How much does it cost to be an audiophile?

[mansr]

39 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

The real separation tho between audiophiles as I see it comes down to how one assesses "fidelity" playback which in turn comes down to the great divide; trust your ears vs trust your measurements. IMO each has their place.

The former are, to a large extent, actually trusting their eyes, eyes fixated on the price tag.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, Nordkapp said:

This is ridiculous George. You are actually going on record saying that Emotiva is no different sonically than Parasound/Bryston?  My God. Are those JC1 Parasound monos garbage too? 

Not only am I not going on record saying it. I didn't say it. I said that GUTB couldn't tell one setup from the other in a DBT. I didn't say that they sounded the same, nor did I infer it.  

[mansr]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I'd be willing to bet GUTB money that in a double-blind tests he couldn't pick out an Emotiva preamp/amp setup from a similar Parasound setup or a Bryston setup, or any other mid-level high-end amp/preamp combo. 

Throw in a clock radio too, just for fun.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, Nordkapp said:

Emotiva is basically equivalent to Pioneer. Not exactly high end. 

But even Pioneer is not as bad as GUTB paints it either. I've lived with an Emotiva system for several weeks, I know how it performs. Many audio snobs would be extremely surprised to find out that the gap between what we used to call mid-fi and high-end equipment has narrowed considerably in the last few years. Especially when it comes to amplifier circuits. 

[gmgraves]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Throw in a clock radio too, just for fun.

Gotcha!

[Jud]

12 minutes ago, mansr said:

The former are, to a large extent, actually trusting their eyes, eyes fixated on the price tag.

 

Data?

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

Data?

Every post ever made by GUTB and his ilk.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Every post ever made by GUTB and his ilk.

 

What do you have against his ilk?

 

 

[Nordkapp]

Actually, Emotiva is more akin to old Panasonic stuff. Crap.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

28 minutes ago, mansr said:

The former are, to a large extent, actually trusting their eyes, eyes fixated on the price tag.

 

C'mon Mans, that is true of a subset.

 

Listening to the final product is quintessential to assessing quality playback. Music. And listening to music not just to test the gear's technical ability but in the sheer enjoyment of the music.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

What do you have against his ilk?

 

That's an elk. Reminds me of a silly rhyme:

 

The cow is of the bovine ilk;

One end is moo, the other milk.

-- Ogden Nash

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

C'mon Mans, that is true of a subset.

That's what I said. The subset is, sadly, rather large.

[gmgraves]

56 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

trust your ears vs trust your measurements. IMO each has their place.

Actually they are both necessary in my estimation. Obviously, the final arbiter is one's ears. If it doesn't sound right, all the great measurements in the world won't amount to a hill of beans. But the truth is that if a piece of equipment measures right, it would be damn difficult for it not to sound right. Where the measurements fall down is when you get two similar pieces of equipment and even though the measured differences between them are trivial, one sounds slightly better than the other, and there is, on paper, no apparent reason for it. That's the slippery slope where one's audible judgement needs to be tempered with technical knowledge. When two devices under test measure exactly the same and yet they sound different, then one has to entertain the possibility that there is something else going on. Like I said, measurement, technical knowledge, and one's listening abilities are all required to put together a truly competent audio system (in my estimation) or, you could just throw money at the problem. You know, the GUTB method. That works too....  

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's what I said. The subset is, sadly, rather large.

 

Data?

[gmgraves]

11 minutes ago, Nordkapp said:

Actually, Emotiva is more akin to old Panasonic stuff. Crap.

Now you sound like GUTB. I'd say that it sounds more like the high-end Marantz SS stuff than the old Panasonic stuff. 

[mav52]

2 hours ago, Nordkapp said:

This is ridiculous George. You are actually going on record saying that Emotiva is no different sonically than Parasound/Bryston?

He didn't say that or assume that.   he said " might not compete sonically "

 

 

[gmgraves]

1 minute ago, mav52 said:

He didn't say that or assume that.   he said " might not compete sonically "

 

  I'm not speaking for George but I think He is saying Gut cound't pick the difference between them.

Precisely! 

[Nordkapp]

19 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Now you sound like GUTB. I'd say that it sounds more like the high-end Marantz SS stuff than the old Panasonic stuff. 

At least the Marantz stuff is built better. For the budding audio enthusiast on an incredibly short budget, then fine-go buy all the Emotiva you want. 

[Nordkapp]

I brought this thread into existence-can I take it out too?...I'm out. Cockamamie.

[esldude]

6 minutes ago, Nordkapp said:

At least the Marantz stuff is built better. For the budding audio enthusiast on an incredibly short budget, then fine-go buy all the Emotiva you want. 

Should we try for a middle ground and compare Emotiva to JVC of the 80's/90's?

