I have a couple of questions for all of the audiophiles:
1. When you say "For instance, a $50,000 amp will not sound 50,000 times better than a $1,000 amp." what do you mean by 50,000 better? Or what do you mean by "better", period?!
2. What is minimum amount of money one has to spend per year on audio equipment to join the "audiophile" club?
#1 was an arithmetic error on his part which was already pointed out. He meant 50 times.
But still, it won't sound 50 times better either. How much better? It depends. First of all it just has to be better. Sometimes it's not. We are talking about subtley, not Yugo vs. Rolls Royce even though the pricing differential can be worse than that.
A lot of hi-end equipment is not really better than much less expensive equipment. Some designers give their stuff a "sound" that is recognizable to audiophiles. So we talk about the Cary sound, or the Krell sound, or the Ayre sound, etc.
#2 You don't have to spend any "money per year". Listen to a variety of different kinds of equipment, and decide what kind of sound you like. Once you buy it, and assuming you are happy with it, you don't have to buy anything else until standards change, or your tastes change.
You can get some really good stuff for less than you think. As long as you are not including the expense of home theater, you can get a good sounding system for a few thousand, depending on the size of your room. Anywhere from $2,000 to $4,000 will do it.
We don't have the room here to get into detail. Too bad.
I have a couple of questions for all of the audiophiles:
1. When you say "For instance, a $50,000 amp will not sound 50,000 times better than a $1,000 amp." what do you mean by 50,000 better? Or what do you mean by "better", period?!
2. What is minimum amount of money one has to spend per year on audio equipment to join the "audiophile" club?
1. There isn't a correlation. Most of the time you end up with bad sound (even if you spend $200K - like with Wilsons and Krell, nails on a blackboard), but there are good systems at all price points starting around $1000 - I don't understand what "50x better" means, there is bad/good/orgasmic, and that is it.
2. I spend $4000/year (plus the occasional big splurge, like my speakers), most spend about $1000/year. Most of that money is spent on LPs.
The best way to not waste your money is to go to the CES, and listen to the systems there. Out of 400 systems set up there in the Alexis Park and the San Tropas, you will like maybe 5 or 10 - and those systems will be different than my favorite 5 or 10.
If you like a system, you probably like all the things in the signal path of that system, and you can use that data to start your own stereo. Trying to build a system based on internet reviews will never get you there, and will cost boatloads of money.
www.audiogon.com is a good place - you can buy used gear there, and if you don't like it you can re-sell it for about the same price you paid.
And use tube amps exclusively... And get a record player.
All I know is that I trashed my sony headphones I was using (the Apple earbuds never fit me right and the left one always popped out of my ear \ ). I replaced the Sonys with a set of Sennheiser PX200's (recommended somewhere I forget) and they are night and day with my old headphones. The Sennheisers were $40 but hey, I'm worth it .
I can't fault anyone for the money they wish to spend on the things they like. There is a diminishing return point of course but that varies by individual.
I can't fault anyone for the money they wish to spend on the things they like. There is a diminishing return point of course but that varies by individual. [/B]
The diminishing returns is after 100K - it is more like accelerating returns up to 50K or 100K. This is dictated by laws of physics - you need to spend a bunch of money to get good dynamics and good bass, particulary if your room is large.
Also - try Grado SR-125 headphones if you like rock music.
The diminishing returns is after 100K - it is more like accelerating returns up to 50K or 100K. This is dictated by laws of physics - you need to spend a bunch of money to get good dynamics and good bass, particulary if your room is large.
Also - try Grado SR-125 headphones if you like rock music.
I'll check those out. I honestly couldn't believe there was such a stark difference between the Sony and Sennheiser headphones. I can't imagine what a really good set would sound like.
1. There isn't a correlation. Most of the time you end up with bad sound (even if you spend $200K - like with Wilsons and Krell, nails on a blackboard), but there are good systems at all price points starting around $1000 - I don't understand what "50x better" means, there is bad/good/orgasmic, and that is it.
