[kingdeezie]

No, apologies---it was not aimed at you.  I was throwing in .02 and just adding...not insinuating.

Cool, no apologies needed. Just clarifying my initial statement.

 I certainly wouldn't want to be seen like a lot of the people I have talked with who think that any analog setup under 10K is pure garbage, any speaker under 20K is medicore at best, and any musical genre other then classical and jazz is a waste of your hi-fi money.   

[Napalm]

[...]any musical genre other then classical and jazz is a waste of your hi-fi money. 

Unfortunately this is kind of true these days, not because of the music itself, but the way the studios are mastering it.

Nap. 

[Construct]

Cool, no apologies needed. Just clarifying my initial statement.

 I certainly wouldn't want to be seen like a lot of the people I have talked with who think that any analog setup under 10K is pure garbage, any speaker under 20K is medicore at best, and any musical genre other then classical and jazz is a waste of your hi-fi money. 

I remember audiophelia of the 80's.  Back then, people collected dalfos drum whack recordings, digital domain and other sound effects.  The idea was, I suppose to listen to this noise and see how realistic the system reproduced "real"  nonmusic sounds.  I hated that, except in very small doses.
I also remember when Wilson audio came on the scene.  Hmm... $22,000 for speakers to start with?  It seemed that heralded in the snob era.  The magazine reviews changed from reviewing anything in a measured and subjective way, to no hype is too much. I hated the new language developed to describe ultra-expensive stereo.  The more $$$$, the more poetic and flowery the descriptions to justify the price.  The magazine became to me, a thinly veiled catalog and extension of the audio companies that paid for ads.  By the late 90's, the media had so poisoned the high end community, it became as you described.  "That $12,000 amp just doesn't sound right.  I prefer the $20,000 amp to sort things out."  "You only have the $2K mini monitors?  PFFFFF...."  and then there is the whole wire-to-system price ratio, like Debeers diamonds.  "You must spend 2 months salary on a pair of interconnects..."  Huh???  It was clear it was price, not true performance that dictated respect. Seems like a cd player had to cost at least $3K  before it joined the club as "entry level"  or "pedestrian". Must have read 1,000 times about how someone declared "My system has THE sound."   And a few months later they change something.  Ok...sure. 
These are things I have witnessed since 1985.  And it intensified after 1998 when more people had the net. 

[Stu Pitt]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but most of the masses have never heard of Sterephile, TAS, etc., let alone read them. 

I think most people don't get what the hobby/insanity is all about because they don't actually sit down and pay attention to music.  They enjoy it, probably as much as we do, just in a different way.  It's like a background soundtrack to them.  That's most likely why they don't hear much difference between what they consider a decent stereo (probably Sony and Polks) and a system like we have. 

Music is all about enjoyment IMO.  Everyone enjoys it the way they see fit. There's no right or wrong as far as I'm concerned.

Live and let live. 

[launche]

Good post Stu.  It's important that we acknowledge and respect that other people are enjoying music in their own way and they don't necessarily need to be enlightened.  Many try to proclaim that others are missing out because they haven't heard a really good stereo system.  Well that can be said of anything, we are all missing out on something.  But really having or hearing a good playback system is hardly an achievement, just ones own means of entertainment and/or their burden.

[battleaxe]

I like the thinking here. This mindset also lends itself well to new and upcoming technologies that may not be adopted if we only think our way is the best. I think this keeps the door open to another point of view and thoughts on how to accomplish high quality audio.

