the process is more challenging than the result

If the choice were vast amounts of music on a table radio or limited amounts of music on my "system", I'd gladly choose the table radio. I definetly believe that the music is more important than the medium or hardware...

However, I find my system adds greatly to the experience - so much so, that I'll often forgo listening to a new album until I have the time to savor it on that system.

I've also spend multiple thousands on my car sytem and though significantly better than stock, I find I rarely turn it on. I can enjoy it, but I'm never as satified.

Tone, timbre, sounstaging, etc....when these are right, the result is truly thrilling!

Mrtennis: Very observant post. There are certainly many aspects to this hobby and the end result is a nice system for music listening. I agree that most benefits of music listening can be garnered from listening to a radio. Furthermore, there is no need to justify the technical aspect of the hobby by requiring that use of the end result be more important or as important as the journey. For years I heard fellow amateur radio operators try to justify the hobby on the basis that you could use your handheld in an emergency (kind of out of vogue now due to cell phones), while the real joy for me in that hobby came from the technical aspects - it was not the contact that was important but rather meeting the technical challenges that had to be navigated in order to make the contact. Your view is well supported by the activity on this site as well as other audiophile sites. The vast majority of discussion focuses on the technical aspects, product reviews etc. which gives credence to the idea that a great deal of the time people invest in this hobby is invested in those aspects of the hobby.

MrT,

I suspect that it is a "gear thing" - boys and their toys and they always want new toys no matter how good the old one sounded. A'gon is geared for that - you only have to look around at systems and absolutely anyone, no matter where they are on the "gear pyramid of greatness", will always find something new or different to drool over.

The truth, however, is reflected in the regrets stated by some wizened old users who really wish they had never sold such and such a piece of gear, AND by the fact that some audiophiles simply never stop changing gear (despite statements that what they had only one year ago was the "greatest thing they ever heard").

For me, I try to stick to a technical approach to purchases - I buy what I can justify to myself from a sonic improvement perspective and something that will be reliable and give years of enjoyment. This means products like ATC and Bryston are high on my list - ugly but technically functional with a track record stretching back years and years: products with a long list of professional users (demanding/discerning ears) that continue to support these products and therefore make spare parts/repair a non-issue (a stark contrast to the latest and greatest models that change each year).

Sure I would get a kick out of the latest and greatest aesthetic looking stuff but that merry-go-round tends towards products that emphasize one thing or another - products that are simply not "all-rounders" and have there day in the spotlight (when everyone wants one - like an Apple iPhone). For example, Quads or Soundlabs might be the ultimate statement in midrange purity/clarity - however could I live long term with their obvious remaining shortcomings - NO.

I can well understand that without some "control" of the selection process then the gear thing can be a neverending journey in experimentation. To me there are two things that drive this:

1) Fear - some audiophiles are in constant fear that they are missing something. This fear stems from clever marketing by savvy audio manufacturers. This has got to the point that people are trained like Pavlov's dog to lust over high $ items that make little sense (usually tweaks with inexplicable near magical qualities). Like in the House of Usher - the slightest change in presentation becomes hyper-exaggerated (whether it is relevant or not).

2) Collecting. Like those who collect and build cars - the fun is in each project of constructing a new sound - rather than the long term daily enjoyment of well reproduced music on an "all-round" satisfying setup (for the sake of music alone). Rare and extremely expensive items (that very very few people will buy) become a source of pride for the collector. They revel in their collection of gear that few can match and the acquistion of new "coveted" items.

I guess I agree with you MrT - but not quite in the way you put it.

When you read the interviews in Stereophile of well known people in the music industry, either performers or production people, it is notable how many of them do not have audiophile systems as we might describe it.

If you make or record music it likely changes your perspective. The equipment you are using at work is often so good that you would not dream of trying to duplicate this at home. Although some of the wealthiest (those most likely to be interviewed) have built their own studios so they can work at home in a palatial surrounding. Often these stars will rely on an army of pros or techies to handle these projects for them - acoustic technicians and such - the equivalent of Rives but for the pro studio market.

So you can see their approach will be completely different.

hi shadorne:

you missed my point when i alluded to the "quest".

the quest implies a journey to achieve a sonic result.
the process of achieving the objective--a sonic result is more fulfilling than listening to music, once the result has been attained.

it does not entail never being satisfied, but rather, the opposite, namely, achieving statisfaction. there would be no reason to sell components which furthered one's sonic objectives.