Does Competition Exist in the Audio/Video Community?

I have written about some of the various questionable sales tactics that exist in the audio / video community in the past, but as I’ve been doing some shopping lately I’ve witnessed even more head-shaking behavior by several different manufacturers.  For the most part, the industry does a fairly good job in policing itself and in the era of online reviews and blogs it is more difficult to con the consumer than it has been in years past… but as I will show, it most certainly is not impossible.  

Rebadging: A Product by Any Other Name…  

One of the trends I’ve started to notice is simply rebadging one product under the name of an entirely different brand or manufacturer.  This isn’t all that unusual of course and we have seen this occur in a variety of different industries over the years including automobiles, cosmetics, clothing and food. 

Whether it be a Toyota Matrix being sold as a Pontiac Vibe, or a package of ice cream being sold under the Edy’s label in one area but Dreyer’s in another, this type of situation occurs each and every day.  That in itself isn’t really an issue, because over time some companies have purchased other companies and brands have merged, or in some cases (such as mattress sales) the industry uses different brands to prevent direct comparison shopping.  

We have seen situations for years where a manufacturer will produce a single product (lawnmowers, snowblowers, and bicycles for example) and then they will sell that product with different paint colors and badging to different stores.  So while one store offers a Husky snowblower, you might find a Yard Machines snowblower down the street that is identical aside from a few stickers and the color.  Another store might have a Bolens snowblower, while another has a model with the Toro brand.  They might all use the same parts, the same engines, and come from the same assembly line, but to the casual observer they appear as competitors.  

Another example from several years ago was when I noticed some “Scott’s” brand lawn tractors for sale at Home Depot, but a year later that same exact model was sold under the John Deere brand name.  It was obviously the same tractor aside from some decals and badging, but you can bet the John Deere version sold better and it most likely reflected a premium price.  I’ve found this same scenario time and time again throughout the power equipment industry, but there are many, many less obvious examples such as oil filters, canned goods, generic pharmaceuticals, and batteries.

The Competition Really Isn’t   

As is the case with many industries we also see this same rebadging scenario within the consumer electronics industry, and just like with garden tractors or snowblowers sometimes the appearance of a competitor can be deceiving.  For instance, you can purchase an Onkyo home theater receiver that is practically identical to a model sold under the Integra name.  Both are made by the same parent company and in some cases they share the same chipsets, specifications, and features – yet the Integra model can run hundreds of dollars more.  Someone buying an Integra might feel they are getting a better, more exclusive product, and I’m sure the salesman will try to present it that way, but they might have a hard time explaining why a few years ago when Onkyo had to issue a recall due to some defective components, that Integra had to do the same.

The thing is, Integra is typically sold via a select dealer network which includes custom installers.  So these installers can sell a unit to a customer as part of a home theater room install and they can explain that they are the exclusive dealer in the region.   Integra limits pricing to MSRP with very little room for adjustment, so if the customer happens to shop around they will find no matter where they look they will be spending about the same.  Now think about an installer that jacks up the price of an Onkyo, and then the customer types the model number into Google only to find out they spent $1200 for a receiver that retails for $799 on Amazon.  In this case, it makes sense for Onkyo to offer a standalone product under a different brand.  They can offer a different warranty (Integra will come with a full three year warranty while the Onkyo twin will only include a year) and they can ensure it is only sold via a select number of hand-picked installers who cater to that specific customer market.  

Another example of this is Runco, a high-end brand of home theater equipment (primary televisions and projectors).  Runco is a subsidiary of Planar technologies, and as one might expect there have been numerous products sold under both the Planar and Runco names that were practically identical aside from minor cosmetic differences or changes in firmware.  In the past, Runco sold televisions that were essentially rebadged NEC (Pioneer) models, and rumors of them rebadging products from others live on in many audio and video discussion forums.  In some cases this may be justified if there are significant changes from the base model or when they are simply outsourcing for select components and then enhancing them, but one starts to wonder at what point is someone merely paying a significant price premium for a product that just happens to carry a high end brand name?  

The R&D Problem   

The problem with some of these boutique manufacturers is they tend to cater towards a high-end segment.  A company like Sony or Samsung might offer numerous different models of televisions or home theater receivers designed to appeal to consumers at all pricepoints, but the bulk of their volume will come from the end-user community who purchases a device, takes it home, hooks it up, and uses it.  On the other hand a company like Runco is more likely to sell their products through dealers/installers who work with a client to design a system and then the dealer handles the installation of the system.   Because this high-end market is significantly smaller than that of the mass-market segment, companies who sell these high end products know up front that their sales volume will be much lower.

