[petrilli]

I would disagree with the initial premise that it's about the pursuit of "perfect sound reproduction". There's many people who do that, but that's not what the audiophile world really has become. It's about a bunch of hand waving and big checkbook spending to impress other audiophiles. Oddly, that describes a lot of "hobbies".

Nobody who feels that a $4,000 power cable is important has any semblance of sanity remaining. It's the homeopathy of consumer electronics.

[stinkypete]

I also question the sanity of anyone spending that much on equipment and seemingly nothing on room treatments. If your goal is accurate sound reproduction, your room is going to be one of the biggest sources of problems (phase smearing, standing waves/room nodes, flutter, etc), especially in smaller square-shaped rooms. Spending $10k on a sound system and zero on room treatment is like putting monster truck tires on a lawn mower. It's no coincidence that studio control rooms, especially ones that do commercial-quality mastering, use all kinds of room treatment tricks to ensure the mastering engineer can accurately hear everything in a mix.

And while I don't think audiophiles are just about spending money to impress friends, sometimes they go about things in incredibly inefficient ways and pretend they are not susceptible to placebo effects.

[w0utert]

As someone who spends far too much money on 20+ years old cars, I think I have to agree with you. Being an audiophile is a bit like being a car enthusiast: there really is nothing rational about spending so much money on something that most people don't see the value of, something that is so subjective that you can't explain it to them. I think in the end, it's more about the joy you get out of the idea of being able to spend that kind of money on something that so few people are willing or able to do. Subliminally, it affects your perception of how awesome the car or the audio setup actually is, if you ask an outsider, chances are he or she doesn't see or hear anything better that what 'normal' people are using.

[mikeash]

At least you could tell the difference between a cheap car and an expensive car in a blind test.

[TylerE]

You can't really say that for cars, either. Look at the premiums paid for "numbers matching" cars.

[w0utert]

> At least you could tell the difference between a cheap car and an expensive car in a blind test.

If I show my car to people, most of them don't see a 'modern classic', a 'rare limited edition', a 'real drivers car' or a 'high performance vehicle' with 'upgraded specifications'. They just see a re-sprayed 20-year old clunker without satnav, double airbags or cupholders ;-)

[mikeash]

Sure, but you can still tell the difference. Not even audiophiles can distinguish much audiophile equipment from more mundane equipment in a blind test.

[davidcuddeback]

> Not even audiophiles can distinguish much audiophile equipment from more mundane equipment in a blind test.

That's a pretty broad generalization about a large group of people. Do you have any facts to back it up?

[adamzochowski]

http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the...

[mikeash]

In addition to adamzochowski's hilarious coathanger link, there's some even crazier stuff out there.

A review of audiophile SATA cables (yes, the digital connectors that let your hard drives talk to your computer) quickly became infamous:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/dont-buy-into-the-expensi...

I can't find the original, because the author took it down. Not because he realized he was wrong, but because he was getting too much hate mail. In a followup post (now also unavailable, for some reason), he completely stood by his original conclusion:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/that-sata-cable-saga-the-...

Please read the quotes from the original post, they are absolutely priceless.

Here is a similarly hilarious review of a high-end audiophile USB cable:

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/entreq/usb.html

A choice quote:

"As in, demonstrably more refinement in the upper ranges; more extended harmonics; better separation and superior articulation across the range. The generic cable sounded warmer, fuzzier, less distinct - actually blurry. The biggest differentiator was arguably the additional information above the upper midrange."

(That's from page 2, which is accessed by a not-entirely-obvious "next" link at the bottom.)

No, I didn't make that up. This reviewer is reporting substantially better audio from using a high-end USB cable. You know, a digital connector, where data either arrives or it doesn't. And he's not reporting that the cheap cable loses any data, because that would show up as clicks, pops, static, or worse. No, he's reporting that the cheap cable is "fuzzier", and the expensive one shows "more refinement". From a digital cable.

I have no doubt that there are people out there who actually understand audio equipment and spend good money on stuff that actually makes a difference. However, I doubt most of them will self-describe as "audiophiles", because that word has been largely co-opted by a crowd that operates on the same level as homeopaths and palm readers.

