FOR THOSE ABOUT TO ROCK, An awdeophile,audiophile,audiofool or just ABOUT TO ROCK?

Re: FOR THOSE ABOUT TO ROCK, An awdeophile,audiophile,audiofool or just ABOUT TO ROCK

Absolutely not.

Apart from the occasional miracle product that gives great results at a low price, there can be no doubt that, at least as far as major components are concerned, we get what we pay for.

Nobody needs to be an "audiophile" to go wow at their favourite music played on amazing speakers through high-end components. They don't even need to be told the price first. Nor do they need to know, even, which end is high or low (or middle!) or any of the audiophile language.
I will digress here. It is not always you get what you pay for. I used to work for a company that had won three technical Emmy. One of the Emmy belonged to the group that I was one of the designer before I went to graduate school. The MSRP of the product we designed used to be around $40-50K. Couple of years later due to better technology we were able to convert these multi-FPGA boards to $20 ICs. The final product used to sell for $300. Albeit there were few designs which were priced around $4-5K. Other than better chassis, the electrical designs were identical in both cases. Still I have seen reviews in professional AV magazines which used to proclaim the superiority of the higher priced products and even lament the fact these designs don't come close to the $40K products.
Later I worked for a company whose chip was used in the most widely praised Blu ray player. Interestingly the Blu-ray player is a much better CD/SACD player than a BD player. Though I am pretty sure if you ask a reviewer to rate this player when it was released with a Esoteric/Wadia etc, they will pick the latter as better performer though the BD player has the lowest distortion ever measured for an optical transport.
Recently I had an opportunity to audition Wilson Audio Polaris. It sounded quite terrible to my ear compared to Sonus Faber Guarneri in the same environment. The price differential between the speakers were more than my total system cost and neither of them were "cheap". So end of the day, no I don't believe a more expensive product sounds/looks better than a well engineered lesser priced alternative. It is the engineering that decides the performance and rarely the price.
 
Re: FOR THOSE ABOUT TO ROCK, An awdeophile,audiophile,audiofool or just ABOUT TO ROCK

I had a feeling those words might come back to bite me! Especially as, very often, the main complaint about audiophoolery is how much it costs!

Well bitten. Good points.
 
Re: FOR THOSE ABOUT TO ROCK, An awdeophile,audiophile,audiofool or just ABOUT TO ROCK

This is EXTREMELY biased review and mis-informed and of course hilarious...

The author just happens to be an ordinary person. One who has no deep passion for music or quality of musical reproduction. One who downloads music to their ipods and listen to music when they are 'doing' some work. One who listens on the way to work more often than devoting a session of few-hours only devouring each note,each details. It's not uncommon for any normal person you find around to just like music and think they love it. I know people who advice me to buy SONY all-in-one systems because they sound 'good' (by good they mean the thump in the mid-bass range). Also most of these people will buy a 7,000 Rs ipod will think that even a 700rs earphone is expensive. oblivious to the fact that quality depends more on the earphones than the portable media player.

And talking about FLAC, headphone-amp, dac ,it's like greek to them. according to them,
"Why waste 50mb on a song when you can have in just 4mb ? i really don't hear the difference man "
"What's are those heavy boxes between your cd player and speakers ? "

Now who is an audiophile ?
Is he the one who spends tens of thousands or lakhs of rupees on speakers/headphones/amps,etc. NO he is the one who loves music and loves it in the most pristine form. The difference between an ipod's earbuds and Shure earphones will be apparent to even the author of the article. Of-course the cost-quality curve is not straight line and there are some companies that offer bang-for-bucks products (like Onkyo,etc) there are others which are targeted more towards the richer audiophiles who can spend 2 lacs on preamp/poweramp alone.

And the problem that the author said about the magazines is somewhat true. They scrutinize the product so much that it may sometime appear that if you don't buy the 5,000Rs/m cable, you speakers wont shine. most important part of the chain is the source and the speakers, then comes dac/amp and then comes importance of cables.

and to all those who think that spending 7000rs on earphone is waste and spending 7000 on 'ipod' is worthwhile, i would say "Bandar kya jane adrak ka swad"
 
Re: FOR THOSE ABOUT TO ROCK, An awdeophile,audiophile,audiofool or just ABOUT TO ROCK

This is EXTREMELY biased review and mis-informed and of course hilarious...

