D. Hearing with our ego. Let’s go back to the “tube guy” example to illustrate. I could have made the
tube guy a very happy man if I went back to him after my experiment and said “Whoa dude! You were right! Those tubes made
a major difference! Thanks man!” Instead, I calmly reported the truth; That not only did the tubes make scant
difference, but I had empirical evidence to back up my claim. I had the samples recorded using industry standard mic’s
and pre’s. I invited him over to the studio to hear them.......
I have now been waiting 8 months for a reply.
When those who are predisposed to audiophilia decide that it is time for them to gain (but not necessarily earn) a reputation for keen auditory senses, they attempt to carve a niche for themselves in some specific field of recording. They obsess over items like tubes, guitar strings, body woods, pickup types, cables, and other secondary factors. The common listener hears little to no positive difference in audio quality, but is impressed with the audiophiliac’s heightened auditory sensitivities. Now I qualify: To prefer one type over the other is perfectly acceptable, and a common attribute of a true audiophile. But toprefer to the point of rejection all other options is audiophilia. Some of the mantra’s of the audiophiliac sound like this:
“I
hate the sound of digital….”
“I only record with Protools….”
“Martin’s blow
“Brazilian rosewood is infinitely superior
to African rosewood any day……”
“I’ve never heard a Dimarzio I liked……”
“Transformerless mic’s sound harsh……”
“I won’t even play though
a solid state amp…..”
These are the broad sweeping generalizations of the audiophiliac, and such statements do not
keep things in perspective.
