[Boatanchors] Re Audiofools

[Todd Bigelow - PS]

Duane Fischer, W8DBF wrote:

>	
>On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 08:36:29 -0500 David Stinson <arc5@ix.netcom.com>
>writes:
>Yes, I know it's grossly off topic. But I love to share a laugh with you folks.
> This little chunk of ferrite has the audiophool community burning incense and
>chanting mantras again.	
>	
>There are many of us who enjoy high end quality audio reproduction on this list,
>as well as others. While I enjoy a laugh at myself, or a situation, but not at
>other people, I think it was inappropriate to brand us who enjoy quality audio
>as 'audiofools'.	
>

Duane -

Just my spin on this, I don't think Dave meant that anyone who enjoys 
quality audio, classic stereo gear, or anything along those lines is a 
fool. The term 'audiofools/phools' refers more to the ones who believe 
all those snake oil ads like the one Dave cited. I doubt anyone would 
disagree with a statement or ad which was backed up by scientific 
evidence and concrete proof, but when so much of it is speculation, 
hocus-pocus, and opinion, well....that's where the 'phool' part comes 
charging in.

I know some say that the difference between SS and tube, or digital and 
analog audio can't really be distinguished. I'd disagree, and I love the 
sound of my old tube HK amp and Scott tuner over the Pioneer SS rig I 
have. I draw the line though at placing NOS wax and paper caps or black 
beauties back into a piece of gear because they give it a 'warmer 
sound'. Same goes for many other claims out there and the warm, fuzzy 
terminology invented to support an unsupported position. When a seller 
has to give you candy-coated words to sell his product because he has no 
hard data to back up his claims, that should be a big clue. When such 
things begin being accepted by 'the crowd' (not unlike those who find it 
easier to call the R-390/URR a 'non-A', for example), then it's 
understandable why someone with even an average amount of common sense 
would look at this, shake their head, and consider such people as fools. 
What would you call someone who invents their own version of reality 
when it goes against what actually *is*? Crazy? Looney? Foolish?

Not trying to start or futher a thread here. Like you, I prefer tube 
audio. I bet Dave does too. Just not the senseless and baseless hype 
often associated with it.

73 de Todd/'Boomer'  KA1KAQ