Who or what is a Audiophile? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Who or what is a Audiophile?



Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-31-2011, 01:06 PM
According to Wikipedia an audiophile is a hobbyist who seeks high quality audio reproduction via the use of specialized high end audio electronics. This explanation makes no distinction between a two channel system, or a multi-channel system, yet we always associated audiophiles with two channel system guys. Why is that? Surely a multi-channel system can be assembled to meet the objectives of this definition, but two channel guys almost always look down on multi-channel systems as inferior to two channel system. Why is that? Is it the hardware, or is it the software? Since there are high resolution multi-channel recordings and high quality systems to play them on, why wouldn't a multi-channel loving individual not be called an audiophile?

I had this discussion with another audio engineer at the studio I work at, and it was interesting and enlightening. He calls himself and audiophile because he has a high end two channel system, and I asserted that I was also an audiophile but I happen to own nothing but multi-channel systems. He does not consider a multi-channel system "audiophile" in spite of the fact it fits the definition to a tee. I thought that was interesting, and want to read and exchange thoughts with others here.

poppachubby
07-31-2011, 01:08 PM
To me it's anyone concerned with the pursuit of audio. It certainly CAN'T be measured by the gear. For example, my wife would listen to music from an alarm clock and be fine with it, she simply doesn't care. For those people who hear the alarm clock and think "nah, that's not it"...and act on their laurels...audiophile.

02audionoob
07-31-2011, 02:33 PM
I'd say Wikipedia is wrong on this one. Audio + phile looks pretty simple to me. The criterion is the intent or passion of the person, not the gear itself. I agree with poppa...can't judge the definition of that word by the gear.

tube fan
07-31-2011, 02:54 PM
I think an audiophile is concerned with reproducing the sound of live acoustic music (TAS). The multi-channel systems I have heard easily beat two channel systems in many respects, sounding especially alive and three-dimensional. Cost and space is a problem for me, but if I had a larger listening room and hit the lotto, I would definitely get a SOTA multi-channel audio system. Two channel can only do so much. JGH was a big fan of multi-channel audio BTW.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-31-2011, 03:03 PM
If the equipment is separated from the name, then why are the words "high end" associated with the name audiophile. Why do audiophile based mag's mostly review equipment that is considered "high end"? Why do audiophiles typically spend a ton of cash on their system? There must be some performance expectation with audiophiles, hence the capital outlay on their system.

Somehow the equipment and its playback capabilities play into the audiophile label. I have never heard a owner of a Klipsch Quintet system call himself an audiophile.

02audionoob
07-31-2011, 03:18 PM
There seems to be a dislike for the term among many people who I would say fit my definition. They wouldn't call themselves that. They see audiophiles as snobs. By my definition I'd call myself an audiophile, although by the standards of the magazines my gear is entry level or even budget.

Ajani
07-31-2011, 03:21 PM
I see no reason why a Multi-Channel Lover couldn't be defined as an audiophile... I think the thing to keep in mind is that generally audiophiles are (often correctly) regarded as being snotty and full of it... So if you don't own a turntable and use tubes, then you're not interested in sound quality, etc... Audiophiles too often fall into little warring factions, intent on somehow convincing everyone else that their way is the ONLY way... So being inclusive of other preferences, such as multi-channel, is not very likely...

JohnMichael
07-31-2011, 03:46 PM
I think an audiophile is a music lover who searches out the best equipment he/she can afford to bring them closest to the music they love. They are also in my opinion the ones who carefully place the system in the room with regards to best sound. Audiophiles use various accessories to help components work their best. Audiophiles listen to music as intently as someone might watch a movie or read a book.

blackraven
07-31-2011, 04:15 PM
Any one who has one of these systems-

http://www.higherfi.com/million/

and maybe Florian:13:

and this guy- http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-v4OqFOL-McQ/TdkeolDxnUI/AAAAAAAAM0A/Jgy4r7yWfHk/s1600/mcintosh+youtube.png

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-31-2011, 04:31 PM
I think an audiophile is a music lover who searches out the best equipment he/she can afford to bring them closest to the music they love. They are also in my opinion the ones who carefully place the system in the room with regards to best sound. Audiophiles use various accessories to help components work their best. Audiophiles listen to music as intently as someone might watch a movie or read a book.

Now this I agree with wholeheartedly. This applies whether your system is 2.0 or 7.1.

RGA
07-31-2011, 05:49 PM
Sir T

You're an audiophile - audiophile = sound lover.

It doesn't matter if I like SET and HE and you like multi-channel high power SS - because the word Love has a huge dose of subjectivity to it. I like tall women (err won't say no to short ones either :-) - but some guys like certain types. You get the idea.

And I may be a SET guy for two channel music but I am quite happy to enjoy a big baddass multi-channel rig.

Soundhounds is a long time dealer and they made a system using AN E's in corners - AN J as paired Center channel speakers and rears. No Sub necessary. I did not hear it but it worked unbelievably well in their set-up with SACD and home theater.

I think MC gets knocked largely because of the expense involved. I have heard lots of multi-channel set-ups but if I don't like the sound of the speakers in 2 channel - I don't see how adding 5-6 more of those speakers is going to make it better. And the speakers I like cost a bomb.

Further - you go to places like CES and no one demonstrates what such systems can do. You have the opportunity to hear it with high quality ATC speakers - and you don't seem to have a normal budget for this gear.

You kind of have to put yourself in the average non top 1% of income earners and realize that most people who judge multi-channel sound are listening to it on a $700 Yamaha Receiver with a bunch of $400 loudspeakers and a $500 subwoofer. Err a glorified home theater in a box set-up. It sounds bloody awful - passable for an explosion in Terminator 2 in that passable is better than the TV speakers but it's not good in any music terms.

There will always be the 2 channel purists - but if you're music was recorded in 2 channel and most of it is - then you judge the reproduction in 2 channel. For me to equal that in multi-channel I need to buy 4 sets of my speakers which jumps from $5k to $20k just in speakers - then I need an amplifier that doesn't sound like a Bryston. I know you like it but I don't - for me to be happy it has to sound like what I perceive to be "correct" even if that is different than your perception.

The amount of money would be ridiculous. The alternative is to build a dedicated second system strictly for listening to multi-channel.

I actually considered this - In this most recent issue of Hi-Fi Choice they reviewed the new budget system from Audio Note. I coold handle that and then add a multi-processor to the mix and the speakers are cheap and cheerful to listen to. I could have my mix of old school tonal richness and designed by someone who actually listens to music not just reading from a graph on a test bench - whilst adding the cutting edge processing to process the recordings. And perhaps do it inexpensively since my room is not the size of a Gym.

