Are you an "Audiophile"?

[Puffin]

I have been into this Malarkey for probably too long. I have put together many systems over the years with many different components of varying price (Quality?).

I went to many Hifi Shows in 80s and 90s and occasionally heard stuff that I thought "wow" that is blinding, the rest....well probably competent, but not at those prices, and not listening to the usual "show" music. I would come home and play some tunes and think....Mmmm this is good enough for me.

I assume that those as long in tooth as me know what they think constitutes good sound and know what they like. Am I an Audiophile because I strive to make the music acceptable to my taste? Or am I just a music lover that demands that the music I play sounds right to me?

[Firebottle]

I guess the latter Rob, sounding 'right' has a lot to go for it.

[Pigmy Pony]

Yeah, I think the key words are "music lover", where the system is there to play the music, rather than the music being there to put your system through its paces.

[Paul-H]

What is can Audiophile

He will be different to different people.

One view is that an Audiophile is a special person with extra special hearing who is constantly striving to improve the sound of their system, either through constant upgrades to their hardware or periferals like connecting or power leads, they do come over as being never actually satisfied as they constantly look for a weakness in their setup to change

Another view is that they are just ritch showoffs who like to boast how much they just spent on this or that and how huge the improvement was. They think nothing of spending thousands on a mains cable as long as they can boast about the huge improvement it brought.

There are other types but one common point connects them all and that is they tend to listen to the equipment more than the music.

It's their choice and their money do good luck to them in their quest

To many they are just Audiophools but they are easy to spot and easy to ignore if you so wish ;)

Hat coat door :)

[southall-1998_mk2]

I have no idea.

S.

[Flo]

I believe we all have a certain sound we hear in our heads, that voice is a constant that we try and replicate in our living room. That’s why no two systems are alike, audio dna. Aristotle said what we perceive as real is the imperfect reflection of a perfect reality Else where [heaven].
I think to create the ideal full range sound is expensive, ie living voice, so most designers and fans concentrate on getting one element [tone, speed, dynamics] perfect and the others close.
I’ve known friends with mega systems [100k+] that own a fraction of my record collection but are blissfully happy and never even read a hifi site. They also tend to buy fit and forget. I envy them.

[mad-moon]

Yes...we all are...we have good quality gear that gives us the crisp clear sound we are looking for...sometimes it's a long journey to get there..and sometimes we strive to eek just that little bit more from our kit, but when you get there the striving turns in to being sideways moves...when that happens you are there and it's time to enjoy the tunes....Tis a wonderful and rewarding pastime..enjoy people...

[Jac Hawk]

An audiophile in my opinion is someone who strives to recreate as close as possible the music as it was played / recorded, so that would in my opinion be everyone that frequents sites like these regardless of the amount of money they have spent on their system. Everything is subjective though so what I might consider to be perfect is totally crap to someone else, I guess what I’m trying to say is an audiophile cares about the quality of the sound and invests time and money until he’s happy, whereas normal people get the same enjoyment out of the music be it out of the speaker on their phone or through a crappy set of earbuds

[Flo]

I’m lucky enuf to have seen hundreds of bands [inc many starting big careers, elbow, chilli peppers, snow patrol, primal scream] at one of the best small venues in uk, [ Wedgewood rooms] hundreds of those I’ve seen I’ve got on record. 17 Glastonburys and numerous womads have given me rounded tastes, and experience of what a band really sound like. Also had numerous friends in bands so spent many bored hours in studios.
To recreate the sound of a drum kit esp cymbals, or soprano at close range would pop an eardrum, a sax at full tilt in a small room is awesome, and virtually impossible to recreate. So hi fi is there to recreate a facsimile that is domestically practical and mimics the recordings intention if not the exact original event.

[spendorman]

No, I'm an Audophool

[antonio]

Well if you're not a audiophile whatcha doing on this forum. However way you put it, whether you are striving for accuracy or a musical presentation you like you can't hide behind another banner since audiophiles are not 'cool'.

