I'm not an audiophile
Aug 30, 2002 at 4:58 AM Post #31 of 45
I think I'll jump in on this thread-

I've concluded that if an 'audio hardware enthusiast' does not have a well grounded way/practice of listening to music, regardless of his specific hardware of the moment, then he stands a chance of getting swept up in placing the hardware at the same level of importance as the music itself. Less time is spent listening to music (for what it does to us, and its not always about pleasure) and more time is spent arguing with Tomcat (ooops! sorry that is me!)

Heres an attempt at an analogy from a movie: Hanna And Her Sisters--
two of the sisters meet an architect, who, admits he loves to take a bottle of wine to the opera and cry while soaking in the experience (he has box seats of course.) Now, the bottle of wine is like the headphone hardware we all educate ourselves about, and search out. The opera is music itself. So our architect has a ritual he uses to feel the music/story very deeply. He utilizes the wine he brings, and it would make sense that he know something about it and experiment with different types, but the essential thing is not the wine itself! So in this example our hero is not necessarily a wine expert (hardware audiophile), but he is someone who has the culture and physical attainments required to set himself aside long enough to appreciate beauty and tragedy in opera (and sex 'beat', in the case of rock & roll) and lose himself in that experience. So my point is that headphones need to be rolled up into and become part of a bigger overall way we use them. And its a very personal thing. Sigh.

p.s. theres a 49% chance I dont know what the hell I'm talking about.
 
Aug 30, 2002 at 5:19 AM Post #32 of 45
How about this: if you own cds like Jazz at the Pawnshop, or Amanda Mcbroom, which basically are cds to listen to your equipment with (and yes I either have access or own them and many more "audiophile" cds).
Having said that, I really can't stand poorly recorded jazz/classical, anything that is acoustic/live based, so I tend toward the better recordings for that stuff... But it is certainly not all I listen to since I also have a lot of electronic/dance music too.
 
Aug 30, 2002 at 7:48 AM Post #33 of 45
Kelly -- cool thread. Let me interpret your original post: so what you're saying is that you're a slacker audiophile? Someone who knows what the tweaks are, but is too lazy to do them hisself?
evil_smiley.gif


C'mon. Answer the following questions:

- have you ever decided that you will always have at least two headphones, because this one is good for one thing, and this other one is good for another?
- have you ever talked to someone about rolling tubes in the RKV?
- have you ever changed interconnects?

All of those, in my mind, count as tweaks.

Just because you don't pop open your RKV and solder in different op-amps doesn't mean that you're not an audiophile -- maybe you're just too frugal to mess with expensive equipment. Besides, we have access to trustworthy professionals (ModWright?) to do that for us.

I don't modify equipment, but I've also never thought I was an audiophile before. Thanks to this thread, I've rethought the whole thing, and I've come to the conclusion that I think I am an audiophile.

PS Just for the record, I'm a slacker audiophile, too. Quote:

Originally posted by kelly
Another point you've touched on is the dichotomy between "enjoying the music" (in the gestalt sense) and "listening to the equipment."


I am really glad you said this, because if you didn't, I would have. My definition of an audiophile is someone who can hear the difference between equipment. Most people, you pipe stuff in over those little 1kHz-10kHz speakers in the dash of a car, and they can hear the music. Us, we hear the fact that the low end and the high end are missing.

But as you said, this is not mutually exclusive with being a music-lover. Once your equipment goes beyond a certain point, you can hear the music.

It's shades of grey -- how much of an audiophile are you? 0 == not an audiophile at all; 10 == you build your own equipment, and you have a system that doesn't contain a single, original, unmodified-at-least separate piece of equipment. (I'd probably be a 6 or a 7.)

Now, how much of a music lover are you? 0 == only listen to talk radio; 10 == own every version of every favourite classical piece of music that you've heard (I use classical music only as an example). I would be a 10.

But there's some overlap -- a zero music-lover would never be much more than a one audiophile, I wouldn't think (well maybe they can hear a difference, but they never would have the opportunity).

