7 ms·

As someone who spends far too much money on 20+ years old cars, I think I have to agree with you. Being an audiophile is a bit like being a car enthusiast: ther

by w0utert 14y ago

As someone who spends far too much money on 20+ years old cars, I think I have to agree with you. Being an audiophile is a bit like being a car enthusiast: there really is nothing rational about spending so much money on something that most people don't see the value of, something that is so subjective that you can't explain it to them. I think in the end, it's more about the joy you get out of the idea of being able to spend that kind of money on something that so few people are willing or able to do. Subliminally, it affects your perception of how awesome the car or the audio setup actually is, if you ask an outsider, chances are he or she doesn't see or hear anything better that what 'normal' people are using.

mikeash 14y ago
At least you could tell the difference between a cheap car and an expensive car in a blind test.
- brianpan 14y ago
  But it's not about cheap and expensive, and it's only partly about measurable performance. It's just as much about style (this car was designed with the "perfect" stance) and about personal preference. Things you're not going to get everyone to agree on, and occasionally are plain irrational.
- TylerE 14y ago
  You can't really say that for cars, either. Look at the premiums paid for "numbers matching" cars.
- w0utert 14y ago
  > At least you could tell the difference between a cheap car and an expensive car in a blind test. If I show my car to people, most of them don't see a 'modern classic', a 'rare limited edition', a 'real drivers car' or a 'high performance vehicle' with 'upgraded specifications'. They just see a re-sprayed 20-year old clunker without satnav, double airbags or cupholders ;-)
  - mikeash 14y ago
    Sure, but you can still tell the difference. Not even audiophiles can distinguish much audiophile equipment from more mundane equipment in a blind test.
    - davidcuddeback 14y ago
      > Not even audiophiles can distinguish much audiophile equipment from more mundane equipment in a blind test. That's a pretty broad generalization about a large group of people. Do you have any facts to back it up?
      - adamzochowski 14y ago
        http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/ http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the...
        davidcuddeback 14y ago
        Let's start by considering the original source for the story. It comes from this forum post: http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15412-post28.html http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15412-post28.html First off, that begs the question: how reliable do you consider a comment on a forum? Are you going to condemn an entire industry based on that? But that doesn't really matter. As I mentioned in my reply to mikeash, that's just not enough evidence. I'm not going to repeat myself here. You can read my other comment to understand why one piece of evidence isn't conclusive. To address the Engadget article, it took one paragraph of that post out of context to make a narrow point about Monster cables. If you read the rest of the post (and probably the rest of the forum thread), it's clear that the author is not advocating that there's no difference between any stereo equipment. In fact, the thread that he's posting in is about how to choose the right loudspeakers. The paragraph that was taken out of context is just part of the author making a point to the other forum participants. In another post (in the same thread), the author writes: "Some systems sound boring, some are absolutely alive (such as on large horn speakers). Others are polite, compressed, but accurate (Martin Logans, Quads). Then again, others are explosive and extremely good at creating 'illusion' of reality such as Wilson Wamm, and like speakers in the $50,000 to $125,000.00 bracket. They draw you into an altered state of mind (hypnosis)" [1]. It seems to me that he's saying he can hear the difference between speakers, which is exactly contrary to the conclusion that you're using his words to support. "Audiophile equipment" and "mundane equipment" includes more than just speaker cables. [1] http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15419-post31.html http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15419-post31.html

by w0utert 14y ago

mikeash 14y ago

At least you could tell the difference between a cheap car and an expensive car in a blind test.

brianpan 14y ago
But it's not about cheap and expensive, and it's only partly about measurable performance. It's just as much about style (this car was designed with the "perfect" stance) and about personal preference. Things you're not going to get everyone to agree on, and occasionally are plain irrational.
TylerE 14y ago
You can't really say that for cars, either. Look at the premiums paid for "numbers matching" cars.
w0utert 14y ago
> At least you could tell the difference between a cheap car and an expensive car in a blind test. If I show my car to people, most of them don't see a 'modern classic', a 'rare limited edition', a 'real drivers car' or a 'high performance vehicle' with 'upgraded specifications'. They just see a re-sprayed 20-year old clunker without satnav, double airbags or cupholders ;-)
- mikeash 14y ago
  Sure, but you can still tell the difference. Not even audiophiles can distinguish much audiophile equipment from more mundane equipment in a blind test.
  - davidcuddeback 14y ago
    > Not even audiophiles can distinguish much audiophile equipment from more mundane equipment in a blind test. That's a pretty broad generalization about a large group of people. Do you have any facts to back it up?
    - adamzochowski 14y ago
      http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/ http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the...
      - davidcuddeback 14y ago
        Let's start by considering the original source for the story. It comes from this forum post: http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15412-post28.html http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15412-post28.html First off, that begs the question: how reliable do you consider a comment on a forum? Are you going to condemn an entire industry based on that? But that doesn't really matter. As I mentioned in my reply to mikeash, that's just not enough evidence. I'm not going to repeat myself here. You can read my other comment to understand why one piece of evidence isn't conclusive. To address the Engadget article, it took one paragraph of that post out of context to make a narrow point about Monster cables. If you read the rest of the post (and probably the rest of the forum thread), it's clear that the author is not advocating that there's no difference between any stereo equipment. In fact, the thread that he's posting in is about how to choose the right loudspeakers. The paragraph that was taken out of context is just part of the author making a point to the other forum participants. In another post (in the same thread), the author writes: "Some systems sound boring, some are absolutely alive (such as on large horn speakers). Others are polite, compressed, but accurate (Martin Logans, Quads). Then again, others are explosive and extremely good at creating 'illusion' of reality such as Wilson Wamm, and like speakers in the $50,000 to $125,000.00 bracket. They draw you into an altered state of mind (hypnosis)" [1]. It seems to me that he's saying he can hear the difference between speakers, which is exactly contrary to the conclusion that you're using his words to support. "Audiophile equipment" and "mundane equipment" includes more than just speaker cables. [1] http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15419-post31.html http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15419-post31.html