"Audiophile Debate"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

I'm interested to hear some views.

Slippers firmly on :6:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we agree so far that an audiophile should include:

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

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

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



Slippers beside me at the ready

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slippers On

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

---

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

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

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


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

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

1. Passion for music

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

2. Passion for fine equipment

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

3. Passion for experimentation with the principles of audio reproduction

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

4. Passion for perceived status

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

5. Passion for visual stimulation

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

6. Passion for handiwork

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

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

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

8. Passion for new discoveries

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

rw

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slippers On

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

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

...

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slippers shuffling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slippers On

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

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

Slippers shuffling

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thekid

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

---

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

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

rw

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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

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

rw

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emaidel

If someone designed an oak-covered brick to place on top of an amplifier (and someone actually did design this!), and a tweak heard a "dramatic improvement" in sound by using this Brick, then good for him. As for the rest of those of us down here on planet Eearth, such an idea is inherently ridiculous.

---

Ridiculous only to those who lack understanding of the problem addressed. Here's a perfect example of identifying a particular problem and solving it using existing technology. "Capacitor clatter"? Who told you that crap? The issue is the EMF field produced by conventional iron core transformers. The VPI brick contained laminated metal that absorbed the field and reduced noise. You placed them directly above the transformer.

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

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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

---

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


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emaidel

A retailer in Berkeley, California who sold this brick, or a version of one.

---

Too much of that 60s Haight-Asbury thing methinks.

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emaidel

...

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

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

...

---

... The more they stay the same.

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

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emaidel

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


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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

... The more they stay the same.

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

:rolleyes:

---

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

cost $20 a piece...

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

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

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

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

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

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


Slippers Off

btw, slippers on,

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

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

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

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

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

---

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

• "The sound can never sound better than the source" school
• "Improve the weakest link in the chain" school.

I completely agree, of course, that improvements can be made by upgrading any component. I have found the least improvement changing cables of various sorts, followed by changes to digital sources -- that's just my own experience. Changes to speakers, amplifiers, and preamps including tubes, all have more obvious impact.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

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

---

Everything matters in a system but I am first and foremost a speaker (actually transducer) guy so I share your view. My main system is built around the stats. Then I picked amplifiers that work well with them. On the other hand, I am amazed at how good my vintage double New Advents sound when given a very clean front end and amplification (mostly hand-me-down stuff). Those two systems represent completely different perspectives on speaker to system investment (64% vs. 10%, respectively) yet the net result in both cases is quite good.

Go figure.

rw

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

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

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

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

Mr P.

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

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

• "The sound can never sound better than the source" school
• "Improve the weakest link in the chain" school.

I completely agree, of course, that improvements can be made by upgrading any component. I have found the least improvement changing cables of various sorts, followed by changes to digital sources -- that's just my own experience. Changes to speakers, amplifiers, and preamps including tubes, all have more obvious impact.

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

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

---

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Mr.P

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

Happy Holidays!!

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

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

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

Just to weigh in here,

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

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

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