What Is An Audiophile?

[dorakeg]

Agree that there us no hard and fast line, but getting back to a point I made earlier, most true audiophiles have an interest in the underlying physics and are equipped with enough skepticism to not throw money at improvements for which no physical/pyschoacoustical basis exists. Granted its easy to be confused by the engineering vs advertising game, and who here among us has never chased a spec that for all intents and purposes is meaningless, for instance SINAD numbers that are probably one to two orders of magnitude.more than what is audible? But I would also hazard to say that true audiophiles recognize that the numbers are likely meaningless, but opt for the better kit for peace of mind (as opposed to screaming you must be bloody deaf if you can't hear the glaring differences (of course never having done a blind ABX on him or herself). That there is just sheer arrogance.

Edit: another difference is most audiophools have never measured their systems despite the inexpensive and not too technically demanding equipment.

Talking about psychoacustic, this is one area in which we currently have no means of measuring it. Although we could use a litening test for comparison, it is still extremely difficult to quantify it.

 

[dasdoing]

I think we have to accept that nothing has a single definition anymore.
In general terms an audiophile is not really a person who seaks the best sound reproduction. it's more about design and beeing in an exclusive club. the audiophile even has his own music genre. that alone shows that it's not about reproduction in the first place.
I don't think of this forum as an audiophile one. I would rather call this a forum of "audio nerds". To a point of that many here probably spend more time discussing/testing/tweaking audio, than listening to music

 

[Alisterkoran]

As has been said, the social understanding of the term Audiophile has changed over the decades. These days, Audiophile and Audiophool are often used interchangeably.

My rough and ready definition:

Audiophile (Modern definition, AKA Audiophool): Someone who uses music to listen to their equipment.
Musicphile: Someone who uses equipment to listen to their music.

Personally I'm just as happy listening to cassette, LP, portable radio, CD whatever. The equipment is just a means to an end, not the end in itself. Many friends (with a mass market midi system at best) say my system makes the best sound they've ever heard. I know it sounds just 'ok', but it's the best I can afford and I'm happy with it. I'd rather spend the money on buying more music than chasing better sound.

Yes, people are free to spend whatever they want on equipment, what I object to is manufacturers making false claims about 'improved sound quality' and idiots believing such claims. Some people will never be happy with how their system sounds, no matter how much they spend. I do feel sorry for such people. Sadly society these days is brainwashed by companies that the more you buy (and the more expensive) the happier you are. The reality is that happiness cannot be bought, not in audio equipment or anything else.

Ali.

 

[fpitas]

Don't accept that.

If some on-line hack wants to rail on cable lifters, specially blessed network gear, or other silliness then let them. To be sure there absolutely are audiophiles who worship at the alter of such silliness, but there are also many who buy raw drivers at Parts Express and do their best to make a better sounding system than they could otherwise afford.

Sometimes it has nothing to do with money, though. It's the scourge of curiosity. It doesn't just kill cats!

 

[fpitas]

I don't think of this forum as an audiophile one. I would rather call this a forum of "audio nerds". To a point of that many here probably spend more time discussing/testing/tweaking audio, than listening to music

I certainly listen enough. But generally I'm testing or tweaking, or thinking about it

 

[computer-audiophile]

Edit: Ein weiterer Unterschied ist, dass die meisten Audiofreaks ihre Systeme trotz der preiswerten und technisch nicht allzu anspruchsvollen Ausrüstung noch nie vermessen haben.

Well, it's not as simple as that if you want to get it right. Here too, acoustic measures in the listening room would usually be necessary to improve the result. This, in turn, touches on issues of interior design and aesthetics, which for me also have a high priority as a feel-good factor. So if it sounds very well and also looks good as setup which shall not dominate the room, I'll leave it at that.

 

[fpitas]

Well, it's not as simple as that if you want to get it right. Here too, acoustic measures in the listening room would usually be necessary to improve the result. This, in turn, touches on issues of interior design and aesthetics, which for me also have a high priority as a feel-good factor. So if it sounds very well and also looks good as setup which shall not dominate the room, I'll leave it at that.

I take it as a matter of attitude. If someone really cares about ultimate fidelity, I'd think they would measure what they have.

 

[computer-audiophile]

I take it as a matter of attitude. If someone really cares about ultimate fidelity, I'd think they would measure what they have.

In the end, it's always about my own impressions. Since I've been around a lot in the audio world and heard exemplary installations, even those where the highest effort was made, and the owners were 150% convinced, I didn't always like the sound. Professionally, I have always been involved in physical measurement technology (not in the audio field, but in basic research in physics).

