Music lovers

[audio amateur]

I've pondered this question quite a bit and I thought I should ask it here. Can someone truly refer to him/herself as a 'music lover' when they listen to their music via laptop speaker/ipod dock or equally poor sound reproduction? (not to mention 56kbps youtube audio). Now I'm not saying they need a 5k system either.

Perhaps this is plain stupid and shouldn't be asked but I can't get my head around it. To me it's an insult to music and it simply can't be enjoyed this way.
Let me kno watcha think:yesnod:

[3db]

I've pondered this question quite a bit and I thought I should ask it here. Can someone truly refer to him/herself as a 'music lover' when they listen to their music via laptop speaker/ipod dock or equally poor sound reproduction? (not to mention 56kbps youtube audio). Now I'm not saying they need a 5k system either.

Perhaps this is plain stupid and shouldn't be asked but I can't get my head around it. To me it's an insult to music and it simply can't be enjoyed this way.
Let me kno watcha think:yesnod:

Thats a fair question. Love of music has nothing to do with the price of system playing it be it a 10k setero system, a laptop, or an ipod. If you listen to music all the time, always digging to see whats new out there, collecting both new and old music, I would say one is a music lover.

[poppachubby]

I agree fully with you. You can't love music when you're not hearing it in it's entirety.

If you love your dog you take it for lots of walks, feed it the best food and spend whatever is needed for its health and happiness.

Music should be the same. Get yourself some lossless/320 kbps MP3's and some kind of decent means to hear it ie. $100 headphones.

I always laugh when I see people listening to 128kbps through earbuds. How could anyone love that?!? However, love is a subjective thing...seems strange to me but I suppose if you don't know any better...

It has nothing to do with spending lots of money or huge systems. Just put a little bit of effort in, and get a whole lot back out.

[Ajani]

I've pondered this question quite a bit and I thought I should ask it here. Can someone truly refer to him/herself as a 'music lover' when they listen to their music via laptop speaker/ipod dock or equally poor sound reproduction? (not to mention 56kbps youtube audio). Now I'm not saying they need a 5k system either.

Perhaps this is plain stupid and shouldn't be asked but I can't get my head around it. To me it's an insult to music and it simply can't be enjoyed this way.
Let me kno watcha think:yesnod:

Their is a belief held by many audiophiles, that you can't be a music lover unless you have a "high quality" system.

However, a love of and enjoyment of music does not require never ending upgrades, and bankruptcy. Loving Music has nothing to do with our hobby.

Audiophiles traditionally claim the love of music as the reason for this hobby. I dispute that claim. Love of Electronics, tweaking and gadgets is IMO the real driving force behind Audiophilia.

Nothing wrong with being both a Music Lover and an Audiophile (or even just one) but we shouldn't confuse the two. A person who listens to music all day, everyday on a a portable FM radio has far more claim to be a music lover than an Audiophile with half a million dollars worth of electronics, that he spends more time running test signals through, than listening to albums.
__

[3db]

Their is a belief held by many audiophiles, that you can't be a music lover unless you have a "high quality" system.

However, a love of and enjoyment of music does not require never ending upgrades, and bankruptcy. Loving Music has nothing to do with our hobby.

Audiophiles traditionally claim the love of music as the reason for this hobby. I dispute that claim. Love of Electronics, tweaking and gadgets is IMO the real driving force behind Audiophilia.

Nothing wrong with being both a Music Lover and an Audiophile (or even just one) but we shouldn't confuse the two. A person who listens to music all day, everyday on a a portable FM radio has far more claim to be a music lover than an Audiophile with half a million dollars worth of electronics, that he spends more time running test signals through, than listening to albums.
__

I concur whole heartedly with this. The fact that a person is listening all the time makes that person a music lover. Equipment and love of music is mutual exclusive.

[frahengeo]

If you love your dog you take it for lots of walks, feed it the best food and spend whatever is needed for its health and happiness.



Yes, but your dog does not necessarily need to be an expensive dog of championship bloodlines. A dog from the local animal shelter would in fact be better. Sorry couldn't resist.

[Hyfi]

I concur whole heartedly with this. The fact that a person is listening all the time makes that person a music lover. Equipment and love of music is mutual exclusive.

I'm a gear snob. I have music I love but rarely listen to it because it sounds like crap. I will also listen to music I don't really love because it is recorded well and sounds fabulous.

Loving music is a whole lot different than loving the sound of that same music. I rarely listen to anything via computer, do not own an MP3 or similar player. But like Pappa Chubby said, at least get a good set of cans if you want to listen like that. My Grado 125s would blow away any ear bud or similar listening to the same crappy MP3.

[poppachubby]

Yes, but your dog does not necessarily need to be an expensive dog of championship bloodlines. A dog from the local animal shelter would in fact be better. Sorry couldn't resist.

My comment was eluding to the effort one puts into something they love. No, the dog could be a mangy runt, doesn't matter, it's the love that goes into it.

Seems odd to me that someone who loves music, wouldn't find the means to fully enjoy it. All philosophy aside, there is a difference between FM on a clock radio or say, an old $20 vintage amp. Doesn't have to invlove oodles of cash or hi-fi gear.

[Feanor]

I've pondered this question quite a bit and I thought I should ask it here. Can someone truly refer to him/herself as a 'music lover' when they listen to their music via laptop speaker/ipod dock or equally poor sound reproduction? (not to mention 56kbps youtube audio). Now I'm not saying they need a 5k system either.

Perhaps this is plain stupid and shouldn't be asked but I can't get my head around it. To me it's an insult to music and it simply can't be enjoyed this way.
Let me kno watcha think:yesnod:
In a word, yes. In fact there is no necessary connection between love of music and a preference for superior sound reproduction.

In fact, I know a few undoubted music lovers who assert that anyone who insists on excellent sound reporduction is ipso facto not a music lover. This is just as much nonsense as the counter assertion.

Personally I like to listen to music from my iPod with ear canal 'phones, it's just that I like to do so a lot more from my main stereo system.

[poppachubby]

Their is a belief held by many audiophiles, that you can't be a music lover unless you have a "high quality" system.

However, a love of and enjoyment of music does not require never ending upgrades, and bankruptcy. Loving Music has nothing to do with our hobby.

Audiophiles traditionally claim the love of music as the reason for this hobby. I dispute that claim. Love of Electronics, tweaking and gadgets is IMO the real driving force behind Audiophilia.

Nothing wrong with being both a Music Lover and an Audiophile (or even just one) but we shouldn't confuse the two. A person who listens to music all day, everyday on a a portable FM radio has far more claim to be a music lover than an Audiophile with half a million dollars worth of electronics, that he spends more time running test signals through, than listening to albums.
__

I agree with everything you've said here, but I think you are getting away from the OP's original assertion. That is, how can one love music that is grossly sub-par?

The answer to this doesn't have to go as far as audiophilia. But 128kbps and the like, c'mon!! Surely someone who claims to love music, in this day and age, would seek out some means to escape the droll reproduction of crumby digital files. Buy a CD for 15 bucks perhaps??