So how does a company cover all of their research and development (R&D) costs when they know they will only sell a limited number of units?  It seems there are two possible options – number one they simply raise the price of the end product to compensate, so the percentage of that product devoted to R&D ends up being significantly higher than it would be on a mass-market product.  The second option is to lower R&D costs by either outsourcing some of the development or engineering, or by building upon existing technology.  Both of these options are used with great success in the market, and I’ll talk about each next.  

Raise Prices to Capture Costs   

In the first scenario a company simply raises the price of the product to compensate for their R&D, which logically results in a product being more expensive (often significantly more expensive) than the competition.  In some cases this increased cost may even be justified because the product is a substantial improvement over standard offerings, but I have seen many times where the more expensive product isn’t actually superior to one sold at a much lower pricepoint.  If you think about it, this is a difficult situation as a large company who sells millions of units every year will obviously have a much larger R&D budget.  They can spend a lot more to develop new products knowing the costs will be distributed over a much larger number of units sold.  On the other hand, a small niche company will not have as large of a budget and will not produce as many products, therefore they are not as able to absorb losses if a product fails in the marketplace.  In some cases the only way to compete is to charge significantly more for their product while trying to convince the consumer that the price is justified.  

The Example   

To use an example, let’s pretend there are two companies developing projectors for the home theater market.  For this example, the companies are called “Epsomate” and “Rumcorp” (of course any resemblance to existing companies is purely coincidental).  

Epsomate spends $20MM in R&D to develop their latest projector.  They expect to sell 250,000 units worldwide, and the cost of components including assembly in their new design will run around $1200.  So if we forget about marketing, administrative, or other expenses, Epsomate would need to see each of those 250,000 projectors for at least $1280 just to break even.  

Now let’s look at Rumcorp.  Because they wish to be an industry leader, then tend to spend more on R&D than their competition in an effort to produce a higher end product.  In this example they spend $30MM in R&D to develop their latest model.  However, since Rumcorp is a much smaller high-end company, they can expect to only spend a fraction of the amount of projectors that Epsomate might sell, and in this case they predict they will see around 20,000 units worldwide.  The cost of components including assembly is higher due in part to smaller volumes (suppliers are less likely to give discounts for smaller quantities) and due to them specifying components with tighter tolerances.  In this example cost of components including assembly is $1600. Again we exclude marketing, administrative and other general expenses which results in Rumcorp needing to sell each of those 20,000 projectors for at least $3,100 just to break even.

So at this point the Rumcorp projector already needs to retail for at least 240% more than the Epsomate projector.  That in itself limits their market, but when you also consider efficiencies of scale that Epsomate may have and how they can use some of the technology from their latest projector on several models designed for the business community or for the educational segment you start to realize how the smaller custom segment is at a disadvantage.  Then you start to realize that a full page advertisement in Sound and Vision magazine is going to cost just as much for Rumcorp as it does with Epsomate, meaning their marketing expenses may not be substantially different (although there is a chance Rumcorp would forego any marketing and instead focus upon training their dealer network).  

Next you realize that the Epsomate model will be sold through a variety of brick and mortar stores as well as online from numerous different sources while the Rumcorp model will only be sold through a pre-selected integrator/installer network where price-matching and comparison shopping is all but impossible… and you suddenly realize it is entirely feasible that the Rumcorp projector may end up costing three or four times what the Epsomate projector costs regardless of the performance.  

So what happens when someone decides to compare the two projectors side by side and they realize the differences in performance are rather minor?  What happens when the high end projector produces a better picture, but not substantially improved over the projector that costs a fraction of the Rumcorp? What happens when a typical consumer cannot discern a difference between the two at all, or what if an actual industry analyst is unable to consistently pick the more expensive projector during blind testing?  

The truth is, price isn’t always indicative of quality, and when it comes to audio and video equipment, often times the increased cost of a higher end brand has more to do with dealer markup and higher profit margins than it does with better components or design.  This is why when you read unbiased reviews and when you compare specifications on some high-end equipment you often find the higher end brands fail to impress.   It isn’t that they aren’t good products, but they often aren’t good values. 