[Joe]

I'm old enough and ugly enough not to give a toss what particular label anyone wants to stick on me (unless it's one of the ones that says 'kick me' ofc).

[anthonyTD]

I just love music, however; if something sounds wrong to me, i will do what i can to rectify it. :)

[Pharos]

Words mean what they are defined to mean, and audiophile has a wide range of definitions.

I cannot see a massive difference between the OP's choices in his question.

I've pursued high quality sound for about 55 years, become obsessive at times, and self ridiculing at others, and spent a great deal of money in this process.

It takes a reflection to see that what we listen to at home is only a facsimile, and often of an artefact created in a studio for which there is no absolute reference, but we do our best to replicate the intentions of the artist which are on the masters, and so IMO it is a science to improve equipment to do this as well as possible.

Often changes are just that, with nuanced emphasis due to various errors, giving different impressions which may be seen as greater fidelity, but this sense can be replicated just with frequency response change.

We are all limited financially, and perhaps that's a blessing, but one point which has occurred to me is that often for me, when perceived in higher fidelity, I realise that it is the art itself which I find offensive, often because a performance is laid bare, and sometimes its blatantly lame nature has been revealed.

[struth]

more of a sommelier tbh :lol:

[Puffin]

One of the reasons I started this thread is that I am currently using my open baffle speakers bi-amped with 2 cheap class D boards, one TPA3116 and the other a TA2024. The 3116 powers the Mid and HF and the other the LF. The TA2024 is probably good for 5w before it is said that distortion rises rapidy, the 3116 is said to do 50w (4ohms) dependent on PS rating. I don't know what each amps gain is, but they present an overall very coherent whole.

Both boards cost about £25. Then you have to factor in a PS, connectors, case etc etc. However these are strictly in the Fish & Chips category of gastronomy. The rest of the system is more complicated with various tweaky DIY stuff involved.

I suspect that some might not even contemplate using something so cheap and down market looking regardless of the end result. I am definitely not an Audiophile.

[walpurgis]

I've got amps with both chips in and always thought they sounded decent.

And an audiophile is just somebody who enjoys their sounds, there's no rule saying it even has to qualify as Hi-Fi! :)

[Joe]

Yebbut a true non-audiophile wouldn't be doing with any of that. They'd just buy something from Curry's (or equivalent), switch the thing on and play music.

[struth]

My power amps were fairly cheap new(although their right price was probably more originally). doesnt mean they are not excellent amps... sure a few mods could improve things as well.. No reason high quality audio has to cost a lot

[Covenant]

I consider myself an audiophile with a good sense of proportion. By that I mean I will ponder long and hard before making a purchase and aim to recoup part of the cost with a sale. I could spend a lot more if I wanted but cannot justify it in my head because I spend more time using the AV system with the rest of the family.

[Puffin]

Dictionary Definition :

Meaning of audiophile in English
a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about equipment for playing recorded sound, and its quality:

[AJSki2fly]

Dictionary Definition :

Meaning of audiophile in English
a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about equipment for playing recorded sound, and its quality:

Funny I was just about to post that too, so I am an audiophile and presumably most of us here must be as well, unless any of us do not care how good or bad their music sounds on whatever medium or system they listen with. :)

[walpurgis]

You can be interested in music and good quality equipment and not be an audiophile. My dad was an example.

[Puffin]

Well I was going to edit Post #16......but now I am Confused of Surrey:scratch::eek:

[AJSki2fly]

You can be interested in music and good quality equipment and not be an audiophile. My dad was an example.

So Geoff did your Dad not fall into any of the descriptors in this wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile?Or in other words words did he just like music and was not bothered how it sounded or was reproduced? Did he just like audio equipment that was well built/designed or was aesthetically pleasing and not really bothered about how it sounded?

