Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, kilroy said:

To me an anti-audiophile is someone who attacks a regular Joe's views, including mine. They are a minority here but can usually be identified by the person telling Joe that he's wrong, or Joe don't know what he's talking about, or knows nothing about technical matters.

 

 

Do you mean posts like this?

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

The guy also called Paul's work I believe.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

That there might be collateral damage, perceived or real

 

“Collateral damage” is a bothersome term to me, since it bespeaks devaluation of things or people harmed.

[Ralf11]

I am certainly seeing a lot of irony on this thread

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

I am certainly seeing a lot of irony on this thread

 

As well as hypocrisy...

[kilroy]

30 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

Do you mean posts like this?

 

 

lol some Joe's are more deserving than others.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Guilty as charged...Though precisely because I can immediately see things like loaded questions, I can also separate the person from the "argument". So indeed, I do tend to poke a wee bit of fun at beliefs. That there might be collateral damage, perceived or real, is another matter entirely and most likely based on the eye of the beholder.

Or believer in this case.

 

This comment escaped me the first go around. 

 

I love to have fun and use humor, even at my own expense. Often we take this hobby too seriously and a little fun can put things into perspective. 

 

However, causing "collateral damage" serious. I get a bad taste in my mouth after reading your comment. CA is my business, and it supports my family. Anyone coming here and causing collateral damage with a smirk, and the ability to take a jab and leave without any repercussions, concerns me greatly. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Irony and hypocrisy all in a single thread. What do you know, we are all human. We all make mistakes and misjudgments. 

 

I highly recommend we all take ourselves a bit less seriously and I'm 100% certain we need to take this wonderful hobby of ours a lot less serious. 

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I highly recommend we all take ourselves a bit less seriously and I'm 100% certain we need to take this wonderful hobby of ours a lot less serious. 

 

I agree.

 

I like the main principle of this book (not everything matters so choose carefully what you decide to give a f*ck about): 

 

 

[jabbr]

42 minutes ago, esldude said:

Well I originally came to CA when there were just beginning to be high quality ways to feed bit perfect audio from your computer to DACs in a high end playback system.  There were things to learn about good ripping practices, and over the years various ins and outs of modern playback software.  While here I suppose it got to be a comfortable community. 

Fair enough. I think that each person can decide at which point music reproduction is "good enough" and at the end of the day, if the system is enjoyable to listen to, that is the most important consideration. At what point did you decide that digital reproduction had become perfect? What led you to this decision?

[Ralf11]

is Manson a taoist?

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

is Manson a taoist?

 

I don't know and I don't give a f*ck!

[beerandmusic]

21 hours ago, Jud said:

Seen a lot of this lately, so just wonderin’.

My guess is that a $1000 stereo system today will sound better than a $50K (or equivalent by today's terms) system 40 years ago.  I think it is about the law of diminishing returns....it may have been a big difference years ago, but when people argue today about a $2K dac sounding better than a $100K dac of yester-year.  Then you get the argument, do you prefer accurate or what sounds better.  And then the argument yes, they sound different, but not necessarily better.  It's almost to the point of technology where you can buy a $300 DAC that sounds as good as a $30K DAC.  And a $3K amp can arguably sound better than a $50K amp, and no one can prove differently.  If someone has deep pockets and media can convince them that a product is worth buying, great...e.g. $50K cables.  Someone that buys $50K cables, money is of little importance to them anyway, so might as well.  I have no problem with that..if they like the sound and aestetics better and money if of little value to those rich...great..happy for them. 

 

Buy a $4K amp and best speakers you can afford and be done with it, unless you have deep pockets, then go for whatever you desire. 

 

I have been to several audio shows, and heard the best, and the law of diminishing returns is the main reason i think people would knock audiophiles....i knock it myself.  Yes, i like good music, but overkill is overkill,  but if you have deep pockets, great.... I would never knock someone that is always trying to improve, but i certainly understand people that do knock it as well....I wouldn't say jealous...just overkill...if i had enough money to buy 200K stereo systems, i, myself would find something better i enjoy doing than chatting on these forums...i would travel mostly, and spend more money on family, and do other things if my pockets were that deep.

 

imho anything over

$4K amp

$2K dac

$40k speakers

is overkill and 10 times the system you could have had 30 years ago, and if i could afford more than that, i wouldn't be on these forums.