[casarman]

I remember audiophelia of the 80's.  Back then, people collected dalfos drum whack recordings, digital domain and other sound effects.  The idea was, I suppose to listen to this noise and see how realistic the system reproduced "real"  nonmusic sounds.  I hated that, except in very small doses.
I also remember when Wilson audio came on the scene.  Hmm... $22,000 for speakers to start with?  It seemed that heralded in the snob era.  The magazine reviews changed from reviewing anything in a measured and subjective way, to no hype is too much. I hated the new language developed to describe ultra-expensive stereo.  The more $$$$, the more poetic and flowery the descriptions to justify the price.  The magazine became to me, a thinly veiled catalog and extension of the audio companies that paid for ads.  By the late 90's, the media had so poisoned the high end community, it became as you described.  "That $12,000 amp just doesn't sound right.  I prefer the $20,000 amp to sort things out."  "You only have the $2K mini monitors?  PFFFFF...."  and then there is the whole wire-to-system price ratio, like Debeers diamonds.  "You must spend 2 months salary on a pair of interconnects..."  Huh???  It was clear it was price, not true performance that dictated respect. Seems like a cd player had to cost at least $3K  before it joined the club as "entry level"  or "pedestrian". Must have read 1,000 times about how someone declared "My system has THE sound."   And a few months later they change something.  Ok...sure. 
These are things I have witnessed since 1985.  And it intensified after 1998 when more people had the net.

Nobody had said better, you're complety right sir.
Cheers!
Armando     

[Construct]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but most of the masses have never heard of Sterephile, TAS, etc., let alone read them. 

I think most people don't get what the hobby/insanity is all about because they don't actually sit down and pay attention to music.  They enjoy it, probably as much as we do, just in a different way.  It's like a background soundtrack to them.  That's most likely why they don't hear much difference between what they consider a decent stereo (probably Sony and Polks) and a system like we have. 

Music is all about enjoyment IMO.  Everyone enjoys it the way they see fit. There's no right or wrong as far as I'm concerned.

Live and let live.

I wish the audio press would look at it that way.  I miss the early 80's to late 80's JG HOLT, Anthony Cordesman and Julian Hirsch to name a few.  You read reviews with less bias, less pretense.  It was more about how enjoyable the system was---not hyperbole, snobbery or one-upsmanship.  The live and let live sentiment is a good one, I wish high-enders would unwind and adopt it.

[1oldguy]

Unfortunately this is kind of true these days, not because of the music itself, but the way the studios are mastering it.

Nap. 

I'd be more inclined to say it's a little of both.But hey ,never mind me,I'm old and disgruntled.

[vegasdave]

I remember audiophelia of the 80's.  Back then, people collected dalfos drum whack recordings, digital domain and other sound effects.  The idea was, I suppose to listen to this noise and see how realistic the system reproduced "real"  nonmusic sounds.  I hated that, except in very small doses.
I also remember when Wilson audio came on the scene.  Hmm... $22,000 for speakers to start with?  It seemed that heralded in the snob era.  The magazine reviews changed from reviewing anything in a measured and subjective way, to no hype is too much. I hated the new language developed to describe ultra-expensive stereo.  The more $$$$, the more poetic and flowery the descriptions to justify the price.  The magazine became to me, a thinly veiled catalog and extension of the audio companies that paid for ads.  By the late 90's, the media had so poisoned the high end community, it became as you described.  "That $12,000 amp just doesn't sound right.  I prefer the $20,000 amp to sort things out."  "You only have the $2K mini monitors?  PFFFFF...."  and then there is the whole wire-to-system price ratio, like Debeers diamonds.  "You must spend 2 months salary on a pair of interconnects..."  Huh???  It was clear it was price, not true performance that dictated respect. Seems like a cd player had to cost at least $3K  before it joined the club as "entry level"  or "pedestrian". Must have read 1,000 times about how someone declared "My system has THE sound."   And a few months later they change something.  Ok...sure. 
These are things I have witnessed since 1985.  And it intensified after 1998 when more people had the net. 

Well, price isn't everything. In the mid-90s I bought these critically praised monitor speakers from Ensemble, and they were horrible. No bass, no treble, nothing. I paid $7000 for the damn things! The woofers were made out of styrofoam. I would have been better off buying Bose. I am serious...

