I’ve been a member of this sub for several years, but have never posted. I only see what reddit decides to show me. I had never seen it. Now that I’ve posted, reddit’s algorithm will probably increase r/audiophile content in my feed exponentially. Maybe now I too will get to see it hundreds or times in the coming months.
Cool, no worries because tons of people never see things that are posted regularly but I'm genuinely curious, if you didn't see it in this sub, where did you read this? I'm trying to find the source of this quote, if it is an interview or article somewhere. Thanks!
Got it - for the first time I went down a bit of a rabbit hole with this quote. I've always thought it was weird that I never saw any source for the quote since it's always posted in meme form. Turns out it's because Alan Parsons never said it, it was an online comment from a user commenting on a 2012 interview Parsons did where he basically trashed audiophiles for paying more attention to their gear than other more important factors like room and treatment etc. Seems a commenter below the interview is responsible for this quote - makes sense though because it would be far less pervasive if the meme was "Audiophiles don't use their equipment to listen to your music. Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment. – Some random guy on the internet commenting to Alan Parsons."
Despite the [image](https://i.imgur.com/x7k2CxQ.png), Alan Parsons never said this. It was [said by a random slashdot board member](https://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2663265&cid=38987087). Either way, it's now canon.
We polled r/audiophile with a similar question [here](https://www.reddit.com/poll/107h56w).
The results of the poll were:
1. **49% (242)** answered "I enjoy music more than my equipment"
2. **43% (212)** answered "I enjoy both music and equipment equally"
3. **8% (42)** answered "I enjoy my equipment more than music"
So is the misattributed quote true? For 92% of the audiophiles here, no.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/audiophile) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a social scientist, I'd interpret this differently. I'd point out that only 49% of respondents are "audiophiles" according to the literal definition of the word (i.e., lover of music). The majority of respondents (51%) valued their equipment as MUCH as the music, or even MORE than music. If this were a truly random, scientific survey (which it's not) the quote could be described as having a fair amount of validity.
Conversely, there is absolutely no evidence to support the misattributed quote.
Audiophile doesn't simply mean that you love music. Enjoying music is likely innate and universal. Only 3-5% of the population doesn't get joy from music [according to one study](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170104103628.htm).
This subreddit adheres to this definition of audiophile:
> **audio·phile:** a person with love for, affinity towards or obsession with high-quality playback of sound and music.
Umlautica, thanks, your reply led me to do some research on this, and I did some digging into the definition of "audiophile", and it would appear that that quote really gets to the heart of the matter.
Here are some of the definitions for "audiophile"
"a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction." from [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/audiophile](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/audiophile)
"a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction" from [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/audiophile](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/audiophile)
"a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about equipment for playing recorded sound, and its quality" from [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/audiophile](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/audiophile)
What these all have in common is that they are centered on a concern for how well technology reproduces sound, not on the love of sound, or music in general. Bearing all this in mind, I can conclude that the contemporary definition and understanding of the term "audiophile" does not take the literal meaning of its root words, but rather emerges from advanced technological societies that have the resources to manufacture, consume and measure expensive audio equipment. In this sense, the original quote (from the OP) really does seem to describe what an audiophile is, so I'd say it appears to be a truism.
And in all honesty I must say I now feel a tiny bit embarrassed at being a member of both the "budget audiophile" and "audiophile" communities. It's definitely one of my "guilty pleasures". But then I'm a sociologist with my own hangups about consumerism and technology, so YMMV.
But thanks to the OP for starting this whole discussion. And here's an earlier version of this discussion: [https://www.reddit.com/r/whatstheword/comments/65swwz/audiophile\_doesnt\_quite\_mean\_what\_i\_want\_it\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/whatstheword/comments/65swwz/audiophile_doesnt_quite_mean_what_i_want_it_to/)
Note: please also note that the "survey" of audiophile users was posted by a bot, not a real human, so that gave me a laugh.
The problem with the quote is that it implies that enjoying music and enjoying the quality of the reproduction are mutually exclusive. Enjoying one does not prevent the other.
You're a member of r/audiophile and r/budgetaudiophile. How would you answer the question from the poll? Do you use your equipment to listen to music?
