[Sonnova]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:17:54 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 14, 9:12 am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
I wrote, referring to products that include FFT and measurement mics to
enhance listening rooms:

There's no assurance that those who buy products with these capabilities
ever bother to use them.

in
nabob answers:

True, but those people aren't audiophiles.

If you reserve the right to redefine common terms to suit your own
prejudices, you can win any argument.

As you have demonstrated with your invention of terms like
"measurementalist rituals" and other examples.

Anyone can redefined terms to suit their own personal
prejudices biases and agendas, as I might you have
demonstrated in the past. The proof comes in the
common acceptance of those terms. The lack of
that acceptance and agreement does not lack of
wisdom or foresight on the part of those not accepting
it: it may as much demonstrate that lack on the part
of the originator of the definition.

"Audiophile" is hardly a term that has ANY intrinsic
definition other than its decomposition of "one who
likes sound." Beyond that, it is mainly a matter of
self definition on the part of the person accepting
the moniker. Assigning some "proper" definition to
the term is, well, stupidly arrogant in this person's
view. It is akin to accepting Harry Pearson's
definition of "high-end" as some universal TRVTH
(tm) because he invented the term (he didn't, by the
way, as there were stores that refereed to themselves
as "high-end audio" stores well before the appearance
of his rag).

Actually, Pearson attributes the term to J.G. Holt, who did, indeed, predate
the appearance of "The Absolute Sound".