If anybody can reliably distinguish the expensive SATA cable from a regular one in a proper blind test, then I will cheerfully retract all of the above.

[brianpan]

But it's not about cheap and expensive, and it's only partly about measurable performance. It's just as much about style (this car was designed with the "perfect" stance) and about personal preference. Things you're not going to get everyone to agree on, and occasionally are plain irrational.

[m104]

I think there are two main sects in audiophile-land, really: perfection and experience.

The perfection side has scopes, meters, and blind testing among its tools. The goal is in fact "perfect sound reproduction". The problem here is that between the original source (microphone, usually) and the listener's brain is all of this stuff that distorts the sound. Removing it completely is really hard, and replicating that quality repeatedly is even harder.

The experience side has experts, rituals, and demos. The goal there is to reach the limit of audio experience, literally to hear what wouldn't otherwise be heard with lesser systems. The problem on this end is that "near-perfect" systems deliver less exciting and engaging experiences than what the experience experts deem to be better. They don't enjoy the systems calibrated to perfection as much as their own custom systems with tweaks and rituals applied.

These two sides really are in a bit of opposition, but it's nice to have both to drive the high-end market of audio equipment.

[gknoy]

It reminds me a lot of Geordi talking to Data about a perfect shave needing to not be perfect.

[Le_SDT]

Agree, a real audiophile is not one who pays 250k his system. After a few thousand dollars there is no real difference.. I'm sorry but I've been mixing/mastering for over 10 years and for 2000$ plus a great room, you have it, the best sound you can imagine. Buying more and more expensive stuff is more like a drug than a true need. Audio entertainement (and) professionnal are two of the most overpriced fields.

[fusiongyro]

I have a $2500 setup so I may not be a sane voice on this issue, but I honestly think part of it (the mid-range?) is partly about setting up an environment in which "just" actively listening to music is acceptable (as opposed to watching TV or a movie).

[davidcuddeback]

I think that's something that's misunderstood by a lot of people. When actively listening to music without other distractions, the distortion in low-end systems becomes very apparent and detracts from the experience.

When listening to music in the background and while doing other things (cleaning the house, cooking, driving, socializing with others, working out at the gym, etc), distortion is easily lost in other background noises (and you're not paying as much attention to it anyway). For a lot of people, I think this is the only way they ever listen to music, and so it's understandable why they wouldn't see the value in higher quality components.

For someone like yourself, who will actively listen to music without other distractions, it makes sense to spend a few thousand dollars for a better experience. With more expensive systems, I think you start to see diminishing returns. (But I'm not as dismissive as other commenters in saying that there's no difference.)

[iloveyouocean]

"Nobody who feels that a $4,000 power cable is important has any semblance of sanity remaining."

This line of argument is one of the most common attacks against the 'irrational snake-oil' that audiophiles purchase. Yet, I have to disagree. Its not that I believe that a $4k power cord has any/significant technical advantage over a $4 power cord. You used the words 'feels' and 'important'. The feeling of listening to a $4k power cord is clearly internal and subjective as is the determination of its importance. If the listener 'feels' that the $4k cord makes a difference, makes the experience better, then it has value to them and I think that they certainly have the freedom to assign how much importance it has. If audio is your passion, then perhaps there is real value, if perhaps only symbolically, to devoting large sums of cash to it in tribute. In my experience, audiophiles aren't simply gullible rich guys mindlessly blowing money on $4k power cords. Many have very deep relationships with music and with their stereo equipment. This relationship is often complex and rich enough that spending large amounts of money on a new 'X' would almost be like purchasing your wife a gold bracelet. Almost.

[juiceandjuice]

A $4000 placebo effect is often worth it.

[epsylon]

The best resource I ever stumbled upon on the subject is NwAvGuy's blog : http://nwavguy.blogspot.fr/2011/05/subjective-vs-objective-d...

[dredmorbius]

I suspect it has far more to do with status and/or affluence signaling than audio fidelity myself.

As with most hobbies.