
How much does it cost to be an audiophile? - rohin
http://priceonomics.com/speakers/#audiophile
======
petrilli
I would disagree with the initial premise that it's about the pursuit of
"perfect sound reproduction". There's many people who do that, but that's not
what the audiophile world really has become. It's about a bunch of hand waving
and big checkbook spending to impress other audiophiles. Oddly, that describes
a lot of "hobbies".

Nobody who feels that a $4,000 power cable is important has any semblance of
sanity remaining. It's the homeopathy of consumer electronics.

~~~
w0utert
As someone who spends far too much money on 20+ years old cars, I think I have
to agree with you. Being an audiophile is a bit like being a car enthusiast:
there really is nothing rational about spending so much money on something
that most people don't see the value of, something that is so subjective that
you can't explain it to them. I think in the end, it's more about the joy you
get out of the idea of being able to spend that kind of money on something
that so few people are willing or able to do. Subliminally, it affects your
perception of how awesome the car or the audio setup actually is, if you ask
an outsider, chances are he or she doesn't see or hear anything better that
what 'normal' people are using.

~~~
mikeash
At least you could tell the difference between a cheap car and an expensive
car in a blind test.

~~~
w0utert
> _At least you could tell the difference between a cheap car and an expensive
> car in a blind test._

If I show my car to people, most of them don't see a 'modern classic', a 'rare
limited edition', a 'real drivers car' or a 'high performance vehicle' with
'upgraded specifications'. They just see a re-sprayed 20-year old clunker
without satnav, double airbags or cupholders ;-)

~~~
mikeash
Sure, but _you_ can still tell the difference. Not even audiophiles can
distinguish much audiophile equipment from more mundane equipment in a blind
test.

~~~
davidcuddeback
_> Not even audiophiles can distinguish much audiophile equipment from more
mundane equipment in a blind test._

That's a pretty broad generalization about a large group of people. Do you
have any facts to back it up?

~~~
adamzochowski
[http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-
the...](http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-
difference-between-monster-cable-and/)

~~~
davidcuddeback
Let's start by considering the original source for the story. It comes from
this forum post: <http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15412-post28.html>

First off, that begs the question: how reliable do you consider a comment on a
forum? Are you going to condemn an entire industry based on that? But that
doesn't really matter. As I mentioned in my reply to mikeash, that's just not
enough evidence. I'm not going to repeat myself here. You can read my other
comment to understand why one piece of evidence isn't conclusive.

To address the Engadget article, it took one paragraph of that post out of
context to make a narrow point about Monster cables. If you read the rest of
the post (and probably the rest of the forum thread), it's clear that the
author is _not_ advocating that there's no difference between _any_ stereo
equipment. In fact, the thread that he's posting in is about how to choose the
right loudspeakers. The paragraph that was taken out of context is just part
of the author making a point to the other forum participants.

In another post (in the same thread), the author writes: _"Some systems sound
boring, some are absolutely alive (such as on large horn speakers). Others are
polite, compressed, but accurate (Martin Logans, Quads). Then again, others
are explosive and extremely good at creating 'illusion' of reality such as
Wilson Wamm, and like speakers in the $50,000 to $125,000.00 bracket. They
draw you into an altered state of mind (hypnosis)"_ [1]. It seems to me that
he's saying he can hear the difference between speakers, which is exactly
contrary to the conclusion that you're using his words to support. "Audiophile
equipment" and "mundane equipment" includes more than just speaker cables.

[1] <http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15419-post31.html>

------
Derbasti
If working in the audio industry and studying the topic at university has
taught me anything about audiophilia, then that would be the fact that
audiophiles tend to fail to take room acoustics seriously.

Realistically, any half decent source and amplifier will introduce practically
no distortion compared to what the combination of the speaker (and placement)
and the listening room introduce. The only thing that makes loudspeakers
viable really is our uncanny ability to make sense of room acoustical
distortions. Thus, we can sense the true sound even though it has been mangled
by echos, reverberations and room modes.

However, we can still hear the distortion--and much more so than the
comparatively small distortions introduced by sources, amplifiers or cables.

The thing is, if you really want some stellar sound from your home stereo, it
does not make much sense to spend more than a couple thousand bucks on audio
equipment without significantly improving your room acoustics. A $1000 sound
system in a good room will always outperform any system in a bad room. So if
you really want to improve your sound, you should probably look into room
acoustical measures.

I have heard some > $40k sound systems in purpose-built rooms. The result is
really amazing. If you close your eyes, even a trained ear will have
difficulties discerning the recording from the original. In one recording
studio, they had a $100k sound system. However, they also had a room to match
it: The room was physically decoupled from the outside world (the whole room
was standing on rubber feet, so to speak), it had special double windows, a
purpose-built air conditioning and above all, loads of sound absorbing
material and architecture.

And frankly, if you really are serious about sound quality, this is the kind
of effort you have to make in order to get there. Spending the same money on
more expensive speakers won't help.

------
sixbrx
Before laying down any money, I'd recommend heading over to hydrogen audio
(<http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/>) and reading around for a while, or
asking questions. As part of their terms of service, they require listening
test data to back up any claims of audible differences. It makes for some
pretty interesting discussions, and it's changed my outlook quite a bit. It's
also probably saved me quite a bit of money.

------
syassami
Audiophile & Student checking in here. Most people don't realize that there is
gold on craigslist that older crowd is throwing out due to their wives nagging
("These speakers are too big.." etc) I've put together an amazing system using
Polk SDA-2b's, Parasound HCA-1200, & Onkyo TS-DX787(as a preamp)(donated) and
behringer uca-202 DAC for under 300 dollars. Cables are all monoprice and it
blows my mind that people pay more for snake-oil cables.

Being an audiophile is rather cheap once you gather the knowledge on forums
(audiokarma.org) and patience at craigslist/thriftstores/ebay.

