AUDIOPHILES: Are We Buying "THINGS" or "EXPERIENCES?"

[dorakeg]

For myself, I am more of things. I am a Krell fan due to what I read about Krell when I was young. So, right now, I am looking out for old Krell stuff and buying them once in a while. Its simply just to satisfy my personal desire since I could never afford them back then. In this case, I would classify it as things.

However, having said that, its also related to experience. Based on what I read about the Krell and its performance, I thought it willl give much better experience compared to mainstream gear.

 

[Gorgonzola]

Ultimately I think the large majority of audiophile, (and I don't necessarily exclude myself), are buying experiences. But what is the nature of those experiences?

Unfortunately those experiences are not purely & exclusively enjoyment of SOTA sound. Obvious evidence is the some many buy worthless, often expensive gadgets or "tweaks" that don't actually improve the sound. More evidence, I'd argue, is obsession many have to churning old equipment for new that is simply different not better. What is this all about? Further it's clear that some of us hoping for the the prestige of owning expensive, "high-end" equipment that is, (again), not necessarily better that modestly price stuff.

 

[fpitas]

I have a pretty utilitarian viewpoint. I pick up stuff I intend to use; the 'buying and acquiring' buzz does nothing for me; it's more of a burden (time spent researching, selecting, integrating, etc.). Being a musician, I only select instruments and gear I will use. I admit to having about 17 guitars, a recording studio, a piano, a keyboard, 3 synthesizers, and a variety of other instruments, guitar pedals, a bunch of good mics, mic stands, speaker stands, etc. that I use when recording. But the key thing is I use everything I have.

Since I am not wealthy, most of this gear was bought used.

There is a fascination some musicians (and apparently audiophiles with hardware gear) have with getting the 'latest and greatest' new stuff, called GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome). The website formerly known as gearslutz.com (now gearspace.com) panders to this neurosis.

VST plugins are an example for recording nerds like me. It's easy to collect thousands of these, but each has a learning curve, each has a cost of ownership, and most importantly will suck time from my life that could be better spent writing and recording music.

So, to me, the choice is simple. If it doesn't get used regularly, it is removed...

I'm with you. I don't want to just own a bunch of stuff, no matter how blingy it is. And no one will be impressed, no matter how expensive it is.

 

[JiiPee]

Many "audiophile forums" (to be clear: I'm not talking about asr) live in a kind of symbiosis with the HiFi-industry and use a model borrowed from Scientology. The members are told that by investing more money - in this case by buying more expensive equipment - they reach to the next level of sophistication and consequently gain higher status amongst their peer group. In another words, audiophiles buy prestige.

 

[fpitas]

Many "audiophile forums" (to be clear: I'm not talking about asr) live in a kind of symbiosis with the HiFi-industry and use a model borrowed from Scientology. The members are told that by investing more money - in this case by buying more expensive equipment - they reach to the next level of sophistication and consequently gain higher status amongst their peer group. In another words, audiophiles buy prestige.

Yes, and naturally all the snake-oil salesman congregate there. We see them try to make inroads here all the time. I think a number of our "trolls" have a far more sinister purpose to their nonsense.

 

[JayGilb]

My audio chain consists of equipment that was purchased used and for the most part non-functioning. My listening room is buried in the lowest level of my house and few people even know that there are racks of equipment in that room.
I just like tinkering around with sound and am not a purist. I use plugins to alter the sound of my system as well as lots of hardware boxes that I can patch in.

So I am buying things for experimentation.

 

[fpitas]

My system started as a lab to teach myself speaker design. Of course like expected, things got out of hand rapidly.

 

[dorakeg]

Many "audiophile forums" (to be clear: I'm not talking about asr) live in a kind of symbiosis with the HiFi-industry and use a model borrowed from Scientology. The members are told that by investing more money - in this case by buying more expensive equipment - they reach to the next level of sophistication and consequently gain higher status amongst their peer group. In another words, audiophiles buy prestige.

For this, I have to say only very few people does that. Not everyone could spend hundreds of thousands on hifi gear.

I would say that most only spend thousands on a gear. 20-30k on speakers or an amp is out of reach to most, let alone those exotic stuff costing 6 figures.

 

[fpitas]

For this, I have to say only very few people does that. Not everyone could spend hundreds of thousands on hifi gear.

I would say that most only spend thousands on a gear. 20-30k on speakers or an amp is out of reach to most, let alone those exotic stuff costing 6 figures.

You might be surprised how many do, though.

 

[JayGilb]

You might be surprised how many do, though.

That might be an interesting topic. "Just how deep into debt do some audiophiles go to acquire their system ?"
I'm married with children, so my expenses were never directed toward gear acquisition. Had I been single, who knows ?

