@brettmcee, I think you’re absolutely right, I think it is all about sound reproduction. Your example of the plane taking off is the perfect illustration. As an old DJ, trained as a sound engineer who worked for most of his life in the audio/video Industry, (and not at selling TV’s for Best Buy), I can say I have a pretty extensive knowledge of what audio is and my take on that is that being a real audiophile depends on many factors that are not only based on wealth. If I could compare quickly to another "hobby", I would say visual Art. Nothing is more subjective than what you can see and how you interpret it. What is your knowledge in the matter, what you can refer to, what you can afford to bring back home, who you will talk about it ... is Art a question of money? yes and no, just like audio gear. Part is fact, part is pure imagination. To judge it, what do you know about writing music? Playing it yourself? Can you differentiate cellos types, identify a saxophone? Would you know what type of mic to use to record an instrument? How to amplify it? How would you be sure that the reproduction is correct? Were you there in the studio? What system was giving the original sound? What single track equalization gave the engineer during the mix? what about the colour, timbre and realism he gave to it? Money don’t buy knowledge, and without knowledge, you can just guess, loaded or not. And at the end, or maybe at the beginning, there are your ears... have you measured seriously what and how they perform? How do they work today? I know mine are not what they used to be anymore, I am conscious of it and this definitely put a limit to what I would spend in any system. Just my opinion... :)
191 responses Add your response
I spent ten years building rigs in the $5K-ish range and learned firsthand when I became a reviewer that the gear matters, and the price of the gear is correlated to performance. No amount of griping, pleading, b*tching, yelling, ridiculing, etc. changes that. If I may use a motorcycle analogy, as I ride. I just recently bought a 2016 Yamaha FJ-09, a sport touring design. Should someone make the argument that a vintage Royal Enfield bike perform as well, I would consider them a fool. Likewise, suggesting that 30 year old components perform at a level of current technology is, imo, an ignorant statement. I have used enough vintage gear to know that it doesn’t compete well with current products. IF price is the determinant, then obviously using a sliding scale one can argue that the older stuff is "as good" or "better", but this is a determination made by value relative to performance, not an absolute judgement based on performance only. Things can get messy when value is inserted into the judgment of sound quality. I was an audiophile when I was using a boom box in the garage lifting weights as a 16 year old. Been one ever since I had my first all in one stereo at about age 12. Was I an accomplished audiophile? No. I was a novice. I would consider myself very passionate about sound/audio as a novice until I was about 30 and began to explore better sound through better gear. Perhaps the distinction novice audiophile versus accomplished audiophile might be helpful in the community (versus potentially perjorative phrases such as "good golfer" vs. "bad golfer"). Can the guy with a $500 setup be an audiophile; of course. He may love the gear and the sound, and long for better experience... Does that make him an accomplished audiophile with years of experience, making multiple systems, advancing his art? No. Does he have to? No. But let’s not play the game that this man is supposed to be considered on a par with the one who spends decades elevating his game. That would be foolish, envious, delusional, etc. If Vinny55 has spent much money and time developing his system, has been through a lot of current gear and fallen in love with vintage - great, you are a vintage-loving accomplished audiophile. However, if Vinny55 had the wallet rule the day, never went past a firm barrier in terms of cost, has put up only a couple rigs, and then excoriates those who have done and spent a lot more - then you are a novice audiophile, and one with a poor attitude - and up to this point in your posts divisive. :( So, perhaps the descriptors "novice" versus "accomplished" might help here. Imo the class/economic gauge is pretty well useless and imo does not bear relation to either personal spending habits, nor the habits of those with high net worth. (For all we know Vinny55 may have high net worth and thinks that in an absolute sense to spend more on equipment is stupid, as though the performance cannot exceed significantly what he has attained. It doesn’t give the right to mock others, but that doesn’t stop some people who feel assured of themselves.) With my distinction of novice versus accomplished, a person could at any price point or methodology such as DIY, vintage, etc. be placed on the spectrum of "Audiophile", but reveal the involvement without the rankling of judgment based on socio-economic status. |
| Post removed |