The author just happens to be an ordinary person. One who has no deep passion for music or quality of musical reproduction. One who downloads music to their ipods and listen to music when they are 'doing' some work. One who listens on the way to work more often than devoting a session of few-hours only devouring each note,each details. It's not uncommon for any normal person you find around to just like music and think they love it. I know people who advice me to buy SONY all-in-one systems because they sound 'good' (by good they mean the thump in the mid-bass range). Also most of these people will buy a 7,000 Rs ipod will think that even a 700rs earphone is expensive. oblivious to the fact that quality depends more on the earphones than the portable media player.

And talking about FLAC, headphone-amp, dac ,it's like greek to them. according to them,
"Why waste 50mb on a song when you can have in just 4mb ? i really don't hear the difference man "
"What's are those heavy boxes between your cd player and speakers ? "

Now who is an audiophile ?
Is he the one who spends tens of thousands or lakhs of rupees on speakers/headphones/amps,etc. NO he is the one who loves music and loves it in the most pristine form. The difference between an ipod's earbuds and Shure earphones will be apparent to even the author of the article. Of-course the cost-quality curve is not straight line and there are some companies that offer bang-for-bucks products (like Onkyo,etc) there are others which are targeted more towards the richer audiophiles who can spend 2 lacs on preamp/poweramp alone.

And the problem that the author said about the magazines is somewhat true. They scrutinize the product so much that it may sometime appear that if you don't buy the 5,000Rs/m cable, you speakers wont shine. most important part of the chain is the source and the speakers, then comes dac/amp and then comes importance of cables.

and to all those who think that spending 7000rs on earphone is waste and spending 7000 on 'ipod' is worthwhile, i would say "Bandar kya jane adrak ka swad"

Adding on, by definition Audiophile means someone concerned about Hi-Fidelity reproduction of Sound. So while every audiophile would be a Music Lover. not all folks who love music will be a audiophile, Every audiophile must have love for Music as his/her Basis

Although I would agree about the money spent on equipment may not be a factor, the person does know about, appreciate and able to Discern High Fidelity Sound.

As an eg,
Anyone can love a 128Kbps...but someone who loves it despite knowing and having felt the difference from a 320 or even a lossless would still be an audiophile

Although, those who listen only to a lossless although cannot really discern it from a 128kbps may not really be an audiophile by my book ;)

this is interesting
Define the word "audiophile." | Stereophile.com
 
Re: FOR THOSE ABOUT TO ROCK, An awdeophile,audiophile,audiofool or just ABOUT TO ROCK

Audio > Music. An audiophile need not be a music lover.

Though my best guess would be that it was coined the marketing department of some audio equipment manufacturer and doesn't really mean anything other than what anyone wants it to mean.
 
Re: FOR THOSE ABOUT TO ROCK, An awdeophile,audiophile,audiofool or just ABOUT TO ROCK

arj

So while every audiophile would be a music lover, not all folks who love music will be an audiophile. Every audiophile must have love for music as his/her basis

One would assume that all audiophiles love to listen to music. I may be wrong but I do not think this is the case. I feel there are many audiophiles who get their kicks only from auditioning, discussing and yearning for esoteric audio equipment. Music seems to be incidental for them. It does not matter what is playing, as long as it is emanating from a good system. I am not trying to pass judgement on those care only for music, or only for hifi, or like both. But I think it is true that many audiophiles only care about listening to a variety of systems. Many 'non music loving' audiophiles are very knowledgeable and passionate about hifi equipment. And there are people who are knowledgeable and passionate about music but they do not really bother or know much about hifi.
 
Last edited:
Re: FOR THOSE ABOUT TO ROCK, An awdeophile,audiophile,audiofool or just ABOUT TO ROCK

You can reach A to B on a Nano or BMW. If it helps to feel good to mock at those who drives BMW, no one is stopping :)
 
arj

So while every audiophile would be a music lover, not all folks who love music will be an audiophile. Every audiophile must have love for music as his/her basis

One would assume that all audiophiles love to listen to music. I may be wrong but I do not think this is the case. I feel there are many audiophiles who get their kicks only from auditioning, discussing and yearning for esoteric audio equipment. Music seems to be incidental for them. It does not matter what is playing, as long as it is emanating from a good system. I am not trying to pass judgement on those care only for music, or only for hifi, or like both. But I think it is true that many audiophiles only care about listening to a variety of systems. Many 'non music loving' audiophiles are very knowledgeable and passionate about hifi equipment. And there are people who are knowledgeable and passionate about music but they do not really bother or know much about hifi.

