[Sefelt103]

My definition of what it is to be an audiophile. I've seen many variations of what this is and this is my take on the subject.

TYPE A
The liking of music is something that I imagine varies quite considerably with audiophiles. In extremis this audiophile will not have much of a liking in music and in the other direction he or she might be described as a 'music lover'. This purest form of audiophile does not like music but is very interested in recordings/DACs/amplifiers/headphones. Their hobby revolves around experimenting with often expensive audio equipment. They are constantly listening to music they have known for years usually with the objective of hearing it more accurately than previous systems. The changes in the way the music sounds (even if it sounds worse because the equipment is more revealing) matters a great deal to this kind of audiophile. There is of course a pitfall related to low quality recordings. This is when accidentally a piece of hifi is not as good as it might be supposed and your low grade recording sounds even worse because of colouration or distortion or something else. For this purist type of audiophile this is unfortunate and can be hard to determine. It is necessary to detect if a poor recording is this way not because of precision but because of some other interference or issue. For this type only real objective increases in sound quality matter. They require a middle ground (not too much or too little) to apply to every sonic element of their equipment. Natural attack, decay and sustain are vital if things are to sound lifelike. Timbre is important and a system should not result in a harsh or metallic one. Does a bell sound like one or is it some thin trebly distorted sound that is recognisable as a bell but not much like one. This audiophile will only want the latter if this is due to the medium the clear and natural bell was recorded on (a 4 track tape in 1970 with treble boost from the mixing desk). They don't want separate instruments to be very lifelike if the process of them being transferred to tape or record makes them sound like an unnatural congested mess. Anything in the DAC or amplifier that expands the soundstage or DSP is to be avoided. All this makes for an absolutely 'boring' unmusical experience and bad recordings may be unlistenable. Well mastered recordings will sound superb however. The distortion this type hears is in the recording from mastering errors, surface noise, tape shadows etc. The aim is unmusical - all the 'fun' (colour, distortion, attack, space etc) is in the recording and not in the equipment. This is a major difference between audiophiles A and B. Some of the hifi equipment on sale does not conform to this type. Only a minority of audiophiles fall into this category.

TYPE B
Another much more common type of audiophile wants the 'fun' in the recording as well as in the audio equipment. I have always found this a little unusual. Audiophiles by definition want high audio quality so why would you add distortion (or 'warmth') or musicality (distortion) or colour (uneven response) ? Herein lies a contradiction of hifi by adding (pleasing) distortion and colour. The answer to this is an idea as old as audio: to effectively change the recording as you please. EQ has come a long way and is now available in sophisticated software and hardware. This sort of audiophile may utilise some form of EQ. This can be significant alterations to the FR with 'shelves' of a few db or more. There are many possibilities and this type of audiophile might spend as much time with EQ/DSP as audiophile A does with hardware. It's enticing being able to boost the midrange or bass/treble or just bass with attenuated treble. Here strangely musical enjoyment is paramount. There won't be many who dislike music, usually they are regular listeners. Any parameter can be adjusted or built into the headphone. More tends to have value to this type than audiophile A. More bass slam, more soundstage, more euphonic sounding is superior to them than less. They're not aiming for a centreline that necessarily makes for a natural sound. Timbre is less important and a steely, metallic one might be a system goal. This type often like valve (tube) amplifiers. Subjective sound quality rather than objective is important to them. Although they may have some neutral components to use as a canvas for their tailoring of sound. If a bell is recorded they want it to sound lifelike even if the recording medium makes this difficult. Their EQ and headphone design can 'enhance' recordings to make them less 'boring', more alive and live. This type of audio enthusiast likes headphones/amplifiers that separate and layer sounds (3D). They dislike 3 blob headphones. They also like quality headphones with (angled) drivers resistant to low frequency distortion. Wealthy ones eschew EQ and have 'flat' upstream components similar to audiophile A, they get their sound from a variety of expensive headphones, each with its own unique signature. Like audiophile A there are pitfalls in their quest for a specific sound. Too many alterations turn what was a curved squiggle into one that is cut by a horizontal line (distortion). By purchasing quality equipment they can forestall this but there are limits. There's always a song that doesn't sound pleasant with a certain EQ/system. It might not sound particularly good on audiophile A's system either but there is something that can be difficult to determine in the audio chain that clashes with a genre/album/song. Poorly mastered material isn't as raw and superbly mastered material will lose something by having the 'fun' x 2. Much of the hifi equipment on sale conforms to this type. The majority of audiophiles fall into this category.