@douglas_schroeder a jvc rcm70 was considered high end in the 70s and even had a great phono section. Bet you couldnt afford that back in the day. You cant apply most automotive performance analogies to audio whatsoever. Totally irrelevant. Douglas's Bugatti does not make music Douglas's Ferrari does not play a beautiful soulful violin piece of la paloma that stirrs the emotions. Elizabeth's porche twin turbo doesnt reproduce a beautiful coltrane piece with all the fine detail snare drum sax piano and intricacies do that excites the senses Douglas's Ducati doesnt produce the deep bass of Bachs organ music like a Sansui tube amplifier does. Automotive comparative examples to fine audio are bogus. A humble Marantz 2230 with Goodmans golds sounds as amazing in detail and overall musicality as an overrated Jadis or Pass with wilson speakers. On a side note not audio related Doug if i had your money i would stil buy a lexus toyota honda or acura rather than overrated pompous bmw maserati porsche rolls mercedes bugatti ferrari. Why? Better made overrall vehicle similar performance and reliable. |
There is nothing wrong with differentiating between novice and experienced audio enthusiasts. What doug wrote about the value of experience and exposure is spot on. People that dont know what they dont know are very hard to reach. These type of posts always get to a point where those with knowledge and balance stop casting pearls before swine and call it a day. |
@brettmcee said: "If you are proud of that kind of excess you probably don’t really care about ‘the music’ or ‘the sound’ anymore" You could say that about almost anyone else who spent more money than you did right? In other words, you say six grand is the price of admission to true hi-fi sound quality. Vinny, who is happy at 4 grand could say you just spent the extra 2 grand just to flaunt your money and admire the pretty lights on your gear. Get it? Likewise, the guy with a $50,000 system will say $40,000 is the real price of admission for true high fidelity and anyone who thinks they are doing it for $10,000 is simply a Philistine. See? That sort of relativism gets us nowhere. The point of the whole thread is that the lowest number anyone has trotted out and claimed to get high fidelity is 2 grand. Again, that's a lot more than most music lovers will be willing to spend and more than a lot of people could spend even if they want to. So again, the answer is yes, it takes money to be an audiophile. If that upsets sensitive egalitarian sensibilities, well, sometimes the truth hurts a little. |
I bought my first decent system in the Army in 1969/70. Sansui integrated amp and tuner, Dual 1229 turntable and Sansui Sp-100 speakers with an Akai reel to reel. I was so happy with that system after using cheap grind o matic stuff. All my friends were impressed when I returned and went to college. Now I have 3.6 Maggies, MC501 amps with tube Mac C220, etc. I love my current system, but not ant happier than with my first one. Marginal coat, marginal gain. Happiness is not related to money, but rather the joy you receive from your music. Thinking you are better because of a very small marginal difference in sound is a fool’s errand. It really is all about the music. |
viny55, "Douglas’s Ducati doesnt produce the deep bass of Bachs organ music like a Sansui tube amplifier does."Does Douglas’ Yamaha do that? Maybe you could check it against that Sansui. You never know, you may be surprised. Also, unless something has changed recently, Elizabeth has Ford, not Porsche. |
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/audiophile Cambridge English Dictionary online Audiophile [Noun] a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about equipment for playing recorded sound, and its quality. It's already defined, no hard work to understand it's meaning. No level of experience, degree of interest or value of investment is used in this definition. Just enjoy the music :-) |
| Post removed |
"Audiophile [Noun] a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about equipment for playing recorded sound, and its quality." Yet another dictionary/Wikipedia definition that utterly lacks application. But if this definition is correct then Vinny the Egalitarian is right. Everyone IS an audiophile. Especially all those 65 year old women with Bose radios on their kitchen counters and 12 year olds with a pair of Beats bluetooth headphones streaming from their Galaxy phone. Yep, everyone is an audiophile and it costs next to nothing to be one. What a wonderful world..........you know, its all a state of mind, it has nothing to do with _actual_ sound quality, taste, training or expertise. |
| Post removed |
Bose is phenomenal. It actually made people buy things because they sounded better. First Bose Wave Radio presentations were all about quality of sound, including some sort of blind test/evaluation. So, if you have a Bose radio in the kitchen, let the chef enjoy being an audiophile. Unless cooking is your hobby, too. |
Nearly all of my equipment was inherited from an audio dealer friend who passed away in 1998. I consider myself an audiophile since 1973. My inherited used equipment that I'm using now continues to blow away myfriends. Purchased new, this all component system would come in about $12K. I'm ever grateful that my friend left this system to me, especially the Spacial Coherence preamp, of which there are only 400 hand built units. It was $1200 new in 1979, and I just saw a used one for sale on a high end audio site for $1600. It blows away preamps costing many thousands more. It's too bad that the cost of entering the audiophile market looks to be cost prohibitive, except for those with disposable income. I don't have a typical 'surround' system. My system is an 'ambient loop' system, with the rear set up to extract the ambience that is in all stereo recordings, but can't be extracted with a 2 speaker system. 5-1 systems might be able to extract the ambience, but it's still not the same as extracting the ambience that's already there in every stereo recording you own, waiting to be sent to your rear speakers set up in an ambient loop, using an old Dynaco Quadapter QD1. To be able to hear a singer take a breath as he or she steps up to the microphone, adds so much depth to the sound stage, it's incredible. It be able to hear fretting is priceless, as it adds depth that normally cannot be heard. |
