Music players, are you an audiophile?

hypertone

Keepin' it Analog
I recently got back into music production after many years and in the past 6 months I've bought a new computer, some software instruments, started using my USB interface for more than vinyl rips and have a more than capable "DAW" setup for messing around with ideas at home. I've started practicing guitar more and have a slew of unfinished ideas and song snippets. Instead of being interested in home audio gear, I'm more interested in audio production gear and musical instruments. In the past few weeks, I bought a fretless bass and a classical guitar, both used "scroes" for about the price of vintage receivers.

I'm actually starting to think chasing that last 1% in audio reproduction quality is ridiculous and I am totally happy with my stereo gear and have no desire to change anything. I put my turntables and records on a shelf. I can't be bothered to brush LP's and clean styli when I could be doing something far more rewarding; PLAYING music.

I've seen on here people talking with bewilderment about trained musicians that are completely happy using an iPod dock for their listening. While I still like a good sounding stereo, I think I get it now. I'm happy with the first 99%, and have been mainly discovering new music on internet radio when I listen now. Does anyone else feel the same?
 
Yes, I have spent the last thirty years more focused on playing and recording than on listening to other people's music. I admit that I am a rather unconvincing audio hobbyist. I have excellent gear in the studio and in my office, to be sure, but it doesn't change much, nor do I think about it unless it has a problem. Playback systems are tools in service of things that are more important to me: making music and listening to music.

Otto
 
I'm 41 and have played a variety of instruments since I was six years old. For a number of years, I planned on being a music major with a concentration on early music. I've grown away from it since college, but from the time I was born until I was about 20, I probably spent as much time listening to live acoustic instruments played by others or myself as I did listening to recorded music and most of that listening to recorded music involved me learning how to play it.

I tend to not be super picky, but I have a range of sound with which I am comfortable. The stuff below about 35 Hz doesn't interest me as much as it does many folks. I like music to sound fairly unrestrained and on very good acoustic recordings, I like the system and the room to make me, on occasion, forget I am listening to a stereo system. That definitely takes the right material, the right gear, the right setup AND me being in the right mood, but it occasionally happens.

As far as the last 1% or even the last 5%... it's fun to play around in that area, but I also think that there's a lot to be said for having a pair of speakers, a receiver or integrated amp, a decent source and decent cables and trying to get the most out of that gear that you can in your particular room. I like to approach it as though replacing the components is not an option, that I MUST make that gear work as effectively as possible.
 
Although I still pick up my guitar and noodle I no longer play professionally. But I like to listen more critically now and moved back to buying nicer gear specifically to do so. I do love to make music and the creative process but more into listening now.
 
From knowing many professional and amateur musicians, only a very small minority are true audio gear tweaking audiophiles with expensive components.

True artists are generally very modest, and humble.
 
By the way, I'm a musician myself (amateur). ...Over 45 years. ...Guitars, flutes, harmonicas.

My systems are modest. I am not an audiophile, just a simple music lover and sound explorer (surround & all). ...Impact from true emotional art.
 
Last edited:
I started playing musical instruments at the age of 3 and didn't become interested in audio gear until I was around 13.

I consider myself a musician, a musicphile and an audiophile.

I love music, musical instruments and audio gear, and am quite picky about the gear I play and the gear I listen to music with.
 
I've seen on here people talking with bewilderment about trained musicians that are completely happy using an iPod dock for their listening. While I still like a good sounding stereo, I think I get it now. I'm happy with the first 99%, and have been mainly discovering new music on internet radio when I listen now.
Nothing wrong with an iPod for hosting a music library as long as you're using lossless files. That will usually require an iPod Classic with its 160GB non-SS hard-drive which is in danger of extinction. I believe the focus in the future will be on "cloud" based music storage and hopefully that will still allow loss-less reproduction.

I'm a frustrated musician who gave up trying years ago and now enjoys listening to accomplished players and vocalists. But I require faultless reproduction of instruments and voices and appreciate a good recording sometimes over even a good player. If that makes me an "audiophile", so be it. If a cello or string bass is capable of producing frequencies beyond what my system is capable of re-producing, I'm missing some of the music. Period.

