[Arny Krueger]

The following paper provides scientific evidence for the idea that spending
lots of money makes people have more favorable perceptions about the objects
that they lavish their cash on:

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/3/1050.abstract

"Despite the importance and pervasiveness of marketing, almost nothing is
known about the neural mechanisms through which it affects decisions made by
individuals. We propose that marketing actions, such as changes in the price
of a product, can affect neural representations of experienced pleasantness.
We tested this hypothesis by scanning human subjects using functional MRI
while they tasted wines that, contrary to reality, they believed to be
different and sold at different prices. Our results show that increasing the
price of a wine increases subjective reports of flavor pleasantness as well
as blood-oxygen-level-dependent activity in medial orbitofrontal cortex, an
area that is widely thought to encode for experienced pleasantness during
experiential tasks. The paper provides evidence for the ability of marketing
actions to modulate neural correlates of experienced pleasantness and for
the mechanisms through which the effect operates."

More specifically, the authors took 20 volunteers, fed them wine, and did
not let them know if they were tasting a $10 wine or a $90 wine. When they
were told they were drinking the $90 wine, the fMRI recorded higher levels
of activity in the part of the brain associated with pleasure. This happened
regardless of which wine they drank.

The application of this paper to audiophilia is pretty obvious. A mechanism
has been identified in the human brain that causes people to perceive more
pleasure from products whose only difference from other products is that
they simply cost a great deal more.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 08:37:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

The following paper provides scientific evidence for the idea that spending
lots of money makes people have more favorable perceptions about the objects
that they lavish their cash on:

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/3/1050.abstract

"Despite the importance and pervasiveness of marketing, almost nothing is
known about the neural mechanisms through which it affects decisions made by
individuals. We propose that marketing actions, such as changes in the price
of a product, can affect neural representations of experienced pleasantness.
We tested this hypothesis by scanning human subjects using functional MRI
while they tasted wines that, contrary to reality, they believed to be
different and sold at different prices. Our results show that increasing the
price of a wine increases subjective reports of flavor pleasantness as well
as blood-oxygen-level-dependent activity in medial orbitofrontal cortex, an
area that is widely thought to encode for experienced pleasantness during
experiential tasks. The paper provides evidence for the ability of marketing
actions to modulate neural correlates of experienced pleasantness and for
the mechanisms through which the effect operates."

More specifically, the authors took 20 volunteers, fed them wine, and did
not let them know if they were tasting a $10 wine or a $90 wine. When they
were told they were drinking the $90 wine, the fMRI recorded higher levels
of activity in the part of the brain associated with pleasure. This happened
regardless of which wine they drank.

The application of this paper to audiophilia is pretty obvious. A mechanism
has been identified in the human brain that causes people to perceive more
pleasure from products whose only difference from other products is that
they simply cost a great deal more.

In some cases, this is true but some expensive things are better, and are
expensive simply because quality COSTS MONEY. This is especially true with
furniture and wine and to a certain extent, sports cars A Ferrari really is
worth the money they ask for it, for instance. On the other hand, a Rolex is
not measurably a better watch than a quality Seiko (in fact if the Seiko is a
quartz mechanism and the Rolex is mechanical, I'll guarantee you that the
Seiko is measurably better). \

But things that are hard to quantify suffer from the populist notion that if
one fails to be able to see, hear, feel or taste the quality outright, then
one can rely on cost to separate the wheat from the chaff and it just ain't
so.

[Iordani]

Arny Krueger wrote:

The following paper provides scientific evidence for the idea that
spending lots of money makes people have more favorable perceptions about
the objects that they lavish their cash on:

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/3/1050.abstract

snipped

The application of this paper to audiophilia is pretty obvious. A
mechanism has been identified in the human brain that causes people to
perceive more pleasure from products whose only difference from other
products is that they simply cost a great deal more.

So now, all we have to do is convince people that price is the *only*
difference

A somewhat related link on how we choose in life. Hilariously funny but
also serious. OT because speakers are mentioned

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/d...happiness.html

[Greg Wormald]

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

*snips*

In some cases, this is true but some expensive things are better, and are
expensive simply because quality COSTS MONEY. This is especially true with
furniture and wine and to a certain extent, sports cars A Ferrari really is
worth the money they ask for it, for instance. On the other hand, a Rolex is
not measurably a better watch than a quality Seiko (in fact if the Seiko is a
quartz mechanism and the Rolex is mechanical, I'll guarantee you that the
Seiko is measurably better). \

When I bought my Rolex Submariner Date (more than 35 years ago) the
Seiko dive watches were leaking in the deep end of the training pool.

The Rolex looks like new, and the Seiko's are nothing but piles of rust
and garbage.

Try another analogy.

Greg

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 08:41:54 -0800, Greg Wormald wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

*snips*

In some cases, this is true but some expensive things are better, and are
expensive simply because quality COSTS MONEY. This is especially true with
furniture and wine and to a certain extent, sports cars A Ferrari really
is
worth the money they ask for it, for instance. On the other hand, a Rolex
is
not measurably a better watch than a quality Seiko (in fact if the Seiko is
a
quartz mechanism and the Rolex is mechanical, I'll guarantee you that the
Seiko is measurably better). \

When I bought my Rolex Submariner Date (more than 35 years ago) the
Seiko dive watches were leaking in the deep end of the training pool.

The Rolex looks like new, and the Seiko's are nothing but piles of rust
and garbage.

Try another analogy.

Greg

I'll stick with the Rolex/Seiko analogy:

1) This isn't 35 years ago, its now.
2) No mechanical watch is ever as MEASURABLY good as a quartz watch (which
you will note, I was careful to say MEASURABLY).
3) I own two Breitlings. A Breitling Bentley and a Breitling Emergency. The
wholly mechanical Bentley is beautifully made but doesn't keep as good time
as the quartz Emergency.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 08:37:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

The application of this paper to audiophilia is pretty
obvious. A mechanism has been identified in the human
brain that causes people to perceive more pleasure from
products whose only difference from other products is
that they simply cost a great deal more.

