[TONEPUB]

I have a beef with audiophiles, they dont know what music sounds like.

I have a problem with people that make vague generalisations...

I've met plenty of musicians, audiophiles and recording engineers that don't know
what music sounds like either, but I've met an equal number that do.

What I think you are missing the point on is that reproduced music is an art
form just like a painting.  Some people want a more literal presentation, while
others want something more abstract.  Some really like some crazy stuff,
but that's a whole book!

It's such a personal thing, it is truly hard to get it right.  What's important
is that you find the right "right" that is right for you.

That's all that matters!

Good luck on the quest, it is maddening sometimes!

[Wind Chaser]

For me so far this has meant One Thing Audio Quad esl57...

The Quads are nice but as a musician, don't their limitations bother you?  By limitations I mean they don't play loud - like real music; and they aren't very dynamic - like real music.

[Scotty]

As a music lover I appreciate a HiFidelity system. The reason being that the instruments and vocalists have the potential to sound more realistically present and easier to connect to.
We reproduce less information in our homes from recordings than exists in a live performance. Entire musicians and what notes they played can be lost by some equipment on the way to your ears. I find this unacceptable and unrealistic.
I think a different method of listening to music at home should be tried by audiophiles.
They should try listening to the recorded music the same way they listen to music played by live musicians. This is how I listen to music at home. I listen to the performance as a whole and do not listen to it as a collection of fragments. Likewise
I do not evalute the performance of an individual component by listening to fragments of music of 5sec duration. If you are listening to the musical performance as a whole as though it were a live event you are less likely to sit there wondering if the [ fill in blank here _______ sounds right] and missing the point the artist was trying to convey.  You are also less likely to settle for a system that gets some parts of the performance correct and has glaring failures which you overlooked because you had tunnel vision. Women who casually listen to music through high quality systems can be much more demanding about how a system performs than a man who has the Hobby/disease. She won't make excuses for what she hears based on price,looks,name brand or who says it has to be good. She Will Hear What it Does good or bad and judge it in its entirety rather by its' parts. A women listener can be a good reality check because they approach what they hear from a different perspective than men do. Bear in mind this is somewhat of a generalization but no less valid an observation for being one.
Scotty
 

[dwk]

The way the original question is phrased is obviously somewhat loaded. The bias towards  music lover = good and audiophile = bad is pretty obvious, but IMHO it's pretty simplistic.  'Music lover' has just as much potential for negativity as audiophile IMHO - who here doesn't know a collector that obsesses about his next acquisition as much as more as the stereotypical audiophile obsesses about his system, or who refuses to listen to a particuar pressing because it's so horrible? Or, the other type who is relentlessly persuing the next new thing; if you've heard of them then they're already passe.

In my opinion, the equation is really  constructive engagement = good, obsession = bad. Certainly audiophiles, particularly when they get together, can be prone to some pretty negative traits. I don't really think it's inherent in audio, though - I think if you look at any other hobby similar trends are likely to be clear. I'm sure the car guys have their debates about driver vs gear-head for example. And don't get me started on the computer gamers and overclockers  

In my view, much of the really negative behavior is somewhat related to the social aspects and the search for credibility/stature. The analytic details are the currency in which we trade, and who wants to be the poor cousin? How can one contribute to an audiophile discussion for example without dragging out the 'size of the soundstage' or 'inner detail of the voice' etc etc, and as in most social situations you have to tell a good story to get the attention.

For me, I have two pretty distinct modes.  The bulk of my music listening time is on (relatively) crap systems during 'real life'. This includes the usual 'around the house' and 'in the car' music, but also things like camping at our remote mountain property listening to a boombox while prepping dinner. Here, the music is an important and integrated part of the entire experience, and the sound quality really doesn't matter at all. (well, almost. Had the displeasure of having to listen to a Bose system *without* the bass module this past weekend. Even my wife commented on how horrible it sounded)

On the other hand, there's the 'big rig', which I don't listen to as much as I'd like (partially since it's still being constructed), but is still important. I tend to listen to different music in these cases (mostly acoustic folky lyric-driven stuff), and do it in the usual private isolated audiophile way. To me, this is really addressing similar parts of the mind/spirit as reading fiction or watching serious film (as distinct from 'movies') - it's partially intellectual, partially emotional, frequently challenging, but it certainly isn't passive, and I am really unable to consider it negative in any way.

[Daygloworange]

I don't know what live events people refer to that sound better than recorded music. Classical? Jazz?

As a longtime musician, recording engineer, who has done live sound mixing, I've never heard anything live that remotely sounds as good as a good recording in a good high resolution 4 way system. Period.