Bottom line - there is room for it all. Amazingly people don't always agree with my views - I can't imagine why since I am right but what can I do :crazy: LOL.

Feanor
07-31-2011, 06:45 PM
The audiophile loves good sound, (i.e. the sound of music), and will exert his or her efforts to find the means to obtain that through room, equipment, and choice of recording that have good sound as well as good music and preformance.

Being an audiophile doesn't depend on a stereo versus multi-channel choice, nor expensive equipment. However it is natural for him or her to seek to improve the sound from time to time, hopefully not obsessively and well withing his or her means.

In my opinion multi-channel sound is ultimately capable of a more realistic and complete presentation than stereo, though practical considerations might limit the audiophile to the latter. Not the least of these considerations is the available selection of the type of music the audiophile enjoys.

Hyfi
08-01-2011, 07:58 AM
I guess nobody ever considered the fact that the word Audiophile existed long before multi channel systems were available.

Duh'Oh!

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-01-2011, 09:32 AM
"I think MC gets knocked largely because of the expense involved. I have heard lots of multi-channel set-ups but if I don't like the sound of the speakers in 2 channel - I don't see how adding 5-6 more of those speakers is going to make it better. And the speakers I like cost a bomb".

RGA,
I am consistently hearing this argument, and I quite frankly don't buy it. Last week I auditioned two mini-monitor based multichannel systems, one featuring the Sunfire CRM-2, and the other based on a custom design. These systems were assembled for me, and what surprised me was the quality of the sound I was hearing from the components(they both used receivers, and a PS3 for playback). Total cost for the speakers systems was about $5800, the receivers about $1200 a piece, and the PS3's were the older fat boys with SACD playback. The entire system cost less than $10k, and the sound was just magnificent from each of these systems. Going from my system in my signature to these systems never made be feel like I was losing anything. They sounded excellent with two channel music as they did with multichannel. I had just one complaint with the Sunfire speaker system. Their cutoff point was 115hz, so you had to use a 120hz crossover point to the sub. On occasion I was able to locate the sub because of that high crossover point, and the sub position in the room(It sat right behind the center speaker in the middle of the front wall)

This listening session taught me a very valuable lesson. High quality can be had at many price points, and system synergy is as important as the quality of the individual components. The guy who put this listening session together carefully chose components that work very well together. As you can see, the system was not all that expensive.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-01-2011, 09:35 AM
I guess nobody ever considered the fact that the word Audiophile existed long before multi channel systems were available.

Duh'Oh!

I was aware of this. Now that multichannel is here, there is still some resistance in labeling any multichannel system as a system for audiophiles.

poppachubby
08-01-2011, 10:45 AM
If the equipment is separated from the name, then why are the words "high end" associated with the name audiophile. Why do audiophile based mag's mostly review equipment that is considered "high end"? Why do audiophiles typically spend a ton of cash on their system? There must be some performance expectation with audiophiles, hence the capital outlay on their system.

Somehow the equipment and its playback capabilities play into the audiophile label. I have never heard a owner of a Klipsch Quintet system call himself an audiophile.

C;mon Terrence, I would think a guy in your line of work can see through this stuff easily. The sales industry love their catch phrases and labels. I won't let a company or corporation with a goal for profit tell me the definition of ANYTHING.

Historically they take movements, hobbies, labels, names...whatever, and sell them back to the buying public. Che Guevara t-shirt anyone?

One of the local shops here have regular radio spots. To say the least they are comical but I am sure to someone who doesn't know the hobby, they seem alluring.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-01-2011, 10:57 AM
C;mon Terrence, I would think a guy in your line of work can see through this stuff easily. The sales industry love their catch phrases and labels. I won't let a company or corporation with a goal for profit tell me the definition of ANYTHING.

Historically they take movements, hobbies, labels, names...whatever, and sell them back to the buying public. Che Guevara t-shirt anyone?

One of the local shops here have regular radio spots. To say the least they are comical but I am sure to someone who doesn't know the hobby, they seem alluring.

Poppa,
Because of my line of work, I completely dismissed the label audiophile. It never mean't a darn thing to me until I had this discussion with my friend. I have never really seen through much of anything audiophile because I have never really addressed it in the past. It is still not something I can get my head around, because there is still no consensus about what it really means. Hence, this thread.

Ajani
08-01-2011, 11:31 AM
C;mon Terrence, I would think a guy in your line of work can see through this stuff easily. The sales industry love their catch phrases and labels. I won't let a company or corporation with a goal for profit tell me the definition of ANYTHING.

Historically they take movements, hobbies, labels, names...whatever, and sell them back to the buying public. Che Guevara t-shirt anyone?

One of the local shops here have regular radio spots. To say the least they are comical but I am sure to someone who doesn't know the hobby, they seem alluring.

That reminds me of Steve Jobs famous quote in 2006 at one of the usual Apple iPod events:

"I'm an audiophile, and I'm getting rid of my stereo."

Yeah, I'm sure Jobs ditched some ultra-expensive audiophile system in favour of just using an iPod dock... :skep:

Ajani
08-01-2011, 11:36 AM
I think an audiophile is a music lover.....

EPIC FAIL :lol:

Seriously though; I think that definition is more what we'd like to regard an audiophile as than what it is... What about all those persons obsessed with "accurately recreating the live event" yet only own a handful of audiophile approved recordings? If you spend more time tweaking and upgrading than actually listening to music, then how can you be a music lover?

filecat13
08-01-2011, 11:48 AM
audiophile = sound lover.



This has always been my take on it, too, literally, "lover of sound." In the strictest sense, when I hear my girlfriend's voice and it gives me pleasure to hear it again and again, I'm being an "audiophile" of her sweet refrain. I love that sound.

Of course, in the context of our hobby, it has acquired a primary meaning which deals more specifically with sound reproduction and a passion or desire for it. Some folks have made an effort to upscale it, and thus make it exclusive or special. Others have derided it as pretentious and delusional. In the end, however, if you love the reproduction of sound, you're in danger of being an audiophile. :ihih:

When I bought (with lawn mowing money) my first 8 transistor radio instead of a new bike or new Kenner Girder and Panel Building set, I was a child audiophile but didn't know it.

As a teenager, I was an adolescent audiophile and didn't know it. Lying on the floor at night with my head midway between the stereo speakers in my parents' Magnavox console listening to Scheherazade was pure bliss. When I bought my first Electrophonic stereo instead of a car, clothes, or tickets to Cedar Point, I was a junior audiophile. As a college student, when I bought those JBL L100s, Kenwood KR6160, and Dual 1219 instead of paying tuition, I was a committed audiophile.

