SUMMER MUSINGS: Who/What is an "Audiophool"? (And old quad album mixes.)

Hey guys and gals. This week, I thought it'd be fun to just talk about something that was brought up over at the Audiophile Style forums in this thread "Who or What Is An Audiophool?". Seeing that there were a number of comments already, I figured why not jump in over the past week and engage?

Doing this brought back memories of the early 2010's when I would spend more time on the forums to chat with fellow audiophiles. As you can imagine, over time with work, family life, having fewer questions to ask as I progressed through the hobby, and turning to writing articles here, my time on the forums have significantly been reduced. I'll still pop in once awhile but not like in the early 2010's to read and participate.

So this past week, as you can see from Page 6 of the thread onwards, it was fun to get back into the weeds a bit and liberally engage. Over many pages, we got into quite a few topics including ideas around blind testing, importance (or not depending on whose opinion) of objective measurements, anecdotes, human behaviors, the role reviewers play in the Industry, examples of bizarre pseudo-science, why we enjoy audio as a hobby, JG Holt's interview from 2007, personal values, anti-vaxxers, agreeing to disagree, ASR, website traffic numbers, quotes from Richard Feynman, what is knowledge, etc.

On Audiophile Forums. Disagreements on MQA. (And Redscape preview...)

I thought for this post it might be good to talk about audiophile forums.

A couple weeks back, some of you expressed frustration with the Audio Science Review Forum, the opinions of the host there, and general MQA disagreement. Over the years, like probably many of you, I've had my share of participating in forums, disagreements with views expressed and the bickering at various venues. All in good fun however and nobody needs to get too perturbed... It's only a hobby, right?

I've read posters say that MQA is "the gift that keeps giving" :-). No doubt it's a topic that has provided for much discussion around here and elsewhere!

However future audiophile historians ultimately judge this time in our hobby, I think MQA will have its place as a controversy that divided the community deeply. I don't think this is a bad thing in that it has provided many opportunities for us to discuss and perhaps be enlightened by what is true vs. false, shown a divide between mainstream press with close industry ties vs. independents, objective vs. subjective testing, faith in (specifically one) authority of digital audio vs. skepticism. And this has played out publicly probably in its most dramatic fashion on audiophile forums these years.