Are audiophile products designed to initially impress then fatigue to make you upgrade?

@fsonicsmith1

The bicycle analogy is pretty good. I am an avid bike rider… with a long distance / touring slant. I have four custom made bikes of my stable of eight. Each is carefully crafted, with every detail thought out to the highest level.

There is a real difference with true top end bike frames and equipment and great high fi gear and true audiophile gear. For those of use really dedicated: that ride thousands of miles a year and listen hundreds of hours… there is no substitute for uncompromising designs, meticulously purpose built equipment. It outperforms in every way just very well done stuff… and sets it apart.

@ghasley 

+1
 

@mihorn 

Alex, you completely discredited your post with the categorical statement “All audio systems in the world sound un-natural… except for yours. I read no further. 

Your comment is very cynical. Manufacturer manufacture things to sell… professional reviewers identify a fatiguing piece of equipment and would point it out… resulting in poor sales… however:

Inexpensive audio equipment can be fatiguing… those built to minimize cost of parts.

Some combinations of otherwise not fatiguing components can be fatiguing.

Many people turn on their analytical skills and listen for detail and crispness long before they understand how to hear a noice floor and high frequency hash… which causes fatigue. So they buy highly detailed but fatiguing components.

Folks that like to hear detail… and I think we all start that way, do not recognize when the musicality is striped from a component (rhythm and pace). Without it, you end up listening to the system and not the music. After the, “oh wow, I can hear a violinist move his foot.”… listening is not interesting. Systems that fail to produce music are exceedingly easy to assemble. All components must work together synergistically.

Systems designed to reproduce music tend to be pretty expensive.