How much does it cost to be an audiophile?

[lucretius]

The topic question is one for the religious, not free thinkers.

[GUTB]

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

The topic question is one for the religious, not free thinkers.

 

You have very entry level systems, so I can understand your desire to reject high end audio but -- you don't have to. I think you'll find reaching for the next level of audio isn't unattainable. Why not head over T.H.E. Show Newport this weekend and expand your horizons? 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 hours ago, GUTB said:

This is the Internet though, some normal forms of face-to-face social communications don't apply.

 

Sadly this is very true.

 

The anonymous faceless nature of the internet makes *some* people's frontal lobes disengage...you f***ck8  id**io*) mo foYuu6l !!  ....  JUST KIDDING ?

 

 

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

 

 

8 hours ago, GUTB said:

 Even though these cheaper options may be surprisingly good in some ways -- maybe even many ways -- they won't compete with the modern high-end. An experienced, ear-educated audiophile wouldn't be able to bear the audio downgrade from trading in his high end system for the "well-regarded cheap" option.

 

I have to say IMO there is often a strong reverse snobbery exhibited on CA. Another member described it as "pettiness" and "jealousy". I think there are extremely valid reasons that people rail against implications that expensive is better or that there is a $ entry point to audiophildom. On the other hand there are those that just get self validation through bashing audiophiles.

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

10 hours ago, mordante said:

I don't think I can or want my home audio system to sound like a live music. Live music, what is it even? Is Slayer playing a for 10.000 people the standard, is it a U2 stadium concert, is it a chamber music (cello piano violin vocals), or is it a Wagner concert in the royal Albert?

 

The cheer size, dynamic range and decibels of a live performance is not what I could ever want in my living room. This weekend I was at a Sleep concert. Their backline would fill most of my living room.  

 

I think all that can be expected of a playback system is to be faithful to the source. I think that is much easier for small acoustic groups/ensembles than for large scale musical events.

 

If the source is amplified music through PA systems weaponized by the sound guy....*I* don't want to  listen to it  but would expect my playback system to be agnostic.

 

If the source is studio produced artistry I expect my playback system to be faithful to the final mix and mastering. Again , whether you like that recording/mix and mastering is another issue

 

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

 

9 hours ago, Bystander said:

I don't think being an audiophile has to cost anything. To me, it just means you appreciate good audio and have come to know,  learned to recognize and appreciate accurate sound reproduction.

 

A friend of mine says high-end audio is a bit like owning swimming pools and boats....best to use other peoples'.

[sandyk]

7 hours ago, semente said:

I've just been listening to a $165k+ new CD based system for some 4 hours. The owner and the other visitor enjoy listening at higher levels than I do and I confess that I felt uncomfortable at times.

 

I must admit that this sometimes applies to me as well, but not necessarily the next part.

 Although my electronics are way better than average, it does show that I should replace the bipolar electrolytic capacitors in the Crossover networks of my old DCM QED 1A speakers, as the HF impact is degraded a little compared with when new.

 This kind of thing is a gradual deterioration that creeps up on you, just like with aging Vacuum Tubes.

[sandyk]

Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

 

A friend of mine says high-end audio is a bit like owning swimming pools and boats....best to use other peoples'.

 You wouldn't want to Pee in your own swimming pool, would you ?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

7 hours ago, semente said:

 The owner and the other visitor enjoy listening at higher levels than I do and I confess that I felt uncomfortable at times.

 

I must admit that this sometimes applies to me as well, but not necessarily the next part

 

Hi Alex, yes I noticed the other week that once you requested to have the volume turned down. Mind you, in the past I have recalled you asking for it turned up. In general I listen at around 70 to 76 dB showing on my SPL meter. I do crank it up for rock tho.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 You wouldn't want to Pee in your own swimming pool, would you ?

 

That is more acceptable than other people's pee ! ?

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Hi Alex, yes I noticed the other week that once you requested to have the volume turned down. Mind you, in the past I have recalled you asking for it turned up. In general I listen at around 70 to 76 dB showing on my SPL meter. I do crank it up for rock tho.