In some cases, this is true but some expensive things are
better, and are expensive simply because quality COSTS
MONEY.

Totally agreed but with caveats.

The most obvious caveat is that while more quality often costs more money,
but spending more money is no guarantee of greater quality.

Another caveat is that the cost of adding quality varies quite strongly
depending on other circumstances.

A better statement might be that all other things being equal, more quality
generally costs more money.

This is especially true with furniture and wine
and to a certain extent, sports cars A Ferrari really is
worth the money they ask for it, for instance.

That would be a matter of personal values. If someone gave me a Ferrari, I
would immediately resell it. Not that I don't like sleek, fast cars, but its
not worth that much money to me to have a sleek, fast car like a Ferrari.
The Ferrari isn't worth to me the money that it costs, or that I could
resell it for. I might spend some of the money on a better stereo. ;-)

[Greg Wormald]

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 08:41:54 -0800, Greg Wormald wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

*snips*

In some cases, this is true but some expensive things are better, and are
expensive simply because quality COSTS MONEY. This is especially true with
furniture and wine and to a certain extent, sports cars A Ferrari really
is
worth the money they ask for it, for instance. On the other hand, a Rolex
is
not measurably a better watch than a quality Seiko (in fact if the Seiko
is
a
quartz mechanism and the Rolex is mechanical, I'll guarantee you that the
Seiko is measurably better). \

When I bought my Rolex Submariner Date (more than 35 years ago) the
Seiko dive watches were leaking in the deep end of the training pool.

The Rolex looks like new, and the Seiko's are nothing but piles of rust
and garbage.

Try another analogy.

Greg

I'll stick with the Rolex/Seiko analogy:

1) This isn't 35 years ago, its now.
2) No mechanical watch is ever as MEASURABLY good as a quartz watch (which
you will note, I was careful to say MEASURABLY).
3) I own two Breitlings. A Breitling Bentley and a Breitling Emergency. The
wholly mechanical Bentley is beautifully made but doesn't keep as good time
as the quartz Emergency.

Like hi-fi, it all depends on what you are MEASURING! You certainly
aren't measuring longevity. :-).

I would agree that a good quartz Seiko is probably more accurate than
the Rolex (or Breitling) when both are in good nick, but in neither
looks (IMO), nor status, nor durability is it anywhere close to a match.
I know which ones I'd trust my life to--and have done so below 180 feet
in the open sea.

This is why we need to be very clear and accurate (!) about what we say
when we claim "better", in many areas--not just watches and hi-fi.

Greg

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:46:46 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 08:37:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

The application of this paper to audiophilia is pretty
obvious. A mechanism has been identified in the human
brain that causes people to perceive more pleasure from
products whose only difference from other products is
that they simply cost a great deal more.

In some cases, this is true but some expensive things are
better, and are expensive simply because quality COSTS
MONEY.

Totally agreed but with caveats.

The most obvious caveat is that while more quality often costs more money,
but spending more money is no guarantee of greater quality.

Agreed.

Another caveat is that the cost of adding quality varies quite strongly
depending on other circumstances.

And often it's a case of diminishing returns. Small improvements in quality
at huge price increases. Does a $25,000 Mark Levinson Amplifier sound better
than a $200 Behringer A500 of similar power? Perhaps, under some
circumstances, but is that difference WORTH $24, 800?

A better statement might be that all other things being equal, more quality
generally costs more money.\\

Agreed.

This is especially true with furniture and wine
and to a certain extent, sports cars A Ferrari really is
worth the money they ask for it, for instance.

That would be a matter of personal values. If someone gave me a Ferrari, I
would immediately resell it. Not that I don't like sleek, fast cars, but its
not worth that much money to me to have a sleek, fast car like a Ferrari.

Irrelevant. Ferraris are very well made. For instance, their chassis are all
aluminum and are anodized against corrosion. The bodies are dipped in
corrosion protection and then the paint primer is a POWDER coat. The
interiors are all premium, hand-stitched leather. The engines are made with
Swiss-watch like precision and attention to detail from the finest materials.
These processes and choices of materials as well as others like them cost a
lot more money than the processes and materials used in lesser cars. That's
why they cost so much. Whether that quality, or the performance that it
engenders is important to you or me is not the point. The point is that the
cars are really quality products and the price they charge for them is
justified by the manufacturing costs.

The Ferrari isn't worth to me the money that it costs, or that I could
resell it for. I might spend some of the money on a better stereo. ;-)

That's your choice. And as much as I admire Ferraris, it would likely be mine
as well. No sense owning a car that I couldn't afford to maintain, so if
someone gave me one (or if I won one in a raffle) i'd likely do as you would
and turn around and sell it.

But that has nothing to do with its intrinsic worth.

[Peter Wieck]

On Dec 28, 7:46*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


That would be a matter of personal values. If someone gave me a Ferrari, I
would immediately resell it. Not that I don't like sleek, fast cars, but its
not worth that much money to me to have a sleek, fast car like a Ferrari.
The Ferrari isn't worth to me the money that it costs, or that I could
resell it for. I might spend some of the money on a better stereo. ;-)


So, your original post was nothing but another troll? No surprise
there.

Keeping in mind that the point of diminishing returns on High-End
stereo is reached pretty quickly in all things except, perhaps,
speakers. But there are those who have no problem at all spending
large amounts of money on cars, houses, electronics, jewelry and many
other items if only because they can. And the value they realize is
theirs alone to discern - it is their money after all. I will laugh at
those who purchase 2" catenary poles for their speaker wire, but I
will never dispute their right to purchase such silliness. And I might
take the maker of such items to task for ripping off their customers -
but the customers keep coming.