Over the years, I've upped the ante quite a bit but the simple purpose that drove the purchase of the 8 transistor radio remains the same: I love audio.:22:

macdave
08-01-2011, 12:05 PM
Okay, sorry, not trying to hijack this thread, just trying to feel my way through the deal here on posting & such. Just thought I'd jump in real quick, say "hi" to everyone and then get out of the way and let you guys/gals get on with your business. Thanks, and when I have something worthwhile to contribute, I'll come back!
Dave Whitley from "the Old Dominion", Virginia
.

Everyone thinks I'm psychotic except my friends deep inside the earth.

JohnMichael
08-01-2011, 12:12 PM
EPIC BAN :lol:

Seriously though; I think that definition is more what we'd like to regard an audiophile as than what it is... What about all those persons obsessed with "accurately recreating the live event" yet only own a handful of audiophile approved recordings? If you spend more time tweaking and upgrading than actually listening to music, then how can you be a music lover?



I think their are equipment lovers who like to show off a system but do not listen to music. Much like the person who buys a high performance car for status and not the love of driving or worst yet someone who buys art as an investment and not because of their love of the art. I do think the term audiophile should indicate a love of music.

Ajani
08-01-2011, 12:26 PM
I think their are equipment lovers who like to show off a system but do not listen to music. Much like the person who buys a high performance car for status and not the love of driving or worst yet someone who buys art as an investment and not because of their love of the art. I do think the term audiophile should indicate a love of music.

I don't think it's always just showing off. I think some persons genuinely just enjoy the equipment tweaking and upgrading more than actually sitting and relaxing to a good album...

I believe a person can love music without feeling the need to obsess over upgrading the sound quality... and I also believe that persons can genuinely get obsessed over sound quality and not love music...

I actually think it's fairly easy for persons in our hobby to get more obsessed with the equipment than the music...

JohnMichael
08-01-2011, 12:51 PM
I don't think it's always just showing off. I think some persons genuinely just enjoy the equipment tweaking and upgrading more than actually sitting and relaxing to a good album...

I believe a person can love music without feeling the need to obsess over upgrading the sound quality... and I also believe that persons can genuinely get obsessed over sound quality and not love music...

I actually think it's fairly easy for persons in our hobby to get more obsessed with the equipment than the music...




But then would we call them audiophiles? I think we are working on a definition that as a group we can agree. We can list exceptions all day. I was offering my thoughts on what it means to me.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-01-2011, 02:33 PM
JM and Ajani,
Your interchanges with each other are exactly why I have dismissed, and never have tried to understand the whole audiophile label. You cannot get a real answer to what an audiophile is. Some say its a love of music played through high quality equipment, some say its a lover of music, some say its a love of the equipment, and everyone has such hard a fast believe that they are right in their definition, that is sounds like everyone is wrong.

How can I believe or even understand what an audiophile is if nobody can agree to what it is?

I am left with so many impressions based on what I have seen. Some guys spend a ton of cash on their systems and had every tweak you could imagine. Quite frankly it sounds like crap. But they bragged continuously about how much it cost. They claimed they were audiophiles. Lover of equipment perhaps? Others claim they were audiophiles, and love great music. They usually had poorly set up systems with no line symmetry, which means no imaging. The loved the music, and wanted to hear it from their favorite seats in a room. They were not looking for a concert hall sound - just that it sounded good with good recordings.

I have had so many impressions, but absolutely no consensus to what "audiophile" means.

Ajani
08-01-2011, 03:02 PM
JM and Ajani,
Your interchanges with each other are exactly why I have dismissed, and never have tried to understand the whole audiophile label. You cannot get a real answer to what an audiophile is. Some say its a love of music played through high quality equipment, some say its a lover of music, some say its a love of the equipment, and everyone has such hard a fast believe that they are right in their definition, that is sounds like everyone is wrong.

How can I believe or even understand what an audiophile is if nobody can agree to what it is?

I am left with so many impressions based on what I have seen. Some guys spend a ton of cash on their systems and had every tweak you could imagine. Quite frankly it sounds like crap. But they bragged continuously about how much it cost. They claimed they were audiophiles. Lover of equipment perhaps? Others claim they were audiophiles, and love great music. They usually had poorly set up systems with no line symmetry, which means no imaging. The loved the music, and wanted to hear it from their favorite seats in a room. They were not looking for a concert hall sound - just that it sounded good with good recordings.

I have had so many impressions, but absolutely no consensus to what "audiophile" means.

hehehe... Seems my evil scheme has worked...

Seriously though; that is essentially my point that there is NO real definition of what an audiophile is... While I do understand and respect JM and others attempts to define one, the problem is that there is no consensus... and frankly, there never can be...

The person who has a "horrible sounding but very expensive and constantly tweaked system" would claim persons like JM or myself are not really audiophiles as we are too content with our 'mediocre' systems.... while we would regard them more as obsessed tech lovers than real audiophiles...

At the end of the day, none of it really matters... If you feel like calling yourself an audiophile then so be it... If you don't then that's cool too... Whether I call myself and audiophile or not really just depends on what mood I'm in...

Ajani
08-01-2011, 03:04 PM
Audiophile = someone willing to spend money on music and a play back method

.... especially in this economy. :22:

LOL

There are a whole lot of audiophiles by that definition...

atomicAdam
08-01-2011, 03:06 PM
Audiophile = someone willing to spend money on music and a play back method

.... especially in this economy. :22:

Ajani
08-01-2011, 03:06 PM
I like music, not arguments.

Nothing like the sweet cacophony of an argument... :21:

bobsticks
08-01-2011, 03:07 PM
I like music, not arguments.

Ajani
08-01-2011, 03:07 PM
Looks like the Space/Time Continuum is collapsing again...

atomicAdam
08-01-2011, 03:11 PM
yeah - I let IT know.

But wait - you are in Jamaica right? You sure it isn't something you haven't been smoking?

RGA
08-01-2011, 03:13 PM
"I think MC gets knocked largely because of the expense involved. I have heard lots of multi-channel set-ups but if I don't like the sound of the speakers in 2 channel - I don't see how adding 5-6 more of those speakers is going to make it better. And the speakers I like cost a bomb".

