Would you rather have $10,000 speakers of $10,000 worth of records?

(I can't even think of what music I would spend $10K on - I'm sure it's there - but to be able to hear, say, Selected Ambient Works vol 2 on $10K speakers would be priceless to say nothing about being able to play through them.)

2xpost

So... records.

By the way, nothing is more amusing than listening to some tool rattle on about how much better monster cables make their systems sound. Just proves that audiophiles must have been nodding off during their physics classes, I guess.

Surely you'd be better off getting the speakers, selling them, far more easily, for a hefty wad, then buying loads of records and the speakers stolen, for 3000.

(My serious answer is records though, because fuck speakers that are higher-quality than my ears.)

-- bro jackson (he knows) (power.strike@gmail.com ), April 1st, 2005.

this doesn't make sense. even without being picky about vinyl selections, the resale (especially after certain albums go out of print) would still be above the 20-30% resale value of retail price that 2nd-hand speakers command

the vinly pressing of this reeeealy sucks.

I just sit really close to the needle anyway.

I already got the reccourds..

(Actually £5k speakers in my current room with my current listening habits = a total waste; £5k spent on new phono pre-amp, new cart, active monitors for the Darla soundcard, HDD/DVD-recorder, some kinda iPoddy thing = smashin').

Anything over $500 for domestic use? You're into the realm of the fetish object.

We also seem to be assuming that the $10,000 of speakers is represented by a single pair of high-end hi-fi speakers, whereas as far as I can see it could just as easily be 10,000 unbranded in-car speakers.

Either extreme presents it's dilemmas 'though: are you really going to fuck up that signed, unplayed, original copy of "That's Alright Mama" with the cheap and nasty stylus on your cheap and nasty Woolworths turntable; and do you really think you're going to get the best out of those Dynaudio Evidence Temptation speakers by connecting them to your Tandy amplifier using a couple of odd lengths of bell wire?

Garbage In - Garbage Out.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=306&item=4714611975&rd=1

True enough, if you're talking about something hopelessly underpowered, highly coloured, etc, etc to drive yr mythical $10k speakers. But unless they're a ridiculous load (electrostatics or somesuch with a zany impedance curve), you could get marvellous results driving ATCs, Dynaudios, Wilson-beneschs et al with a mid-priced mass-market solid state amp (the likes of which I expect many posting here own).

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=2266&item=4709382526&rd=1

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=306&item=4713113145&rd=1

wow, i wouldn't know where to start!

Ha ha, I fantasize about this ALL THE TIME!

Anything over $500 for domestic use? You're into the realm of the fetish object.

That's crazy. You realize that 95% of the people in the world would say the same thing about owning more than 100 CDs. Not that I'm trying to justify 10k speakers but there's nothing wrong with spending a couple thousand. I doubt there are any well-built, truly great sounding pairs of speakers for much under $1000.

A quick visit to a Salvation Army with a roving eye for 70's era Hi-Fi stuff can be a real eye-opener.

Pair of Acoustalinears for $25? I guess I'll take the records...

I skimmed this thread last week, which contributed to my impression that music fiends often pay little attention, relatively, to sound quality. I used the example of writers who listen to a lot of music, such as Michael Chabon, Simon Reynolds and Warren Ellis, who all listen to relatively crappy computer speakers.

A lot of us already have well over $10,000 worth of music. I would think more would jump at the opportunity to hear what our collections sound like on $10,000 worth of speakers! Granted, that price is kind of crazy, as improvements in sound per dollar diminishes after 2 or 3K. I'd probably buy a pair of Thiel CS3.7 speakers ($14,000 list) used on Audiogon or eBay for under $10k (they currently are available on eBay for $9,500 at the moment), run them with a couple Emotiva XPA-1 monoblock amps and enjoy them for a couple months and terrorize the neighbors. Then sell them, quite possibly making all my money back as their value remains very stable, and invest in a surround setup like Revel that would better suit my space.

God I have been waiting for like a month to get my new Tandberg amp out of the shop, I had it for three days before some initial-stage transistors in the left channel went down (last I heard they were still searching two replacements). I already have a great pair of Paradigm speakers, my consumer-grade Harmon-Kardon amp was the weak link.

And what people said upthread about rediscovering your entire collection was true. For three glorious days. Sigh. Guess I'll wait some more...

chabon & ellis aren't music critics, so i don't really know why they'd be lumped in here. (perhaps they have sweet headphones, though.)

simon has real speakers, and a proper stereo setup - it's not audiophile grade by any means but it's good. i'm sure he has computer speakers as well, but it's certainly not all he's using. he has a pretty extensive collection of vinyl.

another point is that a lot of us who contend with music don't just listen at home. with electronic dance music, it's often preferable to listen outside of your home: on a dancefloor, for instance, on a club's big system, or in a live concert setting

Sorry, there's better context here, in which I referred to Chabon's piece about listening to crappy computer speakers for most of the decade. Simon mentioned here that he had a similar experience to Chabon and then "upgraded" to the same Soundsticks. Like Chabon, Ellis listens to music (on Altec Lansings, heh) while writing, and has pretty insatiable tastes for a wide variety of stuff. I've snaked him some mixes now and then over the bast decade. Hope they don't mind a little teasing.

been upgrading the ol' system lately. first out of necessity - old tuner died and killed a speaker when it went. scored a olde onkyo and some klipsch speakers offa craigslist used and it really opened my ear/eyes to what some good (maybe not quite audiophile) stuff sounds like. onkyo died and scored a sweet used nad tuner. i'm kinda sold on nice stuff now.
speakers! but only if tuner/cd player/turntable are of outrageous quality. and only because i have a lot to listen to at this point.

Records of course. $10,000 is waaaay too much for speakers, even really nice ones. Do you live in a frigging country manor? Are you in the commercial sound business? No one needs $10,000 speakers. My neighbors don't need to listen to them!

klipsch speakers offa craigslist used

yeah! this is the way to go. also check out thrift stores--i've found decent audio gear at the goodwill on a regular basis, old analog receivers and such. most of the time they still work.

i used to buy old thorens turntables on ebay for $30 and get them fixed up--they sound fantastic. i'm not sure what the price point is on ebay these days, but if you don't have much cash, that's the route i recommend

i won a pair of $2200 B&W speakers in a work raffle of the boss' old shit, before that i'd had crappy speakers and i basically ended up falling into having an epic sound system. it's a vast improvement tbh.