 

Actually I'm not sure Emotiva is quite equal to Adcom gear from those days, but some of it is.  By equal I mean in its relative place in the spectrum of quality and performance for the time. Some of the Adcom gear was surprisingly good, and some was just okay.  Build was good for price I would say.  That is somewhat how I look at Emotiva.  A couple things I think are over-achievers and others okay for the price.  

[Nordkapp]

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

Should we try for a middle ground and compare Emotiva to JVC of the 80's/90's?

 

Actually I'm not sure Emotiva is quite equal to Adcom gear from those days, but some of it is.  By equal I mean in its relative place in the spectrum of quality and performance for the time. Some of the Adcom gear was surprisingly good, and some was just okay.  Build was good for price I would say.  That is somewhat how I look at Emotiva.  A couple things I think are over-achievers and others okay for the price.  

I owned a few Adcom pieces before. The venerable GFP-750 preamp and GCD-750 disc spinner. Both pieces were out of this world sonically. I still regret selling them. Other than that, I thought their amps were very veiled.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Actually they are both necessary in my estimation. Obviously, the final arbiter is one's ears. If it doesn't sound right, all the great measurements in the world won't amount to a hill of beans. But the truth is that if a piece of equipment measures right, it would be damn difficult for it not to sound right. Where the measurements fall down is when you get two similar pieces of equipment and even though the measured differences between them are trivial, one sounds slightly better than the other, and there is, on paper, no apparent reason for it. That's the slippery slope where one's audible judgement needs to be tempered with technical knowledge. When two devices under test measure exactly the same and yet they sound different, then one has to entertain the possibility that there is something else going on. Like I said, measurement, technical knowledge, and one's listening abilities are all required to put together a truly competent audio system (in my estimation) or, you could just throw money at the problem. You know, the GUTB method. That works too....  

 

I agree mostly.

 

I don't share the same faith in measurements as many here. I see them as a guide for sure. What is the measurement for transparency? Maybe you could argue that if all the other measurements are good then the intangible immeasurables will follow suit. Still, as you say "the final arbiter is one's ears. If it doesn't sound right, all the great measurements in the world won't amount to a hill of beans." For me, Its the old not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted....thing.

 

I confess I am one of those people that "throws money at the problem" because I don't have the expertise to fiddle with circuit boards or change impedance loads or design my own gear or whatever. Before I throw the money i do research exhaustively and listen extensively. If I hear music that gives me goosebumps or evokes emotion I know I'm on the right path for me. Of course I then break it down to what the gear is doing to achieve this, or more aptly what its not doing, and is it value for money for me ie can I afford it. I do my own version of blind testing which I consider no more scientifically valid than any other version that people religiously rely on.

 

In my journey it has led to "high-end" products, and yes expensive. I do find a correlation between price and quality in many things and reject that this is synonymous with price tag expectation bias. It has nothing to do with snobbery, it has everything to do with paying for what you think it's worth to you.

[sandyk]

49 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Gotcha!

 

 Amusing, but has anyone here actually heard GUTB's system, or verified that he has no better audio discerning properties than the majority of those, usually from the hard line Objective side,  who love to take the piss out of him ?

 Perhaps he hasn't , but he does at least go to Audio Shows, and gets to hear a greater variety of equipment than somebody who rarely gets to hear recent Audio products.

 Yes, I do agree that he leaves himself wide open to attacks from the "Rat Pack"

[GUTB]

I auditioned an Emotiva A-300 a few years back I think...when it was first released. I figured, how bad can a modern class A/B sound? The answer: VERY BAD. The only linear amp I can recall disliking more than the A-300 was some no-name class A desktop headphone amp I bought from China for around $100 years ago. It was so bad I would have taken any of the high-end class D amps I’ve tried over it. What was wrong with it? It’s been a while now so I may not remember accurately why I hated it, but I seem to recall it being incapable of making a decent soundstage, and I think there was a tonal coloration I hated, or a lack of harmonic structure or something like that which made it super unsatisfying.

 

One thing is for sure: if I can’t tell the difference between that and a Mark Levinson, Pass, Esoteric, etc, I would seriously consider just abandoning audiophilia altogether because it’s obviously not for me.

[GUTB]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Amusing, but has anyone here actually heard GUTB's system, or verified that he has no better audio discerning properties than the majority of those, usually from the hard line Objective side,  who love to take the piss out of him ?

 Perhaps he hasn't , but he does at least go to Audio Shows, and gets to hear a greater variety of equipment than somebody who rarely gets to hear recent Audio products.

 Yes, I do agree that he leaves himself wide open to attacks from the "Rat Pack"

 

Well, I have a duty to my fans...

 

I go to audio shows partly to maintain my motivation; by listening to higher end audio I can set my sites on sonic goals to strive for. If I never went to these shows I may just fall into a sense that I’ve achieved near perfection — visiting the good rooms at the shows makes sure that doesn’t happen and keeps me energized and to keep reaching upwards for greater sound.

 

Another reason is of course checking out stuff you’ve never seen before, talking to various manufacturers, etc.