What is an "audiophile"? Or: audiophiles who don't buy audiophile recordings

[sgb]

Note from Holy Zoo: these posts were in the "How well do audiophile re-masters sell?" thread, which we needed to close down for a few reasons that we don't want to go into. Sorry.

However, part of the discussion was not about "unit sales", and I've split them apart as this separate thread. To SGB: if you can think of a better title, please PM or email me and I'll change it.


Originally posted by MikeInVA

This is part of an effort to put together lots of little [seemingly unrelated] pieces of info that, when put together, can show that there are X number of folks out there that really care about sound! At least enough to buy a re-mastered "audiophile" CD when the exact same CD title is out there in the bins at Best Buy.


What would you say, Mike, if I were to tell you that I know audiophiles who have never owned a MoFi or DCC LP or CD? Would you consider those "folks out there that really care about sound" less of an audiophile than you are because they don't own any "audiophile recordings?" I know several who fit this description, yet they appear to care very much about the sound quality their systems provide them. Some who have tried the "audiophile" brands claim a preference for original vinyl pressings.

Ever notice that very few (if any) of these types of recordings ever showed up in HP's lists of recommended recordings of both LP and CD? Think about it?

[Claviusb]

Originally posted by sgb
Ever notice that very few (if any) of these types of recordings ever showed up in HP's lists of recommended recordings of both LP and CD? Think about it?

I'm kinda dense. Can you spell it out for me, SGB?

[sgb]

Originally posted by Mike in VA
there are certainly far more people that care deeply about sound quality than subscribe to Stereophile, for example(!)

Mike

You're right about this. What is an audiophile anyway? Am I less of one because I choose not to subscribe to any of the magazines, or because I can't name you a single "audiophile" LP or CD that ranks in the top 100 best selling recordings I own (and I own quite a few of them)? Well, the answer better be a resounding no.

The biggest problems I see with many audiophiles is that they place too much emphasis on what others say about equipment and recordings, yet spend so little time enjoying the music they have. So many of them change equipment more often than I do my socks and thus have no real sense of what that component's real strong points are. So, spending money on remasters of old records and then tossing out the old one, and placing too much emphasis on what others who are paid to write articles that will sell magazines really isn't much to go on when assessing the motivations behind how well audio remasters sell. There's a lot more to it than that, I think, as the variety of opinion you'll find at this forum should indicate.

[Paul L.]

Yes, sgb, you make a good point about audiophiles changing equipment too often. There's a lot to be said for finding something that makes you happy and sticking with it.

[Grant]

sgb, you said in one short paragraph what i've been trying to say in my own, blunt, misunderstood way for months!

Too many audiophiles rely upon other to tell them how to think.

[sgb]

Originally posted by Claviusb


I'm kinda dense. Can you spell it out for me, SGB?

I guess you'd have to ask Harry Pearson that question, but if you want me to guess at an answer I will.

Have you ever heard a pristine first pressing of the Solti Beethoven 9th on Decca? Have you ever heard a pristine copy of the MoFi remaster?

The former appeared on HP's list as long ago as I can remember (and with good reason). The latter hardly got any recognition from any TAS reviewers. That might be a good starting point.

There are numerous examples of such listings in any number of non-classical recordings. If you think about it, many of the earliest MoFis were 1/2 speed remasters of many things that HP & TAS had brought to his readers' attention - The British pressings of Tea For The Tillerman and DSOTM come to mind; must have been scads of others.

Sounds like a good topic for a thread:

What MoFi LPs were released as a result of TAS telling its readers that the original recordings were audiophile quality?

[Mike in VA]

I see that the thread was taken down, which..... I guess you have your reasons!

Too bad my response to sgb [which was much longer than the snippet re: Stereophile] also got taken down. In that response, I explained that I did not mean to paint all the folks who don't buy/own "audiophile" recordings as people who "don't care about sound." That was not my intent at all!


Sounds like a good topic for a thread:
What MoFi LPs were released as a result of TAS telling its readers that the original recordings were audiophile quality?

That would be a good one... or how about a similar one about Classic Records and RCA Living Stereo, per the audiophile mags?