When I was 6 years old or so, I had my mind completely blown by a mono copy of Sgt. Pepper played on one of those auto/portable record players that were common in the 70's, that could play a stack of 45's and could be carried around like a suitcase when not in use. Probably had the sound quality of almost any cheap system these days. I'll bet most screaming Beatles fans in the 60's had similar systems. I heard a lot of my favorite songs for the first time on mono radio or on one of those old cassette players from the late 70's before boom boxes were everywhere.

So I see no need for anything more complicated than that. I have some rich friends/clients and have experienced some ridiculous sound systems and/or headphones, and remain totally unconvinced. You habituate so quickly that there's just no point.

There seems to be a stigma attached to buying that old stuff, there is a pressure to just give up and get one of those ipod plug in things. But I like my old lp's and cassettes and the memories of the old stereos!!! I say that as someone who likes all kinds of streaming services, I use them to decide what to buy. But I keep old boom boxes around.

My parents inherited one of those GIGANTIC hi-fi's from my grandfather, a real old-timer. Giant 1950's thing, my dad liked to play big band records on it. Turned it on and it was smoking - yikes. But the speakers still work, it's so beautiful I am not giving up on it yet.

Given a robust platform, I believe a $2,000 speaker pair would more than suffice most needs. Given that so much great music is fidelity-irrelevant (or,, at least, secondary), one might opt for more stax. However, i cannot deny the undeniably bitchin' appeal of some SPANKIN' Mark Levinsons (et al). In the end, the music will come to you with all the zeal of a buck-toothed star-nosed mole. Speakers; grand speakers only come from simoleons, and so, the speakers i will take. Give.

$10,000 speakers for me. Better resale value and with $10,000 I could place some really nice speakers all over my house, including the kitchen and bathroom. I hate having to plug those meager $30 minispeakers whenever I take a bath.

Whoa! turns out Bowers and Wilkins sells their best ones for over $10,000.

Unsurprisingly I'm constately astonished at anecdotal evidence of music fans not caring about fidelity, often vociferously, as if it we a point of pride. Film critics, good ones, take into account the full sensory experience, which you just don't get with music if you're playing it off a pair of soundsticks while sitting at a desk paying more attention to videos of dancing dogs on the internet.

In this dilemma though I wouldn't take either, I don't think; 10k on speakers is WAY too much in my opinion (my main hifi probably comes in at around £2k for CD player, amp, speakers, cables, stands), and, as expressed unthread, 10k of records all at once is overload - I'd never listen to them all, never form a bond with them, never enjoy them.

So, essentially, I think both ends of the spectrum, the total audiophile and the voracious low-fidelity music-eater, are batshit. But, that's just because of how I like to listen, which is no more the right way than any other. I just don't see what either end gets out of their didactic position.

i do most of my listening on very nice and fairly expensive studio monitors (genelec 1031's + genelec subwoofer, total cost around $6k) and FUCK YES even mp3's at 192vbr sound very nice on high end speakers. anyway why spend $10000 on records when you can just download shit @320 (or flac if you're anal) for free! was this thread started 6 years ago or something?

that said, everyone i ever knew with ridonkulously expensive super hi end hifi gear had shitty taste in music and used those speakers-from-god to play the most boring ass MOR shit imaginable. hope i'm not turning into that guy!

also i had this pair of used B&W's i got on the cheap and frankly they really did sound $10000 good - if you actually have 10k to blow on speakers i don't necessarily think it would be a waste of money. the details you could hear!

I see your "music writers who listen to crappy PC monitors" and raise you "hi-fi writers who audition exotic gear in bare, boxy rooms". Anecdotal evidence natch, no names.

If I had $10k speakers, I'd want a dedicated, acoustically-treated listening room for them and all associated gear. I have a shopping list for when those EuroMillions numbers come up. ATC SCM50a, Orbe 'table upgrade, Lyra cart, EAR phono amp, thank you very much.

i do most of my listening on very nice and fairly expensive studio monitors (genelec 1031's + genelec subwoofer, total cost around $6k) and FUCK YES even mp3's at 192vbr sound very nice on high end speakers. anyway why spend $10000 on records when you can just download shit @320 (or flac if you're anal) for free! was this thread started 6 years ago or something?

that said, everyone i ever knew with ridonkulously expensive super hi end hifi gear had shitty taste in music and used those speakers-from-god to play the most boring ass MOR shit imaginable. hope i'm not turning into that guy!

― messiahwannabe

OTM. I'd rather have flac or 320kbps files than 600 or so records bulking up space in my home. I can't even think of 600 records I'd like to own.

Also true: All of my friends who own expensive gear tend to have bad taste, I don't blame it on the products, smart consumers tend to overthink too much when it comes to shelling out the big bucks whereas people with no criterion are implusive buyers / act like spoiled children... the same could be said for their listening habits, they're just seeking cheap thrills for higher costs.

Unsurprisingly I'm constately astonished at anecdotal evidence of music fans not caring about fidelity, often vociferously, as if it we a point of pride. Film critics, good ones, take into account the full sensory experience, which you just don't get with music if you're playing it off a pair of soundsticks while sitting at a desk paying more attention to videos of dancing dogs on the internet.

But you've moved from fans in one context to critics in the other. People don't demand the same experience, especially sonically, if they're just watching a DVD at home.

I dunno, if I want a "full sensory experience" I listen on headphones. Turning it up loud enough otherwise would probably drive my neighbours insane.

But yeah, I'd go for speakers. You're never going to listen to $10,000 worth of records and can download most of them anyway.

I can't even think of 600 records I'd like to own.

:( I'd have more trouble trying to figure out what records I wouldn't buy, I could very easily think of 600 records I'd like to own

I consider the original question to mean it would be a gift, or magically appear or whatever. Few of us would spend our savings all at once that way, though in my lifetime I've spent seven times that on records, tapes and CDs. I do wish I'd upgraded earlier. The $700 on my first upgrade to Rega R3s was well spent. It really did enhance my enjoyment by a big factor. And if you're using idocked clock radio or Smurfwick speakers, the improvement can be vast with just an $80 pair ($150 list) of Yamaha NS-6490.

