Separate names with a comma.
What can you say about this article?
I can certainly see where he's coming from, there's definitely a fair-share of those people out there. I feel it's a gross overgeneralization though.
Hi-Fi Equipment enthusiasts are definitely the first thing I think of when I hear the word 'audiophile' as well.
makes sense to me... thank god i read that this early on... thanks for the read...
I think he is spot-on, given the narrow definition of "audiophile" he laid out - though I prefer the term "audiophools." He did qualify his statements as pertaining only to those who waste money on cables and such nonsense, and those who may not so much care about music. These people do exist, and for them, this article holds true.
Of course the world is not black-and-white, and very few people would bother spending countless hours with their stereo system if they didn't enjoy music. But they do exist, strangely enough - I certainly don't get it.
What did ring true to me, though, is just how naive and seemingly purposely ignorant most of the audiophile crowd is when it comes to the technical aspects of the hobby. There are countless examples here of people who will pay several thousand dollars for a basic SET amp, yet scoff at such a perfect design as the Dynalo simply because it doesn't cost a fortune. This fact that is the source of many (most?) uninformed purchases, which is in turn the source for the public's generally negative view of audiophiles.
Where does that put those of us who love music and enjoy playing around with new gear? I don't understand people who will purchase $50k worth of hardware and never buy more than a couple hundred albums, they leave me scratching my head. They do seem happy, though. Just don't tell them that their special cables and magic stones are a waste, they get really testy.
As much as I hate to say it I see this in particular all the time here:
"An audiophile will waste days comparing the sound of power cords or different kinds of solder, but won't even notice that his speakers are out-of-phase.
ALL THE TIME.
His other points are strong as well, and he seems to really know his stuff. He doesn't mind spending a lot on great equipment as an investment for the years to come, but has a problem with the obsessive compulsive charged ignorance of the typical audiophile.
There's truth in his words, and I am definitely not free from his label...most headfiers aren't.
I think its an exaggeration and a lot of assumptions. This hobby takes a lot of experimentation. And we all hear differently and have different musical taste. He didn't even mention Stereophile and The Absolute Sound. J. Gordon Holt, the founder of Stereophile, invented a lot of words to describe the sounds that an audio equipment has, yet was not even mentioned.
The article poisons the well by including a false comparison to pedophiles.
It kinda does make me wonder if an audiophile inappropriately touched the author when he was a child.
Ken is a lightweight, but I've always rejected the 'A' tag. Even if I could afford top-shelf gear, I wouldnt be buying power conditioners and cable burn-in machines .....
Such things even exist?
From there, it gets a whole lot crazier. You quickly reach the point where any 'improvements' really are in your head - congratulations, you're an audiophile !
will buying a $1000 up to $30000+ headphones makes one a crazy audiophile?
Most expensive headphones: http://www.legionctpost16.org/most-expensive-headphone.html
Am I the only one who felt Ken is little shallow minded on this subject? Many if not everything we see, touch or hear is just a preception in our brain. As long as the combination provides some satisfactory experience to the listener, does it matter if it is real or not? Why does he wants to tell others how to enjoy music with their money? Does everyone who buy a $1,000,000 exotic sport car has to be able to drive like Schumacher and know every bolt and nut in their vehicle in order to benefit from the experience?
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?
When several ppl listen to a same piece of music, each maybe tickled by totally different elements. Some may like a certain instrument in the piece, others sinked into the story behind the musical composition. So what is wrong with audiophile enjoy notes being played through a particular set of machines?
That pretty much sums up everything Ken writes.
With that said, to me, it does matter *why* I hear something. Not just that I do. I generally prefer to spend my money on differences that are real (measurable), and not just my brain toying with me.