The Journey of the New 'Audiophile'

Stuff I have found to be true is:

• Trust my own ears above all else.
• My own listening room is the all-important other component.
• Synergy between components is essential.
• It's all about trade-offs, no system sounds excellent on every kind of recording.
• Second hand is a decent route to great, allowing for trials/box-swapping.

Then, however good your system is, the mastering of the recording itself rules.

And finally, don't lose sight that it's the love of the music that got you here in the first place.

 

Just like the old days of computer software - you bought the computer you needed to run the software. With hi-fi, you buy the gear needed to run the speakers you want. At the least, if you have the amp/receiver first, you need to know what the speakers you're interested in require for power, ohms, etc. Most important thing is being sure speakers, if bought later, will run their best with the gear you already own. If not, you may be doing a lot of upgrading. Fortunately, this is not an illness I suffer from.

 

Yet, here we are, on that very same innernetz, trying to help you find direction...!

 

This thread points to the central issue in audiophilia these days: how to intelligently develop an audio system when the old purchasing rules have largely disappeared. You can hardly find audio stores in most cities and when you do, they typically have an agenda that will not be in your best interests.
So years ago I started using the Internet for product identification and evaluation and have settled on this method. First, identify a specific audio goal (e.g. to recreate the sound of orchestral music as closely as possible to a live performance) then set about a plan for accomplishing this goal (e.g., start with speakers that have the power and range needed, then get the amps to make this happen, and on and on).
So fairly quickly you get to the component identification stage and you can usually identify a number of possible culprits in your price range from Internet ads BUT how do you select the perfect one when there is no chance of hearing it live and, typically, the builder will not send them out for preview?
And I have fallen back on this simple approach: search through multiple Internet threads and look for consensus from actual owners. If you feel you can identify a good-hearted reviewer who owns the product and just wants to share his experiences, so much the better. Otherwise, I look for many reviewers who share a similar experience and use that as a likely indication of accuracy.
Using this method have purchased a large amount of audio items in the last 7 years and not been severely burned yet. Have recently started buying used equipment and there, the chances are far riskier.

 

Exactly! Plus, you will have an emotionally connection invested in the gear, which will make the hobby even more meaningful. Not to mention the ability to get great gear for free or peanuts, some of which you will be able to get up to perfect working order.

 

Much of this depends on what one's frame of reference is.
If a person has never heard live instruments, without amplification, they will not know the sound of an Ovation guitar from a Les Paul guitar. Education of your eyes is the first priority, but, unfortunately, there are very few venues that play unamplified music with acoustic instruments.
When I started as an audiophile (40+ years ago), I could still go to The Village Voice in New York, or Carnegie, or most places, actually - except for rock music - and hear live instruments and what they sounded like. Those days are gone. Hence, when I found The Absolute Sound, and read their criteria, I knew I'd found a "home." That was then. They no longer even refer to acoustic instruments (except a few writers - of which I used to be one) and so I no longer subscribe.

But one thing holds true: as Jonathan (Valim) of tAS pointed out, there are 3 types of listeners: the "as you like it") aka "if it sounds good to me, that's all I care about; the "absolute sound" aka "the way it sounds in the concert halls (keeping in mind halls have their own acoustics) and the "true to the mastertape" (self-explanatory).

It is difficult recommening, because no one knows what the posters' criteria are. I went from an AR turntable ('86) to a Sota Sapphire ('87) because the AR didn't sound like the SF concert hall of the time, nor did it produce dynamics. Then I went to a Goldmund turntable and from there, I jumped - leaps and bounds - to the very top of the component heap. It was an education, but it was expensive. However, I DID trust HP's ears (except for his choices in cartridges, which were usually "lean-sounding" (midbass to lower midrange were slightly "cool-sounding").
Unless you know someone's knowledge of actual instruments on this site, it's a sea of relativism out there nowadays, whereas, 40 years ago, people attended concerts with acoustic instruments that were not amplified (that included Broadway).

From what I read, people want what sounds good to them. No one can argue with that. Since so much music is over-produced with 24/48/72 tracks, it comes down to my-opinion-is-as-good-as-yours, except for the people on here who actually play instruments.

When I recommend a component, it is usually because it reproduces the sound of music in the conert hall experience. I'm never going to mistake a violin for a viola - IF my component reproduces the tonal quality correctly. I recommend NAD quite often, because I can hear differences in the families of instruments, but then that's due to my knowing my cables alter the sound minimally and I can trust them (if your cables alter the sound, well... you know...) I COULD use my Audio Research stuff, but I like my NAD: it's my equivalent to a '57 Chevy (you tinker with it constantly). And I can still find ways to improve its performance (Stillpoint footers, Shakti Stones, fuses). And power cords - the laughingstock of so many of you on this site. Fair enough. That's your thing. At this point, I acknowledge there are those who scoff at such things. I can only say, I've got 40 years experience in High End (and I've made enough mistakes that I could buy a decent car for what my "mistakes" in equipment purchases cost me (and I DID pay retail for the first 20 years, by the way) , plus I play piano - badly. REALLY badly. On the other hand, I know exactly what a live piano sounds like, so..

