173.51.82.167
In Reply to: RE: Are They "Non-Believers?" Or Are They Bullies?? posted by andy19191 on June 25, 2009 at 04:35:26
"Almost all the problems audiophiles have in dealing with nonaudiophiles derives from their belief that expensive audiophile hardware possesses magical properties."
By this definition of an "audiophile", I'd be a "non-audiophile"......
Can you cite some examples of this on AA? I think you'd be hard pressed to find such examples. (I've seen such stereotypical activity on Stereophile, but not on AA.)
"> The problem is instigating flames, accompanied by a zero-tolerance
> policy.
It isn't possible to instigate flames in the cable forum because the posts are removed that oppose the interests of the moderators."
So you condone instigating flames??
"> For if you notice, the so-called 'non-believers' almost **never**
> exchange ideas that are totally removed from denigrating the so-called
> 'believers.'
You need some context here because posts from nonbelievers are removed in the cable forum."
I don't see, for example, so-called "non-believers" (aside from Soundmind) discussing subject matters aside from "audiophile myths"......
"AudioAsylum is clearly a site for audiophile believers and I would agree that the motives for posts from nonbelievers are often, although not always, unhealthy."
Is this an admission of guilt??
"> If someone wants to believe the presence of UFOs improves turntable
> performance, who cares!!! (The worst anybody should do is respond with
> kind disagreement.)
This depends on people interests. If they benefit from turntable owners believing in UFOs then they will encourage the believers and seek to drive off the nonbelievers."
I really think had the responses mostly been kind disagreement, rather than denigration, such urge to "drive off the non-believers" would wane, if not cease altogether.
"The reverse is rare because it is very difficult to benefit from people not believing UFOs improve turntable performance. Note the disproportionate funding in favour of believers over nonbelievers in home audio."
I'm not sure what you mean by "funding"................
"> The real litmus test is the so-called "non-believers" stating a valid
> point in regard to **why** audiophile behavior ought be questioned.
> I've yet to see one stated, and I don't expect to see one stated. For
> bullying audiophiles, and that alone, is the sole motivation, in my
> humble opinion.
Audiophiles are purchasing expensive poorly performing equipment because they believe it possesses magical properties."
Whenever audiophiles purchase expensive products, based on the sales pitch from manufacturers (provided there was no audition, which would IMO be a big mistake), they'd expect performance to improve. And in some cases, they might even be in denial over purchasing expensive equipment that happens to perform poorly. The problem is not everybody is a technical guru, and that there is a **TON** of deceiving advertising of audio products.
But unlike the so-called "non-believers", I think the problem with the advertising is not in cable products (which might be deceiving, but cannot be proven unequivocally so), but in digital audio sources and processors. Most so-called "non-believers", for example, don't even see the blatant sophistry in the sales pitches for asynchronous sample-rate conversion ("24/96" or "24/192 upsampling"), which unlike audio cable claims, can be proven as misleading. But since most audiophiles are *not* DSP experts, they fall prey to such advertising. So even there, it would be ignorant to blame the end users, who are often audiophiles.
Audiophiles behave the way they do not because they're in some sort of dream world, but because a lot of false technologies have been beset upon them, and then the lack of satisfaction in performance. (And even if they were in some sort of dream world, why should you care??) There is so much crap being passed on as "advanced technology" (in both the high-end and mainstream audio markets), it is natural for desperate consumers to buy into it hook, line, and sinker.
"They are encouraged in this belief by other believers and those that benefit from these beliefs. If one can see this then an easy option is to use this knowledge directly for personal benefit by teaching, taking the p*ss, challenging the suppliers, or whatever gets the juices going. It takes a bit more tolerance to recognise that there is both good and bad in the situation particularly as audiophiles are generally fairly unattractive as individuals because of what it takes to pick up and hold audiophile beliefs."
I don't think these "beliefs" are what you think they are. There are two sides to this story. (If I had to criticize audiophiles for anything, it's that a small portion of them let sales claims and reviews override their aural perceptions. But for another discussion.)
"Bullying may often have a role but not always. Is Tom bullying in the branch above in his interaction with bjh?"
I'm not an advocate of bullying. It should be pointed out, but not intervened upon.
"> But I do find such activity troubling because it does create a false
> and damaging perception of high-end audio from the mainstream.
In my experience, audiophiles have little idea how they (and the objects they desire) are viewed by the 'audio literate' mainstream or even simply those with a bit of common sense like, I suspect, many of their wives."
I'd trust the wives more than those in the mainstream. By a mile. But again, for another discussion.
In regard to the mainstream being "audio literate" (or even "music literate"), IMO, it's anything but. And the minds at Bose realize this better than anyone. (There are a lot of audiophiles that like to slam Bose, but I'm not one of them.)
"If you believe something and are closed minded in the way audiophiles have to be in order to maintain their beliefs then it is not so much a question of not seeing an alternative viewpoint as not understanding that an alternative viewpoint could exist."
I don't know if it's really "closed-minded"..... Whenever I see the accusation of "closed-minded", the accuser is more-often-than-not the one that's closed-minded, not the accused.
If audiophiles are anything, they're disillusioned. The bliss of recreating the live event is so hard to attain nowadays, many have actually given up.
"> It has also enabled the marketing of products of questionable design,
> because audiophile feedback is no longer taken seriously.
Audiophile feedback into the mainstream outside the audiophile marketing sector does not exist now and has never existed since the sector first became of significance in the 70s."
Agreed, but the issue is **why**......
"Again, the reason is those audiophile beliefs which are in conflict with the scientific beliefs held by the mainstream."
You really think someone at Best Buy thinks about the scientific aspects of sound reproduction more than someone at a high-end audio store?
"The mainstream is only going to accept audiophile input on their scientific terms in the same way that audiophile believers only accept input on their terms."
The mainstream doesn't really care about the scientific aspects of sound reproduction. And if you think otherwise, that belief is more looney than anything audiophiles have been accused of believing in.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Go Green ]
[ Take5 ]