PDA

View Full Version : audiophile cred



John J. Stimson-III
2005-02-17, 15:46
Ralph Edington wrote:
>I have met only one person, in the flesh, and within the last year
>(not in the 80s or 90s), who claimed to be an audiophile. This
>person (a man) was indeed an absolute vinyl nut and had a great
>disdain for all things digitized. He was also stuck on listening to
>70's progressive rock. No kidding. He also wouldn't shake hands
>with anyone, for fear of germs. I really am NOT kidding in the
>slightest.

Howdy Ralph,

I'm an audiophile. I listen to my music through equipment from brands
that most people have never even heard of. I bought a pair of
Vandersteen speakers, used, when I was in college, even though I
couldn't afford any fancy electronics to go with them. I kept them
until I built my own speakers, complete with active electronic
crossovers. I recognize that there's a "tube sound" that's
qualitatively distinct from solid-state. It is indeed appealing in
certain ways, but my own equipment is all silicon-based.

I listen to many different kinds of music, much of which I could not
categorize for you. I even listen to 70s progressive rock even though
I never listened to it in the 70s. It's great stuff, but the
recording quality is crap by modern standards. The vinyl versions
aren't really any better. I think your friend is a bit of a wacko for
obsessing about the sound quality of 70s progressive rock. On the
other hand, maybe his chosen equipment carefully masks the flaws in
those recordings and enhances the features that sound good.

When I got my Squeezebox, I listened to it, listened to my CD player,
measured it, measured my CD player, and the next day ordered a
well-regarded outboard D/A converter.

Maybe you think I'm a wacko too, but at least I've doubled your data
set and given you a little contrast with the first sample.

Pleased to meetcha'.

--

john (AT) idsfa (DOT) net John Stimson
http://www.idsfa.net/~john/ HMC Physics '94

Marc Sherman
2005-02-17, 15:49
John J. Stimson-III wrote:
>
> Maybe you think I'm a wacko too, but at least I've doubled your data
> set and given you a little contrast with the first sample.

But do you shake hands? :)

- Marc