[audio amateur]

Thanks for all your responses.
To be correct, and perhaps reassert/make clearer my original thought, I was especially refering to the laptop speaker or really bad ipod dock crowd. That is, people who don't even bother going further than their laptop speaker. I'm talking 2" speakers with not even a 'subwoofer'. To me, this is actually way under the earbud + 128kbps combination. I know I am getting picky here... but this is what really gets to me.

[frahengeo]

Thanks for all your responses.
To be correct, and perhaps reassert/make clearer my original thought, I was especially refering to the laptop speaker or really bad ipod dock crowd. That is, people who don't even bother going further than their laptop speaker. I'm talking 2" speakers with not even a 'subwoofer'. To me, this is actually way under the earbud + 128kbps combination. I know I am getting picky here... but this is what really gets to me.

I can see how that would be annoying. Not everyone needs to hear what you're listening to (especially through laptop speakers). But if that person spends every spare moment listening through the laptop, then I'd say he/she is a music lover.

[3db]

I can see how that would be annoying. Not everyone needs to hear what you're listening to (especially through laptop speakers). But if that person spends every spare moment listening through the laptop, then I'd say he/she is a music lover.

agreed. Like I said before, its mutually exclusive and there is no relationship between the two. Perhaps, the music lover cannot afford a system, even a modest system or is just to cheap to buy even a modest system. How would that take away from the fact that he likes the music?? Don't confuse liking music for the accuracyy of sound. When we sing a song we like, we are far from duplicating the original but that doesn't mean we don't appeciate anyless what we've heard. Accuracy of sound is different than liking music.

[02audionoob]

I believe it is thought that experienced musicians and music lovers can fill in the gaps in inferior sound reproduction. Isn't it?

[poppachubby]

I believe it is thought that experienced musicians and music lovers can fill in the gaps in inferior sound reproduction. Isn't it?


What do you mean by fill in the gaps noob? If Hendrix is playing a solo, I want to hear all of it, not a stripped down version, or any version where I must fill in a gap. "Purple Haze, all in noob's brain, lately thiings just don't seem the same..."

[02audionoob]

What do you mean by fill in the gaps noob? If Hendrix is playing a solo, I want to hear all of it, not a stripped down version, or any version where I must fill in a gap. "Purple Haze, all in noob's brain, lately thiings just don't seem the same..."

I don't know the words for this phenomenon, if it truly exists, but I've heard the brain just needs the reminder of the music for the listener to enjoy it. On inferior noisemakers not all the sounds can be clearly heard in the distinct way audio gear can deliver it, but the brain knows what the music sounds like...even if the noisemaker at hand is just a cheap clock-radio.

[poppachubby]

I don't know the words for this phenomenon, if it truly exists, but I've heard the brain just needs the reminder of the music for the listener to enjoy it. On inferior noisemakers not all the sounds can be clearly heard in the distinct way audio gear can deliver it, but the brain knows what the music sounds like...even if the noisemaker at hand is just a cheap clock-radio.


As a musician I can say this could have some basis, however, I want the goods when it comes to my music. It doesn't have to be perfect, but fully audible, as I was intended to hear it.

[JoeE SP9]

When I was much younger I listened to a plastic table radio playing AM through a 3" speaker. It was all I had and all I knew. I use much better gear now because I can and I know better.
Do I like music any more or any less because I have better gear? I don't think so. I bought the better gear so I could hear the music better. If I changed gear as often as underwear (some do), had multiple systems in the same room (some do), used different speakers for different types of music (some do) or any or all of the above I wouldn't be a music lover. The proper term for that is gadget freak.

BTW: My old plastic table radio sounded better than laptop speakers. If my only option was a laptop I'd at least buy some decent headphones. The speakers in cell phones sound better than those in laptops!
Yes, I don't get it either audio amateur. Some people can drink Budweiser and be satisfied. I don't get that either.

[BallinWithNash]

hey i claim to be a music lover and look at my gear ... am i wrong when i say i am a music lover if i listen to it 24/7 in my car, when im at school, when im home etc...

[Feanor]

I concur whole heartedly with this. The fact that a person is listening all the time makes that person a music lover. Equipment and love of music is mutual exclusive.

Just a small correction: love of music and love of equipment are two different things -- but they aren't mutually exclusive.

[3db]

Just a small correction: love of music and love of equipment are two different things -- but they aren't mutually exclusive.

Sure they are. You don't have to have equipment to love music.

[audio amateur]

Yes but on the other hand just because you love the equipment doesn't mean you don't love the music.

[audio amateur]

Some people can drink Budweiser and be satisfied. I don't get that either.
I know! Crazy isn't it? Or maybe they just don't know any better:frown2:...

[3db]

Yes but on the other hand just because you love the equipment doesn't mean you don't love the music.

Agreed but that never was implied. :)

[Feanor]

Sure they are. You don't have to have equipment to love music.
Let me rephrase ... you can love music; you can love equipment; you can love both music and equipment. This is the meaning of "not mutually exclusive", no??

[3db]

Let me rephrase ... you can love music; you can love equipment; you can love both music and equipment. This is the meaning of "not mutually exclusive", no??

I understand what your saying. What I'm saying is that love of music is not dependent on equipment and visa versa. You can love both... I do...but I loved music much longer than I had for equipement and the equipement hasn't influenced my love of music. That make sense? :p

[Hyfi]

I don't know the words for this phenomenon, if it truly exists, but I've heard the brain just needs the reminder of the music for the listener to enjoy it. On inferior noisemakers not all the sounds can be clearly heard in the distinct way audio gear can deliver it, but the brain knows what the music sounds like...even if the noisemaker at hand is just a cheap clock-radio.

I'm not sure I follow this. Yes if I hear a few notes of a familiar song, I can guess it. Yes if I hear a 128kb MP3 of a song I know, I will recognize it, but, in no way does my brain fill in the missing highs and missing lows and all the missing detail and instrument timber.

This is similar to listening to a good LP side by side with a CD made by BMG of the same recording. My brain does not fill in the missing length of the cymbal crashes that are missing from the CD. My brain does not fill in all the missing feeling and emotion that an analog recording has that most digital recordings lack. The analog wave is not square and does not just drop off like a digital signal normally does.

Yes there are many digital recordings that come close to analog recordings but all in all, minus a little snap crackle pop, an LP on a good rig will always sound better than the same CD on similar gear.

Maybe I only have half a brain but I can clearly hear all the differences that I just mentioned above and although I will know the song, the words, the music, my brain does not fill in the missing data while the crappy sounding version plays. My brain usually tells me "this recording sounds like crap".

