Gosh, I guess that settles that then, doesn't it?

I read it quickly, I admit, but I didn't see the words "irritable bowel syndrome" anywhere in the text. How could someone simply overlook that segment of the audiophile population? ;~)

So, we've been given what the Scotsman prayed for, "...to see ourselves as others see us." My first reaction was that audiophiles were being incorrectly defined as hardware lovers who use musical forms to demonstrate their gear rather than music lovers who use hardware to support bringing their favorite music home. Then I reflected on this month's letter requesting a list of classical CD/LP's which would, "...really take advantage of my new system." Perhaps the Wikipedia perspective is more accurate than I'd like to believe and guys like me will have to find another label for ourselves.

This is another example of an oft-proven fact. When you become an authority, a la Wikipedia, to the point where others seek you out as a source of definitive knowledge, you must play out your role in areas beyond your expertise just to maintain credibility. Wikipedia's extended definition quickly moves from the term to be defined to the requirements of the definition. The result is unintended caricature. I have never met an "audiophile" who isn't a music-lover first. This, incidentally, is my only objection to John Marks's well-meaning guide for recruiting audiophiles in July's "As We See It." You can't recruit music lovers any more than you can recruit poets or musicians. Now, if the person in your high-end store is already a music lover, you might have a shot at bringing him around to the idea of spending half a year's income on better sound equipment than he already has. But I would argue the best thing you can do is show him what the knobs and buttons do, make sure he has recordings in hand of the music he loves, tell him he can play the system as loud or soft as he likes and not to worry about breaking it, and leave the room. If he's not a music lover to begin with, there's no hope. We may be a strange crowd, but we know what we want, Wikipedia's expertise notwithstanding.

The music itself is what has driven my equipment search. Every purchase has been in the quest of better music reproduction. Although, a couple of racks of gear driving some large ESL's does look good!

Never met an audiophile who wasn't first a music lover? With all due respect, Clifton, I think we've both "met" a good many on this forum alone who have little passion regarding their favorite music compared with that expressed for their favorite hardware. Note how quickly threads devoted to favorite recordings, or recording artists die here compared with those focussing on hardware topics. More importantly, compare the number of participants joining in on each.

I don't think you can separate the two. We obviously have a passion for music or we wouldn't be playing with the toys we play with. We could choose other toys, like cars.

Years ago I raced cars. We never wondered whether we constantly worked on our cars to make them go faster because we loved cars or because we loved to race. We just knew that we loved cars and we loved to race. If you couldn't afford to race the dragsters, you raced the door slammers. But, if you were racing the door slammers, you aspired to work into a dragster...because it was faster and more thrilling.

I think the same can be said for the audiophile community. We listen to what we can afford, but we always want to improve. This certainly doesn't mean we don't love music as much as the adventure of improving the sound.

Hi, Clay. It's a matter of definition, I guess...and Wikipedia's unintentional caricature drives home that point, to me. You bring up an excellent point about forum members (and it often applies to reviewers...unintentionally again, I think, because you would have to be a music lover to go to the well as often as they have to). I will stubbornly insist, however, on my definition over Wikipedia's: you must start with a love of music, or you're just a geek faking orgasms. We need a term for fake audiophiles, so we can reclaim holy ground. Blinkophile, as in one who always follows the blinking lights? Frigophile, as in one unable to attain sonic orgasm with real music on the deck? I'm sure you all can top these poor efforts. C'mon, have at it. I'm too loaded to think and Christa Ludwig is on the FM singing Mahler. Adios.

Wikipedia's definition can be made to reflect your own, just click on the edit this page tab at the top, and edit the offending sentance with something more diplomatic/correct in your opinion. you know something like, while some audiophiles blah blah blah music, many are blah blah blah, and the appreciation of music is central to blah blah.

heck we here in the forum could take over the article and write it to our liking.

Quote:
Never met an audiophile who wasn't first a music lover? With all due respect, Clifton, I think we've both "met" a good many on this forum alone who have little passion regarding their favorite music compared with that expressed for their favorite hardware. Note how quickly threads devoted to favorite recordings, or recording artists die here compared with those focussing on hardware topics. More importantly, compare the number of participants joining in on each.

Clay,

I've often wondered about this myself but I'm not still not sure that I fully agree with you. While everyone on this forum may well be a music lover, there are many different types of music for us to love (I'm the free jazz nut, DUP's the electric blues fan, etc) but our hardware choices appear to somewhat more restricted. There's the solid state crowd and the tube crowd, the electrostatic speaker owners and the dynamic speaker owners, etc.

And therefore the discussions are somewhat more lively since there is more common ground and it's a heck of a lot easier to write about hardware than it is to write about music. Have you ever tried to write a meaningful review of a new recording? It's hard work having to describe the sound of music without using over worked clich

You make some good points, Jazzfan, as do Clifton and Monty. Had I been boorish enough to list some forum members whom I doubted were music lovers first, none of you would have made the list. Perhaps if I'd opened the bottle of wine before, rather than after checking out the forum activity, my reaction would have been different. Some good Shiraz combined with the sound of "Mulligan Meets Monk" and the John Coltrane Quartet's "Ballads" put the question of what "audiophiles" are out of my mind.

If, however, I were to attempt to define "audiophiles" I'd say we are those who actually listen to music. We take our pleasure in focussing on what the composer and the musicians provide to us. In clubs, we are not the ones rattling silver or engaging in witty conversation during a set. In concert halls, we hate ourselves if we are unable to stifle a cough. At home, we devote time and money to building and improving our music systems because, as listeners, we can hear the difference between what good and not so good systems deliver. Though we invest what others may think are outrageous amounts of money in hardware, we invariably have more invested in our recordings. More importantly, we happily invest our time just listening to music.

But there I've gone and done it again - talking when I should have been listening. Some of us never learn.

Quote:
But there I've gone and done it again - talking when I should have been listening. Some of us never learn.

Clay,

You may be just a little off here. You're not actually "talking" but rather typing and you can most definitely listen to music whilst you're typing, if you have things set up properly.

In fact I'm listening to this Gary Bartz CD I just picked up through a new pair of Koss A130 headphones I got off eBay for $35 new, including shipping. Granted I'm not listening to my big rig

You did it to me again jazzfan. Mentioning Gary Bartz made me pull out the only vinyl I had of Gary. I've Known Rivers and Other Bodies, live from Montreaux 1973. I'm listening as I write. Now, I've had to order the one you mentioned. Thanks again. That's who I am!

Hi Joe,

I've Known Rivers and Other Bodies, live from Montreaux 1973 is my favorite Gary Bartz album and "I've Known Rivers" is my one of all time favorite songs, period. I think I have Bartz's entire alto sax solo memorized. In fact, I once even told Bartz how much I like that tune when he was being interviewed on WKCR-FM. I called in and asked to speak with him and thanked him for all the joy his song had given me over the years.

That's who Jazzfan is!

I wonder if I should have added it to my list of Jazz LP's people should have but don't. It is one truly GREAT solo he plays on I've Know Rivers.

I had though about adding "Ive Known Rivers" to that list but on the whole it's not that strong of an album, there's just one too many clunkers. Now if it was only a single LP rather than a double LP, it would have been on the top of my list.

When I think of how many LP's and CD's I own that have only one song I can stomach it puts Rivers way, way up from the bottom of the list. That could be another thread. How many recordings do you have that you can stomach only one or two selections?