• 04-11-2005, 10:29 AM
    Florian
    Very true, same as the Martin Logan CLS Panels or the Apogee's. Also Soundlab and Acustat are very special loudspeakers.

    -Flo
  • 04-11-2005, 10:56 AM
    RGA
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
    The Quads are definitely not overrated, for less than ~800USD for a working pair of Quad 57s and suitable amplification it will knock the spots off many loudspeakers, the midrange of this ancient speaker is thoroughly superb, I can see why it has remained popular over the years, it has limitations such as the absence of very deep bass (subwoofer required), limited positioning options (the source of bad sound in many dealer showrooms) and limited loudness capability, but get past those issues and you will be rewarded with superb sound.

    Sorry but I have heard these and the ESL 63 -- I get why people like them but I don't see much value in a speaker whose job is to reproduce music that lacks bass, dynamics, volume capability, and on top of that are tough to position don't like to be integrated to cones are not room friendly and extremely costly to repair if something goes wrong and they are easy to go wrong...I'm not at all surprised that JNR traded his 57s after owning them for 20+ years for the E which does all the things the panels did for him but can play louder with bass dynamics and a more open treble.

    The 63 is a nice midrange speaker -- and interestingly the same people who rave about many of these midrange speakers slag tube amps for supposedly being midrange amplifers...curious indeed. Still there is a hollographic quality to these Quads that are I suppose unparalelled in the boxed speaker world --- and if one places a huge emphasis on the importance of this aspect then I suppose there is no substitute --- which is why I understand the appeal.
  • 04-12-2005, 12:17 AM
    theaudiohobby
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Sorry but I have heard these and the ESL 63 -- I get why people like them but I don't see much value in a speaker whose job is to reproduce music that lacks bass, dynamics, volume capability, and on top of that are tough to position don't like to be integrated to cones are not room friendly and extremely costly to repair if something goes wrong and they are easy to go wrong.

    Subwoofer integration issues are not specific to the QUAD. It does not lack dynamics neither does it lack bass only deep bass ( 35Hz -6dB for the 988). Loudness capability and dynamics are two different things completely. All these issues are acknowledged in reviews and by the manufacturer. Considering that the 57 has been out of production for over 20 years, it is a very venerable speaker.
  • 04-12-2005, 12:22 AM
    Florian
    Many of the here named speakers are true music souls and wrote history. Apogee, Magnepan, Quad, Acustat, Soundlab etc...

    Those are systems for true Audiophiles, but there are not many left. Most hide and praise whitepapers and dont even know what a speaker with a soul is.

    -Flo
  • 04-12-2005, 01:42 AM
    drseid
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Florian
    Many of the here named speakers are true music souls and wrote history. Apogee, Magnepan, Quad, Acustat, Soundlab etc...

    Those are systems for true Audiophiles, but there are not many left. Most hide and praise whitepapers and dont even know what a speaker with a soul is.

    -Flo

    I have nothing against any of the speakers you just mentioned...

    But what exactly is a "true" audiophile exactly?

    I would not presume one way or another whether one person's preferences are somehow superior to another's...

    ---Dave
  • 04-12-2005, 03:02 AM
    theaudiohobby
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    The 63 is a nice midrange speaker -- and interestingly the same people who rave about many of these midrange speakers slag tube amps for supposedly being midrange amplifers...curious indeed. Still there is a holographic quality to these Quads that are I suppose unparalelled in the boxed speaker world --- and if one places a huge emphasis on the importance of this aspect then I suppose there is no substitute --- which is why I understand the appeal.

    the ESL 57 came out when tube amplifiers when the only game in town, QUAD itself still builds tube amplifiers. Owners of these speakers use a variety of amplifiers from both sides of the divide to drive them, so saying that those that praise these speakers slag tube amplifiers is a non-starter.
  • 04-12-2005, 05:22 AM
    20to20K
    Not sure how to quantify being an overrated speaker...
    ...but there are a few models that I just don't seem to "get".

    Like Martin Logans for example. For the amount of praise I've heard and rave reviews I've read I've never heard a pair that sound good to me. Maybe they were not set up right, driven by the right electronics or I was listening to the wrong models but they always sound thin and tinny to my ears. I've listened to the mid range models in the $2500 - $5000 price range extensively in sound rooms and they just don't do it for me.

