|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
05-31-2010
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Audio people like to talk about audio. Most of their talks are about “what is best”. The completion between “what is the best” is the sport that takes 90% of audio person retune. Most of the audio people, would they meet physically or over internet are immodestly get engaged in collaboration what is the best for this or what that application. This completion of ideas in pursuit of figurative “best” is in my view is not only horrible and also stupid thing. The “competition for the best” syndrome is something that retarded reviewers brought into audio. This “frustration for the best” is the only crap they are able to sell and the only think how they meant understand audio. Unfortunately the Audio Morons, means you, fully embrace this “frustration for the best” without understanding what is going on.
Audio people have atrophy of competitiveness and instead of “competitiveness as enrichment” they use a surrogate of competitiveness - the contest of irrelevancy. The only thing that audio people might compete and might correlate “what would be the best” is the competition of objectives. Ironically, to compete in objectives most of audio people do not to have playback heard. I for instance discard 90% of people with whom I talk in audio just because I find that thier audio objective is not worthy my attention….
So, the so popular argument between audio people on the subject what amplifier, speaker or cable is the best is in fact a debate between two idiots. The only sane arguments might be argumentation whos objectives are more “loaded” but where did you see audio people able to “compete” in that realm?
Rgs, Romy the Cat
|
|
|
|
Posted by msaudio on
05-31-2010
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d I was born into this syndrome and i believe that it has helped me become someone out of the norm. I find that i see threw bullshit faster, even my sences are more aware besides my ears have large amounts of hair growing all over them to hear from 5Hz to 50Khz. My Head is larger because my brain is larger. I have x-ray vision to see and read threw the bullshit out there in the audio paradox. I have alway's thought i was from a nother planet. PREACHING HORN RELIGION MSAUDIO
|
|
|
|
Posted by jessie.dazzle on
06-01-2010
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Romy wrote:
"...The “competition for the best” syndrome is something that retarded reviewers brought into audio. This “frustration for the best” is the only crap they are able to sell and the only think how they meant understand audio. Unfortunately the Audio Morons, means you, fully embrace this “frustration for the best” without understanding what is going on..."
The term "Audio Moron" though correct in the absolute, is something like telling a quadriplegic he is a vegetable.
I therefore propose redefining what is meant by the term "audiophile".
To be thought of as an "audiophile" has always made me cringe, as I consider the term's Latin/Greek origins to now be completely corrupt (audio is Latin for "I hear", philos is Greek for "loving").
In the purest form of its corrupt, or shall we say new meaning, the term describes a condition where an individual is obsessed with hardware.
Since the word "hardware" is used by the Greeks (there is no translation, they just say hardware with a Greek accent), we can't come up with an elegant-sounding translation for "hardwarephile"... Instead I propose we call a spade a spade, and recognize what the term "audiophile" has come to mean.
According to this new meaning, an audiophile would be a person who uses hardware as a vehicle to facilitate the expression of obsessive-compulsive tendencies. Music enters the picture only as a justification for the hardware, and because of its relationship to mathematics, the true mother tongue of the obsessive-compulsive.
The extent to which one is afflicted with obsessive–compulsive tendencies is the extent to which he is susceptible to becoming an "audiophile".
The term would therefore be descriptive of a sub-category of obsessive-compulsive disorder, a condition which, when present to the point of impairing normal life, is recognized as a form of mental illness.
Strictly interpreted, "Audiophilia" could be considered a form of mental illness; like all illnesses, it caries a component of dependency. Since dependency = market, like all dependencies, it has spawned suppliers, collectively known as the High-end Audio industry. Seen in this light, it is not difficult to imagine audio hardware bearing the labels Pfizer, Merck and AstraZeneca.
The term in its new definition could in fact be applied to anyone having an obsession with any sort of hardware, regardless of whether or not that hardware was intended to produce sound. The term "audiophile" would therefore rightfully be divorced from any relationship with sound.
jd*
|
|
|
|
Posted by manisandher on
06-01-2010
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d jd,
Excellent post - full of home truths (for me, at least).
