[honestguvnor]

What does the word audiophile mean to you? And others?

(1) A somewhat derogatory term for audio hardware enthusiasts that
hold unscientific beliefs about cables, amplifiers, digital recording,
etc... Those with similar interests but scientifically valid beliefs
would be called hi-fi enthusiasts or some similar term that avoids the
word audiophile.

(2) All home audio enthusiasts that call themselves "subjective
audiophile" or "objective audiophile". Adding home audio enthusiasts
that object to the term into the "objective audiophile" category (or
perhaps considering this group to be negligible in size).

(3) All home audio enthusiasts that call themselves either "subjective
audiophile" or "objective audiophile". Excluding those home audio
enthusiasts that object to the term.

(4) All audio hardware enthusiasts whatever their beliefs and with no
derogatory overtones.

Or something else?

[William Sommerwerck]

To me, an audiophile is someone genuinely interested in high-quality sound
reproduction, with the intent of reproducing the original sound, or
something closely approaching it (pace, QUAD).

[Richard Crowley]

"honestguvnor" wrote ...
What does the word audiophile mean to you? And others?

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but in recent times people use words to
mean what THEY want them to mean, regardless of any historical or
accepted definition.

'When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor
less.' Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking Glass"

And then on top of that there is the vocal presence of both idiot
"audiophiles" who blather nonsense [examples currently running
on r.a.p about the "superiority" of cassettes, etc.], as well as the
knowledgable "audiophiles" who can see only their own POV.
Either one of them are enough to tarshish the concept of
"audiophiole". Together, they have made the word into more of
a perjorative or at least a dismissive term.

[Agent 86]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 05:40:48 -0700, honestguvnor wrote:

What does the word audiophile mean to you? And others?


Your question might be more appropriate on rec.audio.opinon since...

A. You're basically asking for opinions.

B. A lot of people there actually consider themselves audiophiles. On
RAP, we tend to prefer the term "audiophool".

[honestguvnor]

On Mar 29, 1:51 am, Agent 86 wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 05:40:48 -0700, honestguvnor wrote:
What does the word audiophile mean to you? And others?

Your question might be more appropriate on rec.audio.opinon since...

A. You're basically asking for opinions.

B. A lot of people there actually consider themselves audiophiles. On
RAP, we tend to prefer the term "audiophool".

Thanks for the response and I should have made it clear in the
original posting why I am asking. I am considering rewriting the
Wikipedia article on audiophiles and, although it is clear to me what
audiophile means to "subjective audiophiles", it is not clear what the
word means to the rest of the population.

To those with technical knowledge in the area and of an age to have
seen the sector appear and start growing about 30 years ago then yes
your "audiophool" would seem to be a reasonable description.

What I am really seeking is how young people who are not "subjective
audiophiles" but have an interest in the area use the word. I have had
some indications of a tendency for it to include both those with a
rational "high-fidelity" interest (i.e. you and I) and those with a
"subjective audiophile" interest and for it to be losing its
derogatory meaning. But I do not know if only a small number use it
this way or a large number. Hence the post.

[Richard Crowley]

"honestguvnor" wrote ...
Thanks for the response and I should have made it clear in the
original posting why I am asking. I am considering rewriting the
Wikipedia article on audiophiles and, although it is clear to me what
audiophile means to "subjective audiophiles", it is not clear what the
word means to the rest of the population.

IMHO, Wikipedia (and dictionaries) should stick to being
"descriptive" rather than attempting to be "prescriptive".
Just because we (r.a.p) have a jaded view of "audiophools"
doesn't mean that Wikipedia should stoop to our level :-)

To those with technical knowledge in the area and of an age to have
seen the sector appear and start growing about 30 years ago then yes
your "audiophool" would seem to be a reasonable description.

What I am really seeking is how young people who are not "subjective
audiophiles" but have an interest in the area use the word.

I think they have been educated(?) to believe that they
can use the language however they wish without regard
to whether understandable communication is happening.
I think they also have a very subjective notion of what an
audiophile is (i.e. THEM). We certainly see them come
through here without a working knowledge of English
spelling or grammar or punctuation. (The ones who are
nomially "English speaking", that is.)