The premise is what drives quality headphone & headphone amplifier sales. The sticky (but most intriguing?) part of your premise is delineating the difference between a music lover & an audiophile, their intersection points & where & when they overlap. It almost becomes like theologians arguing the finer points of the higher good they’re trying to find evidence of. It’s there but tracing it back as purely as possible to its source is quite the exercise. i.e. Musicians often enough do not need great equipment as their love of the music transports them on even mediocre equipment. I didn’t say always but often enough. How much of that purity of love of music do we need or can we live without? Do we even want to and to what degree do we convince ourselves we’re trying? All of us rationalize this to a reasonable degree we tell ourselves - all while disproving the way someone else is going too far in ways we think we’re not. Both sides are inevitably right - but to what degree? Sticky question worth investigating to the degree one believes the inner most truth really will set you free. The short hand for figuring it out is answering: Do you want the truth to be a certain way more then you want to passionately explore what it is - regardless of where that leads? Please understand I’m not saying it’ll be necessarily be an uncomfortable answer - but at least a little of that is bound to creep in. Or not? |
As many of you probably know, my principles are:
Best, Erik |
Agreed . . . it is the passion for the hobby that counts. If all that matters is financial credentials . . . it is only a pretentious title anyhow, and it certainly is not going to prevent anyone from participating. People do need to stop being triggered so easily and get a thicker skin -- who cares what a snob or a pretentious hack thinks in the first place? Opinions, criticisms, and protests have always been an “understood” part of our culture and part of our laws until recently, and until recently, has always been respected. We all need to push back on the censorship and the control of those who think everyone has free speech . . . as long as it agrees with their particular ideology. Free speech must work both ways or it has been compromised and is no longer valid -- and in our society, the last free democratic society under a Republic on earth -- this is most important. So, no matter what someone “thinks” or “expresses” with regard of calling yourself an Audiophile -- say it, wear it, and do it with pride . . . and tell those, who think otherwise -- to get a life and go read what freedom of speech truly means. |
...but often the loud and/or the wealthy control the discussion. Being an Audiophile is a passion for perfecting personal sound reproduction. It is both a technical and artistic pursuit tailored to ones own preferences while still attending to some notion of ‘truth’. There are no reference museums for historical pieces where anyone/everyone can go to hear precisely how a musician intended their music to sound. Even visiting Abbey Road and hearing Beatles original master tapes, things have changed over time... It is the personal pursuit and investment in that pursuit that should be encouraged and RESPECTED. |
| Post removed |
Don’t normally read or respond to these conversations, but after reading this one it’s funny that no one is noticing that Vinny55 is just trying to argue. If you look at every one of his responses they’re nonsensical and argumentative. Just another sickening liberal that wants everyone to have and be treated like everyone else regardless if they deserve it or not. Vinny55 I bet you think boys should use girls restrooms, and I bet you were first in line to sign up your daughter for the Boy Scouts, because according to you no one should have the term to themselves right. Get a life and realize when you’re wrong internet troll. Just cause you love music doesn’t come close to making you an audiophile. Lots of people love music and don’t even have a stereo, does that make them audiophiles too? |
There is definitely some wealth shaming and I think this was the basis of the original post. Not such a far stretch to believe, overall, that more expensive equipment will outperform cheaper. Just dont speak on this issue unless you have had experience with both. And please stop guessing the motivation of buyers who spend a "shameful" amount on audio equipment. As fordboy points about above, distinctions are good things. Being uncomfortable and offended are usually positive experiences provided you have the right to make your case if you disagree. This country is completely losing the ability to discern between what is a right and what is a privilege. Numerous times on this forum posters have asked others to not use certain words and to avoid certain discussions as these were offensive. Not a kindler world but a world of sameness and intellectual death. |