RGA,
I am consistently hearing this argument, and I quite frankly don't buy it. Last week I auditioned two mini-monitor based multichannel systems, one featuring the Sunfire CRM-2, and the other based on a custom design. These systems were assembled for me, and what surprised me was the quality of the sound I was hearing from the components(they both used receivers, and a PS3 for playback). Total cost for the speakers systems was about $5800, the receivers about $1200 a piece, and the PS3's were the older fat boys with SACD playback. The entire system cost less than $10k, and the sound was just magnificent from each of these systems. Going from my system in my signature to these systems never made be feel like I was losing anything. They sounded excellent with two channel music as they did with multichannel. I had just one complaint with the Sunfire speaker system. Their cutoff point was 115hz, so you had to use a 120hz crossover point to the sub. On occasion I was able to locate the sub because of that high crossover point, and the sub position in the room(It sat right behind the center speaker in the middle of the front wall)

This listening session taught me a very valuable lesson. High quality can be had at many price points, and system synergy is as important as the quality of the individual components. The guy who put this listening session together carefully chose components that work very well together. As you can see, the system was not all that expensive.

Maybe I didn't say it well. The Audio Note AX Two is a $700 list pair of speakers. I could buy 3 sets of those for $2100 - add a processor and a couple of subs - the bass of the standmounts likely go to 60hz. Perhaps for the front L/R I could get the AZ Two standmount which run about $1300 and Hi-Fi Choice measured them down to 20hz in room and flat at 26 or 28hz. Not bad for small floorstander in an OB/Transmission line/Horn design.

I could be happy with with them in two channel. The problem is that most music is recorded and meant to be played in 2 channel. So when a person listens in 2 channel - the choice becomes do I want the best 2 channel reproducer or am I going to handcuff it with a lower model L/R speaker to gain the advantage of the much fewer MC recordings.

Not everyone has speakers they can add like sounding (ideall the exact same speakers) in a surround set-up. The only truly good set-ups I have heard for MC was when all the speakers were exactly the same speaker - those cneter channels that lie sideways - yet to hear a good set-up for music in such configurations.

I know from a retired dealer that George Lucas favored M&K for such applications and they're not all that expensive at all - a whole system can easily be had from them for under $8k including subs.

Ajani
08-01-2011, 03:13 PM
yeah - I let IT know.

But wait - you are in Jamaica right? You sure it isn't something you haven't been smoking?

I take deep offense to that comment...

I've been un-high for like a whole 3 hours already!

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-01-2011, 03:17 PM
I take deep offense to that comment...

I've been un-high for like a whole 3 hours already!

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: yeah but your eyes are still red. Either your angry, or you are......well....

atomicAdam
08-01-2011, 03:20 PM
I take deep offense to that comment...

I've been un-high for like a whole 3 hours already!

Time to go to work or something?

Ajani
08-01-2011, 03:34 PM
Maybe I didn't say it well. The Audio Note AX Two is a $700 list pair of speakers. I could buy 3 sets of those for $2100 - add a processor and a couple of subs - the bass of the standmounts likely go to 60hz. Perhaps for the front L/R I could get the AZ Two standmount which run about $1300 and Hi-Fi Choice measured them down to 20hz in room and flat at 26 or 28hz. Not bad for small floorstander in an OB/Transmission line/Horn design.

I could be happy with with them in two channel. The problem is that most music is recorded and meant to be played in 2 channel. So when a person listens in 2 channel - the choice becomes do I want the best 2 channel reproducer or am I going to handcuff it with a lower model L/R speaker to gain the advantage of the much fewer MC recordings.

Not everyone has speakers they can add like sounding (ideall the exact same speakers) in a surround set-up. The only truly good set-ups I have heard for MC was when all the speakers were exactly the same speaker - those cneter channels that lie sideways - yet to hear a good set-up for music in such configurations.

I know from a retired dealer that George Lucas favored M&K for such applications and they're not all that expensive at all - a whole system can easily be had from them for under $8k including subs.

I'm sure I've seen this debate a few times before between E-Stat and Sir T (and possibly even myself) if I'm not mistaken...

I agree with you though... The question of whether to spend your budget on MC or stereo should be based on your music collection...

My entire music collection is stereo... So naturally my budget for upgrades is geared towards a stereo system rather than MC... Just the same way as I don't spend money on a TT as all my music is digital... and I'd have a very hard time sourcing vinyl locally...

Also, though you two keep talking about putting together good MC systems around $8K to $10K, that's still not exactly chump change...

For around $1K retail I could put together some fun stereo setups:

Nad integrated amp and CD player with PSB Alpha monitors

OR

Squeezebox Touch with Focal CMS40 Active Monitors

OR

Project Essential Turntable with Miniwatt SET amp and HSU HB1 Horn Monitors

At that price, I suspect I'd be stuck looking at HT-In-A-Box systems if I wanted MC... and I've yet to hear HT in a box that sounded good with music...

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-01-2011, 03:52 PM
I could be happy with with them in two channel. The problem is that most music is recorded and meant to be played in 2 channel. So when a person listens in 2 channel - the choice becomes do I want the best 2 channel reproducer or am I going to handcuff it with a lower model L/R speaker to gain the advantage of the much fewer MC recordings.

You are perpetuating a myth here. Who says you must trade down in quality just to get multichannel sound? Remember, the objectives of both kinds of systems are completely different. A two channel system seeks precision and accuracy that covers only 90 to 120 degrees in front of us. A multichannel system seeks that same precision 360 degrees around our heads. As long as each system meets their desired objectives, then there is no need to lower your performance perspective. One system can do both well.


Not everyone has speakers they can add like sounding (ideall the exact same speakers) in a surround set-up. The only truly good set-ups I have heard for MC was when all the speakers were exactly the same speaker - those cneter channels that lie sideways - yet to hear a good set-up for music in such configurations.

Since all of my systems use vertically placed center speakers like the L/R mains, I don't have that kind of trade off. I believe all of the speakers must have drivers with the same orientation, or you won't get that "acoustical bubble" effect. Accurate imaging is very important to me, and a horizontally mounted center speaker would totally destroy that.


I know from a retired dealer that George Lucas favored M&K for such applications and they're not all that expensive at all - a whole system can easily be had from them for under $8k including subs.

I he is right for liking them. I have a 7.1 system in my family vacation spot that features 3 stacked pairs of M&K MPS2510P speakers(yes two stacked speakers for each of the L/C/R channels), and four more surround speakers. They are combined with two M&K MPS5310 subs, and you have a system that is accurate, and extremely loud and clean.

Lucas uses M&K's in his sound editing suites.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-01-2011, 04:19 PM
I'm sure I've seen this debate a few times before between E-Stat and Sir T (and possibly even myself) if I'm not mistaken...

Your not!


I agree with you though... The question of whether to spend your budget on MC or stereo should be based on your music collection..

