Audiophiles - could use your help/suggestions!

DJ_JonnyV said:
Wow, I just can't figure out what some are posting on here. It would lead me to believe that audiophile = expensive. I'm sorry, but that's just not the case.



My case may not be typical, but I am an audiophile by profession. I have been in the recording and production business for the last 3 years and I mix and master audio at 24bit 96k and analog, which is well over CD quality. I have been through ear training and can hear a 1db change in a specific frequency range and name the Hz. I can tell you how many milliseconds of delay is on a kick drum sample. I spend hours tweaking nobs and sliders that 95% of the population will never hear, but that is what makes me happy. For that kind of "audiophile" quality, Yes it is expensive and Yes you can hear the difference. Though, through mastering, my goal is to get my work to sound good being played back on any system be it a $10 Sony clock radio to a $5000 home theater system to a line array.



Let me tell you what... it simply does not get any better listening to an original recording on tape through a Studer tape machine to a SSL board with you choice 3 monitoring sources. But you go ahead and call audiophile what you will. Go ahead and tell me my $500 Sennheiser mastering headphones sound even remotely similar to a $100 pair of Bose "audiophile" headphones. :ignore
 
Todd - I was cool with your post until I read this:



todd@bsaw said:
But you go ahead and call audiophile what you will. Go ahead and tell me my $500 Sennheiser mastering headphones sound even remotely similar to a $100 pair of Bose "audiophile" headphones. :ignore



Please don't patronize me when it comes to using good, quality audio/video products. I never implied that Bose products are audiophile quality. Quite the opposite. I always enjoy getting into debates with the sales reps for Bose at their stores just to stir the pot a little. I recognize the quality of higher end equipment. I have a pair of Sennheiser HD595 cans as well, along with some Shure E4cs for on the go. Is the Ipod I have audiophile quality? No. But, it gets the job done for my extensive music collection and the headphone amp cleans the signal up nicely.



The point I'm trying to make is that I've seen way too many people go for all show and no go when it comes to sound quality. This is coming from some experience in the home theater / 2 channel world. I'm trying to encourage the OP to get some mid-end gear used and be much happier with that from a sound quality standpoint, than some cheap components and speakers at Best Buy...although their Insignia bookshelves have received some good value product press lately. I think we would all agree that at a $400 price point that if you can pick up an older NAD, Denon, Yamaha, etc. receiver (whether it be stereo or 5.1) and some used NHT SuperOnes (for example) would be a lot better than the Sony bookshelves that are advertised every week in the big box chains' flyers along with an Insignia reciever. Just like with car care. For folks without a big budget, we need to recommend good, quality bang-for-the-buck products to get the person started out on the right path. Maybe he'll be able to afford the higher end in a few years, but he needs to get going down the right path initially and not waste money on HTiBs and Bose products.



BTW, to me audiophile quality is what sounds good to your ears. I'm of the school of thought that a $1K pair of speaker could very well sound as good or better than a $5K set of speakers. I just close my eyes and listen...
 
I didn't mean to sound patronizing at all and I'm sorry. I just get a little annoyed when people do not know how to properly appreciate their music (something people like me spend hours on to make sound good) on an amazing system. One reason I hate people that listen to everything with the bass turned up +10 in their cars. So, I refer audiophile quality to that of my standards and others in the industry. I've come to realize that "what sounds good to your ears" is worlds apart from one individual to another.



And also for the record, one of the best $1k pairs of speakers I have ever heard has so far blown every monitoring system that I've heard away. ADAM Audio ANF-10 | Sweetwater.com
 
DJ_JonnyV said:
BTW, to me audiophile quality is what sounds good to your ears. I'm of the school of thought that a $1K pair of speaker could very well sound as good or better than a $5K set of speakers. I just close my eyes and listen...



Well, that may be what "audiophile quality" means to you, but I think a more accurate definition of audiophile is:



"Audiophiles are people who seek to listen to music at a level of quality as close to the original live performance as possible. They use high-fidelity components to try and attain these goals. Most are music lovers who are passionate about high-quality music reproduction"



Some people might think the Bose wave radio sounds "good to their ears". That does not make it audiophile quality.
 
Rob Tomlin said:
Well, that may be what "audiophile quality" means to you, but I think a more accurate definition of audiophile is:



"Audiophiles are people who seek to listen to music at a level of quality as close to the original live performance as possible. They use high-fidelity components to try and attain these goals. Most are music lovers who are passionate about high-quality music reproduction"



Some people might think the Bose wave radio sounds "good to their ears". That does not make it audiophile quality.



Did you not read the posts between Todd and I??? I thought we had finally come to an understanding as to where I'm coming from and where true higher-end audio professionals (such as Todd) are coming from and found some middle ground.



Where in your definition does it state that high quality components have to cost out the a$$ to sound good? Yes, I have listened to very high-end 2 channel setups, and I always ask myself if it's worth the extra $90K over one of my systems. Probaly not. I'd rather have a Porsche or something. BTW, my speakers are Stereophile Class A rated.
 
