[Mag]

Being out of work I have plenty of time to watch Youtube. So I'm watching videos on Music Theory for which I'm a complete idiot. Then this kid maybe 7 years old demonstrated that he could identify each note in complex chords and sing the correct pitch of the note.

When I was at Pulsworks, Audio Dealer in Saskatoon, I was listening to Ecstasy of Gold on Bryston's Active System. Dave, immediately identifies the opening instrument, I say to myself "huh", I had no clue.

My only claim is that I have been exposed to music since birth and listened to stereo actively at around age 10.

So my question is can a person really claim to be an audiophile if they don't know music theory, can't identify musical notes, correct pitch or even the instruments being played?

[charmerci]

So my question is can a person really claim to be an audiophile if they don't know music theory, can't identify musical notes, correct pitch or even the instruments being played?

A lot of what we hear is what we have been trained to hear. I can't hear much past 15K Hz for example, but within my range of hearing I'm very sensitive to what I do and can hear. Having perfect pitch, for example is something people have or don't have. Many of the things you are talking about can be separated between being trained to hear, having the ability to hear and just possessing the ability to hear.

I don't have much interactions with other audiophiles but if you spend some time with me, I'll hear things that others might not but once I point them out, then they do hear what I'm talking about.

So much of it is learning for what to listen for, within one's ability to hear it.

[James Tanner]

Its a good question Mag. 

I think that you can develop an expertise on evaluating a stereo's system to replicate or reproduce as close as possible what you experience at a concert hall or in a studio setting.  I know for myself it was not until I got involved in the recording business at the studio level did I realize what a quality audio system in your home should try and accomplish. We did a lot of film scores at major studios and when you hear that in the live setting and then listen to the recording of same it gives you a whole new perspective on what you are trying to capture on LP or CD etc.

I have some training in trumpet and saxophone but by all means am not musically trained in the real sense of the word but I sure know what a trumpet and a saxophone sounds like as both a player and a listener.

james

[Roninaudio]

Looking up "audiophile", a common definition is - "hi-fi enthusiast". I think most of us fit that description and I consider myself a member but there are many more "qualified" folks out there. Half the things guys spend money on (isolators, blocks of material under and amp, 1K cables, even stuff like regenerators etc) I probably could never hear the difference. I don't think that gets me excluded from the club but we all have different takes on what's important to our common hobby. To some it's the music, to others the equipment, maybe the synergy. I enjoy critical listening, enjoying the fruits of my labor realized in music reproduction.

I used to shoot a lot (part of my job) and was decent at it. A group of us would go to the range and a few could barely keep their shots on the paper at 100 yards. They could care less because they were having such a roaring good time out at the range banging away at paper.  We all had a blast.  I liken "audiophile" status as just that. If you are playing music on Fischer receiver with cool vintage JBL speakers  vs another guy using a D'Angostino amp and Wilson WHAMMs you may be enjoying the experience as much if not more that "that" guy and therefore you fit the audiophile description.  And if you are usually thinking of tweaks to change improve the sound, your a lifetime member!.  So I think the hobby is based on satisfaction and enjoyment. Not level of equipment and innate or trained abilities.  Albeit all are nice to have..

[CanadianMaestro]

My only claim is that I have been exposed to music since birth and listened to stereo actively at around age 10.

So my question is can a person really claim to be an audiophile if they don't know music theory, can't identify musical notes, correct pitch or even the instruments being played?

Absolutely. I actually think "musicophile" or simply a "music lover", fits the bill better. "Audiophile" tends to be a derogatory term, indicating an over-obsession with sound, vs. a true interest in music. imho.

Don't let this ruin your enjoyment of music.

cheers

[Elizabeth]

Right now while on this site, I am also listening to Beethoven piano sonata.

I ask myself what am I doing? and the answer is "listening to sublime music".
Part of my brain may be typing this and thinking about this post. But the rest of my mind is listening to Beethoven..

I am not thinking about what cable, or the next upgrade.. I am thinking about the music playing.
If I ask myself does the quality of the sound matter? yes, since it allows the music to be even more wonderful.

That's my answer.

[CanadianMaestro]

There's an old story about the late Canadian pianist, Glenn Gould. One day, while listening to a certain piece on a gawd-awful cheap radio, he was moved to tears. It didn't matter that the SQ was awful. He was still moved, as the piece touched his emotional core regardless of the SQ of the device. Of course, he was an exceptional musician and could reach deep inside a piece beyond the SQ of the piece's recording; most of us do care about SQ, as it brings many of us closer to the music. If that makes us "audiophiles", then that's a good thing, imo.

[glynnw]

One day while I was a salesman for Telarc one of the other employees, who had a degree from Oberlin as a trombone player, got goosebumps while listening to some background music on the decidedly lo-fi intercom system.