I absolutely agree with this. However, my way to look at this is, am I going to stick with two channel forever, or can I have a quality system that is ready to play any and every format whether 2.0 to 7.1? I chose the latter.


My entire music collection is stereo... So naturally my budget for upgrades is geared towards a stereo system rather than MC... Just the same way as I don't spend money on a TT as all my music is digital... and I'd have a very hard time sourcing vinyl locally...

So you have no interest in purchasing multichannel music in the future? I guess when I am putting together a system, I am always looking for an easy upgrade path. I already had a 7.1 system before I had 7.1 software, that is how I think. Until I had 7.1 discrete software, I used prologic IIx to send 5.1 to the rear channels.


Also, though you two keep talking about putting together good MC systems around $8K to $10K, that's still not exactly chump change...

Yes, but most "audiophiles" pay more than that for their setups.


For around $1K retail I could put together some fun stereo setups:

Nad integrated amp and CD player with PSB Alpha monitors

OR

Squeezebox Touch with Focal CMS40 Active Monitors

OR

Project Essential Turntable with Miniwatt SET amp and HSU HB1 Horn Monitors

At that price, I suspect I'd be stuck looking at HT-In-A-Box systems if I wanted MC... and I've yet to hear HT in a box that sounded good with music...

You may spend more than 1K for a multichannel system, you can use it for more than one purpose. You can use it for movies AND music. It makes it more of a value IMO.

RGA
08-01-2011, 06:04 PM
The problem for me is that in 2 channel I like Audio Note speakers a lot more than I like the sound of M&K standmounts with a sub for the reproduction of 2 channel music. To me it's not close.

I like the sound of the M&K in movies and surround sound music mind you but to me I would be giving up a LOT in 2 channel.

So the choices either become buy a second system for home theater/MC which I have often considered doing - or taking my system and adding to it by adding 2 rears and a pair of speakers to be used as a center channel which does work and then adding two subwoofers. My mains by themselves go below 30hz so I can set two subwoofer low enough that that I should not be able to locate them - which for whatever reason I always seem to be able to do. Apparently people should not detect location of subwoofers below 80hz but after a while I tend to locate a "weight" in the given region - ie the left if that is where the sub is situated. It's annoying and a reason I got rid of my highly touted subwoofer back in the day. UHF and others note that to do it right you really need two subwoofers and my experience concurs with that.

I can get speakers that are voiced similarly but to get the 2 more sets is well out of my price range. The cheaper alternative is actually a whole second dedicated system for me.

And some of us are picky about electronics - I have yet to see a a 7.2 Single Ended amplification system with zero feedback. That SS glare just doesn't go away - I can put up with it for home theater since we don't have reference point cues for explosions and our ears will likely focus on "effects" related sound through rear channels lessening the focus on instrument timbre. Ie - there is more to try and concentrate on and the finer points or details will be less noticed or "forgiven" by our ears due to more stimulation. The brightness in the M&K is far less a problem in home theater or MC music than it is when directly comparing it to better speakers on 2 channel for instance which is probably why I liked it for one application and not the other.

I think all of the above is different if you are starting out. Ajani noted that he has no vinyl turntable - well if you live in an area where this none - and the relatively high expense to geta high quality turntable - and then all the accessories and good phono stage and record cleaners - bah- don't bother.

As I said - if someone has invested $20,000 on their home 2 channel stereo and they own AN E speakers or Quad 2905 planars there is only so much one will be able to do here. Especially if they love the sound of it and own SE tube amps. Most of these amps do not have subwoofer outputs for a start - they are old school and have limited connection options.

If they love their speakers on 2 channel and have 5000 albums what can they realistically do here? There is not "matching" with Quads to a dynamic coned box. As the AN guy I can get "close" and run some of the smaller sets of speakers but again my amp has no Sub out. There is no SS amp that sounds like the OTO on two channel music (read or remotely as good) so it has to stay in the chain at least on 2 channel. A separate amp can drive the center and rears and do the processing and I'd be fine with changing the cables over (some people would not).

There is a lot of things that MC has that put a lot of people off. The ergonomics, the expense, it forces many to sell their systems, the space requirements and in the end IMO it is not done cheaply while retaining the quality of two channel - there is a reason I have $5000 standmounts not $500 standmounts. And I have heard most of the big time professional grade loudspeakers "before" I bought what I did - Genelec, PMC, B&W, M&K for example. If I liked their $1000 speakers better I would have bought them. In B&W's case I like their $15k+ speakers less let alone their $1k speakers.

Raj J
08-01-2011, 07:13 PM
In my humble opinion - anyone can be an audiophile!

You necessarily don't have to have the big bucks to be classified as an audiophile; it's just that the way of this industry with the flashy names and expensive products that are of highend nature has somewhat defined this classification, and therefore if someone can afford these system and enjoys listening to music on such systems then they must truly be an audiophile - load of bollocks!

I personally know far too many out there you are well capable of affording the ultra highend, but don't have a dam clue at what they're listening to, or even how to listen to begin with... sad story indeed.

In my definition an audiophile is someone who genuinely loves music and has a passion for it. Such that they will in that case search for the ultimate reference system they could possible afford to playback their favorite type of music genre. This person will also look after their equipment very carefully as well, taking good care of it to last in the long term, hence if something happened to it they will go out of their way to fix it, or even purchase another solution. An audiophile is also someone who has to listen to their music often as possible or as a weekly routine, as a means of therapy and feeling relaxed. Otherwise they will go NUTS! like me...

An audiophile will not spend money on booze, gambling, & women, rather will devote that spend on their system upgrades - hence those with wives tell your wives we are honest truthful people & only have a passion for quality music.

Finally and probably the most important aspect is that an audiophile should know how the absolute sound is or what TAS should sound like - live with realism; hence their goal is to reproduce this aspect in their own homes at whatever budget they can afford.

Therefore, if they have achieved this by only spending 5 grand that's great! If there are others who have achieved this by spending 10 grand, or over 20 grand, good on you! Afterall you would all have to have the same principle in mind that your current system is giving you the utmost satisfaction to that absolute sound.

That's what an audiophile is compared to a music enthusiast, and don't forget audiophiles take quite sometime to achieve this, generally a span of over 10 to 15 years to get it right. Not some one day rich guy who just blew 100 grand on some system & doesn't even know the brand! I actaully know of 3 people like this... and they still haven't got it right!