I've never considered myself to be an audiophile. I see
myself as more of a "journeyman" audio and video
technical resource ("engineer" if you wish). To me an
audiophile is someone who tends to move strongly towards
spending the 80% of resouces to achive that last 20%
of performance. That is just not worth it in my world.
I'm quite content on the 80% side of the equation.
Certainly some people here are masters of that last 20%
and we all learn from them. But not every customer
needs that kind of service.

I have had
some indications of a tendency for it to include both those with a
rational "high-fidelity" interest (i.e. you and I) and those with a
"subjective audiophile" interest and for it to be losing its
derogatory meaning. But I do not know if only a small number use it
this way or a large number. Hence the post.

I think r.a.p constitues one tail of the statistical spectrum,
not anything close to the majority opinion/use.

[William Sommerwerck]

To those with technical knowledge in the area and of an age
to have seen the sector appear and start growing about 30
years ago then yes your "audiophool" would seem to be a
reasonable description.

I consider "audiophool" -- though appropriate to a certain percentage of
listeners -- to be an insult to those who take accurate sound reproduction
seriously. The only reason we have reasonably good sound reproduction is
that scientists and engineers who enjoyed good music worked to improve its
reproduction.

It's unfortunate the "audiophile" has come to be associated with people who
spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on weird accessories that have little
or no effect on playback quality.

[William Sommerwerck]

To me an audiophile is someone who tends to move strongly
towards spending 1000% of the resources without achieving
anything. Just think about $10,000 power cords, $30,000
speaker cables (to reduce skin effects at 20kHz) etc.

The counterpart to the audiophile is the person who buys cheap,
mediocre-sounding equipment because he doesn't think that paying more will
get him better sound.

[honestguvnor]

On Mar 29, 12:25 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
I consider "audiophool" -- though appropriate to a certain percentage of
listeners -- to be an insult to those who take accurate sound reproduction
seriously.

But surely to those that work on the technical side of sound and/or
audio (my peer group) the term audiophile has always been derogatory
and applied to the "trust your ears and forget the specs" movement
that was created/entered the mainstream by the marketing conditions at
the end of the 60/70s hi-fi boom?

The only reason we have reasonably good sound reproduction is
that scientists and engineers who enjoyed good music worked to improve its
reproduction.

I think a lot may hang on what you mean by good. Accurate sound
reproduction does not require the scientists and engineers involved to
enjoy good music.

It's unfortunate the "audiophile" has come to be associated with people who
spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on weird accessories that have little
or no effect on playback quality.

The first time I heard the term it was being used by those that
believed in "subjective evaluation" in order to distinguish themselves
from the more mainstream "high-fidelity" enthusiasts with an interest
in technical performance. As you said earlier, you would apply the
term to everyone with an interest in high-quality sound reproduction
but when you first started using the term did it have this meaning or
did it apply only to those that were part of a new movement?

[William Sommerwerck]

It's obvious that there's a temporal gap -- about 20 years -- between me and
honestguvnor.


I consider "audiophool" -- though appropriate to a certain percentage
of listeners -- to be an insult to those who take accurate sound
reproduction seriously.

But surely to those that work on the technical side of sound and/or
audio (my peer group) the term audiophile has always been derogatory
and applied to the "trust your ears and forget the specs" movement
that was created/entered the mainstream by the marketing conditions
at the end of the 60/70s hi-fi boom?

It wasn't derogatory 40 years ago. Not by a long shot.

Audio equipment is meant to be listened to, not measured. If you think that
"good specs = good sound", you have much to learn. (I can name some
amplifiers that would quickly disabuse you of such a belief.) The reason
that specs do not generally correlate with sound quality has nothing to do
with the laws of nature, and everything to do with the difficulty of
determining such correlations, and the unwillingness of audio-industry
people to do the difficult and expensive work required.

The "modern" audiophile "movement" (if there can be said to be one) was
started by J. Gordon Holt with the founding of "The Stereophile". Gordon had
worked at "High Fidelity", where he discovered that advertising could
purchase favorable reviews, that the unreliability of particular products
was never reported, and most important of all, no one ever discussed whether
one piece of equipment sounded "better" (or different) than another. "The
Stereophile" was founded to reveal the truth (to the extent Gordon could
determine it) about audio equipment.

