[rajacat]

Has the word "audiophile" evolved into a negative word used as a slight when describing various gear or even music?

Nowadays some use it to describe gear that's over priced and under performing while others use it to describe music that doesn't concur with their personal preferences. So I'm a little confused . What is an audiophile? It's used both as an adjective and a noun. Is it an obsolete term that has been misused profligately and has lost its original meaning? What other word could be used to describe audio aficionados?

-Roy

[srb]

Topic: What makes one an Audiophile?
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=69449.0

[FullRangeMan]

Pejorative is the term ''Musiclover'' or a non-audiophile person, a person that do not know how to  choose good audio equipment and can listen music in any boombox.         A audiophile is made of refinament, money and good taste.
Regards

[Curly Woods]

Has the word "audiophile" evolved into a negative word used as a slight when describing various gear or even music?

Nowadays some use it to describe gear that's over priced and under performing while others use it to describe music that doesn't concur with their personal preferences. So I'm a little confused . What is an audiophile? It's used both as an adjective and a noun. Is it an obsolete term that has been misused profligately and has lost its original meaning? What other word could be used to describe audio aficionados?

-Roy

It sure seems like that it has developed into a nasty name given to anyone that "claims to hear differences" these days.  Go to DIYAudio and claim that you can tell the difference between different components and you will be attacked by the "pack mentailty" that if you can not measure it, you are delusional.  Other forums have gotten as bad if not worse.  It has become ridiculous and no wonder that the high end stores are closing right and left across the US.  And these same people call anyone that thinks that they hear any difference as closed minded if they are not willing to be a lab rat and do DBT's for them.  Your brain is not capable of knowing what you are hearing and if you do, it is your subconscious "biases" that are the reason why you "think" that you are hearing any difference based upon price, color, you name it. Incredible!

[Wayner]

I consider an audiophile as someone who listens to "canned" (pre-recorded) music and takes measures to hear it on a system he dedicates time and funds improving, in an environment suited to music listening. If that is a nasty word, oh well. It becomes a confusing word when the quality of the system is in question or the music source or content is subject to likes or dislikes on the part of by-standers.

In other words, I love my stereo and my music, but hate your stereo and your music. Therefore, I am an audiophile and you may as well listen to talk radio on AM. It's all about attitude and latitude.

Wayner 

[Curly Woods]

You hit it on the head Wayne.  It is about the music.  If I make a comment that I might be able to hear differences in "my system" if I change out a capacitor, or a tube set, it seems that a lot of folks start jumping all over me as a "golden ear" and call me delusional.  I did not put down their system or anything about their stereos, but I am immediately attacked on many forums.  It is almost like they feel that I am bragging about my system.  Where does this mentality come from in folks?  I am intimately familiar with "my system" and subtle changes can be heard, by me, sometimes.  Sometimes the changes are not positive either
 I do try very hard to make sure that my system is as good as I can possibly make it, but I never would put down another person's system.  That is my experience on other sites when I am associated with the word "audiophile".  Somewhere along the way some people have decided that everyone that really tried to improve their own personal system, for their own enjoyment, are lunatics.
  Now I will be the first to say that a lot of stuff is pure snake oil to me, but I try to be open minded about anything

[Wayner]

Just remember that it's your system and chasing snake oil fixes can drain the pocket book and not bring much (or any) improvement. Sometimes it's just the music that is recorded poorly or is from an era that had limited recording technology. I am guilty of judgment just as much as the next guy, so I'm probably a hypocrite myself, but I do realize that one's own system is very personal and it's performance is well known by the owner. Satisfaction brings lament.

Wayner 

[Curly Woods]

Oh I rarely change anything, as I love the way it sounds.  I did change out some poly/foil coupling capacitors to a teflon variety and at first I did not like the sound at all.  I was told to let them stay in the circuit a little longer and they would continue to change.  Sure enough over the next two weeks they steadily improved.  Just to make sure I was not "delusional", I replaced them with the original caps and listen for another 2 week period.  It was not the same as with the teflons.  I trust my ears, but always try to be as "scientific" as I can about any changes.  I sold high end audio for a long time and know that not everything improves any system, not even the very expensive things

[lonewolfny42]

Topic: What makes one an Audiophile?
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=69449.0

Yes....I thought so....this topic was covered before.