After some years spent on audiophile forums researching gear, I realized it's more of a generational thing than taste. The people who owned that stuff when we grew up in the 70s, 80s and 90s tend to be middle age or older, and listen to more classical, jazz, etc. Their pop would always be something distinctly uncool, like Yanni or Celine Dion. But now in their "what-are-you-listening-to" sections you'll see plenty of metal, hip-hop, r&b, smattering of indie, electronic, etc. Absolute Sound magazine reviews decent albums, and gives separate ratings for the music and the sound quality.

Well if you're into arts / research you would certainly want $10,000 worth of records. I am not in music per se but it is part of my work. I could easily burn up $10,000 worth of music in a year - I worked in a library for years where our annual CD budget was $25,000. With used LPs and expensive imports, that money goes faster than you think! I keep a notebook with huge lists of stuff I want or that someone else should get.

I certainly would get around to listening to most of that stuff over time if it was a one-time investment. I live and work in a busy area, having the stereo too loud means I can't hear what is going on outside, it isn't practical for me. I am not a music critic where I have to tune everything out.

I'd certainly go for the speakers. I find my enthusiasm for certain albums totally rekindled by even small little upgrades to my system--a fresh stylus, re-positioning my speakers, stuff like that, so I can only imagine what $10K speakers would bring out. I'm with the lamenters of fidelity on this thread for sure... I had some friends over a couple weekends ago for my birthday, and I was playing stuff on the turntable, mostly dance-able electronic music. A good pal said to me afterward, even though he barely listens to any electronic music and still doesn't really connect with it, he was amazed at how good everything sounded at my party and how much he enjoyed all the music. (And my set-up is decent mid-fi at best!) Nick's point about the extremes being insane is right-on; there's plenty of sane room between the shitty-quality mp3 hoarder listening on computer speakers and the OCD audiophile wringing every last nuance out of his live Styx LPs on a $35K system.

Clarke, when it comes to turntables I am not disagreeing with the audiophiles! I spent $400 on a new turntable, a lot of people I know who spent more than that on some stupid ipod "system" think that is old-fashioned. But hitting up a pawn shop or thrift for old components or stereos (as I did when I was financially strapped) wasn't satisfying....it didn't make me want to put on an LP. Even scratched up garbage sounds good on my new stereo! It was like getting a face lift for the brain....all these old memories from the eighties came back!

Unsurprisingly I'm constantly astonished at anecdotal evidence of music fans not caring about fidelity, often vociferously, as if it were a point of pride.

this is of a piece with music fans who make a big show of decrying virtuosity imo i.e. the ideological legacy of poorly articulated punk values

Yeah, I feel you there. I spent around $600 on a Pro-Ject Xpression III turntable about 3 1/2 years ago, and the impact it had on my enjoyment just sitting on my couch and soaking up music was immediate and intense. The first thing I listened to was Fleetwood Mac's Tango in the Night (speaking of '80s memories), and I just about exploded. I'm looking for a new amp at the moment as my trusty but mediocre old Onkyo is starting to futz up, and it's been the weak link in my setup for a while.

100% agreed on the anti-fidelity stance being part of "the ideological legacy of poorly articulated punk values" (great phrase!)...

I am older now and what I used to think was expensive is within a middle-class budget. I can understand people with student loans and minimum wage jobs having an attitude about this. It pisses me off that people who are very musical can't afford equipment, large CD collections, etc.

Now that I am older I like reading the stereo porn in the Music Direct catalog. (Stuff like "hand-built in the state of Utah for under a grand, Zu’s Omen is hand-finished using a dye over real maple for a deep three-dimensional look that's just as stunning as they sound. ) Stereos are like furniture to me, they should have the complete aesthetic package. If you would spend thousands on a sofa why not a few thousand on a pretty and gorgeous sounding stereo!

Affordability is about priorities; when I was a skint student I worked & saved during the summer, had childhood savings to fall back on, didn't need a student loan for my first year, but took one at the last available opportunity and spunked it on a hi-fi and a hundred CDs. Other people drank / drugged theirs.

upgrading my stereo has increased my enjoyment of music in the last few years...like..immeasurably so

kind of curious whether people changed their mind about this question in the past five years

because i think availability of digital music reached that tipping point for me sometime in the past 18 months? otoh then i would be listening to streaming 160kb stuff on my $10k speakers so er never mind

i reallllllly need to upgrade my soundsystem. can i start, like, a kickstarter thing for this? help a guy enjoy his music more!

When I was growing up I knew a lot of working-class black kids who were highly musical but who couldn't afford giant CD collections or expensive stuff. Because of that I was and sometimes still am one of those people with an "attitude problem" about audiophilia and stuff. I don't want to seem like I'm abandoning my roots by leaving poorer kids behind. It's their heritage!

I agree, having great equipment makes a huge difference but again if you're a struggling student you could take vacations with that money, and those are priceless memories and stuff like travel and even social outings enhance your value in the workforce.

There is always time to build a CD collection or buy equipment...when you are getting your career established. No one should belittle nineteen-year-olds about their music collections or stereos or whatever.

you can get tons of pretty good equipment now at garage sales and on craigslist for almost nothing. i bought a great old NAD CD player for like $40

yeah, my town has a ton of pawn shops with a bunch of that sort of stuff. i just need to bite the bullet. cd players! nobody wants 'em anymore.

i reallllllly need to upgrade my soundsystem. can i start, like, a kickstarter thing for this? help a guy enjoy his music more!

I wrote this just last weekend so prices are up to date. http://www.fastnbulbous.com/computer-audio.htm

awesome, thanks!

And regarding Mount Cleaners post, part of the point of the article was that you can get better audio quality for close to the same prices people are paying for their cutesy iPod/Soundstick/Smurfwick speakers.

I wrote this just last weekend so prices are up to date. http://www.fastnbulbous.com/computer-audio.htm

I didn't read your whole article, just skimmed through it and looked at the recommendations, but it was surprising to me that you mentioned $1500 headphones but no speakers over a couple hundred bucks. Plus it seems like powered speakers give the most bang for the buck these days. I'm not sure why someone listening to music through their computer would need a receiver, so a $400 pair of powered speakers would probably be better than a $200 receiver and $200 speakers, don't you think?