Live PA equipment is designed to be robust, durable, bulletproof, and efficient. I have never heard, or heard of a PA system that would qualify as audiophile quality. Room acoustics are always less than desirable, and often terrible.

If you are talking unamplified as in a jazz trio, I still find it better recorded. Better balance, more intimate detail from close miking, better cohesiveness.

Classical? This one is a little different, and most fall short of being there, so I'll say this is a different beast all together. But, in a proper system, I've heard some frighteningly good facsimiles.

I attend at least 2 to 3 live events a month. The sensation of being there has an aspect that can never be replaced, no. But to desire what I hear at a live event at home? No thanks.

Cheers

[weirdo]

As a music lover I appreciate a HiFidelity system. The reason being that the instruments and vocalists have the potential to sound more realistically present and easier to connect to.

I think this is why I am attracted to higher end stereo gear. When I was in High School I played organ in a rock band. But I never played like my hero , Jimmy Smith, and I never was within a hunderd yards of Joey Di. now. For me its the fantasy. I hear their technique with amazing realism on my system when my wife is out running errands and I can bend the windows a bit and imagine myself in another more talented lifetime performing the music. We want to hear the instruments we love sound like instruments. It takes fairly serious gear to get to that point. In this country, relatively few people really care about that stuff. We seem to have a large divide between good audio and really mediocre mid-fi. If that gap were smaller, people might not think there was that much of a difference between audiophile and music lover.

[markC]

.     I don't think this sonic ability is important to anyone whose lifestyle does not readily facilitate sitting in one position long enough to fully enjoy such a phenomenon (unless you happen to belong to the group of enthusiasts traditionally referred to as "audiophiles")"

If you read through the last six pages since this post, I think you will find it hard to disagree that at least 90% of us are both music lovers and audiophiles.
Why else would we be members of AC?

[Ektalog]

According to the 3 bottles of beer I just had...I am ALL of the above and more, in measured degrees, depending on budget & time, depending on tweaking itches. I am also a bit of an evangelist for the prudent pursuit of hi-fi.

Hearing music and listening to music are 2 different experiences; most people only really know the first one. These HEARERS are always music-lovers...and that is good.  But not all music-lovers are just hearers.

Some lucky hearer bastards also discover the joys of the second experience...and become LISTENERS. These can be music-lovers as well as audiophiles. (Not so the ignorants who CLAIM to listen, instead they simply overspend and brag...these are merely confused for audiophiles.)

If a system is capable of reproducing good recorded music in ways that involve a person for long periods of LISTENING time, this is a good "instrument".* The more involvement for longer periods, the better. When you do the listening you are a music-lover...not necessarily an audiophile just yet.

The minute you attempt to get system improvements to better LISTEN to the music, you become a music-loving audiophile.

It doesn't matter if you begin with that BOSE radio-alarm. If you start listening and decide you want more, and you DO something -- even minor -- to improve it (perhaps just removing it from the boomy corner and settling for the less bassy smoother sound), you turn into a music-loving audiophile.

And that ain't bad...or so says Anheuser-Busch 





* Perhaps because I was trained in classical music, I never expect ANY system to replicate the sound and experience of, say, a concert hall performance. However, I came to the conclusion that concert hall performance plus a recording of it plus the particular playback system including room become a NEW musical instrument. Thus, the goal (in a simplified way) is to get increasingly better sounding musical instruments (the combined totality) to enjoy listening to the music. This will nurture a desire for more improvements.

[DeeCee]

Ektalog, I'm with you on that (except for your choice in beer  )...

May be I should be the first to confess:

Didn't start as a major music lover. No excuses there: my Dad was an *extreme* jazzophile; never was much into music at all even though I was steeped in Miles, Milt, Sarah, etc.

Started in this hobby of audiophilia when a friend (who was an electronics freak since grade school) got
into it (it also helped that my brother was big  on audio too).

I began to ask myself, "Hey, why does this sound so much better than that?"...

In other words, I began to listen.

As I developed a sense of "rightness" and began to listen to more (and diverse) types of music, I discovered more and more of the art in music and then how the art can be expressed so well with applied science (engineering).

All that history in being "jazz steeped" did not go away came back in full effect as I started to branch from my typical music (mainly R&B and rock at thetime) to jazz fusion and then "straight ahead" jazz (along with other genres).

I guess the bottomline in all this is that I am both audiophile and music lover.

- DeeCee

P.S., I still find a lot of good music listening on crap: various car radios, department stores (the fun part is trying to find out if they are playing CD so I can get the name), PCs, etc.

