What constitutes an Audiophile or Videophile?

[Tom L.]

A question for the AVNirvana community. What is your definition of an Audiophile? What is your definition of a Videophile?

I took a swing at defining Audiophile recently and would love to have some other opinions and ideas about what you might think.

In my weak stab at it I defined Audiophile as;

"To me an “audiophile” is a person who loves both music and the equipment used to reproduce that music, sometimes obsessively so. For example, my “audiophile” (if I should, at least for a moment, be allowed to call myself such…) goal is to be able to recreate the music I enjoy at a level of quality that excites and pleases ME."

I'm going with basically the same definition for Videophile.... Just substitute "Video" in place of "music"

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Merriam-Webster:
Definition of audiophile

: a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction

I'd say from all I have seen/read... an audiophile is "obsessive" about good sound, as you have alluded to.

 

[Tom L.]

Merriam-Webster:
Definition of audiophile

: a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction

I'd say from all I have seen/read... an audiophile is "obsessive" about good sound, as you have alluded to.

Thanks Sonnie! I had seen the Webster's definition but thought it rather weak for what, to some at least, IS a true obsession.

 

[Sittler27]

Someone who appreciates and is passionate, and somewhat knowledgeable about what makes up good quality audio and/or video.

 

[Tom L.]

Someone who appreciates and is passionate, and somewhat knowledgeable about what makes up good quality audio and/or video.

Thanks! That’s a good summation and to the point!

 

[w_sizer]

You’re all correct of course, but I would add that audiophiles are folks who regularly listen to music exclusively without doing anything else (i.e., music is the primary focus, not background).

 

[Ty_Tanium]

In my opinion (remember, opinions are like belly buttons), the definitions given so far are too general. Most anyone who visits various audio/video websites could therefore be called an audiophile/videophile. For me, I’d start the description with Toms’ first line but remove the word “sometimes” from “sometimes obsessively so.” We’re talking about people who are willing to spend unreasonable amounts of money on equipment that often yields little to only subjective improvements, like silver vs copper wire. Yes, there's expensive equipment out there that does yield a substantially better sound such as processors that can play tons of channels at once, but they’re priced well out of the reach of 99% of the people. I think something needs to be added to the definition that reflects a low ROI. The trouble is, how do you quantify it? If you can’t quantify it, the definition remains subjective. Maybe that’s ok (???) and the definition should be left up to each person? I spend quite a bit more money on equipment than most people do, but for any one piece it’s not more than the average person could afford after saving up for it. So even though I have substantial money invested, I don’t consider myself an audiophile because I’m not willing to step over the ROI line. There’s certainly nothing wrong with being an “Audio/Video Enthusiast”. Maybe I’m an “Audiophile Trainee”! Ha!

 

[JStewart]

If your gear costs more than your car, you might be an audiophile.

If you visit manufacturers and showrooms when on vacation, you might be an audiophile.

If you appreciate rain on your days off for a guilt free extended listening session, you might be an audiophile.

If you placed your speakers with a laser, you might be an audiophile.

If your unused equipment outnumbers what you actually use, you might be an audiophile.

(With thanks to Mr. Foxworthy.)

 

[w_sizer]

In my opinion (remember, opinions are like belly buttons), the definitions given so far are too general. Most anyone who visits various audio/video websites could therefore be called an audiophile/videophile. For me, I’d start the description with Toms’ first line but remove the word “sometimes” from “sometimes obsessively so.” We’re talking about people who are willing to spend unreasonable amounts of money on equipment that often yields little to only subjective improvements, like silver vs copper wire. Yes, there's expensive equipment out there that does yield a substantially better sound such as processors that can play tons of channels at once, but they’re priced well out of the reach of 99% of the people. I think something needs to be added to the definition that reflects a low ROI. The trouble is, how do you quantify it? If you can’t quantify it, the definition remains subjective. Maybe that’s ok (???) and the definition should be left up to each person? I spend quite a bit more money on equipment than most people do, but for any one piece it’s not more than the average person could afford after saving up for it. So even though I have substantial money invested, I don’t consider myself an audiophile because I’m not willing to step over the ROI line. There’s certainly nothing wrong with being an “Audio/Video Enthusiast”. Maybe I’m an “Audiophile Trainee”! Ha!

The definition of “audiophile” needs to be general because people in this community are not homogeneous, but instead form a continuum ranging from those who build their systems on the basis of objective criteria like ROI, measurements, etc. to those who employ strictly subjective criteria. The fact that you may be closer to the former doesn’t mean that you’re not an audiophile.

