What do you consider yourself? An audio enthusiast, or an audiophile?

[jasonb]

Just wondering what people think. Obviously is just a title and doesn't change the way we listen or whatever. I'm just curious whether only people with systems costing thousands of dollars consider themselves to be audiophiles, or whether you think somebody with only a modest setup can still be considered an audiophile. 
 
Are only the people who listen to vinyl or lossless deserving of the audiophile title? Or can somebody who sometimes listens to high bit rate MP3 be considered an audiophile? What about genre of music? Do you have to listen to jazz or classical to be worthy of this title? 
 
Just curious on peoples opinions on here. Be honest.

 

[limpidglitch]

  …deserving of the audiophile title? […] worthy of this title? 
 

 
I've never considered audiophile a laudable title, a bit like calling a photographer a pixel-peeper, so not that.
And I'm a bit too jaded to call myself an enthusiast, so neither really fits.

 

[mcandmar]

I love music and i love DIY electronics so what does that make me?
 
I think to have fully blown "Audiophilia" one must possess that special mix of OCD and ADD in equal measure.  Me, i think i'm just an obsessed audio enthusiast.

 

[Spyro]

I love music.  I get a euphoric buzz from it.  The better the equipment (sound), the better the buzz.  Pretty simple actually.

 

[Currawong]

I don't care about tags, I just enjoy music and the gear helps me do that more. I enjoy the gear too though and sharing the enjoyment with people.

 

[xnor]

"Audiophilia" seems to be about wanting and needing to hear differences instead of aiming for high-fidelity and transparency. I am only interested in the latter. Music always has preference though.
 
Dunno what labels there are for this. Sane and rational person?

 

 

[paradoxper]

Just a dude who likes music. Consuming it however. Superrig or boombox is ok with me.

 

[finbad]

I've been called worst so, elitist audiophile snob , isn't at all that derogatory ;')
 
- Sticks, stones and arrows and all that

 (prolly can't hear it with IEMs in)   

 

[Akabeth]

I've kept this stuff mostly to myself so I don't think I've ever been called anything specific (nor have I ever cared to assign myself into one).
 
Now I just listen to music wherever and however I find them... So I guess in many ways I think I've went around the circle with this music listening hobby.

 

[xnor]

It's always good to see new people around here.

 

[adamlr]

 
i think its all just speculation here... i guess everyone would have their own way of defining "audiophilia". 

personally, i see the term "audiophile" as derogatory. to me, an audiophile is one that got lost in all the nonsense and concentrates on the fallacies and "snake oil" aspects of the hobby. believing in the non proven "tweaks" and "upgrades", whereas an "audio enthusiast" as you put it is a guy that enjoys his music deeply, and seeks to achieve maximum enjoyment of his hobby through the best equipment he can afford (even if its "low-fi") and understanding how audio works.
thats how i see it.
i dont think you have to sink thousands (or more) of dollars into your equipment to be considered a "true" "audio enthusiast", i think its a matter of approach.

 

[Currawong]

  "Audiophilia" seems to be about wanting and needing to hear differences instead of aiming for high-fidelity and transparency. I am only interested in the latter. Music always has preference though.
 
Dunno what labels there are for this. Sane and rational person?

 

 
I sold the two most "high-fidelity" and "transparent" headphones I owned. The most technically transparent gear I've listened to music with didn't satisfy me. The most realistic-sounding (extreme levels of detail as if the instruments were being played in front of you) system I've heard used SET amps with horn speakers. Go figure. I guess Nelson Pass was right after all. 

 

[xnor]

  I sold the two most "high-fidelity" and "transparent" headphones I owned. The most technically transparent gear I've listened to music with didn't satisfy me. The most realistic-sounding (extreme levels of detail as if the instruments were being played in front of you) system I've heard used SET amps with horn speakers. Go figure. I guess Nelson Pass was right after all. 

I guess not. You've just made my case.

 

 

[Claritas]

I fall in the middle when it comes to audiophilia. Audiophiles wouldn't consider me an audiophile, but non-audiophiles would.
 
I listen to CDs at home, not SACD, but the reasons also include availablility and habit. I've compromised (so far) for portability by using mp4s instead of wav/flac. Maybe I'm compromising on headphones by buying several instead of one very expensive model, but I see that as a sensible trade-off.
 
I think audiophiles are much more interested in how gear sounds than I am, and more willing to spend money on sound than I am. Very good is good enough for me.

 

[theequalizer]

I consider myself an audiophile but would never bother with lossless or vinyl. the former is unnecessary if you beleive that there is no gain to be had above mp3 192kbps vbr with a good encoder (joint stereo), and vinyl is worse than CD except that some vinyl records have better dynamic range but only because they aren't producing for the usual consumer.