What makes someone an Audiophile? Are you one?

SSIA, do you consider yourself an audiophile? If so why, what qualifies your self-description?

I would classify myself as a music afficianado vice an audiophile. I don't claim to hear every nuance of the sound being produced (ie no Golden ears)but I do enjoy my systems for both music and HT. I tend to do a lot of research before I buy and then keep the equipment I bought forever despite all the claims of superior stuff out there. I listen to MP3s with some Klipsch earphones and in my truck and I enjoy it as much as with the big systems.

Right on!

I guess I am a music lover first, and then audiophile by progression 2nd. I have come to prefer better sound, but no matter what i have music on all he time. Good or bad sound quality, any music is better than none in my world.

My system is for music exclusively, and it's on most of the time. I only began to care about sound a few years ago, and now I'm pretty fascinated by nuances. That hasn't altered the type of music I listen to, though. I shouldn't say it, but when I survey what I consider the dreadful music taste of some so-called audiophiles, it makes me think they're definitely more into gear than music.

I default to the pre 1990's version of audiophile. That is, appreciating music and listening with my ears, not my wallet. Being as objective as possible by asking-does it sound good? Does it move me? Does it communicate music? Or are those giant, $60K speakers seem arid and lifeless? I have grown to appreciate a thoughtfully assembled system (or headphones) as long as they try to be musical. I too have some Klipsch X-5 earphones, and they are more exciting to me than my $750 headphone setup ever was. In my advanced decrepitude, I have really come to appreciate DIY and refurbished classics that say "I have the skill and love to do this" more than a system that expensive just for the sake of being expensive. ANYONE can buy a new system off the rack (especially if it means keeping up with the Jonses) , but the music lover restores,assembles or compiles a system with heart. The person that buys and keeps components, not swapping them out every few months because they are never satisfied and always listening to "gear". It's not about the guy that buys from the Stereophile recommended components list like it's the word of God and sniffs at others who have not spent as much. It's that kid that fires up an old turntable he found on ebay that he and his father took the time to set up. Listening through an old dynaco st-70 together on some of dad's vintage speakers just to share the experience and passion for music. It's not about "My stereo is more expensive than yours" it's about being immersed into what is coming out of the speakers.

Absolutely! When I wanted to assemble a stereo system, I started looking at gear others defined as producing top quality sound. The preamps would have nothing more than a volume knob and a source selector because if you wanted to be an audiophile you "listened to music the way the artist intended". And then on a lark I looked at vintage gear from the late 70s (my first real stereo was in 1974) and was re-hooked. Gear from that era celebrated adjusting the output to fit the room conditions and source quaility. Balance, bass and treble controls and multiband equalizers were all the rage. And while I'm no golden ear I like the stereo sound produced by my vintage gear and I become easily "immersed" versus when using the more modern stuff in my HT setup for stereo playback. Maybe its a bit of nostalgia, and vintage equipment is not for everyone, but it sounds right to me.

I have never considered labelling. I have always had a stereo of some kind since I was about 10. There were always upgrades not necessarily based on technology but rather what a reasonable budget could buy. When I entered my late 30's, I was finally able to buy some of those things that I always wanted but had to wait until other priorities were taken care of. However, I never did without a "stereo". I enjoy music from all sources. While we always want to hear great quality, something is better than nothing. There is a time and place for all sources. Currently I have a little something in a few rooms (the benefit of occasionally upgrading) including the garage. I think there are many aspects to this hobby. While we all love our music whether it is in the dedicated rooms, our gyms, our bedrooms, or the garage, we spend time learning about our stuff - not just the equipment, but our sources and most importantly, about the people (artists') who bring it into our homes. We are willing to share out pleasures. How many of us have spouses or children who have come to appreciate "good sound" or a great movie played right? While they not share the high level of enthusiasm, they have come to appreciate at their own level while respecting our interests or listen to us talk about equipment (sometimes with a blank stare...). We are not addicts. Our hobby does not interfere with other aspects of our lives. We never hock essentials to get money for a CD. Many of have us have our opinions on different equipment, technology, sources and artists but respectful at the same time to avoid being the ultimate B and M snob (Outlaw who?).