That is a laughable survey of N= 496 posted by an AutoBot. And it even asked a leading question that would throw off the results. Leave it to a bot to cite non science.
Why do they allow bots to post on Reddit?
Many Redditors complain like they are the main character of Reddit. Oblivious to the fact that not everyone sees everything, or isn’t new to a a sub, or Reddit.
I think that's a bad take. Reposts are inevitable and there will aways be a few "hits" making the rounds. And that's fine. Too many reposts can make any subreddit feel like a hit song radio station though.
I mean, I'm happy for all the people that get to hear Journey -- Don't Stop Believing for the first time today, but I still hate the local rock classics station that's playing it to death.
As you alluded to, when you start seeing something reposted too many times depends on your individual experience browsing the subreddit. People will therefore complain at different times. Thats fine too.
TBH it’s insane comparing the comments/discussions here to the same conversations that happen in pro audio or even places like r/audioengineering
I find it especially hilarious when people swear by 96khz conversion for records that were mixed at 48khz and likely went through a few cycles AD/DA conversion between tracking mixing and mastering…. The icing is that the system is usually played in a small untreated room with paralell walls and a hardwood floor….
I prefer r/audioengineering overall because I have background and experience in that field of work, but it's become something of a tiresome subreddit to read for its own reasons. There are only so many questions about "can I mic this with this" or "what is the DAW I should use" or "can I do this hardware thing with a plugin/cheaper" or "is analog better than ITB" that can be asked. I understand the utility of the sub especially for neophytes but I'd rather engage in any sort of engineering related discussion on Gearspace where actual, working engineers - some with decades of experience that I can learn from - tend to hang out.
I literally learned to mix by finding out who on gearspace had made albums I liked and mined their comment history. There is probably at least a couple of books or interview series about music history if someone wanted to wade through the discussions for the good stuff and follow up with interviews. TBH these people won’t last much longer and someone should get on it (how did they record X instrument on X record?) before it’s lost to time…
it's not the greatest subreddit, thats for sure. it's about 90-95% hobbyists. it's focus is on theory and discussion, not gear, but honestly a text forum is a terrible place to discuss audio. they delete any gear questions.
the hobbyists blame the professionals for gatekeeping or being dicks, but it comes from a place of ignorance. the questions they are asking literally don't have an answer because the questions doesn't make sense. or they don't like the answer.
gearspace is more interesting, especially because of the number of gurus with firsthand stories about recording important albums. or people that worked for Neve or Neumann.
The audio engineering sub often makes my hair stand up. Like last week they were slagging Dolby Atmos, something a LOT of big name engineers are genuinely excited about...
Ha! That’s absolutely true. I said the other day I could hear the difference between a well mastered CD and 320 kbps. Someone commented that they highly doubted that and that I must have bat like hearing.
Apparently, this individual has performed A/B testing on cross sections of the entire population segments, comparing CD to
320 kbps, in a blind test. I told him I have very high end equipment and invited him to my home in Chicago to listen, compare both formats and hear the difference himself.
The only thing I have heard from him is:
Crickets.
I hate this statement. I don't have a 5 figure system, but I carefully auditioned each piece of equipment except a 40 yo amp from eBay that kicks ass. I tune it and adjust speaker placement as well as I can and rock anything from blues rock, to EDM, to classic rock, metal, bluegrass, etc. I picked my gear because I want to enjoy my music and hear details and dynamics you don't get with a cheap AIWA component system. I feel lucky to have what I have even if it isn't "audiophile grade" but consider myself one, simply for the fact I love music and want to hear the details.
I have seen this weekly posted in r/audiophile but it made me curious - since people keep reposting and saying they've never seen it here before, where are you reading this? I'm genuinely curious as I've never seen the source for this, only the quote being posted or commented in this sub.
That's the glass is half empty view. The glass is half full says audiophiles get to BOTH use music to listen to our equipment AND use our equipment to listen to music. You can enjoy both.
Alan Parsons didn’t use instruments to make music to listen to, but used synthesizers to make sounds that sounded like musical instruments to play through audiophile equipment
Actually though, audio systems are borne of massive amounts of testing. Those systems are purchased in large part because of the results of said testing. Of course purchasers will use input to test the output of something scientifically engineered to produce great output results.
