What Kind Of Audiophile Are You? Have You Reached Audio Nirvana ?

[NorthStar]

Bob

I don't have a clue as to what you are trying to say.

Sorry doc, I just meant that I am satisfy enough in my audio journey and that I can finally relax and listen to the music. But I'm keeping an eye for the newest developments and improvements in audio, just in case.

I can honestly proclaim that I finally found the key to the gate of the Holy Grail,
a mansion named Audio Nirvana by some, but Audio Ecstasy by me.

But then, the world is full of unknown revelations, right?

What is so hard to decipher on that Steve? Is it the way I expressed myself, or some' else?

 

[Steve Williams]

Got you loud and clear now Bob.

 

[treitz3]

Below in bold is Wikipedia's definition of an audiophile from Steve's OP.

...An audiophile is a person who has a great interest in high-fidelity sound reproduction. Some audiophiles are more interested in collecting and listening to music, while others are more interested in collecting and listening to audio components, whose "sound quality" they consider as important as the recorded musical performance, or even more important. The ratio of an audiophile's spending on software (music) versus hardware (audio components) is a rough guide to where they stand in the audiophile spectrum.

So what say all of you? And be honest. Have you reached Audio Nirvana or do you have restless energy to continue to swap equipment in and out of your system

First off...

An audiophile is a person who has a great interest in high-fidelity sound reproduction

Guilty as charged, your honor. I plead no contest.

Have I reached audio nirvana? Hmmm, good question. Yes and no with a slant toward the "no". Allow me to try to explain.

While I enjoy listening to music, I would like to think that I'm always in audio nirvana every time I have a chance to listen to music. This can be true whether I'm at a live performance or at my buddies house listening to a boombox while ripsaws and hammers are taking away the quietness of the farm and the birds chirping out in the background. In other words, the music itself places me in a state of nirvana just in and by itself. The only exception I can think of is if there is static on, say an FM tuner. Static has always been my pet peeve and to be honest, I'd rather have no music then music with static no matter how much I yearn to hear what's on. I could also argue that I can be in audio nirvana just watching groups stomp dancing to no music, listening to street musicians or just enjoying a choir that's singing with a band at a local H.S. football game. So with that said, yes. I have found audio nirvana. I simply just love music.

This, of course fits me right in with part of the definition of Wikipedia's version of an "audiophile". See the quote below...

Some audiophiles are more interested in collecting and listening to music,

Admittedly, I do collect music. I'm not a real live walking, talking musical library like some folks I know but I'm working on it. Part of my collection [if you were in my house making an observation] is multiples of the same album. I think I have every format, remaster, version, extended edition and the like of a few of my favorite performances. Why I still have the lesser versions of those particular performances, the collector in me prevents me from letting them go.

I have also been seeking what most of you would consider "reference" recordings. On these recordings, I will do the same thing I do with some of my favorite performances. Yes, I will have several copies in the collection in my yearning to obtain the "best" possible fidelity and reproduction possible. I also try my best to get a hold of rare performances and recordings just so I can have them. I may only listen to them once in a blue moon but I still want them in my system because when I pass on from this Earth, I would like my son to have my entire collection and hopefully with the seed I have planted in him, he will do the same with his son or grandson.

Some audiophiles are more interested in collecting and listening to music, whose "sound quality" they consider as important as the recorded musical performance, or even more important

So, to be honest with myself and in turn honest to you, I fit the "collector" part within the definition of an audiophile as well as the sound quality being an extremely important factor in the grand scheme of things.

The ratio of an audiophile's spending on software (music) versus hardware (audio components) is a rough guide to where they stand in the audiophile spectrum

Personally, I think this entire part of the definition should be omitted. The amount of money spent doesn't define an audiophile. That couldn't be any further from the truth. I'm sure many of you have ran across a "self proclaimed" audiophile that has more money than sense. They buy the most expensive system that they can afford, pay some company to design it, build the room and finish everything for them. This isn't IMO an audiophile. It's just a fool and his money.

