I've been lucky enough to work in a couple of reasonably specified recording studios, and find it quite funny that some people think that the only way to listen to the end result (let's say that it's on CD for now) is to use cables that cost about four times more than the interconnects used to make the recording in the first place.

In my opinion, great music doesn't need to be perfectly reproduced in order to affect the listener; quite the reverse, because it's easy for music which sounds fantastic to leave a listener completely un-moved. In my case that is anything by Steely Dan, Donald Fagan, et al, - really well recorded and played (and would probably sound fantastic in 5.1 on SACD), but slightly dull emotionally. I appreciate that others may feel differently.

I bet he played Moby's "Go".

I need a third choice - "A turntable and a pile of vinyl albums from 1974". One of the most notable audiophile-centric conversations I've had was with the purchaser of an early CD-based set up, whose proudest moment was putting on a Eurythmics album at full blast and saying "listen - you can't hear anything!" just before the first track kicked in. It went downhill from there.

Definitely something in this, in my experience. I think it's because the kind of person who is at all interested in hi-fi (beyond wanting something reasonably decent to hear music on) tends to be a slightly geeky, nerdish bloke i.e. the subsect of the human race with the most tedious taste in music.
The Tamla Motown studio engineers had a special set of speakers, designed to replicate the cheap tinny sound of car radios at the time, on which to "roadtest" recordings. If it sounded good through them it sounded good through anything. And if it's good enough for Tamla Motown . . .

Let's throw in another element that I've never bought into. Those expensive, heavyweight vinyl re-issues of 'classic' rock albums that you used to see (probably still can somewhere). Did they really sound that much better than the original, ordinary release? I'd go for something better than a real cheapo Dixons box, which even my kids gave up on in their younger days, but I'd never buy a gold-plated jackplug.
(Is there such a thing as a female audiophile? I doubt it).

...used to insist that a completed mix be taken out to the car and driven around LA because that's how people would listen to it. On the radio, presumably, not just in LA. It's the musos that bring this sort of thing up. A drummer friend of mine swore he was able to tell the difference between the drum programming on the first release of Seal's album and the second pressing/remix. The rest of us just went "Wasn't that the thing he did with Adamski?". Over dinner.

around five thousand CD's...and a Sony Walkman. ( Good headphones mind ). Never trust anyone whose Hi Fi is worth more than their record collection.

Depends what I'm listening to. For the most part, it doesn't matter (and given that I enjoy most music in heavily compressed mp3 on a pair of £7.99 headphones, this is probably a good thing). But... some things I like because so much effort has been put into the way the record sounds. If you're listening to Cornelius, for instance, then you're not getting the full experience unless you're using a reasonably decent hi-fi.

I'd at least want to use it to play back proper CDs, not crappy MP3s at some alarmingly paucous bitrate.

I can't help despairing at the chronic audio quality a lot of people seem to be happy to accept pumped into their lugs, often through headphones of Christmas Cracker quality.

I keep around 50 Gb of 320 Mbps MP3s on my laptop, and fellow workers are often "borrowing" some of it, but I rarely accept their offer of MP3s in return, as so many of them will bung me a pendrive or a CD-R full of badly encoded, shite quality files that just give me earache!

Of the 2 choices, I'd err on option 2's side...maybe.

But here's the thing. Why assume that someone with an expensive hi-fi only has a few records/cd's etc. to play on it?

Yes, there's going to be examples of people like that, but then there's going to be people who have rotten sounding systems and virtually no music too. There'll be people with mega systems and record collections that you need a golf buggy just to get to the Animal Nightlife 12 inchers.

Exhibit A - Brer Ellen of this parish has often spoken on podcasts of how he uses valve amps - an audiophile niche/affectation if ever there was one - AND he had to get his loft joists reinforced to handle the mass of recorded material therein.

Personally, I've got a decent sized collection, not massive, not meagre (couple of thousand items, split between cd & vinyl), and I've got a modest, but proper hi-fi system. You know, Cambridge, Tannoy and that. Costs a bit more than a Comet special, but less than some of these runs of cable mentioned earlier. I reckon the extra fidelity it gives is worth it, without becoming bogged down in minutiae. Listening to your system instead of listening to the music is tragic, and a line I will never cross.

People have a threshold of competence for what they will accept in sound reproduction. I don't want to know if the bass player had a kebab before the recording session, because I can hear the grease on his fingers, but I do want to know if there's actually a bass player present at all, or if it's a computer part. Horses for courses, I reckon.

A converse argument to the one starting the thread could be "How could someone call themselves a music lover, if they only listen on the most basic kit and lose all the production values the artist has laboured over, so are effectively only listening to a small part of the music?" To my mind (such as it is) both arguments are equally as valid and as specious as each other.

...I listened to music on a bottom-of-the-range cassette player, with built-in speakers. These days I listen to compact discs on a decent hi-fi system.

