"Audiophile Debate"

[Slippers On]

I would like to stir the soup here a little by introducing a debate of sorts. If you feel inclined to join in then please keep in mind the topic, as I'm sure it will throw up some sidetracks.

"An 'Audiophile' will never reach Nirvana unless he understands and accepts the unachievable"

My reason for introducing this is simply that for a number of years now I have been happy to be labeled as an audiophile without fully understanding what it meant. In fact when I registered on this site I did so as 'audiophile' rather than enthusiast. I have since given serious thought as to what this means. Questions of materialism and snobbery come into the equation also.

There is obviously a dictionary definition of Audiophile:- "devotee of high-fidelity sound reproduction" (Oxford English Dictionary).

But this definition is too wide ranging and incomplete. It does not, for instance, deal with the question of 'what is an acceptable level of Hi-Fi reproduction?" or "when does devotion translate into obsession?" or "what is proper Hi-Fidelity reproduction anyway?"

As an example...If you had the perfect room accoustics and the perfect replay equipment would you begin to exclude music from Recording Studios because it's contrived and not a live audition? Or, would you exclude live recordings which have been mastered so that the noisey audience is toned down, for the same reasons.

In television we accept "glossing over" such as "soft focus" on skin close ups, or blue tinged sheets which appear 'whiter than white' in washing powder adverts. This is part of the work of a TV company's equivilant of a sound mixer/masterer.

Does a true audiophile accept 'glossing over' of recordings and build his system around it or does he dismiss it and chase his Nirvana looking to find the perfect rendition of the true stage show as he might remember it? I bet he conveniently forgets the loud audience participation which helped make his night at the concert so memorable! The same close proximity would be unwelcomed on disc or tape, I'm sure.

There are many other aspects related to audiophilia, including the presentation of music in a manner pleasing to the listener, tone of rendition, soundstage, contentment with his equipment etc.


I would venture to redefine the meaning of Audiophile by at least including the words:-

"steadfast in his resolve to extrapolate every piece of information ingrained on the source material whether it be CD, LP, Tape or other; not necessarily in the way it was originally played in the studio or on stage but in the way the mixer imagined we should hear it."

I personally feel that my direction as an audiophile has shifted slightly as I'm now willing to accept that I am listening to any artist through a 'mixer-man' and within the confines of what he believes I should hear. My first step towards Nirvana. My next step is to get the tones right to match with my hearing.

I'm interested to hear some views.

Slippers firmly on :6:

[JohnMichael]

I must be a music lover first and an audiophile or audio enthusiast secondly. If I love a song, concerto or a symphony I love it no matter how I get to hear it. Be it in the car or in an elevator if it is something I enjoy I still enjoy it. My home system is much better than the one in the car but the music reaches me.

I recently changed amps and was listening to Mahler's "5th Symphony" when a part I find so beautiful was playing I had goose flesh. That had never happened before on my system. This reaction helped me realize I had made the right choice in components. This was in an untreated room with fairly inexpensive components by high end standards. The amp was a step up and inspired me to look for new speakers.

I am now listening to the new speakers. My choice of speakers is dictated by the size of my room and the fact I live in an apartment. Would I love accurate low bass? Yes but the room would not support the lowest fundamentals of music. Would my neighbors like me to have low bass? Probably not. I went for a two way with quality drivers in a very well made braced cabinet that is pretty. For my trouble I hear a more holographic soundstage, better seperation between instruments and a greater understanding of what the musicians are doing. I am hearing new things in familiar music.

So right now I am feeling like I have reached audio nirvana within the confines of my living space and responsiblity to those with whom I share the space. Maybe the question should be how long will my nirvana last.

[topspeed]

I'm unclear as to what the topic of debate is? Are we discussing the definition of "audiophile" or whether or not I think I'm an "audiophile?"

If an "audiophile" is someone seeking absolute fidelity, then in my experience many of the people that I've met that consider themselves "audiophiles" are in fact what I call gear geeks. These are people that think they are seeking the absolute truth in reproduction (a pipe dream, if ever there was one) yet are actually more enamored with the gear and tweaks than anything else. This is fine, it's a hobby after all and as long as you are enjoying yourself, who am I to criticize? However, to switch out pieces so often, it is clear to me they are more interested in the journey than the end result.

Perhaps that is the true defintion of "audiophile": the pursuit of something that cannot be realized. A very successful person I know once relayed that in life, it isn't knowing the "Why" that is important; indeed, it's the constant search for it that matters.

I must say that I do think there is a fair amount of ego involved with the "audiophile" label, warranted or not. Perhaps some find it be a sign of good breeding or refined tastes, much like being a wine connoisseur. If you look at the horrific prices vendors charge for most "hi-end" pieces, there is certainly an aspect of "priviledge" to the hi-end that many audiophiles aspire to. Again, there is nothing wrong with this, it's simply a matter of priorities. Personally, I'm far more satisfied finding a bottle of 2 buck chuck that can stand toe to toe with a Turley Zin.

[Slippers On]

I suppose really what we are trying to do is to get some discussion going about what really is an audiophile and whether one considers oneself to be one.

The word ‘audiophile’ suggest a “present-continuous” state – that one is continually seeking to achieve the highest level of sound production. In seeking out that goal, (or Nirvana), some people go to many extremes.

Do they ever stop?
Is money necessary to get there?
Are we following like sheep in the wake of commercialisation?

Do you even need to listen to music or only pursue a desire to reproduce HiFi sound? An example might be a tone deaf, (or wholly deaf), engineer who spends his life trying to battle electrical resistance in equipment design – is he an audiophile?

Or, as Topspeed says, “a gear geek” tweaking away seemingly never satisfied. Is he one?

There are loads of questions and examples out there to stimulate some answers. Perhaps if the Oxford English Dictionary had a better definition it would help slap-down some of the misuse and mystic thrown up by commercial companies and Hi-Fi press. In my mind they are responsible for turning the word into an elitist cliché. This is causing division in Hi-Fi circles and propagates snobbery.

Topspeed hit on another excellent point:- “more interested in the journey than the end result”. Is this not part of the fabric of life? How often has the end result of one’s trials become an anti-climax, yet the journey itself been inspiring?

I believe there is no end, just lots of little climaxes. As I said, my understanding of audiophilia is a present-continuous, an ongoing past-time aimed at getting better reproduction. JohnMichael you put it succinctly in your post above when you said you experienced ‘goose bumps’ after changing amps. Did you stop there? No – you believed you could do even better so you introduced more changes within your own confines.

So, in this thread I venture that we perhaps should try to articulate a collective definition of the word ‘Audiophile’.

Can we agree so far that an audiophile should include:

1. A person.
2. Hi-Fi sound reproduction.
3. interested in achieving some goal.
4. includes some level of devotion by the person.

Please add to this list or feel free to question anything on the list as it grows. Examples are always a powerful means of persuasion so please give some. You might want to stimulate things by throwing up your own questions or beliefs, everything is welcomed.

You might think, who are we to define a word which is already set in stone, - well we are perfectly positioned to do so on this website for we are a concentrated community of likeminded people with similar interests. We maybe don’t like the way others, with more selfish interests, have labelled us and have caused us and others to believe that you need Big Bucks or a sophisticated mind to be an audiophile.



Slippers beside me at the ready

[kexodusc]

I don't know what the word audiophile used to mean, but today it probably means something else.
In my experience, and with a few exceptions to the rule, the people who would call themselves audiophiles these days tend to make great efforts to exclude others from achieving "audiophile" status based on some arbitrary cost levels or design philosophies.

I know 2 people in my town who I would consider audiophiles. Both are very nice guys btw. One person has dedicated theater and listening rooms in house with some incredibly high-end gear that makes you feel like you've entered a museum when you visit. The sound is exceptional. I'm pretty sure he's spent more on his system than I did on my last 2 cars.

The other has spent years reading, studying to learn even the most minute subtleties of sound reproduction, invests hundreds of hours of his time via physical labor each year into hand building his system to his specifications, yet probably has a home theater and stereo system coming in at under $4 K, including the TV. This guy is a judge, and is certainly able to pay the bills.

Both these guys cut checks each year to a charity I'm involved with that could otherwise be used to buy a Nissan.

The first guy would never consider the second an audiophile, the second guy would never want be one. I don't know what to make of that except both scenarios shouldn't happen, yet it seems to be an all too common occurance in this hobby these days.

[GMichael]

I am not an audiophile and could never afford to become one. But, I'll be happy to visit. Should I bring the coffee?

[E-Stat]

I suppose really what we are trying to do is to get some discussion going about what really is an audiophile and whether one considers oneself to be one…

I’ve been an audiophile since I discovered that listening to music had an emotional effect on me. I got my first portable Zenith AM radio when I was about 10. I also discovered that listening to music gave my mind something to do other than just race around. Which is likely why I became a more “critical” listener because I enjoy the pursuit of hearing more out of my favorite recordings.

I believe all of us share some common characteristics, but are unique combinations of the various expressions of audiophilia. In no particular order, here are the aspects I see:

1. Passion for music
2. Passion for fine equipment
3. Passion for experimentation with the principles of audio reproduction
4. Passion for perceived status
5. Passion for visual stimulation
6. Passion for handiwork
7. Passion for finding something missing in one’s life
8. Passion for new discoveries


I have experienced each of these to some degree over the past forty odd years and my mix continues to evolve. I think the “dark side” occurs when one believes there is only one truth, whether he’s a “tweak” who finds Nirvana only after having rolled countless NOS tubes or an engineering sort who flatly rejects that which lies outside of their experience.

Does it take money to be an audiophile? Yes and no. It does provide a certain freedom for more discovery. Throwing lots of money into a system assuming expensive is always better, on the other hand, doesn’t work either. One can find great enjoyment in a modestly priced, yet well-matched system. Matching is always the key. Here’s my take of the aspects I mentioned.

1. Passion for music

Hopefully, this has always been a dominant characteristic in one’s mix. I measure it more by passion and not quantity. I believe I get as much enjoyment from my fairly modest library of about 600 albums as two friends who each have more than 5,000. I had more, but culled the herd because I simply didn’t listen to them any more. I find and keep a favorite version of a particular piece and not worry about having six different versions of something like Beethoven’s 9th.

2. Passion for fine equipment

Many guys have a natural inclination to appreciate fine, well built machines and devices.. I saved and worked to get an Omega Flightmaster watch when I was 13. That was overkill for a kid, but I thought it was extremely cool at the time. The expression of that passion also differs from individual to individual. I prefer the well built, but understated look of say Audio Research gear rather than the more extroverted appearance of McIntosh. With audio gear, fine quality doesn’t always translate to better sound. Conversely, there is some very good sounding, yet built to undemanding standards stuff that sounds pretty good. Since I tend to have long term relationships with gear, I find it advantageous to have stuff that will last and can be repaired for as long as you want it to function.

