Quote:
Good morning audiophiles of the world. You have been demonized at the 1000 demons blog.

Enjoy!

LOL. The writer of the blog is just rehashing ideas posted elsewhere? That's one of the blandest blogs I've ever come across. At least be mean or something, don't put the readers to sleep!

I like the little drawings and the vellum paper.

My response to Mr. Demon

"Because listening to music is not passive. We bring ourselves to the music. The imperfect music enhances our imperfect lives."

I would say anyone looking to create a system that plays music as faithfully and realistically as possible, who dedicates time and money to such an endeavor, brings quite a bit of themselves to the music. On the other hand, others never question what they are listening to, or on what it is being played on---of course they do take up server space by blogging about it...

dbowker3d, member of Stereophile forum and "one of those guys" hahahahahahahah

There is one thing that really makes me envy guys like that blogger.

Imagine a life so perfectly set and without perturbation that the fact that there are audiophiles who have opinions about "wires" is enough to make him go all Koyaanisqatsi on his blog.

I wonder what he does when a streelight light turns red on his way to his job at Game Stop.

Ah, well, it was just a matter of time until he found us; we must have turned up when he rolled the same number three times in a row with his twenty sided die.

Quote:
I wonder what he does when a streelight light turns red on his way to his job at Game Stop.

Ah, well, it was just a matter of time until he found us; we must have turned up when he rolled the same number three times in a row with his twenty sided die.

LOL!

Quote:

Quote:
There is one thing that really makes me envy guys like that blogger.

Imagine a life so perfectly set and without perturbation that the fact that there are audiophiles who have opinions about "wires" is enough to make him go all Koyaanisqatsi on his blog.

I wonder what he does when a streelight light turns red on his way to his job at Game Stop.

Ah, well, it was just a matter of time until he found us; we must have turned up when he rolled the same number three times in a row with his twenty sided die.

Is your defense of your lifestyle so weak that you can do nothing more than slyly insult the employees of "Game Stop"?

Yea, Buddha- The food court workers have goals and aspirations, too. Don't step on their dream.

Quote:

Quote:
There is one thing that really makes me envy guys like that blogger.

Imagine a life so perfectly set and without perturbation that the fact that there are audiophiles who have opinions about "wires" is enough to make him go all Koyaanisqatsi on his blog.

I wonder what he does when a streelight light turns red on his way to his job at Game Stop.

Ah, well, it was just a matter of time until he found us; we must have turned up when he rolled the same number three times in a row with his twenty sided die.

Is your defense of your lifestyle so weak that you can do nothing more than slyly insult the employees of "Game Stop"?

Not quite.

The attack on audiophiles for misunderstood considerations is so freaking common within the in the lexicon and actions of run-of-the-mill talking monkey commodespeak, that puny efforts such as these to attempt to derail reality - are cast aside as easily as one flicks an unwanted booger across the room.

I mean, communicate something more fundamentally important if you want to start controversy...like: All current US Presidential candidates, save one, are psychotic butt stuffed sock puppets.

Quote:

I mean, communicate something more fundamentally important if you want to start controversy...like: All current US Presidential candidates, save one, are psychotic butt stuffed sock puppets.

Ahh but political debate may interrupt their concentration while listening to the mp3 player as they cruise along on their skateboard.

Quote:
Is your defense of your lifestyle so weak that you can do nothing more than slyly insult the employees of "Game Stop"?

I just love how the moralism comes from the person who wrote ad hominems about audiophiles, about anyone for that matter. Assuming the blogger is you, of course. (If you're not the blogger, just disregard.) What kind of a weak, pitifully sensitive "demon" are you, so hurt about the plight of the minions at Game Stop? You recognize a joke when you see one, right? (This last question IS directed at you, whether you're the weakling demon blogger or not.)