Now, if that fool were to actually start to research and try different things, formats or recordings within his system to try to actually show an interest in even higher fidelity than what was bought from his wallet, then at that point I might actually consider him an audiophile. To just label him an audiophile because of some criteria set up for the amount of money spent is just as foolish as the fool and his money thinking that he's an audiophile to begin with.

A classic example to allow you to understand or relate to what I'm trying to portray here would be the definition of a race car driver. Let's say that some cat has money to blow and he goes out and gets the most powerful Ferrari and proceeds to pay additional dollars to take a driving course. This doesn't make him a race car driver, no matter how bad he would like to think that he is one. The same would go for the self proclaimed audiophile. Money has nothing to do with it.....well, the ratio of money spent has nothing to do with it. It could just be some cat with money that he doesn't know what to do with that just so happens to enjoy music. It doesn't make him an audiophile just like owning a Ferrari doesn't make one a race car driver.

This part of the definition is also rather vague and IMO, doesn't truly reflect where an audiophile stands. One aspect of it, maybe but definitely not all of it. If it is to be included, I believe what must also be addressed is the ratio spent to what said audiophile earns. Both of these perimeters still do not define an audiophile at all to me [and we haven't even begun to touch on the ratio of the amount of time spent on things]. It just shows the possible amount of commitment toward a certain hobby and has no direct correlation to the the original and simplistic definition offered by Wikipedia as once again showed below...

An audiophile is a person who has a great interest in high-fidelity sound reproduction

An audiophile can be someone who spends as little as possible to achieve higher fidelity within their rig. They can DIY, swap gear out from amongst friends and go online to research where to find the best possible recordings that bring out the best of what system they have and spent the better part of their lives trying to learn how to assemble something to offer an even higher fidelity. Just because a ratio or certain preset amounts of money can usually play a major part in defining an audiophile, truth be told it most certainly doesn't properly define one IMO.

Getting back to your question, Steve, about me finding audio nirvana within my rig. This is such a long post, I thought it best to start a new post and address this aspect of your question. More later.

 

[NorthStar]

Bob, they just don't understand that you're our resident poet, something that every well endowed, and self respecting forum should have, and they need to give you some leeway (sorry, Lee!) on how you phrase your responses ... :b:b

Frank

Very true Frank; I'm a poet, a philosopher and a song writer.
Plus I'm French Canadian.

My roots are the same as everyone else on our planet, but my bloodstream is from the soul first.
And that is my true origin.

I am extremely sociable, and communication is the prime parallel of man's essential essence.

I can adapt to several languages and ways of communication ...
Just ask, or talk to me in the language of your choice.
Meaning spiritually, emotionally, and physically.
The Trinity what! :b

Audio is only one vision of the overall picture ... I like to use my other visions as well ... :b

* Steve, Mep, it's a forum, a social gathering of people having some common interests in life.
And always about the Best. :b
If I talk 'bout some' I like & luv, might is well be poetic and philosophic about it;
it's more peaceful that way, and doesn't perturb the others while they are listening to Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Mozart, etc.

It's who I am in real life, it's what I know, it's how I talk, and it's how I live.

Now, each person here has his own ways of expressing himself/herself; and I seldom don't understand what they're talkin' 'bout.

I don't like to be bored, and I need to be creative somehow with the words that were invented and reinvented over the last 2,000 years or so ...
{Each year they rework the dictionaries, all over the world, by adding new meanings to some words, and adding some completely new ones; words.}

Communication is a language of words, just like music is a language of notes.
And the music we create is original, unique, and absolving.

Technicalities are not especially my mojo; what people think and do and say is.
I simply like to see beyond the sky over my head.
And take no absolute power from others. And don't impose any either.

