AnthonyI
Well-Known Member
Well, you don't need to spend the entire amount on gear
Should you insure your collection and system?
- Thread starter displayname
- Start date
Well, you don't need to spend the entire amount on gear
I know, but I’d prioritise the records is all I’m saying. You can get really good gear at reasonable prices now but the music is irreplaceable. As time passes could upgrade piece by piece then as necessary.
displayname
Well-Known Member
I have the same philosophy, but in reverse. Get the best possible system, greater than what I had, and as time passes rebuild the collection piece by piece. I wouldn't mind streaming as I rebuild the vinyl collection. Especially if I'm going to have a budget for some nice digital gear.
Last edited:
I went through this recently (updating my insurance policy - not making a claim).
I was told by my agent that my gear is covered though my insurance on my personal contents and that my record collection had to be covered through a separate rider, similar to an art collection or stamp collection, etc.
She told me that usually collections need to be appraised but since it’s changing all the time, they will accept the median value on Discogs. She also mentioned to take a picture of all my spines/spine numbers to match with my listings on ‘cogs.
Of course, this has its issues (different stampers and deadwax within the same spine number, etc.) but it’s the best they could do.
I should add that this is for tenant insurance, not homeowner insurance and that I am based in Canada.
I was told by my agent that my gear is covered though my insurance on my personal contents and that my record collection had to be covered through a separate rider, similar to an art collection or stamp collection, etc.
She told me that usually collections need to be appraised but since it’s changing all the time, they will accept the median value on Discogs. She also mentioned to take a picture of all my spines/spine numbers to match with my listings on ‘cogs.
Of course, this has its issues (different stampers and deadwax within the same spine number, etc.) but it’s the best they could do.
I should add that this is for tenant insurance, not homeowner insurance and that I am based in Canada.
Yeah see I like owning music. I find that the ritual of getting the record out etc immerses me in the experience more and that I sit down and listen. I don’t yet get that same buzz from streaming, other than maybe on the bus/tram through headphones. It’s more like the radio in that it’s only a couple of clicks and so feels less important in some wierd way and is more the background soundtrack to me flittering about in my apartment or as a decision making tool for buying vinyl.
Also for perspective I’m not saying I’m buying a crossley or an LP60/120 here either. I’m just not cutting into my record budget to buy a mega system. As I’ll always say I was a music fan first and will be a music fan last, the system improvements in the last couple of years have been to get more out of that and I still wince at the idea of “audiophile” and picture a fusty old man with a ridiculous system listening to the same 3 albums over and over looking for “differences” rather than just enjoying the music lol
Last edited:
displayname
Well-Known Member
I know some of those crusty old farts, they are good people, haha.
I think the core of my philosophy here is that I already average 1-3 new albums per month, and probably twice a year where it's more like 6 new albums. If I'm not really saving for new gear, I could see that jumping to an album a week if I wanted.
Giving that type of purchase rate, I would only be talking a couple months on streaming as being primary. Plus records would be potentially more exciting if I'm bringing them home to spin on an even better TT
AnthonyI
Well-Known Member
I'm with ya here, maybe there should have been a C. Adequate system and the rest towards vinyl.
I know some of those crusty old farts, they are good people, haha.
I think the core of my philosophy here is that I already average 1-3 new albums per month, and probably twice a year where it's more like 6 new albums. If I'm not really saving for new gear, I could see that jumping to an album a week if I wanted.
Giving that type of purchase rate, I would only be talking a couple months on streaming as being primary. Plus records would be potentially more exciting if I'm bringing them home to spin on an even better TT
They may be but they’re in love with the system not the music. They’re not my tribe. I’m a music fan who thinks a good system can improve that. They’re systems fans and the music is just a way of measuring the system. That’s beyond my comprehension and I would not even consider us to be in the same interest area even if the gear and medium is effectively the same.
Ive averaged probably 100 albums a year over my 10 years collecting and I don’t feel my collection of 850 releases is anywhere close to containing all I want it to. So that’s kinda where I’m coming from.
I don’t think there is ever a right or wrong I just wanted to put across my alternative perspective.
