WHY IS THERE SO MUCH HATE FOR THE HIGH END GEAR ON AUDIO GEAR?


It seems like when I see comments on high end gear there is a lot of negativity. I have been an audiophile for the last 20 years. Honestly, if you know how to choose gear and match gear a lot of the high end gear is just better. When it comes to price people can charge what they want for what they create. If you don’t want it. Don’t pay for it. Look if you are blessed to afford the best bear and you can get it. It can be very sonically pleasing. Then do it. Now if you are also smart and knowledgeable you can get high end sound at mid-fi prices then do it. It’s the beauty of our our hobby. To build a system that competes with the better more expensive sounding systems out there. THOUGHTS?

calvinj
“ I'm at the point where I refuse to deal with anyone who says they can't hear a difference in cables, power cords, fuses, etc... Of course they do. It's the same old thing, over and over and over and over.” Do you think you could reliably identify those differences you believe you and everybody else hears in a proper double blind listening test? Speaking for myself I am quite confident that I can identify any and all differences in sound that I believe to be real in such a test. Further more if I were put to the challenge and failed to reliably identify differences I believed to be real that would give me cause to reconsider my beliefs.

It does strike me as problematic that science is seen as a “camp.”

That's a logical fallacy, straw man argument. There is a bias here against measurementalists, who often parade as scientists or "objectivists." But of course they are among the most biased on the group, the "nay-sayers."

It’s not a straw man Calvinj referred to “a scientific measurement camp.” 

Scientism has nothing to do with sciences ...

And sound quality perception is too complex to be reduced to electrical engineers explanation... Psycho-acoustics also play the most part in the sound studies ...

This does not means that amplifier designer work with their mere only taste to design more musical gear, they can use psycho-acoustics results, about harmonics perception ,the non linear time domain of the brain or crosstalk effects on the brain etc ...

As i said , objectivist and subjectivist are two opposed and deluded groups about a too complex problem : the objective conditions and the subjective correlated conditions in the perception of qualities ...

Psycho-acoustics is the science who put the right question here , and the answers are complex and multidisciplinary , never simplistic as claimed by the two opinionated groups above ...

 

«Complexity and intelligence begin as claimed the late Charles Sanders Peirce with the number three » -- Anonymus thinker 🧐

«The three musketeers were four because three is not the end of the world»-- Anonymus Alexandre Dumas reader

«For the sake of power any group can be usefully  divided in two : the good and the bad »-- Anonymus Machiavelli reader

I am certainly not parading as a scientist . One does not need to be a scientist to have a basic understanding of science. I don’t parade as a scientist but I listen to them, look at their research and give scientists and their work the credibility it is due. I am certainly not an objectivist. If logical fallacies are going to be pointed out then  ad hominem needs to be called out here. It ain’t about me. My questions stand unanswered. So I will ask again. What do you think scientists in the field of psychoacoustics have been continually getting wrong for the past 100 years? Aren’t the conflicts between your beliefs and the large body of research in psychoacoustics a cause for examination of one’s personal beliefs?