[JLM]

According to wikipedia an audiophile is a person who seeks to listen to music at a level of quality as close to the original performance as possible using high-fidelity components to try and attain these goals. Most audiophiles are music lovers who are passionate about high-quality music reproduction and some are hobbyists who build their own equipment, especially loudspeakers…  Often audiophiles use expensive, high-quality, or esoteric products and practices in the reproduction of music…  The audiophile will usually have great interest in the gear used, and may travel to listen to equipment not available in his own city, and spend hours in making minor changes to his gear and comparing the results…

Can we agree on this definition? 

(I edited out discussion on audio rags, vinyl vs. CD, cost/source of equipment, and a referenced Asian disassociation for music.)

[Big Red Machine]

How about adding:

While obfuscating objectivity, will demonstrate extreme degrees of subjectivity!

 

[Turnandcough]

Someone who spends inordinate amounts of time and money to obtain marginal improvements in musical fidelity. Ex.: With the new $8000 Stravinsky Champagne Elite cables I "thought" I heard an increase in detail however the bass "seemed" to be lacking a bit and there "appeared" to be some harshness in the upper mid range. Often these people are so caught up in their systems that they are unable to relax enough to really get into the music itself.
Basically - a sick bird.

[Imperial]

An Auditory Gourmet...

 

Imperial

[rabpaul]

Someone who spends inordinate amounts of time and money to obtain marginal improvements in musical fidelity. Ex.: With the new $8000 Stravinsky Champagne Elite cables I "thought" I heard an increase in detail however the bass "seemed" to be lacking a bit and there "appeared" to be some harshness in the upper mid range. Often these people are so caught up in their systems that they are unable to relax enough to really get into the music itself.
Basically - a sick bird.

Are you not being bit harsh with someone who has the means to tinker (excessively to you) with his hi-fi toys?

[zane9]

I hope I am an audiophile. I am a music lover and passionate about it. My criteria is simple: can my system actually play music?

Jeff Day, writing recently for 6moons, brilliantly expressed this concept. He wrote:

"My Favorites of 2007 focus exclusively on equipment that possesses exceptional musicality in the Music Lovers style. Hifi equipment that possesses exceptional musicality is equipment that emphasizes the musical aspects of a recorded performance over the non-musical artifacts of the recording process. For example, the timbral signature of a band, the melodic flow of music over time in a song, and delivering the full emotional impact of music are considered to be more important than the exaggeration of the non-musical artifacts of the recording process such as soundstaging, transparency, imaging and extreme detail recovery that has found favor in equipment voiced for audiophiles.

My 2007 picks sound very good sonically but because they don't overly exaggerate the non-musical artifacts of the recording process, they are more tolerant of a wider range of recording quality and tend to provide a more natural, life-like and enjoyable musical experience for the listener. This is gear designed to allow for many hours of enjoyable and fatigue-free listening sessions, leaving the listener refreshed and edified at the end of the day. This is also gear that can get you off the dreaded audiophile merry-go-round for good so you can kick back and enjoy the tunes while you explore your music."

To me, the above is a liberating perspective: one can get off the endless treadmill of overly analyzing every last spec of every piece of gear. Rather, if my system is giving me many hours of fatigue-free listening, I'm happy.

In this 21st. century of mediocrity, long live audiophiles.

[santacore]

I like to think of it as someone obsessed with equipment that will make pre-recorded music sound live. This brings us closer to recreating the energy and emotion of the original performance.

[sunshinedawg]

According to wikipedia an audiophile is a person who seeks to listen to music at a level of quality as close to the original performance as possible......Often audiophiles use expensive, high-quality, or esoteric products and practices in the reproduction of music

I think this is actually a good definition. The goal of the audiophile is to "reproduce" the music. Unfortunately, almost all have lost their way in this endeavor. People get on the merry-go-round of equipment, thinking they are going to find the holy grail in some piece of equipment or combination there of or by tweaking gear in just the right way. Realistic reproduction requires thought about what makes up a natural sound field and how you can best recreate that in your room. By starting with an equilateral setup, the realism of your system is limited by the artificial phantom image and can never be better than what this has to offer, which is not very realistic sound. The current breed of audiophile tries to approximate original performances with really poorly conceived setups, placing most emphasis on quality and cost of parts, instead of focusing on the psychoacoustics of what is needed for realism. When you are at a live acoustic event, are there two sources for every one instrument originating from places not where those instruments originally were? Then why would you do this in your room?

There are those who would argue that they like the simplicity of two channel systems, and that they are very pleasing. This is nonsense. If you are an audiophile and adhere to the above definition, then you are trying to reproduce the original performance. Two channel, equilateral systems can never reproduce a 3d live event, the best they can do is approximate it really poorly. Once you achieve a system that can reproduces a live event, you can get off the merry-ground and actually sit and enjoy without analyzing. If you are a tweaker by nature and have to tinker, you can then audition and tweak different equipment in the framework of proper, realistic reproduction.

