Just how "in the minority" are we as Audiophiles?

[tonepub]

That's obvious from reading your magazine, however Tone Audio does imply something else........

Well, when we started we did a photo and a music/audio magazine...

We've actually been considering dropping the Audio for next year...

 

[JMAUSGP]

If we were animals, I am afraid we would be on the endangered species list.

 

[theWB]

If we were animals, I am afraid we would be on the endangered species list.

Technically we are.
Do you think we can get on the protected list and get the goverment to set us up in our own natural environment, a perfectly sound treated room with a minimum of $250,000 of our equipmet choices and upgraded at least twice a year with an endless supply of music.

Write your local congressman and lets get this
"Save the Audiophile" Campaign started.

 

[amey01]

HAHAHA - that's worth trying..............

 

[tonepub]

I think it should be like a farm subsidy, where they pay us big
money NOT to listen to music...

 

[JonFo]

Personally, I’m applying for a government research grant to investigate the effects of aging on human hearing acuity in a non-resonant environment.

I’ll be needing, oh, some $354,000 in ‘test’ gear, plus some additional $70,000 in environmental treatments.

This area has clearly been under-studied

 

[JonFo]

As for how ‘rare’ a bird we might be, it really depends.

Economic level, generation and personal interest all drive whether one finds a greater density of people interested in audio for Audio’s sake.

I live in a high-end community, where the average age is like around 63, so I’m “the kid”.
Therefore, many of these people come from a generation where listening to music was an act, not a passive side-effect.
Quite a few have decent audio systems; some even have all out Meridian Digital theater setups (six figure stuff).
They even admit to listening to music vs just using it for TV/Movies.

But they are indeed a minority (less than a percent best I can tell), even in this place.

And even the most die-hard audio guys (they’re all guys) think I’m absolutely nuts. But to a person, say that my system is the best they’ve heard
So while people might not want to invest on their own, they sure enjoy hearing a high-end system.

But I have a new criteria for what a ‘serious’ audiophile is: One that dedicates a room to the pursuit of audio, including extensive acoustic treatments to improve the experience.

Of the folks I referenced above, I’m the only one with a treated room (three others have dedicated theaters, but untreated (for now, I’m bending their ear on that topic). And once they heard my room, they all agree that the room is indeed a big part of why a system can sound great or not.

So, what’s the percentage of ‘serious’ audiophiles? Or maybe we should just ask, how many?

 

[Bernard]

But I have a new criteria for what a ‘serious’ audiophile is: One that dedicates a room to the pursuit of audio, including extensive acoustic treatments to improve the experience.

Using that criterion I am not a 'serious' audiophile, but then I have always thought of myself as a music lover more than an audiophile.

 

[User211]

Yeah, I agree Bernard, JonFo's definition is a bit extreme. Many people simply don't like the visual aspects of room treatments...

Anyway, this questions seems to be getting dodged: "For instance, what model of ML do people consider is the first that can be considered hi-end?". Maybe it is too hard to answer without potentially offending other members!

Maybe "hi-end" should be substituted with "audiophile". Anyone care to take a risk on this one? Maybe the answer is simple - they all are! That way, everyone is happy. Maybe the question isn't that relevant. Thoughts?

 

[sleepysurf]

Technically we are.
Do you think we can get on the protected list and get the goverment to set us up in our own natural environment, a perfectly sound treated room with a minimum of $250,000 of our equipmet choices and upgraded at least twice a year with an endless supply of music.

Write your local congressman and lets get this
"Save the Audiophile" Campaign started.

A major part of any "Save the Species" campaign typically involves selective mating of the remaining creatures. Unfortunately, there are only a few female audiophiles left on the planet (is our "Robin" one of them?). Besides, even with altruistic intent, I don't think my wife would allow me to donate into the gene pool!

Ahhh, better yet, maybe we should all donate DNA, and get a biologist to map the audiophile gene(s). In a couple years we could create a "monster" audiophile. Heck, I bet all the high-end companies would chip in as sponsors!

 

[DrJRapp]

I agree that JonFo's definition is too stringent. Why does someone need to own anything to be a serious audiophile?

The dictionary defines Audiophile as:

au·di·o·phile (ô'dē-ə-fīl') Pronunciation Key
n. A person having an ardent interest in stereo or high-fidelity sound reproduction.

