Below
in bold is Wikipedia's definition of an audiophile from Steve's OP.
...An audiophile is a person who has a great interest in high-fidelity sound reproduction. Some audiophiles are more interested in collecting and listening to music, while others are more interested in collecting and listening to audio components, whose "sound quality" they consider as important as the recorded musical performance, or even more important. The ratio of an audiophile's spending on software (music) versus hardware (audio components) is a rough guide to where they stand in the audiophile spectrum.
So what say all of you? And be honest. Have you reached Audio Nirvana or do you have restless energy to continue to swap equipment in and out of your system
First off...
An audiophile is a person who has a great interest in high-fidelity sound reproduction
Guilty as charged, your honor. I plead no contest.
Have I reached audio nirvana? Hmmm, good question. Yes and no with a slant toward the "no". Allow me to try to explain.
While I enjoy listening to music, I would like to think that I'm always in audio nirvana every time I have a chance to listen to music. This can be true whether I'm at a live performance or at my buddies house listening to a boombox while ripsaws and hammers are taking away the quietness of the farm and the birds chirping out in the background. In other words, the music itself places me in a state of nirvana just in and by itself. The only exception I can think of is if there is static on, say an FM tuner. Static has always been my pet peeve and to be honest, I'd rather have no music then music with static no matter
how much I yearn to hear what's on. I could also argue that I can be in audio nirvana just watching groups stomp dancing to no music, listening to street musicians or just enjoying a choir that's singing with a band at a local H.S. football game. So with that said, yes. I
have found audio nirvana. I simply just
love music.
This, of course fits me right in with part of the definition of Wikipedia's version of an "audiophile". See the quote below...
Some audiophiles are more interested in collecting and listening to music,
Admittedly, I do collect music. I'm not a real live walking, talking musical library like some folks I know but I'm working on it. Part of my collection [if you were in my house making an observation] is multiples of the same album. I think I have every format, remaster, version, extended edition and the like of a few of my favorite performances. Why I still have the lesser versions of those particular performances, the collector in me prevents me from letting them go.
I have also been seeking what most of you would consider "reference" recordings. On these recordings, I will do the same thing I do with some of my favorite performances. Yes, I will have several copies in the collection in my yearning to obtain the "best" possible fidelity and reproduction possible. I also try my best to get a hold of rare performances and recordings just so I can have them. I may only listen to them once in a blue moon but I still want them in my system because when I pass on from this Earth, I would like my son to have my entire collection and hopefully with the seed I have planted in him, he will do the same with his son or grandson.
Some audiophiles are more interested in collecting and listening to music, whose "sound quality" they consider as important as the recorded musical performance, or even more important
So, to be honest with myself and in turn honest to you, I fit the "collector" part within the definition of an audiophile as well as the sound quality being an
extremely important factor in the grand scheme of things.
The ratio of an audiophile's spending on software (music) versus hardware (audio components) is a rough guide to where they stand in the audiophile spectrum
Personally, I think this entire part of the definition should be omitted. The amount of money spent doesn't define an audiophile. That couldn't be any further from the truth. I'm sure many of you have ran across a "self proclaimed" audiophile that has more money than sense. They buy the most expensive system that they can afford, pay some company to design it, build the room and finish everything for them. This isn't IMO an audiophile. It's just a fool and his money.
Now, if that fool were to actually start to research and try different things, formats or recordings within his system to try to actually show an interest in even higher fidelity than what was bought from his wallet, then at that point I might actually consider him an audiophile. To just label him an audiophile because of some criteria set up for the amount of money spent is just as foolish as the fool and his money thinking that he's an audiophile to begin with.
A classic example to allow you to understand or relate to what I'm trying to portray here would be the definition of a race car driver. Let's say that some cat has money to blow and he goes out and gets the most powerful Ferrari and proceeds to pay additional dollars to take a driving course. This doesn't make him a race car driver, no matter how bad he would like to think that he is one. The same would go for the self proclaimed audiophile. Money has nothing to do with it.....well, the ratio of money spent has nothing to do with it. It could just be some cat with money that he doesn't know what to do with that just so happens to enjoy music. It doesn't make him an audiophile just like owning a Ferrari doesn't make one a race car driver.
This part of the definition is also rather vague and IMO, doesn't truly reflect where an audiophile stands. One aspect of it, maybe but definitely not all of it. If it is to be included, I believe what must also be addressed is the ratio spent to what said audiophile earns. Both of these perimeters still do not define an audiophile at all to me [and we haven't even begun to touch on the ratio of the amount of
time spent on things]. It just shows the possible amount of commitment toward a certain hobby and has no direct correlation to the the original and simplistic definition offered by Wikipedia as once again showed below...
An audiophile is a person who has a great interest in high-fidelity sound reproduction
An audiophile can be someone who spends as little as possible to achieve higher fidelity within their rig. They can DIY, swap gear out from amongst friends and go online to research where to find the best possible recordings that bring out the best of what system they have and spent the better part of their lives trying to learn how to assemble something to offer an even higher fidelity. Just because a ratio or certain preset amounts of money can
usually play a major part in defining an audiophile, truth be told it most certainly doesn't properly define one IMO.
Getting back to your question, Steve, about me finding audio nirvana within my rig. This is such a long post, I thought it best to start a new post and address this aspect of your question. More later.