>>136
Is ignorance bliss to you? Then I guess it is. But when you have enjoyed good sound for a while, you just can't go back.

>>139
> ignorance
It is not ignorance. It is not being spoiled.
Look up "hedonic treadmill".

It's what you get for buying into the placebo.

It's a curse in the sense that the technology exists for perfect--as in, it sounds like the band or orchestra is there--however, the record studios aren't interested in trying, and the mainstream speaker companies (Sonus Faber, B&W, Kef [to a lesser degree]) produce speakers with fundamental sonic defects out of laziness. Sean Olive at Harman has done a lot of work on what humans prefer for sound--it's all scientific, all double-blind--but no-one seems to care about trying to fix the fundamental issues with audio reproduction. Ah well.

Is audiophile people who don't enjoy cheap bad chip quality 16 bits low 48HZ cattle audio quality when there's way better audio equipment upgrade for a reasonable sum?

Or is it audiophile idiots who keeps spending outrageous money(because they can) on fucking bullshit like cables and super expensive meme audio gear that virtually offers no difference compared to what's good value?

The same problem exists with musical instruments, why would you spend 100K for an old smelly stradivarius with it's characterisitc sound( defects)? Why buy a Bosendorfer when you could buy a Yamaha? Get where this is going?

>fundamental sonic defects out of laziness
It's not out of laziness though it's an intentional profit move. If popular manufacturers (who can often cheaply and easily)eliminate all the defective qualities in their low end it would eliminate their higher end market. Which means loss of profit. So there is no incentive. On the other side this means smaller entry brands however have more of an incentive to cheaply and easily fix problems and produce a good product at a reasonable price.

>>141
This.

>>215 I think you make valid points except about old string instruments like the cello or violin. There is clear cause for seeking these out as the inherent value in them is more than just the sound they make. You really cannot compare manufacturing and product advertisement to something that can have historical value or even just familial value, or traditional. No reason to call them defective either when they aren't. Fuck you.

>>136 I'd imagine. I'm glad that most YouTube rips are up to my standards. In terms of recordings I'm the opposite of an audiophile though. I always imagine how much more I'd like music that was recorded to a cheap cassette tape. I love the sound of wow and flutter, tape compression, and even the momentary dropouts they sometimes have. >>215 >why would you spend 100K for an old smelly stradivarius with it's characterisitc sound( defects)? "Defects" are in the eye of the beholder and are sonically desirable to a lot of people. Just look at the connoisseurs of classic analog synths who strongly prefer things like voice tuning offsets over the more precise modern analog synthesizers.