2. I spend $4000/year (plus the occasional big splurge, like my speakers), most spend about $1000/year. Most of that money is spent on LPs.
The best way to not waste your money is to go to the CES, and listen to the systems there. Out of 400 systems set up there in the Alexis Park and the San Tropas, you will like maybe 5 or 10 - and those systems will be different than my favorite 5 or 10.
If you like a system, you probably like all the things in the signal path of that system, and you can use that data to start your own stereo. Trying to build a system based on internet reviews will never get you there, and will cost boatloads of money.
www.audiogon.com is a good place - you can buy used gear there, and if you don't like it you can re-sell it for about the same price you paid.
And use tube amps exclusively... And get a record player.
I don't think that this is the place to start the debate of tubes vs solid state, LP's vs cd's. That's much too complex an issue. Most audiophiles have a particular preference, but that doesn't mean that one is automatically better for any individual. I've designed both, and have my preferences, but it's not for here.
Very few people can get to a once a year show such as the CES. The E3's are more easily accessible, though smaller. But they are devoted to electronic entertainment. Unfortunately, all of these shows reflect what the current interests are, which is HDef. Get a copy of Stereophile magazine to keep track of events around the country. Some will be more easily accessible than others. The articles and reviews will give some idea what is happening as well. Be careful reading reviews in any hi-end mag though, as the reviewers are as prejudiced as anyone else, and aren't as qualified as they want you to believe. I know enough of them, so believe me.
Anytime someone tells you that you must do it their way, you should suspect them.
Sorry e1618978, but if you really are an audiophile, you would agree to that.
I don't think that we disagree - everyone likes different stuff.
But the CES is without match - and it is by far the best place to figure out what you like.
Yes, CES is, at least the audio area is, which is seperate from the CES itself. Several of us from our club went there this year, as we do most years. But what about those who can't go? I hate to think that they are at the mercy of a "hi-end" dealer.
That's funny because the reviews have said that the Shuffle sounds BETTER.
I know; that's why I tested the shuffle based on the reviews.
The shuffle has some major limitations for me: it won't play AIFF or lossless files and it will only play AAC compressed or MP3 files; the default setting is something like 128 AAC. I tested it with the same AAC file (192) on a 20 GB and a 1 GB shuffle. There was no contest, the 20 GB sounded much better in terms of depth and clarity; the shuffle sounded 'tinny' on my Etymotic 'phones.
Seriously, I don't know what the reviewers were listening to...
Of course, the reviewer in question writes for PC Mag...who knows, maybe I got a bad sample.
I know; that's why I tested the shuffle based on the reviews.
The shuffle has some major limitations for me: it won't play AIFF or lossless files and it will only play AAC compressed or MP3 files; the default setting is something like 128 AAC. I tested it with the same AAC file (192) on a 20 GB and a 1 GB shuffle. There was no contest, the 20 GB sounded much better in terms of depth and clarity; the shuffle sounded 'tinny' on my Etymotic 'phones.
Seriously, I don't know what the reviewers were listening to...
Of course, the reviewer in question writes for PC Mag...who knows, maybe I got a bad sample.
I read four reviews that said the same thing, including Mossberg at the Wall Street Journal.
I'm writing this without checking, because I have to leave to pick my daughter up from school, but if it's true that you can't use Lossless, that's too bad! That and no AIFF would be a determining factor, but you couldn't put much on the machine that way anyway.
Thr reviews were comparing the sound at 128 however, so I'm at a loss (ha!) to understand your problem. Perhaps it's defective?
I read four reviews that said the same thing, including Mossberg at the Wall Street Journal.
I'm writing this without checking, because I have to leave to pick my daughter up from school, but if it's true that you can't use Lossless, that's too bad! That and no AIFF would be a determining factor, but you couldn't put much on the machine that way anyway.
Thr reviews were comparing the sound at 128 however, so I'm at a loss (ha!) to understand your problem. Perhaps it's defective?
