You know you have audiophile system when...

I've kept a detailed audio journal for over twenty years. I've looked back through the journals and the angst and disappointments of so many entries makes me wonder how I had such persistence. Based on journal entries I perceived my system worthy of audiophile quality around five years ago, lots of 'best ever' entries since then. For myself, I had to reach a level of resolution that gave illusion of performers in room. I continue to reach new plateaus, which means less mind games to convince oneself there are flesh and blood performers in room

. I'm convinced further gains are in future, so, at least in my case, a self defined audiophile system is not an end point. One can reach one mountain top only to see another higher mountain in the distance. I can say it does feel great to reach those lower mountain tops, it all becomes good at some point.

I’d rather have someone say, "It sounds just like we’ve been transported to the concert hall, jazz club, rock club’, than it sounds like they are in the room with us, when they hear my system. But that is my preference.

You are right!

It is not a taste or a preference, but an acoustic result when a system /room is under control...

If they are in " the room with you" but you are not there in the concert hall or jazz club with them to begin with it, is because the acoustic trade-off of the recording engineer is not revealed well in your system/room...

Our room must be erased by passive and active and acoustic and psycho-acoustic control to reveal some aspects of the recording original trade-off, then it is you who are there on the stage or near it,  out of your room, with an intimate relation with the sound around you , not them in your room ...

It is my acoustic experience...

@natman 

I auditioned it for my wife. She listened and said "It sounds like they’re in the room with us." Now inside my head I was doing my happy dance, because that’s exactly what I was going for. Then she said "It’s creepy. I don’t like it."

I'd rather have someone say, "It sounds just like we've been transported to the concert hall, jazz club, rock club', than it sounds like they are in the room with us, when they hear my system. But that is my preference. Even with a singer with an acoustic guitar, I would rather be transported to the original recording space.

Just how does on get a simulation that there is an 80 piece orchestra in the room with me? But having it sound as if I am 15 rows back at Disney Hall, sound more attainable. 

But then, I am probably just being pedantic. 

My definition of an audiophile system is that it sounds exactly like live music. I set up my new system with my new audiophile speakers, synced the subwoofer so it blended in perfectly, got speaker position perfect and everything sounded terrific.

I auditioned it for my wife. She listened and said "It sounds like they’re in the room with us." Now inside my head I was doing my happy dance, because that’s exactly what I was going for. Then she said "It’s creepy. I don’t like it."

You're at a concert. You turn to your wife and say "This sounds as good as it does at home!"

I'll approach this from a slightly more humble and less judgmental direction (odd for this room I know). And first of all, I have no problem with being called an audiophile. I don't wear it like a badge, but it doesn't bother me. And I couldn't care less what snarky things people in a record store might say about me. I have filthy c**t w**re b***h white trash sister-in-law who works in a wine shop and in a voice dripping with ridicule calls their more discerning customers "cork dorks". And these are the people who put food on her table!! Like I said, white trash. Anyway, to the point.

An audiophile is someone who listens to music on the built-in speakers and their iPhone and says, "Wait minute!, this can be better", and goes out and buys a bluetooth speaker. They're on the path. It's the person who listens to their old Pioneer receiver through their old Advent speakers and says, "Wait a minute, this can be better", and goes to an audio store or online and starts their journey, their search for the "better". It's the person who's still listening to their old dorm room stereo of the first stereo they bought when they moved out of their parents house. It cost $350 with speakers and might even have a built in cassette deck and one day they realize, "this can sound better". (maybe because music coming from the stereo in their new minivan sounds different and better). I'm sure all of you have been to the homes of good friends, smart people, clever and at times even a bit sophisticated who still use that old stereo when they listen to music, which likely isn't very often.  It's about the pursuit of better access to the music. Audiophiles don't use music to listen to their system. That's pithy but ignorant. They only time they do that is when they add/are breaking in a new addition or trying to figure out where that booming bass comes from every once in a while.  We're all chasing the music, and better systems are more immersive, they pull us in, relaxed, enveloping and they take us into the sonic artform to which, for whatever reason, we humans seem to be drawn.

You know you have an audiophile system when you have learned acoustic...

If not, you upgrade to a very costly system...

It is almost useless...Igear improvement without acoustic improvement are deceitful...

Sorry...

it is incredible and revelatory of the situation if i am the only one to claim that..

when you have at least an 8-figure net worth and a portfolio of blue chip stocks and bonds. when your system elicits oohs and ahs from whomever you deign worthy of showing it off to. when you listen to the worst recordings and it still gives you a palpable feeling of "being there."

@simonmoon - I'm not sure that I agree with you that the majority of audiophiles are "music first" in their enjoyment.

