Posted by manualblock [ 69.112.43.172 ] on March 18, 2006 at 08:23:01:
In Reply to: Re: Definition of Audiophile posted by colinhester on March 18, 2006 at 08:07:31:
Thats a good point; you can certainly like to build and spend that interest building speakers and amps and stuff. Then use that to listen to music and enjoy it. And seperating out who qualifies to have an opinion based upon their life experience and technical training is a whole nother issue. Examing the past we see in the seventies the engineers took over from the designers of the 50's and sixties. So we got Sansui 9090 instead of Fisher 50a's for amps. So we know that technical training deosn't neccessarily translate into capable musical design. Perfect sound forever.
But I think Broskie was very specifically addressing an audience of people who are trying to get the best music they can from equipment; and he calls them audiophiles. And he wonders at the motivation of someone to sink 30k$ into stuff that plays music when he doesn't own any or appreciate it when he does. It's a sense of puzzled confusion.
If that is the case; I would say that in the participation of the hobby; music should by definition take center stage. How will you know whats good without knowing the music? That thinking leads to where you get statements like only ABX testing can tell if something sounds good or not. His thesis reminds me of the guy who plays golf but only likes to drive and can't putt worth a damn. Yet he owns a set of custom Pings because he likes the feel. Does that guy really know the game?
[ Tower Forum ] [ Help ]