I mentioned $1,500 headphones, but I didn't recommend them. My recommendation was mainly for Audio-Technica ATH-M50 which can be found currently for $118. I also talked about my preference for tower speakers, which I believe give better dynamic range for your dollar, especially if you don't want a subwoofer. There are no decent powered towers that I know of, so a receiver is needed. I only listed the lowest cost speakers which are bookshelves, but every one of those lines also have tower speakers (such as the Yamaha NS-555 3-way which you can get used at the moment for $100), which are covered on my home theater page. A receiver gives more flexibility, like if you decide you hook up a tape deck and digitize some cassettes, have a decent headphone jack and make use of its superior DAC if it has digital inputs. With no receiver, if you want to also enjoy some good headphones, you still have to spend more money on a headphone amp, or at least a DAC. Also, M-Audio is mainly the only powered speakers I've found at the quality I'm comfortable recommending. So there are countless more options if you go the other route. I wonder if I rewrite a couple paragraphs to make that more clear.

Grado sr60s are a great value

I also talked about my preference for tower speakers

gotcha. I was thinking less from the point of view of an actual home stereo system, and more like the replacement for little computer speakers for people who are mostly listening while sitting at their desk in front of their computer. I use Yamaha msp5s which are alright if you're sitting right in front of them, but they don't have much lowend and start to sound pretty bad as soon as you leave the sweet spot. Still the convenience and size of little 5" powered speakers on your desk is a pretty attractive step up from $10 computer speakers.

Is that the Pro Studio version, 40/27 watt bi-amped? That looks like a good speaker, but lowest I see is $216. I recommended M-Studio because it looked like the best value out there, but if anyone finds better (not counting Craigslist/garage sales ;) do post it.

But that reminds me another reason why I don't use nearfield monitors at home. They're designed for only one listener for a very specific sweet spot. Our office has a chair where one can sit and read and listen to music while the other is at the computer, so my HK/Rega setup is definitely more suited for that.

This might be the better thread to post that though - i got a new computer and i really need speakers for it

http://www.musicdirect.com/p-10774-wadia-itransport-171-black.aspx

oooh, this is JUST WHAT I NEED

Is that the Pro Studio version, 40/27 watt bi-amped? That looks like a good speaker, but lowest I see is $216. I recommended M-Studio because it looked like the best value out there, but if anyone finds better (not counting Craigslist/garage sales ;) do post it.

Yeah, I got them used on ebay for about $250 for the pair. There's also the yamaha hs50m, and similar powered 5" speakers from pretty much all the other makers (krk, jbl, tannoy, etc). And then most of them have an 8" model for little jump up in price and quality.

But that reminds me another reason why I don't use nearfield monitors at home. They're designed for only one listener for a very specific sweet spot. Our office has a chair where one can sit and read and listen to music while the other is at the computer, so my HK/Rega setup is definitely more suited for that.

True. But again, it's certainly a step up from little plastic computer speakers which also would definitely not be filling a room. And convenience-wise they're similar to computer speakers. I'm not convinced that someone who is currently content with computer speakers is going to go through the trouble of hooking up a receiver, etc.

kind of curious whether people changed their mind about this question in the past five years

I originally said it was a "ridiculous question" and went with the records, but now I'm not sure. I'd probably prefer a good stereo system to any size collection of CDs/vinyl, though.

I looked at the thread title and thought "duh, records, what kind of idiot would answer speakers" only to realize that I said speakers 6 years ago.

wk = walter kranz?

Nope, haven't changed my mind, would still take the records. There's always something new I'd love to listen to, but my ears still aren't getting any better at discerning between high-quality mp3 and audiophile gear!

yeah xp

is there a speaker/headphones rec list at pricepoints starting at $10?
I suspect there are various sweet spots -- e.g. at $20 there will be headphones that you can't improve upon until you hit $100.

i would dearly love to have better gear. shit i've got is ancient and was only ever half-decent to begin with: technics turntable, toshiba amp/receiver, abstract audio speakers, all 80s vintage thriftstore scores. plus some some newer JBL speakers for more, uh, sound per sound unit. 10 grand seems crazy though. i'd spend a little over half that on a whole new system, the rest on records.

but i lie. i'd spend 5 grand on records, sushi, cabs, and trinketry. the rest would "mysteriously" disappear, and i'd be stuck w the same old gear.

It does seem like at 5 grand, you could get a system you couldn't improve upon until you hit the 100k mark where you get into scifi territory.

Say you spent $1,200 on these:

Emotiva USP-1 Preamplifier, $400
Emotiva XPA-2, 2x300w Power Amplifier, $800

Or you could try to find used Rotel, NAD, Rega, etc. I'd go with Emotiva, because the quality, warranty and service is great for that price. That would leave $3,800. I researched a ton of speakers that were listed just under $3,000 four years ago. I could only afford half that, but found a great deal on a Wharfedale Opus 3 from a drop shipper. Since then the Opus2 line came and went, to be replaced next month by the Jade line with cones made of Acufibre that marries the responsiveness of glass and carbon fibre materials with a self-damping woven matrix. I'd love to hear the Jade 7, which would be right at that price. Beyond that, I don't know speakers at that price point. I'd maybe check to see if I'd get lucky and find used and abused Mordaunt Short Performance 6, Revel Performa F52, or Aerial Acoustics Model 9.

Acufibre that marries the responsiveness of glass and carbon fibre materials with a self-damping woven matrix

well shit, sign me up!

Heh, there's plenty of bs claims and voodoo in some high-end, but speakers are pretty straightforward. When they made the first line of Opus speakers with composite carbon cones, they measurably resulted in 1/10th the distortion of previous materials. They've come a long way from paper cones. Not to say I'd spend my own cash on upgrading just to hear the difference in their upgrades. Those babies are built to last a lifetime, and save a drastic influx of cash, I plan to keep them that long.

Cambridge Audio makes some nice affordable stuff

Actually smart move would be to get 10k of records when thread started and sell them at todays inflated prices

is there a speaker/headphones rec list at pricepoints starting at $10?
I suspect there are various sweet spots -- e.g. at $20 there will be headphones that you can't improve upon until you hit $100.

