I would like to stir the soup here a little by introducing a debate of sorts. If you feel inclined to join in then please keep in mind the topic, as I'm sure it will throw up some sidetracks.

"An 'Audiophile' will never reach Nirvana unless he understands and accepts the unachievable"

My reason for introducing this is simply that for a number of years now I have been happy to be labeled as an audiophile without fully understanding what it meant. In fact when I registered on this site I did so as 'audiophile' rather than enthusiast. I have since given serious thought as to what this means. Questions of materialism and snobbery come into the equation also.

There is obviously a dictionary definition of Audiophile:- "devotee of high-fidelity sound reproduction" (Oxford English Dictionary).

But this definition is too wide ranging and incomplete. It does not, for instance, deal with the question of 'what is an acceptable level of Hi-Fi reproduction?" or "when does devotion translate into obsession?" or "what is proper Hi-Fidelity reproduction anyway?"

As an example...If you had the perfect room accoustics and the perfect replay equipment would you begin to exclude music from Recording Studios because it's contrived and not a live audition? Or, would you exclude live recordings which have been mastered so that the noisey audience is toned down, for the same reasons.

In television we accept "glossing over" such as "soft focus" on skin close ups, or blue tinged sheets which appear 'whiter than white' in washing powder adverts. This is part of the work of a TV company's equivilant of a sound mixer/masterer.

Does a true audiophile accept 'glossing over' of recordings and build his system around it or does he dismiss it and chase his Nirvana looking to find the perfect rendition of the true stage show as he might remember it? I bet he conveniently forgets the loud audience participation which helped make his night at the concert so memorable! The same close proximity would be unwelcomed on disc or tape, I'm sure.

There are many other aspects related to audiophilia, including the presentation of music in a manner pleasing to the listener, tone of rendition, soundstage, contentment with his equipment etc.


I would venture to redefine the meaning of Audiophile by at least including the words:-

"steadfast in his resolve to extrapolate every piece of information ingrained on the source material whether it be CD, LP, Tape or other; not necessarily in the way it was originally played in the studio or on stage but in the way the mixer imagined we should hear it."

I personally feel that my direction as an audiophile has shifted slightly as I'm now willing to accept that I am listening to any artist through a 'mixer-man' and within the confines of what he believes I should hear. My first step towards Nirvana. My next step is to get the tones right to match with my hearing.

I'm interested to hear some views.

Slippers firmly on