You know you have audiophile system when...
The definition of an audiophile systems is truly unknown, but recently after dabbling with tube rolling, power cables, and interconnects my system achieved a level where its clarity was no longer what grabbed my attention. Instead, I was distinctly hearing the bloom and decay of every note in the music. It’s just a different level that I believe has me listening to music differently. It translates into greater dynamics and voices and instruments having more distinct vibrato characteristics.
No. It has been defined lol.
An audiophile is... : a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction. But a lot of folks here don't care about audio fidelity, they would rather have their systems sound a certain way and play nice with bad recordings.
Sounds good is all that matters, right? |
Let's take it from the system user's viewpoint: -an audiophile is one who needs music to listen to his system; -music-lover is someone who needs the system to listen to the music. In this light, "sounds good is all that matters" can apply to both categories.
I guess we're all music-lovers tuning our systems to better enjoy the music |
YouTube's 'The Audiophile Man' describes an audiophile who sees music as the main thing...wants better music, better quality music...more information from their music....seeker of musical truth....as the guitar player played it, the drummer when he hit the drums...what he heard, what he experienced, what the band around him were going thru....the audiophile wants to part of that occasion...get closer to that time, those moments...wants to experience the art |
@omega125 , that's a good 'long form' description. 👍 But, like any pursuit that can lead to extremism, there are those that indulge. I suspect most, when at a certain point, be it age, budget,, the SAF ceiling, or just simple satiation or weariness of the 'chase'.... Stop. *L* There are 'niche' players; I am one. I like to listen not only to the music (#1), but to the 'system' when desired (#2). My system would make some shake their heads, and claim derangement. I don't really care, as others are more than welcome to pursue as desired/needed. Someone has to 'create' the odd 'used' item I may desire at some point. Takes all kinds to fill these forums. Have a pleasant week, J |
You know you have an audiophile system if you have heard your friends say.... Why do you need all those boxes? you must play your music really loud. Are those speakers or missle launchers? (I have Wilsons) Why do you have black garden hose coming from the back of your speakers? Why is there only one chair in the room? Can you turn the AC up? The more music you play, the warmer it gets in here. I think I'm hearing just the "RIGHT" amount of cowbell
Cheers Gents!! |
@ozzy hope I am never at that point. That is truly one dimensional. |
Do you ever think that most of it, the adjectives you used to describe your system are nothing more than a concerted effort on your part to hear those things, aspects of sound in a wishful thinking sort of way? Do other people hear the same improvements that you do? Isn’t the newfound bloom and decay in every note a sort of byproduct of the better clarity that you achieved? Here, let me give an example: I purchase a new pair of speakers and my amplifier doesn’t seem up to the task of powering it, I go out and get something else that’s up to the task. Now when I listen to a recording I know well, let’s take my favorite drum solo, "Storm", by Billy Cobham which is short, direct, and to the point. In the 2 or so minutes, there’s this (phase shifting ?) sound processing going on in the recording that I always heard but now because of the better dynamics, punch, and impact of the new amp, this sonic manipulation became something altogether different, really adding to the performance. I then later put back the old amplifier and I hear basically the same improvement but maybe less of it along with less of everything else I just described. I guess my point is that even without the new equipment I can hear these improvements now because I know that they are there now, helped by the more powerful sounding amp to guide me there. I hope that makes some sense. In a way, the new amp made my old amp sound better? |
It is true if someone have no idea about what is the acoustic definition of sound description, not an audiophile one, an acoustic one... When you know what the notion means it is because you know how to create them in an optimal way with the gear you own from your speakers/room/ears relation... Simple... What is listener envelopment/source width ratio and how to create it and improve it in small room? it is a technical question which anser differ in applied solution for each room... No adjectives needed here, machanical acoustic control and passive material treatment balance will do.... I can say my S.Q./price ratio is astounding, this is an adjective only, but the way i reach it with acoustic is what gives meaning to my sentence... I dont trust any reviewer now... They never thanks acoustic but the gear change they are motivated to speak about in the same room for years which is never optimized for a specific system ... Anybody can buy a good amplifier, one he can afford and say it is a marvel... But no amplifier will work marvel in a bad room... Most room if not bad are not acoustically optimal at all not optimized for a specific audio system... Then i trust acoustic and psycho-acoustic over any reviewer which are sellers anyway nothing more...
|
Audiophiledom is a club. As Groucho Marx said, I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member. Nobody want to be called an audiophile. Go into any record store that sells used records - the owners have one word audiophilenut. They don't bother to separate it into two. Seriously..."a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction". It can be any system or no system. |
Hello @asvjerry. How you been lately, my friend? |
I cannot say it better than jackhifiguy. |
too bad for you since jackhifiguy and others did not respond to the question which was how you know if you have an audiophile system, not whether you're an audiophile or the definition thereof. I liked mikeydee's answer best for humor or maybe arcam88's although i can listen for hours and smile on the road with just a car stereo. |
I can 'relate' to everything posted after my last. *L* @2channel8 , if Foxworthy is a 'phile, that was it... ;) Hi back 'atcha, @dabel ...*G* Hmmm....listening to this as of this moment:
...kinda sums up the past week, with Yrs Unruly = My B*tch., ...been a tweak week, onsite in SC on a project in the sprint to the Grand Opening to the public....
|
4th and 9th pans in the opening loop.... Looks 'rough' in the playground areas prior to the parking lot, but these are considerable older. Looks a lot more 'finished', now... https://unityparkgreenville.com/1843/Unity-Park We 'do' playground 'stuff.. *S* Yes, we take Play Seriously, we work @ play. 👍 THIS, AG, etc. is my play away from 'play'. ;) What and how I play during 'recreational' play is what I'm up to Now. *G* Y'all have a Great Weekend. |
@dabel ....Not bad, overall. *knuckle knock* Been awhile since I've had to spend 5 onsite daze in the field, but the old harness still fits....a little 'looser' of late. But now I get the occasional 'How old are you? Why aren't you retired?' The answer hangs on how I feel 'bout it....*G* "This IS my retirement. I've got guys to do the schlep stuff..." "You'd have me slack-jawed and drooling in front of a TV?!" "I don't golf. No tennis. This is my 'health club membership'." "I'm here because you needed an excuse and/or an example..."
