An Audiophile is Anyone Who Loves Audio Regardless of Monetary Status. Agree?

@sfseay: "That is the silliest thing I have heard here in a long time."

That can only mean you haven't been here long or you haven't been paying attention.

@geoffkait : "A rich man has about as much chance of finding real Audio Nirvana as a camel has of passing through the eye of a needle."

Yes, but the the rest of the verse is: "With man this is impossible, but with Audio-Buddha all things are possible."

On a more serious side, no, I don’t think you can be an audiophile without a good deal of disposable income. You might have been one. You might want to be one. You might be one in your own mind but the truth is that it takes money to do this right. Exceptions? Sure. But very few and debatable.

@vinny55 , so you spent about $4k on a system and you like it. And you present that as a frugal low cost entry into hi-fi. I would agree with that on the scale of what is normally spent and expected here at Audiogon.

But that is still $4,000. I don't even personally know anyone who wouldn't think that that was crazy money to listen to music.

We all say, wow, good sound for $4k, that's great. (Of course there are plenty here saying to themselves that you are deluding yourself and there is no way a system that costs less than their power cables can sound any good at all.) But $4,000 is a lot of money just to get your audiophile card and the secret hand shake.

@vinny55 :  "With all the auto analogies @n80 you should be selling used cheap scrapyard 70s cars instead of commenting on audio forums."

For the first time in this thread you might be right.

"Your comments are not taken seriously by anyone except the very few."

I can live we that.

" As long as someone has the audio sound mindset they can be an audiophile."

Let's apply that logic to other things in this fantasy world:

I play a doctor on TV, therefore, I am a doctor.

I am passionate about space travel, therefore I am an astronaut.

I have never been on a boat but I love luxury yachts, therefore I am a luxury yachtsman.

I read Air and Space Magazine, therefore I am a pilot.

I watch pro football every Sunday, therefore I am a pro football player.

What a great world you must live in where every one has the exact same opportunities and capabilities. It must be magical..............as long as you keep your tinfoil hat on.

The point I was trying to make was that we often hear people say you don't have to spend a lot of money to get hi-fi quality sound. But that sentiment is utterly drowned out by discussions about components that cost thousands each, speakers that cost tens of thousands each cables that cost thousands and tweaks that cost thousands.

So the point is, if someone took a top down look at discussions here on Audiogon, or the items for sale for that matter, they would have to assume that it does, in fact, require a lot of money to actually experience high fidelity audio.

So we can all pat ourselves on the backs about how egalitarian we are and how in reality it takes very little money to be an audiophile.......but that sure as heck isn't what it looks like looking from the outside in.

But let's put a dollar amount on it. Buying used, what would be the least amount you think you could spend for a system that would be your primary daily listening system for 5 years? Can anyone honestly get that below $2000?

And even if you can, how do you think $2000 sounds for a used stereo to most people? Hint: It sounds like a ton of money. And probably wouldn't be enough to buy many of our own speaker cables.

@vinny55 : You’ve kind of got all tangled up in my comments and seem to have misunderstood them all. I’m playing devils advocate here. I’m an audiophile by pure kismet. I have a decent older system that I was given.

At my cabin I routinely enjoy a nearly 40 year old 25w Toshiba receiver with a 15 year old Toshiba DVD player spinning the CDs all through a pair of Polk Audio Monitor 70s that I picked up on Craig’s list for $180....for the pair. And I enjoy listening to the music through it.

But here is the deal:

I personally would never have spent anywhere close to $4000 for a system if I was starting out fresh and chances are, even now that I’ve kind of gotten into this stuff with the system that was given to me...if it was all gone tomorrow...I’d still have to think long and hard about spending $4000 to try and replace it. And probably wouldn’t.

So all charges of elitism are misplaced. I’m just pointing out that in this and similar threads there is always this element of "oh sure, you can get great sound for a few hundred bucks"..............but in light of the majority of the conversations and recommendations that’s not what you’re going to hear in practice.

Sure, my old Panasonic record changer with round speakers is good enough.......as long as I’m enthusiastic about audio.

See....it just doesn’t ring true.

@brettmcee said:

"If you are proud of that kind of excess you probably don’t really care about ‘the music’ or ‘the sound’ anymore"

You could say that about almost anyone else who spent more money than you did right?

In other words, you say six grand is the price of admission to true hi-fi sound quality. Vinny, who is happy at 4 grand could say you just spent the extra 2 grand just to flaunt your money and admire the pretty lights on your gear.

Get it?

Likewise, the guy with a $50,000 system will say $40,000 is the real price of admission for true high fidelity and anyone who thinks they are doing it for $10,000 is simply a Philistine. 

