The Definition of An Audiophile

You are so right, Jesusa0, but it is still a mystery that music can do that to you, to me, to all of us who love music!

JohnK, Yea, most of the time you'll get your pants wet in the stiff breeze, but sometimes you don't, you come a bit closer, maybe just by shifting an interconnect. Such moments are satisfying, believe me.... (:

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.

Saki, we're much closer than you think. I also seek equipment that makes the music satisfying for me and I would just as happily repeat Tvad's quote of your beautiful words, because I do very much the same. For me it is about music, not equipment. Equipment is nothing but a means to an end. The idea that I would continually fiddle with my rig would be an absolute nightmare to me. That is not what my definition of audiophila is about. It's about music and the love for it. Live music is a benchmark nothing else. I try to come as close as I can within my possibilities, but I don't obsess about it. That would be nuts, because, as you rightly say, it is not possible anyway. I do however need some sort of approximation to an absolute to compare and evaluate equipment or rigs to and that happens to be what I call the gestalt of live music as I remember it and am accustomed to. Since I'm curious I do compare sometimes, but 99% of my time devoted to this hobby is just plain listening and generally happy enjoyment just as you've put it so well. I love music, not machines, but since I love music and would have it the way I like it best, I will sometimes twiddle with machines, compare machines, discard and save for machines, but only as a means, not as an end. Hope I'm clear now.
Cheers and happy untwiddly listening,

"always better when the equipment isn't hindering the experience."

This sets the right accent, I feel. Thanks Ralph!

Zargon:
Thanks for your kind words!

Timrhu:
You make a good point, but perhaps there is a misunderstanding here, as well as a lack of a proper definition of what I, as well as many others of the audiophile brood, understand as "live music". This certainly need not be classical, I just took this as an example. It could be any kind of live music, though I personally find, that if you want to emulate the sound of live unplugged guitars, a live event very heavily amplified by all sorts of electronics on stage as well as being fed through several speakers, though it can sound great if on disk at home, would not be a good example. What I would see as a benchmark by which all systems should be measured is the sound of live instruments or voices. This can be any kind of instrument, any kind of music from classical to pop, world music, whatever kind. What matters, if you wish to use the sound of real instruments in a real space, no matter if in a concert or a studio, say an unplugged guitar or the sound of a kick drum as a benchmark for the performance of a similar instrument played by your system, is that you have a distinct memory of the live event(s) for your critical evaluation.
To me, an audiophile is a person who loves live music and tries to emulate and enjoy his love of music in his own home to the best of his possibilities. Whatt kind of music he prefers does not matter.
You are quite right on the other hand in pointing out to us, that most of our software is not from a live event and is highly processed in most cases. Sometimes, though not in all cases, processing in the studio can help, that the facsimile of the real thing comes closer to sound "real", sound more "live"than it would have without being processed. Hence it is quite clear that a record which an audiophile happily might describe as coming close to sounding like "real live music", will certainly not only be thanks to his set up, but also thanks to the long process of recording the event in the studio, processing it and finally, say in the case of vinyl, pressing the record. As we all know, we need next to a decent rig good software, when we want to show off with our system and I believe that we need an absolute, if we want to compare the sound of one rig with the sound of another. The absolute, though necessarily still not at all free of subjectivism would be the "gestalt" of live music, as we know and have experienced it.
Cheers,
Detlof