So, other than belaboring the obvious once again, Arny, what else is
new?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Andrew Barss]

Sonnova wrote:

: In some cases, this is true but some expensive things are better, and are
: expensive simply because quality COSTS MONEY.

But the converse -- that high cost leads to high quality -- is
not true, and is what the article Arny cited addresses.



This is especially true with
: furniture and wine and to a certain extent, sports cars A Ferrari really is
: worth the money they ask for it, for instance.

Nah, poor example. They're ugly to a large proportion of the population,
they can't be driven on regular roads unless they are extremely
well maintained (super low ground clearance -- can't go over a pothole),
they're hard to handle, mechanically unreliable,
they are uncomfortable in the extreme to sit in,
etc. They're niche cars for middle aged rich guys of a certain
temperament and aesthetic sensibility (what I think of as the
large-scale Hotwheels crowd). By most peope's standards they're
plain lousy cars.

There's any number of cars which beat Ferraris on comfort, looks,
reliability, and driving pleasure, for vastly less money.


-- Andy Barss

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

On Dec 28, 7:46 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That would be a matter of personal values. If someone
gave me a Ferrari, I would immediately resell it. Not
that I don't like sleek, fast cars, but its not worth
that much money to me to have a sleek, fast car like a
Ferrari. The Ferrari isn't worth to me the money that it
costs, or that I could resell it for. I might spend some
of the money on a better stereo. ;-)

So, your original post was nothing but another troll? No
surprise there.

Non sequitor.

Keeping in mind that the point of diminishing returns on
High-End stereo is reached pretty quickly in all things
except, perhaps, speakers.

Then we agree on the basics.

But there are those who have
no problem at all spending large amounts of money on
cars, houses, electronics, jewelry and many other items
if only because they can.

Where I come from we call them "new rich".

And the value they realize is
theirs alone to discern - it is their money after all.

Agreed, and now we even have a scientific paper that gives some insight to
where their thinking comes from.

I will laugh at those who purchase 2" catenary poles for
their speaker wire, but I will never dispute their right
to purchase such silliness.

Now will I, and I've seen plenty of this exact thing, up front and personal.

And I might take the maker of
such items to task for ripping off their customers - but
the customers keep coming.

When people are lied to, we can only fault them for not detecting the lie.

So, other than belaboring the obvious once again, Arny,
what else is new?

The fact that some people can agree on the basics, and still figure out how
to be disagreeable. ;-)

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Dec 28, 7:46?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

That would be a matter of personal values. If someone gave me a Ferrari, I
would immediately resell it. Not that I don't like sleek, fast cars, but its
not worth that much money to me to have a sleek, fast car like a Ferrari.
The Ferrari isn't worth to me the money that it costs, or that I could
resell it for. I might spend some of the money on a better stereo. ;-)

So, your original post was nothing but another troll? No surprise
there.

Keeping in mind that the point of diminishing returns on High-End
stereo is reached pretty quickly in all things except, perhaps,
speakers.

That's certainly not the line put forth by the 'high-end'
'mainstream', such as it is -- Stereophile, TAS, and their associates and
fans...who maintain much the opposite: that your claim above is only true
for those *whose ears aren't good enough*.

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Peter Wieck]

On Dec 29, 11:53*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:

That's certainly not the line put forth by the 'high-end'
'mainstream', such as it is -- Stereophile, TAS, and their associates and
fans...who maintain much the opposite: that your claim above is only true
for those *whose ears aren't good enough*.

Of course not. And one may manufacture equipment with solid-silver
wire (or even stranded solid silver wire), forged castings instead of
stampings, glass wire-&-post boards, screened and matched mil-spec.
components and much more to enhance build-quality. Some are even
willing to pay for just that knowing full-well that the actual effect
on the sound coming out is minimal-if-at-all (crappy components can
have physical aspects that affect sound such as poor solder joints or
corrosion). In point of fact, when I make repairs, I screen the parts
going in to match across channels and be within 1% of 'spec.' because
I can even if no discernable difference is made - takes almost no more
time do do so. The actual components are cheap enough at that level of
quality as I am purchasing in lots of 5 to 20, not by the thousands (I
also avoid Boutique Caps such as Auricaps and their ilk - their
benefits do not begin to match their cost at any level at all).

The psychology of all this is very old news indeed. Bringing it here
is naught but a troll.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Dec 28, 7:46?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

That would be a matter of personal values. If someone gave me a
Ferrari, I
would immediately resell it. Not that I don't like sleek, fast cars,
but its
not worth that much money to me to have a sleek, fast car like a
Ferrari.
The Ferrari isn't worth to me the money that it costs, or that I could
resell it for. I might spend some of the money on a better stereo. ;-)

So, your original post was nothing but another troll? No surprise
there.

Keeping in mind that the point of diminishing returns on High-End
stereo is reached pretty quickly in all things except, perhaps,
speakers.

That's certainly not the line put forth by the 'high-end'
'mainstream', such as it is -- Stereophile, TAS, and their associates and
fans...who maintain much the opposite: that your claim above is only true
for those *whose ears aren't good enough*.


What a BS strawman!! Please quote *any* text along with professional source
data from either of those mags that shows them saying anything remotely like
what you profess above....that diminishing returns only set in quickly if an
audiophile's ears are'nt good. Please, I'm serious....this kind of
strawman slander has gone on too long in this forum!

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Dec 28, 7:46?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That would be a matter of personal values. If someone
gave me a Ferrari, I
would immediately resell it. Not that I don't like
sleek, fast cars, but its
not worth that much money to me to have a sleek, fast
car like a Ferrari.
The Ferrari isn't worth to me the money that it costs,
or that I could resell it for. I might spend some of
the money on a better stereo. ;-)

So, your original post was nothing but another troll?
No surprise there.