I do not know if I am an audiophile but I do know that this hobby has been with me for over 30 years with no end in sight.

I knew this was a good group for this conversation. I like these answers, keep em coming.

One thing that puzzles me are the folks who call themselves audiophiles, and have an investment to stake the claim, but aren't music lovers? How the hell can you not be a music lover and still be an audiophile? Now I realize, in today's world folks are as inclined to have audio gear for HT as are for music, and increasingly so as we 2 channel people become dinosaurs in the land of 11.5 channel systems, so I see the exception....but I also notice less of those folks claim to be audiophiles too, not that they arent....(hows that for a run-on sentence!) I am seeing this more and more where they only listen to a few selections over and over because they sound good. But I guess thats what refurb was saying earlier, so I guess I am just agreeing.

The part that compounds the confusion is not just the insane price tag for components, "magic" speaker cables and the like: All too often I have read assertions that "This is the sound I am after...nothing compares...etc" and then 6 months later, it's something else. And again....and again. Meanwhile: music lovers may still have those 80's Ar acoustic suspension speakers, quads, Infinity reference, Klipsch, Polk etc. When you say "I have found *the* sound, KEEPING the system speaks louder than declarative statements. I have been accused of living in the past (80's specifically) but I liked the era of analog listening before the over-the-top prices and hyperbole. I have seen people come full circle. They start with something like Klipsch Heresy's, move on to umpteen expensive boutique systems and finally end up with a set amp and some Klipsch. (or insert your favorite modestly priced speakers here).

I have a set of Large Advent Loudspeakers which I bought new in 1975. I have re-coned them 3 different times and still love them for music. They really do excel at producing sound that is pleasing. I have spent as much $$$ re-coning them over the years as I did when I bought them. Every once in a while someone will ask where they came from and when I tell them they are 35 years old they can't believe it. I still have the Yamaha CA 800 integrated amp I bought with them and the CT-810 Tuner that is a separate item. That tuner is still an incredible piece of gear although the amp could use a good cleaning. The old amp weighs 45 pounds by itself and puts out 45 watts. It is built like a tank and has a solid wood cabinet. The tuner does too! Can't beat old gear for construction.

I think my friends have begun to consider me an audiophile, but the best part of it for me is that I'm beginning to have a little influence on them…another one just picked up a turntable yesterday.

The only thing that separates me from vinyl is laziness really. Even a used technics 1200 TT with a rega RB300 and $180 cart will sound better than most cd players. But when I had my vinyl rig (up until a few years ago) I also had a Lp vacuum/washer, it was the only way to fly.

It is funny to see someones face hear the LP version vs the mp3 they are used to. "Whoa...".

I've heard it said that one should never refer to himself as a writer until someone else has called him one. I guess it's the same with being an audioplile, or a gormet, or for that mater a golfer. All are labels that thave a bit of pretention and some presupposition attached to them. I wouldn't claim the credentials to call myself any of these things but I certainly enjoy music reproduction , food and sometimes, even golf.

Pretense seems to be part of the draw since the late 80's. It's self-aggrandizing. It's seems more now about making a label, and elevating oneself through expense and rhetoric. I really dislike the pretense, especially when someone has zero knowledge of electronics and they argue based on sales literature or market hype. For me, it has nothing to do with stratification, and everything to do with enjoying music. Mp3's and poor recordings like gangsta and deathmetal are banned from my house.

Off topic a bit, but I think the pretense is also a symptom of the fact that it hasn't been all that easy to be in the audio biz for quite awhile now. My sense is that there was a time when mass-market availability actually lined up with good sound, which worked out fine as long as the masses were demanding (or at least felt they needed) decent stereo systems.

