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

[Andy Ringsmuth]

>> 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.

As a sound technician, here's my take.  In my work, it's often said  
that a well set up sound system and properly configured/EQ'd/tuned  
will be such that you don't notice it's existence.  Or nearly so.  I  
think that's what this comes down to.  I very much enjoy listening to  
music, AND I like that music to sound great.

>> *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.

There shouldn't be anything about music in the definition of an  
audiophile.  The goal of sound reproduction should be precisely that  
- to reproduce the original sound as closely to being  
indistinguishable from as if you were actually there.  If that makes  
someone an audiophile, then so be it.  I care a decent amount about  
having excellent sound reproduction (decent amount meaning what I can  
afford).  My first home theater setup was a Sony Dolby Digital  
receiver with KLH Audio speakers.  A basic low-end/entry level  
setup.  Then a year or two ago I upgraded to a mid-range Onkyo  
receiver and Polk Audio speakers.  The difference was stunning.  The  
KLH's were OK, but with one of those side-by-side with one of the  
Polk's, it was amazing.

Was I listening to music at the time?  Of course.  And I watch a lot  
of movies too.  I want my system to reproduce the original sound as  
accurately as is reasonably possible.  If I'm listening to classical  
music, I want the reproduction of that sound to make me think I'm  
sitting in a concert hall.  If I'm listening to Metallica, I want it  
to sound like I'm sitting there with them in the studio.

I've seen people who spend a couple thousand on a nice shiny new  
plasma TV and then pipe the audio through a 10-year-old stereo they  
got at a garage sale or use the TV's built-in speakers.  To me,  
that's like fingernails on a blackboard.  If you're going to go to  
the trouble and expense of having a great video experience but the  
audio is crap, it's a waste (in my mind).  But at the same time,  
those people likely haven't personally witnessed a well set up audio  
system either and don't realize what they're missing.

Just my $0.02.

-Andy