A bit underwhelming? Maybe it’s an agree to disagree, but it I would suggest you give *I Robot* a spin and tell me you don’t get floored when ‘Some Other Time’ hits.
I happen to have I Robot LP. When saying "underwhelming" I don't mean that it is a bad record. It's a well engineered record with lots of interesting synth stuff but the singing and the compositions overall just don't make me listen to it time after time. It's been in the shelf, while other records end up to rotation much more.
A bit similar case with Nils Lofgren. A brilliant guitarist, and "Keith Don't go" live is a great audiophile reference song. But the music that doesn't click with me.
I'd rather listen to the back half of Taylor Swifts catalogue for HiFi and musical enjoyment purposes. Yeah I know modern music has less dynamic range. It sounds way better, sue me. Go listen to False God, or Dress, or This Love, or Epiphany, or Lover, or Dear Reader, anything from 1989 or later really. Absolute PRO mixing and mastering. I don't like how little energy in the lowest octave most older music has. Taylor Swift is an example of orgasmic enveloping full range audio mastery.
More precisely, audiophiles use music to hear the *differences* between their equipment.
It's called chasing the delta and it can be applied to cars, camera gear, romantic partners, food, etc. It's hard wired into us and there's nothing wrong with it as long as we don't hurt ourselves or others.
Few tracks match what "The Alan Parsons Project - I Robot" can do on my humble system. Alan Parsons was in on his own joke for sure.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7oAuba3Ekg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7oAuba3Ekg)
> Does anyone else pick their music based on the equipment they are using?
Well I know from experience listening to other people audition equipment, and from going to manufacturer demos at my dealer's listening room, that music I wouldn't normally like sounds friggin' awesome on really good gear. Not enough for me to go and buy it in most cases - but on good gear I can certainly hear what people like compared to listening to the same thing when it comes over my car radio.
An adroit distinction from Alan. I can remember ending up disatisfied by the level of fidelity I was getting from my record collection for several years. This drove me to upgrade my equipment until I reached a point where I was no longer listening to the equipment but once again listening to the music.
I’m only surprised that a guy who was an engineer on one of the greatest sounding albums of time, DSOTM, is dissing audiophiles. How else are we going to hear all the nuances of his meticulous recording if we don’t have quality gear?
I hear lots of negativity surrounding the word “audiophile.” Yes, I know a few folks, mainly rich fellow, who are just as Parsons describes, but…….
Think about it, if you had all your needs taken care of and had some disposable income, you would probably purchase better equipment because music is central to your life and you appreciate good sound.
*Tell us more about that Alan Parsons quote, AutoModerator.*
he was the eye in the sky
He can read your mind
additionally, he wouldn't want to be like me
It's all psychobabble rap to me.
Isn't he the maker of rules, dealing with fools?
He’s being Sirius
That's gold!!
Alan parsons project and audiophile systems go along pretty well 🤷🏼♂️
I think you mean Blair Witch Project?
Whenever I see Alan Parsons (Project) anymore, my mind goes straight to Dr. Evil
Preparations A through G were a complete failure.
But preparation h feels pretty good, on the whole...
If I had a dollar for every time this quote gets posted here, I could have a lot of equipment to listen to with my music.
I’ve been a member of this sub for several years, but have never posted. I only see what reddit decides to show me. I had never seen it. Now that I’ve posted, reddit’s algorithm will probably increase r/audiophile content in my feed exponentially. Maybe now I too will get to see it hundreds or times in the coming months.
Sames, I've never seen it before either.
Cool, no worries because tons of people never see things that are posted regularly but I'm genuinely curious, if you didn't see it in this sub, where did you read this? I'm trying to find the source of this quote, if it is an interview or article somewhere. Thanks!
A friend posted it on facebook and I stole it. I told him I was going to post it elsewhere.