At 128, the shuffle sounds better than the 30GB photo. I haven't tried at higher bitrates, though, because my gf won't let me use it anymore.
On the 30GB, you can definately tell a difference between bitrates. I just started using Apple lossless, and the quality is night and day on any equipment. I "don't" have a lot of old music from Napster at all kinds of bitrates, but if I did, you can tell the difference. All of my CD's were encoded at 192VBR until recently, and the difference is huge, even with lossless. Most people that ride in the car can also tell if something is 128, 192, or lossless after listening to enough different songs.
I have a horrible system in my Jeep, where I usually use it. It has a very badly weathered soundbar and cd player from several years with no top playing music over an iTrip. Add tons of road noise from horrible aerodynamics and large tires to that, and my system is definately worse than average. Using lossless to begin with salvages the situation somewhat, and makes the music 1000 X more enjoyable. It takes up more space to use lossless, but with a 30GB, there is still plenty of room for lots of music using smart playlists, shuffle, and just general playlist updates.
My home stereo is a 6 year old Onkyo receiver with nice but old Infinity speakers, and the difference w/ the iPod between bitrates is still very noticeable.
I tried hooking the iPod mini to my stereo via the accessory basestation, and it sounded horrible (much worse than even the cheapest CD player) even when playing the lossless/uncompressed format.
Who knows, maybe the iPod sounded bad because my pre-amp was too hard to drive? I no longer have a mini - I have a shuffle and a 60GB photo. I may repeat the experiment now that I have changed pre-amps.
I tried hooking the iPod mini to my stereo via the accessory basestation, and it sounded horrible (much worse than even the cheapest CD player) even when playing the lossless/uncompressed format.
Who knows, maybe the iPod sounded bad because my pre-amp was too hard to drive? I no longer have a mini - I have a shuffle and a 60GB photo. I may repeat the experiment now that I have changed pre-amps.
I've played music through the audio out on my iPod photos dock and have not noticed and sound difference between it and a normal CD. However, I'm not using advanced speakers.
Edit: I cannot hear a difference between a CD played in iTunes and a 160kbps MP3.
I tried hooking the iPod mini to my stereo via the accessory basestation, and it sounded horrible (much worse than even the cheapest CD player) even when playing the lossless/uncompressed format.
Who knows, maybe the iPod sounded bad because my pre-amp was too hard to drive? I no longer have a mini - I have a shuffle and a 60GB photo. I may repeat the experiment now that I have changed pre-amps.
Something is wrong somewhere then. That should not be. John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile, has owned and tested both the full size and the Shuffles, and he finds the sound to be excellent. I have to agree.
its interesting how the 4gb models are outselling the 6gb mini... ive been pondering about selling my 20gb and go to a mini b/c i still dont have a thousand songs for my collection of music, so im thinking that the ipod mini would do me good.... thoughs are my ideas besides, its smaller, so itll fit in my pocket better instead of sitting on the outside w/ the 20gb
I'm perfectly happy with the sound I get from my $800, which is what I guess matters, no doubt you would all cringe and screw your ears up, but I wonder. -
Where is the benefit of listening to music on systems that cost many many times the budget of the equipment used to record it?
I'm perfectly happy with the sound I get from my $800, which is what I guess matters, no doubt you would all cringe and screw your ears up, but I wonder. -
Where is the benefit of listening to music on systems that cost many many times the budget of the equipment used to record it?
Playing back the recordings is a very different proposition. Besides an iPod is a playback device. $4,000 microphones are part of the recording process. so are $250,000 digital mixing consoles, and $200,000 digital decks.
Something is wrong somewhere then. That should not be. John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile, has owned and tested both the full size and the Shuffles, and he finds the sound to be excellent. I have to agree.
Maybe it is just the mini then, or maybe it was an interaction. John Atkinson likes tons of stuff that I don't, (and vice versa) though.