I'm just an audio guy with also other aspirations in life, that is all. :b

 

[Mike Lavigne]

i've gone thru different phases over my 17 years as a serious audiophile. but the dominant direction has been the acquisition of new music. which when acquired i listen to mostly all of it.

when i started into serious audiophila in 1994 i owned 100 CD's and that was it. i knew nothing about classical or jazz at all. 10 years later i owned 4000 CD's and 6000 Lps. i learned alot about music and how different types of music affected me.

i did spend a good amount of time on gear and my original room too. but the balance between gear and music was pretty good.....slanted toward the music. and i did listen to a wide variety of music. then in 2004 i built a dedicated room; and for the next 5-6 years or so i must admit to being more system and gear focused than new music focused. it was very frustrating as the challenges of the new room set me back until finally i got it figured out. and i could tell that the lack of as much new music did lessen my personal level of enjoyment.

over the last 1-2 years i've come to really go away from gear focus at all into almost total music focus. i've simplified my system and just listen to lots of different music. i've had the same speakers, amp and preamp and digital front end for 5+ years. that's pretty solid system consistency. (i have become a tape deck collector, but that is not really a distraction to the music).

now i listen to maybe 60% Classical, 30% jazz/blues, and 10% pop. i'm acquiring new music back at the same rate i did prior to my room project. mostly used classical Lps. they are cheap and they sound great. and the maturity of my system does allow classical to really shine.

at this moment i likely have 40+ used Lps on the way to me, purchased 1 or 2 at a time.

i still have 4000 Cd's. but i also have 3+ terrabytes of hi rez music on my music server. i have about 10,000 Lps now; but over the last year i've probably given away 1500+ Lps. if i'm not going to listen to them then they go to good will. and i have 70-80 15ips 1/4" mster dubs.

i'm not sure where i would be classified as i certainly cannot say i'm not a gear head. i love great sounding gear. but i'm also certainly a music lover.

nirvana??? i'm happy with the way my system sounds and how it communicates the music. and i have very high expectations. and i would say that my system is able to fully express the whole picture of any type of music. full scale classical to the most intimate. it serves the music well.

 

[ack]

What is Nirvana?

Let's also define one's own Nirvana, which I don't think is going to be the same for everyone... Here's what I primarily care about:

1. The brain doesn't have to work to decipher the information = no fatigue
2. Timbres are mostly right ('exactly' is probably Utopia, if not economically forbidding) = you have to struggle to hear significant deviations, and if there are some, well, so what if drums are not as annoying as in real life, or the organ not as life-size as can be
3. There is intense emotional involvement and I end up critiquing the performance, not the equipment = I am at ease at home as the concert hall, albeit at a much smaller scale; I can enjoy both performances in their own way

Everything else is secondary to me. I think #1 is conquered; #2 is close enough for now; #3 took me a long time, but I no longer feel ashamed coming home from Symphony Hall to my system. Getting rid of the hi-fi character in my system has been the biggest struggle...

Edit: Just finished listening to the BSO live on FM radio, performing the Rite of Spring... great performance, but a bit faster tempo than I am used to...

 

[fas42]

Getting rid of the hi-fi character in my system has been the biggest struggle...

... ain't it just ...!!

Frank

 

[treitz3]

Getting rid of the hi-fi character in my system has been the biggest struggle...

Hello ack, would you mind clarifying a tad or adding a bit of detail to this comment, please?

 

[NorthStar]

Much more to come (still waiting for Amir though) ...

Steve, this thread of yours so far is pretty good.

I luv when people express themselves freely & deeply into the audio' absinth.

And what I'm reading here so far I enjoy very much so, and I can totally (100%) relate to what everyone is saying, without any exeption, and with full understanding.

____________________________

* Here's a question, in particular, to you Steve.

-> For the last twelve years, or so, in my life, I am listening to music on a daily basis from a regular dose (diet) of twelve to eighteen hours. Every single day (except when I need to go shopping).
That is totally out of this world, but it is my world indeed.
And it means nothing if my emotions are not fully satisfied ...

=> My question to you: How many hours do you spend yourself listening to the music you love, on average, let's say per week, and for the last year or for the last few years or so?