I think that it's the interest level that defines weather or not we can be considered "serious audiophiles", not the gear we may own and what room it is in. When I was a teen I was an early adopter of a new multi-channel sound format called....stereo. Being a teen I couldn't afford much, a couple of Lafayette Radio house brand speakers and a used 2 channel Harmon Kardon 15wpc integrated amp and a Garrard chnger with Pickering ceramic cartridge, but I read every publication I could and I spent my free time hanging out in stereo shops listening to music and drooling over the equipment I couldn't afford. I built up a respectable mid-fi system in my late 20s and early 30s and then let that dwindle as the multichannel AV boom started and I gave into the AV receiver mode for twenty some odd years. It took me until 55 years old to be able to have enough disposble income to afford audiophile gear again. Nowadays, when I turn on my computer in the AM the first sites I hit are here and two other AV related sites before I even get my mail. My tabbed browser has 7 tabs and 4 of them are AV with three being "audiophile" sites.

Yes, I have some serious gear in a room that is far from ideal and has minimal treatments due to WAF. I chose to have my gear in the family room out in the open where its music can be enjoyed during the day.... providing the "out the door of the concert hall" experience throughout the house.

My dedicated room which is more heavily treated is for my theater..due to the requirement of light control. It has lesser audio gear (Klipsch, Integra, Aragon, Samsung and Toshiba) designed for movie soundtracts vs the more serious 2 channel gear in my family room audio rig. (ML, BAT, Meridian, Aragon, Michell). I think my "lesser" audio gear still exceeds what the majority of people have and use for their movie watching (ie: HTIAB), which is clear evidence of my desire for exceptional sound.

Yes I consider myself a serious audiophile....

 

[Bernard]

The dictionary defines Audiophile as:

au·di·o·phile (ô'dē-ə-fīl') Pronunciation Key
n. A person having an ardent interest in stereo or high-fidelity sound reproduction.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that audiophilia is just a means to an end. It is what carries us into euphoria. Reminds me of the now-defunct French music label called "Musique D'Abord", i.e. music first. There were no glossy LP covers, just plain white jackets.

 

[RichTeer]

I agree that JonFo's definition is too stringent. Why does someone need to own anything to be a serious audiophile?

The dictionary defines Audiophile as:

au·di·o·phile (ô'dē-ə-fīl') Pronunciation Key
n. A person having an ardent interest in stereo or high-fidelity sound reproduction.

I think that it's the interest level that defines weather or not we can be considered "serious audiophiles", not the gear we may own and what room it is in.

Agreed: one can be an audiophile (i.e., be interested in high quality music reproduction) without having the necessary cash required to buy the rather expensive equipment that goes with our hobby.

 

[JonFo]

I agree that JonFo's definition is too stringent. Why does someone need to own anything to be a serious audiophile?

The dictionary defines Audiophile as:

au•di•o•phile (ô'dē-ə-fīl') Pronunciation Key
n. A person having an ardent interest in stereo or high-fidelity sound reproduction.

I think that it's the interest level that defines weather or not we can be considered "serious audiophiles", not the gear we may own and what room it is in.

Granted, I believe that interest is a key ingredient. How vigorously someone then pursues that interest is probably the more defining metric.

Limited by all the usual constraints of course. Not everyone can buy what they want or has the place to put it even if they could obtain.

DrJ, Just like you, my interest started waay back as a pre-teen, and I’ve not been able to meet my own definition of serious until the past decade. So it’s not like I wasn’t ‘serious’ for all those years.

Maybe a better term is ‘committed’ ;-)

Whatever the adjective, I find that paying attention to the interaction within the room is one of the most influential aspects in terms of final musical enjoyment. Therefore the more serious/committed/crazy about audio, then the more likely one is to have a dedicated space.

At least, that’s my warped worldview

 

[JonFo]

Agreed: one can be an audiophile (i.e., be interested in high quality music reproduction) without having the necessary cash required to buy the rather expensive equipment that goes with our hobby.

+1

What products one has at any time is not the point, it's what you do with what you have.

 

[RichTeer]

+1

What products one has at any time is not the point, it's what you do with what you have.

... and which products one lusts after!

Edit: as for starting early, the kid in my avatar is me, listening to my dad's stereo 35+ years ago!

