advertisement


"Moral indignation in most cases is, 2% moral, 48% indignation, and 50% envy."

Tenson said:
Remembered something I read a while back - The better speakers get, the more they sound the same. It was regarding studio monitors actually. What do you think? That would certainly be my view of electronic equipment.
Click to expand...

Very true, I've said this several times in other threads... the better all hifi gear gets, not just speakers, the closer to perfect accuracy it should be and therefore the equipment should sound less identifiable.... it should sound merely like the recording it's reproducing.
Obviously some expensive equipment sounds very characterful... which makes it crap in my book!
 
I don't get the envy bit. There are lots of things to have to curtail ones envious feelings about, but consumer audio kit is not really one of them. Lessee how it goes.... Envy leads to greed, greed leads to jabba the hut, jabba the hut leads to being sealed in a block of grey stuff, block of grey stuff means your mates (along with the girl in a really bad bikini) get thrown into a giant sand vagina full of teeth, yada yada yada leads to severed limbs which leads to the dark side of the force.

And jar jar binks....

On the whole envy is not a great place to be, it's all a sith mind trick. No wait... It's all a (thread) crap...
 
h.g.,

If a person is going to hold a bunch of objectively false beliefs like audiophiles do it requires a particular way of thinking that isn't particularly precise or rational. This is reflected in the way they misuse the meanings of words in the way a more rational or educated group would not. For example, a scientist used to the precision of scientific writing is going to find it very difficult to read audiophile writings because the vagueness and misuse of the meaning of words is very irritating never mind the ideas trying to be articulated. Yet audiophiles find the writing attractive and it seems to me rather likely to me that is because it reflects to a fair extent how they reason.
Click to expand...
You're painting with a fat and broad brush, as though what you’ve written applies to everyone passionate about sound quality.

I consider guys like Robert, Paul R and Serge audiophiles (i.e., they're interested in high fidelity sound, have spent a bundle on kit over the years, have posted a lot about the hobby, etc.) yet, they don't fit your take on what an audiophile is.

It seems to me that you're railing against a certain type of audiophile – the ones that are irrational and use words sloppily. They exist, of course, but they are a subset of the group. I know a couple of biologists who are Creationists, but I wouldn’t assume that their woolly thinking applies to all biologists.

The implicit assumption in many of these discussions is that the subjectivist is flaky and irrational while the objectivist is logical and bases choices only on cold hard data. A bloke can be perfectly rational and methodical about his audio kit choices using only his ears, just as another can be sloppy with a spectrum analyzer, measure irrelevant things, or quote specs out of context.

Joe
 
I think some of the anti high end attitude has more to do with the Dunning-Kruger effect than with envy.
 
Steven Toy said:
http://www.audiostream.com/content/blind-testing-golden-ears-and-envy-oh-my



I agree with this. I think the campaign against high-end audio is mostly rooted in envy followed by indignation. Morality (and science) play but a tiny part.

I don't begrudge someone a more expensive system than mine that may or may not sound better than mine. I certainly demand no evidence that it is better.

Which ever way you lean on such matters it is a thought-provoking/interesting article nevertheless.

Read, analyse, discuss. ☺
Click to expand...

92% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
 
Yank said:
92% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Click to expand...

It was never meant to be a statistic. It was an arbitrary breakdown of moral indignation into its constituent parts. 2% for moral might be a bit optimistic.

My breakdown, in light of this thread's responses thus far would be 1% moral, 90% indignation and 9% envy.
 
So, what does audiophile mean other than someone who enjoys the reproduction of recorded music in whatever way he/she chooses to listen?
 
There is no campaign against high end audio.

There might be a campaign against high priced audio which doesn't deliver but that's a different matter.

Arguing against something which costs more but does less is s perfectly natural tendecy. Old as the hills.
 
Joe P said:
I consider guys like Robert, Paul R and Serge audiophiles (i.e., they're interested in high fidelity sound, have spent a bundle on kit over the years, have posted a lot about the hobby, etc.) yet, they don't fit your take on what an audiophile is.
Click to expand...

If they do not hold audiophile beliefs but are interested in home audio then I would call them high fidelity enthusiasts or something similar that did not involve the word audiophile.

The audiophile phenomenon entered the mainstream in the 1970s during the poor trading conditions following the stereo boom. There was a need to distinguish between the new audiophiles (everything sounds different, technical performance is unimportant, it sounds like this...) and the old high fidelity fuddy-duddys (technical performance is important). As is their wont, the new group had plenty of vague words for themselves but audiophile is the one that seems to have stuck. Audiophile now dominates the enthusiasts sector of home audio to the point where where many make no distinction between audiophiles, high fidelity enthusiasts or home audio enthusiasts. Others do.

Joe P said:
It seems to me that you're railing against a certain type of audiophile – the ones that are irrational and use words sloppily. They exist, of course, but they are a subset of the group. I know a couple of biologists who are Creationists, but I wouldn’t assume that their woolly thinking applies to all biologists.
Click to expand...

I am not aware of railing against anyone. If I didn't find what audiophiles had to say interesting I would not occasionally read and contribute to this forum. Unlike you, I would not call someone that believes in creationism a biologist because there is a conflict between what is required to think in a scientific way like a biologist and someone that accepts the creationist faith. Such people may call themselves biologists but if they do not think like biologists it does not seem reasonable description. Creationist biologists perhaps?

Joe P said:
The implicit assumption in many of these discussions is that the subjectivist is flaky and irrational while the objectivist is logical and bases choices only on cold hard data. A bloke can be perfectly rational and methodical about his audio kit choices using only his ears, just as another can be sloppy with a spectrum analyzer, measure irrelevant things, or quote specs out of context.
Click to expand...

Indeed which is why the term audiophile is a more reasonable one to describe the group than "subjectivist". It would be a rather strange world if there really was a conflict between an objective view and subjective view of something in the physical domain rather than their being complementary views of the same thing.

The typical audiophile "subjectivist" is not distinguished by their subjective observations but by their false objective beliefs making something of a mockery of the label. If audiophile "subjectivists" really did perform valid subjective evaluations of audio equipment of the kind conducted by Harman for example I cannot see their audiophile beliefs lasting long.
 
Colin L said:
CG,

You're quite wrong. Its an excellent bikini
Click to expand...

I just looked, you are right, my memory is wrong, it is quite excellent. Or maybe George Lucas had an opportunity to give it a bit of a digital touch up, and who would blame him...

These are not the bikinis you're looking for....
 
Arkless Repairs said:
But have you experienced the sonic advantages of cat piss deflectors on your mains plugs? Some may mock, but it can result in a dryer bottom end (underlay?)
Tonight I am trying the subjective effects of "Old Peculier"... It may become a double blind test if I drink the rest :D
Click to expand...

I have not tried that one, did you meassure it before you knocked it? ;-)
Cat piss would really have to improve the audio alot for me to accept the stink of it.
 
Old Peculiar is based on an old design, overpriced and a triumph of marketing over substance. Look at the specs-Tennents Super is 9% and half the price!! In a recent absolutely blind test I found that after 14 cans I couldn't distinguish either from cat piss and ended up sleeping in a skip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top