04-17-2009, 03:30 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 918
|
|
Gizmodo Sees Value In Having Audiophiles
"Fremer, if you have yet to decipher this, is an audiophile of the highest calibre. Literally millions of dollars of premium audio equipment have passed through his listening room under review for Stereophile magazine, and he's been obsessing about vinyl since he was four years old, memorizing the labels of his parents' 78s." 
$350,000 sounds like a lot to spend on a stereo system, but Gizmodo explains why audiophiles, at least those like Michael Fremer, are crucial to making sure that our music equipment doesn't degenerate into a series of beeps and boops. In almost every industry, we have experts who examine every detail and criticize every choice and while they may seem obsessive and uncompromising, they're the people who keep pushing improvements and prevent quality from dropping too far. I sit in wonder about how one can spend thousands on something that seems trivial to me, but for some, it makes a difference. I'll freely admit that I'm very pedestrian when it comes to music equipment and I'll even listen to 128kbps mp3s (though FLAC sounds much better) but I am glad there are those who make sure that the industry is pushing to make things better.
|
| |
|
|
|
04-17-2009, 03:59 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 639
|
|
I used to be a wannabe audiophile. Spent lots more than I needed to on audio stuff and then one day decided that I needed to spend that money elsewhere. After a while I began to forget about the differences in sound and to accept as "good" the world of mainstream gadgetry. Honestly, I thought that mainstream was just getting better, and it probably was. And I began to laugh at people who still insisted on spending thousands on "high-end" components.
However, recently I went with an audiophile buddy to our local shop and sat and listened in awe at how incredible things really can sound through good equipment. I had completely lost interest in my classical collection until I listened to it the "right" way again and remembered how wonderful the audio experience can be. I listened to my buddy's iPod (Apple lossless stuff) through some audiophile headphones and then listened again to this through a $1000 headphone tube amp fed by a $1200 DAC/Preamp and was again BLOWN AWAY by the positive change in experience. Not to mention how incredible was the experience through high end speakers.
Anyway, the main lesson I learned was to stay away from these places until I become independently wealthy. But I also regained an appreciation for the fact that the music listening experience truly can be transformed, taking one from passive listener to active, awed participant.
That audiophile shop has since gone under and I am saddened...
|
| |
|
|
|
04-18-2009, 11:05 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
I love music. I really, really love music - but as much as I like hearing the music as good as it can sound, there's a limit to how much money I'm going to spend to hear it. For me that's good-quality AudioEngine, Klipsch, or Logitech speakers. For headphones, that's Ultimate Ears or Shure. With a reasonable amount of money, you can make the music sound probably 75% better than "baseline". For me, that's good enough. I really like the way music and movies sound through the equipment I have. For me it's not worth spending $10,000 to go from 75% up to 90%.
And I think the thing that some people forget is that music isn't just about how well you can hear a particular instrument - the melody, the hook of a song, comes through on an AM radio.
|
| |
|
|
|
04-19-2009, 02:47 AM
|
|
Contributing Editor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 918
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
And I think the thing that some people forget is that music isn't just about how well you can hear a particular instrument - the melody, the hook of a song, comes through on an AM radio.
|
I once heard a commercial playing on AM radio that said something akin to "listen only to the left channel, then only the right channel." I was at a loss for words. I'm guessing that whatever ad company that placed the ad wasn't thinking things through and that they needed a separate ad for AM vs FM stations.
The article mentions that sound quality does tend to get more expensive on a logarithmic scale which is sad since like everyone else, I've heard what music CAN sound like. The ears are willing, but the wallet says no!
|
| |
|
|
|
04-19-2009, 04:24 AM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 639
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
...you can make the music sound probably 75% better than "baseline". For me, that's good enough. I really like the way music and movies sound through the equipment I have. For me it's not worth spending $10,000 to go from 75% up to 90%.
And I think the thing that some people forget is that music isn't just about how well you can hear a particular instrument - the melody, the hook of a song, comes through on an AM radio.
|
It really depends on the music. I can get excited by a melody coming form the speaker in a Hallmark card. The melody certainly can evoke the full "emotion" of the music. However, some music is really good in general, but just AMAZING when actually "experienced." For me, it classical and jazz and certain artists/albums/recording sessions that are just special...I think it is especially true for some live recordings. For these, the extra 25% really amounts to 100%. It is the "transparency" of the sound. The accuracy of the sound stage. The ability to point to the bassist as he slaps out the rhythm track. The ability to experience it as though you were in the room.
That said, I too can't possibly justify dumping 5-10% of my income into audio equipment. Even if it is a doubling of my "enjoyment" of some music, it is still music and is still just enjoyment. And I DO get 95% of the desired pleasure for 95% of the music for 5% of the cost. So, economics wins. It just doesn't change the fact that audiophile's aren't crazy for hearing something that doesn't exist, just for being willing ot trade steak for spaghetti in order to experience it.
|
| |
|
|
|
04-19-2009, 08:16 AM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,350
|
|
To each his or her hobby. To me music is important and I spend more than some others on stereo equipment, but far less than audiophiles. Last I did is upgrade my 20-yr old NAD integrated amplifier in my study (where I tend to really listen to music the most) to a newer model, and new B&W loudspeakers. When I entered the shop, my gear lust kicked in when I saw all great options available. I also listened to the very clean reproduction done by other speakers when connected to my amplifier. Happily I have no space in my study to put huge loudspeakers, or I'd be in temptation to get those...
For example with symphonic/prog rock and classical music, cheaper systems can be too muddy to really enjoy the subtlety in the music. For alternative rock (80% of my music could be labeled as that), I care less about the reproduction, since that music isn't necessarily known for subtlety. In the end, the NAD amplifier and B&W's where the middle ground for me: enough of an update, without breaking the bank. After all, I have to support my other hobby's, where I spend more than others would. That 14-35 f2 Digital Zuiko sounds mighty interesting...
__________________
enjoy being here while getting there
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