Hi Ajay, my guess is that while the focus might be on equipment, but somehow not loving music makes it rather senseless ..or the person an equipment dealer ;)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Re: FOR THOSE ABOUT TO ROCK, An awdeophile,audiophile,audiofool or just ABOUT TO ROCK

"So while every audiophile would be a music lover, not all folks who love music will be an audiophile. Every audiophile must have love for music as his/her basis"

Just my thoughts on this. If we go by dictionary defination, An audiphile is "a person who has a great interest in high-fidelity sound reproduction". In short, any kind of sound. Even if we do not consider this definition, high end sound equipments are not meant for music only. Else we would not have the best of the sound equipments fitted in the Parliament (certainly they prefer different genre of 'music' when they are working). We would not have 10" full range bose speakers (nothing else) in Golkonda fort amphitheatre(Hyderabad) reproducing every note and feeling of the words narrated by Mr. Amitabh Bachhan, while he narrates the history of Golkonda. We would not have the best of the sound systems implemented in the International Airports of Hyderabad and Bangalore announcing "Kingfisher flight # IT532, is delayed by an hour". Audiphiles extend beyond music, speakers, cables, power amps and what costs how much.

As for the article, I guess the author pointed out one lovely thing about music
"Stereos sound about a zillion times better when you are dancing to them, playing an instrument along, falling asleep in that zen state you get in when you are half dreaming, listening with your friends, or just plain ignoring the stereo, and listening to the music, which is what you are supposed to be doing in the first place."

I used to be a vocalist in a band and there was a time when I used to judge every song by its notes/chord placement blah blah blah and forget to enjoy listening to the music and the passion of a particular music director. We tend to get deviated from what we should be doing. If I say, in the song "Father and Son" (by Cat Steven) the chords used were Gmaj > Dmaj > Bminor > Cmaj and Bminor was used to create pain in the song (typically minor chords are used to give sad tone to a song). The song could have been played on Gmaj > Dmaj > Cmaj, would that sound great? Also his guitar sounded shrill at times when he slided on the chord G, does that sound great? or if I say what a song it is, true reflection of a father's concern for his boy going through a similar challenge in life. Correct interpretation of how life should be looked at, what a marvellous voice he has got, does this sound right?
To me its the later. But only when I realised that the mode does not supercede the way.

Disclaimer: With the sole intention to put accross my viewpoint.
 
Re: FOR THOSE ABOUT TO ROCK, An awdeophile,audiophile,audiofool or just ABOUT TO ROCK

It's nice to see this thread developing into a healthy discussion. I do agree that the definition put forward by Arj is more accurate about audiophile.

It's really true that audiophile and music lover are true mutually exclusive terms. You need not like the music to appreciate the amazing sound-staging of the speakers. there are many people who even work in music as singers, musicians,etc but don't care much for the quality of audio-systems, what they care for is music. On the other hand, even someone who hates Norah jones,if he's an audiophile, will be moved by the quality of recording (in audio terms)

Just to add on to the debate,if you listen very attentively only then will you care for the differences that are actually there.For example in MJ's thriller, each small creak and footstep and the entire orchestration of song does becomes more exciting on a better system because of the details, sweetness, sound-staging, frequency response,etc. If you listen the same through those altec lancing or Fnd speakers,it will still sound like MJ, just that you will listening to lesser details.

In fact i like the tracks from 70s and 80s much more because the audio was mixed with more dynamic range and not purposefully made loud. The elegance of "enjoy the silence, Depeche mode" cannot be found in most of today's music.

Also the type of genre matters. "Flo-rida" sounds better on the big-sub-woofer based systems than on a neutral-bass audiophile stereo systems.
In the disco, for example you don't care about these things. Infact the speakers are purposefully made to have a deep bass and overall punchy sound. At that point of time even an audiophile should not care much for the quality of audio than quality of music.