3. Passion for experimentation with the principles of audio reproduction

Many guys like to understand exactly what makes things tick. The effect of rooms. The effect of different capacitors in a crossover. The effect of different tubes or ICs. The effect of adjusting certain frequencies. The effect of properly matching cartridges to arms to cables to preamps. The effect of various noise reduction strategies. As for me, I’ve had passing interest in some of those aspects, but only as a means to and end.

4. Passion for perceived status

Although hi-fi gear today is generally a poor symbol of conspicuous consumption as compared with more readily identified examples like fancy cars, watches and houses, some nevertheless invest a great deal of money seeking this goal. The motto is “Nothing succeeds like excess”. I really don’t relate to that concept today. Go buy a Cadillac and Rolex instead.

5. Passion for visual stimulation

While audio is clearly an auditory stimulus, the expression of some audio gear can clearly be visual as well. A component may be stylish in a fashion sense in order to match room décor or express a gee-whiz angle offering all sorts of knobs, sliders, controls, indicators, displays, meters, etc. to titillate the senses. I remember the first time I saw an all McIntosh system back in my teens. Turn one dial, and the whole wall lit up in green and blue. Wow. It ranked high on the “Gee whiz, Wally” effect. After having my first back lit receiver, I got over that aspect.

6. Passion for handiwork

Here is a means of personal expression for those who choose to build or modify their gear. Whether they assemble a pre amp kit or hand craft a speaker cabinet, there is a sense of pride in the result of much work to achieve the goals. When I was much younger, I built several Dynakits and modified all sorts of components. There is quite a DIY community in audio today as well as the past.

7. Passion for finding something missing in one’s life

I look at this in two different ways. In my case, I was the only member of my family or circle of friends who had the same passion for music. While I liked doing other activities that I *should* enjoy, I nevertheless found great joy in just sitting down to listen to music. I finally accepted the fact that I was quite content in what is usually a solitary activity. The other side involves some poor souls who somehow believe that the pursuit of audiophilia itself can provide happiness. I met one such individual back in the 70s when I worked at a hi-fi shop. He had about twelve records and was constantly changing equipment. He ended up buying four pair of Dahlquist speakers from us. Buy a pair. Sell them. Buy another pair. Sell them. Don’t think he was ever happy.

8. Passion for new discoveries

I understand this concept well. I have always enjoyed the hunt of hearing something new in the music that I had never before experienced. As I mentioned earlier, listening to music is a way to put my mind to work – and relax at the same time. While that sounds paradoxical, it seems to be the case with me. I was constantly upgrading my system when I was a teenager. I’d work summers and plan how I would invest my earnings in the system. I wanted to hear the best. I see myself in our young member Basite. Fortunately for me, I was finally able to satisfy the constant search aspect through developing a long term friendship with a couple audio reviewers. Frequent exposure to a wide range of exotic stuff was a lot cheaper than my having to throw away a lot of money to satisfy the need to hear a wide range of components. There came a time when I realized that I had effectively climbed the mountain and found the summit. While there will always be better, I had finally heard an extraordinary system that completely recalibrated my point of reference. I realized that merely experiencing it was enough.

rw

[kexodusc]

GM, I don't think money or an affinity or desire for some arbitrary level of equipment have anything to do with being an audiophile.
One can be an audiophile without sufficient means to build the best system possible.

Personally, I think a super love of "audio" and a desire to reproduce it as faithfully as is feasible is all it takes. Anything else is just a personal trait.

[audio amateur]

I don't think I'm ever going to look at slippers the same way:)

[Feanor]

...
I would venture to redefine the meaning of Audiophile by at least including the words:-

"steadfast in his resolve to extrapolate every piece of information ingrained on the source material whether it be CD, LP, Tape or other; not necessarily in the way it was originally played in the studio or on stage but in the way the mixer imagined we should hear it."

...

What you describe is a search for "accuracy" as I personally defined that term. That is, accurate reproduction of the recording rather than the live performance. Of course the difficult is that you can't really what that accuracy is unless you were in the studio with the recording engineer.

But not all audiophiles accept this definition of accuracy: instead they define it to be the sound of live performance. (I don't personally agree with that.) Furthermore many audiophiles would admit that they are looking for a "musical" or euphonic sound rather than accuracy per se.

[thekid]

I am getting a strong sense of Deja Vu on this question/debate? but perhaps it is just old age.......back to the question.

In the broadest sense of the term whenever "phile" is attached to a word it means "love of".
I would tend to agree with those who spoke of passion/love of the hobby of audio and all that entails when using the term.

The biggest problem with the term "audiophile" among many who use it, is that they do so in order to establish their rank or status within the hobby. Using their own standards often based on knowledge or the cost of their equipment they define themselves as "audiophiles" and others who don't meet that standard as something less.

IMO other hobbyists or people whose use the term "phile" do not normally do this and they are happy to include anyone who shares their passion/love of the particular subject or hobby. It is basic human nature to categorize/label things or people so that we can navigate our way through life but when we come to hobbies I think we should generally be happy with the fact we have found people with like interest/passions and deal with them on what ever level they are coming from or the cost of their equipment.

[Slippers On]

This is exactly the type of debate I'd hoped for,keep it coming!

Is it not true that the original word 'Audiophile' has been hi-jacked by unscrupulous persons/interests intent in 'cashing in' in our hobby to a point where it splits the Hi-Fi community?

Slippers shuffling

[thekid]

This is exactly the type of debate I'd hoped for,keep it coming!

Is it not true that the original word 'Audiophile' has been hi-jacked by unscrupulous persons/interests intent in 'cashing in' in our hobby to a point where it splits the Hi-Fi community?

Slippers shuffling

I guess you could say there are mags/vendors out there that push the label/exclusivity of "audiophiles" in order to make a few bucks. I notice some of the magazines out there don't every seem to ever review gear less than $1500 as if anything less would be beneath them.

I would say individuals on audio web sites have done most of the "hi-jacking" to support their POV.

[jim goulding]

I think that the actual reproduction of the recording and live music are the same thing if by live music we are talking about the recorded event. Wouldn't we want transparency to that as it was live in the making? Then on heavily modulated stuff we can expect accuracy, I would think.

[E-Stat]

I guess you could say there are mags/vendors out there that push the label/exclusivity of "audiophiles" in order to make a few bucks. I notice some of the magazines out there don't every seem to ever review gear less than $1500 as if anything less would be beneath them.
You must separate the passion from the (sometimes) over the top business angle. Every day Honda Civics have four wheel independent suspension, rack and pinion steering, disk brakes at every corner, and a high revving double overhead camshaft engine - stuff that only exotics had in the 50s and 60s. Similarly, even modest hi-fi gear has benefited from trends started by "exotic" audio gear through the 70s and 80s.

You don't have to own a Ferrari Modena to appreciate its lineage and performance envelope. As far as I'm concerned, the same is true with audio gear. While some make it a materialistic spectacle, I find it enjoyable to simply hear some world class systems for what they are able to do. Then I return to enjoying my own systems.

rw

[emaidel]

I guess I have to consider myself an audiophile. From the first time I heard a phonograph that sounded noticeably better than another one, I was hooked. Hearing reproduced sound that rivals reality, or studio reality, still gives me the chills. Replacing components within my system, including interconnecting cables, and hearing a noticeable difference is also something I find highly enjoyable.

I have always been one for sonic detail and clarity, which is probably why I like my Dahlquist DQ-10's so much. Now that I'm "feeding" them a proper diet, and have them placed at what at least seems to be the optimum location they've ever been in, I'm continually amazed at the sounds I hear on older recordings which I'd never heard before. That one aspect - hearing stuff you've never heard before - is one of the most exciting things about audio gear I can think of.

In the heyday of the industry (late 70's to early 80's), audiophiles were referred to as "tweaks," and had little use for reason and practicality. If someone designed an oak-covered brick to place on top of an amplifier (and someone actually did design this!), and a tweak heard a "dramatic improvement" in sound by using this Brick, then good for him. As for the rest of those of us down here on planet Eearth, such an idea is inherently ridiculous. This "brick" was sold to reduce "capacitor clatter." Capacitor clatter? Gimme a break!

Not wanting to be associated with the other-wordly beliefs and thoughts of audiophiles during the industry's best period probably resulted in my deliberately not trying to use the term to describe myself.

Audiophiles come in degrees: those, like me, who'll spend large sums of money on equipment to improve the listening experience, and those who'll spend ridiculously huge sums of money, only because someone else said that "such-and-such" an item was worth its $25,000 price tag.

[thekid]

You must separate the passion from the (sometimes) over the top business angle. Every day Honda Civics have four wheel independent suspension, rack and pinion steering, disk brakes at every corner, and a high revving double overhead camshaft engine - stuff that only exotics had in the 50s and 60s. Similarly, even modest hi-fi gear has benefited from trends started by "exotic" audio gear through the 70s and 80s.

You don't have to own a Ferrari Modena to appreciate its lineage and performance envelope. As far as I'm concerned, the same is true with audio gear. While some make it a materialistic spectacle, I find it enjoyable to simply hear some world class systems for what they are able to do. Then I return to enjoying my own systems.

rw

Don't disagree. You do need someone out there on the technology side pushing the envelope so that eventually when the ecoomy of scale and other factors kick in you have improvements. People passions for cars is very similar to audio and I see some of the same attitudes. I suppose that is why you see so many car clubs that are devoted to a specific make/model.

[Mr Peabody]

Some good thoughts have been expressed. I think of audiophile as some one with the passion for music and hi fi gear. Some have come to associate audiophile with snobbary or eliteism but I think as in anything we should not stereotype. I do consider myself an audiophile. I also consider many others here audiophiles and don't exclude any one unless they exclude themselves. Some are merely hobbiests are Home Theater buffs who aren't really into the music end of it and I don't consider them audiophiles. A person should not be excluded from being an audiophile because of the means. They could be an audiophile and still have a modest system. Because they can't afford top line gear doesn't mean they don't appreciate it or enjoy it when opportunity presents itself. I also feel an audiophile should have some knowledge of the hobby, so running out and buying a $20k system don't automatically make you an audiophile. I feel I was always an audiophile, collecting music, always trying to find better gear and gaining knowledge. But my knowledge grew the most when discovering stores with true high end gear, doing listening, comparing and from getting the internet to exchange ideas with others with the same passion. Also, you can't stereotype because as in my case audiophiles can change their views and goals.

