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:
Michael.
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.