 Hi David

 That wasn't directed specifically at you. My E.E. friend Ionwyn and the other David often play music at levels well above what you play yours at. Sometimes, at higher levels, the room dampening loses a little of it's effectiveness too, again, this was not directed at your listening room. It's a general observation.

 

Regards

Alex

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, lucretius said:

The topic question is one for the religious, not free thinkers.

 

the only distinction is whether you are religiously High-end or religiously Low-end. Neither are free thinkers.

[semente]

7 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

You have very entry level systems, so I can understand your desire to reject high end audio but -- you don't have to. I think you'll find reaching for the next level of audio isn't unattainable. Why not head over T.H.E. Show Newport this weekend and expand your horizons? 

A lot of High End systems with Wilsons, Magicos, BnWs, ML CLXs, YGs, Martens I've listened to at shows sounded like rubbish... And some of them might actually have sounded quite good in better rooms with better (not more expensive) electronics; others are just high-dollar bin-linners.

Surprised?

[semente]

7 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Hi David

 That wasn't directed specifically at you. My E.E. friend Ionwyn and the other David often play music at levels well above what you play yours at. Sometimes, at higher levels, the room dampening loses a little of it's effectiveness too, again, this was not directed at your listening room. It's a general observation.

 

Regards

Alex

 

I think that you and others may have missed my point.

What SPL level was unbearably and uncomfortably loud with the £130k system sounded perfectly reasonable in my system in my 4.5x3.4m room with my mid-end system. Perhaps we (well, GUTB) need to re-evaluate which is which...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I think that you and others may have missed my point.

What SPL level was unbearably and uncomfortably loud with the £130k system sounded perfectly reasonable in my system in my 4.5x3.4m room with my mid-end system. Perhaps we (well, GUTB) need to re-evaluate which is which...

Ricardo, are you saying your smaller room or your system or both (the interaction) was responsible for more comfortable SQ, presuming the SPL loudness levels were matched?

 

Not sure if I'm on the same wavelength but I have often said I can comfortably listen to the Stones on the car radio but seldom on a HiFi. That said, along with softening all the 'rough edges' the radio also loses a lot of what I like about the Stones music.

 

[AnotherSpin]

34 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Ricardo, are you saying your smaller room or your system or both (the interaction) was responsible for more comfortable SQ, presuming the SPL loudness levels were matched?

 

Not sure if I'm on the same wavelength but I have often said I can comfortably listen to the Stones on the car radio but seldom on a HiFi. That said, along with softening all the 'rough edges' the radio also loses a lot of what I like about the Stones music.

 

 

+for Stones. The worse sound system the better they sound. Generalization, of course. The same for many rock albums from early seventies.

 

[semente]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Ricardo, are you saying your smaller room or your system or both (the interaction) was responsible for more comfortable SQ, presuming the SPL loudness levels were matched?

 

Not sure if I'm on the same wavelength but I have often said I can comfortably listen to the Stones on the car radio but seldom on a HiFi. That said, along with softening all the 'rough edges' the radio also loses a lot of what I like about the Stones music.

 

 

I'd say that for sure my system was reponsible for more comfortable high SPL and more low-level detail and better balanced response playing Farka Toure's "Ai Du". No "softening", no compression, no "rough edges", no "grain", no "glare", just a lot more realistic. My source has limitations, as do my speakers, but the amp is very good. The tiny room is concrete floor and ceiling with concrete block walls, a huge tall window behind the listener and three doors in the corners. The speakers aren't even optimally positioned because this room is the functioning family living space.

 

 

The easy way to test this is to push the system to very high levels, listen for a bit and then talk to someone sitting next to you. A very good system (read low distortion) will make you go "wow I didn't see that coming" (to paraphrase the other currently running topic).

[fas42]

1 hour ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

+for Stones. The worse sound system the better they sound. Generalization, of course. The same for many rock albums from early seventies.

 

 

Nope. That's exactly the sort of music I use for fine tuning a setup - because the slightest variation from optimum is disturbingly obvious. An album I have often used is a standard release of the very first recording sessions they did, which is, "as rough as guts" - this is like testing the suspension of a car with a test track filled with the nastiest potholes one can devise; how well does the engineering bear up under such conditions?