There are many other types of audiophiles and there is nothing wrong with either persuasion. It's obvious which has the greater potential for audio vendors. Another type that I am sure is common are music lovers (TYPE C) who are less (or not) interested in audio equipment or uprating audio quality that aren't audiophiles. All they require is a reliable, easy to use, all in one solution with enough capacity.

 

[Mink]

Good write-up!
But I have a somewhat different view. The classic type A audiophile I would rather describe as someone who in the first place strives for the most accurate reproduction of the recording, but it doesn't has to sound pleasant, as long as it is the most true to the source. He avoids tone controls and EQ but instead he finetunes the sound with cables and amps, not because he wants to color the sound, but to get the most pure, unaltered, reproduction of the source. If it turns out that every recording sounds great on his system there must be something wrong with it, it probably isn't transparant and revealing enough. Crap sound for the majority of his music is proof that his system is accurate.

A variant of type A is the audiophile who strives for the most 'natural' sound, his reference is not the recording, but live concerts, preferably live acoustic performances, like classical music ones. Most of them avoid tone controls and EQ and finetune their sound with cables and different amp, but in this case deliberately to color the sound, to smoothen or to brighten it to their perception of 'natural'.

And there's a type who only wants a pleasant sound but still owns the most expensive high-end stuff. This type hates tone controls and EQ, because that's what he's been told, you don't mess with the signal. But he has his own solution to deal with this problem: he just conveniently avoids bad recordings.

 

[Sefelt103]

I forgot as you point out to say about the recordings. Some audiophiles have a mix of good/bad recordings but others will target only well mastered and often modern recordings. Another oblique aspect is decisions made in the studio regarding the recordings. A modern rap artist might not record much bass level assuming the playback setup will be coloured with elevated bass and warmth. More accurate systems will then playback this in a way the artist didn't really intend. Then there's old recordings where because playback systems lacked bass this was elevated in the studio. There are many combinations and sometimes poor outcomes.

 

[ADUHF]

Where does the audio enthusiast fit into this equation?

Also, where does the dude who just likes listening to his music on nice-sounding gear fit in?

(The 2nd one is me btw. )

 

[Sefelt103]

A & B are mostly audio enthusiasts, C isn't. Bassheads are a subset of B.

 

[ADUHF]

A & B are mostly audio enthusiasts, C isn't. Bassheads are a subset of B.

I was mostly bein rhetorical, Sefelt103. But thank you for the clarification.

 

[davidcotton]

My definition of what it is to be an audiophile.

Broke.

 

[loregnum]

Type D: They use absurd, nonsensical words to describe sound and often imply any minor changes they hear are the equivalent of going from a Prius to a Ferrari. They usually claim they can hear the difference (and usually a massive one) between various DACs, amps, or cables -and almost always claim the most expensive one is the best regardless if it measured worse- yet if put into a double blind test, would not be able to identify said item each and every time. Refuse to accept their findings after buying said expensive item may be due to bias as they believe they aren't human and simply can't have any bias. Will actually spend thousands on a headphone cable (sometimes as much or more than the headphones they are going to use it with) and think it makes sense to do so.

They also believe every item requires burn-in, including all electronic chips/devices, and magically, the mythical burn-in somehow always makes every item better and never worse and the difference is as stated in the first line, like going from a Prius to a Ferrari.

Type D is what I seem to see a lot of on the internet.

 

[340519]

Where does the audio enthusiast fit into this equation?