Just think.....without music....we wouldn't need all this equipment...

[JLM]

Audiophiles are less hobbyists than they were decades ago.  (Unless you count computer geeks as most now don't mess with vinyl or tubes and kits are practically non-existent.)  So most folks just "don't get it" so audiophiles are poorly understood.  And very few have any special musical appreciation/training.  So what are we after anyway? 

To our shame, some spend insane amounts of money for no discernible reason.  (If it would a crime to purely waste money, the jury would nearly always convict any of us.)

[Curly Woods]

Audiophiles are less hobbyists than they were decades ago.  (Unless you count computer geeks as most now don't mess with vinyl or tubes and kits are practically non-existent.)  So most folks just "don't get it" so audiophiles are poorly understood.  And very few have any special musical appreciation/training.  So what are we after anyway? 

I still mess with vinyl and tubes!  The narrow minded view of "what many feel that an audiophile is today", is the issue.  Audiophiles, as I understand the term, are hobbyest that love to listen to music.  Many that I know have gone to DIY, as they can control what goes into their amps/preamps as far as quality of parts and still costs them less than commercial products, especially tubed products.  There are some really good DIY sites these days with many talented designers sharing their hard work with the masses.  As far as musical appreciation training, if anyone loves music, they will likely go to see music played live as much as possible.  Now many of the younger, computer based folks, probably don't listen to a lot of "live music" that is unamplified, but they still love music.   It is their passion.  Passion usually means that people have a high level of devotion to something, no?  They are trying to make their individaul emotional connection to their music as good as they possibly can.  That to me is the true definition of an audiophile.  To them music is more than background noise that plays while reading a book, driving their cars, or chatting with friends after dinner.  If this is not a true hobbyest, I guess I missed that day in school

To our shame, some spend insane amounts of money for no discernible reason.  (If it would a crime to purely waste money, the jury would nearly always convict any of us.)

Because you do not understand what many, as you term a modern "audiophiles", enjoy about their music systems, why does it bother you what anyone spends on their respective hobbies?  Sure there is a lot of expensive equipment on the market, but not everything is insanely expensive.  Bought a boat lately or a motorcycle?  I have more invested in music than I have spent on audio gear.  Is that insane? 

[JLM]

Part 1 (Allow me to clarify): 

It's my observation that fewer audiophiles have a hands-on relationship (build, modify, swap tubes, even routinely clean or make electrical checks) with their systems than was the case decades ago.  Instead it seems to me that most simply try to synergize between components via purchase (which reflects our overall higher standard of living, the improved value that is available in audio equipment, and the common person's increasing use of technology that is beyond their ability to fix or fully understand). 

IMHO this would make them more consumers than hobbists.  This is consistent with wikipedia's definition: An audiophile, from Latin audio "I hear" and Greek philos "loving," is a hobbyist who seeks high-quality audio reproduction via the use of non-mass-produced high-end audio electronics and wikipedia's definition of a hobby: an activity or interest that is undertaken for pleasure or relaxation in one's spare time.  So many "audiophiles" hobby is audio related shopping.

Many of the computer savvy only use their systems for desktop applications and seem more interested in the computer related aspects than exceptional sound quality.  So IMHO this excludes them as audiophiles.  This fits the definition from dictionary.com: an audiophile is a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction.

Part 2:

Why is the term "audiophile" possibly seen as a negative:

On the whole audiophiles have only a rudimentary appreciation for music as they little formal training and can barely play an instrument.  Most can?t name more than half the typical instruments found in their favorite genre(s) or discern between similar instruments (like violin and viola).  Yet the audiophile at least shops/considers spending hundreds/thousands on tweaks (probably while not having a decent room to listen in, to point out but one incongruity with typical audiophile practices).  The more we spend (time/money) the more the "outsider" rightfully asks why is significant monies put towards such an endeavor? 

Is the best retort we can come up with, (Because it costs less than some other hobby.)?

