Should we separate Highend Audio into two divisions: Audiophiles (analogue) and Digitalophiles (digital)?

[Doc76]

??? It’s an interesting question IMO. Analogue and Digital sound definitely differ. While both may be excellent (and I enjoy each) their differences IMO should be noted by what they are called or termed?

Though some may be tempted to post otherwise, this post is not meant as a hit upon digital (as I already stated, ‘I enjoy digital too’ - mine excels at reproduction). Rather it’s meant to distinguish the difference between analogue and digital listeners by their name or designation.

The term “audiophile” (1951) came into being before digital (1967) ever existed. Therefore it seems a proper term for vinyl (1930s) and tape (1945) listeners, but not digital. Therefore should those who are digital only rightfully be called Audiophiles or should they be distinguished as digitalophiles (not meant as a lower designation, but a clearer more precise one)? Or should we more accurately speak in terms of vinyl audiophiles, tape audiophiles, CD audiophiles, and streaming audiophiles!

Can we be civil enough to have this conversation?

 

[Another Johnson]

Audiophile literally mean lover of sound. Digitalophile (sic) might mean lover of digital.

I don’t think this is a particularly good division … maybe analog audiophile and digital audiophile would be OK. But many, like me for example, are audiophiles who love both.

Perhaps we’re just music lovers (melophile) with deep enough pockets to set up dedicated systems in dedicated rooms for sound reproduction at home.

Google Search

In either case, the arguments aren’t worth the energy. I never heard any advantage to digital until I had some first rate demos at an excellent dealer. But even after I bought a dCS Rossini and tried to duplicate the quality in my home system, it took me many months to work out the bugs and get close to what the dealer had accomplished in his demo system. I could easily have given up. Now I’m glad I didn’t. With the networking issues and the problems introduced by my isp finally resolved, I would not trade my streaming systems away. But I still love my analog and CD systems too.

There are a lot of stubborn people in both camps. There will never be agreement. But who cares? What should matter to each person is how well they like their own system. And if they want to cross over from analog to digital and/or back again, it’s just part of the fun. I think we are ALL audiophiles.

 

[Anton D]

I think of this issue as a bell curve thing, with lots of nice and happy audiophiles in the body of the curve and the ‘either/or’ buttholes carping from the extremes.

There are many paths. I agree with Another Johnson.

 

[Al M.]

I agree with Another Johnson as well.

As far as the thread title goes, the first two sentences in his post say it all. No need to debate further.

 

[thedudeabides]

??? It’s an interesting question IMO. Analogue and Digital sound definitely differ.

This has been discussed ad nauseum on WBF.

While both may be excellent (and I enjoy each) their differences IMO should be noted by what they are called or termed?

Why? According to whom? Purpose?

Therefore should those who are digital only rightfully be called Audiophiles or should they be distinguished as digitalophiles (not meant as a lower designation, but a clearer more precise one)? Or should we more accurately speak in terms of vinyl audiophiles, tape audiophiles, CD audiophiles, and streaming audiophiles!

This is the most ill advised, non sensical suggestion I have ever read on WBF.

Can we be civil enough to have this conversation?

You're kidding right?

 

[tima]

Analogue and Digital sound definitely differ. While both may be excellent (and I enjoy each) their differences IMO should be noted by what they are called or termed?

We already have plenty of boxes. I don't think we need more, especially for people.

 

[Al M.]

This has been discussed ad nauseum on WBF.

Why? According to whom? Purpose?


This is the most ill advised, non sensical suggestion I have ever read on WBF.

Your kidding right?

I fully agree with your post.

***

But let's just all here agree that this ill-advised debate suggested by the OP is over before it even starts.

 

[PYP]

My signature line indicates my gear because that is my context. And is shows my own preference at this point in the journey. No need for some classification scheme. Show what you listen to every day.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I don't see anything inherently audio-esque about digitalphile. Digitalphile more appropriately describes somebody who is into computers.

I agree with the others who feel this is a pointless exercise.

 

[tima]

I don't see anything inherently audio-esque about digitalphile. Digitalphile more appropriately describes somebody who is into computers.

Aren't things like Taiko and Wadax networked computers -- they have processors, memory storage and interfaces for the Digerati.

 

[lars66]

Analogue and Digital sound definitely differ

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with this statement of yours. After passing a certain level of equipment quality, the difference disappears. It goes without saying that the acoustic treatment of the room has been carried out and the system has been carefully assembled, starting with the device's power supply system (sockets in the wall, power cables, voltage distributors...). Such a system faithfully reproduces musical material regardless of the format of the record or the carrier of that record. Everything I wrote applies to the systems we have in our homes.