 

[edmiston]

Like most of you, I find it a lonely habit. When I lived in Gainesville, Florida, I had a few partners in crime, but here in Durango, forget it!
Here is the point that baffles me - we all agree that we are few in number. I, for one, have an above average income, and yet I am always puzzled by the ever escalating prices of gear at audio shows and that reviewers gush over.
$50,000 speakers?
$30,000 power amps or dacs?
$10,000 cd players referred to as bargains?
and don't even get me started on cables!
Much of this insanity I blame on reviewers who have much equipment on long term "loan" or who buy at very steep discounts. When I walk into rooms at RMAF where the equipment costs total well into the six figures, I wonder, who buys this stuff, and how can we hope to increase our ranks when this level of expenditure is portrayed as normal?
I am the first to defend the concept that one should invest as much in an audio system as an automobile, but when an amplifier costs as much as a luxury auto (and weighs nearly as much!), I don't see it as encouraging the growth of high end.

 

[tonepub]

Much of this insanity I blame on reviewers who have much equipment on long term "loan" or who buy at very steep discounts. When I walk into rooms at RMAF where the equipment costs total well into the six figures, I wonder, who buys this stuff, and how can we hope to increase our ranks when this level of expenditure is portrayed as normal?

I am the first to defend the concept that one should invest as much in an audio system as an automobile, but when an amplifier costs as much as a luxury auto (and weighs nearly as much!), I don't see it as encouraging the growth of high end.

I don't think flagship products are meant to encourage the growth of high end audio....

They are made as the ultimate expression of a manufacturers technology, capability and resources. It works on both ends of the spectrum.

If you take MartinLogan for an example, they ship about 4000 pairs of speakers a month. If they didn't couldn't take advantage of that purchasing power and labor force that goes along with working at that volume, a pair of CLX's would probably have a 100K price tag on them. On the opposite end of the scale they can make a product like the Purity that only costs 3000 a pair. A guy building speakers in the garage, or even a small company of 3-5 people doesn't have the talent, depth or cash to offer that.

Same thing with quite a few other companies at the top of the high end.

The top of the line products are exciting to listen to as a reviewer, but honestly the challenge is really how to adequately describe five phono preamps that all cost about 1000 bucks!

And while many people like to talk about the "point of diminishing returns", it's a lot higher on the scale than many people think. The gear at the top of the heap really is an incredible experience, just as it is with cars, cameras, etc.

While I can't speak for my competitors, everyone on my staff owns their reference system, and even though I've managed to get a couple of good deals, I've still spent six figures on my system.

 

[edmiston]

Jeff, as I wrote my piece I was aware that you might take offense - certainly none was intended as I find your posts and approaches to audio as very honest and passionate. I was thinking more of the old style mags and their seeming loss of the idea of value (Sam Tellig excepted!). Of course manufacturers have to have their tilt at state of the art, because, hopefully, most of them are driven by passion for sound. I still feel, however, that at audio shows aimed at consumers, such as the RMAF, that attendees would feel more enthused if they were treated to involving sound at real world prices in more rooms.
An excellent example of this, in my opinion, is the ACI room, where I have witnessed the conversion of music lovers to audiophiles.

 

[tonepub]

No offense taken at all.

And you are absolutely correct on the guys at Stereophile and TAS. None of them "own" any of their gear (or precious little). If you look at the reviews, their "reference" components change about every four - six months. Exactly how long a mfr will let you keep a component for review.

It also gets extremely tiring from my side of the fence to listen to those guys tell you that one month you need a 35 thousand dollar CD player and then the next month they tell you that all you need to enjoy CD's is a PlayStation. And woe to anyone that questions that logic!

It has to be equally frustrating for the reader when you just spend 10K on a CD player that they told you was the best last month, only to find out there is a new "best" this month.

It makes my job harder because we don't do that. Even my Naim 555, which to me is the best CD player I've ever heard by a considerable margin, was not referred to as the "Best" by us. Matter of fact, we've never done that in four years.

I couldn't agree with you more about ACI, we actually have a review on the Emerald XL's this issue coming up. Mike D is a great guy and makes a great product for the money.

What so many of the companies don't realize is that we need to bring the 5 million people reading Spin, Paste, Mojo and Rolling Stone over to our side of the fence. The disconnect with Stereophile and TAS is that they don't grasp that most of these music lovers DON'T want to become audiophiles.

Personally, I'm ok with that and that's why we spend so much time writing about as much different music as possible. My thought is that if you love music, you will need something to listen to it on, even if it's just an iPod for now.

I really think of the gear section of our magazine as the "Dessert Tray". No matter how long you tell me you don't want that piece of chocolate cake, the longer you stare at it, you'll cave in sooner or later....

Our hope is always that the readers will either come for the music and get intrigued with the gear, or come for the gear and find a few new records to buy.