[pixelthis]

Good equipment is important because a crap listening session is time you don't get back.
BUT sometimes you cant help it.
Last night I listened to public radio, their nightly jazz show, while at work, on a cheap
"Emerson research" clock radio with a ten cent speaker.
AND IT WAS GREAT.
On my home system it would have been outstanding, on an "audiophile" grade system even better.
I love music, and sure I love gear too.
But gear needs a reason, to love just gear without taking its function into account is kind of soulless don't you think?
MY LOVE OF "GEAR" DERIVES from what it does, the way music comes out of a well built loudspeaker will always thrill me.
But without the lifetime love of music as the drive, not so much maybe.:1:

[02audionoob]

I'm not sure I follow this. Yes if I hear a few notes of a familiar song, I can guess it. Yes if I hear a 128kb MP3 of a song I know, I will recognize it, but, in no way does my brain fill in the missing highs and missing lows and all the missing detail and instrument timber.

This is similar to listening to a good LP side by side with a CD made by BMG of the same recording. My brain does not fill in the missing length of the cymbal crashes that are missing from the CD. My brain does not fill in all the missing feeling and emotion that an analog recording has that most digital recordings lack. The analog wave is not square and does not just drop off like a digital signal normally does.

Yes there are many digital recordings that come close to analog recordings but all in all, minus a little snap crackle pop, an LP on a good rig will always sound better than the same CD on similar gear.

Maybe I only have half a brain but I can clearly hear all the differences that I just mentioned above and although I will know the song, the words, the music, my brain does not fill in the missing data while the crappy sounding version plays. My brain usually tells me "this recording sounds like crap".

I think you're carrying my choice of words too far...overanalyzing it. The theory is that for many people music can be enjoyed with limited detail...even with recordings that sound like crap.

[3db]

Good equipment is important because a crap listening session is time you don't get back.
BUT sometimes you cant help it.
Last night I listened to public radio, their nightly jazz show, while at work, on a cheap
"Emerson research" clock radio with a ten cent speaker.
AND IT WAS GREAT.
On my home system it would have been outstanding, on an "audiophile" grade system even better.
I love music, and sure I love gear too.
But gear needs a reason, to love just gear without taking its function into account is kind of soulless don't you think?
MY LOVE OF "GEAR" DERIVES from what it does, the way music comes out of a well built loudspeaker will always thrill me.
But without the lifetime love of music as the drive, not so much maybe.:1:

Excellent post. A big fat +1 for thist one. :)

[E-Stat]

On inferior noisemakers not all the sounds can be clearly heard in the distinct way audio gear can deliver it, but the brain knows what the music sounds like...even if the noisemaker at hand is just a cheap clock-radio.
I play back music in my head all the time and can fill in what I know is there even when listening to a system that may not be capable of highlighting that detail. When I run, I have a game of playing back songs in alphabetical order by group. I'll choose something by America, then the Beatles, etc.

rw

[E-Stat]

Just a small correction: love of music and love of equipment are two different things -- but they aren't mutually exclusive.
Exactly. The term means that if one is true, the other CANNOT simultaneously be true as well. If you are sad, then you cannot be happy. A power switch can either be on or off, but not both at the same time. In this case, the love of high performance gear can most certainly feed and enhance the love of music. It is just not required. I developed a love of music regularly listening to a battery powered Zenith AM radio. But, I'd rather hear my music on the Sea Cliff system. :)

rw

[Worf101]

Their is a belief held by many audiophiles, that you can't be a music lover unless you have a "high quality" system.

However, a love of and enjoyment of music does not require never ending upgrades, and bankruptcy. Loving Music has nothing to do with our hobby.

Audiophiles traditionally claim the love of music as the reason for this hobby. I dispute that claim. Love of Electronics, tweaking and gadgets is IMO the real driving force behind Audiophilia.

Nothing wrong with being both a Music Lover and an Audiophile (or even just one) but we shouldn't confuse the two. A person who listens to music all day, everyday on a a portable FM radio has far more claim to be a music lover than an Audiophile with half a million dollars worth of electronics, that he spends more time running test signals through, than listening to albums.
__
When growing up poor in the projects, our "sound systems" consisted of hand me down junk from relatives and friends. Still didn't diminish my love for music I listened all the time to '45's, LP's, AM Top 40 Radio, anything I could get my hands on. Yes, I know that listening to The Impressions "Gypsy Woman" (our first '45 we ever bought) on my current system is light years ahead, of our "Hi Fidelity" pink and creme monstrosity but I loved it then as much mebbe even more'n I do now, because it was all NEW then.

No you don't have to have a big money system to love music, just a heart and soul.

Da Worfster

[caz223]

I look at it like this-You have heard the music, and are intimately familiar with it, you don't need to hear it at full volume and resolution every time you hear it-you know what it sounds like. You remember, and your brain fills in the gaps.
It's kind of like aging with a loved one.
You'll always remember the way they looked when you met them, and don't need them to look that way forever. Your brain just fills in the gaps.
That's the definition of a music lover. The music will always take you back to where you were when you first heard it, and you hear it as it should be-not as it is.
I have hearing loss on my left side and I can tell you-it works that way- when I hear something I've never heard before I hear it as it is.
If I've heard the piece before my hearing got damaged-I hear it in stereo in it's full glory. Even if it is "only in my head" -that's where it matters.

[3db]

Exactly. The term means that if one is true, the other CANNOT simultaneously be true as well. If you are sad, then you cannot be happy. A power switch can either be on or off, but not both at the same time. In this case, the love of high performance gear can most certainly feed and enhance the love of music. It is just not required. I developed a love of music regularly listening to a battery powered Zenith AM radio. But, I'd rather hear my music on the Sea Cliff system. :)

rw

Keeping this in perpsective to the OP, the question was do you have audiophile quality reproduction to love music. That requirement as you point out is mutually exclusive. Is it possible to love both? Dam straight.

[E-Stat]

That requirement as you point out is mutually exclusive. Is it possible to love both? Dam straight.
What I point out is they are independent, not mutually exclusive. There is no exclusion whatsoever. If they were mutually exclusive, if you loved music, you couldn't love equipment or if you loved equipment, you couldn't love music. Such is clearly NOT the case.

rw

[Ajani]

Keeping this in perpsective to the OP, the question was do you have audiophile quality reproduction to love music. That requirement as you point out is mutually exclusive. Is it possible to love both? Dam straight.

3db, I think we all understand what you are trying to say. The issue is that you are using the term "mutually exclusive" incorrectly...

Mutually Exclusive, in the context of this discussion, means that if you love music then you cannot be an audiophile. And if you are an audiophile then you cannot be a music lover.

What you are actually saying is that someone can be a music lover, an audiophile or both.

[3db]

3db, I think we all understand what you are trying to say. The issue is that you are using the term "mutually exclusive" incorrectly...

Mutually Exclusive, in the context of this discussion, means that if you love music then you cannot be an audiophile. And if you are an audiophile then you cannot be a music lover.

What you are actually saying is that someone can be a music lover, an audiophile or both.


oops.. me bad.. thanks for setting me straight

[3db]

What I point out is they are independent, not mutually exclusive. There is no exclusion whatsoever. If they were mutually exclusive, if you loved music, you couldn't love equipment or if you loved equipment, you couldn't love music. Such is clearly NOT the case.

rw

right you are. :) many thanks for setting me straight here.