No offense, and I'm sure in life a lot of people find you charming, but you really have nothing better to do on your spare time than scavenging through Gizmodo articles and grafting a weak-ass argument on top of other people's argument??? If you have so much time, why don't you do something worthwhile & feed the poor or something. Send money to Africa. And besides, since when does a grown-up person need to justify or defend his f*&^ing hobby? Are you 12 years old, asking permission from the mom? Some people unwind by drinking heavily. Still others jack off watching porn. I also hear a lot of people like to watch baseball. And a lot of men like to pick up girls at bars - lying, even! - to get some ass. You hear these people parading through your city, justifying themselves to no end? Dude: get it straight. A hobby is what you do by your preference. So you think there's no merit to listening to music through gear which a lot of people claim works for them. Why does it inflame YOU so much? So what? And why do you think we'd care about your weird obsession about trying to make an argument about something as inconsequential - relatively speaking - as one's hobby? As Jay-Z memorably put it in "The Heart of the City": what I eat don't make you shit. So why the constipation?

Hello iondot.

Like so many audiophiles, you also obviously love music. You're connected to us by that love of music. If MP3s and plastic earbuds are good enough for you, that's fine. But it would be so much fun to sit down with you and listen to some of your favorite music through a good system. It doesn't have to be a crazy-expensive system. We can listen to a $1000 system, and I think you'd be very impressed. Perhaps impressed enough that you'd understand why some audiophiles sometimes become so interested in all the fancy gear.

Most audiophiles I know are really beautiful, kind, thoughtful people. Generalizations and stereotypes piss me off. I find it all very sad. These things grow out of misunderstanding and miscommunication and lack of experience. If you'd like to try to understand why we do what we do, I can lead you to many great examples. We've written about it often. I'd be happy to share.

Let me know.

Did you guys know that there are people out there who are obsessed with flashlights? Yep, you heard me correctly. There are hobby forums where people discuss in great detail, with great zeal and passion the light quality one gets out of a flashlight. They get into various technologies from led to halogen and they pay crazy amounts of money for the flashlights: to the tune of $500-$800 for a flashlight. Keep in mind that these flashlights don't do anything other than shine a light. So, considering that there are flashlight hobbyists out there, being a mere audiophile doesn't seem to be all that insane.

I have a friend that loves flashlights (he is ex-military special ops and has many fun hobbies). I occasionally am gifted with a great flashlight - living in the woods with plenty of power outages a couple of good flashlights are wonderful things. I have to admit - the ones he gets me are astounding.

The job of a hobby is to waste time and money, be it audophilia or blogging.

Quote:

Quote:
There is one thing that really makes me envy guys like that blogger.

Imagine a life so perfectly set and without perturbation that the fact that there are audiophiles who have opinions about "wires" is enough to make him go all Koyaanisqatsi on his blog.

I wonder what he does when a streelight light turns red on his way to his job at Game Stop.

Ah, well, it was just a matter of time until he found us; we must have turned up when he rolled the same number three times in a row with his twenty sided die.

Is your defense of your lifestyle so weak that you can do nothing more than slyly insult the employees of "Game Stop"?

Wow, did the hobby get promoted to "lifestyle?" Why wasn't I informed of this?

Anyway, I wasn't really defending a lifestyle so much as tossing aside the obvious lack thereof on the part of the blogger.

You are right, I did slander Game Stop workers, and I am sorry to have done that. A Game Stop worker would probably never stoop to the level of idiocy of that blogger. So, your point is well made, but maybe in a direction opposite of how you meant it.

Implying that the blogger also may have owned a car may have been an affront to any car owners out there, as well. Apologies, again.

In fact, I also regret any negative connotation I may have created for the "Disciples of Gygax," twenty sided dice, fans of Koyaanisqatsi, and blogger who actually provide content.

Thanks for the "slyly," though!

Quote:
Thanks for the "slyly," though!

Why you fox, you!

Quote:
My problem is with people who are insulting and condescending about their preferences or who offer up as fact, qualities that are simply unproven or nonsense. I've encountered it many times and it is obvious to me that some of the people here are of that ilk.