~~~
joevandyk
How do you know which of the older stuff is good?

~~~
syassami
In this day and age, you can just look up the model number and read a review
on it, and find plenty of reviews on forums. After a short while you find out
what makes a quality model and not (construction quality, driver quality etc).
Best way imo is to start looking stuff up and reading.

------
nathan_long
You know, blind testing is a really nice mind hack. For instance, I've
discovered that I can't tell the difference between two brands of tea I liked,
one of which is cheaper and easier to find.

This is a huge win! I haven't lost Refinement Points because I don't need to
buy fancy tea. But I _have_ gained money and convenience.

If you're an audiophile, wine lover, or anyone else who spends a lot for
quality that "others can't appreciate", I humbly suggest that you put yourself
to a test. If you pass, your sophisticated taste is validated. If you fail,
you can spend a lot less money and be content knowing you're getting just as
good an experience.

~~~
jasonwatkinspdx
I really think you have to go through the experience of blind testing to
really get it at a visceral level how wrong your gut feeling can be and how
much you're projecting what information you know onto your sensory experience.

~~~
Derbasti
If you get enjoyment out of expensive stuff and you don't need the money
otherwise, what's the harm?

Retail therapy works, sadly. I personally think that anything that gives you
enjoyment and does not harm others is a good thing.

Seeing that expensive tea is just as good as cheap tea will just make me
depressed about our economy ;-)

~~~
nathan_long
I don't understand what you're saying. The harm is that you're _losing money_.
Even if you're a complete materialist/hedonist and happy with that, this makes
sense for you. The money you save on tea can be spent on music, or massage, or
sushi. Why wouldn't you want that?

It's also possible that you'll find you actually like the more expensive tea
better, which is fine. Then you'll know it's money well spent.

If you really get enjoyment out of expensive stuff _because it's expensive_ ,
I'd be happy to sell you some milk for $300 a gallon. Trust me, it's the best.
I'll put a fancy label on it and everything.

~~~
Derbasti
Most times I value my time higher than my money and hence skip the research
and enjoy my tea. And don't care one bit if there is a cheaper brand of tea
out there that would be of higher quality.

~~~
nathan_long
OK, I totally agree about the time vs money tradeoff, but in my case I was
taking extra time to special order something which 5 minutes' experimentation
showed was unnecessary. Same could be said for an audiophile looking for
perfect speakers instead of buying whatever is at the store.

------
goostavos
The premise of "perfect sound" is almost antithetical to the current state of
the audiophile world. Some of the most expensive, well reviewed "audiophile"
systems have _worse_ specs than your run of the mill, mid-fi system. Heck,
look at the obsession with vinyl, no matter which way you look at it, no
matter how much superstition you have, the simple _fact_ is that it has poorer
fidelity than a CD. That "magic" quality that makes vinyl sound better than
digital? Distortion. Albeit a quite pleasing distortion, but a distortion non
the less. Plain and simple.