[E-Stat]

right you are. :) many thanks for setting me straight here.
My goal is not to "be right", but to clarify. I thought Feanor broached the topic to you in a kind manner.

I hope you will take the following comment in the spirit in which it is communicated. My job involves writing documentation and I give public presentations. As such, I am always aware of spelling because people judge you by the quality of your work. I think you will find that taking an extra moment to go back and correct your many typos will serve to better reflect your comments. End of rant.

rw

[Woochifer]

Before anyone goes denigrating listeners based on their gear, some perspective is in order.

Consider that 20 years ago, most listening was done using prerecorded cassettes (LP nostalgists have it all wrong -- the CD did not supersede the LP format, because the cassette sales had already surpassed the LP the year before the CD format was even introduced). And most of those cassettes were played through portable devices or boom boxes that further butchered the audio quality. I can tell you from first hand experience that a 128k MP3 file is heaven to the ears compared to what those cassettes sounded like.

And even the retroactively beloved LP format didn't fare much better. Unlike the revisionist lovefest with the LP that you see nowadays, most LPs from 30 years ago were played back on wretched sounding record changers or portable record players or all-in-one systems.

And going back another generation before that, the 78 disc was the dominant format. And again, from first hand listenings, I can tell you that a 128k MP3 will blow away the audio quality of 78s.

Previous generations primarily listened to their favorite music on inferior systems, and using inferior formats. I doubt that they loved music any less than anyone today does.

Same thing goes today. People generally listen to music on inferior systems. But, you know what? The sound quality from a low end set of speakers today sounds a LOT better than anything that was available 20 or 30 years ago for the same price.

Personally, I don't think that having a cheap sound system means that you love music any less than someone with a high end system. I've known some of the most devoted music fans getting by with horrible sounding mini systems at home, and some of the most indifferent music "fans" spending five figure sums on their home audio systems (these are people who choose their music based on how it sounds).

[Luvin Da Blues]

(these are people who choose their music based on how it sounds).

Uhmm, don't we all? :confused:

:prrr: Just ribbin' ya, I get yer drift.

[poppachubby]

Before anyone goes denigrating listeners based on their gear, some perspective is in order.

Consider that 20 years ago, most listening was done using prerecorded cassettes (LP nostalgists have it all wrong -- the CD did not supersede the LP format, because the cassette sales had already surpassed the LP the year before the CD format was even introduced). And most of those cassettes were played through portable devices or boom boxes that further butchered the audio quality. I can tell you from first hand experience that a 128k MP3 file is heaven to the ears compared to what those cassettes sounded like.

And even the retroactively beloved LP format didn't fare much better. Unlike the revisionist lovefest with the LP that you see nowadays, most LPs from 30 years ago were played back on wretched sounding record changers or portable record players or all-in-one systems.

And going back another generation before that, the 78 disc was the dominant format. And again, from first hand listenings, I can tell you that a 128k MP3 will blow away the audio quality of 78s.

Previous generations primarily listened to their favorite music on inferior systems, and using inferior formats. I doubt that they loved music any less than anyone today does.

Same thing goes today. People generally listen to music on inferior systems. But, you know what? The sound quality from a low end set of speakers today sounds a LOT better than anything that was available 20 or 30 years ago for the same price.

Personally, I don't think that having a cheap sound system means that you love music any less than someone with a high end system. I've known some of the most devoted music fans getting by with horrible sounding mini systems at home, and some of the most indifferent music "fans" spending five figure sums on their home audio systems (these are people who choose their music based on how it sounds).


Seen, but it's all relative now isn't it?

[LeRoy]

When growing up poor in the projects, our "sound systems" consisted of hand me down junk from relatives and friends. Still didn't diminish my love for music I listened all the time to '45's, LP's, AM Top 40 Radio, anything I could get my hands on. Yes, I know that listening to The Impressions "Gypsy Woman" (our first '45 we ever bought) on my current system is light years ahead, of our "Hi Fidelity" pink and creme monstrosity but I loved it then as much mebbe even more'n I do now, because it was all NEW then.

No you don't have to have a big money system to love music, just a heart and soul.

Da Worfster

My love of music remains the same regardless if being played on a cheapo clock radio. I simply prefer to hear music through audiophile gear because I enjoy it more when played through a system whose presentation makes it more vivid or more exciting to hear than a clock radio....but I still love the music even from the clock radio.

[poppachubby]

My love of music remains the same regardless if being played on a cheapo clock radio. I simply prefer to hear music through audiophile gear because I enjoy it more when played through a system whose presentation makes it more vivid or more exciting to hear than a clock radio....but I still love the music even from the clock radio.


Noble but c'mon, you really mean that?!? Dude, I'm a musician and have "loved" music since I was a boy. Let me tell you something, the last thing I love is music from a clock radio or anything remotely similar. I would rather hear a song in my head...

[LeRoy]

Noble but c'mon, you really mean that?!? Dude, I'm a musician and have "loved" music since I was a boy. Let me tell you something, the last thing I love is music from a clock radio or anything remotely similar. I would rather hear a song in my head...


I am not a musician and therefore I am sure I don't have the trained ear/mind that musicians do have due being more involved with making of music. Both of my nephews are musicians and both are quick to point out to me subtle points in a recording that I seem to miss.

So, I am not saying that I love the "sound being projected" by the clock radio. I am simply saying that I can still love the music (for it's own sake) even if being played on a clock radio. Sure it can sound like doggie-do on a clock radio but that does not diminish my appreciation for music. Listening to music on a clock radio does certainly increase my appreciation for higher end audio gear for sure.

The radio in my truck went out about in 2002 and I have played music in my head while driving everywhere ever since..... I'd rather do that than put in another factory radio in my old truck...lol

[JoeE SP9]

Noble but c'mon, you really mean that?!? Dude, I'm a musician and have "loved" music since I was a boy. Let me tell you something, the last thing I love is music from a clock radio or anything remotely similar. I would rather hear a song in my head...

Although I don't really play anymore, I have kept several of my old "axes". They include a Fender Precision, a Chocolate Brown Gibson EB-3 and an Ampeg Baby Bass. Music is playing in my head most of the time. If all I had was that old plastic table radio I would listen to it and get much pleasure from it. I'd rather listen to a "good" system but as long as it's not overly distorted it's still music to my ears.

For me, being able to hear the bass parts on recordings the way I knew they should sound was a major impetus toward acquiring a "good" system. Getting the bass right was/is hard. The midrange and treble while not having the greatest or sometimes any fidelity (on BPC etc.) has always been clear enough for me to hear the lines. When the bass sounds right I know my or any system is on the right track.

Living in the inner city gives lots of exposure to some of the worst sounding gear anyone's ever been assaulted by. I'm speaking of those rolling distortion boxes sometimes called car stereo's. Bass sounding like it's coming from underwater is so offensive to me I sometimes wish I could shoot cars with a "zap" gun and kill just the stereo.