I fail to see the distinction between the people you describe above and the argumentum ad hominem on the demon web site.

Both are, as you state, "insulting and condescending about their preferences" and,additionally, "offer up as fact, qualities that are simply unproven or nonsense."

Humans are funny; ignorance is not disturbing when it is one's own.

Is it not also shortsighted, at best, to troll in the presence of enthusiasts and then complain that you have been mistreated? If the response surprises you, a bit of advice: don't walk into a biker bar and shout "Harleys suck!"

I still like the little drawings. Their cute.

But not as good as pictures of bunnies.

Do take some time and listen to some good systems. They need not be expensive. A good pair of headphones, a decent headphone amp, and a good CD player will likely convince you that there is much more magic to be found in music than is stored in eMPty3s.

Quote:
My problem is with people who are insulting and condescending about their preferences or who offer up as fact, qualities that are simply unproven or nonsense. I've encountered it many times and it is obvious to me that some of the people here are of that ilk.

Listen, guy. Either you are really self-deceptive or you are awesomely self-righteous. Everyone was minding his own business and you started this thread, announcing that audiophiles have been demonized or something. And we click over to find that the post is called "The Arrogant Audiophile," in which you proceed to stereotype audiophiles while you glorify yrself as some fuzzy guy listening to Patsy Cline on AM radio. You know, the real music lover. "Insulting & condescending about preferences?" Are you blind or thoughtless? That was YOU! We were merely minding our business. It's amusing for me to read that now, all of a sudden, you are Mr. Fair & Balanced, the voice of reason, saying some audiophiles you know are actually decent people trying to attain beautiful music. Read yr post again & see if there is any temperance or sober thought in your stereotyping of audiophiles.

And let me flip your own question to you. What have you - by way of "fact" - offered that your way of listening is indeed better, or as you say, "active" kind of music, bringing the music to you? First of all, you misunderstand the words "active" and "passive." "Active" listeners actually try to bring the music closer by DOING something about it, while "passive" listeners are content listening to mp3 files or AM signals. Now I'm not denigrating that kind of listening: if you dig up my posts, you'll see that I wrote that I was such a listener, and I appreciated the music all the same. But just this past December, I found out that there was a way to access the music better, through certain things that I can ACTIVELY change, which allowed me to listen to music closer to the message that the musician must have meant. I was a music lover before December, and am still. But now, I can channel that music with fuller feeling, because the sound I hear is closer to the truth of the music than what I heard through my iPod.

I understand if you wanted to spike up your blog traffic by coming here & attempt being polemical and incendiary. Then stick to the game. Don't change your stance and accuse some of US of being condescending and insulting, when in fact, it was you trying to hurl insults & stereotypes.

And please think before you write. Get the definitions straight. Stay away from poeticized cliches like "imperfect music enhances our imperfect lives." It must have sounded cool to you but logically, it's a messy sentence. Imperfect music, more often than not, will make you wish you weren't hearing such crap. Which is more real? You decide.

Let's stop feeding the Troll.

You can pick your friends and you can pick your nose....

Does this mean I have to fling one of your boogers?

Quote:
Good morning audiophiles of the world. You have been demonized at the 1000 demons blog.

Forgive me for being late to the party. The blog contains this text: "It's all crock, even this 5.1 Dolby garbage. Really guys, it couldn't be 6 point Dolby? The sub woofer really means so little to you as to only account for a tenth of a point?"

Is this meant as humor? Dolby et al use the ".1" nomenclature to emphasize the fact that the channel is of limited bandwidth. It's standard engineering nomenclature - why would someone object to that?

The writer also says "What the "audiophiles" don't realize is that, day after day, many of us are listening to compressed MP3's on our little white ear buds and we are happy."