    On a different angle there's the high end Wilson Audio models. I'm not sure how any speaker could ever be worth $200,000 as their top of line model is. I mean what can they do that make them 10 times better than the $20,000 Nautilis 800 or 5 times better than the $40,000 Stradivari's? I haven't heard them so I don't want to sound ignorant about it, but $200K for a pair of speakers? The same amount of money we pay the leader of the free world? The same amount for a family house? The best sports or luxury cars in the world?
  • 04-12-2005, 05:55 AM
    Florian
    The closer you get to perfection the more expensive it gets. This is not new. All electrosttics, hybrids, fullranges etc.. are very very picky and their owners spend month in setting them up. I have never heard a good Martin Logan until the one fine day i heard a Odysee at my friends shop. Those things are darn picky, and love powerfull tubes. Same as the seating distance has to be at least 15ft for the drivers to integrate correctly. Apogee's are picky, and by moving them 1" they change their sound landscape. Wilson Audio Alexandria, and the Grand Utopia are very fine speakers. Are the Kharma's worth 160K, yes they are to some people. We cannot judge those speakers since we have never heard them in our home and we never played with different electronics.

    -Flo
  • 04-12-2005, 08:27 AM
    Florian
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drseid
    I have nothing against any of the speakers you just mentioned...

    But what exactly is a "true" audiophile exactly?

    I would not presume one way or another whether one person's preferences are somehow superior to another's...

    ---Dave

    I consider a person a true audiophile when he meets the following requirements.

    1. Matches components based on technical aspects
    2. Matches components based on the "character" of each piece.
    3. Creates a pleasing Aura to the eye
    4. Doesnt rate speakers based on whitepapers and showroom hearings

    A true Audiophile system has a certain magical aspect of their sound and doesnt need any papers to prove its goodness..

    -Flo

    PS: The best speakers in the world to me, are not the ones with great whitepapers.
  • 04-12-2005, 11:26 AM
    kexodusc
    Playing with fire here
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Florian
    I consider a person a true audiophile when he meets the following requirements.

    1. Matches components based on technical aspects.

    Exactly which technical aspects do I have to know to match my CD player or turn-table to my pre-amp?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Florian
    2. Matches components based on the "character" of each piece..

    What about those of us that look for the most faithful reproduction of music possible, ie: equipment without ANY imperfect "character"?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Florian
    3. Creates a pleasing Aura to the eye

    Huh? I could care less how bad it looked as long as it was clean and sounded great. Do you just sit and look at your gear, or do you actually play music?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Florian
    4. Doesnt rate speakers based on whitepapers and showroom hearings

    I would add: pricetag, external reviews, looks, and fundamental design

    I'm very disheartened to see that appreciation of music and sound has no place in your list.
    My definition would at least include these aspects, and be sure to include people of all incomes. Some of us actually use this stuff to satisfy a passion for music, not as elitist centerpieces on display in our homes.
  • 04-12-2005, 12:21 PM
    Florian
    Well its all actually very simple. Every single piece of equipment has a character. Thats why component matching is so important. Also matching the output voltage of your pre amp to your power amp is very important. Running either fully balanced or unballanced systems are important.

    The speakers that are listed here and commonly recommended are almost in all regards HIFI speakers and are far away from any neutral character. As a matter of fact, the Apogee's i recommended is about as neutral as you can get with the right electronics. B&W's have a warm sound, also does NAD, Cambridge and Rotel. The Japanse electronics have a general hard and unorganic sound. The Italian tubes sound warm, with a sometimes smeared/warm/friendly character which are great in the midrange and height but lack bass speed and dryness.

    As for the looks, i was refering to the overall look of the room and the acustics. Very often the components recommend by members are HIFI equipment and pretty much never anyone recommends room tuning which is one of the most critical factors there are.
    Also if the room it is in, does not look nice and friendly it will reflect on the mood you are in and the feeling of the music.

    Pricetags are pointless, because everyone will buy the best he/she can afford. Audiophiles are all limited to a budget, for some its 20K and 2K for others. Pricetag is not relevant. An Audiophile will make the best out of what he has. Is it possibe to have a Audiophile system on a 2K $ budget. In my opinion, no. But i am sure i will get slammed for that opinion.

    Apreciaten of music does not need to be listed, since it comes with the process of becomming a Audio Enthusiast or Audiophile.

