[theveterans]

Then there are those who use particularly colored equipment, yet insist they are audiophiles. I feel that this should be given a different name, since it involves intentionally pursuing lower fidelity...but I'm not sure what.

What about those who use high end valve buffers/ valve amplifiers? IMO they are still called audiophiles as they love the sound coming out the tubes without compromising technicalities like microdetail or macrodetail, pace, timing and rhythm. Soundstage and tonality will of course change with tubes, but they do not compromise sound in anyway IMO. It's not a lower fidelity per se, but a different approach to high fidelity IMO.

 

[Music Alchemist]

What about those who use high end valve buffers/ valve amplifiers? IMO they are still called audiophiles as they love the sound coming out the tubes without compromising technicalities like microdetail or macrodetail, pace, timing and rhythm. Soundstage and tonality will of course change with tubes, but they do not compromise sound in anyway IMO. It's not a lower fidelity per se, but a different approach to high fidelity IMO.

If it's not particularly colored as I mentioned, then it wouldn't apply to that category. I was basically getting at having a very colored sound. (Which is fine; just not accurate.)

A full-time basshead (that is, someone who usually boosts the bass to extreme levels) who calls himself an audiophile would be in the quoted category, though it's not a likely scenario, since bassheads tend to identify as such.

I'm not "100% audiophile" since I, for example, have extreme basshead urges on occasion. But since I strive for accuracy nearly all the time, I identify as an audiophile.

And you could say that's what it comes down to: degrees of audiophile; that is, how much accuracy you are interested in achieving. (This is separate from how much accuracy one has achieved. Someone can be an audiophile who only owns entry-level gear but wants a high-end system that he does not yet own, for instance.)

 

[Fearless1]

Does my sound dampened home theater room with THIEL 40.2 speakers and a SVS PB16-Ultra make me less of an audiophile then you because I sometimes run them off of an MA2275? If so........

I will be happy to consider myself a music lover and you can be a type one "audiophile".

 

[Music Alchemist]

Does my sound dampened home theater room with THIEL 40.2 speakers and a SVS PB16-Ultra make me less of an audiophile then you because I sometimes run them off of an MA2275? If so........

Since an audiophile is defined by their interest in high fidelity, I think "how much" of an audiophile someone is depends on their intent, not which equipment they are currently using per se.

(Regardless, the answer would be no, it does not make you less of an audiophile. But it's not a contest...)

I will be happy to consider myself a music lover and you can be a type one "audiophile".

In my original post, I explicitly stated that I am not a "type one" audiophile that is only interested in high fidelity recordings, and am instead a "type two" that is interested in more accurate reproduction of all types of recordings, so your statement would make more sense if you had said type two or something.

 

[Fearless1]

Thanks for clearing that up, I was lost by your description, it seemed like utter nonsense.

 

[castleofargh]

What about those who use high end valve buffers/ valve amplifiers? IMO they are still called audiophiles as they love the sound coming out the tubes without compromising technicalities like microdetail or macrodetail, pace, timing and rhythm. Soundstage and tonality will of course change with tubes, but they do not compromise sound in anyway IMO. It's not a lower fidelity per se, but a different approach to high fidelity IMO.

so you wish to change the definition of fidelity itself just so that more people can include themselves in the pretending game of high fidelity? the degree of fidelity is measured against a reference, that reference once picked(and it has to be picked) is unique. so just like a fact, whatever we call the alternatives, they remain something else. not a fact, not fidelity.
what you have going for you is that almost nobody aims at an achievable and known reference. so with that messed up, what follows doesn't really matter, at least not for fidelity. and with headphones it wouldn't be too far off to say that everybody is significantly wrong. most albums were panned for speakers(oops wrong stereo, talk about a "detail"). most people don't know what the music really sounded like originally(whatever they defined as original) and instead make up on the spot what they think it did sound like(AKA taste/preconception instead of fidelity). almost nobody knows what compensation to apply for his/her own ears for the missing body and head influences on sound.
so once we've established how far away most hifi people are from actual fidelity, your desire to include a given group to the merry band doesn't seem that problematic anymore ^_^. I say go for it.

this message is sponsored by nihilism. "nihilism, be lazy! or don't."

 

[Music Alchemist]

Thanks for clearing that up, I was lost by your description, it seemed like utter nonsense.

Prove it. List the parts you thought were nonsense and explain precisely how you feel they are incorrect; otherwise you're just trolling.

In my opinion, what I wrote was so clear that it would be impossible to misinterpret it if you actually read it.

 

[Fearless1]

Nothing to "prove", not "trolling", just making a point that there is no validity to your definition of an audiophile, it is your opinion. I can respect someone's opinion (even yours).

I sometimes use gear(tube amps)that you are obliviously unfamiliar with to achieve better sound to my ears, that pursuit of what I perceive as my desired happy place makes me an audiophile as much as your desired "accurate sound" makes you one. To label or to say there are different degrees of such is strictly your opinion, and not be perceived as fact.