Hope everyone had a good weekend - I'm off to get that second cup o' coffee!

Mike

[Joseph]

What is an audiophile? Any response to this thread really hinges on your definition.

Is it someone who "places too much emphasis on what others say about equipment and recordings" (quote from sgb)? Or is it someone that has a $30k system and a half a dozen "audiophile label, non-popular lp's or cd's?

My definition of a true audiophile is someone that loves music (not necessarily one type or genre only) and wants to hear the best versions available through the best music reproduction system they can afford.

This entails getting as much information about the best versions of music you love, which is something that this site is great for. It also entails keeping up with equipment and technological improvements in order to better reproduce those "best versions" that we have discovered.

The music always comes first, then the best version available, then the best system to play the music on.

Based on what I just described I guess I am an audiophile! :)

[sgb]

Since I brought this subject up in response to Mike from Virginia's comments about audiophile recordings, it might appear to some of us that indeed, The Absolute Sound was in very large part responsible for the initial success of Mobile Fielity. In that earlier post I mentioned three LPs that were eventually released on the MoFi label after TAS had made extremely positive comments about the original LPs (usually the British pressings).

There may be several reasons for MoFi's decisions to release many of these titles under license that were, for the time, justifiable. Back in the days before the internet, it was more difficult for music lovers to find these largely import pressings at their local stores, and many persons chose not to buy mail order from any of the several dealers in England who advertised in Gramophone that they shipped world wide.(see * below)

Whatever the reasons, it is interesting to note as I said earlier that MoFi's apparent success had something to do with the recordings that had appeared in early issues of TAS. In addition to those I mentioned above, I've since thought about what might have been their very first commercial LP reissue, Supertramp's Crime of the Century, and a few others (there may be more), namely,

Boult's EMI recording of The Sanguine Fan
Gordon Lightfoot: Sundown
Maazel's Resphigi: Feste Romane
Previn's Tchaikovsky Spectacular
Previn's Carmina Burana (Orff)
Maazel's Gershin Rhapsody
and, of course, Pink Floyd's The Wall (on CD only)

I don't recall any announcements in the magazines that claimed these to be better than the originals, and objectively they weren't. The vinyl might have been quieter, but that's not really the most important aspect of the sound from vinyl, is it?

The issue with CD transfers is more complex, I'll agree. But as it's largely known that CDs sound different from vinyl, it becomes one that I make small adjustments for when I have a recording in both formats. I have, for example, in addition to the original domestic release, both the DCC vinyl and CD reissues of Aqualung but prefer the DCC vinyl version's sound. But in the past year or so, for the convenience of the CD it has been played at least three times more often than either record has.

*(throughout the seventies, a group of my audiophile friends got together and placed large orders for British pressings - usually between 30 and 75 records a month - from a mail order dealer in London. We did this because many of the recordings we read about in Gramophone were available in Europe before they were released in the USA. Our choices had nothing to do with what any audiophile publications were saying about the sound quality.)

[pigmode]

I guess I'm an audiophile, or at least an audiophile wanna-be. I love equipment, and I prefer that things are set up just right.

[Grant]

I kind of agree with Tangent's description of what an audiophile is, but I don't think having the best of what you can get is a prerequisite. After all, the word best, as used in meaning supreme-sounding, is very subjective.

I would go as to simply say that an audiophile is one who takes the issue of sound quality seriously.

And then there are those audiophiles who would say that this isn't enough. This sub-group would probably prefer that people who bear this description be more exclusive, or elitist.

There are those who will not consider me an audiophile because I prefer uh-digital?

[CM Wolff]

I kind of agree with Tangent's description of what an audiophile is, but I don't think having the best of what you can get is a prerequisite. After all, the word best, as used in meaning supreme-sounding, is very subjective. I would go as to simply say that an audiophile is one who takes the issue of sound quality seriously.

I like Grant's thought on this. To most people (Jimbo excluded of course), music listening and collection is filled with a lot of resource allocation decisions, including those related to cost (of recordings, equipment, or listening environment) and time. If there weren't, boards like this wouldn't be flourishing, as we'd all be buying every possible recording and piece of equipment and spend all the time in the world listening and making up our own minds.