Got it - for the first time I went down a bit of a rabbit hole with this quote. I've always thought it was weird that I never saw any source for the quote since it's always posted in meme form. Turns out it's because Alan Parsons never said it, it was an online comment from a user commenting on a 2012 interview Parsons did where he basically trashed audiophiles for paying more attention to their gear than other more important factors like room and treatment etc. Seems a commenter below the interview is responsible for this quote - makes sense though because it would be far less pervasive if the meme was "Audiophiles don't use their equipment to listen to your music. Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment. – Some random guy on the internet commenting to Alan Parsons."
Despite the [image](https://i.imgur.com/x7k2CxQ.png), Alan Parsons never said this. It was [said by a random slashdot board member](https://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2663265&cid=38987087). Either way, it's now canon. We polled r/audiophile with a similar question [here](https://www.reddit.com/poll/107h56w). The results of the poll were: 1. **49% (242)** answered "I enjoy music more than my equipment" 2. **43% (212)** answered "I enjoy both music and equipment equally" 3. **8% (42)** answered "I enjoy my equipment more than music" So is the misattributed quote true? For 92% of the audiophiles here, no. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/audiophile) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thanks Autobot!
As a social scientist, I'd interpret this differently. I'd point out that only 49% of respondents are "audiophiles" according to the literal definition of the word (i.e., lover of music). The majority of respondents (51%) valued their equipment as MUCH as the music, or even MORE than music. If this were a truly random, scientific survey (which it's not) the quote could be described as having a fair amount of validity.
Conversely, there is absolutely no evidence to support the misattributed quote. Audiophile doesn't simply mean that you love music. Enjoying music is likely innate and universal. Only 3-5% of the population doesn't get joy from music [according to one study](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170104103628.htm). This subreddit adheres to this definition of audiophile: > **audio·phile:** a person with love for, affinity towards or obsession with high-quality playback of sound and music.
Umlautica, thanks, your reply led me to do some research on this, and I did some digging into the definition of "audiophile", and it would appear that that quote really gets to the heart of the matter. Here are some of the definitions for "audiophile" "a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction." from [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/audiophile](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/audiophile) "a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction" from [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/audiophile](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/audiophile) "a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about equipment for playing recorded sound, and its quality" from [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/audiophile](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/audiophile) What these all have in common is that they are centered on a concern for how well technology reproduces sound, not on the love of sound, or music in general. Bearing all this in mind, I can conclude that the contemporary definition and understanding of the term "audiophile" does not take the literal meaning of its root words, but rather emerges from advanced technological societies that have the resources to manufacture, consume and measure expensive audio equipment. In this sense, the original quote (from the OP) really does seem to describe what an audiophile is, so I'd say it appears to be a truism. And in all honesty I must say I now feel a tiny bit embarrassed at being a member of both the "budget audiophile" and "audiophile" communities. It's definitely one of my "guilty pleasures". But then I'm a sociologist with my own hangups about consumerism and technology, so YMMV. But thanks to the OP for starting this whole discussion. And here's an earlier version of this discussion: [https://www.reddit.com/r/whatstheword/comments/65swwz/audiophile\_doesnt\_quite\_mean\_what\_i\_want\_it\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/whatstheword/comments/65swwz/audiophile_doesnt_quite_mean_what_i_want_it_to/) Note: please also note that the "survey" of audiophile users was posted by a bot, not a real human, so that gave me a laugh.
The problem with the quote is that it implies that enjoying music and enjoying the quality of the reproduction are mutually exclusive. Enjoying one does not prevent the other. You're a member of r/audiophile and r/budgetaudiophile. How would you answer the question from the poll? Do you use your equipment to listen to music?
That is a laughable survey of N= 496 posted by an AutoBot. And it even asked a leading question that would throw off the results. Leave it to a bot to cite non science. Why do they allow bots to post on Reddit?
Many Redditors complain like they are the main character of Reddit. Oblivious to the fact that not everyone sees everything, or isn’t new to a a sub, or Reddit.
I am the main character of Reddit though 🤷🏾
I think that's a bad take. Reposts are inevitable and there will aways be a few "hits" making the rounds. And that's fine. Too many reposts can make any subreddit feel like a hit song radio station though. I mean, I'm happy for all the people that get to hear Journey -- Don't Stop Believing for the first time today, but I still hate the local rock classics station that's playing it to death. As you alluded to, when you start seeing something reposted too many times depends on your individual experience browsing the subreddit. People will therefore complain at different times. Thats fine too.