I've known Gordon for 30 years. He is a basically sober, rational,
well-educated person (with a wicked sense of humor) who, unlike most
"subjective" reviewers, understands the difference between opinion and
knowledge. I don't agree with him on everything (or vice versa), but he's
not the sort who thinks placing polished rocks on top of an amplifier
improves its sound. Indeed, for better and for worse, "The Stereophile" is a
major reason there's such a wide variety of quality audio equipment
available.

Those amplifiers? Get a Crown K1 and a Parasound A21. Listen to each for 5
seconds. Then tell me they sound anything alike. And then tell me what in
their specs predicts the sonic differences.


The only reason we have reasonably good sound reproduction is
that scientists and engineers who enjoyed good music worked to
improve its reproduction.

I think a lot may hang on what you mean by good. Accurate sound
reproduction does not require the scientists and engineers involved to
enjoy good music.

No, it doesn't. But it provides a good motivation.


It's unfortunate the "audiophile" has come to be associated
with people who spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on
weird accessories that have little or no effect on playback quality.

The first time I heard the term it was being used by those that
believed in "subjective evaluation" in order to distinguish themselves
from the more mainstream "high-fidelity" enthusiasts with an interest
in technical performance. As you said earlier, you would apply the
term to everyone with an interest in high-quality sound reproduction

I did not say that. I said it applies to people who are seriously interested
in accurate sound reproduction (I think).

but when you first started using the term did it have this meaning or
did it apply only to those that were part of a new movement?

I'm not sure what you're asking. "Audiophile" original meant "seriously
interested in high-quality (accurate) sound reproduction". The "technical"
side of it was always there, of course (audiophiles used to argue about
amplifier design, how much distortion was audible, etc), but the focus was
on the sound.

I am an audiophile, and am not the least embarrassed to say so.

[honestguvnor]

On Mar 29, 2:53 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
It wasn't derogatory 40 years ago. Not by a long shot.

40 years ago I was not aware of the word (I am European). Was it
understood by American mainstream hi-fi enthusiasts or only a subset
of enthusiasts following the "underground press"?

The "modern" audiophile "movement" (if there can be said to be one) was
started by J. Gordon Holt with the founding of "The Stereophile".

Please correct me if I am wrong, but surely this did not become part
of the mainstream until the late 70s?

I am an audiophile, and am not the least embarrassed to say so.

Even at parties?

[Scott Dorsey]

honestguvnor wrote:
On Mar 29, 12:25 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
I consider "audiophool" -- though appropriate to a certain percentage of
listeners -- to be an insult to those who take accurate sound reproduction
seriously.

But surely to those that work on the technical side of sound and/or
audio (my peer group) the term audiophile has always been derogatory
and applied to the "trust your ears and forget the specs" movement
that was created/entered the mainstream by the marketing conditions at
the end of the 60/70s hi-fi boom?

You have to realize that this movement started for a perfectly good reason,
that in the seventies manufacturers were bombarding the public with made-up
marketing specifications, and there was a huge backlash against this.

At the same time, the market started filling with solid-state equipment
that relied on huge amounts of feedback to get good-looking numbers on
continuous signal tests, but which sounded terrible.

Julian Hirsch's rave reviews of really awful sounding equipment is another
example of the sort of thing that started the subjectivist audiophile
movement. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

I think the audophile movement was a great thing at the time, and it
made people stop and think about sound. I also think it has got horribly
out of control today, and there is a lot of nasty-sounding trash being
promoted as audiophile gear. So I guess I didn't think of the word
as being derogatory until fairly recently.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[bob]

On Mar 29, 1:52 am, "honestguvnor"
wrote:
Thanks for the response and I should have made it clear in the
original posting why I am asking. I am considering rewriting the
Wikipedia article on audiophiles and, although it is clear to me what
audiophile means to "subjective audiophiles", it is not clear what the
word means to the rest of the population.

To those with technical knowledge in the area and of an age to have
seen the sector appear and start growing about 30 years ago then yes
your "audiophool" would seem to be a reasonable description.

What I am really seeking is how young people who are not "subjective
audiophiles" but have an interest in the area use the word. I have had
some indications of a tendency for it to include both those with a
rational "high-fidelity" interest (i.e. you and I) and those with a
"subjective audiophile" interest and for it to be losing its
derogatory meaning. But I do not know if only a small number use it
this way or a large number. Hence the post.