    Quote:

    Some of us actually use this stuff to satisfy a passion for music, not as elitist centerpieces on display in our homes
    I find this quite amusing because i am properbly one of the youngest members on this site with some of the most expensive equipment too. Not to say that its the best, but since you mention prictag and income classes. I am 21 now, and have always tuned, treated my room and tried new equipment out. And actually the equipment i recommend i have usually owned.

    -Flo
  • 04-12-2005, 05:31 PM
    JoeE SP9
    Wilson's may not be the most overrated but they certainly must the the most overpriced IMO.
  • 04-12-2005, 05:54 PM
    drseid
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Florian
    I consider a person a true audiophile when he meets the following requirements.

    1. Matches components based on technical aspects
    2. Matches components based on the "character" of each piece.
    3. Creates a pleasing Aura to the eye
    4. Doesnt rate speakers based on whitepapers and showroom hearings

    A true Audiophile system has a certain magical aspect of their sound and doesnt need any papers to prove its goodness..

    -Flo

    PS: The best speakers in the world to me, are not the ones with great whitepapers.

    I appreciate your reply to a tough question Florian...

    That said, I think you may be overthinking things to some extent with such specifics as to what makes a "true" audiophile...

    In my case, I actually prefer the term "audio enthusiast" to "audiophile"...

    I think of an audio enthusiast as one who wants to enjoy their music as much as possible, and actively works to achieve that goal. I don't really give much thought to what "character" my equipment has, or what white papers say (or don't say). Isn't it all about just trying to enjoy the music...? At the end of the day, when it all comes together and you can't wipe that broad smile on your face away when listening to your favorite tunes, you know you have your system matched the way you want and it makes it all worthwhile. Just my 2 cents for what their worth.

    ---Dave
  • 04-12-2005, 06:10 PM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Florian
    As for the looks, i was refering to the overall look of the room and the acustics. Very often the components recommend by members are HIFI equipment and pretty much never anyone recommends room tuning which is one of the most critical factors there are.
    Also if the room it is in, does not look nice and friendly it will reflect on the mood you are in and the feeling of the music.

    Interesting that the look of the room matters so much in the enjoyment of music. Some of the best musical experiences I ever had were in dungeonlike, smoke-filled clubs surrounded by drunks in a mosh pit. In those cases, the power of the music was what mattered. I guess the music would have been a more meaningful experience if I was sitting in a pretty room by myself lisping in willowy clouds surrounded by aesthetic visual beauty.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Florian
    Pricetags are pointless, because everyone will buy the best he/she can afford. Audiophiles are all limited to a budget, for some its 20K and 2K for others. Pricetag is not relevant. An Audiophile will make the best out of what he has. Is it possibe to have a Audiophile system on a 2K $ budget. In my opinion, no. But i am sure i will get slammed for that opinion.

    Consider yourself slammed. You're making a mountain out of a molehill with all of the stereotypes and self-serving labels that you're throwing around. When you start narrowly defining what a "true" audiophile is (gee, and you happened to fit all of those categories, what a coincidence!), you're marginalizing everybody who takes a different approach than what you believe in.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Florian
    Apreciaten of music does not need to be listed, since it comes with the process of becomming a Audio Enthusiast or Audiophile.

    That's a load of BS. Over the years, I've met plenty of "audio enthusiasts" or self-proclaimed "audiophiles" who only care about what stuff sounds like, and squat about the music itself. They've bought into all of the money pit upgrades and tweaks, dumped thousands of dollars into their systems, spent more time and effort setting up their system and tweaking with the sound. Yet, for all that effort put into getting the sound to fit their preferences, they have no appreciation for the music itself. They'll buy the direct-to-disc LPs and pure DSD SACDs, not because they like the music, but because it has stellar audio quality. All you have to do to see this approach in action is look at the type of music that a lot of audio magazine reviewers listen to when they evaluate a system.

    Personally, I would rather listen to a master artist like John Coltrane or other music that I like through a battery-powered transistor radio than some wannabee hack who plays crappy music that happens to be well recorded through a "true" audiophile system. Some of the most dedicated and knowledgeable music fans I know listen to their music through less than stellar sounding audio systems. Appreciation of music is about the enjoyment of the music at its core, regardless of how it gets reproduced.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Florian
    I find this quite amusing because i am properbly one of the youngest members on this site with some of the most expensive equipment too. Not to say that its the best, but since you mention prictag and income classes. I am 21 now, and have always tuned, treated my room and tried new equipment out. And actually the equipment i recommend i have usually owned.