Last week while sitting on my porch steps I heard what I thought was a standard "crappy" car stereo coming down my block. It turned out to be a young teen riding a bicycle with a large basket on the front holding two 12 volt car batteries powering a car stereo with an amp and equalizer. He had tied two bookshelf sized speakers (12" 3 ways) to the rear rack and was entertaining himself and most of the block. It actually sounded better than a lot of car stereo's. You guy's in the "burbs" just don't know what you're missing!

[EYEdROP]

I think its fun to listen to crappy speakers sometimes. I still listen to classic rock with FM radio in my car. I just enjoy music more with audiophile gear (which is what it is intended for).

There are some low cost consumer grade speakers that sound actually decent if you set them up properly. But most people want aesthetics and comfort first.

[pixelthis]

Uhmm, don't we all? :confused:

:prrr: Just ribbin' ya, I get yer drift.

Reminds me of when I gradually went from rock to Jazz and rythm &blues.
The better my equipment got the worse Rock sounded.
I still listen to rock, but in this case proper equipment helped me discover something
that became very important to me.
The music is key.
Recently I was vexed over changing speakers, B&W being replaced by Axiom 80's.
WELL, AFTER constant A-B'ing and changing out,(and a near broken back) I kept the Beemers, they are hands down more refined and better sounding.
This is a classic and has beaten several contenders , doesnt matter if its eight years old,
or as simple as an anvil, the sound beats a lot of more "fancy" speakers, and since
B&W is now making these in China you'll not see their like again.
The music is more important than "fancy".:1:

[Auricauricle]

Hey, guys: At the risk of repeating a point that may have already been voiced, I'll contend that the terms audiophile and music-lover overlap, but only to a certain degree. There is a point where the audiophile stops tweaking the knobs and enjoys the music for its own sake and when the music-lover gets out his chair and reverie and turns the bass up a notch. Musicians know that sound and its production involves processes that involve both musical and technological prowess. The french horn, as an example of an instrument that involve beautiful music (Mozart's horn concertos, anyone?) and technique (what mouthpiece will be used? How far will the hand be inserted into the horn?). Likewise the armchair enthusiast will be drawn to the music, and as (his) ear becomes more keenly involved he will invariably make adjustments (even it's only volume) to increase his appreciation.

As to what appellation is used, it's a matter of priority. If one is an audiophile, the technology drives the passion; if (he) is a music lover, then the music does. Yet, this distinction, I contend, is arbitrary ("not mutually exclusive"), and, therefore, rather pointless (I reckon). Yeah, I like to twiddle, but I do so because doing so maximizes my enjoyment of the music--which came first, the music? The technolgy? The chicken...?

Shhhhhh....I don't know. I need a beer!

[poppachubby]

Although I don't really play anymore, I have kept several of my old "axes". They include a Fender Precision, a Chocolate Brown Gibson EB-3 and an Ampeg Baby Bass. Music is playing in my head most of the time. If all I had was that old plastic table radio I would listen to it and get much pleasure from it. I'd rather listen to a "good" system but as long as it's not overly distorted it's still music to my ears.

For me, being able to hear the bass parts on recordings the way I knew they should sound was a major impetus toward acquiring a "good" system. Getting the bass right was/is hard. The midrange and treble while not having the greatest or sometimes any fidelity (on BPC etc.) has always been clear enough for me to hear the lines. When the bass sounds right I know my or any system is on the right track.

Living in the inner city gives lots of exposure to some of the worst sounding gear anyone's ever been assaulted by. I'm speaking of those rolling distortion boxes sometimes called car stereo's. Bass sounding like it's coming from underwater is so offensive to me I sometimes wish I could shoot cars with a "zap" gun and kill just the stereo.

Last week while sitting on my porch steps I heard what I thought was a standard "crappy" car stereo coming down my block. It turned out to be a young teen riding a bicycle with a large basket on the front holding two 12 volt car batteries powering a car stereo with an amp and equalizer. He had tied two bookshelf sized speakers (12" 3 ways) to the rear rack and was entertaining himself and most of the block. It actually sounded better than a lot of car stereo's. You guy's in the "burbs" just don't know what you're missing!

LOL!!!! Thanks for the laugh Joe, what a visual with the bike. I am from Toronto which has no shortage of characters like your bike rider, I do miss it.

What you've wrote here is the first thing I've read without feeling like running into oncoming traffic. You hit the nail right on the head for me. So well put. That's exactly it for me, I am a bass player and I want to be as close to that bass groove as possible. This means I want it as audible as possible, which we both know with older or crumby recordings, only a decent system will do.

I think aside from the bass, I want seperation so that I can choose to focus on whichever instrument is hitting me the most in a given song. I suppose that I forget, most people have no ability to discern instruments in a song. If I use my wife as a typical example, she hears the vocals and anything else that the engineer puts into the mix with added prominence. So I suppose this is why the singers and guitarists have the most panties hanging on their gig cases at the end of a tour.

I want to say that to all you music lovers willing to listen on any device, great!! I'm not trying to judge or say you don't love music but I think Joe cornered my feelings. As a musician, I need to be as close to the intended result of the recording as possible. If not, I basically get frustrated with what I'm hearing and can't be bothered to listen.

[poppachubby]

I think its fun to listen to crappy speakers sometimes. I still listen to classic rock with FM radio in my car. I just enjoy music more with audiophile gear (which is what it is intended for).

There are some low cost consumer grade speakers that sound actually decent if you set them up properly. But most people want aesthetics and comfort first.

I am presently using what many would consider to be "crappy" speakers. My friend built the cabs and put the speakers in. They are solidly built with a 8,5 and a 2. Although I am sure they sound good, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that to ME they sound good.

Fun?? Bet your azz, I'm having fun in spades.

I am not hung up on "audiophile" gear, just gear that gives me enough of a result. Seperation, soundstage and tone is enough for me.

[JoeE SP9]

PC:
While most people walk around singing lyrics, I walk around humming solo's that I like. I wonder how many people know that Moody's Mood is a vocal transcription of James Moody's solo on I'm In The Mood For Love?

[pixelthis]

Hey, guys: At the risk of repeating a point that may have already been voiced, I'll contend that the terms audiophile and music-lover overlap, but only to a certain degree. There is a point where the audiophile stops tweaking the knobs and enjoys the music for its own sake and when the music-lover gets out his chair and reverie and turns the bass up a notch. Musicians know that sound and its production involves processes that involve both musical and technological prowess. The french horn, as an example of an instrument that involve beautiful music (Mozart's horn concertos, anyone?) and technique (what mouthpiece will be used? How far will the hand be inserted into the horn?). Likewise the armchair enthusiast will be drawn to the music, and as (his) ear becomes more keenly involved he will invariably make adjustments (even it's only volume) to increase his appreciation.