 

[fpitas]

That might be an interesting topic. "Just how deep into debt do some audiophiles go to acquire their system ?"
I'm married with children, so my expenses were never directed toward gear acquisition. Had I been single, who knows ?

Some older guys have a lot of spare cash, and no kids at home. They become easy prey for the unicorn and fairy-dust regimen.

 

[anotherhobby]

Many "audiophile forums" (to be clear: I'm not talking about asr) live in a kind of symbiosis with the HiFi-industry and use a model borrowed from Scientology. The members are told that by investing more money - in this case by buying more expensive equipment - they reach to the next level of sophistication and consequently gain higher status amongst their peer group. In another words, audiophiles buy prestige.

The problem with this generalization is that a not insignificant amount of the population values their rich inner world (you know this if you have it) far more than the external world (such as the media, peer groups, and other externalizations). For those people, the reasons will be almost entirely internalized and have close to zero to do with recognition in peer groups or peer identity (unless that peer identity involves iner world thinking). However, I'll conced that you are likely covering well over half the population. Just be aware that at least 20% of the general population will not identify with your characterization at all.

 

[fpitas]

The problem with this generalization is that a not insignificant amount of the population values their rich inner world (you know this if you have it) far more than the external world (such as the media, peer groups, and other externalizations). For those people, the reasons will be almost entirely internalized and have close to zero to do with recognition in peer groups or peer identity (unless that peer identity involves iner world thinking). However, I'll conced that you are likely covering well over half the population. Just be aware that at least 20% of the general population will not identify with your characterization at all.

I think you're right, and some think they are genuinely discovering things that "normal" listeners can't or won't hear. They are indoctrinated that way on those other forums.

 

[anotherhobby]

I think you're right, and some think they are genuinely discovering things that "normal" listeners can't or won't hear. They are indoctrinated that way on those other forums.

I've spent much of my life asking questions to people about environmental noises I hear, like some a drip, a hum, or something else. With a high degree of accuracy, most of the responses share a common theme: ALL of them heard the noise as soon as I identified it for them, and then when asked if they had noticed the sound before I brought it to their attention, about 80% of them did not notice it. Nobody is hearing any better than anybody esle, but some people do indeed notice and experince the nuances and subltles more congitively, strongly, and deeply than others. This squares completely with biology.

 

[ahofer]

I've spent much of my life asking questions to people about environmental noises I hear, like some a drip, a hum, or something else. With a high degree of accuracy, most of the responses share a common theme: ALL of them heard the noise as soon as I identified it for them, and then when asked if they had noticed the sound before I brought it to their attention, about 80% of them did not notice it. Nobody is hearing any better than anybody esle, but some people do indeed notice and experince the nuances and subltles more congitiviely, strontly, and deeply than others. This squares completely with biology.

I don't think this is about biology so much as attention. I concede that attention can be affected by biology, but it is largely trained.

 

[Zensō]

I agree, that like so many hobbies, it’s both. Other examples include, fly fishing, photography, cycling, and music production. All are gear heavy, all can provide memorable experiences.

 

[anotherhobby]

I don't think this is about biology so much as attention. I concede that attention can be affected by biology, but it is largely trained.

It absolutely is biology, but yes attention is directly realted, and the biology explains it. If you are curious to learn about it so you can understand it, there is a massive amount of reserach behind it and it's fascinating. It's genetic, observable from birth, on MRI brain scans, and in all sorts of other ways. The strongest and easiest indicator is self identification. If you don't identfy with it, or don't have a reserach background in this area, it may be hard to understand as it's difficult to compare inner experiences. For those that do self-identify, this book is usually described as completely changing their life (this is true for me).

 

[ahofer]

It absolutely is biology, but yes attention is directly realted, and the biology explains it. If you are curious to learn about it so you can understand it, there is a massive amount of reserach behind it and it's fascinating. It's genetic, observable from birth, on MRI brain scans, and in all sorts of other ways. The strongest and easiest indicator is self identification. If you don't identfy with it, or don't have a reserach background in this area, it may be hard to understand as it's difficult to compare inner experiences. For those that do self-identify, this book is usually described as completely changing their life (this is true for me).

I'm gonna file that one with Myers-Briggs for now, as the research seems to be only at that level. Interesting link though. And it covers emotional sensitivity as much or more than strictly auditory.

 

[anotherhobby]

I'm gonna file that one with Myers-Briggs for now, as the research seems to be only at that level. Interesting link though. And it covers emotional sensitivity as much or more than strictly auditory.

You have filed it away incorrectly and you don't understand it, but it's likely of little consequence to you. I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[ahofer]

You have filed it away incorrectly and you don't understand it, but it's likely of little consequence to you. I wouldn't worry about it.

True, I haven't given it much time. Personality Type research has a bad record.

(my personality type is Bayesian..)