-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
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. :)
-
[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.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
I thought of that myself, but the table and arm aren't transducers. :)
True, but a cartridge cannot function by itself!
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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. :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
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! :)
-
Incidentally
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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?
-
Recordings
Quote:
Originally Posted by emaidel
....
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/showp...&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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
E-stat, you live in Arkansas, that explains any wavelength you are on :)
I'm only a recent transplant.
rw
-
E-stat why don't you list your equipment in your profile?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
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
rw
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
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
-
Estat
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim goulding
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim goulding
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim goulding
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
-
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
-
Sure, Slip, whatever you say :eek: . I thought it was courteous of the man to reply to me.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim goulding
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
-
Uh, OK mate. No harm done.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slippers On
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
-
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.
-
"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?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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
-
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.
-
Just My Opinion
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:
-
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:
|