The difference in sound quality between the two players must be enormous. My passion for music has remained constant - the same now as it was then.

A couple of years back my aged Auntie Amy died. I inherited her Dansette and a shed load of records, one of which was a scratched to buggery Hank Williams 10" EP. Hank Williams sounds better on that dansette than any remastered CD, it feels like music.

Ironically one advantage of a good hifi is being able to listen to music quietly but it still sound good. Most of us can't listen to music at any volume (family, neighbours etc) so music sounding good on whisper mode is essential. Alot mp3 do sound tinny and thin if you play that out loud.
Having said all this the manufactuers are encouraging you to buy the equivalent of midprice hifi with your Ipod eg one classic Ipod £250 quid, decent earphones £15-80, docking speakers £50-250. all told much more than most people use to spend on cheapy alba stereo.

I am in the "nice stereo but not audiophile" camp - nice Arcam CD player and amp, but I'm in no way an audiophile. Anyway, when I got around to buying some speaker stands the shop recommended that I add the supplied silver sand gradually to "tune" them to the room, and finally, the piece de la resistance, a large bit of Blue tac under each corner to "bond" the speaker to the stand. Naturally I couldn't be arsed to "tune" speaker stands with sand, but out of interest I did "blue tac" one speaker first, and using the pan control had a listen to whether they sounded different. Fuck me, they did - not to a world changing degree, but definately more, err, focussed. So I did the other one. Incidentally the shop's other recommendation - to sink 4 posidrive screws into the polished wooden floor for the "spikes" to stand in, froze on his lips in the steely gaze of my good wife.

Cost in pounds of stereo system should not exceed number of records you own.

Got 50 cds? A 50 quid hi fi from Dixons will do nicely.

Got 1000 of them? It's probably reasonable to spend a bit more on your system to get the best value out of your records.

I fall somewhere between the two camps. I spent enough money on a stereo to get sound I was pleased with but think spending more than, say, 500 pounds on a system is frankly unneccessary.

Another bugbear: people who spend a fortune on a top end stereo system, then have both left and right speakers sitting on a carpet behind the same armchair in the corner of the room, so it still sounds rubbish.

Putting your speakers in the right place means you can get great sound from a really cheap system

I think that a lot of music from the 1960s and 70s still sounds so crisp and dynamic now is *because* it was effectively written, recorded, and produced on Dansette level equipment - wasn't Sgt Pepper recorded on a two track - with the intention of sounding good on a dansette or tinny transistor. If you wanted people to listen, it was absolutely vital it sounded punchy.

People who obsess about hi-fi worry more about the signal carrier than the signal itself. In my younger days I was happy thrashing around to Charles by The Skids on my Fidelity turn table....really, would it be a better experience sitting down to hear the same thing on a B and O system (or whatever is trendy with audiophiles).

Some people might say; "yes, but some music is designed to be heard on high end equipment" And to me that is the point music become antiseptic. I know, say Dark side of the moon is supposed to be a classic "audio experience," but crucially to me, it still sounds great on my 10 year old walkman. As does classical music - Mozart did not write for a guy sitting in a quiet darkened room wearing Lamborgini-level cans attached to a space shuttle control system.

I think the term audiophiles give it away a "lover of sound" *not* a music lover!

What gives any of these inverted snobs the right to comment on the rights and wrongs of whether my music collection costs more than my music system?

Surely that is a personal choice based on personal circumstances and the "rules" should also be personal not governed by others.

What is it? Is it inverted snobbery or is it jealousy?

it's just fun.

I have around 2000 cd's and a B&O Beosound so consider I have best of both worlds. However this somewhat misses the point. I recall going round to a friends house and we were listening to his cd collection - Bowie I believe. Anyway he was really getting off on the music but it didnt sound right to me. Is there something wrong with your stereo? I asked. He was adamant it was working perfectly okay until I pointed out one of his speakers wasnt working.This obviously hadnt impaired his enjoyment of the music one iota so does it really matter?

Q. How many audiophiles does it take to change a light bulb?

A. Three. One to change it and two to argue how much better the old one was.

Not sure what the definition of an audiophile is but as my system is worth more than my (reasonable) car I probably qualify. And what's wrong with anoraks anyway? You don't know what you're missing until you've spent 2 hours cleaning all the contacts on your hi-fi to ensure the electrons can find their way round a bit better (actually not tried that one myself yet).

Oh and did you know that cables are directional, they work better one way round than the other. No I'm not sure either, but check an expensive cable and you will probably find an arrow on it to help you get it the right way round.

