I think that you can probably look at "audiophile" in two ways. The original concept (as I understand it) was someone who cared about music and trying to reproduce it accurately. Later, as the consumer electronics industry started catering to that market separately, it somehow developed an identity that was tied to cost and "boutique" products. It's that somewhat more elitist definition that I think many folks around here find to fit poorly - and the definition that refurb is justifiably leery of.. After all, Outlaw's stuff certainly isn't cheap in absolute terms (compared to a simple "home theater in a box" for example), but it is quite a bargain compared to some of the alternatives. We've been fortunate to have a diverse mix of people around, including some very knowledgeable folks on various audio and video subjects, and for whatever reason we've tended not to get caught up in the mindset of equating equipment cost or pedigree with "audiophile quality."


I like that term. "Enthusiast" fits much of the underlying intent of "audiophile" but doesn't retain the baggage that often accompanies it.


I would agree. For several years now, the Dave Matthews & Tim Reynolds BD has been one of my reference discs. More than one visitor who had a love of music (especially a couple of guitar players) has been captivated by watching Reynolds play and being able to see the detail of his hands and guitar well enough to really follow his movements, and the TrueHD 5.1 track is quite nice to listen to. For that matter, how many musicians strive to put on concerts that have a visual impact? How many concert halls work hard to impress you with their interior design? It's not like musicians never tried to cater to both the ears and the eyes before the TV and home stereo were lumped together. It really wasn't until the radio and recorded music separated ears from eyes that the "listening only" scenario developed.

As for watching one thing and listening to another, it tends to bother my wife - if a show is on TV, she wants to hear it - but I have been known to watch something that didn't necessarily demand audio (weather, a sporting event that I had some casual interest in, etc.) while listening to music.

I've noticed that women are most bothered by "multi-tasking" and seem to be unable to understand it. I thinks is just because they think they are missing something if they can't hear the TV.

The days of multichannel or a/v not meeting audiophile snob approval are dying. Blue ray is uncompressed PCM. That means it's 30-40% better than CD on any player. I a/b'd a dvd and blu ray of the same movie. The blu ray was processing uncompressed PCM. The difference was like comparing 162k mp3 to cd audio. The bass impact and dynamics were drastically better. So, maybe it would be grand just to have recordings on uncompressed PCM instead of CD.

After the market flops of DVD-Audio and SACD - two formats that I still own and enjoy, but that I think it's safe to say failed to achieve meaningful market penetration - the arrival of Blu-ray in theory offers a great way to step up from CD's 44.1k/16-bit PCM stereo to something better. I'd be happy to see it. The question now is if the recording industry is willing to take that leap. We've seen some labels give it a whirl (2L being a notable example), but so far it's been pretty limited.

Neil Young has already taken full advantage of better media, his last release has an available 24/192 copy! He is the first Im aware of anyone releasing that high of a resolution audio.

Neil Young was an early proponent od DVD-A also. He seems to appreciate high resolution recording formats. I really like and respect the guy.Now if he'd just record something that I enjoyed listening to...

IIRC, Neil Young was also the kind of guy that would pick a studio to record in that wasn't just some big mainstream studio. I could be confusing him with Ted Nugent on this issue, but one of them would usually give the little guy a chance.

This discussion seems to be indirectly reinforcing something I said earlier: "Audiophiles", "music enthusiasts" or whatever-we're-calling-them seem much more interested (or comfortable with) in physical media than the general public nowadays, which puts built-in limits on home-audio manufacturers. Personally, my wife barely puts up with the LPs and CDs I haven't given up yet…maybe when we finally have a need for an HT system it'll be easier for her to warm up to the idea of blu-ray.

When it comes to hi fi, the gap between men and women is like the gap between youth and seasoned citizens.

WAF "wife acceptance factor" has been dwindling over the years. The best a guy can hope for is a man-cave for audio, or a seriously accepting spouse.

Men want functionality, women, decor. While a man's true audio love may be klipschhorns or la scalas, a WAF trims that down to heresy's or maybe some piffling Bose cube system. There is just no explaining the benefits when they see the stuff as visually intrusive. Compromise is made...sacrificing quality for appearance,,,or lack therof.

Some guys just get nice headphones and be done with it. That represents little compromise.

"My wife is a 3rd channel in my 2 channel system."

Well, for the record, I should probably state that I think my wife's ears are actually better than mine. We're pretty honest with each other, so if she listens to my latest tweak and completely does not get it, I'm pretty darn sure I'm on the wrong track.