Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Audiophile not a music lover...?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audiophile not a music lover...? - Page 2

post #16 of 56

I read lots of his articles back in the old days when DSLR just begin to flourish. Then one day something just strikes me... remember how he always say camera doesn't matter in photography and yet he makes living by telling ppl the difference between them? Furthermore, his gallery is mostly generic shoot of boring subjects (travel shots). Heck, the guy have no artistic vision so I guess it doesn't really matter what camera he uses.


Edited by psun786 - 4/19/12 at 3:59pm
post #17 of 56
Ken needs to shut up and stick to writing about photography, he seems to sort of know what he is talking about when reviews photo stuff.
Even then I occassionally think he is far too opinionated and flippant.

Schmuck.
post #18 of 56

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psun786 View Post

I work in a custom framing / restoration shop. It is not uncommon to see customer who own a $200,000 painting can't distinguish real from replica. In some cases, it is a replica that was sold to them as authentic. Who am I to laugh at them or give them lecture on how they should praise "their" art?

 

 

 

Don't they have art assessors for that ? I would assume that anyone spending that much on a painting would want to insure it - surely the insurance company would insist on paperwork verifying its authenticity ? 

 

I know there are several highly controversial paintings hanging in various galleries worldwide which have uncertain origins, but I would have thought the experts could verify 95% of the work they look at. Compare that to high-end audio and one man's 'energetic delivery' can easily be anothers 'fatiguing treble'.  A poor analogy, I know, but anyone buying paintings in the fashion you've described would be a sucker for high-end snake oil. 

post #19 of 56

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by estreeter View Post

 

 

Don't they have art assessors for that ? I would assume that anyone spending that much on a painting would want to insure it - surely the insurance company would insist on paperwork verifying its authenticity ? 

 

I know there are several highly controversial paintings hanging in various galleries worldwide which have uncertain origins, but I would have thought the experts could verify 95% of the work they look at. Compare that to high-end audio and one man's 'energetic delivery' can easily be anothers 'fatiguing treble'.  A poor analogy, I know, but anyone buying paintings in the fashion you've described would be a sucker for high-end snake oil. 

 

Yes and No...

 

Certified accession is common in Western work but certainly not true with Asian arts, which the history of collecting and appraising is still short, especially for art in this price range. Big names in western art are always registered and have accession # so it is very difficult to sell an ingenuine copy. But occasionally, even works displayed in a reputable museum turn out to be fake.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/18/magazine/18FAKES.html?pagewanted=all

 

The Asian "forgery industry" is far more resourceful and experienced in producing fake replicas, they have been doing this for hundreds of years. Recently, we see a huge increase interest in oriental art by Chinese business men with big wallet. It is safe to say 25% of all the "authentic" antique and art sold by reputable auction house in Hong Kong & China are fake. The number is even higher among private transactions. There is news about a chair set made from jade in Han dynasty auctioned for $35 million usd turn out to be a fake (cost about $300,000 to make). The funny thing is that ppl in Han dynasty don't sit in chair but on floor instead.

 

My point is, it doesn't matter if the art is real or fake if the viewer can't distinguish the difference. It is all in your mind so what ever make you happy. If you "think" the note coming out that $20000 speaker sound sweeter than the same note from a laptop's speaker, then that is how you should listen to your music.


Edited by psun786 - 4/20/12 at 3:52pm
post #20 of 56

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psun786 View Post

 

My point is, it doesn't matter if the art is real or fake if the viewer can't distinguish the difference. It is all in your mind so what ever make you happy. If you "think" the note coming out that $20000 speaker sound sweeter than the same note from a laptop's speaker, then that is how you should listen to your music.

 

Does truth matter?

post #21 of 56

Does truth matter?

[/quote]

When it come to enjoying music, truth doesn't matter (what sounds good is highly perceptional anyways, it also doesnt involve anyone except yourself.) . Truth is whatever you choose to believe. That is why we have freedom of religion in America.

Now, does truth matter in a murder case is a totally different story.smily_headphones1.gif

Truth only matters when it must be used as a reference

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
post #22 of 56

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by qohelet View Post

What can you say about this article?
http://kenrockwell.com/audio/audiophile.htm

 

That Ken Rockwell is a moron. 

post #23 of 56

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post

Ken needs to shut up and stick to writing about photography, he seems to sort of know what he is talking about when reviews photo stuff.
Even then I occassionally think he is far too opinionated and flippant.

Schmuck.

 


No, Ken even needs to stop writing about photography, there's no denying that he often has a point, his lenses review are often quite interesting.

But everything can't be taken seriously (it's even in a disclaimer somewhere on his website), everything else needs to be read via a prism: he shoots over saturated, over contrasty, over sharpened jpegs in full auto mode without zero post processing.

If you have the same style as he does, by all means, his advice on photography and cameras aren't bad, but far anyone else, you'd better skip what he writes.

 

post #24 of 56

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by khaos974 View Post

 

 


No, Ken even needs to stop writing about photography, there's no denying that he often has a point, his lenses review are often quite interesting.

But everything can't be taken seriously (it's even in a disclaimer somewhere on his website), everything else needs to be read via a prism: he shoots over saturated, over contrasty, over sharpened jpegs in full auto mode without zero post processing.

If you have the same style as he does, by all means, his advice on photography and cameras aren't bad, but far anyone else, you'd better skip what he writes.

 

 

Are you serious?  he shoots in "Auto"?

Fer freqs sake, he sounds like a major league Smuck!

Thanks for the comments, I am no expert on photography so I cannot properly comment on his reviews.  You are the second person who I have talked to about Ken's photo equipment reviews who does not have a lot of respect for his reviews.  Does anyone respect this guy?

 

However, the more I think about it, the more I am offended that he compares audiophiles to pedophiles.angry_face.gif

 

I apologize for calling him a Smuck, I believe that is offensive to smucks everywhere.rolleyes.gif

I have upgraded Ken to A__hole.

 

post #25 of 56

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by obzilla View Post

 

 

That Ken Rockwell is a moron. 

 

+1

post #26 of 56

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by khaos974 View Post

 

 


No, Ken even needs to stop writing about photography, there's no denying that he often has a point, his lenses review are often quite interesting.

But everything can't be taken seriously (it's even in a disclaimer somewhere on his website), everything else needs to be read via a prism: he shoots over saturated, over contrasty, over sharpened jpegs in full auto mode without zero post processing.

If you have the same style as he does, by all means, his advice on photography and cameras aren't bad, but far anyone else, you'd better skip what he writes.

 

 

Are you serious?  he shoots in "Auto"?

Fer freqs sake, he sounds like a major league Smuck!

Thanks for the comments, I am no expert on photography so I cannot properly comment on his reviews.  You are the second person who I have talked to about Ken's photo equipment reviews who does not have a lot of respect for his reviews.  Does anyone respect this guy?

 

However, the more I think about it, the more I am offended that he compares audiophiles to pedophiles.angry_face.gif

 

I apologize for calling him a Smuck, I believe that is offensive to smucks everywhere.rolleyes.gif

I have upgraded Ken to A__hole.

 

 

I don't think he shoots in Full Auto, he controls the aperture at the very least, but he recommends setting the in-camera picture control to Contrast +9, Saturation +9, Sharpen+5 and leave it there.

According to him, the jpegs produced are spectacular and the settings are perfect for every use, from shooting landscapes to children skin tones.

 

 

post #27 of 56
His post is interesting and true--some care about the music, and don't really care whether its through $1,000 speakers or a small transistor radio. Some care to hear every note of the performance and will spend to get that experience. Luckily I'm not one of the ones who is so picky and just want to have the music! smily_headphones1.gif I have no hi-def setups and never intend to spend the money on one. The music matters more--just never forget without good music, and your love of music, you'd never need ANY setup, $20 or $2000. wink.gif
post #28 of 56

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psun786 View Post

Does truth matter?

[/quote]
When it come to enjoying music, truth doesn't matter (what sounds good is highly perceptional anyways, it also doesnt involve anyone except yourself.) . Truth is whatever you choose to believe. That is why we have freedom of religion in America.
Now, does truth matter in a murder case is a totally different story.smily_headphones1.gif
Truth only matters when it must be used as a reference
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

 

It wouldn't make much sense calling it "truth" if it was actually like that.

 

Truth does matter in audio when you start making recommendations to others. 

post #29 of 56

To a large degree Ken Rockwell is correct though I don't agree with everything he says. I've seen this myself. I used to belong to an audio club (Pacific North West Audio Society) that gradually went from people who designed & built thier own or modified with great success sonically to the more tweaky side of audiophilia that had no real improvement but cost lots of money or people that concentrated on only the most expensive asudio equipment, some of which to my ears sounded horrible yet that was what they were into. I was a modder, anouther couple of people there were designers & builders that were fairly well accomplished & made gear that was truely excellent sounding. 

 

One person there was building his own very high end small studio which is now finished & is perhaps the best small studio in the United States. This person uses it to serve music as well as up & coming musicians in the classical & jazz fields mainly but other as well. He is an accomplished musician himself. All the people that really knew how to get great sound & there were several left the club due to the creeping audiophilia kooks that were starting to control the club. While many of the people had there own ideas on how to get great sound I have to say that all of the ones that left the club did get great sound in thier own way & not just by thier own opinion. None of them went to great expense to get it, just good engineering with my studio friend being an exception but that was largely due to need for his studio, good mics & electronics for recording studios costs a lot of money & there is just no getting around that. But even he doesn't go out & waste money on things that really don't matter. All his wiring is standard studio stuff that is high quality but not expensive. None of these $10,000.00 8 foot speaker cables that some people think they need.


Edited by germanium - 4/22/12 at 10:04pm
post #30 of 56

Some of the points he made are ok, but I think he made a strawman in the beginning by very narrowly defining an audiophile, something that he attacked later.

 

In my definition, an audiophile is someone who understands the science of music, and can take its advantage in making music more realistic sounding, whether it can be done with something high end or reasonably priced is besides the point. When do you call yourself one? Its upto you to decide, there's no official certification for being one.

 

On a similar note, what's a music lover? Someone who doesn't understand the science behind using his hi-fi gear? Someone who doesn't care? Pretty vague if you ask me.

 

So in other terms, this article kicks up a storm first and then tries to calm it down. No point.


Edited by proton007 - 4/22/12 at 10:35pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Audiophile not a music lover...?