HeadRoom recommends some Koss clip-ons at $20. From what I've heard in that price range, mostly various Sonys and Sennheisers for working out, there's pretty much an incremental continuum, with $30-50 being noticeably better than $20 phones, etc. Audio Technica ATH-M10 might be a good midpoint one for $49.

Kiss Portapros!

Koss! Damn you, autocorrect!

Because of that I was and sometimes still am one of those people with an "attitude problem" about audiophilia and stuff.

totally me too

i love music but if i had $10k i wouldn't spend it on anything to do with it. if i had to choose i would choose the records even though i know everything's free now or whatever, lots of musicians could all use the money tbh

dare anyone to tell the kids listening to music out of computer speakers or even just basic gear that they didn't pore through Wanky Consumer Goods Vol 749393 to find that they're enjoying music any less than you!

what i'm saying is that i don't believe you when you say expensive gear helps you enjoy it more

its like ppl spoiled by expensive restaurant food

Do you enjoy watching a film more at the cinema or on the back of a headrest on an airplane?

i've seen more films recently in aeroplanes than in cinemas lol

i don't really care where i see them tbh. if the cinema is overpriced (i live in london, they almost all are) or if the cinema audience is loud or annoying (they're the public, they almost all are) or if i get an awkwardly angled cinema seat (i'm always late so i always do)...i'll go for the aeroplane thanks! or the dvd on my laptop.

also you can pause the dvd if you want to get a drink or go to the loo

My favourite way to watch films is in my livingroom with the audio going via my big hi-fi...

You quantifiably do not get the ssme experience watching a film on a laptop as at a cinema / on a home cinema. You miss a big part of the composition of the film, all sorts of elements. Some film makers make films to be seen on a big screen with full sound. Some are less so, but saying that you don't believe people enjoy watching films more in a cinema, or music more on a big hi-fi, is bullshit relativism just as much as saying people listening on an iPod on the bus are enjoying it less. Likewise the "I don't want to abandon my heritage by buying a decent stereo" is some kind of weird cultural rockism fetish bullshit, to my mind.

No doubt. I have a long history, or, erm, heritage with shitty audio growing up that I talked about in my recent article. Of course the music was really important to me and I enjoyed it whether it was mix tapes made through the mono mic of a 60s cassette recorder, an AM radio, crap Sears knockoff of a Walkman, clock radio, Montgomery Ward stereo with brutally disfigured needle, etc. But fuck if I wouldn't have enjoyed it that much more if I had been gifted with a sweet-ass sound system in my bedroom.

best earphones i've ever heard were from the original gameboy. second best were some 99cent promo thing for emusic.com.
I tried some grados that were much more comfortable, but they were really muddy-sounding by comparison.

saying that you don't believe people enjoy watching films more in a cinema, or music more on a big hi-fi, is bullshit relativism just as much as saying people listening on an iPod on the bus are enjoying it less. Likewise the "I don't want to abandon my heritage by buying a decent stereo" is some kind of weird cultural rockism fetish bullshit, to my mind.

sure, but there are degrees. someone saying that an old mono box portable turntable is "just fine" is more or less equivalent to someone saying that watching movies on an iphone is just as good as watching them in a theater. wouldn't call this attitude "rockism" (let that die, please), but it is clearly some kind of contrarian/fetishist style bullshit. better gear is better - to a point. like, bigger screen, sharper image, noticeably improved sound clarity and dynamic range? hell yeah, sign me up! within reason, within budget...

there's definitely a drop off with very high-end gear, though, where it becomes a game of numbers, the sonic differences perhaps discernible by a gold-eared few, but largely lost on most of us. you get the same effect with sports equipment, fwiw. the true benefits offered by the very best gear will really only be apparent to the very best athletes, to those operating at the edge of the performance specs.

all things within reason, you know?

dilemma: Watch Apocalypse Now on iphone, or in 3D redux redux?

anybody here doing any DIY audio stuff? i was thinking about trying my hand at building a tube amp

That's ambitious. There's probably a diy board for gear like that. My DIY thing at the moment is project Pimp My Bag. I'm on my second Osiris G-Bag that I use for biking and the beach and vacations. It has 10 watt amplifier and speakers, but sounds like crap once the batteries start running low. It's also a pain to shake out the 12 AA batteries. So instead I'm going to replace everything with a 12V rechargeable battery (usually used for CCTVs), a 2x30 watt motorcycle stereo amp, and Polk marine speakers (45 watt) that can get wet in downpours.

it doesn't seem like it's too ambitious - there are lots of kits out there

like these people posting instructions for building little tube amps for their ipod docks

it's funny how people like ARGUE that it doesn't matter but no one ever argues that a hi-def TV isn't better than a shitty old TV

arguing that is isn't worth it isn't the same as arguing that it doesn't matter

1920x1080 low-end LCD model fed with Freeview vs early-'80s Sony Trinitron with a good, solid analogue signal...

obviously, good audio is better than bad audio, but imagine that a salesman has placed two giant TVs in front of you ― giant TVs with apparently identical pictures ― one costing $2,000 and the other costing $20,000. you ask what the difference is, and the salesman goes into great detail about the more expensive machine's quality of design and engineering, the high-tech materials used in its construction, the incredible fidelity and clarity of its image reproduction. this all sounds encouraging, but to your eyes, they still look more or less identical.

that's another way to spin the metaphorical comparison.

yeah except like the system i have which sounds amazing only cost $2000!

(not even actually)

anybody here doing any DIY audio stuff? i was thinking about trying my hand at building a tube amp

I bought a Bottlehead tube preamp kit to have a preamp for my Dynaco ST70, but then I never finished it. And then the Dynaco died and I never bothered to get it fixed.

xp - I meant ambitious as in impressive, especially from scratch. Buying a kit is easy enough. Headphone tube amps are very popular. I'm guessing you're looking to do a desktop one for bookshelf speakers. I prefer my stuff assembled, heh. But I could see doing it if it saves money.

$10,000 worth of records would be way too much for me to get through, so I definitely would take the speakers. My speakers are older than I am, I swiped them from my parents when I was a teen. They sounded great 20 or so years ago, but have taken quite a beating since then.

My only concern with super fancy speakers is that my stereo probably would be insufficient for them.