My kids have my love of music and one daughter is a performer and accomplished musician and vocalist who is beginning to appreciate the engineering behind a good recording. They all grew up listening to an "audiophile" system and sharing a living room with speakers as large as a chest of drawers, just as I did! My daughter knows the difference between a Shure SM58 and a Neumann KMS 104 just as I do a Bose 501 and a JBL 4345.

My primary source for recorded music is a CD player and even though much of my library is converted to AAC for the iPod and iTunes, I mostly prefer to have the original disc and liner notes on-hand to get me closer to the artists. I still own vinyl and three turntables but gave up long ago the grind of preening for ten-minutes to enjoy one 20-minute vinyl side. The rest is all fodder for rhetorical debate.
 
Nothing wrong with an iPod for hosting a music library as long as you're using lossless files. That will usually require an iPod Classic with its 160GB non-SS hard-drive which is in danger of extinction. I believe the focus in the future will be on "cloud" based music storage and hopefully that will still allow loss-less reproduction.

I'm a frustrated musician who gave up trying years ago and now enjoys listening to accomplished players and vocalists. But I require faultless reproduction of instruments and voices and appreciate a good recording sometimes over even a good player. If that makes me an "audiophile", so be it. If a cello or string bass is capable of producing frequencies beyond what my system is capable of re-producing, I'm missing some of the music. Period.

My kids have my love of music and one daughter is a performer and accomplished musician and vocalist who is beginning to appreciate the engineering behind a good recording. They all grew up listening to an "audiophile" system and sharing a living room with speakers as large as a chest of drawers, just as I did! My daughter knows the difference between a Shure SM58 and a Neumann KMS 104 just as I do a Bose 501 and a JBL 4345.

My primary source for recorded music is a CD player and even though much of my library is converted to AAC for the iPod and iTunes, I mostly prefer to have the original disc and liner notes on-hand to get me closer to the artists. I still own vinyl and three turntables but gave up long ago the grind of preening for ten-minutes to enjoy one 20-minute vinyl side. The rest is all fodder for rhetorical debate.

See, I think some of those feelings are what make a true audiophile. I've never enjoyed the term audiophile as it's always meant someone that can't settle for gear that is widely used... someone that constantly wants to push that last one or two percent.

Lossless is clearly superior but if I am on a desert island (or, say, on a 15 hour road trip) I can enjoy 320k MP3s that I ripped myself played back through an Alpine V12 4our-channel amp driving, CDT or Focal speakers up front and a single Illusion Audio 12" sub. During that time, I would be enjoying the music rather than longing for the next upgrade that would ease my suffering.

Not quite mocking you, but I think the key difference is, at a certain point, say, a $2,500 home audio system, I can enjoy music quite extensively without worrying about the gear whereas I've met people that I honestly think would be sitting there the entire time thinking, 'How the hell can anyone enjoy this crap?!? No Thiel or Revel speakers, no Levinson or Krell amplification. My God... he doesn't even have any Transparent Audio cabling."

I just enjoy the gear I have making me, in my opinion, NOT an audiophile.

Definitely no offense meant to anyone, esp you BMWCCA. Hell, I even used to be a member of the BMWCCA! But I had a crappy system in it: Alpine head unit, Diamond Audio speakers, Oz sub, Aura amp. My head unit even played MP3 files.
 
And to LOTR, I've known countless musicians that had shite gear until being exposed to hig-ish end equipment. The difference between most of them and most non-musician audiophiles I know is that the actual musicians tend to make their decision and use that gear until something dies whereas the audiophile generally is on a never-ending quest for constant upgrades.

One of the small high end shops here in town is owned by one of the cellists of the Indianapolis Symphony. Obviously he has sold many systems to other performers. And they guy that initially exposed me to high end audio in Dallas originally wanted to be a performer and had the skill, but not the time to dedicate, though he was a VERY strong supporter of the arts.
 
I just enjoy the gear I have making me, in my opinion, NOT an audiophile.

Well then, that would make two of us!