I think you have your answer. Like a lot of words, "audiophile" has
multiple meanings and connotations. A good definition should encompass
all of them.

bob

[honestguvnor]

On Mar 29, 4:19 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
I think the audophile movement was a great thing at the time, and it
made people stop and think about sound.

I think we agree on the timescales and the broad facts although I
suspect we may disagree on interpretations and the driving forces
behind the changes. Whatever, back to the term audiophile.

About a year or two after subjective reviews without controls first
started to appear in the mainstream home audio magazines, products
like expensive one-way, gold plated speaker cables appeared and were
accepted/promoted by subjective reviewers. Did you consider these to
be audiophile products?

I also think it has got horribly
out of control today, and there is a lot of nasty-sounding trash being
promoted as audiophile gear. So I guess I didn't think of the word
as being derogatory until fairly recently.

Hmmm. Thanks for the input which is the opposite way round to what
prompted my post. Do/did you consider yourself to be an audiophile or
at least aligned with audiophile values until they evolved to become
too extreme in what they accepted?

[Richard Crowley]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote ...
To me an audiophile is someone who tends to move strongly
towards spending 1000% of the resources without achieving
anything. Just think about $10,000 power cords, $30,000
speaker cables (to reduce skin effects at 20kHz) etc.

The counterpart to the audiophile is the person who buys cheap,
mediocre-sounding equipment because he doesn't think that
paying more will get him better sound.

If *I* can't hear the difference, or if it doesn't make my job easier,
it isn't worth a penny more to me. I don't believe in paying a premium
for something that *looks* nicer or has a more famous name on the
badge. Perhaps that makes me an "audio curmudgeon". So be it.

[Scott Dorsey]

honestguvnor wrote:

About a year or two after subjective reviews without controls first
started to appear in the mainstream home audio magazines, products
like expensive one-way, gold plated speaker cables appeared and were
accepted/promoted by subjective reviewers. Did you consider these to
be audiophile products?

Yes, and I found the whole cable thing really interesting.

It started out when people noticed that good quality cables sounded better
than the cheap junk that manufacturers were throwing in for free. There
were a bunch of reasons for this, including parasitic inductance on lousy
served shields, excessive shunt capacitance, and RCA connectors that
formed parasitic diodes. So there was pretty soon a market for good
quality cables. I think that is an audiophile product, in that it really
is intended to improve sound and reliability.

THEN folks started making weird cables. By weird cables, I mean cables
that were intended to alter the sound. This varied anywhere from the
spiral-wound Audioquest cables, to the MIT cables with lumped-sum reactances
in metal boxes at each end. And the audiophile community got to the idea
of using cables as a tone control device. Now, that doesn't bother me all
that much, although I think it's a really expensive sort of tone control.
I did find it a little disturbing to see the audiophile community go off on
this tangent, but I think it is a harmless one, and these are devices that
do actually change the sound, because they are designed to.

Only recently have things really gone berserk with people promoting digital
cables intended to change the sound and fancy power cables. THAT is just
plain stupid.

I also think it has got horribly
out of control today, and there is a lot of nasty-sounding trash being
promoted as audiophile gear. So I guess I didn't think of the word
as being derogatory until fairly recently.

Hmmm. Thanks for the input which is the opposite way round to what
prompted my post. Do/did you consider yourself to be an audiophile or
at least aligned with audiophile values until they evolved to become
too extreme in what they accepted?

I think I am still aligned with audiophile values. Just because the
audiophile community has some wacko extremists doesn't mean the notion
of audiophilia is a bad one.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Mar 29, 10:19 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
You have to realize that this movement started for a perfectly good reason,
...manufacturers were bombarding the public with made-up
marketing specifications, ...
At the same time, the market started filling with solid-state equipment
that relied on huge amounts of feedback to get good-looking numbers on
continuous signal tests, but which sounded terrible.
....
out of control today, and there is a lot of nasty-sounding trash being
promoted as audiophile gear. So I guess I didn't think of the word
as being derogatory until fairly recently.

almost like LIBERAL is a bad word...
so for all you neo-con reactionary dogs

maybe the problem today is the same one as before...
equipment mftr are HYPING their product...
marketing to price points
posting tech specs that have no real bearing on musicality.

[Richard Crowley]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote ...
"Chel van Gennip" wrote ....

