I think you may forever be struggling with the "what's wrong with audiophiles" question as long as you may be reluctant to just kind of chill and go back and look at the underlying psych (or is it just human nature) of what non-audiophiles maybe are really up against.
It isn't that they don't know what things like "imaging" or "sound staging" even are (which they may not), it's more that they don't yet know what those things **mean** to **them** personally...how those things can come to affect their whole perceived notion of what the act of listening to recorded music can potentially be like for them - particularly over time - the kind of time one has to freely listen to their favorite tunes **over many different sittings** (that may be key) in order to come to a cumulative impression of whether or not that is a game-changing idea to them and how that might sway their attitude toward the idea of "concert-style listening" that audiophiles do. I think non-audiophiles are predisposed by their own lifetime of (non-audiophile) listening experiences to think of the idea of listening **TO** the music (rather than just hearing it play) as a bit, well...'weird' to them. That is, it's just that they've never had that kind of long-term listening opportunity that allows them to break on through to the other side with it. Most audiophiles don't pick up on that and, certainly, the non-audiophiles don't pick up on that either. I think the opportunity for miscommunication between both camps is normally pretty ripe.
More than anything else, I believe systems are to, and must, be lived with. That's how we fundamentally become familiar with both their weaknesses and the strengths. Yeah, I could say that the easy solution is to give a non-audiophile a top-flight system and let them live with it for a year and see what they'd say after that, but exactly how often does it work out that way in real life?
I do know that some non-audiophiles have an aversion to certain groups, recordings or even certain kinds of music, all seemingly based on a built-up unconscious bias triggered by past, negative, non-audiophile listening experiences (or at least an accumulation of it) - like a regret of 'all those years' they may have spent hearing, say, most music recorded in the 50's, or maybe slow-moving tracks (like most ballads) that (minus the energy of faster tracks) just seem to 'lose something in the translation' and are reduced to being boring or otherwise deemed an 'epic fail' by some non-audiophiles. My wife is like that. She does not have my perspective on it, so she really doesn't see it as a product of just the less-than-ideal systems she's been listening to music on all her life...but, her bias toward those things, built up over time as it is, is as strong as ever. But, that I think is very common and, of course, audiophiles have long known the endless treasures they have been able to unearth in just those types of musical territories having had their listening horizons expanded by their audiophile systems...a joy that many non-audiophiles stand to never know.
If we were talking about video tech instead of audio, then I think it might be a lot easier for people to pick up on the differences. But, there's just something about music, the tech and sound perception that makes it something less than straightforward.
What's wrong with audiophiles? I'd say nothing, really. What's wrong with non-audiophiles? Nothing really there, either...nothing that might couldn't be fixed maybe.
But, somehow I'm sure the miscommunication between the two camps in general will continue.
Cheers
It isn't that they don't know what things like "imaging" or "sound staging" even are (which they may not), it's more that they don't yet know what those things **mean** to **them** personally...how those things can come to affect their whole perceived notion of what the act of listening to recorded music can potentially be like for them - particularly over time - the kind of time one has to freely listen to their favorite tunes **over many different sittings** (that may be key) in order to come to a cumulative impression of whether or not that is a game-changing idea to them and how that might sway their attitude toward the idea of "concert-style listening" that audiophiles do. I think non-audiophiles are predisposed by their own lifetime of (non-audiophile) listening experiences to think of the idea of listening **TO** the music (rather than just hearing it play) as a bit, well...'weird' to them. That is, it's just that they've never had that kind of long-term listening opportunity that allows them to break on through to the other side with it. Most audiophiles don't pick up on that and, certainly, the non-audiophiles don't pick up on that either. I think the opportunity for miscommunication between both camps is normally pretty ripe.
More than anything else, I believe systems are to, and must, be lived with. That's how we fundamentally become familiar with both their weaknesses and the strengths. Yeah, I could say that the easy solution is to give a non-audiophile a top-flight system and let them live with it for a year and see what they'd say after that, but exactly how often does it work out that way in real life?
I do know that some non-audiophiles have an aversion to certain groups, recordings or even certain kinds of music, all seemingly based on a built-up unconscious bias triggered by past, negative, non-audiophile listening experiences (or at least an accumulation of it) - like a regret of 'all those years' they may have spent hearing, say, most music recorded in the 50's, or maybe slow-moving tracks (like most ballads) that (minus the energy of faster tracks) just seem to 'lose something in the translation' and are reduced to being boring or otherwise deemed an 'epic fail' by some non-audiophiles. My wife is like that. She does not have my perspective on it, so she really doesn't see it as a product of just the less-than-ideal systems she's been listening to music on all her life...but, her bias toward those things, built up over time as it is, is as strong as ever. But, that I think is very common and, of course, audiophiles have long known the endless treasures they have been able to unearth in just those types of musical territories having had their listening horizons expanded by their audiophile systems...a joy that many non-audiophiles stand to never know.
If we were talking about video tech instead of audio, then I think it might be a lot easier for people to pick up on the differences. But, there's just something about music, the tech and sound perception that makes it something less than straightforward.
What's wrong with audiophiles? I'd say nothing, really. What's wrong with non-audiophiles? Nothing really there, either...nothing that might couldn't be fixed maybe.
But, somehow I'm sure the miscommunication between the two camps in general will continue.
Cheers