"no one ever argues that a hi-def TV isn't better than a shitty old TV"

apparently the last generation of tube TVs outperform LCDs in terms of brightness/contrast or something,
and also the smoothing is better for not-quite-so-HD content (things appear less jaggedy),
but i think the main advantage to a tube TV is no one wants to break into your home and steal it.

My only concern with super fancy speakers is that my stereo probably would be insufficient for them.

In my piece I mentioned how Yamaha receivers are really easy to find for around $65-$85. I have one in my bedroom that sounds great with both Rega R3 and Wharfedale Evo 20 (there's a demo here for $479) speakers, if they qualify as fancy.

Unsurprisingly I'm constately astonished at anecdotal evidence of music fans not caring about fidelity, often vociferously...

The point I was trying to make was that hearing great music on a subpar Hi-Fi is preferable to subpar music being heard on a fantastic Hi-Fi. I've listened to plenty of AM radio over the years with great contentedness - sure i'd prefer it in higher fidelity but not at the expense of the material. I've easily spent over $15,000 in music over the years, and opted for mostly old-school (and bullet-proof) audio gear that i prefer over friends who've spent thousand$. My current audio gear probably cost me less than $2 grand all-together and includes new(er) NAD, Tascam, and Wharfedale as well as classic Pioneer and Technics. Sounds tight as hell to me, I just have to get up off my ass to change the volume or the track - no BFD. There is no way I'd trade a third of my stax (or the experience gained by amassing it) for a uber-system even as modest as $5k. It's only the prospect of found money (or a huge payday) that allows me to languish in that particular brand of whetness.

That argument doesn't work because I don't buy any sub-par music

Ha! Exactly! I'm not talking about £10k stereos anyway - I've heard a lot of anecdotal evidence of people listening on £50 PC speakers or ancient minisystems bought from Argos, or iPod headphones, or whatever. Anyone who has even the most rudimentary / second hand / old / whatever seperates set-up has my thumbs-up.

The problem I have with these debates is that they always seem to centre around the idea that sitting in your living room listening on a sound system is the right and proper way to listen to music and everyone else is doing it wrong, including those listening on the radio, on the move, in the car, on dancefloors, wherever. Strikes me as kind of elitist.

For all the tutting about people who listen through computer speakers, surely even more listen through headphones, and if you have good enough headphones you should be able to hear everything if you're paying attention.

The problem I have with these debates is that they always seem to centre around the idea that sitting in your living room listening on a sound system is the right and proper way to listen to music and everyone else is doing it wrong...

No, not wrong. But certain albums improve when their aural abundance fills a room/building, spills out windows, and concusses your thorax. Bellowing erroneous lyrics and whipping out those windmilling air guitar strokes is a tradition unequaled by anything less than a bitchin' system. I'll listen to just about anything anywhere - but the best stuff always seeks to be played on the main system. If it's elitist to desire listening to great music with optimal fidelity and minimal distraction, colour me so.

Also, i like to listen at my stereo because that's where my music is.

I don't think the debate "deliberately" devalues listening outside of the home; it's just like "what would you rather have"? It's not elitist, it's dorky.

But yeah obviously listening in the car is the best music experience.

Ok, I decided to just try this out. I bought a $10,000 system and 10,000 records from the $1 sections.

Let me tell you, those albums sounds like CRAP on my top-of-the-line system!

And now I have the problem of storing all these damn LPs...

Time to invest in glue

What's wrong with being elitist?

Awesome thread! I'm considering new speakers and a new amplifier for the first time in a long time (and for the first time since I've been an actual adult with a real salary and stuff), and I'm going through all sorts of torturous mental gymnastics trying to pull the trigger on a pair of Ascend Acoustics Sierra-1 speakers. I no longer harbor any illusions that better-designed and more expensive audio equipment might not be worth the money; it's just the spending of said money that's hard. For those on this thread that don't think you have discerning enough ears to tell the difference between crappy equipment and good stuff, don't shortchange yourselves like that! If you listen to music in even a semi-serious and intent way as a matter of course (and I assume all of you do), you will notice. I encounter this phenomenon constantly in my line of work, where people think they don't have a palate and can't tell the difference between a really cheap bottle of wine and a decent (not even expensive) one. That's not giving an organ you use every day of your life very much credit!

Please, tell me more about products I can purchase that will demonstrate my discernment if I am only courageous enough to pull the trigger and spend the money!

I hope that made you feel good. Anyway, I was replying to what I perceived as a sort of willful "audio quality doesn't matter at all to me" attitude I saw upthread at times and have encountered among friends, etc. And trying to speak also to my own resistance to the notion of spending money that I'm certain will bring me increased pleasure in one of my favorite activities. I'm not sure what in my post prompted you to reply in such a snarky and mean-spirited way, but it wasn't my intent to come off as condescending or anything.

people have to hear/taste/etc the difference to really get it. its easier to be dismissive if you honestly have no idea what the differences can be like and how vast they can be. you get what you pay for can truly be the case with audio equipment. and wine!

but honestly you could get yourself a sweet sounding stereo system for under 3 grand. new audio system. there are great turntables for under a thousand dollars. you could get a pair of decent speakers for a grand. a nice new receiver for under a thousand and you are good to go. you are on your own if you want a cd player too though.

Eephus, there definitely are those audiophiles out there who see their stereos as status symbols and "demonstrations of their discerning taste", but screw those guys. (Yes, they're probably all guys, right?) I just want more pleasure and more immersion in my listening experience, and as Scott says it doesn't take $2000 speaker cables to get that. Nor this thing:

http://cdn.most-expensive.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/expensive-turntable-work-of-art.jpg

I see those "Beats By Dre" headphones on the train a lot. These things cost £279, and other than paying for the "dre" name, how good can these things be? I mean really? I have a pair of £40 cans that sound FUCKING INCREDIBLE - I can't imagine paying seven times more and getting seven times the quality.

