Re: Audiophile Rants [Was: 5 Things AppleTV needs to be a MUST BUY by Apple Gazette]

[LuKreme]

On 9-Apr-2007, at 11:28, Mark Smith wrote:
> [Nutters is flitting, otherwise this would have been transferred  
> there already. However, I'll take another bite at this and risk  
> mod_wrath]

nutters2 is up and running <nutters2 at southgaylord.com>

> But that is not a reasonable definition of an audiophile, nor a  
> reasonable definition of a music lover. Any reasonable discussion  
> must concede that someone can love music *and* place a great deal  
> of importance on fidelity.

Sure, if you want to apply Logic, but since when does that have  
anything to do with reality?

Yes, I am serious.  Come on, we've all known the audiophile geek, and  
the audiophile geek is, as someone said, listening to their STEREO,  
not the music.

> *really* love music. I've spent a whack of money in that shop, but  
> the most important service they have done me is to introduce/expose  
> me to all sorts of great music that I *may* not have discovered  
> otherwise. [Great music that I "love" and "love" listening to on my  
> fairly good equipment.]

So, next time you're in, ask them.  Are they Audiophiles?

Maybe it's a across the pond problem.  Certainly over here  
"audiophile" has always been tinged with the connotation of one who  
is interested in their stereo more than what comes out of it.  It's  
not precisely a negative connotation, but it is certainly there.

Heck, the definition of the word:

Main Entry: au·dio·phile
Pronunciation: 'o-dE-O-"fI(-&)l
Function: noun
: a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction

Notice there's nothing there about MUSIC.

Do me a favor, do a google search and see how often the word is used  
the way I used it as opposed to the way you think it should be used.

Here's a thread I found inthe top-10 on google:

<http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/showthread.php?t=10823>
> Here is why I am not an audiophile:
>
> 1. I do not have enough money. If I did, I would rather spend it on  
> CDs.
>
> 2. Very few CDs are recorded properly. Once, recordings were made  
> to capture the sound of the music as accurately as possible. Now  
> most albums are created to "sound good".
>
> 3. The diminishing returns factor: the higher the money spent on  
> gear, the smaller the increase in improvement in sound quality.  
> Once a certain point is reached, mucho dollars are spent for very  
> slight improvements.
>
> 4. Being concerned about things like which $1,500 tube preamp  
> sounds best seems a bit silly to me. (Sorry) But hey, if you've got  
> the money, go for it.


>>> does this kind of bigotry hold for photography too, or film ?  
>>> (see current alt. thread)
>>
>> Probably, but there is a much large population, so far, in the  
>> audiophile camp than the 'photophile' camp.
>
> You pulled that one out of your uh... butt - didn't you ? More  
> audiophiles than photophiles ? I'll bet you don't have numbers on  
> that. There are stats that might be construed as suggesting that  
> the opposite is more likely to be true. I would expect there to be  
> more people "obsessing" (to use your terminology) about the quality  
> of photos, than there are "obsessing" about the quality of their  
> music playback equipment. But you could rightfully accuse me of  
> pulling that out of mine.

Sure.  I base it on the statistically insignificant sample size that  
I have met lots and lots of people who are obsessive about sound  
fidelity and never met one who was obsessive about film and/or video  
fidelity.  And the only people I've met who are obsessive about  
photographic quality are professional photographers.


-- 
We will fight for Bovine Freedom and hold our large heads high
We will run free with the Buffalo or die