the one that got away - how do you handle grief?

"W kupie siła, a w przyjaźni moc."

If you read the other thread, it’s his holier than thou, I know better than you what you’re hearing, you’re wrong and I’m right, I’m on the top pedestal, attitude.

It irks those of us that truly are.

I wouldn’t call it snake oil, more like oil that’s seen too many fish fries.

Geez Doug did it again. Well some of us pay attention and remember. I have deliberately been avoiding anything involving doug, which seems to be impossible since he plugs his book at every, sometimes awkward, opportunity. 

Told ya!

@douglas_schroeder wrote:

I discuss in my book, The Audiophile Laws, how thriftiness is a hindrance to building a better system.

As per the Cambridge Dictionary from a Google search:

Thrifty means being careful and smart with money and resources, specifically by avoiding waste and thinking about the future.

Notice the inclusion of ’smart.’ In filmmaking it is known how a limited budget, out of sheer necessity, can make for more creative approaches in different aspects of a production and thereby save a lot of money. Some of these rather innovative approaches then "bleed" into more expensive productions to make more effective use of a budget, but sometimes also because they’re simply a better way of "attacking" a problem that wasn’t hitherto considered. In Formula 1 racing it is the reversed scenario of design innovations bleeding down into cheaper cars, but it’s worth noticing that F1 is actually a cutting edge design environment, something I wouldn’t ascribe to high-end, domestic audio - in general. 

Money - that is, lots of it - can make you lazy, conservative and be preoccupied with what more money will grant you (or make you look or feel), rather than being invested in and actually cognizant about addressing obstacles or bottlenecks in a setup chain from a wider and more open-minded lense/perspective, and which are believed to limit core parameters of sound reproduction.

If the goal really is better sound, then why is expense alone the major factor to convey as that which holds importance? From my chair that is extremely narrow minded, or at least it tells me very little about what to expect. I’m not saying money doesn’t matter - to a point, that is - but it really is a deeply uninteresting aspect when all is said and done. 

[...] when budget rules the day in audiophilia, the hobbyist should not think that they are making a system that approaches SOTA.

The same could be said of those who have loads of money at their disposal. Strictly speaking, it’s not the money but the goal/ambition of what you want to achieve in audio reproduction, in addition to having an open mind, and how one is aware and capable of converting that into sonic effect. With a relatively normal income and one who has just that ability and mindset, I dare say I’d expect better sound from the hands and mind of that individual than one who cares only about bloviating about how more money is the holy grail in audio reproduction. 

There is a great deal of delusion in this hobby, where some people who put relatively little into the system, given the spectrum of equipment and cost,  proclaim they have something extraordinary.

Do they really proclaim that, or are they simply happy about the sound from their setup of a limited budget? But sure, some are no doubt delusional about how their setup would compare to others. 

Such people are guilty of judging show systems harshly, with comments such as, "My system at home is better than all those at the show." It’s nothing more than pride and arrogance, given that they may have never had such equipment in their home. Without any direct comparison, they presume to judge the lot of higher end gear. That kind of sweeping statement is a result of money concerns dominating their discussion of all things audio. The comments are motivated by one overarching thing, money or thriftiness.They tend to judge sound not on the basis of absolute performance but on the basis of value of the product and performance. Of course, anything obviously superior suffers from diminishing returns, etc.

That’s a big fat, arrogant assumption. From a different vantage point: if I go to a show I would expect most of the exhibitors to be given the same less-than-ideal conditions, and if not it’s allowed, as an exhibitor, to do the work and find out how to maximize the performance of the gear you want to show off (just like the other exhibitors), and if necessary/possible find the more proper spacing to accommodate that. When comparing those exhibitors at a given show I do my ranking from what sounds the best to my ears with no consideration to cost, period. Do I need to say that the most expensive rooms aren’t necessarily the better sounding ones? That’s not necessarily indicative of these expensive setups inherent and more optimized potential, but they’re not doing me of themselves any favor in falling flat on their bellies with a so-so presentation when comparing them to much cheaper setups from other exhibitors. And no, for this discussion I’m not bringing my own setup into the equation as a comparative measure, but strictly what’s confined to a given show itself. 

It costs a lot of money to get to SOTA performance. That’s not a judgment against the budget limited hobbyist, it’s just a fact.

The overriding fact as I see it is the importance of what you bring into this endeavor with your skills and mindset. The amount of money is, if not irrelevant, then of lesser importance.

I don't get it. There are 4-5 sets of them for sale on eBay right NOW