Most people aren’t willing to spend four or five times more for a product that has only a marginal improvement in performance, especially when that marginal improvement is practically undetectable outside of a lab.  Of course those that do spend much more for the boutique brand products may attempt to justify their purchases by proclaiming they can discern a massive difference or that some random engineer from an obscure website did a review and was very complimentary, but that is fairly typical of self-proclaimed videophiles, who much like their audiophile brethren like to equate price and exclusivity with performance and quality.

Outsourcing   

So if the boutique manufacturers are unable to compete by raising prices to offset their R&D costs, if they are unable to justify the much higher price of their products based upon name brand alone, or if the cost to develop their own in-house product is simply too expensive there is always another option.

This route involves reducing costs by letting someone else handle the actual R&D.  This is done a few different ways, but primarily it comes in the form of a company outsourcing their development and engineering, or in other cases a company may borrow (license) technology from other firms to use as a starting point for their own enhancements.

More than a decade ago I worked for a computer company called Gateway, and to many people Gateway was a PC manufacturer.  However, what most people didn’t know is that Gateway was essentially nothing more than a specifications company who assembled PCs.  Gateway didn’t manufacture motherboards or processors.  They didn’t build CD drives nor did they write device drivers.  Gateway didn’t even produce the metal cases the PCs were shipped in nor did they produce their own keyboards, mice, or speakers.

Each and every component of a Gateway PC came from another vendor who designed that component to meet the specifications that Gateway required.  So basically what Gateway did was purchase motherboards from one supplier, processors from another, cases from yet another, cables from this supplier, power supplies from that supplier, and cables and cd/dvd drives and software and hard drives and everything else from dozens upon dozens of suppliers.  They shipped all of these materials to a production facility where the parts were assembled into a case, software was loaded, the final PC was put into a box and it was ultimately shipped to the consumer.

That isn’t to say that Gateway didn’t have a hand in the design, because they worked with suppliers to design the cases and components and picked the features they wanted included or excluded.  They picked the colors and the styles and decided where the logo would be… but they never actually built the individual components.  In fact, some of the suppliers that Gateway used also supplied other PC manufacturers that were direct competitors to Gateway.  I worked in an engineering and testing lab and can still recall working with one of the suppliers (Tottori SANYO) on a new laptop design.  When we were presented the mockup of the laptop it was actually shipped to us with a Dell power brick.  The final production model (Gateway Solo 2100 for those interested) was practically identical to a laptop produced by Dell, and aside from the exterior plastics, BIOS screens, and the labels – it was in effect the same computer.  In fact, some of the removable components such as the CD-ROM drive or floppy drive were actually interchangeable between the Gateway and Dell systems.  

My point in all of this is that it isn’t unusual to a company to outsource some of their development.  They might dictate the specifications and they may customize numerous aspects of the final product, but in many cases they won’t actually handle the final design, engineering, or production of a component or even an entire unit.  In Gateway’s case, assembling a laptop was simply a matter of installing a processor, some memory, and a keyboard to match what the customer ordered, and much in the same way an electronics company might outsource the production of a CD changer or an amplifier assembly to a company that can produce that unit at a lower cost due to their production capacity.  

The Blatant Fraud  

As I have shown above, outsourcing isn’t unusual nor is it indicative of any nefarious behavior.  It is a common tactic used successfully across a variety of industries, so in theory it is nothing to be ashamed of.  In most cases companies that outsource do so in order to minimize costs or to leverage the expertise and intellectual property of another firm.  Then they incorporate the technology into their own products which are sold under their own label.  I completely understand why this happens.  I understand why there is a need for it, and I understand the efficiencies that can be gained by outsourcing.

What I cannot understand however, is outsourcing to a company and then essentially just taking their design – putting a new name on the front of it, and selling it at a price which is exponentially higher.    For instance, a few years ago an electronics company by the name of Lexicon was caught red handed rebadging an Oppo Blu-Ray player that retailed for $500 inside of their own aluminum enclosure which they then priced at $3,500!  Lexicon claims that it is “one of the world's premier manufacturers of home theater and professional electronics”, but does that claim justify them jacking up the price of a Blu-ray player by $3,000 (700%!) just because their nameplate was slapped on the front?  

Lexicon did try to claim they used the Oppo player and then in turn did some enhancements to it, but unfortunately for them, the experts at Audioholics not only disassembled both the Oppo and Lexicon players to verify they were identical inside, but they even took it a step further by performing detailed tests on the two devices to verify they were identical in both components as well as performance.  So in this case Lexicon was caught and their fraud was shown to the world, but how many consumers purchased a $3,500 Blu-ray player under the belief they were getting the best possible technology available to them only to be handed a $500 player inside of a $3,000 aluminum box?  