Cheers to those of you who have achieved your quest in audio perfection and the max you are getting out of your current systems. Ask yourselves if it is truly what YOU were after? if so you have achieved it!
Best regards, RJ

Woochifer
08-02-2011, 12:11 PM
This is why I refrain from the "audiophile" label. A lot of people try to lay claim to the label based on their preferences and their biases. Anyone who doesn't follow a narrow definition of orthodoxy doesn't qualify as an audiophile. I mean if the definition of an audiophile is limited to two-channel, then that would disqualify anyone who sets foot into the multichannel sphere. That's patently absurd.

So, yes I am into good sound reproduction, and I am into audio equipment. But, I'm not going to get into a semantic exercise with someone who wants to argue that my preferences and habits automatically disqualify me from getting anointed with the audiophile label. That's why I don't lay claim to it, and prefer to discuss audio topics rather than audio labels.

Ajani
08-02-2011, 12:47 PM
This is why I refrain from the "audiophile" label. A lot of people try to lay claim to the label based on their preferences and their biases. Anyone who doesn't follow a narrow definition of orthodoxy doesn't qualify as an audiophile. I mean if the definition of an audiophile is limited to two-channel, then that would disqualify anyone who sets foot into the multichannel sphere. That's patently absurd.

So, yes I am into good sound reproduction, and I am into audio equipment. But, I'm not going to get into a semantic exercise with someone who wants to argue that my preferences and habits automatically disqualify me from getting anointed with the audiophile label. That's why I don't lay claim to it, and prefer to discuss audio topics rather than audio labels.

Well said :thumbsup:

Raj J
08-02-2011, 06:49 PM
Hey Ajani,

What kind of system do you have?

I never seemed to get exactly what you've got. Would be interesting to know since most of the others have listed theirs in bold. would be nice to learn something new and compare notes.

Are you using a tube pre or solid state? What amps are you using? Do you prefer tubes over SS? and what source are you using? I bet it must be some classic turn table hence the reason why you have a deep passion for music...

What do you think about the DHLabs cables & interconnects vs. the Nordost range?
Cheers,
RJ

Ajani
08-02-2011, 08:36 PM
Hey Ajani,

What kind of system do you have?

I never seemed to get exactly what you've got. Would be interesting to know since most of the others have listed theirs in bold. would be nice to learn something new and compare notes.

Are you using a tube pre or solid state? What amps are you using? Do you prefer tubes over SS? and what source are you using? I bet it must be some classic turn table hence the reason why you have a deep passion for music...

What do you think about the DHLabs cables & interconnects vs. the Nordost range?
Cheers,
RJ

The system I currently use is in my Signature: a computer based headphone system... I have some other gear lying around, but since I don't use any of it, I don't list it...

I'm not a TT guy as Vinyl is hard to source locally, so no point catching that bug + I truly enjoy the convenience of music servers for accessing and finding new music...

Also, I have very little interest in cables... I currently have an assortment of Audioquest and Anti-Cables, but in the future I'm likely to replace them all with simple Blue Jeans Cable...

JoeE SP9
08-03-2011, 10:13 AM
Hey Ajani,

What kind of system do you have?

I never seemed to get exactly what you've got. Would be interesting to know since most of the others have listed theirs in bold. would be nice to learn something new and compare notes.

Are you using a tube pre or solid state? What amps are you using? Do you prefer tubes over SS? and what source are you using? I bet it must be some classic turn table hence the reason why you have a deep passion for music...

What do you think about the DHLabs cables & interconnects vs. the Nordost range?
Cheers,
RJ

I use DH Labs Q-10 Signature speaker cable and a mix of Revelation and Air Matrix IC's. The IC's are all Revelation except for the 6 meter long Air Matrix IC's that connect my preamp to my electronic crossover and power amps. The crossover is between my speakers and the amps are next to or behind each speaker. I cut a six foot pair of the Q-10 in half, added some Kimber postmaster spades and have 2 pair of 3 footers now.

IMO Nordost products are way overpriced. They perform extremely well and look good but I believe the cost should be about one quarter what they charge. Cables (IMO) are generally the most overpriced products I've ever seen or heard of. Nordost is no different than most cable manufacturers. Charging as much for a pair of speaker cables as a very good amplifier is something I don't understand. Materials and labor costs can't possibly be that high.

To a person with my budget (I'm retired) DH Labs offers a very good product at a very (IMO) reasonable price. I prefer the sound of Silver plated Copper and all DH wires and cables are just that.

I switched from Kimber TC-8 and Silver Streak to the DH Labs stuff. I had a mild RF problem caused by a CB'r with a illegal linear amp. The Silver Streak being unshielded was sometimes prone to RFI. Fortunately a big blizzard with 60+MPH winds blew down the offending CB antenna a couple of years ago. I had already started replacing the Silver Streak so I just continued. I was able to sell all the Kimber stuff to a couple of buddies.

I highly recommend DH Labs products. It's true "high end" wire and cable at mid-fi prices. It also looks really good.

Raj J
08-17-2011, 01:12 AM
Hi there,

Yes, I agree with those out there using music servers or digital devices - I can cleary see that this is the way the audio world is heading. Even Bryston has put out an all digital device with capability to accept USB and other digital inputs for play back, this could then be hooked up directly to the preamp.

My trusted dealer buddy is trying to steer me away from CD players claiming that these things are in the past now, and wants for me to invest in a highend DAC and go for one of those Mac books or HP music servers... I am still not yet fully convinced about the overall sound quality (although quite natural) but then again not so natural as vinyl...

Anyway, I stopped my quest for the ideal CD player, because in Australia they are an absolute rip off! Any highend CD player over here would cost well over 10 grand. Turn Tables on the other hand are not that expensive, I came across a few Rega models starting from the P3 to the P9, price was in the range of $1300 to $5000 including the cartridge & phono stage. now that's an investment! The music stores I regularly visit also have plenty of vinyl and keep adding new labels / albums all the time, hence I don't see this diminishing any time soon.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Ajani, and the rest of the team. Enjoy your music!
Cheers, RJ

E-Stat
08-17-2011, 07:42 AM
am I going to stick with two channel forever, or can I have a quality system that is ready to play any and every format whether 2.0 to 7.1?
It is the music labels in charge of that question. The vast majority of music released today remains in stereo. When do you think that will ever change?

rw

Ajani
08-17-2011, 07:42 AM
Hi there,

Yes, I agree with those out there using music servers or digital devices - I can cleary see that this is the way the audio world is heading. Even Bryston has put out an all digital device with capability to accept USB and other digital inputs for play back, this could then be hooked up directly to the preamp.

My trusted dealer buddy is trying to steer me away from CD players claiming that these things are in the past now, and wants for me to invest in a highend DAC and go for one of those Mac books or HP music servers... I am still not yet fully convinced about the overall sound quality (although quite natural) but then again not so natural as vinyl...

