How Many of Us Consider Ourselves to Be "Audiophiles?"

[clarke68]

A lot of people, myself included, are uncomfortable with the "audiophile" label, because it automatically conjures up images of a lonely geek with a 5-figure stereo system and nothing but a few condiments in the 'fridge, with rocks on his CD player sitting around waiting for his cables to burn in.

I like listening to music on the stereo. I like live music much better, but I don't get the chance to get out to shows nearly as often. I am guilty of having spent hours positioning my speakers; and worse: guilty of having spent many more hours reading about audio gear on the internet.

I have ... the world's best speakers

Whaddya got, Allen? Apologies if you've already said so a hundred times. Edited September 8, 2008 by clarke68

[P.L.M]

I supposed, I am.

Spend a lot of money between to 2003/6 (I get a lot money, in 2003, mostly unespected) on the system I'm listening through now).

I have a special room to listen to music. And I always try to improve that system (recently by upgrading the CD players who are the part who evolute most).

The system (who will stay at it is for the rest of my life, I suppose, even if I always look for opportunity on the second hand maket) :

CD players:

Link Accurate CD (read SACD to)

Philips CD Player 723 who have been improved by a friend fifteen years ago (change or double most of the componements, ad tubes, etc.).

Turntable:

Thorens 1500 turntable from 1962 with a Shure SME 36009 arm and different cartridges (MC) Shure, Grado, Ortofon. (bought with the arms in a flea market in Holland)

Preamp:

Audio Research SP 16 (second hand)

Amp:

Krell KSA 250 (second hand)

Speakers (panels in fact):

Magneplanar 3.5/R (second hand)

Different cables : Siltech, Van den Hull and some home made by a friend.

But what make me different from the real audiophile it's that I'm listening to the music through my system and not listening to the system through the music.

[jazz1]

I suppose that I am a audiophile, the total cost of my system must be around 20 K

and that includes home made 3 way loudspeakers with subs.

But that was spent over many years. I also have around 2200 cds.

The reason to get good sound was to be able to appreciate the music at it's best.

I do not buy audiophile cds, mags etc.

Am I happy?? yes very much so. I do not think that I would be able to appreciate big orchestral works as much without it. The extra thrill is worth the $

[tonym]

I suffered from a brief bout of acute Audiophilia a couple of years ago when i created my present system but even then, I knew it was always going to be very temporary state in that once I had spent as many £ as I was able, I'd have to be happy and accept that I had a pretty good piece of kit. Building the nice rack to support it was possibly more rewarding!

I think Dan A summed it up: regardless of the price of your set up, it's the state of mind that determines degrees of audiophilia.

My journey onto the spectrum started several years ago when I bought my first set of Grado cans. I remember thinking how much better can a pair triple the cost actually be? I was pretty satisfied with my entry level pair although I still kept reading the reviews and browsing online.

I would never baulk at purchasing an older recording that had historical importance or just plain great music (as in Getz's Roost set or Kondrashin's or Mravinsky's Shostakovich cycle) because of the lack of pristine SQ. I want to experience the music; if a good system helps then so be it.

When I have time and I'm feeling very indulgent, I'll warm up the tube amp and revel in some headphone listening.

For the record, I have Naim gear with two pairs of Grado cans, the GS1000 and SR225 which I use with an Earmax Pro. I invested in some decent Telefunken and Amperex PQ tubes and a Nordost Red Dawn cable to feed it.

[Jazzmoose]

This does not mean one has to spend a huge amount of money on audio equipment. What it indicates to me is that one should take care in purchasing audio equipment. Listen carefully to a number of speakers in the price range you can afford with music familiar to you.

The question I've always had (and this is serious, not the ususal 'me being a smart ass') is, how can recorded music be familiar to me if I've only heard it on crappy speakers? Am I just fooling myself and going for the speakers that color the music in a way that I'm used to, or what? I know that this is sneered at, and if you are used to properly reproduced music, I can understand that, but isn't there some value in comparing stats, in order to find equipment? Help!