    Well congrats, so you spent more on your audio systems than any of us did. I guess that's why you're one of the chosen few "true" audiophiles in the world. The rest of us just "hide and praise whitepapers and dont even know what a speaker with a soul is."
  • 04-12-2005, 07:23 PM
    JoeE SP9
    Maybe an audiophile is someone with a $300K system and 6 CD's that are all "audiophile" approved. I guess I'm not the one. It's all about the music. If you loose sight of that you are wasting time and money. Most of the music those highly paid reviewers use for evaluating equipment is stuff I wouldn't listen to. I'm going to listen to some Wes now. Easy Groove on Pacific Jazz (vinyl).
  • 04-12-2005, 07:32 PM
    JoeE SP9
    Florian, where can you get new Apogee's? I thought they went out of business. This should not be taken as a slur on Apogee's. I seriously considered purchasing a pair of Mini Grands I heard at Soundex.
  • 04-12-2005, 07:46 PM
    risabet
    My $.02
    I've got to list:

    1. Bose
    2. Polk
    3. M&K

    What I cant understand is the hard line against Martin-Logan. This is a speaker that is critical in regards to placement, amplifiers and ancillary equipment. When set up correctly M-L's, even the small ones, have good bottom end, are quite dynamic, and of course, image in an amazing fashion. Speakers like these require time and energy to sound their best.

    Not to disrespect most dealers but their showrooms suck, the staff is weak and they can't set up a dipole to save their lives. The only fair assessment of dipoles is in the listeners room. The same can be said for Apogee's (which I sold when they were new and may be the most accurate speaker made if driven properly in the right room), Maggies and the Soundlabs and damned near any other dipoles.
  • 04-12-2005, 08:30 PM
    RGA
    Woochifer

    I have to admit your last response to Florian -- well when i see it from the outside looking in I can only imagine what an ASS I must come across as much of the tiime. Rolls eye at self :rolleyes:

    Working it on guys.
  • 04-12-2005, 10:45 PM
    Florian
    I consider this discussion with you at an end, for the simple reason of overreaction. You asume to much, and listen not enough. I was not putting myself into any category,i was simply stating what i think. If you cant handle another persons opinion, than i guess your in the wrong place.

    -Flo
  • 04-12-2005, 10:47 PM
    Florian
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JoeE SP9
    Florian, where can you get new Apogee's? I thought they went out of business. This should not be taken as a slur on Apogee's. I seriously considered purchasing a pair of Mini Grands I heard at Soundex.

    Check out www.audiogon.com www.audio-markt-auktion.de and www.apogeespeakers.com and click on usergroups.

    -Flo

    :-)
  • 04-12-2005, 10:51 PM
    Florian
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Woochifer

    I have to admit your last response to Florian -- well when i see it from the outside looking in I can only imagine what an ASS I must come across as much of the tiime. Rolls eye at self :rolleyes:

    Working it on guys.

    Well RGA, guess what. I never put anybody down, nor did i place anyone into any category. Nor did i spend over 18K$ for my system. I only said what i liked, and i still get slammed for it.

    If i would have bought a B&W 704 with Rotel equipment and would have joined in and screamed bloddy hell to all owners with high pricetag systems i would have been in the club.

    -Flo
  • 04-13-2005, 04:28 AM
    theaudiohobby
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Interesting that the look of the room matters so much in the enjoyment of music. Some of the best musical experiences I ever had were in dungeonlike, smoke-filled clubs surrounded by drunks in a mosh pit. In those cases, the power of the music was what mattered. I guess the music would have been a more meaningful experience if I was sitting in a pretty room by myself lisping in willowy clouds surrounded by aesthetic visual beauty.

    Speaking personally "dungeonlike, smoke filled club surrounded drunks in mosh pit" ruins the experience for me. I will rather enjoy my music in a more condusive atmosphere if it can be helped.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Personally, I would rather listen to a master artist like John Coltrane or other music that I like through a battery-powered transistor radio than some wannabee hack who plays crappy music that happens to be well recorded through a "true" audiophile system. Some of the most dedicated and knowledgeable music fans I know listen to their music through less than stellar sounding audio systems. Appreciation of music is about the enjoyment of the music at its core, regardless of how it gets reproduced.