The world of audiophile gear is _nothing_ more than smoke and mirrors. The
human ear, just like the human eye, is.. well, rather poor. We have a very
small spectrum in which we operate. So these magazines like stereophile will
plop an osciliscope onto the latest piece of gear and marvel over the fact
that it's flat from 0 to a kazillion and then talk about its "creamy, refined
mids." Someone please kill me.

Audiophile USB cables, audiophile mode-correcting rocks, audiophile amps with
.00000000000001% THD, that damn marker to color your CDs with? All hooey. I
once read in a forum an anecdote about a guy switching from Monster, to some
other overpriced cable and being able to tell the difference from a room away.
This was not a tongue in cheek post.

The big problem is that this stuff is eerily close to religion. A bulk of the
hard-core, $7000 CD player audiophiles I know are actually rather well
educated -- engineers of one type or another, but they slip into cognitive
dissonance when it comes to anything relating to audio. A phrase uttered far
too frequently is "You can't measure what I'm hearing." Once that mindset is
adopted, confirmation bias is king. Here's a $4k pear audio cable. It'll
increase the air in the high end by around 15%.

[http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/audio-designline-
bl...](http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/audio-designline-
blog/4033511/Audio-Myths-Workshop-video)

------
dangravell
The logarithmic scale is the key insight. It would be interesting to ponder
whether there are any hobbies that involve buying stuff regularly that _don't_
feature this. I know from experience wine is very similar (and, of course,
value can be had if you know what you want to compromise).

------
rdl
A $100-500 set of headphones, decent headphone amp ($50-500), and FLAC files
will probably get you to "98" on the log scale, too.

(I'm a little wary of buying used headphones, at least without replacing all
the soft parts and cleaning thoroughly, though.)

~~~
fusiongyro
A $20 USB soundcard also seems to help, if your source is a laptop.

~~~
rdl
Yeah, what I meant by "amp" was integrated USB DAC + amp. I use a Headroom
Total Bithead, which isn't the best, but isn't the worst. I am not really sure
what the best in various price ranges would be.

There's huge variation in quality of headphone-out on computers. I'm sure some
are good, and most Apple products are at least ok, but I've usually found even
the lowest end (CMOY, Filo, etc.) is a big improvement.

(plus, the amp is really helpful for high-impedance headphones. Mine range
from ~30 to ~600 Ohm.)

------
danboarder
Very high quality audio reproduction can be hacked too, and audio enthusiasts
like myself know how to find deals and hacks to get superior performance with
much less money. For example, I have a circle of friends who upgrade the OPAMP
chips on their sound cards ($10) or use Sonic T-Amp ($30 triclass T-Class
digital amp rivaling hifi tube amplifiers) paired with passive studio monitors
from Wharfedale, Celestion, or Tannoy (around $200 on ebay when recording
studios upgrade to powered monitors).

edit - added references:

<http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/sonicimpact/t_2.html>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_T_amplifier>

<http://www.auzentech.com/site/products/opamp_intro.php>

------
jasonwatkinspdx
There is conclusive data on what we want from reproduction systems: [1][2].
Sad that a place calling itself priconomics can't even google for the most
straightforward econometric study on the topic.

Engineering for the above metrics is straightforward, and not particularly
costly. Even a 10k system can tie for top rank in blind tests if you pay
attention to the details that actually have leverage against perception. If
you're paying 250k for a home audio system, you're being sold an expensive
trinket through a narrative of fetishism.

[1]: <http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12794>

[2]:
[http://www.waynejones.net/wayne/documents/T&MW_Harman_Ar...](http://www.waynejones.net/wayne/documents/T&MW_Harman_Article.pdf)

------
Lukeas14
"At the same time, it’s hard not to think that audiophiles are on the wrong
side of history. As the rest of the world joyfully listens to Spotify and
Pandora on their iPhones, audiophiles still listen to CDs! The march of
technological progress has many casualties, and sound quality may just be one
of them. The product desires of audiophiles are so idiosyncratic and contrary
to popular tastes; they have an uphill battle to protect sound quality against
faster, cheaper and more social access to music."

This is not how I see it going down. There are a couple reasons why older
formats of music aren't going anywhere and will always serve as compliments to
the newer digital formats.

The biggest difference between buying CDs/Vinyl vs. a subscription to
Spotify/Pandora is ownership. For the foreseeable future there will be a
significant market of people, including audiophiles and DJs who want to own
the music they buy rather than lease it. And it's now possible for regular to
receive the benefits of both formats by buying CDs, ripping them to a media
server and then streaming them to your phone or tablet using services such as
Audiogalaxy and Google Music.