Comments
Originally posted by cj3209
I've used both and the sound quality on the shuffle is pretty bad. I have very good earphones (Etymotic 4s) though and the difference is not small.
Just my two cents but I would get the mini or the 20gb 'regular.'
That's funny because the reviews have said that the Shuffle sounds BETTER.
Originally posted by skatman
I have a couple of questions for all of the audiophiles:
1. When you say "For instance, a $50,000 amp will not sound 50,000 times better than a $1,000 amp." what do you mean by 50,000 better? Or what do you mean by "better", period?!
2. What is minimum amount of money one has to spend per year on audio equipment to join the "audiophile" club?
#1 was an arithmetic error on his part which was already pointed out. He meant 50 times.
But still, it won't sound 50 times better either. How much better? It depends. First of all it just has to be better. Sometimes it's not. We are talking about subtley, not Yugo vs. Rolls Royce even though the pricing differential can be worse than that.
A lot of hi-end equipment is not really better than much less expensive equipment. Some designers give their stuff a "sound" that is recognizable to audiophiles. So we talk about the Cary sound, or the Krell sound, or the Ayre sound, etc.
#2 You don't have to spend any "money per year". Listen to a variety of different kinds of equipment, and decide what kind of sound you like. Once you buy it, and assuming you are happy with it, you don't have to buy anything else until standards change, or your tastes change.
You can get some really good stuff for less than you think. As long as you are not including the expense of home theater, you can get a good sounding system for a few thousand, depending on the size of your room. Anywhere from $2,000 to $4,000 will do it.
We don't have the room here to get into detail. Too bad.
Originally posted by Reid
BOSE rules.
[edit: there should be a smiley face that looks like a troll.]
Yor're scaring me.
Originally posted by skatman
I have a couple of questions for all of the audiophiles:
1. When you say "For instance, a $50,000 amp will not sound 50,000 times better than a $1,000 amp." what do you mean by 50,000 better? Or what do you mean by "better", period?!
2. What is minimum amount of money one has to spend per year on audio equipment to join the "audiophile" club?
1. There isn't a correlation. Most of the time you end up with bad sound (even if you spend $200K - like with Wilsons and Krell, nails on a blackboard), but there are good systems at all price points starting around $1000 - I don't understand what "50x better" means, there is bad/good/orgasmic, and that is it.
2. I spend $4000/year (plus the occasional big splurge, like my speakers), most spend about $1000/year. Most of that money is spent on LPs.
The best way to not waste your money is to go to the CES, and listen to the systems there. Out of 400 systems set up there in the Alexis Park and the San Tropas, you will like maybe 5 or 10 - and those systems will be different than my favorite 5 or 10.
If you like a system, you probably like all the things in the signal path of that system, and you can use that data to start your own stereo. Trying to build a system based on internet reviews will never get you there, and will cost boatloads of money.
www.audiogon.com is a good place - you can buy used gear there, and if you don't like it you can re-sell it for about the same price you paid.
And use tube amps exclusively...
I can't fault anyone for the money they wish to spend on the things they like. There is a diminishing return point of course but that varies by individual.
I can't fault anyone for the money they wish to spend on the things they like. There is a diminishing return point of course but that varies by individual. [/B]
The diminishing returns is after 100K - it is more like accelerating returns up to 50K or 100K. This is dictated by laws of physics - you need to spend a bunch of money to get good dynamics and good bass, particulary if your room is large.
Also - try Grado SR-125 headphones if you like rock music.
Originally posted by e1618978
The diminishing returns is after 100K - it is more like accelerating returns up to 50K or 100K. This is dictated by laws of physics - you need to spend a bunch of money to get good dynamics and good bass, particulary if your room is large.
Also - try Grado SR-125 headphones if you like rock music.
I'll check those out. I honestly couldn't believe there was such a stark difference between the Sony and Sennheiser headphones. I can't imagine what a really good set would sound like.