Obviously Lexicon isn’t alone here but they are one of the more egregious examples.  I don’t feel it is entirely unfair to call this type of behavior fraudulent, because there is clearly zero justification for the 700% increase in price which is one prime example why I would never do business from a company like Lexicon.  However if it were not for Lexicon’s pure laziness in this case, would anyone have really noticed?  If Lexicon would have had Oppo redesign the primary circuit board and if they would have rearranged the components (and perhaps even designed their own chassis instead of just using a stock Oppo design), chances are nobody would have ever realized they were the same product.

They also could have simply tweaked the Oppo design to add features or customize it in some small way by modifying the audio processor and claiming their own engineers simply built upon the existing Oppo platform. Sure many of us would still be skeptical, but at least they would have some small defense for their increase in price.  

In fact this type of behavior happens all the time. If you take the time to open up the cases of modern electronics, you often find circuit boards, power supplies, or other components which have been produced by third party companies, and often those components (with very minor changes) may appear in multiple different brand name products.  Many people are aware of Chinese electronics assembly companies like Foxconn who produce products for companies such as Apple, Acer, Dell, HP, Samsung, Sony, Vizio, Amazon, Microsoft, Nintendo, Toshiba, Motorola and many, many more. 

Other companies like Quanta Computer product products for several different PC companies from the exact same building so it isn’t a stretch to assume in some cases they share components or even assembly lines. This is why it pays to do research on products before purchasing them, and when possible it is always a good idea to do comparison testing with your own eyes and ears.  Even if you can afford to pay 200 or 300% more for the same product being sold under an exclusive name, with a bit of research and a dosage of skepticism, you won’t have to.

Why I Hate Audiophiles

I've been a "techie" type of person for many years, and I've taken an interest in audio equipment since I was perhaps as young as seven or eight years old.  My father had an old Fisher receiver that I used to play with and at the time I thought it was amazing.  I can still feel the mass of the tuning dial in my hand as I could flick it and watch the dial swing across the AM/FM spectrum from side to side.  I would even make a game of it to see if I could  get the needle from one end to the other in one spin... which was difficult but not impossible.

My father's "hi-fi" system also included an old cassette deck and even an 8-track player that I fondly remember using from time to time. I don't recall the brand name of the speakers (I'm thinking perhaps RCA) but they were the large cabinet type that provided a lot of noise when asked although I'm sure they produced just as much distortion as they did music.

When I was a bit older, for Christmas one year I was given a small tabletop stereo of my own. It had dual tape decks AND a turntable, so clearly I thought I had something. The speakers were those small cabinets connected by what appeared to be paltry 24ga wire, but at the time I thought they were pretty amazing. I played all types of records on that system and I made more than my fair share of mix tapes from the radio as I listened to American Top 40 with Casey Kasem.

Eventually my interest in audio led me to expand and improve upon what I had. In college I upgraded to what I thought was high end audio equipment at the time - or at least high end in my particular budget range. That setup included a Sony receiver that had surround sound, a Sony CD changer, and a set of Bose 201 speakers. They weren't necessarily bad components, but knowing what I know now there are much better options for the price. I do still have the Bose speakers and they are still capable of producing a good sound although I am the first to admit Bose is a lot better at marketing then they are at producing audio equipment.

My current receiver is an Onkyo which is paired to an Onkyo disc changer. I'm well aware this is nowhere nearly "high end" audio, but it is capable of producing clean sound and it didn't require me to take out a second mortgage to purchase it. I've used a number of different speakers over the years, but I'm the first to admit even when looking directly at the nameplates on the speakers my ears are hard pressed to discern a difference between a $500 set of Klipsch towers and a $3,000 set of Definitive Technology towers.

Throughout the years I've stayed fairly well informed as to the new technologies and I've paid attention to what works versus what people think works. I've read magazines and comparison tests, and in the past I've subscribed to magazines devoted to audio equipment (I recall a subscription to Stereo Review back in high school which was always one of my favorites although it has since been renamed to Sound and Vision).