I could be wrong, but it seems like the boutique manufacturers got a lot pricier once it was clear that they'd always be selling less no matter what innovations they were coming up with. Bose kinda split the difference by understanding a paradigm shift: They made folks believe their products are a step up when the only thing they really had going for them is that their systems could be hidden in your living space. And then (drumroll, please), Apple changed the game completely by making bad sound "cool" by virtue of its invisibility…iPod's are portable and hold a ton of poorly-rendered music. How do you sell something no one wants to look at? The idea of HT addressed this to some degree, but HT systems aren't really for music (and btw, um, how do we hide the subwoofer?). I'm rambling a bit, but the bottom line is that we're such a long way from the consoles and stuff that used to define good audio.

I am amazed that more of the outrageously price boutique and vanity hifi companies haven't folded. Why does anyone need a $13,000 mini monitor, and why is the expensive even remotely justifiable? Snell and Dunlavy built well-engineered speakers that weren't THAT expensive and they folded. Has any amp costing $10K proved it could do something that a $2K amp can't? (Not in blind listening tests anyway.)

While the average stereo component (not speaker) is significantly better than what was around in the 80's, we have hit a consumer crossroads. Bose may have hit a design niche, but has sacrificed fidelity. So has some home theater gear. A SUBWOOFER reproduces the 1st octave of audio. Now we have too many WOOFERS disguised as subs that boom at 80hz and die by 40hz. Great for explosions, bad for fidelity.

Rule #1: there is no replacement for displacement. Subs have to be fairly big to speak with authority at 20hz (none of those 6" bandpass boxes or single 8" things...) Speakers do not have fidelity that are comprised of a 2" whizzer cone. Me? I hate to hide speakers. Speakers should be elegant and furniture-like, not invisible. I don't care if they are standmount or floor standing, but they are part of the soundscape. Some speakers are too pretty or cool looking to hide.

As much as the term "Audiophile" has become ruined in my book, there is the antithesis of fidelity which is mp3's played through a jewel-cube system.

I've never thought of myself as an audiophile. If i had to put a lable on my self it would be "enthusiast" - an A/V enthusiast.

I read a blurb on a high end speaker site a few years ago..

"That type of person probably watches TV while listening to music" Like the idea of audio+video not being "audiophile approved".

I happen to think Genesis: when in Rome sounds really cool in 5.1 on a bigscreen.

It's funny. My brother can't understand why i spend so much time with the TV on and listening to music rather than the program. I tell him it is like having a "living picture" in the room plus most TV is so simple it is not too difficult to follow without the TV audio.

When my wife sees me watching T.V. and listening to music at the same time, I tell her I am multi-tasking. And who says men can't multi-task?

I think that you can probably look at "audiophile" in two ways. The original concept (as I understand it) was someone who cared about music and trying to reproduce it accurately. Later, as the consumer electronics industry started catering to that market separately, it somehow developed an identity that was tied to cost and "boutique" products. It's that somewhat more elitist definition that I think many folks around here find to fit poorly - and the definition that refurb is justifiably leery of.. After all, Outlaw's stuff certainly isn't cheap in absolute terms (compared to a simple "home theater in a box" for example), but it is quite a bargain compared to some of the alternatives. We've been fortunate to have a diverse mix of people around, including some very knowledgeable folks on various audio and video subjects, and for whatever reason we've tended not to get caught up in the mindset of equating equipment cost or pedigree with "audiophile quality."


I like that term. "Enthusiast" fits much of the underlying intent of "audiophile" but doesn't retain the baggage that often accompanies it.


I would agree. For several years now, the Dave Matthews & Tim Reynolds BD has been one of my reference discs. More than one visitor who had a love of music (especially a couple of guitar players) has been captivated by watching Reynolds play and being able to see the detail of his hands and guitar well enough to really follow his movements, and the TrueHD 5.1 track is quite nice to listen to. For that matter, how many musicians strive to put on concerts that have a visual impact? How many concert halls work hard to impress you with their interior design? It's not like musicians never tried to cater to both the ears and the eyes before the TV and home stereo were lumped together. It really wasn't until the radio and recorded music separated ears from eyes that the "listening only" scenario developed.

As for watching one thing and listening to another, it tends to bother my wife - if a show is on TV, she wants to hear it - but I have been known to watch something that didn't necessarily demand audio (weather, a sporting event that I had some casual interest in, etc.) while listening to music.

