From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Audiophile vs proAudio was  Re: awesome Klipschorns 
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 13:39:04 GMT

In article <1992Apr09.211319.6760@i88.isc.com> jeq@i88.isc.com (Jonathan E. Quist) writes:
>I said:
>>>>What does "audiophile" have to do with "rec.audio.pro"?   :')

>>In article <11284@ksr.com> kenyee@ksr.com (Ken Yee) writes:
>>>  Are you saying that professionals don't qualify as audiophiles ;-)?

>No, just that audiophiles don't generally qualify as professionals.
>(Don't misunderstand - many do, just most don't.)

I'm  not in pro-audio anymore, but when we built our studio we
were audiophile types too.  We found that was a rarity.


>>I do not call myself an audiophile because that implies that I would
>>own "audiophile" type equipment and criticaly listen to audio.  I do
>>own equipment considered audiophile quality, I own a lot of equipment
>>that is PRO only.  I listen a LOT to audio, critically as I am
>>recording, editing, mastering, etc. ;-0  The concentration factor
>>working as a mix engineer is very high, and I believe different than
>>that of an audiophile's listening.  I have to be able to "hear" more
>>than the usual three things that the average listener can detect.  I
>>am forced to differentiate five or six different elements and
>>instantly switch beween the forground and the background elements of a
>>mix.

I seem to read contradictions into the above, or more probably
what you think of an audiophile and what I think as being an
audiophile are two different animals.   And your reference to
the 'three things and average listener ..' wouldn't fit any
audiophile that I know of.

>
>Which is necessary, because if you don't concentrate on all these things,
>sooner or later an audiophile will whine about them... :')
>

As Elmer Fudd would say "How twue, how vewy vewy twue!"

> ....  A classmate of mine interned at and spent several
>years working as an engineer for WFMT in Chicago, a station which has
>some of the highest technical standards in the world.  For his home
>equipment, he'd get good, but not top quality;  the rationale being
>that while he could afford audiophile equipment, it wasn't worth the
>additional money, because it still wasn't as good as the stuff he worked
>with day to day.

>  ...            Before he said anything else, he asked me if
>I was prepared to never be satisfied with any equipment in my home
>ever again...  I said no, and I remain a happy, semi-educated consumer.

This is very true.  I was surprised after my first encounters with
pro-recording studios a zillion years ago.  I found that most never
listened to audio away from the studio. I found out why.  After building
our new studio I averaged 77.5 hours/week in the studio for the next
3.5 years.  Heck - you don't have time to listen outside of work.

I have found that most pro-audio people find they
can't match the studio or don't want to go to the expense.  And a lot
is how tolerant you are of non-studio sound.    I wound up with studio
monitors and a reel-to-reel 1/4" that plays 15/30ips for home.  It's
basically part pro equipment and part audiophile.  But it isn't cheap.

And in the studio we had a producers deck on the left side that when
you lifted it up there was a turntable hooked to a PS-Audio pre-amp
that fed the monitor system directly.   Sort of audiophile in the
studio.

I remain a happy person whose home unit sound better than 50% of the
studios in town (at least).   But I surely would like to have a set of
the Meyer monitors over at PARC.





-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.uucp 
                - ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
Xref: sparky rec.audio.pro:357 comp.dsp:1069