I know way more people that enjoy music than enjoy audio equipment.  People that are truly music first seem to be able to equally enjoy music live, on the radio in the car, or over the speakers that grocery store equally.  In my experience, most of them don't even recognize the value of an high end system.  It's curious to me why so few people will listen to a system like mine and not immediately recognize how superior it is to anything that they have heard before, but even within the subset of those that do recognize and enjoy the difference almost none feel any need to get into high end gear.  My conclusion is that for the vast majority of people the actual sound quality of the music doesn't improve their listening experience in a meaningful way.

Obviously, audiophiles do greatly enjoy music or else they wouldn't invest so much of their time and resources in the hobby, but I think that if sound quality is a factor then the music itself is already taking a step back.

On a related note, I queued up some music for my wife last night that I know she enjoys and the end result was an Amazon search for a better quality recording.  It was an exceedingly poor recording that was unlistenable even for her. I was prepared to gut it out with the goal of her truly enjoying the music.  Even her music first approach to listening has its limits.  I wonder if I played it through my home theater receiver with some processing if it could be salvaged?

@simonmoon + 1

When you’ve run out of feasible rooms 

to put a 6th system in.. and your still

married. 
 

@simonmoon Agree it's just fine and right in line with what you've said.  Broken down into its Latin and Greek roots audiophile simply means a "lover of sound"--doesn't mean " lover of sound equipment"...Although reasonably good equipment is generally necessary to make that sound as close to live as possible, being an audiophile does not mean you must own high-end gear.

I hate the tag Audiophile. Who coined the phrase?

It’s all about musical entertainment, nothing more, nothing less.

@bobpyle 

The term was coined in 1951, and I think it is a perfectly fine term.

Sure it is all about the music first. But that doesn’t mean the gear is not also fun as hell.

I guess audio enthusiast is synonymous, which I am also fine with.

But just because someone is an audiophile, does not mean that the music does not come first.

A music lover uses audio equipment to listen to his recordings. An audiophile uses recordings to listen to his audio equipment!

@whitefishpoint1175 

This is a quote from Allan Parsons, and he was wrong when he originally said it, and the quote is still wrong now.

First of all, there is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy in there. As well as a false dichotomy.

Of course, there are a small subset of audiophiles who do care more about the sound of the equipment, than the music. But why should anyone care if that is how they get their enjoyment from their systems?

But the vast majority of audiophiles that are ’music first’ audiophiles.

The vast majority of my listening, I couldn’t care less about the gear. I just listen to the music.

But this doesn’t mean, there are other times, for a couple hours every couple of weeks, that I can’t have loads of fun, just paying attention to the gear, playing ’approved’ audiophile recordings, tweaking my system, etc. And not paying to much attention to the music itself.

So, by the above (bogus) definition of audiophile and music lover, I guess I switch between the 2 on a regular basis. But I always consider myself an audiophile AND a music lover.

I think of the attitude people have about High Fidelity along similar lines as the attitude some Americans have about the education of their kids. Some people think that they should have a say as to what their children will be taught. But those same parents often want their children to be "better educated" then they were themselves. So what if the parents are ignorant and under educated? We all can always learn more about audio and more about the world. Why draw limits? I would like to learn MORE about audio and MORE about the world.

@wyoboy - Sounds like you got a good deal and a solid value.

If I had it to do over I'd have gone with Golden Gate as a first step and then would upgrade to the Sydney.  The first step was an inexpensive step to prove to myself that upgraded interconnects would make a difference in my system.

@mceljo Totally agree but that really hadn't occurred to me at the time b/c i bought the RR cables used for half price (never unboxed according to seller and i'm reasonably sure that was the case) so it didn't matter to me much--if i were buying AQ cables from scratch i would probably have gone with Big Sur or Sydney as i use single-ended for everything and price seems a good value for features.

@wyoboy  - I specifically asked them about the double vs. triple because with single ended cables there is only two conductors, so there isn't anything beyond double to be balanced.  It doesn't mean that a triple-balanced design can sound good with single ended connectors, but I think it would be expected to result from other design factors.  It's kind of a snake oil move to put single ended connectors on a cable designed for balanced audio as the result is just a more expensive cable that likely doesn't have the same performance value as it would for balanced audio.  Too many customers simply assume that farther up the line and more expensive is always better.  Sometime audio manufactures advertise things that simply don't pass the common sense test.  The fact that the Yukon interconnects are double-balanced for RCA and triple-balanced for XLR with all of the other features being the same made me curious enough to ask about it.

There's only so many ways to connect a cable with either two conductors or three conductors...

@tuberist --that's my standard as well and i feel like i'm there w/ my system--most of the time--ya never know exactly on amplified instruments b/c live you're hearing them through PA speakers so i use acoustic records to judge.