Nevertheless, I came to this conclusion: I have to hear it in the end and use my ears to fine-tune it accordingly.

 

[fpitas]

In the end, it's always about my own impressions. Since I've been around a lot in the audio world and heard exemplary installations, even those where the highest effort was made, and the owners were 150% convinced, I didn't always like the sound. Professionally, I have always been involved in physical measurement technology (not in the audio field, but in basic research in physics).

Nevertheless, I came to this conclusion: I have to hear it in the end and use my ears to fine-tune it accordingly.

I agree with that. But measurements have helped me get to where I am, at least with my speaker design. Once I get within a dB or two, tweaking by ear is appropriate and necessary. But if I'm not close already, the tweaking just doesn't pan out. Certainly even in a normal installation, measurements will help spot and fix the typical room modes at low frequencies.

 

[bodhi]

I take it as a matter of attitude. If someone really cares about ultimate fidelity, I'd think they would measure what they have.

Measurements are even more important if you just want to EQ things to your own liking. When you finally get the sound you are looking for you have to measure and save the results, otherwise when changing equipment you have no idea what the optimal response was.

Unless of course you actually don't have preferred sound and just prefer tweaking things and at some point decide it's the best and do it again later, possibly with new equipment, probably arriving at some other result.

Hmm that sounds a lot like what snake oil tweakers do, just adding more stuff and every time veils lift and bass gets closer to light speed.

 

[computer-audiophile]

I always like to build setups that emphasize different qualities, much of it also according to my own design. I have often demonstrated such installations, in the circle of audio friends or at international scene meetings. Sometimes they were also the subject of a shootout. Especially with loudspeakers, you can see the differences in sound between different technologies very well. A horn loudspeaker and an ESL will never sound the same. Or a high-sensitivity full-range speaker and a multi-way system. All have their characteristic strengths and weaknesses.

 

[JRS]

I've never seen the positive in trying to demarcate people with a passion as a "true" (or "false") anything. It just seems a way of othering, and usually putting oneself in higher regard. I'll leave divisions like "only a true...X" to the religious zealots

Point taken. But in part this article seeks to differentiate us vs them. Personally I could not give a hoot--I long ago I discovered the futility of arguments with a closed mind, and seek no animosity, however smug and ill-informed they may be. ;-D

 

[bkatbamna]

Someone who uses music to listen to audio equipment.

 

[Mr. Widget]

Someone who uses music to listen to audio equipment.

Had to read that twice. Well said!

 

[Cote Dazur]

Audiophiles are a group of people so different in so many ways that even after 5 pages on an “audiophile” forum, they cannot agree on what being what they are actually is.
Yet they discuss the subject(s) that are part of the hobby that defines them expecting some kind of understanding and hoping for help.
Hilarious, as far as this audiophile is concerned.

 

[Mr. Widget]

Hilarious, as far as this audiophile is concerned.

I hear ya brother!

I was an audiophile before I could spell it and long before it became an insult in some quarters.

 

[pallatin]

It's anyone who worries too much about specs and measurements, no matter how minuscule or impossible to hear the numbers are. Instead of enjoying music itself. Focuses on the equipment and the reproduction aspects of music, not the actual music in any meaningful way. It's anyone who listens actively to his equipment, not music, the music becomes almost irrelevant. It's really weird shit.

 

[DMill]

It’s interesting that I can use a $1000 fishing rod and $500 reel for trout, and no one who calls me a fly fisherman is saying it in a bad way. I like nice things because I fish a lot and get a chance to enjoy their beauty and craft. In no way does it make me catch more fish, or a better fisherman. i view audio equipment the same way, it doesn’t make me like music more. I just like nice things because I listen to a lot of music, if that makes me an audiophile, so be it. I don’t take it as an insult in any way.

 

[JRS]

It's anyone who worries too much about specs and measurements, no matter how minuscule or impossible to hear the numbers are. Instead of enjoying music itself. Focuses on the equipment and the reproduction aspects of music, not the actual music in any meaningful way. It's anyone who listens actively to his equipment, not music, the music becomes almost irrelevant. It's really weird shit.

No! That's the stereotype that denigrates that small fraction of audio nerds who explores the hobby obsessively instead of a means to an end--that being the enjoyment of music. I would bet not a single participant on this thread fits your description.

 

[pallatin]

I agree, but there's nowhere near the same amount of discussion on music. Because, of course, this is not a music forum. Instead we're a very tiny fraction of the global population worrying about specs and equipment, instead of listening shit music on shit equipment (but enjoying it somehow). At least we try to tackle the matter on a more "scientific" basis and less audiophoolery.