[Jazzmoose]

A lot of people, myself included, are uncomfortable with the "audiophile" label, because it automatically conjures up images of a lonely geek with a 5-figure stereo system and nothing but a few condiments in the 'fridge, with rocks on his CD player sitting around waiting for his cables to burn in.

Actually, the image that comes to me is the lonely geek with the 5-figure system and only three recordings to play, all boringly approved by his fellow audiophiles and containing music that everyone has heard to death. As an example, his entire jazz collection would be Kind of Blue...

[captainwrong]

I really don't know. I spent more on my stereo than I'd intended, but I haven't felt the need to buy a single component since, nor have I felt the need to go with endless tweaks, etc. Plus I'm running a $1200+ amp through a pair of Dynaco A-40XLs I bought at Goodwill for $4 (their tag was half off that week, should have been $8) so I'm not sure what that says about me.

[captainwrong]

A lot of people, myself included, are uncomfortable with the "audiophile" label, because it automatically conjures up images of a lonely geek with a 5-figure stereo system and nothing but a few condiments in the 'fridge, with rocks on his CD player sitting around waiting for his cables to burn in.

Actually, the image that comes to me is the lonely geek with the 5-figure system and only three recordings to play, all boringly approved by his fellow audiophiles and containing music that everyone has heard to death. As an example, his entire jazz collection would be Kind of Blue...

[Larry Kart]

This does not mean one has to spend a huge amount of money on audio equipment. What it indicates to me is that one should take care in purchasing audio equipment. Listen carefully to a number of speakers in the price range you can afford with music familiar to you.

The question I've always had (and this is serious, not the ususal 'me being a smart ass') is, how can recorded music be familiar to me if I've only heard it on crappy speakers? Am I just fooling myself and going for the speakers that color the music in a way that I'm used to, or what? I know that this is sneered at, and if you are used to properly reproduced music, I can understand that, but isn't there some value in comparing stats, in order to find equipment? Help!

The answer is that if the music is familiar to you, no matter how crappy your speakers are, you'll almost certainly be able to tell that it sounds better on better equipment. Then once you're familiar with some reasonable level of "better" within your price range, you can sort out which equipment within that price range is the "best" better for you.

[Big Al]

I think the Hoffman site has turned me into an anti-audiophile. Yesterday I bought the new Metallica album. Went to the Hoffman site to try and find some reviews about the music and there was maybe one comment about the material for every ten posts screaming about how loud the album was. Yes, it's bone-crushingly loud. Last time I checked, metal was supposed to be that way! The new REM album and the new Elvis Costello record are also allegedly too loud, but they're good enough for me, though, and I have nothing even resembling a high-end stereo system. Hell, most of my listening is done in the car (usually with the windows down) or at work (usually with the Windows down. haha).

I am very likely the poster child for the dark side of the "loudness war."

[Jazzmoose]

The answer is that if the music is familiar to you, no matter how crappy your speakers are, you'll almost certainly be able to tell that it sounds better on better equipment. Then once you're familiar with some reasonable level of "better" within your price range, you can sort out which equipment within that price range is the "best" better for you.

Thanks for a serious response! It's the first I've received after asking that question over the last twenty years. Okay; I'll give it a shot when the budget allows.

[freejazz2020]

Thanks to all who responded - this one has been fun.

I originally asked this, as I have always considered myself to be a music lover first. Yet, at one time, I had funds comparable to a small home investied in an audio system . I downgraded to a relatively modest system about six months ago and now seem to be enjoying music even more than ever!

[Big Al]

Yeah, in this case, ignorance is not only bliss, but also a helluva lot less expensive!

[Guest Bill Barton]

Hmmm... Ain't that the truth, Big Al! If I had the $ I might end up in that category but that's a pretty unlikely scenario.

Interesting thing is that - compared to most musicians I've known over the years - my relatively modest stereo system is audiophile equipment compared to what they use (if anything) to listen to recorded music. My ex-girlfriend - for instance - who is a piano teacher and professional organist was and is perfectly content with a boombox. This might be a subject for a whole other thread.