Audiophile Fundamentalism

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
Are audiophiles different from all other hobbyists? Why is there a strong resistance among many audiophiles to accept new technology which can demonstrate a genuine improvement in subjective musical enjoyment? Dave Wilson discusses this topic and I think it deserves it's own thread. This video is not new but it deserves some discussion, IMO.

Can you think of ways that audiophile may be shooting themselves in the foot solely due to their fundamentalist beliefs concerning music reproduction? How about some examples of fundamentalism? Here are some of my thoughts on audiophile fundamentalism:

I see folks talking about a particular piece of gear and decide after much research and listening that the gear is the best. There's no consideration for how that individual piece fits within a much larger, more complex playback chain. In my opinion, there's a lack of big picture appreciation for how an entire playback chain reproduces music in a room. I believe many of these "fundamentalist" can't consider the possibility that even though their favorite piece of gear might be the "best" sounding piece out many others, their preference for that specific piece is totally unimportant and maybe even counterproductive to the listener's best possible subjective music playback enjoyment.

In many ways the above described mentality reminds me of how I used to view women. Before I got married, I thought I should look for a woman by searching for certain physical characteristics, certain family background and specific academic achievements/career goals. After many years of dating women, I realized that I was merely searching for a list, not a life. It took me a while to finally understand that I really should have been searching for lifelong companionship; a life partner. Once I dropped the lists and just had a good time meeting girls, I found my wife.

I recently read a message from Phil Jackson from KEF. I hope he doesn't mind me posting his comments here:

"This intransigent thinking could be called “audio fundamentalism.” If some aspect of a playback system doesn’t conform to the fundamentalist’s entrenched prejudice, nothing else about the system matters. The problem with audio fundamentalism—or any fundamentalism for that matter—is that it is exclusionary and obviates the need for critical thinking. The mathematician Jules Henri Poincaré could have been writing about audio in his statement, quoted by Bertrand Russell in his preface to Science and Method, “To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity for reflection.”"

Michael.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Link

GaryProtein

VIP/Donor
Jul 25, 2012
2,542
31
385
NY
I really enjoyed his interview. Thank you!
 

rockitman

Member Sponsor
Sep 20, 2011
7,097
412
1,210
Northern NY
By accepting new tech... do you mean to rehash the analog versus digital debate, digital room correction, ect ? We can make our format choices and be happy. Digital room correction for example is not something this analogphile would want to do for obvious reasons. I do have a digital setup to play all the stuff I recorded on DAT in the late 80's-90's.. During that time period, I didn't even have analog save for many live recorded cassette tape. Just checking in to see if this thread is another train wreck about to happen...;)
 

BlueFox

Member Sponsor
Nov 8, 2013
1,709
406
405
On another forum I frequent there are some posters who are die-hard SACD/CD proponents, and will not even consider a file player/DAC combo, and high res files, PCM or DSD. To me, that is even more ridiculous than the vinyl/digital divide.
 

garylkoh

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Sep 6, 2010
5,599
225
1,190
Seattle, WA
www.genesisloudspeakers.com
I don't think that audiophiles are unique. There is a lot of science behind the theory of motivated reasoning. Our prior beliefs drive our responses to new information, even when we are faced with facts that deeply challenge these beliefs, we fight back against the facts to defend what we now believe to be our identity. Hence, the prevalence of threads here that go into a recursive loop. Cognitive dissonance prevent us from recognizing or accepting that what we have believed all our lives to be true could be wrong.

There is a lot of science to why it is difficult to change the beliefs of people who believe.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
Not too long ago, subwoofers were anathema. Look where we are today by comparison. The hardest thing is to counter a bad experience. Not only do you have to give them a good one to replace it, you have to demonstrate WHY and HOW things are a-ok in the here and now. Only then can they be motivated to tackle the learning curves attendant to new technology. Still, some are happy and do not want to be bothered with all that. There's nothing wrong with that right? Happy is as happy does.
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
Is there any real research done at all at Wilson Audio ?
Have they contributed to anything improving loudspeaker technology during their many years ?
They have fine-tuned implementation of existing technologies; I'm not sure if they have introduced or championed new technologies, though.
 

asiufy

Industry Expert/VIP Donor
Jul 8, 2011
3,711
723
1,200
San Diego, CA
almaaudio.com
I don't think audiophiles, in general, are "fundamentalists". One's choices cannot be counted as "fundamentalism" if they are kept to themselves. It's only when they go preaching around, in forums and everywhere else, that THEIR choices are the only "right" choices.