Keeping in mind that the point of diminishing returns
on High-End stereo is reached pretty quickly in all
things except, perhaps, speakers.

That's certainly not the line put forth by the 'high-end'
'mainstream', such as it is -- Stereophile, TAS, and
their associates and fans...who maintain much the
opposite: that your claim above is only true for those
*whose ears aren't good enough*.

What a BS strawman!! Please quote *any* text along with
professional source data from either of those mags that
shows them saying anything remotely like what you profess
above....that diminishing returns only set in quickly if
an audiophile's ears are'nt good.

"any text", Harry?

Here's the results of my first search:

http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...0/index13.html

"Admittedly, this 211-based, single-ended amplifier is not a stellar
test-bench performer. Yet, equipped only with a sophisticated integrated
test and evaluation system (ie, two ears), any audiophile worth his or her
salt should have no problem discerning the 805's magic."

Most significant words:

"...any audiophile worth his or her salt should have no problem discerning
the 805's magic."

Since any amplifier using an 805 (s) would have a premium price, the clear
meaning is that diminishing returns related to premium priced amplifiers set
in quickly only if an audiophile's ears aren't "worth his or her salt". IOW,
as you said it Harry, their "ears aren't good".

Please, I'm
serious....this kind of strawman slander has gone on too
long in this forum!

It would appear that calling a true claim "strawman slander" is a bit of
slander in its own right.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Dec 28, 7:46?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That would be a matter of personal values. If someone
gave me a Ferrari, I
would immediately resell it. Not that I don't like
sleek, fast cars, but its
not worth that much money to me to have a sleek, fast
car like a Ferrari.
The Ferrari isn't worth to me the money that it costs,
or that I could resell it for. I might spend some of
the money on a better stereo. ;-)

So, your original post was nothing but another troll?
No surprise there.

Keeping in mind that the point of diminishing returns
on High-End stereo is reached pretty quickly in all
things except, perhaps, speakers.

That's certainly not the line put forth by the 'high-end'
'mainstream', such as it is -- Stereophile, TAS, and
their associates and fans...who maintain much the
opposite: that your claim above is only true for those
*whose ears aren't good enough*.

What a BS strawman!! Please quote *any* text along with
professional source data from either of those mags that
shows them saying anything remotely like what you profess
above....that diminishing returns only set in quickly if
an audiophile's ears are'nt good.

"any text", Harry?

Here's the results of my first search:

http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...0/index13.html

"Admittedly, this 211-based, single-ended amplifier is not a stellar
test-bench performer. Yet, equipped only with a sophisticated integrated
test and evaluation system (ie, two ears), any audiophile worth his or her
salt should have no problem discerning the 805's magic."

Most significant words:

"...any audiophile worth his or her salt should have no problem discerning
the 805's magic."

Since any amplifier using an 805 (s) would have a premium price, the clear
meaning is that diminishing returns related to premium priced amplifiers
set
in quickly only if an audiophile's ears aren't "worth his or her salt".
IOW,
as you said it Harry, their "ears aren't good".

Please, I'm
serious....this kind of strawman slander has gone on too
long in this forum!

It would appear that calling a true claim "strawman slander" is a bit of
slander in its own right.

There is absolutely nothing in that quote about diminishing returns, Arny.
Moreover, a single end amplifier even you would admit sounds "different" so
saying "Any audiophile worth his salt will hear it" is hardly a
revolutionary statment (although admitedly it is a bit over the top). Which
is what the reviewer basically says, once you strip away his own subjective
judgement. No reference, to price or value. On the other hand, Stereophile
goes out of its way periodically to point out that value is in the eye/ear
of the beholder, and also to acknowedge that there are diminishing returns
that vary from person to person. But it does not say only those who cannot
hear can question whether there are diminishing returns, the point implied
in Steven's OP.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


The psychology of all this is very old news indeed.
Bringing it here is naught but a troll.

Interesting how someone who revils in 1960's audio technology sees a January
2008 paper on a topic that may make him uncomfortable as being "naught but a
troll".

Perhaps Peter your readings in psychology are far more up to date than
January 2008, and there is something relevant that you could share with us
before you find it to be "very old news indeed".

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


The psychology of all this is very old news indeed.
Bringing it here is naught but a troll.

Interesting how someone who revils in 1960's audio technology sees a
January
2008 paper on a topic that may make him uncomfortable as being "naught but
a
troll".

Perhaps Peter your readings in psychology are far more up to date than
January 2008, and there is something relevant that you could share with us
before you find it to be "very old news indeed".

It is, Arny. Those of us who studied marketing or applied psychology have
known about it since the '60's.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


The psychology of all this is very old news indeed.
Bringing it here is naught but a troll.

Interesting how someone who revils in 1960's audio
technology sees a January
2008 paper on a topic that may make him uncomfortable as
being "naught but a
troll".

Perhaps Peter your readings in psychology are far more
up to date than January 2008, and there is something
relevant that you could share with us before you find it
to be "very old news indeed".

It is, Arny. Those of us who studied marketing or
applied psychology have known about it since the '60's.

Then Harry you should have no problem citing a paper from the 60's that
essentially duplicates the paper I cited.

Of course anybody who has done sales has strongly suspected and was aware of
common wisdom that many people are unaware of the vagaries of purchasing
high-priced products. They think that spending a lot of money guarantees
really good performance.

But, most of us can differentiate common wisdom from something for which
scientific evidence exists.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


The psychology of all this is very old news indeed.
Bringing it here is naught but a troll.

Interesting how someone who revils in 1960's audio
technology sees a January
2008 paper on a topic that may make him uncomfortable as
being "naught but a
troll".