My goal was in the beginning to acquire the most accurate gear I could find, coming closest to reproducing the true tone of an instrument. First, this is a problem because it's totally subjective. I ended up using Krell and Dynaudio. I still think Krell is the best for reproducing certain aspects of music like impact, dynamics and control. I was not satisfied though, I was upgrading and changing gear around. Krell had a "wow" factor but I wasn't fully enjoying it though. I remembered years back hearing a tube system that blew me away with a certain presence but I dismissed that direction because my mind set at the time was "accuracy" and tubes had flaws. I started switching to tube gear little by litttle. Luckily I found Conrad Johnson equipment. after finally switching out my Krell 500i integrated with CJ separates I reached sort of a satisfaction. I loved the sound but missed the power. So I bought another power amp and had CJ turn them to mono and I was set. Tube gear has come a long way in some cases from our father's day which eliminates many of the stereotypes of tubes. It is still a trade off, giving up some of the impact and control for more presence and micro/macro dynamics, I don't want to hijack the thread by getting into tube/SS, this is just my journey. I can say now that I haven't changed any components in over a year and a restlessness I had is gone. I don't browse the internet for a good deal looking to upgrade somewhere. Actually, I like my system so much the way it is, I'm almost afraid to change anything. I think many may be looking for that "just right" system. Hopefully, some day they will find it.

[E-Stat]

If someone designed an oak-covered brick to place on top of an amplifier (and someone actually did design this!), and a tweak heard a "dramatic improvement" in sound by using this Brick, then good for him. As for the rest of those of us down here on planet Eearth, such an idea is inherently ridiculous.
Ridiculous only to those who lack understanding of the problem addressed. Here's a perfect example of identifying a particular problem and solving it using existing technology. "Capacitor clatter"? Who told you that crap? The issue is the EMF field produced by conventional iron core transformers. The VPI brick contained laminated metal that absorbed the field and reduced noise. You placed them directly above the transformer.

Today, those are rendered unnecessary by the (now) widespread use of toroidal transformers which exhibit far less magnetic leakage. Why do you think they virtually replaced the older type of transformer?

rw

[emaidel]

"Capacitor clatter"? Who told you that crap?
rw


A retailer in Berkeley, California who sold this brick, or a version of one. I just about laughed out loud when he said, "It significantly reduces capacitor clatter." What was next? "Inductor indifference?"


And, this "brick" was a brick, encased in oak.

[E-Stat]

A retailer in Berkeley, California who sold this brick, or a version of one.
Too much of that 60s Haight-Asbury thing methinks.

rw

[Feanor]

...

In the heyday of the industry (late 70's to early 80's), audiophiles were referred to as "tweaks," and had little use for reason and practicality. If someone designed an oak-covered brick to place on top of an amplifier (and someone actually did design this!), and a tweak heard a "dramatic improvement" in sound by using this Brick, then good for him. As for the rest of those of us down here on planet Eearth, such an idea is inherently ridiculous. This "brick" was sold to reduce "capacitor clatter." Capacitor clatter? Gimme a break!

Not wanting to be associated with the other-wordly beliefs and thoughts of audiophiles during the industry's best period probably resulted in my deliberately not trying to use the term to describe myself.

...

... The more they stay the same.

Check out Machina Dynamica ...
http://www.machinadynamica.com/

:rolleyes:

[musicoverall]

A retailer in Berkeley, California who sold this brick, or a version of one. I just about laughed out loud when he said, "It significantly reduces capacitor clatter." What was next? "Inductor indifference?"


And, this "brick" was a brick, encased in oak.

One of the problems of audiophilia is (IMHO) that retailers and manufacturers can't simply say that something works - they have to explain why. So they make up these bogus terms (capacitor clatter, for goodness sake!) and ridiculous pseudo-science to expalin why their stuff works. The science is then ripped apart by scientists as being bogus. Then audiophiles are made to look foolish.

I'd much prefer someone say "I don't know how this works but it does".

Toroid tremors... resistor regurgitations... Criminy!

[thekid]

Capacitor Clatter.... I love the aliteration...... It has that techno/simplistic ring to it that actually makes it sound plausible. I think the next time I am late with a project at work I can use it as an excuse as in;

I was in the middle of the data mining when my laptop experienced some capacitor clatter and I was forced to shut it down until the IT people resolved the issue.....

[basite]

... The more they stay the same.

Check out Machina Dynamica ...
http://www.machinadynamica.com/

:rolleyes:


I saw some dude trying to sell a 'processed' tennis ball on ebay; he said that it would perform miracles...

cost $20 a piece...

but it was a parody or so, somekind of an answer to the machinadynamica stuff out there :cornut:

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[Slippers On]

It is the "itch" of being an audiophile which annoys me at times - the need to try something else. It is this "itch" which has led the industry to fleece the tweaker at every juncture.

I found myself heading in one direction ... to try to reproduce not what pleased me but what I thought an audiophile should be searcing for - the reproduction of a live concert. I lost sight of enjoying the music and instead began to listen for things I thought should be there.

I have since changed my direction and have once again started to listen to music. I too like the Krells but also sometimes my mood takes me to listening to my valve set-up which gives me an equally joyful listen. I can now allow my mood to dictate how I listen and not what I think I should be listening to.

As a sidenote; last month for a laugh I wrote a letter to 'Hi-Fi Choice' magazine telling them that the reason there are not many lady audiophiles is because their earings set up micro-vibrations which interfered with the true path of soundwaves as they converged on the ear :) --- it would surprise me NOT if it was published! Perhaps a brick on the head would cure their 'chatter clatter'?


Slippers Off

[basite]

btw, slippers on,

how do you like those luxmans?
and how does your setup look like? I'm very curious how all those gears look together, and how those townshend speakers look in real life...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[Feanor]

... Actually, I like my system so much the way it is, I'm almost afraid to change anything. I think many may be looking for that "just right" system. Hopefully, some day they will find it.

My system is very well balanced in my own opinion. Now my emphasis is on collecting music. In my case that's experiencing more of the classical repertoire, including contemporary composers. This pursuit has the potential to burn burn plenty of cash without also buying equipment.

I have put the emphasis on components that will yield the most improvements overall, even a little more expense. Obviously speakers are critical, then amps and preamps, then sources. I caution people with entry to mid-range systems against pissing away a lot of money on interconnects, cables, and power cords and power conditions: though they might be cheaper than other components but they are typically poor value just the same.

Still, I'm tempted to get new DAC :biggrin5:

[Mr Peabody]

Feanor you have a bassackwards approach to mine. Speakers are last because that's the END result. Source is the most important. Your speakers can do absolutely nothing if they aren't delivered a good signal to begin with. I wish I could put my Krell on the front end of your system, it would change your perspective as well as your view of SACD.

This is something you can easily observe, put an entry level set of speakers on your system and listen, then, listen to the same material with the regular speakers back in place but an entry CDP on front.

Not many on this board put money into a source equal their system and it's a shame because it might just be the cure they seek.

[Feanor]

Feanor you have a bassackwards approach to mine. Speakers are last because that's the END result. Source is the most important. Your speakers can do absolutely nothing if they aren't delivered a good signal to begin with. I wish I could put my Krell on the front end of your system, it would change your perspective as well as your view of SACD.

This is something you can easily observe, put an entry level set of speakers on your system and listen, then, listen to the same material with the regular speakers back in place but an entry CDP on front.

Not many on this board put money into a source equal their system and it's a shame because it might just be the cure they seek.

Surely this is an old debate, Mr.P, and I'm not sure we're destined to agree. The debate is between the schools ...

"The sound can never sound better than the source" school
"Improve the weakest link in the chain" school.I completely agree, of course, that improvements can be made by upgrading any component. I have found the least improvement changing cables of various sorts, followed by changes to digital sources -- that's just my own experience. Changes to speakers, amplifiers, and preamps including tubes, all have more obvious impact.

Honestly though, I have never had a really great digital component in my system, if I could it might change my mind. I'll admit I have had a really bad digital source which was an early Toshiba DVD player -- the CD sound was horrible.

Analog sources are another matter: cartridges are very critical, (although I think it' insane to spend thousands on an item that is so easily damaged and wears out after a couple of thousand hours).

[E-Stat]

Surely this is an old debate, Mr.P, and I'm not sure we're destined to agree.
Everything matters in a system but I am first and foremost a speaker (actually transducer) guy so I share your view. My main system is built around the stats. Then I picked amplifiers that work well with them. On the other hand, I am amazed at how good my vintage double New Advents sound when given a very clean front end and amplification (mostly hand-me-down stuff). Those two systems represent completely different perspectives on speaker to system investment (64% vs. 10%, respectively) yet the net result in both cases is quite good.

Go figure.

rw

[thekid]

I don't think there can be an absolute answer to the Amp vs speaker upgrade debate. I think it is probably on a almost case by case basis.

The reason I say that is I look at my old pair of Bose 201 Series II speakers which were admittedly adequate when I had used them with a variety of amps such as a Panasonic HE-70, Pioneer VSX 815 and 516. I am not saying these are top of the line units but the 815 was hghly rated by S&V so I would not consider it a slouch as receiver's go. However, recently I went ahead and hooked the 201's up to my Gladding vintage amp which is 30 years old and only about 25 wpc. The result is the 201's sound nicer than they ever have before. Would you say that the Gladding reciever was an "upgrade" from the prior newer-more powerful wpc units? I don't think so, it just is a case where the one receiver just mates well to the speakers. I am sure others can site other examples similar to this one.

IMO it is not where you start amp or speaker but where you finish-i.e. did you find the best receiver/speaker marriage that produces the best sound?

[Mr Peabody]

I've never heard of Gladding. If it was up with Luxman or Mac it would be considered an upgrade from Pioneer. Of course, most things are though :)

[thekid]

Mr P.

If you are interested in some photos of the Gladding unit, I posted some over on one of my thread's over in the vintage forum. It is a quad unit from 73-74 from what I was able to find out very simialr to the some of the Lafayette from the same period. Someone actually sent me an ad over at Quadrophonic
http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?p=69538&posted=1#post69538
from a catalog from that time period. It's bloodlines are unknown since it was made in Japan for Gladding which was only the distributor some people on different threads have speculated that it was possibly made for Gladding by Pioneer or Standard but I have not seen anything to back that up. In it's day it ran about $500 with the CD-4 demodular which would have made the unit fairly expensive for that time period but I am not sure it would be in the class of a Lux or Mac.

Still it is an interesting piece and I am still trying to figure out how I am going to use it. I have an old Sony RTR player that I am trying to find some tapes for and I am thinking of hooking the Gladding up to that along with my next vintage speaker find (although I guess at this point since the 201's are about 20 years old they now qualify as vintage) I will be picking up a Sears Silvertone console from 1961 or 1962 during an x-mas visit and plan on using it as kind of a entertainment center for my vintage stuff.

Not sure if owning equipment like the Gladding, RTR speakers or even 20 year old 201's qualifies me as an audiophile or a cheap guy who likes old gear .......... :)

[musicoverall]

Surely this is an old debate, Mr.P, and I'm not sure we're destined to agree. The debate is between the schools ...

"The sound can never sound better than the source" school
"Improve the weakest link in the chain" school.I completely agree, of course, that improvements can be made by upgrading any component. I have found the least improvement changing cables of various sorts, followed by changes to digital sources -- that's just my own experience. Changes to speakers, amplifiers, and preamps including tubes, all have more obvious impact.

Honestly though, I have never had a really great digital component in my system, if I could it might change my mind. I'll admit I have had a really bad digital source which was an early Toshiba DVD player -- the CD sound was horrible.

Analog sources are another matter: cartridges are very critical, (although I think it' insane to spend thousands on an item that is so easily damaged and wears out after a couple of thousand hours).

I'm going with speakers first. I've performed the experiment Mr P mentioned and in all cases, the system with the better speakers and lesser digital front end outperformed the opposite. Digital front ends do make a difference but not as much as speakers.

Obviously, the best system employs the best sounding of all categories.

[Mr Peabody]

Kid, I'm thinking about getting my daughter some good amplified speakers and using the computer for her music. This would free up some space. If this ever comes about I have a vintage Sansui integrated AU-9500 I'll give you first dibbs on. This was their top of the line in early 70's and is outstanding by today's measures. I was pretty impressed by the detail and fidelity of this amp. I think it would give you quite a reference point.

Musicoverall, what CD source did you use in those experiments? I've never had your outcome. I suspect either the source wasn't of quality to make the systems really opposite or something was lost from one end to the other. If there are subtleties on a disc not brought out by a entry level player you'll never hear them in your high end speakers no matter what you do. If a high end player send those subtleties on you will most likely hear them in a entry level speaker, although maybe not well or accurate as possible.

[thekid]

Kid, I'm thinking about getting my daughter some good amplified speakers and using the computer for her music. This would free up some space. If this ever comes about I have a vintage Sansui integrated AU-9500 I'll give you first dibbs on. This was their top of the line in early 70's and is outstanding by today's measures. I was pretty impressed by the detail and fidelity of this amp. I think it would give you quite a reference point.

Mr.P

That is a very generous offer. I have heard a lot of positive opininos of the early Sansui units.
How much $ would you be looking for? I am getting ready to start paying college and might need to start putting money into a Sansui fund........ :)

Happy Holidays!!

[Mr Peabody]

Why don't you PM an offer to me. If you are interested the rest of that system is a Yamaha 5 disc carousel and a pair of Dynaudio Audience 40's. The 40's are Dyn's but I'd sell them reasonable as well. I also have a pair of little AR's, I forgot the model but they are 5 1/4 2-way bookshelf, not even close to the 40's but would easy to drive with vintage gear. The AU-9500 I believe is rated at 90 wpc, I haven't looked at the specs since I got it. It drives the Dyn's great but the 9500 would play much louder with a more efficient speaker. In my opinion the 9500 with the 40's has very good sound quality and some one would have to spend some big dollar to top it. What impressed me is I have yet to hear a vintage piece have the bass detail of the 9500. I'd say it comes close to an Arcam integrated, maybe not quite as fast, the mids and highs are just as good.

The 9500 has bass, treble & a midrange tone controls. It also offers selectable turnover frequencies for each. It also offers a separate high pass and low pass filter switches. Shaping the sound to your liking wouldn't be difficult. I don't use the filters and keep it pretty much flat. The amp is in great shape. What I like about it is the build, the knobs have a firm click. I really hate to part with a piece like this once I've found it but I don't have the room for all my stuff and I think you'd get a lot of enjoyment out of it. The only draw back to this or most vintage gear is they didn't think about high quality speaker wire so we just have those spring loaded inputs.

[jim goulding]

If I were in the market, I'd audition some Zu Druids with an integrated tube amp using my current front ends and see what I'd think. I think I'd be out around 5k for both new . . that much I know. Silverline SR 17's, maybe, on the used market but with solid state power as these are not especially efficient.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Just to weigh in here,

I think an audiophile is one who takes the time to identify where improvements can be made and take measures to get the most from his/hers current system regardless of the price/value. These tweeks can be free such as speaker placement, proper cartridge alignment, etc. or can cost up to thousands of $ like esoteric cables, power conditioning, etc.

An audiophile, IMHO, also seeks out the best source material available to allow the system to perform at its full potential. We all have heard very modest systems out perform higher price systems and alot of this can be attributed to having a balanced system and proper setup.

So, to me an audiophile is someone who cares about music reproduction and spends some effort ($?) to seek/achieve a SQ level which satisfies or exceeds his/hers expectations.
__________________

[Mr Peabody]

Luvin DB, good post, I tried to leave a positive chicklet but I must have given you one before without spreading enough other BS, I mean chicklets, around.

[musicoverall]

Kid, I'm thinking about getting my daughter some good amplified speakers and using the computer for her music. This would free up some space. If this ever comes about I have a vintage Sansui integrated AU-9500 I'll give you first dibbs on. This was their top of the line in early 70's and is outstanding by today's measures. I was pretty impressed by the detail and fidelity of this amp. I think it would give you quite a reference point.

Musicoverall, what CD source did you use in those experiments? I've never had your outcome. I suspect either the source wasn't of quality to make the systems really opposite or something was lost from one end to the other. If there are subtleties on a disc not brought out by a entry level player you'll never hear them in your high end speakers no matter what you do. If a high end player send those subtleties on you will most likely hear them in a entry level speaker, although maybe not well or accurate as possible.

I've used several. The main problem with music reproduction in the home is not the CD player. There are differences but they are dwarfed by the shortcomings of speakers and room acoustics. I could just as easily say that in your experiments, your speakers must not have been up to the task. :) The audiophile dictum of "source first" makes theoretical sense but it also holds as a tenet that the various sources must vary greatly. They don't, IME.
The best way to show off the massive problems with speakers is to listen through a good set of headphones like Sennheiser 650's or better. Funny how they can not only make good recordings sound awesome but they can make lousy recordings sound good. So they are both supremely neutral and forgiving. And it is not subtle.

[Mr Peabody]

We will have to agree to disagree i guess, your statement that sources don't vary much is just not accurate. The source can dramatically change the sound of an entire system. And, that statement is the crux of our difference.

The experiment or demonstration I was talking about you should have entry level speakers, that's part of the point. The first time I heard a Mac tube amp it was in a service shop and hooked to a cheap pair of Kenwood speakers they used in there just for testing. The superiority of the Mac still came through those cheap speakers in spades, I was amazed by the gear. If I had for instance some Dyn's on the Mac it would be a large improvement but sticking a Kenwood receiver on the Dyn's ain't going to make it sound close to the quality it did with the Mac.

Again, I think you suffer from not having a good source. I only have HD-600's but I use them to evaluate subtleties between cables as well as listening and I wouldn't call them exactly forgiving on a bad recording. My Audio Note is more forgiving but my Krell cd player just left a bad recording bare and sounded like the crap it was. You'd think that Krell with it's dynamics and power would be a good system for R&R but not so on a bad recording, brutally honest, and I soon learned the recordings of the 80's were pretty bad. This may also depend on whether you used your headphones through the receiver or CD headphone out or used a head amp. I usually go from my source into a Musical Fidelity X-can amp.

[musicoverall]

We will have to agree to disagree i guess, your statement that sources don't vary much is just not accurate. The source can dramatically change the sound of an entire system. And, that statement is the crux of our difference.

The experiment or demonstration I was talking about you should have entry level speakers, that's part of the point. The first time I heard a Mac tube amp it was in a service shop and hooked to a cheap pair of Kenwood speakers they used in there just for testing. The superiority of the Mac still came through those cheap speakers in spades, I was amazed by the gear. If I had for instance some Dyn's on the Mac it would be a large improvement but sticking a Kenwood receiver on the Dyn's ain't going to make it sound close to the quality it did with the Mac.

Again, I think you suffer from not having a good source. I only have HD-600's but I use them to evaluate subtleties between cables as well as listening and I wouldn't call them exactly forgiving on a bad recording. My Audio Note is more forgiving but my Krell cd player just left a bad recording bare and sounded like the crap it was. You'd think that Krell with it's dynamics and power would be a good system for R&R but not so on a bad recording, brutally honest, and I soon learned the recordings of the 80's were pretty bad. This may also depend on whether you used your headphones through the receiver or CD headphone out or used a head amp. I usually go from my source into a Musical Fidelity X-can amp.

Yep, agree to disagree. I've heard and used CDP's that run the gamut (pun intended) of price ranges and they simply don't have the same level of significance on a systems sound as speakers do, IME. In other words, your comment that I suffer from a poor source is as true as the notion that you have never heard topflight speakers. :) Best to just say that our experiences differ.

[Mr Peabody]

Also, let's not get "change" a system confused with "IMPROVE" quality of system. When talking quality of a system I stand firm to all I have said.

When talking merely changing a sound I can agree with that speaker change can have a more dramatic impact. If I were to go from Dynaudio to Vandersteens for instance, I can't think of any addition that would make such a dramatic change in presentation.

On the other hand, as I stated, if a source doesn't retrieve a detail nothing you will add down stream will allow you to hear that lost information. So for sound quality the source is your crown jewel.

[musicoverall]

Also, let's not get "change" a system confused with "IMPROVE" quality of system. When talking quality of a system I stand firm to all I have said.

When talking merely changing a sound I can agree with that speaker change can have a more dramatic impact. If I were to go from Dynaudio to Vandersteens for instance, I can't think of any addition that would make such a dramatic change in presentation.

On the other hand, as I stated, if a source doesn't retrieve a detail nothing you will add down stream will allow you to hear that lost information. So for sound quality the source is your crown jewel.

I wouldn't dream of trying to change your mind. :) On the other hand, I'm sure the possibility exists that in some setups, the source could be more of an improvement - I just haven't experienced such a phenomenon. The flip of your last comment is "No CDP regardless of quality will force through information that the speakers won't reproduce properly".