[HsvHeelFan]

I get goosebumps from listening quite often.    It can be "recording" induced.  By that I mean an excellent recording.   Most of the time it is performance induced and the recording would be what one would call mid of low fi.

My ears are fine.  I can't hear above 16khz, but at 56 years old, that's not a big deal.  I've been listening to music from as long as I can remember (I remember stuff from when I was 3 years old) and I started taking piano lessons when I was 7 years old and started playing brass instruments when i was 12 years old.   I've played brass in orchestras, wind ensembles, concert bands, brass choirs (of various instruments), brass quintets and quartets.

I don't have perfect pitch.  I have a good friend that does.  You can play any note and he can instantly tell you the note and play it immediately on a piano or brass instrument.  He can also tell you if the note is sharp or flat (not in tune).  People with perfect pitch are truly gifted.

I think one can be an audiophile while not knowing about music theory. 

There is an "art" to listening, but I think anyone can learn that, if they work at it.  A big part of it is to listen to the music with a high degree of concentration and to not be distracted by external influences.

As long as you trust your ears and you can compare sounds and know what you like, you should be fine.   

HsvHeelFan

[Goosepond]

Here is my decidedly unaudiophile contribution.

You "listen" to music with your brain not your ears. Your ears are just the organ that allows that stuff to get to your brain. Then the process starts and even then the results can be startlingly different listening to the same music at different times.

And I think Glenn Gould was a really interesting guy! 

Gene

[dB Cooper]

Here is my decidedly unaudiophile contribution.

You "listen" to music with your brain not your ears. Your ears are just the organ that allows that stuff to get to your brain. Then the process starts and even then the results can be startlingly different listening to the same music at different times.

Gene

What makes that 'unaudiophile'? I agree totally... Sometimes my setup sounds better to me than at other times too. Gotta just shrug it off. It seems reasonable to me to assume that its more likely that it's my perception that changes from time to time than the performance delivered by my audio gear. As an example, I don't think my system actually sounded better after a few college bong hits, but it sure 'sounded better'.

BTW Goosepond, are you aware that Hedy Lamarr was a mathematician who held a patent for what later became the basis of Wi-Fi?

[Goosepond]

What makes that 'unaudiophile'? I agree totally... Sometimes my setup sounds better to me than at other times too. Gotta just shrug it off. It seems reasonable to me to assume that its more likely that it's my perception that changes from time to time than the performance delivered by my audio gear. As an example, I don't think my system actually sounded better after a few college bong hits, but it sure 'sounded better'.

BTW Goosepond, are you aware that Hedy Lamarr was a mathematician who held a patent for what later became the basis of Wi-Fi?

Hi Mr. Cooper. And BTW what the hell did you do with all that money???

"unaudiophile" is my classification of my own abilities and interest, nothing else.

And yes, I have heard that that gorgeous creature also had a brain. Some things are just not fair. 

Gene

[dB Cooper]

So my question is can a person really claim to be an audiophile if they don't know music theory, can't identify musical notes, correct pitch or even the instruments being played?

Of course. Look around at the next concert you go to- 98% of the people you see don't know music theory, can't identify musical notes, and don't have perfect pitch (but might be able to identify many if not all instruments), but I doubt anyone would suggest that means they can't be music lovers (or audiophiles IMHO.)

[dB Cooper]

Hi Mr. Cooper. And BTW what the hell did you do with all that money???

Spent it on audio equipment... 

[Johnny2Bad]

RE: Glenn Gould

There is a well-worn phrase in audio ... "musicians have the worst systems". It's because they hear things differently than audiophiles and music lovers (and I'm not suggesting someone cannot be two or even all three at the same time) and "play" notes in their heads. No lunatic-fringe HiFi required.

Critical Listening is both a learned behaviour and an innate talent ... but it's more learned than talent. By that i mean a large % of the population ... perhaps 70% ... can be trained to be a Critical Listener. (The other 30% have physical or neurological barriers that preclude developing such a skill. Some can't hear properly, and others don't have any brain response to music). A very small % of that 70% will truly excel at it ... they could be mastering engineers or music producers, or maybe take JA's job when he retires. But the remainder can still be very good at it.

The problem is it's a skill that must be learned and must be exercised ... people in the industry have an advantage in that they will hear more gear more often, which helps them develop the skill quickly. But if you do spend time listening, and especially to as much different gear as possible, good and bad and all shades in between, you will still be able to equal them, it just might take you five years versus two or three.

And it gets better once you achieve the "graduation level" skill. Like many worthwhile things, your skills as a listener can continue to improve for the rest of your life.

[gbaby]

So my question is can a person really claim to be an audiophile if they don't know music theory, can't identify musical notes, correct pitch or even the instruments being played?

Yes. In my opinion, and audiophile is simply a person who is obsessed with and enjoys the accurate reproduction of music.