Originally posted by e1618978
1. There isn't a correlation. Most of the time you end up with bad sound (even if you spend $200K - like with Wilsons and Krell, nails on a blackboard), but there are good systems at all price points starting around $1000 - I don't understand what "50x better" means, there is bad/good/orgasmic, and that is it.
2. I spend $4000/year (plus the occasional big splurge, like my speakers), most spend about $1000/year. Most of that money is spent on LPs.
The best way to not waste your money is to go to the CES, and listen to the systems there. Out of 400 systems set up there in the Alexis Park and the San Tropas, you will like maybe 5 or 10 - and those systems will be different than my favorite 5 or 10.
If you like a system, you probably like all the things in the signal path of that system, and you can use that data to start your own stereo. Trying to build a system based on internet reviews will never get you there, and will cost boatloads of money.
www.audiogon.com is a good place - you can buy used gear there, and if you don't like it you can re-sell it for about the same price you paid.
And use tube amps exclusively...
I don't think that this is the place to start the debate of tubes vs solid state, LP's vs cd's. That's much too complex an issue. Most audiophiles have a particular preference, but that doesn't mean that one is automatically better for any individual. I've designed both, and have my preferences, but it's not for here.
Very few people can get to a once a year show such as the CES. The E3's are more easily accessible, though smaller. But they are devoted to electronic entertainment. Unfortunately, all of these shows reflect what the current interests are, which is HDef. Get a copy of Stereophile magazine to keep track of events around the country. Some will be more easily accessible than others. The articles and reviews will give some idea what is happening as well. Be careful reading reviews in any hi-end mag though, as the reviewers are as prejudiced as anyone else, and aren't as qualified as they want you to believe. I know enough of them, so believe me.
Anytime someone tells you that you must do it their way, you should suspect them.
Sorry e1618978, but if you really are an audiophile, you would agree to that.
Sorry e1618978, but if you really are an audiophile, you would agree to that. [/B]
I don't think that we disagree - everyone likes different stuff.
But the CES is without match - and it is by far the best place to figure out what you like.
Originally posted by e1618978
I don't think that we disagree - everyone likes different stuff.
But the CES is without match - and it is by far the best place to figure out what you like.
Yes, CES is, at least the audio area is, which is seperate from the CES itself. Several of us from our club went there this year, as we do most years. But what about those who can't go? I hate to think that they are at the mercy of a "hi-end" dealer.
Originally posted by melgross
That's funny because the reviews have said that the Shuffle sounds BETTER.
I know; that's why I tested the shuffle based on the reviews.
The shuffle has some major limitations for me: it won't play AIFF or lossless files and it will only play AAC compressed or MP3 files; the default setting is something like 128 AAC. I tested it with the same AAC file (192) on a 20 GB and a 1 GB shuffle. There was no contest, the 20 GB sounded much better in terms of depth and clarity; the shuffle sounded 'tinny' on my Etymotic 'phones.
Seriously, I don't know what the reviewers were listening to...
Of course, the reviewer in question writes for PC Mag...who knows, maybe I got a bad sample.
Originally posted by cj3209
I know; that's why I tested the shuffle based on the reviews.
The shuffle has some major limitations for me: it won't play AIFF or lossless files and it will only play AAC compressed or MP3 files; the default setting is something like 128 AAC. I tested it with the same AAC file (192) on a 20 GB and a 1 GB shuffle. There was no contest, the 20 GB sounded much better in terms of depth and clarity; the shuffle sounded 'tinny' on my Etymotic 'phones.
Seriously, I don't know what the reviewers were listening to...
Of course, the reviewer in question writes for PC Mag...who knows, maybe I got a bad sample.
I read four reviews that said the same thing, including Mossberg at the Wall Street Journal.
I'm writing this without checking, because I have to leave to pick my daughter up from school, but if it's true that you can't use Lossless, that's too bad! That and no AIFF would be a determining factor, but you couldn't put much on the machine that way anyway.
Thr reviews were comparing the sound at 128 however, so I'm at a loss (ha!) to understand your problem. Perhaps it's defective?