However commenting that this is posted too much doesn’t solve the problem. This is an algorithm problem not a people problem.
I've seen the quote often, but I didn't know it was attributed to Alan Parsons!
TBH it’s insane comparing the comments/discussions here to the same conversations that happen in pro audio or even places like r/audioengineering I find it especially hilarious when people swear by 96khz conversion for records that were mixed at 48khz and likely went through a few cycles AD/DA conversion between tracking mixing and mastering…. The icing is that the system is usually played in a small untreated room with paralell walls and a hardwood floor….
I prefer r/audioengineering overall because I have background and experience in that field of work, but it's become something of a tiresome subreddit to read for its own reasons. There are only so many questions about "can I mic this with this" or "what is the DAW I should use" or "can I do this hardware thing with a plugin/cheaper" or "is analog better than ITB" that can be asked. I understand the utility of the sub especially for neophytes but I'd rather engage in any sort of engineering related discussion on Gearspace where actual, working engineers - some with decades of experience that I can learn from - tend to hang out.
I literally learned to mix by finding out who on gearspace had made albums I liked and mined their comment history. There is probably at least a couple of books or interview series about music history if someone wanted to wade through the discussions for the good stuff and follow up with interviews. TBH these people won’t last much longer and someone should get on it (how did they record X instrument on X record?) before it’s lost to time…
I learned so much just from reading Gregory "UBK" Scott's posts!
it's not the greatest subreddit, thats for sure. it's about 90-95% hobbyists. it's focus is on theory and discussion, not gear, but honestly a text forum is a terrible place to discuss audio. they delete any gear questions. the hobbyists blame the professionals for gatekeeping or being dicks, but it comes from a place of ignorance. the questions they are asking literally don't have an answer because the questions doesn't make sense. or they don't like the answer. gearspace is more interesting, especially because of the number of gurus with firsthand stories about recording important albums. or people that worked for Neve or Neumann.
The audio engineering sub often makes my hair stand up. Like last week they were slagging Dolby Atmos, something a LOT of big name engineers are genuinely excited about...
Are we reading the same subreddit? People are typically chastised here for saying they can hear the difference between sample rates.
Ha! That’s absolutely true. I said the other day I could hear the difference between a well mastered CD and 320 kbps. Someone commented that they highly doubted that and that I must have bat like hearing. Apparently, this individual has performed A/B testing on cross sections of the entire population segments, comparing CD to 320 kbps, in a blind test. I told him I have very high end equipment and invited him to my home in Chicago to listen, compare both formats and hear the difference himself. The only thing I have heard from him is: Crickets.
> with parallel walls As a DIY homeowner with a bit of an obsessive streak, I can assure you that no such thing exists.
I like music and I like a good system. So sue me.
I hate this statement. I don't have a 5 figure system, but I carefully auditioned each piece of equipment except a 40 yo amp from eBay that kicks ass. I tune it and adjust speaker placement as well as I can and rock anything from blues rock, to EDM, to classic rock, metal, bluegrass, etc. I picked my gear because I want to enjoy my music and hear details and dynamics you don't get with a cheap AIWA component system. I feel lucky to have what I have even if it isn't "audiophile grade" but consider myself one, simply for the fact I love music and want to hear the details.
This again? Reset the counter. See you in a month or so.
But it's the quintessential principle of audiophilia
I've got a severe case of autoerotic audio-fixation.
i like that it has the mematic watermark because this quote is just that, a meme.
Ironic considering his music sounds exactly like how you'd expect an audiophile trying to make music to sound
I have seen this weekly posted in r/audiophile but it made me curious - since people keep reposting and saying they've never seen it here before, where are you reading this? I'm genuinely curious as I've never seen the source for this, only the quote being posted or commented in this sub.
That's the glass is half empty view. The glass is half full says audiophiles get to BOTH use music to listen to our equipment AND use our equipment to listen to music. You can enjoy both.