@mceljo thanks for that info--i was too lazy to ask AQ but it's interesting that they say triple is best for balanced (which is not what i do) and double is better for RCA; however, i agree with you that it's unlikely i'll hear any difference if i went to Sydney from Red River.

@wyoboy - I have an Audioquest AC-14XL for my DAC and I have not noticed any obvious differences/improvements.

Before I upgraded from Chicago to Sydney interconnects I emailed Audioquest to answer some questions that had after reviewing their line-up.

The Bridges and Falls series are a single cable and the Rivers and Elements series are two individual cables (required for some setups) so the relative price point isn't an obvious indicator of quality across the series.

Their assessment was that Sydney would be a slightly better than Red River.  Red River is superior to Golden Gate.  They recommended Golden Gate ($80 for 1 meter) as being superior to Chicago ($100 per 1 meter).

My assessment is that I should have purchased Golden Gate over Chicago originally as a better value and think that Sydney is one of the better values when comparing price point to included design features.

I don't think that I'd upgrade from Red River to Sydney as I wouldn't expect a significant difference.  Part of the reason that I chose Sydney is that it was about the most I'd be willing to pay.  The Mackenzie is the next one up in price point and I believe that the triple-balanced design is optimized for balanced audio and they have just put RCA connectors on it because they can.  They did confirm that all other things being equal, the double-balanced design is superior for RCA use and that their lines will be splitting as they have done with the Yukon.

OP, To me it’s when the tone and body of the instruments and voices sound lifelike. I attend live music events regularly so I have some basis for comparison. Good topic by the way

You know you have an audiophile system when you have done one of the followings to achieve it:

• took out a second mortgage
• maxed out your credit card limit
• dipped into your retirement savings

All jokes aside, I admire all those who truely enjoy their systems without thinking about what’s the next upgrade. Until then, many of us will be on an endless journey in search of audio nirvana.

It’s all good. What a great hobby 😄

@mceljo thanks for the info--i've been using AQ's Red River IC's for Pre to DAC--which appear to be almost the same cost as Sydney -- i'll go to AQ's site to see what the differences are.  My amp came with a 10 awg PC so i haven't changed that out but it's not a huge cost to try yours so i may.  I've been thinking about trying Pangea's as well.

@jb1 - I like this one.

@wyoboy - In my system, a Waudio 10AWG power cable made a significant difference for my amplifier and both Chicago and now Sydney interconnects from Audioquest made a significant difference between my DAC and amplifier. I have some other cables in the system, but really believe that these two made the most (if not all) difference. I’m not one to spend hours swapping things to verify everything to the Nth degree. I tend to decide what I want to upgrade to and if I don’t hear anything to the contrary I just go with it. The two cables above made immediate improvements in my system that were as significant to my ears as tube rolling has been in my Pathos Classic One MkIII amplifier.

I struggle to really describe the changes, but the change is signicant enough that I can "hear it" even on recordings that I have not listened to for a long time.  There's just a dynamic and depth that wasn't there prior to the cable upgrades.

When an album is recorded in multiple recording studios & you can hear the difference between tracks.  

that's probably a fair statement for many audiophiles--but hopefully their goal would be to make music sound, well, more musical ?  It's certainly why i focus almost exclusively on live recordings these days and i'm pretty satisfied with the sound...well, almost, maybe...

You spend more time listening to your equipment than you do music.

Now you've got me curious about the cables--interconnect or speaker and brand?

My feeling that i had achieved an "audiophile system" was when i invested enough to have constant "wow" moments of "they are here" or "i am there" on live recordings (esp acoustic) and even studio recordings where the engineers attempted to achieve that with the miking and instrument placement.  I wish that could have been achieved with cables only but it required a more significant investment in every category: amplification, speakers, DAC, turntable/tonearm/cart--but other than [possibly] cable tweaks or tonearm/cartridge upgrades i'm done---probably, maybe...

@wyoboy - As often happens, the responses were not what I was looking for.  In my system I have considered it to be an audiophile system since I first purchased it, but after rolling tubes and playing with power cables and interconnects it because apparent that it was at a very different level.  I think the investment in cables that truly made the difference was about $250 which is relatively insignificant compared to the overall value of my system, but it made a huge difference.

@dabel ....Not bad, overall. *knuckle knock*  Been awhile since I've had to spend 5 onsite daze in the field, but the old harness still fits....a little 'looser' of late.

But now I get the occasional 'How old are you?  Why aren't you retired?'

The answer hangs on how I feel 'bout it....*G*

"This IS my retirement.  I've got guys to do the schlep stuff..."

"You'd have me slack-jawed and drooling in front of a TV?!"

"I don't golf.  No tennis.  This is my 'health club membership'."

"I'm here because you needed an excuse and/or an example..."