[Flo]

Isnt audiophile just a posh way of saying hobbyist, a music lover perhaps but not necessarily.
Best mate is musician and music nut, plays huge scratched vinyl collection on a 50 year old pioneer pl12 thru quad 33 303 and awful celestion monitors, sounds cack, he doesn’t give a toss. Most musicians I’ve met are happy with very prosaic sounding kit.
I think there a very male element of ocd involved in the best systems, audio trainspotters! Stamp collectors?

[walpurgis]

He was a world class electronics engineer, but he said Hi-Fi was nonsense and stereo was a gimmick. At the time of his death in 1964, he had been using a good Garrard autochanger deck, home built valve amp and 12" Rola full range speaker in suitable box! Needless to say it was a mono system

[antonio]

"I am definitely not an Audiophile". So what are you Puffin, and what you doing on this forum if you are not an hifi enthusiast?
It is perfectly ok to be 'as cheap as chips' audiophile

[Puffin]

It is perfectly ok to be 'as cheap as chips' audiophile

Yes, that will do nicely.

[AJSki2fly]

He was a world class electronics engineer, but he said Hi-Fi was nonsense and stereo was a gimmick. At the time of his death in 1964, he had been using a good Garrard autochanger deck, home built valve amp and 12" Rola full range speaker in suitable box! Needless to say it was a mono system

Back in the day some of those Garrards sounded pretty good, I had one in a so called portable which made nice music. Nothing wrong with mono if produced well, and from what you say your Dad probably made a good amp and feed a decent speaker for a good SQ.

[Paul-H]

Audiophilia is now a recognised mental illness

Does that mean we can't make jokes about their insane love of expensive interconnect etc

Will it be classed as a hate crime to even mention their name?

[Pharos]

It would be better for us to aid those afflicted, as with other compulsive tendencies, eating, smoking and others, to address the deep inner needs which these compulsions do not fulfil.

[anthonyTD]

:)
It would be better for us to aid those afflicted, as with other compulsive tendencies, eating, smoking and others, to address the deep inner needs which these compulsions do not fulfil.

[Gazjam]

I’ve polished a few fuse ends in my time...
Not for a while now right enough (M’lud)

More about getting final kit in place and enjoying the music nowadays, not really “chasing” or as much of a thing as it was when I was younger and dafter.
Definitely couldn’t live with poor sound though.

[Jules_S]

Just picking up on this one (sorry, a bit late to the party). I'd have thought that the term "audiophile" related to someone who takes a particular interest in the quality of music reproduction (whatever the method) as opposed to someone who derives emotional pleasure from the music itself, regardless of its fidelity. "phile" usually indicates a lover of something, so it's a lover of audio, i.e. the quality of the sound itself.

I'd say that it's quite possible to be a music lover without being an audiophile, or vice versa. Many professional musicians are emotionally bound in what they do and the music they play, but aren't at all interested in chasing ever-smaller increments in audio quality (or in some cases, don't care about it at all in the first place). At the other extreme end of the scale are no doubt people for whom it is the audio equipment itself that provides the enjoyment - the satisfaction of achieving a perceived level of, or improvement in, sound quality, pride in the aesthetics, and yes perhaps even the cost, and music is of secondary importance.

Being an audiophile and being a music lover are therefore not necessarily linked, although for many of us one serves the other. Nothing wrong with being at either end of the spectrum, or somewhere in the middle.

[Barry]

The term "audiophile" is a bastard conjunction of the Latin audio (= I hear) with the Greek suffix -philia (= (brotherly) love, or a liking of/for). Thus the term simply means someone who likes or loves listening. It doesn't specify what is being listened to: the original sound (music, speech, poetry, song etc), or of the quality of reproduction.

I would assume that most of us here are music lovers first, and because of that have invested in equipment with which to listen to music to a sufficiently acceptable level of quality.

But there are some for whom the quality of reproduction will take precedence, and the 'software' is subservient. That to me is putting 'the cart before the horse', and those that pursue such a path will never be content. I have a friend who is a bit like that: every time I go round to listen to his system (usually because he has made a change of equipment and he wants me to come and hear it), but he never seems to be able to relax and is constantly hopping up and down to make some small adjustment, or saying things like "do you think it sounds better/ distorted/ noisy/ ... " etc. etc.