To me an audiophile is someone who tends to move strongly towards
spending
1000% of the resources without achieving anything. Just think about
$10,000 power cords, $30,000 speaker cables (to reduce skin effects at
20kHz) etc.

Some typical links:

But if you make that the meaning of the word, you leave those who really
care about sound quality without a word.

Which is exactly why the "audiophool" variant was created.

Do you really want the finest recording equipment in the world to be
without a use? Apogee and Elgar converters, Millenia and Grace preamps,
DPA, Schoeps, Sennheiser? All of these companies, and other, make
equipment of excellence far beyond the needs of the mass market. Condemn
the word, and you weaken even further the market for excellence.

Whoah! Wait a minute. That equipment (DPA, Schopes, Millenia, Grace, et.al.)
is "professional" which IMHO is significantly DIFFERENT than "audiophile".
Now "Monster Cable" is an audiophile/audiophool brand name, etc.

This is not a healthy time for audio. Rifts like these in the audio
community make it even more like a failed nation (Iraq) than it already
is.

I think you need to re-evaluate your sources of news on both accounts.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "We shall all hang together, or we shall all
hang separately."

I'll take my chances of hanging independently from the audiophools,
and thank you very much for the option of differentiation.

[Richard Crowley]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote ...
"honestguvnor" wrote ...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:
I consider "audiophool" -- though appropriate to a certain percentage of
listeners -- to be an insult to those who take accurate sound
reproduction
seriously.

But surely to those that work on the technical side of sound and/or
audio (my peer group) the term audiophile has always been derogatory
and applied to the "trust your ears and forget the specs" movement
that was created/entered the mainstream by the marketing conditions at
the end of the 60/70s hi-fi boom?

I don't think so. Whatever the people at Apogee consider themselves, as a
company that makes -120dB A/D converters, they care about sound quality.
The word "audiophile" simply means, "lover of audio." It includes all of
us.

In your example of Apogee, they use the word "audiophile" exactly
three times in their website. In two cases they seem to be referring
to the option of using their equipment interconnected with consumer
goods. And in the third case is is clearly used in the perjorative phrase
"audiophile geek".

I don't think I am the only one who sees a clear distinction
between "audiophile" and "professional", at least when it
comes to equipment. Apogee appears to have a clear view
of the difference.

In fact, I would argue that this is the basis of whats-his-name's
blathering about the supposed "superiority" of his "audiophile
cassette" antiques.

[William Sommerwerck]

The counterpart to the audiophile is the person who buys cheap,
mediocre-sounding equipment because he doesn't think that
paying more will get him better sound.

If *I* can't hear the difference, or if it doesn't make my job easier,
it isn't worth a penny more to me. I don't believe in paying a premium
for something that *looks* nicer or has a more famous name on the
badge. Perhaps that makes me an "audio curmudgeon". So be it.

That isn't quite what I said. I was talking about the presumption that more
money doesn't buy better sound -- not whether one could hear the difference.

[Richard Crowley]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote ...
I'll take my chances of hanging independently from the audiophools,
and thank you very much for the option of differentiation.

But will you hang with the audiophiles? You've described yourself as
satisfied with journeyman quality, and that is quite modest, but have you
ever put yourself out, on some special job, for the last bit of best?

As a matter of fact, I posted my question about mic preamps a few
days ago because I am getting ready for a major live recording in
about a month. I think I am settling for a matched pair of Josephson
C42s and a Focusrite Octopre because I can't justify the cost of a
pair of DPAs and Millenia Media preamps. I still think of those as
"professional grade" (even though "journeyman-quality") as distinct
from "audiophile grade"

If you have, then you are to some extent an audiophile, and you should
wear the badge with pride.

Sorry, even "audiophile" doesn't cut it for me. Too much "chrome
and fins" for my taste.

[Steven Sullivan]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
The counterpart to the audiophile is the person who buys cheap,
mediocre-sounding equipment because he doesn't think that
paying more will get him better sound.

If *I* can't hear the difference, or if it doesn't make my job easier,
it isn't worth a penny more to me. I don't believe in paying a premium
for something that *looks* nicer or has a more famous name on the
badge. Perhaps that makes me an "audio curmudgeon". So be it.

That isn't quite what I said. I was talking about the presumption that more
money doesn't buy better sound -- not whether one could hear the difference.