    I will rather enjoy John Coltrane, or any great musicianship for that matter, on the best available sonic medium where available, that is why I am in this hobby to listen to great musicianship at the highest fidelity possible. There is a finite amount of money I am willing to invest new music and I will rather invest it on good music with excellent sonic quality. I listen to a lot of excellent music on radio and satellite but when I want to invest my money in a piece of music, sonic quality is one of the qualities alongside musical talent I consider when making purchasing decisions.

    ** Appreciation of music is about the enjoyment of the music at its core, regardless of how it gets reproduced. **

    This comment is an oxymoron in this hobby, if it were not, we will not bother with investing in quality music production software or hardware at all, afterall we should appreciate good music "regardless of how it get reproduced". I can appreciate good music with poor sonic quality, but I will appreciate it much more with excellent sonic quality. Some music fans indeed enjoy great music on less than optimal setups, however audiophiles make a concious decision to invest in above bar quality music reproduction to enjoy excellent sonic quality as an additional benefit to great musicianship, so ** "regardless of how it get reproduced". ** is overreaching in this instance.
  • 04-13-2005, 05:38 AM
    kexodusc
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
    Speaking personally "dungeonlike, smoke filled club surrounded drunks in mosh pit" ruins the experience for me. I will rather enjoy my music in a more condusive atmosphere if it can be helped.

    That's great, but I think the point which you've completey missed was, would you rather better sound at the expense of looks, or vice-versa if the choices are mutually exclusive...looks are nice, and WAF is important, but it's a far distant second to sound in my books...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
    I will rather enjoy John Coltrane, or any great musicianship for that matter, on the best available sonic medium where available, that is why I am in this hobby to listen to great musicianship at the highest fidelity possible. There is a finite amount of money I am willing to invest new music and I will rather invest it on good music with excellent sonic quality. I listen to a lot of excellent music on radio and satellite but when I want to invest my money in a piece of music, sonic quality is one of the qualities alongside musical talent I consider when making purchasing decisions.

    Again, we'd all rather have the best stuff, but when the dream ends and we wake up in the morning to our mere mortal systems, can we not still enjoy some pleasure from playing John Coltrane? Or how about with a clock radio? I have clock radio in my office right now that I use quite a bit...if it was so unbearable and gave me no satisfaction, I wouldn't be able to tolerate it..Are you implying that if we enjoy music on lesser systems, we're not audiophiles? If so, please specify which systems, so we can determine if we're audiophiles or not.
    If given the choice of a world with music and bad systems, or no music at all, I think most of us would still prefer to have music...

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
    ** Appreciation of music is about the enjoyment of the music at its core, regardless of how it gets reproduced. **
    This comment is an oxymoron in this hobby, if it were not, we will not bother with investing in quality music production software or hardware at all, afterall we should appreciate good music "regardless of how it get reproduced". I can appreciate good music with poor sonic quality, but I will appreciate it much more with excellent sonic quality. Some music fans indeed enjoy great music on less than optimal setups, however audiophiles make a concious decision to invest in above bar quality music reproduction to enjoy excellent sonic quality as an additional benefit to great musicianship, so ** "regardless of how it get reproduced". ** is overreaching in this instance.

    I think "overreaching" is a bit excessive. Wooch is quite right...there's people who for some reason buy music they don't particularly like just because it has received excellent studio treatment. These are the people who are just listening to the system. These aren't audiophiles...they're technophiles. They show off to others and themselves the ability of the system, but they don't enjoy the music. The delivery of the sound is more important than the artistic qualities of the music itself.
    That's fine, I don't hold anything against these people. But they have a much different goal than you and I.
  • 04-13-2005, 06:01 AM
    kexodusc
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Florian
    Well its all actually very simple. Every single piece of equipment has a character. Thats why component matching is so important. Also matching the output voltage of your pre amp to your power amp is very important. Running either fully balanced or unballanced systems are important.