As to what appellation is used, it's a matter of priority. If one is an audiophile, the technology drives the passion; if (he) is a music lover, then the music does. Yet, this distinction, I contend, is arbitrary ("not mutually exclusive"), and, therefore, rather pointless (I reckon). Yeah, I like to twiddle, but I do so because doing so maximizes my enjoyment of the music--which came first, the music? The technolgy? The chicken...?

Shhhhhh....I don't know. I need a beer!

They do overlap.
BECAUSE an "audiophile" is an audio enthusiast that is stone cold
crazy

TALK ABOUT OBSESSIVE compulsive disorder.
Some think that audiophiles are more "gear" driven", but if that is the case then why do they spend buffy and andys college funds on stuff like tubes, 3,000 record players,
etc.
Most of the so called "audiophiles" I have known are totally ignorant of basic electronic
principles.
They deny basic scientific principles while espousing fantasies that a cult leader couldnt
come up with.
Ever hear of those ads' about the "credit fairy"?
And credit fairy "magic dust".
Well, come up with some "audio magic dust" (or equivalent) and you'll be on eazy street in no time. Just be sure to charge enough (thousands) or they won't buy it.:1:

[poppachubby]

They do overlap.
BECAUSE an "audiophile" is an audio enthusiast that is stone cold
crazy

TALK ABOUT OBSESSIVE compulsive disorder.
Some think that audiophiles are more "gear" driven", but if that is the case then why do they spend buffy and andys college funds on stuff like tubes, 3,000 record players,
etc.
Most of the so called "audiophiles" I have known are totally ignorant of basic electronic
principles.
They deny basic scientific principles while espousing fantasies that a cult leader couldnt
come up with.
Ever hear of those ads' about the "credit fairy"?
And credit fairy "magic dust".
Well, come up with some "audio magic dust" (or equivalent) and you'll be on eazy street in no time. Just be sure to charge enough (thousands) or they won't buy it.:1:

I agree, to me an audiophile is someone who must have the best of everything as it comes out. They don't even know what they are chasing in terms of "that sound". An enthusiast considers more than just gear. I see these guys when I'm hangin at my local shop. The city I live in has a large percentage of wealthy people, I'm talkin old money. These guys will drop 10 grand like it's nothin'. It's so ridiculous, it really defies envy...I'm envious of the guy who has found his "sound" in spite of gear.

[JoeE SP9]

Hey, do you two (pixelthis, poppachubby) have some sort of Axe to grind.? Why all the sour grapes concerning "audiophiles" I consider myself a long time audiophile. I have neither large pockets nor am I ignorant of science and engineering. I and everyone else here is well aware that pixelthis thinks everything sounds the same and an AV receiver is good enough for everybody. The fact that he keeps pushing his narrow viewpoint on those who think cables sound different or anything else he doesn't believe is becoming boring. Frankly, pixels diatribes against just about everything are getting to be quite tiresome.

pixel, why do you have a problem with the way other people spend their money? No one is asking you to participate in the purchase of anything. Please let others spend their money the way they want. You manage to turn almost every thread into a personal soapbox where you make snide and nasty comments about anything you don't like. Frankly, I don't like your attitude. You have obviously never gotten over being a cop. Please note, you are not the audio police. So, give it a rest please.

MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS!!!

poppachubby, I'm surprised at you. I had no idea you had hidden hostility toward those who have more than you. Obviously, my definition of an audiophile is very different from yours. My definition of an audiophile is.

A music lover who is willing to spend their own money any way he or she wants in the pursuit of better sound.

My definition leaves no one out. People like pixel who think an AV receiver is sufficient, or people who think Japanese speakers are "the bomb", or, heaven forbid those who think an equalizer is a necessary device are all audiophiles in my book. I have no axe to grind and I'm puzzled why some feel they have some kind of agenda to force on others.

Lighten up you two. It's supposed to be about the music. How each individual enjoys it is their own business.

[poppachubby]

Hey, do you two (pixelthis, poppachubby) have some sort of Axe to grind.? Why all the sour grapes concerning "audiophiles" I consider myself a long time audiophile. I have neither large pockets nor am I ignorant of science and engineering. I and everyone else here is well aware that pixelthis thinks everything sounds the same and an AV receiver is good enough for everybody. The fact that he keeps pushing his narrow viewpoint on those who think cables sound different or anything else he doesn't believe is becoming boring. Frankly, pixels diatribes against just about everything are getting to be quite tiresome.

pixel, why do you have a problem with the way other people spend their money? No one is asking you to participate in the purchase of anything. Please let others spend their money the way they want. You manage to turn almost every thread into a personal soapbox where you make snide and nasty comments about anything you don't like. Frankly, I don't like your attitude. You have obviously never gotten over being a cop. Please note, you are not the audio police. So, give it a rest please.

MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS!!!

poppachubby, I'm surprised at you. I had no idea you had hidden hostility toward those who have more than you. Obviously, my definition of an audiophile is very different from yours. My definition of an audiophile is.

A music lover who is willing to spend their own money any way he or she wants in the pursuit of better sound.

My definition leaves no one out. People like pixel who think an AV receiver is sufficient, or people who think Japanese speakers are "the bomb", or, heaven forbid those who think an equalizer is a necessary device are all audiophiles in my book. I have no axe to grind and I'm puzzled why some feel they have some kind of agenda to force on others.

Lighten up you two. It's supposed to be about the music. How each individual enjoys it is their own business.

Whoooaaaaaaaa JOE!! Hey man, I have no axe to grind. No bitterness or hostility either. I was trying to convey my own categorization of audiophile, audio enthusiast and casual listener. I suppose I didn't consider offending anyone who values themselves as an audiophile. So I would like to apologize, my intention was not to ostricize or offend.

Webster's has this to say:
Main Entry: au·dio·phile
Pronunciation: \ˈȯ-dē-ō-ˌfī(-ə)l\
Function: noun
Date: 1951
: a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction

Simple enough I suppose. I just think as audio has progressed to the insane levels it exists at now, "audiophile" has a bit of a stigma attached to it. With the meager gear I posess, I don't consider myself an audiophile. To me the definition has always gone hand in hand with the gear...my own personal definition puts audiophile as someone forever changing gear like underwear.

I suppose I should find a new classification...

[JoeE SP9]

I like that dictionary definition.

People who change gear like underwear are gear freaks. There's lots of them at audiokarma.org . They have four or five pairs of speakers set up in the same room. They swap receivers in and out like like guitar strings. I've seen where more than one has written that he has a different system for each different kind of music. Say what?

I think a good indicator is the size of ones music collection.

Mine is 3500+ LP's and 1500+ CD's, plus a hundred or so cassettes recorded on Nakamichi decks. Most of my gear I've had for upwards of ten years. Some of it's older than a lot of posters here. Most of it I bought new. I've been buying LP's since 1967 and I have no intention of quitting.

[poppachubby]

I like that dictionary definition.

People who change gear like underwear are gear freaks. There's lots of them at audiokarma.org . They have four or five pairs of speakers set up in the same room. They swap receivers in and out like like guitar strings. I've seen where more than one has written that he has a different system for each different kind of music. Say what?