Anyway, I stopped my quest for the ideal CD player, because in Australia they are an absolute rip off! Any highend CD player over here would cost well over 10 grand. Turn Tables on the other hand are not that expensive, I came across a few Rega models starting from the P3 to the P9, price was in the range of $1300 to $5000 including the cartridge & phono stage. now that's an investment! The music stores I regularly visit also have plenty of vinyl and keep adding new labels / albums all the time, hence I don't see this diminishing any time soon.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Ajani, and the rest of the team. Enjoy your music!
Cheers, RJ

The sound quality debate of music server versus CD is not likely to be resolved anytime soon (if ever) as there are persons who claim music servers are clearly superior to CD, others who claim CDs are better and some (like me) who have yet to notice a difference between the two...

E-Stat
08-17-2011, 08:00 AM
I am still not yet fully convinced about the overall sound quality (although quite natural) but then again not so natural as vinyl...
How do you think all digital masters are created, stored and played - before they go to the CD replicators?

rw

Feanor
08-17-2011, 09:20 AM
The sound quality debate of music server versus CD is not likely to be resolved anytime soon (if ever) as there are persons who claim music servers are clearly superior to CD, others who claim CDs are better and some (like me) who have yet to notice a difference between the two...
I don't hear any sound differences vs. my CDP when using the same DAC. (My external DAC is superior to the CDP's internal DAC.)

I use a semi-dedicated Vista computer as my server. I have unfrequent "glitches" -- mostly burps and studders which don't effect the basic sound of playback. I attribute these glitches to the OS' background operations, to sound drivers (e.g. WASAPI vs. the M-Audio ASIO), or maybe to the external eSATA drive that I'm using. Maybe a true, purpose-made music server would elimniate these problems, or maybe not. In any case they are infrequent and minor in the big picture.

dwayne.aycock
08-21-2011, 11:53 AM
I think being an audiophile is a fraternity of music lovers. No matter the channels, no matter the format. It is the persuit of perfection in the audio and video domain. It is not the cost of equipment, but rather a series of techniques and procedures aimed at getting the best sound. It takes into account all of the players in the audio path from equipment, ( wires, interconnects, speakers, signal flow and path), and the build quality of those componets. It also takes into account the arrangement and placement of these items in the room in which they are housed. The interactions of the listener with the environment, as well as the items in the listening space (furniture, pictures, walls, floors,). We understand the passion and the persuit of perfection in the things we do. No elitism should be inferred in anything we do. We like what we like and that is all there is to it. Your likes change as you age, and as your funds permit. Pure and simple.

frankaai
08-23-2011, 03:29 AM
never heard of an audiophille in my life... lol i think i might be one haha

Florian
08-23-2011, 03:47 AM
Its quite simple:

1. Is your name RGA?

Yes= You are an audiophile
No = You are not an audiophile

2. Do you own AudioNote speakers?

Yes= We are unsure, proceed to question 1
No = You are not an audiophile

A real simple test to find out. Problem solved. Thanks.. i am here all week

mav52
08-23-2011, 11:00 AM
"Who or what is a Audiophile? " I don't know, I just like listening to music.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-23-2011, 12:09 PM
Its quite simple:

1. Is your name RGA?

Yes= You are an audiophile
No = You are not an audiophile

2. Do you own AudioNote speakers?

Yes= We are unsure, proceed to question 1
No = You are not an audiophile

A real simple test to find out. Problem solved. Thanks.. i am here all week

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

GMichael
08-23-2011, 12:22 PM
I am not an audiophile (or a videophile). Please do not call me names like that. I just like music and HT.
The fact that I spend each and every minute of every day thinking of ways to improve my system(s) means nothing. Please do not look behind the curtain.

Chas Underhay
10-03-2011, 03:02 AM
I would define an "audiophile" as somebody who is more interested in the reproduction equipment than the actual music they play through it.

Personally, I would rather hear good music on the kitchen radio than test records on the worlds best sound system.

I'd like to think that most of us on this forum like music so much that we're prepared to go a lot further than the casual listener to maximise our enjoyment.

If someone's equipment is worth more that their music collection; they are probably an audiophile.

Cheers

Chas

Feanor
10-03-2011, 03:45 AM
I would define an "audiophile" as somebody who is more interested in the reproduction equipment than the actual music they play through it.

Personally, I would rather hear good music on the kitchen radio than test records on the worlds best sound system.

I'd like to think that most of us on this forum like music so much that we're prepared to go a lot further than the casual listener to maximise our enjoyment.

If someone's equipment is worth more that their music collection; they are probably an audiophile.

Cheers

Chas
Chas, good to hear from you. But I think you definition of "audiophile" is a bit extreme.

I mean that in the sense that a person can be a genuine music lover -- one who does put music first -- yet an audiophile at the same time. This sort of person is one whose appreciation of music is so enhanced by good sound that he/she is willing to devote a reasonable portion of resources to reproduction equipment.

The rule of thumb that a music lover's music collection ought to cost more that his/her equipment isn't perfect. There can be circumstance where it might not apply. E.g. a younger person or new music lover who just who hasn't yet compliled a huge music collection, or anyone whose area of musical interest is relatively narrow or focused on carefully selected "hits" or best examples.

Chas Underhay
10-03-2011, 05:03 AM
Hi Feanor

Hoping you and yours are well but we're only talking about a percieved definition of a word here.

It seems that about half the people on this thread consider themselves as audiophiles whilst the other half deny it emphatically.

I think you are around the same age as me and if so, I bet when you got your first few records; you were playing then on your Mum and Dad's eguipment (probably a radiogram in those days). After a while you probably aquired a record player that you could use in your bedroom and even by then, your records may well have been worth more than your new "Dansette" or whatever you had.

If you were like me, you carried on aquiring records - presents and paper round money. However, once you started work, you could afford a bit better kit to play them on and boy did that Garrard SP25 sound better than the Dansette which in turn lead to the slippery slope of the Hi Fi hobby.

Things are a lot different today a youngster would would be more likely to have an I Pod but even someone starting out with CDs could buy a very cheap system that would sound far better than our old Dansettes, probably still considerably better than our first Hi Fi systems. For most people, that cheap CD system would be as good as they ever want and many will amass hundreds if not thousands of CDs.

I don't know about you but I don't recall the term "audiophile" from those days and definately not "high end audio" (another IMO prestentious term). E.g. If you can pay 5,000 or 6,000 for a cartridge; that means that a medium range cartridge costs 2,000 to 3,000 which in turn means that my Ortofon Kontrapunkt b, which only cost me about 750, is cheap crap!

