Quote:
I don't expect alot of people to agree with me, after all this is a headphone enthusiast forum! But there all these products that people just read about and buy because of head-fi's all knowing recommendation. Items like little dot amp, audio gd fun, compass, and sparrow, ibasso. The list goes on. Head-fi is a huge market for all these companies. I wouldn't have a problem with this if these products actually made a difference. No I haven't heard all of them, but I have heard alot and not once has any of these lower end products made any difference. As for the the absurdly priced stuff, I can only imagine how little you get what you pay for... $1000 tube amps, I mean common. When did people abandon reason for insanity? I think there is a reason technically savvy people I know (like engineers and scientists) never get more than a sound cards for their audio experience. Most just stick to onboard sound these days.
I found myself becoming on of those absurd audiophiles, making comments on stuff I did not hear, and being a snob to everyone else when talking about audio, but I caught myself and saved my soul while I still could.
Carl, as much as I'd like to support you, ya really going off on your own here. That was uncalled for to some extent and will not gain you many friends.
I believe you have said it yourself a few times or in the alternative, you accepted that people have different perceptions of sound; I for one, advocate that. You at some point, have also talked about the law of diminishing returns, and I can tell you that that applies to many many hobbies as well. People pay what they pay cos they want to; it's all good and fine if you conduct the test and would like to educate the masses and I'm on your side on that and I agree. Further, many of us have agreed that the expensive equipment doesn't contribute a lot to everything or much at all in the sense it's like we have to pay so much more to squeeze that little ounce more.
What you are doing here is firing a shot and attracting a lot of unwanted and unnecessary attention to yourself. Some, I think, with a better mind, have decided to ignore your broad line of attack.
Until you have tested the equipment; the $1,000 amps, I haven't myself, you have no experience or right to comment on them; which is why I don't. I'm learning. If I have the money, I'd pay if I'm sure it made a difference, but if it doesn't, I wouldn't pay for it either, just like you. But this boils down again to sound being subjective.
Carl, please refrain yourself from firing a broadside that will help you no further. Some of us do agree with you, or many do. But some are also willing to pay for that extra bit that has been suggested before. If you wish to carry the discourse on, sure, but be civil with your tone, we are all civilised people here and it is important that we respect each other as individuals.
There are many many more arguments where once it goes into elite competition, the marginal improvement in technology is negligible or scarcely obvious at best, e.g. my pool cues (different wood and type of splicing, supposedly making the shot more accurate), professional sports (soccer boots), photography equipment, and more. Sure, the step up from beginner to say intermediate will see a difference in the quality, but the step further is marginal and based on diminishing returns. Though for more popular technology, like photography, there is a larger need to invent and be competitive.
Anyway, I've taken some offence to what you've said, and I don't mean any malice by replying here, but I'm someone who has a view somewhat similar to yours and even I myself am rather worried with the line or argument you are using now.
Quote:
You talk about it as if it's a disease. That, I think, is the problem with this thread. You may be right, I wouldn't doubt it. In fact I believe it. But the way you went about (and continue to go about it despite absolutely nothing changing in your perspective for 23 pages) is aggressive, offensive, and self-centered. A single test leads you to sweeping comments about all of audiophilia. When hobbyists understandably defend their harmless pastime you call them snobs, absurdities, consumerist slaves. They have as much right to buy these products as you have not to.
I want to make this clear: Your point is useless until more people come forward with blind tests and better methodology. It's a start, but you cannot take a single test and create a theory based on it. Especially not a blind test by one such as you who obviously has an agenda, biasing the results. That's terrible science. Again, your test of one person of two/three sources of 8 trials holds no bearing on the rest of audiophilia. So please, stop waving it around as if you are our much-needed savior.
I second the bit in bold; Carl, you don't have to do more, you've stated your opinion and that's all well and good. You have to accept the fact that when you posted this, questions will be raised and there would be doubters and believers both the same. But you should never let it get personal and that is where I think it has gone wrong and in terms of testing, take what others say as improvements, or if you don't wish to, leave it.
My opinion of course.