Confession:  I'm an audio consumer and musically uneducated.  My hobby does cost less than a nice boat or snowmobile and it doesn't cause much harm to others or the world around me.  I do it out of love for music and music that is well reproduced.  And I like having new "toys".  I?m sure that I'd be a better person if I read more or did more charity work, but that's a luxury I've picked.

[timind]

Part 1 (Allow me to clarify): 

It?s my observation that fewer audiophiles have a hands-on relationship (build, modify, swap tubes, even routinely clean or make electrical checks) with their systems than was the case decades ago.  Instead it seems to me that most simply try to synergize between components via purchase (which reflects our overall higher standard of living, the improved value that is available in audio equipment, and the common person?s increasing use of technology that is beyond their ability to fix or fully understand). 

IMHO this would make them more consumers than hobbists.  This is consistent with wikipedia?s definition: An audiophile, from Latin audio "I hear" and Greek philos "loving," is a hobbyist who seeks high-quality audio reproduction via the use of non-mass-produced high-end audio electronics and wikipedia?s definition of a hobby: an activity or interest that is undertaken for pleasure or relaxation in one's spare time.  So many ?audiophiles? hobby is audio related shopping.

Many of the computer savvy only use their systems for desktop applications and seem more interested in the computer related aspects than exceptional sound quality.  So IMHO this excludes them as audiophiles.  This fits the definition from dictionary.com: an audiophile is a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction.

Part 2:

Why is the term ?audiophile? possibly seen as a negative:

On the whole audiophiles have only a rudimentary appreciation for music as they little formal training and can barely play an instrument.  Most can?t name more than half the typical instruments found in their favorite genre(s) or discern between similar instruments (like violin and viola).  Yet the audiophile at least shops/considers spending hundreds/thousands on tweaks (probably while not having a decent room to listen in, to point out but one incongruity with typical audiophile practices).  The more we spend (time/money) the more the ?outsider? rightfully asks why is significant monies put towards such an endeavor? 

Is the best retort we can come up with, ?Because it costs less than some other hobby.??

Confession:  I?m an audio consumer and musically uneducated.  My hobby does cost less than a nice boat or snowmobile and it doesn?t cause much harm to others or the world around me.  I do it out of love for music and music that is well reproduced.  And I like having new ?toys?.  I?m sure that I?d be a better person if I read more or did more charity work, but that?s a luxury I?ve picked.

Gotta ask the question. Does your computer key for the apostrophe and quote marks not work properly?

[TrickMcKaha]

Any word derived from Greek lends itself to pejorative use.  But note the word means loving audio, not loving music.  I suspect there are many audiophiles who prefer their 90% realistic reproduction to live music, and not merely for the convenience.  When you have it on your own system, you have a pride of ownership you never get in a concert hall.

There is something satisfying in having equipment that does its job excellently - whether it is a stereo, a car, or a jackhammer.  I find audiophiles tend to be epicurean in other ways.  Maybe it is scotch, maybe wine, maybe woodworking - but they tend to appreciate fine things unapologetically. 

Audiophiles still tend to be more focused on stereo than on surround sound.  I wonder about that, because surround offers such great shortcuts to more realistic reproduction of live music performances.  I've read recently of the accomplishments of a stereo pair of speakers producing an expansive soundstage with holographic dimensionality and the transparency of Windex, but most any concert DVD provides that (with amplitude, I might add.)

When "audiophile" is used as a cut, it must be because the speaker feels the other feels superior - having the bigger speaker, the warmer tubes, or the better taste.  It is good to have those things, but not polite to brag about them.  So, when I blast my system loud, I do it humbly.

 

 

[JLM]

When I compose in Word, it gets translated that way.  Don't know why.  I went back afterwards to fix it.

I guessing that the question was relating to audio outsiders.

2 channel versus more channels.  In theory, yes the more information the better.  But what is your setup like?  Most don't follow the THX standards (MTM design speakers, etc. for low vertical dispersion) nor do they have everyone sitting in the middle of a large room so all can enjoy the same balance.  And as hard as it is to find really well recorded 2 channel material, the challenges of making a good multiple channel recording is much greater.  Plus the cost of that room that almost has to be dedicated to HT and extra channels is not insignificant.