So, what I'm saying is that most of us got where we are by a long progression of recorded music aquisition and equipment upgrades. I said on another vinyl vs. CD thread that if I didn't already have about 2000 LPs, I wouldn't go out now and buy my record player.

I used to do quite a lot of photography when I was younger but I was never to hung up on camera bodies. I was glad that other people were because I could buy an immaculate two or three year old camera for a fraction of its original price then work it into the ground.

Feanor
10-03-2011, 05:53 AM
Indeed, Chas, I go back in audio a dozen years before CD came along. However I was already in my early 20s; curiously I didn't have much interest in music as a teenage and a factor might have been that my mother, (single parent), didn't have any sort of phonograph.

I never owned more that 300-350 LPs and for 20 years only 250 or so CDs, (for a couple of reasons). Today I have wittled my LP collection down to fewer than 200 that I seldom listen to. I so have ~1200 CDs.

I wouldn't be worth my while to by a new phono kit today. As far as I'm concerned, any superiority of LP over CD today is purely a matter of preference. The best sound I've heard is from HI-rez downloads, and if I were to upgrade anything it would be my SACD player. Otherwise my stereo kit today is not only by far the best but also the cheapest that I've owned in decades.

Chas Underhay
10-03-2011, 06:45 AM
Hi Feanor

Mothers who found themselves single, for whatever reason, in those days seemed to do a far better job than single mothers generally do now.

Your computer based system seems good and I guess we'll all go down that route eventualy.

I see from your classical music list that you have wide ranging tastes. Although I like many kinds of music, I do like earlier music through untill Handel died in 1759. I particularly like renasaince period choral music like Byrd, Allegri, Palastrina, Tallis etc. I've also got Voice of the Blood by Hildegarde Von Bingen and a few other bits of very early music - interesting stuff.

As I said, if I didn't have an vinyl, I wouldn't start now but if I still had 200 that I liked; I'd want to be able to hear them on somethiong or other!

Cheers and all the best

Chas

Mike Anderson
10-03-2011, 05:29 PM
Feanor,

I see you like the Class D + Maggies combo. Great choice.

I am still loving the ICEPower Class D amps in combination with my 3.6Rs. I have them actively bi-amped, with 1000 watts on the bass panels, and 500 watts on the mid+ribbon.

There's something about the combination of Class D and Maggies that really works. I'm sure part of it is the gobs of wattage that Maggies need to really bloom, but there's more to it, I'm sure.

Thinking about going tri-amp next, splitting out the mid panels from the ribbons. Wondering what kind of amp would be best for the ribbons.

Feanor
10-03-2011, 05:44 PM
Feanor,

I see you like the Class D + Maggies combo. Great choice.

I am still loving the ICEPower Class D amps in combination with my 3.6Rs. I have them actively bi-amped, with 1000 watts on the bass panels, and 500 watts on the mid+ribbon.

There's something about the combination of Class D and Maggies that really works. I'm sure part of it is the gobs of wattage that Maggies need to really bloom, but there's more to it, I'm sure.

Thinking about going tri-amp next, splitting out the mid panels from the ribbons. Wondering what kind of amp would be best for the ribbons.
My Class D Audio amp is the best amp I've owned. Pundits over at AA have assured me that my previous Monarchy SM-70 Pros are better but no so, at least not to my taste. I like the transparency and the neutral presentation that delivers truer instrument timbre IMO.

The model SDS-258 I have delivers 300+ wpc at 4 ohms which I feel is enough with the 1.6 driven at the very moderate volumes at which I listen. But then I don't doubt the ICEpower bi-amped 3.6's are awsome.

Mike Anderson
10-03-2011, 06:10 PM
I just ordered a pair of the Bel Canto REF500M monoblocks to replace the old Acoustic Reality eaR 501 monos on my mids/ribbons.

Looking forward to hearing the difference. The latter use the older 500ASP modules, while the former use the later, 4rd gen ASX2 modules, supposedly with better specs.

Will report back.

Feanor
10-04-2011, 07:12 AM
I just ordered a pair of the Bel Canto REF500M monoblocks to replace the old Acoustic Reality eaR 501 monos on my mids/ribbons.

Looking forward to hearing the difference. The latter use the older 500ASP modules, while the former use the later, 4rd gen ASX2 modules, supposedly with better specs.

Will report back.
We'll look forward to that, Mike. There are wearisome numbers of tube fanatics and class D naysayers around here.

Do keep in touch. :14:

texlle
10-04-2011, 03:44 PM
According to Wikipedia an audiophile is a hobbyist who seeks high quality audio reproduction via the use of specialized high end audio electronics. This explanation makes no distinction between a two channel system, or a multi-channel system, yet we always associated audiophiles with two channel system guys. Why is that?

Tradition? The term audiophile (and 2-channel) has been around longer than the home theatre and multi-channel configuration, both multi speaker systems, technically. Not to mention HT and 2-channel is the classic rivalry, so 2-channel guys own rights to the term, out of precedent. :D

Of course this raises the question, what do you call a HT enthusiast? I believe your staunch 2-channel fan in tune with this line of rationale would say, "just an enthusiast".

Seriously speaking though, multi-channel listeners are often grouped in with the home theatre crowd, which involves video equipment. I will admit, I don't know a lot of multi-channel audiophiles. It's usually either 2 speakers for music or many speakers for tv/movies. That's how most people that I know prefer their AV applications. Audiophile doesn't exactly capture the video aspect. I would honestly consider 2-channel and multichannel enthusiasts "audiophiles" as long as we're talking strictly audio equipment.

If we're not considering the public opinion that so closely lumps together HT with multi-channel audio, I'm just going to stick with a short simple reply...blame tradition.

Baniebs
10-04-2011, 08:07 PM
Someone's who very concerned about sound

sugarpop233
10-31-2011, 04:37 AM
a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction.

RoyY51
10-31-2011, 10:02 AM
An audiophile is someone who can afford to be an audiophile...if you can't afford to be an audiophile, you're an audio enthusiast.

Nasir
11-01-2011, 01:30 PM
For me just being part of this community qualifies oneself as an audiophile - being interested in audio reproduction or asking for comments to improve the sound of your system or needing opinions when upgrading are all serious symptoms of this lovely hobby. Then of course there are various levels of audiophilitis ranging from the mild ( buying decent oxygen free speaker wires, no, the cables itch has not set in yet ) to the terminal phase where the rule of diminished returns is the cancer without a cure.