It makes me chuckle when people talk about having golden ears, when they are so oblivious to spatial correctness, which is so much more important when it comes to realism. The brain/ears want correct aural clues, not fancy equipment. They speak of image. What image? One that this created by a trick of having equal sound coming from different places than it actually came from? This gives me a headache, this is the definition of fatigue for me. Another good one is depth. What depth? Depth that sounds like music is hovering one foot from your speakers?

I wonder what people who are after reproducing a live event are actually thinking about and why they have become so complacent with poor sound reproduction. I also wonder why they cling so tightly to the idea of these type of setups, never imagining there is so much better.

[AliG]

The definition in Wiki does not apply to everyone 

I attended live concert/orchestra/theater on a regular basis, I actually prefers the sound of my system than live performance, so I couldn't care less about reproducing live sound

[Turnandcough]

Someone who spends inordinate amounts of time and money to obtain marginal improvements in musical fidelity. Ex.: With the new $8000 Stravinsky Champagne Elite cables I "thought" I heard an increase in detail however the bass "seemed" to be lacking a bit and there "appeared" to be some harshness in the upper mid range. Often these people are so caught up in their systems that they are unable to relax enough to really get into the music itself.
Basically - a sick bird.

Are you not being bit harsh with someone who has the means to tinker (excessively to you) with his hi-fi toys?

I don't mean to be harsh or judgmental. It's just the way it is. I know from personal experience that when audiophiles(myself included) listen they are usually listening to the system and not the music. If I'm driving along listening to music on my cheap radio I'm actually listening to the music without paying too much attention to the sound. When I get home I play a CD on my "audiophile"  system and suddenly, there I am, analyzing, tweaking and surfing these forums to find out what I can do to improve the sound quality.

[sunshinedawg]

The definition in Wiki does not apply to everyone 

I attended live concert/orchestra/theater on a regular basis, I actually prefers the sound of my system than live performance, so I couldn't care less about reproducing live sound

Wow, that is an amazing statement if you are not trying to be sarcastic. I guess that agrees with the trend of everybody not caring about reproducing a live event.

[TerryO]

I am proud to express and define my status as an Audiophile. I delight in demonstrating my "High-End System" and equipment to friends and fellow Audiophiles. I plan to further upgrade my system, in the coming year, by replacing the current paper price tags (actually Custom Printed adhesive labels) with slightly larger, yet tasteful, brass plaques with the price engraved upon it. You can well imagine the elation and pride of ownership that I experience when people gasp and stare with disbelief at the high quality of the sound and the cost of being able to achieve this unbelievable performance! From the Custom High-End Innerconnects and Speaker cables to the One-of-a-kind designed and crafted Speakers, everything in my system performs exactly as I had hoped it would when I set out to put together a totally cost is no object system. As you can imagine, this is a statement as much about me as my commitment to good taste and a refined presentation of the Music.

My one problem, and I am currently consulting with a University Professor with extensive expertise in graphic design, is the style and font on the brass plaques which, as I mentioned above, will display the price of my individual components. I am of the opinion that there should be three lines (to illustrate, I'll use my Amplifier as an example) engraved on these plaques.
I envision it as stating: "St. Vincent de Paul" on the top line in smaller letters, followed on the second line by the price: "$14.95" engraved predominately in a much larger font, followed by the third line in a smaller, understated font: "as is".

While this is a seemingly small detail, it is vitally important to me that people should be aware of the cost of such a system, although the plaques would cost more than the $100 total of the whole system. My second system which is totally untouched and unmodified, cost me nearly $57.00 total.

Best Regards,
TerryO ("El Magnifico")

[JLM]

To summerize

Big Red: The definition did not include subjectism, but that makes us a can of mixed nuts.   

Turnandcough:  I agree that it doesn't/shouldn't require deep pockets to be accepted.   

zane9:  This is my goal for equipment too, but doesn't address what an audiophile is.   

santacore:  Those are lofty goals.   

sunshinedawg:  Thanks for your vote, the rest we've heard from you before.   

AliG:  Arena and really bad seats aside (with which I agree), why are you here again?   

TerryO:  My hope is that the door is always open to those who can put together an audiophile grade components (as measured by being as close to the original performance as possible) on the extremely cheap.  This is much harder (and more gratifying IME) to do than starting with a wad of money.   

[Daygloworange]

The definition in Wiki does not apply to everyone 

I attended live concert/orchestra/theater on a regular basis, I actually prefers the sound of my system than live performance, so I couldn't care less about reproducing live sound

I attend live shows on a constant basis. I love to see live performances. Over the years I have attended hundreds and hundreds of shows. Classical, Jazz, Rock, acoustic ensemble, solo performers.

Having lived for decades on 3 sides of music and audio, as a musician, as a recording engineer, and as a listener, I have to agree with AliG, I prefer the sound of well recorded music played on a good 2 channel system to hearing it live. We have much to be thankful for because of the technology and art employed in recorded music and it's playback reproduction.

I've never been to a live (amplified) concert where I was really impressed with the sound. There have been some classical and intimate jazz shows I've attended with good room acousctics that sounded really good, but were fraught with the sounds of other people in the room. I find that most distracting, when you have to struggle to filter out the sounds of people coughing, clearing their throats, rustling about, whispering, cell phones ringing....