[Construct]

Well, price isn't everything. In the mid-90s I bought these critically praised monitor speakers from Ensemble, and they were horrible. No bass, no treble, nothing. I paid $7000 for the damn things! The woofers were made out of styrofoam. I would have been better off buying Bose. I am serious...

I can believe it!  I was stunned to learn the *massive*  markup stuff like wilson audio has.  A few years ago, I tried the wilson watt (sans puppy)  vs my ATC-scm-12.  The watt had the focal tioxid tweeters.  I was ready to be blown into the next time zone.  Never happened---I thought the ATC ate them for lunch at a small fraction of the price.  FWIW:  The watt/puppy seems to have about $500 in parts.

[vegasdave]

I can believe it!  I was stunned to learn the *massive*  markup stuff like wilson audio has.  A few years ago, I tried the wilson watt (sans puppy)  vs my ATC-scm-12.  The watt had the focal tioxid tweeters.  I was ready to be blown into the next time zone.  Never happened---I thought the ATC ate them for lunch at a small fraction of the price.  FWIW:  The watt/puppy seems to have about $500 in parts.

Thanks. Yeah, I believe that too. Some high-end is ridiculously overpriced. The problem is too that audiophiles are willing to pay these inflated prices.

That's one of the many reasons I dig Bryston. It gives great bang for the buck, and is not overpriced, imo. It's not cheap, but that's because it's damn good.

[Construct]

Thanks. Yeah, I believe that too. Some high-end is ridiculously overpriced. The problem is too that audiophiles are willing to pay these inflated prices.

That's one of the many reasons I dig Bryston. It gives great bang for the buck, and is not overpriced, imo. It's not cheap, but that's because it's damn good.

I have had an interest in bryston since the SST mod.  I have listened to them with Totem, B&W and other speakers.  The 4bSST (and subsequent models)  have plenty of power for anything and don't "narrate"  by overhyping the treble or drying it out.  They are not on my radar in terms of "arbitrary pricing"  like a number of high end companies have.  How many companies offer a warranty like bryston?  Probably none, that makes them a lifetime value, and I don't worry about them going south in 4 years.

[vegasdave]

Ok, that's cool. Those are actually more reasons why I chose Bryston. Hell, I used to be an owner of the very expensive Swiss-made FM Acoustics gear. I am very content with the Bryston gear. I would be more content if I have the newest 14B, haha. You could say I may be missing something here and there, as nothing's perfect, but the differences are not so great between Bryston and the megabuck stuff, imo. Bryston is incredible value to me.

[Stu Pitt]

Great speakers, Construct.  The ATCs are some of my favorite speakers when powered and set up properly.  Without some real muscle behind them, they sound dull and flat.  With something like a 4B SST2, they're magical.  Can't think of any significant weaknesses.

While we're on the Bryston praise kick, a friend from another forum sent back an almost 30 year old 2B because it developed an intermittent buzz.  They fixed it and overhauled a bunch of it for about $150.  How's that for supporting your products and not gouging your customers?  Most companies would have charged almost as much, if not more than a new one just to sell a new amp.

Bryston's expensive, but you get what you pay for.  Sound quality, build quality, long term support, and on and on.

I favorite local hifi shop doesn't carry Bryston, yet they admire the way they do things.  He said 'When I think of Bryston, I think of service, build quality, and great sound.  Its too bad more companies can't do what they seemingly easily do.'

[vegasdave]

Great speakers, Construct.  The ATCs are some of my favorite speakers when powered and set up properly.  Without some real muscle behind them, they sound dull and flat.  With something like a 4B SST2, they're magical.  Can't think of any significant weaknesses.

While we're on the Bryston praise kick, a friend from another forum sent back an almost 30 year old 2B because it developed an intermittent buzz.  They fixed it and overhauled a bunch of it for about $150.  How's that for supporting your products and not gouging your customers?  Most companies would have charged almost as much, if not more than a new one just to sell a new amp.

Bryston's expensive, but you get what you pay for.  Sound quality, build quality, long term support, and on and on.

