The Definition of An Audiophile

i prefer to be a stereo-type....one who recognizes that the distribution and redistribution of stereo stuff is just that..nothing more. it can be fun, and it can be frustrating. i'm also a music collector, which has no connection to being a stereo-type or an audiophile.

Audia, I haven't read all of the above, however your original post speaks truly to my heart. I also believe that the true audiophile should compare the sound of his system to the real thing as he perceives it and that he should try to emulate it in the best way his ears, his better half and his pocketbook allow. I also realize, that this is a quest, which will necessarily fall short, but that does not really matter, because you can enjoy as well as learn tremendously along the way. Not only the sound at home is an elusive thing, but also the sound in concert halls is of high variance, depending on the hall and where your seat is. But that does not really matter, because the "gestalt" of live music, if heard in many different locations will imprint itself in your brain and will be easily available if you try to compare it to music systems at home. What bliss if it sometimes comes close.
I am an old man now, but I have pursued this hobby for all of my adult life and the best part of it has been the efforts, often only by small steps and not expensive at all to bring it closer to what I percieved to be the real thing. I have thus learned, that by experimenting, I could get musical information hidden in the software, which I never thought possible to retrieve and this in systems which I really did like. So I never stopped to be curious, although I've always enjoyed what I had, however without batting an eyelid left behind me, whenever I found something better. Hence I am a bit suspicious of those opinions, which tell us to be content with what we like. What cloakes itself with wisdom and contentedness may well be also looked at as complacency, mediocrity and unwillingness to learn and go further. I suppose those, who feel audiophilia is a passion in the pursuit of the holy grail, will look at it this way and the general dealership will most probably support this view. This can certainly be folly and destructive, because the danger of addiction with all its pitfalls may very well be close at hand. So finally, I would say wisdom and contentment with what you have should have its proper place after all. But at the same time, I feel we should be curious and open for improvement and be ready to learn. As with all things in life, finding the right balance between conflicting opposites is the important thing as well as having a goal greater than ourself ( in our case our perception of live music ) to keep ourself and our hobby alive with all the wonderful exitement a new discovery may bring. What it all boils down to basically to my mind is to deeply enjoy what you have but at the same time be open for improvement. For this you need a higher goal and to my definition of an audiophile this is his perception of live music.

I don't understand the use of live events as the benchmark for the perfect system as what is being played through the system is most likely not a live event. Very few of the recordings in my collection are live recordings. They are studio productions with various amounts of processing. I don't expect to ever hear the "live" event through my system no matter how good it is.
One implication I get from your description is that one must listen primarily to classical music to be an audiophile. Is this correct? A quick look at my system will confirm that I am no audiophile and if a deep appreciation of classical music is required for admittance to the audiophile club then I probably won't get in.

it is fulfillment from the knowledge and understanding of music and its reproduction. It can be a very personal experience, and a very special club where only the listener need be present to enjoy its membership.

Thanks for all of your responses, be it critical or not.

I understand some people don't have the opportunity to view a live performance on a regular basis; that's fine. But when you view an outstanding concert it makes me sad that no matter how good a system you could ever build it will never compare.

The main thing I miss is the dynamic spectacular percussion presented in a live event. Part of the reason of that loss of reality, I believe, is due to the recording compression. I'm not a recording engineer, but I don't understand why a live recording has to be compressed so much. Is there someone out there that can tell me why recordings are compressed? I have never heard any recorded music that didn't have any compression. I don't listen to much classical; I only have one classical recording. Are there some classical recordings that are more true to the actual event? Does it come down to a limit in recording technology, or is it something else?