Everyone makes their own resource allocation decisions differently. While I care deeply about sound quality (enough to love coming to this board all the time) and would fit into Grant's definition of an audiophile, personally I am in the minority in that (for example) I am very reserved in my excitement for the new CCR SACD's. I am so "Creedenced-out" with all the different versions (just like Steve declared he was all Doobied-out when it comes to the Doobie Brothers), that my valuable time and money is most likely not going to go into those. Rather, I rather seek some new listening experience or wait for some titles that have a higher probability of bringing something new and fresh to an old listening experience (come on, someone get a hold of the Warner Brothers Prince catalog and do something with it).
This is all stating the obvious, of course, and probably the idea of defining an 'audiophile' is a waste of time in and of itself... :)

[Joseph]

Originally posted by CM Wolff


I like Grant's thought on this. To most people (Jimbo excluded of course), music listening and collection is filled with a lot of resource allocation decisions, including those related to cost (of recordings, equipment, or listening environment) and time. If there weren't, boards like this wouldn't be flourishing, as we'd all be buying every possible recording and piece of equipment and spend all the time in the world listening and making up our own minds.

Everyone makes their own resource allocation decisions differently. While I care deeply about sound quality (enough to love coming to this board all the time) and would fit into Grant's definition of an audiophile, personally I am in the minority in that (for example) I am very reserved in my excitement for the new CCR SACD's. I am so "Creedenced-out" with all the different versions (just like Steve declared he was all Doobied-out when it comes to the Doobie Brothers), that my valuable time and money is most likely not going to go into those. Rather, I rather seek some new listening experience or wait for some titles that have a higher probability of bringing something new and fresh to an old listening experience (come on, someone get a hold of the Warner Brothers Prince catalog and do something with it).
This is all stating the obvious, of course, and probably the idea of defining an 'audiophile' is a waste of time in and of itself... :)

I agree that we all have to decide how to allocate our time and resources differently.

There's probably a fine line between

- a pure music lover who puts less priority on fine tuning the sound system
- a music lover who also is a completist & collects everything from his favorites
- an audiophile who is interested in both better masters and better equipment
- an audiophile who's priority is the best possible sound and who's music
tastes are somewhat dictated by the best sonics.

The only one that drives me crazy is the last group!

[vex]

To me, the term "audiophile" has always carried with it too many negative connotations. I refuse to call myself an audiophile. I am an "audio enthusiast".

I belong to an audio club that has its fair share of true-blue, card-carrying, self-professed "audiophiles". The following characteristics and opinions that make up this elitist group are:

- All rock music is badly recorded and therefore not worthy of serious evaluation.
- Anything recorded with electronic instruments is unnatural and not worthy of consideration.
- Price is the only true determination of good sound (driven by the need to justify their $10K speaker cables).
- My system cost more than your system therefore I am a bigger audiophile than you.
- Anything beyond two channels is utter blasphemy and anyone considering such a thing should be discounted immediately.
- An unusual fascination with "female vocals" (yeah, female vocals sound great on a good system, but it should not be the measure by which a system is judged).
- The ability to hear the difference between one isolation component versus another when used with a CD player (what, does one make the zeroes more "zeroish" or the ones more "oneish"?)
- The idea that a $1K power cable can actually make a difference (okay, you have water turning turbines in a damn, generating electricity routed to a power station, distributed across god-knows how many miles of cables through multiple transformers until it finally reaches your home, flowing through god-knows what quality of home-wiring until it reaches an outlet, and supposedly that last six feet is going to make some magical difference?)
- I could go on, but I won't.

No, I am not an audiophile and never will be...

[Grant]

Originally posted by Tangent


I agree that we all have to decide how to allocate our time and resources differently.

There's probably a fine line between

- a pure music lover who puts less priority on fine tuning the sound system
- a music lover who also is a completist & collects everything from his favorites
- an audiophile who is interested in both better masters and better equipment
- an audiophile who's priority is the best possible sound and who's music
tastes are somewhat dictated by the best sonics.

The only one that drives me crazy is the last group!
So, i'm on that fine line between two and three.

I can get downright anal about sound quality, and I don't collect everything by a particular artist.