Perhaps Peter your readings in psychology are far more
up to date than January 2008, and there is something
relevant that you could share with us before you find it
to be "very old news indeed".

It is, Arny. Those of us who studied marketing or
applied psychology have known about it since the '60's.

Then Harry you should have no problem citing a paper from the 60's that
essentially duplicates the paper I cited.

Of course anybody who has done sales has strongly suspected and was aware of
common wisdom that many people are unaware of the vagaries of purchasing
high-priced products. They think that spending a lot of money guarantees
really good performance.

But, most of us can differentiate common wisdom from something for which
scientific evidence exists.

The news in the paper you cite is the MRI that creates an objective
measure of perceived pleasure. Here's a commentary:

http://www.evancarmichael.com/Sales/...-Perception-of
-Quality.html

I think many of us have instinctively known this for years. But in this
study it is proven once and for all by hard science. Essentially the
finding were that higher prices have a real impact on perceived quality
(which will then influence sales) rather than people just saying they
think its better (which will not).

My interpretation is that the study shows that lacking hard definitive
information about the quality of a product, the consumer searches for
other sources of information to determine the quality of one thing over
another. In this case, the price of the product itself creates the real
perception of higher quality.

--

This shows objectively that the wine drinkers enjoyed the high-priced
wines more. If you're analogizing to audio, the case is that audiophiles
may be fooling themselves, but they really are enjoying themselves more.

Stephen

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


The psychology of all this is very old news indeed.
Bringing it here is naught but a troll.

Interesting how someone who revils in 1960's audio technology sees a
January
2008 paper on a topic that may make him uncomfortable as being "naught but
a
troll".

Perhaps Peter your readings in psychology are far more up to date than
January 2008, and there is something relevant that you could share with us
before you find it to be "very old news indeed".

It is, Arny. Those of us who studied marketing or applied psychology have
known about it since the '60's.

One wonders why the PNAS work was even DONE then.


--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


The psychology of all this is very old news indeed.
Bringing it here is naught but a troll.

Interesting how someone who revels in 1960's audio
technology sees a January
2008 paper on a topic that may make him uncomfortable
as being "naught but a
troll".

Perhaps Peter your readings in psychology are far more
up to date than January 2008, and there is something
relevant that you could share with us before you find
it to be "very old news indeed".

It is, Arny. Those of us who studied marketing or
applied psychology have known about it since the '60's.

Then Harry you should have no problem citing a paper
from the 60's that essentially duplicates the paper I
cited.

Of course anybody who has done sales has strongly
suspected and was aware of common wisdom that many
people are unaware of the vagaries of purchasing
high-priced products. They think that spending a lot of
money guarantees really good performance.

But, most of us can differentiate common wisdom from
something for which scientific evidence exists.

The news in the paper you cite is the MRI that creates an
objective measure of perceived pleasure. Here's a
commentary:

http://www.evancarmichael.com/Sales/...-Perception-of
-Quality.html

Nice reference. Thanks.

"I think many of us have instinctively known this for
years. But in this study it is proven once and for all by
hard science. Essentially the finding were that higher
prices have a real impact on perceived quality (which
will then influence sales) rather than people just saying
they think its better (which will not)."

It appears that Mr. Carmichael and the prestigious "The Economist" sees the
same value in the paper that I did and that Harry could not:

"I think many of us have instinctively known this for years. But in this
study it is proven once and for all by hard science."

Mr. Carmichael and "The Economist" thinks that the paper was new Science
just like I did. Harry wants us to think that there was a comparable
scientific study back in the 1960s. Pretty difficult given that NMR imaging
(MRI) was first demonstrated in the laboratory in 1977.

" My interpretation is that the study shows that lacking
hard definitive information about the quality of a
product, the consumer searches for other sources of
information to determine the quality of one thing over
another. In this case, the price of the product itself
creates the real perception of higher quality."

Mr. Carmichael also makes a common-sense application of the paper itself.
People have a general tendency to believe that more expensive products have
higher quality, even when they don't. I have no problem with that, within
reason. However, when high end charlatans charge almost $3000 for a CD
player whose sound quality is probably indistinguishable from one costing
less than $50, we have a clear case of the Emperor's new clothes.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


The psychology of all this is very old news indeed.
Bringing it here is naught but a troll.

Interesting how someone who revils in 1960's audio
technology sees a January
2008 paper on a topic that may make him uncomfortable
as being "naught but a
troll".

Perhaps Peter your readings in psychology are far more
up to date than January 2008, and there is something
relevant that you could share with us before you find
it to be "very old news indeed".

It is, Arny. Those of us who studied marketing or
applied psychology have known about it since the '60's.

One wonders why the PNAS work was even DONE then.

Good question given that MRI was first demonstrated in the lab in 1977.

I suspect we see evidence for perceiving someon's confusion between
scientific research and intuitive wisdom.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:08:55 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


The psychology of all this is very old news indeed.
Bringing it here is naught but a troll.

Interesting how someone who revels in 1960's audio
technology sees a January
2008 paper on a topic that may make him uncomfortable
as being "naught but a
troll".

Perhaps Peter your readings in psychology are far more
up to date than January 2008, and there is something
relevant that you could share with us before you find
it to be "very old news indeed".

It is, Arny. Those of us who studied marketing or
applied psychology have known about it since the '60's.

Then Harry you should have no problem citing a paper
from the 60's that essentially duplicates the paper I
cited.

Of course anybody who has done sales has strongly
suspected and was aware of common wisdom that many
people are unaware of the vagaries of purchasing
high-priced products. They think that spending a lot of
money guarantees really good performance.

But, most of us can differentiate common wisdom from
something for which scientific evidence exists.