I always 'swing for the stands' answering the odd queer queries. ;) How are you, d? *G* I'm functioning 'gud 'nuff.... |
@wyoboy - As often happens, the responses were not what I was looking for. In my system I have considered it to be an audiophile system since I first purchased it, but after rolling tubes and playing with power cables and interconnects it because apparent that it was at a very different level. I think the investment in cables that truly made the difference was about $250 which is relatively insignificant compared to the overall value of my system, but it made a huge difference. |
Now you've got me curious about the cables--interconnect or speaker and brand? My feeling that i had achieved an "audiophile system" was when i invested enough to have constant "wow" moments of "they are here" or "i am there" on live recordings (esp acoustic) and even studio recordings where the engineers attempted to achieve that with the miking and instrument placement. I wish that could have been achieved with cables only but it required a more significant investment in every category: amplification, speakers, DAC, turntable/tonearm/cart--but other than [possibly] cable tweaks or tonearm/cartridge upgrades i'm done---probably, maybe... |
@wyoboy - In my system, a Waudio 10AWG power cable made a significant difference for my amplifier and both Chicago and now Sydney interconnects from Audioquest made a significant difference between my DAC and amplifier. I have some other cables in the system, but really believe that these two made the most (if not all) difference. I’m not one to spend hours swapping things to verify everything to the Nth degree. I tend to decide what I want to upgrade to and if I don’t hear anything to the contrary I just go with it. The two cables above made immediate improvements in my system that were as significant to my ears as tube rolling has been in my Pathos Classic One MkIII amplifier. I struggle to really describe the changes, but the change is signicant enough that I can "hear it" even on recordings that I have not listened to for a long time. There's just a dynamic and depth that wasn't there prior to the cable upgrades. |
@jb1 - I like this one. |
@mceljo thanks for the info--i've been using AQ's Red River IC's for Pre to DAC--which appear to be almost the same cost as Sydney -- i'll go to AQ's site to see what the differences are. My amp came with a 10 awg PC so i haven't changed that out but it's not a huge cost to try yours so i may. I've been thinking about trying Pangea's as well. |
You know you have an audiophile system when you have done one of the followings to achieve it:
All jokes aside, I admire all those who truely enjoy their systems without thinking about what’s the next upgrade. Until then, many of us will be on an endless journey in search of audio nirvana. It’s all good. What a great hobby 😄 |
@wyoboy - I have an Audioquest AC-14XL for my DAC and I have not noticed any obvious differences/improvements. Before I upgraded from Chicago to Sydney interconnects I emailed Audioquest to answer some questions that had after reviewing their line-up. The Bridges and Falls series are a single cable and the Rivers and Elements series are two individual cables (required for some setups) so the relative price point isn't an obvious indicator of quality across the series. Their assessment was that Sydney would be a slightly better than Red River. Red River is superior to Golden Gate. They recommended Golden Gate ($80 for 1 meter) as being superior to Chicago ($100 per 1 meter). My assessment is that I should have purchased Golden Gate over Chicago originally as a better value and think that Sydney is one of the better values when comparing price point to included design features. I don't think that I'd upgrade from Red River to Sydney as I wouldn't expect a significant difference. Part of the reason that I chose Sydney is that it was about the most I'd be willing to pay. The Mackenzie is the next one up in price point and I believe that the triple-balanced design is optimized for balanced audio and they have just put RCA connectors on it because they can. They did confirm that all other things being equal, the double-balanced design is superior for RCA use and that their lines will be splitting as they have done with the Yukon. |
@tuberist --that's my standard as well and i feel like i'm there w/ my system--most of the time--ya never know exactly on amplified instruments b/c live you're hearing them through PA speakers so i use acoustic records to judge. @mceljo thanks for that info--i was too lazy to ask AQ but it's interesting that they say triple is best for balanced (which is not what i do) and double is better for RCA; however, i agree with you that it's unlikely i'll hear any difference if i went to Sydney from Red River. |
@wyoboy - I specifically asked them about the double vs. triple because with single ended cables there is only two conductors, so there isn't anything beyond double to be balanced. It doesn't mean that a triple-balanced design can sound good with single ended connectors, but I think it would be expected to result from other design factors. It's kind of a snake oil move to put single ended connectors on a cable designed for balanced audio as the result is just a more expensive cable that likely doesn't have the same performance value as it would for balanced audio. Too many customers simply assume that farther up the line and more expensive is always better. Sometime audio manufactures advertise things that simply don't pass the common sense test. The fact that the Yukon interconnects are double-balanced for RCA and triple-balanced for XLR with all of the other features being the same made me curious enough to ask about it. There's only so many ways to connect a cable with either two conductors or three conductors... |
@mceljo Totally agree but that really hadn't occurred to me at the time b/c i bought the RR cables used for half price (never unboxed according to seller and i'm reasonably sure that was the case) so it didn't matter to me much--if i were buying AQ cables from scratch i would probably have gone with Big Sur or Sydney as i use single-ended for everything and price seems a good value for features. |
@wyoboy - Sounds like you got a good deal and a solid value. If I had it to do over I'd have gone with Golden Gate as a first step and then would upgrade to the Sydney. The first step was an inexpensive step to prove to myself that upgraded interconnects would make a difference in my system. |