As far as Vex reasons for not wanting to be associated with audiophiles because so many of them are bigoted, I agree. I wrestle with calling myself an audiophille and riduculing them. I got called out (again) recently for this. I was probably in the mode of criticizing the extreme additudes of some of them/us at the time.

What also drives me batty is the notion that "audiophiles" can't possibly like and be serious about certain types of music. This originally grew out of classical music lovers who had disdain for rock & roll. Then it spread to the jazz lovers, then to rock lovers. There seems to be a correlation between "audiophiles" and income status. And, with status, comes the issue of classism, elitism. This has kind of morphed into the live music vs. recorded music. This extreme group keeps finding was to seperate themselves from the rest of the bunch. I noticed this as quality playback gear became more affordable. Now it's "who can afford to attend live music concerts twice a week?" Well, who has the time or means???

I'm sure there are some folks on this board who wished that I, and people like me would not post here at all. I think they would prefer this to be a small, special, elitist group of audiophile (((stereo))) lovers where the issue of music and money didn't exist.


Perhaps the label of 'audiophile' should be put out of it's misery. There has to be another term that could catch on.

[Steve Hoffman]

Grant, c'mon. Bigoted? Audiophiles are bigoted against Rock And Roll? None I know of. You and Vex have been reading too much Absolute Sound lately or something.

Bigoted is not a word I would choose, anyway. Some are bigoted against country music, but so freakin' what?

Audiophiles. Describes me perfectly. Someone who loves music, and wants it to sound the best it can. That's me, that's you.

If someone makes 200 grand a year and wants to spend money on a big giant stereo, great! He'll need product to play on it. My kind of person.

If someone makes 35 grand a year and spends most of it on records and CD's, and uses a $300.00 stereo, well, great! That's my kind of person too. Just like I was in the old days.

Some lucky folks can have both! Nothing to be jealous about...Wish them well and get on with it.

The few audiophiles that I've run across who don't like any type of pop music? Well, I would take advantage of their expertise in classical music by asking them what they thought was good out there. Make use of their knowledge.

[Tullman]

Vex I don't fit in any of the catagories but one. I do hear a difference in Power cables. I don't have $1,000.00 cables. I can't afford them but I did pick up some used, not so expensive in the first place cables, and have enjoyed them.
The price of admission into the audiophile world does not have to be really expensive. I am an audiophile who likes to shop around and put together a system that fits my own tastes and income. I know audiophiles who have rather inexpensive systems that sound good and are really cool. Maybe, they built some of the components themselves or modified some components or they just know how to get the biggest bang for the buck.

IMHO people who do not try and get the best sounding version of a recording they like, are not audiophiles.

[Grant]

Well, I run into snobby (bigoted) classical lovers all the time, I personally know a couple. I happen to like classical music. I grew up with it as well as all the rest. I like some country too.

Steve, I guess what Vex and I are reacting to is some of the additudes of many of the people we have run into in person, and on the internet, so you can't say we don't get out enough. These few people kind of make it hard to be called an audiophile. Really! I'm guessing you don't get this because you do have the best of both worlds. Of course, there was a time that you didn't, we all know that, but even you must recall the additude of, "how can you be serious about rock"?

I never renewed my subscription to Stereophile magazine and quit buying the Absolute sound and all the rest. I still visit Stereophile's website and read their mags at the bookstore. I read more EQ and Mix anyway.

[Khorn]

Originally posted by Tangent


I agree that we all have to decide how to allocate our time and resources differently.

There's probably a fine line between

- a pure music lover who puts less priority on fine tuning the sound system
- a music lover who also is a completist & collects everything from his favorites
- an audiophile who is interested in both better masters and better equipment
- an audiophile who's priority is the best possible sound and who's music
tastes are somewhat dictated by the best sonics.

The only one that drives me crazy is the last group!

Referring to the last group, I recall Tangent and myself visiting a "High End" audio dealer a couple of years ago. I was enquiring about some high end CD's at the time ( I believe it was one of the 'Jazz At The Pawnshoppe' remasters) when the owner of the store said "Listen to this" at which time he put on a cd.
"BOING, BOING AND MORE BOING" "Aren't those bells GREAT. You just gotta have this, listen to the DECAY".
He then proceeded to put on a disc featuring saxaphone solos that was a total SNORE BORE "You gotta have this too" he said
[B]SHURE:rolleyes: I said. Needless to say we haven't hurried back to that place.

