I’m someone who spent 15 years on Head-fi before discovering Audio Science Review 5 years ago. I’ll admit it, I move away from using the term audiophile, it’s such a loaded term.

That said, I still have a set of Buchardt A500s that measure anechoically flat down to 25hz. I paid $4500 for these. I also have a set of Shure KSE1200 that I tune to Harman with PEQ using my lifetime subscription to Roon. These were $1650 as an open box.

Aspirational ASR setups using high end studio monitors can push $10k. I believe the owner of ASR has a system exceeding $30k.

None of these purchases are within the realm of normal, they just have backing by measurements of being pretty great… things that matter in the service of verifiably good sound.

It would be wonderful to snatch that term back. The objectivism in the audio space seems to be taking a bigger mindshare as the years roll on.

i dunno, that doesn't seem so bad compared to an i.e. sports car collection.

This is exactly how I justify my relatively inexpensive hobbies! I guess I shouldn't be surprised I'm not the only one...

You can also put together a really nice hifi system for a lot less than that.

Assuming you're using digital sources... roughly $500 for a decent 2.0 setup, $1000 for a nice 2.1 setup, and $1500 for a nice 2.2 setup. Less if you have the ability and knowhow to shop the used market, although the used audio market for speakers and subwoofers is kind of a pain because shipping costs effectively limit you to local pickups.

At that point you're comparing pretty favorably to a lot of things. Like a single generation of gaming on a specific console. And audio systems don't really become obsolete. They'll sound good for decades. Until capacitors leak and need to be replaced, same as any electronics.

The $10K system will be a cut above (assuming you've chosen well - it's certainly possible to spend $10K and wind up with something mediocre) but the vague price range I mention above it IMHO where you start hitting diminishing returns.

What would you suggest for the start of the range you mention? I have been quite happy with my Edifier 1280's and they were just 120 bucks. They get plenty loud and detailed and visitors always appreciate them. I do have a DAC /Amp and few open backs / IEMs but never really bothered with speakers since you can really only get the one.

I'll defer to Wirecutter here as they have always done a good job in my experience! Note that some of those bookshelf speakers will require a separate amp.

https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-bookshelf-sp...

https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-computer-spe...

I'll also be a bit heretical here and suggest that EQ is important. Either in software, or with something like: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-computer-spe...

However... if you're happy with your current speakers, perhaps there's no reason to upgrade! A lot of the choices I've linked to above will come with an increase in size and/or complexity. And I think those Edifiers are pretty well regarded in general.

While better than typical hifi rags, wirecutter and the like are still entirely subjectivist and rather off the mark more often than most. My point above was to lead by measurements of some sort, and places like Audio Science Review provide just that.

EQ is absolutely important for the vast majority of systems. But use proper PEQ that has been derived from measurements and don't just wing it by ear. Just as important in most environments is using some sort of room correction.

I agree with everything you said. Sometimes I do just send newcomers to Wirecutter if it seems like they're just looking for a recommendation (along with some lite foundational knowledge) rather than looking to really get their hands dirty with the hobby. It may or may not be the right call. But thanks to you they've got a couple of paths from which they can now choose.

I'd ignore any reviews that don't provide a host of measurements. Even well intentioned subjectivist sites simply get it wrong more often than right.

Go here, sort by price, and follow the preference score, then read specific reviews for more detail about their strengths/weaknesses:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?pages/Rev...

The $10K systems I reference really are about just top of the heap and its actually hard to argue diminishing returns in their case, they do justify the cost based on raw performance. You may not need that level of perfection and power, but they're objectively that amazing.

Things like the Genelec 8361A: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/g...

Or the Dutch and Dutch 8C: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/d...

That said, agreed you can put together nice systems for not much. There are systems for just a few hundred dollars that perform admirably.

I think "audio enthusiast" would probably be a good alternative. I am certainly enthusiastic about audio! However as a hobbyist it would be outrageous to call myself an audio engineer or scientist.

Although, part of me I guess stupidly would like to reclaim "audiophile" as well.

Audio-engineer: professional setting up live and studio environments.

Audiophile: crackpot with a $2000 bundle of boutique digital audio player and headphone amp hooked up to some head cans worth more than my monthly income riding the subway.