I own thousands of albums and my late 90's Bang & Olufsen speakers were one of my favorite possessions of all time, but I can't consider myself an audiophile for one reason: Audiophiles seem to spend more time complaining about music rather than actually listening to & enjoying it.
Cybermynd - 15 years ago
Since I got back into vinyl I've spent maybe $5K on records and another $5K on equipment. The vast majority has been older stuff - Magnepan speakers, Quad ESL57 speakers, Marantz, Luxman, Bryston, Mission...
It's been a hoot. The Maggies were a great find and the Marantz 2325 drives them perfectly. Fed by a Project Xpression II turntable it all makes for a great evening of listening.
However, I almost regret that I am indeed more compelled by the nature of the sound than the nature of the music. My thoughts tend toward the wonderful soundstaging or transparency when a music lover would likely think about the superb bowing or great rhythm and pacing of the players.
I think by definition - an audiophile cares more about the sound than the music. Having said that, there are plenty of people who swing both ways. That's part of the greatness of the hobby - having great sound leads you to great music.
Antik - 15 years ago
I'm 25 and I'm starting to enjoy the sound of vinyl vs growing up with CDs and MP3s. To me there's a huge difference, but I lack the cash to indulge in equipment considered of higher quality.
If things were decently priced, I would jump on the "sound ecosystem" bandwagon.
Solarisphere - 15 years ago
I'm only 19 an I've already spent $1300 on a receiver and a couple floorstanders, but that doesn't necessarily make me an audiophile. Everything else sounds kind of cheap and tinny compared to those, so I can definitely appreciate them though.
Stevie Pinchefsky - 15 years ago
Should be an additional answer to fit between 1 and 2, or rewrite it like the following.
"Yes, but I am not ALWAYS willing or able to pay premium prices for the highest-quality sound in every piece of equipment I choose to own.
I own thousands of albums and my late 90's Bang & Olufsen speakers were one of my favorite possessions of all time, but I can't consider myself an audiophile for one reason: Audiophiles seem to spend more time complaining about music rather than actually listening to & enjoying it.
Since I got back into vinyl I've spent maybe $5K on records and another $5K on equipment. The vast majority has been older stuff - Magnepan speakers, Quad ESL57 speakers, Marantz, Luxman, Bryston, Mission...
It's been a hoot. The Maggies were a great find and the Marantz 2325 drives them perfectly. Fed by a Project Xpression II turntable it all makes for a great evening of listening.
However, I almost regret that I am indeed more compelled by the nature of the sound than the nature of the music. My thoughts tend toward the wonderful soundstaging or transparency when a music lover would likely think about the superb bowing or great rhythm and pacing of the players.
I think by definition - an audiophile cares more about the sound than the music. Having said that, there are plenty of people who swing both ways. That's part of the greatness of the hobby - having great sound leads you to great music.
I'm 25 and I'm starting to enjoy the sound of vinyl vs growing up with CDs and MP3s. To me there's a huge difference, but I lack the cash to indulge in equipment considered of higher quality.
If things were decently priced, I would jump on the "sound ecosystem" bandwagon.
I'm only 19 an I've already spent $1300 on a receiver and a couple floorstanders, but that doesn't necessarily make me an audiophile. Everything else sounds kind of cheap and tinny compared to those, so I can definitely appreciate them though.
Should be an additional answer to fit between 1 and 2, or rewrite it like the following.
"Yes, but I am not ALWAYS willing or able to pay premium prices for the highest-quality sound in every piece of equipment I choose to own.