That said, this reminds me to start a thread about http://minirigs.co.uk/

for some people with the money its just an expensive hobby like owning a yacht or whatever. nothing wrong with that. but it doesn't have to cost a fortune, no. i'm sure there are ten thousand dollar speakers that sound amazing. but there are also great craftsmen out there who will build you really great custom speakers for less than that amount. the more educated you are the better off you are. and hearing different systems/speakers helps a lot. there are people who only swear by vintage gear. people who always want the latest thing. people who build everything by scratch. etc.

this guy is fun to read:

http://lampizator.eu/

http://lampizator.eu/NIRVANA/nirvana.html

i WOULD actually like to own a nice cd player. preferably used. like a nice marantz. i realize that they can make a big difference. a difference, again, that most people don't care about at all.

Those Ascend speakers I'm after are $850, and I'd hope to have them and be happy with them for at least a couple decades. I've been doing a lot of research as well and these just seem really cool--factory-direct so no big ad money or retail markups involved in the pricing, and built by a really small company whose owner is very obviously involved in an intense labor of love. And nearly unanimously praised to the skies. Researching all this stuff is pretty intimidating, though; the stuff just costs a lot of money, no two ways about that, and it's hard to rack up a lot of experience listening to different systems. Even when you listen to something in a store, it's not your system--not your room, not your amp (probably), not your turntable, etc. There are so many variables involved in the listening experience that it rapidly becomes a wormhole when you start spending a lot of time thinking about it and researching.

That site is wondrous, Scott...

what's the difference between a nice CD player and just the standard $5 one?

i have a 5 disc changer that works fine, not audiophile quality, that i will send to anyone for the cost of shipping

there are people who buy expensive tube-driven cd players. or use tube preamps for their players. i dunno, there are all kinds of reasons why one cd player would be better than another. better parts. better cd-reading capabilities. though by now i don't know why dvd audio isn't the norm for audiophiles. maybe it is. their are record labels now who only put out audio dvds.

http://www.lector-audio.com/010.htm

http://www.decware.com/newsite/ZCD.htm

SACDs are still a thing too, apparently. And a couple of recent Neil Young records came out in dual CD/DVD-audio formats (even though Neil's deaf and likely can't tell the difference himself).

i could see how a better-built CD player could produce less read errors or compensate for them somehow, but it seems fishy to me, especially if you're using optical out (where i can't imagine pre-amping ought to make a difference for the better)

i have a teac cd player at the store and its okay, but i want something better. i actually own some nice cds! that sound amazing. i'm an analog guy, but i'll be the first person to extoll the virtues of a well-made cd. and they deserve good equipment just like my good records do. if you are a classical fan, an experimental electro-acoustic fan, or an electronic music fan, CDs can kinda rule and you should have something good to play them on. i don't have a cd player at home. i did just switch out my ancient marantz receiver at home to try this yamaha receiver i picked up and i kinda love the yamaha! i am not always anti-new. hooked up to the yamaha are 40+ year old pioneer turntable and speakers and the thing makes them sound great. its a 90's receiver (i think?) actually made for people who own a cd player AND a turntable. which i appreciate. its part of their "natural sound" line. and pretty high-end for a yamaha. i dig it.

ya i'm perfectly happy to accept that in the mysteries of analogue sound there are tiny details making a difference in there, but without bothering to research it (or try out a ~good~ cd player) i just refuse to believe that £5000 can do reading a bunch of 0s and 1s noticeably better than £50 can.

becoz i am some kind of luddite ignoramus i guess.

xp haha scott about 6 months ago I traded my dying/dead 90s Yamaha receiver for a Marantz 1060 amp. Love it.

just on paper, I'd suspect that a computer-based system under $500 where you ripped all the CDs with some anal ripping program, with some fancy DAC card ought to be better than 99% of CD players, if something better is detectable. Maybe even a playstation3?

i could play people stuff on my pioneer speakers that would really blow them away. and they aren't the most powerful speakers or whatever. they are for finesse. solo strings or quartets as opposed to big orchestral things. the more acoustic the better. but man they surprise me every day. played a pristine first pressing of electric warrior last night and definitely heard things that i'd never heard before. the guitars! woooo boy. so great. i could even make a sgt. pepper lover out of a sgt. pepper hater. played rufus this minty first stereo pressing the other day and it just makes you appreciate the sounds so much. no matter how tired you think that album is. sounds so different too from what you would hear on the radio or at the supermarket or on a cd version. its sounds so homemade in a weird way that is hard to describe. hand-crafted. CD versions sand the edges off. no, really, come over some time. i'll prove it to you.

i just refuse to believe that £5000 can do reading a bunch of 0s and 1s noticeably better than £50 can.

I think it's less the 1s and 0s and more the quality of the DAC(s) (Digital-to-Audio Converters). Also, you don't need to shell out heavy cash for a decent CD player: $400 will get you something that sounds noticeably (and sometimes dramatically) better-sounding than a $100 unit.

cheap cd players are made...cheaply! like really cheaply. more attention to detail and better parts and people who know what they are doing, its like anything that people make. are some of them selling a bill of goods that isn't as great as the high price tag? sure. but just like there are engineers who really know how to make a good cd and lots who can't there are people who make great audio equipment and others that don't really care and who are churning stuff out for the assembly line. a nice piece of audio equipment should sound good and last a long time. cheap stuff isn't made to last or sound particularly good. most people don't care how good it sounds! they just want it to work.

I agree with this principle in general but CD players really feel like they are closer to the monster cable paradigm just from my understanding of how they work.

i could even make a sgt. pepper lover out of a sgt. pepper hater. played rufus this minty first stereo pressing the other day and it just makes you appreciate the sounds so much. no matter how tired you think that album is. sounds so different too from what you would hear on the radio or at the supermarket or on a cd version. its sounds so homemade in a weird way that is hard to describe. hand-crafted. CD versions sand the edges off. no, really, come over some time. i'll prove it to you.

― scott seward, Monday, August 13, 2012 1:52 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

That's really so true, Scott. That's what it's all about. Even with my pretty modest setup now, I have a nice turntable (Pro-Ject Xpression III I got about five years ago), and it makes you hear stuff you'd think you'd be totally burned out on with new ears. Stuff like Rumours or Zep IV or whatever, you play these LPs on a decent setup and it's like hearing deep into the records and getting at their real personalities. It's not just "oh, these songs I've heard a million times."

I think it's less the 1s and 0s and more the quality of the DAC(s) (Digital-to-Audio Converters).

This is it, I think. I'm thinking about just ripping all my CDs to FLAC and buying a decent DAC and just playing music through that when my CD player (a cheapish Marantz) packs up.