[speedyj]

I would assume that most of us here are music lovers first, and because of that have invested in equipment with which to listen to music to a sufficiently acceptable level of quality.



Definitely this for me..............I know what sounds good to my ears and have certain music/bands/styles etc that I just love to listen to. Some is purely for the sound and production whilst some can be because of a time and place it takes me back to.

[ST3RST1K4R]

A great topic (question) of which I have asked myself the same question for a while now. I am a hardcore music lover but never satisfied with my equipment but at some level I am satisfied with "a" standard of quality though I find what my equipment is made of (how durable\way its constructed) to be equally desirable.

I would think most who label themselves audiophiles would scowl at my setup though. its not electrostatic some have said LOL and I find it hard to find younger people in their teens\twenties even having a perceived standard of what I would rate scientifically what top of the line tech is....everyone I ever met has never owned nor heard electrostatic before or had heard in their opinions something as good as what I listen too on a daily basis.

I see a subjective side to audio technology that we all have some aspect in so I view myself just a big fan of music and tech enables you to achieve that desired satisfaction not just listening but mixing recording as well.

[bob4333]

Audiophile?

I just hate the bl**dy word, it's too close to another type of 'phile. Can we not think of something else to call it? :(

[Puffin]

I would look at it the other way round. Phile is defined as "Denoting a person or thing having a fondness for a specified thing".

We have Ailurophile, a person who loves Cats, Astrophile - A person who loves stars or Astronomy, Ceraunophile - A person who loves lightning or thunder and there are many many others.

Why should we have to dump a phrase that has been used for many years because high profile perverts have made any word that ends in Phile have the same connotation?

[Barry]

Taken from https://www.kenrockwell.com/audio/audiophile.htm (my emphasis in bold):

Audiophiles are what's left after almost all of the knowledgeable music and engineering people left the audio scene back in the 1980s. Audiophiles are non-technical, non-musical kooks who imagine the darnedestly stupid things about audio equipment. Audiophiles are fun to watch; they're just as confused at how audio equipment or music really works as primitive men like cargo cults are about airplanes. An audiophile will waste days comparing the sound of power cords or different kinds of solder, but won't even notice that his speakers are out-of-phase. An audiophile never enjoys music; he only listens to the sound of audio equipment.

Since sound and music perception is entirely imaginary (you can't touch or photograph a musical image), what and how we hear is formed only in our brains and is not measurable. Our hearing therefore is highly susceptible to the powers of suggestion. If an audiophile pays $5,000 for a new power cord, he will hear a very real difference, even though the sound is unchanged. Audiophiles do hear real differences in power cords when they swap among them (the placebo effect), but just don't ask them to hear the difference in a double-blind test.

Just like a pedophile, the word audiophile is defined as someone with an unhealthy attraction or interest in something; in this case, it's audio equipment, but not music. An audiophile and a music lover are two entirely different people.

Audiophiles adore audio equipment, which is completely unrelated to enjoying music. In the good old days, music lovers only played with audio equipment because they had to, while audiophiles today would rather listen to their equipment than to enjoy music.

A music lover will stop what he's doing and stay glued to a favorite piece of music even if it's coming over a 3" speaker or a public-address system, while an audiophile almost never enjoys music, even if played on a $100,000 hi-fi.

Because audiophiles don't have the experience or education to understand what matters (the skill of the original recording engineer, the choice of loudspeakers, their placement in a room and the acoustics of that room), audiophiles spend fortunes on the wrong things, which are the high-profit-margin and well advertised items like cables, power conditioners, amplifiers, power cables, connectors, resistors, and just about everything that has almost nothing to do with the quality of reproduced music — but makes loads of money for the people selling these fetishes.