Let me sit down with the blogger for an afternoon and show him what to listen for in 128kbps MP3s and he might not be so "happy" :-)

But at least he'd then start proseltyizing on behalf of FLAC.

Seriously, my experience has been that very often when you get someone like this attacking connoisseurship, he is is really coming from a position of ignorance and fear. Stephen's suggestion is the way forward.

The Game Stop staff, BTW, were really helpful last weekend in helping me get a copy of Super Smash Bros Brawl for my son. So let's hear no more gratuitous attacks on those worthies.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

OK- let's put this in terms you might understand better:

As one visual arts professional to another- do you look at your work on an old 14" CRT monitor that displays only 256 colors? If your illustrations go to print, do you council your clients to use 75 line screen on newsprint? Is looking at a Van Gogh in an old 3rd edition art history book preferable to the real thing or a high quality reproduction?

I can already answer all of the above for both of us- of course not! You don't spend your time and talent creating something unique only to have it displayed or presented in such a way as to loose details, color accuracy or significant contrast. So maybe, just maybe, you might understand why someone, not a snob, not arrogant, just someone who cares, would want to treat listening to music the SAME way you treat your work everyday.

OK- so now we are getting somewhere. Yes- I am familiar with that animation project you had worked on BTW. Nice job. So the bottom line is, and you seem like a reasonable guy, if you're go to call out a group for snobby behavior, take a closer look first and don't lump the reasonable (but passionate perhaps) norm with the unreasonable few. If you really want to come out ahead on this I'd suggest you alter your original post and remove the Stereophile Forum link you inserted. Sure- any hobby has it's assholes who want to diss anyone who doesn't agree with them, but that's by and large NOT what this forum is about. Most of us don't push our hobby on those who don't want it.

Quote:
A reaction like yours would seem to indicate I've touched a raw nerve.

For someone with such an eye for detail and such concern for the specificity of language, you have failed to notice the title of the blog post, or the fact that it speaks about a specific type of audiophile (Read the title again and you may find a secret clue!) or the fact that the blog the preceding "demon" concerns the size of meatballs in the modern sub.

I think you may be taking things a bit too seriously and, having visited your blog, I wonder if a lack of sleep might be part of the problem. In all seriousness, your daughter is lovely and I do hope that this ridiculous posting of mine does not distract from a minute of your time with her.

Well, a lot of people in this forum, especially those who've met me, will know that I'm pretty laid back. But there are things that do get me fired up, as you say "hits a raw nerve." That's when someone is being disingenuous. I'm sure that in person, you're totally swell. Just that you use your rhetoric to provoke a reaction, and now you're backtracking, splitting hairs. "See my previous post," there's a pun here, "I meant THIS kind of audiophiles." I hate that shiftiness, the BS. Your original intention was to provoke, and that's totally cool with me. That's often the best kind of writing. But I see no honor in your turning around, getting on the high-horse, calling some of us condescending, now that your position is indefensible. When you write a post titled "Arrogant Audiophile," and your 1st post says "hello audiophiles," surely you see that the primary and logical implication is that some or the lot of us are such arrogant audiophiles. Which is fine & dandy if you can put up a good & worthy fight about it. That I'd see as honorable, no matter how different a P.O.V. it is from mine. But this thread makes it clear that you're not doing that. And what irks me is that: the disingenuous sneakiness.

But I'm being unfair here, as your subsequent posts make it clear that you're a very sensible and kind-hearted person. I don't mean to say you're disingenuous as a person, but as a writer. And thanks for the compliments on my daughter, she really is lovely and she's coming along just fine.

Ahhh... and now for the final kicker- and danger of generalizations Greg- it wasn't just your animation that I recognized, it was your name too that rang a bell. You didn't pick up on mine I guess. The "bowker" in dbowker3d is the same Doug Bowker who hired you to photograph his wedding 3 and half years ago! Great job BTW- as I said then too. Again- as a former happy client AND peer in your field: be careful what you throw out into the web so easily. It's too small a world and profession to potentially burn any bridges. I (or anyone here) could be your next potential client or customer!