The news in the paper you cite is the MRI that creates an
objective measure of perceived pleasure. Here's a
commentary:

http://www.evancarmichael.com/Sales/...-Perception-of
-Quality.html

Nice reference. Thanks.

"I think many of us have instinctively known this for
years. But in this study it is proven once and for all by
hard science. Essentially the finding were that higher
prices have a real impact on perceived quality (which
will then influence sales) rather than people just saying
they think its better (which will not)."

It appears that Mr. Carmichael and the prestigious "The Economist" sees the
same value in the paper that I did and that Harry could not:

"I think many of us have instinctively known this for years. But in this
study it is proven once and for all by hard science."

Mr. Carmichael and "The Economist" thinks that the paper was new Science
just like I did. Harry wants us to think that there was a comparable
scientific study back in the 1960s. Pretty difficult given that NMR imaging
(MRI) was first demonstrated in the laboratory in 1977.

" My interpretation is that the study shows that lacking
hard definitive information about the quality of a
product, the consumer searches for other sources of
information to determine the quality of one thing over
another. In this case, the price of the product itself
creates the real perception of higher quality."

Mr. Carmichael also makes a common-sense application of the paper itself.
People have a general tendency to believe that more expensive products have
higher quality, even when they don't. I have no problem with that, within
reason. However, when high end charlatans charge almost $3000 for a CD
player whose sound quality is probably indistinguishable from one costing
less than $50, we have a clear case of the Emperor's new clothes.




In such a case where you buy the $50 CD player, and are happy with it, and
the other guy buys a $3000 CD player and is happy with that, then you get to
laugh all the way to the bank, don't you Arny? OTOH, the guy who payed $3k
for his CD player has a certain pride of ownership in a nicely made player
that TO HIM sounds better than a cheaper player. Isn't that what hobbies are
all about, anyway?

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


The psychology of all this is very old news indeed.
Bringing it here is naught but a troll.

Interesting how someone who revels in 1960's audio
technology sees a January
2008 paper on a topic that may make him uncomfortable
as being "naught but a
troll".

Perhaps Peter your readings in psychology are far more
up to date than January 2008, and there is something
relevant that you could share with us before you find
it to be "very old news indeed".

It is, Arny. Those of us who studied marketing or
applied psychology have known about it since the '60's.

Then Harry you should have no problem citing a paper
from the 60's that essentially duplicates the paper I
cited.

Of course anybody who has done sales has strongly
suspected and was aware of common wisdom that many
people are unaware of the vagaries of purchasing
high-priced products. They think that spending a lot of
money guarantees really good performance.

But, most of us can differentiate common wisdom from
something for which scientific evidence exists.

The news in the paper you cite is the MRI that creates an
objective measure of perceived pleasure. Here's a
commentary:

http://www.evancarmichael.com/Sales/...-Perception-of
-Quality.html

Nice reference. Thanks.

"I think many of us have instinctively known this for
years. But in this study it is proven once and for all by
hard science. Essentially the finding were that higher
prices have a real impact on perceived quality (which
will then influence sales) rather than people just saying
they think its better (which will not)."

It appears that Mr. Carmichael and the prestigious "The Economist" sees
the
same value in the paper that I did and that Harry could not:

"I think many of us have instinctively known this for years. But in this
study it is proven once and for all by hard science."

Mr. Carmichael and "The Economist" thinks that the paper was new Science
just like I did. Harry wants us to think that there was a comparable
scientific study back in the 1960s. Pretty difficult given that NMR
imaging
(MRI) was first demonstrated in the laboratory in 1977.

" My interpretation is that the study shows that lacking
hard definitive information about the quality of a
product, the consumer searches for other sources of
information to determine the quality of one thing over
another. In this case, the price of the product itself
creates the real perception of higher quality."

Mr. Carmichael also makes a common-sense application of the paper itself.
People have a general tendency to believe that more expensive products
have
higher quality, even when they don't. I have no problem with that, within
reason. However, when high end charlatans charge almost $3000 for a CD
player whose sound quality is probably indistinguishable from one costing
less than $50, we have a clear case of the Emperor's new clothes.

Clearly, Arny, I didn't say there was an objective MRI study back in the
sixties. I said it was pretty well established among a certain
knowledgeable fraternity that higher prices often equated to perceived
quality and vice-versa. I happened to get my MBA at Northwestern in '63, a
time when one of the lead faculty was Dr. Sidney Levy of Behavioral Research
Associates, a well know behavioral psychologist. We had anecdotal access to
this sort of knowledge as well as to the scientific work then extant,
translated into the business world.

But beyond the theoretical, let me give you a couple of examples.

The first is a bit of a reverse example, but an interesting one. I once ran
a chain of Mexican Restaurants for several years...a subsidiary of KFC. My
boss (the chairman of KFC) didn't like Mexican food and thought of it only
as (in his terms) "rot-gut". He wanted prices lowered We had just
redesigned our stores so it looked nicer and more expensive, more like a
sit-down restaurant...our food was at a slight premium to Taco Bell. It
worked, and we were thriving. This was one of the things my boss and I
tangled about, and after I left he took the chain into a new market with the
same store design but dramatically lower prices, loudly promoted as lower
than the main competition ("Taco Bell"). Much to his consternation, it
failed. Follow up surveys (I am told) showed that customers thought the
food would be more expensive since the stores looked much nicer, so much so
that they simply ignored all the advertising. In simple terms, they were
satisfied with Taco Bell, and they didn't understand this new competitor
with the nicer stores and yet lower prices. They solved the cognative
dissonance by staying away rather than flocking to the new stores. As I
said, a bit of a reverse example, but a real one.

