Audiophiles claim that their fancy-schmancy sound systems serve up rich melodic delicacies that our crud-laden ears just don’t appreciate. Slate asked if their high-end systems were anything more than effete indulgences.
The question was posed in response to two incendiary articles in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times which argued that improvements in compression technology have made sound quality irrelevant. Slate answered by redefining the question:
If you want the mere gist of music; if you like music wafting in the background; if you want to carry around 1,000 songs in your pocket; if you want to hear a beat and a melody while you jog or ride on the subway–and that’s often what any of us want (even me)–then MP3s are plenty good enough. Convenience doesn’t merely trump quality; it is quality.But there are some things that only a really good home stereo, playing well-recorded CDs or vinyl LPs, can give you: the texture of an instrument (the woodiness of a bass, the golden brass of a trumpet, the fleshy skin of a bongo); the bouquet of harmonics that waft from an orchestra (the mingling overtones, the echoes off the concert hall’s walls); the breath behind a voice; the warm percussiveness of a Steinway grand; the silky sheen of massed violins; the steely whoosh of brushes on a snare; the undistorted clarity of everything sung, blown, strummed, bowed, plucked, and smacked, all at once–in short, the sense that real musicians are playing real instruments in a real space right before you.
Rain playing on high-end systems can make you reach for an umbrella. Or as Slate extols, it is the difference “between bodega swill and Lafite-Rothschild, between a museum-shop poster and an oil painting, between watching a porn film and having sex.” The right research can uncover very acceptable systems for very reasonable rates. What do you think? Are these systems worth the price? Tell us in the comments.
In Defense of Audiophiles [Slate]
(AP Photo/Hans Punz)
More From Consumerist
-
Kids Will Gorge Themselves On Anywhere From 3,500 To 7,000 Calories This Halloween
-
‘Six Strikes’ Anti-Piracy Program Delayed To 2013, This Time Because Of Hurricane Sandy
-
Ex-Stupid Shipping Gangster Explains Why Your Purchases Are So Poorly Packaged
-
Is It Worth Hacking Into A School’s System To Change Your Kid’s Grade By 1 Percent?
-
Senators Call For An End To Payday Lending By Banks
@DaleM: A new Steinway will cost you a lot more than $50k. Last time I priced them, it was around $75k for a B series, which is a bit smaller than the D series concert grand. Steinways also tend to hold, and actually increase in value, over time. As expensive as they may be, it’s not as absurd to spend a metric crapton of money on them as it is to spend a metric crapton of money on a stereo system.
@Atomike: Feel free to point out the facts from studies that you have mentioned, as to differentiate them from the previously stated “opinions.”
I’m no audiophile, per se, I have a simple set up but I do refuse to listen to iPod earbuds unless I’m on the train, I use my Sein’s when I’m at home.
Also, as someone who records music and loves some of the less compressed musics (jazz, classical, electronic (not techno…)) I can tell you flatly that I would never spend $7,000 on speakers but to suggest that I can’t hear the difference in truly quality equipment or hear the difference between 64 vs 256 or a CD is quite simply INSANE. If you can’t hear it, don’t buy it, but everyone should at least test it if they want it, right?
I have an inexpensive 5.1 surround sound system made by Logitech. From my experience the cheaper systems like my $300 surround sound tends to have good sound from the speakers, but the subwoofers tend to be too boomy in most the cheaper systems. Still, it comes down to “It’s good enough for me”. Yes a $2k to $3k amplifier and a good set of $1k to $2k 5.1 speakers would sound better, but I can’t justify the expense for the upgrade in sound quality.
While I was in college instead of getting a high end sound system I purchased a pair of $150 audio technica headphones I’ve had them for about 10 years now and they still sound amazing. A good pair of headphones will get you closer to great sound for your dollar than spending $10k on a huge sound system of course the drawback is you can’t share the quality with other listeners.
No it’s not worth it. Super high end audiophiles are the worst kind of self delusional person. How exactly can bass be “rich”?
You can get pretty good quality for not very much anymore. These days, you can set your price and find a quality level to match. I’m an audiophile on a budget, so a Kenwood THX receiver does just fine for my surround sound, and some Sony headphones (earbuds and a DJ remix set) for portability.
I know someone’s going to knock me for liking Sony, either because they’re overpriced or not audiophile enough, but I think they’re great. For the money I’ve spent, I’ve always been pleased with their quality, and they’ve been extremely durable. I intend on replacing them eventually, but they’ve held up so well that they’ll have to find a new home before they are replaced.
@GRIMSPOON – So what do you do when you have people over? Give them all headphones? [lol]
Then again, maybe that makes sense to the iPod generation which is so used to listening to what passes for music through their pretty white headphones, While they completely isolate themselves from everything around them. I feel there is something socially negative about people who MUST have constant noise (music?) in their ears at all times.
@KJones: CDs are not recorded at 160K or better. That number (96K 160k etc) is the bitrate of an mp3 (or kilobits per second). Mp3 bitrates are a function of how much or little you compress a sound file (like a CD). The higher the bitrate, the less compression, the more they are supposed to sound like the source CD.
If you can hear the difference between an MP3 recorded at 256kbps and the source, I have a bridge to sell you.
Yes, MP3s suck at 128kbps, but at 256kbps they are not differentiable from the source.