I've often promised myself that I will not think about hardware, go on forums or go anywhere near eBay for x period of time. Why do I find this so hard to do? Well, one reason is that I'm just not totally happy with the sound of my music. I think this is a genuine reason. But, I also know that I'll never be totally happy with the sound, and hence my own obsessive-compulsive tendencies.
In an way, I envy those who outsource building a music system to the 'experts'. The resulting system may sound terrible (as I discovered at the Munich High End show), but I bet the owners are 'happy' with their sparkling hardware going 'wham boom bam' louder than anyone elses.
Mani.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
06-01-2010
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d
jd,
I think what you say is a bit irrelevant in the context. My post was not anti hardware per say but rather anti competition of hardware. Still, I very much support competition concept among audio people, the key is: “The competition in what?” Contest breads results it is good but what is being contested by audio people?
Audio people contest not even their equipment but their own subscription to the reputation of the equipment. It is difficult to make audio people to compete on results – they mostly do not know what they are looking and die to other specific reasons. Therefore the only viable subject of competition in audio might be the competition of objectives. The depth of objectives is the major think that I care when I try to evaluate what a person is trying to do in audio.
The caT
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
06-01-2010
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d We see it off and on here: the "mysterious" stalkers, the occasional suicide bomber, and the merely hapless, any of whom might be either an acolyte or a defender of a certain brand, time period or practice in which the advocate has fully invested himself. Almost invariably for this person, the principal connection, access and expression to and about his worshipped system, component or brand is via gift-wrapped proclaimations of others that are somehow deemed to be apriori determinations of worth. If we were to follow these strange visitors home, we might find ourselves in a place that is literally composed of by and for the worship of the pre-packaged ideas that fly from the mouths of these people whenever they intend to speak of their gear. I have seen for myself when they come here and they mean to say something "controversial" about hi-fi or sound and then defend their statements from "attack". They literally cannot come up with anything to say apart from repeating the pre-digested items, or they hold up portraits of the spokespersons or idols of their movement.
My theory is that they are possessed.
As for "The Best", my own long-held view is that to get the best sound you must at least start with what is "Good Enough". Though it might be hard to say what is best at any given time, in any given situation, Shite generally begets Shite.
We seem to be building our own agreement about refining personal objectives and using taste and common sense to make one's way rather than subscribing to marketing hype or naked statistics, and I am OK with being a part of this "movement". I have seen shadowy versions of these notions in the magazines recently; but I haven't read closely enough yet to see how they will spin it into a marketing strategy. My best guess at this point would be to package the same old shit - or worse - in a "new and improved" wrapper. After all, this strategy has worked for a long, long time...
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by Stitch on
06-01-2010
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d
Well, in a way it is pretty simple. Every audiophile started at a different level. Let‘s say, with more or less some units which he found in the Hardware-To-Die-From List.
Sooner or later he changes, spends some more money and the result will be better. Better detail, better soundstage and so on.
His first lesson is:
I have to spend money to get a better result
His second lesson is:
Yes, it is better than before
His third lesson is:
The more I spend the better is the chance to get something real „good“
The main question now CAN be:“What is real good?“
This question will be answered from each one more or less different.
My „best“ Systems I listened to were from Record Collectors who really knew what is on their records and how to reproduce it properly.
All of them had more or less one in common, even when they had some expensive units, absolutely no interest to talk about that. It was more or less a tool for them to enjoy the music at THEIR kind of Standard. Maybe they can understand what they hear?
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
06-01-2010
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Stitch, it is very much NOT how I see it. For me the definition of success is not “what is real good?” and not a search of evidence that my “good” is more “real” then somebody else’s good. If sounds like a contradiction but it is very much not – call for competitive spirit of audio exploration but I deny audio competition. The key in it to understand that competitiveness in audio does not exist in audio level and might be validated ONLY by the progress of referees points and shaping a certain level of listening objectives.
The Cat
|
|