Filed under
Stereophile Posted: Oct 29, 2000 Published: Dec 31, 1969 100 comments

The battle rages on in the audio shops, the pages of <I>Stereophile</I>, and in the online news groups: Subjectivist (relies on direct experience to judge audio quality) versus Objectivist (relies on experimental evidence to judge differences and quality). What are your tendencies?

Do you consider yourself an audio subjectivist or objectivist?
29% (68 votes)
6% (14 votes)
Mostly subjectivist
34% (79 votes)
Mostly objectivist
9% (22 votes)
Equal amounts of both
16% (38 votes)
5% (11 votes)
Total votes: 232
Filed under
Stereophile Posted: Oct 22, 2000 Published: Dec 31, 1969 0 comments

With multichannel DVD-Audio and SACD discs close to reality, record companies can encode their discs in a variety of multichannel formats (see recent <A HREF="">Chesky interview</A>). Any preferences?

Setting aside sampling and bit rates for the moment, what type of channel configuration would you like to see on DVD-Audio and/or SACD discs?
2 channels only
57% (174 votes)
5.1 channels (3 front, 2 rear, sub)
20% (60 votes)
6 channels (2 front, 2 side, 2 rear)
11% (34 votes)
12% (37 votes)
Total votes: 305
Filed under
Stereophile Posted: Oct 15, 2000 Published: Dec 31, 1969 116 comments

The results from last week's Vote! indicate a clear distaste for watermarking as a means of preventing the pirating of recordings. But what do you suggest be done in its place?

How would you slow down the pirating of recordings?
Here's my idea:
63% (91 votes)
It's not really a problem.
31% (45 votes)
Don't know.
6% (9 votes)
Total votes: 145
Filed under
STPH Staff Posted: Oct 08, 2000 Published: Dec 31, 1969 140 comments

Using a digital code, or "watermark," has been proposed for SACD and DVD-Audio recordings to help control what consumers can and cannot do with the new discs. The downside is that some engineers feel that the watermark, though subtle, might be audible at times. Does this bother you?

What do you think of watermarking SACD or DVD-Audio discs?
57% (182 votes)
Hate the idea
34% (110 votes)
Don't like it, but it seems they must do it
4% (12 votes)
Don't care
2% (7 votes)
Good idea
3% (8 votes)
Total votes: 319
Filed under
Robert Deutsch Posted: Oct 01, 2000 Published: Dec 31, 1969 91 comments

The urge to upgrade audio components seems endemic to the condition of being an audiophile. Which of the following is usually your main reason for upgrading?

How do you decide when it's time to upgrade?
I'm dissatisfied with the sound of my system.
34% (69 votes)
I want to be up to date with technological advances.
10% (21 votes)
I've read a review of a product that sounds interesting.
8% (16 votes)
My audiophile friends are all getting new equipment.
0% (0 votes)
I heard/saw a new piece of equipment at a dealer, and I want it.
10% (20 votes)
It's because . . . (fill in your own reason).
28% (57 votes)
I don't upgrade unless a piece of equipment fails and can't be repaired.
9% (19 votes)
Total votes: 202
Filed under
Stereophile Posted: Sep 24, 2000 Published: Dec 31, 1969 0 comments

In general, it's still true that you get what you pay for. But sometimes you don't . . . you get more. What audio product has surprised you with its return on investment?

What audio product has turned out to be worth far more than its price, giving you the biggest bang for the buck (or quid, or yen, etc.)?
Here it is:
93% (184 votes)
Doesn't exist!
7% (13 votes)
Total votes: 197
Filed under
Stereophile Posted: Sep 17, 2000 Published: Dec 31, 1969 45 comments

Assume that digital audio streaming will reach or exceed CD quality, and that you'll be able to hear anything you want to hear, any time of day or night. What would such a service be worth to you?

How much would you be willing to pay for a high-quality digital-audio-on-demand service?
Zero. Not interested.
48% (83 votes)
$5 per month
8% (14 votes)
$10 per month
8% (13 votes)
$15 per month
6% (10 votes)
$20 per month
9% (15 votes)
$25 per month
5% (9 votes)
$30 per month
3% (6 votes)
$40 per month
3% (6 votes)
$50 per month
4% (7 votes)
$100 per month
1% (1 vote)
Here's a better plan . . .
5% (8 votes)
Total votes: 172
Filed under
Stereophile Posted: Sep 10, 2000 Published: Dec 31, 1969 74 comments

So far, the audio quality of downloadable music has been almost as good as AM radio. How far does it have to go before you'll want to pay for a download?