I've noticed that women are most bothered by "multi-tasking" and seem to be unable to understand it. I thinks is just because they think they are missing something if they can't hear the TV.

The days of multichannel or a/v not meeting audiophile snob approval are dying. Blue ray is uncompressed PCM. That means it's 30-40% better than CD on any player. I a/b'd a dvd and blu ray of the same movie. The blu ray was processing uncompressed PCM. The difference was like comparing 162k mp3 to cd audio. The bass impact and dynamics were drastically better. So, maybe it would be grand just to have recordings on uncompressed PCM instead of CD.

After the market flops of DVD-Audio and SACD - two formats that I still own and enjoy, but that I think it's safe to say failed to achieve meaningful market penetration - the arrival of Blu-ray in theory offers a great way to step up from CD's 44.1k/16-bit PCM stereo to something better. I'd be happy to see it. The question now is if the recording industry is willing to take that leap. We've seen some labels give it a whirl (2L being a notable example), but so far it's been pretty limited.

Neil Young has already taken full advantage of better media, his last release has an available 24/192 copy! He is the first Im aware of anyone releasing that high of a resolution audio.

Neil Young was an early proponent od DVD-A also. He seems to appreciate high resolution recording formats. I really like and respect the guy.Now if he'd just record something that I enjoyed listening to...

IIRC, Neil Young was also the kind of guy that would pick a studio to record in that wasn't just some big mainstream studio. I could be confusing him with Ted Nugent on this issue, but one of them would usually give the little guy a chance.

This discussion seems to be indirectly reinforcing something I said earlier: "Audiophiles", "music enthusiasts" or whatever-we're-calling-them seem much more interested (or comfortable with) in physical media than the general public nowadays, which puts built-in limits on home-audio manufacturers. Personally, my wife barely puts up with the LPs and CDs I haven't given up yet…maybe when we finally have a need for an HT system it'll be easier for her to warm up to the idea of blu-ray.

When it comes to hi fi, the gap between men and women is like the gap between youth and seasoned citizens.

WAF "wife acceptance factor" has been dwindling over the years. The best a guy can hope for is a man-cave for audio, or a seriously accepting spouse.

Men want functionality, women, decor. While a man's true audio love may be klipschhorns or la scalas, a WAF trims that down to heresy's or maybe some piffling Bose cube system. There is just no explaining the benefits when they see the stuff as visually intrusive. Compromise is made...sacrificing quality for appearance,,,or lack therof.

Some guys just get nice headphones and be done with it. That represents little compromise.

"My wife is a 3rd channel in my 2 channel system."

Well, for the record, I should probably state that I think my wife's ears are actually better than mine. We're pretty honest with each other, so if she listens to my latest tweak and completely does not get it, I'm pretty darn sure I'm on the wrong track.

That's the other part of hi-fi. I have met VERY few female "audiophiles." I don't mean women with good hearing. I mean women that are OCD about snake oil and fiddly tweaks that do nothing except maybe induce a placebo effect. It's great to have a non-obsessed (objective) 2nd opinion that's valid. Too often another guy will say "Man, those Mpingo pucks, cable elevators and cryo treated Ic's didn't change a thing..." and an argument ensues.

It is a puzzlement that there are so few female audiophiles. Given the classic stereotype of men being dragged to the opera by their ladies , you'd suspect the opposite. I suspect there is something about the electronics that has a strongly male appeal. I also suspect men have a greater tendency to obsession which is something of a qualification for this hobby.

I also suspect men are more gullible in terms of what they convince themselves makes a difference. It's an ego thing.

I believe in good components. I also believe that certain internal upgrades makes a much bigger difference than deep-freezing $5K cables or putting cables on risers ever will.

Of the few women audiophiles I have known, only one was deep into snake oil (wanted to be with the "in" crowd at Chicago hi-fi conventions.) But the others had systems that were straight forward. Good speakers, good electronics, proper placement. No glowing dots on the wall.

It takes money and arrogance to be an Audiophile.
I have plenty of the one, but am lacking in the other.

LOL!

Men are too competitive to be objective about their systems, cars, or anything else we can figure out how to measure each against.