I think a good indicator is the size of ones music collection.

Mine is 3500+ LP's and 1500+ CD's, plus a hundred or so cassettes recorded on Nakamichi decks. Most of my gear I've had for upwards of ten years. Some of it's older than a lot of posters here. Most of it I bought new. I've been buying LP's since 1967 and I have no intention of quitting.

Aha! OK then, you see it as "gear freak". So do I really. I wonder how many others here at AR feel as you do about the term audiophile. You may have noticed the Webster's definition was included in 1951. IMO, it probably held true until the industry stole it, repackaged it and sold it back to true audiophiles. To me it's more of a buzz word than a proper definition. A label to put on gear and in advertisements. A tag that "gear freaks" like to give themselves, which is why I think the way I do. A shame really...

I see guys like yourself and others here at AR as audio purists. Didn't Lennon say "...just gimme some truth!" In my impression of audio that term holds way more dignity than audiophile. Anyhow...

[3db]

I like that dictionary definition.

People who change gear like underwear are gear freaks. There's lots of them at audiokarma.org . They have four or five pairs of speakers set up in the same room. They swap receivers in and out like like guitar strings. I've seen where more than one has written that he has a different system for each different kind of music. Say what? .

Dam..Must be nice to have the money///

I think a good indicator is the size of ones music collection.

M[QUOTE=JoeE SP9ine is 3500+ LP's and 1500+ CD's, plus a hundred or so cassettes recorded on Nakamichi decks. Most of my gear I've had for upwards of ten years. Some of it's older than a lot of posters here. Most of it I bought new. I've been buying LP's since 1967 and I have no intention of quitting.[/QUOTE]

Thats an impressive collection. I'm hitting around 500lps and and about 200 CDs and about 8 DVDs crammed with 256k or higher MP3s that I have aquired.

[Ajani]

People who change gear like underwear are gear freaks. There's lots of them at audiokarma.org . They have four or five pairs of speakers set up in the same room. They swap receivers in and out like like guitar strings.

I think the issue really comes down to what name you give the ultra-obsessed persons in our hobby: since you call them gear freaks, you have no problem with calling yourself an audiophile... but for many of us who call them audiophiles, we instead call ourselves audio enthusiasts (or my personal favorite "Audio Connoisseurs"). I think most of us just want to differentiate ourselves from the extremists...


I've seen where more than one has written that he has a different system for each different kind of music. Say what?

Actually, to be honest, if I had money burning a hole in my pocket I'd probably setup different systems to handle different types of music... Considering that certain products are more suited to one genre of music than another, it would make sense sonically (if not financially)...

[02audionoob]

I would definitely not consider myself a connoisseur of audio. I'm not in it to judge the gear...just to enjoy it.

[Auricauricle]

Clearly there are plenty o' fools out there who spend ass loads of cash for the "next big thing" in bells, whistles, lights and "the machine that goes 'Bing!'". There is no reason to mention such proclivities in this forum; I like to think everyone here (regulars especially) are well beyond such facile dunderheadedness....(well, mabe...).

Anyway, I will say that my own enanorment to audio thingies was kindled by the desire to get as much out of the medium as I possibly could. Once I started with cleaning my LP's to squeaky and sparkly perfection, it was only a matter of time before I embarked on the Tweak Road to Audio Hell. As I've grown older and poorer, I have cut back on my requirements to own the best and the brightest. Right now, I use some rather archaeic Kenwood gear, and am quite happy. Do I drool whenever I see a beautiful piece? Sheet yeah, but I don't lose too much sleep over it (thanks to Beer and Ambien),

I think this is where most of us are: We buy what we buy primarily because it makes the music sound better, lets us extract more from the medium than our Close-n-Plays ever could. Bells and whistles and pinging things are part of the fun, sure, but it boils down to music.

Still, if I had a choice to spending an evening with Roseanne Barr or Cameron Diaz there'd be no contest.

I'd spend it with Bettie Paige!

[JoeE SP9]

There is one thing "gear freaks" seem to have in common. They spend most of their time changing and tweaking components. Listening to music seems to be secondary. I suppose we just differ on choice of descriptive words. I know several truly over the top "audiophiles". One is a neurosurgeon with Infinity IRS V's driven by massive Levinson monoblocks. He has the financial means to by whatever he wants. He has had the same basic system for the last ten years. He also has an LP collection to die for. Another is a college professor with Magnepan MG-20's. He also has a very large LP collection. What they both have in common is that they have systems that have been fairly stable equipment wise for the last ten years or so. My professor friend upgraded to the MG-20's a couple of years ago. He sold a pair of 3.6R's to help finance the deal.

These two are examples of what an audiophile is to me. Music lovers with enough discretionary income to buy what they want and enough restraint and common sense to leave well enough alone.

If you are constantly changing gear and speakers it's probably because what you are using doesn't satisfy you. When the gear and speakers are TOTL and expensive that's neurotic. When the gear and speakers are modestly priced it's probably because the stuff doesn't sound that good in the first place and you're a little bit neurotic.

[Hyfi]

Hey, do you two (pixelthis, poppachubby) have some sort of Axe to grind.? Why all the sour grapes concerning "audiophiles" I consider myself a long time audiophile. I have neither large pockets nor am I ignorant of science and engineering. I and everyone else here is well aware that pixelthis thinks everything sounds the same and an AV receiver is good enough for everybody. The fact that he keeps pushing his narrow viewpoint on those who think cables sound different or anything else he doesn't believe is becoming boring. Frankly, pixels diatribes against just about everything are getting to be quite tiresome.

pixel, why do you have a problem with the way other people spend their money? No one is asking you to participate in the purchase of anything. Please let others spend their money the way they want. You manage to turn almost every thread into a personal soapbox where you make snide and nasty comments about anything you don't like. Frankly, I don't like your attitude. You have obviously never gotten over being a cop. Please note, you are not the audio police. So, give it a rest please.

MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS!!!

poppachubby, I'm surprised at you. I had no idea you had hidden hostility toward those who have more than you. Obviously, my definition of an audiophile is very different from yours. My definition of an audiophile is.

A music lover who is willing to spend their own money any way he or she wants in the pursuit of better sound.

My definition leaves no one out. People like pixel who think an AV receiver is sufficient, or people who think Japanese speakers are "the bomb", or, heaven forbid those who think an equalizer is a necessary device are all audiophiles in my book. I have no axe to grind and I'm puzzled why some feel they have some kind of agenda to force on others.

Lighten up you two. It's supposed to be about the music. How each individual enjoys it is their own business.

You are right, this post has digressed just a bit. Your comments on Pix are spot on! Although you stated that he criticized on how people spend their own money, he recently criticized me for owning and still using VHS and Beta machines and NOT spending my money.