How good will downloadable audio have to become before you're interested in buying it?
It's good enough already.
2% (5 votes)
Better than MP3.
4% (9 votes)
CD quality, minimum.
44% (113 votes)
DVD-A or SACD level.
22% (56 votes)
It will never be better than analog!
3% (8 votes)
I don't care about downloads
25% (63 votes)
Total votes: 254
Filed under
Stereophile Posted: Sep 03, 2000 Published: Dec 31, 1969 70 comments

You've decided to add a new piece of equipment to your system. Now begins the process of figuring out which make and model you want. How do you test products to make sure you get the right stuff?

What process do you use to compare components?
My comparison process includes:
84% (68 votes)
I don't compare, but buy on instinct.
2% (2 votes)
I don't compare, but buy on recommendations.
14% (11 votes)
Total votes: 81
Filed under
Stereophile Posted: Aug 27, 2000 Published: Dec 31, 1969 205 comments

Reader "Bob" says that he'd be very happy to pay for access to a complete Web-based version of <I>Stereophile</I>, and suspects other readers would too. Do you agree that this is a good idea?

Should <I>Stereophile</I> charge for online access to all of its magazine content? Why or why not? How would you handle supporting a more complete website?
I agree with Bob; here's why:
20% (53 votes)
I have a better idea:
42% (110 votes)
The paper magazine is all I need.
32% (84 votes)
Don't care.
5% (12 votes)
Total votes: 259
Filed under
Stereophile Posted: Aug 20, 2000 Published: Dec 31, 1969 56 comments

One of the most enduring advertisments for an audio product is Maxell's image of the seated listener with his hair blowing back in the wind created by the tape's alleged sound quality. Have any other marketing campaigns stuck with you?

What audio ads have been especially effective or memorable for you?
Yes. Here they are . . .
64% (51 votes)
No. Can't remember any of them.
36% (29 votes)
Total votes: 80
Filed under
Sean Stewart Posted: Aug 13, 2000 Published: Dec 31, 1969 85 comments

Reader Sean Stewart reports that every time he goes to Hudson's in Albuquerque and watches their lights flicker while driving their Nautilus 801s, he wonders about what audiophiles do to customize their AC supplies to improve performance.

Have you customized or enhanced the AC power going into your sound room? How did you do it? What were the results?
Yes, I've extensively modified it
22% (39 votes)
I've done minor mods
15% (27 votes)
I use off-the-shelf AC enhancers
34% (59 votes)
Haven't done anything
29% (51 votes)
Total votes: 176
Filed under
Martin Bruczkowski Posted: Aug 06, 2000 Published: Dec 31, 1969 131 comments

This week's <A HREF="">Soapbox</A> has Martin Bruczkowski pondering how much power is being wasted by audiophiles who leave large systems on 24/7. What are <I>your</I> power habits?

When do you power up your system? When do you leave it off?
Always on, 24 hours a day
20% (64 votes)
On during the day, off at night
6% (18 votes)
On only when listening to music
32% (101 votes)
Some components are always on, others only for listening sessions
38% (118 votes)
4% (12 votes)
Total votes: 313
Filed under
Michael Healey Posted: Jul 30, 2000 Published: Dec 31, 1969 110 comments

We all have to start somewhere. What would <I>you</I> recommend to someone assembling a first audio system, and how much would it cost?

What's the least amount needed for a glimpse of high-end sound? What gear would such a system include?
Less than $1000
20% (43 votes)
31% (67 votes)
25% (53 votes)
8% (17 votes)
5% (11 votes)
More than $5000
10% (22 votes)
Total votes: 213
Filed under
Norm Strong Posted: Jul 23, 2000 Published: Dec 31, 1969 112 comments

The makers of new audio formats like SACD and DVD-Audio are betting that consumers are looking for something more than they already have. Reader Norm Strong wonders what it is <I>Stereophile</I>'s readers are looking for, and why.

What would most likely make you interested in a new format?
Multichannel sound
6% (16 votes)
Better sound quality
78% (192 votes)
More special features
2% (5 votes)
Longer playing time
2% (4 votes)
6% (16 votes)
Nothing would help
6% (14 votes)
Total votes: 247