And of course no one, including myself, has or ever will hear all the configurations. Our experiences differ based on what we have heard. My best advice is to start with the speakers with the ultimate goal being to have a synergistic system in terms of sound. Scrimp on the front end only as long as you must, but do scrimp there first. That's never failed me yet.

[Slippers On]

But surely, those seeking to hear the best from their equipment, (at the speakers), must be happy that they are getting the best out of the source! Whether it be digital or analogue?

I doubt an Audiophile would be happy with MP3 coming through a set of "Overkill Encore" speakers at 50,000 GBPs. Such a set of speakers would be a waste on anything less than full digital reproduction, or better?

Doesn't even matter about the expense, say a set of Mission 731i bookshelves....

When I listen to vinyl I trust I have done everything mechanically possible to ensure that the needle, (front end), is working perfectly; when I go to digital (CD or SACD), then I have to trust the electronics of my equipment. It is "At This Stage That I Involve The SPEAKERS". (To reproduce what I already know or believe to be the best rendition of the music!

Slippers heating in front of the fire

[musicoverall]

But surely, those seeking to hear the best from their equipment, (at the speakers), must be happy that they are getting the best out of the source! Whether it be digital or analogue?

I doubt an Audiophile would be happy with MP3 coming through a set of "Overkill Encore" speakers at 50,000 GBPs. Such a set of speakers would be a waste on anything less than full digital reproduction, or better?

Doesn't even matter about the expense, say a set of Mission 731i bookshelves....

When I listen to vinyl I trust I have done everything mechanically possible to ensure that the needle, (front end), is working perfectly; when I go to digital (CD or SACD), then I have to trust the electronics of my equipment. It is "At This Stage That I Involve The SPEAKERS". (To reproduce what I already know or believe to be the best rendition of the music!


Slippers heating in front of the fire

With vinyl, all bets are off. I'd wager that the turntable/arm/cartridge is at least as important as the speakers. When I said "source" above, I meant the CD player - possibly SACD as well but I don't have enough experience with them to say unequivocally. A speaker will make or break your sound many times faster and more often than the best (or worst) CD player - IME, of course! Your mileage may vary. Mine never has.

[emaidel]

The source of one's system can go even beyond either the turntable/cartridge, or CD player. Often the recording itself can make all the difference. A shrill, overly-bright CD (or LP) will likely sound awful no matter what it's played on, just as a dull, lifeless CD or LP will sound dull and lifeless regardless of the system it too is played on.

Way, way back in 1959, a record was produced that all but revolutionized recorded sound: Persuasive Percussion, on the Command label. With an artsy-fartsy cover, and a double-jacket design, "Persuasive Perucssion" was not only the best sounding record that had ever been recorded then, but was designed to be used as a test record too. The liner notes inside the jacket carefully detailed what to listen for, both good and bad, and ultimately the record became a milestone in the business (it was even pirated, which resulted in a massive lawsusit).

Playing "Persuasive Percussion" on my portable "hi-fi" back then all but blew my mind: it really did sound that good. I still have a copy of it today, and it still sounds very, very good.

Today, I'm a huge fan of the Telarc label because of its generally consistently fine recorded sound, coupled with some outstanding interpretations of classical music. Every once in a while Telarc releases a genuine dud, but for the most part, the label remains my preferred source for listening.

I have some Phillips and EMI European recordings of great classics with truly outstanding performances, but with sound that tends to be a bit thin, and shrill. No matter what I do, those recordings will always sound that way. Too bad conductors like Simon Rattle (who's an absolute master with Beethoven material) and Valery Gergiev (a Russian conductor who always looks furiously angry, but who can whip an orchestra and chorus into a frenzy like no other) don't have contracts to record on Telarc. Now, that would be a combination no one could beat!

[Mr Peabody]

Emaidel, you should pick up some Classical off the Reference label, excellent stuff. I also have a couple discs performed by The Ancient Music Society that are very good, I can't remember the actual recording company. Mapleshade is supposed to be good. I haven't tried them because I have never heard of any of their artists. Then you have some Sheffield Labs.

The characteristics of a system will come through no matter what speakers you use. Krell will still have the same control, dynamics and bass authority whether the speakers are expensive Dynaudio or a $200.00 pair of Polk. The presentation of the Dyn's in this case will be much better of course and it would be worth the extra expense. The Dyn's would not be worth the expense, and in some instances a waste, if the electronics wasn't up to task. Building a system from speakers back just don't make any sense. Especially, if you are upgrading existing components one by one. Your system will have an immediate IMPROVEMENT when upgrading the source where upgrading speakers first could actually degrade the sound on certain systems if the electronics aren't up to the task of driving the speakers.

[E-Stat]

With vinyl, all bets are off. I'd wager that the turntable/arm/cartridge is at least as important as the speakers.
Agreed. That's why I used the term transducers. :)

rw

[musicoverall]

Agreed. That's why I used the term transducers. :)

rw

I thought of that myself, but the table and arm aren't transducers. :)

That brings up another argument where I seem to go against the audiophile grain... the relative importance of table, arm and cartridge. I go "backwards" there as well, as I feel the cartridge is most critical. But, as with the original "debate", I think they're all important. A crappy table with a good arm and cartridge will give you crappy sound, just not as crappy as a good table with a crappy cartridge.

And I'm now crapped out on the subject. :)

[musicoverall]

[QUOTE=emaidel]The source of one's system can go even beyond either the turntable/cartridge, or CD player. Often the recording itself can make all the difference. A shrill, overly-bright CD (or LP) will likely sound awful no matter what it's played on, just as a dull, lifeless CD or LP will sound dull and lifeless regardless of the system it too is played on.

QUOTE]

Absolutely! Even the best speakers won't make a lousy recording sound good. Quite the contrary - the best speakers will bring out the all the shortcomings of the disc and make it sound worse than it would on lesser speakers.

[Mr Peabody]

We might actually agree on turntables. Way back in the beginning I always heard vinyl playback depended on the cartridge. My first real turntable was an old Pioneer PL-51, it quit spinning one day. I bought me one of those new Technics direct drive, quartz locked, yatta yatta. It was not a linear tracker though. I took the cartridge right off the Pioneer and put it on the new Technics, what? the sound isn't the same, not even as good. I took the Technics back and put the Pioneer in the shop. The Pioneer served many years after that fix until I discovered turntables went to even a new dimension hearing my first Rega.

[E-Stat]

I thought of that myself, but the table and arm aren't transducers. :)

True, but a cartridge cannot function by itself!


I go "backwards" there as well, as I feel the cartridge is most critical.
You and I are on the same wavelength. I begin with choosing either the cartridge or the speaker and then determine what is required to optimize their operation. The choice of cartridge determines the optimum mass of the arm. The choice of speaker determines the optimum amplifier (and cable) required to drive them.

rw

[musicoverall]

We might actually agree on turntables. Way back in the beginning I always heard vinyl playback depended on the cartridge. My first real turntable was an old Pioneer PL-51, it quit spinning one day. I bought me one of those new Technics direct drive, quartz locked, yatta yatta. It was not a linear tracker though. I took the cartridge right off the Pioneer and put it on the new Technics, what? the sound isn't the same, not even as good. I took the Technics back and put the Pioneer in the shop. The Pioneer served many years after that fix until I discovered turntables went to even a new dimension hearing my first Rega.

The deal with the table is how well it keeps noise (rumble, etc) away from the cartridge. The better the suspension, the quieter the table - and those cartridges pick up ANY signal, be it music or noise, and reproduce it. Once you have that down, the cartridge and arm have to work together. The Rega is a nice table. I have fond memories of mine. The coolest thing about it is the arm. Killer arm for the money - and if "for the money" sounds like a slam, it isn't. That arm beats the crap out of everything else in its price range and then jumps up and pounds everything a range or two up from it.

When I dumped the Rega, I took the arm and put it on a VPI HW-19 mk III. Later moved to a Sota Cosmos with a Graham arm. Nice expensive combo that showed off the strengths of even a cheap cartridge while also showing off its weaknesses. So I understand your point about a front end's personality coming through regardless of the quality of the next part in the chain. On the flip side, I once put a Benz Ruby on my Rega P3. Oh..... MAN!!!!!!! A $3K cartridge on a $600 (at the time) table was certainly overkill but I enjoyed the hell out of that for the short time it was installed. I was surprised my friend allowed me to keep it for a week. :)

[musicoverall]

True, but a cartridge cannot function by itself!


You and I are on the same wavelength. I begin with choosing either the cartridge or the speaker and then determine what is required to optimize their operation. The choice of cartridge determines the optimum mass of the arm. The choice of speaker determines the optimum amplifier (and cable) required to drive them.

rw

True... except if one of those "pulse" bombs ever goes off and electricity dies, I'll be sitting there spinning vinyl on my finger with a phono cartridge attached to a horn, digging the music. :) That's one advantage vinyl has over CD!

Cables??? Don't they all sound the same? I think I read that somewhere. Good thing I listen better than I read! LOL. But...er... cables have been debated to death so PLEASE!! Anyone reading this - I didn't mean to start anything! Live your life with zipcord. I won't bother you if you don't bother me! :)

[musicoverall]

We might actually agree on turntables. Way back in the beginning I always heard vinyl playback depended on the cartridge. My first real turntable was an old Pioneer PL-51, it quit spinning one day. I bought me one of those new Technics direct drive, quartz locked, yatta yatta. It was not a linear tracker though. I took the cartridge right off the Pioneer and put it on the new Technics, what? the sound isn't the same, not even as good. I took the Technics back and put the Pioneer in the shop. The Pioneer served many years after that fix until I discovered turntables went to even a new dimension hearing my first Rega.

The Audio Note DAC (3.1X) is the best DAC I've ever heard. An electrical engineer friend of mine explained to me that I was enjoying the extra distortion it dished out and I liked the sound of vinyl so I was drawn to a poor digital design. I told him to go f**k himself. :) Great DAC! Is the 1.1 nearly as good?

[Feanor]

....

I have some Phillips and EMI European recordings of great classics with truly outstanding performances, but with sound that tends to be a bit thin, and shrill. No matter what I do, those recordings will always sound that way. ...


After speakers the most critical consituent of the sound is the recording. The greatest components cannot compensate for bad ones. Some labels are better than others on average, but none are consistently excellent. The most consistent is Reference Recordings but their catalogue is very small. Here are my own principal reference recordings are these, which include two Reference Recordings, two Telarcs, and two Harmonia Mundi ...
http://gallery.audioreview.com/showphoto.php?photo=3268&size=big&cat=500&ppuser=199052

While you can't entirely compensate for crappy recording with your equipment choices, lots of people really try.

