What Earns The Title "Audiophile"?

[nopiano]

A genuine question not a put down .... how much better will that sound compared to maybe a £500 / 700 amplifier and say Monitor Audio Silver 300's @ £800?

Is there going to be a £6000 noticeable difference in sound that someone that appreciates music will walk into a room with one playing and say it's garbage and walk into the other room and say WOW.

A very significant difference, easily detectable, and no need for blindfolds! I’ve compared my passive SCM40 with their active version, and the active is clearly better in every respect.

 

[Al ears]

A very significant difference, easily detectable, and no need for blindfolds! I’ve compared my passive SCM40 with their active version, and the active is clearly better in every respect.

Interesting, what was the cost of the amplifier you had powering the passives?

 

[nopiano]

Interesting, what was the cost of the amplifier you had powering the passives?

It was an Audia Flight FLS10 integrated which retails at about £9000, from Elite Audio. My pal had actives and passives in the same room, but he sold the passives.

More recently, I auditioned the Actives at Audio T, Bristol while my passives at home were connected to my NordNC500 OneUP power amp, the current price of which is about £1700. The actives are pretty much unbeatable imho at £7400, though I know that’s not exactly bargain territory.

 

[Gray]

The actives are pretty much unbeatable imho at £7400, though I know that’s not exactly bargain territory.

That's true, not a bargain.
But when compared with the £9000 you mention for the amp alone - on the face of it, they look like good value.

 

[Al ears]

That's true, not a bargain.
But when compared with the £9000 you mention for the amp alone - on the face of it, they look like good value.

that's what I was trying to ascertain, how much do you have to spend on an amp that, along with the passive speakers, is going to sound better than the actives?
Seems like £7400 is a veritable bargain....

 

[manicm]

that's what I was trying to ascertain, how much do you have to spend on an amp that, along with the passive speakers, is going to sound better than the actives?
Seems like £7400 is a veritable bargain....

Yet much hate has been shown for the £6000 active KEF LS60.

 

[nopiano]

that's what I was trying to ascertain, how much do you have to spend on an amp that, along with the passive speakers, is going to sound better than the actives?
Seems like £7400 is a veritable bargain....

Yep, I reckon so. In his review of the bigger SCM50 models, MArtin Colloms used about £30k of Naim amps and thought they were fractionally better than the actives which cost c. £15k all in! The review is reprinted on ATCs website.

 

[Al ears]

Yet much hate has been shown for the £6000 active KEF LS60.

where?
Totally different speaker manufacturer that cannot be guaranteed to get everything right, or was it the cost you were referring to?

 

[manicm]

where?
Totally different speaker manufacturer that cannot be guaranteed to get everything right, or was it the cost you were referring to?

If you're honest with yourself many on the forum thought the LS60, with 700w power per speaker onboard, was overpriced.

 

[Dom]

I always thought that an audiophile is someone who will take the extra step to ensure listening enjoyment.

 

[davidf]

I always thought that an audiophile is someone who will take the extra step to ensure listening enjoyment.

Agree. It is/was a benign description - now it just seems to have become a toxic, negative one.

 

[Dom]

Agree. It is/was a benign description - now it just seems to have become a toxic, negative one.

Well audiophile and audiophool are a synonym.

 

[davidf]

Well audiophile and audiophool are a synonym.

One is positive, one is negative - both are treated alike though, which I think is wrong. But that’s what you’re up against nowadays - facts mean ****** all.

 

[Dom]

One is positive, one is negative - both are treated alike though, which I think is wrong. But that’s what you’re up against nowadays - facts mean ****** all.

Audiophiles post because they have something to say; Audiophools post because the have to say something.

 

[Al ears]

Well audiophile and audiophool are a synonym.

this I would strongly disagree with, an audiophile would not refer to himself as such, it is a label others attach.

 

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

Audiophiles post because they have something to say; Audiophools post because the have to say something.

Then they aren't synonyms, are they?

It seems an unfortunate aspect of life that so many seem to feel the need to have others to look down upon - maybe that's just me...

 

[daveh75]

But that’s what you’re up against nowadays - facts mean ****** all.

The irony...

 

[manicm]

This guy probably qualifies. And this is a good review.

IT ROCKS...HARD.. Full Hi-Fi SYSTEM for $1k from Emotiva. - YouTube

 

[lathe_record_cutter]

I think Wikipedia answers this question quite well:

An audiophile is a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction. An audiophile seeks to reproduce the sound of a live musical performance, typically in a room with good acoustics. It is widely agreed that reaching this goal is very difficult and that even the best-regarded recording and playback systems rarely, if ever, achieve it.

Audiophile values may be applied at all stages of music reproduction: the initial audio recording, the production process, and the playback, which is usually in a home setting. In general, the values of an audiophile are seen to be antithetical to the growing popularity of more convenient but lower quality music, especially lossy digital file types like MP3, lower definition streaming services, and inexpensive headphones.

I don't consider myself an audiophile because I'm not primarily looking for the original sound. Rather, I look for the best sound (for me) with the best possible quality.

In my opinion, an audiophile should not use tone controls on their amplifier and should only use master (FLAC) files.

Thomas