2. analog
  3. 1296759668

How can anyone afford this ?

I consider myself a dedicated audiophile. I am 36(which I am guessing is a little younger than the average here) and single. I have been interested in high-end audio since I saw my uncle's Mcintosh and Threshold equipment for the first time when I was 5.
Since joining the workforce and saving a little I have always been trying to put together a nice system on a budget. I do OK financially(I am a systems engineer) but I do live in NYC which may put some of this into perspective.
Over the last 6 months I have struggled to buy(all used on Agon) a pair of Dynaudio Audience 42s and a Threshold CAS2 amp, Chang CLS3200, and cables(I haven't gone out[I don't have a girfriend], purchased anything else and really haven't eaten too much to be able to afford these and it is still a real stretch). I am using the amp with a direct connection from my CD/DVD player(Cambridge Audo Azur 540D...slightly modified[op amps, PS caps, bypass caps] that I have had for almost 10 years). A fellow has a Threshold FET2 series II(to match with the CAS2) he is holding for me but that seems like a pipe dream at this point along with a turntable.
A few years ago the analogue bug hit me.
I had a setup consisting of an Audio Analogue Settanta integrated and a Nottingham Horizon SE turntable with a Rega RB300 tonearm with the Incognto rewire and structural mod. This was not an expensive kit by any stretch but for me it almost put me in the poor house. I had to sell the entire rig to pay my bills and it hurt.
It seems over the last 10 years or so I have not been able to keep a kit for more than 6 months before I had to sell it. Whenever I don't have a rig I am constantly scanning the online Ads lusting for the next bargain to set up a system and cannot even listen to music on a mass market rig(I have been spoiled).
Anyway, I guess my question is how can anyone normal afford this hobby? What type of money do you have to be making to be able to enjoy this hobby.....$100,000/year? $500,000/year? Do you need to be worth millions? $5,000 barely gets you in the door(some interconnects cost more) and you could possibly spend millions. I am not looking to put together a $10,000 system(not even close...and that is modest in this hobby) but if I wanted to I don't see it ever being financially possible. If I had a girlfriend or a family(hopefully someday) I would not event be able to think about this hobby with a good conscience. I guess I am wondering if all these people in this hobby are millionaires? I am close to selling my rig again to pay the bills(the amp needed repair/recap and that was $450). Any advice for an audiophile who lusts to put together a nice rig but can't afford it? Should I get out and save for 5 or 10 years and then try again? Maybe I am in the wrong hobby but it is more addicting that crack to me(and more expensive). Maybe I should be a crackhead instead...that might be the only thing to make me forget about it. Thoughts?
adamd1205

Showing 4 responses by paperw8

paperw8
165 posts
 
don't be a fool with your money is the general advice. however, from what i am reading it appears that that is exactly what you have been. for some people it makes them feel good to spend $50,000 on a power amplifier. if they've got the money and it's burning a hole in their pockets, the spending it on the power amp is all good. but when someone spends that kind of money, they aren't buying for value. this audio stuff is like artwork: how much is a painting worth? well, how good is it? the answer to both questions is highly subjective. furthermore, once you have shelled out the cash, you have a vested interest in convincing at least yourself that the big money purchase allowed you to realize breathtaking levels of "transparency" that you could have never realized with less expensive equipment. there is a certain "emperor's new clothes" aspect to this stuff. that's high end audio in a nutshell...

the difference between high end and "mid fi" like nad and rotel is that in high end audio equipment the makers spend a lot more time designing equipment that colors the sound in a way that is presumably pleasing to the listener. so if you look at published specifications, it would be difficult to tell much difference. since high end audio is about coloration, the difference is more likely to show up in phase response charts, the kind of stuff that is rarely published.

you see some of these virtual systems that look like they are in specially designed rooms, complete with acoustical treatments. i'm figuring some of these homes have to be 5,000+ sq. ft. to allocate that kind of space to a dedicated listening room. then then load it up with several $100,000 worth of audio equipment. first of all, if you shell out that kind of money, you've got a great sounding system - cognitive dissonance would allow you to recognize no less - you don't shell out that kind of money and tell people: "i guess it sounds alright".

secondly, you can't beat room acoustics. i mean, audiophile talk of wanting to recreate the sound of live performance but if you go to a live performance at a large arena, the acoustics (and sound) are often terrible. so if you are going to shell out big cash it's probably not going to make a whole lot of sense unless you have an acoustically conceived room. but if the room is so acoustically good, you could just as well load it up with rotel or nad components and they would also sound good. in fact, i think that the room acoustics make a lot more difference than the differences that you would perceive in equipment.
paperw8
165 posts
 

02-09-11: Ckoffend
To say trickle down economics hasn't worked in the US is a bit naive. The perfect example that it has worked is by looking at the poor in our country - those that get by and plan to live off the government. These, the poorest of the poor in our wonderful country, have a standard of livings many 10s of times better than the "working class" in many other countries. Here in the US we do not know and understand what being poor truly is. The truth of the matter is, even the poor in our country throw away and waste more money than the world's truly poor make in a year. This is a sad statistic on both sides of the proverbial ocean.
but to say that trickle down *has* worked is simply stupid. the past 30 years has seen a massive shift in wealth to the top 5% of the population. at the same time the middle class has declined and the population of the poor has increased. no sensible interpretation of economics can take a concentration of wealth as evidence of a "trickle down" effect.
paperw8
165 posts
 

02-09-11: Raymonda
Paperw8, your statement is overly simplified, off the mark and just plan wrong.
maybe the following report will clarify your understanding:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

note the following comments following figure 5:
---
"Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007)."
---
one of the problems in the country today is that there are too many people who can only see the world as it appears to them - if things are ok by them then that means that things are ok period. it's just not that way in the real world and today's ok-for-you may be tomorrow's not-so-ok; i mean, there are a lot of former white collar workers who thought that things were ok in the 1990's who are now 99'ers. i suspect things don't look so ok for them today.
paperw8
165 posts
 

02-10-11: Manitunc
The problem in the world is that we just cannot sustain the standard of living that was enjoyed by our middle class that consisted mainly of our baby boomers. At that time, the world was our oyster, and it was easy to spread the wealth around. But now we have a world with an exploding "middle class" that would be considered poor by our standards, but much better off than they were 20 years ago. I believe that we will have to accept a different definition of what it is to be middle class, and that does not include a car for every driver, a flat screen for every room, and houses many times the size we need. When it is considered to be poor to be making less than 50k for a family of 4, something has gone off kilter.
i don't dispute the changing economic position of the u.s. versus the world, but the problem in this country is concentration of wealth. any economy is worse off when there is a concentration of wealth because it is more important to the welfare of an economy to have a strong middle class than it is to have a few wealthy people. you will find billionaires in many otherwise poor countries but the reason why the countries have so much poverty is that there is no middle class; all you have is a few extremely wealthy people and a lot of poor people. my previous criticism was directed at people who think all is well just because they can afford to spend $50,000 on a power amplifier.
More to discover