I won't claim to be an audio snob, but I have been known to research what type of power supplies are found in various receivers and I've taken the time to research the various THD (Total Harmonic Distortion) levels of amplifiers. I'm not an electrical or audio engineer by any means, but I do have experience in electronics and at one point I was a Certified Electronics Technician and a Certified Broadcast Technologist, so I like to think I have a pretty good understanding of the science behind audio equipment and electronics.

This is probably why even to this day I simply cannot stand when a self-proclaimed audiophile brags about his (and they are almost always men in my experience) ultra high end audio equipment. These are the types of people who brag about their McIntosh tube amplifiers without having any recognition of the fact that the tubes in these amplifiers are notoriously noisy and require a lot of circuitry required to clean up their signals. Even with that said the THD level of a high-end $5,000 McIntosh tube amp might be in the range of 0.50% with a signal to noise ratio (SNR) of 100dB. Compare that to a off-the-shelf receiver from Denon, Onkyo, or Yamaha and you are likely to find a THD level of something like 0.08% and a SNR of 106dB.

This is the part where I need to try and explain what THD and SNR are and how they relate. Obviously anyone who cares can read detailed descriptions elsewhere on the Internet, but I'll keep it simple by simply saying these are two of the most often cited specifications provided for audio equipment. THD is simply a way to measure how much harmonic distortion exists in a particular device. A lower THD is better, and the lower the value, the better that device is at reproducing the original signal. So this tells us that the THD of a cheap receiver purchased at Best Buy or Radio Shack is much better at reproducing the original input signal than a "high end" luxury tube amplifier which costs thousands of dollars more.

SNR is, as the name implies, a measurement of the difference between the original signal, and the noise added by the power supply and circuitry of the device. In this case a higher number is better. It may not appear a difference of 100dB and 106dB is significant, but because dB is measured on a logarithmic scale, this is actually much bigger of a difference than it may appear. I don't want to get boiled down in the technical aspects since this bores most people to tears, but the bottom line is as far as audio quality goes and in terms of how faithfully a musical recording can be reproduced, a modern and inexpensive amplifier will almost always outperform a much more expensive tube amplifier that many audiophiles seem to worship.

There is a reason that tube amplifiers cannot pass the testing process to become THX Certified even though a $400 receiver from Pioneer or Onkyo can, and it all boils down to faithful rendition of sound. If these audiophiles would simply admit they prefer tube amps because they like the faint glow of the tubes and they think they are "pretty" I might cut them some slack... but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The next component that annoys me greatly is the turntable. I like listening to records as much as the next person, but the reason why I like records is due to nostalgia... not because they are a faithful rendition of the original recording. The fact is, audiophiles often claim records "sound better" and that they create a "warmer" sound, but they are actually listening to the scratches, pops, and crackles created by the needle running over the grooves in the record itself - none of which would exist in a live musical performance or in a studio recording. There is a reason why modern sound stages and recording studios are all digital and why they don't burn things directly to a record these days, and it all has to do with how faithful the recording can be to the original performance.

The fact is, an uncompressed digital format such as a CD will always outperform something like a vinyl record when it comes to the faithfulness of the original sound when compared to the recording. The same is true for analog formats such as a cassette tape or reel to reel tape. That isn't to say some people won't prefer the sound from a tape or from a vinyl record, but if they are interested in reproducing the most faithful sound possible... a record or any other analog source simply will not do.

Audiophiles are also the same people who will spend thousands of dollars on connecting cables from brand names most people have never heard of. Many technical people will openly mock people for spending money on Monster Cable or other more expensive name brands because these people understand in the digital era, connecting cables are not nearly as vital as they once were... yet to an audiophile, even something as overpriced as a Monster Cable connecting cable would never suffice. These are the types of people who will spend $2,800 for a single pair of connection cables, or $5,300 for a set of six foot speaker cables.

To make matters worse, these people will actually replace the receptacles in their houses with what they consider "audio grade" and/or "hospital grade" receptacles ranging in price from $30 up to over $150. That is $150 for a cryogenically treated audio grade receptacle with rhodium plating (because gold or silver would just be too mainstream I imagine). 

The amazing thing here is that some snakeoil salesman not only convinced these people that they needed these high-end receptacles, but they turned the dial up to 11 and convinced the idiots that they needed high end power cables to plug in to their high end receptacles.  Did I mention that these power cables can range from several hundred dollars to almost $7,000?  Yes you read that correctly... audiophiles have been convinced that spending $6,900 for a power cable will improve the sound quality flowing out of their speakers.

