A reader asked for my take on John Darko's recent Snake Oil editorial. In it John posits two main definitions for viper wax: something that doesn't work but is commercialized hence fraudulent; or something that does far too little for what it costs. In his opinion, most people who in our space invoke snake oil apply one or the other meaning. For "doesn't work", we should add its precursor, "couldn't possibly work". The first can be based on actual personal experience but just as often disguises the second as mere opinion based on a person's grasp of general science and associated worldview. When hifi first borrowed cryogenics from military and medical sectors, our space ridiculed it as snake oil, even equated it with putting interconnects into a kitchen freezer then finding them to sound better the next day. Today even more casual hifi readers understand the difference. They simply took time to catch up and on. Here's one reason. The R&D departments and fiscal resources of even large hifi brands are puny compared to IT for example. So it comes as no surprise that our sector is often late to cross paths with inventions, processes or materials which have been used for already years in other industries that developed them but which migrate into our sector far delayed. And who of us casuals is fluent in quantum Physics and material nano sciences? In the absence of a solid grounding in the current state of such sciences, calling out "can't possibly work" can be premature.
Then there's the phenomenon of selective trust. It's routinely applied to reviewers. When they talk of amplifiers and speakers, they're perfectly credible. When suddenly they review a tweaky accessory of unconventional MO that exceeds the grasp or acceptance of the audience, they can't be believed. Knowing this mechanism, some reviewers deliberately sidestep coverage of anything they know will trigger pushback. They allow themselves to be held hostage by their own reader/viewership. They shape their content to the comfort level of their audience and avoid challenging or expanding it. Next we get to the fallacious assumption that all people hear alike—i.e. their neural pathways formed the same during their formative years—and that listening skills associated with individual ear/brains are equal. Ask the average person to take the place of a symphonic conductor to pick out who of the 70-strong orchestra played in wrong pitch or a wrong note. Or, ask why at many tradeshows, I witnessed a group of listeners entranced by a famous double-bass recording whose soloist plays badly out of tune. None of them flinched. Meanwhile I had to leave the room because having grown up around instruments and playing them, bad intonation rubs me the wrong way. To me it's not even an argument. Listening skills vary broadly. Say you grew up as singer, sax player, drummer or pianist. Don't you think that depending on instrument, you developed a particular listening focus? As singer or saxophonist you can only make one sound at a time. You think mostly in terms of melody, scales, intonation and phrasing. A drummer can use both hands and feet. It's about polyphonic rhythms. A pianist has 10 fingers with which to make simultaneous sounds. He thinks not merely in melodies but harmonies, of rhythm and accompaniment all at once. What of the difference between the West's tempered scale and the Middle-East's quarter notes? If you grew up with the former, the latter will at least initially seem out of tune or plain wrong. It will take acclimation to understand and appreciate different intervals; to be re-patterned.
It's well accepted that unless we begin early enough in life, chances of us becoming world-class musicians are slim. It's easiest to optimize the brain's neural network for a given skill when we're young, fluid and not yet fully patterned or fixed. Starting the piano at 4 years old vs. 40 years old makes a big difference. This segues back at "doesn't work". The sentence is incomplete. It should continue, "for me". If an incomplete "doesn't work" leads to a snake-oil proclamation even though based on personal experience, it's still a fallacy. It's based on the assumption that what doesn't work for us can't possibly work for anyone else. So it must be a fraud; and rip-off if it costs a lot. This subject matter invites another question. Why is it important to some people to call certain products snake oil? If you bought something to be disappointed for doing nothing you could tell then couldn't return it for a full refund, I might have some sympathy. If it all happens from the distance based on published specs and a photo or two… what's the motivation? To, out of the great compassion burning in your heart, warn others not to spend their hard-earned money on hooey? I somehow distrust such saintliness.
I find it perfectly legit when somebody says that a certain thing didn't work for them; or did so little for the ask as to not be worth it. If I was contemplating buying that thing, I might now hesitate and think twice. Ideally I went first expressing my plans, then the other person shared their personal experience. Now their motivation is clearly to be helpful in a very specific instance, to one very specific individual. Plus, their feedback invoked hands-on experience. That's always worthwhile. Can the same be said about blanket statements based on assumptions? Not in my book. There most snake oil is actually – well, fake snake oil. That makes it a double fraud. And I'm sorry to say but, two wrongs don't make a right. They make for a really wrong wrong. For some feedback from someone who knows his electrical onions from oily snakes, check out this interview.