@erik_squires : "Price is a poor predictor of performance." Erik, I disagree, a little. I think it would be better to say that price can be a poor predictor of performance. In most things I see price and performance as a fairly bell shaped curve across the board. And yes, I do think there is a steep fall-off toward the highest price ranges. (I'm speaking generally here, not just about audio). But in light of this discussion even if you are exactly right, the problem is the price range we are discussing. For the average man on the street with more than one priority in his life even at the low end of what most of us here would reasonably good quality he would be stymied. I don't know what motivated the OP to share his opinion or ask if we agree. But I do not agree that being an audiophile is solely a matter of how you feel about music or sound quality. To me that's like claiming to be a race car driver because you are enthusiastic about racing and feel like a race car driver. So again, the answer is no. Not everyone can be an audiophile. Even if they want to be. |
In that analogy, the musicians and producers are the race car team. The rest of us are just observers in the stands. Otherwise, audiophiles are reduced to consumers of a particular type of product. How miserably impoverishing that POV is to me. "Sorry you lost your house Frank, but hey, I don’t have to listen to your miserable take on cables since you no longer matter." is not a place I want to be. As I posted in another thread, in the late 1950's, early 1960's audiophiles were not consumers, they were inventors, innovators, and enthusiasts. DIY built this hobby. Lets make this a big tent with room for different points of view and needs, as opposed to an expensive one. |
Do we actually believe that people spending more than $4k cannot be audiophiles? Or people spending more than $10k are all fools? Have no knowledge or any understanding of how "Hi-Fi" should sound. Lock those fools away, don't talk to them, don't listen, they are fools anyway. Besides that, we have all heard equipment costing in excess of $100k, and none of it sounded right.... How stupid they are.... (of course, we conveniently preclude the option that all of the above is stupid as well) Actually....we could go even further, establishing rules, let's say up to $ 2k for the complete high-end set up -> absolute audiophile, up to $3k still audiophile, but becomes questionable, the limit is at $4k, above that, ban them from the audiophile community.... Luckily, I really don't care too much how other's "judge" me, I spend many hours enjoying music the way I like it, in a room I've build with my own two hands, with equipment in it which I have worked for (I'm certainly not rich, so yeah, I have to save money for the equipment I have). Have enjoyed music for more that half a century now, and hope I get another 20-30 years to continue enjoying it...cheers |
I think of an audiophile just as the word says. Audio music collector as a hobby. Usually fanatic about sound purity. But not all audiophiles have exeptional ears. To love music you do not need to be an audiophile. You can be audio enthusiast without being a fanatic, and still own nice audio equipment to play the music you love. Just my take on it. |
People should not construe that I am saying you cannot be an audiophile under $10K. Note my previous comments about when I was a severe budget audiophile. 13 years old, Lloyds all-in-one system! Audiophile in spirit! I used the unit so much that one day it began smoking, burned the sucker up! No reliability back then! LOL Was I actually an audiophile? Hardly, barely, not really, just a smidgen. I had the impulse, but a LONG way to go! :) |
@erik_squires : "In that analogy, the musicians and producers are the race car team. The rest of us are just observers in the stands." It is unkind to torture a previously tortured analogy. ;-) "Otherwise, audiophiles are reduced to consumers of a particular type of product. How miserably impoverishing that POV is to me." And yet, that pretty much defines us. Maybe better than any definition so far. So maybe here is a better analogy. Is a person who is enthusiastic about wine and appreciates the highest qualities to be found in wine but can only afford to experience Yellow Tail or Boone Farm an oenophile? Of course not. Or does the wealth shaming/guilt of some oenophiles make the Boone Farm drinker and oenophile just so said oenophiles can feel less guilty about their hobby? Again, of course not. The Boone Farm crowd can be called wine lovers just like anyone who likes music can be a music lover. But they cannot be called connoisseurs nor sommeliers. To wax a little philosophical, I think part of the problem is the western social trend to blur distinctions. It occurs at all levels and is a form of leveling that many feel is so important. I remember after 911 there was a news segment talking about how the event had traumatized all Americans and part of the conclusion was that because of that shared trauma "we are all heroes". As nice as that sounds and as wholesome as leveling may seem to some people, such abuse of the language cripples our ability to see, detect and admire what is truly good AND what is truly bad. And it utterly trivialized the actions of the true heroes of that day. I see it as one among many of dangerous anarchy producing trends in our culture over the last 20-30 years. In my office we are now required to ask patients if they "identify" as male or female. So far we do not have to ask them if they "identify" as animal, vegetable or mineral. But that cannot be too far off. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
Couldnt agree more. But it would seem that as it relates to audio, years of devotion, expense and listening mean nothing. As there should be no winner or losers there should also be no experts or novices. I simply dont understand this type of mentality and you are exactly right when you say this is a dangerous trend. |