See?

That sort of relativism gets us nowhere.

The point of the whole thread is that the lowest number anyone has trotted out and claimed to get high fidelity is 2 grand. Again, that's a lot more than most music lovers will be willing to spend and more than a lot of people could spend even if they want to.

So again, the answer is yes, it takes money to be an audiophile. If that upsets sensitive egalitarian sensibilities, well, sometimes the truth hurts a little.

"Audiophile
[Noun] a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about equipment for playing recorded sound, and its quality."

Yet another dictionary/Wikipedia definition that utterly lacks application.

But if this definition is correct then Vinny the Egalitarian is right. Everyone IS an audiophile. Especially all those 65 year old women with Bose radios on their kitchen counters and 12 year olds with a pair of Beats bluetooth headphones streaming from their Galaxy phone.

Yep, everyone is an audiophile and it costs next to nothing to be one. What a wonderful world..........you know, its all a state of mind, it has nothing to do with _actual_ sound quality, taste, training or expertise.

@erik_squires : "Price is a poor predictor of performance."

Erik, I disagree, a little. I think it would be better to say that price can be a poor predictor of performance. In most things I see price and performance as a fairly bell shaped curve across the board. And yes, I do think there is a steep fall-off toward the highest price ranges. (I'm speaking generally here, not just about audio). 

But in light of this discussion even if you are exactly right, the problem is the price range we are discussing. For the average man on the street with more than one priority in his life even at the low end of what most of us here would reasonably good quality he would be stymied. 

I don't know what motivated the OP to share his opinion or ask if we agree. But I do not agree that being an audiophile is solely a matter of how you feel about music or sound quality. To me that's like claiming to be a race car driver because you are enthusiastic about racing and feel like a race car driver.

So again, the answer is no. Not everyone can be an audiophile. Even if they want to be. 

@erik_squires : "In that analogy, the musicians and producers are the race car team. The rest of us are just observers in the stands."

It is unkind to torture a previously tortured analogy. ;-)

"Otherwise, audiophiles are reduced to consumers of a particular type of product. How miserably impoverishing that POV is to me."

And yet, that pretty much defines us. Maybe better than any definition so far.

So maybe here is a better analogy. Is a person who is enthusiastic about wine and appreciates the highest qualities to be found in wine but can only afford to experience Yellow Tail or Boone Farm an oenophile?

Of course not.

Or does the wealth shaming/guilt of some oenophiles make the Boone Farm drinker and oenophile just so said oenophiles can feel less guilty about their hobby?

Again, of course not.

The Boone Farm crowd can be called wine lovers just like anyone who likes music can be a music lover. But they cannot be called connoisseurs nor sommeliers.

To wax a little philosophical, I think part of the problem is the western social trend to blur distinctions. It occurs at all levels and is a form of leveling that many feel is so important. I remember after 911 there was a news segment talking about how the event had traumatized all Americans and part of the conclusion was that because of that shared trauma "we are all heroes". As nice as that sounds and as wholesome as leveling may seem to some people, such abuse of the language cripples our ability to see, detect and admire what is truly good AND what is truly bad. And it utterly trivialized the actions of the true heroes of that day. I see it as one among many of dangerous anarchy producing trends in our culture over the last 20-30 years. In my office we are now required to ask patients if they "identify" as male or female. So far we do not have to ask them if they "identify" as animal, vegetable or mineral. But that cannot be too far off.

"All the hallmarks of an audiophile, can occur at many different financial levels."

And none of those levels are available to many lower middle class earners and virtually no lower class earners.

It is almost painful watching some of you guys mentally trying to make hi-fi a hobby for the masses. There seem to be two tacks: 1) Being an audiophile is just a state of mind or 2) Being an audiophile is affordable and available to everyone.

Neither of these are remotely true.

No matter how much we wish they were.

I think people are forgetting the OP's premise which was that you can be an audiophile regardless of your monetary status. It is clear even from those who are trying to defend this silly idea that it is false in the extreme.

Having posters of super cars on your wall, knowing all the Pagani specs and watching every episode of Top Gear does not make one a sports car aficionado.

The same with audio. What you want and what you feel are not relative if you have no means to experience what you are passionate about.

It is a hard truth.

One that @brettmcee is having a hard time working through.

And don't worry brett, you haven't hurt anyone's feelings.....but maybe yours are at risk. The simple fact that you have the means to post on this website makes your more wealthy than most of the world's population.

And while it might be mean spirited to point out that you too are one of the wicked wealthy at least you know that you should by no means have children since they'd be, well, you said it.........

