|
Post by MartinT on Apr 7, 2018 7:47:19 GMT
This thread was started to counter the proposal that an audiophile is something of a lesser being. It depends on how you define an audiophile - lots of different views on that.
|
|
|
Post by docfoster on Apr 7, 2018 7:55:32 GMT
This thread was started to counter the proposal that an audiophile is something of a lesser being. It depends on how you define an audiophile - lots of different views on that. Understood. And I enjoyed reading the thread. :-) Apologies for making myself insifficiently clear. I think my point is less to do with definitions of lesser beings than it is with the urge to define them in the first place. No biggie.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Apr 7, 2018 8:55:13 GMT
Well, indeed. We are no glossy lifestyle magazine full of shallow people who buy things to demonstrate high income and 'cool taste'.
I believe that every member here has done something unusual - invested in a hi-fi system - because they are first and foremost a music lover. That's why the definitions are blurred for me.
|
|
|
Post by dvh on Apr 7, 2018 10:00:09 GMT
In places this thread reads like an expression of the human instinct to establish hierarchies of virtue (music lover = good, aspitational, pride-worthy; audiofile = bad, deluded, shameful). Well, that would very much depend on whether the audiofile in question was DSD, MQA or simply bog-standard MP3.
|
|
|
Post by dvh on Apr 7, 2018 10:02:45 GMT
Well, indeed. We are no glossy lifestyle magazine full of shallow people who buy things to demonstrate high income and 'cool taste'. I believe that every member here has done something unusual - invested in a hi-fi system - because they are first and foremost a music lover. That's why the definitions are blurred for me. Personally I was lured into hifi by the shiny boxes with big VU meters. But I also liked the idea of 'investing' in something that loses value as soon as it's bought.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Apr 7, 2018 10:19:31 GMT
I guess the answer to the question posed would probably be when the audiophile only listens to a handful of tracks selected from the very few recordings that they own. It's a fairly rare beast, I'd say and I don't think anyone who is a member of this forum qualifies as anything like that. I have met a few and I can think of one or two people from other forums that might sail dangerously close to that state.
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Apr 7, 2018 10:46:37 GMT
Definitions
A person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction.
a hi-fi enthusiast. "it puts professional studio sound within the reach of the audiophile"
There are too many calling themselves anything they want. EG. "Vegetarians" who eat only a small amount of meat or fish. Are *not* vegetarians
So many "good car drivers" are nothing of the sort
Electrical engineers who claim to know everything and oddly enough do not. One comes to mind....
Am I an audiophile ? By my own definition probably not
Semantics
|
|
|
Post by docfoster on Apr 7, 2018 10:47:25 GMT
In places this thread reads like an expression of the human instinct to establish hierarchies of virtue (music lover = good, aspitational, pride-worthy; audiofile = bad, deluded, shameful). Well, that would very much depend on whether the audiofile in question was DSD, MQA or simply bog-standard MP3. :-D
|
|
|
Post by steveeb on Apr 7, 2018 12:37:19 GMT
I think of the definitions Music Lover and Audiophile as related to their playback system objectives: 'Music Lover' as someone whose priority is the performance, regardless of its quality. The ability to enjoy poor recordings or reproductions, often the case with early recordings, is an essential element for them. The performance comes first. That's not to say that they don't value and enjoy high reproduction quality in their system, but not to the level which excludes material, therefore their balance tends towards a forgiving system rather than the highest resolution. It also places more emphasis on extracting the musical message and balanced sound than any technical judgements of things such as bass punch, treble extension, imaging, etc. An 'Audiophile' as one who enjoys (and is often frustrated by) the process of developing a system towards the highest level of reproduction ability in all possible elements, hence the frustration . While they acknowledge the musical merit in lesser recordings, the consideration of the source material as part of the chain puts the blame squarely on the recording rather than the system's ability to handle them and a minimum level of recording quality is required, to the exclusion of some material, in the interest of achieving a higher level of reproduction from better ones. Of course this is a sliding scale, they are not two absolutes, Yin and Yang. it's why the Audiophile in us shouts "but I love music!", while the Music Lover in us screams "leave the bloody thing alone and listen to it then!"