But if we want to indulge ourselves what the hell, it's better than trainspotting (warmer too if you use valves)

ps in my defense the CD collection passed the 1,000 mark a year or so ago.

pps re a comment above, that explains why Dave Stewart's (and Annie's) records sound so tinny. Great music, crap sound.

ppps best of both worlds - Meridian F80. Table top CD radio for the audiophile. How much?!! £1500!!! Bugger. (no I don't work for them)

My hifi is all Linn, mainly put together in 1989 BC (Before Children), when I could afford such indulgences. I've never regretted it (children or Linn). However, carting several thousand LPs and CDs between different continents is a pain in the jacksie.

If you love music, you owe it to yourself to hear it on a great-sounding system. Stride boldly through the doors of your nearest specialist hifi emporium and insist on hearing the finest equipment known to humanity. It'll probably be British, and based on vinyl.

It just might change your life, or at least any lingering prejudices that say it has to be music OR audio quality.

I like to listen to music for hours on end, if I listen on a cheap tinny stereo then fatigue sets in.

However, I think that these days just about any cheap stereo will just about cut it. I would never upgrade my hi-fi at the expense of not being able to feed it properly.

Simlilar arguments are currently going on about DAB radio with FM enthusiasts seemingly unable to appreciate that some people consider that, despite the slightly lower sound quality, an alternative to the bland FM channels is essential.

Bland FM channels? Like Radio 2 that Mark Ellen was on the other day!?

And very good he was too. Something of an affinity between Messrs Radcliffe & Maconie and The Word. Got the feeling there is a link that I don't know about there having only been a subscriber for a year - anyone care to enlighten me.

DAB vs FM. Night and day in terms of quality even for stations transmitting in high quality. The benefit of DAB is more choice. Which is fine, if I could get DAB reliably where I live I'd have it - The Jazz being one station I'd listen to. Just don't switch off FM a la analogue TV please.

Internet radio extends the quantity / quality exchange further - huge choice, currently around 8,000 stations. And the sound quality is low in the majority of cases, abysmal in many. But still a good resource to get access to new music. I found some good Bluegrass stations that are well worth a listen. Good way to try new music.

Bottom line is that better sound quality communicates the emotion of music better. We all have different thresholds of acceptability, but hey, its a free world. And nothing comes close to live music, even the most ridiculously expensive system can't get anywhere near it.

In my years working behind the counter in record shops, I would come to recognise those customers who were more interested in the sound of their audio equipment than the music itself. It seemed that several such people, whilst having spent telephone numbers on their stereo, would spend their time fishing through the bargain bins for something inexpensive to play on it (rather than treating themselves to a nice MFSL audiophile pressing or similar).

Upon being offered some quality hi-fi separates for sale, I made the mistake of visiting one audiophile's house. But before I could complete the transaction and make my escape, I was treated to a demonstration of: -

- Speakers the size of large packing crates
- A turntable that more closely resembled a revolving space station
- An amplifier too heavy for one man to lift
- All connected with cable as thick as Frank Bruno's biceps

He proceeded to play...an LP of steam train sound effects that he'd bought from my shop a few weeks back for 49p. Yum!

The other unfortunate characteristic of such audiophiles was their tendency to return vinyl to the shop for the most inconsequential of reasons ("There's a very slight tick on side two between tracks three and four...oh, don't bother playing it on your deck in here, you won't hear it..."). It was as if their hyper-expensive equipment was allergic to playing records ("My tone arm tracks at 0.01 gram..."). It was not unusual for such time wasters eventually to be told, quite plainly, to fuck off.

In defence of seriously nice stereo gear, I would point out that many people who appear to have gone off listening to music in their advancing years, or those who simply have rotten tastes in music often seem to have piss-poor set-ups (i.e. Dixons Mini Systems) upon which to play their Celine Dion compilation albums. Similarly, those that rubbish the concept of paying huge sums for audio equipment seldom (or never) have heard a true high-end system.

One, I should add, that is not playing records by Seal, The Eurythmics or M-People. Or The Flying Scotsman.

"Oh and did you know that cables are directional, they work better one way round than the other. No I'm not sure either, but check an expensive cable and you will probably find an arrow on it to help you get it the right way round."

Decent hi-fi components are one thing but expensive cables and interconnects are a well known rip off. No-one has ever been able, in a properly controlled double-blind test, to tell the difference. Think about that the next time What Hi-Fi is reviewing speaker cables and gushing about the enhanced audio experience provided by some £50/metre oxygen-free-copper cable. Don't even get me started on 'audiophile-grade' power leads!

Hmmm... interesting. In a perfect world, I'd like both... great sound and tons of CDs. But at the end of the day, good music is good music whatever it's played on.

This reminds me, actually... years ago I took a 10 week course in sound engineering in Chilicothe, Ohio and was told by a visiting big name producer that Def Leppard would set up a link from the studio speakers to a cheap pair of car speakers in a gas guzzler parked outside so that they could hear what their music sounded like in the environment in which most people were going to listen to it. IMHO they shouldn't have bothered, but they understood that most folks weren't going to be playing their poodle rawk singalongs on $20,000 studio equipment. It had to sound... err... awesome, dude, on a cheap in-car stereo.