The other reason is the lack of innovation in high quality audio formats. As
evidenced by the failure of SACD, the demand is simply not big enough to
support the research and marketing of new physical mediums designed solely for
music. In the future we will be forced to rely on CDs (which are never the
weakest link anyways in an audiophiles system) or piggyback onto other, more
popular formats such as Bluray for 5.1+ high quality audio.

~~~
Yhippa
I can't help but think that for the average person this guy is right. The
audiophiles are going deeper and deeper into owning high-quality media to play
on their high-quality systems.

I have several large boxes of CD's which I know look at with scorn. I haven't
used a CD or even a ripped copy of them in years. I've tried Audiogalaxy,
Google Music, iTunes Match, and Amazon MP3. It takes a lot of effort to
migrate your music to each of those services.

What I've found by using subscription services is what the author is saying:
cheaper, faster, and more social access to music. Audiophiles will continue to
have their niche but I tend to agree that that is not the way history is
going.

------
sankyo
By the time most people could afford any of this equipment their hearing has
probably degraded to such a point that they can only hear 12kHz to 14kHz
anyway.

Although unscientific, I played some tones on youtube in the office and the
twenty somethings could hear almost 20kHz and the forty somethings couldn't
hear anything by the time the frequency sweep was just below 15kHz.

~~~
tarabukka
Depends on how the video's audio was compressed and what you were playing it
on.

------
MetalMASK
Usually priceonomics provides statistics from a large poll of
customer/purchase record, .etc. That _is_ information you couldn't gain
elsewhere. Somewhat like an analytics publication.

This article is just a description of a shopping experience, together with the
research result you have to do before you buy something that is a new category
to you.

Oh well.

------
jtheory
I could (but don't) call myself an audiophile -- I love the world of sound
around me.

I notice the aural qualities of every room I enter; when I'm in a small space
with hard walls, I hum a bit to identify the pitch that will make the room
resonate. (I'll bet some with perfect pitch could measure the space between
two walls quite accurately with their eyes closed by learning the wave
sizes...).

I notice when someone's speech or laugh in my house causes sympathetic
vibrations on the strings of my acoustic bass guitar in the corner. Or on the
metal cover of the radiator.

I've spent decades learning to produce sound, from various instruments
including the built-in ones (like whistling, body percussion, various forms of
vocal music including Tuuvan throat singing), to making music from objects
never intended to be instruments. When I listen to others making music I pick
it apart in my head.

There are lots of people with better-trained ears than I have, who make better
music as well -- so moving on: how much money have I spent on audio
reproduction equipment?

Probably less than $500 in my lifetime.

The music I'm listening to the most right now are performances of the
Brandenburg Concertos, from YouTube, played from a Macbook Air speaker in
another room, while I march up and down the stairs with a baby over my
shoulder.

I like the way it echoes up the narrow stairs, and how there's one spot
partway up that's more resonant than anywhere else. I can't hear subtle
details -- so what? I know what that sounds like already; my brain can fill in
the missing bits. And there's no possible playback that can reproduce actually
_performing_ music -- imagine tje cello vibrating against your body and
filling your ears, the thrumming pushback of the bow against your hand -- and
these are the things worth having in your head when you listen to someone more
accomplished playing a piece.

I'll probably get a decent set of speakers someday (though I can't imagine
paying more than I'd pay for an actual well-made instrument), but any playback
is unavoidably a shadow of the actual performance; I can't imagine caring
deeply about getting a perfectly crisp shadow (as long as I get a reasonably
clear one) when I'm just using it to imagine the real thing anyway.

------
exabrial
Um... You COULD spend a lot of money, or you could learn some basic electronic
and woodworking skills. I built a set of ZDT3.5's (Google it) for $250. I
built (from various kit pieces) my own T-amp for $75 to power them. Your Mac
already has a great sound card capable of extreme sample playback rates. A
couple of FLAC recordings later, you're in business.

------
dhugiaskmak
It depends on how much wire coat hangers cost.

[http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/coat-hanger-wire-is-
just-...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/coat-hanger-wire-is-just-as-good-
as-a-high-quality-speaker-cable/19366)

------
smacktoward
Answer: how much have you got?

------
jivatmanx
For Music:

1\. USB DAC 2\. Magnepan Speakers 3\. Stereo Receiver

For movies or games you'll want surround and a sub

