Speakers do you have?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by k_hectic


I thought active monitors don't need an amp!!! :confused:

Aren't most of those monitors bookshelves? I hate bookshelves. They don't image as well as towers. Their small size kills the feeling of a sound stage. With towers, when I listen to an accoustic guitar, I imagine it right in front of me (with the same size). With bookshelves, I imagine a tiny guitar playing the tune. (With Bose Acoutimass speakers, I imagine a cockroach playing a guitar tune with its legs :D couldn't resist saying that :p)

---

I believe Active monitors use Active crossovers, not built in amps.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/Promitheus/...n_speakers.htm

BTW the rest of your comments about bookshelfs are bollocks. For example, many floorstanders use the exact same drivers as a "lower" bookshelf model they use in the range, the only difference usually being extra cabinet, and sometimes, slightly lower bass. So how you get this theory that you imagine the guitar to sound tiny because the speakers physical dimension is smaller is beyond me. I doubt you have really heard decent bookshelfs to be honest.

I suppose I misled with audiophile, but what term should I use for that? I don't consider Klipsch or Logitech hi-fi, I'm thinking something along the lines of dedicated speakers for audio. Is that a good definition?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THESANTINI
I suppose I misled with audiophile, but what term should I use for that? I don't consider Klipsch or Logitech hi-fi, I'm thinking something along the lines of dedicated speakers for audio. Is that a good definition?

---

As opposed to what...multi-function audio/aroma-emitting/blunt-self-defense-object speakers?

Anyway, how does one define an "audiophile". Speaking personally, I notice that it seems to be a tag that some label themselves with to make them sound like "experts" on the subject. I love audio gear, but I wouldnt call myself an audiophile. Most people who call themselves audiophiles arent to be trusted IMO.

Also, regarding the "hifi" argument, and what is and isnt. A general consensus of people I speak to on hifi forums, say that there is 2 main types of system out there. There are music systems, and hifi systems. Many people into music systems (like myself), think that "proper" hifi is somewhat dull and boring to listen to in many respects. Everything is wonderfully realistic, airy, and well seperated, but seems to lack music - more of a collection of sounds if you like. Music systems dont lose sight of the music itself, but usually at the expense of something a hifi does well, maybe realism, soundstage, imaging, whatever, but groove well. Most people into the "hifi" side claim that such systems are harsh and unrealistic. Its possible to do both, but that costs a HELL OF A LOT of cash. There are also systems that manage to f**k both of them up, and sound totally unmusical and unhifi. This also costs a HELL OF A LOT of cash, because that person will invariably replace the lot in time, like I did with my first proper system.

Just my 2 cents :)

Logittech z-560's, some yamahas, and seinheiser HD-497's. I use the headphones most.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pbirkett
Anyway, how does one define an "audiophile". Speaking personally, I notice that it seems to be a tag that some label themselves with to make them sound like "experts" on the subject. I love audio gear, but I wouldnt call myself an audiophile. Most people who call themselves audiophiles arent to be trusted IMO.

Also, regarding the "hifi" argument, and what is and isnt. A general consensus of people I speak to on hifi forums, say that there is 2 main types of system out there. There are music systems, and hifi systems. Many people into music systems (like myself), think that "proper" hifi is somewhat dull and boring to listen to in many respects. Everything is wonderfully realistic, airy, and well seperated, but seems to lack music - more of a collection of sounds if you like. Music systems dont lose sight of the music itself, but usually at the expense of something a hifi does well, maybe realism, soundstage, imaging, whatever, but groove well. Most people into the "hifi" side claim that such systems are harsh and unrealistic. Its possible to do both, but that costs a HELL OF A LOT of cash. There are also systems that manage to f**k both of them up, and sound totally unmusical and unhifi. This also costs a HELL OF A LOT of cash, because that person will invariably replace the lot in time, like I did with my first proper system.

Just my 2 cents :)

---

Websters Defines it as:
"A person who is especially interested in High Fidelity audio reproduction."

I vehemently stand by the notion that there is more to this definition. I dont believe that Audiophilia is something you can purchase, buying speaker "XYZ" which were rated "product of the year" by HiFi magazine doesnt make you an audiophile.

I would dare to say that the guy in his garage stooped over his third set KLH speakers, replacing drivers, adding acoustic foam, adding and removing crossovers; is more of an audiophile then dude that sinks thousands of dollars on speakers cause they got 10 out of 10 stars in Audiophile magazine. For me its more about the journey then the destination.

In my opinion being an Audiophile is like becomeing Enlightened, if you wear it on your shirt like a badge for everyone to see, then you dont have it.

Altec Lansing 251CN's

Audiophile? Erm... people who love the process so much that they are willing -- and wanting -- to look and see what alternatives for producing audio more accurately are out there. People who realize that there is a world of seperates and systems with a name that might NOT be so well-known as Bose or Sony or what-have-you, and are willing to invest time, money, and effort to get away from stuff that is "mass marketed", ever in the pursuit of that unabtainable sound.

Rauna Tyr II's (the receiver is connected to the sound card with a Radioshack cable)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gluegun
Audiophile? Erm... people who love the process so much that they are willing -- and wanting -- to look and see what alternatives for producing audio more accurately are out there. People who realize that there is a world of seperates and systems with a name that might NOT be so well-known as Bose or Sony or what-have-you, and are willing to invest time, money, and effort to get away from stuff that is "mass marketed", ever in the pursuit of that unabtainable sound.

---

Your first sentence started out good for a description. But then you kept going on. The last sentence is nothing to do with being an audiophile. Its personal preference and choice on what they consider sounds good regardless of brand. What I see you saying in that sentence is this "people should buy rockets or diva's not klipsch or polk". Isn't that what you are getting at?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1ctabor
Your first sentence started out good for a description. But then you kept going on. The last sentence is nothing to do with being an audiophile. Its personal preference and choice on what they consider sounds good regardless of brand. What I see you saying in that sentence is this "people should buy rockets or diva's not klipsch or polk". Isn't that what you are getting at?

---

I was going to say that if you didn't. :)

Hey now CE 1ctabor, I was enjoying my time in this GG lite period...lets please not ruin it by provoking anyone.

I am currently using Labtec Pulse 424 system. 2.1.

I will upgrade eventually to Klipsch Promedia 5.1

Logitech Z560s. I may go for the Z680s eventually, but the 560s are more than enough already :)

This is where you guys laugh at me...
I am still using my Altec Lansing ACS-54s (i think thats the name). They aren't that LOUD. But they are relatively clear. And my hearing problem needs clarity more than volume, although volume helps.