Yes of-course the 128kbps(mp3) Vs 1411 kbps (CD) debate also continues. Many of my favorite tracks, i can never get in CD either because the label does not issue any more copies or because it was released only as an mp3 download (the dewarists show ,for example). At times when i am listening through my sansa clip, do tend to not pay attention that it's an mp3, but the moment you press the next button, you can make out the difference, mostly in the dynamic range and sweetness of audio. Though many songs, whose down-conversion are done well, the differences between 320kbps mp3 and the wav/flac becomes less apparent and many times i cannot fool myself that it sounds bad because it is an mp3. In fact i have purposefully converted various different types of songs to 320 kbps mp3 and kept a wav/flac copy side by side and did a double blind test. Well when i purposefully testing it, i could tell a difference but when travelling, many a times i could not tell instantly. To be honest, i believe that compression done on audio is heavily based on psycho-acoustics and when the compression is done, most of what is lost is in-audible anyway. That is the reason why an mp3pro file of around 500 kbps will sound very close if not similar to a FLAC/WAV/CD
 
Re: FOR THOSE ABOUT TO ROCK, An awdeophile,audiophile,audiofool or just ABOUT TO ROCK

Just taking a different example to show analogy:

One thing that makes me think is how do you benchmark things that are based on qualitative attributes rather than quantitative. We all know how a larger engine will translate to more power, more torque,more fuel-consumption,etc but one thing that you cannot make out is how will it FEEL to drive both of them.

While most would say after a test-drive that a BMW car is more fun to drive than a Mercedes whereas Mercedes scores in terms of comfort.
But it can be debated that how do you say that ? can you express comfort in numbers ? It may be that to someone BMW is more comfortable and Mercedes is more fun to drive. But all will agree that BMW is more powerful, if it has 250bhp and Mercedes has 220bhp.

similarly in audio-products world, things like Wattage is more apparent than things like THD, which after a certain value, is not differentiated. even the frequency response of human ears vary a lot, most people's hearing may start to roll off around 16-17 Khz while some can go further or lesser in the range so they will perceive the same system differently.
 
Re: FOR THOSE ABOUT TO ROCK, An awdeophile,audiophile,audiofool or just ABOUT TO ROCK

@ Arin : -I liked your perspective!

One good thing you pointed out is 'Qualitative attributes'. I think pretty much the entire Audio Industry is based on qualitative nature of sound. While the stats (for ex @8 ohms, 85w RMS, Peak of 250w, 91 dbl) might say a lot of things about a particular speaker and comparison against another one, but the term 'Sound' is very subjective. I know people who would say the bass produced by a bookshelf is normally tighter than floorstands but hey, you would not want the kick drum to sound ('Dihg') tight (in whichever speaker it may be). Kick drums are supposed to be tuned to produce the sound as 'Dhig' not 'Dihg'. But certainly there are songs which use the later sound of kick drum and yes it sounds good, when you take into consideration of the tone of the song, singer, theme of the song etc. Check out the song 'Chandralekha' - A R Rehman. Real tight and punchy. Others prefer the sounds to be smooth, extended, and laid back instead of tight, crisp and punchy. "A freedom fighter for one country is the terrorist for another".

Sound is really a very subjective and qualitative term.
 
Re: FOR THOSE ABOUT TO ROCK, An awdeophile,audiophile,audiofool or just ABOUT TO ROCK

There's a very good article on Stereophile website about 'The Holy Trinity'.
It's about the percentage of three main factors - Music, Quality of the music and Ease of access to Music.

The Holy Trinity | Stereophile.com

This article should be a good addition to the ongoing discussion here.
 
Re: FOR THOSE ABOUT TO ROCK, An awdeophile,audiophile,audiofool or just ABOUT TO ROCK

@pupupuchi28 thanks....and i also listened to Rahman sir's song....the drums are really crisp, as you'd said. It's true that his songs not only have good music in it, they also have good recording and mixing quality. As far as my knowledge goes, he was the pioneer of high quality and track based recording in India. His compositions are very different from others, they have an elegance and royalty.

I have heard very few of his Tamil songs but i have heard most of his Hindi songs and also few Telugu ones. Only god knows what next level of music he would have created if he could have put more focus on non-filmy(OST) music and composed more independent music....
 
To talk about a point discussed a while ago, What I have come to read, 1. CERN had multiple experiments measuring neutrino travelling at speeds greater than Light. 2. This is more intriguing as superoptic speed of neutrino doesn't prove relativity wrong as TOR states that "nothing can reach speed of light" but neutrino don't count as they are born at superotic speeds.

Sent from my GT-I5801 using Tapatalk
 
Wharfedale Linton Heritage Speakers in Red Mahogany finish at a Special Offer Price. BUY now before the price increase.
Back
Top