Also, where does the dude who just likes listening to his music on nice-sounding gear fit in?

(The 2nd one is me btw. )

Well I think this is me. I like all or most music for the emotional and spiritual side, but I like the gear as well. Hmmmmm...

 

[baskingshark]

My definition of what it is to be an audiophile. I've seen many variations of what this is and this is my take on the subject.

TYPE A
The liking of music is something that I imagine varies quite considerably with audiophiles. In extremis this audiophile will not have much of a liking in music and in the other direction he or she might be described as a 'music lover'. This purest form of audiophile does not like music but is very interested in recordings/DACs/amplifiers/headphones. Their hobby revolves around experimenting with often expensive audio equipment. They are constantly listening to music they have known for years usually with the objective of hearing it more accurately than previous systems. The changes in the way the music sounds (even if it sounds worse because the equipment is more revealing) matters a great deal to this kind of audiophile. There is of course a pitfall related to low quality recordings. This is when accidentally a piece of hifi is not as good as it might be supposed and your low grade recording sounds even worse because of colouration or distortion or something else. For this purist type of audiophile this is unfortunate and can be hard to determine. It is necessary to detect if a poor recording is this way not because of precision but because of some other interference or issue. For this type only real objective increases in sound quality matter. They require a middle ground (not too much or too little) to apply to every sonic element of their equipment. Natural attack, decay and sustain are vital if things are to sound lifelike. Timbre is important and a system should not result in a harsh or metallic one. Does a bell sound like one or is it some thin trebly distorted sound that is recognisable as a bell but not much like one. This audiophile will only want the latter if this is due to the medium the clear and natural bell was recorded on (a 4 track tape in 1970 with treble boost from the mixing desk). They don't want separate instruments to be very lifelike if the process of them being transferred to tape or record makes them sound like an unnatural congested mess. Anything in the DAC or amplifier that expands the soundstage or DSP is to be avoided. All this makes for an absolutely 'boring' unmusical experience and bad recordings may be unlistenable. Well mastered recordings will sound superb however. The distortion this type hears is in the recording from mastering errors, surface noise, tape shadows etc. The aim is unmusical - all the 'fun' (colour, distortion, attack, space etc) is in the recording and not in the equipment. This is a major difference between audiophiles A and B. Some of the hifi equipment on sale does not conform to this type. Only a minority of audiophiles fall into this category.

TYPE B
Another much more common type of audiophile wants the 'fun' in the recording as well as in the audio equipment. I have always found this a little unusual. Audiophiles by definition want high audio quality so why would you add distortion (or 'warmth') or musicality (distortion) or colour (uneven response) ? Herein lies a contradiction of hifi by adding (pleasing) distortion and colour. The answer to this is an idea as old as audio: to effectively change the recording as you please. EQ has come a long way and is now available in sophisticated software and hardware. This sort of audiophile may utilise some form of EQ. This can be significant alterations to the FR with 'shelves' of a few db or more. There are many possibilities and this type of audiophile might spend as much time with EQ/DSP as audiophile A does with hardware. It's enticing being able to boost the midrange or bass/treble or just bass with attenuated treble. Here strangely musical enjoyment is paramount. There won't be many who dislike music, usually they are regular listeners. Any parameter can be adjusted or built into the headphone. More tends to have value to this type than audiophile A. More bass slam, more soundstage, more euphonic sounding is superior to them than less. They're not aiming for a centreline that necessarily makes for a natural sound. Timbre is less important and a steely, metallic one might be a system goal. This type often like valve (tube) amplifiers. Subjective sound quality rather than objective is important to them. Although they may have some neutral components to use as a canvas for their tailoring of sound. If a bell is recorded they want it to sound lifelike even if the recording medium makes this difficult. Their EQ and headphone design can 'enhance' recordings to make them less 'boring', more alive and live. This type of audio enthusiast likes headphones/amplifiers that separate and layer sounds (3D). They dislike 3 blob headphones. They also like quality headphones with (angled) drivers resistant to low frequency distortion. Wealthy ones eschew EQ and have 'flat' upstream components similar to audiophile A, they get their sound from a variety of expensive headphones, each with its own unique signature. Like audiophile A there are pitfalls in their quest for a specific sound. Too many alterations turn what was a curved squiggle into one that is cut by a horizontal line (distortion). By purchasing quality equipment they can forestall this but there are limits. There's always a song that doesn't sound pleasant with a certain EQ/system. It might not sound particularly good on audiophile A's system either but there is something that can be difficult to determine in the audio chain that clashes with a genre/album/song. Poorly mastered material isn't as raw and superbly mastered material will lose something by having the 'fun' x 2. Much of the hifi equipment on sale conforms to this type. The majority of audiophiles fall into this category.

