Audio folks as bad as us...

[CGW]

Funny but the biggest and best music collections I know seem to get played on OK-ish systems, while the truly awful, small, demo audiophile recordings-only collections live in dedicated listening rooms with gear worth way more than the last new car I bought. Several of these guys go to bed nightly worrying they might die in their sleep not owning something that looks like space junk with a power cord. Haven't met anyone into photography yet with a dependency that deep--yet.

[Paul VanAudenhove]

I agree that the pricing can be stratospheric, but not all of it is snakeoil.

It's a long-standing joke in the audiophile community that some people have assembled insanely expensive systems, but only own ten records to play. Just like it's true that many musically great records sound like crap played on a high end system. The trick is to strive for balance!

I don't believe that Martin Logans can't rock - in fact I'd love to get my hands on a set of CLS's!

But is it really any worse than esoteric agitation schemes for film, experimenting with film/developer combinations or discussing the colour or contrast renditions of different lenses?

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't believe that Martin Logans can't rock - in fact I'd love to get my hands on a set of CLS's!

Bob Marley might disagree. Check it out some time, and put the CLSs next to a pair of Vortex Screens or something like a pair of Heron Meadowlarks.
Bring Audioslave, The Red Hot Chilipeppers (affectionately known as Flea's band), The Clash, Propellerheads, and Radiohead with you while you're at it.

[Paul VanAudenhove]

I've heard great sound from Quad ESL-63's, so I'd expect nothing less from the CLS's! BTW, the 63's were driven by a whopping 25 wpc amp! But I'll also admit that they don't go to ear-bleed volume!

[MattKing]

In one of James Michener's many really big novels he writes about tech specialists who could work anywhere in the world, tended to obsess about and own fantastic "stereo" systems, but seemed to only buy "Best Of" compilation LPs.

One thing I've noticed in places like thrift stores is that it is hard to locate amplifiers or receivers with a phono amplifier circuit - most likely because all the relatively recent ones require a pre-amplifier to play LPs.

[polyglot]

Funnily enough I'm just finishing the assembly of my active crossovers (6.2 channel, 3-way, 4th order Linkwitz-Riley - it's been a lot of soldering). Nothing gold-plated, just a shirtload of TL074s and associated passives, driving way too many channels of power-amp. Flat within 2dB from 16Hz to 22kHz (until I crank the bass a tad), Q is about 0.7 and phase is pretty linear from 35Hz up. Double-brick walls will quake and dammit, that's what matters. I'll finally get to retire the speakers I built in high school; they're going strong but look seriously ratty.

The audio people are 100x worse than camera people (OK, maybe not Leica) for snake-oil though; my biggest LOL was an article going on about a "muddying reflection" apparently from the listener's eye-glasses.

[keithwms]

A lot of live concerts can be heard for that sum.

+1!

[clayne]

Technically, neither do photons, if you get my d-d-d-drift.

Yep, and let's keep going with that - because you know, an effectively linear digital curve is the same as a non-linear analog curve, right? It's like claiming electrons don't know the difference between 1/2" tape or 20-bit A/Ds - hence "it's all the same, why bother..."

Tape compression, film shoulder compression, tape saturation, film over-exposure, etc., etc.

...pry the character-unique analog materials from my cold dead hands.

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I've heard great sound from Quad ESL-63's, so I'd expect nothing less from the CLS's! BTW, the 63's were driven by a whopping 25 wpc amp! But I'll also admit that they don't go to ear-bleed volume!

The CLSs are really awesome speakers. With acoustic music, small jazz ensembles, chamber music, vocal music, etc they are so very sweet to listen to. I heard some early 60's Paul Desmond, Miles Davis, and Johnny Hodges on a pair, via Audio Research and a Wavelength DAC, and I was thoroughly impressed. But, they frustrate the $hit out of me when it comes to rhythm driven music that has real energy, because I just don't think they can deliver a punch. Nowhere near a pair of Von Schweikert, Vandersteen, or even a pair of old Vortex Screens or Snell E.
The CLSs are amazing speakers, an engineering feat of massive proportions and do some things better than almost anything I have ever heard. Their treble comes to mind especially. It is so sweet, stretched out, and gives truly fantastic imaging. But they are not everybody's taste, and even if I could afford them, or fit them in my house and do them justice, I would never want to own them, and it is because I think they fall flat on their nose with high energy, rhythm driven music.

You might find them to be the best thing since sliced bread and disagree with me profoundly, it certainly wouldn't be the first time somebody does Just don't be surprised if you in fact are disappointed...

But, enough of that. Sorry for the digression.

[Paul VanAudenhove]

"But, enough of that. Sorry for the digression."

But that's my favorite part!

I don't think that audiophiles are that different than photographers - to my way of thinking it's about having a passion. And following it. A lot comes down to experience - if you want to get better you have to actively participate.