Russ I
Well-Known Member
Yeah, this idea of photos makes a lot of sense. Anyone can make a list in Discogs and say they own the records, so I would think some bit of proof would be wise. And then of course there's the question of where one keeps all the documentation (receipts from equipment, photos, etc.) to assure that it, too, isn't destroyed by whatever destructive/evil forces we are contemplating here. Photos are easy enough to store in a cloud, but who takes photos of and stores (off-site) digital images of receipts? Or maybe the question is: is that something I/we should be doing for audio equipment?
I also think it's a bit discouraging that it's easy to get different stories from different insurance agents regarding exactly what's covered and how it might be claimed. Just within this thread it seems there are a number of different suggestions related to this, and while some of that may be due to different insurance companies and/or policies, I wouldn't be surprised if it would be the same (i.e., different stories) within the same company with the same policy, depending on who you asked. And who knows what would actually go down if you had to file a claim given how nebulous all of this seems to be? Unless your policy states: "we cover your records!", how do you really know? It would be great if you could rely on what you're told by the person you ask, but in my experience that isn't the way insurance works, because I think this stuff ventures into territory the agents can't be certain about. What we really need is an insurance company that creates coverage/policies specifically for audiophile record collectors. Having spent time as a professional photographer, it was great to have an insurance company that offered policies specifically written for photographers to cover all of the things a photographer would need to cover, primarily equipment and liability (being responsible for the serious injury of an NBA player, for example, could be problematic without millions in liability coverage!). Anyone on this board own an insurance company? Lots of business awaiting you if you do.
EDIT: I'm talking mainly about the idea that the personal content portion of a homeowner's policy is sufficient (though I would prefer to believe it is). Once there's a rider for the specific purpose of covering records and/or equipment (or whatever), I think the coverage (and corresponding peace of mind) would be much more straightforward, primarily because the language of the policy probably would be clear and specific as it relates to the stuff being insured.
Last edited:
Splunders
Well-Known Member
B all the way. As time passes, I'd continue to get more records of course. Having, let's say 500 records, and a chintzy system to play them doesn't do much for me. The system brings out the full experience the records hold. In the meantime, I'd just stream to my hearts content, searching for new records I never had to begin with.
I'll disagree with any notion that stipulates people focused on the system are inherently not about the music. I'm very system focused so I can get closer to the music. The system serves the music. There are folks out there who literally have $40k in records and $400 in their system. Some may see them as more about the music, but I see them as more about the collection. If it was about the music, they'd be spending that cash on treating the playback better, rather than on more Kallax shelves to store it all.
Last edited:
I get that a nice system is something to aspire to if you have the means. I get it beings out more in the recording although the law of marginal gains comes in much lower than people hear will ever admit. I think that everything else you have posted is so outrageously elitist that it doesn’t even warrant response.
Splunders
Well-Known Member
As you must know, that's actually a really heavy response, and given the premise of the scenario in question, it's not fair. It's just my opinion on how to best allocate X amount of money when starting from zero, and I'm obviously not alone in that opinion.
We have an entire thread devoted to the best sounding presses available. That's about better sound, no? Are we in search of improving our experience, in hearing the smaller details, despite the diminishing returns? Is that outrageously elitist as well? It may be, but I see you out there too.
I'm not saying people must have a nice system to enjoy music. If you are a person who buys 10's of thousands of dollars on records, without much apparent concern for how it sounds or could sound, I do question if the motives are about the music, or instead about amassing records as objects. That spending ratio isn't for me. It's the same as questioning "crusty" folks who spend a literal fortune to listen to a handful of albums over and over - that ain't me either.
All that is ok, because these are just opinions meant for fun debate and consideration. You should remember yours are also just opinions too, Joe.
Last edited:
AnthonyI
Well-Known Member
The question of it being about the music or being about the system has become a chicken or the egg debate. In my opinion, I'm with you here, I want the best system I can muster to bring as much of the music as it was intended to my ears....that doesn't make it gear over music, one does work in conjunction with the other. And @Joe Mac, honestly I don't understand your response, you've taken just as much interest in "improving" your system as most of the gear people on this forum as well as calling out "inferior" pressings as well as inferior artists...........in your opinion.