And other members are free to answer that as well, if they want to.
And I would very much love so that they do (see, my own phrasing). :b

____________________________

And c'mon Amir, get on board too! :b

 

[Steve Williams]

Bob

Let's just say that since we created WBF, my listening time has gone down but on the average 2-3 hours at time but only 4-5 days per week now. It used to be much more

BTW Bob listening 12-18 hours per day to me suggest more of a passive listener. What I describe is active listening in my room

 

[NorthStar]

Getting rid of the hi-fi character in my system has been the biggest struggle...

By getting rid of the speakers' enclosures?

No crossovers?

Your room's walls? ..Or more precisely by using acoustic room treatments?

Wires?

 

[NorthStar]

Bob

Let's just say that since we created WBF, my listening time has gone down but on the average 2-3 hours at time but only 4-5 days per week now. It used to be much more

BTW Bob listening 12-18 hours per day to me suggest more of a passive listener. What I describe is active listening in my room

Thanks very much sir. :b ...And quite understandable if I may add.

* I just saw the second paragraph that you just added.
Well, with a system like yours I sure hope so mister!

Steve, in relation to what you just said regarding active vs. passive listening;
for you, my music listening is passive indeed, most of the time, but not always.
And 88% of the time (active or/& passive) I am fully emotionally involved in it (the music).

 

[ack]

Hello ack, would you mind clarifying a tad or adding a bit of detail to this comment, please?

The term "hi-fi" nowadays is used many times to refer to the typical average home stereo sound: unsophisticated, grossly colored, un-nuanced, flat, exaggerated tonal balance in any direction you want, et al... Things like, boomy, fat bass; lack of image focus; lack of depth; zingy highs... Or other simple things, like listening to a person speak and sounding larger than life, like they are everywhere instead in front of you, with a hazy image, thin or shouty, etc... Collectively, all these are simply different manifestations of lack of accuracy... Think of club sound and you have the typical 'hi-fi' sound I and others are referring to... Still, hi-fi can sound exciting, making you wanna stand up and dance - nothing wrong with that per se... But when we talk about getting rid of 'hi-fi' we imply making a system sound more like real music; therefore, accuracy and 'hi-fi' (as the term has come to be used nowadays) sit at opposite extremes, despite its original meaning of true high fidelity...

Feel free to correct me...

 

[treitz3]

Oh, dear. That is not what I had in mind when I asked the question. Thank you for clarifying that. Oh, dear.

The reproduction of an effect (as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original.

The quote above is what I refer to as high fidelity. Yes, high fidelity can mean many things to many folks but I did not realize that its definition could have been anywhere near that kind of distortion. Knowing now what you meant, I can understand why getting rid of the "Hi-Fi" in your rig was an important factor. That said, I subscribe to the old school and original definition of high fidelity and with that? That's what I strive for [not in a false sense] and not something I want to get rid of.

Thanks again for clarifying. Enjoy the music!

 

[ack]

By getting rid of the speakers' enclosures?

No crossovers?

Your room's walls? ..Or more precisely by using acoustic room treatments?

Wires?

You mean how did I achieve this? Let me think... using a sub in reverse phase to smooth out bass resonances in the 40-60Hz range (and room treatments will be next), damping bass output with crossover mods, overhauling the rest of the crossover to improve timbre, overall speed, frequency response, etc; but frankly the most significant "fix" has been the electronics: briefly, A/B'ing my older Spectral SDR-2000 DAC with the Alpha DAC the difference was night and day - pretty staggering move towards more real music reproduction; switching from older Spectral amps to the 360s (oh how euphonic some older ones have been), and equally the preamp; the A90... etc. Others who have taken a similar path probably identify with all this.

So for the most part, it's been the manufacturers who have improved their products' accuracy - my struggle has been the long path to get to this point. Perhaps if had more money to spend upfront I might have achieved this much much sooner... but perhaps not, as I see exponential performance increases the last few years in high-end designs.

 

[fas42]

... my music listening is passive indeed, most of the time, but not always.
And 88% of the time (active or/& passive) I am fully emotionally involved in it (the music).