Good music is EVERYWHERE! (The idea is to have FUN in your hobby)

[Dan Banquer]

My friends, clients, family, and coworkers have enough respect for me so they don't call me an audiophile.
            d.b.

[Daygloworange]

The way the original question is phrased is obviously somewhat loaded. The bias towards  music lover = good and audiophile = bad is pretty obvious, but IMHO it's pretty simplistic.  'Music lover' has just as much potential for negativity as audiophile IMHO - who here doesn't know a collector that obsesses about his next acquisition as much as more as the stereotypical audiophile obsesses about his system, or who refuses to listen to a particuar pressing because it's so horrible?

I guess we could all perceive that question a little more, this way, or that way. I didn't take it as a good vs bad thing at all. I think if someone where to be offended either way, they might be taking it too personally.

I like to take things seriously, but not take myself too seriously while doing so. Keeps me from being miserable. 

Cheers

[bprice2]

.

My friends, clients, family, and coworkers have enough respect for me so they don't call me an audiophile.
            d.b.

My wife likes to laugh and make fun of me in front of large groups and parties.  She enjoys telling everyone about my tendencies to move things around in the room in pursuit of better sound.  She call me an audiophile, which I really don't care for...the term makes me think of Winchester from M.A.S.H.  She also likes to talk about me going online to discuss issues with other "audiophiles".  She refers to us as audio-geeks.  

I get no respect

[Wind Chaser]

I am both audiophile and music lover.

That's what most people claim, but usually one interest takes preeminence or overshadows the other.  Most audiophiles are audiophiles first, music lovers second.  Your point about good music being everywhere is well taken.  I have no problem getting into an oldie but goodie on the AM radio.

[bprice2]

That's what most people claim, but usually one interest takes preeminence or overshadows the other. 

I do not believe that to be true.  I'm sure it is for you, b/c you keep saying it.

As I alluded to before in this thread, but did not elaborate on - there are two components to every hobby - the substantive and the procedural.  For example:  my other hobby is backpacking.  I do it b/c I enjoy being outside in beautiful surroundings and the excitement of the survival aspect to it.  That's the substantive part of it.  To be able to go on my outdoor journeys, I must have the proper gear to allow me to do it.  This is the procedural end of it.  Just b/c I am forever checking out new and lighter tents or trying to find the perfect sleeping bag, does not mean procedural has overshadowed the substantive.  I'll take having traveled over two 2,000 foot ridges in a day to camp and fish at an alpine lake over jacking with my gear any day.  At this point, I'm not thinking about my gear, but I am happy that I have it so that I may enjoy what I'm doing.

One necessitates the other and I think the same applies to audio...end of story.

[SOM]

I haven't read this thread, but the whole question reminded me of a recent experience.

I was visiting my inlaws, and I had gone to bed and there was a really cheapo radio on the nightstand. I found a halfway decent FM station and was listening as I read for awhile before going to sleep. Starship Trooper by Yes came on, and I put the book down and was absolutely swept away by the music. Afterwards I mused about the whole elusive magical musical experience pursuit, and thought it was interesting (and somewhat amusing) that one of the most powerful musical experience of the past year involved such as POS playback "system"!

If you aren't moved by Born To Run blaring from a cracked 4" car radio speaker while driving down the highway at night, it ain't about the music.

(Unless, of course, you hate Bruce Sprinsteen!)

[bpape]

I guess I'm both too - but usually at different times.  When I'm evaluating equipment or doing the geek thing at someone elses place, I'm audiophile and paying attention to the reproduction and equipment over the music.  On the other hand, when I'm just wanting to sit and listen to music, the fruits of my labors pay off as I just enjoy the music without the equipment drawing attention to itself.

Bryan

[Wind Chaser]

That's what most people claim, but usually one interest takes preeminence or overshadows the other. 

As I alluded to before in this thread, but did not elaborate on - there are two components to every hobby - the substantive and the procedural. 

Audiophile = music procedural and gear substantive.

Music Lover = music substantive and gear procedural.

By your own admission you deem gear is necessary.  That makes you an audiophile first music lover second.  End of story!

[WEEZ]

this is starting to sound like the chicken vs. the egg...

[bprice2]

Audiophile = music procedural and gear substantive.

Music Lover = music substantive and gear procedural.

By your own admission you deem gear is necessary.  That makes you an audiophile first music lover second.  End of story!

Its hard to drive without a car.

[Wind Chaser]

Its hard to drive without a car.

I know a lot of people who love music but don't have an audiophile system.  Using your analogy the car for an audiophile has to be "high performance" while the music lover is content with a car that functions.