I favorite local hifi shop doesn't carry Bryston, yet they admire the way they do things.  He said 'When I think of Bryston, I think of service, build quality, and great sound.  Its too bad more companies can't do what they seemingly easily do.'

Even more reasons why I chose Bryston.

[Construct]

Great speakers, Construct.  The ATCs are some of my favorite speakers when powered and set up properly.  Without some real muscle behind them, they sound dull and flat.  With something like a 4B SST2, they're magical.  Can't think of any significant weaknesses.

I found the same thing.  They are power hungry, and need to be driven.  They struck me as very musical, and extremely detailed without having an etched or hard quality.  They were perfectly balanced, and uncolored.  IMO, a much better speaker and value than most 2-ways I can think of.  As small as they are, I don't even think about powering them with anything less than a strong 200 watt amp. 

[pjg66]

Good post Stu.  It's important that we acknowledge and respect that other people are enjoying music in their own way and they don't necessarily need to be enlightened.  Many try to proclaim that others are missing out because they haven't heard a really good stereo system.  Well that can be said of anything, we are all missing out on something.  But really having or hearing a good playback system is hardly an achievement, just ones own means of entertainment and/or their burden.

Well said, indeed! 

Amidst the huge technology and information explosions, economic upheavals, ecological disasters, political craziness, etc., etc, etc., people will use their common sense to make choices that they can afford and work for them  This includes the manner and means they use to listen to music.

And lots of people know a secret: high-end audio does not offer the only wisdom on how to  enjoy music.  There are other options, including, god forbid, Sony, Bose, Ipods, MP3, and stuff like that.  We must respect people for making such choices, and not think them gullible, ignorant, or whatever.  Just as we hope they will respect us, and not think us gullible spendthrifts, for choosing to spend lots of money on home music/sound systems.

It all depends on your perspective.  On one hand, most of my friends/acquaintances are decidedly not audiophiles and have pretty lowbrow equipment.  And they are perfectly happy with it.  On the other hand, I have a friend who thinks audiophiles are generally fools for spending all that money on equipment when they could be using it to attend live concerts.  For him, live is the ONLY way to listen to music (he spends several thousand dollars a year in pursuit of live music). 

Happy listening.

[vettemanbc]

some sure get off on a tangent.

In response to the post, James as owner of BRYSTON, I should think any amount of A/V equipment would be normal. The CEO of GM does not drive a honda. the most decked out XLR, or 500 HP Vette, I would expect. With 2 or 3 in the driveweay.

What exactly is the definition of audiophile? If there isint one, its already silly.

The comercial about only a dog can hear, is not new, it is absolutely an audiophile claim. I think it was an early argument sagainst CDs, not extend far enough into inaudible frequencys, which is somehow bad if not.
  Forget fantacy cables, what about tube amps? It is well known that they  add pleasing sounding even order harmoics, (think of the beach boys harmonizing) goes directly against the <true to the music> claim of audiophiles. Does seem silly.Even sillier is adding tubes to components having no use for signal amplification, Pre Amps.have tubes for marketing the market are self named audiophile. I love audio, but I am as not audiophile as can be. Always hated records, make my own interconnects use all seperates, including seperate active speakers, pro sound drivers, 8 amps, no speaker wire.

[vettemanbc]

it Is shamefull ,
The ultimate audio improvement
A serious upgrade,
A vital component,
$4200.00  GOLDEN GODESS SUPER EFECT SPEAKER BULLETS
http://www.audioxsell.com/classified/465177/Bybee-SES-Speaker-Bullets.htm
IT IS TERMINALS, for speaker wire,

And no, there is no defence,
this is complete with multiple reviews, and ridiculous, absurd claims.
Lowers noise,increases soundfield, relaxes, warms, comes to life, operates on the signal not the current.

I found one beliveable claim,  <It is difficult to say what  they do!!!!>

I invite you to check it out, why Audiophile has a bad reputation, and it is only getting worse.

Audiophile? not me.