The second is a classic. When I became Marketing V.P. of Heublein's food
group, the Grey Poupon brand had just been moved from distribution by a food
distributor ( those who stock the shelves with specialty items) to the main
grocery shelves and warehouses. Although costs were lower, the price
remained at a substantial premium to the more mainstream brands. The brand
was sustained by low-key advertising in Gourmet magazine, the airline
magazines, etc and the higher price was consistent with that.. I wanted to
move it into television...convinced that the brand had much greater volume
potential. Again, there was scepticism by a certain boss that we could do
that without cheapening the brand...he was afraid it would then be seen as a
commodity item like French's and that we would be taken over by the main
brands, who knew how to make a similar product. Before I left to run the
restaurants, I had put a marketing team and agency team in place who
understood what needed to be done, and the testing guidelines that had to be
followed. The result about a year later was the "But of course"
campaign....and sales took off like crazy. Frenchs, Guldens, and many other
brands have come after Grey Poupon since, but it is far and away the premier
upscale mustard brand in the country. It's higher price is a reinforcing
factor.

Their is plenty of evidence that real value to consumers is imputed by a lot
of things....and price is a key one of them. I guess we should have just
foregone all that an waited for an MRI scan.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


In such a case where you buy the $50 CD player, and are
happy with it, and the other guy buys a $3000 CD player
and is happy with that, then you get to laugh all the way
to the bank, don't you Arny?

In a perfect world, that would be nobody's business but my own.

OTOH, the guy who payed $3k
for his CD player has a certain pride of ownership in a
nicely made player that TO HIM sounds better than a
cheaper player.

In a perfect world, that would be none of my business. However, some people
want to make it my business.

Isn't that what hobbies are all about, anyway?

Audio forums seem to sometimes degenerate into ****-measuring contests. The
irony is that the "ruler" is usually imaginary. ;-)

[mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH [email protected]]

This shows objectively that the wine drinkers enjoyed the high-priced
wines more. If you're analogizing to audio, the case is that audiophiles
may be fooling themselves, but they really are enjoying themselves more.



What they are enjoying the the self-satisfaction that they are
rich enough to afford the expensive stuff.

I buy expensive rocks and expensive vacations. It is quite evident
to me that I get a feeling of pleasure from the mere fact that
I can afford such things, independent of the "real" value of the
product itself.

If I can get the same product cheaper, I get a feeling of pleasure,
but a different one. This is quite clear.

I get a feeling of great pleasure that I can't tell the difference
in sound between a $0.30 MP3 from eMusic and a $18 CD of exactly
the same performance. I note that I like classical music, and sometimes one
finds the 52 minute single track! This pleasure is some compensation
for getting old enough that I can't hear the difference any more.

Doug McDonald

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


The psychology of all this is very old news indeed.
Bringing it here is naught but a troll.

Interesting how someone who revels in 1960's audio
technology sees a January
2008 paper on a topic that may make him uncomfortable
as being "naught but a
troll".

Perhaps Peter your readings in psychology are far more
up to date than January 2008, and there is something
relevant that you could share with us before you find
it to be "very old news indeed".

It is, Arny. Those of us who studied marketing or
applied psychology have known about it since the '60's.

Then Harry you should have no problem citing a paper
from the 60's that essentially duplicates the paper I
cited.

Of course anybody who has done sales has strongly
suspected and was aware of common wisdom that many
people are unaware of the vagaries of purchasing
high-priced products. They think that spending a lot of
money guarantees really good performance.

But, most of us can differentiate common wisdom from
something for which scientific evidence exists.

The news in the paper you cite is the MRI that creates an
objective measure of perceived pleasure. Here's a
commentary:

http://www.evancarmichael.com/Sales/...-Perception-of
-Quality.html

Nice reference. Thanks.

"I think many of us have instinctively known this for
years. But in this study it is proven once and for all by
hard science. Essentially the finding were that higher
prices have a real impact on perceived quality (which
will then influence sales) rather than people just saying
they think its better (which will not)."

It appears that Mr. Carmichael and the prestigious "The Economist" sees the
same value in the paper that I did and that Harry could not:

"I think many of us have instinctively known this for years. But in this
study it is proven once and for all by hard science."

Mr. Carmichael and "The Economist" thinks that the paper was new Science
just like I did. Harry wants us to think that there was a comparable
scientific study back in the 1960s. Pretty difficult given that NMR imaging
(MRI) was first demonstrated in the laboratory in 1977.

However, studies of price and quality perception do go way back. It's
literally textbook knowledge.

" My interpretation is that the study shows that lacking
hard definitive information about the quality of a
product, the consumer searches for other sources of
information to determine the quality of one thing over
another. In this case, the price of the product itself
creates the real perception of higher quality."

Mr. Carmichael also makes a common-sense application of the paper itself.
People have a general tendency to believe that more expensive products have
higher quality, even when they don't. I have no problem with that, within
reason. However, when high end charlatans charge almost $3000 for a CD
player whose sound quality is probably indistinguishable from one costing
less than $50, we have a clear case of the Emperor's new clothes.

Yes, but the Emperor is now scientifically proven to enjoy his clothes
more with no loss of utility.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Clearly, Arny, I didn't say there was an objective MRI
study back in the sixties.

You said that: "Those of us who studied marketing or applied psychology have
known about it since the '60's"

So now the question is what did you mean by "it". The antecedent of the
pronoun was a published study. The study had the use of a MRI as a key
component.

I said it was pretty well
established among a certain knowledgeable fraternity that
higher prices often equated to perceived quality and
vice-versa.

Unhh, I see. We have a free-floating "it". ;-) When it gets shot down in
one part of the sky, it magically reappears someplace else. Isn't that
called waffling?

I happened to get my MBA at Northwestern in
'63, a time when one of the lead faculty was Dr. Sidney
Levy of Behavioral Research Associates, a well know
behavioral psychologist. We had anecdotal access to this
sort of knowledge as well as to the scientific work then
extant, translated into the business world.

