4 ms·
> This is my favourite BS argument by audiophiles when defending some impossible claim or other: you have to listen to it. Just like a lot of engineers will te
by zmix 5y ago
> This is my favourite BS argument by audiophiles when defending some impossible claim or other: you have to listen to it.
Just like a lot of engineers will tell you, that having studied a topic on university/college doesn't make up for "field experience".
> Then the next step is always some disparaging remark that you can't hear the difference because your system isn't "high enough resolution".
It's true. Just like there is differences in quality of measuring instruments (cheap china multimeter vs. Agilent or the like) there is difference in electronic components for audio reproduction.
I have one other disparaging remark for you: Not only is your system not resolving enough, your ears are not trained enough to hear the difference ;-).
> Audiophiles have become more insufferable as systems improved.
Well, that just proves audiophiles from the 1980's were right: They told us, that there can be better systems. It's just, that those developments, back then, were expensive and new, which resulted in high product prices, while today they are common main stream.
- smackeyacky 5y agoAudiophiles don't make systems, engineers do. The only thing that audiophiles produce is consistently is nonsense: green pens for CDs, audible jitter, validating the snake oil merchants who sell them magic boxes of dirt, special resonance stones, pyramids, digital cables that can't possibly do what is claimed. That much vaunted "training" is a special form of self delusion. Try asking any self respecting audiophile whether they can pass a double blind test in picking out the difference between good old RCA cables and all you get is a long, copy pasted diatribe of how flawed testing is. That tells you they spend all their time telling themselves what they want to hear.