I'll go for the rekkerds, because there's always some little manufacturer i've never heard of pumping out amazing-sounding $1,500 speaker pairs

i guess if you had a good dvd player you could use that to play CDs if its hooked up to your stereo. probably sound good. dvd players are pretty nice these days. NAD cd players are supposed to be really good. and supposedly you are better off with a single disc machine as opposed to a 5 disc changer. dunno why. i don't doubt that the little things do count though.

£10,000 worth of records, of course!!

i hear new stuff on records playing vinyl all the time....i was just playing this dollar bin beat up copy of bridge over troubled water and heard all this percussion on cecilia that i'd never heard before

I'll take the speakers. I already have more than $10k in records.

Having just downgraded my hi-fi I can tell you there's nothing like a radical change of gear - in either direction - to make you dig through the records and rediscover the joy of just...listening.

i just refuse to believe that £5000 can do reading a bunch of 0s and 1s noticeably better than £50 can.

You're right, you can recover the data perfectly with a very cheap optical disc transport. It's the downstream analogue electronics (and the power regulation around that D/A stage and the noisy servomechanism that's actually reading the disc) that costs the money. Whether there's any discernible *improvement* beyond a few hundred dollars is a matter for conjecture. You can certainly tailor the sound (expensive valve stages adding second-order harmonic distortion) but... well, I'm not getting into it. I'm an ex-audiophile and I remember the rec.audio.high-end wars of the '90s.

daddy, what did you do in the rec.audio.high-end wars?

but poo and mike raises an interesting question - what do digital audiophiles do? and is that better? (solid state decoding of lossless files = no mechanical noise for one thing)

Thankfully, I mostly observed the skirmishes from the sidelines.

Being an ex-audiophile is a bit like leaving a cult; I have a real aversion to the high-end now, and don't go anywhere the forums, as I regard a serious amount of it as BS. Having a decent stereo is a good thing though. And money really does talk with analogue sources and speakers. If I won the lottery tomorrow, Michell Orbe SE / SME IV / Lyra Atlas would be on order almost immediately.

xp - yeah, I think archives of lossless files played back through a high-end DAC has become the digital source of choice for many audiophiles; I imagine the lunatic fringe still imagines that ripping a disc loses "rhythm or musicality" or somesuch, but I'm not going there.

are there dedicated devices that'll take a sdhc card(*) full of flacs and give you spdif(**) output?

(* or whatever)
(** or whatever)

There are rackmount DJ/live/broadcast SD-based players available, but they don't seem to have digital output as standard.

Actually, after having it sat on the floor for several weeks and realising I couldn't sell it for very much, I've reintroduced my 13yo Sony MD deck to the system, just to have an A/D and D/A loop in there. So I can run optical S/PDIF to/from from computer/etc.

thinking about it, my BD player has digital output and a usb socket on the front. as does the PVR and the TV (although none of them do flac and i doubt the D/A would pass audiophile muster). but i was thinking of something a bit more like a slingbox. would need some kind of display though (although my portable mp3 player does ok with 6 lines-worth, 92x92 pixels or so) and could make it disable-able like those high-end cd players of old.

(using an actual computer, with hdd etc, i'd've thought would introduce a lot of electronic noise to the signal. would optical out solve that?)

http://www.canford.co.uk/Products/2001658/79-7404_DENON-DN-F400-SD-CARD-PLAYER-SD-SDHC-WAV-MP3-bal-unbal-out-1U-rack-mounting-kit

"media player", of course, there are lots of these, mainly for tv but...
http://www.philips.co.uk/c/blu-ray-dvd/hdmi-usb-2.0-sd-sdhc-card-slots-hmp3000_05/prd/

Well, here's a bunch of stuff I didn't know about USB audio...

http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/assets/documents/Audiophiles_guide_to_bit_perfect_USB_Audio_October_2011.pdf

"perfect"

what kind of music is this?

i have the low end 500 dollar magnepans, after 10+ years the ribbons are delaminating. what now?

I'm not sure what in my post prompted you to reply in such a snarky and mean-spirited way, but it wasn't my intent to come off as condescending or anything.

If you are an actual user of this site, I apologize for misreading you, but in that case every single thing you've said in this thread is the most pitch-perfect imitation of grody social-media marketing I have ever encountered.

ok, sorry, just did a search and saw that you are a real person -- but go back and read what you wrote and tell me it doesn't sound like undercover PR!

It's cool, I've posted on and off for about 12 years, but never with intense regularity or frequency. And I can kinda see what you're saying... But it's a weird and depressing world when genuine enthusiasm can be so easily brought under suspicion. Not your fault that your radar for that sort of insidious PR stuff is hyper-honed, though; mine is as well. David Foster Wallace had a great essay about this very thing, the way subtle marketing has eroded our ability to trust people. It sucks! (No, I don't work for DFW's publishing house.)

The quote, FWIW: "An ad that pretends to be be art is – at absolute best – like somebody who smiles at you warmly at you only because he wants something from you. This is dishonest, but what’s sinister is the cumulative effect that such dishonesty has on us: since it offers a perfect facsimile or simulacrum of goodwill without goodwills’s real spirit, it messes with our heads and eventually starts upping our defenses even in cases of genuine smiles and real art and true goodwill. It makes us feel confused and lonely and impotent and angry and scared. It causes despair."

if you care, I think what really set off my detectors was the way your original post sort of ended up saying "maybe you think you don't need this expensive thing because years aren't good enough to appreciate its superiority, but believe in yourself, man, you won't regret it!" which can indeed be read as genuine enthusiasm, and this case was, but which is SO CHARACTERISTIC of a certain kind of insidious marketing that takes people's natural desire to be praised and remaps it onto a product

Going back, I can see that... I think in my mind I went from talking specifically about the speakers I hope to get to talking in a more broad sense immediately following that mention, but it reads like I'm still talking about those particular speakers. I have FB "friends" that do the undercover PR thing and I fucking hate it! I cringe to think of myself having come across that way.

"years" should have been "yr ears" above btw, and don't sweat it, I think it's an interesting exercise in unpacking our own reactions to things. I don't have any FB friends who do this -- OR DO I -- now have to go read news feed v carefully