DJ_JonnyV said:
Did you not read the posts between Todd and I??? I thought we had finally come to an understanding as to where I'm coming from and where true higher-end audio professionals (such as Todd) are coming from and found some middle ground.



Where in your definition does it state that high quality components have to cost out the a$$ to sound good? Yes, I have listened to very high-end 2 channel setups, and I always ask myself if it's worth the extra $90K over one of my systems. Probaly not. I'd rather have a Porsche or something. BTW, my speakers are Stereophile Class A rated.



:chill:



I read the posts. So?



You gave your definition of "audiophile quality". I disagree with it. In turn, I gave what I consider to be a more correct/accurate definition of audiophile.



You can disagree with it if you like. Just as I disagree with the definition that you made up.
 
You still didn't answer the price question that I posed. I don't need to be preached to about audiophile quality. I'm done with this post and I'm done with you.
 
DJ_JonnyV said:
You still didn't answer the price question that I posed. I don't need to be preached to about audiophile quality. I'm done with this post and I'm done with you.



Don't let the screen door hit you in the .................. on the way out.



:rolleyes:
 
joshtpa said:
before you start taking advice on a board like this, i recommend going over to AVS (the biggest audio site) and reading reviews from true audiophiles. These guys are amazing. Got my theater room all setup with some help from them. Optoma Hd projector, Denon receiver and paradigm speakers. I would have never gone that route without AVSforum. As for "can someone get a good setup for $500"...Absolutely.



Good advice as I have been a member there for several years and have received a wealth of information from that site. Very similar to this site but about home theater and stereos.
 
PrinzII said:
None taken, but my point is that you get what you pay for at times. Finding used equipment is one option but what kind of guarantee will you have if something goes wrong? For me, that is a huge concern.



In my history of owning various set ups and pieces of equipment I have seen no failures in loudspeakers or receivers that I have purchased used, especially speakers as long as they aren't abused. Not to say it won't happen, but it's very rare as long as it's taken care of. I still have my original Marantz integrated amp that I first bought almost 40 years ago.
 
Rob Tomlin said:
Many audiophiles will accept nothing less than a tube based system!



Upscale Audio - Rare Tubes, Highest Fidelity



:werd:



MC2102_medium.jpg




My friend has his basement theater set up with nothing but McIntosh amplifiers.
 
todd@bsaw said:
:werd:



MC2102_medium.jpg




My friend has his basement theater set up with nothing but McIntosh amplifiers.



Hard to beat the Macs! :up



I bought my Anthem Statement D2 from Upscale Audio (the link above). I asked the owner how the Anthem compared in terms of sound quality to his tube based systems. He was pretty honest: "well, it sounds about as good as any non-tube based system I have heard". :chuckle:



He obviously still prefers the warmth of the tubes!



Listening to one of his tube based systems in 2 channel stereo was simply amazing. A "religious experience" as he called it.
 
Rob Tomlin said:
Many audiophiles will accept nothing less than a tube based system!



Upscale Audio - Rare Tubes, Highest Fidelity



and many won't have anything to do with tube equipment. :grinno:





:bolt



Maybe this will help: audiophile - Definitions from Dictionary.com





audiophile: a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction.





you can take that same sentence and insert Autpoian for audiophile and it would be pretty accurate. Nowhere in that sentence does it say $6000.00 tube amps etc. just like you don't have to use $14,000 zymol wax to be an autopian. Maybe we need to get this thread back on track for the OP and not be so judgemental as to a persons budget.
 
94BlkStang said:
and many won't have anything to do with tube equipment. :grinno:





:bolt



Maybe this will help: audiophile - Definitions from Dictionary.com





audiophile: a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction.





you can take that same sentence and insert Autpoian for audiophile and it would be pretty accurate. Nowhere in that sentence does it say $6000.00 tube amps etc. just like you don't have to use $14,000 zymol wax to be an autopian. Maybe we need to get this thread back on track for the OP and not be so judgemental as to a persons budget.



I hope you are not referring to me since I have never once mentioned price in any of my posts.
 
Rob Tomlin said:
I hope you are not referring to me since I have never once mentioned price in any of my posts.



It was just a general statement overall regarding this whole thread as it seemed to have taken on a whole different life of what the OP intended.
 
there are many audio-related sites with forums where you can learn & discuss...



audiogon.com



audioasylum.com



audioreview.com



soundandvisionmag.com



... and the list goes on and on.



I have an appreciation (but not the budget) for high-end systems. I know several co-workers who will spend $300 on a power cable, $3000 on a cd transport. High-end audio is a slippery slope.



My systems are mish-mashed mid-fi systems at best, typically pieced together from ebay & other sites. I have a dedicated 2 channel system, a dedicated 5.1 theater surround system, a theater-in-a-box, and two other basic/vintage stereo systems of varying quality and performance.