That being said, there is a point of diminishing returns, I would go so far as to say it's a fact, but where someone wants to draw that line is hardly up for debate, it's on each person to decide when that happens, or in these circumstances, at what price point. "Worth" is and will always be a relative thing based on the individual.
I don’t forget where I came from EVER. In fact I was more passionate about music in a lot of ways as a student in my early 20s with a discman attached to a £15 pair of active speakers who could scrimp £20 a week for a couple of CDs but there was no prospect of a system being affordable. I was devouring music magazines, going to gigs and clubs and listening to the radio. I fell in love with music over a portable radio and then a boom box. I’m now a comfortable man approaching middle age whose able to experiment but that’s what it is, experimenting. I’m much more interested in expanding my collection. Honestly I’ve become increasing dissolutioned by the equipment threads which have become middle aged men talking about minor differences in hugely expensive gear with an air or superiority. I’ve heard from younger members of the forum on limited budgets that they’d not want to come near for recommendations because they don’t feel comfortable with the atmosphere and have a feeling that their lower budget would see the equipment available to them scoffed at.
I think it ignores the fact that it’s largely affordable to at the end of the week allocate £30 to a record or two, even if that works out as a fortune over a
/month/year/decade/lifetime than it is to have that cumalitve fortune available to you at a point in time to but an enormous system. The fact that they are just dismissed as cumalting stuff when I’ve been one of them and on large I trust their music taste and passion more than any of the systems guys I’ve met isn’t lost on me either.
Thackeraye
Well-Known Member
At the end of the day, the discussion in this thread was hypothetical: if you could have the money you've spent on your musical journey back in one lump sum and you had to do it all again from scratch, what would you do, knowing you would probably continue to spend the way you do now? My answer has no correlation to what I do with my actual money right now, and no answer is invalid or elitist. This is the equivalent of what you would do if you won the lottery.
I know I would continue to buy records at the rate I do. I know life means I'm not going to be able to afford a £10k hifi system at any point soon. Given the chance with a lump sum I think I would experiment with a spendy system, because it's the only chance I would have to get one quickly. So, my Discogs collection is apparently worth £15k (it isn't really, but it's the best value I have): £10k on a new system, £5k on records. I've got a better system than I need and more than enough records. If I don't feel the benefits of the system I can sell it for £7k, buy a cheaper one for £5k and spend the rest on records. Easy, but it's all theoretical.
AnthonyI
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what thread you're reading because I'm pretty sure the first question put out there is "What's your budget?", now if someone says "I'm lookin at A, B, C" the budget is assumed to be within those mentioned. And I'll completely agree that at a certain point the changes are minor with gear, but its still about sharing information, in my opinion. Take this cart journey I've decided to go on, the overall conclusion, for me, is that most carts, much like gear, fall into the same pool based on price. BUT, there are subtle differences from one to the other, subtleties that may appeal to someone more than another, analytical over warm, bells and whistles, longevity, there are all sorts of additional check boxes involved, even when the differences are minor.
Giving an opinion, as far as I'm concerned, is a way to help someone make a better decision, understand the differences and what may be a better fit for them in quality, sound and price. I can only speak for this middle aged man, but while I see "High End" gear tossed around, I don't see the air of elitists around here at all when it comes to gear.
Final thought, if I didn't absolutely love music first, I wouldn't be in this hobby.
AnthonyI
Well-Known Member
As far as I know, and I've been here just as long as you, nobody has ever scoffed at anyone's "budget" system.
Look I’m going to retire from this thread and the equipment forums. My feelings are clearly not wanted or appreciated. I’m sorry for any hurt feelings or ruffled feathers but I stand by my views. Peace love and harmony.
AnthonyI
Well-Known Member
I'll never understand the need for "discussions" to get to this point. That IS what all of this is, opinions and discussions, there is no wrong or right answer and nobody has discounted your feelings and or opinions.
Last edited: