any audiophiles here?

[gfro]

My first audiophile stereo started when I graduated college in 1981.
SAE/JBL was high end to me back then, and before digital took hold.
This is my latest mix of components.
The MBL omni-directional speakers are eerily holographic - close your eyes, the speakers disappear, and the musicians are in front of you!
Say what you will about being an audiophile, but to me this has been a fun and rewarding hobby trying to get small improvements in audio resolution and realism.
Sometimes diminishing returns dictates, but many times it is just amazing the results!

MBL 101E speakers

Jeff Rowland 925 amps

EMM Labs DV2 DA/Preamp

REL212SE subwoofer

[fitness1]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Hilarious quote of the day:

"Audiophiles don't use their equipment to listen to your music. Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment." - Alan Parsons

Bob

Love it -


I've been listening critically for about 40 years now - more of a high end mid-fi guy that knows how to set up my stereo for optimum performance. I've known so many over the years that spend zillions on uber high end gear and miss that most important part.

The first consideration when I move into a new space is which room gets the system

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by Mr. Paul

Ain't that the truth. At one time I subscribed to all the stereo magazines, just loved reading about all the cool stuff. It seemed a niche part of the industry was based on selling fairy tales. I do remember the green marker to paint CD edges. I remain confused about how $1,000 cables can make a difference in sound.

I recall going to the stereo shop to buy an equalizer but falling for the sales pitch on a Carver Sonic Holography Generator. It was supposed to magically change a stereo image into a 3D soundstage.

Man I spent all night trying to get that thing to do something .... anything!

I remember those Carver magic boxes too! I went to a stereo shop and the guy put on Dark Side of the Moon with the alarm clocks going off as two rows of 8. He had me stand in a particular spot and claimed you could here how many alarm clocks were going off and where they were when he enabled that magic box. I tried hard to hear what he was hearing, but just couldn't quite get there, but he almost had me believing though. A good salesperson can really active that power of suggestion sometimes.

Tony

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Hilarious quote of the day:

"Audiophiles don't use their equipment to listen to your music. Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment." - Alan Parsons

Bob

When I was involved with the audio society, those folks readily admitted this and it didn't phase (pardon the pun...) them one bit.

Just as with GAS where the 'G' is "guitar", so it can easily be with audio gear. For those with money to burn, I am sure it is great fun.

As I recall, there was an audio magazine for the cheap skates like me. That is where I found out about the Advent 300 receiver.

Tony

[coder]

When I started making some money in the computer profession, I attempted to get some audophile gear. Strangely, I found, the more money I spend, the less happy I got with the equipmnent. Unless unlimited funds are available, it is always a compromise of some sort.

Having spent a ton of money, I always felt like "for all that money" the end results were just never good enough. I realized that this was madness.
So I changed tactics. Now I swore of the pursuit of the "best" and just try to get something that sounds "good enough" for sane money, and worry about listening to the music instead.

For my casual listening while working, I have a super inexpensive Lepai Tripath amp. Run into a pair of Micca speakers, I bought open box, for something like < 100$ for the pair. The Miccas feature a silk dome tweater, and a Feistel network based x-over. Feel free to laugh at me, but it is a rather natural sounding setup, with a lot of detail, esp. for vocals or combo jazz. Encouraged by the positove experience with the Miccas, I ended up installing 8" in-wall Micca speakers for my library, which I run off of an old German Dual stereo amp, I found in my father-in-law-s estate. Both of these are fed by their own Grace Designs O2 external SDAC. Given that the dac, and and speakers are good enough to reproduce all the detail, I find that the mastering/recording matters a lot, probably more than the sound chain (as long as some minimal standards are met for the repro chain) . I listen to a lot of hi-res digital audio, and pay a lot of attention to picking good recordings done by a known quality sound engineer. Recording well is hard, esp classical orchestral music.

I also have an old Oppo blueRay player which plays SACD-s for my home theater. That setup has a multi channel Onkyo receiver, with all Infinity speakers. So what t I learnt, is for me at least, spending non-trivial money on hifi is counterproductive.

[Jamolay]

@coder’s post got me thinking a little.

I started trying to buy higher end audiophile equipment a long time ago. The first thing I realized was it was an expensive hobby. You buy, you listen, you sell, you buy, you listen. Very passive as well.

Additionally, like GAS and the guitar bug, fueled by all the wonderful instruments out there and especially on a forum of enthusiasts, there is always better, nicer, lovelier, unique, special, whims out there. It makes you want, yearn and spend.

I solved my problem by channeling my basic electronics and high voltage switching experience (limited) into building stereo and speakers. I stink at wood work though. I made a few nice amps and DACs (which currently need repair) and kept myself off the streets for a while. But, unlike guitars, you can have too many amps (IMO [emoji849]).

Now, it is guitars. I want to play and interact more with the music and spend less time critically listening.

[coder]

Pretty sure this has been said before, I think there is a significant factor of "we hear what we want to hear". I am surprised at the passionate arguments folks put up based on entirely subjective and casual auditioning about some totally ridiculous topics. For example, oxygen free copper.
I once had an argument with a friend of mine who swore he could hear the difference beween a cheap and expensive USB cable. Hmm. no concept of "digital", and apparently overactive imagination.

I think a person's current state of mind and expectations matter more than reality. I think it is a fair question "But, can you pick out the better sounding [subsitute your favorite topic here] in a blind test?
Esp with the kind of money at stake, I think that should be a fair requirement.

But, surprisingly I do not see this done too often. What happens instead, some self-anointed expert comes along, and talks about the topic in poetical, colorful, but mostly meaningless terms. When somebody says "smooth bass" or "muddy" or "clinical" or "harsh" or "brittle" or any of these favorite BS terms, my eyes start to bleed.
Maybe that means something to somebody, but I put forward that there is no universally valid interpretation, of what those poetical terms actually mean.

I think we agree that there are gross differences that anybody can hear. A high-end stereo probably can be picked out in a blind test when compared to a cheap integreated $60 computer sound system. Why is the blind test method not done more? I think people love to talk about audio in these strange terms, and to somehow feel superior to others that dont. It goes something like:
"I have a lot more money to blow on audio than you do, and I am an expert and you are not. Now adore and emulate me".

[warfrat73]

Originally Posted by coder

But, surprisingly I do not see this done too often. What happens instead, some self-anointed expert comes along, and talks about the topic in poetical, colorful, but mostly meaningless terms. When somebody says "smooth bass" or "muddy" or "clinical" or "harsh" or "brittle" or any of these favorite BS terms, my eyes start to bleed.
Maybe that means something to somebody, but I put forward that there is no universally valid interpretation, of what those poetical terms actually mean.

Subjective poesy aside, terms like "muddy" and "harsh" are hardly meaningless, and I suspect you're over stating your point. Now, in differentiating between multi-thousand dollar systems, it might be splitting hairs. But muddy and harsh can be very apparent in other contexts; I can recall many moments when different musical elements have been slurred and combined into each other (or even worse, a PA system at an outdoor event which is just a mumble of noise), and similarly I have heard sound come from certain speakers that has made me physically recoil at its harshness (again, maybe not explicitly high end audio).

Certainly some things are hoodoo, and just the result of rampant capitalism. But, relatively frequently over on the actual guitar part of the forum, somebody starts a thread that goes something like "My $300 import sounds just as good as your $30k Olson, and I won't be convinced otherwise." Usually somebody on one of these threads will say something like "just because you can't hear a difference, it doesn't mean other people can't hear a difference... you don't know what they hear."

There's some of this involved here too. Discerning difference takes practice, and we're all wired differently.

Though, certainly there are quite a few people out there whose livelihoods rely on convincing use that there is a difference, and that difference is not only worth the money, but will also make us happier.

Clearly the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes.

[Cocobolo Kid]

I think the spirit of this thread was for AGF users to share their audio systems in a positive way. Coder, just as you accuse others of hearing what they want to hear, it seems to me that you believe what you want to believe. Your negative experiences with high end audio may be vastly different from others. For instance, I have enjoyed listening to my high end two-channel system for over twenty years, and through many small and larger upgrades. For me, one of the most enjoyable parts of my week is being home alone and sitting down to listen to music with my eyes closed and undisturbed. It is very peaceful and relaxing. It's hard to explain, but when listening to a great recording on a great system and imagining the musical performance happening right in front of me, an enjoyable part of my brain gets stimulated that does not happen in any other way.