There is something spectacularly nerdy about audiophiles. I recently tested a new pair of speakers in a Hi-Fi shop and was dismayed to find that the demonstration CDs consisted of 'Brothers In Arms', 'The Dark Side Of The Moon' and Sade's 'Diamond Life'. It was as if time had stood still. Luckily I had brought Dr John's 'Gris Gris' album with me in case of just such an eventuality. The guy working there was appalled... I don't think he thought the full dynamic range of the speakers was being shown off properly. Never mind... I enjoyed myself...

I must say that I do prefer the sound of vinyl, but have no problem using compressed files on my ipod. I can hear the difference in quality, but I do like the portability of the thing! As for the difference in quality, I recently bought an original Billie Holiday lp (it was actually quite cheap for some strange reason!) that I only ever heard as mp3 and the difference was incredible! I also played some friends of mine an original copy of Jacko's "Thriller" and they were blown away by the sound, and I don't have a high end system, just a turntable from Argos(!) and some old B&W speakers that a friend gave me when he moved house! So, if I have a choice I'll always go for vinyl or cd but I still love my ipod!

Had a quick shufty at some of the Hi-Fi mags in the local newsagents this lunchtime (obviously tucking them inside the Feb edition of "Minge" to avoid embarrassment).

A couple of them aren't too bad - There's one called Hi-Fi World that loves vinyl, has a load of record & cd reviews in it, and reviewed a Yamaha little silver cube and black speakers which is apparently, in technical terms, los cojones del perro. Does cd/radio/DAB. £300 to you, guv. Can get it from the high street, amazon etc.

Doesn't sound too elitist to me.

Mind you, it looks like What Hi-Fi should actually be called What Telly.

Yeah, yeah, vinyl is warmer etc etc. And scratches. And wears out. And needs new needles a damn sight more often than ayone ever replaces the blighters.
Surely cassettes are likwise more organic, 8 track more vibrant and reel 2 reel more more still.
CDs sound pretty good on anything,top of range to cheapo cheerful, hence their appeal, with, actually not a lot to compare. Sure, great systems enhance vinyl to better levels still, but few possess the systems to play, the maintained pristine mint condition of the records or the ears to tell the difference. Or listen to "good enough" music recorded to a level where it matters. If it ever does.

I suppose there are those who try for the utmost in accurate audio reproduction for its own sake, and those of us who want to enjoy good sounding audio owe them quite a bit for advancing the state of the art. I consider myself an audiophile, as I try to be conscious of what my system sounds like and what will, or should, make it sound the best I can make it on a reasonable budget of both money and effort. I'd still only consider my set up as good mid-fi, but with good well recorded LP's, SACD's, or DVD-A's it sounds fantastic to me. And that's what it's really all about. Listening to the music. An audiophile, whatever his budget, just puts that next level of thought and passion to it. Saving a bit of loot for good recordings is a good idea for anyone on a budget, as good satsifying sounding equipment can be had for a modest investment these days. The best gear won't do much for ya' without something to play and even on world-class gear, a cheap record with lousy sound still sounds... LOUSY. A great recording still sounds mighty fine on modest gear. Yes, I'd love to have Classe Omega Amps and Grande Utopia speakers and all mega-expensive gear. But I'd much rather be listening to some really fine stuff like SACD's of Dark Side Of The Moon and Brothers In Arms or the Alan Parsons Project HDAD DVD-Audio reissues on my DENON/SONY/DESIGN ACOUSTICS system while I dream of better things. And if my system can insire those dreams, then it must be doing something pretty close to right. So does that make me both an audiophile and a music-lover? Hope so!

We'll get back to you....

How's this for a idea. Take a few moments and fire off a letter thanking your favorite audio publication for all work they do reviewing albums, gear and accessories. Know anyone who might be interested in good audio, send a gift subscription to your favorite audio rag to them, or share a copy of a music/gear catalog you might have just laying about. I would not have known about SACD or high-end gear at all except for the chance encounter with an old classmate who had a daughter selling magazine subscriptions to raise funds for her basketball team. On a lark I decided to get back into reading up on audio and signed up for Stereophile magazine. Not plugging for them, there are others out there, but that was the only one available with the service the girl's team was using. I really should try one or two others as well, just for a wider point of view not to mention more reviews. My point is that except for good fortune and coincidence smiling on me, I'd be ignorant of all good things audio and after hearing good SACD's that would've been a darned shame. Ignorance may be bliss, but is bliss by default truly that at all, and really good sound is a blessing and a thrill and great fun to listen to.

P.S. My sincere thanks to The Word for putting up a place like this. Again I just found it mostly by accident during a web search for things audiophile.

...for all your enthusiastic posts.