There's nothing wrong with owning the finest equipment or a $25,000 speaker cable, but all the professional musicians I know have none of this. More important are good recordings of great performances, great speakers, careful placement and good home acoustics. We know domestic sound reproduction is never going be perfect, so we just get close enough, get over it, and enjoy the music, letting our imaginations fill in the difference for us since we're intimately familiar with live performances. We listen to the music, not the gear. The only big-name musicians I've seen pitching audio equipment are those who are paid for their endorsements.

A music lover spends more time at live performances, either as audience or as performer, than pretending to reproduce it at home.

An audiophile will spend a lifetime swapping cables or magic stones and never be able to sit though an entire piece without stopping and tweaking something. To an audiophile, 25 pounds of solid billet aluminum around his equipment and blue lights defines sound quality, while the actual amount of copper on the inside, or to what it's connected or what it's doing, is far less important.

To an audiophile, the hobby is all about playing with equipment, not enjoying music.

A music lover uses the same gear for years or decades. He gets what sounds great, like some electrostatics or whatever, and keeps it nearly forever, thoroughly enjoying all his new recordings of great acts. Audio equipment is always a good investment; it lasts for decades. A music lover spends more on concerts and recordings than he ever does on stereo equipment, and he enjoys his music immensely for hours and hours on end, not even knowing that there's any equipment involved: he's enjoying the music itself, not listening for artifacts that aren't really there.

[Pigmy Pony]

Sums it up perfectly.

[Puffin]

From Post 1.

"Or am I just a music lover that demands that the music I play sounds right to me?"

[walpurgis]

An audiophile and a music lover are two entirely different people.

For some, that seems wrong.

[Lawrence001]

For some, that seems wrong.If you define an audiophile as the article does then it is almost by definition right. The thing is most of us are not like that, although there are elements that ring true [emoji23]

[struth]

cargo cults, lol.. nice one barry:D

[walpurgis]

cargo cults

I have no idea what that means.

[struth]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

[struth]

and https://www.anthroencyclopedia.com/entry/cargo-cults

[Rush2112]

Well this is so subjective as subjective as the music we listen too.

If I was described by someone as an audiophile I hope it would be because I have a love of music, live and recorded. I guess that should be it but I suppose somewhere in there is that you have a system to play the recorded music on too. My system, see below, has evolved over more than 40 years and so have my tastes in music. I have a wide taste in music and I have been fortunate to have been to live performances from a wide range of artists, Shirley Bassey, Savage Garden, AC/DC, Howard Keel, The Jam, 10cc, Moody Blues, Genesis, John Denver, Michael Buble, James Taylor, Supertramp, Meat Loaf, Wishbone Ash, Diana Krall, Phil Collins, Big Country, Status Quo, Hawkwind, Mary Black, Oscar Peterson, Simply Red, Rolling Stones, Gary Moore, Led Zeppelin, Toyah, Rush, Budgie, Scorpions, Kiss, Iron Maiden, Alison Moyet, Gabrielle, Queen, Count Basie Orchestra, Michel Legrand, Diane Schur, Ray Brown, Elvis Costello, Dire Straits, Chris Rea, The Smiths, Bill Joel and many many more ! Stand out live acts were Supertramp, Diana Krall, Oscar Peterson, Mark Knopfler, Genesis (1979, 1983, 2007 alas not 2021), Savage Garden, Billy Joel (1994, 2006), John Denver and the incomparable Shirley Bassey (1975, 1984, 2009).

30326303273032830329

[AJSki2fly]

So what are you if you buy "Audiophile recordings" supposedly offering better sound resolution, does this make you a music lover or an audiophile irrespective of what equipment you have? :lol:

[walpurgis]

'Audiophile' is just a label and open to whatever kind of interpretation each individual chooses to attach to it. There is no hard rule!

Use it as you like I say. Although it's not a term I'm really inclined towards.

[Pigmy Pony]

So what are you if you buy "Audiophile recordings"

Same as the rest of us, but with rather more disposable income ;)