Also, just because you believe audio components should be selected by blind listening tests, does not mean that others share your views. I for one, don't want to choose my audio components that way. Looks, company reputation, reliability, features, cost, size and product design philosophy are some of the factors I consider when choosing what audio components to buy. Also, one small upgrade may not make a noticeable difference at first, but combining lots of upgrades over time does. Do you follow your own advice in other areas? For instance, the purchase of a car is a big expense. Do you sit blind folded as a passenger in several cars during test drives to see which car you like the best? Of course not, because there are many other more important factors that go into purchasing a car.

I consider myself very knowledgeable about high end audio, but I certainly don't try to force my opinions on anyone else. I also don't brag about how costly my audio equipment is. I am not a wealthy person, so investing in audio equipment is a big consideration for me. Because I get so much enjoyment from it, I think it is worth it. I have also purchased almost all of my audio gear as pre-owned from websites like Audiogon.

Originally Posted by coder

Pretty sure this has been said before, I think there is a significant factor of "we hear what we want to hear". I am surprised at the passionate arguments folks put up based on entirely subjective and casual auditioning about some totally ridiculous topics. For example, oxygen free copper.
I once had an argument with a friend of mine who swore he could hear the difference beween a cheap and expensive USB cable. Hmm. no concept of "digital", and apparently overactive imagination.

I think a person's current state of mind and expectations matter more than reality. I think it is a fair question "But, can you pick out the better sounding [subsitute your favorite topic here] in a blind test?
Esp with the kind of money at stake, I think that should be a fair requirement.

But, surprisingly I do not see this done too often. What happens instead, some self-anointed expert comes along, and talks about the topic in poetical, colorful, but mostly meaningless terms. When somebody says "smooth bass" or "muddy" or "clinical" or "harsh" or "brittle" or any of these favorite BS terms, my eyes start to bleed.
Maybe that means something to somebody, but I put forward that there is no universally valid interpretation, of what those poetical terms actually mean.

I think we agree that there are gross differences that anybody can hear. A high-end stereo probably can be picked out in a blind test when compared to a cheap integreated $60 computer sound system. Why is the blind test method not done more? I think people love to talk about audio in these strange terms, and to somehow feel superior to others that dont. It goes something like:
"I have a lot more money to blow on audio than you do, and I am an expert and you are not. Now adore and emulate me".

[TeleBluesMan]

I used to think interconnects were pretty much all the same and the differences were negligible. After some comparisons I believe there can be significant differences that are readily apparent. OTOH, I believe speaker wire does not make much of a difference. YMMV.

[fitness1]

Originally Posted by TeleBluesMan

I used to think interconnects were pretty much all the same and the differences were negligible. After some comparisons I believe there can be significant differences that are readily apparent. OTOH, I believe speaker wire does not make much of a difference. YMMV.

About 6 years ago I bought a nice Yamaha CDS-700 player and much better interconnects.

I can tell you without hesitation that there was a significant difference. The old CD player was one of the early Adcoms, so that was part of it, but there is not doubt in my mind that the upgrade from 20.00 to 80-100.00 interconnects had something to do with it as well.

I do close field listening in a completely darkened room, and it really sucks you in. Subtle differences become quite apparent.

[TeleBluesMan]

Originally Posted by fitness1

About 6 years ago I bought a nice Yamaha CDS-700 player and much better interconnects.

I can tell you without hesitation that there was a significant difference. The old CD player was one of the early Adcoms, so that was part of it, but there is not doubt in my mind that the upgrade from 20.00 to 80-100.00 interconnects had something to do with it as well.

I do close field listening in a completely darkened room, and it really sucks you in. Subtle differences become quite apparent.

Agreed. I find higher-grade interconnects provide greater transparency and increased bass response.

[rick-slo]

Myths abound in high end audio.

https://playbutton.co/myths-about-hi...-audio-cables/

[TeleBluesMan]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Myths abound in high end audio.

https://playbutton.co/myths-about-hi...-audio-cables/

Well, if you read it on the internet it must be true!!

I trust my ears. But it depends on the entire system. When I had a $2,000 system it didn't make a difference. On a $10,000 system, I hear the difference very clearly. YMMV.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by TeleBluesMan

Well, if you read it on the internet it must be true!!

I trust my ears. But it depends on the entire system. When I had a $2,000 system it didn't make a difference. On a $10,000 system, I hear the difference very clearly. YMMV.

Don't know if you read the article. Here is another article:
https://ethanwiner.com/myths.html

For a time I bought into at least the possibility mentioned in the hype. Later I focused mainly on the speakers and the room acoustics.