And I understand where the snobbery against gear nuts comes from -- just because we don't talk about music as much as we talk about gear, they assume that we don't care. We do! We just don't see as much room for improvement, that's all. I've got no problem with people who have little to say about music, and lots to say about gear. There could be lots of reasons they don't discuss music: they already know what they like, and they're listening to it; their tastes are too divergent from ours, so they don't feel that we have much in common; they know very little, so they're more listeners than talkers; etc. I'm sure there are many others that I haven't even imagined.

Anyway, lots of good points. Except the one where you say you're not an audiophile. You are. You're just not a tweaker. Much.

Alright, one more point. What about Nik? That's an excellent case. He doesn't feel he has any room for improvement. Should he tweak? Or should he stand still, and just enjoy the music? I mean, not everyone can go into the business, be it either designing equipment, or reviewing it. So some of us (and by "us", I mean audiophiles) have to (gasp!) stand still, stop, quit, retire, ... you get the idea. Enjoy the music. Just because one doesn't feel a restlessness about one's equipment, does not make one not an audiophile. Just because you got your car to a point where you were happy with it, does not make you a ...whatever, car-o-phile? Sure, you may be guilty of jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none, but I still think you entrench yourself deeper than any layperson, deeper than most hobbyists, for that matter. Maybe you haven't found that one area of subject matter that you want to go head-over-heels in (or maybe you have -- you did mention electronics), but some people can be superior in multiple areas (and by superior I mean...erm...just that, above average). Just because you've gotten to the point where you know how much you don't know, does not mean that you don't know as much as you do.

Rambling must be contagious.
 
Aug 30, 2002 at 9:27 AM Post #34 of 45
Quote:

Originally posted by kelly
Another point you've touched on is the dichotomy between "enjoying the music" (in the gestalt sense) and "listening to the equipment."


Great, one of my favourite topics!
biggrin.gif


What an excellent opportunity to post a another link to my favourite Stereophile article: "God is in the Nuances" by Markus Sauer. At the centre of Sauer’s article, there is the description of a psychological experiment a German psychologist did for his doctoral thesis. He had people listening to different systems, asked them questions about their emotional reactions and about what they consciously thought were the better systems. And the experienced, self-proclaimed audiophiles, without fail, all picked the system that basically drove them nuts as the superior and more accurate one. That system was emotionally annoying and stress-inducing to all listeners. The non-hi-fi people weren’t that torn. Those who didn’t claim to have lots of experience in the audio world simply judged what was musically pleasing and appropriate. Their conscious and subconscious reactions weren’t at odds.

I feel the ideal of music reproduction is irreconcilable with the generally accepted hi-fi sound. People are listening to their equipment. Of course they are. The generally accepted approach for hi-fi listening is exactly as kelly said: analytical and deconstructionist. Musicality, the general ability to reproduce music, to facilitate a musical experience, ranks very low on the list of criteria of almost all reviewers. What does a typical hi-fi review look like? Four out of five pages are describing the technical ideas behind the product and its design, and finally, on the very last page, the review comes around to discussing actual listening impressions. And the very first topic there is, what else, the component’s sound stage. How interesting.

It’s a very unnatural state of mind to listen intently to the specifics of a system’s sound. This is not how we listen in a concert. In a concert, we listen to music. There is a difference between sound and music. And it's a crucial one.
 
Aug 30, 2002 at 5:08 PM Post #35 of 45
Quote:

And the experienced, self-proclaimed audiophiles, without fail, all picked the system that basically drove them nuts


wow what a bunch of losers.

see, now this conversation isn't an arguement anymore, because everyone is talking about someone different. We might as well have just made it "how do you define audiophile" which would actually bring it together into some sort of cohesive back-and-forth, where now each new person comes in and gives the kelly situation a completely different spin.

i totally see what kelly is saying, and i generally agree with that position, but i see what most of you all are saying as well. kelly is saying basically that he loves music, so really digs jumping on this hi-fi bandwagon, because it makes his tunes sound good, but he's not an audiophile, because when he looks in a magazine or reads about a new technology or see's a message with a cdp that's prettier than his, he doesn't divert all his thought to it. he doesn't constantly bend his conciousness to the new tweaks or new styles. goes merely with his observations and added level of enjoyment with each upgrade, and not the word on the street of voodoo synergy or what have you. or does he...

am i right? i think we're argueing over completely different matters here, assuming we're argueing at all.

a stronger taffyguy would just stay out of it. oh and i liked the analogy M Rael. that was pretty f-in deep.
wink.gif
 
Mar 23, 2004 at 7:18 PM Post #36 of 45
I think this thread deserves some bumpage.

I've been having a similar dilemma. While stax would be like removing another layer, thus making the picture that much more clear... what are we really in it for?
 
Mar 23, 2004 at 7:28 PM Post #37 of 45
Neat. Missed this thread first time around.

I'm definitely in agreement with kelly on this issue. (Especially his points about turntables.
rolleyes.gif
)

I'm pretty much done with my setup; an Omega 2 is in my future, and maybe a couple tweaks here and there. But I'm very happy with what I have now, and have no need to change any of it.

- Chris
 
Mar 24, 2004 at 3:38 PM Post #43 of 45
Quote:

Originally posted by minya
Neat. Missed this thread first time around.

I'm definitely in agreement with kelly on this issue. (Especially his points about turntables.
rolleyes.gif
)


It's amusing to me how some people make a big deal about turntables, as if they were some sort of esoteric, mysterious devices as unknowable as the atmosphere on some planet in a distant galaxy
tongue.gif
.

The truth is that the principles governing turntable reproduction are very simple and basic compared to digital reproduction. That's not to say there isn't some complexity and ritual associated with tweaking a turntable, but it's much less than "non-turntable people" imagine. There's an initially steep learning curve, but it's also very short-lived. And it can be bypassed almost completely if there's a dealer around to set things up for you.

What I like most about turntables is that they allow you to enjoy the music without feeling like you have to constantly tweak, tune and upgrade. Somehow, with turntables it becomes totally a matter of choice rather than that niggling feeling of "upgrade, upgrade, tweak, upgrade some more" that tends to accompany digital audiophilia. IMO "turntable people" are really a very laid-back bunch, and it tends to be more about the music and much less about the equipment.
 
Mar 24, 2004 at 6:40 PM Post #44 of 45
LOL, "Team Lemmings" ?

or "Team Flavor of the Month"


Funny musings, as self deprecating they are. Give yourself more credit.

Funny that no one mentioned the meaning of the word "Audiophile".

au·di·o·phile
n.
A person having an ardent interest in stereo or high-fidelity sound reproduction.



Take the parts of the word:

au·di·o
adj.
1. Of or relating to humanly audible sound.

2. a. Of or relating to the broadcasting or reception of sound.
b. Of or relating to high-fidelity sound reproduction.



phile or -phil
suff.
1. One that loves or has a strong affinity or preference for: audiophile.
2. Loving; having a strong affinity or preference for: Francophile, pedaphile



Babelizer:

"A person having an ardent interest in stereo or high-fidelity sound reproduction."


Babelized:

"Stereophony relative or to refa that the relative on the other hand to the repair of Hwag which healthful it has, that an introduction of the person of the interest and the interest is he, of that is pleasant."

Eh?
biggrin.gif


-Ed
 
Mar 24, 2004 at 8:27 PM Post #45 of 45
That was an entertaining read, I've never read that before myself, and I have to say reading Kelly's description of himself, I saw a bit of myself in that too, I would not really say I was an audiophile as such, it is just a means to an end, just like with cars, my interest is in driving rather than the modification aspect, yes I also have a nice car, but I bought it to drive it, not modify it. These things come and go, a few years ago it was computers, then audio, now cars, probably movies next..... actually, scrub that, I need a nympho girlfriend !
very_evil_smiley.gif
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top