And I can't count the number of times I went to see a band who's recordings I really like, only to be greatly dissapointed at the performance of the artist live, and the sound.

As far as what defines an "audiophile", I've never cared about definitions. They are most oftentimes subjective and too broad in meaning, that they become futile and useless.

Cheers

[AliG]

No..I always have some of the best seats.  My wife is a live-performance freak  .. I have no choice but to accompany her. But given a choice, I would rather be sitting in my room having a date with Alison Krauss...

AliG:  Arena and really bad seats aside (with which I agree), why are you here again?   

[Thebiker]

I agree with DayGlow....amplified concerts usually disappoint.  It takes a special venue and acoustic music to deliver the goods live, IMHO.

As to audiophiles (or audiophools, which I probably am)  , if the music is good, it will make me smile.  If the system delivers it in a pleasing (non-abrasive) fashion so that I can enjoy my music for hours without fatigue, then I have found audiophile nirvana. I am a tube junkie, so that probably makes me a particular type of audiophool, but it makes me happy .

Walt

[santacore]

Yep, live concerts almost always disappoint sonically. I much prefer the listening to high quality studio recordings at home.

My goal as an audiophile is to try to recreate the feeling of being a fly on the wall of the original recording session. I want to feel like I was in the room when the tracks were being laid down.

[Zero]

An audiophile is simply an individual that makes great strides to achieve better reproduced sound quality.


For some, the goal is to simply take things a few steps beyond mass-market products.
Others tend to chase down the dream of recreating a live performance in their own living space
Some believe it takes big bucks to get anything that even resembles high quality reproduction
Others feel it can be attained in a more affordable (enter your own definition) realm
Some love the hunt
Some hate the hunt
At the end of the day, its taking our love and joy of music to the next level (short of playing the music ourselves).

[xander]

Hi, I'm new to posting here, but would like to voice my humble opinion here, as I am a bit different than most of you.

I consider myself an audiophile, but I would never tell anyone else that in person. This is only because I believe the term has a negative connotation. A connotation involving one spending ridiculously large sums of money on equipment and being completely impractical. I am not saying anyone here is like this, that is just what I don't want to be viewed as when people find out about my interests in audio.

I am only a senior in college, but am up to my ears in all of this. And I only started 3 years ago. I now work at Event Services, a campus job where we setup equipment for all the events going on on campus. I run sound at concerts once or twice a week, and do so with a passion. If something does not sound right I won't stop until it does.

I can't even to go a concert anymore without constantly critiquing the sound. I often feel like kicking the guy behind the sound board out and doing it myself. I swear some of those people don't know the difference between sibilance and feedback.

I spend a lot of my spare time reading audio forums, tuning my car, and planning my next project. Well...I don't really have spare time. Between full time classes and an average of 30 hours of work every week, I don't sleep much.

I have a driving thirst for knowledge in all aspects of audio, from home theater and car audio to live sound reproduction and recording. I know that I can never know it all, but I'm trying my best.

I do everything as DIY as I can. Mostly because I want to know exactly how it works and why and I like the pride of knowing I did it. And how else could I afford it all as a poor college student

I know my "home theater" system is terrible right now. That's why I just bought Crown amps and a new Marantz receiver for a pre/pro. And that's why I'm spending winter break building a center channel from scratch (from a plan someone else designed, I am still learning about crossover design), and will be building matching mains and surrounds when my income allows.

I know my car's soundstage is low and the bass lacks definition. But I spent countless hours of my time this summer/fall searching for deals on old school reliable amps and installing everything myself and tuning to the best of my ability. For me, tonal accuracy is more important than spatial accuracy.

Sorry about that long introduction/rant.

I believe that a true audiophile is one who has a passion for sound. One who has the drive to learn as much as they possibly can about all different aspects of acoustics, audio gear, and the audio market. One who strives to improve their personal systems to sound a certain way, whether that be identical to a live performance, perfect imaging, or clean and accurate.

[JLM]

Welcome aboard xander,

Your reply at this tender age (compared to most of us) is refreshing and offers promise that this is not a hobby for just old farts.  Your interest, passion, and commitment are commendable.  As your time and finances would seem to dictate, you fit the wikipedia definition quite well.  IME getting your hands dirty and trying to understand how the equipment actually works are vital aspects in being a successful audiophile.

How much we spend is a personal matter.  As long as it doesn't get in the way of having an otherwise healthy social, economic, and financial life most audiophiles wouldn't deem it to be excessive.  (Mother Theresa would have probably have considered Bill Gates buying an i-Pod as excessive.) 

Just don't lose love for the music.  Many have burned out after spending extreme amounts of resources on the last iota of detail/whatever or from listening for all the sonic nits versus hearing the soul of the music.  This is exactly why audiophiles are critized for their sickness.  In fact part of the wikipedia definition I edited out (because I don't comprehend it) was the reference to a Japanese practice for using music only as a reference and assemble systems for the intellectual pleasure alone.

And protect those young ears, keep them from damaging spls as long as possible.  And thanks for the post.