I use a turntable for critical listening and only with records recorded before 1980, so that makes me a dinosaur (in these pages). If you're a "new audiophile," just ask the other people what they listen to mostly: streaming or CD or vinyl. That'll help. Somewhat. Then, what type of music they listen to. If it's synthesizers and electronic keyboard, well... you may find some differences between your ears and theirs.

If it's anything acoustic, that makes it a little bit easier to discern. But the best is human voice: we all know what that sounds like. You can't go wrong there using that as a reference. Test out equipment that has minimal manipulation of the human voice (that rules out most current pop music, by the way. Not ALL of it, but MOST of it). Keep that in mind.

 

I just wish that it all didn't get so complicated.

 

You are right to be skeptical. Wire is the easiest thing to scam people on and the last thing that you need to worry about. Any good, pure copper cable will be fine. You are wrong on the "as so many people can't be fooled" bit though. Think back to elections in Europe in 1936, or even more recent ones, closer to home...
-Bill

 

That's funny, because all I hear there are some quacks and my computer speakers.
-Bill

 

After 20 Years of HiFi buying..

1. Trust your own ears above all else.
2. The listening room dictates the most import component choice, that being your speakers.
3. Don't trust youtube reviewers, 90% are paid reviews.
4. Speakers, Speakers, SPEAKERS!! get them right and everything else falls into place.

 

Completely agree about the listening room, as I have 3, and the sound in the biggest one seems to unleash the sound in a way that the smaller rooms do not. (Maybe because a larger toom approximates the concert hall experience better. Also, it takes longer for the sound to hit the wall and ricochet back to your ear, and by that time, you've heard the "direct sound," which is what one wants.

I like the youtube reviewers but I think they gloss over nuances a bit too much. Still, I appreciate their enthusiasm.

 

Just for fun I moved my main speakers to the basement where my old setup lives these days. They sound even better. The acoustics in the basement are so much better. My main listening area is an area that is very open so make the acoustics difficult. Something that probably can’t be fixed by just equipment.

 

I’ve been fiddling with Roon (anyone know how to get coupon codes?). Using some of the discovery features I’m just listening to random things. I’m finding I’m really ENJOYING the music. I don’t know most of the songs like the back of my hand, so I’m just soaking it in. When I listen to the mainstays I really focus on every little thing and analyze if it sounds right. I’ve abandoned that this week. The system sounds awesome again. That silly brain tricks me every time.

 

Probably the better way to state that is I believe people think they hear something different. That could be real or placebo, but something is perceived differently. Perception is reality in some cases.

 

Indeed it is. However, it is also perfectly rational in cases where someone else fails to make any sense to:



-Bill

 

The room is the most important part of your signal chain.

 

Only if you have a bad room .

 

As a matter of fact, that is one of the "rooms" I used as well. I found the size of the room allowed the music to unfold more easily.
The first time I heard this was at a composer's house. He had a very, very large living room 30+ x 45' and yet had some of the most ordinary equipment (Infinity, but not the good stuff) and ordinary cables. I bought over an Arcam FMJ CD23, Shunyata Python power cable and Nordost Quattro Fils. The equipment was off in another room (he had REALLY long runs of speaker cable: 30' or more), so there was no vibration of the equipment. We played a Fry Street Quartet CD he had produced, and...my eyes bugged out. It was astoundingly lifelike. I had no idea that the Arcam could produce such sounds, although (!), when I had them in my basement, I achieved a similar effect. And his room was all wood paneling, a baby grand piano (NEAR the speakers, too. I couldn't stand it: I moved the speakers in front of the piano (this man had NO sense of placement whatsoever, and I mean that in a humorous sense!)) while my basement is concrete, but I put in a zillion tube traps along the borders behind - and to the side of - the speakers and even a little ahead (meaning along to wall close to the listening seat) and his sound was more dynamic, but mine had qualities (i.e., soundstage layering, precise focus and specificity) tha this did not. I could live with either room (and I do!). But his room was the biggest room I'd ever seen a stereo system in, and I wasn't expecting anything. Positively OR negatively. I just wanted to hear how it sounded in a large room. I got a lot more than I bargained for.

So, room is an extremely important factor, something that H. Alton Everest, in his book, lays out. He discusses size of rooms and everything. It is a fantastic book (which is why he is acknowledged as the Master of Acoustics!)