First, IMO, you need excellent resolution. I have plenty of recordings, (CDs and LPs), that sounded edgy and sharp on my entry level system that were revealed by my present equipment to actually have lots of detail and air and are a lot more listenable than I originally thought.
Secondly, tubes can make mediocre recordings sound better, especially those that are bright or edgy.
Thirdly, I admit that LPs are much less likely to sound edgy, bright, or "cool" than CDs, although some suffer these qualities.IMHO, the tubes and vinyl essentially act as filters that "improve" rather than simply convey the sound. In my experience, the very best recording, such as my references above, do not benefit by being passed through tubes, and sound as good as any vinyl.

[Mr Peabody]

E-stat, you live in Arkansas, that explains any wavelength you are on :)

Actually the 1.1x is the only AN DAC I've heard. It is very good, I preferred the sound over my Krell 280cd. I switched them back and forth a lot because I was having problems with it being better than my Krell. The AN just sounds more like I believe an instrument or voice should, many have described the AN as organic and as many audio adjectives it's open to interpretation but the instant you hear the AN DAC you know exactly what they meant. AN doesn't use digital filtering which I think may give them their good sound but it could be the tube. Either way unless I hear something else better my front end of choice wil be AN. I'd love to get a 3.1x. Actually, my plan is to some day down the road get one of their single unit CD players. It probably won't happen as long as the 1.1x is serving it's purpose though.

[Mr Peabody]

I don't believe I miss any detail when listening to my Conrad Johnson in comparison to my Krell gear but the CJ does make it easier to listen to a poor recording. The Krell holds a hard line and forgives nothing. Krell also seems to present everything with the same emphasis where CJ allows subtle to be subtle and that which is in the background to remain there.

[Slippers On]

Glad to see such a healthy debate on Audiophilia. :thumbsup:

Circles, circles, circles.

From where I'm sitting, with my slippers on, I can see that you guys agree that the source material, whether it be vinyl or CD, is most important. We can not improve the source material. We can only tweak it to suit us.

In the original post aimed at defining an audiophile it was stated:-


I would venture to redefine the meaning of Audiophile by at least including the words:-

"steadfast in his resolve to extrapolate every piece of information ingrained on the source material whether it be CD, LP, Tape or other; not necessarily in the way it was originally played in the studio or on stage but in the way the mixer imagined we should hear it.


What you guys are agreeing on is that you choose your equipment to suit your listening tastes. Be it vinyl, CD, SACD or other. You are in effect "tweaking" using DACs, amps, cables, speakers.

For example; I received a few CDs this Christmas. As an audiophile I read the small print. I want to know if I can expect full digital 1s and 0s:) Then I put one on my CD player, (why do I keep using capital letters for a cd - they don't yet deserve it:) ) So, I'm lucky enough to have a couple of hi-fi set ups and I decide to play female vocals on the tube set-up. I know that the valve units will make her sound good - to my hearing -. In the future If I like her songs I might swap cables or pre-amps to try to make her better. I cannot improve on the recording, I can only try improving on the way it sounds to me.

When I am satisfied that my front end, (cd player + dac etc) is performing as it should then, (if I need to), I will experiment with the 'chain' to see if I can improve my sound.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why someone should buy the best speakers available and then try to work backwards to the source material:confused5:

I get the feeling on this forum that some of you guys have some excellent equipment but haven't yet experienced what it is capable of :confused5: Its all about synergy but the basis for all of this is the original recording.

[E-Stat]

E-stat, you live in Arkansas, that explains any wavelength you are on :)
I'm only a recent transplant.

rw

[Mr Peabody]

E-stat why don't you list your equipment in your profile?

[E-Stat]

E-stat why don't you list your equipment in your profile?
I did at one time, but was too lazy to maintain it both here and on AA. There are some pics in the gallery though. Here's a link:

E-Stat's Stuff (http://cgi.audioasylum.com/cgi/mail.mpl?user_ID=2150)

rw

[Mr Peabody]

Upstairs you are using an ARC SP-9 with phono stage? The SP-9 must be a cherry piece, I've run across a few people who still use one. Ironically, one of the guys worked for our ARC dealer and had VTL monoblocks as well. He sold his though. He was using the ARC digital amp until he decided which way to go. I heard the VTL's and really liked them. I was not impressed with ARC's digital amp despite his enthusiasm. It was matched with the LS-16 pre, I think that's the right model, it ran about $3,500.00. I didn't care for the sound at all. I actually brought those two pieces home for an audition when I was looking for some tube gear.

[E-Stat]

Upstairs you are using an ARC SP-9 with phono stage?
Actually, the MKIII flavor. Its tonal balance is warmer than the first two versions. And I use it only when using the phono source.


It was matched with the LS-16 pre, I think that's the right model, it ran about $3,500.00. I didn't care for the sound at all.
While the earlier models (like mine) are 6922 based, the newer ones use the 6H30 tube. I confess that I have not heard any of those models. Conrad-Johnson, for example, still uses 6922s in the ART III (which I have heard at Seacliff).

rw

[jim goulding]

Sea Cliff? My, you are an old tiger. Might I recognize your name if I were to hear it?

postnote- Visited "upstairs" on AA. I formerly used stats in my main listening room, Acoustat Threes. Bet you'd recognize my other gear of the time, too. I still use a vintage Koetsu Black on occasion but an Accuphase MC yielded more excitement. Not that the Acoustats are in the same league, but produce sound similarly. I use some self powered mtm monitors now that are very synergistic with my room in soundstage openess. Walls disappear, and all that, with the thing I do contributing. What I miss most about my stats is the linearity of sound in this room and the physically warming bass. A Bosendorfer couldn't be mistaken for anything else. And the tone of well recorded acoustic bass would melt a hard heart. I may have a treat for you. It's an old Paul Chambers re-release said to be recorded in Rudy Van Gelder's living room, Bass On Top (Blue Note). Do carry on! Many thanks.

[E-Stat]

Sea Cliff? My, you are an old tiger. Might I recognize your name if I were to hear it?
Nope, only my mentors. I met Dr. Cooledge (JWC) when I worked at a hi-fi shop in Atl in the 70s. It was through the good doctor I met HP. Business takes me to Long Island from time to time where I can hear his latest toys.


postnote- Visited "upstairs" on AA. I formerly used stats in my main listening room, Acoustat Threes.
Bob Rieman and Jim Strickland brought a pair to JWC for review in the magazine. All of us from the shop met them over at chez Cooledge. Soon after, we sold the product and I bought a pair of the X.


Bet you'd recognize my other gear of the time, too. I still use a vintage Koetsu Black on occasion but an Accuphase MC yielded more excitement. Not that the Acoustats are in the same league, but produce sound similarly.
Oh yes. Had an AC-2 myself some time ago. I enjoyed various Acoustats (Monitor 4, 2+2) for over twenty five years. Indeed I find something special about most all full range stats. It was hearing JWC's Dayton-Wrights that got me started.

rw

[Slippers On]

Name-dropping has no place here in audiophilia...if you want me to start...............

Get back to encouraging new Audiophiles.

One Slipper on, one off

[jim goulding]

Sure, Slip, whatever you say :eek: . I thought it was courteous of the man to reply to me.

[Slippers On]

Sure, Slip, whatever you say :eek: . I thought it was courteous of the man to reply to me.


Apologies are mine, I over-reacted.

I feel the thread is getting away from itself. I am hoping to put up a case for shaking the living daylights out of those, (commercial enterprises including press), who have hi-jacked the meaning of the word 'Audiophile', and seek to turn it into a cliche to fill their pockets.

I believe it is important that they understand that WE are the guys who call the shots and THEY should feel priviledged to have us as customers. Not that up and coming audiophiles should be dictated to by commercial interests.

Slippers On

[jim goulding]

Uh, OK mate. No harm done.

[E-Stat]

Get back to encouraging new Audiophiles.
We are the sum of our experiences. I wish there were some sort of *audiophile camp* where those who express an interest could be immersed in the finest sound quality components and instructed in the listening process. I feel extremely privileged (and lucky) to have effectively had that opportunity when I was Basite's age. I had several mentors who exposed me to the beauty of classical music and how to listen critically using some of the best stuff back then.

I have clear memories of not only the first time I heard Magneplanars (1974 - I was 17), but the song playing at the time. Similarly, I remember first hearing the incredible (for its day) Infinity IRS system in a superb system back in 1980. Those experiences recalibrated my point of reference.

rw

[hermanv]

So what is an Audiophile? We can’t really define it in regards to the music itself. Most everyone enjoys a live event to a reproduction. So I feel that it may be impossible to define what an audiophile is without a debate on how or what equipment we use to achieve the reproduction of music.

In a similar vein, the discussion about front end vs. back end improvements of the reproduction chain is not very worthwhile because the improvement in reproduction is so highly dependent on the starting point and the goal.

No amount of front end investment will make a 2 way bookshelf speaker that is deficient in bass become a bass powerhouse, similarly the best speaker made can not fix a poor signal from the front end.

One of the reasons I got caught up in an upgrade merry-go-round was that each improvement I made, revealed a deficiency that was previously either unheard in my system or acceptable before the new piece was added. Even if you had the money a mass market system would be hard pressed to help you decide if the Burmester, Meridian or Boulder CD player had the better sound.

Conversely a $54 Best Buy CD player will make it difficult if not impossible to chose between a Dynaudio, B&W or Kharma speaker. So it seems that you must have good speakers to hear a good front end and conversely you must have a good front end to hear a good speaker. Much of the rest is sales mumbo jumbo.

All this is made worse by a deficiency in language or knowledge to describe what it is that’s missing or wrong with the reproduction chain. Yes, we all know what distortion means on a performance graph, how many of us can identify not only the amount of distortion, but whether it is even or odd harmonic by just listening?

So it turns out that every contributor to this thread seems at least partially right in their opinion.

Let me try for a definition of a true audiophile:
An Audiophile is a person who spends more than average effort in getting the best sound quality for a given environment and budget. A person who asks, how could I make this experience more faithful to live music, how can I make it better within my means than it is now?

Regarding the relationship between money and sound quality, money alone won’t do it; I have heard exotic expensive equipment not do a good job. Knowledge alone won’t do it either; room treatments might help but won’t make that $150 system sound like top of the line gear. It takes some money to buy good equipment at a given price point and some knowledge to achieve the best sound you can get for the gear that you have.