 

[Al M.]

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with this statement of yours. After passing a certain level of equipment quality, the difference disappears. It goes without saying that the acoustic treatment of the room has been carried out and the system has been carefully assembled, starting with the device's power supply system (sockets in the wall, power cables, voltage distributors...). Such a system faithfully reproduces musical material regardless of the format of the record or the carrier of that record. Everything I wrote applies to the systems we have in our homes.

That is an interesting opinion.

However:

 

[Al M.]

Can we not just let this thread die? Its premise was incredibly stupid to start with, so why should we allow this to become another acrimonious D v A thread?

Just let it die already. Please.

 

[Billgates307]

Honestly, I find it quite absurd to split audiophiles into “analogue” and “digital” camps. This kind of box-thinking is exactly what’s wrong everywhere else in society. Everything needs a label, everyone has to belong somewhere. Why bring that mindset here too?

Most music lovers appreciate the warmth of vinyl and the precision of digital can perfectly coexist. One doesn’t cancel out the other.
Pushing people into categories like “analogue audiophile” or “digitalophile” just dumbs down the discussion. It’s black-and-white thinking in a hobby that’s all about subtlety, emotion, and experience. Listening to music isn’t some political party you have to pick, it’s a personal journey.

So please, let’s stop dividing the community. Enjoy the music, whether it flows through tubes or a DAC. In the end, it’s not about the camp, it’s about the sound.

 

[microstrip]

(...) The term “audiophile” (1951) came into being before digital (1967) ever existed. Therefore it seems a proper term for vinyl (1930s) and tape (1945) listeners, but not digital. Therefore should those who are digital only rightfully be called Audiophiles or should they be distinguished as digitalophiles (not meant as a lower designation, but a clearer more precise one)? Or should we more accurately speak in terms of vinyl audiophiles, tape audiophiles, CD audiophiles, and streaming audiophiles!

Surely. Incandescent lamps preceded LEDs by a long time, LED based lamps should not be called lamps.

Can we be civil enough to have this conversation?

Yes, it can include an interesting subject - use of AI. If we ask ChatGPT how old is the word audiophile. it gives us such firm answer

"The word “audiophile” first appeared in print around 1951.

It was coined from the Latin root audio (“I hear”) and the Greek suffix -phile (“lover of”), literally meaning “lover of sound.” The earliest known usage traces to High Fidelity magazine and other early hi-fi publications of the postwar period, when high-quality home audio equipment began to attract enthusiasts as a distinct hobby. "

However if we have some knowledge on the subject, we can question it, telling the the bot he is wrong and telling it how to carry a proper research. With his help we soon find that Audiophile Records is a record company and label founded in 1947 by Ewing Dunbar Nunn to produce recordings of Dixieland jazz and the use of the word predates it significantly. And surely the research could be deepened, AI is essentially a great tool.

 

[wil]

No personal disrespect intended, but this is a single worst thread title/subject I’ve ever seen here. At best it’s Clickbait. Hoping for quick fadeaway…

 

[Republicoftexas69]

@Another Johnson summed it up perfectly!

 

[Kofi Baffour]

??? It’s an interesting question IMO. Analogue and Digital sound definitely differ. While both may be excellent (and I enjoy each) their differences IMO should be noted by what they are called or termed?

Though some may be tempted to post otherwise, this post is not meant as a hit upon digital (as I already stated, ‘I enjoy digital too’ - mine excels at reproduction). Rather it’s meant to distinguish the difference between analogue and digital listeners by their name or designation.

The term “audiophile” (1951) came into being before digital (1967) ever existed. Therefore it seems a proper term for vinyl (1930s) and tape (1945) listeners, but not digital. Therefore should those who are digital only rightfully be called Audiophiles or should they be distinguished as digitalophiles (not meant as a lower designation, but a clearer more precise one)? Or should we more accurately speak in terms of vinyl audiophiles, tape audiophiles, CD audiophiles, and streaming audiophiles!

Can we be civil enough to have this conversation?

the hell is this weird ass tangent?

 

[Doc76]

Thank you for your comments. The initial “questions” were to see where the forum pretty much as a whole stands. From what I can tell this forum - both vinyl and digital individuals - are essentially against the division of analogue and digital categories that were in the OP.

So, since the forum is against such divisions, why do most of us argue so much when the two topics merge? Why all the name calling? Why can’t all of us (including myself) be more civil in our discussions?

 

[Kingrex]

Just clickbait to start yet another, digital vs analog bile fest.