There are many other types of audiophiles and there is nothing wrong with either persuasion. It's obvious which has the greater potential for audio vendors. Another type that I am sure is common are music lovers (TYPE C) who are less (or not) interested in audio equipment or uprating audio quality that aren't audiophiles. All they require is a reliable, easy to use, all in one solution with enough capacity.

Nice thead. I would classify someone as an audiophile if they buy audio gear to suit the music rather than the other way round.

Also, maybe there's another type of Audiophile that buys different gear to suit different music genres.

 

[340519]

Type D: They use absurd, nonsensical words to describe sound and often imply any minor changes they hear are the equivalent of going from a Prius to a Ferrari. They usually claim they can hear the difference (and usually a massive one) between various DACs, amps, or cables -and almost always claim the most expensive one is the best regardless if it measured worse- yet if put into a double blind test, would not be able to identify said item each and every time. Refuse to accept their findings after buying said expensive item may be due to bias as they believe they aren't human and simply can't have any bias. Will actually spend thousands on a headphone cable (sometimes as much or more than the headphones they are going to use it with) and think it makes sense to do so.

They also believe every item requires burn-in, including all electronic chips/devices, and magically, the mythical burn-in somehow always makes every item better and never worse and the difference is as stated in the first line, like going from a Prius to a Ferrari.

Type D is what I seem to see a lot of on the internet.

Lol great post. That's why I cancelled my stereophile subscription finally after a decade. I can't take any more of the above from them. I just could not stomach their absurdity any longer where everything has to be 100k plus for pure musical enjoyment.

 

[Markolav]

Type D: They use absurd, nonsensical words to describe sound and often imply any minor changes they hear are the equivalent of going from a Prius to a Ferrari. They usually claim they can hear the difference (and usually a massive one) between various DACs, amps, or cables -and almost always claim the most expensive one is the best regardless if it measured worse

You just described basically every other "audiophile gear"-website reviewer out there.

 

[ADUHF]

Well I think this is me. I like all or most music for the emotional and spiritual side, but I like the gear as well. Hmmmmm...

They don't have to be mutually exclusive, dmdm. You can do both!

In addition to separating folks into a couple convenient little boxes, I think I'd also disagree with the OP's contention that most in this hobby like to use EQ to "distort", rather than to correct or compensate. I supposed it's a matter of perspective though, like most things.

 

[Sefelt103]

Nice thead. I would classify someone as an audiophile if they buy audio gear to suit the music rather than the other way round.

Thanks, never thought of audiophiles in this way.

In addition to separating folks into a couple convenient little boxes, I think I'd also disagree with the OP's contention that most in this hobby like to use EQ to "distort", rather than to correct or compensate. I supposed it's a matter of perspective though, like most things.

I think there are many more types than 2. EQ can of course be used tame bright headphones or level up bass light ones. In a simplistic way many A's would eschew EQ and B's use it to make significant adjustments.
I thought this would drop straight through Headfi.

 

[Plumbus the Wise]

" This purest form of audiophile does not like music "
Yea...somehow I dont think thats true. They just forget the entire reason for the gear is to enjoy the sound. Lots of people still deep down love the hobbies or careers they spend years toiling at but over time get far to carried away with progressing through the ranks forgetting why they enjoy it in the first place.