Once again, I'd like to point to the fact that "the condescending and arrogant" presumptions were made by you, and if you are blind to see that, I feel almost sorry for you. The rest of the people can read the posts in this thread & your blog post and see for themselves.

And my initial issue still stands. You started out with a desire to be polemical. My issue with you being shifty & disingeunous is that you backed away from that original stance once your bombs-away position became untenable and illogical. Again: the rest of the posts here will attest to that.

I guess everything is said in these posts & people can judge for themselves who is being straightforward & who is being disingenuous & shifty w/ their positions. That's all I have to say.

"I haven't said anything here or on my blog that I wouldn't repeat in the "real" world. Would you not have hired me to photograph your wedding had you known? "

An interesting question. The short answer would be Yes- had it been an off the cuff remark or face to face conversation because I would have set you straight right then and there. It would have a conversation. But the second answer would be "maybe." Why? Well, because when you broadcast a rant to the world via print or web, and then actually link your broad and not very fair accusations to the very group of folks I've come to respect and have learned from, well, who wouldn't feel rubbed the wrong way?

If you took a little more time and read a few of the Entry Level threads you'd see the regular posters around go out of their way to be as helpful and non-judgemental to those that are just getting into the hobby or have very basic questions.

Getting lumped into the title of The Arrogant Audiophile just isn't fair and as we all know the blogger (like a radio talk host) always wins because it's his/her turf. Granted to you had the guts (or bad judgement ) to actually let us all know about your post and fight it out on our turf too. Do I still like your work- yes, especially your photography. Usually when I hire someone I only get to look at their work anyway and have only a brief impression of their character- but if you pick a fight online you show a side of character that maybe you don't want to ever have to be in that equation. My 2 cents.

I also still think you either should "de-link" this forum from your blog or at least clarify things a bit. Wouldn't it be more interesting to report on your ACTUAL experience with non-arrogant audiophiles than your mostly generalized assumptions with hypothetical ones? And no it didn't "strike a nerve" it just plain pissed off a normally civil group of guys who don't getting called names for no reason.

I'd hate to see what he would have to say about little old ladies who quilt. (Stupid bitches!)

Quote:
I'd hate to see what he would have to say about little old ladies who quilt. (Stupid bitches!)

Oh yeah! Those are the worst! The arrogance is mind boggling. I dare them to PROVE to me that there is a difference between threads! Does it really matter if the quilt is red or maroon? Red is red! Get over it, damn it!

Quote:
And let me flip your own question to you. What have you - by way of "fact" - offered that your way of listening is indeed better, or as you say, "active" kind of music, bringing the music to you?

You really want to go there? Like maybe he does do some *active* stuff while listening to Patsy that had better be kept to himself... know what I mean?

Quote:
I would be more than happy to post a follow up - though it would have to include both good and bad.

Do we get to vote on who writes the follow-up?

Thanks for the "de-linking"! You show yourself to be a standup guy with an open(ed) mind.

Quote:
Good morning audiophiles of the world. You have been demonized at the 1000 demons blog.

Enjoy!

I think the conclusions of the coat hanger test are very likely correct. However, I do not think that the information provided is sufficient to establish that it was a good test that actually supports those conclusions.

The original post at Audioholics.com can be viewed here:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/sho...mp;postcount=28

1) Since blindfolds were used, it hardly seems likely that an ABX Corporation switchbox was used, since as I understand it, it determines what X will be, and the participants can switch between A, B, and X at will until they decide what they think X is. No blindfolds needed.

2) I would guess that it was not an individual test but that several people took it at one time. This would mean:

A) that switching was done by someone else than the test subject; and

B) that each subject might be influenced by the other subjects in the room.

3) We don't actually have the statistical results as to the number of trials and number of correct answers.

There are other questions, too, but those will do.

So, the test was very likely invalid.