 

[Music Alchemist]

Nothing to "prove", not "trolling", just making a point that there is no validity to your definition of an audiophile, it is your opinion. I can respect someone's opinion (even yours).

I sometimes use gear(tube amps)that you are obliviously unfamiliar with to achieve better sound to my ears, that pursuit of what I perceive as my desired happy place makes me an audiophile as much as your desired "accurate sound" makes you one. To label or to say there are different degrees of such is strictly your opinion, and not be perceived as fact.

Okay, but my point was that audiophile is a coined term originally meaning someone interested in high fidelity audio reproduction. I don't see how citing the origin of the term makes it nonsense. Obviously other definitions have come along since then. But I use the original meaning.

 

[Fearless1]

And I did not disagree with the first paragraph. The opinions expressed as facts are where any disagreements arose.

I said my point, now get your last word in and move on. I'll go enjoy my gear, you go enjoy yours, the same pursuits of enjoying music is the goal.

 

[theveterans]

so you wish to change the definition of fidelity itself just so that more people can include themselves in the pretending game of high fidelity? the degree of fidelity is measured against a reference, that reference once picked(and it has to be picked) is unique. so just like a fact, whatever we call the alternatives, they remain something else. not a fact, not fidelity.
what you have going for you is that almost nobody aims at an achievable and known reference. so with that messed up, what follows doesn't really matter, at least not for fidelity. and with headphones it wouldn't be too far off to say that everybody is significantly wrong. most albums were panned for speakers(oops wrong stereo, talk about a "detail"). most people don't know what the music really sounded like originally(whatever they defined as original) and instead make up on the spot what they think it did sound like(AKA taste/preconception instead of fidelity). almost nobody knows what compensation to apply for his/her own ears for the missing body and head influences on sound.
so once we've established how far away most hifi people are from actual fidelity, your desire to include a given group to the merry band doesn't seem that problematic anymore ^_^. I say go for it.

this message is sponsored by nihilism. "nihilism, be lazy! or don't."

If we stick with the formal definition of high fidelity as it is ideally defined in Wikipedia ("Ideally, high-fidelity equipment has inaudible noise and distortion, and a flat (neutral, uncolored) frequency response within the intended frequency range"), I won't consider myself being in the high fidelity rabbit hole as I myself do not aim for a reference, but my own taste. That's why I use a valve buffer preamp on my computer audio chain. I do prefer the sound signature of a decent studio monitor speaker such as the HS7 over headphones that I've heard as it sounds closer to what I hear in real life. IMO for my taste, valve flavor + relatively flat response speakers make a great sounding combo.

 

[Whazzzup]

The answer is simple, who is?

 

[Nicholas Seltzer]

If you didn't hear differences in the amps or between LCD-2 and LCD-3, it just means you haven't hung around here long enough to drink the kool-aid. I actually think slight differences between the 2 and 3 should be apparent if you listen carefully for long enough and with the right material, but if I'm right about that, it just underscores the facts that A) $1k can buy an end game headphone, and B) spending an additional $1k for the next model up is going to net you the most miniscule of differences (notice I did not say improvements, as improvements are in the ear of the beholder). Think how much music that $1k could buy instead.

I get what you're saying, but as an LCD-2 owner and lover the LCD-3 really is "better" in all the ways I love the LCD-2, and some of the ways I feel the LCD-2 falls short. I can hear these differences plain as day when listening on high-end sources and they're real. But your point about the value of that gain is valid... the LCD-2 is mostly as good as the LCD-3, but half the price. That 1000 bucks buys a lot of other things that can also enhance your experience, like more music, a big comfy listening chair, etc.

 

[Little Bear]

I get what you're saying, but as an LCD-2 owner and lover the LCD-3 really is "better" in all the ways I love the LCD-2, and some of the ways I feel the LCD-2 falls short. I can hear these differences plain as day when listening on high-end sources and they're real.

I'm actually glad to hear that. I haven't compared the two myself, but will do so at some point, maybe at RMAF this fall. Judging by the posts in the LCD-2 and LCD-3 threads, there are plenty who agree with you. For the OP, unless/until he can hear the differences as clearly as you can, it would seem not to be worthwhile to spend the extra dough on the 3's. At least, that's the decision I would make in his place.

Another way to spend that LCD-3 money would be to buy the LCD-2, plus another headphone that would provide a different experience. Like, say, the new Mr. Speakers Aeon which is closed-back. Or a dynamic HP in that price range.

 

[Nicholas Seltzer]

Another way to spend that LCD-3 money would be to buy the LCD-2, plus another headphone that would provide a different experience. Like, say, the new Mr. Speakers Aeon which is closed-back. Or a dynamic HP in that price range.

Ha! Funny you should suggest that. I actually tried that strategy and bought a pair of EL-8 Closed that I'm now trying to sell so I can put the money in my LCD-3 fund. One's mileage will definitely vary. I still love my LCD-2s, tho. I may just end up upgrading my source and amp. The LCD-2s can take somebody a long way.