I strongly recommend a buddy system. You listen to each others gear, you swap one of your pieces of equipment for one of his and you discuss what it is you hear that's different, worse or better. Both parties profit by this exchange, both parties learn about audio language, the contribution of a room and the relative value of a piece of equipment.

[O'Shag]

"So, in this thread I venture that we perhaps should try to articulate a collective definition of the word ‘Audiophile’.

Can we agree so far that an audiophile should include:

1. A person.
2. Hi-Fi sound reproduction.
3. interested in achieving some goal.
4. includes some level of devotion by the person. "

5. A Couch Potatoe?

[Luvin Da Blues]

"So, in this thread I venture that we perhaps should try to articulate a collective definition of the word ‘Audiophile’.

Can we agree so far that an audiophile should include:

1. A person.
2. Hi-Fi sound reproduction.
3. interested in achieving some goal.
4. includes some level of devotion by the person. "

5. A Couch Potatoe?


Sure, but my cat always comes around when tunes are spinning especially when its analogue (maybe just my imagination), that's my story and I'm stickin to it. Is the cat an audiophile also??? hmmmm

[Mr Peabody]

Yeah, #1 needs more discussion. As a teen living at home we had a Peekonese who no matter where he was came running into my room when the stereo was turned on. He was either a real music lover or just hung out in hopes of getting high.

[Scott W]

In the broadest sense of the term whenever "phile" is attached to a word it means "love of".
I would tend to agree with those who spoke of passion/love of the hobby of audio and all that entails when using the term.

The biggest problem with the term "audiophile" among many who use it, is that they do so in order to establish their rank or status within the hobby. Using their own standards often based on knowledge or the cost of their equipment they define themselves as "audiophiles" and others who don't meet that standard as something less

The above paragraphs are quoted from anothers post because I am not quite as articulate(big word for me and probably mispelled)as many of the posters, but it pretty much sums up my thoughts.It is the love of the music/audio gear that leads me to claim the title of audio/music enthusiest rather than audiophile.I've come a long way from that 8 track player in the 70s and have experienced many goosebumps along the way and that my fellow enthusiests is what it's all about for me.:ciappa:

[O'Shag]

I chose audiophile, because it is the last in the list of choices. So I figured that it was directly relevant to the level of insanity one has for this hobby, and I believe at this point, my fiancee believes me to be insane :ihih: , and I must agree at least with respect for audio and music. I love to set up and tinker with electronics. If audio enthusiast followed audiophile, I probably would have chosen that. Both the same thing really.

In fact I believe that I need to cool my jets a little. I've resolved to stay away from audiogon until absolutely necessary (you see, I can't even say stay away forever - Its just too painful to think about :nonod: :sad: . That place is like a candy store, just begging for you to buy more, more, more, which is a very bad thing when your not rich. I'm sure most of you are far more in control than I am..nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more. :wink5:

[O'Shag]

Sure, but my cat always comes around when tunes are spinning especially when its analogue (maybe just my imagination), that's my story and I'm stickin to it. Is the cat an audiophile also??? hmmmm

I definitely think the cats that like music are 'cool cats'. The phenomena is not just with cats though. I used to have a giant Irish Wolfhound, who when he wasn't chasing something, would love to sit and listen to music with me. strange..:confused5:

[hermanv]

A couple of questions;

One: Is being an audiophile a hobby? I think so, after all it's hardly a requirement to have good sound or even to have a sound system at all. Most of us that do, do it because originally we liked music and then discovered that there is far more than one way to skin that cat.

Two: If you happen to be financially well off and you rush out and spend $150,000 for the best gear are you an audiophile.? In my opinion, no. Some effort besides simply spending money is needed to be an audiophile. Most car nuts would love to own a Ferrari, conversely buying a Ferrari doesn't automatically make you a car nut (Automophile:) :)?).

[IBSTORMIN]

I always thought "Audiophile" was on the other end of the scale that "tone deaf" starts.
Who knew it was so complicated!!!???

Which brings up food for thought: If two guys are sat in a room and listen first to a $4,000 system and then to a $20,000 system, which is the Audiophile? Is it A) the guy who can tell the difference in sound or B) the guy who can afford the $20,000 system?

[Mr Peabody]

Could be neither, could be both, it would be the one who appreciated the difference. Appreciation would be the one who could afford it would buy it and the other would recognize the quality and get as close as he could afford to.

[IBSTORMIN]

MR. P. So if a person has perfect pitch, can hear all the subtle differences in music including differences in speaker cables on a $20,000 system, appreciates any chance they have to hear great sound but doesn't have the money to buy high end equipment, they are not an audiophile?

[Mr Peabody]

That is not what I said at all, you should read the post again. One may be able to hear the difference and afford it, or not, and not care. Another may hear the difference, afford it or not, and appreciate the difference. If you hear the difference and appreciate it enough you will buy it if you can afford it. If you appreciate the difference and can't afford $20k, you will strive to put the best system you can together and enjoy it. Take opportunities to improve where and when you can. The root or drive behind any audiophile is the passion for the equipment and music.

[Luvin Da Blues]

If you appreciate the difference and can't afford $20k, you will strive to put the best system you can together and enjoy it. Take opportunities to improve where and when you can. The root or drive behind any audiophile is the passion for the equipment and music.

You have me nailed done Mr.P, as well as most around here I figure. :thumbsup:

[Feanor]

That is not what I said at all, you should read the post again. One may be able to hear the difference and afford it, or not, and not care. Another may hear the difference, afford it or not, and appreciate the difference. If you hear the difference and appreciate it enough you will buy it if you can afford it. If you appreciate the difference and can't afford $20k, you will strive to put the best system you can together and enjoy it. Take opportunities to improve where and when you can. The root or drive behind any audiophile is the passion for the equipment and music.

The name of the game for a down-at-the-heel audiophile hobbiest such as myself is value -- the most bang for the least buck. I belief I've got myself a very high value system indeed: check the reference below.

But I can definitely appreciate the higher price equipment that others have and would spend more if I could. I envy these folks a little but not obsessively. I can take satisfaction knowing the my modest system is very close to many costing 3x-4x as much or even more. And beyond that, I know I'm often appreciating the music even more than they do.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Could be neither, could be both, it would be the one who appreciated the difference. Appreciation would be the one who could afford it would buy it and the other would recognize the quality and get as close as he could afford to.

So, I'm cleaning the bathroom and had my head stuck in the toilet, thinking about this post (coincidence?? naw, probably not :prrr: ). Anywho, I was thinking who's opinion I would value more? Wannabes like me and a lotta people around here are fairly knowledgeable but, I admit I have never heard a lot of High End equipment mentioned around here. We have modest systems but do very much appreciate high end stuff.

So, who's opionion is more valuable the guy who reads, hears and understands about the "good stuff" or someone who actually owns some. Even tho the latter may not appreciate it as much, they do have real world experience with it.

[IBSTORMIN]

I have seen and talked to people who own a Corvette Z06 with a manual transmission just for bragging writes and they think they know everything because they own one and have read everything about it. Then they kill the motor on take off twice and make excuses. They can't drive the darned thing any better than my grandma could and she doesn't have a license. You wouldn't want their opinion and I try to get away when they start talking.

Having more money does not necessarily make your opinion more valuable.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Still, wouldn't it carry more weight than someone that has NEVER drove one?

[Mr Peabody]

Luvindablues, first thanks, in your question the first guy who reads about the equipment at least has heard higher end equipment. In some instances that person may have more knowledge because he was exposed to more. If the owner of the high end gear has only one system his knowledge may be limited. There are too many variables that could be to make a definite decision one way or the other.

IBS has a point, some one who is rich could go in and buy a high end system based on sales rep recommendations and really not have a handle on what he has or any differences there of. One big clue are those who have gear and don't know how to hook it up. It's funny sometimes I'll talk to some one about their system, just seeing what they have, I'll ask them the brand or if they use a digital connection and you can just see my sentences flying right over their head.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Luvindablues, first thanks, in your question the first guy who reads about the equipment at least has heard higher end equipment. In some instances that person may have more knowledge because he was exposed to more. If the owner of the high end gear has only one system his knowledge may be limited. There are too many variables that could be to make a definite decision one way or the other.

IBS has a point, some one who is rich could go in and buy a high end system based on sales rep recommendations and really not have a handle on what he has or any differences there of. One big clue are those who have gear and don't know how to hook it up. It's funny sometimes I'll talk to some one about their system, just seeing what they have, I'll ask them the brand or if they use a digital connection and you can just see my sentences flying right over their head.

I couldn't agree with you and IBS more...just opening that side up for debate.

[emaidel]

The name of the game for a down-at-the-heel audiophile hobbiest such as myself is value -- the most bang for the least buck. .

That says it all in a nutshell. I always preferred the term audio "enthusiast" due to the many nasty connotations pertaining to the term "audiophile," and my system consists of relatively not-too-expensive components, each and every one of which has been reviewed enthusiastically, and praised for the performance it offers at the respective price points.

My Dahlquist DQ-10's are all but legendary, and are highly respected by most in this field. The Regnar-rebuilt woofers helped tremendously, and were a vast improvement over the botch refoam job by Simply Speakers in Florida. The Definitive Technology SP-15F, at $600 (discounted from the $1,000 "List" price) is a far better sub than the Dahlquist DQ-1W, and blends in perfectly with the 10's.

My Parasound PLD-1100 "Line Drive" preamp is a John Curl design, and my Adcom GFA-5800 is a highly reviewed amp designed by Nelson Pass - two very respected names in this industry.

My Adcom GCD-600 CD Player and GDA-600 D/A converter do a splendid job of playing CD's and making them sound musical, much in the same fashion as far costlier CDP/D/A Converter combos.

While the total cost of my system exceeds $10K, that's a far cry from the price of one ClearAudio turntable!

[hermanv]

<snip>While the total cost of my system exceeds $10K, that's a far cry from the price of one ClearAudio turntable!You weren't clear if that was the new or used cost, not that it matters. Many would feel that's an excessive amount to invest in music reproduction. I don't agree, my system costs more than that, but I acquired the pieces (used) over a long time interval.

The thing that makes you an audiophile has nothing to do with the price of the equipment, it has to do with you knowing about Dahlquist, John Curl and Nelson Pass. It's this effort to learn and try to acquire, copy or build equipment at that performance level that's at the core of my definition of an audiophile. Happy listening.