In 1963 I was a hi fi salesman, and I had plenty of anecdotal and direct
access to real life consumer sales. I didn't have to translate into the
business world, I was there.

It was pretty well established among the working sales fraternity in 1963
and probably 1903, that higher prices often equated to perceived quality and
vice-versa. In fact, part of my job was informing my clients about the
details of that equation. I tried very hard to keep it real.

In the audio world, higher quality is very often equated with a very
one-dimensional view of product quality: sound quality.

Why should a customer care whether or not a CD player chassis is plastic,
thin steel stamped and bent, machined bars of metal screwed together, or
milled from a single billet of aluminum? The universal, one-size-fits-all
answer is the single-billet chassis sounds better. Ker-ching - the customer
gets a $3000 CD player which oh by the way uses the CD transport from a
$69.95 boombox whose chassis is a mixture of plastic and stamped steel.

In the cited study, there's no evidence that the test subjects were told
that the wine tasted better, because that would be a bald faced lie. The
claim that it was more expensive was a questionable claim, but it might have
cost $90 a bottle if ordered by the glass in a very expensive restaurant.

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


The psychology of all this is very old news indeed.
Bringing it here is naught but a troll.

Interesting how someone who revils in 1960's audio
technology sees a January
2008 paper on a topic that may make him uncomfortable
as being "naught but a
troll".

Perhaps Peter your readings in psychology are far more
up to date than January 2008, and there is something
relevant that you could share with us before you find
it to be "very old news indeed".

It is, Arny. Those of us who studied marketing or
applied psychology have known about it since the '60's.

One wonders why the PNAS work was even DONE then.

Good question given that MRI was first demonstrated in the lab in 1977.

I suspect we see evidence for perceiving someon's confusion between
scientific research and intuitive wisdom.

MRI has been used before in audio related stuff too ...the infamous
Oohashi 'hypersonic effect' is claimed to be supported by pattersn
of blood flow in the brain, as well as alpha wave changes.

What I learned over the years is that scientists have to be very
careful how they interpret such data.

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Clearly, Arny, I didn't say there was an objective MRI
study back in the sixties.

You said that: "Those of us who studied marketing or applied psychology
have
known about it since the '60's"

So now the question is what did you mean by "it". The antecedent of the
pronoun was a published study. The study had the use of a MRI as a key
component.

I said it was pretty well
established among a certain knowledgeable fraternity that
higher prices often equated to perceived quality and
vice-versa.

The "it" refered specifically "the psychology of all this" in Peter Wieck's
quote, to whom you responded by also refering to "it": Your own quote
demolishes your case.

******************************************
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


The psychology of all this is very old news indeed.
Bringing it here is naught but a troll.

Interesting how someone who revils in 1960's audio technology sees a January
2008 paper on a topic that may make him uncomfortable as being "naught but a
troll".

Perhaps Peter your readings in psychology are far more up to date than
January 2008, and there is something relevant that you could share with us
before you find it to be "very old news indeed".
************************************************

Unhh, I see. We have a free-floating "it". ;-) When it gets shot down in
one part of the sky, it magically reappears someplace else. Isn't that
called waffling?

Not free-floating at all, unless yours was?


I happened to get my MBA at Northwestern in
'63, a time when one of the lead faculty was Dr. Sidney
Levy of Behavioral Research Associates, a well know
behavioral psychologist. We had anecdotal access to this
sort of knowledge as well as to the scientific work then
extant, translated into the business world.

In 1963 I was a hi fi salesman, and I had plenty of anecdotal and direct
access to real life consumer sales. I didn't have to translate into the
business world, I was there.

It was pretty well established among the working sales fraternity in 1963
and probably 1903, that higher prices often equated to perceived quality
and
vice-versa. In fact, part of my job was informing my clients about the
details of that equation. I tried very hard to keep it real.

By "it", you mean what here? Sauce for the goose, and all that.......


snip remainder

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


snip the usual retrenching and obfuscations

It was pretty well established among the working sales
fraternity in 1963 and probably 1903, that higher prices
often equated to perceived quality and
vice-versa. In fact, part of my job was informing my
clients about the details of that equation. I tried
very hard to keep it real.

By "it", you mean what here?

You mean Harry that you can't parse that paragraph to figure out the
answer to that question?

The answer is obviously "informing my clients about the details of that
equation."

[ Moderator's note: Let's skip the meta-arguments from now on,
please. -dsr- ]

[Engineer]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


(big snip)

This shows objectively that the wine drinkers enjoyed the high-priced
wines more. If you're analogizing to audio, the case is that audiophiles
may be fooling themselves, but they really are enjoying themselves more.

Stephen

I suspect that the wine business is a lot more logical than high-end audio.
The producers and marketers taste the stuff and then figure out whether it
is worth $10, $15, $20, $25, etc, per bottle - then it hits the shelves.
It's no surprise that a $25 bottle generally tastes OK and a $10 bottle a
bit rough... (as an engineer I've never been able to afford anything more
pricey!) There are anomalies, of course; sometimes you find a $10 bottle
that tastes "above it's price", but not often - the industry is smarter than
that! I do not think "high-end" audio is marketed this way, i.e. listen
and then price. I think they (producers, marketers) pursue all the "oxygen
free snake oil" they can find, then price the result so as to get the
biggest margin possible, then promote the heck out to it to sell it.
Result: some good audio at a too high price (the "oxygen free snake oil"
itself doesn't harm the sound unless it violates proper engineering
somewhere) but also some over-priced bad audio where the engineering has
been compromised by greed or simple ignorance, e.g. trying to violate the
laws of physics. ("Canna do it, captain".) Vote with your dollars in the
marketplace - "The ayes, er... sorry, the ears have it".
Cheers,
Roger