Originally posted by melgross
I read four reviews that said the same thing, including Mossberg at the Wall Street Journal.
I'm writing this without checking, because I have to leave to pick my daughter up from school, but if it's true that you can't use Lossless, that's too bad! That and no AIFF would be a determining factor, but you couldn't put much on the machine that way anyway.
Thr reviews were comparing the sound at 128 however, so I'm at a loss (ha!) to understand your problem. Perhaps it's defective?
At 128, the shuffle sounds better than the 30GB photo. I haven't tried at higher bitrates, though, because my gf won't let me use it anymore.
On the 30GB, you can definately tell a difference between bitrates. I just started using Apple lossless, and the quality is night and day on any equipment. I "don't" have a lot of old music from Napster at all kinds of bitrates, but if I did, you can tell the difference. All of my CD's were encoded at 192VBR until recently, and the difference is huge, even with lossless. Most people that ride in the car can also tell if something is 128, 192, or lossless after listening to enough different songs.
I have a horrible system in my Jeep, where I usually use it. It has a very badly weathered soundbar and cd player from several years with no top playing music over an iTrip. Add tons of road noise from horrible aerodynamics and large tires to that, and my system is definately worse than average. Using lossless to begin with salvages the situation somewhat, and makes the music 1000 X more enjoyable. It takes up more space to use lossless, but with a 30GB, there is still plenty of room for lots of music using smart playlists, shuffle, and just general playlist updates.
My home stereo is a 6 year old Onkyo receiver with nice but old Infinity speakers, and the difference w/ the iPod between bitrates is still very noticeable.
Who knows, maybe the iPod sounded bad because my pre-amp was too hard to drive? I no longer have a mini - I have a shuffle and a 60GB photo. I may repeat the experiment now that I have changed pre-amps.
Originally posted by e1618978
I tried hooking the iPod mini to my stereo via the accessory basestation, and it sounded horrible (much worse than even the cheapest CD player) even when playing the lossless/uncompressed format.
Who knows, maybe the iPod sounded bad because my pre-amp was too hard to drive? I no longer have a mini - I have a shuffle and a 60GB photo. I may repeat the experiment now that I have changed pre-amps.
I've played music through the audio out on my iPod photos dock and have not noticed and sound difference between it and a normal CD. However, I'm not using advanced speakers.
Edit: I cannot hear a difference between a CD played in iTunes and a 160kbps MP3.
Originally posted by e1618978
I tried hooking the iPod mini to my stereo via the accessory basestation, and it sounded horrible (much worse than even the cheapest CD player) even when playing the lossless/uncompressed format.
Who knows, maybe the iPod sounded bad because my pre-amp was too hard to drive? I no longer have a mini - I have a shuffle and a 60GB photo. I may repeat the experiment now that I have changed pre-amps.
Something is wrong somewhere then. That should not be. John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile, has owned and tested both the full size and the Shuffles, and he finds the sound to be excellent. I have to agree.
I'm perfectly happy with the sound I get from my $800, which is what I guess matters, no doubt you would all cringe and screw your ears up, but I wonder. -
Where is the benefit of listening to music on systems that cost many many times the budget of the equipment used to record it?
Originally posted by MarcUK
To the audiophiles -
I'm perfectly happy with the sound I get from my $800, which is what I guess matters, no doubt you would all cringe and screw your ears up, but I wonder. -
Where is the benefit of listening to music on systems that cost many many times the budget of the equipment used to record it?
Playing back the recordings is a very different proposition. Besides an iPod is a playback device. $4,000 microphones are part of the recording process. so are $250,000 digital mixing consoles, and $200,000 digital decks.
Originally posted by melgross
Something is wrong somewhere then. That should not be. John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile, has owned and tested both the full size and the Shuffles, and he finds the sound to be excellent. I have to agree.
Maybe it is just the mini then, or maybe it was an interaction. John Atkinson likes tons of stuff that I don't, (and vice versa) though.