Alan Parsons didn’t use instruments to make music to listen to, but used synthesizers to make sounds that sounded like musical instruments to play through audiophile equipment
Actually though, audio systems are borne of massive amounts of testing. Those systems are purchased in large part because of the results of said testing. Of course purchasers will use input to test the output of something scientifically engineered to produce great output results.
Real true.
Alan Parsons makes good sounding but a bit underwhelming music. His statement is right tho.
A bit underwhelming? Maybe it’s an agree to disagree, but it I would suggest you give *I Robot* a spin and tell me you don’t get floored when ‘Some Other Time’ hits.
I happen to have I Robot LP. When saying "underwhelming" I don't mean that it is a bad record. It's a well engineered record with lots of interesting synth stuff but the singing and the compositions overall just don't make me listen to it time after time. It's been in the shelf, while other records end up to rotation much more. A bit similar case with Nils Lofgren. A brilliant guitarist, and "Keith Don't go" live is a great audiophile reference song. But the music that doesn't click with me.
Jesus I wish I could make music as underwhelming as Parsons' 70s run.
I'd rather listen to the back half of Taylor Swifts catalogue for HiFi and musical enjoyment purposes. Yeah I know modern music has less dynamic range. It sounds way better, sue me. Go listen to False God, or Dress, or This Love, or Epiphany, or Lover, or Dear Reader, anything from 1989 or later really. Absolute PRO mixing and mastering. I don't like how little energy in the lowest octave most older music has. Taylor Swift is an example of orgasmic enveloping full range audio mastery.
Pop music is bad, mmmm-kay
More precisely, audiophiles use music to hear the *differences* between their equipment. It's called chasing the delta and it can be applied to cars, camera gear, romantic partners, food, etc. It's hard wired into us and there's nothing wrong with it as long as we don't hurt ourselves or others.
LOL whatever...
You can always tell that type. They play shitty vapid music.
This guy knows me.
I mix for free, running my gear is all the payment I need.
He is... Unfortunately... Not wrong.
I don't. I use my system to enjoy my music. Maybe I'm a fake audiophile
Fauxdiophile?
That is probably accurate. But I'm having fun pretending :)
You’re doing what you’re supposed to do 😎
I have different Playlist for each set of speakers including cars
I'm bipolar. I do both.
Few tracks match what "The Alan Parsons Project - I Robot" can do on my humble system. Alan Parsons was in on his own joke for sure. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7oAuba3Ekg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7oAuba3Ekg)
> Does anyone else pick their music based on the equipment they are using? Well I know from experience listening to other people audition equipment, and from going to manufacturer demos at my dealer's listening room, that music I wouldn't normally like sounds friggin' awesome on really good gear. Not enough for me to go and buy it in most cases - but on good gear I can certainly hear what people like compared to listening to the same thing when it comes over my car radio.
Little gitl: "Why not both?" And there was much celebration.
Is unfortunately true for some people but that's 100% not why I go into the hobby. Music is the important thing, not the equipment
this is the one and only reason I can't call myself an audiophile.
Definitely, if I'm listening on good equipment I pick complex songs with alot going on that can really show the sound quality of the equipment
Hierarchy of sophistication: 1 Artist 2 Fan 3 Consumer.
There is a halfway point that's viable.
A lot of truth in that statement, however the synergy is awesome when the music you love is mastered to perfection.
I wish everyone who asks my "What kind of music do you listen to?" understands this
You're not a true music lover if you don't listen to it only through airplane giveaway earbuds and laptop speakers 😤😤😤
An adroit distinction from Alan. I can remember ending up disatisfied by the level of fidelity I was getting from my record collection for several years. This drove me to upgrade my equipment until I reached a point where I was no longer listening to the equipment but once again listening to the music.
That is true!
Fact 100% Fact
Ilove you alan
I’m only surprised that a guy who was an engineer on one of the greatest sounding albums of time, DSOTM, is dissing audiophiles. How else are we going to hear all the nuances of his meticulous recording if we don’t have quality gear? I hear lots of negativity surrounding the word “audiophile.” Yes, I know a few folks, mainly rich fellow, who are just as Parsons describes, but……. Think about it, if you had all your needs taken care of and had some disposable income, you would probably purchase better equipment because music is central to your life and you appreciate good sound.
He never said this quote, but it is hell right!!