My point wasn't that I'm never happy . . . because I am. I've used the same amps for decades and I had the same speakers for fifty years. I have upgraded since and enjoy swapping components to see how they differ. I've elevated my equipment to the point that I can enjoy all kinds of music but I can also appreciate a good recording over a bad one and simply prefer the good ones!

If a system can't reproduce all the frequencies and dynamics of a live performance then you're missing part of the music. That's all.
 
I'm a musician and music lover first and an audiophile second. I appreciate great sound reproduction and the enjoyment it can bring to music listening in the home, but I don't see it as a necessity. If I had to choose between a great performance in limited sound quality and a pedestrian performance in state-of-the-art sound, I'd go with the great performance 10 times out of 10. Guess that's why I still listen to 78s and CD or LP transfers from 78s.

At one time I was on the audio gear upgrade treadmill, but I haven't done much upgrading in the past few years. My system is good enough to bring me musical joy whenever I fire it up, so I don't feel much compulsion to chase those last few percentage points of sound quality improvement between what I have and the best new gear that's out there.
 
And to LOTR, I've known countless musicians that had shite gear until being exposed to hig-ish end equipment. The difference between most of them and most non-musician audiophiles I know is that the actual musicians tend to make their decision and use that gear until something dies whereas the audiophile generally is on a never-ending quest for constant upgrades.

One of the small high end shops here in town is owned by one of the cellists of the Indianapolis Symphony. Obviously he has sold many systems to other performers. And they guy that initially exposed me to high end audio in Dallas originally wanted to be a performer and had the skill, but not the time to dedicate, though he was a VERY strong supporter of the arts.

I agree.
 
Most serious musicians are not true audiophiles. You can listen to the sound, or listen to the music, but usually not both at the same time. If you are fully engaged with the music, responding emotionally to the building from a soft pianissimo to double forte or full orchestra, the subtle bending of tempo to express emotion through rubatos, strettos, and ritards., the quality of tone produced, etc., you probably aren't simultaneously noticing the subtle differences in the amp you are listening to in comparison to a different amp in a setup you listened to the day before. Other than the audio playback's ability to produce wide dynamic range, and maybe the ability to render tonal complexity, particularly at the high end, these musical elements are orthogonal to audio quality. Moreover, when you are straining your brain to hear differences in audio quality between two components, you generally are listening to the sound, not generally engaging with these types of musical elements.

Thus, I consider myself a musiophile. The purpose of an audio playback system is to reproduce the sound in a manner that does not distract from listening to the music, and paying for audio performance beyond that level is silly money to a serious musician.

The way I audition audio gear is to listen to a musical source which which I'm intimately familiar for an extended period. I just listen to the music, engage with the music, and if comparing two components, ask myself which I am enjoying more. If the level of enjoyment is the same, then I'd choose the cheaper component.

Lastly, the audiophile industry traditionally profits by selling you stuff you don't need. If you want to improve the sound quality of an audio system, you start with the weakest link in the system. That will be the limiting factor of the system. Improvements to things that are not the limiting factor won't produce significant differences in sound quality. You will hear things like "not leaving anything to chance." This is almost always codespeak for not doing the engineering to figure out where improvements need to be made and just overspec'ing the whole system so that the buyer can acquire unnecessary stuff for the supplier to profit on.

How often have you walked into a store and seen 6 foot high end RCA cables? Fork out the moulah and then you can get a rubber band to hold it in a bundle where it connects between the 8 inches or so between a tuner and amp. The high end cable is probably touted for its low impedance per inch of length. Why not just get a normal 1 foot cable instead? You save some wire mess behind your gear stack and lower the impedance by 1/6 relative to the same gauge cable that is 6 feet in length, and your wallet stays happy.

I really get tickled by high end CD players and DACs to play Redbook CDs. CDs with all of their mastering compromises are the limiting factor in most systems. if you stick one of these disks in a higher end CD player, it is still the same CD that is the limiting factor. Hi-resolution disks (SACDs (DSD), DVD-audio (minimum 24/96 PCM), or bluray-audio (minimum 24/96 PCM), or to a lesser extent vinyl will be a much bigger upgrade at far lower cost.