It's easy to get caught up in the technology of a given component. Everyone has their own opinion... and preferences of a particular "sound". For that reason, I stopped giving advice to friends when they were purchasing equipment. I told them not to get hung up on names or specific designs. If YOU like the way a system (or component) sounds, that's all that matters.



and don't be surprised if your "ear" changes over time. (I know MINE did) One pair of speakers that I absolutely LOVED when I first got them leave me somewhat tepid nowadays. It happens. And beware of all of the external factors... room size/layout, speaker position, and source material can all have a HUGE effect on performance. Be ready to do a LOT of tweaking for optimal performance. Enjoy...
 
Ooooo. This is like detailing. What you buy to use isn't nearly as important as how you use it. You can spend $50k and that won't matter if you stick one B&W behind the couch and the other in the corner.





1) If it sounded good 50 years ago, it still sounds good today. Sure, there might be something better today; but that doesn't mean that outdated equipment isn't good. If you don't believe me, you've never giggled while listening to Dyna PAS3/ST70 and Large Advents beating out an old Stones album through a Grado tonearm & Shure B cartridge on a Rekokut TT. That stuff was live as hell.



2) The suggestion for used equipment is a valid one; you can get some outstanding bargains. The Advent 300 receiver is always available. I've picked them up for $10 (but ~$100 is more typical). The amp itself is ok, the pre-amp is the revered Hafler circuitry. The FM tuner is one of the best ever. There are other brands, but this is one of my pets. I have a soft spot for this one. (A quick ebay check shows a current range of $78-$175.)



3) Then get the best speakers the rest of your budget will allow. I haven't shopped that price range for a long time, but I recall Paradigm has a nice product. There are others, do a bit of research.



4) What's going to screw you is that bass requirement. THAT is the most expensive part of a high quality system to get right; what you are setting up as a requirement can cost thousands all by itself. Especially since you are going to be listening mostly with compressed source material, my recommendation is to concentrate on the more traditional values of balance and imaging. The bass will be there, if you choose your full range speakers wisely. I have invested many, many dollars into high end audio, and I still haven't even bothered to try to integrate a subwoofer. (For those who are interested: tubes and electrostatics, with 50/50 vinyl and digital).



5) Since your source material is going to be a computer hard drive, I'd recommend for your first upgrade a high quality USB DAC (digital to analog converter). Headroom makes one for $300, but there are others that are good (I know Headroom's is USB). That will make a world of difference. The DAC in you computer is usually really cheap; computers are under a lot of price pressure, and audio quality isn't even on the list of things most users are looking for.



6) The biggest difference that you can make in what you hear is PLACEMENT. Your room, your environment is part of your system, and the best thing is, it is the part of your system that makes it sound the best and it is also the part that is free! The subject isn't all that complicated, but it is a bit too wordy for a post on an internet detailing forum. But another great thing is that your resources, in this digital age, are much better than ours were 15 and 20 years ago. Google it. Start with "the rule of thirds" and make changes from that based on what you hear. You will find a sweet spot. Speakers can be placed to improve bass perception, to widen or shrink the stereo image, and to brighten or dampen peaks and valleys in the sound. Plants, pictures, blankets, wall hangings, and rugs can do wonders. And those are either things you already have, or things that both add to your environment and improve your sound.





So to sum: a high quality used receiver (Advent isn't the only good one; Onkyos and Yamahas were pretty good, too) and the rest of your budget on the best speakers you can afford. First upgrade, a high quality DAC. And make your listening room or area a place that feeds your goal af sound reproduction and enjoyment.



It isn't really going to be what you buy, it's going to be where you put it when you get it.



Tom,

who has been missing in action lately.
 
^ Tom, what an excellent post!



My post, earlier in the thread, certainly wouldn't have been a lot of help to the aspirations of the OP; I only tried to answer what I thought it might cost in today's $ to get new "audiophile quality" equipment. But I hope, if he reads only one post in this thread, it's your's. Well done. And nice to see you on the board again!



Edit: Should have read "wouldn't have been...."
 
I'm coming to this thread very late, but just as we wouldn't be good car guys if we couldn't recommend a reliable $3,000 car for a student, we would be lousy audiophiles if we could find a good starter setup for $350.



My approach would be this:



- Ditch the subwoofer; you can easily add it later for more money

- Buy the best speakers you can, and FORGET about bass response, just worry about quality

- Beg, steal, or borrow a used receiver or integrated amp

- Any old CD player will do. Even a $25 portable.



If you want to do it right, spend 90% of your budget on a set of B&W 303's, which are about $300. You should be able to score the electronics for nearly free if you look around.



At the starter level, the most important thing is the speakers. Given these speakers will sound MUCH better driven with $1,000 worth of electronics, but that's my point...you can upgrade for quite a while and not outgrow the speakers. And meanwhile, you will heard the "voicing" of proper high-end sound.



This is the approach I took, and I never regretted it. In fact, I still have and enjoy my original speakers nearly 20 years later.
 
Back
Top