 

Rock albums of that era are fabulous to listen to on a competent system - it makes the effort to achieve the latter worth all the "pain", .

[semente]

2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Ricardo, are you saying your smaller room or your system or both (the interaction) was responsible for more comfortable SQ, presuming the SPL loudness levels were matched?

 

Not sure if I'm on the same wavelength but I have often said I can comfortably listen to the Stones on the car radio but seldom on a HiFi. That said, along with softening all the 'rough edges' the radio also loses a lot of what I like about the Stones music.

 

 

1 hour ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

+for Stones. The worse sound system the better they sound. Generalization, of course. The same for many rock albums from early seventies.

 

 

I've "measured" Ai Du for you guys:

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, semente said:

 

 

I've "measured" Ai Du for you guys:

 

 

I'm not familiar with the program but does this not analyze the loudness levels/ DR for a file? I'm not sure how this demonstrates comparative loudness levels of different systems in different locations.I don't have difficulty believing you that your system sounded better than a more expensive system in a different room, just not sure how the graph demonstrates this.

[marce]

20 hours ago, GUTB said:

I'm neurotypical. In fact it's neurotypical to be socially adept enough not to put down someone else's inferior stereo system. This is the Internet though, some normal forms of face-to-face social communications don't apply.

 

VAC sounds better than a Yamaha. Magicos sound better than a sub-$1000 Madisound kit. That is the complete truth. Even though these cheaper options may be surprisingly good in some ways -- maybe even many ways -- they won't compete with the modern high-end. An experienced, ear-educated audiophile wouldn't be able to bear the audio downgrade from trading in his high end system for the "well-regarded cheap" option. Everyone here, excepting maybe those who have never heard high-end audio once in their lives (studio engineers usually have no contact with high end audio), knows this fact.

I don't want to be an audiophile anymore, I just want to be a snob and sneer at those with lesser systems.

I find it all depressing, so depressing that I am serious I don't want to be an audiophile, I want to listen to music and a system is just a tool to achieve that, it seems being an audiophile is more about the system than the music.

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, marce said:

I don't want to be an audiophile anymore, I just want to be a snob and sneer at those with lesser systems.

I find it all depressing, so depressing that I am serious I don't want to be an audiophile, I want to listen to music and a system is just a tool to achieve that, it seems being an audiophile is more about the system than the music.

I hate to repeat myself, but:

On 5/27/2018 at 6:22 PM, mansr said:

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

14 minutes ago, marce said:

I don't want to be an audiophile anymore, I just want to be a snob and sneer at those with lesser systems.

I find it all depressing, so depressing that I am serious I don't want to be an audiophile, I want to listen to music and a system is just a tool to achieve that, it seems being an audiophile is more about the system than the music.

 

I'm not sure you should be inspired one way or another by GUTB's views, or for that matter mine or any one else. There are probably more audiophiles here that agree with you than don't. Either way if you are interested in great sound subserving great music, you remain an audiophile by my definition. Being more interested in the system than the music is like the mechanic endlessly tuning the car but never enjoying driving it.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

I hate to repeat myself, but:

 

 

I don't have a problem with using music to test my system any more than looking at audio measurements.Audiophilia nervosa sets in if that's all you do. Then again it's not a crime either and no doubt a hobby in its own right.

[accwai]

46 minutes ago, marce said:

I don't want to be an audiophile anymore, I just want to be a snob and sneer at those with lesser systems.

I find it all depressing, so depressing that I am serious I don't want to be an audiophile, I want to listen to music and a system is just a tool to achieve that, it seems being an audiophile is more about the system than the music.

 

Yeah, I hate audiophiles too. To be blunt, they're *so* uncultured.

 

Just curious, what kind of music background do you music experts have? I only have music theory/history up to RCM Grade 10 and have First-Class Honours with Distinction across the board only up to Grade 9. And then I got lazy and didn't take any ARCT theory/history classes, only sat in most of them. That really sucks by the high standard around here in CA right?