 

 

One exception...if this industry was your business....

[Ralf11]

BTW, I saw the word "belief" used above.  Here is my take on this:

 

A major problem is the propensity of liberal arts majors (esp. from elite universities) to believe that they can evaluate all technical matters with expertise, and that notion can do real damage (outside of hobbies).  One example was an anti-vaxer with an elite liberal arts degree who lived in Tiburon.  She was also rich which may have contributed to her problems.  IIRC, her child died.

 

I blame the science faculty in our university systems for this.  They are busy discovering new knowledge about the nature of the universe (or slices thereof) when they could be doing committee work and fighting the "anything goes" liberal arts faculty who continually have degraded science education requirements for liberal arts, business, etc. majors.  Second, undergraduate teaching to non-majors does not focus on why science is different from, say, history; and instead tends to teach it as body of knowledge, not as self-correcting mechanism for discovering facts.

[AJ Soundfield]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

However, causing "collateral damage" serious. 

But that's not what I said. I said

Quote

That there might be collateral damage, perceived or real, is another matter entirely and most likely based on the eye of the beholder.

I'm clearly saying while I might poke fun of beliefs, that, by extension to the person holding the belief, is a matter of their perception. Folks often can't discern between the argument and the arguer. Criticizing or poking fun at an argument is not the same as criticizing or poking fun of a person

[rickca]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

I don't know and I don't give a f*ck!

That's a great answer for a wide variety of questions.  I gotta write this down.

[4est]

36 minutes ago, rickca said:

That's a great answer for a wide variety of questions.  I gotta write this down.

 

In another forum I frequent, a heavy weight poster's signature line is:"F*ck you, pay me!". He's a pro offering a lot of great free advice, and that sig speaks volumes about what others have wanted for free. I bite my tongue daily to avoid saying that aloud to some other contractor I am working around.

[realhifi]

weird thread

[realhifi]

9 minutes ago, 4est said:

 

In another forum I frequent, a heavy weight poster's signature line is:"F*ck you, pay me!". He's a pro offering a lot of great free advice, and that sig speaks volumes about what others have wanted for free. I bite my tongue daily to avoid saying that aloud to some other contractor I am working around.

Probably good you bite your tongue!  Know the feeling!  I work in the construction industry as A/V, home automation contractor and I can't believe what people want for free!

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, realhifi said:

Probably good you bite your tongue!  Know the feeling!  I work in the construction industry as A/V, home automation contractor and I can't believe what people want for free!

[jabbr]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

Go upscale  with 

[Albrecht]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

However, causing "collateral damage" serious. I get a bad taste in my mouth after reading your comment.

"" wee bit of fun at beliefs.""

 

If I may add, - how would someone define "beliefs" here? Are there some tests, some evidence, or some "proofs,"  or level of components, or price point of components that allow one to escape this "collateral damage."  And doesn't it go beyond fun? Is someone calling someone else a "liar" considered more than just a "wee bit of fun?" How do we know the difference between, belief and a real performance difference?

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

How do we know the difference between, belief and a real performance difference?

Through scientific studies.

[Albrecht]

4 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

What defines one as an 'anti-audiophile'? Those who believe in measurements? Or those who believe in listening? Or those who don't agree with long term evaluations, or those who only accept blind testing? Objectivists or subjectivists? Digital cable affects SQ or it doesn't? Grounding boxes work or they don't? Climate change is real or fake? Or maybe it's simply someone that doesn't agree with me (and, of course, I know that I am an audiophile)?

 

I'm genuinely interested in how one would define an 'anti-audiophile'. 

If an audiophile is someone who is..."" a person who has a great interest in high-fidelity sound reproduction""

Then an anti-audiophile is someone who is not. I think that many could reasonably extend this to include and conclude that different components perform differently and the listening experience can be enhanced by what the listener views as "better" performing equipment or combinations thereof, (according to her/his goals). 

To this extent, the anti-audiophile would be someone who is not interested in enhancing the listening experience, and/or attempts to disprove that different equipment performs differently.

[Don Hills]

11 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I... Face it folks, there are going to be precious few if any Road to Damascus moments here, where someone drops to his or her electronic knees and types "The scales have fallen from mine eyes!"  It doesn't work like that here, and hardly ever does anywhere.  ...

 

Veils, on the other hand, are removed here every day. It's a good thing the forum isn't about exotic dancers.