
Audiophiles can't tell the difference between a $200 receiver and a $12,000 one - aycangulez
http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/receivers/amplifier-sound-quality.aspx
======
cleverjake
I worked at a high end audio shop for a few years. I saw everything from
$80,000 audio /cables/ to $150,000 turntables. There is a lot of snake oil,
but articles like this upset me for two reasons. Firstly, the lumping of
"audiophiles". Most of the people who refer to themselves as such are nut
balls (in my experience). There were a few that were great and heard amazing
ears, but most of the time - nut balls. Guys that spent more time listening to
tone recordings and day dreaming about their own perfect setup then they did
actually listening to music. Secondly, there /is/ a difference in wire/speaker
box/electrical source/whatever - but it doesn't mean that the more expensive
one is better. It is about synergy. Quick example: I had a pair of small rega
speakers with a set of $5,000 nordost speaker cables. Sounded awful - worse
than a car radio. I swapped it out for the set of the generic cables that came
with it - blew away half the speakers in the shop that were two to ten times
the price. There were also times when the /best/ sound really was a tube amp
with separate power drop, acoustical treated wall, and the whole shebang.
Every little change you make makes a difference, every solder joint counts. Do
yourself a favor if you are at all interested in this, and stop by your local
big city hi-fi shop (not best buy, magnolia or any other chain, something that
has upwards of $10k speakers in stock preferably) and try out the different
sets. You will be swayed.

------
codex
Not conclusive, but very suggestive. The fact that only 50% could tell the
difference between high and and low end does not mean there is no difference.
Example: in one experiment, only 49% could tell the difference between red and
blue. Does that mean there is no difference? Not necessarily. Almost all of
the participants could be red-blue colorblind.

I'd like to know how many of the participants could consistently distinguish
between cheap/expensive in a large test of pairs--if any.

Either way, one can draw the confusion that most audiophiles are full of shit.
I find the same ratio in most other professions.

------
kenjackson
Engadget did a test of headphones (earbud) and it seemed to indicate for
those, more expensive (at least for those they tested) did better:

[http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/09/big-box-earbuds-put-
to-a-...](http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/09/big-box-earbuds-put-to-a-blind-
taste-test-in-the-engadget-labs/)

~~~
modeless
Their methodology doesn't seem very rigorous. It's impossible to do a true
double-blind test of earbud sound in isolation because they feel different in
the ear and that's likely to affect sound perception.

~~~
tzs
That's not a problem, since to actually use the things you have to put them in
your ears. Hence, if the feel of them affects sound perception, you want to
include that.

~~~
modeless
Yeah, but everyone's ears are different. You'd have to characterize ear
variations that are relevant to earbud sound and put people in different
buckets to get consistent results, and then to interpret the results for a
specific person you'd have to find out which bucket they're in.

------
glimcat
Money and results are not linearly correlated.

This sort of thing gets posted occasionally. It's a coin toss whether they're
trolling for hits or just don't get that you can't buy $12000 worth of
amplifier and have it be 60x as amplifiery as a $200 amplifier. Electronics
doesn't work that way.

------
bengl3rt
It's all about diminishing returns. Once you're spending more than a few
hundred bucks per component you have to concentrate to tell any difference at
all.

I'd say $12,000 spent on a whole SYSTEM would outside the bounds of reason -
spend at most $5k on a system and then use the rest of the money on MUSIC to
play on said system :)

------
jackityquack
They also can't tell the difference between flac and V0.