    I guess it comes down to semantics, but to me, neutral gear has no "character", unless neutral is a character.
    Florian, I just don't accept that people who put less time into chosing their gear, or understand less about their systems can't be considered audiophiles. I know of many systems that were knowingly built on compromises, but the owners enjoy the systems nonetheless...they put a lot of effort into maximizing the performance of what they do have.
    They share an appreciation for the art that all this is made for in the first place - music.
    Regardless of their systems costs, the brand name, etc, if they share the desire and enthusiasm, I would consider them audiophiles, perhaps with different priorities than others, but audiophiles.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Florian
    The Japanse electronics have a general hard and unorganic sound

    That's funny, a sentence earlier you named a few manufacturers heavy on the Japanese electronics and described them as warm...I think at one point in history your simple stereotyping of electronics was better applied. Today it might be the case in a few components, but it's no longer that simple. More and more manufacturers have product lines where the sonic character differs from model to model.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Florian
    Pricetags are pointless, because everyone will buy the best he/she can afford. Audiophiles are all limited to a budget, for some its 20K and 2K for others. Pricetag is not relevant. An Audiophile will make the best out of what he has. Is it possibe to have a Audiophile system on a 2K $ budget. In my opinion, no. But i am sure i will get slammed for that opinion.

    There are many ways to build an audiophile system...some $2K systems sound better than $20K systems. And vice versa. But you seem to imply that having a so-called "audiophile system" is a necessary component of "being" an audiophile. I couldn't disagree more.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Florian
    Apreciaten of music does not need to be listed, since it comes with the process of becomming a Audio Enthusiast or Audiophile.

    In my case, it long preceded the process of becoming an Audiophile.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Florian
    I find this quite amusing because i am properbly one of the youngest members on this site with some of the most expensive equipment too. Not to say that its the best, but since you mention prictag and income classes. I am 21 now, and have always tuned, treated my room and tried new equipment out. And actually the equipment i recommend i have usually owned.
    -Flo

    Not sure why you posted this...but I guess if spending more money than others on gear makes you happy then that's fine. Personally I enjoy spending less money than others on gear while simultaneously arriving at a better sounding system...

    One last thing...Can you please explaing "HIFI" to me, I'm not sure I'm understanding it the way you're using it.
  • 04-13-2005, 06:17 AM
    theaudiohobby
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kexodusc
    That's great, but I think the point which you've completey missed was, would you rather better sound at the expense of looks, or vice-versa if the choices are mutually exclusive...looks are nice, and WAF is important, but it's a far distant second to sound in my books...

    Interesting state of affairs, I will rather not compromise on any, there have been performances where the environment totally ruined it for me and vice versa where the environment enhanced the musical experience, I will not tolerate bad music and I will barely tolerate a poor environment and only in exception circumstances and to a limited extent. Listening to music in non-optimal environments can be very painful at times irrespective of how great the music is.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kexodusc
    Again, we'd all rather have the best stuff, but when the dream ends and we wake up in the morning to our mere mortal systems, can we not still enjoy some pleasure from playing John Coltrane? Or how about with a clock radio? I have clock radio in my office right now that I use quite a bit...if it was so unbearable and gave me no satisfaction, I wouldn't be able to tolerate it..Are you implying that if we enjoy music on lesser systems, we're not audiophiles? If so, please specify which systems, so we can determine if we're audiophiles or not. If given the choice of a world with music and bad systems, or no music at all, I think most of us would still prefer to have music...

    I have a satellite radio that I listen to during the week and it puts out some great music from time to time, but at times the lack of fidelity on certain genres is personally unbearable and I turn it off. I can appreciate good music on poor system but I will rather not have to make that choice, In many cases I do not have to make that choice because of the wealth of good quality software and hardware available.
    As for the hypothetical question "world with music and bad systems", best to make that kind of choice on a case by case basis.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kexodusc
    I think "overreaching" is a bit excessive. Wooch is quite right...there's people who for some reason buy music they don't particularly like just because it has received excellent studio treatment. These are the people who are just listening to the system. These aren't audiophiles...they're technophiles. They show off to others and themselves the ability of the system, but they don't enjoy the music. The delivery of the sound is more important than the artistic qualities of the music itself.
    That's fine, I don't hold anything against these people. But they have a much different goal than you and I.

    Wooch used an extreme example of technophiles, your definition, to put down Florian comments that the love of music should be default for an audiophile, yes technophiles exist, some even admit to it, but to suggest that because Florian did not state "music appreciation" in his criteria somehow puts him in this category is somewhat overreaching in my opinion. More to the point, the comment ** regardless of how it is reproduced ** is quite simply overreaching, audiophiles enhance their enjoyment of great music by investing in good quality equipment and where available good software, it is that simple.