[jake120]

Cant say i can see myself fitting in any of those groups however it could be, that
 
most people start out in (iv) and (iii) and as they are learning progress through (ii) in their pedagogic cycle and eventually master (i) enough to actually intrinsically know which category best fits equipment.
 
all i am saying is, yes i can spec up what I could be to the forums but then i change my hat depending on the situation so that could be contradictory if others were to consider my category as a intense method of responding to queries etc.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Where is the group that expects technical excellence but understands there is a practical limit to quality improvements within the audible limitations of human hearing?
 
This is more in line with "What kind of Audiophool are you?".  

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

Where is the group that expects technical excellence but understands there is a practical limit to quality improvements within the audible limitations of human hearing?
 
This is more in line with "What kind of Audiophool are you?".  

They don't qualify.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Quote:

They don't qualify.

I'm ok with that, as I can live without the label.  Unfortunately, I suppose I'll just have to settle with being weird. 

 

[jaddie]

I'm ok with that, as I can live without the label.  Unfortunately, I suppose I'll just have to settle with being weird. 

How about this: a non-traditional audiophile: an audiophile without the bounds of traditional audiophelia.

 

[leogodoy]

I'm part IV, this part, actually: "They listen to and hoard a lot of music, usually MP3s."

 

[Johnnyhi]

I fit on 
 ii) The 'subjective' type: their main criterion is that
their favourite pieces of music should *sound* better.
They're willing to accept high levels of distortion,
provided that it makes their music sound better to
their ears. These are the sort that experiment with
guitar amps, reverb units, vacuum-tube circuitry
etc. Many are willing to pay a high premium for
stuff that sounds better to their ears. They listen
to their music, not to their equipment. 
 
But i don't like Distortion,  
 
a little of
 iv) The great unwashed
   
Use Pandora One most of the day, mp3's from google play... and Spotify is g@y...   

 

[phatman]

Think the descriptions of each are sufficiently biased to make whatever point the author is making irrelevant. 

 

[Parall3l]

Technical + subjective would fit well with me. I don't hold graphs in my arms when I sleep but they're an important part of my purchase decisions.

I still have an Ultrasone PRO900 though.

 

[TheGame21x]

I guess subjective with a splash of technical.
 
None of these really "fit" me though. I'm an audiophile who leans objective (which is why I have an O2+ODAC) but still has a reasonable budget. I won't be buying $500+ headphones on a whim, for example.
 
But the most important thing I focus on is the music. I love headphones and whatnot but they're useless without good music to listen to!

 

[xnor]

audiophile:
noun a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction.
 
high fidelity:
high-quality reproduction of sound; Ideally, high-fidelity equipment has minimal amounts of noise and distortion and an accurate frequency response.


 
 
... so theoretically the term audiophile doesn't fit when talking about people of type II, III and IV. But practically (or necessarily?) the term has on the one hand expanded to something like "anyone with an above-average interest in audio equipment" and on the other hand has an imo a negative connotation. Something like this:
Quote:

A person who obsesses over differences in audio that don't actually exist. Not to be confused with "hi-fi enthusiast" or "sane person."

 
The latter being the reason why I prefer the term hi-fi enthusiast and on a related note music lover.

 

[ultrabike]

Quote:

audiophile:
noun a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction.
 
high fidelity:
high-quality reproduction of sound; Ideally, high-fidelity equipment has minimal amounts of noise and distortion and an accurate frequency response.


 
 
... so theoretically the term audiophile doesn't fit when talking about people of type II, III and IV. But practically (or necessarily?) the term has on the one hand expanded to something like "anyone with an above-average interest in audio equipment" and on the other hand has an imo a negative connotation. Something like this:
 
The latter being the reason why I prefer the term hi-fi enthusiast and on a related note music lover.

 
^ what he said. I like "hi-fi music enthusiast". I also hang around to learn.

 

[anetode]

I prefer to be pigeonholed and derided for my total expenditure in audio equipment rather than being sentenced to one of a small range of crackpot pathologies. If anything, I am a greatly unwashed but subjectively technical snob.

 

[andrewberge]

I don't fit in any of these categories. There should be another category for people who obsess over the scientific method and double blind test everything.

 

[OneSec]

Started with 4, and I think that's a good place to start, since there will always an audiophile friend around, borrowing their experience at no cost . But with more studies I moved up the category as I getting a clearer picture on my requirements, and start to look into various sources for decision. Guess I'm a mixture of 2+3+4. IMO Category 1 is way too much effort to sustain as a hobby, unless I plan to make a living out of it.
 
Looking back - it's a strange thing, I gave audited 40 headphones easily but I only purchased 1 out of those. Partial reason is that most of the item I purchased are not available for audition in my country, and the only exception is probably ESW9 which I purchased in Singapore. Luckily all my purchases ends up a better performance / price ratio comparing to items I audited haha.
 
credits to Head-fi.