I'm with you on this, Bob, I don't get this locking yourself in a prime listening spot, and devoting your attention 100% to the "action". As an example, at the moment I have Glen Miller, the original recordings, running at realistic volume levels at the other end of the house, directly in front of the speakers the sound is very intense but musical, and that same "musicality" and vibe is very evident from where I'm now seated, writing this. So my listening is passive, but I'm getting the same buzz from the sound coming down the hallway as if real muso's were doing their thing down at the system. Active listening, if I understand it correctly, would be a complete overload, like having continuously very rich food every time I ate ...

Frank

 

[marty]

Great post, Peter. Yes, here's on you missed. The "diatribe". This is the audiophile that just likes to talk incessantly about things audio. I suspect that in most cases the underlying reason for this persona is an enthusiastic audiophile, music lover and often dreamer who enjoys the comaraderie of fellow audiophiles when talking about the wonderful equipment that he may not presently be able to afford but would love to own some day!

 

[NorthStar]

I'm with you on this, Bob, I don't get this locking yourself in a prime listening spot, and devoting your attention 100% to the "action". As an example, at the moment I have Glen Miller, the original recordings, running at realistic volume levels at the other end of the house, directly in front of the speakers the sound is very intense but musical, and that same "musicality" and vibe is very evident from where I'm now seated, writing this. So my listening is passive, but I'm getting the same buzz from the sound coming down the hallway as if real muso's were doing their thing down at the system. Active listening, if I understand it correctly, would be a complete overload, like having continuously very rich food every time I ate ...

Frank

Frank, active listening means vise-gripe listening. Well, you know what I'm sayin' anyway.
And active listening also means emotionally involved.

So, we can all make our own conclusion, according to our own level of comfort.
And life is a constant moving target.

We can go to a musical concert at a Concert Hall and be sitting at the same spot for few hours.
And we can go to a Jazz cabaret and dancing all over the place.

Music (Classical music in general) demands a steady position, you know ...
And Free style music (Blues, Jazz, Rock&Roll, Alternative, New Age, Electronica, Funk, Fusion, Charleston, etc.) they involve the body, the soul, and the wild spirit in free space of movements.
- But Jazz can also be listened from a steady position too. And Classical can be dance.
Blues? Mmmm, I'd rather follow the flow (body fluid). :b

At home, in front of my PC, very often I lisaten to Classical music, and I feel very involved;
perhaps not as much as a live concert event (certainly not), but I've got to live with what God gave me for this time in my life.
Yesterday when I was a young boy ...
Tomorrow when I go to heaven ...
Today, I'm right here, in front of my PC listening to Blues on the r.a.d.i.o., and that's mighty fine by me if you don't ask. :b

The more I have the more I get, and what I got is proportional to what once was, but with today's indulgences regarding space, time, and dimensional freedom.

At the end it all comes down falling down the stairs of my soul like the pounding drums of my heartbeat during the winter solstice. Or just like a stealth plane flying through the veins of my bloodstream, or a train crashing down the boulevard of lonely dreams ...

I feel royally uplifted. ...As if weightless and worry less and stress free.
Floating above the vast ocean of the firmament, and swimming under the blue satin night sky.

 

[NorthStar]

What kind of Audiophile am I? That kind. The free type, and my reach is beyond imagination. :b

Next question please. :b

And where's Amir by the way?

 

[Steve Williams]

Active listening, if I understand it correctly, would be a complete overload, like having continuously very rich food every time I ate ...

I guess that's the difference between you and I Frank. When I sit down in the sweet spot in my room it is to listen and to enjoy the to enjoy the music. I love my system Frank. There's nothing that needs to be soldered or power supplies to be modded or other tweaks to apply. I don't ever have to put my ear to the tweeter to hear good sound. I have good sound Frank. Methinks you're preaching to the choir. Maybe you need to do some active listening in a system that just sounds good. I assure you it is a toe tapping experience