I always 'swing for the stands' answering the odd queer queries. ;)

How are you, d?  *G* I'm functioning 'gud 'nuff.... 

4th and 9th pans in the opening loop....

Looks 'rough' in the playground areas prior to the parking lot, but these are considerable older.  Looks a lot more 'finished', now...

https://unityparkgreenville.com/1843/Unity-Park

We 'do' playground 'stuff..  *S*  Yes, we take Play Seriously, we work @ play. 👍

THIS, AG, etc. is my play away from 'play'. ;)

What and how I play during 'recreational' play is what I'm up to Now. *G*

Y'all have a Great Weekend.

I can 'relate' to everything posted after my last. *L*

@2channel8 , if Foxworthy is a 'phile, that was it... ;)

Hi back 'atcha, @dabel ...*G*

Hmmm....listening to this as of this moment:

...kinda sums up the past week, with Yrs Unruly = My B*tch.,

...been a tweak week, onsite in SC on a project in the sprint to the Grand Opening to the public....

too bad for you since jackhifiguy and others did not respond to the question which was how you know if you have an audiophile system, not whether you're an audiophile or the definition thereof.

I liked mikeydee's answer best for humor or maybe arcam88's although i can listen for hours and smile on the road with just a car stereo.

I cannot say it better than jackhifiguy.

Hello @asvjerry. How you been lately, my friend?

When you get your daily fix ... wherever and or whenever ....

I love music. The audio system is the means to an end: to hear the music as closely as possible to the way that the artist and engineer intended you to hear it.

“You know you have audiophile system when...”

It takes more than 20 minutes to list all items in ONE of said audiophiles systems. 

You can't stop listening and you smile a lot!😎

Aww!  I was expecting a Jeff Foxworthy comedy routine.

jonwolfpell has it right.

But how difficult is that for some of us to achieve?

Audiophiledom is a club. As Groucho Marx said, I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member. Nobody want to be called an audiophile. Go into any record store that sells used records - the owners have one word audiophilenut. They don't bother to separate it into two.

Seriously..."a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction". It can be any system or no system.

When you listen to music & get lost in it, forgetting you're listening to reproduction equipment. That's what its all about......

I hate the tag Audiophile. Who coined the phrase? 

It's all about musical entertainment, nothing more, nothing less.

Do you ever think that most of it, the adjectives you used to describe your system are nothing more than a concerted effort on your part to hear those things, aspects of sound in a wishful thinking sort of way?

It is true if someone have no idea about what is the acoustic definition of sound description, not an  audiophile one,  an acoustic one...

When you know what the notion  means it is because you know how to create them in an optimal way with the gear you own from your speakers/room/ears relation...

Simple...

What is listener envelopment/source width ratio and how to create it and improve it in  small room? it is a technical question which anser differ in applied  solution for each room...

No adjectives needed here, machanical acoustic control and passive material treatment balance will do....

I can say my S.Q./price ratio is astounding, this is an adjective only, but the way i reach it with acoustic is what gives meaning to my sentence...

I dont trust any reviewer now...

They never thanks acoustic but the gear change they are motivated to speak about in the same  room for years which is never optimized for a specific system ...

Anybody can buy a good amplifier, one he can afford and say it is a marvel...

But no amplifier will work marvel in a bad room... Most room if not bad are not acoustically optimal at all not optimized for a specific audio system...

Then i trust acoustic and psycho-acoustic over any  reviewer which are sellers anyway nothing more...

Do you ever think that most of it, the adjectives you used to describe your system are nothing more than a concerted effort on your part to hear those things, aspects of sound in a wishful thinking sort of way? Do other people hear the same improvements that you do? Isn’t the newfound bloom and decay in every note a sort of byproduct of the better clarity that you achieved?

Here, let me give an example: I purchase a new pair of speakers and my amplifier doesn’t seem up to the task of powering it, I go out and get something else that’s up to the task. Now when I listen to a recording I know well, let’s take my favorite drum solo, "Storm", by Billy Cobham which is short, direct, and to the point. In the 2 or so minutes, there’s this (phase shifting ?) sound processing going on in the recording that I always heard but now because of the better dynamics, punch, and impact of the new amp, this sonic manipulation became something altogether different, really adding to the performance. I then later put back the old amplifier and I hear basically the same improvement but maybe less of it along with less of everything else I just described. I guess my point is that even without the new equipment I can hear these improvements now because I know that they are there now, helped by the more powerful sounding amp to guide me there. I hope that makes some sense. In a way, the new amp made my old amp sound better?

@ozzy hope I am never at that point. That is truly one dimensional. 

You know you have audiophile system when...it would cost less to actually book the band you're listening to and have them perform for you live.

When you plan your vacations around audio stores to visit.

ozzy