I have played piano all of my life, as well as organ and keyboards, both for my own enjoyment, and semi-professionally (i.e. for money, but not enough to live on) at times. My primary listening system at present is a Fisher 500C tube receiver, Sony NC555ES SACD player, and original "The Smaller Advent" speakers. Total cost including professional refurbishments was $635.

M2358
 
Last edited:
I am a professional classical musician and a teacher at a noted school in New York City. Many of my colleagues and students 1. Do not own any music CDs or LPs, 2. Listen to everything on Youtube, and 3. Listen to everything using a macbook or iPhone, with ear buds.

This should tell you a lot.

I personally spend a lot of time at home listening - and my setup is Mid-Fi and Thrift-Fi. That elusive 1% that you decided not to chase, is not really worth it in my opinion.

That being said,...The more experience I have listening to stuff, the more my tastes keep getting more expensive.

enjoy the music and follow it where it takes you!
 
Most serious musicians are not true audiophiles. You can listen to the sound, or listen to the music, but usually not both at the same time. If you are fully engaged with the music, responding emotionally to the building from a soft pianissimo to double forte or full orchestra, the subtle bending of tempo to express emotion through rubatos, strettos, and ritards., the quality of tone produced, etc., you probably aren't simultaneously noticing the subtle differences in the amp you are listening to in comparison to a different amp in a setup you listened to the day before. Other than the audio playback's ability to produce wide dynamic range, and maybe the ability to render tonal complexity, particularly at the high end, these musical elements are orthogonal to audio quality. Moreover, when you are straining your brain to hear differences in audio quality between two components, you generally are listening to the sound, not generally engaging with these types of musical elements.

Thus, I consider myself a musiophile. The purpose of an audio playback system is to reproduce the sound in a manner that does not distract from listening to the music, and paying for audio performance beyond that level is silly money to a serious musician.

The way I audition audio gear is to listen to a musical source which which I'm intimately familiar for an extended period. I just listen to the music, engage with the music, and if comparing two components, ask myself which I am enjoying more. If the level of enjoyment is the same, then I'd choose the cheaper component.

Lastly, the audiophile industry traditionally profits by selling you stuff you don't need. If you want to improve the sound quality of an audio system, you start with the weakest link in the system. That will be the limiting factor of the system. Improvements to things that are not the limiting factor won't produce audible differences in sound quality. You will hear things like "not leaving anything to chance." This is almost always codespeak for not doing the engineering to figure out where improvements need to be made and just overspec'ing the whole system so that the buyer can acquire unnecessary stuff for the supplier to profit on.

How often have you walked into a store and seen 6 foot high end RCA cables? Fork out the moulah and then you can get a rubber band to hold it in a bundle where it connects between the 8 inches or so between a tuner and amp. The high end cable is probably touted for its low impedance per inch of length. Why not just get a normal 1 foot cable instead? You save some wire mess behind your gear stack and lower the impedance by 1/6 relative to the same gauge cable that is 6 feet in length, and your wallet stays happy.

I really get tickled by high end CD players and DACs to play Redbook CDs. CDs with all of their mastering compromises are the limiting factor in most systems. if you stick one of these disks in a higher end CD player, it is still the same CD that is the limiting factor. Hi-resolution disks (SACDs (DSD), DVD-audio (minimum 24/96 PCM), or bluray-audio (minimum 24/96 PCM), or to a lesser extent vinyl will be a much bigger upgrade at far lower cost.

I have played piano all of my life, as well as organ and keyboards, both for my own enjoyment, and semi-professionally (i.e. for money, but not enough to live on) at times. My primary listening system at present is a Fisher 500C tube receiver, Sony NC555ES SACD player, and original "The Smaller Advent" speakers. Total cost including professional refurbishments was $635.

M2358

Hmmm. I listen to the sound of music. And the hills are alive.

Perhaps I'm not eligible to reply, since I'm only a recreational guitarist (vs a "serious" musician like yourself). But your silly commentary demands it....