Yes seriously. I'm not making this up... I'm just not cynical enough to fabricate a story like this.

Spending thousands of dollars on cables which perform no better and produce a sound no different than those which can cost less than $10 is bad enough, but these self-proclaimed experts will go so far as to claim they can actually hear the difference. The problem is, aside from the fact they are willfully displaying their ignorance as to how traditional AC power works, they aren't able to hear any differences when subjected to double-blind testing. Whether the testing is done by people involved in the audio equipment industry, or done in magazines such as Stereo Review in the 1980s, or even tests where name brand speaker wire was compared to ordinary disposable wire coat hangers, it seems even the most ardent supporter of this woo is unable to support their beliefs (and their own ears) with hard, replicable data.

In fact, notorious skeptic James Randi went so far as to offer $1 million to an audiophile if he could prove that a pair of $7,250 speaker cables sounded any better than a pair of off-the-shelf cables from Monster cable that cost around $80. However when push came to shove, even the company that sells the $7,250 speaker cables wasn't willing to put their reputation on the line, so they backed out from the challenge. It seems there just aren't any audiophiles willing to put their reputations on the line in order to support the very claims they make on a daily basis.

This is why I hate audiophiles - because they cannot support their beliefs with any type of legitimate data or science. It is almost as if they are begging to be openly mocked and yet they don't care, because they assume if they have tens of thousands of dollars worth of audio equipment then their ears must be able to tell the difference as if having a bigger bank account somehow suggests your ears are more sensitive than the average person.

There are so many flaws in their logic I'm not even sure where to begin, but I wonder if these people ever stop to realize that their high end $150 receptacles are connected to the rest of their household wiring with the same traditional unshielded copper wire everyone else uses. This wire runs back to a breaker panel and through a meter which is fed power from the same source as everyone else, through the same transformers, the same substations, and from the same grid. Do they really feel a silver plated or gold plated or rhodium plated electrical receptacle is going to improve the sound quality? What is next... sucking the oxygen out of the air and replacing it with helium to allow the sound waves a cleaner path from the speaker to the listener's ear? Granted the listener will be forced to wear an oxygen mask when they want to listen to music... but hey - anything to get the cleanest sound possible right?

When it comes to speakers, things get even worse. It is not unheard of for an audiophile to have speakers that weigh hundreds of pounds each and which measure over seven feet in height. These speakers are often hand built with exotic materials like rare hardwoods and carbon fiber, and they can cost more than $50,000 for a single pair.

I'm not naive here and I do admit there can and is a difference between a cheap speaker and an expensive speaker, however there comes a point of diminishing returns. I'll go on record and openly state I'm convinced if you take a quality set of speakers priced in the range of $2,000 and you perform blind testing against a set of speakers costing ten times as much, that most people (audiophiles included) will not be able to state which is the more expensive set of speakers with any consistency.

In fact, I recall years ago reading an article about a blind test that involved several sets of speakers behind an acoustically transparent curtain. A sample of music was played using each set of speakers in random order enough times to eliminate selection biases. In the end, a set of inexpensive speakers was selected as being the "best" although none of the speakers in the test was statistically superior to the remainder. So in essence, when the supposed experts can't see what they are listening to, and when they no longer see the expensive name brand cables or the dim glow of a tube amplifier or the movement of a turntable these minor nuances they claim to be able to hear seem to disappear. I find the irony that audiophiles who are often seen listening to music with their eyes closed seem to rely so heavily upon their vision when they are performing comparison tests.

The entire concept reminds me of a professor who acts smart and seems to know so much about the material, but at the end of the semester you realize the only reason they knew more than you was because they had the book with all the answers printed in it. Take away the book and the notes you are left with nothing more than a nice tweed jacket and a laser pointer.

Now I realize it probably seems a bit harsh to say I hate audiophiles. I should clarify I don't actually hate the people, but rather I hate their (lack of) logic, their reasoning, their biases, and their tactics. In truth I probably hate the companies and snakeoil salesman who fool audiophiles into believing that they need a $7,000 power cable or a $150 audio grade receptacle much more than I hate the audiophiles themselves, however for the sake of simplicity I'm focusing on the audiophiles since they seem to be so vocal about their superiority.

Part of the reason I feel this way is because of how audiophiles can be presented with evidence proving their equipment is simply overpriced, and yet they make claims about how they can tell a difference. As mentioned previously we know they can't prove it, but that doesn't wipe the smug looks off of their faces nor does it remove the undertones of superiority from their voices.