 

[Tom L.]

If your gear costs more than your car, you might be an audiophile.

If you visit manufacturers and showrooms when on vacation, you might be an audiophile.

If you appreciate rain on your days off for a guilt free extended listening session, you might be an audiophile.

If you placed your speakers with a laser, you might be an audiophile.

If your unused equipment outnumbers what you actually use, you might be an audiophile.

(With thanks to Mr. Foxworthy.)

Hmmmm.... I think you are on to something here....

 

[Tom L.]

You’re all correct of course, but I would add that audiophiles are folks who regularly listen to music exclusively without doing anything else (i.e., music is the primary focus, not background).

I certainly think that should the the major consideration to qualify as an Audiophile. Not too sure that is what it still is in many peoples eyes.... both in this great hobby of ours and even more so from the outside looking in!

 

[Tom L.]

In my opinion (remember, opinions are like belly buttons), the definitions given so far are too general. Most anyone who visits various audio/video websites could therefore be called an audiophile/videophile. For me, I’d start the description with Toms’ first line but remove the word “sometimes” from “sometimes obsessively so.” We’re talking about people who are willing to spend unreasonable amounts of money on equipment that often yields little to only subjective improvements, like silver vs copper wire. Yes, there's expensive equipment out there that does yield a substantially better sound such as processors that can play tons of channels at once, but they’re priced well out of the reach of 99% of the people. I think something needs to be added to the definition that reflects a low ROI. The trouble is, how do you quantify it? If you can’t quantify it, the definition remains subjective. Maybe that’s ok (???) and the definition should be left up to each person? I spend quite a bit more money on equipment than most people do, but for any one piece it’s not more than the average person could afford after saving up for it. So even though I have substantial money invested, I don’t consider myself an audiophile because I’m not willing to step over the ROI line. There’s certainly nothing wrong with being an “Audio/Video Enthusiast”. Maybe I’m an “Audiophile Trainee”! Ha!

You are so right! While the “Law of Diminishing Returns” is a real consideration to many of us it is totally ignored or even “poo pooed” by a significant, and very vocal, segment of our hobbies population.

 

[Tom L.]

Quite often I come across forum posts where the poster says “It’s all about the music”. Sometimes it is used as a put-down of a person who is discussing frequency response or distortion or SNR. Sometimes it is used as an excuse to introduce the fake word ‘musicality’ as the be-all and end-all of audio component assessment.

But, when I hear it said, I think: Sure -- but that's the non-audiophile perspective. "I listen on mp3 and earbuds and love it; after all, it's all about the music".

At some point the audiophile perspective includes an interest in, and appreciation of, the excellence of the sonic qualities of the music as presented, not just the music itself. Audio engineers -- good ones -- go to enormous lengths to create a fantastic sonic experience. Audiophiles are people who 'want that'.

So, perhaps my definition of an audiophile is someone who loves listening to music so much that they want to explore the music as deeply as they can, and in doing so he or she moves from being a casual song consumer to a deep appreciator of music. Attaining this extra level of exposure to music involves them acquiring a playback system that presents the music as naturally and accurately as it is possible to hear, so that, for example, when a musician spends $50,000 on his or her instrument instead of $500, or moves to a different tuning of strings or model of piano, or an orchestra relocates to a specific venue to make a particular recording, the reasons for that choice can be heard and appreciated.

I like your definition in bold print.... But having said that, what does it take to obtain that state of “Audio Nirvana?” Can you be a happy “Audiophile” with those earbuds if that is your only point of reference (and you are happy with it)?.... or must you spend big bucks to reach that level Enlightenment? Do I need $70K worth of speaker cables or $4K worth of fuses to move to the Audiophile level? Some think so

 

[Atmos7]

I am sorry to say that the cost of the equipment you own has nothing to do with being considered an audiophile. I know a person who has the top of the line, very expensive setup (AVR, speakers, pre-amps, etc.) installed by a "professional company", but he knows nothing about music. He does not even know how to use it or what different settings do. He just got it to impress his friends (read girl friends). He is a single millionaire guy. When you go to his house he will never fail to let you know how much he paid for the setup. Unfortunately, he used to be a good friend of mine. He is still my friend.

 

[Tom L.]

I am sorry to say that the cost of the equipment you own has nothing to do with being considered an audiophile. I know a person who has the top of the line, very expensive setup (AVR, speakers, pre-amps, etc.) installed by a "professional company", but he knows nothing about music. He does not even know how to use it or what different settings do. He just got it to impress his friends (read girl friends). He is a single millionaire guy. When you go to his house he will never fail to let you know how much he paid for the setup. Unfortunately, he used to be a good friend of mine. He is still my friend.