More money doesn't *necessarily* buy better sound.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[William Sommerwerck]

The counterpart to the audiophile is the person who buys cheap,
mediocre-sounding equipment because he doesn't think that
paying more will get him better sound.

If *I* can't hear the difference, or if it doesn't make my job easier,
it isn't worth a penny more to me. I don't believe in paying a premium
for something that *looks* nicer or has a more famous name on the
badge. Perhaps that makes me an "audio curmudgeon". So be it.

That isn't quite what I said. I was talking about the presumption that
more
money doesn't buy better sound -- not whether one could hear the
difference.

More money doesn't *necessarily* buy better sound.

Did I say it did? No.

[Agent 86]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:52:10 -0700, honestguvnor wrote:

To those with technical knowledge in the area and of an age to have seen
the sector appear and start growing about 30 years ago then yes your
"audiophool" would seem to be a reasonable description.

What I am really seeking is how young people who are not "subjective
audiophiles" but have an interest in the area use the word. I have had
some indications of a tendency for it to include both those with a
rational "high-fidelity" interest (i.e. you and I) and those with a
"subjective audiophile" interest and for it to be losing its derogatory
meaning. But I do not know if only a small number use it this way or a
large number. Hence the post.

Well, I've never heard the term "Subjective audiophile" before, so I can
only guess. Here's my take on things, for what it's worth.

Back in the days of vinyl LPs, you could reasonably count on the idea that
spending more more money would (all other things being equal) get you
better sounding gear. Brand name recognition would usually increase price
(one of the other things that wasn't always equal), but there were few
enough players that brand name recognition was usually earned by
consistently producing quality product. If you think about it, it
makes perfect sense that a great turntable costs more than a bad one.
Being a mechanical system, design and manufacturing tolerances make a
difference. And being a transducer (remember the real definition of a
transducer - a device that changes the form of energy), tolerances make a
BIG difference. Turntables, like microphones, change mechanical vibrations
into electrical signals.

Regarding amplifiers, by the mid 70s, it was a relatively minor challenge
to build an amp that was reasonably flat throughout the audible range and
had reasonably low measured THD. To a large degree, the limiting factor
was available power supply current to accurately reproduce transients.
This was directly related to power supply design and implementation, and
as such, had a direct bearing on price.

Then two things happened. First, as Scott has pointed out, manufacturers
started designing gear to have specs that would look good on paper, often
not disclosing any of the testing parameters used to arrive at those
specs. And second, CDs were invented. It's not completely wrong to think
of a CD player as a transducer, but there was and is a lot less
difference from one model to the next, and the differences are much less
proportionate to price than had been the case with turntables.

So we've moved from an environment where a little more money will buy you
a little better performance, and a lot more money will buy you a lot more
performance to one where a little more money won't buy you anything, and
you can't even be sure you'll get anything if you spend a lot. And since
the magazines that serve the "audiophile market" are supported by the very
same advertisers that are publishing the bogus specs to begin with, media
reviews of components are worse than useless. The obvious answer is that
you need to listen before you buy, but any knowledgeable hifi enthusiast
knows that a stereo store is the absolute worst environment for judging
the sound of any component. And the stores that will let you take stuff
home on trial are fast disappearing. A lot of "high end" stuff is special
order only these days, with a nonrefundable deposit up front. This makes
the person willing to pay extra for perceived quality an easy target for
unscrupulous manufacturers and retailers. And in turn makes the industry
more and more appealing to more and more unscrupulous manufacturers and
retailers.

[Richard Crowley]

"Agent 86" wrote ...
.....And the stores that will let you take stuff
home on trial are fast disappearing. A lot of "high end" stuff is special
order only these days, with a nonrefundable deposit up front. This makes
the person willing to pay extra for perceived quality an easy target for
unscrupulous manufacturers and retailers. And in turn makes the industry
more and more appealing to more and more unscrupulous manufacturers and
retailers.

Which in turn makes most of us far more skeptical of EVERYTHING,
and gives "audiophile" the bad connotation that I appear to share.

And the extraordinary price along with the no-audition, no-return
situation cause the new owner's pride to closely correlate with
$$$s spent and decouple it from actual performance.

Perhaps it is not the *concept* of audiophile that I object to, but the
commercial use of the word. Whenever "audiophile" appears in ad
copy, my first reaction is to dismiss the product as unworthy of real
adjectives, so the marketing gerbs picked "audiophile" out of their
whichever part of their anatomy you wish to try to impress me. I
guess some of us just react in the opposite polarity to thte masses.

[Scott Dorsey]

Agent 86 wrote:
Back in the days of vinyl LPs, you could reasonably count on the idea that
spending more more money would (all other things being equal) get you
better sounding gear. Brand name recognition would usually increase price
(one of the other things that wasn't always equal), but there were few
enough players that brand name recognition was usually earned by
consistently producing quality product. If you think about it, it
makes perfect sense that a great turntable costs more than a bad one.
Being a mechanical system, design and manufacturing tolerances make a
difference. And being a transducer (remember the real definition of a
transducer - a device that changes the form of energy), tolerances make a
BIG difference. Turntables, like microphones, change mechanical vibrations
into electrical signals.

The one place where spending more money didn't necessarily get you better
quality was in speakers. In the seventies, this was because speaker design
at the time was more or less voodoo, designers were sort of floundering,
and throwing money at a design didn't necessarily help.

Today, however, we have Thiele and Small's work, which totally changed
speaker design, and made it much more of a science. But, at the same time,
we also have some weird crazes in the high end for extremely high efficiency
loudspeakers... I can assure you that the the expensive Euryhthmie does not
sound better than $1000 worth of low-end Magnepans.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:17:22 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

Perhaps it is not the *concept* of audiophile that I object to, but the
commercial use of the word. Whenever "audiophile" appears in ad
copy, my first reaction is to dismiss the product as unworthy of real
adjectives, so the marketing gerbs picked "audiophile" out of their
whichever part of their anatomy you wish to try to impress me. I
guess some of us just react in the opposite polarity to thte masses.

Yeah. Whenever I recommend that useful entry-level card from M-Audio
I wince at the name :-)

[honestguvnor]

On Mar 29, 5:29 pm, "bob" wrote:

I think you have your answer. Like a lot of words, "audiophile" has
multiple meanings and connotations. A good definition should encompass
all of them.

I agree about the multiple meanings but I have gathered relatively
little because the responses have come mainly from people like me or
audiophiles. I already knew how these two groups largely used the
word. I am really seeking responses from the younger generation.

[honestguvnor]

On Mar 30, 1:57 am, Agent 86 wrote:

Well, I've never heard the term "Subjective audiophile" before, so I can
only guess.

It is a term used by audiophiles themselves to distinguish those with
a scientific view from those that "trust their ears" (and the
marketing).

Here's my take on things, for what it's worth.

Thanks for the response.

[Richard Crowley]

"honestguvnor" wrote ...
wrote:

Well, I've never heard the term "Subjective audiophile" before, so I
can
only guess.

It is a term used by audiophiles themselves to distinguish those with
a scientific view from those that "trust their ears" (and the
marketing).

I think "subjective" is being generous. Their chronic
refusal of double-blind testing makes me think that
they can only "hear" the difference when they can SEE
which equipment (magic cables, or magic rocks,etc.)
are being used.

[Richard Crowley]

wrote ...
almost like LIBERAL is a bad word...
so for all you neo-con reactionary dogs

Some of us are traditional-cons.
It is "progressive" that really sends chills down my back.

[Richard Crowley]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote ...
The two words have fundamentally different meanings:
1. professional. performance of a service for money, or an individual
who does such.
2. audiophile. lover of sound.

It is certainly possible for the employees of Apogee to produce fine
equipment without love of sound. But I doubt it. Hence, they are
audio(sound)--philes(lovers of).

Your "distinction" is your own personal meaning. If the English
language becomes cluttered with personal meanings in defiance of the
root of the word, then we have no common terms. It doesn't help
clarity to put a spin or connotation on each that distorts the true
meaning.

If you love sound, and do it for money, you are both a professional
and an audiophile.

You are much more of a romantic and a traditionalist
than I am. I tend to be much more pragmatic and
highly distrustful of popular culture.

[Richard Crowley]

"soundhaspriority" wrote ...
And I have an Octopre coming tomorrow. I can't get myself to spend for
the Josephsons (though they wouldn't be my first choice anyway). But I
consider myself an audiophile because I know what I would like to do,
even if it isn't practical for me.
So you may be an audiophile. Don't be afraid to "come out"

I don't think so. The only people I interact with share
my negative connotation of "audiophile".

What A/D are you using with the Octopre?

I was planning on using the add-in Lightpipe option
board for the OctoPre.

But now I'm thinking of upgrading my Alesis HD24
with the EC-2 replacement A/D and D/A since I have
read so many reports that it is a significant improvement
in transparency of recording.

[William Sommerwerck]

I think "subjective" is being generous. Their chronic
refusal of double-blind testing makes me think that
they can only "hear" the difference when they can SEE
which equipment (magic cables, or magic rocks, etc.)
are being used.

I personally reject double-blind testing because it's not the way we
normally listen. I would, however, gladly take part in double-blind
LONG-TERM listening tests, where there is no pressure to make immediate
judgements.

[hank alrich]

Richard Crowley wrote:

audioaesthetic wrote ...
almost like LIBERAL is a bad word...
so for all you neo-con reactionary dogs

Some of us are traditional-cons.

Those with whom I interact who can truly claim that handle will have
nothing to do with the present regime of self-styled neoconmen, nor
present economic or environmental or war policies.

It is "progressive" that really sends chills down my back.

Oh, yes, being regressive is so much more rewarding and so likely to
deliver useful advances. "Why just yesterday while walking backwards I
made a most interesting discovery: I was leading with my ass!"

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Richard Crowley wrote:
wrote ...
almost like LIBERAL is a bad word...
so for all you neo-con reactionary dogs

Some of us are traditional-cons.
It is "progressive" that really sends chills down my back.

I dunno, I kind of like Brian Auger and the Oblivion Express.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

"Richard Crowley" writes:

snips

I was planning on using the add-in Lightpipe option
board for the OctoPre.

But now I'm thinking of upgrading my Alesis HD24
with the EC-2 replacement A/D and D/A since I have
read so many reports that it is a significant improvement
in transparency of recording.

Richard -

I bought the XR from the get-go, and am continually amazed at the sonics
session after session, not to mention the solid performance of the machine
in general and "tape without the drawbacks" feel of the HD24. Seems like
it'd be hard to go wrong with this upgrade unless you could find a used
but solid XR.

You'd want to back-check this newsgroup, however; some people had some
odd problems with the EC-2 upgrade. (Durned if I can remember specifics;
seems like all issues eventually got resolved. Never had any issues with
the XR, except the one time I failed to properly ground the drive in a
caddy.)

Since we're in the same metro, you'd be welcome to come out and take a
listen to the XR, perhaps using your machine/drives as a starting
reference, then popping a drive into the XR. (I still owe you a favor for
loaning me your Sony 37s some 20+ years ago. g)

Best,

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio
--

[Les Cargill]

Richard Crowley wrote:

"honestguvnor" wrote ...

wrote:


Well, I've never heard the term "Subjective audiophile" before, so I can
only guess.


It is a term used by audiophiles themselves to distinguish those with
a scientific view from those that "trust their ears" (and the
marketing).


I think "subjective" is being generous. Their chronic
refusal of double-blind testing makes me think that
they can only "hear" the difference when they can SEE
which equipment (magic cables, or magic rocks,etc.)
are being used.

People don't have nearly enough real stuff to do these days
(and are apparently much overworked at that ). Let the
fetishists fetish, long as it makes 'em happy.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
. ..

I think "subjective" is being generous. Their chronic
refusal of double-blind testing makes me think that
they can only "hear" the difference when they can SEE
which equipment (magic cables, or magic rocks, etc.)
are being used.

I personally reject double-blind testing because it's not the way we
normally listen. I would, however, gladly take part in double-blind
LONG-TERM listening tests, where there is no pressure to make immediate
judgements.


Exactly. I think our evaluations are long-term cumulative. It's analogous to
low-level radiation exposure. There is no threshold, and the effect is
cumulative.

Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894



But observer bias is also cumulative. "A man hears what he wants
to hear and disregards the rest." What you hear changes
*how* you hear.

--
Les Cargill

[mueller]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Soundhaspriority" wrote ...

"Chel van Gennip" wrote ....



Now "Monster Cable" is an audiophile/audiophool brand name, etc.


Oh how wrong you are. Monster does not rate high at all with audiophiles.
It's considered low on the list