Take for instance Michael Fremer who just happens to be senior contributing editor at Stereophile magazine along with contributing to a number of other audio publications. Needless to say he is heavily involved in the audiophile community and could perhaps be one of the most influential or well-known audiophiles on the planet. Fremer has hundreds of thousand of dollars worth of audio equipment in his listening room and he will even make claims that he can tell the difference between a $2,600 power cable and a $4,000 power cable claiming the more expensive cable produces a "warmer, fuller sound".

In some cases, audiophiles like Fremer will even go so far as to make excuses for the hisses and pops coming from their tube amplifiers and turntables as if to suggest they don't matter. Really? The very same people who will spend tens of thousands, or perhaps even hundreds of thousands of dollars on audio equipment and cables and even little pucks to prevent their precious turntables from having to sit on a hard surface claim it doesn't matter? If these annoyances don't matter... then what does matter? If the sound itself isn't a priority, and if the faithfulness of the sound is secondary, then what is the point? Frankly aside from talking around the issue with fancy words and cliched phrases I'm not sure most audiophiles have any idea.

In Fremer's case, I have to admit the man annoys me a bit because I've seen pictures of his actual listening room and it boggles my mind how someone can claim to care about sound quality when he has a room full of junk surrounding him.  He has stacks of records leaned up against the walls and on the floor.  He has pictures hanging on the wall that are covered in sound-reflecting glass.  He has hard surface walls and furniture and stacks of equipment with wires running every which way. Does this sound like a place someone could detect minor subtleties in an audio track? Not likely.

If someone was really concerned with the ultimate listening room, I have to imagine it would start with covering the walls and ceiling with sound absorbing materials. The equipment and hard surface objects other than the speakers themselves would be isolated in a closet or another room, and obviously there would not be shelving unit after shelving unit of vinyl records sitting along the walls. This is why recording studios isolate the booth from the actual room where the music is being played and why they take so much time to soundproof the rooms as much as possible.

Better yet, if the ultimate audio clarity is really what they are after, a quality set of headphones will outperform practically every set of speakers known to man. Headphones all but eliminate reflected sound and outside interference, and you don't need a padded room to be able to get the best possible sound. Aside from John Cusack's character in High Fidelity, I can't say as I've seen many audiophiles sitting alone in their listening rooms or dens with a set of headphones atop their heads.

The fact is, in the real world people don't really have rooms with ideal acoustics. In the real world most music is listened to in a room with windows and doors and hard walls and furniture where acoustics are an afterthought. Most home audio systems - even those owned and operated by audiophiles - reside in less than acoustically ideal rooms. Speaker wires are often laid next to or routed on top of power wires which could create inductive coupling (electromagnetic interference) and a slight buzz or hum, HVAC systems blow air through ductwork, and dust finds its way onto vinyl records.

Yet to an audiophile, they likely will ignore the rushing sound of conditioned air or the fact that their patch cables are incapable of transmitting a signal with as much accuracy as a $5 optical cable purchased from Amazon or Monoprice... not because they haven't thought about it, but because they simply don't appear to care. The excess noises produced by a record needle are just part of the experience apparently. As Michael Fremer says, "It's like when you go to the symphony, and the old men are coughing—same thing". For an audiophile to use this logic is probably what tends to frustrate me, because it is almost as if they don't even try to hide the flaws in their reasoning.

Another aspect of audiophiles that tends to annoy me is the way they speak when talking about sound. They use phrases like "a dimensional and rich presentation" or a "euphonic sound experience". They speak about the color of music and the flavor of the sound. They talk about a sense of openness or space and how dark or bright the sound is and they make comments about the dynamic envelope, the ambience, or the subtlety of the tones. It seems they try to rely heavily upon personification as if the sound can reach out and touch someone or that it embraces the listener.

Even worse they rely so heavily upon cliches such as "jaw-dropping" and "tonal texture" that you can swap out the product names in most of the equipment reviews and nobody would notice. The entire concept reminds me of a hipster who turns a simple three line Haiku into a 40 minute discussion about what the poet was thinking when they chose to use the word "crimson" as opposed to just saying "red".

Try as they might, all the fancy wordsmithing and pretentiousness used by these audiophiles doesn't change the fact that the man behind the curtain is far from a real wizard... and in this case the wizard not only refuses to admit he has been outed, but he claims removing his curtain doesn't really matter in the first place.