See, this is valid for things way beyond audio. Politics, religion, it's everywhere.

Granted, it's a subtle, thin line between exposing your views and choices, and preaching them fervently.

I don't see many people around the forums claiming "DSP is evil", and all those who use it are heathen. Yet, the contrary is quite visible... Agan, thin line... I understand people WANT to defend their views and choices, on politics, religion, audiophilia, whatever... But there has to be respect for the multitide of opinions out there.


alexandre
 
I don't think audiophiles, in general, are "fundamentalists". One's choices cannot be counted as "fundamentalism" if they are kept to themselves. It's only when they go preaching around, in forums and everywhere else, that THEIR choices are the only "right" choices.

See, this is valid for things way beyond audio. Politics, religion, it's everywhere.

Granted, it's a subtle, thin line between exposing your views and choices, and preaching them fervently.

I don't see many people around the forums claiming "DSP is evil", and all those who use it are heathen. Yet, the contrary is quite visible... Agan, thin line... I understand people WANT to defend their views and choices, on politics, religion, audiophilia, whatever... But there has to be respect for the multitide of opinions out there.


alexandre

+1

I think a person makes a choice about the move to 'new technology" based on their budget, personal hearing capabilities, room and music taste. If their choice provides them with the music experience they desire, then so be it and people should support and respect that. Now if someone tells that person oh your missing or not hearing this, your room is all wrong, I say, pony up the money so the listener can experience what someone else wants them to experience or move on.
 

audioguy

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
2,794
73
1,635
Near Atlanta, GA but not too near!
+1

I think a person makes a choice about the move to 'new technology" based on their budget, personal hearing capabilities, room and music taste.

I would add history, prejudices, past experience. As an example, if one's experience with solid state has usually produced unpleasing sound, the chances of them selecting a solid state amp on their next upgrade is going to be fairly low. Human nature!! Even though newer technology may have improved what they might hear the past experience may keep them from an audition.
 

Champ04

Member
Sep 24, 2012
72
2
6
Illinois
I remember this video series when it first came out. And I think it’s a good launch pad for discussing the whole idea of “audiophile fundamentalism”. But I also think it’s fair to know the context of this video. It is, for example, no coincidence that Dave starts by speaking of “political” motivations and then specifically uses the First Order crossover as an example to prove his point.

Before the internet had matured and information went “viral” there was the standing battle between the “Dunlavy” way and the “Wilson” way. Industry people knew about it but it didn’t go much beyond that.

More recently there were the unsavory feuds between Wilson aficionados (including members of the press such as Fremer) and the likes of Arthur Salvatore (www.high-endaudio.com) and Richard Hardesty (www.audioperfectionist.com), both of whom used Wilson Audio as the prime example in the arguments they were making. Though, it must be understood that at the time Wilson was mostly a victim of being the best known name in the industry. These days Magico, YG Acoustics, and any number of others could just as easily have been used. Salvatore has a particularly abrasive writing style and his website is so amateurish in it's design that he is too easily dismissed as a lunatic. Hardesty, on the other hand, wrote for major publications at one point and his opinions on speaker design were backed up by first hand interviews with experts in that area. (Dunlavy, Thiel, Vandersteen, McGinty). Hardesty has strong opinions, but they are all well thought out and based on strong foundations. Even so, this rubbed "important" people the wrong way.

Arguments over design aspects have always been and will always be. But the specific arguments made by the above mentioned men ended up eliciting a quite venomous reaction. One of these particularly heated and childish reactions came from John Giolas (of Wilson Audio) directly. No doubt this did not set well with Wilson fans. And you can be sure the very polished image that Wilson maintains took a hit among a number of people.