[IBSTORMIN]

Thanks to all, especially MR P. I have a new understanding of what an audiophile is, have never considered myself one and didn't want to be because of the snob factor!! I realise I can learn alot from you guys and that I am an audiophile, in your definition. My wife just says I have too many "BLACK BOXES" all over the house. Just see my list and you will see I am crazed just like you all are. Maybe I haven't spent as much on as high end stuff as you guys, but....... I'm hooked. I would love to hear comments on what I have and suggestions for improvement. (GOD, I REALLY AM THAT "A" WORD!!!!) (I wasn't referring to the word my wife calls me.) Please, all of you, look at my comments in "Do you really get what you pay for" in the cables forum on the DB-25 cable and give me feedback on that.

[Mr Peabody]

ISB your system looks balanced to me. I'm not familiar with the Overture series. Is Integra and Integra Research the same? I can't remember the name but there used to be a high end shop some where in KC that handled Wilson and Mark Levinson, have you ever been there?

[IBSTORMIN]

MR P Integra is high line Onkyo and Integra Research is their Audiophile line made in conjunction with Apogee, THX & Balanced Audio Technology. I had wondered, looking at all the names you mention, if you had ever heard of it. If you are interested: http://www.integraresearch.com/
Well, that also answers my next question: how does my equipment compare to what you guys are referring to? I guess if you have never heard of it that would be hard to answer.
No I haven't looked at Wilson or Mark Levinson because I know I can't afford it. I bought all of my equipment used. The Integra Research was something I didn't think I could afford but found a deal. The Onkyo Integra M-588F, from what I understand sold for $2400 back in the 80's and it is ssssooooo sweet. It became my main amp over the M-504 once I heard it. I am wondering if you are familiar with either of these?
To quote you: If you appreciate the difference and can't afford $20k, you will strive to put the best system you can together and enjoy it. Take opportunities to improve where and when you can. The root or drive behind any audiophile is the passion for the equipment and music. I started with H/K and found they have reliability problems, switched to Onkyo and just worked my way up to their best.

[hermanv]

IBSTORMING, IMHO you are an audiophile.

The proof is in asking the question: "What can I do to make my system better?"

[Mr Peabody]

I have heard of Onkyo and Integra but not the Research. Onkyo makes a good receiver. Their amp sections are noticeably better than most other mass market brands. Although I've heard of Integra I've never heard any. I know they must be good amps though, a guy ran some Infinity Kappa 9's with Integra. Kappa 9's were notorious for the impedance dropping crazy low and sending many brands of amps to the service bench. Levinson is out of my price as well but I go check out that type of gear that's how you'd know how your system stacks up. My Conrad Johnson is tube gear and would have a different presentation than integra. Based on Integra's rep I'm sure you get a very good bass response with good control and punch.

[IBSTORMIN]

MR P - The Integra Research line I have heard is snubbed by "TRUE AUDIOPHILES" probably because it is not really expensive. The RDV-1 THX Ultra2 DVD player listed for $3000 and with the Apogee clock it is probably the best CD player I have ever heard, Way better than my Integra dedicated CD player in A-B testing. The $4000 RDC-1MKII is rated a 5 on audioreview with people calling themselves audiophiles surprised at its quality for the money. The two are hooked together for analog transfer with a DB-25 computer cable that is better sounding than any RCA cables that I have ever tried and cost me $6. All I know is everything got much more transparent, bass is full, deep and tight. Dianna Krall on DVD-A sounds like she is standing in front of me, I can hear her lips smack as she opens her mouth to sing. Sends chills. My whole CD collection has changed in sound, some of it I am even disappointed in, but I realise that it now sounds like it was recorded, not muffled & boomy like I had heard it. With movies YOU ARE THERE!!! Any body else heard this equipment? Because, of course, it I can make it sound BETTER...........

[IBSTORMIN]

ISB your system looks balanced to me. I'm not familiar with the Overture series.

Back in the 90's the Prelude PFR was their best, replaced with the AUDIOPHILE "A" Quality Prelude MTS series around 2000. The Overture series was just below their Prelude series back in the 90's.

[Slippers On]

Well guys it seems that there is some genuine interest in this thread....some good discussion with many interesting views posted.

I note and agree about the word "audiophile" carrying some snobbish baggage with it, however, I have never shyed away from calling myself an audiophile because I do so for the right reasons.

The question of money seems to arise quite often. My own views on this are that you don't need a pile of cash to have a good system but you will inevitably need more as you go along with swapping in and out equipment and leads in an effort to improve. But where do you stop??

In order to improve your system you need a reference point. You maybe heard a great system and then began the trail of trying to improve your own in order to match it. This is the beginning of you becoming an audiophile.

The other avenue is the dangerous one.......where a Manufacturer directly, or through one of their sponsored Hi-Fi magazines tries to convince you that your system is a bollocks and you need their piece of equipment to make it better.

In my opinion if you are happy with your own system then don't give a moment's thought to glossy advertising. The flip side is that, if for example, you had occassion to hear a good quality system, (not necessarily an expensive one), and you feel you want to improve your own then by all means begin the steady journey of improving. I attach a WARNING here:---:devil: ---you may well become a dreaded 'audiophile' for your interest could easily become a passion - then an obsession!!! If your interest or hobby costs you more than money then you've gone over the edge:17:

Also, in my opinion:

1. the guy with loads of money who just goes out and buys a tip-top hifi system just because he can, is not necessarily an audiophile. If he doesn't know what he has purchased where is his reference point? He will soon tire of it like his other toys.

2. the guy with a modest system who listens to a lot of music, buys a lot of discs (or whatever medium) and never had a desire to improve or learn is not an audiophile.

3. the guy with an MP3 player who can't afford anything else at the moment but has a burning desire to experience what his mates have and is becoming more knowledgable as he goes along with his interest. He can't afford to upgrade yet but he has heard what music sounds like through some good systems and will get one some day....this guy has his reference point and many of the other ingredients common to an audiophile and so I would class him as an audiophile.

4. the guy who has learnt to make a single valve amplifier and starts wiring up his alarm clock to it.....wants to experiment constantly with electronics to improve sound around the house ------well chances are he could very well be or become an audiophile.

5. the guy who writes for a hifi magazine and gets to take all the new toys home to practice on but has lost the passion........................................... ........I'll leave that one open for debate :5:


New Slippers On

[diamond]

I hope this forum might provide a good place to make my first post.
I probably don't qualify as an obsessive audiophile. Nevertheless, music has played a significant role in my personal, as well as professional life as a radio brodcaster of 30+ years.

My forte in the business is weighted toward what is known as "air talent" rather than technical accumen (which on a sliding scale of ten, I barely move the peg).

I don't understand much about computer sound capability, but am purchasing a computer which features "high definition audio"---hp pavilion elite m9150f.

I have purchased a set of Audioengine A5 speakers. I am also interested in getting some good quality mainstream headphones, but am wondering if the Sennheiser HD 650's would be an overreach for this system (even with headphone amp, Cardas cable, etc.) Any input?

[Mr Peabody]

If you are going to listen to Lossless the fabulous HD650's might be worth the investment. If you are going to store and listen to mp3 or some other compressed file save your money and just get something cheap like a Grado SR60 or entry Senn.

Let us know how you like the A5's. I was thinking about getting a pair of those for my daughter's computer.

[hermanv]

<snip>

I don't understand much about computer sound capability, but am purchasing a computer which features "high definition audio"---hp pavilion elite m9150f.

I have purchased a set of Audioengine A5 speakers. I am also interested in getting some good quality mainstream headphones, but am wondering if the Sennheiser HD 650's would be an overreach for this system (even with headphone amp, Cardas cable, etc.) Any input?
Any computer is a hellish environment for those tiny parts of an audio signal that define that elusive thing known a high fidelity. The sheer volume of high speed digital signals gets into nearly everything, since digital signals are intrinsically highly noise tolerant, most manufacturers do little to prevent their presence all over the internal wires, power supplies and inside cabinet radiation.

A number of companies make outboard DAC/headphone drivers optimized to interface a computer. If you want good sound consider one of these, compared to most audiophile equipment these are quite reasonable on the used market. Additionally they will allow you to drive an external conventional power amplifier and speakers should you ever wish to do so..

[jim goulding]

Hermanv said, and I quote (never have figured out how to do that), "everyone enjoys a live event to a reproduction". To which I would add that I enjoy a reproduction to a live event! That would be in my room. of course, and utter transparency to the event as best as I can figure out. I study and buy equipment for that reason. That makes me an audiophile, I think, altho I am self conscious about using any word with "phile" in it as regards myself as I expect others may be, too. We don't love the sound of birds chirping or car crashes, we love music and it's creation. Equipment is the means to the most intimate experience of it we can achieve. The word audiophile to me means one who is pursuant of, well, something like this. Hiccup!

[KUNK]

It's about the music. Just a few clean watts ("the first watt is the most important") with a pair of single, full range drivers, (no xovrs required) and a good smooth source is all I need. It's all subjective. We all hear what? Some of "best" and most memorable music I can remember was sitting with my Grandmother and a cup of tea listening to "Cruising Down The River" on a old tube phonograph....those were good times...kunk

[Slippers On]

Have any of you considered the fact that to be able to have a conversation in your music environment, turned up loud, is a good indication that you have got it right?


Slippers On

[StevenSurprenant]

Have any of you considered the fact that to be able to have a conversation in your music environment, turned up loud, is a good indication that you have got it right?


Slippers On

I know exactly what you mean!

[IBSTORMIN]

Have any of you considered the fact that to be able to have a conversation in your music environment, turned up loud, is a good indication that you have got it right?


Slippers On

HUH? WHAT DID YOU SAY? I CAN"T HEAR YOU. LET ME TURN THE STEREO DOWN.

I think that probably depends on how much POWER you have cranking. LOL

I find, as I keep upgrading my equipment, I don't HAVE to turn it up to enjoy it, the detail comes through at lower volumes and it is more enjoyable.
Having said that, I just realized I had BACH's Organ music cranking in the basement in DVD-Audio 5.1 and my wife asked me to turn it down! (SIGH) That's where the above happened !

[hermanv]

Apparent loudness changes in very subtle ways with better sound quality. With better equipment you can hear more details at the same volume settings, but it doesn't sound as loud because the ear takes many volume cues from distortion.

I had a relative over, so of course I wanted to show off my system, She said "I don't like it loud, it hurts my ears". I played at my normal listening level and she said that was fine. If fact it was probably quite a bit louder than they play their mass market system at home. Since the "uglies" were gone it didn't seem loud to her.

Radio Shack sells a cheap level meter, it's hardly the last word in scientific (or accurate) equipment, but it provides a handy reference not confused by subjective opinion.