Does he claim to be an “Audiophile?” If not then he is a wealthy person simply buying expensive stuff for the bragging rights. That’s really OK in my book. His money after all.

 

[Atmos7]

Does he claim to be an “Audiophile?” If not then he is a wealthy person simply buying expensive stuff for the bragging rights. That’s really OK in my book. His money after all.

He does not claim to be an audiophile. I am sorry you missed my point. Just having expensive equipment does not make one an audiophile. In fact I would go further and say that the cost of the equipment you own should not even be considered when describing someone as an audiophile. Many starving musicians understand music more than most people but cannot afford high price equipment. But they know the attributes you need to have a "real original" sound in an audio setup. I would say they are true audiophile. Long time back my room mate was one.

 

[Tom L.]

He does not claim to be an audiophile. I am sorry you missed my point. Just having expensive equipment does not make one an audiophile. In fact I would go further and say that the cost of the equipment you own should not even be considered when describing someone as an audiophile. Many starving musicians understand music more than most people but cannot afford high price equipment. But they know the attributes you need to have a "real original" sound in an audio setup. I would say they are true audiophile. Long time back my room mate was one.

Sorry.... I didn’t miss your point at all and do agree with you that throwing money at anything doesn’t necessarily make one an audiophile, learned person, expert, technical whiz, or whatever.

Neither does being a musician that may have a great sound within a group or orchestral setting. Even understanding music intimately does not constitute an audiophile. I’m somewhat familiar with music, the musical process, and musicians, and have seen many examples of this over the years.

Question.... do you consider yourself an “Audiophile?”

 

[Mathemagician]

I used to scoff at the local kids driving an old, white beater with a red door, neon green rear wing and spray painted pink wheels. Then, at some point, I realized that they're just "car guys" doing what they can with what they've got. Just my $0.02.

 

[Tom L.]

I used to scoff at the local kids driving an old, white beater with a red door, neon green rear wing and spray painted pink wheels. Then, at some point, I realized that they're just "car guys" doing what they can with what they've got. Just my $0.02.

Agreed... we are all (or most of us anyway) are doing what we can with what we’ve actually got in any endeavor/hobby/work.

 

[Todd Anderson]

This is an interesting question, Tom. I'm not sure what the right answer is.

There's some part of me that wants to say that there's a big difference between an enthusiast and an audiophile, with audiophiles taking steps beyond a passion or love for sound, music, and movies. Perhaps to levels that are somewhat absurd and unnecessary.

I don't consider myself to be an audiophile - perhaps more of a videophile from a technical perspective. I think AV enthusiast probably sums it up best.

 

[Atmos7]

I love music and I can tell a good sound from bad. I used to play guitar in a rock band and I understand music. However I do not consider myself as an audiophile as I don't know enough about the latest audio technology to recommend to someone an audiophile level setup, nor do I have the luxury of investing in expensive equipment and experiencing the results. However, having said that I have 5.4.2 ATMOS setup with Yamaha RX- A3080 and Klipsch RP800F Floor standing speakers and I am very happy with the sound

 

[CAAudiophile]

I have to agree with all of the opinions .. however, I may ad that an audiophile is like someone who likes wine, when you taste a very good wine you need more and you will never go back to that cheap wine. The same goes with the good sound.

 

[Tom L.]

I love music and I can tell a good sound from bad. I used to play guitar in a rock band and I understand music. However I do not consider myself as an audiophile as I don't know enough about the latest audio technology to recommend to someone an audiophile level setup, nor do I have the luxury of investing in expensive equipment and experiencing the results. However, having said that I have 5.4.2 ATMOS setup with Yamaha RX- A3080 and Klipsch RP800F Floor standing speakers and I am very happy with the sound

If you researched, auditioned and purchased your equipment based on your perception of the sound and what like. Then carefully installed and set up that equipment. If you enjoyed it then and enjoy it now still liking what you hear.... I consider you an audiophile!

 

[Tom L.]

I have to agree with all of the opinions .. however, I may ad that an audiophile is like someone who likes wine, when you taste a very good wine you need more and you will never go back to that cheap wine. The same goes with the good sound.

I think you are correct.... up tp a point. From what I’ve witnessed with either audiophiles or oenophile they can (not necessarily do) take a step or two beyond that delicate point of tangibles returns seeking that perfection of sound or taste they may have already reached... If that makes any sense?
eophiles