Dave makes excellent points. But his intentions are not as broad and philosophical as they would seem on the surface. And I imagine at least a little motivation in these series is nothing more than his response to specific critics and a means to assuage the concerns of some Wilson owners.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: perart1

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
Thanks. I didn't know that backstory. I just posted it to help illustrate the discussion.


I remember this video series when it first came out. And I think it’s a good launch pad for discussing the whole idea of “audiophile fundamentalism”. But I also think it’s fair to know the context of this video. It is, for example, no coincidence that Dave starts by speaking of “political” motivations and then specifically uses the First Order crossover as an example to prove his point.

Before the internet had matured and information went “viral” there was the standing battle between the “Dunlavy” way and the “Wilson” way. Industry people knew about it but it didn’t go much beyond that.

More recently there were the unsavory feuds between Wilson aficionados (including members of the press such as Fremer) and the likes of Arthur Salvatore (www.high-endaudio.com) and Richard Hardesty (www.audioperfectionist.com), both of whom used Wilson Audio as the prime example in the arguments they were making. Though, it must be understood that at the time Wilson was mostly a victim of being the best known name in the industry. These days Magico, YG Acoustics, and any number of others could just as easily have been used. Salvatore has a particularly abrasive writing style and his website is so amateurish in it's design that he is too easily dismissed as a lunatic. Hardesty, on the other hand, wrote for major publications at one point and his opinions on speaker design were backed up by first hand interviews with experts in that area. (Dunlavy, Thiel, Vandersteen, McGinty). Hardesty has strong opinions, but they are all well thought out and based on strong foundations. Even so, this rubbed "important" people the wrong way.

Arguments over design aspects have always been and will always be. But the specific arguments made by the above mentioned men ended up eliciting a quite venomous reaction. One of these particularly heated and childish reactions came from John Giolas (of Wilson Audio) directly. No doubt this did not set well with Wilson fans. And you can be sure the very polished image that Wilson maintains took a hit among a number of people.

Dave makes excellent points. But his intentions are not as broad and philosophical as they would seem on the surface. And I imagine at least a little motivation in these series is nothing more than his response to specific critics and a means to assuage the concerns of some Wilson owners.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
(...) Though, it must be understood that at the time Wilson was mostly a victim of being the best known name in the industry.(...)

This still happens nowadays. Wilson Audio is well known company, with a solid distribution and wide marketing - it is much easier and cheaper creating a conflict with Wilsom Audio (or its fans:)) to get attention than creating their own structures. Just look at the quality of the WA website - these thinks do not come for free.
 

f1eng

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2014
128
9
248
Oxfordshire

f1eng

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2014
128
9
248
Oxfordshire
Is there any real research done at all at Wilson Audio ?
Have they contributed to anything improving loudspeaker technology during their many years ?

The WAMM was a unique product which can't have been done without at least a bit of research, I would imagine.
Weren't they amongst the first (if not the first) to work seriously on reducing cabinet talk, which is, IME, a particularly important aspect of producing a low coloration speaker.
And yes, I know a lot of people like their hifi coloured to taste...
 

rockitman

Member Sponsor
Sep 20, 2011
7,097
412
1,210
Northern NY
The WAMM was a unique product which can't have been done without at least a bit of research, I would imagine.
Weren't they amongst the first (if not the first) to work seriously on reducing cabinet talk, which is, IME, a particularly important aspect of producing a low coloration speaker.
And yes, I know a lot of people like their hifi coloured to taste...

Another innovation...Aspherical Propagation Delay, which started with the WAMM.
With Aspherical Propagation Delay. Alexandria's driver modules adjust to achieve optimal driver dispersion for nearly any size room and for any chosen listening position. The Alexandria and now the MAXX Series 3 are the only loudspeakers to utilize these combined innovations.

http://www.wilsonaudio.com/product_alex_delay.shtml
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing