Are audiophile products designed to initially impress then fatigue to make you upgrade?
If not why are many hardly using the systems they assembled, why are so many upgrading fairly new gear that’s fully working? Seems to me many are designed to impress reviewers, show-goers, short-term listeners, and on the sales floor but once in a home system, in the long run, they fatigue users fail to engage and make you feel something is missing so back you go with piles of cash.
@mihorn Just visited your website. You probably will get a bit of credibility if you remove those drawings that look like something done by some bored middle school kid and actually explain scientifically how you achieved what you say you did. I think you should also stay away from explaining about brain and ears and how sound is processed because it is some BS that you wrote there. Maybe it’s possible they may be read by real neuroscience specialists on these forums. |
Many high end audiophiles are in a way addicted to the process, often the result being we loose interest in our new toys, and project this onto the equipment. Being one who does this I can easily see the characteristic in others. Manufacturers are most happy this happens as it results in more sales. |
"Stereo" was designed for 3 speakers, not two. The entire 2 channel system most people use today is flawed which is why two channel stereo is a money pit. Very wise of the electronics industry to roll out a hopelessly broken system that requires regular cash infusions from sound starved customers hoping they will finally attain the promised result. STOP, just switch to immersive/spatial audio and keep your two channel system for nostalgia. |
@kota1 sort of correct….it was initially implemented with three speakers but it was always a two channel format where some manufacturers utilized a sum of both channels as a mono center. It was a primitive “implementation”.
Its all good if you are into immersive/spatial audio. I’m sure its awesome. |