1. I'd be willing to bet you $1000 that you are unable to identify the format of a disc by simply listening to it (with a success rate any better than random guesses).

2. I'd hate to hear the system that you didn't choose. Are you really saying that you've never heard, for example, speakers that you've enjoyed more than your Advents?

3. I am an audiophile, and not at all ashamed to say so. To me, this means that I have a strong interest in listening to music - both live and via playback equipment, and that I am have more interest than the general population in having a playback system that does a good job of approximating the sound of live music. You seem to be implying that all audiophiles are more about the gear than the music....whereas I've found the opposite to be true.

4. Many people use interconnect cables that are no longer than necessary. Many people don't. What's your point? Are you implying that audiophiles all buy cables that are too long? Or perhaps that they spend money on cables and shouldn't? Again, many of us use quite modest wiring and cables, many spend a bit more, and a few spend big $$. What generalization are you trying to make?

5. Your rant about the audiophile industry is confusing. How have you determined what people need, and what they don't? I could argue that just about all of us buy things we don't need. This is true of audiophiles, as well as anybody else. As for your assertion about "overbuilding"...you totally lost me on this one. All I can say is that I, and most other audiophiles that I know, address the elements having the greatest impact first and move on from there to build a system that meets our needs.

6. While it might be shocking to you, many of us are quite content with the systems we own. Just because we like hearing other gear doesn't mean we aren't quite happy with what we have, and it doesn't mean that we can't just enjoy the music. In fact, that's why many of us (and probably most of us) have an interest in audio equipment in the first place...that is, we want a system that doesn't detract from out ability to become lost in the music.

PS - I did enjoy your rapturous use of the dynamic notation terms.
 
yeah, I've listened to speakers that I would enjoy more than a pair of smaller advents in a different listening space. for various reasons I didn't want to use a subwoofer on a vintage tube amp, and most standalone speakers I would prefer either won't fit well in the space, must be too far out from the wall to work in a small room, or require greater distance between speaker and listener than works in the space, or all of the above.

I could probably fit original large advents or something of similar size as well. I've had Polk Monitor 10B's in the space, but wanted to reclaim the floor space, and find the smaller advents quite lovely when properly placed close to a wall and at ear level.

Here's a quote from Stereo Times, October 2002, from an article authored by Jason Serinus:

"In the spring of 2002, while I was researching forthcoming SACD releases for a news item for issue 138 of The Absolute Sound, Mark Levinson emailed me that he would rather listen to DSD-recorded SACDs on an entry-level Sony DVP-NS500V single-disc SACD/DVD-V/CD player [$179 new at the time] than standard CDs on a $15,000 digital set-up."

M2358
 
yeah, I've listened to speakers that I would enjoy more than a pair of smaller advents in a different listening space. for various reasons I didn't want to use a subwoofer on a vintage tube amp, and most standalone speakers I would prefer either won't fit well in the space, must be too far out from the wall to work in a small room, or require greater distance between speaker and listener than works in the space, or all of the above.

I could probably fit original large advents or something of similar size as well. I've had Polk Monitor 10B's in the space, but wanted to reclaim the floor space, and find the smaller advents quite lovely when properly placed close to a wall and at ear level.

Here's a quote from Stereo Times, October 2002, from an article authored by Jason Serinus:

"In the spring of 2002, while I was researching forthcoming SACD releases for a news item for issue 138 of The Absolute Sound, Mark Levinson emailed me that he would rather listen to DSD-recorded SACDs on an entry-level Sony DVP-NS500V single-disc SACD/DVD-V/CD player [$179 new at the time] than standard CDs on a $15,000 digital set-up."

M2358

So bring Mr. Levinson along with you....I'll make the same bet with him.

I missed the article, as I rarely read audiophile magazines. For a musiophile, you seem to spend quite a bit of time thinking about the gear and the related technologies. You may actually be - "horror of horrors" - an audiophile.

Hopefully you see the point....that if you can give critical thought to your system and related technology while still also being able to fully engage in listening to the music, perhaps others can too. Personally, I don't see myself as exceptional for being able to do both.
 
Back
Top Bottom