87.185.125.122
In Reply to: RE: Are They "Non-Believers?" Or Are They Bullies?? posted by Todd Krieger on June 25, 2009 at 11:03:04
>> "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"......
Not if we disagreed on what was a magic and what was not.
> So you condone instigating flames??
It depends on context and what you consider to be flames. I suspect that the majority of people that continually repeat an adopted postion over a long period of time consider themselves to be making a positive contribution even though many non-contributors or only occassional contributors would disagree.
>> "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??
My interest has been in how and why audiophiles hold their beliefs. This has largely been satisfied and I now take much less of an interest. However, I have caught myself teasing audiophiles once or twice because it can be difficult to resist.
> 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.
Not at all. The supply of people that would ridicule a belief in UFOs improving turntable performance is endless. The moderators would have to implement something to bring it under control.
> I'm not sure what you mean by "funding"................
Like belief, funding is important in understanding why the home audio world is in such an extraordinary state. This site has to be funded as does all the other online sources of home audio information and the paper publications and the hardware suppliers, etc... At the expensive end of home audio, the audiophile view is successful and the scientific view unsuccessful primarily because it is difficult to get the latter to make money.
> So even there, it would be ignorant to blame the end users, who are often
> audiophiles.
The choice of what to buy and where to look for guidance lies wholly with audiophiles. They can choose to follow the free advice thrust upon them or seek out and possibly pay for more reliable advice. Not sure blame has much to do with it.
> 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.
It is hard to see anything desperate about deciding which expensive luxury goods to purchase.
> 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.
Indeed but this is not always the case. Sometimes people are simply stating the blindingly obvious.
> The bliss of recreating the live event is so hard to attain nowadays, many
> have actually given up.
What is required to recreate the sound of a live event is straightforward and has been fully understood for a very long time because sound is linear. Also, anyone with even the slightest understanding of the information contained in a stereo signal knows it is insufficient to recreate the sound field of a live event.
> The mainstream doesn't really care about the scientific aspects of sound
> reproduction.
The mainstream cares about the results of the application of science to sound which is why consumer audio and pro audio deliver sound good enough to do the job so cheaply.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Go Green ]
[ Take5 ]