Although I stated earlier that I am a Gear Snob, I in no way have the money to buy all the latest and greatest. That does not mean that I am not enthusiastic about it as the definition states. I dealt with Soundex from the time I got my first income tax check in 1978. I bought an Onkyo Receiver and Tape deck with Infinity speakers. I think I spent about $400 but can't remember. While in the store and on many occasions, people with money out the ass would come in, but 10k worth of gear and then in two weeks, trade it in for something else and take a loss. Some of these people I would not consider Audiophiles but more Manic people with more money than they need and not knowing how to be satisfied with anything.

My entry into music was due to having an older brother who used to build Heathkits, Dynaco, and Hafler gear on the kitchen table when I was a little tike. He and a second brother would use all these items. My very first stereo was a Heathkit receiver my brother built. I saved my money and after getting married bought my first separates, Hafler 9180 amp and 945 pre-tuner and a set of Mirage floorstanders. I was later able to afford, after saving, a $550 tube preamp by Sound Valves and later a Stratos amp. Then I saves for a few years to buy my Dynaudio 82s.

Over the years I would go to Soundex and listen to all the mega buck systems, drooling and appreciating what they can do. I also figured out early on, you can get almost the same sound from 10k worth of gear as 100k worth. The people who buy the latter do so because they can afford to and not because it sounds 10x better, because it doesn't.

The gear in my signature I lucked into and have a total of $700 invested in the VAC, Counterpoint, Clearfields, Synergistic. If I would have had to pay full price or half price even, I would not own the gear at all. The VAC is real nice but in no way 10x better than the Sound Valves pre.

So with all that rambling, you can be an Audiophile and not even own a system. All you need be is enthusiastic along with the appreciation of the gear and the sound it produces.

[Hyfi]

There is one thing "gear freaks" seem to have in common. They spend most of their time changing and tweaking components. Listening to music seems to be secondary. I suppose we just differ on choice of descriptive words. I know several truly over the top "audiophiles". One is a neurosurgeon with Infinity IRS V's driven by massive Levinson monoblocks. He has the financial means to by whatever he wants. He has had the same basic system for the last ten years. He also has an LP collection to die for. Another is a college professor with Magnepan MG-20's. He also has a very large LP collection. What they both have in common is that they have systems that have been fairly stable equipment wise for the last ten years or so. My professor friend upgraded to the MG-20's a couple of years ago. He sold a pair of 3.6R's to help finance the deal.

These two are examples of what an audiophile is to me. Music lovers with enough discretionary income to buy what they want and enough restraint and common sense to leave well enough alone.

If you are constantly changing gear and speakers it's probably because what you are using doesn't satisfy you. When the gear and speakers are TOTL and expensive that's neurotic. When the gear and speakers are modestly priced it's probably because the stuff doesn't sound that good in the first place and you're a little bit neurotic.

I have to disagree a little. I don't think you need money to appreciate and understand the gear and sound. I also dont think it is neurotic to swap gear for different sound. Since I got my new to me system, I have been swapping the amps and speakers in and out because it gives me 4 different sounds, all of which I like and are different for different types of music. The Clearfields lack deep bass so Govt Mule sounds better with the Stratos and Danes as one example.

[JoeE SP9]

I have to disagree a little. I don't think you need money to appreciate and understand the gear and sound. I also dont think it is neurotic to swap gear for different sound. Since I got my new to me system, I have been swapping the amps and speakers in and out because it gives me 4 different sounds, all of which I like and are different for different types of music. The Clearfields lack deep bass so Govt Mule sounds better with the Stratos and Danes as one example.

No offense intended Hyfi. I didn't mean to suggest that money had anything to do with it. I used those two friends as examples of "audiophiles". I think there is a very large difference between the swapping you do and someone who has 15 receivers and 27 pairs of speakers that he is constantly swapping. That kind of gear is usually some Japanese bookshelf speakers and more often than not a selection of "vintage" Japanese receivers. This is not meant to "dis" receiver owners. However, in the case of the speakers most of them are pretty bad.

Before someone gets on their soapbox about their favorite Japanese speaker please note this is just my opinion. In actuality there are very few "monkey coffin" speakers that I can stand. The Clearfields and Dynaudios Hyfi has are a couple of those few.

[E-Stat]

I'm puzzled why some feel they have some kind of agenda to force on others.
Because you're just a fool who chooses to "waist" his money. ;^)

rw

[Auricauricle]

Well, you can argue and rationalize it all you want, but (I agree); folks who are constantly swapping things out and trying things are not necessarily neurotic. Think about the musicians (such as guitarrists) who own numerous instruments because they like the various characteristics those instruments embody (thank you, HyFi). Yes, there are boneheads who are driven solely by the desire to have the biggest dictionary, but such folks aren't worth mentioning here. At the same time, there are those fortunate enough to afford such things (i.e., the neurosurgeon). Joe's point about stability is well taken, but you can't blame a guy if McIntosh Blue does strange things to his limbic system.

Just as HIV doesn't always go into full blown AIDS, having a case of Spasmotic Ultra-Coolitis Kickassus doesn't always make Status Highfideliticus Insanius Technologicus a sure thing...

I reckon.

[pixelthis]

Hey, do you two (pixelthis, poppachubby) have some sort of Axe to grind.? Why all the sour grapes concerning "audiophiles" I consider myself a long time audiophile. I have neither large pockets nor am I ignorant of science and engineering. I and everyone else here is well aware that pixelthis thinks everything sounds the same and an AV receiver is good enough for everybody. The fact that he keeps pushing his narrow viewpoint on those who think cables sound different or anything else he doesn't believe is becoming boring. Frankly, pixels diatribes against just about everything are getting to be quite tiresome.

pixel, why do you have a problem with the way other people spend their money? No one is asking you to participate in the purchase of anything. Please let others spend their money the way they want. You manage to turn almost every thread into a personal soapbox where you make snide and nasty comments about anything you don't like. Frankly, I don't like your attitude. You have obviously never gotten over being a cop. Please note, you are not the audio police. So, give it a rest please.

MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS!!!

poppachubby, I'm surprised at you. I had no idea you had hidden hostility toward those who have more than you. Obviously, my definition of an audiophile is very different from yours. My definition of an audiophile is.

A music lover who is willing to spend their own money any way he or she wants in the pursuit of better sound.

My definition leaves no one out. People like pixel who think an AV receiver is sufficient, or people who think Japanese speakers are "the bomb", or, heaven forbid those who think an equalizer is a necessary device are all audiophiles in my book. I have no axe to grind and I'm puzzled why some feel they have some kind of agenda to force on others.

Lighten up you two. It's supposed to be about the music. How each individual enjoys it is their own business.


WHAT "hostility"?
Like on DRAGNET, just stating the facts.
As a matter of fact I have audiophile pretensions my own self.
Doesnt mean that audiophiles arent crazy.
CURRENTLY debating deepsixing the ol HT and going back to my true love,
two channel audio(not enough room for both), and my HT is rather nice.
Plays music nicely, but when I NOTICED THAT everything I did was geared towards
audio, I STARTED the long trek back across the desert.
I mean, really, who needs a state of the art HT to watch the crappolla they come out with these days?.:1: