2. misc-audio
  3. 975544928

"The Audio Critic" B.S. or what?

Has anyone ever heard of this magazine? In a nutshell, their premise is that audiophiles are ridiculous. They claim that all high-end equipment is marketed to audio magazines and their foolish readers. One particular area they sounded off about was cable and interconnect theory. They claim that spending hundreds and even thousands of dollars for cables is a joke and is a total waste of money. They claim that companies like Kimber are selling us a bunch of "snake oil." I just breezed through a copy and now it's got me wondering if we audiophiles are just masturbating each other with our concepts and discussion of "high-end" equipment and cables. Please tell me this is a bunch of sh*t. I'd like to think that we're getting at least a bit of "high-end" for our hard-earned $$$$
chuke076
leafs
414 posts
 
If my spelling is not good sorry.Thank god for spell check.leafs
dekay's avatar
dekay
2,959 posts
 
So much for "music hath charms to soothe the savage breast". Think I got it right this time.
carl_eber
1,425 posts
 
Actually Leafs, it is YOU who is self righteous, and you are commenting about things that you do not know about, nor have direct experience with....and THAT'S the real "joke" here, and a stupid low brow one at that. Please do not presume to comment on, what you have no experience with. Also, it's a fact that expensive cables NEVER hold their value on the used market as well as less costly ones do, much less than do electronics of the more popular or widely known varieties. HOWEVER, that has ABSOLUTELY ZERO TO DO WITH THEIR SOUND QUALITY, AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH RETAIL DEALER MARKUP ON STATE OF THE ART CABLES, WHEN THEY ARE NEW. Next time, keep it on what you have experience with, and you'll not lose what little credibility that you started with.
ficciones2642
1 posts
 
EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE, EVERYTHING. Heisenberg's principle is all the "science" we need here. So quoth Carl. Everything Carl says is subjective, everything Carl says is intrinsically uncertain. If we "know" Carl's position, can we know the momentum with which he is moving away from his position? He claims he can bench-press 300 lbs. He claims he can't think very clearly in the dark. (Is Carl a gorilla?) He suggests that Cartesian doubters hold back their bowel movements and that he avoids these practices so that he is able to defecate freely. He seems to equate modern psychology with another Carl, viz. Carl Jung. He claims that 100 year old books are "dusty". H-mm...Heisenberg's principle is 75 years old. Does that make it 3/4ths as "dusty"? Does "Carl" exist? Perhaps only "carlness" exists, temporarily quantified when the lights go on. I don't know, it's so subjective, so uncertain--correction--EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE, EVERYTHING. (Except this claim itself which is based on solid, objective facts--facts derived from observations of the world--and is to be held with fervent conviction).
leafs
414 posts
 
One thing is never in dispute.if you dont agre with Carl you are allways wrong.Carl tell me you have been wrong at least once Right just once?
More to discover