@vinny55 : " @N80 i have multifaceted interests not just audio. Ive read about and owned lots of equipment and thousands of records cassettes and cds. Audio is a big passion of mine."

How is that relevant to anything being discussed here except for the fact that it pretty much confirms that you are an evil wealthy person like the rest of us?

@bignamehere and @ahofer:

As I've said before, don't try to carry the analogies too far. Try to get the point rather than picking an analogy apart. And for the record those analogies were meant to be over-the-top for the sake of vinny. 

Yes, if you drive your Porsche on a racetrack then you are likely a sports car aficionado. (I'm a track instructor.) But as you say, no you are not a race car driver. 

But if you just happen to like Porsches and sports cars but don't own one and have never driven one then you are neither an aficionado or a race car driver.

I truly don't understand why people are struggling with this. I guess part of it is that they are getting hung up on this patently stupid definition:

“An audiophile is a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction.”

Just put it into application. Someone tells you they have a low paying job, struggle to make ends meet but are very enthusiastic high fidelity sound reproduction but have never had or heard any high end reproduction but are quite sure their new bluetooth Walmart headphones are just as good.

Is this person an audiophile? They meet the definition. Right?

Time for a better definition. Maybe one where "enthusiasm" (how do you measure that?) is the prime criteria.

@vinny55 :  "Speak for yourself @N80 im nowhere near rich like you and evil? Imperfect yes.. evil is a stretch. Your just saying that to make yourself feel better."

That is exactly the response I'd expect from you. You accuse people of being wealthy, as if it is a crime, but then excuse yourself from the same crime as if you are the one who gets to decide who is wealthy and wicked and who isn't. Funny how the cutoff is just north of your wealth level. So typical.

@bretmcee:  "@n80 yeah, maybe just don’t use analogies my friend, because using one poorly does the exact opposite of what you are trying to achieve."

Actually, the analogies served their purpose perfectly well. Picking apart an analogy while failing to grasp the primary point is just as bad as a bad analogy.

"All of your analogies require a career in something or specific training. Audiophilia, by globally accepted definition, requires neither being a professional, nor any type of training."

All of my analogies require a certain level of experience. You focused on the wrong common denominator trying to support a point that is unsupportable.

"Also look at the definition of the word aficionado."

Actually, I think you are the one who needs to look it up since it includes elements of knowledge about the subject and a "fervent" pursuit of it. So lack of experience and first hand knowledge of a subject certainly disqualifies one as an aficionado. Listening through ear buds as you sole audio experience does not qualify one as an aficionado not matter how "enthusiastic" one is.

Wishing something is true is far different from the truth.

But in the end, I don't really care how you or vinny want to define audiophile. In your worlds where word meaning has no concrete value then anything goes. But it seems a bit ironic....no, hypocritical would be the better word, that you want to define audiophile any way you want but then have very specific, and hateful, labels for those you define as wealthy.

And you can't argue with someone who has their own definitions for everything.

You live in a magical world. I hope life is good there for you.

@brettmcee:

"a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction"

Again that sets some level of unmeasured and unmeasurable ’enthusiasm’ as the criteria for being an audiophile. How much enthusiasm does it take brett? Just any little bit? No experience. No components. Heck, you don’t really even see a reference to music there, do you? In fact, it doesn’t even say anything about listening. Great definition.

I also think it is telling that you are now equating wealth with fascism. I suspect ’fascism’ is another term you don’t really grasp. It does not equate to authority or even power by the way.

And here is the ironic thing, you invoke WWII and the fascism that led to it yet you don’t seem to grasp how fascism actually works. Two of its primary tenets and practical applications are 1) labeling groups (as you have just done) in order to villainize and marginalize them and thereby suppress them and 2) limiting the free expression of ideas. The easiest way to do that, and the way historic fascists have done so, is to brand certain types of speech and expression as ’hate speech’ to coin a modern term, or as ’dangerous’. This ends all arguments against the fascist system before they can begin.

So maybe you should read up on how fascism works rather than just branding people with a term you don’t seem to understand...............or better yet, stop branding and labeling people............especially people you don’t know................and large groups with only one single common denominator...........you know...........like wealth.

And again the irony and hypocrisy are rich. Every one with more than you are wealthy, greedy fascists. Your material means don’t count against you....unlike those you villify......you are somehow superior. Oh the irony!

Any way, I'm off to my country home for a few days to suppress a peasant uprising so I'm done with this thread. As I said, arguing with people who make up their own definitions is fruitless as you and vinny have amply proven.