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Apr 7, 2018 13:00:52 GMT
So, the music lover only owns one copy of DSOTM, while the Audiophile has loads!
|
|
|
Post by steveeb on Apr 7, 2018 13:08:23 GMT
Probably only one copy of the studio album - but every live version going When is an Audiophile not a Music Lover? When he's in right brain 'system' mode, musical appreciation being a left brain activity.
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Apr 7, 2018 13:29:51 GMT
When he has Steve Wilson remastered versions of certain albums like King Crimson, Caravan and still loves all the different versions of the same tracks ! Alledgedly
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on Apr 7, 2018 13:34:30 GMT
Even a music lover wants his or her music to sound as good as possible but perhaps a music lover always thinks his music sounds good while an audiophile always thinks his music could sound better.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Apr 7, 2018 14:10:42 GMT
So, the music lover only owns one copy of DSOTM, while the Audiophile has loads! I have several, but I do have the Alan Parsons mix on DVD-A which sounds musically different
|
|
|
Post by dvh on Apr 7, 2018 16:01:34 GMT
So, the music lover only owns one copy of DSOTM, while the Audiophile has loads! No. The true music lover owns no copy of DSOTM.
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Apr 7, 2018 16:02:44 GMT
Even a music lover wants his or her music to sound as good as possible but perhaps a music lover always thinks his music sounds good while an audiophile always thinks his music could sound better. I think both ! Can always sound better
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Apr 7, 2018 16:03:40 GMT
So, the music lover only owns one copy of DSOTM, while the Audiophile has loads! No. The true music lover owns no copy of DSOTM. Nowhere near their best IMO
|
|
|
Post by steveeb on Apr 8, 2018 13:45:05 GMT
Audiophilia
Loving a system to death, throwing money at one which is fundamentally flawed in the belief that one more upgrade will revive it.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Apr 8, 2018 17:26:39 GMT
Loving a system to death, throwing money at one which is fundamentally flawed in the belief that one more upgrade will revive it. Isn't that just the definition of an idiot?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Whippy on Apr 8, 2018 19:40:29 GMT
Well, indeed. We are no glossy lifestyle magazine full of shallow people who buy things to demonstrate high income and 'cool taste'. I believe that every member here has done something unusual - invested in a hi-fi system - because they are first and foremost a music lover. That's why the definitions are blurred for me. Personally I was lured into hifi by the shiny boxes with big VU meters. But I also liked the idea of 'investing' in something that loses value as soon as it's bought. What was that film Jack Black was in? Ah yes... Shallow Hal. It's not just hi-fi that depreciates as soon as you get it. Cars and computers automatically come to mind. And it's not always the case; look at what vintage goes for now. Back in 1981 a Nait 1 cost £189. Now it goes for £500. In the late 70's a Haddock 228 arm cost £49. Now it goes for £200. What is an Audiophile? Indeed. You hear a piece of music, on a lo-fi source, and you connect with it. Sometimes it may take two or three listens. You buy the CD or download it. The majority will then play it on whatever they use to listen to music on, something lo-fi, if my sister is anything to go by. Years ago I gave her a Linn Basik turntable, Denon midi system of separates and some Heybrook HB2s and stands. It practically never gets used. Instead she uses a radio/cd/cassette unit or her laptop. A couple of times I set the speakers up for her, only to find them out of the way with no regard for a stereo set-up. I gave up. I told her she might as well just sell it. It's not really that important to her. It's the music that matters most to her. Out of that whole music-buying public, a small sector, will want to give the music on their CD/LP whatever, the consideration they feel it deserves and reproduced as best as their equipment will allow. And so we have The Audiophile. Well that's how I see it. And there is, of course, more than one type of Audiophile, I would say. I don't think I regard myself one these days; I spend far too much time watch/listening to music videos on me mobile. Now here's a TRUE Audiophile. She's obviously heard of the Particle Field Effect with clothing and the deleterious effect it has on the listening process. The other is a typical 60's nerdy Audiophile - complete with reel-to-reel, showing his committed status. Notice also the "ornamental" guitar. Probably cannot play a chord to save his life.
|
|