I guess my definition of an "AUDIOPHILE" is someone who loves music and cares about the quality of the reproduced sound of that music to a greater degree than the average music lover.

Then again, you just have to look at my sig:

[mcow1]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
Grant, c'mon. Bigoted? Audiophiles are bigoted against Rock And Roll? None I know of. You and Vex have been reading too much Absolute Sound lately or something.

Bigoted is not a word I would choose, anyway. Some are bigoted against country music, but so freakin' what?

Audiophiles. Describes me perfectly. Someone who loves music, and wants it to sound the best it can. That's me, that's you.

If someone makes 200 grand a year and wants to spend money on a big giant stereo, great! He'll need product to play on it. My kind of person.

If someone makes 35 grand a year and spends most of it on records and CD's, and uses a $300.00 stereo, well, great! That's my kind of person too. Just like I was in the old days.

Some lucky folks can have both! Nothing to be jealous about...Wish them well and get on with it.

The few audiophiles that I've run across who don't like any type of pop music? Well, I would take advantage of their expertise in classical music by asking them what they thought was good out there. Make use of their knowledge.
Thank you. That sums it up pretty darn well.

[Steve Hoffman]

Most folks I meet at the CES and Stereophile shows are pretty darn well rounded musically, just as the people are who post here. I love it when all types of music can be discussed on one forum without virtual fist fights breaking out all over the place (as on other sites).

But, the word "Audiophile" can mean any thing to any one. To me and mine, it means: Music lover, (both recorded and live). It goes without saying that if one loves Buddy Holly or The Jackson Five one would want the best sounding versions one could find. Well, the exact second one becomes aware that there ARE different sounding versions of the same recorded material for sale AND WANTS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, one becomes an Audiophile, in the broad sense of the term.

Wear it with honor.

[vex]

Obviously, the term "audiophile" means many things to many different people. It is a very subjective term. What I was trying to illustrate was the way that some people (certainly not all or even most people) who call themselves audiophiles tend to behave.

Because the term "audiophile" CAN imply some negative connotations, I have chosen to distance myself from it. I do prefer the term "audio enthusiast". It has a friendlier, more welcome and less elitist feel about it.

Actually, I used to consider myself an audiophile until I ran into a few characters who left me feeling inadequate, for no real reason than their own snobishness. Yeah, poor me should have just turned the other cheek, but the reality of it is we all seek confirmation at some level.

I must admit, the folk in this forum are more accepting and open-minded than most, and there is a lot less "I'm right and you're wrong" type of BS going on than I've seen in other "audiophile" circles. Yes, we can call ourselves audiophiles and know what we mean by that. But I don't want to be confused with those "other" audiophiles. Dammit Jim, I'm an audio enthusiast, not an audiophile!

[Bob Lovely]

All,

Whether it be digital or analog, vinyl or CD, I believe, as Steve said, "lover of music" seems to be the one common bond thats hold us all together and keeps us talking!

Bob :)

[Grant]

Fine! I'm an AUDIOPHILE! A FELLOW audiophile.:) But this group has issues to hammer out.:)

I have been known to hunt high and low for a CD with a particular song that should have THREE more seconds on the fade to match the single. No, the sound isn't as good on the correct CD as on others, but it matches in sonics and fade. By your descriptions this is what audiophiles do. I used to spend evenings switching out interconnects to find the best one. I buy multiple copies of LPs and singles to find good pressings. OK, i'm an audiophile.

Where's my card?

Yes, I work toward improving my gear and collection when the opportunity arrives.

When a few more SACDs hit the streets with titles I can dig, i'm off to the store or online stores.

[Grant]

Originally posted by Bob Lovely
All,

Whether it be digital or analog, vinyl or CD, I believe, as Steve said, "lover of music" seems to be the one common bond thats hold us all together and keeps us talking!

Bob :)

Or arguing!:D