[dvw]

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.

Well said.
 
By definition, any high end system "should" sound alike. Any ampiflier, cable, player that have their own unique signal are not "high" fidelity no matter how much they cost. The co;or/difference some people crave are is really acoustic photoshop or equivalent to soft focus lens. Personally, I do prefer the term portable audio enthusiast. For I can enjoy my music on my car stereo, Sansa/Ipod or my home stereo as long as they're good music. I no longer enjoy the direct to disc stuff that sounds good sonicly but not musically. And I DO enjoy live concert, And every time I went to a concert, I have the urge to upgrade. I don't know what category does that put me in.

 

[westinlennox]

Quote:

I am definitely category ii.  However NONE of the assumptions below apply to me.
 

Agreed with Kramer!

 

[vertical]

[size=10.0pt]Last summer Tyll posted an article at his innerfidelity blog titled: Will brick and mortar headphone stores work in the U.S.?[/size]
 
[size=10.0pt]In the comments section there was an interesting dialogue between Tyll and another where they spoke of the target market segments for this type of offering. The 2 top segments they identified were:[/size]

• [size=10.0pt]Technophiles – “…the interesting bunch of not truly audiophile but interested in well above average or good audio quality…These are people who will recognize quality when they see it and understand the value proposition. Engineers, architects, and the various "techy" types fit the bill.”[/size]
• [size=10.0pt]Full Audiophiles[/size]

 
[size=10.0pt]Like most segmenting it is a continuum. I believe that I fall closer to the technophile group. My view is that audiophiles are those with the ‘golden ears’ that can truly hear the differences between high-end components that are really there.  I tend to think that the actual population of such true audiophiles is quite small. [/size]
 
[size=10.0pt]For reference, the blog link is:[/size]
[size=10.0pt]http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/will-brick-and-mortar-headphone-stores-work-us[/size]

 

[sonitus mirus]

Quote:

[size=10pt]My view is that audiophiles are those with the ‘golden ears’ that can truly hear the differences between high-end components that are really there. [/size]

 
To me, if engineers are technophiles, than clairvoyants are audiophiles, based on the criteria provided.  

 

[jaddie]

Someone once called me a "technocrat".  I was insulted for a few milliseconds. 

 

[streetdragon]

Someone once called me a "technocrat".  I was insulted for a few milliseconds. 

What does that even mean...?

 

[limpidglitch]

Quote:

What does that even mean...?

 
To be technically skilled.

 

[streetdragon]

To be technically skilled.

Oh that's not so bad.

 

[Leliana]

Subjective is the closest type to myself. I tend to prefer a certain sound signature even if the headphone in question is inferior technically and well below its price and performance point. I found that preferred my Grado SR60 to the Shure 1440 which cost far far more and had vastly superior sound stage and detail.
 

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

What does that even mean...?

I thought it meant I was a member of a political party where all of its candidates were androids.  Then I realized, that's pretty much every political party. 

 

[BruinAnteater]

I would say mostly (ii). In the end, audio equipment is all about reproducing audio. The whole point of buying all this crap (for me anyway) is for the sake of achieving a better listening experience for my music (and as a distant secondary goal, to achieve good HT sound).
 
I started out buying Bose headphones, earbuds and computer speakers several years ago, and in fact the Bose computer speakers JUST got replaced a few months ago. I enjoyed the increase in listening pleasure I got from Bose over the more generic stuff I had before. This got me wondering about what else could be out there that would be better than Bose. After doing some research and taking a shot in the dark I landed on the Sennheiser HD650s.
 
I loved that sound signature, I loved how most of my music sounded on these headphones, so I studied how people described the HD650 and tried to match those descriptions when shopping for other equipment (don't really have any Hi-Fi stores to compare stuff around here). A year and a half later, I have purchased 2 headphone amps, 3 more headphones, Wharfedale Evo2-30,20, and CR speakers, REL sub, Denon 4311CI, Oppo BDP105 (all for my HT), Wharfedale Diamond 7.1 bookshelves, Yamaha DVD2500, HTR5950, Emu 1212m (for my computer), WHarfedale Diamond IV, WH2 surrounds, Saphire Centre, Denon AV788, and Oppo DV-980H for my bedroom setup.
 
All cuz this equipment fit different needs, enhanced the sound of my music and was relatively cheap (only the HT setup and headphones were new, everything else was used and dirt cheap). Im definitely not in cat (iii) because I specifically seek out for 'best bang for the buck;' I want the deals, the 'blue collar champions'...that make my music sound best.

 

[aluren]

If I had the money, I would totally be a snob.