. Those monks sure knew how to make beer! 🤤
I thought the library rooms (Theological and Philosophical Halls) here are together even more impressive than the Old Town Clementinum Baroque Library.

Széchenyi Chain Bridge, the Danube River, and St. Stephen's. Budapest.

Ferris Wheel of Budapest. I had a great time in this area during OktoberFest Budapest with the food and varied traditional music!

Central Market, Budapest. Some dissuade tourists from eating here at the small stalls. Actually, I wanted a quick snack and the fish soup I had here was excellent and fairly priced. When traveling, I usually prefer the small stalls and street food over luxury restaurants.

Sunset at St. Stephen's Basilica, Budapest.

Scene from a Ruin Pub, old Jewish Quarter, Budapest.
Some very cool place to hang out after dark!

Schönbrunn Palace in the Autumn, Vienna. For those who like period dramas
about this part of the world, check out The Empress on Netflix.

Wall of Polaroids. Vienna.

Pipe organ in Votive Church, Vienna.

Mozart Monument. Burggarten, Vienna.
Lots of Mozart branded stuff in town for tourists (and at tourist traps😱).

Koala at the Schönbrunn Zoo, Vienna. The world's oldest zoo still in operation. They also recently reopened their giant panda exhibit this past spring.

I saw that there are a couple of high-end audiophile stores in Vienna nearby but didn't have a chance to visit. However, Vinyl record store was near the hotel and appears to have a good stock of LPs. New albums go for €30+ each. They had a good collection of CDs and some cassettes as well.

With the time away overseas done, getting back to the daily responsibilities now. 😊

For progressive rock fans, the new Atmos mix of Genesis' The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway (1974, DR12 average for TrueHD-Atmos mix) is available on BluRay and streaming as a 50th anniversary edition release. The 7.1 TrueHD-Atmos lossless version sounds great, as does the lossy streamed 5.1 EAC3-JOC Atmos. The new mix is bold and unafraid to use the height channels; the title track sounds great, also check out "The Waiting Room" for its surround effects. They've extracted more subtleties and detail than the more dynamically compressed 2007 SACD 5.1 multichannel version (DR9-10) I also have. A nicely refreshed multichannel mix done by Bob Mackenzie with Peter Gabriel and Tony Banks!

This is another good example of why the mix/master is much more important than the resolution of the digital delivery format. I would prefer to listen to the new lossy EAC3-JOC Atmos version than the old 2007 hi-res 5.1 DSD64 SACD. As an old multi-track analog recording, it doesn't need to be delivered in pristine 24-bit lossless; that's overkill (discussed years ago, and no need to freak out about lossy Atmos).

Halloween arriving soon, here's Lady Gaga's "The Dead Dance" from MAYHEM (2025) with this bonus track on the streamed version. The album has a pretty dynamic multichannel/Atmos mix as well. Notice Tim Burton added his creepy quirkiness into the video:

Hope you're enjoying the music, dear audiophiles! As usual, stay rational.