Master Handbook of Acoustics
by F. Alton Everest and Ken Pohlmann


Equipment, of course, is also paramount, but I've mentioned a dealer who was located in New Haven, CT and given he had a system of $120k+ in his main room, the sound was pretty ordinary. WATT Sashas, Nordost Odin, Audio Research electronics, I forget the source. I could barely enjoy the sound because it lacked Life, and every instrument played in unison (i.e., the horns weren't blasting while the flutes remained delicate). I wondered how he sold anything with sound like that.
So, one needs to attend to BOTH factors. And I mean, in excruciating detail, or you'll get good sound, but you will never hear what your components are truly capable of.
I was listening to Blood, Sweat and Tears in my 9 x 13 x 20 the other night, and adjusted a Tube trap a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of 1/4" and the raspiness in the lead singer's voice took a JUMP. Suddenly "Lucretia McEvil" had a mocking tone in the whole song. Seconds before, it sounded, yes, very good, even great in all the audiophile parameters - but it lacked the Breath of Life.
It takes serious work to get the best and equipment is not the majority of what it takes, although it will elevate the finer details into prominence. But it will not endow the music with the Breath of Life if you have anything out of place (speaker heights are uneven to 1/8" (proved that to myself at a boyfriend's house once many, many, many years ago). My 9 x 13 x 20 room has uneven floors (contractor saw it as "levelled": the speakers disabused me of that notion). I found adjusting the height by miniscule degrees strengthened the lower midrange and upper bass. The Four Worlds of Bernard Hermann sounded like it was a completely different CD, especially when the theramin in movement 1, section 6, blasted into the listening room. All I could think was "it never even approached this degree of reality before."
What's an audiophile to do????

 

Don’t upgrade anything until you find the best placement for speakers and listening chair:
Cardas Room Setup Guide

Unless you’re ok with getting just 10% of what you system is capable of.

 

Your concern is valid for any publication that survives on the proceeds of advertising from the companies whose products it reviews. At least one, however, is free of that taint.

I'm fortunate enough to write occasionally for TNT-Audio, an audio webzine out of Italy (but with a weekly English edition). For whatever it's worth, TNT accepts no advertising or other inducements from manufacturers, and all the writers are unpaid beyond the satisfaction of seeing our work in print; we're quite proud of our independence, and in fact the editor will take action if he sees a reviewer getting too chummy with an audio company. I've seen him do it, and he can be quite stern. I've also seen us reject offers of review hardware that came with "strings" attached. Nor do the reviewers hesitate to point out flaws or weaknesses in gear under review when the situation warrants. Now, like any publication, TNT offers nothing more than the opinions of its writers, but I can say that what it publishes is honest, not concealed flackery.

On the subject at hand, two issues back one of our writers favorably reviewed a guide to home audio and video. I've not read the book myself, but you may find his observations interesting. [Review] Verdult book on optimising audio-video

Oh, and I should add, I'm not claiming any special competence anent current gear because of my association with TNT; I have written a handful of conventional reviews, but the bulk of my work, and my reason for being on staff, is writing about audio from the pre-LP era.

 

While I would love to audition every piece of equipment I buy, I have purchased all but my TT and one pair of headphones based on online reviews.

one thing is it helps to find a trustworthy brand whose sound you like. Then when you go to upgrade you can look at options from the brand you trust already.

I just entered the world of tube sound and I will also say that when rolling/upgrading tubes, spend lots of time with the different options before making a decision on your preference. And have full listening sessions with each option. After a few switches back and forth over a weeks you will notice all sorts of things and hopefully conclude you like one better. This goes not just for tubes but headphones and cables and really everything else, though some things are harder to switch out frequently (ie carts).

 

Feel the need to speak up for headphone listeners - the room makes no difference when your head is stuck between two cans.

 

That's a major advantage of headphones. However, not everyone likes wearing headphones all the time. I've worn them several hours a day because I had to, not because I wanted to. I much prefer speakers.

 

Some good advice here. My tips:

1) Wire/Cable is basically the last thing you should worry about - like really, just forget about it.
2) Speakers (and the room) have by far the greatest impact on the sound you hear. As much of your total budget possible should go to speakers. Buying used is a great way to live with different sounding speakers over time.
3) While you are on the journey, enjoy the gear you have and enjoy the music.

 

(Flame suit on)

After 25 years of this “hobby”my recommendations to a newbie would be:

• Sources: let functionality and measurements guide you.
• Power and Preamplification: let functionality and measurements guide you.
• Interfaces: DACs, phono pre, ADC, software: let functionality and measurements guide you.
• Speakers: start with measurements then listen in your room.

HiFi stores are fine for seeing what’s available and getting a chance to see/feel how a particular component works. As for determining sound at one - it’s about as good as a YouTube demo meaning not very. Your room has such a profound impact on the sound it’s the only place you can subjectively judge it.

Aesthetics are important to some people so if they matter to you that’s perfectly fine. There’s nothing wrong with wanting something to look good.

When it comes to cables buy something that’s decently made and the right length. I know many of the companies that private label for the HiFi brands and there’s nothing special about their cables except the markup. Someone like Blue Jeans is much more legit and transparent.

Perhaps most importantly is to listen, listen a lot, in your room, with your music. Learn to identify what sounds good and bad. When you buy something new, take some time to adjust to it. And don’t always assume that throwing more money at it will fill the void. IMO the point of diminishing returns continues to dip lower when it comes to good sound at home.