Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by Cyclone Ranger, Nov 5, 2018.
Yup me too. I gave up all my analog gear after 40 years. Just too many better options these days.
I voted for 50/50, based on my "average" discogs amount of my total vinyl/CD/SACD collection. Like many others, I've been curating my collection since I was very young. I even bought vinyl during the late 80's and 90's when CD's ruled.
To me it's like the chicken or the egg; I want a better system so I can enjoy what I've always listened to, and I've always wanted a better copy of what I've been listening to hear the difference in a better system.
I vote 80% for records, 20% for your system at the beginning of the journey and reversing it as you near the end. ...
But like others have mentioned, too many variables apply... A quick search on Amazon shows that a recently released Van Morrison "The Prophet Speaks" lists for 11.99 for cd and 24.89 for album... The pricing difference is even wider on Discogs for a classic like "Led Zeppelin I", from about 5.00 to over 700.00
The point I am trying to make is that a listener who buys used cds, is going to have a different perspective then someone buying audiophile vinyl. As is someone who has been collecting media for decades vs a person just beginning the hobby.
I voted 90% on records, only because 98% on records wasn't an option.
I started out as 100% system, 0% for records - and from that point going forward it's been 100% records. Speaking as an old-timer, it's all about the long game.
I only buy gear if something breaks, and I've had good luck with buying stuff that doesn't break.
This isn't something I really think about much, and this is something that will differ greatly based on age (if you make good decisions that you're happy with your gear, then even a very nice system will probably get paid for several times over in records/CDs over time, simply because you keep buying more music but aren't buying more system).
While I'm not buying records as primary media any longer (I stream 90% of the time now), I agree with your take on equipment; I only replace something if it breaks. If I didn't care for its performance, I wouldn't have bought it in the first place.
Music is my hobby and passion, not audio gear. I want a system (I have 4 decent systems between two homes) where the music reproduction is good enough to please my ears and tastes. At that point, I'm done with gear unless something breaks.
Not easy for me the answer that. My system is old but works great, so that money is spent. I do upgrade the phono cartridge every few years though (around $300).
I buy cds and vinyl occasionally (when I see something I like,) no "budget" for that really. If I want it, I buy it. Maybe $50 a month.
I've pretty much stopped buying any music for the most part. I have thousands of records and CD's, some of which haven't been played for nearly 30 years. I'm just going through that stuff again and catching up on what I missed the first time around. Also getting rid of stuff that I may have liked then, but realize kinda sucks now.
The items I do buy now tends to be very new, i.e. released in the last year or so. But since a lot of new artists tend to sound the same, I don't need to buy much. Just the stuff I find very intriguing. That's a rarity, lol.
At this point, my system is what it is. I'm over 70 and the prospect of more gear doesn't have the appeal for me that it used to. Music, though...
Unless one purchases gear and a complete, definite record collection all in one go, I fail to see how this poll could be of real use.
So, you're saying that you've actually seen ANY poll that was of real use? They' re usually just random questions that come to someone's mind.
I guess one value of the poll was simply to reinforce the priority of music here, and that the gear does not always have to be the latest, newest shiniest object. This in some ways, is what the hobby was in its roots-- hobbyists kludging together older or modest stuff and making it work well.
Yeah very true. Then you have the sort of obsessive collectors that have way more music than can be listened to in a lifetime. Once I learned to play an instrument and then play in live settings, I realized I got way more mileage from each individual record than I used to.
You've got a point there !
I voted 50 - 50. It’s impossible to quantify. It depends on your tastes. If you are into a wide range of music you may really want spend loads on music. I’ve found the more I improve my system the more I want to listen and the more music I want to buy.
I didn't want to be the one to say this, but that pretty much sums it up.
A large collection lead me to better gear.
90% Music 10% Gear
Voted 50/50 because there isn't a 100/100 option... which is to say I don't think there is a certain percentage. I purchase music media on a whim and generally without restriction (and perhaps, only sometimes, slight hesitation). Mostly, music media purchasing is a "free for all" throughout the year. Gear purchases are far more thought out, even obsessed over for months (even years), and likely executed after some sort of bonus/dividend pay out and/or tax refund. I prefer not to really see or feel the impact of a large purchase. Since the recession, I've been very stingy and deliberate about large gear expenditures (pretty much anything over 2 or 3 hundred). As such, I probably spend the same amount of money on both media and gear each year.
The poll’s passed the 100-vote mark... a thank you to everyone who’s participated.
The median vote continues to be 60/40 records/system, though both extremes are fairly well-represented too, records more than system though.
A couple of posters brought up an interesting point that I hadn’t paid much attention to, which is that a super-large record collection gets weird after awhile.
As in, say you have 5000 records. Even if you’re a pretty avid listener, and listen to, say, three albums a night, EVERY night, you are on average going to listen to each album only once every five years.
Never really thought of it that way before, but yeah. Not that I’m a very ‘pro-gear’ guy somehow either.
Having a large collection can also be a lot of fun if your collection spans different genres. You might be in one mood for a few months and a different one a few months later. It's also fun rediscovering things you haven't pulled out in awhile. Even with 4,000+ CDs and 1200 LPs I still find time to listen to albums and relisten to albums without such a large gap. Things go in and out of "rotation" so to speak.
I have bought so many components in my life. I have 4 systems. But if I were to make a quick guess at the retail cost of my current main system it would be around $12-$15K. I have 5000 CDs and that would be around $50K total. So my advice is to buy the best system you can afford and then by records or CDs for the rest of your life. It is not like you buy everything all in one swoop.
But it would be an interesting thought experiment. Imagine that, for whatever reason, you found yourself with nothing in the way of media and gear. The insurance company, or the wish-granting genie, has provided you with exactly the original retail value of the media and equipment that you had until it disappeared so mysteriously. The only catch is that it must be spent on recorded music and playback equipment. How would you spend it? Ah...never mind-- don't want to threadjack....
No, actually, it is quite interesting...
Separate names with a comma.