Took a couple days off social media. I see things are still going.
Reviewing the video and this thread, it’s clear that the video is not really about McIntosh. Jay (who made his own video about McInstosh) missed the what I think is the main point in OCD’s video. What is that point? Well, he’s advising people about how to sort out what to buy.
He begins by sorting audiophiles into two exclusive groups.
His first distinction, quoting the video here, is this "split:":
"You’re either a guy for display or you’re a guy for sonic and you don’t care about display." He continues, "Are you someone who you want something that visually is striking so that when people come over to your place to listen they’re visually arrested by the look of your rig and they’re awestruck by how grandiose it is okay or how beautiful it is or how amazing it is?"
If you’re about how things look, he has an example:
A "perfect example [is] macintosh, okay. You guys know that it’s a brand I don’t really like because I just don’t think it sounds that good; I think it’s overpriced."
And people who like looks are wowed by it. Ok, so it just seems at this point like one person’s opinion.
But, then he makes the sweeping claim:
"For people that are in hi-fi, we look at it and we’re like ‘Oh cute little green LED, that’s pretty kitschy,’ you know; ‘Oh that’s nice,’ you know. But I get where the market segment is -- it’s [McIntosh] not really...for the audiophile. I think macintosh is for the person that wants to *show* that they’re an audiophile; they want people to *recognize* them *as* an audiophile through a visual cue -- which means people that don’t know crap about hi-fi, okay? Because people that really know about hi-fi look at McIntosh -- the ones that [are] real audiophiles -- we know it doesn’t sound that good."
Who is McIntosh for, then? McIntosh is good, he says,
"for people that don’t really know, okay? For people that...are in their infancy of their hi-fi that aren’t real audiophiles but they’ve just started hi-fi; they’re going to be impressed because they know how much that [McIntosh gear] costs; the first level of person has no idea what it even is -- they’re going to be blown away by how it looks [but in fact] they have no clue."
But this is not just about McIntosh hate. That’s too simple. It’s about creating two categories — those who are fooled by looks and don’t understand what good sound is, and those who manage to get past superficial looks (and price). This is a video for people who are confused and need guidance. They want to hear good sound and they need a guru. This categorization is the first lesson being offered by this guru. It’s not a question of one internet dude's opinion. He is arguing for a fundamental dualism — looks vs. sounds. And those who accept that dualism will trust the guy who taught it to them. (And maybe buy his gear.)
This is also not just about McIntosh. It’s an Us-Them rhetoric, and all such rhetoric needs examples. McIntosh is just the first and easiest example to support the dubitable claim that there are (only) two kinds of audiophiles (the visually-mesmerized and the sonically-enlightened.) But then he adds in other brands. He mentions Focal,Wilson, Magico, too. About these brands he says,
"Man, they have the visual nailed, but they do not have the audio nailed." They are among, he says, "these visual brands for people that have elegant homes" filled with people where, "you’re the big man you know sitting in front of this gorgeous thing."
This is why this video is interesting (to me). It’s not about McIntosh at all. It’s about whether there are two kinds of audiophiles, whether looks and sonics are mutually exclusive, and (at the meta-level) whether dealers who advance these kinds of characterization about these dilemmas are operating in service of the hobby or just in service of their wedge into the business of the hobby.